Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog |
|
| Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 4. helmikuuta 2009 klo 14:48 (GMT) | +7 |
| Permalink | A A A |
|
Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.
|
Tropical Blogs
Tropical Weather Stickers®
 |
60 °F
Selkeää
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Hae ilmainen Weather Sticker® |
 |
Lataa valokuvia |
 |
Weather API for Developers NEW! |
 |
Tule sivuston jäseneksi |
 |
Löydä meidät Facebookista |
 |
Seuraa meitä Twitterissä |
| Copyright © 2013 Weather Underground, Inc. | Tietoja meistä - Ota yhteyttä - Tuki - Employment - Lehdistötiedotteet - Käyttöehdot - Privacy Statement |
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 — Blog Index
Dang. That is rather chilly for FL. We bottomed out at 25. Below freezing for a total 12 hours...not too bad.
Captain your a brilliant Captain.........you just defined Global Warming as it should be in Websters.....LMAO
Although admitting that it could be man-made, the study said that it could also be due to increased sun activity, underwater volcanoes or simply the earth's regular patterns.
"Although not a focus of this study," write Compo and Sardeshmukh, "the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation."
"A role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out."
& of course it shouldn't, you'll be hard fetched to find a scientist that doesn't think natural causes play apart in the climate we are experencing & they do all need measured.. One of the exciting things about this launch is we should figure out where a mystery carbon sink is..something else is removing CO2 we haven't figured out. As for your source the abstract from NOAA would be way better then something titled...Global warming may be caused by
underwater volcanoes
(Which I've been saying for years) ~even not there isn't anything concluse that underwater volcanos is the smoking gun to climate change in there..study is also put out by NOAA who is a leader in pushing for lower pollution & has concluded AGW is real, is hurting the human race along with many animals. They have also concluded (& this has been confermed by other countries not in NATO)~ that by 2050 the human industral contribution of CO2 will make the oceans too acidic to eat from any longer...
Vort~ I totally agree La Nina is giving us this cooler winter here in FL..I've seen worse. With this cold moving in from the northwest abit the O-town heat island really saved me here. After that last strong El Niño I really fear another.
go watch another one called "the great global warming swindle"
al gore took correct findings and twisted what they mean
You think Big Al is diffinetly the correct person for this important Government Spot of loose spending........LMAO
i think the government needs to invest in a big heater....this winter is too cold and if we dont do something about it our citrus will all die
thats been going on since there have been plants on earth,humans are actually creating extra Co2 that would not be occuring naturally,we are effecting our planet,there's no doubt about it,how much is the TRUE question?????
Updated : Tuesday February 3 , 2009 12:55:32 PM
Dont know how much this affects our Weather but, any amount of change will change Weather.
But what we're adding to the atmosphere is excess CO2. We're flooding the atmosphere's natural CO2 cycle.
Let's use this example...
Let's say you have a 50 liter bucket. The 50 liter bucket is filled with 25 liters of water. Inside the bucket you also have a 230ml flask. Once per cycle you take the 230ml flask and fill it with water from the bucket, then you dump it out...in the bucket. No change. You still have 25 liters of water in the bucket.
The reason I use a 230ml flask is because a common agreed upon number of biospheric CO2 respiration is around 230gigatons/year.
Humans, on the other hand, produce about 27 gigatons of CO2 every year. So then, you'd have to have another flask, of 27ml, that you fill from an outside source and dump into the 25 liter bucket every time you fill and dump a 230ml flask into the bucket. Obviously, since you're adding 27ml to the bucket every time you go through one cycle, the amount of water in the bucket will increase to 25.027, 25.054, 25.081, 25.108, etc...
Every year/cycle, it goes up since there's a net increase in water with the 27ml added from an outside source.
It's the same with CO2. Other than a few small caveats, such as the ability for carbon sinks to offset the anthropogenic contribution of CO2, the amount of CO2 continues to go up. In the example used above with the water in the bucket, the carbon sink would be the equivalent of a pinhole in the bucket that leaks 2ml of water per every cycle. So instead of adding 27ml per cycle maybe there's a 25ml net gain. But the bottom line is that we're adding CO2 to the atmosphere beyond the natural cycle of carbon in the biosphere. Hence the gradual build up.
Tell us how much of the 27ml is from the global population breathing, passing gas, cooking food, raising livestock and growing food.
Next, tell us what that will extrapolate to when the global population reaches 18 billion somewhere near 2081?
Don't get me wrong. I like your example, I think that using it is a good idea to help gain some insight into the working of just what people mean when they say WE are responsible and how much of it, if any, we can really do about it.
Besides make Al Gore rich that is.
Fortunately, you probably agree lowering emissions of Co2 as well as other pollutants is a good idea.
And why is that? The AGW crowd expects us to believe that their conclusions are dead on, isn't that so?
So, if 'there is no way to give scientifically accurate figures' then please apply it to the AGWHP crowd as well.
(I want to start by saying I am a big fan of Dr. Masters and this website. I do realize that this is being published out of Ann Arbor so it is forgivable to have a distinct regional political influence if you live in this area. There's no hate on my part, just a different political viewpoint. Libertarian on my part.)
In a previous job I worked on a project to create a curriculum for Environmental Systems Engineering with academia and gov't. In this discussion, I had lively debates with employees of INEEL federal lab in Idaho over global warming. These federal labs have big computers that achieve an almost God like status amongst employees. (Like the Wopper from the movie War Games.)
I read an article about scientists being commonly misled about the validity of models developed on supercomputers. The basic premise being that the larger the computer the more it takes on a mythic - almost religious status.
This segues into my view that there is a significant degree of "totalitarian" thinking going into the idea that there is a "consensus" amongst scholars about global warming.
In totalitarian Islamic countries they claim rightfully that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. What they don't tell you is that it is compulsory to be a member of the Mosque. In other words, the birth rate corrolates well with the rise in adherents to this religion. Infidelity to this religion is ultimately punishable by death.
In the western world, this is not our culture. Nobody is going to cut off our heads if we speak out publicly against the prevailing "wisdom" on global warming. (Though I sometimes wonder if proponents don't secretly dream about this.)
I am always wary when people try to coerce me into believing their viewpoint by using social pressure. I am somehow stupid if I don't agree with the consensus opinion. They throw hissy fits and jump up and down telling me that everyone is in agreement on this, what's the matter with me. They make films and are handed Nobel Prizes. (Don't talk to me about Nobel Prizes until Nikola Tesla gets his posthumously.)
I find it much easier to believe that fluctuations in the sun's energy into the earth's system cause fluctuations in mean temperature than I do added carbon dioxide. The strongest argument that can be made in my opinion for man's influence is that there is some sort of "delicate balance" that is being upset and the "resonance" of this is magnifying the effect somehow.
Unfortunately, this is the same type of argument where we are measuring toxins now down to parts per billion or even trillion. When the science is good enough to measure to quadrillion then I'm sure there will be toxins found at this level too. It just doesn't pass the "straight face" test.
There's no common sense in this at all. Suggest to an environmentalist that we do risk assessment in committing resources to environmental problems and they may lose their minds. Every risk no matter how small is equally important to them. Why?
Money.
They get funding for their projects this way. If you can do research for a parts per trillion toxin then risk assessment is out of the question isn't it? Zero Tolerance pays the bills.
So, because of the proponents of the global warming hysteria, I am convinced that this is in fact a global conspiracy to maintain funding for pet projects. Many are big time statists who see this as a political matter to bring more power to the central government which they largely control. No, the bias here leads me in the opposite direction.
Get mad at me, but wake me up when you can accurately predict the number and intensitiy of tropical storms with accuracy beyond a day or two before you predict that the entire East Coast of the USA is going to be under water. We have evidence of an ice age in our most recent past so it's a non-starter with me. I'm a heck of a lot more worried about an ice age starting than a global warming period.
This is the classic argument about the mouse standing on the elephant's back claiming that it's his jumping up and down on the bridge that's causing it to sway. I'm not throwing hate anybody's way, this is just my opinion. I have done serious work for the environment and have an open mind. Just don't tell me that if I don't go to the Mosque just yet that I will have my hands cut off.
Not sure how cold it actually got last night, but it is 33F here in Charleston now. Dew point 7F, so it is dry here as well.
Had planned on staying in bed, until the room reached 60F, alas it has not quite made that. It is however, noon - so time to get up, regardless.
I've turned on all the lights (lights add a temp or two, which is why I keep them off during the summer).
Not even feeling guilty about the energy consumption this morning, which is indicative of just how grumpy I am this morning.
Grouchy, grumpy. Read back over the blog, but skipped over the GW debate (The only thing I will be stirring is coffee and hot chocolate - so y'all keep the stir stick!)
The 27 gigatons is from all forms of human activity. Concrete production, farming, driving to and from work, etc. The source doesn't really matter. The point I'm trying to make is that what we're adding to the atmosphere is beyond the natural background levels in the carbon cycle.
Also, if global population is still living a carbon intensive lifestyle in 2081 then yearly emissions of CO2 will likely be more than the 27 gigatons we currently emit.
I dont know about the globe...but this little spot of land that I live on sure is...down in the teens for the third night in a row!!!!
we've only added .4%
and co2 is not an important green house gas
h20 will have a much greater effect than co2
The boondoggle is that no one is telling us how much CO2 we generate simply going about our daily lives. Not the part that is derived from industrialization, simply breathing and other bodily functions.
The question about the future is just that. All this AGW hysteria is a waste of time until we can determine what happens when 18 billion people are on this earth and generating CO2 naturally.
Remember, this is only about what humans do to live, not industrial stuff like concrete and driving cars, flying planes...just breathing, passing gas, growing food in the fields, burning wood to cook food...that real up close and personal living, naturally.
Co2 partial pressure in a given environment is directly related to temperature. Period. So in Sully's example above it would be the equivalent of this in a real world environment.
Yes his bucket contains 25 liters of water @ 60F. Well if we were to add 5 liters of water at 180F and then remove the same 5 liters after cooling to a mean. Would you still have the original 25 liters? Would you have more or less in your bucket?
The other thing in this discussion that is often over looked is the DATA... Shocking I know. Why would the Mauna Loa Data show a variation due to time of year in a closed system like the earth? Hint: It has to do with partial pressure of Co2 in sea water and the location of the sea water.
Glad to see you're admitting to humans having an impact. Next step is quantifying that impact.
no doubt we add co2
but that doesnt prove that we are changing the climate by doing so
What humans add by breathing is really a negligible number, especially when taken in context of the other activities you mention. Burning wood would also be a neutral source of CO2 to the atmosphere if you're taking the wood from a sustainable source i.e. enough biomass is grown to offset the biomass taken.
Where is the greatest % of sea water? What time of year would you expect the greatest % of sea water to warm. How much has the sea surface temperature risen in the last 30 years? How does this affect the Co2 Content over all?
Well...since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yes it should effect Earth's energy budget. The question is by how much...
Since CO2's IR absorbtion bands are nearly saturated @300-350ppm the effect of adding more CO2 to the amosphere beyond that number is less than it would be if added into the atmosphere at 250ppm. i.e. adding 50ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere @250ppm background levels would cause an 'x' increase in temperature but adding 50ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere when there's a background level of 350ppm would cause 'y' increase in temperature. The 'y' increase would be less than the 'x' increase because @350ppm there's less bandwidth in the IR spectrum available than @250ppm. But once you're at 350ppm the temperature is theoretically warm enough to start doing other things, like melt ice in areas where it's at threshold for melting. You then uncover more surface area of the Earth that can absorb incoming solar insolation, decreasing albedo.
This information is available anywhere on the internet. Just google search what you want to find. Information on the carbon cycle is everywhere.
From the context of your comment I assume that you believe that more humans breathing = more CO2 in the atmosphere.
In theory, this is true, but on timescales of eons (just think of how long it took for biospheric activity to give the current atmospheric composition).
I hope your not talking about the Arctic Ocean and it melting... Sea water at high Latitude due to the low inclination of the sun, has a higher albedo than that of snow... Snow is 90% the sea water is as high as 99%. The other thing is that as the ice melts in colder areas, it forms fog and clouds that due in deed block in coming sun light.
One other change with the Arctic Ice sheet being smaller is the fact that moisture and the snow associated with it is more prevalent at the higher latitudes. This makes the snow pack heavier for the land based Ice/snow pack.
(Just a measure of fact amongst so much ambiguity. ;))
Little Ice Age: Big Chill
I should be on most cable systems at the digital level.
LinkLink
Yes, sea-ice is a part of it. As is seasonal snowcover and to a much lesser extent, ice caps and glaciers.
Also, melting ice and snow in cold arctic climates doesn't always yield clouds and fog. For example, in 2007 the arctic saw one of the lowest amounts of cloud cover in the summer season on record but also the highest season-to-season thawing. The direct insolation helped to melt more sea-ice than one would anticipate than from warmer temperatures alone.
There is a few small caveats as well to when sea-ice is melting and it's effect on absorption and reflection. For example, when the sun angle is at it's highest in the arctic in June, there's a higher level of sea-ice than say on October 1st, when the sun is largely on the horizon or below in the arctic. One can make an argument that w/o the insulating ice cover during autumn the oceans are radiating more heat than they absorb during the summer time. But that takes very complicated equations and precise data collection to verify.
Sorry for the typowhoopsitis-- It should replace the I in the last statement. I will not be on. BTW -- there are 2 links together
Desist, stop, halt, cease, refrain, quit, end, terminate, lay off, enough already...
It is so cold, I am not sure it is my shivering, the neighbors, or another (Jan 28, 2009) Mini-earthquake gives broad area the shakes
I have heard people using Models.. Predictions.. Data.. Ouji boards to tell us about GW. This is a matter that has been extensively studied in the last 15-20 years. They are warning us of the dire consequences of what is going to happen in 25-100 years time.
We all have to agree with the above.. no matter what side of the GW equation you are on.
Hurricanes have been extensively studied for 50 years. Using Models.. Predictions.. Data.. Ouji boards to tell us what is happening and where/when, with in the next 10 days (normally long range).
We will all agree that any tracking/forecasting model outside of 3 days or less is speculation at best... and model data 7 - 10 days out is garbage.
If we agree with that statement... and they cannot predict the weather accurately with in 7 - 10 days... why in the world would I believe predictions 25-100 years out?
Do they have that much better Model data and scientists then the people trying to protect the CONUS from Hurricanes?
Abstract
In light of the rapid recent retreat of Arctic sea ice, a number of studies have discussed the possibility of a critical threshold (or “tipping point”) beyond which the ice–albedo feedback causes the ice cover to melt away in an irreversible process. The focus has typically been centered on the annual minimum (September) ice cover, which is often seen as particularly susceptible to destabilization by the ice–albedo feedback. Here, we examine the central physical processes associated with the transition from ice-covered to ice-free Arctic Ocean conditions. We show that although the ice–albedo feedback promotes the existence of multiple ice-cover states, the stabilizing thermodynamic effects of sea ice mitigate this when the Arctic Ocean is ice covered during a sufficiently large fraction of the year. These results suggest that critical threshold behavior is unlikely during the approach from current perennial sea-ice conditions to seasonally ice-free conditions. In a further warmed climate, however, we find that a critical threshold associated with the sudden loss of the remaining wintertime-only sea ice cover may be likely.
Here's the research highlights.
That is why Ice melt in the Arctic is largely irrelevant. It has strong negative feed backs. :-)
The temps in the Antarctic on land aren't close to the melt point, likewise with Greenland (Even the name Greenland shows good marketing.LOL).
So where is this higher threat of a higher albedo coming from? Not the data. In the past it was thought to be from the arctic and the sea water.... But that has been dispelled. It is well known that glaciers retreat and advance is due to precipitation not temperature. So where is this change to take place?
The main change in albedo comes from northern hemisphere snow cover during the spring and summer months. Snow cover during this time has shown statistically significant decreases in coverage.
My vote is on the Rock.
BTW, the only fact on this blog is the fact the discussions revolve around only theory .
Viewing: 301 - 351
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 — Blog Index