Re: Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
- From: Weatherlawyer <Weatherlawyer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:52:06 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 12, 5:32 pm, Alastair <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 12, 12:42 pm, Mike Tullett
<mike.tullett1.for.newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 04:04:50 -0800 (PST), Keith (Southend)G wrote in
<news:a79f547f-ff86-46cd-aa21-dd7f80da7095@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
That's very interesting but won't come as a big surprise to some in this
ng. It seems the faster rate than previous model results is down to taking
a full account of the current thinning of the ice.
--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 12/12/2007 12:42:39 GMT
Yes, but why is the ice thinner faster than expected? The answer is
that the climate models are wrong!
It seems that here and elsewhere meteorologist have always been
sceptical of the models and rightly so. The models are based on the
radiative effect of greenhouse gases but that is not the way they
alter the climate. Greenhouse gases absorb radiation and so warm the
air around them. Maximum absorption of the radiation happens in the
air closest to the surface and falls off with the logarithm of the
distance from the surface (Lambert's Law.) When you increase the CO2
concentration the layer of air close to the surface absorbsed more
radiation and hence being warmer it prevents the surface from losing
heat by conduction. Fourier's Law states that heat flow depends on
the temperature difference.
In the tropics the main greenhouse gas is water vapour, and so
increasing CO2 will not have much direct effect there. However, at
high altitudes and latitudes where the surface is covered with snow or
ice the water vapour concetration is very low and carbon dioxide is
the more important greenhouse. By raising the global carbon dioxide
concentration we also raise the altitude and latitude at which the
surface can remain snow covered during the summer, the main pre-
condition for an ice age.
The original greenhouse theory was that changes in carbon dioxide were
responsible for the climate shifts that had happened in the geological
past, especially the ice ages. That was what Arrhenius investigated
in his 1896 paperhttp://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Arrhenius_pdf
As an aside he considered what would happen if CO2 doubled as a result
of industrialisation, and is now regarded as a hero of global
warming. His calculations were based on the radiative effects of CO2.
Karl Angstrom son showed that the radiation is saturated so increasing
CO2 will not change the radiative effect. So the greenhouse theory,
first proposed by John Tyndall an Irishman, is correct, just not the
way that Ahhrenius and most scientists believe.
So CO2 is melting the Arctic ice, but when it has gone water vapour
will take over as the main greenhouse gas and temperatures there, and
all other parts of the Northern Hemisphere affected directly or
indirectly by polar air will see a major change in climate.
The ideas that greenhouse gases act mainly through conduction/
convection rather than radiation is something that has only recently
occurred to me. I would be interested in hearing from others, probably
better qualified then me, on what they think of my idea.
Climate models fro the Arctic can only bew wrong or spot on when the
phenomenon of no ice there is concerned as we have nothing to base ant
datum on.
How are rivers now draining northern Canada and Siberia behaving?
What weather/hydrology stations are reporting data to get analysis on
that?
What sort of currents are now replacing the old thermo-haline ones?
From the original link:
"But the Monterey researcher believes these models have seriously
underestimated some key melting processes. In particular, Professor
Maslowski is adamant that models need to incorporate more realistic
representations of the way warm water is moving into the Arctic basin
from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans."
Then they say it wasw underestimated. How does he know which way to
estimate? He got that conclusion because of missing data nnot becuse
of more data.
All of the above lead to guess-work not science. The science of the
area can only be that of making observations, not conclusions.
But I speak as one who is used to making outrageous claims, so don't
let me put you off. You can't make advances in physics without
astonishing people with crazy claims. Weren't Herschel's claims about
stellar systems so outrageous they were recounted in music halls?
Personally I can't see what the harm is in transforming pristine
desert into potential farm land. Except that human activity tends to
the rapacious. In fact, if I was god, I'd give us a goods hiding. A
bloody good hiding!
Whose to say that that isn't what he is doing?
.
- References:
- Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
- From: Keith (Southend)G
- Re: Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
- From: Mike Tullett
- Re: Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
- From: Alastair
- Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
- Prev by Date: Re: Snow on Mon/Tues next week over southwest Britain?
- Next by Date: Re: Snow on Mon/Tues next week over southwest Britain?
- Previous by thread: Re: Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
- Next by thread: SUV and ice storm
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
