1948 And Global Warming

[rushmc 23]

Does anybody on this site have access to the papers of the Prof cited in this link?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmI1M2I4MDk3ZWI1YWIyNTA5MzQ0ZThhMmE0ODE4NTA=

I can see where they are stored here

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-7398(194810%2F12)112%3A4%2F6%3C165%3ATPCF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R

Edited to add: maybe the page on the second link is all there is. I was just wondering.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Does anybody on this site have access to the papers of the Prof cited in this link?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmI1M2I4MDk3ZWI1YWIyNTA5MzQ0ZThhMmE0ODE4NTA=

I can see where they are stored here

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-7398(194810%2F12)112%3A4%2F6%3C165%3ATPCF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R

Edited to add: maybe the page on the second link is all there is. I was just wondering.

Does it really matter? God has spoken!

Heat Converts Robertson on Global Warming
Bush Ally Says 'Need to Address Burning of Fossil Fuels'
By TIMOTHY GARDNER

NEW YORK, Aug. 3, 2006 — - Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said today the wave of scorching temperatures across the United States had converted him into a believer in global warming.

The view put him at odds with fellow Republican President Bush, who has benefited politically from Robertson's backing and who has refused to embrace the concept of human-caused global warming.

"We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels," Robertson said on his "700 Club" broadcast. "It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air."

It was an abrupt about-face for Robertson who reaches about one million U.S. viewers daily and is credited for helping shape political views of evangelical Christians, a vibrant force behind the Republican Party.

Last October, Robertson said the National Association of Evangelicals was teaming up with "far left environmentalists" for saying global warming was caused by humans and needed to be mitigated.

Also last year, Robertson, 76, said natural disasters affecting the globe, including hurricanes Katrina and Rita that wrecked the U.S. Gulf Coast, might be signs that the biblical apocalypse was nearing.

Temperatures have soared to near record levels in some eastern regions and Robertson said that was "the most convincing evidence I've seen on global warming in a long time."

Most scientists link greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide emitted from the burning of fossil fuels to global warming that could lead to heat waves, stronger storms and flooding from rising sea levels.

Bush, himself an evangelical Christian, pulled out of the international Kyoto Protocol setting limits on emissions causing global warming soon after taking office in 2001 saying it would hurt the economy and unfairly favored developing countries.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

[billvon 3,120]

Glad even people like Pat are waking up, but it's sad that it takes something like a deadly heat wave to make it happen.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Glad even people like Pat are waking up, but it's sad that it takes something like a deadly heat wave to make it happen.

Yep, you would have thought he would have learned the lessons of Global Warming 70 years ago. I guess some people are just slow to come around.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0319dustbowl.html

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Glad even people like Pat are waking up, but it's sad that it takes something like a deadly heat wave to make it happen.

Which is ironic since the true effects of global warming will be a significant drop in temperatures globally.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 3,120]

>Which is ironic since the true effects of global warming will be a
>significant drop in temperatures globally.

Significant drop in _local_ temperatures (in many places, like San Diego) but an increase in the average temperature worldwide.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Significant drop in _local_ temperatures (in many places, like San Diego) but an increase in the average temperature worldwide.

A lot of the stuff I've read have cited the drastic increase in ocean levels lowering the ocean's tempurature by 2-5C which would significantly lower the temperature's globally. Some on the extreme side of the opinion say that it will most likely spur another mini-ice age, regardless of the atmosphere at that point due to the oceans.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[lummy 4]

what am I missing? This article is saying that the jetstream is close to the earth and runs east to west. It dipped more south which caused the dustbowl.

It was my understanding the jetstream runs west to east and is approx 5 miles above the earths surface

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

what am I missing? This article is saying that the jetstream is close to the earth and runs east to west. It dipped more south which caused the dustbowl.

It was my understanding the jetstream runs west to east and is approx 5 miles above the earths surface

Are you actually saying NASA made a mistake about the causes of Global Warming?

[lummy 4]

to be honest, I didn't see anything in the article stating that it was trying to explain global warming, just an explanation of a localized drought.
Whether they are wrong or not, I'm not sure. Since I'm not a meteorologist, I don't know if I'm missing something from the equation

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[billvon 3,120]

That NASA paper is not about global warming.

[wmw999 2,589]

I think there's a difference between the "true" jet stream (the W-E one) and the low-level jet stream, which is what drives the hurricanes (and yes, they definitely form in the tropics off Africa and move W-NW -- just as the Gulf Coast and the lower Atlantic coast).

The reference to "low-level jet stream" made me go look it up online in a couple of places. So I think we're talking apples and oranges in that article.

If nothing else, that article was written 2 years ago by a bunch of people who know a whole lot more than I do -- I figured if I thought they were completely wrong about something basic, it was more likely due to my understanding than to what they actually said.

That said, I have a feeling that predicting what the effects in each upcoming year of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is not an exact science. But if the preponderance of researched ideas tend towards one direction, it's probably smart to at least begin some risk mitigation activities.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Glad even people like Pat are waking up, but it's sad that it takes something like a deadly heat wave to make it happen.

I would have thought he'd 'a' had a chat with God about it... Perhaps he's been told it's an "Acclimatisation Program"?

Meanwhile, Dubbie's been told not to worry about it being hot where he's going!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

If nothing else, that article was written 2 years ago by a bunch of people who know a whole lot more than I do

That says a lot coming from a Rocket Surgen.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[lummy 4]

thanks for filling me in. A search for "low-level" jet stream has given me lots more sources.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

That NASA paper is not about global warming.

Missed the smiley, huh?

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

A lot of the stuff I've read have cited the drastic increase in ocean levels lowering the ocean's tempurature by 2-5C which would significantly lower the temperature's globally. Some on the extreme side of the opinion say that it will most likely spur another mini-ice age, regardless of the atmosphere at that point due to the oceans.

I've read some of their literature, see:
http://www.iceagenow.com/

Their arguments can be difficult to follow, but here's my understanding in a nut shell:
1) The ocean warms up.
2) Water vapor increases in the atmosphere.
3) Water vapor reflects sunlight.
4) The Earth cools, alot.
5) The water freezes.
6) Cycle repeats itself over some prolonged period of time.

So, anything that's increasing the water vapor in the atmosphere can aid this effect.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

>2) Water vapor increases in the atmosphere.
>3) Water vapor reflects sunlight.
>4) The Earth cools, alot.

?? Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It warms the earth. Unless it forms clouds, in which case the earth cools due to the higher albedo of the clouds. It's one of the regulatory mechanisms that keeps the climate on a relatively even keel. Hot oceans = lots of water in the air = clouds and hurricanes = less heat absorbed.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

?? Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It warms the earth. Unless it forms clouds, in which case the earth cools due to the higher albedo of the clouds. It's one of the regulatory mechanisms that keeps the climate on a relatively even keel. Hot oceans = lots of water in the air = clouds and hurricanes = less heat absorbed.

I didn't say water is a green house gas. I said net effect it cools the earth. Sounds like we agree

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

>I didn't say water is a green house gas.

I know; I said that.

>I said net effect it cools the earth. Sounds like we agree

Hmm. I said it's a regulatory mechanism. Does a whole-house heat pump heat or cool the house?

[quade 4]

Quote

>2) Water vapor increases in the atmosphere.
>3) Water vapor reflects sunlight.
>4) The Earth cools, alot.

?? Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It warms the earth. Unless it forms clouds, in which case the earth cools due to the higher albedo of the clouds. It's one of the regulatory mechanisms that keeps the climate on a relatively even keel. Hot oceans = lots of water in the air = clouds and hurricanes = less heat absorbed.

I think at this point somebody should also mention the latent heat properties (thermal intertia) of water.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

>2) Water vapor increases in the atmosphere.
>3) Water vapor reflects sunlight.
>4) The Earth cools, alot.

?? Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It warms the earth. Unless it forms clouds, in which case the earth cools due to the higher albedo of the clouds. It's one of the regulatory mechanisms that keeps the climate on a relatively even keel. Hot oceans = lots of water in the air = clouds and hurricanes = less heat absorbed.

I think at this point somebody should also mention the latent heat properties (thermal intertia) of water.

I'd suggest a serious discussion on the second and third laws of thermodynamics.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Hmm. I said it's a regulatory mechanism. Does a whole-house heat pump heat or cool the house?

Bill,

I've taken alot of thermodynamics courses in my life, so I have a reasonable grip on that subject. I can remember the first question they asked us in that course: You leave your refrigerator door open. Is the room cooled or heated? As you know, the room is actually heated because of the excess work done by the refrigeration motor.

The whole issue here is one of many forces being in play. No one seems to know which forces are in play and to what magnitude.

Granted, in an earlier discussion your point regarding radiation cooling of the earth seemed very valid. What comes in (i.e., solar radiation) has to go out (i.e., radiative cooling by the earth), else the remainder stays in. Everyone agrees that, right now, it seems there is a remainder that's staying in, thus causing warming if no other forces are activated.

Other forces that could be activated include an increased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. What does this water vapor do? Again, no one really knows. Does it form clouds, thus promoting cooling? Does it trap more heat, thus promoting warming?

One of the arguments being made by www.iceagenow is that a very significant force contributing to ocean warming is under water volcanic activity. That alone is going to increase water vapor in the atmosphere, with the net effect (in their argument) being an ice age.

I've seen alot of arguments on this topic. We're all in agreement that something is going on. We're not all in agreement as to the magnitude of that, and how much is being cause by human activity.

I'm all for being a responsible inhabitant of this planet. We have to be. Otherwise, we can kill it, or make it a less hospitable place to live.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

>The whole issue here is one of many forces being in play. No one
>seems to know which forces are in play and to what magnitude.

We have a pretty good idea, and it's getting more and more refined.

If we had no idea how the climate worked, we wouldn't be able to predict weather, El Ninos, bad fire seasons etc. We couldn't predict storm tracks of give tornado warnings. But we can with (some) certainty; we are generally right more often than we are wrong. So we have an idea, at least, how our climate works. Doesn't mean we're perfect of course.

>Other forces that could be activated include an increased amount of water
>vapor in the atmosphere. What does this water vapor do? Again, no one
>really knows. Does it form clouds, thus promoting cooling? Does it trap
> more heat, thus promoting warming?

Again, I think we _do_ know - it does both. The question is - how strongly might it regulate temperature?

If cloud formation is loosely correlated with temperature, then there won't be much mitigation of any CO2-based warming. If it's strongly correlated, and the relationship is linear, there might be some mitigation. If it's strongly correlated, and the relationship is logarithmic, it might mitigate a lot of the warming once temperature starts going up. Problem there is that the temperature does have to increase for the regulation to kick in, so you see some temperature rise anyway.

So if you hope for some mitigation effect, you have to (in effect) wait for the temperature increase to happen before you see it.

>One of the arguments being made by http://www.iceagenow is that a
>very significant force contributing to ocean warming is under water
>volcanic activity. That alone is going to increase water vapor in the >atmosphere, with the net effect (in their argument) being an ice age.

That doesn't make much sense. If water vapor serves a regulatory function, then warming the ocean (at best) would not warm the climate too quickly. In no case would it cool the oceans; water vapor turnover time is simply too fast to have clouds form and not dissipate for decades (which is what you'd need for another ice age.)

[kallend 2,150]

Definitive proof of Global Warming:

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.