Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox

Thread: Polar Ice caps and Cold Winters

  1. #1 Polar Ice caps and Cold Winters 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Trying to make a civil climate change thread. Let's see how it goes.

    Orange growers have known for some time that, if there is a freeze, one good way to keep your oranges from freezing is to pour water over them the night before the freeze because as the water that is coating them freezes it releases thermal energy and prevents the inner orange from freezing.

    Apparently also when Ice thaws it consumes thermal energy, essentially the same thing as releasing cold.

    Since the Earth has polar Ice caps, I'm thinking that the Earth would be essentially like one of those oranges. We should expect that if global warming is real, that whenever the Ice caps begin to melt they will release bursts of cold weather on the world as a whole. You can get a year where everybody near those caps seems to be having an exceptionally cold winter. Is that a correct expectation?


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Not really, though an interesting idea.

    The primary influence of the missing ice is not the energy released, but rather the increased amount of solar radiation absorbed by sea as opposed to the high reflectance of an ice surface. The warmer ocean surface changes air pressure and wind patterns.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Albedo. But not only ice increases this albedo, so do clouds. To a greater degree, actually. So warmer climate means less ice and more clouds, increasing total albedo, lowering temperatures.

    All other things being equal of course.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Albedo. But not only ice increases this albedo, so do clouds. To a greater degree, actually. So warmer climate means less ice and more clouds, increasing total albedo, lowering temperatures.

    All other things being equal of course.
    The cloud part is yet unknown. It's more complex than just "clouds." Blocking sunlight, is one thing you've already mentioned. But consider that clouds also block and reflect IR radiation, which is why temperature doesn't drop as much on cloudy nights, for example. Depending where you are and what season it is more cloud feedback on surface temperatures either way. Also the type of cloud is important. If vertical temperature gradient increases that clouds will be more convective (vertical). Convective cloud regimes don't take as much horizontal area as strataform (flat) ones thus letting through lots of sunlight; you might increase moisture and temperature change the cloud type and get a net increase to surface temps.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Clouds are reason Venus is so bright. Not water vapor clouds, though.

    So if role of CLOUDS is still unknown, is debate over AGW really "settled" as proponents claim?

    Persistently.

    Yes, yes, this is supposed to be "civil" climate thread, as opposed, perhaps, to religious...

    Prince makes joke.

    Hats off to esteemed moderator, MeteorWayne and most worthy kojax, Prince must be off.

    Yeh, you knew that already...
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Lynx Fox, unless I'm mistaken the cloud part is uncertain but not completely unknown. It is known that high clouds have a warming effect while low clouds are reflective and have a cooling effect. Modeling of clouds is still subject to improvement but the basic physics is in the models. Different models give different results and it remains to be seen which models give the best approach to empirical data. Models seem to suggest that clouds are a net positive feedback (i.e. if cloudiness increases the effect is warming greater than the basic CO2 effect).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Clouds are reason Venus is so bright. Not water vapor clouds, though.
    Not sure what Venus observation has to do with this thread. Yes it's bright, which would tend to cool it if the clouds also weren't also reflecting light from below.
    --
    So if role of CLOUDS is still unknown, is debate over AGW really "settled" as proponents claim?
    Thus far with the changes observed the net effect seems close to nothing and the models don't suggest a strong trend either way. That being said clouds are a big part of the uncertainty and range of solutions and sensitivity between various models. The science is "settled," in terms that we know increasing Co2 will increase temperature of the planet surface--what we haven't nailed down is the range of that increase and its myriad effects at the local level where its most needed.
    The Finger Prince likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    The operating part of "global warming" is that more energy from the sunlight that hits Earth is trapped in our atmosphere. This increases the "fuel" for the "weather engine". This means that the expected immediate outcome of global warming is more violent weather of every type, not just warmer weather. Eventually the global temperature goes up a smidgen, but along the way there are hurricanes, floods and blizzards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    According to Wiki, the sun is decreasing in its output
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    According to Wiki, the sun is decreasing in its output
    Yes, but more of the energy is being trapped, that we know for sure. And wiki isn't exactly a scientific source. Over the period of satellite measurements, solar output hasn't changed much at all, other than the sunspot cycle periods. It apparently was a few tenths of a percent lower during the Maunder minimum and little ice age.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Clouds are reason Venus is so bright. Not water vapor clouds, though.
    Not sure what Venus observation has to do with this thread. Yes it's bright, which would tend to cool it if the clouds also weren't also reflecting light from below.
    --
    So if role of CLOUDS is still unknown, is debate over AGW really "settled" as proponents claim?
    Thus far with the changes observed the net effect seems close to nothing and the models don't suggest a strong trend either way. That being said clouds are a big part of the uncertainty and range of solutions and sensitivity between various models. The science is "settled," in terms that we know increasing Co2 will increase temperature of the planet surface--what we haven't nailed down is the range of that increase and its myriad effects at the local level where its most needed.
    What "light from below" on Venus? Venus is cited as example of cloudy atmosphere producing high albedo. If there IS "light from below" on this planet, what source has it?

