More noise about climate

Page 2 of 8  


Exactly. In science it is implied that your theory is based on ALL the facts, and usually it is a given that you do NOT have all the facts. Hence further tests/trials/whatever. Yes that is a contradiction.
In this case, however, it seems without doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that human activity has increased the quantity of it, and that reducing the quantity of free CO2 would be beneficial by preventing further greenhouse heating of the earths atmosphere. That leaves out of the equation other greenhouse gases, cooling/heating effects of (volcanic?) particulates, and smog, among probably many more things affecting climate.
Despite the anomaly of a totally erroneous statement about retreating glaciers in the Himalayas, most glaciers worldwide are indeed retreating, for whatever reasons. In high school 50 years ago, the Rhone glacier in Switzerland was already an example of sorts.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Ummmmm.... Don't look now, but retreating glaciers isn't anything new. About ten thousand years ago, the area where I sit as I type this was under half a mile of ice.
Good friend of mine has a master's in geology, and obviously know more about this than I do, but according to him, we're actually still *in* the last Ice Age -- "normal" conditions, on a geologic time scale, are a *lot* warmer than we have now.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in wrote:

Yes Doug, you are indeed indicating that everything depends on the time scale we are using. Greenland was named Greenland, because it was green when the Vikings discovered it, not white. Also intermittently there have been mini ice ages. So over what time frame do we average things out? And how do we extrapolate?
The retreating of the glaciers and the rising of the sea level at moderate latitudes has been explained by a rebound of the earth's (I am confused, is the apostrophe correct here or not) surface because of the lightening of the load of ice on Greenland and Scandinavia.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
 

I am having a hard time getting my head around that theory. The earth's crust it (on a scale model) is thinner than the shell on an egg. All the ice and water at that scale would be invisibly thin. Earth, reduced to that size in scale would feel considerably smoother than an egg, in fact it would be impossible to find either the Mariana Trench or Everest by touch. Just the fact that we have shrunk the planet with communications, this is still Mother Earth.. a pretty big ball of stuff.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

am
the
This was a theory when I was in high school (in Wageningen). Late 50's to early 60's.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I am having a hard time getting my head around that theory. The earth's crust it (on a scale model) is thinner than the shell on an egg. All the ice and water at that scale would be invisibly thin. Earth, reduced to that size in scale would feel considerably smoother than an egg, in fact it would be impossible to find either the Mariana Trench or Everest by touch. Just the fact that we have shrunk the planet with communications, this is still Mother Earth.. a pretty big ball of stuff.
============================================================ See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound for a decent explanation.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fascinating. I had no idea. Considering my fascination with those sorts of things, I'm surprised I missed that one. Never too old, eh? I knew that Georgian Bay was moving upwards and that the mantle was constantly rearranging itself, but I wasn't aware of the actual reason.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Fascinating. I had no idea. Considering my fascination with those sorts of things, I'm surprised I missed that one. Never too old, eh? I knew that Georgian Bay was moving upwards and that the mantle was constantly rearranging itself, but I wasn't aware of the actual reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTMP all done so slowly as to be invisible in a lifetime ...
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It seems to me that those are pretty important questions -- that it never occurs to the AGWK proponents to ask. The whole notion of AGWK rests on two unproven, and probably incorrect, unconscious assumptions, in addition to the conscious, obvious, and equally unproven ones that the earth is warming, we're causing it, and we can do something about it. The unconscious assumptions are: 1) The current climate is "normal" 2) Any departure from the current climate is undesirable According to my friend the geologist, the current climate is definitely not "normal" when viewed at a geologic time scale. And there's reason to think that moderate warming is probably a good thing (think longer growing seasons).
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in

Again, it's the time scale one uses to define normal. It was interesting to see the Nat Geo show on the cycling of the desert conditions of the Sahara. A 20,000 year cycle between lush greenery and desert, due to a change in the angle of the earth's axis relative to the sun, superimposed on the elliptical nature of the earth orbit. It was supposed to steer the winds so that rain falls in the Sahara or not. Not sure whether I express it correctly - please ask your geologist friend.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

The ice age started something like either 20 million or 2.5 million years ago (depending on whether you count the start of Antarctic glaciation or of Northern Hemisphere glaciation) and has gone through a roughly 100,000 year cycle in which the Northern Hemisphere glaciers advance and retreat. Right now we appear, according to the ice cores, to be chronologically near a point of maximum retreat. The last time that point was reached, most of the glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere went away, including pretty much the entire Greenland icecap (that's why you can core down only 100,000 years or so in Greenland but more than half a million in Antarctica). Once they went away, the cooling started again and the glaciers started advancing again.
All that being the case, it's not surprising that the Greenland ice cap is melting and it doesn't seem to me to be anything to be alarmed about.
So, the question is not "is anthropogenic carbon dioxide causing the glaciers to melt"--they'd be melting sometime around now anyway, so who gives a damn other than alarmists? The question is "will the next glaciation be any different from the previous one due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions", and the possible answers there are "no, it won't", in which case who gives a damn, or "it will be milder than the previous one" in which case "goody-goody", or "it will flip the Earth back to the normal no-glaciers state that existed over most of its history" in which case it's going to be an expensive transition but should be stable for a few tens of millions of years at least, maybe longer. Of course it could be that the next glaciation will be harsher and colder and with much greater glacier advance than the previous one, but that's kind of difficult to reconcile with the notion of "warming".
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip

Given sufficient melting of glacial ice, the introduction of massive amounts of freshwater into the oceans (particularly the North Atlantic) could disrupt warm currents in the northern hemisphere. These warm currents keep the hemisphere relatively ice free. If the currents go, Northern Europe at the very least will enter an Ice Age. It's cyclic.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LDosser wrote:

And that cycle has been ongoing for the 2.5 million years that the northern hemisphere ice age has been going on. Including the melting of the ice caps and the fresh water disrupting the warm currents and the whole nine yards.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, it has. Which is why I said it's cyclic.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hm. I seem to recall Susan Solomon's name from the CRUtapes.
Contrast with:
David C. Frank, Jan Esper, Christoph C. Raible, Ulf Bόntgen, Valerie Trouet, Benjamin Stocker, & Fortunat Joos. Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate. Nature, 2010; 463 (7280): 527 DOI: 10.1038/nature08769
In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7.
The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming.
scott
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in writes:

The CO2 seems to be the component that has changed most since the start of the industrial revolution, and as far as I can judge does have an undesirable effect. It is also probably the component that is easiest to limit. Methane has a far greater effect than CO2, but seems quantitatively less important. Not sure whether a tax on meat would help keep the cattle farting down. (sarcasm!!).
Also, I think that changing black asphalt to white concrete in roads could have an effect, but I am not an engineer. Many other simple examples could be given to reduce energy consumption. Not the least of which is to stick it to the oil and gas producers in some countries ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it WAY down. How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?
Methane has a far greater effect than CO2, but seems

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

CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose. It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas of any import.
Do try to keep up.
Water vapour, on the other hand...
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Please produce said evidence.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.