APOD: Global Warming Predictions (2009 April 21)

[StACase]

... It is certainly true that removing carbon output from automobiles does no good if the same amount of carbon is produced elsewhere ...

How about the Cap and Trade scheme? Does it really do any good to limit the CO2 emissions of industry if the fossil fuel producers can continue to sell their coal and oil elsewhere?

If the politicians were really serious about this thing they'd be regulating oil and coal production. I don't see where they are doing that.

[Chris Peterson]

How about the Cap and Trade scheme? Does it really do any good to limit the CO2 emissions of industry if the fossil fuel producers can continue to sell their coal and oil elsewhere?

That's a good question. The system did work to reduce other harmful emissions, so I would expect it to have at least some positive effect in reducing CO2 emissions. It does make CO2 production more expensive, which in turn makes reduction technology more attractive.

That said, my preference would be for a simple tax on everything that produces CO2. That's a much more direct approach, and in the short term generates revenue that could be used for researching alternatives.

[Chris Peterson]

There is no indication that "creating heat" is a problem. The amount of heat created by all human activities is vanishingly small compared to the heat put into the system by the Sun.

Vanishingly small? When some scientists are saying 4 degree rise is enough for catastrophes? I must repeat that I firmly believe actual heat created by human activities has much more effect than it is credited with. Bring on the Palm Trees, O Canada.

Believe what you want. Lots of people believe wrong stuff.

[aristarchusinexile]

Believe what you want. Lots of people believe wrong stuff.

Obviously.

[StACase]

... my preference would be for a simple tax on everything that produces CO2.

And employs how many bureaucrats?

That's a much more direct approach

Stopping production at the coal mines and oil wells would be more direct, except that you guys don't seem to want to do that. Why?

and in the short term generates revenue that could be used for researching alternatives.

And lining the pockets of Al Gore and his cronies.

[Dr. Skeptic]

There is no indication that "creating heat" is a problem. The amount of heat created by all human activities is vanishingly small compared to the heat put into the system by the Sun.

Vanishingly small? When some scientists are saying 4 degree rise is enough for catastrophes? I must repeat that I firmly believe actual heat created by human activities has much more effect than it is credited with. Bring on the Palm Trees, O Canada.

Sorry, the endothermic increase is the Earth system is caused by particulates and IR absorbing compounds in the atmosphere. Do the math,(or argue the math). 1,366 watts/ m^2/day hitting the Earth against the 12 terrawatts/day used by humans (90+ % created by fossil fuels @ 20% efficiency)

[aristarchusinexile]

Sorry, the endothermic increase is the Earth system is caused by particulates and IR absorbing compounds in the atmosphere. Do the math,(or argue the math). 1,366 watts/ m^2/day hitting the Earth against the 12 terrawatts/day used by humans (90+ % created by fossil fuels @ 20% efficiency)

20% efficiency. Wow. And we call ourselves a technologically advanced society.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Sorry, the endothermic increase is the Earth system is caused by particulates and IR absorbing compounds in the atmosphere. Do the math,(or argue the math). 1,366 watts/ m^2/day hitting the Earth against the 12 terrawatts/day used by humans (90+ % created by fossil fuels @ 20% efficiency)

20% efficiency. Wow. And we call ourselves a technologically advanced society.

The economics of Fossil fuels use is the efficiency is a derivative of it's cost to harvest.

[aristarchusinexile]

Sorry, the endothermic increase is the Earth system is caused by particulates and IR absorbing compounds in the atmosphere. Do the math,(or argue the math). 1,366 watts/ m^2/day hitting the Earth against the 12 terrawatts/day used by humans (90+ % created by fossil fuels @ 20% efficiency)

20% efficiency. Wow. And we call ourselves a technologically advanced society.

The economics of Fossil fuels use is the efficiency is a derivative of it's cost to harvest.

I should not be surprised that in my reading personal reduction of power consumption seems to be mentioned barely at all .. except in connection with purchase of advancing technology. The 'consumer' mentality over the 'ecological conservationist'.

[aristarchusinexile]

More man made hot water coming .. By 2030 China plans on having 130 nuke plants operating. What is India planning?

[BMAONE23]

More man made hot water coming .. By 2030 China plans on having 130 nuke plants operating. What is India planning?

The beginning of the real China Syndrome

[Dr. Skeptic]

More man made hot water coming .. By 2030 China plans on having 130 nuke plants operating. What is India planning?

25% nuke power by 2050 is India's plan.

[BMAONE23]

hot off the press
from Roto Reuters

[StACase]

hot off the press
from Roto Reuters

And your link says:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New York, Boston and other cities on North America's northeast coast could face a rise in sea level this century that would exceed forecasts for the rest of the planet if Greenland's ice sheet keeps melting as fast as it is now, researchers said on Wednesday.

In the sixth grade, maybe earlier I learned that water seeks its own level. So I don't exactly understand how one area of the planet could have a rise in sea level exceeding the rest of the planet. Perhaps someone with greater scientific expertise than I can explain.

[Chris Peterson]

In the sixth grade, maybe earlier I learned that water seeks its own level. So I don't exactly understand how one area of the planet could have a rise in sea level exceeding the rest of the planet. Perhaps someone with greater scientific expertise than I can explain.

On the Earth, sea level is nominally defined by a gravitational equipotential surface. This surface is not a sphere, due to the fact that the Earth itself isn't a sphere of uniform density. This geoid defined surface is then disrupted by the complex structure of currents flowing in and out of the various bounded zones making up regional seas. In the North Atlantic, warm water flows in, cools rapidly and sinks in the north, and flows back out along the sea floor. The effect of the cooling is to reduce the volume of the water, causing the surface to drop below the equipotential. Surface currents don't flow along that gradient quickly enough to fill in the resulting depression. You're only talking about a surface slope of a couple of feet over a few thousand miles. But if the active pump stops, that depression will get filled in, resulting in a local rise in sea level.

Local sea levels all over the world are calibrated against the global mean sea level.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Trade winds also effect ocean levels.

[gpobserver]

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm

[BMAONE23]

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm

I can see where Coral Atolls, Coral Islands, and Coral Reefs could be positively affected by sea level rise, with the new water level giving habitat expansion for fresh coral growth.(although increasing the ocean's volume wil act to slightly lower the ambient water temperature thereby slowing Coral growth rates) But not all Islands are Coral based. Earthen Islands and Sand Bar islands that don't rest on Coral will not raise with coral growth. In fact, increasing coral growth will also act to displace more water into non-coral areas. Shallow sea sand bar islands and earthen islands will be more susceptible to erosion and inundation. Continental coastal areas will also be negatively impacted by an environment that would lead to increased coral growth and thereby become increasingly subjected to erosion. When the Beach buffer zones have eroded, the erosive tidal action will then have its effect on the land that lies behind these buffer zones.
But to claim that the land will rise in responce to the rising ocean levels is misleading at best. Only a few areas will react positively to increasing ocean levels but not the populated majority of coastal zones.

[neufer]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New York, Boston and other cities on North America's northeast coast could face a rise in sea level this century that would exceed forecasts for the rest of the planet if Greenland's ice sheet keeps melting as fast as it is now, researchers said on Wednesday.

In the sixth grade, maybe earlier I learned that water seeks its own level.
So I don't exactly understand how one area of the planet could have
a rise in sea level exceeding the rest of the planet.

Thermal expansion is currently the primary contributor to sea level rise.

If cities on North America's northeast coast face a excessive rise in sea level
it probably means that their cold water temperatures face a excessive increase in
relative temperature due to an atrophy of the iceberg laden Labrador Current:

<<In spring and early summer, the Labrador Current transports icebergs
from the glaciers of Greenland southwards into the trans-Atlantic shipping lanes.
The waters of the Labrador Current have a cooling effect on Canadian Atlantic provinces & coastal New England.>>

----------------------------------------------

<<Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century. Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of continental ice sheets. Thermal expansion is currently the primary contributor to sea level rise and is expected to be the primary contributor over the course of the next century.>>

[gpobserver]

Looks like they've got a computer model that does a great job of predicting future solar activity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/30/s ... #more-8099

[meow44]

thanks for the link!


simulation rachat de credit
Katrina

[BMAONE23]

Looks like they've got a computer model that does a great job of predicting future solar activity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/30/s ... #more-8099

Now wait a minute...I thought we were supposed to be going into a 20 - 30 year cooling period. Further it has been proposed that a solar activity decrease would be responsible. Now, you are telling us that this new Model provides accurate predictive capabilities for the next solar cycle. Yet it is predicting a solar cycle of greater intensity than the last one. How does increased solar activity equate with a 20 - 30 year cooling period?

BTW This Sunspot just peeked over the limb.

[Chris Peterson]

Now wait a minute...I thought we were supposed to be going into a 20 - 30 year cooling period. Further it has been proposed that a solar activity decrease would be responsible. Now, you are telling us that this new Model provides accurate predictive capabilities for the next solar cycle. Yet it is predicting a solar cycle of greater intensity than the last one. How does increased solar activity equate with a 20 - 30 year cooling period?

Variations in solar activity over periods of several solar cycles don't correlate well with measured climate, so I wouldn't look too hard at that. As far as this model is concerned (and it is a few years old), I wouldn't put a lot of faith in it. There are a few problems. First, take a look at what it predicts: it is the summed area of sunspots as a function of time. The historical record of that is quite poor; forecasts almost always look at cycle activity in terms of sunspot count. That's an easier measurement, and one that is more reliable when considering historical values. Climate models, in fact, look at sunspot count, not area, in their inputs. So I don't even know how they would be able to use the output of this particular model. Second, the model is based fundamentally on plasma flow on the Sun. That's a very plausible mechanism for explaining solar cycle activity, but it's only something that has been measurable for the last cycle or two. So I'm curious what the model used for input in predicting the past cycles back to 1880? I'm sure the full paper would provide some clues about this, but it is unfortunately unavailable as a free download.

To be clear, I'm not saying this model isn't good, or backed by good science, or has any credibility problems. I'm just saying that it's too early to take it as anything other than a preliminary theory that is going to require time to test. Solar cycle predictions are better than guesses, but not by a lot. Consider that NOAA just released its prediction for the current cycle (Cycle 24) and suggests that it will have a fairly low maximum. See the NOAA report and compare it with the NCAR report.

And, of course, none of this has very much to do with the issue of global warming, the topic at hand.

[gpobserver]

BMAONE23 wrote:
"Now wait a minute...I thought we were supposed to be going into a 20 - 30 year cooling period. Further it has been proposed that a solar activity decrease would be responsible. Now, you are telling us that this new Model provides accurate predictive capabilities for the next solar cycle. Yet it is predicting a solar cycle of greater intensity than the last one. How does increased solar activity equate with a 20 - 30 year cooling period? "

Goodness! This is just too easy. This breathless report on a wonderful new computer model was issued in March 2006. It is already thoroughly discredited by the sun. It's just another worthless computer model. GIGO. Reality is based upon actual observations.

Chris Peterson wrote:

"And, of course, none of this has very much to do with the issue of global warming, the topic at hand."

Oh, of course not. Solar activity has absolutely nothing to do with climate variation, does it? How totally silly of anyone to think that maybe the sun would have some influence on terrestrial climate. Why, that would be totally contrary to all of these computer models that have no terms for solar activity in them. There are some Really Smart People who have spent enormous sums of grant money to come up with the Right Answers and those Right Answers have nothing to do with solar activity.

[The Code]

North land mass. Has more land in its summer. The south of the planet has not much in its summer.. But this changes, our north summer at the moment we are further away from the sun. Has any body taken this into account?

Mark