    So much for models- actual MEASUREMENT suggests clouds have more albedo than equivalent area of ice. Of course, water vapor is known to be most potent greenhouse gas, but nobody wants to dehumidify atmosphere on massive scale- that would be silly.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Not sure why you want to talk about Venus.
    What "light from below" on Venus? Venus is cited as example of cloudy atmosphere producing high albedo. If there IS "light from below" on this planet, what source has it?
    The surface and lower atmosphere is very hot and producing huge amounts of light the low visible and near infrared wavelengths; the surface at nearly 500C is hot enough for many metals to glow like the coil of a hot electric stove. The clouds reflect much of that light back towards the surface.

    So much for models- actual MEASUREMENT suggests clouds have more albedo than equivalent area of ice.
    And? If that cloud is convective, like a tall thundercloud is might only cover 10% of the area and actually reflect less sun light than the lower-flat 90% covering stratiform clouds it replaced. Also tall clouds have very cold tops and emit very little IR radiation. And then you've got night to consider--including the 180 day-long night polewards of the arctic and antarctic circles respectively. Also detailed radiation transfer has been modeled in clouds since at least the mid 1980.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    The operating part of "global warming" is that more energy from the sunlight that hits Earth is trapped in our atmosphere. This increases the "fuel" for the "weather engine". This means that the expected immediate outcome of global warming is more violent weather of every type, not just warmer weather. Eventually the global temperature goes up a smidgen, but along the way there are hurricanes, floods and blizzards.
    Yes, we know most certainly that "there will be hurricanes, floods, and blizzards", because WHY?

    Because there have been ALWAYS hurricanes, floods, and blizzards.

    Why does AGW lead only to shitty and extreme weather? Could it be because only shitty and extreme weather gets noticed? Have computer models taken into account reduction in CO2 emissions caused by retirees staying home instead of annually going to Florida and Arizona as higher latitudes moderate in climate?

    All shitty weather is caused by modern industrial society? REALLY? This has not been the case for majority of planetary history.

    Sealeaf, get real.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    No one is playing with your false dichotomy Finger. So knock it off.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Not sure why you want to talk about Venus.
    What "light from below" on Venus? Venus is cited as example of cloudy atmosphere producing high albedo. If there IS "light from below" on this planet, what source has it?
    The surface and lower atmosphere is very hot and producing huge amounts of light the low visible and near infrared wavelengths; the surface at nearly 500C is hot enough for many metals to glow like the coil of a hot electric stove. The clouds reflect much of that light back towards the surface.

    So much for models- actual MEASUREMENT suggests clouds have more albedo than equivalent area of ice.
    And? If that cloud is convective, like a tall thundercloud is might only cover 10% of the area and actually reflect less sun light than the lower-flat 90% covering stratiform clouds it replaced. Also tall clouds have very cold tops and emit very little IR radiation. And then you've got night to consider--including the 180 day-long night polewards of the arctic and antarctic circles respectively. Also detailed radiation transfer has been modeled in clouds since at least the mid 1980.
    So clouds at night reflect little light either from polar regions or sun, who knew?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    No one is playing with your false dichotomy Finger. So knock it off.
    Knock what off? What is "false" about pointing out that climate change/weather/atmospheric events of every description have actual historical precedents and causes antedating arrival of humanity? Where is there a dichotomy in this? Indeed, it is reasonable to assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that said causes continue to operate.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dichotomy

    And seven minutes is not much time for others to comment on this observation, esteemed moderator, if you will pardon the observation regarding the observation.

    Thank you for comments regarding Venus, most illuminating, if you will forgive a small pun.

    Venus is hot because it is hot, Mars is cold because it is cold, Earth is what it is because people drive cars.

    All is "settled", good to know...
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    No one is playing with your false dichotomy Finger. So knock it off.
    Knock what off? What is "false" about pointing out that climate change/weather/atmospheric events of every description have actual historical precedents and causes antedating arrival of humanity? Where is there a dichotomy in this? Indeed, it is reasonable to assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that said causes continue to operate.

    Dichotomy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    And seven minutes is not much time for others to comment on this observation, esteemed moderator, if you will pardon the observation regarding the observation.
    The problem isn't that the climate is changing. It's that it is happening fast. Most of natural history's changes were gradual. CO2 levels rose and fell on their own as vegetation died or flourished, or as carbon gradually got sequestered underground by way of plants and animals getting turned into oil, coal, and etc.

    It took millions of years for all that carbon to find its way underground, and only a few generations for us humans to release large quantities of it. What do you really expect should be happening?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    The operating part of "global warming" is that more energy from the sunlight that hits Earth is trapped in our atmosphere. This increases the "fuel" for the "weather engine". This means that the expected immediate outcome of global warming is more violent weather of every type, not just warmer weather. Eventually the global temperature goes up a smidgen, but along the way there are hurricanes, floods and blizzards.
    Yeah. Some people don't seem to understand what an "average" temperature is, or what a change to that average means. They seem to expect an across the board, uniform change to all temperatures everywhere, and every season, instead of a higher statistical average that might be composed of peaks and troughs.

    The change could also include an increase in the variability of temperatures, which would cause more severe weather as air migrates from cooler cold regions to hotter warm regions. If that should happen, it says nothing about the statistical average, only the degree of variation in the data set.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Knock what off? What is "false" about pointing out that climate change/weather/atmospheric events of every description have actual historical precedents and causes antedating arrival of humanity? Where is there a dichotomy in this? Indeed, it is reasonable to assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that said causes continue to operate.
    Then why are you bringing it up? Who's claimed those activities are caused exclusively by AGW? By implying and arguing as if it's a man-did-it, or man-didn't do it position you are using the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. In fact this thread (and the other one) had gone to considerable length to explain that these events might have happened, but likely are stronger or more extreme because of the warmer more humid world. What should have been a cat-1 hurricane is a cat-3, low soil moisture from a drought that should have ruined 30% of the corn harvest now ruins 80% of the harvest, a European heat wave that would have killed several hundred is a few degree warmer and a kills a thousand, a Northern Atlantic storm that would have produced 40 foot waves and damaged a few ships, is fueled by more energy which produces 60 foot waves sinks a dozen ships and kills fifty crew members. There's even been a bit of description of how we determine these by study, and figure out the degree of attribution of damage and deaths in the warmer world versus that which would likely happened in a colder, non-man made warmed world.

    About the only examples are events that are entirely new will be forecast of types of storms sensitive to initial conditions...For example South Atlantic tropical storms, which haven't been observed in 500 years of ship travel are now starting to be seen and forecast to become more common. Mediterranean Sea is also forecast to become right for weak hurricane formation--thus far that hasn't happened.
    --
    If all you can do is avoid serious conversation, or resort to slide comments, than quite frankly you aren't welcome here because your not making a meaningful contribution--something we all should be striving for.

    --
    Thank you for comments regarding Venus, most illuminating, if you will forgive a small pun.
    Your welcome.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Prince does not know about "fast" being a recent phenomenon. Volcanic eruptions are "fast" and have measurable effects on climate. Such has been the case for recorded history and so it can be assumed for prehistory, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Evidently there are mechanisms to mitigate long term effects.

