If this is global warming...

Page 10 of 16  
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Source for that statement? I think that's incorrect.

Of course not -- which is one reason that I don't believe your claim that solar output measured near Earth is decreasing.

Of course. Would you agree that a dust storm that occurred 36 years ago is not relevant to changes in Martian climate that are occurring now?

Of course not. Would you agree that that also is irrelevant to any contemporary climate effects that may or may not be occurring?

Or perhaps you're just a hypocrite who wants to have it both ways. Here's your position, summed up in two sentences:
Earth gets warmer at the same time human industrial activity increases -- cause and effect. Mars gets warmer at the same time Earth does -- coincidence.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 17, 9:11 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Sure, in fact I did this several days ago but it appears the posting failed. Are you, by any chance, an electrical or electronics engineer?
First though, let's consider a little sense. Regardiing Martian warming you wrote:
"That, alone, is more than enough to discount the entire notion that the Earth is warming due to human activity. ... Because if Mars is warming, it's pretty clearly due to increased solar output; if solar output has increased, that would explain warming here too -- in fact, it would make warming here pretty much unavoidable."
To be confident in those statements you would have to KNOW:
1) The solar constant is increasing.
and
2) NO other factors affect warming on either the Earth or Mars.
Back to facts.
Have you heard of the eleven year solar cycle?
The last solar max was in 2000-2001, we are now near solar minimum. It is over that same period that Martian warming was observed.
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle / http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id 676&page2 http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html
The studies I have found put an upper limit of about +0.1 W/sqm on any change in the solar constant over the last 30 years which is calculated to have at most, one quarter of the effect of the increased CO2 over the same period.
Have you found anything that estimates it as being higher? OH, I forgot for a minute, you don't believe in citing sources.

No. Dust storms are an important feature of the Martian climate:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast16jul_1.htm
Long-term climate change is influenced by variation in the alignment of the solstices, between the polar axis of the planet and the semi-major axis of its orbit and the orbital eccentricity.
For Mars, those effects are all much larger than for the Earth, and obviously quite independent. Mars also has a thinner atmos- phere and lacks the Earth's oceans so it does not benefit from the buffering effect of each.
These days here on the Earth the summer solstice is near apohelion, which minimizes Northern Hemisphere heating during the Northern Summer. Thus summer in the Southern Hemisphere is shorter. IOW we are in a period of minimal climate forcing due to orbital considerations. I dunno about Mars. Why don't you check and get back to us?

False.
OTOH, your approach appears to be based on steadfastly avoiding any effort to educate yourself.
--
FF







Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 1, 6:11 pm, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Sorry, minimal seasonal variation in insolation occurs when the equinoxes, not the solstices, are coincident with apo- and perihelion.
So we are near a maximum, not a minimum. The last maximum was around the end of the last ice age and we've had one minimum roughly halfway between then and now, demonstrating that large scale variation of the Earth's climate are not caused (at least not soley) by those effects.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 2, 11:52 am, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

And, long-term climate change on the Earth is driven by or at least heavily influenced by long-term changes in eccentricity and obliquity. That is over periods of time greater than the precessional period:
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050330_earth_tilt.html http://science.enotes.com/earth-science/milankovitch-cycles
Those are cyclical effects with periods of several tens to a couple of hundred thousands of years.
The global warming being modeled based on the observed change in CO2 concentration is a much shorter-term phenomenon, over a period of a couple of hundred years, superimposed on those long-term effects.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 16, 7:40 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

That actually makes sense. For once.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Far more important:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa_Observatory
While it is difficult to estimate how much CO2 nature produces and recovers each year it is not difficult to predict how much CO2 is produced by humanity each year. Fossil fuel production is sufficiently important to the world's economy that good estimates are available. It is reasonable to suppose that annual burning is pretty much equal to annual use.
The observed rate of rise of CO2 is less than the total human contribution. This shows, pretty conclusively, that nature can recover all of the naturally produced CO2 and some of the anthropogenic.
The spectral characteristics of CO2 are well understood, so it is clear that absent other factors the Earth's temperature will rise.
Two other factors that are well studied, but not as well studied include variation in the solar constant, and dispersion of particulates and ice crystals in the stratosphere, primarily by jetliners.

