… but in a giant Heat Engine:
1. The sun puts out more than enough energy to totally roast the earth. It is kept from doing so by the clouds reflecting about a third of the sun’s energy back to space. As near as we can tell, this system of cloud formation to limit temperature rises has never failed.
2. This reflective shield of clouds forms in the tropics in response to increasing temperature.
3. As tropical temperatures continue to rise, the reflective shield is assisted by the formation of independent heat engines called thunderstorms. These cool the surface in a host of ways, move heat aloft, and convert heat to work.
4. Like cumulus clouds, thunderstorms also form in response to increasing temperature.
5. Because they are temperature driven, as tropical temperatures rise, tropical thunderstorms and cumulus production increase. These combine to regulate and limit the temperature rise. When tropical temperatures are cool, tropical skies clear and the earth rapidly warms. But when the tropics heat up, cumulus and cumulonimbus put a limit on the warming. This system keeps the earth within a fairly narrow band of temperatures.
6. The earth’s temperature regulation system is based on the unchanging physics of wind, water, and cloud.
7. This is a reasonable explanation for how the temperature of the earth has stayed so stable (or more recently, bi-stable as glacial and interglacial) for hundreds of millions of years.
but but but the science is in! How dare you!
duh…
anyone with eyes know that hot weather during the day causes clouds and often rain hail and lightning/thunder (which is what happened here to day) the more hot weather the more clouds. And is it really an innocent coincidence that the AGW crowd and most conspicuously NOIA and the UN study (sic) group decline to even discuss?
Did I not espouse this very point in several comments over the past few years? Why do not the leaders of the world consult with myself, I shall never know…
Hysteresis… as the atmosphere warms, water evaporates in greater quantities, resulting in more cloud cover, resulting in less warming… there will be variability, but the system will hover around a point of stability…
OK, here is my most radical proposal to date. Demand generation is the accelerant for all that is ungreen. Bigger house, filled with desired stuff, requires commuting to work, in ever larger (safer) vehicles. The demand for STUFF and the conveniences of modern life is driving the creation garbage, wasteful usage of energy… etc.
Simplify your lifestyle, say the greenies.
So, instead of a carbon tax, let’s have a tax on advertising. Advertising creates the demand for stuff. Make advertising more and more expensive, and less and less stuff will be demanded, resulting in an overall reduction of energy use, smaller houses, smaller communities, and so on.
Let the lefties begin twisting themselves into Klein Bottles explaining why Advertising Tax is not a better fix than Carbon Tax.
Folks, this is called a Feedback Mechanism. It’s how the thermostat in your heating/cooling system works. On a global scale, there are a million little feedback mechanisms at work which all — working together, and in opposition — determine our weather. For a bunch of scientists — who are supposed to know this stuff — to think that they can control such a massive, complex system of systems is just plain laughable.
This was the most significant posting I’ve read on WUWT and it postulated a testable mechanism for a negative feedback system for the earths temperature that I had a gut feeling had to be there. This posting alone shows why WUWT is the best science blog currently in existence.
There are some errors in the article but I think this single posting has single handedly demolished the idiotic idea that a trace gas in the earths atmosphere is the primary controller of climate.
Systems without negative feedback are unstable and I find it incredible that individuals who call themselves scientists would propose to change the course of civilization based on a flawed model which is inconsistent with life having existed on the earth for billions of years. If the IPCC model were correct, it would have taken very little to convert the earth either a scorched desert or a perpetually frozen planet. That we’re around to have this discussion demonstrates their models are fatally flawed. I like one of the commentators on WUWT who described the AGW model as the “flat earth model of climatology”.
While the thermostat mechanism provides a means for the earths mean temperature to be controlled within very tight tolerances, it doesn’t explain what causes ice ages and an ice age is a lot more concerning to me than the temperature rising a few more degrees.
Lets hope that the publication of this theory on WUWT was the final nail in the AGW coffin and this fatally flawed theory can be consigned to the garbage bin of science and the fraud trials of AGW politicians and their followers can begin RSN.
shaken – a tax on advertising !
