Re: Greenland glaciers disappearing more quickly


Igor The Terrible wrote:
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.

There you go bringing religion into it again.

There ain't no "gospel." Peer review is a basic difference between
religion and science.

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).

"Naked eye" in this case means lensed onto a reflective surface, such
as the hole in the shoe-box trick you did as a kid to see the sun with
the "naked eye."

Sun spots began to be consistently studied in the 16th Century.

This is
scientific?

Yes, it certainly is.

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?

Yes, Carbon 14 was measured in the tree rings. Samples were collected
from all over the world (the exact same samples used to determine
Global Warming Extent data for IPCC).

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?

Read the book. Or, at least, the link I already provided.

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

Duh.

There are a lot of uncertainties out there. IPCC has no consensus in
the scientific community, and IPCC findings are not validated; not even
by theory.

However, it is a fact that sun spot activity (solar flux events) are
proving to be a factor in radiative forcing on earth, and IPCC does NOT
consider solar variability AT ALL. One more hole in the swiss cheese of
IPCC findings, n'est pas?


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?

Just like during the Little Ice Age (pre-industrial era).

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

The beginning of...what?

Warming trend.

Now you sound like my local Weatherman.

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.

That's because no Global Climate Model is accurately predictive. Which
is because Global Climate Theory is not validated and is not well
understood.

Claim anything to the contrary, and you'll merely prove your ignorance.

IPCC, itself, acknowledges that Global Climate Models don't work, so it
chose between a range of GCM's that don't work to come up with its
"best guess."

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.

Yes, and Methane in the troposphere is measured in parts per BILLION.

IPCC makes no claim that tropospheric CH4 is a greater GH agent on
earth than Carbon Dioxide, Amen.

What about water vapor feedback above 1000 meters?

Insignificant. At this juncture, it has little effect.

Ah, so you're refuting the Australian Bureau of Meteorology? Based
on...?

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.

Subtract one point five watts per meter and you've erased half of all
the Global Warming that's occurred this past century.

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.


Wow. Maybe you need to look up the definition of electromagnetic
radiation.


Hence, the conditions are set for warming to accelerate.

Wikipedia again?

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

It wasn't Wikipedia?

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?

Direct radiation isn't necessary to melt the caps. Must you be so
obtuse?

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

0.04% CO2 compared to........?

0.03% which is what it was prior to 1750.

So...what is the "normal" or
"optimal" CO2 benchmark?

0.03%, evidently. About 100+ parts per MILLION difference.

I tend to disagree.

With what? The evidence?

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.

No, I've tried to explain to you that about 100+ parts per million DOES
NOT account for the 2.4 watts per square meter radiative forcing that
is necessary to account for global warming.


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.

Yes, if the energy is kept collisional, you're right: Carbon Dioxide,
Amen, is not 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.

IPCC was measuring CO2 infrared absorption.

Infrared is heat.

Radiative forcing is the whole Global Warming argument.

Dummy.

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.


And yet, double the Carbon Dioxide, amen, at one millibar, and 50%
humidity, and you've only increased radiative forcing by less than one
percent. Period.

One percent is NOT 5 degrees celsius. It's not even ONE.

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.

In Igor the Terrible time, perhaps.


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.

Heh.

Physically, highly improbable. Sounds
like that theory is grasping for straws.

IPCC isn't grasping at straws--it's grasping at funding.

And it's pretty good at that. Have you seen how much its budget has
increased since 1995?

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.

Not if they wanted that grant. There ain't no grant money if there
ain't no man-made crisis.

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.

No one is arguing the fact that there has been Global Warming.

The argument is: to what extent? And what is causing it?

NASA is not predicting, it leaves that to IPCC. And the IPCC study is
flawed.

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.


Yes, the Administration does not want to see a repeat of the panic
legislation that led to prohibition of CFC's in the US.

The Ozone Hole, if you remember, was "being caused by industrial
activity," and therefore was only gonna deteriorate more and more every
year.

Then the Ozone Hole closed back up. All by itself.


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?


Think back even farther. Think back to Holocene Maximum (about 7500
years ago). The temps were 3-5 C hotter than today. Oceans rose, caps
melted.

No SUV's. World pop about 1/15 what it is today.

Pssst: Global Climate theory isn't predictive.

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.

No, you haven't eliminated anything of the kind.

You've imitated what a single volcanic eruption would do.

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.

Burn all the fossil fuels known to exist, and in 38 years Carbon
Dioxide (Amen) levels all go back to where they were in 1750 because of
the Carbon Sinks.

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

Then cork all the fucking volcanos on the planet. Including the most
active ones along the Mid Atlantic Ridge.

Otherwise, we're all dead.

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.

Predictions are for a coming Solar Cycle of very low sun spot activity
(next 11 years).

If this occurs, it will reverse Global Warming, even if man redoubles
his efforts at combusting petroleum.

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!

Radiative energy in the form of infrared.

And where does the infrared come from, my obtuse little friend?

--
NeoLibertarian

.