Indications are that the solar constant is either not changing or slightly increasing. But atmospheric particulates and ice particles have increased dramatically over the last 50 years (just look at a satellite picture of a 'clear day'. That should drive global temperture down.
Additionally, water and ice provide a strong buffering effect so that ANY change is going to be slower than would be expected if the atmosphere alone were heating or cooling.
So it looks like we've been driving the temperature BOTH ways.
I don't have any confidence in the temperature time series, but it does look like the Earth's ice inventory has been dropping fast and THAT is strong evidence that the heating effects are, for now, winning out.
For something truly scary, read up on ocean clathrates and the methane gun hypothesis. Extermination by a giant Gaia fart, what a way to go.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd like you to show some support for either statement.
Here are some photos showing a buttload of ice lost from Antarctica in 2002:
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/mar/antarctica /
If there has been a gain since, it is doubtful that it has made up f or what was lost.
--
FF




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ok, you provided that support with your link. The peninsula that you mention has been retreating for 50 years long before our so called global warming became the new world problem. OTOH as I said and is backed up by the link you provided the interior is cooling and the glaciers are thickening.
Larsen B is one of five ice shelves -- large floating extensions of ice sheets covering the continent -- that's been on retreat. While Antarctica's interior seems to be cooling and its glaciers thickening, studies show the Antarctic Peninsula has been warming over the past 50 years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Earlier, Leon wrote:
"Since 1999 it [the Earth, FF] has been cooling off and the ice at Antarctica has increased by over 10% in the past few years. "
and I replied"

...
The link I provided says the Larsen B ice sheet has been in retreat for the last 50 years. That is the same period over which most global temperature change models conclude that warming has ocurred.
So where did you get the information about retreat of the Larsen B ice shelf over a 50 year period that preceded global warming?

No, you said that "the ice at Antarctica has increased by over 10% in the past few years. "
the article says: "Larsen B is one of five ice shelves -- large floating extensions of ice sheets covering the continent -- that's been on retreat. While Antarctica's interior seems to be cooling and its glaciers thickening, studies show the Antarctic Peninsula has been warming over the past 50 years."
Nowhere in that article is that increase quantified.
The amount if ice lost from Larsen B in 2002 alone is quantified -- 500,000,000,000 tonnes.

Since the article does not quantify any gains at all in any part of Antarctica, it certainly does not support your claim of a net gain.
No honest person reading and understanding the article would claim that it does.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 17, 3:00 am, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

And I pointed out that wasn't so, concluding:

However, if I am reading the abstract of this paper correctly, (Note it is in .pdf format)
http://www.igsoc.org/news/pressreleases/Zwally509.pdf
There was a net gain of ice in both Antarctica and Greenland over the period of the study, 1992 - 2002. Averaged over that ten year period the gain was 27 billion tons per year (Gt/a).
The net gain in Greenland was due to a gain in the interior despite a loss at the margins. In Antarctica there was a net loss on land net gain in sea ice.
I don't know if that data includes the March, 2002 collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf, which was a loss of about 500 Gt.
I'll check with one of the authors to see.
I've also found a lot of information indicating net losses of ice in the Arctic, and a net loss in the world's glaciers, but information on the former is not easily converted to net mass so I'm still not clear on the recent net change, if any, in the global ice inventory.
--
FF




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

It's worth noting that, whatever the effects of loss of ice in the north polar cap may be, rising sea level is *not* among them: the north polar cap is floating, and melting all of it won't affect sea level.
The south polar cap is an entirely different story. Some Antarctic ice is floating; some of it is on land, above sea level; and some of it is on land *below* sea level -- that is, it's in the ocean and resting on the ocean floor. Melting of ice in this last category will cause sea level to *drop*.
Whether sea levels will rise or fall in response to melting polar ice caps depends on the relative proportion of submarine Antarctic ice to land-based ice in Antartica and Greenland.
I've not been able to find data indicating what that proportion is.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

So the only ice that, if melted, would raise the sea level is ice resting on land masses. When one subtracts out ice on or in the ocean, how much ice is left, and where is it? Also, that's the air temperature over the land-based ice? Because if the temperature is 20 degrees F, and global warming raised the temperature to 22, or even 25 degrees F, it still isn't going to melt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Pretty much so.

I think addressing that question is part of the ICESAT mission:
http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/intro.html

Variable, of course.

And let's suppose the prevailing wind blows form west to east across someplace like Greenland. If the west coast warms a bit and melts a bit faster that could increase the local humidity so that the air moving across it sees evaporative cooling and then more cooling as it rises across the still below-freezing interior. The result would be a transfer of ice from the coast to the interior with no net loss and maybe even a short-term net gain in total ice.
I think that sort of mechanism is the basis for some of the global warming predictions of greater snow and ice accumulations in some places.
Regardless, energy is conserved. If the Earth is warming there will be lat least ONE of the following: less ice and snow, more humidity or something will have a higher temperature. There is no intrinsic reason why one or two of those could not remain stable or go the other way, so long as the other(s) compensated.
The data in the paper I mentioned does not include Antarctic data past the Spring of 2001. It also excludes some Antarctic ice that does not affect, directly or indirectly, sea level as the focus of the paper was on sea level change. Note that ice shelves do not directly affect sea level but they do influence their associated ice sheets that do affect sea level.
So if Leon was recollecting a net increase in Antarctic ice and snow prior to 2002 or a recent increase in precipitation in the interior he may well be right. That doesn't tell us about net global change, one way or the other.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 8, 7:56 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Not entirely correct because the meltwater is freshwater that is less dense than the seawater displaced by the ice. But you are correct in that effect is very small compared to the effect of an equal mass of ice melting on land.
It is also worth noting that I used the term "sea ice" incorrectly.
By definitions, an ice sheet is on land, an ice shelf is ice that has moved out onto water from a glacier or an ice sheet, and sea ice forms on water by freezing or precipitation. The Arctic ice cap is all or nearly all sea ice. Antarctica has all three.

Does the ice in that category extend from the ocean floor to some not insignificant height above mean sea level?

Keep in mind also that if you reduce an ice shelf, the associated ice sheet accelerates toward the sea.
My interest is not in estimating sea level change, but in estimating the energy gained or lost by the phase change. That is to say, isothermal warming or cooling.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

The difference in density between the meltwater and the ocean water won't amount to a hill of beans. Yes, ocean water is more dense (by 2.7%), but there's also a whole lot more of it, too, and the fresh water isn't going to just lay there on top of it, either. Once it's mixed in, there won't be a noticeable effect.

If it does, I can't find any indication of it in either of my world atlases.

Hmmmm.... now that's an interesting thought. Hadn't considered that perspective. Certainly, the ice absorbs heat as it melts -- a lot of heat (80 calories per gram) -- whether that's significant on a planetary scale may be a different matter.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 9, 8:06 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

I don't think it matters whether the water molecules are all in one blob or distributed over the entire ocean. So the effect would be 2.7% of the volume of the meltwater which we agree is not significant.

NASA probably has the data. Unfortunately net-vandals have forced NASA into computer security practices that make it harder to get the data out of the Distributed Data Archives free access to which NASA was trying to provide to the world. It is hard to overestimate the damage done to the world by spammers, crackers, and other net-vandals.

I think that a comparison with how much the air temperature would rise or fall if all of the heat were lost or absorbed by the air alone might be instructive.
Of course the latent heat of evaporation and the high heat capacity of water overwhelms that. Small global changes in humidity or ocean temperature absorb or emit huge amounts of heat. That is a real good thing as it provides us with stability. It also make it devilishly difficult to tell if the Earth is warming or cooling and at what rate, without very long observation, unless the rate is dangerously large.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

> without very long observation, unless the rate is dangerously large.

I suspect it also oretty much drowns out the effect of minute changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depends what you mean by drown out.
Minute changes in CO2 would only have a minute effect in the first place.
Those aformentioned phenomena do not change the rates at which the Earth absorbs or emits energy. So they don't nullify the effect of changes in those rates regardless of what causes those changes, Milininkov cycles, solar variation, volcanism, asteroid impact, variations in the concentration of Greenhouse gases etc.
They slow the effect of those changes. If the small observed variation in insolation causes an observable change then certainly the much larger variation in CO2 concentration will too--unless the net effect of those two is offset by yet another changing parameter like global dimming form stratospheric particulates and ice crystals.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Convenient isn't it? If it's hot, it's because of global warming, If it's cold, it's because of global warming. If it's normal, it's because of global warming. If we have lots of hurricanes, it's because of global warming. If we have only a few or no hurricanes, it's because of global warming.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Lee K" wrote in message

it's
Oh oh, now you've done it! ... the induced brain farts from that will surely increase the greenhouse gasses.
I can feel it getting hot in here already.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.