Re: Greenland glaciers disappearing more quickly


Neolibertarian wrote:
In article <1140188175.575364.22890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Igor The Terrible" <igor_the_terrible@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Solar flares contribute little to climate change; over time, they are
too few and far in between to do much of anything but to wreak a little
havoc on power grids and communications. :)

Is this from Wikipedia?

Or are you making it up as you go?

That sounds like a RL
reiteration of......? If so, have him apply a numerical model to
outline the dynamics behind such a claim.

http://www.lund.irf.se/HeliosHome/earthlow.html

So this is your scientific gospel that debunks nearly the nearly
unanimous agreement among the scientific community? OK I will humor
this.

The Thames freezing over and a cold snap constitutes irrefutable proof
that solar activity, hallelujah, is the culprit behind climate change?

Looking at the chart you submitted, I see the sunspot sightings were
done by naked eye. (Hope they were wearing their Ray-Bans). This is
scientific? What were they using for T&M to collect their data and
assure its accuracy and integrity? What about the C14? What were the
levels in Cairo? Columbia? Marie Byrd Land Auckland? Perth? Vancouver?
....during that period? What was the net result on surface temps and
sea surface temps increase/decreases? The duration? What effects did
it have on intermediate glaciers? Effects on El Nino and La Nina? What
about precipitation and the contributing effects it had on glaciers.
What effects did it have on the permafrost?

According to an article that used the same graph you are giving, once
again the arguments boiled down to uncertainty about this theory.


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm

The effects of solar flares are short lived compared to enveloping the
planet with CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gasses. Brief, regional
temperature anomalies does not constitute global climate
change-whether it is cooling or warming. Today we are talking the
entire Arctic and Antarctic thawing out. BIG DIFFERENCE. In fact, if
too much of Greenland's glaciers make it to the ocean too soon...there
will no longer be a gulf stream. That is a major ocean current; and,
if I were a Brit, I'd be concerned. I will let you figure out what the
consequences of that is. Hint: No more warm Atlantic waters flowing
by that continent for a while any way. I suppose you and your group
will pin that on the lack of sunspot activity?


Truth is, increasing quantities of greenhouse gasses were only the
beginning of it.

The beginning of...what?

Warming trend.


plus
all the soot that is landing on glaciers and ice flows, all these
factors exacerbate the normal cycle.

In what way? I don't recall this being a factor in IPCC findings.

The IPCC isn't perfect and neither is any other camp.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/2/423


However, when the ice begins to
diminish exposing more of the earth's surface,



1.) there is less ice to reflect solar radiation and
more exposed earth to absorb the radiation and warm.

Yabut, the water doesn't go anywhere, does it?


You better hope it doesn't--especially when it concerns the peat bogs
throughout the arctic regions. But, unfortunately, a lot of lakes are
disappearing attributed to runoff and evaporation. However, if there is
a decline in precipitation, when the remaining water diminishes, there
is going to be billions of cubic feet of methane escaping into the
atmosphere. Methane beats out CO2 as a greenhouse gas by a factor of
10 in terms of retaining thermal energy.

What about water vapor feedback above 1000 meters?

Insignificant. At this juncture, it has little effect.


The Bureau of Meteorology Research Center (Australia) findings indicate
that increased Carbon Dioxide results in water vapor feedback" above
1000 meters, which is shown to reduce radiative forcing by as much as
-1.5 watts/M^2...unaccounted for by IPCC.

That is because it isn't much of a factor. Again.....the problems are
closer to the surface and are a consequence of thermal retention and a
disruption in convection. Radiation is only the source of heat after
it collides with the planet's surface.



Hence, the conditions are set for warming to accelerate.

Wikipedia again?

Man, you just don't get it, do you?

Tell me, why do you think glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctic are
thawing at much faster rates than much of the intermediate glaciers
which are in considerably much "warmer" regions? This is
especially the case when you consider Antarctica. They have less
exposure to the sun than any other continent. Hint: Do you think
altitude and greenhouse gases might have something to do with it?


0.04% CO2 is not likely causing anything measurable. At all.

0.04% CO2 compared to........? So...what is the "normal" or
"optimal" CO2 benchmark? I tend to disagree. Currently, that
"tiny" amount of CO2 is effectively contributing to Greenland's losing
approx. 125 ft of their glaciers per DAY (yes, per DAY) and the rate of
thawing is accelerating.



Did you know one of the key points of contention with IPCC is that it
completely ignores the presence of water vapor in its measurements?
Water vapor in the troposphere tends to keep energy collisional, thereby
reducing forcing.

It does not amount to anything significant.



Dietze, Hug and Barrett, et al, have shown that IPCC over estimated the
ability of tropospheric CO2 to absorb infrared by a factor of 3 or more.
"The results of HITRAN calculations show that a doubling of CO2 at one
bar and a pressure of water vapor equivalent of 50% humidity, infrared
absorption only increases by less than one percent. "

OK...I will make this as simple as possible. Infrared is negligible
when it comes to direct contact with CO2 or even in the presence of
water vapor. CO2 is colorless, odorless...it is transparent. Hence
the radiation colliding with it has little impact.

OTOH, CO2 is heavier than air. It has greater density. Once the
infrared rays collides with the earth's surface (dirt, grass,
peat....dark colors) is when heat is given off. By CONDUCTION between
ground and air is what causes the air to warm as well. At this point
he CO2 acts as a container/insulator by keeping the warm air from
rising to a higher altitude where it cools and then descends. Hence,
the surface air is not cooling fast enough thereby causing the surface
temperatures to ACCRUE over time. This CO2 ordeal is a CONVECTION issue
(the lack of convection), not one of RADIATION.


Permafrost in Alaska can average to depths from 10-20 ft. It is all
beginning to thaw in the Arctic. There is no way in hell solar flares,
hallelujah, are going to cause that degree of warming in the
frequencies they occur in the amount of time we have been closely
monitoring climate change. CO2 tends to blanket itself over the
planet's surface therefore making the warming effect more consistent
over a far broader area. Solar flares, hallelujah, do not do this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4120755.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18625034.700
http://www.solcomhouse.com/Permafrost.htm




http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?titlePeter_Dietze
http://www.john-daly.com/dietze/cmodcalc.htm

IPCC, also mistakenly assumes that Solar irradiance is constant (and
therefore not a factor in Climate Change--an assumption which has proven
gravely mistaken.

In New York time I would agree; in geologic time, it's meaningless.


Calculations from data gathered by ACRIM-3, SOHO and the SOLCON, are
showing that perhaps ALL of the radiative forcing necessary to account
for Global Warming can be found in the variable solar irradiation.

Unfounded speculation at best. Physically, highly improbable. Sounds
like that theory is grasping for straws.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm


When Bush refused to sign the treaty, something tells me the government
already knew we are screwed and they have been keeping this from the
public. I have a feeling this is exactly the case. So, unwittingly,
Bush actually did the right thing and placed priorities on the economy
rather than the environment. So enjoy the ride...whatever is left of
it.


Something tells me that "they" knew that the causes of Global Warming
are unclear. And that the IPCC study is flawed. And that Carbon Dioxide,
Amen, measured in parts per million, had little or nothing to do with
it, either way.


I don't buy that for a second. If that were the case, they would
have opted to err on the side of caution if there was an doubt.
Especially when they are getting inundated with "before" and "after"
satellite photos of the Arctic and Antarctic. Moreover, a retiring
NASA scientist who recently spilled the beans regarding this
administration being less than truthful regarding issues concerning
this problem weakens that assumption.




NASA scientist rips Bush on global warming
Renowned expert says data 'screened and controlled'


Updated: 8:10 a.m. ET Oct. 27, 2004
IOWA CITY, Iowa - The Bush administration is trying to stifle
scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to
keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night.
"In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen
anything approaching the degree to which information flow from
scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is
now," James Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.
Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in
New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President
*** Cheney on global warming. He was also one of the first government
scientists tasked with briefing congressional committees on the dangers
of global warming, testifying as far back as the 1980s.
'Recipe ... for disaster'
Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results
that "fit predetermined, inflexible positions." Evidence that would
raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed
as not being of sufficient interest to the public.
"This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."
Hansen said the scientific community generally agrees that temperatures
on Earth are rising because of the greenhouse effect - increased
emissions of carbon dioxide and other materials into the atmosphere
that trap heat. Most of that increase comes from burning fossil fuels.
These rising temperatures, scientists believe, could cause sea levels
to rise and trigger severe environmental consequences, he said.
Hansen said such warnings are consistently suppressed, while studies
that cast doubt on such interpretations receive favorable treatment
from the administration.
He also said reports that outline potential dangers of global warming
are edited to make the problem appear less serious. "This process is
in direct opposition to the most fundamental precepts of science," he
said.
Bush wants more research
White House science adviser John H. Marburger III has denied charges
that the administration refuses to accept the reality of climate
change, noting that President Bush pointed out in a 2001 speech that
greenhouse gases have increased substantially in the past 200 years.
The president has also said that while he believes warming is a serious
problem, he doesn't feel the threat his imminent and has instead
ordered more research. He has also sought voluntary steps by industry
and pumped federal dollars into technology projects like capturing and
sequestering carbon dioxide emissions.
Hansen said he was speaking as a private citizen, not as a government
employee, and paid his own way for the Iowa appearance. He described
himself as moderately conservative, but said he will vote for John
Kerry in the presidential election.
"He certainly is not in denial of the existence of climate change
problems," Hansen said.
The president has also said that while he believes warming is a serious
problem, he doesn't feel the threat his imminent and has instead
ordered more research. He has also sought voluntary steps by industry
and pumped federal dollars into technology projects like capturing and
sequestering carbon dioxide emissions.
Hansen said he was speaking as a private citizen, not as a government
employee, and paid his own way for the Iowa appearance. He described
himself as moderately conservative, but said he will vote for John
Kerry in the presidential election.
"He certainly is not in denial of the existence of climate change
problems," Hansen said.


Blair warns of 'unsustainable' warming trend
Antarctica 'an awakended giant,' top British scientist adds

Updated: 10:08 a.m. ET Jan. 30, 2006
LONDON - The threat posed by climate change may be greater than
previously thought, and global warming is advancing at an unsustainable
rate, Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a report published Monday.
The government-commissioned report collates evidence presented at a
conference on climate change hosted by Britain's Meteorological
Office last year. It says scientists now have "greater clarity and
reduced uncertainty" about the impacts of climate change.
In a foreword, Blair said it was clear that "the risks of climate
change may well be greater than we thought."

"It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated
with industrialization and economic growth from a world population that
has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a
rate that is unsustainable," he wrote.
The U.N.-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says
temperatures rose by about 1 degree during the 20th century. Computer
modeling predicts increases of between 2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees by
the year 2100, depending on how much is dome to limit greenhouse gas
emissions.
That, in turn, is expected to raise ocean levels, intensify storms,
spread disease to new areas and shift climate zones, possibly making
farmlands drier and deserts wetter.

Antarctica 'an awakened giant'
The head of the British Antarctic Survey, Chris Rapley, warned in the
report that the huge west Antarctic ice *** may be starting to
disintegrate, an event that could raise sea levels by 16 feet.
Rapley said a previous report by the IPCC playing down worries about
the ice ***'s stability should be revised.
"The last IPCC report characterized Antarctica as a slumbering giant
in terms of climate change," he wrote. "I would say it is now an
awakened giant. There is real concern."
Scientists have warned of climatic "tipping points" such as the
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets melting and the Gulf Stream
shutting down.
No global unanimity
Blair's vow to put climate change at the center of the international
agenda during Britain's leadership of the G-8 and the European Union
last year met with limited success.
He was unable to overcome the Bush administration's antipathy to the
Kyoto climate-change accord - rejected by the U.S. government on the
grounds it would damage the economy. British ministers also have
acknowledged that Britain is unlikely to meet its own target of cutting
carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2010.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


A parting thought....

If you were born in 1950, you have been a part of the global community
whose population has exploded from 2.5 billion to 6.5 billion. The old
"models" of climate change are worthless. They do not reflect the
same conditions we have today. In other words, ceteris paribus is
moot.

In the 1600s- 1800s, how many cars were on the highways back then? How
many barrels of oil did we go through a day? How many factories were
dumping tons of their emissions into the atmosphere? How much of the
rain forests did were slashed and burned? How much of the oceans did
we pollute and the ecosystem did we screw up?

The planet is a closed system; there are limits to what it can recover
from unnatural (human) activities. When you dump a lot of CO2 in the
atmosphere while raping the planet of vegetation, you eliminate a
natural check in the system. This is especially the case when you
consider the oceans since we get more than 90% of our O2 from them
which means they play a major role in keeping CO2 levels in balance.
When you exceed those limits, CO2 levels accrue. Granted, 0.04% of CO2
might not seem like much. However, if 0.0285% represents a stable
level, a 0.0115% increase can easily throw the system out of balance.
Careful how you interpret ppm results when working with small ratios.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/data_tables/cli5_2005.pdf

Bottom line, climate change is now accelerating proportionately to the
amount of glaciers we are losing. The planet is losing all its assets
to temper the mounting heat. CO2 disrupting atmospheric convection,
loss of ice to reflect the sun's rays away from the surface with a
corresponding increase in exposed earth to absorb solar radiation which
in turn is converted into heat.


Global warming due to solar activity (hallelujah): a pointless
paradigm commanding excessive mental masturbation resulting in
intellectual entropy which causes the oversight of its single and most
overlooked cause: HEAT!

.