Global cooling!

Here are some images of this "global cooling":

glacier.jpg


3_61_greenland_melt_flow.jpg


icecap24.jpg


The ice age is coming! The glaciers are returning to New York! Prepare yourselves for the end, the end is nigh! Ignore all of those global warming doomsayers and get ready for the real crisis!
Oh noes, 10000 years ago, the ice caps where down in the middle of the United States. Oh noes, and these ice cappies have been retreating for the last 10000 years. Oh noes. Whatever will we do.

How do we stop a natural phenomenon that has been happening for 10000 years? Even worse, how do we stop the Earth doing it's 40,000 year cycle from Ice Age to hot mama?

I swear environmentalists have less knowledge than an 8 year old. Environmentalism isn't going to fill that void in your life because you're a sell out. Seriously, there's no reason to feel guilty about owning a car.
 
Werbung:
Oh noes, 10000 years ago, the ice caps where down in the middle of the United States. Oh noes, and these ice cappies have been retreating for the last 10000 years. Oh noes. Whatever will we do.

How do we stop a natural phenomenon that has been happening for 10000 years? Even worse, how do we stop the Earth doing it's 40,000 year cycle from Ice Age to hot mama?

I swear environmentalists have less knowledge than an 8 year old. Environmentalism isn't going to fill that void in your life because you're a sell out. Seriously, there's no reason to feel guilty about owning a car.

Was that really a serious post?
 
Well, it was a post based on science and not emotion drenched feelings of death of humanity, as Al Gore would put it. Or pictures that really prove nothing when it comes to global warming. But so the semantics don't get out of control with that statement, when people say global warming, they don't literally mean, the Earth is getting warmer, they secretly mean, the Earth is getting warmer due to greenhouse gases. Just clear that up for the semanticites.
 
Well, it might seem like good sport to taunt folks on the other side of the argument when you're absolutely certain that they're wrong, but if one is trying to make converts then it's generally a bad idea. Basic human nature is such that if they're ultimately proved wrong (the taunt-ees), it'll just deepen the hatred and further opposition over the next point of contention. Why would you want that?

Conversely, if it turns out that you're on the wrong side then you're the one who ends up looking like a fool.

Pidgey
 
Well, it was a post based on science and not emotion drenched feelings of death of humanity, as Al Gore would put it. Or pictures that really prove nothing when it comes to global warming. But so the semantics don't get out of control with that statement, when people say global warming, they don't literally mean, the Earth is getting warmer, they secretly mean, the Earth is getting warmer due to greenhouse gases. Just clear that up for the semanticites.

Actually, they mean that the Earth is getting warmer more quickly than it has at any time past. That is an indisputable fact.

Most scientists think that greenhouse gasses are the cause. There is a wealth of observation to back up that hypothesis, but it is not proven beyond a doubt.


Most scientists are telling us that a warming Earth will change local climates in unpredictable ways, hence the term "global climate change."

None of that is based on "emotion drenched feelings of death of humanity", but on scientific research. There are some people saying that global climate change will be a disaster for the human race. That is an opinion, not based necessarily on scientific research. It could turn out to be correct, however.

What is not proven, is not based on research, and is almost certain to turn out to be wrong is the constant ranting on the radio saying that global climate change is a myth perpetrated by "liberals." All that kind of nonsense is doing is creating an audience for rant radio, and bringing in advertising dollars.

In a way, they are correct that the so called "debate" about global climate change is fueled by the desire to make money from the phenomenon.
 
Actually, they mean that the Earth is getting warmer more quickly than it has at any time past. That is an indisputable fact.
I'm not sure that's a fact. I expect that it's heated extraordinarily quickly when transitioning from the real ice ages to something more like the climate we're currently enjoying. If I get the time, I'll look into that more and return whatever I find.

I had read many places where it has been said that the warming effect of CO2 diminishes almost logarithmically with concentration. I went searching for a scholarly article about that and found this one:

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Palerider supplied a debunking article in the actual Global Warming thread that I found a bit tedious to meander through. I'd sent it to an astrophysicist that I know (we were kids together and best friends; I was the best man at his wedding) at Argonne National Laboratories who is a devout Global Warming-ist. He reviewed it and had several comments but I don't recall that it had this specific information in it and I sort of doubt that he knows this kind of stuff. It's a big universe, afterall. This is more in keeping with the kind of stuff that I have to do and I had meant to get around to it but "so much to do--so little time... "

I feel like I cheated searching for this but I don't really like reinventing wheels, either. It is presented well and the math works out properly. The points made with respect to absorption of energy by spectra are correct in principle and I've no reason to suspect "foul play" in the associated graphs.

Pidgey
 
I had been looking for some kind of real-time presentation of temperature anomaly data taken by satellite instrumentation. I finally came across this:

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html

If you have a newer Internet browser with tabs, you can open two tabs in a new browser window with one tab with this one:

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.1.3.2008.gif

...and the other tab with this one:

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.3.2008.gif

That way, you can click back and forth from tab to tab to get an idea of how things have changed from essentially New Year's to now (first part of March), or in two month's time. With the way that one anomaly graph was going down in the last quarter of 2007, I have been wondering if it was going to bounce back up or continue the trend downward. I've been waiting for them to post an updated anomaly graph for February, 2008. I just got sick of waiting and went looking. This isn't a complete picture as land temperatures don't seem to be included in these graphs. However, from an ocean point of view, we still seem to be cooling.

Bear in mind that this isn't the same thing as a thermographic image--it's an anomaly chart. If an area is above the mean for the portion of the year represented, it's red-shifted. If it's below, it shifts blue. In toggling back and forth between the images, it looks to me like the proportion of blue areas to red is still increasing, which would (on the surface) indicate that we're still cooling planet-wide. Gotta' do some more checking...

Pidgey
 
I'm not sure that's a fact. I expect that it's heated extraordinarily quickly when transitioning from the real ice ages to something more like the climate we're currently enjoying. If I get the time, I'll look into that more and return whatever I find.

I had read many places where it has been said that the warming effect of CO2 diminishes almost logarithmically with concentration. I went searching for a scholarly article about that and found this one:

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Palerider supplied a debunking article in the actual Global Warming thread that I found a bit tedious to meander through. I'd sent it to an astrophysicist that I know (we were kids together and best friends; I was the best man at his wedding) at Argonne National Laboratories who is a devout Global Warming-ist. He reviewed it and had several comments but I don't recall that it had this specific information in it and I sort of doubt that he knows this kind of stuff. It's a big universe, afterall. This is more in keeping with the kind of stuff that I have to do and I had meant to get around to it but "so much to do--so little time... "

I feel like I cheated searching for this but I don't really like reinventing wheels, either. It is presented well and the math works out properly. The points made with respect to absorption of energy by spectra are correct in principle and I've no reason to suspect "foul play" in the associated graphs.

Pidgey

Try this link about whether global warming is a part of natural cycles, or is ocurring more quickly than in the past.

Not only is the direction of the change wrong, but compare the speed of those fluctuations to today's changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower what we are currently witnessing."
 
There is an opinion expressed at the top of the page on that link which, on the surface, appears summary and conclusive without immediate reference to an awful lot of scientific analysis, interpretation & explanation of backing data and so forth. That's not to say that it's incorrect--merely that as presented it's more of a blunt instrument to club with and not provided as a serious presentation to be debated. Comments follow.

The first such comment begins with this statement:

"CO2 is about 1/3 of one percent of air. Without CO2, the earth would be minus 18 C. Obviously CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas."

...which starts with a pretty horrible error: The current CO2 fraction in parts per million is 385 (just checked Mauna Loa).
100%=1,000,000 ppm
10%=100,000 ppm
1%=10,000 ppm
1/10%=1,000 ppm
1/3 of 1/10%=333 ppm

So, that comment's very first sentence is in error by an order of magnitude. I'm sorry, but I can't get very excited about it as a serious debate on the subject under those circumstances. To me, that webpage only really conveys the passion that people seem to have in arguing the debate in the first place. Worse, most don't even seem to have a good grip on the subject, either.

That thing about the original premise in the beginning statement that bugs me the most, though, is using that damn chart to imply that global warming is caused solely by CO2. Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. That's a mantra--say it when you wake up every morning. Of all the arguments over that graph and variations thereof, have you ever heard anyone say anything about the CO2 getting washed out of the atmosphere by precipitation?

Carbon Dioxide is soluble in water, where a lot of it becomes carbonic acid. Some of that eventually ends up as rock, for instance, like calcium carbonate, the stuff of a lot of stalagmites and stalactites. What I'm saying is that there's an awful lot of room for absorption of CO2 in the earth's crust and mineral precipitates. It doesn't just continue to accumulate in the atmosphere--it disappears. That's why it tracks downward with the temperature on that graph.

The most probable reason why it tracks upward with the largescale temperature increases is that the quantity of animal life on the planet was going up. Oh, yeah, you hear (read) all that crap about the ice melting and releasing contained CO2 but that's missing the big picture. CO2 levels are more like a proxy for the amount of animal life on the planet--raise the temperature and life begins to expand beyond the equatorial regions, spreading the CO2 with it.

Tell you what... let's say for the sake of argument that we could get Oreck (Hoover, Kirby, Electrolux, take your pick... ) to create a SuperDuperCO2Sucker that could start vacuuming CO2 out of the atmosphere and we could bring the level down to a pre-industrial age level within the year. Do you realize that the most probable immediate consequence would be starvation of a very significant portion of our current population? That scenario could happen because there would likely be a very noticeable drop in crop yields.

Now, frankly, I think there's a lot of consensus that we can't sustain the current amount of population without oil anyhow and that most predictions in serious scientific circles portend that the population will adjust down to a range of from 1/3-ish to as bad as 1/17-ish of its current number during what's sometimes called the "slide to the post-industrial stone age". You can google "olduvai theory".

Pidgey
 
There is an opinion expressed at the top of the page on that link which, on the surface, appears summary and conclusive without immediate reference to an awful lot of scientific analysis, interpretation & explanation of backing data and so forth. That's not to say that it's incorrect--merely that as presented it's more of a blunt instrument to club with and not provided as a serious presentation to be debated. Comments follow.

The first such comment begins with this statement:

"CO2 is about 1/3 of one percent of air. Without CO2, the earth would be minus 18 C. Obviously CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas."

...which starts with a pretty horrible error: The current CO2 fraction in parts per million is 385 (just checked Mauna Loa).
100%=1,000,000 ppm
10%=100,000 ppm
1%=10,000 ppm
1/10%=1,000 ppm
1/3 of 1/10%=333 ppm

So, that comment's very first sentence is in error by an order of magnitude. I'm sorry, but I can't get very excited about it as a serious debate on the subject under those circumstances. To me, that webpage only really conveys the passion that people seem to have in arguing the debate in the first place. Worse, most don't even seem to have a good grip on the subject, either.

That thing about the original premise in the beginning statement that bugs me the most, though, is using that damn chart to imply that global warming is caused solely by CO2. Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. That's a mantra--say it when you wake up every morning. Of all the arguments over that graph and variations thereof, have you ever heard anyone say anything about the CO2 getting washed out of the atmosphere by precipitation?

Carbon Dioxide is soluble in water, where a lot of it becomes carbonic acid. Some of that eventually ends up as rock, for instance, like calcium carbonate, the stuff of a lot of stalagmites and stalactites. What I'm saying is that there's an awful lot of room for absorption of CO2 in the earth's crust and mineral precipitates. It doesn't just continue to accumulate in the atmosphere--it disappears. That's why it tracks downward with the temperature on that graph.

The most probable reason why it tracks upward with the largescale temperature increases is that the quantity of animal life on the planet was going up. Oh, yeah, you hear (read) all that crap about the ice melting and releasing contained CO2 but that's missing the big picture. CO2 levels are more like a proxy for the amount of animal life on the planet--raise the temperature and life begins to expand beyond the equatorial regions, spreading the CO2 with it.

