Guest
On Dec 22, 1:14 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
immediately rise.
was surprised. He thought he'd have to double Finnegan's CO2 forcing
Finagling Factor.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html
NARRATOR: In other words, while the human greenhouse
effect has produced 2.6 to three watts of extra energy
for every square meter of the Earth, global dimming
has subtracted about 1.5 watts, so, more than half
the warming effect of our greenhouse emissions has
been masked by the cooling effect of particle pollution.
Perhaps this is why, despite a large rise in the
concentration of greenhouse gases, until recently,
the temperature rise has been hard for most of us
to notice.
JAMES HANSEN: In a way, it is unfortunate that the
small particles were in the atmosphere because we
would have realized much earlier that the...how
strong the greenhouse effect is, and would have
had more time to make the adjustments that are
going to be necessary to slow down and eventually
stop the growth of greenhouse gases.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
That's a different point. Higher CO2 does not mean that temperaturesOn Dec 22, 5:12 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 22, 7:32 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 20, 4:27 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:36:54 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
In <61527070-2f70-4e2b-b197-d1c6fee7f...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Slomanwrote in part:
On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
SNIP to edit for space
That is what the politicians are trying to make it. Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?
They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences.
At this point, I would like to jump in to say that "the scientific case
is closed" for existence of AGW, and magnitude thereof is otherwise.
Or maybe even the sign.
John Larkin disregards physics once again. More CO2 in the atmosphere
means higher global temperatures.
No it doesn't. If from a volcano, the dust in the air lowers
temperatures.
But the dust doesn't stay up in the air for all that long - nowhere
near as long as the CO2.
immediately rise.
You've forgotten Jimmy Hansen's comments re: global dimming then? HeDitto for combustion particulates ('global dimming'), a-
bomb debris, agriculture dust, offset by albedo effects, offset
by....the unknowable.
Since we've got lots of history of the prompt and sustained effects of
volcanic eruptions, atom bomb tests, forest fires and SO2 emissions
from power station smoke-stacks, this is scarcely unknowable. You
obviously don't know much about it, but inexpert opinion is just
noise, not matter how forcefully expressed.
was surprised. He thought he'd have to double Finnegan's CO2 forcing
Finagling Factor.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html
NARRATOR: In other words, while the human greenhouse
effect has produced 2.6 to three watts of extra energy
for every square meter of the Earth, global dimming
has subtracted about 1.5 watts, so, more than half
the warming effect of our greenhouse emissions has
been masked by the cooling effect of particle pollution.
Perhaps this is why, despite a large rise in the
concentration of greenhouse gases, until recently,
the temperature rise has been hard for most of us
to notice.
JAMES HANSEN: In a way, it is unfortunate that the
small particles were in the atmosphere because we
would have realized much earlier that the...how
strong the greenhouse effect is, and would have
had more time to make the adjustments that are
going to be necessary to slow down and eventually
stop the growth of greenhouse gases.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur