How serious are earth's problems

[Ivan Seeking]

No. Leaving aside the question of whether global warming is even occurring, recent major migration due to climate change includes the hordes of people leaving the frigid northeast for the warmer climates of Florida, Arizona and Southern California - i.e. the global cooling of the 50's and 60's.

Then, of course, there were the mass migrations of gigantic herds of mammals to escape the advancing glaciers during the last ice age some 25,000 years ago. Thank goodness we're still emerging from that ice age - which I suppose does constitute global warming! :)

Obviously I was talking about humans and your example brings up the question of numbers and defintions. But as for the point about the last ice age, this is a pedestrian view since it completely ignores the primary concern about GCC: The changes could far exceed normal variations and rates of change, and they may be doing so already.

 

[Andre]

We are now talking about a temperature trend of 0,6 degrees C per century. The correctness of this figure is highly dependent on historically insufficent sensors, data and algoritms. The now corrected lower tropopause trend as of 1979 is still significant lower than the surface trend which still doesn't give much support to greenhouse gas forcing being the significant driver.

Climate has always fluctuated, sea surface temperature -a likely major driver of hurricanes- as well. But air temperature is not the main driver of sea surface temperature, changing currents are, transporting and distributing heat. If the Thermohaline current slows down, the tropics are heating up, this is likely enhancing the conditions for hurricane forming. But would also be possible that higher air temperatures, with a lower vertical thermal gradient, suppress the forming of hurricanes. So attributing Katrina to global warming is a serious case of "affirming the consequent". There have been cat 5 storms in the past nowhere near any sign of global warming.

About the alleged ice ages, the formal scholar view about the temperature changes around 14,800 years ago, 12,900 you and 11,670 you is still thought to be 5-10 degrees Celsius per decade - natural causes. It isn't so, but anyway. How does that compare to the current 0,6 degrees celsius per century?

 

[Andre]

Check http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1887012005 :


A few quotes:

...
Since 1995 nature has conspired to make the Atlantic a little warmer and, ergo, stormier. But there is no linear temperature chart - in fact, a century's worth of data has shown no link to global warming. Consistent data gathered by weather planes since 1940 show that even the average of cyclones' peak intensity has eased from 41 to 38 metres a second over the last 50 years. Hurricanes are not only fewer, but milder. ..

It may infuriate those with a political point to make, especially as they head towards environmental summits. . ...

So the scare-mongering and cod science put about by political advisers and campaigners irritate professional meteorologists - such as Prof. William Gray, who issues the American hurricane forecast each year. Last week, he had this to say: "People who have a bias in favour of the argument that humans are making the globe warmer will push any data that suggests that humans are making hurricanes worse, but it just isn't so ... These are natural cycles."

Perhaps the last word should go to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in 2001 found the "intensity and frequency" of storms "dominated by interdecadal variations... with no long-term trends evident." There is much to be gained, financially as well as politically, by pretending otherwise. The Association of British Insurers has warned that premiums may rise to prepare for greater storm damage from climate change.

Public fear (and private profit) can easily be whipped up by quoting (and commissioning) selective studies. It has become a lucrative branch of academia, encouraging computer-generated forecasts of apocalypse. Sir David has now been allocated £3.7bn of government cash - including £150m to make the UK "lead on climate change science", as if this were a compelling priority for taxpayers. To put this into perspective, this year's European Cancer Research Funding Survey showed the Department of Health spending £27.1 million on a disease responsible for one in four UK deaths.

 

[WhiteWolf]

That is the one thing that no one seems to understand, temperatures can and will fluctuate at different and possibly unpredictable times. The hurricane Katrina was created due to the water in the Gulf of Mexico being abnormally warm, much warmer then it was in the Atlantic, that is why it became so violent in such a short period of time. If we were to compare Earth's weather patterns to that of...say...Mars, Katrina really doesn't seems so horrible. Earth has incredibly stable weather, and it is no reason to get all worried something that should occur naturally every 100 years...

 

[Amp1]

WW, there's the rub

you said

Earth has incredibly stable weather, and it is no reason to get all worried something that should occur naturally every 100 years...or so (my addition)

However, if these once in a 100 yr (or even half that) type phenomena happens say every (lets be generous) 3-4 yrs, wouldn't you have to agree that possibly something is happening out of the ordinary.

