Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is there a meteorological Keystone?

  1. Oct 2, 2005 #1
    Is there a meteorological Keystone?

    So, which of all of the meteorological phenomenons is the Keystone?

    Is it Snowfall, as in the absence of Snowfall, No more reflection of solar Heating back into space, that will contribute to the planets heating as to push it over the Critical point and cause MAJOR Climate change?

    Is it the Heating of the Oceans, wherein it is Now recorded that the Sea Surface Temperatures have increased slightly, will slightly More be what pushes it over the edge?

    Is there an 'Edge' to be Pushed over? Is there a Keystone in it all, at all?

    Is it atmospheric Change? ie Gas content, composition, Quantity or other?

    Other, any other?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 2, 2005 #2
    I'll take some time to answer this, so if you want to get the idea, it may be an idea to click the links.

    First of all we have the Hadley convection cell systems around the equator.


    The mechanism causes the tropical rain forests around the equator and the deserts around the equinoxes. A clear and simple system, ever so easy.

    Now let's activate google earth, my most favorite toy by far, and let's fly to the Amazon rainforest here, looking down from 10 miles altitude at the given position.

    (It's shame that the img feature doesn't seem to work here)

    Take a good note of the barely visible but abundant run off valleys in sort of fishbone patterns. There is a lot of water falling that needs to be drained.

    Now let's fly to this position and have a good look also at 10 miles altitude

    See the almost identical structure of runoff channels feeding that major river? Only the colors are quite different. So where are we? 28.5 North, 002 East, that happens to be death centre of the Sahara, hasn't seen a drop of water in years.

    Of course that area has been investigated, dating of artefacts reveals that those river features were still active some 10,000 years ago, holding the Hadley cell system in utmost contempt. It simply can't be but it is.

    Now you tell me what a meteorological keystone is?

    Le soleil?
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2005
  4. Oct 2, 2005 #3

    A Meteorological Keystone is a Weather phenonmenon that is key to the rest, like salinity of the Oceans, Temperature, atmospheric mixing rates, etc. any one of those that the rest of the systems depend upon occuring as to ensure that they continue.

    Snow in the Arctic and Antarctic reflects heat back into space, and the Amount of energy required to subliminate that snow to water vapor is higher then if it were rain falling there needing to be returned as vapor. So it follows that the timing changes if you use water rather then Snow as the source of Vapor, it also follows that the land will absorb more heat when there is No snowpack to reflect back heat values.

    This link differs with your estimation of the Saharas time The Sahara's desert climate is believed to have been established over five million years ago during the Pliocene Epoch. (from library.thinkquest.org)

    Nice links though, 'cept the one for the river, comes up so dark I cannot tell anything from it, then again as I have seen such types of Photos many times in my life it is Unnessecary.

    The deglaciation will have very important Impacts upon the lives of Many people, In Germany and elsewheres in the World where current water supplies come from Glacially fed rivers.

    The fish in those rivers will dissapear also, that is a Food source, gone.

    Doesn't any of that tell you anything about what is to come?

    Better yet, do you care about it's impact on People?
  5. Oct 2, 2005 #4

    By about 10 ka, rainfall was plentiful and most of the Sahara was vegetated.

    That German study is scaremongering. You can't predict with models, especially with wrong data for greenhouse gas effect, derived from erratic suppositions from the Pleistocene and the hockeystick (MBH98). If all the glaciers are melting and if it gets dry in Germany, we are all going to die. Now the suggestion is that if we stop burning fuel now, then it's all going to be rescued. Excusez le mot, but this is crap. Whether the concentration of CO2 in the air is 200 ppm 280 ppm or 560 ppm, it is not important. It has incredible little if any influence on the climate. If Europe is to be dried out, then nothing we can do can stop it. Hence it’s irrelevant what I think about it even if I live in the same area

    Note, by the way that the TAR of the IPCC predicts increasing moist climate with increasing CO2. So what are all those predictions worth?