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dip...of_geophys.pdf
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    In terms of climate, fast means anything less than decades or centuries... and that is what we are seeing. That applies to atmospheric CO2 levels, temperature, glacier melting, sea level rise, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    Let me offer a bit of evidence that is not quantified very well but is first hand observation. I'm 65 yrs old. I have been a bird watcher since I was about 5. As a child living in New England I was annoyed that the most impressive of north Americas small birds did not live in my area. Cardinals, the most colorful of birds, and mocking birds, the best singers, were both birds of the deep south. I remember the excitement I felt at age 6 when my family visited Pennsylvania and I saw my first Cardinal. Now both cardinals and mockingbirds are common sightings at my home in New Hampshire. Changes in the ranges of wild birds are not conclusive evidence of global warming but they are evidence of environmental change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Knock what off? What is "false" about pointing out that climate change/weather/atmospheric events of every description have actual historical precedents and causes antedating arrival of humanity? Where is there a dichotomy in this? Indeed, it is reasonable to assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that said causes continue to operate.
    Then why are you bringing it up? Who's claimed those activities are caused exclusively by AGW? By implying and arguing as if it's a man-did-it, or man-didn't do it position you are using the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. In fact this thread (and the other one) had gone to considerable length to explain that these events might have happened, but likely are stronger or more extreme because of the warmer more humid world. What should have been a cat-1 hurricane is a cat-3, low soil moisture from a drought that should have ruined 30% of the corn harvest now ruins 80% of the harvest, a European heat wave that would have killed several hundred is a few degree warmer and a kills a thousand, a Northern Atlantic storm that would have produced 40 foot waves and damaged a few ships, is fueled by more energy which produces 60 foot waves sinks a dozen ships and kills fifty crew members. There's even been a bit of description of how we determine these by study, and figure out the degree of attribution of damage and deaths in the warmer world versus that which would likely happened in a colder, non-man made warmed world.

    About the only examples are events that are entirely new will be forecast of types of storms sensitive to initial conditions...For example South Atlantic tropical storms, which haven't been observed in 500 years of ship travel are now starting to be seen and forecast to become more common. Mediterranean Sea is also forecast to become right for weak hurricane formation--thus far that hasn't happened.
    --
    If all you can do is avoid serious conversation, or resort to slide comments, than quite frankly you aren't welcome here because your not making a meaningful contribution--something we all should be striving for.

    --
    Thank you for comments regarding Venus, most illuminating, if you will forgive a small pun.
    Your welcome.
    You mean "you're". Anyway seven minutes and one opinion, even if coming from a moderator of your stature, are not necessarily enough to conclude that one is "not making a meaningful contribution". Last time Prince checked, variety was "the spice of life", and there would be little reason to have such forum if all agreed.

    And were WRONG in their unanimity, no less.

    So you admit adverse weather could occur in the absence of alleged AGW, would that all such alarmists were so honest. Prince suggests that effort be directed to preparing for same instead of squandered on futile measures to limit atmospheric CO2, which Bunbury on another thread seems to imply is hopeless, see "Goldilocks" thread.

    Time does not permit Prince further elaboration, good day gentlemen.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Let me offer a bit of evidence that is not quantified very well but is first hand observation. I'm 65 yrs old. I have been a bird watcher since I was about 5. As a child living in New England I was annoyed that the most impressive of north Americas small birds did not live in my area. Cardinals, the most colorful of birds, and mocking birds, the best singers, were both birds of the deep south. I remember the excitement I felt at age 6 when my family visited Pennsylvania and I saw my first Cardinal. Now both cardinals and mockingbirds are common sightings at my home in New Hampshire. Changes in the ranges of wild birds are not conclusive evidence of global warming but they are evidence of environmental change.
    Venerable sir, as Prince has pointed out, and has been taken to task for pointing out on this very thread, climate change has been shown to have causes which have nothing to do with human activities.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Admittedly, Kalopin may not be brightest light on Christmas tree, and for that matter neither is Prince, but once Kalopin was asking what the "A" in AGW stood for. To many in lay public, "global warming" and "climate change" are automatically ASSUMED to be artificial, which is not necessarily the case.

    Given the ongoing significant role played by factors outside human control or even full comprehension, is it not folly to attempt to modify global weather by manipulation of atmospheric composition? Particularly given admission of our esteemed moderator, that adverse weather will continue, if less severe, allegedly.

    This is no "false dichotomy"- natural events shape climate and will continue to do so regardless of human activity. The role played by such activity must be somewhat obscured by this fact.

    Returning to topic, snow is known to be surprisingly good insulator due to air filled voids between crystals.

