Obama offers aid to drought-stricken California; warns of drier future - UPI.com
"Obama said the drought is a sample of what's to come with global warming.
"Unless and until we do more to combat carbon pollution that causes climate change, this trend is going to get worse," he said. "And the hard truth is even if we do take action on climate change, carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades.
"The planet is slowly going to keep warming for a long time to come.."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Carbon pollution = political corruption
CO2, necessary for life, is in the breath of the politician.
Previous droughts in CA have lasted 80-240 years. All long before the advent of human CO2. Pitiful "science" behind this.
http://news.msn.com/in-depth/scientists-past-california-droughts-have-lasted-200-years
The greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture starts with an assumption that there would be isothermal conditions in a troposphere that was free of radiating (so-called "greenhouse") gases, including water vapour, or free of direct solar radiation.
There are similar conditions in the Uranus troposphere where there is very little methane except in a layer in the uppermost regions. Virtually all the very weak solar radiation reaching the planet (nearly 30 times the distance from the Sun that Earth is) is absorbed and re-emitted back to space by this methane layer where the temperature is a very cold 60K or so, that being the radiating temperature of the planet. There is no internal energy generation that can be convincingly detected, yet the core is at about 5,000K and the base of the troposphere (where there is no surface being heated by any direct Solar radiation) is hotter than Earth's surface.
The existence of isothermal conditions would be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says that a state of maximum entropy will evolve spontaneously. Such as state is isentropic, and so the sum of molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy for each molecular has a propensity to be equal at all altitudes. This means that there is a temperature gradient, because temperature depends upon the mean kinetic energy, not the gravitational potential energy.
If there were isothermal conditions (an impossibility) then what is the sensitivity for each 1% of water vapour in the atmosphere above any region? Perhaps you would say something like at least 10 degrees of warming. Hence you would say in a dry desert (with say 0.5% water vapour the warming would be 5 degrees, but in a rain forest with 4.5% water vapour it might be 45 degrees, making the rainforest 40 degrees hotter than the dry desert.
Need I say more about this ludicrous travesty of physics?
Post a Comment