Tell you what... let's say for the sake of argument that we could get Oreck (Hoover, Kirby, Electrolux, take your pick... ) to create a SuperDuperCO2Sucker that could start vacuuming CO2 out of the atmosphere and we could bring the level down to a pre-industrial age level within the year. Do you realize that the most probable immediate consequence would be starvation of a very significant portion of our current population? That scenario could happen because there would likely be a very noticeable drop in crop yields.

Now, frankly, I think there's a lot of consensus that we can't sustain the current amount of population without oil anyhow and that most predictions in serious scientific circles portend that the population will adjust down to a range of from 1/3-ish to as bad as 1/17-ish of its current number during what's sometimes called the "slide to the post-industrial stone age". You can google "olduvai theory".

Pidgey


I think your math is right. 1,000 PPM would be 1%. Let's try another link to see what else can be learned about carbon dioxide:

Due to human activities, the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere has been rising extensively during the last 150 years. As a result, it has exceeded the amount sequestered in biomass, the oceans, and other sinks.
There has been a climb in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere of about 280 ppm in 1850 to 364 ppm in 1998, mainly due to human activities during and after the industrial revolution, which began in 1850.

Life as we know it exists only because of this natural greenhouse effect, because this process regulates the earth's temperature. When the greenhouse effect would not exist, the whole earth would be covered in ice.
The amount of heat trapped in the troposphere determines the temperature on earth. The amount of heat in the troposphere depends on concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses and the amount of time these gasses remain in the atmosphere. The most important greenhouse gasses are carbon dioxide, CFC's (Chlor-Fluoro-Carbons), nitrogen oxides and methane.

The above is one of the more objective sites dealing with carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. If you look at the science behind global climate change, without the political overtones, it's difficult to take the position that there really is no such thing as global climate change.

It would be nice to believe that it isn't happening, and, of course, we humans tend to believe what we find most comfortable to believe.
 
I have a legitimate question that hopefully someone out there knows:

The temperature readings we're getting for the past century and the readings for the past 20 years: where are the weather stations located? The reason I ask is that 100 years ago we didn't have hot tar roofs and hot air-blowing AC units on top of roofs. Yet that is where a lot of these weather stations are located I'm told. So, wouldn't that skew the actual temperatures? I mean, on a hot sunny day, the heat radiating off of a hot roof (or the heat blown out of an AC unit) would make the temp reading inaccurate. No?

I used to work in pollen research, and everyday I had to climb up to the roof of our building to collect the samples. In the summer during those 90-degree days, it was fricken HOT up there. But when I got back on the ground it was certainly bearable.
 
I don't think that I've made a statement one way or the other about the buildup of CO2 or its relationship to AGW. I totally believe that the lion's share of the increase in global CO2 is due to humanity. I totally believe that some portion of the late warming trend is due to the increase in global CO2.

And of all the published materials on it that I've reviewed, there hasn't been enough of the kind of analysis that I like to see. One cannot quantify the BS content of some of the arguments without getting into real science about the emissivities, absorptions and spectral analyses of the incoming and outgoing radiation streams. If they're not going to do that, then there's no real point in wasting the time considering them.

And, in light of how much energy has just re-radiated out to space, been converted to "work done" or some entropic process, I'm sorta' beyond worrying about it. The specter of this far greater and more immediate danger now has my attention.

Pidgey
 
I have a legitimate question that hopefully someone out there knows:

The temperature readings we're getting for the past century and the readings for the past 20 years: where are the weather stations located? The reason I ask is that 100 years ago we didn't have hot tar roofs and hot air-blowing AC units on top of roofs. Yet that is where a lot of these weather stations are located I'm told. So, wouldn't that skew the actual temperatures? I mean, on a hot sunny day, the heat radiating off of a hot roof (or the heat blown out of an AC unit) would make the temp reading inaccurate. No?

I used to work in pollen research, and everyday I had to climb up to the roof of our building to collect the samples. In the summer during those 90-degree days, it was fricken HOT up there. But when I got back on the ground it was certainly bearable.
You can find what you're looking for here:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

Pidgey
 
Werbung:
Back
Top