Global Warming

Yup, I pretty much agree. But I fear global-climate instability even more than global warming, which itself may be a measure of our climate entering a relatively unstable period. We may even get warming on the sort term and glaciation on the long term. Add to that the chance that Earth's magnetic poles may reverse themselves sometime soon, which, as I understand it, will temporarily weaken or disrupt the Van Allen belts that protect Earth's atmosphere from the solar winds. We might even lose our atmosphere altogether if the timing of solar winds are coincidental with Earth's polar reversal. Some say Mars lost its atmosphere that way.I'm sure to get my ankles bitten over this, but I can't stop wondering so foolishly about such possibilities.”Hoot Mon

I'm not quite sure how to respond without drawing accusations from you of doing exactly that, I guess. But to jump off from your point about planetary-scale catastrophe, I don't know what could be done short of a massive program of interplanetary colonization.

It would be very difficult to image or predict how the South Pole or The Antartic would start melting?After all, it has been getting COLDER!Quote:The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. (Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph)News: Breaking stories & updates - The TelegraphNEXT:Case Study #2:The Greenland Ice Cap is approx. 1.8 million sq.km. in size. It is almost 14 times the size of England. [Wow - now that is HUGE!] At its thickest points, the ice has a depth of more than 3 km to the bedrock. The bottom layers of the ice are up to 2 million years old.For millions of years, the weight of the Ice Cap has pressed the original bedrock down about 800 meters.Greenland Guide – Tour guide for GreenlandBut, let us just say to go in for the MELTING ICE "crisis" topic, and want to peak at the weather for say, THE NORTH POLE! First, let's pick a spot in and around the North Pole - Artic:http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htmSay I pick................ALERT, NUNAVUT, CANADA I wonder, how are the Polor Bears doing?Weather report as of Yesterday:The wind was blowing at a speed of 9.8 meters per second (21.9 miles per hour) from North/Northwest in Alert, Canada.The temperature was -27 degrees Celsius (-17 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,031 hPa (30.44 inHg). Relative humidity was 68.5%. There were overcast at a height of 914 meters (3000 feet). The visibility was 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles). Current weather is Moderate Blowing Snow .O.K., sounds peachy for the North Pole region, and fun for Polar bears!Now, if one were to encounter open water, and yes, because of ice shifting and blowing winds, currents, etc, there is indeed open water, and a couple of dynamics take place.CO2 is absorbed about three times faster with open water, and opposed to ice covered water.Next, open water releases more heat into the atmosphere - cooling the water, and allows for greater humidity - influencing clouds - snow, etc. (Note, these complex action - reaction and off setting or Earth balancing adjustments are nearly impossible to capture in computer driven Climatic Models - just guess work really, IMO - no two Models agree.)Case Study #3:Quote:"...ice acts more-or-less like an insulating lid on top of the sea.There are subtle effects such as the planet losing more heat from the open sea than from ice-covered region (some of this heat is absorbed by the atmosphere, but climates over ice-covered regions are of more continental winter character: dry and cold). The oceanic heat loss depends of course on the sea surface temperature (SST). Open water also is a source of humidity, as opposed to sea-ice (because its cold, not because its dry), but the atmospheric humidity is also influenced by the moisture transport associated with the wind (moisture advection).Francis & Hunter found a positive correlation between lack of ice and the downward long-wave radiation, something they attributed primarily to cloudiness. Hence, clouds play a role, both in terms of influencing the albedo as well as trapping out-going heat.Francis & Hunter suggest that the changes in the long-wave radiation is stronger than the clouds' modulation of the direct sunlight.See:Not just ice albedoRealClimate: Not just ice albedoA polar sea without ice opens a new stage in the glacial cycle. The warm, open water gives off a great deal of water vapor by evaporation; the moisture is swept south and overland by the winds where it cools off and falls as rain or snow. The open Arctic is such a prolific producer of precipitation that the increased winter snowfall amounts to more than the oblique rays of the sun can melt away during the short northern summer. The snow accumulates and packs into ice until, after tens of thousands of years, the ice cap has become two miles or so thick. The day comes when the tremendous pressure begins to push the ice outward and another continental glacier is on its way.Edited by Richbee, : Edit changesEdited by Richbee, : Corrected Hotlink for Greenland

---

"All who wander are not lost." - J.R.R. Tolkein

​

Richard B.

Monckton is a known dissembler. None of his data or evidence can be trusted. Your links and arguments are known to be false.You can read more here: RealClimate: Cuckoo ScienceI think a large number of us, RB, are beginning to wonder when you'll begin to respond to the rebuttals presented to you. Continuing to not do so is a violation of the Forum Guidelines you agreed to when you originally registered.Oh, and incidentally - it's actually "Not all those who wander are lost." From:All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Sorry it took me so long to answer this message.I was refering to the oceans conveyor belt which can cycle surface water back to the bottom of the ocean. this circulation will have little effect (if any) over the waters deep down in the trenches.look here for instance Page not found (404) | GRID-Arendal

If you include water vapor as a greenhouse gas, then all industrial greenhouse gases only contribute only .28 of a percent over 100 years of the one degree rise in temperature. You forget the massive volumes of Co2 thats released from the oceans as it vaporizes, some is being released from the permafrosts at alarming rates. The total man made contribution is meaningless for those scientists that say mans contribution is meaningful forget to factor in the total volume of water vapor from the sun over the last 100 years. There is no scientific evidence the sun is older than 13,000 years a star. The bible says the earth once had a water canopy above likely much like the water canopy around Titan above Titans atmosphere not yet all disappated to Saturns magnetoshere or to space. If the sun was shining for billions of years how does one explain Titans water canopy.The water canopy plays a factor in the clouds how they reflect or retain heat depending if the clouds are in the upper or lower atmosphere. Given that the earth is believed that it once had a water canopy above the atmosphere no doubt helped maintain the tropical expression of the fossil evidence in the artic that now are being expressed as methane burping.With water vapor the primary global warming greenhouse gas with contributions of Co2 from the oceans far greater than mans contribution and methane being a far greater greenhouse gas than Co2 making the total amounts of mans total contribution meaningless given the evidence that the sun has been heating up for this past century.If you want to help the planet likely we need to burn more fossil fuel not less more particulates in the upper atmosphere will reflect not retain heat, etc...Is not this why the environmentalists recommended banning particulate emmissins in the 1980's because they feared it would escalate global cooling that is global cooling not global warming.Burn fossil fuel save the planet, etc....---------------------------------------------By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse
Scientists at Armagh Observatory claim a unique weather record could show that the Sun has been the main contributor to global warming over the past two centuries.Consequently it has been suggested that because cosmic rays are the main source of ionisation in the Earth's atmosphere they may have an influence on cloud formation.
It may be that changing cloud cover has caused global warming over the past century or so.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm-------------------------------------Methane ” a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide ” is being released from the permafrost at a rate five times faster than thought, according to a study being published today in the journal Nature. The findings are based on new, more accurate measuring techniques.“The effects can be huge,” said lead author Katey Walter of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks said. “It’s coming out a lot and there’s a lot more to come out.”http://www.thewe.cc/...et/news/arctic/permafrost_melting.htmEdited by Charley, : No reason given.

Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. So you've said. Do you have a source for this statement, or not? I'd like you to find this information in either the IPCC's TAR or the AR4. Information from Chris Monckton, a known paid liar, is invalid. The sun can't be younger than the Earth, which is 4 billion years old. Moreover, we know that the sun is older than 13,000 years because it's a main sequence star, and from it's stage in that sequence we know that it's at least 4.57 billion years old. Well, no, it doesn't. The "water canopy" is the invention of creationists; the Bible makes no mention of such a canopy. Moreover, even if it did, the Bible would be wrong; and certainly the Bible was not written by anybody who ever saw such a canopy. Titan doesn't have a water canopy. It's atmosphere is:

quote:

---

98.4% nitrogen ” the only dense nitrogen-rich atmosphere in the solar system aside from our own ” with the remaining 1.6% composed of methane and only trace amounts of other gases such as hydrocarbons (including ethane, diacetylene, methylacetylene, cyanoacetylene, acetylene, propane), argon, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, cyanogen, hydrogen cyanide and helium.[13]

---

Titan (moon) - WikipediaI don't see "water" listed above. Titan's atmosphere is, in fact, nearly perfectly devoid of water vapor.

Some do. Sulfate aerosols are known to cause cooling via radiative forcing. In fact, these were one of the contributors to the cooling seen from 1940-1970 (drops in volcanic warming effects also playing a role).CO2 however, like water vapor, does not reflect radiation like sulfates, but absorbs it, so cannot cool the atmosphere. Known effects, but according to Stott et al, accounts for about 20% of global warming.Since 1985, solar forcing has been steady or declining, and yet warming hasn't. How does one explain this? Also a known effect. It's a vicious circle = greenhouse gases cause warming, which in turn cause more greenhouse gases.

