[ExI] cure for global warming is working
alfio.puglisi at gmail.com
Wed Dec 29 12:43:09 UTC 2010
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki
> > <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ### The disastrously high sensitivities are already excluded
> > And who is excluding them, you? The vast majority of studies are unable
> > exclude high sensitivities.
> ### I am relying on the minority of studies that do. Also, see Lubos
> Motl, a physicist whose funding is not dependent on AGW
> (http://motls.blogspot.com/), he does have a pretty thorough analysis
> of the issue a few months back in the blog.
So we agree that it is a minority opinion. I visited the site you mention,
but I only found some articles from last March and May which state that the
CO2-only sensitivity is around 1C and then go on endlessly about black
bodies and such, but do not discuss feedbacks. BTW the front page article
was starting like this:
"Richard Alley (on the picture) is a mentally ill hippie so it shouldn't be
surprising that he became a professor of climatology at Penn State
University, the same place where Michael Mann cooked his fraudulent hockey
Seems quite an opinionated guy.
> I wonder how you define "correlation". If you plot CO2 levels and
> > temperature versus each other in the last 100 years, you get a good
> > correlation. Do you mean something else?
> ### If you plot rural temperatures over the last 100 years (not the so
> called "reconstructions" produced by GISS and UAH) and CO2, you don't
> get a good correlation.
I assume you mean "rural temperatures in the US". This way, you are throwing
away almost all the data. If you are concerned by the urban effects, the
north pole is the fastest warming region, and there are no cities to speak
of there. UHI effects do not explain the warming.
> >> The only
> >> values not excluded by direct recent observations are the negative and
> >> mildly positive ones (which I personally think to be the case). BTW,
> >> the "skeptical" site you link to is incorrect in claiming that climate
> >> sensitivity to CO2 is explained by radiative forcing alone - there are
> >> additional effects of CO2 on plant life that put the calculations
> >> off-whack (of course, none of the "numerous studies" which deny
> >> "unrealistic ultralow sensitivities" takes this into account).
> > In order to support these statements, you would need to quantify these
> > effects of CO2 on plant life.
> ### That's difficult. An increase in CO2 that is expected in the next
> few decades will increase plant growth by about 40% to 80 % (according
> to the Jasper Ridge studies and other more recent work) but I am not
> aware of any quantitative studies that would estimate the change in
> albedo due to the increase in growth - but given the magnitude of the
> latter, the albedo change is not likely to be negligible, especially
> in desert areas.
So again we can agree that it is premature to put a number on the CO2 effect
on plant life.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat