at post # 141:
We are living in the COLDEST interglacial of the last few interglacial's.It is also about 10,000-12,000 years old,indicating that it is almost over.
Yet we have people so full of irrational fear of unsupported modeled claims of strong warming in the near future.
It is so true to state,that so called "greenhouse" gases does not add anymore NEW energy flow to the system.It was already put there by the Sun.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
The freezing point of water is 0C. If you trace out the extent of permanent ice and permafrost, it roughly coincides with the isotherm representing an average yearly temperature of 0C. In the N hemisphere, this isotherm is about 35 degrees South of the pole, while in the S hemisphere, it’s about 38 degrees North of the pole. What part of “temperature over 0C -> no permanent ice, temperatures below 0C -> permanent ice” don’t you get?
And yes, the nrdc is a source of bogus noise. Their #1 priority is to combat global warming. Are you really so naive to believe that anything they say will be objective? You really need to examine the sources of your so called ‘authoritative’ data.
I should also point out that during the previous interglacial, the multi-century global average temperature was about 3C warmer than today (are you going to deny this as well?) During that time, Antarctic ice was still present, as we have cores going back over a million years. In Greenland, cores go back to well before the last interglacial, although there is some potential evidence uncovered of million+ year old plant remnants at the bottom of the cores, which says that if it gets warm enough parts of Greenland could melt and support a biosphere, as parts did during the MWP. Gore’s bogus sea level predictions were based on all Antarctic ice melting and a number of arithmetic errors. Antarctica isn’t going ‘green’ any time soon for 2 important reasons. First, much of Antarctica’s surface is well over 2000m above sea level, which even at mid latitudes is high enough to sustain year round ice. Second, and perhaps more important, is that Antarctica is mostly dark for 6 months of the year where it’s average monthly temperature drops below -40C at the depth of winter. I should also point out that most of Greenland is also mostly dark for 6 months of the year which will make it’s ice difficult to melt as well.
If the Arctic and/or Antarctic warmed substantially, the rest of the planet would need to cool to compensate. This is because the surface would be radiating more power away from the planet than it receives and equilibrium would be achieved only if the rest of the planet got cooler. The tiny 1.5% increase in total atmospheric absorption caused by doubling CO2 won’t change the equilibrium by much, if at all. I’ll bet you didn’t know the effect on total absorption was this small. Here’s the math (I mean arithmetic). The surface emits about 390 W/m^2. Of this, the average atmospheric absorption (including between the surface and clouds) is about 60%, or about 234 W/m^2. An increase of 3.7 W/m^2 is only 1.5% of the total. Some of the really foolish CAWG’ers like to claim that 80% or more is captured by the atmosphere (they confuse clouds with atmospheric absorption). Of course, this makes the magnitude of the change even smaller. Some will complain that 3.7 is a larger fraction of the power that does leave. Well, lets do some more arithmetic. Of the 390 W/m^2 of surface power, 156 W/m^2 passes through the atmosphere without absorption. Half of the absorbed power is also radiated into space, so the total radiated into space is 156 + 234/2 = 273 W/m^2. 3.7 W/m^2 is only 1.4% of the power that would be leaving, moreover; since half of the 3.7 leaves the planet anyway, the actual reduction is even smaller.
It really boggles the mind how such a basic concept like Conservation of Energy can be so callously ignored by the CAGW’ers. GHG’s do not create energy. All of the energy reflected back to the surface by GHG’s originated from the Sun. Only the Sun adds appreciable energy to the planet and the global average temperature is determined by whatever is required for the amount of power leaving the planet to be equal to the amount entering. At least this part of how the climate works is very simple, yet those who promote CAGW seem ignorant of this physical truth.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952