“A Sustainable Development and Environmental Quality Management Strategy for Indore” (Published
Online in “Environmental Quality Management”, 15 (4), pp. 57-68, Summer 2006, Tampa, USA)
Authors : H.K. Gupta, K. Gupta, P. Singh, R.C. Sharma

“Toward a Consistent Approach for Managing Air-Environmental Quality in Indore” (Published in
“Environmental Quality Management”, 17 (1), pp. 65-69, Autumn 2007, Tampa, USA)
Authors : H.K. Gupta, K. Gupta, P. Singh, R.C. Sharma

“A Comparative Study of Air Pollution in Indian Cities” (Published in the Bulletin of “Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology”, The University of Florida, USA, June 2007, 78: pp. 411-416) On-line
(http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/128/2007/00000078/00000005/00009220)
Authors : A.K. Singh, H.K. Gupta, K. Gupta, P. Singh, V.B. Gupta, R.C. Sharma

“A Comparative Emission Profile of Urban City, Madhya Pradesh, India” (Published in the Bulletin of
“Environmental Contamination and Toxicology”, The University of Florida, USA, Tuesday, July 17, 2007, 79:
pp. 202-208) On-line (http://www.springerlink.com/content/728n1p662812p856/)
Authors : H.K. Gupta, K. Gupta, P. Singh, A.K. Singh, R.C. Sharma

A number of people have been skeptical because of lack of evidence, one way or another. Of weak theories, here and there. But if I tell you that letting go of the apple will allow it to fall and that’s due to an effect we’ll call gravity and you choose not to believe that no matter how many times I drop an apple on your head, when do we quit calling that skepticism or even standard denial and call it a religious faith or a willful ignorance? “There are none so deaf as those who will not hear, none so blind as those who will not see.”

The graph above, published by the NOAA ties in generally with the periods discussed in this article. “But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder.” There is a general cooling, I assumed this was the result of the tiling of the earth on it’s axis pushing the northern hemisphere away from the sun but how would I know.

“over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago.”. This may be so, but the graph of global temperatures for the last 150 years in totally anomalous when compared with the former period. How can the last 50 years be compared with the period from 1000 to 1300. The evidence at face value would imply a mechanism which is not strongly dependant on sun spot activity. Is this the case?

Maybe someone with more knowledge than myself could enlighten me on this question.

The rate of energy emission from the Earth does change as a result of such forcings but in the end it all has to balance as you say.

The air circulation has to achieve two mutually incompatible functions over time:

That the surface air temperature always approximately matches sea surface temperatures
and
that the energy lost to space always approximately matches energy received from the sun.

It is that interplay which causes observed climate change. Whatever happens the surface air temperature cannot for long diverge from the sea surface temperature and the energy lost to space cannot for long exceed the energy received from the sun so the ‘well understood conventional physics of radiative balance and so forth’ is duly complied with.

1) The composition of the air dictates the speed of the hydrological cycle at any given temperature and not the temperature of the Earth.

What are you saying precisely here? Are you saying that the increase in the speed of the hydrological cycle transports more heat up higher into the atmosphere? And, how is this different from the conventional lapse rate description? And, how is it that one can neglect the contribution of the increase in CO2 and the increase in water vapor to the change in the amount of radiative emission that escapes the earth…Or, are you saying the atmosphere just warms up at the effective radiating level without actually warming at the surface.

All your statements are very vague and you have made no connections to the well-understood conventional physics of radiative balance and so forth.

2) The temperature of the Earth being set by the interaction of sun and oceans (if one ignores geothermal influences).

Again, I don’t know what you mean by this and how it is consistent with the known fact that the temperature ultimately has to be set by radiative balance…i.e., the earth receives a certain amount of radiation from the sun and must re-radiate the same amount back out into space (otherwise, if there is an imbalance then over time, it will either warm or cool depending on the direction of the imbalance).

I don’t expect you to accept that proposition but I do expect it to become the establishment view in years to come.

Well, I have to give you one thing – You certainly don’t suffer from false modesty!

You aren’t going to let me get away are you ?

Orbital changes alter the amount of energy from the sun capable of getting past the region of ocean surface involved in the evaporative process so as to affect ocean heat content.
That affects the amount of energy available for release by the oceans to the air.
That obviously does affect the radiative balance and is on such a scale that enough of a reduction of the energy going into the oceans can overwhelm the ability of the air to pull more energy from the oceans during a period of cooling so that the whole system gets colder and ice cover expands.

Radiative forcings from those other changes are on a far smaller scale and are easily dealt with by a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle.

It boils down to this:

1) The composition of the air dictates the speed of the hydrological cycle at any given temperature and not the temperature of the Earth.

2) The temperature of the Earth being set by the interaction of sun and oceans (if one ignores geothermal influences).

3) The temperature of the air being set by sea surface temperatures.

I don’t expect you to accept that proposition but I do expect it to become the establishment view in years to come.

So, you are saying that orbital changes, despite causing essentially no change in global annual mean radiative forcing, produces these cycles. And yet, the radiative forcings due to changes albedo from ice sheets and changes in greenhouse gas levels had no significant effect?

I dealt with that on another site :

As far as changes between glacial and interglacial periods are concerned then I’m sure the orbital changes are enough because they substantiially alter the energy input to the oceans for long periods of time and so will change the ocean sea surface temperatures more than can be adequately compensated for by changes in the air circulation systems. The air circulation can push energy to space as fast as necessary to maintain sea surface/surface air equilibrium but cannot pull from the oceans energy that is not there.

That’s enough for now, vacation time.

In my logic it is sufficient that the hot spot does not appear when the models say it should, to scrap the models. It is not necessary for the multidimensional dynamical chaotic reality to follow the linear approximations of the GCModels.

So, perhaps we should instead of the models just consider the paleoclimate data, which implies “the climate system is very sensitive to small perturbations and that the climate sensitivity may be even higher than suggested by models.” ( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;306/5697/821 )

By the way, could you fill me in on what “linear approximations” you are referring to?

Also there is no surprise that the GCM cannot describe long term conditions. Similar models with linear approximations can barely predict the weather for ten days ahead after all.

So, do you believe that the models also could not correctly predict the seasonal cycle? After all, if they are garbage after 10 days, I guess predicting out to 6 months is out-of-the-question?

Finally, as I said, if you want to suppose that the “hotspot” isn’t there then the most direct conclusion one can draw from that in regards to the models is that they currently have a negative feedback that isn’t really there in the real world. This is not some round-about conclusion. It is a direct consequence…since the lapse rate feedback occurs precisely because the temperature at the surface does not need to climb as high as the temperature at altitude in order to lower that temperature at altitude enough to restore the radiative balance of the earth.

There we go again, AGWmism seems to attract scientists who cannot distinguish the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition.

In my logic it is sufficient that the hot spot does not appear when the models say it should, to scrap the models. It is not necessary for the multidimensional dynamical chaotic reality to follow the linear approximations of the GCModels.

Also there is no surprise that the GCM cannot describe long term conditions. Similar models with linear approximations can barely predict the weather for ten days ahead after all.