---

"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer

The bible says the canopy was above the atmosphere the fowl flew, Titans water canopy is above the atmosphere you mentioned that too was above the normal atmosphere. If the sun was a star giving off light particles its harmonic sounds would be deeper but instead the sun appears to be an extremely young star. The water particles of Titan too suggests the planets are far younger than first thought. Your basing the age of the sun, moon, etc... on the radioactive dating of rocks that could only suggest they were created before the earth was. It has no bearing to the actual age of the earth or the sun, etc... But back to the water canopy of Titan its in agreement with the creationists water canopy and the tropical expression of them tropical fossils found under the permafrost now melting in the polar regions of the earth. The water canopy explains how the entire earth could of been a tropical condition as the fossil evidence suggests.-----------------------------Because Titan’s atmosphere is almost entirely nitrogen, scientists anticipated they would find an abundance of nitrogen ions scattered throughout Saturn’s magnetosphere. That, in fact, is not the case; nitrogen ions are found to be comparatively rare. Instead, the magnetosphere is dominated by plasma composed almost entirely of ionized water and water products, including O+, OH+, H2O+ and H3O+.Newsroom | Southwest Research Institute With methane gases being underestimated by 5 times this brings man made contributions less than .28 % of the total, truely mans total contributions are meaningless, etc...---------------------------------Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse SystemJust how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one." I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996. 403 Forbidden Edited by Charley, : To add the link to .28 percent mans total contribution to greenhouse gases.

I agree its a vicious circle thats not going to be solved by taxing Co2 given mans contribution is meaningless in regards to the suns solar increases over the last 2 centuries thats the reason these methane gases are now being released.

There are many sources for Methane - straight from the Earth itself, and from Animals and.....Quote:Plants!Plants Exhale Methane, Add to Greenhouse Effect, Study SaysBy Brian Handwerkfor National Geographic NewsGrasses and other green growth may produce 10 to 30 percent of Earth's annual methane output, a new study reports.Until the data were unveiled in this week's Nature, scientists had believed that plant-related methane formed only in oxygen-free environments, such as bogs. But a team of European researchers identified a large range of plants that release methane under normal growing conditions. The gas also seeps from dead plant material.David Lowe is an atmospheric chemist with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in Wellington, New Zealand. He wrote a review article accompanying the study. According to Lowe, "We now have the specter that new forests might increase greenhouse warming through methane emissions rather than decrease it by being sinks for carbon dioxide."(end of quote)http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...methane_2.html

---

Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say “we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.”

​

Richard B.

No, it's not. It doesn't exist! There's next to zero water in Titan's atmosphere. You don't read so well. The sun's age is based on its position in the main sequence. I didn't say anything about radiometric dating. That's not a water canopy. Water vapor content of the atmosphere is a feedback, not a forcing. It's not responsible for any of the warming. Water vapor precipitates too rapidly to be a greenhouse contributor.Blaming water vapor for global warming is crank science, Charley. It's pesudoscience. It's misinformation, which is why you've been able to present absolutely zero scientific evidence in support of your contentions. It's why you're forced to rely on the statements of professional liars.

Plants have existed for years before man ever was around. Any amount of methane that they produce is not going to warm anything. If we can show that more methane is being produced now by plants than before, then it is not the plants which are to blame, but whatever causes this change in methane output.I don't think any study has been proven that the absorption of carbon dioxide is in any way outweighed by the methane output. I'll quote the outcome of a calculation from this article.

quote:

---

Thus, for each kg of CO2 assimilated by a plant roughly 0.25 to 1 to 4 g of CH4 is released

---

Even given that methane is much stronger of a greenhouse gas, it isn't going to be 250-1000 times stronger.

---

"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer

Its a water vapor canopy above the atmosphere it has not disappaated to space, its a proven fact no matter what you say its composed of ionized water and water products. Good because radioactive isotope decay is bogus in respect to the age of the earth. There is no reason to believe the sun is more than 13,000 years a star. The age of the sun is only assumed to be in the main sequence however Russian scientists have proven the sun is more likely quite young not old.---------------------------------Evidence for a Young Sun (#276)
by Keith DaviesThe standard model of the sun assumes that it is around 5 billion years old and that it has already passed into its nuclear burning stage. This makes it all the more extraordinary that in 1976 a team of Russian astronomers, writing in the respected British scientific journal Nature showed how their research pointed clearly to the startling fact that the sun does not even seem to possess a large dense nuclear burning core. Instead, their results showed the sun as bearing the characteristics of a very young homogeneous star that corresponds with the early stages of the computer models.The Institute for Creation Research The professional liars are those listening to lying spirits that fail to take into account water vapor. You could ban all fossil fuel usage on the whole planet and it would have little affect on global warming because water vapor is the big heat trap. However if you burned fossil fuel adding particulates to the upper atmosphere you would be combating global warming. I find this fact quite interesting that those proposing banning fossil fuel are only fueling global warming.--------------------------------------The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol." There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal 403 Forbidden

The real deal?Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming existsLawrence Solomon, National PostPublished: Friday, February 02, 2007Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.* Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.* Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.* Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warmingCanada.Com | Homepage | Canada.ComEdited by Richbee, : Correction

---

Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say “we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.”

​

Richard B.