Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
1 2
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rising sea levels?

Orde,

Thanks for mentioning the Gerlich & Tscheuschners paper. I haven't absorbed it all yet, but most of it was already know by those of us who are frequently referred to as deniers. I've known that what really warms a greenhouse is the lack of convection, that you can't average temperatures, that cavity radiation models can't be applied to fluids and gases, and that planetary energy budget diagrams are wrong (and disprove the GHG effect anyway).

Jim

AWG and the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper

Indeed! As a trained physicist myself, I know how easy it is to apply established physical principles inappropriately to newly considered phenomena.
G & T seem to be saying that the greenhouse effect exists, but does almost nothing to contibute to the warming effect, which is realy due to the solar gain of the air in the green house; warming and warming because it has nowhere to go. Is this the right interpretation?
I find it rather galling to be told by scientifically uneducated people at parties, that my AWG denial is ridiculous when they couldn't tell an electron form a neutron.

Re: AWG and the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper

You have hit the nail on the head i.e. the scientific ignorance of a large proportion of the population. This leaves them exposed to the AGW religion & Creationism.
I am at the moment asking friends & acquaintances if they know what Einstein's famous equation is. To date there has been 1 correct reply, from my brother in law, a solicitor. A friend of long standing who studied physics to A level in the late 50's did not know.

Re: AWG and the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper

It seems reasonable to me to treat Earth/sun system as a homogeneous solid body of uniform colour surrounded by an atmosphere surrounded by vacuum and with a source of radiant heat at some distance. This being the case, there will be a particular temperature at which equilibrium between heat received from the sun and heat radiated to space is reached. If you change the composition of the atmosphere to include more molecules which tend to selectively prevent the (longer wavelength?) heat radiated from the earth escaping while allowing the (shorter wavelength?) heat received from the sun through, it seems obvious that the temperature at equilibrium will increase. It also seems obvious that the temperature at equilibrium will increase if you make the earth darker (melt the ice caps). I understand why the earth with an atmosphere is hotter than an equivalent black body with no atmosphere, but I do not understand why it is hotter than an equivalent black body with the same atmosphere.

From my non-physicist's perspective, the greenhouse hypothesis seems fundamentally sound, the question for me is whether the magnitude of the effect humans have on it is noticeable.

Re: Re: AWG and the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper

I'm with James on this one. A question did occur to me recently about albedoes. In all the work I've seen the same value of Earth's albedo has been used regardless of wavelength. Is this valid? It strikes me we are talking about such tiny variations that small changes in albedo with frequency could well swamp other influences.

Re: Re: AWG and the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper

I think that the message behind G & Ts' paper is that the Energy radiated from the earth at longer IR wavelengths is far too small to influence global warming thus making the tiny fraction of carbon dioxide contributed by mankind doubly insignificant.

Re: Re: AWG and the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper

"I understand why the earth with an atmosphere is hotter than an equivalent black body with no atmosphere...."

You're doing better than me James, I've always thought that a major effect of the atmosphere is to cool the Earth down relative to the high temperatures that would be seen without an atmosphere. To gain an understanding of what the Earth would be like without an atmosphere, we need to look at a body at a very similar distance from the Sun which doesn't have an atmosphere, and we've got one called the Moon.

The maximum daylight temperature on the Moon is 120 deg C with an average daylight temperature of over 100 deg C, and the minimum nighttime temperature is -230 deg C. The Moon has an albedo of 0.1 so it's pretty close to being a black body, even though we can see it of course.

The maximum daytime temperature on Earth with no atmosphere would be a bit cooler than the Moon because we have an albedo of 0.3, and the maximum would be about 90 deg C. Our nighttime temperature would I think be warmer than -230 deg C because of our much shorter nights. So presumably we've got the atmosphere to thank for protecting us from these temperature extremes.

The Greenhouse people promote the idea of the Earth having some sort of average temperature without an atmosphere of -18 deg C. This is based on a simple model of the Earth assumed to be at at a uniform temperature satisfying an energy balance equation. I think it takes account of the Earth receiving radiation over a circular cross-section area but re-emitting over a spherical surface area and assumes an albedo of 0.3. THe argument goes that since the Earth's average temperature is significantly higher than -18 deg C, it's about 15 deg C, then the greenhouse effect must be warming the Earth on average by about 30 deg C. But this 15 deg C is just a simple arithmetic average. The original -18 deg C used the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to derive it and so has a temperature to the power of four averaging process going on it. I've never seen anybody work out the global average temperature taking fourth power weights of temperatures of recording stations. It would be interesting if that number was higher or lower than -18 deg C.

Re: Re: Re: AWG and the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper

Well what if your black body has perfect thermal conductivity?

What you're saying is that the atmosphere "cools" the daylight side and "warms" the night side. I use scare quotes because of course it does nothing of the sort - actively - but clearly does influence the distribution of heat.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to talk about a global average temperature. The earth, or moon, or hypothetical black body each contains a certain absolute quantity of heat energy. Why can't you turn this into an average temperature taking into consideration the relative heat capacity and abundance of the various different chemical constituents of the body in question? Of course that assumes thermal equilibrium, towards which all systems tend anyway, and we know that having a fluid atmosphere and point source of heat will prevent the earth from ever reaching thermal equilibrium, but I don't see the theoretical barrier to calculating an average temperature once you know how much heat energy the system contains.

Re: Re: Re: Re: AWG and the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of an average global temperature, I just don't like the method used to derive the -18 deg C number. It's an oversimplified hand calculation, and it seems curious that climate modellers who are more normally associated with enormous computer models should advocate it. I would like to see to see a much more sophisticated calculation for the average temperature of a no-atmosphere Earth if we're being asked to spend hundreds of billions of pounds in mitigating this Greenhouse effect malarkey. A no-atmosphere Earth subject to thermal radiation could be modelled on a standard industry finite element computer program with a heat transfer capability.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rising sea levels?

In what manner are planetary energy budget diagrams wrong and how do they disprove the GHG effect?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rising sea levels?

Orde,

>> In what manner are planetary energy budget diagrams wrong and how do they disprove the GHG effect? <<

You can't average temperatures and get anything meaningful in a physical sense (but it might be statistically meaningful). Using a global averaged temperature is nonsense. (See this paper.) These diagrams use global averaged temperatures. (The surface temperature is really the temperature of air lying just above the surface.)

The diagram in G & T is a normalized version of figure 7 in Kiehl & Trenberth (1997). K & T's figure 7 appears everywhere on the Internet including the last two IPCC reports. The numbers are wrong, e.g., K & T miscalculate the flux value of the atmospheric window. (One does wonder how the paper passed peer review.) K & T's figure 7 is the quintessential model of the greenhouse effect. I automated this model and several things become apparent: 1) if you close the atmospheric window, the model stabilizes at a higher temperature--it doesn't go unstable or runaway; 2) GHGs heat the atmosphere more than the surface (that's how they work) by roughly 160%, 3) decreasing the Earth's albedo duplicates the measured surface-atmosphere temperature ratios, 4) the only way to accuse GHGs for any of the surface warming is if you reduce surface temperature by at least 50% (but that would ruin alarmist's arguments).

There is a causality between albedo and CO2--more CO2 yields a greener planet. A greener planet is a darker planet. A darker planet is a hotter planet. What a quandary for environmentalists.

I applaud Anthony Watts efforts to improve the quality of the surface measuring network, but his success in removing UHI from the SAT may make the GHG scenario slightly possible (though far less critical).

Jim

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rising sea levels?

Warmest thanks (no pun intended) for the reply which is of great interest to me.

Are there not two other factors to consider in investigations of global warming viz,

1) The Earth has a hot core it's not just a passive body receiving energy.

2) Is every one sure that the energy received from the Sun is always constant?

Orde

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rising sea levels?

Orde,

1) The average global geothermal energy flow is very small. It's claimed to be on the order of tens or hundreds of milliwatts per square meter. On the other hand, climate-weather energy flows are on the order of tens or hundreds of watts per square meter. That's about three orders of magnitude difference. I think all climate models ignore geothermal.

2) No.

Jim

Re: Rising sea levels?

Seeing as I'm bitterly anti EC...
------


That's a shame. I'm not but I recognise that even the things I think are good ideas might be made even better by considered criticism (if only the same were true of our lords and masters everywhere). They don't benefit at all from bitterness, however.

Re: Re: Rising sea levels?

You take 'bitterly' in the wrong sense, perhaps I should have said determinately. Geopolitics is not science in any sense, and outcomes are merely a matter of preference and opinion. The historical outcome of Harold Godwin winning the battle of 1066 would have been very different to William winning it, the desirability of either is, (or would have been at the time), purely a matter of personal preference.

Re: Rising sea levels?

I probably did misunderstand you.

Your mention of Harold v William reminds me that spin is not new. History lessons in junior school were extremely well spun (pro royalist, for example), and the story of William's successor William Rufus (who was something of a local celebrity in the area I grew up, albeit 900 years before my time) was well told, but for some reason or other, the inconvenient detail of the near certainty of his homosexuality, including appointment of his lover to a post of some considerable wealth and influence, was omitted.

Spin is sadly something we have to contend with in almost everything we are told, whether bogus claims of 20 mm sea level rises or omitting information about who some previous god-king of England bedded. It isn't new, and it isn't confined to those who hold a particular "establishment" or "anti-establishment" viewpoint.

Re: Rising sea levels?

A review of the paper referred to above can be found at - http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2007 July.htm#exonerated

Re: Rising sea levels? IF THEY STOP GET WORRIED

Orde,

Your post, and the follow up replies has been one of the most interesting for some time. Particularly because it has revealed the fact that many members of 'numberwatch forum' have the necessary experience of the physical sciences, and the erudition to make informed and constructive comment. To me, the comments by Alan Bates, Jerry, and Jim Masterton were particularly informative. --- Long may it continue.

Rising Sea Levels? = Grist to the AGW mill, but to any thinking geophysicist it is ; we are still enjoying the benign affects of an Interglacial. If Sea Levels were falling, then the Ice Age cometh and mankind's technological knowledge is, as yet, far too puny to stop it!

My own studies of gas dynamics and chemical kinetics long ago made me realise that as we live on a 'water world' which periodically decides to be an 'ice world', then the rise and fall of Sea Levels (in a global sense), is inextricably bound to the workings of the atmosphere, more specifically, its water vapour content. Massive Ice formation (as in ice-ages) needs fresh water, and this can only be subtracted from the atmosphere, not the oceans as, whilst salt water can freeze, no physical mechanism exists to allow this ice to build up, especially via transportation to land surfaces. --- To paraphrase the statement in my post 'Exploding The Myth' ( December 07):- “Sea Level up means Ice Level down, and Ice Level up means Sea Level down”.

I did read the Gerlich & Tscheuschner Paper last year, I also noticed Real Climate's usual “Rubbish” comments; and John Brignell's review which he has timely reminded us of. In hindsight, I now have a different view of G&T's motivations: possibly, the unnecessary math and waffle were included for the express purpose of giving the 'Climate Botherers' some safe points of attack, without detracting from the essence of their message. Using the word Falsification in the title was clever because in scientific matters this is absolutely correct usage, but they must have known that they were going to be 'hung out to dry' by the CB's, and that this word would be like a 'red rag to a bull' to them. (A bit like squirrelling away a deliberate error in your VAT returns for them to find on their inspection visits), it works. They did get published after all.

On the AGW greenhouse issue, well, the late John Daly had the perfect title for his site, “Still Waiting For Greenhouse”! There isn't one in our atmosphere and there never will be as long as it has Convection Conduction and Turbulence (in physics, more correctly, Friction). So, if you attempt to model climate based on the greenhouse fallacy, it will be 'crap' in and 'crap' out, which is just what we are getting. --- The AGW's abuse of the Radiation Laws has been overcooked (no pun intended), their 'goose' I mean. It really is a blatant attempt to use bull***t to addle brains.

Long wave IR Radiation does not control our climate, it is far too weak for that. What it does do is cool the earth during its night cycle, thereby preventing us from being cooked. At the same time it maintains the thermal gradient for the weather machine to work. --- Climate is in the business of moving Sensible Heat around the place, where this heat comes from is not particularly relevant. For example, consider the scenario of a few monster volcanoes in permanent eruption dotted around the world, they could move enough sensible heat from the earth's core into the atmosphere to maintain a weather machine. Equally, as weather must have access to prodigious amounts of Water Vapour, and as volcanic eruptions are around 80% H20 & 20% CO2, the oceans could have a bit of a rest? I think it was Mark Twain who said, “Climate is what we want, Weather is what we get”. (And before any CB'er shouts about the excess CO2, there wouldn't be any because CO2 in the atmosphere is self regulating due to its affinity for water vapour. Its higher mass (pressure) means that its preferred state is weak carbonic acid which is removed by precipitation).

Raman, who did most to give us spectroscopy would be most upset to see the 'Spectral Windows' of our atmosphere's molecular components used and abused to support political and pseudo scientific dogma. And it really is poetic justice, that it is these very Spectral Signatures which will ultimately bring about the demise of the AGW rubbish. --- One could say that H2O Vapour is very 'hungry' for IR Photons: for this is where the weather machine gets its 'muscle'. And one could say that CO2 is 'hungry' for H2O: for only by that affinity can it hitch a ride back to earth where it belongs. As CO2 is heavy and a very poor absorber of IR Photons it cannot gain sufficient kinetic energy to play a meaningful part in the weather machine, and it can only get distributed around the atmosphere via the kinetic energy of other molecules, i.e., entrainment. --- Further, one could say that CO2 is bad news for Water Vapour because CO2 masks a percentage of the incoming IR Photons thereby reducing its kinetic energy gain (sensible heat), incidentally, thus helping to cool the atmosphere and increase precipitation which also removes sensible heat. --- The planetary thermostat at work.

David

Re: Re: Rising sea levels? IF THEY STOP GET WORRIED

Very interesting indeed! Do you know where the AGW proponents get their figure of up to 30% of global warming traced to atmospheric CO2 from?

Re: Rising sea levels?

Yes Orde,

Planet Earth is interesting, and fascinating, and the more I learn about it the more I am enthralled by the symmetry and synergy of its working processes.

CO2, according to the mythology of the IPCC and the other AGW nuts, acts something like a Catalyst in the atmosphere; by intercepting outgoing long wave IR Radiation from the earth, it is supposed to re-radiate this energy back into the atmosphere thereby raising its temperature and increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans. As a consequence, the uptake of Water Vapour is increased which further warms the atmosphere. --- This is where they get their 30% from: it is, of course, all arrant nonsense, 'putting the cart in front of the horse'.

1, CO2 is a very poor absorber of radiation. This means that it cannot acquire much kinetic energy (heat store or increase of temperature). This means that the silly notion of a thermal 'trap' or 'blanket' in the atmosphere is impossible: the radiation laws and physical laws just will not allow it.

2, In a radiation field, CO2 in conjunction with H2O acts to slightly reduce the thermal gain of H2O. This is acknowledged by the IPCC but their 'spin' is to explain the effect away as a consequence of their different Absorbtion Bands and Spectral Windows. --- Their 'red herring' of Spectrometry just does not come in to it. In a gas, when an IR Photon collides with a molecule or atom, the Photon will be affected in four ways: a) it can be Reflected (scattered) without loss of energy. b) it can be Deflected with a slight loss of energy. c) it can be Absorbed with significant loss of energy. d) if it is absorbed, it will be re-emitted at a lower energy level; and if a Photon is absorbed then re-emission will occur in all directions.

This is a most important point about the radiation properties of gas molecules. --- Radiation Energy cannot be stored in a molecule or atom as sensible heat is stored in an insulated domestic hot water cylinder. --- They can Only acquire a jolt of kinetic energy, (as in playing snooker, the cue is the Photon and the ball is the Molecule), which is immediately dissipated via conduction/friction (by bashing into another molecule) and the emission of low energy Photons: (back to snooker; when the ball rolls along the table it continuously loses energy via 'rolling resistance', which is reasonably comparable to a molecule shedding Photons).

3, H2O (water vapour) is a fantastic absorber of radiation, around 100 times that of CO2. Now, outside of cloud formations, water vapour is very tenuous and can be down to levels as low as CO2 in some areas. So you can see that in a radiation field, the CO2 molecules can get in the way and mask the water vapour molecules by scattering and deflecting some Photons, hence depleting their kinetic energy gain. --- If the CO2 content of the atmosphere rises above its equilibrium balance with water vapour, then the atmosphere Will Cool Down, through the energy depletion of H2O. And this will cause less evaporation to take place: here we see the synergistic relationship with Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures because this forces the atmosphere into maintaining a new equilibrium until the next change cycle comes about.

David

Re: Rising sea levels?

Is this an appropriate moment to ask the learned Brethren and Sistren if it is known first, how Ice Ages begin and second, how they end?

Re: Re: Rising sea levels?

I doubt anyone, much less us (speaking for myself alone) actually knows how they start, but the general view seems to be that when various configurations of the Earth's orbit and rotation reduce the average insolation less snow melts in summer than fell in winter, leading to the growth of ice sheets. Since these have a much higher albedo, i.e. they reflect more light back into space than vegetation or bare rock, they then apply a positive feedback to the cooling. This gives a stepwise fall in temperatures over the next several tens of thousands of years.
The "official", orthodox, account then says that "something" (unspecified) causes CO2 levels to rise, raising temperatures which cause permafrost to melt and CO2 held in the oceans to be released, raising atmospheric CO2 and so on into a positive feedback loop raising temperatures as we have seen in the last 20,000 years. Orthodoxy then goes quiet!
Unfortunately, there is a 4-800-year lag between rising temperature
and the onset of CO2 rise. This might be explained by the feedback hypothesis above were it not for the same lag at the end of the sharp rise in temperatures. Surely, if it is the increasing CO2 predominantly driving the rise in temperatures we should see CO2 levels falling before the end of the warming phase?
My own hypothesis runs thus:
Something, probably a combination of solar effects, causes temperatures to rise in an ice-bound world.
Permafrost melts, releasing methane from hydrates and CO2 as peat bogs dry out and rot. Ice-sheets melt and raise sea levels, altering oceanic circulation.
Vegetation increases, lowering albedo. Temperatures rise more.
Ultimately, ice is only left at the poles where its effect on albedo is minimal and the rising temperatures leave greater parts of the lower latitudes as desert, with a higher albedo and capable of radiating more heat off at night. What had been verdant forest exhausts the nutrients in the soil and the plant material carrying the nutrients is swept into the sea faster than weathering can replace them. Forests die back an become grassland, with a similarly higher albedo. CO2 levels continue to rise.
The solar insolation then falls, cooling things down. Since warm air holds a lot more water vapour than cold, precipitation increases. This does several things. In low latitudes the rain increases the weathering of rocks, locking up CO2. At higher latitudes it falls as snow, raising the albedo and reflecting more of the solar heat than before so that the land warms up more slowly. Eventually the new snow of winter falls on the old snow of the previous year that didn't manage to melt during the summer. That starts the feedback loop again, leading rapidly to the re-forming of ice caps. Now CO2 levels fall because a) it is more soluble in cold water than warm, b) plants do not rot so fast in cold, damp conditions, building up peat bogs and c) what rotting does take place in permafrost forms methane which is promptly locked up in clathrates.
This seems to account for most of the observed phenomena, including the very fast rises and somewhat slower falls in temperatures characteristic of glacial cycles. Note that CO2 levels are a result of temperature change, not a cause.
Any corrections or modifications to the above are most welcome.

Re: Rising sea levels?

I think that one "science" program (it was the BBC but fairly recent. If it had been some 10 years or so ago I would have said "science program" instead of ""science" program") claimed that snowball earth emerged into warmer times again as a result of a massive volcanic event. That is to say, there seems to have been only the one significant snowball earth period and the one helpful big volcanic event.

If we get another snowball, will we get another volcanic event? only if there is a causal link.

By the way, the dinosaurs were actually wiped out by by paying too much attention to bristle cone pine tree ring data and not enough on asteroid defence; a bad policy choice as it turns out.

Speaking of which, wouldn't we be better spending our money on some kind of asteroid defence?

Re: Re: Rising sea levels?

"Speaking of which, wouldn't we be better spending our money on some kind of asteroid defence?"

It depends.

If some form of sanity has come to prevail before the next asteroid hit then, yes, attention to possible defences could be desirable. Maybe.

On the other hand if the current rush to insanity has prevailed to that time then no - a suitably large disaster could be the best way to purge the world and allw things to start over.

IMHO.


Grant

Re: Re: Rising sea levels?

I think if it came to the choice of having to spend money on either asteroid impact or AGW, I would see asteroid impact as being the more credible life-threatening hazard myself.

The attitude of politicians to asteroid impact is interesting in that it gives an insight into who is the real driving force on whether political action is taken on some scare. Assuming the asteroid can't be blown up or deflected, asteroid impact has the potential, as I understand it, amongst other effects, to plunge the world into semi-darkness for weeks/months/years due to atmospheric dust caused by the impact. So it offers politicians similar excellent opportunities for controlling society and raising taxes as AGW does in terms of preparing their citizens for 'the coming darkness'. The difference between the two hazards is that one, AGW, has a powerful lobby group promoting it, namely the Green lobby backed up by their allies in the news media. The asteroid impact hazard only has a few scientists lobbying for it with no major NGO associated with it. When it comes to British MPs interest in the two hazards, 412 out of 646 have signed up to some 'Early Day Motion' (EDM 178) about being concerned over AGW (cajoled into doing this by the Green lobby), whereas I'm only aware of a single MP being interested in asteroid impact and that's oddball Lib Dem MP Lembit Opik. The switch to renewable energy to mitigate AGW certainly wouldn't help with a world plunged into semi-darkness, solar power would be heavily compromised and it might be much less windy in a darkened world where the Sun has less effect in driving the weather.

I noticed another example of lobby groups controlling whether political action is taken a few years ago. The statistical death rate due to radioactive radon gas seeping out of the ground is apparently the same as the death rate due to passive smoking (assuming the figures are valid for the sake of argument). But out of the two hazards only one has a powerful lobby group promoting the hazard, the anti-smoking lobby, so political action is only seen on that hazard. Theoretically the Green lobby are supposedly interested in protecting the public from the effects of radioactive material, but of course this concern does not extend to natural radioactivity.

It's all about professional lobby groups.

Re: Rising sea levels?

Jerry, many thanks for the concise but still extensive reply, and JMW, I do appreciate your judicious employment of quotation remarks.

I had decided that the next time I meet a Warmer, I would ask him or her to explain the Ice Ages; then when the Warmer fails to do so, ask why they are so worried about minor climate variations. If the Warmer, following MBH, denies natural variation, I shall ask them if they deny the Ice Ages. Should be a good game.

Re: Rising sea levels?

Jeff,

Good game indeed.

For a useful set of graphs, dig out some of the ultra-orthodox magazines like New Scientist and Nature. NEW SCIENTIST 6/9/8 had a cover article subtitled "Did Stone Age farmers change the climate" (answer to all such journalism - "No") which shows graphs of temperature, CO2, CH4 and insolation. Careful examination reveals temperature rising before CO2 & methane. Likewise Nature this week has a graph of sea level and CO2 which is remarkable for showing no correlation at all that I can see.

Yet still they believe!

Re: Rising sea levels?

Jeff Wood asks about Ice-ages, and Jerry gives a very fair response, but did welcome any corrections or modifications to his post.

My first first point Jerry, concerns your use of the term 'Orthodoxy' in relation to CO2 beliefs. Well, we know about the Orthodox Church, and AGW is a form of politicised religion. Very appropriate. --- My only real concern was your use of the changing Albedo of the earth's surface textures to create a positive feed-back to a global cooling scenario, and also to a global warming scenario. Albedo does, of course, play a part in these things but its effects, in my view, are quite minor except at the extremes. --- My reasons for saying this follow:-

From a cosmological viewpoint, the albedo of a planet's surface is only important if it doesn't have an atmosphere. If it does, the albedo of the atmosphere is the dominant force, but mainly, only at the extremes of thermal cycles. Such as, for the earth, when in the grip of an Ice-Age, it could be that a major change to the albedo of our atmosphere could precipitate a return to Ice, and once there, the major change in the albedo of the surface would serve to lock us into it. These forces once in place are vastly more powerful than minor variations of insolation.

As to the cause of Ice-Ages, I find the principles endorsed by those two notable men of science, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, to be most compelling. In principal, their opinion is one of utter simplicity. They see the world as existing in two states, first in a state of Stable Equilibrium (An Ice-Age), and second in a state of Neutral Equilibrium (An Inter-Glacial). In effect, this is best understood for the intelligent layman by reference to the word Homoeostasis (the maintenance of metabolic equilibrium within an animal by a tendency to compensate for disrupting changes). In other words, we owe our current human development to the un-natural state of our planet.

As they see it, our climate can oscillate or drift in two directions when in its state of neutral equilibrium, which is now. The global climate can drift to slightly higher temperatures, however, there is a limit which is controlled by the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, if it becomes excessive it will be reduced by the combination of its radiative interaction with CO2 which reduces its temperature (my theory) thereby creating more precipitation which also takes heat out of the system.

The global climate can also drift to lower temperatures, until it reaches a point of no return: where nothing internal to the climate system can prevent a further drop into another Ice-Age. In their words, “this is an Ice-Age Trap which can only be reversed by some extraordinary event, probably by an impact of extra-terrestrial origin.

Their, CCnet-ESSAY: ON THE CAUSE OF ICE-AGES can be found at:-

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cel120799.html

David

Re: Rising sea levels?

Jeff Wood asks about Ice-ages, and Jerry gives a very fair response, but did welcome any corrections or modifications to his post.

My first first point Jerry, concerns your use of the term 'Orthodoxy' in relation to CO2 beliefs. Well, we know about the Orthodox Church, and AGW is a form of politicised religion. Very appropriate. --- My only real concern was your use of the changing Albedo of the earth's surface textures to create a positive feed-back to a global cooling scenario, and also to a global warming scenario. Albedo does, of course, play a part in these things but its effects, in my view, are quite minor except at the extremes. --- My reasons for saying this follow:-

From a cosmological viewpoint, the albedo of a planet's surface is only important if it doesn't have an atmosphere. If it does, the albedo of the atmosphere is the dominant force, but mainly, only at the extremes of thermal cycles. Such as, for the earth, when in the grip of an Ice-Age, it could be that a major change to the albedo of our atmosphere could precipitate a return to Ice, and once there, the major change in the albedo of the surface would serve to lock us into it. These forces once in place are vastly more powerful than minor variations of insolation.

As to the cause of Ice-Ages, I find the principles endorsed by those two notable men of science, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, to be most compelling. In principal, their opinion is one of utter simplicity. They see the world as existing in two states, first in a state of Stable Equilibrium (An Ice-Age), and second in a state of Neutral Equilibrium (An Inter-Glacial). In effect, this is best understood for the intelligent layman by reference to the word Homoeostasis (the maintenance of metabolic equilibrium within an animal by a tendency to compensate for disrupting changes). In other words, we owe our current human development to the un-natural state of our planet.

As they see it, our climate can oscillate or drift in two directions when in its state of neutral equilibrium, which is now. The global climate can drift to slightly higher temperatures, however, there is a limit which is controlled by the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, if it becomes excessive it will be reduced by the combination of its radiative interaction with CO2 which reduces its temperature (my theory) thereby creating more precipitation which also takes heat out of the system.

The global climate can also drift to lower temperatures, until it reaches a point of no return: where nothing internal to the climate system can prevent a further drop into another Ice-Age. In their words, “this is an Ice-Age Trap which can only be reversed by some extraordinary event, probably by an impact of extra-terrestrial origin.

Their, CCnet-ESSAY: ON THE CAUSE OF ICE-AGES can be found at:-

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cel.html

David

Re: Rising sea levels? THE ICE-AGE TRAP

Sorry all but this post was only going into the Threads.

Jeff Wood asks about Ice-ages, and Jerry gives a very fair response, but did welcome any corrections or modifications to his post.

My first first point Jerry, concerns your use of the term 'Orthodoxy' in relation to CO2 beliefs. Well, we know about the Orthodox Church, and AGW is a form of politicised religion. Very appropriate. --- My only real concern was your use of the changing Albedo of the earth's surface textures to create a positive feed-back to a global cooling scenario, and also to a global warming scenario. Albedo does, of course, play a part in these things but its effects, in my view, are quite minor except at the extremes. --- My reasons for saying this follow:-

From a cosmological viewpoint, the albedo of a planet's surface is only important if it doesn't have an atmosphere. If it does, the albedo of the atmosphere is the dominant force, but mainly, only at the extremes of thermal cycles. Such as, for the earth, when in the grip of an Ice-Age, it could be that a major change to the albedo of our atmosphere could precipitate a return to Ice, and once there, the major change in the albedo of the surface would serve to lock us into it. These forces once in place are vastly more powerful than minor variations of insolation.

As to the cause of Ice-Ages, I find the principles endorsed by those two notable men of science, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, to be most compelling. In principal, their opinion is one of utter simplicity. They see the world as existing in two states, first in a state of Stable Equilibrium (An Ice-Age), and second in a state of Neutral Equilibrium (An Inter-Glacial). In effect, this is best understood for the intelligent layman by reference to the word Homoeostasis (the maintenance of metabolic equilibrium within an animal by a tendency to compensate for disrupting changes). In other words, we owe our current human development to the un-natural state of our planet.

As they see it, our climate can oscillate or drift in two directions when in its state of neutral equilibrium, which is now. The global climate can drift to slightly higher temperatures, however, there is a limit which is controlled by the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, if it becomes excessive it will be reduced by the combination of its radiative interaction with CO2 which reduces its temperature (my theory) thereby creating more precipitation which also takes heat out of the system.

The global climate can also drift to lower temperatures, until it reaches a point of no return: where nothing internal to the climate system can prevent a further drop into another Ice-Age. In their words, “this is an Ice-Age Trap which can only be reversed by some extraordinary event, probably by an impact of extra-terrestrial origin.

Their, CCnet-ESSAY: ON THE CAUSE OF ICE-AGES can be found at:-

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cel.html

David






XHW3

Re: Re: Rising sea levels? THE ICE-AGE TRAP

David,

As far as I can see it came out in both modes.

However.

I agree albedo is probably only a very small influence, but that is characteristic of a chaotic system. I'm not sure if anyone has shown that climate is, like weather, truly chaotic but it looks very much as if it is.

If that is the case then a) prediction is inherently impossible and, b) a huge number of small factors will be important.

That URL didn't work for me, but anyway a statement that the world exists in two quasi-stable states says little if anything about mechanisms. I should be suspicious of any sort of phase-change because of the shape of the curves. Positive feedback usually gives an abrupt flip as we see at the end of ice ages but the stepwise fall in temperatures over tens of millennia looks like something else at work.

Interestingly, the stock market values during both the '30s and current recessions display a similar stepwise fall. Are they connected?

1 2