Extinction Rebellion are threatening to shut down Heathrow Airport with drones
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it CO2 is such a good absorber of IR that (even at pre industrialisation levels of C02) it only takes about 25 meters of the atmosphere to scatter most of the IR radiated by the earth (http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169 ). This means energy is only radiated into space from high up in the atmosphere, where the air and CO2 is thin enough.
Its been suggested that adding CO2 raises the effective height from which IR energy is radiated. Unfortunately the higher you go the colder it gets and IR radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature (T^4).
If less energy is radiated into space the temperature of the planet must increase until the energy lost from the earth once again matches that arriving from the sun.
Its been suggested that adding CO2 raises the effective height from which IR energy is radiated. Unfortunately the higher you go the colder it gets and IR radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature (T^4).
If less energy is radiated into space the temperature of the planet must increase until the energy lost from the earth once again matches that arriving from the sun.
You should also remember that the absorption of infrared by CO2 is logarithmic so each doubling of CO2 has half the effect of the previous. At 400ppm the absorption in the 3 narrow IR wavelength bands are almost saturated. Two of the bands are in any case overlapping with water vapor absorption.
Note:
* There is no correlation between CO2 and atmospheric temperature at geologic timescales where CO2 has been tens to hundred times higher concentrations in the atmosphere. The brief 20 year correlation in the last decades of the 20th century do not imply causation. See this spurious correlation
NONE of the forecasts made by climate scientists' models have been correct. Normally in science if the forecast made based on your hypothesis is falsified n the real world the hypothesis is abandoned.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note
:
* There is no correlation between CO2 and atmospheric temperature at geologic timescales where CO2 has been tens to hundred times higher concentrations in the atmosphere.
* There is no correlation between CO2 and atmospheric temperature at geologic timescales where CO2 has been tens to hundred times higher concentrations in the atmosphere.
Temperature change (light blue) and carbon dioxide change (dark blue) measured from the EPICA Dome C ice core in Antarctica (Jouzel et al. 2007; Lüthi et al. 2008).
and yes there are times when temperature changes lead C02 changes. You can find an explanation for that here. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
I have some understanding of how the historical CO2 levels can be inferred from ice cores.
But can you explain the method or basis for inferring historical temperatures?
We're not using one as the basis for the other are we?
But can you explain the method or basis for inferring historical temperatures?
We're not using one as the basis for the other are we?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The measurement of the gas composition is direct: trapped in deep ice cores are tiny bubbles of ancient air, which we can extract and analyze using mass spectrometers.
Temperature, in contrast, is not measured directly, but is instead inferred from the isotopic composition of the water molecules released by melting the ice cores.
Continues..
Temperature, in contrast, is not measured directly, but is instead inferred from the isotopic composition of the water molecules released by melting the ice cores.
Continues..
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: reading
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem knowledgable 73 Qanda. Correct me if I am wrong but when I did physics at school 60years ago, I`m sure I was taught that floating ice displaces its own volume in the water containing it. If that ice melts, its volume decreases thus the water level drops. This is surely true of the Arctic (floating) but not the Antarctic (on bedrock). ?
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Warwick
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ii
Well, free country and all that, Out. To paraphrase Will Rogers, I just know what I read in the scientific journals.
https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2019/...wYKb7f2ULuqVow
I think dr dre makes a good point about "people who are older and don't think they'll be affected by any real catastrophic effects of climate change when they occur." I'm 64 and have a lifetime of peace and stability behind my lucky self. Even if the chickens come home to roost tomorrow, well, I've had my life. If I were 20 I can imagine feeling pretty bitter and subversive toward Business as Usual.
In response to 73quanda -- especially given his mention of NASA -- and his plea for up-to-date sources -- here's a link from something NASA has put up that I copied, like, 30 seconds ago: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Obviously you can't hope for all scientific data to agree all the time. That's what makes science so much FUN and why its wheels turn so slowly.
I live in the Alps. When I first moved to these parts almost 40 years ago, you could go to Mont Blanc and take a cog railway up to the enormous final stage of the glacier. There's a hotel up there built in 1880 (mark that year). From there it was a short jaunt down to the ice.
NOW you go up to the same place. They have put in a freaking cable-car since the ice-level has fallen so far. But then it kept on falling, so there's an endless succession of steel steps down to what's left of the glacier. Then you have to climb back up (only the fittest survive).
All that in 40 years. And they have painted every last one of those years on the bare rock just to drive the point home.
Do I need a PhD to notice this?
Let's all remember that climate is by definition a stable Trend, and can't be upset by inherently chaotic weather events, such as a bad winter.
As for Thread Drift, if global heating weren't the biggest challenge going, probably only a small minority (with whom I might sympathize) would oppose a third runway.
But it is. So you can't separate the two issues.
Well, free country and all that, Out. To paraphrase Will Rogers, I just know what I read in the scientific journals.
https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2019/...wYKb7f2ULuqVow
I think dr dre makes a good point about "people who are older and don't think they'll be affected by any real catastrophic effects of climate change when they occur." I'm 64 and have a lifetime of peace and stability behind my lucky self. Even if the chickens come home to roost tomorrow, well, I've had my life. If I were 20 I can imagine feeling pretty bitter and subversive toward Business as Usual.
In response to 73quanda -- especially given his mention of NASA -- and his plea for up-to-date sources -- here's a link from something NASA has put up that I copied, like, 30 seconds ago: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Obviously you can't hope for all scientific data to agree all the time. That's what makes science so much FUN and why its wheels turn so slowly.
I live in the Alps. When I first moved to these parts almost 40 years ago, you could go to Mont Blanc and take a cog railway up to the enormous final stage of the glacier. There's a hotel up there built in 1880 (mark that year). From there it was a short jaunt down to the ice.
NOW you go up to the same place. They have put in a freaking cable-car since the ice-level has fallen so far. But then it kept on falling, so there's an endless succession of steel steps down to what's left of the glacier. Then you have to climb back up (only the fittest survive).
All that in 40 years. And they have painted every last one of those years on the bare rock just to drive the point home.
Do I need a PhD to notice this?
Let's all remember that climate is by definition a stable Trend, and can't be upset by inherently chaotic weather events, such as a bad winter.
As for Thread Drift, if global heating weren't the biggest challenge going, probably only a small minority (with whom I might sympathize) would oppose a third runway.
But it is. So you can't separate the two issues.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[b]
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-war...erature-change
Temperature change (light blue) and carbon dioxide change (dark blue) measured from the EPICA Dome C ice core in Antarctica (Jouzel et al. 2007; Lüthi et al. 2008).
and yes there are times when temperature changes lead C02 changes. You can find an explanation for that here. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-war...erature-change
Temperature change (light blue) and carbon dioxide change (dark blue) measured from the EPICA Dome C ice core in Antarctica (Jouzel et al. 2007; Lüthi et al. 2008).
and yes there are times when temperature changes lead C02 changes. You can find an explanation for that here. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
There are many temperature/CO2 graphics some that go back further and use multiple proxies such as plant stomata give a different picture, Such as:
You will note first that things have been a LOT warmer in the past and that there is a homeostasis mechanism that seems to stop any overheating. Note also that we are at the cold end of the Holocene which is an interglacial in an ice age. The Holocene optimum around 10,000 years ago, the Minoan optimum,the Roman Optimum, the Medieval Warm Period were all warmer than present and were successively colder optima.
To assist with the panic the Y axes of the published temperature graphs are wildly expanded to make even minor changes look extreme. The current temperature 'anomaly is approximately 0.35C (from UAH) which a met observer would round down to zero.
global temperature
Ian W - very interesting graph. The geocraft website is an interesting trove. I did some time in Geology before I switched to engineering.
One thing I observe about the AGW debate is the remarkable absence of geo professionals (and statisticians, another serious omission) in the discussion. As they tend to have a long term view, the ones I know tend to be quite dismissive of the climate modelers and regard the idea of humans controlling climate as rather amusing if not just plain stupid.
Climate modelers are a very very small community who approve each others papers and grants. One modeler from U of T was on Charle Rose and said there are 20 credible climate modeling groups in the world. Think about it. Each of these groups is run by , or was started by a very smart person, as they are sure to let you know. You will not work there or get funded unless you agree with the boss. That is peer reviewed science 101, sorry that is the way it works. That was very clear in the climate gate emails.
That is a very small number of people to rely on to restructure the words economy. . As I told Dr Dre, look up Barry Marshall, Noble Prize 2005, for the value of "consensus".
When the American Physical Society set up a committee, run by Dr Stephen Koonin, to look at the "incontrovertible evidence of human AGW" they invited several physicists not involved in the global warming movement to participate. When the summary did not suit the politics, the statement was was changed to something more PC.
The IPCC was set up to advise governments on how to adapt to climate change, not to make an assessment of the science. One big problem I have with the IPCC is that the section authors are reviewing their own papers. The section members are chosen by governments, ie Al Gore. There is no real question of the underlying assumptions. Most people involved are going on faith that it is a problem and the models are correct.
I can still remember when I was growing up the big thing was the next ice age. There were serious proposals to sprinkle carbon black on the ice sheets to melt them.
Y2K anyone?
20driver
One thing I observe about the AGW debate is the remarkable absence of geo professionals (and statisticians, another serious omission) in the discussion. As they tend to have a long term view, the ones I know tend to be quite dismissive of the climate modelers and regard the idea of humans controlling climate as rather amusing if not just plain stupid.
Climate modelers are a very very small community who approve each others papers and grants. One modeler from U of T was on Charle Rose and said there are 20 credible climate modeling groups in the world. Think about it. Each of these groups is run by , or was started by a very smart person, as they are sure to let you know. You will not work there or get funded unless you agree with the boss. That is peer reviewed science 101, sorry that is the way it works. That was very clear in the climate gate emails.
That is a very small number of people to rely on to restructure the words economy. . As I told Dr Dre, look up Barry Marshall, Noble Prize 2005, for the value of "consensus".
When the American Physical Society set up a committee, run by Dr Stephen Koonin, to look at the "incontrovertible evidence of human AGW" they invited several physicists not involved in the global warming movement to participate. When the summary did not suit the politics, the statement was was changed to something more PC.
The IPCC was set up to advise governments on how to adapt to climate change, not to make an assessment of the science. One big problem I have with the IPCC is that the section authors are reviewing their own papers. The section members are chosen by governments, ie Al Gore. There is no real question of the underlying assumptions. Most people involved are going on faith that it is a problem and the models are correct.
I can still remember when I was growing up the big thing was the next ice age. There were serious proposals to sprinkle carbon black on the ice sheets to melt them.
Y2K anyone?
20driver
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Ho Chi Minh / SaiGon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Gatwick incident was illusory, a figment of someones imagination.
The 'authorities' brought in a plethora of anti-drone paraphernalia but they failed to detect anything.
The weakest link in airport operations is the use of VHF/AM communications which can be jammed with about $100 of equipment.
The 'authorities' brought in a plethora of anti-drone paraphernalia but they failed to detect anything.
The weakest link in airport operations is the use of VHF/AM communications which can be jammed with about $100 of equipment.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did some time in Geology before I switched to engineering.
One thing I observe about the AGW debate is the remarkable absence of geo professionals (and statisticians, another serious omission) in the discussion. As they tend to have a long term view, the ones I know tend to be quite dismissive of the climate modelers and regard the idea of humans controlling climate as rather amusing if not just plain stupid.
One thing I observe about the AGW debate is the remarkable absence of geo professionals (and statisticians, another serious omission) in the discussion. As they tend to have a long term view, the ones I know tend to be quite dismissive of the climate modelers and regard the idea of humans controlling climate as rather amusing if not just plain stupid.
The increase of CO2 in modern times, most likely due to humans burning fossil fuels, has led to an enhanced greenhouse effect which is increasing our planet’s average temperature.
As a result sea levels are rising, partly because ocean water is expanding as it warms, and partly because polar ice is melting. Climate change is already causing ecosystems to change.
As a result sea levels are rising, partly because ocean water is expanding as it warms, and partly because polar ice is melting. Climate change is already causing ecosystems to change.
In the run up to the UN Climate Change Conference COP 21 scheduled for December 2015, 24 of the UK's foremost academic institutions, including the Geological Society, have published a joint Climate Communiqué calling on governments to take immediate action to avert the serious risks posed by climate change.
The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species.
I'm just loving coming onto this thread and debunking skeptic's claims with linked information from credible scientific organisations. I agree, let's get this thread to Jet Blast so we can continue the fun.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: With Wonko, outside the Asylum.
Age: 56
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'authorities' brought in a plethora of anti-drone paraphernalia but they failed to detect anything.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Small aprtment
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There appears to be a potential criminal threat to operations at London Heathrow Airport.
What is needed to mitigate this? Police? / Army? / GCHQ? / MI 5? / Other? Who has the
means to deal with it? Failure to deal with it will encourage even worse criminals to then
consider drone methods against.... Palace / Parliament / football stadiums / etc.
Lets concentrate on this and put aside the never ending global warming debate for now.
What is needed to mitigate this? Police? / Army? / GCHQ? / MI 5? / Other? Who has the
means to deal with it? Failure to deal with it will encourage even worse criminals to then
consider drone methods against.... Palace / Parliament / football stadiums / etc.
Lets concentrate on this and put aside the never ending global warming debate for now.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem knowledgable 73 Qanda. Correct me if I am wrong but when I did physics at school 60years ago, I`m sure I was taught that floating ice displaces its own volume in the water containing it. If that ice melts, its volume decreases thus the water level drops. This is surely true of the Arctic (floating) but not the Antarctic (on bedrock). ?
Aside: Most of the rise in sea level to date has been due to the water expanding due to the temperature rising rather than ice on land melting.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts