Last edited by cabse5; 07-10-13 at 01:27 PM.
Hold this as record for the next 20 years, if we are both around you can see if I'm right.
I do believe the solar scientists predicting these events to be correct. However, unlike you warmers, I don't have the faith to state it as fact.
It gets pretty complicated to do so. How are you at writing and explaining one's complete thought process of how something works? I have addressed a few relevant point in examples most readers can understand, if the have basic science skills. Beyond that, debate is pointless. It becomes an argument like "my daddy can beat up your daddy." We can have google wars and see who can come up with the latest, greatest research on either side, but if the readers here do not understand the research, it is just a numbers game. And admittedly, I would lose such a numbers game. Hence my tactics of being able to explain in my own words, making some mistakes along the way, but learning more in the process as well.Originally Posted by Mithros
You have not digested my words well if you believe that. AGW is real, and my claim is the 2nd and maybe 3rd cause of warming.Originally Posted by Mithros
1) Natural solar changes - natural
2) Black carbon on ice (soot) - AGW
3 or 4) CO2 -AGW
3 or 4) ENSO - natural
And the trend does follow solar intensity that makes it through the atmosphere. We have a downward trend in evaporation from about 1960 to about 1975, as we dulled the skies with pollution. Hard to distinguish if pollution cause this as we also had a minor solar activity drop too. The rate then increased again until about the same time we see temperatures stabilizing, and a 30+ year relatively stable sun.Originally Posted by Mithros
When the sun changes in intensity, more of the change is in the shorter wavelengths. Almost all greenhouse gas down forcing is absorbed in the top 1 mm of the water. At the wavelengths CO2 is responsible, most is absorbed in the top 3 microns of water. This is where CO2 and wind combined will actually influence evaporation rates more than any other changes. Convection is a pretty small effect compared to waves of light we cannot see. There is probably more CO2 downforcing than the solar energy absorbed in the top 1 mm, but the sun will warm the top several meter far more than the greenhouse effect. hard to make a guess at which effect the evaporation rate the most. Co2 however does have a significant effect.
As for the rates? have we been decreasing in evaporation? I know we have areas of drought, but at the same time we have areas of excess rain and more flooding than normal. I though we were having more absorbed water, not less. Didn't I read somewhere we have a momentary drop in sea level of 5 mm?
Am I wrong? I think not. Here is a NOAA link:
Pan evaporation rate where? In areas that windmills are changing the airflow away from?Originally Posted by Mithros
That would be anthropogenic climate change wouldn't it?
Last edited by Lord of Planar; 07-10-13 at 06:27 PM.
Why not deal with a known impact we have better control over first, like reducing annual soot output? At least the warmer climate community has realized it has more impact than they previously claimed, but they are glad to acknowledge it since it is an AGW component. Look at the change in their assessment of BC from AR4 to AR5:
It would be a great help to have an open peer review process, rather than the close reviews they use. I
t would be helpful to listen more to those who's credentials sit squarely on radiative physics, rather than the incomplete teachings required for climatology.
Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
DaveFagan"CO2 is one thing. Why not turn down the heat?"
Planar"I would agree with you if I thought it had a larger impact. "
Just calculate all the btus wasted to lost heat in all the coal, oil, gas, nuke, wood, other biomass, etc. processes and you'll have a clue.