    I hope to have a little study published soon in which is shown that there might be a slight negative correlation R2=0,20 between CO2 and temperature in the newest data available for the period 1000-1500 AD while another proxy shows R2’s of 0,02. In other words no statistic significance.
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2005
  6. Oct 2, 2005 #5
    Please do not assume things

    Glacial Melt is a Fact of life, Many Scientist have observed it, it is very real, that you seem to wish it away, isn't going to stop it. Best last stat I saw was. 97% of the Planets' Glaciers are receding, QUICKLY.

    Stop burning Fuel? that would be insane as the vast majority of People on the Planet get their FOOD delivered to them by TRUCK, so please show me where you have decided that I am against, or wanting to stop, burning Fuel, cause I have NEVER stated that.

    What I have driven towards is the 'Better safe then sorry' principal that tells us that ALL of the WASTE of thermal Energy that WE ALL are currently Doing needs be curtailed to the Best of our Collective Ability.

    That and we need to Find, as in Scientific Research and Discovery, New, and Better ways, manners, and means of accomplishing the things we are presently doing at too great a FUEL cost.

    We could easily CUT OUT the Dryer, and use clothes lines again, we could easily stop the wasting of HOT water as we are currently Quite Guilty of, cut out the Wastes of Energy that are currently going on.

    I am going to go find a Link for you, as I suspect you NEED to read it.

    Be Right Back
  7. Oct 2, 2005 #6
    Please go read this article, better yet get the actual Publication as it contains a Very Good Explanitory Graph of what it is Talking about.

    And since you seem to like Pictures, just as a Lark the picture at this link (from the same Magazine) is a Very, exceptionally, Beautiful Place, where I have been, the one at the very top of the page.

  8. Oct 3, 2005 #7


    User Avatar

    According to a new study published in the online edition of Science (couldn't find it though, maybe someone else could | Jan 2002?), the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice between 1992 and 2003. The ice sheets are several kilometers thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice.

    Using data from the European Space Agency's radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, a research team from the University of Missouri, Columbia, measured changes in altitude over about 70% of Antarctica's interior. East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimeters per year over the time period studied.

    The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica 's total land area and about 85% of the total ice volume. The area in question covers more than ~2.75 million square miles - roughly the same size as the United States.

    The Antarctic Ice Sheet covers ~five million square miles. The Greenland Ice Sheet covers another ~700,000 square miles. Combined, they're twice as big as the contiguous United States. Combined, they're 100 times bigger than all the rest of the world's glaciers put together.
    Glaciers are growing in other areas, too. Some glaciers on Canada's Baffin Island are as large or larger than at any time during the past 33,000 years, according to some studies.

    http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html (requires registration)
    http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=h...iPQ7CiPQ7CQ2FiQ7CMmQ7BoQ5DmoQ7CQ2FiBQ2BbKZqd8 (requires registration)
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2005
  9. Oct 3, 2005 #8
    Making the case for me

    That is the Ice sheet, mass, that lost that tremendous Slab, several years back, the one that floated out to sea and Melted completely.

    As I had stated, roughly 97% of the Worlds Glaciers are receding, you have made the case for that. The 3% that are Not receding Does NOT invalidate that fact.

    In the end the 'Snowflake' itself might just be the 'Keystone' inasmuch as if we arrive at a point where it no longer snows, we might just be in HUGE trouble, those Hadley Cells might just start going farther North, and South as the Dense Cold air that is presently there preventing that, will be gone, that that might set off a Circumpolar vortex and a resultant precipitously quick cooling might just plunge us, Collectively, into the Next Ice Age.

    No one knows it completely, yet, for certain, but the Signs are there to tell us that it is better that we be wary of what we do, now.

    Just my Opinion.
  10. Oct 3, 2005 #9
    Just a minute, Schlafendes Kaninchen,

    There are two unaccounted jumps in your reasoning. (melting is warming and warming means: do something)

    The glaciers are melting, so it is warming? Not necesarily, the Kilimanjaro area has not been warming, yet the glacier melts due to increasing aridness:


    Several areas in Patagonia and Alaska report adjacent glaciers behaving differently, one melting, the other growing. But then again nobody, who has read some climate papers, doubts that it is warming.

