what do you think it would be? I'd assume that the day-night swings would be greater, but I'm not sure exactly what the average would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
We'd probably all have skin cancer by the time we were 3.
Printable View
what do you think it would be? I'd assume that the day-night swings would be greater, but I'm not sure exactly what the average would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
We'd probably all have skin cancer by the time we were 3.
The estimates for the average global temperature are from 4F to 15F. Probably the souther limit of the northern ice cap would be very close to Ruston.:icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
So basically you don't know the answers to my questions? I imagine with no greenhouse gases it would be very cold. The weather today in Ruston is chilly and rainy.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
1. The current atmospheric content of CO2 at .036% produces a 54F to 44F degree increase in the average global temperature. Pretty amazing, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
2. 1F degree increase is not very much, but what about a 4F or 5F degree increase? Does that get your attention?
3. Who says more rain for the Sparta Aquifer? Maybe Drought City will be teh new kid on the block.
4. If plants could absorb the incresed amounts of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, then why is the level of CO2 gone from 263 ppm to 380 PPM?
See above post. Take a trip to the North Pole this summer.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
(1) Nope - your ignoring wator vapor, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.. The CO2 effect is relatively small.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
(4) because the natural carbon cycle is resulting in a net increase in carbon injected into the atmosphere. given time, the earth, oceans, etc. will begin to absorb more CO2 than emitted, and we'll go the other way.
First, Salty...... It was not MY "point about cooling." It was from a post I copied to BB&B from Dr. Richard Courtney, a British scientist who happens to be part of the IPCC gang.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Second...... there IS NO LAW OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS which states that an increase in CO2 causes a rise in global temerature. All you have "discovered" is a very crude correlation based not even on true property measurements but on inferred and calculated "data" which can easily be manipulated (or cherry picked) to get the answer you want!!!
A "law of physics" is a relationship that can be meaured absolutely and replicated and gives exactly the same result time after time, regardless of who is doing the experiment. An example would be Archimedes Principle which states "that an object immersed in a fluid will experience a buoyant force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid." Another would be the ideal gas law PV = nRT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
What's the average global temperature?
Well, Salty, there was a lot there. Here's an example from one of the papers in the link which deals with techniques to "resolve" ( e.g. get rid of) troublesome discontinuities in station temperature data just between time periods. Here's the first part of the abstract.......Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
"The utility of a ‘‘first difference’’ method for producing temporally homogeneous large-scale mean time series is assessed. Starting with monthly averages, the method involves dropping data around the time of suspected discontinuities and then calculating differences in temperature from one year to the next, resulting in a time series of year-to-year differences for each month at each station.
These first difference time series are then combined to form large-scale means, and mean temperature time series are constructed from the first difference series. When applied to radiosonde temperature data, the method introduces random errors that decrease with
the number of station time series used to create the large-scale time series and increase with the number of temporal gaps in the station time series." ..........................
Bottom line: there's either missing data or data that we don't like so we drop it and then calculate some data that "fits" better.
1. Nope the CO2 effect is quite large. That is to say, a little bit of CO2 in the atmosphere goes a long way. Cutting the current level from 380 ppm to 190 ppm (without any feedback affects to the GHGs) would reduce the average global temperature by 1C or 2C degrees. Totally eliminating CO2 would result in those numbers increasing by a factor of 6, or a cooling of 6C to 12C degrees. That's because of the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere there is maximum CO2 absorption over much of the region of the spectrum where it absorbs solar radiation.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
As CO2 levels go up or down, its effects the other greenhouse gases.
4. True, but that balance point is hundreds of years away even if we stopped dumping all CO2 into the atmosphere today.
Actually, there is no such thing as an average global temperature. Temperature is an intensive property that cannot be "averaged." The temperature field for the earth's surface could actually show extremely large areas of truly increasing temperature changes but an "average" of all of the data could show "global cooling".Quote:
Originally Posted by 9701Dawg
The atmospheric temperature field exists in all 3 dimensions, so to have a ideal measurement that could properly be averaged for say every cubic meter, would take over 8,000,000,000,000,000,000 measurement points. But since the atmosphere can be reasonably measured with satellite proxy measurements, this leaves only the surface, which is about 500,000,000,000,000 square meters. To really accurately measure the temperature field would require measuring devices in each square meter. But that's not practically possible so there have to be fewer points. But how low could the number go and still be provide the necessary accuracy density.
Actually we have only 5,000 such points today. So each point represents 100,000,000,000 square meters. That would make each one about 300 kilometers apart. But that's only if they were evenly distributed, which they are not. Most are densely clustered around large cities and airports leaving vast areas of the surface with measuring stations thousands of kilometers apart. this creates huge problems for the averaging process. And this is just for one point in time. When we add the time dimension and have to deal with gaps, etc. the problem gets infinitely more complex. And this is just for the fairly recent past. To go back before there were thermometers, all sorts of weird proxy data starts being used and from even more sparsely dispersed sampling points.
And with all these problems, (which virtually all of the IPCC true scientists will agree with privately) we come up with the "famous" T-REX hockey stick which is virtually void of any true meaning.
Thanks for the response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
If most temperature sensors are in cities, are the measurements taken in cities flawed due to the "urban heat island effect"? The urban heat island effect can cause a deviation of in temperature readings because urban air can be 2-6 degrees C hotter than the surrounding rural areas. Is this effect factored into a global average temperature calculation that includes city temps?
1. Salty, have you ever taken any spectroscopic measurements of CO2 (IR, UV-VIS, etc.)? Have you actually compared that data with that of water vapor, ozone, etc.? Do I have to dig all of that up for you? As far as effecting the other greenhouse gases, the only way you get there is through temperature (or alternately, that NOx is also a byproduct of most industrial processes, so increasing CO2 means increasing NOx at the same time).Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
4. We do not have enough data with respect to carbon cycles to make any such claim. Carbon cycle peaks are not spaced evenly, as Guisslap has pointed out. It averages to roughly every 100k years, but the standard deviation is pretty high.
Al Gore has Salty in his pocket, and that is how Salty likes it!