    And has any proposal yet been advanced to modify climate strictly by means of influencing albedo of planet?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    To many in lay public, "global warming" and "climate change" are automatically ASSUMED to be artificial, which is not necessarily the case.
    I agree. But we get pretty sloppy around there distinguishing what the "lay" person is thinking, and what most scientist think. It makes posters look that they don't know the difference--so lets be a bit more precise.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Prince, I'm not sure what's so confusing about all of this. The % composition of CO2 in the air world wide is clearly increasing. Are you proposing a theory of climate wherein that makes no difference at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post

    So you admit adverse weather could occur in the absence of alleged AGW, would that all such alarmists were so honest. Prince suggests that effort be directed to preparing for same instead of squandered on futile measures to limit atmospheric CO2, which Bunbury on another thread seems to imply is hopeless, see "Goldilocks" thread.

    Time does not permit Prince further elaboration, good day gentlemen.
    We're talking about weather here, which is fundamentally random. You can approach it with statistics, but there's no fully deterministic "A definitely caused B, and B could never have happened absent A" type of situation possible.

    That is to say that even in the worst case, if a magical faerie or wizard were to wave their magic wand and spontaneously raise average world wide temperatures by 5 degrees, the evidence you seek would not be present. All there is is statistical evidence, which always has a non-zero chance of turning out to be wrong, but usually has a higher chance of being right than it does of being wrong. No matter what we do we're gambling a little bit, but the question is whether you want to be betting in favor of the casino's odds, or against them.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Admittedly, Kalopin may not be brightest light on Christmas tree, and for that matter neither is Prince, but once Kalopin was asking what the "A" in AGW stood for. To many in lay public, "global warming" and "climate change" are automatically ASSUMED to be artificial, which is not necessarily the case.

    Given the ongoing significant role played by factors outside human control or even full comprehension, is it not folly to attempt to modify global weather by manipulation of atmospheric composition? Particularly given admission of our esteemed moderator, that adverse weather will continue, if less severe, allegedly.
    CO2 levels won't drop just because we quit adding more. That's what I think he means.

    We'd have to actively remove some of the CO2 that has already been put into the air if we wanted to reverse the process.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Clouds are reason Venus is so bright. Not water vapor clouds, though.
    Not sure what Venus observation has to do with this thread. Yes it's bright, which would tend to cool it if the clouds also weren't also reflecting light from below.
    --
    So if role of CLOUDS is still unknown, is debate over AGW really "settled" as proponents claim?
    Thus far with the changes observed the net effect seems close to nothing and the models don't suggest a strong trend either way. That being said clouds are a big part of the uncertainty and range of solutions and sensitivity between various models. The science is "settled," in terms that we know increasing Co2 will increase temperature of the planet surface--what we haven't nailed down is the range of that increase and its myriad effects at the local level where its most needed.
    Venus cited as example of high albedo provided by clouds, but obviously these are hot clouds unlike terrestrial ones composed of water droplets. Venus has no oceans, therefore no terrestrial clouds, which not only reflect incoming and outgoing radiation on Earth planet but transfer heat from surface via evaporation in the warmer areas to cooler areas receiving less radiation. This in some way brings us around to Kojax original post, or does Prince err?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    According to Wiki, the sun is decreasing in its output
    Yes, but more of the energy is being trapped, that we know for sure. And wiki isn't exactly a scientific source. Over the period of satellite measurements, solar output hasn't changed much at all, other than the sunspot cycle periods. It apparently was a few tenths of a percent lower during the Maunder minimum and little ice age.
    Following website states multiple times that "sun is cooling" or words to this effect. Then again, it may not be "exactly a scientific source" either, who is Prince to say?

    Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    To many in lay public, "global warming" and "climate change" are automatically ASSUMED to be artificial, which is not necessarily the case.
    I agree. But we get pretty sloppy around there distinguishing what the "lay" person is thinking, and what most scientist think. It makes posters look that they don't know the difference--so lets be a bit more precise.
    This website also baldly states that "humans are now the dominant forcing", in so many words, is THAT precise enough for you, esteemed moderator? One might assume that such a bold and definite statement is aimed at lay public, since "most scientists" already are aware of such an elementary fact. And where is your "false dichotomy" now, good sir?

    Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    There's a difference between dominant force (a view I also share after 30 years of following this subject including a few scientific contributions of my own back in the 80s), and it being the only force. The rather pithy article you linked explains past and present roles of the natural forcing as well. It's much different than rhetorically shouting "It's only CO2!" and similar on-or-off statements typical of dichotomous arguments.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Albedo. But not only ice increases this albedo, so do clouds. To a greater degree, actually. So warmer climate means less ice and more clouds, increasing total albedo, lowering temperatures.