Good idea. In fact, a he!! of a good idea.
The article by Willis Eschenbach and the comments following it at WUWT – powerful stuff !! (Straight to documents)
In a toe to toe, I wonder how Gore would defend his ‘tipping point’ fluff ?
gee you guys; still waiting for l’explanation pourquoi the PENTAGON commission a think tank type look at the ramifications of climate change.
google it fercrissake, then cough up the rationale for us all eh?
unless you would rather I do it and shove it in yer callective faces . . .
the biggest organization in the WORLD, the U.S. military, and here’s the preached-to-converted at SDA denying and denying.
Godoy I googled pentagon commission and got bupkiss. Give us a link.
sarge here ya der heh the ol pentagon is figurrin out how to control the starvin masses in riot an how to steal food an h2o from the rest of the world or wholl wan tto steal it from us when the crap hits the fan but it caint be real oh no
godot,
It is the military’s duty to plan for all possible scenarios no matter how improbable. It is not their job to assess the validity of the AGW hypothesis.
And someone still thinks that this is a result of a giant bang?
A commission initiated by the Pentagon to examine the ramifications of climate change is not proof of AGW. The fact is, the climate DOES change. We have millions of years of fossil records from which we can determine that yes, indeed, the climate continually changes. So how’s it changing now? Nobody is really sure, because it takes THOUSANDS of years for it to change noticeably. Ice ages don’t just happen over the course of one winter. However, I’m at a loss as to why the Pentagon would be looking at the ramifications of climate change. So please, godot, find out for me why the Pentagon would be interested in climate change.
hey godot we have plans to invade the US doesn’t mean we’ll do it but we have plans to. Oh yeah, and they have plans to invade us. So be skkeeeerrreed very skkkkkekeeeeeeerrrrrrred your hero Obama has plans to invade Canada!
Does this mean that all those Hollywood disaster movies lied to us? It’s not rocket science to observe cloud patterns as the day progresses. Back in the dim times they even taught climate stuff in school without a single Goracle reference.
godot
Sigh. The pentagon engages in scenario analysis, not prediction that any scenario will actually happen. What they do is if/then stuff. If A happens what will the effect be? They are not suggesting that A will definitely happen only trying to figure out the consequences if it does. They do all kinds of that type of think on any number of separate and unrelated issues.
They did “war games” which engaged in plotting the scenario of varying levels of nuclear exchanges with the USSR. This is not “proof” of a nuclear war.
But then too many leftards believe their fantasies and fears.
Of course, the pentagon relies on the government for funds. It wouldn’t be beyond reason to assume that they would engage in that particular analysis to jump on the funding bandwagon…
Well now, next they will be stealing my pet theory on Planetary Alignment as a possible accomplice and confederate to GW.
Sigh – I’m sorry, but this argument is too facile by half. If it were true, how would we ever have glaciers, and the tropical period of the dinosaurs?
Now, I studied control systems in engineering, so I would agree in the steady state, the theory presented works extremely well. The problem is what happens when a step function (or forcing event) is applied to the system. I’ve heard anecdotal evidence that when the Krakatoa volcano went up, it lowered temperatures around the Earth (although I admit haven’t seen any real evidence) for several years. Others have speculated that a meteor impact on Earth caused the dinosaur extinction, and started the last Ice Age (again, I haven’t seen any real evidence, but it seems plausible).
I don’t have any real objection to the possibility of AGW – hell, Isaac Asimov predicted that 50 years ago in his “Foundation” series. His rather improbable solution was to move the planet farther away in its orbit, which I don’t quite believe we’d be able to achieve for many centuries.
But in the 20 years I’ve been living in Richmond Hill (a small suburb north of Toronto), I have noticed the “Highway 7” effect each winter. Highway 7 runs along Richmond Hill’s southern boundary, and until a veritable explosion of building in the last 7-8 years, Richmond Hill was a small town of maybe 50,000, surrounded by many large farms. What I noticed was driving down the Don Valley Parkway to work, there would be snow on the ground when I was north of Hwy. 7, and considerably less snow (and sometimes none) when I moved south. Now, if a few thousand cars and industrial buildings can affect the local climate, it’s not unreasonable to assume that over time, certain activities could affect the global climate.
The problem I have with the current AGW theories is they don’t work. All the things that they predict from a 100% increase in atmospheric CO2 – rising oceans, vanishing Pacific islands, increased hurricane activity, monotonic increases in temperature, etc. – haven’t appeared. I’m sure our Prairie friends who woke up to snow a few weeks ago think this AGW is a load of horse manure (well, maybe not – farmers can actually use horse manure).
When the AGW boys and girls produce theories that match the results, I’ll be willing to consider them. But when I think that the guy most pushing AGW is the same guy who warned of us another Ice Age in the 70’s – well, I tend to think he’s just in it for the money.
[quote]PENTAGON commission a think tank type look at the ramifications of climate change[/quote]
Godot,
What is to understand? When you are faced with an AGW world of mutants, of limited intelligence, the method and/or point of attack must change….War games are not for numb nuts, and if you look for meaning you will be deceived. You could just be a NEW target!
BTW: A Multi-Million dollar business, obviously planned by committee & modeled by digital dinks, has fatal flaws… I am talking about E-Bay!! The seller gets screwed because buyers (bottom feeders like me) can lock in the price.. whoda thought….
JMHO
so gordo the turk, you using the Bling ‘decision’ engine already?
try this:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
“The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.”
and to jason mr friday 13th, the study doesnt PROVE anything and I never contended that it did (this is typical right wing myopia). it does nevertheless show that the brass (literally) consider it a suffient possibility for study, not some goose chase. the war games prove a real ICBM exchange is a possibility. furthermore the report seems to indicate they fully expect it to happen.
as far as cash cow band wagon explanations, that too is a typical right wing single minded trait making such patented dismissives.
my point is you people are in very serious denial that climate change is happening let alone explanations why.
oh, and here is the actual report:
http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf
KevinB Although I am not a residend of Toronto, I had occasion in the winter on business trips to drive South from the multilane ring road 401 I beleive South on the Don Valley Expressway to the Gardiner. It would as you state be snowing and then shift to freezing rain and finally to rain. I believe because the elevation change is several hundred feet lower.
Godot overlooks the cruel reality that the highest ecelons of the Pentagon are administrators/politicians and of neccessity have to follow the party line just to keep their job….even if the party line is rainbows and unicorns.
“The best solution for a non-existant problem is to do nothing. What warming. What little was detected was just a strong El Nino which ended a decade past….useful idiots and dupes….
KevinB;
The snowbelt around highway 7 is not solely attributable to its existence and other industrial buildup around it in the last few years. I work with a couple of guys who are 60 plus and have lived around there most of their lives. They remember a snowbelt a long way back.
Bill Smith;
Well said. We are not close to understanding the intricacies of climate and weather, and as such, have not a hope in hell of affecting either in a purposeful or planned way. You cannot manage what you do not understand.
Folks, please don’t feed the troll. It adds nothing to the discussion with its flinging about of verbal fecal matter. All of the reasonable responses to it are lost on it due to its inability to analyze critically.
godot: it is you who is the denier. Can’t come to grips with the fact you support a fallacy?? Oh wait… right…
You hate carbon emissions so much then practice what you preach, give all your money to carbon credits, buy an acreage, build a self-sustainable home, and best of all, cut off your internet connection. Send me some snail mail later telling me how you’ve gotten off the grid and are of pure gaia loving means while maintaining the same standard of living.
I won’t hold my breath.
How about this, tell me how you can prove AGW is true. Show me how humanity is a greater forcing factor than the sun.
One also hesitates to point out your comment on patented dismissives is ironically a good description of your own commentary. “…deniers… typical right-wing…”. Way to debate there, genius, you’ve won me over 😛
Not that I’m arguing we have no impact whatsoever, but I would certainly argue that our contributions are poorly understood, negligible at best (this is a trace gas after all), and without a doubt not a strong enough argument to enforce cap and trade taxation or any such insanity.
The Hwy 7 effect could also be caused by the “lake effect”, caused by the heat contained in Lake Ontario, combined with the rising terrain. Here in Ottawa, I have snow in the Gatineau Hills when Ottawa gets rain/slush.
gee whiz sasq, have we hit upon something here? the folks over at that big 5 sided building are in on it? same ones that fell all over themselves when dubya got gung ho for some payback against saddam?
interesting.
and here I thought that sector would be chocked full of military background profiles.
meshuggamuggamugga wants proof. kinda like the tobacco mfg’ers deny proof of a connection between smoking and a growing list of health problems. did you know fractures heal slower with smokers? I dont smoke, thats why the time I took a header on my human not gasoline powered bike I was up & at em bench pressing agin within 6 months.
now watch all the kindergarten mentality crowd pounce on that factoid.
and here’s the proof requested: the responses thus far merely PROVE sda is full of deniers.
f–king weather. i have seen snowless winters temps at minus 40 and green grass in jan. shit, over many years the weather and weather patterns change. the one thing that we all must remember is that the planet is a finite ball of dirt and will only support so many of us. keep the water clean and see what happens. we are a part of a natural process no matter what we think or what we develop.
It’s the sun, son.
Just say no to solar warming denial.
Bob C and Reido – I’m not sure you understood me. There’s not a “snowbelt” around Highway 7; there was snow above it, and hardly any below it. I agree there’s an elevation change from the Lake to Richmond Hill, but from Richmond Hill to say, Steeles Avenue – which is just a few miles north of the 401 – the drop can’t be much than 25 feet, and that’s over a distance of about 8 km, according to Google maps. But around Steeles, especially, the area is quite built up with many homes, office towers, and shopping malls. I just don’t believe you can blame having snow 4 km north of Hwy 407 and no snow 4km south of it on elevation.
And Reido – when I lived in Ottawa 20 years, it was pretty built up downtown, and I’m sure they’ve done more since. But Gatineau Hills is still fairly rural, from what I understand from friends. So I think you’re actually proving my point – lots of concrete and cars can generate a micro-climate quite different from areas just a few miles away.
“and here’s the proof requested: the responses thus far merely PROVE sda is full of deniers.”
I don’t really need to point out how this is just a silly conclusion, not to mention the sentence itself refers to providing proof on AGW existence and you instead provide proof of your own opinion. Par for the course though, godot. Leftard in, bullsh*t out. And how is the smoking linkage to health issues even relevant, or on topic? I don’t think anyone’s even said that here, at least on this thread. Still no real arguments about AGW forthcoming, I think this proves you got nothing meaningful to say (why I expect anything meaningful from leftard trolls, god knows) and are basically just here to call names. Like I said, juvenile.
The responses prove that SDA is full of reasonable logical people who have done a little more thinking beyond what the MSM feeds us. Feeling a little out of place?
You should. You are.
KevinB;
I am not sure you understood me either. What I was saying was that two 60 plus year old guys I work with report the same phenomena as you do, but back when they were kids a long time before any major buildup in the area.
Is it possible that the buildup you refer to contributes to the effect. Perhaps so, but it is not the cause, otherwise how would they remember the effect from pre-buildup years.
I think Kevin said that the local HOT spot did not extend much north of the 401…That’s good…A reasonable conclusion would be that AGW is local to down town TO & LA
BTW: North York/Richmond Hills have a different Mini climate than Leaside (in Don valley) and both are different than Don Mills. I experienced the first two in the 1950’s
Are we talking about the total Solar output, or the miniscule fraction that actually hits the Earth?
[quote]Are we talking about the total Solar output, or the miniscule fraction that actually hits the Earth?[/quote] Alan Kellogg
Alan,
What type of Miniscule tools are you using to measure your “Actual” fractions….
Just asking….
BTW: North York/Richmond Hills have a different Mini climate than Leaside (in Don valley) and both are different than Don Mills. I experienced the first two in the 1950’s
Are you saying that Climate Change (TM) originated in the Centre of the Universe like everything else?
Just wanted to stop by and say thanks to Kate for posting a link to my essay. I’m answering questions at the link.
My best to all,
w.