Global Warming

[Gwizz]

The out going leader of Green Peace made a statement that they made a mistake about global Warming.

He said it cost them their credibility when they predicted the melting of ice at the poles by 2030.

Or, something to that affect.

On average the ice packs are now growing.  There are spots where there are some melting or thinning of the ice which is not uncommon.

[Gwizz]

2

[Vaz]

What Greenpeace is characterized by is their complete ignorance of anything to do with basic science. Even if the temperature of the planet increased dramatically, the melting of the polar caps is limited by the available energy output of the sun received on the earth's surface. Given the hundreds of thousands of cubic kilometres of ice in Greenland alone, it takes a minimum of 9000 years to melt it all. For Antarctica, it's far longer. Water has a very high specific heat.

Most absurd, they make ridiculous claims about the Arctic Ocean icepack, thereby demonstrating their ignorance of Archimedes principle. Melt floating ice and the change in surface level is zero.

[Vaz]

2

[jeffryfisher]

1) Sea level can be affected by thermal expansion of water even without melting glaciers. However, oceans don't mix warmth very deeply (only a couple hundred feet out of an average 14k depth), so pseudo-scientists who assumed top-to-bottom warming predicted about 100 times the rise as is now expected.

2) The fuzziest logic in the global-warming panic is how much we can avoid. According to alarmists' own dogma, there's 50-100 years worth headed our way no matter what we do. We could bomb ourselves back to the stone age, and could still face all of the problems that have been predicted. The only difference would be that we'd have no way to cope.

[jeffryfisher]

2

[Gwizz]

The United Nations is asking for over 100 million for small countries, from rich countries, so they can work on the global warming problem.

Now maybe they didn't hear that global warm is natural and human interference is almost unmeasurable.

Also that most rich countries are deep in debt and their economies are close to going belly up.

Maybe the United Nations wants to build huge Sun shades to cover the Sun's solar ejections.

[GuineaPig]

The global warming experienced since the Industrial Revolution is most certainly not natural.

[Gwizz]

True but only to a point.

The earth has been cooling off and heating up for centuries. The ice cores from the poles tell the story.

I live where glaciers were once 2 miles deep. I'm glad the earth heated up about 2000 years ago and melted that ice.

The sun spot ejections we are now receiving seems to be heating up the planet again.

I have a hard time believing man created much of this warming. I guess we will have to wait and see.

If we get hit head on by a large hot ejection from the sun, there won't be enough ice caves to hide in. Nothing man can do will stop it.

The ejections take about 3 days to get here from the sun. If people are luckly it will hit during the night time.

Now a cool down of the planet can also happen quickly. Man has discovered the remains of large animals with food still in their mouths.

Apparently they didn't have time to swallow before they were frozen solid.

[GuineaPig]

Sun spots don't correlate well with the increase in temperature. Milankovitch Cycles occur over too long a time period (~100,000 years) for it to be the cause.

Besides, given that the stratosphere is cooling (with devastating effects on ozone concentrations, particularly in the Arctic where there was an ozone hole similar to the one over the south pole for the first time this year), we know global warming isn't radiatively forced. It's that pesky ol' greenhouse effect, that we know exists, and that we're amplifying by emitting greenhouse gases.

[Gwizz]

Interesting chart. It is a 140 year chart and the temperature part only varies by less then one degree.

Too bad technology isn't able to give a longer term chart.

I respect your point of view but for different reasons.

We are now having record high sun spot activity. This should give a different look if the chart was up to date.

I believe the earth is very good at seeking a balance and that we are within a balance, even at a high point within our lifetime.

But, other factors must be considered before man is blamed for being the main causing of global warming.

Also, The relative short time that we have monitored ozone over the poles makes it a dubious indicator.

If I choose to worry, I would worry that the warming of the oceans might release the liquid Methane that lays deep under the oceans.

Should that happen the explosive flame could fry many nations and truly give us mega and instance global warming.

If by chance it didn't flame, its' expansion to a gas could freeze the earth or at lease part of it in the same manor that freon cools your refrigerator.

it would happen very fast with extremely high winds, causing fast freezing.

For these reasons I agree with you, man needs to help where possible, to keep the earth in balance.

[GuineaPig]

We can use ice core records to extrapolate past temperatures. Here's the last 800,000 years:

That's 8 glacial/interglacial cycles, with an interval of roughly 100,000 years as mentioned before.

As for sunspots, we're actually at a reduced intensity currently. 2011/12 should've been a maxima (the last one was in 2001), but anticipated sunspot levels were not reached. 2010 was the warmest year on record, regardless.

There's really no other culprit for our recent temperature record than man. There's not a scrap of a competing theory, because it is obviously not radiatively forced, and the only significant alterations in the surface's radiation budget since the Industrial Revolution has been an increase, then decline in aerosols, and the amplification of the greenhouse effect via anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

[Gwizz]

Again, an interesting graph. The core chart results I looked at only went back a few hundred years.

On you chart:

In 100,000 years the earth heated about 5 degrees and dropped to about a minus 10 degrees for a 15 degree difference.

That should ease the possibilty of a methane problem. Today we are only hotter by 0.5 degrees from normal.

I question the CO2 levels, if in fact that was/is a cause of excessive global warming 125.000 years ago.

We have more production of CO2 in our lifetime (more people) and less production of Oxygen. (Less trees, etc. to use up CO2)

It use to be the other way around, when the planet was greener, a few hundred years ago. The change is a possible cause.

But for over 100.000 years, who knows what was happening on the planet or what life was like.

It is too bad we can only extrapolate a reasonable prediction of what it was like.

If the prediction is correct, Maybe the methane did burn the earth at some point in the past and cause the extra heat.

There are some indications that the planet had people living on it a long time ago. They or most of their records disappeared.

[jeffryfisher]

There's really no other culprit for our recent temperature record than man. There's not a scrap of a competing theory...

There are, and there is, but so what? So the arctic is going to be somewhat less painfully cold. Why should we care? Wake me up in a hundred years and we'll look at what tech is available then.

Or, if you absolutely must do something (because every anomaly is an excuse for someone to empower a government to ruin lives and economies), then let's license liquid fluoride thorium reactor designs. That tech is economical enough to displace fossil fuels without powerful government intervention and economic ruin (which is probably why politicians aren't interested).

[GuineaPig]

There are, and there is, but so what? So the arctic is going to be somewhat less painfully cold. Why should we care? Wake me up in a hundred years and we'll look at what tech is available then.

Well, no there isn't. It's clearly not radiatively forced. There's no other plausible external forcing. The major change within our own atmosphere since the warming began was the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. We know about the greenhouse effect. It doesn't take a genius to put it all together.

And if you think the results of 2 degrees C global warming will be "the Arctic being less cold," then you're being willfully ignorant. There's this thing called thermal expansion. There's this thing called ice-albedo feedback. There's going to be droughts and famine and wars over water supply.

[Gwizz]

Last month I heard of a scientist at some US university, who was saying Man causing global warming is bunk. But recently he changed his mind and he now says man caused global warming is real. He received a $400,000 grant to prove global warming was caused by man. I don't know where he found his proofs but I can guess why he came to that conclusion. $$$$$$$

Common sense says historically we have had global warming and global cooling. Then, Does it follow that man has caused this latest rise in temperature by creating extra CO2. (green house gas) Did he produce CO2 in the past; If not, why did we have global warming in the past.

There must be more than one cause.

Is it not true that vegetation can use the extra CO2 to grow and from it produce more oxygen for the increasing animal population mostly humans. (Action/reaction a balancing act) Mother nature seems to always have some way to balance and/or correct man's foul ups.

I guess I'll have to agree, man with his warped brain has done some terrible things. Why not blame him for global warming. There is a book titled: not by water but by fire. (a cleansing of the planet) Or, maybe someone is going to push a big red button to start that fire and get it over with.

Don't worry about what you can't control. But, it does make for a good debate

[GuineaPig]

Last month I heard of a scientist at some US university, who was saying Man causing global warming is bunk. But recently he changed his mind and he now says man caused global warming is real. He received a $400,000 grant to prove global warming was caused by man. I don't know where he found his proofs but I can guess why he came to that conclusion. $$$$$$$

Well that's a clearly credible anecdote. Here's a different one: a skeptical physicist, using funding from the Koch brothers, ended up independently reaffirming temperature data critiqued by denialists.

Anecdotes don't prove much one way or the other. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists think anthropogenic global warming is happening. That's what matters.

Common sense says historically we have had global warming and global cooling. Then, Does it follow that man has caused this latest rise in temperature by creating extra CO2. (green house gas) Did he produce CO2 in the past; If not, why did we have global warming in the past.

There must be more than one cause.

Past warming/cooling has not been driven by greenhouse gases. The chief instrument of long-term climate change is what's called Milankovitch Cycles, a combination of various factors that affect insolation like eccentricity and axial tilt. Greenhouse gases like CO2 were acted as a feedback, released/sequestered by warming/cooling driven by changing insolation, and accelerating/decelerating cooling or warming.

So yes, there's more than one cause. The cause of the current warming (man) has not had an influence in the past. Instead of being a feedback reacting to changes in insolation, anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the forcing.

Is it not true that vegetation can use the extra CO2 to grow and from it produce more oxygen for the increasing animal population mostly humans. (Action/reaction a balancing act) Mother nature seems to always have some way to balance and/or correct man's foul ups.

Eh, sort of. In temperate climates the extra CO2 will help spur growth, and warming itself will turn ecosystems that historically have had less plant matter, like the Taiga forests of Canada and Russia, into areas with longer growing seasons. But there's also the offset of more droughts and expanding desertification. Given that humans have been emitting more and more amounts of CO2 over the last 250 years, one would've thought that this "balance" or "reaction" would have already manifested itself rather than being purely speculative. Any long-term balance that might be achieved would take likely tens of thousands of years; and would kill most humans in the process.

[jeffryfisher]

Well, no there isn't. It's clearly not radiatively forced. There's no other plausible external forcing.

Radiative forcing is not the only other possibility. Albedo changes can explain variability too. Redistribution of the Earth's heat can indirectly affect Earth's heat budget by warming (or not warming) high latitudes.

You have a difficult row to hoe if you want to assert a negative like "there's nothing besides my favorite theory to explain the world". You're one volcanic eruption away from being proven wrong.

The major change within our own atmosphere since the warming began was the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. We know about the greenhouse effect. It doesn't take a genius to put it all together.

Granted. However, there haven't been as many volcano-induced cooling events since 1815 as there were in preceding centuries. Given the lag time for climate change, the relative lack of volcanic aerosols is a plausible cause for at least some of the warming of the past two centuries.

That doesn't absolve AGW, but it does call into question how much of GW is anthropogenic, and how much is natural.

And if you think the results of 2 degrees C global warming will be "the Arctic being less cold," then you're being willfully ignorant.

My point was that the +2C is an average that will not be evenly distributed in space or time. If you think that 2C global warming means that all temperatures everywhere will rise 2C, then you're the one who's ignorant.

There's this thing called thermal expansion. There's this thing called ice-albedo feedback.

I'm well aware of thermal expansion. Were you aware that it will reach only the upper mixing layer of the ocean and not its entire depth? As for ice-albedo feedback, it should already be factored into the models that predict the +2C, but it will become irrelevant if a volcano spews light-reflecting aerosols into the stratosphere.

There's also a humidity feedback (also in the models). Water vapor is a more powerful IR blocker than CO2, so warming the ocean surface raises humidity that blocks more IR.

There's going to be droughts and famine and wars over water supply.

Warming is more likely to evaporate more water, and that probably means more rain. Attempts to enforce CO2 abatement globally are more of a threat to world peace than vagaries of the weather.

I still think that the answer is thorium. It's carbon free, economical, and available day and night, rain or shine. Conservatives and libertarians can support it because it won't require heavy-handed government intervention and expensive subsidies. Progressives should support it because it's carbon free.

Unfortunately, thorium would power capitalism instead of destroying it, so most leftists oppose it, thereby revealing the prime motivation behind global warming mania. AGW isn't a cause in itself. It's just the latest means to the end of capitalism.

If you're really concerned about AGW, you will carefully study LFTR before dismissing it. If you wave it away, then you reveal yourself to be yet another watermelon (anti-capitalist posing as an environmentalist).

[jeffryfisher]

In temperate climates the extra CO2 will help spur growth, and warming itself will turn ecosystems that historically have had less plant matter, like the Taiga forests of Canada and Russia, into areas with longer growing seasons.

Experiments on CO2 and plant growth have had mixed results. Extra growth won't emerge if something else (like low phosphorous) is the limiting factor.

But there's also the offset of more droughts and expanding desertification.

You left out more floods and expanding rain forests.

Given that humans have been emitting more and more amounts of CO2 over the last 250 years, one would've thought that this "balance" or "reaction" would have already manifested itself rather than being purely speculative. Any long-term balance that might be achieved would take likely tens of thousands of years; and would kill most humans in the process.

Modern population and industrial output dwarfs all previous output. The estimates I've read for climatological response time range from 50 to maybe 200 years.

What that means is that even if we shut off all fossil fuel burning globally (which would mean a world war to beat non-compliant countries into line), we will still have to endure nearly all of the predicted warming for the rest of this century. The warming we can avoid is less than the error bars on the predictions. This creates a political nightmare: Even if politicians enact draconian measures, they'll never be able to claim success with any certainty. Even the most extreme policy will be lost in the noise.

What's even worse is that if a policy wrecks our economy, we will be weak when we facing all of those dislocations that are coming anyway. If our politicians leap at uneconomical solutions like current wind and solar options, then the second half of the 21st C could be the worst of both worlds: Warming, but no longer enjoying the industrial might to cope.

The nice thing about a century-long response time is that 10-20 years is a "short" amount of time. Therefore, except for licensing thorium designs now, we should wait 10 or 20 years to see what new techs tomorrow brings. Reducing carbon footprints will become trivial once somebody invents tech that doesn't need subsidies to displace fossil fuels.

[Gwizz]

I picked up a DVD from the local library titled Apocalypse? No!

It was a UK college lecture about Global Warming. It was interesting; full of graphs and charts.

It also went into Gores movie. Showing how it was full of fabrications, misuse of numbers and 9 major errors of fact.

The presentation was so well done, the UK government forbid Gore's movie from being shown in public education classes.

Two weeks later Gore received his big award for producing it. Now somebody is not looking very hard at the facts.

[CrownVic95]

Speaking of the UK, have you seen 10:10's strategy for fighting "climate change" 8) ?

[Gwizz]

That was great. LOL LOL LOL.

[CrownVic95]

That was great. LOL LOL LOL.

:D I've never seen a better 4-minute illustration of the mindset of Eco-fanaticism....and the fringe left generally, for that matter.

[Gwizz]

Another yearly geological survey of Sea ice was completed.  Since September of last year Sea Ice world wide has increased between 60 % and 70 % in just one year.  That would be over 1 million square miles of new ice.

 

One climatologist stated it has something to do with the suns activity or lack of activity.   consequently A hard winter is predicted for this year. 

I was hoping for another mild winter.  Seattle certainly had a mild summer.  It is raining as I type and the weatherman said behind this storm is a cold front .  

Well heck, I'm not done painting yet.   

[j7n]

I recall the winter was relatively hard last year too in Europe. I wouldn't personally see it as extraordinary that a winter actually came, but it was unusual in comparison to previous years. Could it be that cold is back, or at least reaching into extremes for a couple weeks? Looking forward to it.