Would it take another series of F-4 and F-5 tornados ravaging the southern US (and F-1, 2 & 3 in the north), or an increase in the frequency of cat. 4 & 5 hurricanes to snap certain people out of their this is so normal kinda apathy. Stat. fluctuations can no longer be hid behind especially when faced with reality.

 

[Andre]

Now what if basic meteoro-logic would predict that storms would be less severe, if the greenhouse gas warming ...erm...idea was to be true?

On the other hand, warming due to increased insolation either by more solar energy or higher absorption rates of radiation, would cause a tendency for storms to be more severe.

Why? when the enhanced greenhouse gas effect was to be the main cause of warming, the atmosphere was to be was warming faster than the surface this would cause the atmospheric temperature gradient or lapse rate to decrease. This tends to stabilize the atmosphere, suppressing the forming of storms.

Higher insolation warmth would tend to increase the surface temperature more than the atmosphere (which is confirmed). This would increase the lapse rate and cause more instability, fuelling heavier storms.

So if the storms get more severe, it would tend to falsify the greenhouse gas hype..othesis in favour of the insolation idea.

 

[WhiteWolf]

wow, that was so obvious and I seemed to have overlooked that too, and a great point, I don't have much to add to that, you sumed that up pretty well, soooo, what say you, Amp?

 

[Amp1]

I'm not expert but

Andre,

(1)..., warming due to increased insulation either by more solar energy or higher absorption rates of radiation , would cause a tendency for storms to be more severe.

So, if I understand this correctly either factor (insulation or absorbtion) would tend to cause storms to be more severe (numerous also?). -your next statement-

(2) if the greenhouse gas warming ...erm...idea was to be true?

then

(3) Higher insulation warmth would tend to increase the surface temperature more than the atmosphere (which is confirmed).

(4)Why? when the enhanced greenhouse gas effect was to be the main cause of warming, the atmosphere was to be warming faster than the surface this would cause the atmospheric temperature gradient or lapse rate to decrease. This tends to stabilize the atmosphere, suppressing the forming of storms.

These two statements appear to be contrary to what you stated in the first quote. Maybe, however, they may not hold - The atmosphere warming faster than the surface due to a decreasing lapse rate - The insulation factor (which you stated) along with the radiation redirected towards the surface by the greenhouse effect would likely cause the situation you indicated in quote #1. You must also consider the oceanic warming caused by the increased radiation from the reflection back to the surface by the greenhouse gases. Well?

 

[Andre]

The confusion I think is my spelling error of insolation. Increased surface heat due to either or both solar activity or albedo change, causing a higher lapse

You must also consider the oceanic warming caused by the increased radiation from the reflection back to the surface by the greenhouse gases.

Radiation is not "refected back" it is re-radiated back. greenhouse gasses absorb IR energy is certain frequency ranges and heat up, passing the heat to the other molecules, heating up the atmosphere. Individual greenhouse gas molecules (re)radiate IR and cool in the process. The warmer the more, but they have given off the heat already to the other molecules, so this effect is less than the absorbtion. Moreover as the reradiation goes in all directions, the IR that finally hits the sea again for warming is always less than the IR radiation that remains interacting in the atmosphere. So this effect still causes more heating in the atmosphere than on the Earth surface.

Sea Surface Temperatures are much more complicated than atmospheric temperatures because transport of water plays a major role, think of the ENSO(El Nino Southern Oscilation) for instance, apparently independent of surface warming.

The combination of the Pacific Decadal Oscilation (PDO), ENSO (El Nino/La Nina), and the North Atlantic Oscilation (NAO), interacting with the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (ATC) form a complex system that governs the surface water refreshment rate and consequently the sea surface temperatures in the Carabean, much more than direct warming.

 

[Amp1]

Consider this.

Ok, so the oceanic currents are complicated, alright, my thinking is that they are warmed by at least two sources. ie: solar radiation at the equator and magma acticity at the oceanic rifts, through out the rift system. These two sources are relatively constant and thus the currents are stable. But if the lower atmosphere is warming that contribution will possibly upset some balance, wouldn't it? And if the polar caps are melting that would upset the salinity balance of some currents and along with atmospheric warming possibly cause climate changes, could that be a reason for some of the changes in weather patterns obsearved globally?

 

[Andre]

Nice try but there are more players. The magmatic heat is very small, milliwats per m^2, that's no factor. But evaporation cooling down the water surface is a biggy that tends to be overlooked. But it drives the thermohaline current.

Now think of the El Nino El Nina twin to know that the oceanic currents are about the most variable part of the climate system.

The partial melting of polar caps and glaciers is something cyclic that happens every few hundred years. Also the magnitude is heavily exagarated. Most of Antarctica is accumulating ice. Only glaciers in West Antarctica are melting on the balance. Something similar is happening in Greenland.

 

[Amp1]

I see your point Andre ... but

I have a bit of trouble believing that - "The magmatic heat is very small, milliwats per m^2, that's no factor." After seeing programs about the mid-Atlantic rift and so on ..., I wouldn't say that is a small input (but I do acknowledge one must consider the entire volume of the oceans when figuring this over-all input).

As for the glacial melting, isn't the accumilation of new snow occurring in the middle and northern most reaches of Anartica? Also, isn't the freezing over of the Artic getting smaller each year? And what about desalinization of the northern and southern oceans, couldn't that disrupt the deep water currents, since salination plays a large role in the movement of these currents?

 

[Andre]

but I do acknowledge one must consider the entire volume of the oceans when figuring this over-all input

Exactly, there are square meters with thousends of watts energy but there are mega square meters without, which reducing the average to milliwatts.

back tomorow

 

[Amp1]

OK, what about the questions I posed on the glaciers and the decrease in freeze over in the Artic?

The desalinazation is a result of melting glaciers and Anartic ice, the thought process is that this would disrupt the deep oceanic currents most notably the Gulf Stream. Do you attribute that - if it happens - to normal natural processes?

 

[Andre]

Similar things happened in 950AD (the Medieval Warming Period), forthermore around something like 2000BC, 5000BC and 9000BC as far as I recall, alternated with big freezes like the ones 1650AD and 1820AD known as the Little Ice Age. There is very little doubt about all of those being natural.

 

[jimmie]

so long as all particular nations compete (war) with each other to convert materials of the planet from their natural state to an other state so as to mass-produce products that are not needed, there is no hope that the planet or its inhabitants shall survive.

 

[Tide]

Ivan,

this is a pedestrian view since it completely ignores the primary concern about GCC

That's funny, Ivan! I had no idea you had such a sense of humor. Previous climate induced migrations of people were all accomplished by foot so, yes, it is rather pedestrian. The next one, when it occurs, will be done by automobile, rail, air or similar transport which some would regard as ironic. It only remains to be seen whether GCC (warming or cooling) is induced or accelerated by humans.

As to the magnitude of the change, I noticed last week that the National Weather Service showed several dozen projections of Ophelia's path over the following two days and the jumble of paths looked like spaghetti spread across the map. And all of that is the result of more reliable and copious data pumped into the simulations than even the most ardent climate change afficionado could hope for in those models. One has to wonder whether long term climate forecasts that use less reliable data, ignore important physics considerations and don't even take hurricane activity into account can possibly be more reliable than the spastic two-day Ophelia projections.

In other words, one may employ "pedestrian" examples but with error bars as huge as the ones in question, speculation about climate induced migration is simply idle! :)

 

[Amp1]

Andre please,

Similar things happened in 950AD (the Medieval Warming Period), forthermore around something like 2000BC, 5000BC and 9000BC as far as I recall, alternated with big freezes like the ones 1650AD and 1820AD known as the Little Ice Age. There is very little doubt about all of those being natural.

Yes, those events were natural. However, the changes to the eco. and natural balances and thus the resulting climate changes are induced by man. Deforestation, development of land (marshs, wetlands, deserts, ect), pollution, offshore drilling, there are even plans to tap oceanic methane hydrate deposits (which may prove catastrophic), all those items are implemented and caused by man. And the result will and is creating instabilities in global weather. You must have heard of the 'Butterfly Effect', well this effect is more like an Eagle flapping its wings because it's causing changes on a much reduced time scale probably measured in decades or less.

http://www.climatehotmap.org/


http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_rcurry_pr.html


http://www.whoi.edu/mr/pr.do?id=5098
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0627_050627_oceancurrent.html

"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today -- more serious even than the threat of terrorism."
With this warning to an international science meeting in February 2004, David A. King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government, brought the issue of global warming into sharp focus.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/


Something you would likely accept:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181#more-181

heres more on climate change: http://globalchange.gov/
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/primer/
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html (human impact)

http://www.besis.uaf.edu/regional-report/regional-report.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's funny, Ivan! I had no idea you had such a sense of humor. Previous climate induced migrations of people were all accomplished by foot so, yes, it is rather pedestrian. The next one, when it occurs, will be done by automobile, rail, air or similar transport which some would regard as ironic. It only remains to be seen whether GCC (warming or cooling) is induced or accelerated by humans.

