Global rain band, Scientific American

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Old Rocks, Apr 13, 2011.

  1. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,436
    Thanks Received:
    5,407
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,287
    An article in the Scientific American maps the historical movements of the tropical rainband, and confirms that it is moving north. Also confirms other tropical studies that the MWP was only about 0.2 above the historical norm, as compared to the 0.7 of today.

    A Shifting Band of Rain: Scientific American
     
  2. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,104
    Thanks Received:
    9,264
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,387
  3. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Not to worry.

    That's only gonna suck for Southern mid west farmers and the people who count on their harvests.

    That will only really effect working people worldwide.

    Not to worry, the rich will still be able to buy food.

    Phew! what a relief, eh?
     
  4. Douger
    Offline

    Douger BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    12,323
    Thanks Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Not fucking there !
    Ratings:
    +915
    No worries. Monsanto will conjure up something that uses dust as fertilizer. No . You wont be able to afford to eat it, but it will be good for "bio"fuel. This will allow your masters to go to Bali and Tahiti on their yachts and in their Lear's.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    I have already provided you with multiple peer reviewed studies that state quite clearly that the MWP was considerably warmer than the present and global in nature. How many more would you like to see as there are hundreds. Funny that you are willing to disregard the published work of over 900 scientists in favor of one whose study was based on inappropriate proxy data.
     
  6. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,541
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,660
    The problem with the MWP is that it's largely irrelevant. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. Like, the fact that humans put out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. The MWP was undoubtedly a natural variation, but the real concern is that CO2 and other GHGs are 30-40% above historical averages. What would happen if energy-trapping molecules in the atmosphere continue to rise? Logic tells us temps WILL go up. After all, statistically only 50% of the energy would be re-emitted into space, leaving the other half to warm the earth.
     
  7. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    The first comment from the link:
     
  8. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    I suppose you can't if the past disproves your hypothesis. The fact is that the underlying conditions haven't changed. You think a few parts per million of a gas that has no capacity to trap and retain heat represents changed condtions. The earth has seen atmospheric CO2 concentrations of over 5000ppm and has not experienced anything like runaway global warming and has entered ice ages with higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than at present. History shows us that CO2 is not a driver of the climate.

    The present is a natural variation as well. If you think otherwise, then provide some hard observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.


    Which history? The very narrow band you like to reference or earth history in general. If you look at earth history, then the present atmosphere is positively starved for CO2.

    CO2 can not trap energy. I have asked you before to describe the mechanism by which you believe a CO2 molecule to be able to trap energy and you had no answer then and my bet is that you have no answer now nor will you ever have an answer. The absorption and emission spectra happen within nanoseconds of each other and the emission spectra clearly indicates that the exact amount of energy that was absorbed has been emitted. Where is the "trapping" that you claim is happening?


    Logic tells us that if a molecule has no mechanism by which to trap energy, then no amount of it is going to trap energy and therefore it can not drive temperature.

    An object that is heated passively (earth) can not be warmed by a reflection of its own energy without the input of work. Refer to the second law of thermodynamics.
     
  9. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,541
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,660
    CO2 can't trap energy? How about water vapor? If one doesn't have such a mecanism, neither does the other. I think you need to study up on the subject. You're application of the 2nd Law seems a bit goofy, also. I'll raise you Conservation of Energy. If energy gets reflected and trapped by whatever molecule, what happens to it, if not to be re-emitted later? You tell us a lot about the past, but what I'm concerned about is the time course. Proxy data from the distant past can only give you answers that cover thousands of years. It tells you nothing about what happened on a human time scale. That's what I'm concerned about and to say there was no global warming is something you're just stating without anything resembling proof.
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,436
    Thanks Received:
    5,407
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,287
    The sixth comment from the link

    The full print article, with several diagrams and more on their methodology, is missing from this on-line link. Attempts to access the full article on the web from here did not prompt so much as an invitation to subscribe, so I am disappointed.
    In print, they reported that the location of the rain band fluctuates between winter and summer. Also in print, the authors made a connection to drier seasonal weather in the coffee-growing countries of Colombia and Ecuador.

    They produced a graph of the temperatures by the proxies from the lake sediments on the islands. It looked very much like the graph produced by an earlier group that got their proxies from ocean sediments in the Indian Ocean.
     

Share This Page