------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Windguy]

No I think we'll have to part company in the end on this one, because I truly believe we are definitely on a major planet change far beyond 5200, or even a million years ago. I would like to know how much fossil fuels we've burn't already as that is what will show us how far we are going to change the planet. My best guestimate is quite a few million years in the past.

GHG's are just a trigger, and even most GW scientists accept that as the case (Cbacba's CO2 doubling and quadrupling is partially correct, just not the current figures he's hawking). What Cbacba totally ignores is what even slight increases in heat can and will do to the planet setting off nearly unstoppable chain/compensatory/equilibrium reactions where the planet will not find a stable "lacking major changes" climate for another five hundred years. Then we'll be either be seven to sixty metres underwater or having the worst ice age "total ice over" (500 year predictions).

If you ignored GHG's for a second I understand your version where the solar heating causes greenland to melt, causes a slow down of the thermohaline (which I'm not sure if it will now), europe goes into an iceage, increasing albedo at the exact same time the sun dies down doubling the effects of an ice age.

An ice age I believe will be easily stoppable in the fact that even total freeze overs in the past were fixed up by GHG's from volcano activity. But man can easily speed that process by pumping out strong GHG's, possibly methane or carbon tetrafluorides (depending on how poisonous they are) to warm the planet back up. Methane is great as it only has a ten year lifespan, the CO2 off it can last a while though. But then again carbon black on ice sounds great.

I don't know if we can really kickstart the thermohaline again if it does slow to a crawl just by dumping salt into the ocean at strategic points though.

You've also pointed to another end of the world disaster that could happen millions of years into the future, what happens when the Uranium 235 gets used up by the planet and the core starts to cool down?

[cbacba]

windg,
GHG's are just a trigger, and even most GW scientists accept that as the case (Cbacba's CO2 doubling and quadrupling is partially correct, just not the current figures he's hawking). What Cbacba totally ignores is what even slight increases in heat can and will do to the planet setting off nearly unstoppable chain/compensatory/equilibrium reactions where the planet will not find a stable "lacking major changes" climate for another five hundred years. Then we'll be either be seven to sixty metres underwater or having the worst ice age "total ice over" (500 year predictions).

Sorry but it's what the numbers show. As for your magical mystery positive feedbacks, they're not science. What's more, net positive feedbacks don't exist in stable systems. There is evidence to suggest that there are serious negative feedbacks. What's more, it would seem that the most substantial feedback (clouds) can be spoofed somewhat by large ice sheets at relatively lower lattitudes to create a cold relatively stable operating point.

Were positive feedbacks dominant, the first pertubation, like a sunspot cycle or the earth's aphelion or perihelion would change conditions which would then cause this feedback to exert itself, pushing the system all the way to the next stable condition - assuming one exists.

To claim that there's one just right outside the door (like a wolf or the boogeyman) is to buy into the claims that the temperature has never been this hot or that it never changed before. It's akin to a 'flat earther' believing that if columbus had really made the trip to the new world, he'd fallen off the edge of the earth and so must've been lying.

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by cbacba

windg,
GHG's are just a trigger, and even most GW scientists accept that as the case (Cbacba's CO2 doubling and quadrupling is partially correct, just not the current figures he's hawking). What Cbacba totally ignores is what even slight increases in heat can and will do to the planet setting off nearly unstoppable chain/compensatory/equilibrium reactions where the planet will not find a stable "lacking major changes" climate for another five hundred years. Then we'll be either be seven to sixty metres underwater or having the worst ice age "total ice over" (500 year predictions).

Sorry but it's what the numbers show. As for your magical mystery positive feedbacks, they're not science. What's more, net positive feedbacks don't exist in stable systems. There is evidence to suggest that there are serious negative feedbacks. What's more, it would seem that the most substantial feedback (clouds) can be spoofed somewhat by large ice sheets at relatively lower lattitudes to create a cold relatively stable operating point.

Were positive feedbacks dominant, the first pertubation, like a sunspot cycle or the earth's aphelion or perihelion would change conditions which would then cause this feedback to exert itself, pushing the system all the way to the next stable condition - assuming one exists.

To claim that there's one just right outside the door (like a wolf or the boogeyman) is to buy into the claims that the temperature has never been this hot or that it never changed before. It's akin to a 'flat earther' believing that if columbus had really made the trip to the new world, he'd fallen off the edge of the earth and so must've been lying.

It is the speed of the change that is the real player not just fact that the planet is heating up.

Prove cloud cover increases wth temperature increases, if you believe it is a positive feedback that helps annull GW.

[cbacba]

windg,

first off, positive feedback means increasing the effect. That is if there is item X that is a positive feedback and it causes a forcing that incrases the temperature by 1 degree for every 1/10 degree rise, that is a positive feed that will result in runaway warming, as in ocean boiling away warming. What happens is some tiny tin pertubation occurs, maybe the earth's temperature rises by 1 e -19 degree K because you have a cold with a fever. That factor X of positive feedback then kicks in and all of a sudden it starts warming up the planet by 1e-18 degree. Since it'w 1e-18 degrees warmer, X continues and now it's 1e-17, til finally, if this feedback continues to exist, all of a sudden over some short period of time, the temperature has gone up 0.1 deg K - but then the feedback will cause it to rise another 1 degree, then 10, then 100, til finally some other factor stops it- like the earth totally evaporates. Positive feedbacks have to be swamped by an overall net negative feedback or there is no stability in the system.

On the other hand, a negative feedback might be one that changes forcings so that if the temperature rises by 1/10 degree, some forcing X will be affected and reduced that will drop the X forcing.
Now if co2 forcings increase by enough to raise temperature by 1 degree this negative feedback will start to reduce the X forcing as the temperature rises so that at some point below the 1 degree increase, things balance again.

An example of this X could be clouds. As temperature rises, more h2o enters the atmosphere and ostensibly forms more clouds, increasing the total cloud cover. As temperatures decrease, less h2o vapor enters the atmosphere and less clouds cover forms, allowing more energy to reach the surface, warming it. Conceivably, this cloud cover may be effected by cosmic rays and the solar cycles, providing for the prospect of climate changing from external sources. Also, were things to go with large cloud covers for a while, blocking lots of incoming radiation, the resulting iceage might block or short circuit some of this cloud negative feedback, permitting a new stable point that is somewhat colder.

There are numerous other potential X feedbacks, like aerosols and particulates, malinkovich cycles where the earth's orbit varies and changes the incoming energy.

As for speed of change, that factor is not something that is known. As for it having any effect, that's highly suspect. CO2 and other GHGs as do volcanic erruptions have extremely quick response times and there's nothing new about severe impacts from erruptions, far more so than is witnessed in recorded history. Co2 levels have been much higher in the past, it's been warmer in the past, it's been colder in the past. One could state that there's not really anything new under the sun, other than a bunch of two legged creatures wondering about it.

Hopefully now you realize that if clouds nullify or substantially nullify GW, it's because they cause negative feedback.

My little 0 dimension model indicates clouds themselves do affect the temperatures and that temperatures drop as more clouds cover the skies. That is a negative feedback. However, it seems the entire climate scientific world has yet to figure out just how clouds forms, how cosmic rays enter in versus how aerosols and particulates enter in, despite a hundred years of study, from Wilson to Svensmark.

My little simple model (and some thought) also indicate that it would appear that there may be strong net negative feedbacks but that no strong positive feedbacks appear to be involved in the current atmosphere - a pretty fair argument that net positive feedbacks don't occur.

You might want to take a look at this site, http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/c...radiation.html which is a modtran calculation model.

I can't say what's in it as I don't know at present. For a web page, it's a rather sophisticated calculation and it seems to be fairly accurate from what I've seen with rough comparisons, at least for the basics.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Windguy

I truly believe we are definitely on a major planet change far beyond 5200, or even a million years ago.

Prove it...or at least elaborate on your comment.

I would like to know how much fossil fuels we've burn't already as that is what will show us how far we are going to change the planet. My best guestimate is quite a few million years in the past.

You remind me of Simple. I don't see beyond your feelings and conjecture here. Would you like to argue whether or not runaway global warming is possible? It's not, unless we eliminate the Panama Isthmus from the equation and I don't see ocean levels rising that much.

GHG's are just a trigger, and even most GW scientists accept that as the case

Ah...the Red Herring. GHG's are the straw that will break the camels back and it's not quite broken...cunning and actually plausible. Can we buy ourselves some time? It's a leap of faith but I believe the natural forces at work put the chance of success at 1-2% on a good day. We have many options that have better odds.

An ice age I believe will be easily stoppable in the fact that even total freeze overs in the past were fixed up by GHG's from volcano activity. But man can easily speed that process by pumping out strong GHG's, possibly methane or carbon tetrafluorides (depending on how poisonous they are) to warm the planet back up. Methane is great as it only has a ten year lifespan, the CO2 off it can last a while though. But then again carbon black on ice sounds great.

Windguy, come now. We can't just heat up the planet. It would be much easier to cool it. There may be a stable cycle at an increased temperature (once the dust settles), this is a definite possibility. If we cool (especially if the event is dramatic), we are screwed.

I don't know if we can really kickstart the thermohaline again if it does slow to a crawl just by dumping salt into the ocean at strategic points though.

If we could get humanity to band together and throw their household salt into the ocean in unison we may have a chance.

~Paradox

[Hith Vanta]

Originally Posted by Paradox

Scientists predict surge in global warming after 2009

Two from the article:
1.Study author Douglas Smith says a forecast of the next decade is particularly useful, because climate could be dominated over this period by these natural changes, rather than human-caused global warming.

2.Until then, natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Hooray, a cool down.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Hith Vanta

Two from the article:
1.Study author Douglas Smith says a forecast of the next decade is particularly useful, because climate could be dominated over this period by these natural changes, rather than human-caused global warming.

2.Until then, natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Hooray, a cool down.

Hi Hith Vanta,

You must be closer to the Equator. I think the overall trend is one of unpredictability. The existence of forces within the cycles of Earth apparently counteract the forces of the Sun and cosmos 'sometimes'. I believe that in some cases the cycles coincide with one another and result in extremes. An example would be the shutdown of the THC (which has happened many times) and a coincidental solar minimum. The result would be a major glaciation with possible feedbacks (albedo). The recovery would span many thousands of years. The Milankovich cycle could tie into this equation and really create a mess.

For the sake of argument lets remove man-made global warming from the equation and assume (hypothetically of course) that fossil fuels are fertilizer for our trees. What are we left with? Volcanoes, the Sun, Cosmic Rays, clouds, the Hydrological cycle, wind currents and the dynamics of ice all play a role in climate. All of these forces are driven by energy. Before mankind, we heated and cooled on a regular basis and the forces I mentioned were responsible. Even without man, we can identify natural cycles which regulate our global energy balance.

If you desire cooling then history is on your side. Personally, I wonder whether or not this is something we should hope for. If we are lucky, after a brief 2-5 year adjustment period we will settle into another stable state of existence...one that will allow us to inhabit a few more nooks and crannies of Mother Earth. Then again, maybe climate change is the answer to our overpopulation problem. I am sure the thought has crossed the minds of a few people. Maybe preparing is an option that is being set aside in the interest of cleansing. Either way, it stinks. I am tired of ringing the alarm bell...especially since we have passed the point where being alerted serves any good.

Let's all watch the show and hope our seats remain when the music stops. What else if there?

~Paradox

[cbacba]

First off,

With any linear negative feedback system, there are an infinite number of stability states. It's a linear rather than digital situation. There's absolutely no reason to think there are only a few plateaus of stability around or that there are places which are any more 'stable' than any other. The universe pretty much operates in a linear fashion despite its discrete foundations until you reach them at the quantum level.

Earth's temperature is a function of the parameters that go into causing it to be what it is. All of them within this tiny range are linear variables. their changes are linear. Not even such absolute points such as h2o freezing or boiling points are actually linear as the earth is an orb, not a flat pizza pan so those temperatures would not be reached instantaneously at all spots - making it linear NOT digital.

Freezing water is 273K. Boiling water is 373K (1 atm press.) Thats a range of 100K. 100K forms a range over temperature of 100/323 = 30%. A 1 degree variation corresponds to a change of 1/323 = 0.3% . Those points are major rails that when reached, the major factors affecting our climate will change (assuming uniform temperature) and new sets of parameters will become the dominant factors.

When you're talking about the earth's temperature change from GHGs, you're basically talking about a tiny amount, a tiny fraction of the overall temperature. Even a well designed feedback control system using PID doesn't keep things perfectly at a setting. As input parameters change, control parameters act or counteract because of a slightly different condition that changes their value.

As for ocean currents, they are a result of differential heat causing heat flow transfer. They're somewhat like rising bubbles in a pot of boiling water. If the conditions are such that there's not enough energy to cause them to happen, they stop. If there's enough energy coming in to create the differential heat, they'll start. If you built a wall across and through the ocean to stop them, they'd eventually find a suitable efficient alternative. It seems some of the mainland europeans were wanting to or trying to build power stations that exploited this current to generate electrical power. I think perhaps they believed it to be a form of 'green' power with no fuel consumption, not even nuclear. I wonder if they have given up or cancelled their plans on that now.

[Windguy]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l-warning.html

http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Glo...ng/Methane.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

http://www.grist.org/comments/intera...ef/index1.html

They are partial to explaining GW runaway.

Cbacba - climate scientists are predicting clouds have a slightly positive feedback, not negatve as you are saying, but no one knows for sure, consider where the clouds will most likely to be formed, at night and colder regions. England cloudy, Australia sunny maybe?

Secondly, increasing heat in the atmosphere doesn't mean increase in clouds, just means the atmosphere can hold more H2O before forming clouds or raining.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Windguy

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn443-global-warning.html

http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Glo...ng/Methane.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

http://www.grist.org/comments/intera...ef/index1.html

They are partial to explaining GW runaway.

Cbacba - climate scientists are predicting clouds have a slightly positive feedback, not negatve as you are saying, but no one knows for sure, consider where the clouds will most likely to be formed, at night and colder regions. England cloudy, Australia sunny maybe?

Secondly, increasing heat in the atmosphere doesn't mean increase in clouds, just means the atmosphere can hold more H2O before forming clouds or raining.

Clouds tend to form here during the day and dissipate at night. I don't recall ever being anywhere that it clouds over at night after being clear during the day on a regular basis. That would imply too that most all rainfall occurs at night, my experience is quite the opposite. In fact, thunderstorms form during the day, rain and virtually always dissipate with the declining impact of solar heating on the cloud tops.

A quick and dirty 1% variation on increasing cloud cover on the model indicates the following: Surface energy absorption down 1.86W/m^2, albedo up 1.5W/m^2 reducing total energy coming in. Surface to space radiation down 1.48W/m^2 and total absorption of the earth+atmosphere down 1.46W/m^2. This is energy balance.

Note that the earth cools because there is less incoming energy by 0.36 W/m^2. While there is less surface to space radiation, it's about the same as the increase in albedo and about the same as the decrease in total system absorption.

Since the cloud cover appears to decrease energy flow, and hence temperature of the surface, but doesn't appear to really change the atmospheric temperature in this 'delta' analysis.

Net result, cooler surface, essentially unchanged atmospheric temperature, less indwelling radiation making it through.

Considering cloud formation appears to be tied in with cosmic rays, aerosols, particulates and the like, it's going to be impossible to separate out in the real world who is doing what to whom.

Clouds form generally above 2km. In the temperate zone, thats 285K to 265k typical temperature. Suffice to say that higher up it's going to be freezing and below up there. Midrange clouds where t-storms come from are 2-5km base with tops that can go rather far up.

when h2o evaporates, it forms a light molecule about 18 (mol. weight) compared to the average of 28.8 or so. It is lower density and will tend to rise - like a helium filled balloon tends to rise. Going up, that means the pressure is reducing. Assuming adiabatic (no energy gained or lost) expansion due to lower pressure (checkout the ideal gas law for that one) the temperature will drop.

The air may hold more h2o vapor at the surface, but all that means is there's more to rise. The temperature at the surface isn't the temperature high in the sky and warmer air going up with the h2o is going to cool off also.

If you think about what you're saying, you'll eventually realize that hurricanes and typhoons form in the summer time in the tropics, not during winter time at the poles. The ramifications of what you are saying would dispute that fact.