You have got to be kidding. Do you even know what pedestrian means in the context used?

 

[Andre]

"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today -- more serious even than the threat of terrorism."
With this warning to an international science meeting in February 2004, David A. King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government, brought the issue of global warming into sharp focus.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1887012005

Public fear (and private profit) can easily be whipped up by quoting (and commissioning) selective studies. It has become a lucrative branch of academia, encouraging computer-generated forecasts of apocalypse. Sir David has now been allocated £3.7bn of government cash - including £150m to make the UK "lead on climate change science", as if this were a compelling priority for taxpayers. To put this into perspective, this year's European Cancer Research Funding Survey showed the Department of Health spending £27.1 million on a disease responsible for one in four UK deaths.

The whole global warming hype is based on what happened here:

oceanic methane hydrate deposits (which may prove catastrophic)

Nail on the head, however the story is totally different. What is interpreted as catastrophic warming events at the end of the ice age were actually catstrophic precipitation events instead, induced by the physics of decomposing clathrate fields. The start of the Holocene was nothing more than the dramatic increase in precipitation due to the decomposition of the Storegga slide area.

http://www.oce.uri.edu/oce582/prese...egga Slide Stability and Methane Hydrates.ppt

This event does not need any human to take place. But if humans could only remove the clathrate from unstable areas, preventing it from happening in the future, wouldn't that be a completely different story?

 

[Tide]

Ivan,

Do you even know what pedestrian means in the context used?

So much for my "Ivan has a sense of humor" theory. Lighten up, dude - it was a JOKE - in case you still don't get it! :)

 

[Amp1]

Ok

Interesting slides Andre, however, IMO should humans try to use or move the clathrate this would trigger disassociation resulting in slides and also releaseing enormous amounts of methane into the atmosphere which would cause possibly the consequences this thread is addressing.

One thing I saw that supports a few of my contentions is that they are 10 times more powerful as GH gases.

 

[Andre]

Oh that adiction to catastrofilic fantasy.

The Storegga slide was caused by the clathrate decomposition, not the other way around. This started around 11-12,000 years ago while the Storegga slide was the result of the rupture of the sediments following the clathrate decomposition. The real cause of the clathrate decompostion according to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_aset=V-WA-A-W-E-MsSAYZW-UUW-U-AAWEVYVEZY-AAWDUZCDZY-BVVCBYYVU-E-U&_rdoc=2&_fmt=summary&_udi=B6V9Y-4FG2XBV-1&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2005&_cdi=5911&_orig=search&_st=13&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3058d893c218c35c5c817d82144346fe was a dramatic local increase in sea bottom water temperature of some 7 degrees Celsius, which we shall take foir granted at the moment.

Even if drilling activities would trigger a land slide, it will not let the clathrate gun go off because the temperature versus pressure conditions remain at conditions for clathrate to be stable.

And if you search for methane- CH4 not being a powerful GHG you'll probably find a dozen hits or so. Because it aint so. CO2 is a few times more powerful than CH4. The reason why it is alleged to be some 20 or so times more powerful is related to the degree of saturation. CO2 effect is rather saturated and adding more CO2 hardly affects the greenhouse gas effect. CH4 numbers are very low and not yet saturated. So a little increase has more effect. But if you would calculate it for equal numbers CO2 is much more powerful. Also saturation for CH4 occurs much faster than for CO2.

However in case of a massive oceanic clathrate event, the greenhouse gas effect is the least of your worries because it will be more than compensated for by a dramatic increase of cloud cover and precipitation. This happened also at the end of the Ice age when the clathrate decompostion of the Storegga slide area ended the bone-dry Younger Dryas, 11,600 years ago, causing the soaking wet Pre Boreal, the start of the current Holocene epoch.

 

[WhiteWolf]

lol, I've tried to explain to people that carbon dioxide was much more of a potent greenhouse gas then methane, but no one seems to ever want to believe me...sigh...

 

[Andre]

Ive tried to explain to people that carbon dioxide was much more of a potent greenhouse gas then methane...

me too