    ++If these continue to recede to nil, the result will be disasterous++

    Certainly but why would we think that and what can we do about it? Cutting back GHG emissions? Again that's the same as rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic. We can only hope that the trend will reverse again as it did in the 1950's the 1920's the 1880's the 1820's, notably after 1200 AD when the Vikings still scatched their head, why on earth they had named that now glacier-covered island "Greenland" earlier, around 900 AD. Where did all those the glaciers come from?
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2005
  11. Oct 3, 2005 #10
    Honigbär is that you?

    O.K. Honigbär, By The Way I am Awake, but the reasoning follows that the Oceans temperatures ARE rising, ie the Bleaching of the Corals, the measured Sea Surface temperatures.

    Your analogy of rearranging the Titanics Deck Chairs as comparable to trying to Lower GHG is exactly what you seem to have accused others of doing a Strawman Argument.

    the GHG's might just be a Keystone Property of the Environment, no one knows for certain one way or the other, but the indicators are pointing to the idea that it is a Climatic changing property.

    As for the Historic occurrences of climate changes, not many people would have been affected by them inasmuch as in the 1800's there were only 1 Billion people on the planet, 2 billion by 1900, 6.5 Billion now and Counting, so the Effects of Climate change Now are far more likely to have MUCH Greater impact, and consequence, then ever before.

    Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic would not have stopped it going down, REDUCING the amounts of GHG's we generate into the systems WILL make a Difference, and not just the GHG's but the HEAT, the sheer amount of Heat we generate on a regular, and daily, basis, that would help substantially.

    If your still unsure of what GHG's COULD do, look at the temperature of Venus.

    signed "Schlafendes Kaninchen"
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2005
  12. Oct 3, 2005 #11
    "Honigbär? Mais non, c'est "Bear of little brain"

    Tomorrow I'll explain more about ocean processes and multiple catastrophic oceanic extinctions without help of mankind, but for now enjoy the real story of Venus
  13. Oct 3, 2005 #12
    Bear with me, as I hop along?

    O.K. so Honigbär lesend, if you and I had been on the Titanic, and you had shown me a quick calculation that you had done {And I knew you well enough to respect and TRUST your math skills} that showed that throwing the Deck chairs off of the Boat would extend it's 'sinking time' {slow it down} by Five minutes, know what I would be doing, next?

    So far this is a bit like the two of us are standing in a tunnel, we can see a light at the other end of the tunnel, {Normally a Good sign "A Light at the end of the tunnel"} we hear a very-Very soft 'ooo-ooo' sound, me, I take the two indicators together to mean that they is a HIGH likelyhood that a train is coming, time to get off of the track, you? you seem to need more convincing.

    Wait to long, and you won't be able to get off of the track, in time. :surprised

    I had seen reported {newspaper} that some scientists had done a study that drew a Coorelation between the rain that seemed to come every weekend, and the driving of cars for only the other five days of the week. It was a Highly statisical coorelation, based upon, if I recall it properly, the heat that the cars generated during the five weekdays, so it wasn't, or isn't deemed as "A Proof" but you can see that certain factors can be related to what we are doing, anthromorphic causation as to be able, due to the VERY large number of "US" to have effects upon the weather.

    As for 'referencing' that study, I'll give up, now. :redface:

    I am not advocating a 'Chicken Little' approach, but I am trying to advocate caution, reduction of known climatological affective factors, and simply Common Sense in proceeding forward in Humanities path as we are, and can be, very clearly, a very destructive species.

    It is Good Sense to not waste, and our current Regime, manner of getting things done, is very wasteful.


    "Bear with little Brain" I didn't read the story yet, but that is most certainly not descriptive of you, but 'Honigbär lesend' is descriptive of your avatar, and I do like x-country skiing. :approve:

    Will read your Venus work a little later as it is getting dark and it's not safe for Rabbits to be out to late at night, especially sleepy rabbits. :tongue2:

    Looks around, turtles still not back yet, 'who will I talk to at night' he wonders, wanders off, to go back to sleep
  14. Oct 4, 2005 #13


    User Avatar

    In 2002, an iceberg about 80 kilometers long and wide calved off Antarctica.
    Oh no, I have to go.

    Be safe,
    With likeness,
  15. Oct 4, 2005 #14

    Just so we note it properly, those events mostly took place during, or around, the industrial revolution, BUT in this age we have approx 500,000,000 cars, and trucks, running DAILY, Airplanes, ships, Nuclear reactors (Use 'Google Earth' and see if you can find a Photo of the Heat plume that they give off, water heating too, specific Heat of one) Housing being heated, offices air conditioned, and LOTS of other heating sources that have never existed previous to these days, so it isn't all that implausible that we can, and are, affecting the environment, not just by the additions of GHG's but also by the Amount of heat we are generating, in all of these activities.

    Gotta go, KFC's a Callin me, a Carnivourous Rabbit I am
  16. Oct 4, 2005 #15
    Ah, ein fleischessendes kaninchen? :biggrin:

    As I said in the other thread I have a few pages of ponderings that I lost here. See my new thread tomorrow, addressing those features you mention earlier.
  17. Oct 5, 2005 #16


    User Avatar

    Ha ha well anyway.

    Most heat is caused by fires in Africa, where dry brush has been hit by lightning. There's no people there to put the fires out so they go on and on for a loooonnnnnggggg time, and spread to huge proportions.

    I'm skeptical of heat plumes from nuclear fission reactors... I'm pretty sure that is comprised of steam and radioactive particulates. Those of which are about a hundred times (?? I forget the figure, but it was substantially less) less powerful than an X-ray from your doctor.

    Ahh here it is. Nuclear power average dose for the general public, asuming normal operation, normal exposure, a population of 218 million people in the US, is about 0.04 millirems, whereas from medical diagnostics, it is 85 millirems. That's 2125 times higher!

    Figures from the revised BEIR-III "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionzing Radiation: 1980" National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C., 1980.
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2005
  18. Oct 6, 2005 #17
    Balancing the 'Smog'

    Andre, I will cede to you that the current Warm Period could simply be the Statistical pattern that evolves from the history of the Suns' Own Sun-Spot 'Cyclic' (11 and-or 22 years?) and the Earths' apparent, (as per the Historic record, it is Not an Exact match, but close enough to show Pattern) Five year Time lag, in demonstrating/emitting the exposure to the extra heating 'experience' it had gotten from the Suns' Own Sun-spot activity.

    But your statement that More CO2 pumped into the atmosphere will NOT make any more or less of a Difference, that one defies physical Chemistry as it is Known that equal Volumes of a Greater and Lesser Density of Mass will radiate/emit off their heat at different rates as a Greater Density (mass as well, as in this case the Volumes are equalled) has a Higher heat capacity, from that the Notion that the heat Re-iterative rate of CO2 must be longer on any given equal volume then either O2or N2 the other primary two constituents of atmospheric gasses, thus additions are seen as increasing Heat 'Retention' rates as they take Longer to radiate, given though that this is all mediated by Sinks and Brushs (Oceans-Waters & Trees-Vegetation, respectively) for CO2 that 'wash out' the Atmosphere of CO2, not all-'all' that well understood, as Complete, that too could have a threshold point of overburden or abundance as to be causative of an even longer delay in the Solar Sun-spot reaction reduction.. .. ..

    So your statement of:
    Contextually clipped

    Works out to be somewhat misleading, as it disguises the "partiality of truth" that permits it to be seen as truthful, it is somewhat fallacious.. .. ..defying Physical Chemistries' Principals, rules, laws, as a solute in a solution that is denser and therefore more Heat radiant retarded in comparison to the rest of the Solution, must be known as capable of changing any "heating retention capacities"

    After that, that the Hadley Cells could start a Patternistic increase as to, over much time, By tornadic equatorial spin increase, generate a kind of Circumpolar circulation, offset, over the Usually developing Pressure Front, that forms, Irregularity, yet frequently enough as to be noteworthy, over the Northern Regions of Quebec, in Canada, could be the centre in which a "Gravitational Well" type of Schematic, (Superimpose the Grid system Used in 'Grav Well' Diagrams) meaning a depression, could be super-imposed upon the atmosphere, thus super-imposed upon the Planets face, some miles up, from that it is seen that it is, in that atmospheric face, a 'Depression' (Physical) noteworthy, inasmuch as, that increases the Atmospheres' Surface Area to being exposed to the Cold of Outer Space, and Lessens (By reduction of Depth) that insulative Quality of the Atmosphere, itself, thus we could easily envision that last Ice Ages' Glacial Formation.

    To believe that Just CO2 as sole culprit would also not be 'Quite so smart' a Myopic view-point, yet in the similar Myopic view-point, I had noticed a Helicopter flying overhead yesterday, it's "appearance" to me as it came into my view seemed to be very "sudden" as it seemed to just appear "out of the Mist" Photochemical Smog is really what it was, and that is the Point because I had watched it fly back in the direction it had come from, shortly thereafter, and watched carefully this time to see just how far I could see it go prior to it's vanishing from my view altogether, it appeared to be about six miles before it completely vanished into the mist-Photochemical Smog above, No I couldn't see the Horizon line either, Yes, it was yet another "Weather Smog Alert Day"

    Still don't see the reason why, to try, Now, to cut down on Wasteful emissions?

    So Hadley Cells comprise the Two Bottom Building Blocks, of the Archway, on the way up we see other blocks, Hydrological Cycles and Atmospheric Chemistry, at work, then we look to the top, where we see Snow, COPY-CUT-INVERT-PASTE and we have a Nice circle.

    As Investigators, we must insure that neither of us holds that Magnifying Glass 'too long' on any given place, lest that our absorption with those Tiny details, sidetracks us, too long, and we thereby let the stone be, get, 'over-heated' by our glass of prolonged introspection, such that that stone collapses in a series of culminatory Catastrophic Events.

    "The only thing that is Permanent, is Change" therefore if We would wish to collectively hold some semblance of our own Permanence, we too need know how, and when, to change.

    For the First assertion of the implications of the Five year time lag on the Suns' Solar Cyclic upon us, we will Know that answer, in Five years time wiht way better certainty.
  19. Oct 6, 2005 #18
    Heat, Not EMR as such

    Mk I was talking about the coolant water that is Dispenced with from cooling the reactor's generating system, the HEAT purge, NOT the radiation-EMR.

    I have been to a Reactor site, was told of how that reactor, situated next to a River to obtain water supplies, had been able to keep the Rivers surface Open for the Entirety of the Winter, a Hole, in the Ice that normally Frooze SOLID-formed there, simply becuse of the Purging of heated (NOT radio-active) water from the reactors system.
  20. Oct 6, 2005 #19
    Why is there smog? Because we let it, not cleaning the exhaust gasses. That's slightly different than reducing emissions.

    Furthermore, haven't I stated in the other thread what the clean physical properties are of doubling CO2, about 0,7 degrees using the Arrhenius and Stefan Boltzman laws.

    Having correlated the newest CO2 proxies with temperature proxies like this produces either statistic garbage (down left) or a slightly negative trend (down right) however with little statistical significance. Which shows again that the relationship between CO2 and temperatures is overshadowed by noise and hence it's insignificant.
  21. Oct 6, 2005 #20
    Hot? cold? up? down?

    Your modelled(?) projections show that the Increase in CO2 has shown a Decrease in temperature, or a potential for a decrease (which one please) in temperature, as a Decrease in temperature by increasing CO2 Concentrations would mean that it is acting like an insulative blanket keeping out the Solar Input that normaly heats the surface, and therefore icreasing CO2 concentrations must be reflecting back into space more of the otherwise available solar energies, correct?

    As for the Smog, "our fault" how else could it be? so yes, but because we DO NOT cut back on emissions, photochemical 'soup' smog.

    And hows about the idea that there is a threshold of CO2 concentrations that thereafter precipitates a major Shift in any, or one, of the given 'cyclics' that maintains our collective climate? any good studies and or 'models' of that possiblity?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Is there a meteorological Keystone?