    All other things being equal of course.
    Actually found out Enceladus is body in Solar System with highest albedo, no clouds there.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    There's a difference between dominant force (a view I also share after 30 years of following this subject including a few scientific contributions of my own back in the 80s), and it being the only force. The rather pithy article you linked explains past and present roles of the natural forcing as well. It's much different than rhetorically shouting "It's only CO2!" and similar on-or-off statements typical of dichotomous arguments.
    A view you share? You don't say- Prince would never have guessed. Is there really such a degree of difference between sole responsibility and majority of same? In court, do you get lesser sentence if you have accomplices? Not unless you turn state's evidence against them, generally. Earlier you seemed to split 50/50 or was that another thread? Whatever. At least you got holiday from Prince while he ate chocolate and tunafish and watched crappy movie, sniff... At least 24 hours of such martyrdom is better than being burnt at stake for his heresies!

    Speaking of heresies, did you enjoy Freeman Dyson on youtube video? Prince will always revere him for role in Project Orion.

    Freeman Dyson: Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society - YouTube
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Albedo. But not only ice increases this albedo, so do clouds. To a greater degree, actually. So warmer climate means less ice and more clouds, increasing total albedo, lowering temperatures.

    All other things being equal of course.
    Actually found out Enceladus is body in Solar System with highest albedo, no clouds there.
    Amd do you know nwhat the tmperature is? What gaseous species are available in the atmosphere to create clouds? What the density of the atmosphere is?

    I doubt it, or you would realize this is a straw man argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Speaking of heresies, did you enjoy Freeman Dyson on youtube video?
    Haven't watched the vid yet. As for the topic here, he's not an atmospheric scientist--I'd regard his opinion not much higher worth than that of my dentist. He does have some really cool ideas about the future--some of which might even turn out to worth more than pure fantasy.

    Earlier you seemed to split 50/50 or was that another thread?
    My fault I confused you. I've explained the transition from predominantly natural to predominantly man-made climate forcing that happened during the 20th century dozens of time in this forum.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Albedo. But not only ice increases this albedo, so do clouds. To a greater degree, actually. So warmer climate means less ice and more clouds, increasing total albedo, lowering temperatures.

    All other things being equal of course.
    Actually found out Enceladus is body in Solar System with highest albedo, no clouds there.
    Amd do you know nwhat the tmperature is? What gaseous species are available in the atmosphere to create clouds? What the density of the atmosphere is?

    I doubt it, or you would realize this is a straw man argument.
    Enceladus is pretty cold at surface, made of ice, after all, which is to be expected of a moon of Saturn. Not much atmosphere and no clouds or straw men have been detected by NASA to date. In other words, Wayne, WTF?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Speaking of heresies, did you enjoy Freeman Dyson on youtube video?
    Haven't watched the vid yet. As for the topic here, he's not an atmospheric scientist--I'd regard his opinion not much higher worth than that of my dentist. He does have some really cool ideas about the future--some of which might even turn out to worth more than pure fantasy.

    Earlier you seemed to split 50/50 or was that another thread?
    My fault I confused you. I've explained the transition from predominantly natural to predominantly man-made climate forcing that happened during the 20th century dozens of time in this forum.
    At what exact moment did this transition take place? Prince has not had the benefit of such an explanation and there is no need to go through the whole wretched thing again, just direct him thither to satisfy the imperious urge of his curiosity. You are absolved of all wrongdoing even if you elect not to do so, of course.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    Is there really such a degree of difference between sole responsibility and majority of same?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    At what exact moment did this transition take place? Prince has not had the benefit of such an explanation
    There was no such moment.

    And you have linked to a couple of places - the NOAA for one - that carry explanation enough. Always a good idea to read one's own links.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    It might have been in the 50's, when oil consumption really took off. Burning fossil fuels is the same thing as releasing lots and lots of trapped carbon, and then failing to trap more to make up for it.

    I don't get how climate change denialists are able to overlook the plain logical inconsistency of that. How do you release trapped carbon while failing to capture more carbon, and not expect a rise in CO2 levels? That's as close to literally adding 2+2 and getting 3 for the answer, as anything I've ever heard of.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •