OT: Global cooling 34 million years ago

On the ground. Missed by a mile.

Jon

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was overwhelming.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Doesn't significantly affect the capture cross section. Air is basically transparent. It does significantly affect the drag on low Earth orbit mostly spy satellites. When the sun is very active the atmosphere has a tenuous outer shell extending much further into space.

Empirically you can observe that the stratosphere has not been as cold this winter at temperate latitudes as it was for example in 1996 around the last solar minimum when there was a very pretty UK display of polar stratospheric clouds. Northern European ozone layer seems to have benefitted. Belgian RMI realtime stratosphereic ozone monitoring shows the levels mostly above the median for this time of year.

The stratosphere is presently tending to cool as the heat flux escaping from the troposphere has reduced and the ozone layer is still somewhat compromised by CFCs. It completely cripples when PSCs combine with strong spring sunshine but that doesn't look likely this year in the UK.

The butterfly diagram for the recent past sunspot activity is not all that different to previous cycles either. It is quite at the moment - which is particularly bad for sales of H-alpha prominence telescopes.

If the minimum was really significantly cooling the higher atmosphere enough to influence the troposphere at all we would expect to see the stratosphere cooling to the point where PSCs would be seen over the UK. In fact they haven't been observed in the UK since 2005.

Regards, Martin Brown

Jim, you're wrong:)

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

-- Science is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant.

Ah, so you're a True Believer. Warmingism is true, and NO AMOUNT of facts will shake your faith.

Just answer me one question: Howcome none of your "atmospheric models" even ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF, let alone ACCOUNT FOR, atmospheric water vapor?

Thanks, Rich

Not much

Problem is, when you actually bother to _inform_ yourself of some _facts_, rather than just preaching your dogma, you discover that your dogma is a load of total purest crap, and that's too hard to face. Not only are you wrong, but you're exposed as an idiot for insisting that you're right, even though the facts show the opposite.

And even if it were true, the draconian measures you espouse are worse than any possible consequences of _actual_ warming, even if it _were_ factual.

Hope This Helps! Rich

Of course not, It would conflict with your dogma, and threaten your faith.

Thanks, Rich

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it simpler for you to understand.

But I have spent some years doing so. Problem for you is, I tend to get my facts from real scientists.

Mere claims by fiat. Nothing more.

Which draconian measures have I suggested? Or is this just another claim by fiat without substance?

Rich, I don't normally respond to you and this is an exception made only because it's been a little while, not because there is any more substance here than at other times. In fact, as though it were possible, there is less here than at some times from you. I won't be responding to you much on this subject elsewhere, mostly because I feel getting you to educate yourself on real science is about as fruitful as an orange grove in Alaska.

And no, don't bother asking me to read OISM or blogs. If you have a specific, published, ISI JCR papers to suggest then I will probably take a crack at it. Otherwise, forget it and go find someone else to pester.

Jon

-- Science is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant.

Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my logic.

Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't even deal with your own _old_ logic?

Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once. Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the easter bunny.

Jon

-- Science is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant.

AGW is a faith-based social society.

You have to keep science out of it.

When someone tries to insert science and questioning, this bird-brain crowd falls back on attacking the competency of the messenger.

Shunning all the members of this AGW social society is the simplest solution.

...Jim Thompson

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...Jim Thompson

han

And you won't have to deal with those nasty facts any more.

Slowman is *not* a fact.

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368 ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince you the science is wrong?

When his pecker freezes and falls off. He'll not notice, though, it was already a useless appendage ;-)

...Jim Thompson

cts

Since his "faith" - as you call it - is based on facts, this is singularly silly assertion.

If you weren't quite so fatuously ignorant about the whole subject, you'd be aware that water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and all the atmospheric models include it; adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does produce some greenhouse warming directly, and this warming increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, which produces additional greenhouse warming. If you don't figure that in the sums don't come out right.

If you'd gone to the trouble if reading a little bit about the scientific basis of global warming, you'd be aware of this and other facts that show up in the arguments.

Nobody makes much of a fuss about water vapour contribution - with 70% of the earth's surface being water, the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is a directly controlled by the temperature at the surface (with a lag of a few weeks), so it's easy to figure into the climate models, and we can only manipulate it by manipulating the levels of the other greenhouse gases, which have appreciably longer residence times in the atmosphere.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen