APOD: Global Warming Predictions (2009 April 21)

[aristarchusinexile]

We are not going to stop Co2, coal power stations, Oil production, its all down to money. Its really hard for the world to change as fast as it needs to. cutting solar energy from the sun stops the problem while we work out the solution, which will take a long time.. The heat needs to be sorted now..

mark

"Start walking, Pilgrim!"

[The Code]

I do not need to walk as others do not also, I,m a good swimmer as well, but i don,t need to do that either Birmingham, England is around 500 foot above see level..And i am no pilgrim, i see for my self.. and way things up. Houston we really do have a problem..

Mark

[gpobserver]

Another old cycle 23 sunspot. Will cycle 24 ever get off the ground? My money says the sun dominates climate and things are going to get cold.

[gpobserver]

Looks like they're going to try to shove this cap-and-trade crap down our throats if we want it or not:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 42137.html

They've also decided they're not going to open the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository so my guess is they're not going to permit nuclear power development either.

[BMAONE23]

Another old cycle 23 sunspot. Will cycle 24 ever get off the ground? My money says the sun dominates climate and things are going to get cold.

Why is this an "old cycle 23 spot" and not a new cycle 24 spot? It seems to me like most solar tracking websites cite cycle 24 as beginning back in October 2008.

Courtest of SOHO


Try these too (URL Hyperlinking didn't work so cut and paste to HTTP address. look at 3:00)
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/latest/current_eit_195.mpg
and
lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/090429_eit_195.mpg
lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/090430_eit_195.mpg
in 6 hours

[BMAONE23]

This was reported back in December 2006
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006 ... ycle24.htm
And states that the new cycle 24 could be the most energetic in 400 years.

[Chris Peterson]

Another old cycle 23 sunspot. Will cycle 24 ever get off the ground? My money says the sun dominates climate and things are going to get cold.

Why is this an "old cycle 23 spot" and not a new cycle 24 spot? It seems to me like most solar tracking websites cite cycle 24 as beginning back in October 2008.

Not unusual. When you come off solar min and start into a new cycle, you can have old and new cycle sunspots for a year or more. Other than the slightly lower minimum, and slightly extended time, this cycle doesn't look very different from many. There are still a good number of solar astronomers predicting cycle 24 will be above average at its peak.

[BMAONE23]

But how is a sunspot determined to be part of the old cycle when it occurs after the beginning of the next one?

[Chris Peterson]

But how is a sunspot determined to be part of the old cycle when it occurs after the beginning of the next one?

The solar cycle is defined not by sunspots, but by the polarity of the Sun's magnetic field. At the beginning of a cycle, new-cycle sunspot pairs tend to appear at high latitudes, and old pairs are near the equator. The magnetic polarity of the old and new sunspots are opposite each other as well. The first cycle 24 sunspots showed up a little over a year ago, but most sunspots in the last year have been cycle 23. It is common to have both old and new cycle sunspots on the Sun at the same time. Which cycle they are part of is determined by looking at the direction of their magnetic fields.

Although we tend to think of the Sun having an 11-year cycle, from max to max, it is actually a 22-year cycle, min-max-min at one polarity takes 11 years, then min-max-min at the other polarity takes another 11.

[aristarchusinexile]

The latest just in from the latest scientific conference on global warming .. "soot on Arctic ice increases melting". 'Duh.
"Would the chairman loan me his calculator please, I need to add 1 + 1."

It may seem obvious, but somebody still has to test the idea and report the results. Sometimes what you think is obvious turns out to be wrong... you can end up with bad results if you don't find out for sure.

Yeah, right .. soot falling on your parka, Polar Bears turning black from soot, Soot falling onto ice, soon you're jumping into your kayak because dry land is underwater, and the 'scientist' in his/her/non-gendered helicopter comes along and says, 'I think we should test the waters to see if they're above melting point or not'. Hillarious. Let's get a conference going.

[aristarchusinexile]

This was reported back in December 2006
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006 ... ycle24.htm
And states that the new cycle 24 could be the most energetic in 400 years.

Does that mean the sun is going to pour out more heat? If so .. Oh Oh .. we'll need a way to cool down.

http://www.eskimopie.com/

[Chris Peterson]

The latest just in from the latest scientific conference on global warming .. "soot on Arctic ice increases melting". 'Duh.
"Would the chairman loan me his calculator please, I need to add 1 + 1."

It may seem obvious, but somebody still has to test the idea and report the results. Sometimes what you think is obvious turns out to be wrong... you can end up with bad results if you don't find out for sure.

Yeah, right .. soot falling on your parka, Polar Bears turning black from soot, Soot falling onto ice, soon you're jumping into your kayak because dry land is underwater, and the 'scientist' in his/her/non-gendered helicopter comes along and says, 'I think we should test the waters to see if they're above melting point or not'. Hillarious. Let's get a conference going.

Nevertheless, if you can't identify the source of the soot (which is nowhere near as bad as you describe), and can't quantify its impact, nobody is going to be successful at reducing or eliminating it.

And what on Earth is a "non-gendered helicopter"? I've seen quite a number of helicopters, and none have shown any signs of gender, although the image in my mind was enough that I nearly spewed coffee onto my keyboard...

[aristarchusinexile]

Nevertheless, if you can't identify the source of the soot (which is nowhere near as bad as you describe), and can't quantify its impact, nobody is going to be successful at reducing or eliminating it.

And what on Earth is a "non-gendered helicopter"? I've seen quite a number of helicopters, and none have shown any signs of gender, although the image in my mind was enough that I nearly spewed coffee onto my keyboard...

'Quantify' - Etymology: Medieval Latin quantificare, from Latin quantus how much.
Yes, people living where the soot is falling can quantify in real terms in real time in real space exactly (perhaps not to the miligram but that is not necessary for impact revelation) how much soot is falling as well as its impact.
From where the soot is coming they can tell from air currents, from where the clouds come from, from where the birds come from. They can also tell it comes from the smokestacks of the ships which arrive at their ports, and extrapolate from those ships that from where the ships sailed from that there are also sooty smokestacks.

A non-gendered helicopter is one which is neither male nor female nor trans-gendered. Some people call their automobiles 'she' or 'her' or 'Jack', indicating gender. I make the easy assumption that some helicopter pilots call their craft 'Baby' or 'Bit..' the latter especially on the way down. Some helicopters even have components which suggest gender to the lustful mind, which parts they are I cannot identify, but I have heard this is the case, and I am encouraged that you also cannot identify those parts. I urge you and all of us not to drink too much coffee, as caffeine is a stimulant/depressant which could account for some of the spewing going on in this forum.

[StACase]

From my turn in the military, I remember the cute little tube for each cockpit [What's the entymology of that word?] seat in Navy helicopters. I expect the other services have them too. The hazing trick for newbies on the flight deck between errands for left handed screw drivers was to get them to talk into the emergency "microphone".

Now back to your regular scheduled programming.

[aristarchusinexile]

Looks like they're going to try to shove this cap-and-trade crap down our throats if we want it or not:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 42137.html

They've also decided they're not going to open the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository so my guess is they're not going to permit nuclear power development either.

Why store it in Yucca Mountain when the economic slowdown means a lot of unused warehouses, available local to the point of generation?

[aristarchusinexile]

From my turn in the military, I remember the cute little tube for each cockpit [What's the entymology of that word?] seat in Navy helicopters. I expect the other services have them too. The hazing trick for newbies on the flight deck between errands for left handed screw drivers was to get them to talk into the emergency "microphone".

Now back to your regular scheduled programming.

Good one, Case. So it seems helicopter pilots in those good old days at least had genders.

[Chris Peterson]

Yes, people living where the soot is falling can quantify in real terms in real time in real space exactly (perhaps not to the miligram but that is not necessary for impact revelation) how much soot is falling as well as its impact.
From where the soot is coming they can tell from air currents, from where the clouds come from, from where the birds come from. They can also tell it comes from the smokestacks of the ships which arrive at their ports, and extrapolate from those ships that from where the ships sailed from that there are also sooty smokestacks.

No, they can't tell where it's coming from without modern analysis. Most of the arctic soot comes from south Asia (an area that the locals didn't even know existed until a one or two hundred years ago), and determining that fact took a fair bit of effort involving modern instrumentation and analytical techniques. They can see soot from ship smokestacks in their ports, but they don't know if that is a significant contributor to the soot on their ice or not (it isn't, also determined by analysis).

And more to the point in this discussion, no international policy can be made without understanding the phenomenon. You should note that the report you are making fun of did not conclude that soot melts ice. That was already known. What it concluded was that soot contributes nearly as much to arctic melting as increased CO2 (a quantitative result). This observation, which would be impossible for the local people to make using traditional methods, was the basis of a decision by a number of countries at the conference to restrict soot emissions. It is an important result, because it means that controlling soot (which is relatively inexpensive) can offset a certain amount of CO2 reduction (which is much more expensive to achieve). Public policy decisions are driven by cost/benefit analyses, which are impossible without quantitative data.

[BMAONE23]

Looks like they're going to try to shove this cap-and-trade crap down our throats if we want it or not:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 42137.html

They've also decided they're not going to open the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository so my guess is they're not going to permit nuclear power development either.

Why store it in Yucca Mountain when the economic slowdown means a lot of unused warehouses, available local to the point of generation?

Given accessibility concerns by groups bent on terrorism, I might prefer to have all these eggs in one basket (so to speak). It would make the task of supervision and sequestered potection far easier than trying to protect and defend 500 nuclear dump sites spread out over 50 states.

[aristarchusinexile]

No, they can't tell where it's coming from without modern analysis. Most of the arctic soot comes from south Asia (an area that the locals didn't even know existed until a one or two hundred years ago), and determining that fact took a fair bit of effort involving modern instrumentation and analytical techniques. They can see soot from ship smokestacks in their ports, but they don't know if that is a significant contributor to the soot on their ice or not (it isn't, also determined by analysis).

And more to the point in this discussion, no international policy can be made without understanding the phenomenon. You should note that the report you are making fun of did not conclude that soot melts ice. That was already known. What it concluded was that soot contributes nearly as much to arctic melting as increased CO2 (a quantitative result). This observation, which would be impossible for the local people to make using traditional methods, was the basis of a decision by a number of countries at the conference to restrict soot emissions. It is an important result, because it means that controlling soot (which is relatively inexpensive) can offset a certain amount of CO2 reduction (which is much more expensive to achieve). Public policy decisions are driven by cost/benefit analyses, which are impossible without quantitative data.

I've been forbidden to say the Inn_it word .. but the Inn_it have had television as long as 'we' have. They have had elementary and high schools for a century .. degree education up in Inn_it country probably for 50 years. Anyway .. it was not just the Innu_t who have been telling 'us' for 50 years air pollution is killing us and melting glaciers .. scientists down here have also been doing it, and the Hippies, and the Park Wardens, etc.

Public policy decisions are not based on science, they're made when it becomes totally obvious even to the undeducated politicians that the cost of health care to government or industry far outweighs the profit benefits of pollution to the corporation. If you had lived in Canada you would know why we are attempting to phase out coal while the U.S. is building 300 new coal fired generating plants .. our health care is government funded, paid for by the taxpayer of course. Talking about cost/benefit, what profit margin in private medicine in the U.S. is derived from treatment for diseases resulting from air pollution .. and is that the reason it took 50 years before a conference announced that 'ooohhh, soot is melting the ice in Innu_t country as fast as C02 which is what the Hippies were saying 50 years ago? Anyway .. this is tiresome, I'm going to be glad to be away from this kind of discussion that we're having right now. It's pointless.

[StACase]

I see that tomorrow's offering is "Aquatic Mammal" Should I go out on a limb and surmise that we're going to get another "Global Warming" APOD? It's two and counting unless I've missed one. Ursus maritimus would be my guess.

[Dr. Skeptic]

No, they can't tell where it's coming from without modern analysis. Most of the arctic soot comes from south Asia (an area that the locals didn't even know existed until a one or two hundred years ago), and determining that fact took a fair bit of effort involving modern instrumentation and analytical techniques. They can see soot from ship smokestacks in their ports, but they don't know if that is a significant contributor to the soot on their ice or not (it isn't, also determined by analysis).

And more to the point in this discussion, no international policy can be made without understanding the phenomenon. You should note that the report you are making fun of did not conclude that soot melts ice. That was already known. What it concluded was that soot contributes nearly as much to arctic melting as increased CO2 (a quantitative result). This observation, which would be impossible for the local people to make using traditional methods, was the basis of a decision by a number of countries at the conference to restrict soot emissions. It is an important result, because it means that controlling soot (which is relatively inexpensive) can offset a certain amount of CO2 reduction (which is much more expensive to achieve). Public policy decisions are driven by cost/benefit analyses, which are impossible without quantitative data.

I've been forbidden to say the Inn_it word .. but the Inn_it have had television as long as 'we' have. They have had elementary and high schools for a century .. degree education up in Inn_it country probably for 50 years. Anyway .. it was not just the Innu_t who have been telling 'us' for 50 years air pollution is killing us and melting glaciers .. scientists down here have also been doing it, and the Hippies, and the Park Wardens, etc.

Public policy decisions are not based on science, they're made when it becomes totally obvious even to the undeducated politicians that the cost of health care to government or industry far outweighs the profit benefits of pollution to the corporation. If you had lived in Canada you would know why we are attempting to phase out coal while the U.S. is building 300 new coal fired generating plants .. our health care is government funded, paid for by the taxpayer of course. Talking about cost/benefit, what profit margin in private medicine in the U.S. is derived from treatment for diseases resulting from air pollution .. and is that the reason it took 50 years before a conference announced that 'ooohhh, soot is melting the ice in Innu_t country as fast as C02 which is what the Hippies were saying 50 years ago? Anyway .. this is tiresome, I'm going to be glad to be away from this kind of discussion that we're having right now. It's pointless.

A dialog becomes pointless once the first sides fails to listen.

PS: Hippies were for peace, love and clean air to breath. (nothing to do with ice caps)

Imagine the state of the US air quality if in the 70's catalytic converters and stack scrubbers were not made mandatory against the advice of "do nothing" proponents (the technologies that would bankrupt major corporations) ... Beijing X 2.
But hey, what do scientist know, the air cleaned itself and all that technology and money was a sham and a waste.

[BMAONE23]

(snip)

PS: Hippies were for peace, love and clean air to breath. (nothing to do with ice caps)

Imagine the state of the US air quality if in the 70's catalytic converters and stack scrubbers were not made mandatory against the advice of "do nothing" proponents (the technologies that would bankrupt major corporations) ... Beijing X 2.
But hey, what do scientist know, the air cleaned itself and all that technology and money was a sham and a waste.

(hippies)I know what you mean...Who in their right mind would want to breath in Aresnic, Benzene, Formaldehyde, Hydrogen Cyanide, Carbon Monoxide, or Pesticides like Flumetralin, Pendimethalin, or Trifluralin on a regular basis? (say for 5 or 6 minutes at a time and about 20 times a day.) Well Hippies were for peace, and love (sex without responsibility or attachment) anyway but many smoked which kind of nullifies the clean air theory.

I also have to agree about BeiJing and not wanting their air over my head at night in any relative concentration. though we live in an enclosed ecosystem and thereby still breath in their air though as dilute as possible.

[StACase]

I see that tomorrow's offering is "Aquatic Mammal" Should I go out on a limb and surmise that we're going to get another "Global Warming" APOD? It's two and counting unless I've missed one. Ursus maritimus would be my guess.

And I see that I was wrong (-:

[Dr. Skeptic]

(hippies)I know what you mean...Who in their right mind would want to breath in Aresnic, Benzene, Formaldehyde, Hydrogen Cyanide, Carbon Monoxide, or Pesticides like Flumetralin, Pendimethalin, or Trifluralin on a regular basis? (say for 5 or 6 minutes at a time and about 20 times a day.) Well Hippies were for peace, and love (sex without responsibility or attachment) anyway but many smoked which kind of nullifies the clean air theory.

Hippies didn't want elevated levels of CO2, CO, O3, NO2, C2H4O, SO2 ... to interfere with the effectiveness of their ongoing internal chemistry experiments.
N,N'-dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridinium dichloride tainted cannabis wasn't a concern either, they just wanted to be able to watch the clouds float by in a haze, not through a haze.

[BMAONE23]

(hippies)I know what you mean...Who in their right mind would want to breath in Aresnic, Benzene, Formaldehyde, Hydrogen Cyanide, Carbon Monoxide, or Pesticides like Flumetralin, Pendimethalin, or Trifluralin on a regular basis? (say for 5 or 6 minutes at a time and about 20 times a day.) Well Hippies were for peace, and love (sex without responsibility or attachment) anyway but many smoked which kind of nullifies the clean air theory.

Hippies didn't want elevated levels of CO2, CO, O3, NO2, C2H4O, SO2 ... to interfere with the effectiveness of their ongoing internal chemistry experiments.
N,N'-dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridinium dichloride tainted cannabis wasn't a concern either, they just wanted to be able to watch the clouds float by in a haze, not through a haze.

Touchet