Edit: please check my post before the pageturn as well Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - Now, I'm no expert, but wouldn't that very much depend on where these clouds form? - I really have no idea what either of you are talking about... could you rephrase, please?
Replying to Billy T's narration of the coming ice age: Interesting, however there is quite somewhat wrong with our current perception of the ice ages, let alone future projections. For instance the total ignorance of not fitting geologic data like receding glaciations and warm events at alleged colder era's. Actually, the reality would even produce much more scarier scenarios. Buffalo roam, I have no correlations on global warming, but that linked thread holds the main reason, cloud cover perhaps induced by solar magnetic activity sending more or less microparticles as condensation nuclei. http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/HCTN/HCTN_62.pdf Furthermore there is the El Nino Souther Oscillation (ENSO) with a pretty high correlation to global temperature, there is the Gleissberg cycle that predictics a new minimum around 2030, where we could be heading for.
Perhaps it helps to actually click the link, wait for the page to open and then read the thread. Then, if things are not clear, like the Stefan Boltzman law for instance, and there happens to be a convenient link around, it may help to click that too. Then after a few hours of study it may help to specify what exactly is unclear in that thread.
US foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union has been open and explicit. It is to prevent at any cost the congealing of a potential combination of nations that might challenge US dominance. This is the US policy as elaborated in Bush's June 2002 speech at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York. However heres how the treaties are lining up for WWIII, just like before WWII. Japan vs North Korea http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/13/nkorea.nuclear/ Russia, Syria, and Iran vs America, E.U. and Israel http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/13/nkorea.nuclear/ Al Queda terror ready with nukes http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030603-122052-2698r.htm China vs U.S. and Taiwan http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030603-122052-2698r.htm India/America vs China/Pakistan http://independent-bangladesh.com/news/may/12/12052006pa.htm It's a powderkeg and she's fixin' to blow.
I agree. How Ice Ages begin is not well understood and about how they end, IMHO, we know nothing! (Once ice has made Earth’s albedo high, how does the ice get melted with less energy being absorbed by Earth? - I do not believe volcano's CO2 ends "snow ball" earth state, but admit that is the best guess. Do you know of any other?) The Ice Ace that results from the slight change in Earth's obit, caused by Dark Visitor's black hole passing by solar system, is fundamentally different from all prior ones, and actually much easier to understand. (Explanation in summary form is given in my last post.) I respect your knowledge in climate questions, but Earth's historical data can not be applied to an Ice Age that is fundamentally different from all prior ones. I.e. one hemisphere in Case 1+ and other in Case 2- states. If you care to comment on concept that WARMER winters (and colder summers in orbit slightly more elliptical) can cause a PERMANENT Ice Age, IN ONE HEMISPHERE ONLY, I would appreciated it.)
Billy, One of the most eminent scientists of these days, Richard Muller, of Berkeley once invented a clever hypothesis about a cosmic dust band causing the ice ages. It would have been some ring shaped remains of ulta fine dust from some comet or whatever celestial body. The earth orbit inclination would be tilting slightly and every 100,000 years the Earth would enter the dust band, causing the sun to dim slightly by the dust, which would have caused the cyclic ice ages. Now, the next step is to find evidence for that cosmic dust, if it was to be true, the ice cores or other proxies would show it at the correct times. So he spent quite some efforts in finding that dust...Nothing. So he wrote his end report, admitting that he was wrong, the ice ages were not caused by a hypothetical dust band, This also promotes him to excellence imo, to let the scientific method prevail, whether or not it adds to the glory of the researcher. That scientific method has basically the next steps: (1) observe things that are not explained, [ice age] (2) Try and find a explanation, the hypothesis [dust band] (3) make predictions [dust in ice cores] (4) test the predictions [fail]- end of hypothesis, time for a new hypothesis, using the results and experience of the former ideas, and this is how science grows, by failure. So what my opinion is about ideas of dark visitors is not important, albeit that such a elaborate idea says something about the creativity of it's inventor. But that's not the point. The point is if you can and will complete the scientific method on this hypothesis. If the idea calls for assymetric ice ages per hemisphere, then there should be easily assessable evidence. I'm afraid that I'm not optimistic.
Nor am I. You have slightly misunderstood me and Dark Visitor I am NOT suggesting a new cause for the Ice Ages that have occurred in History of the Earth. Thus, there is no need to look for evidence of past “asymmetric ice ages.” I am aware that the evidence points to fact that both hemispheres had “in phase” Ice Ages. - In fact this seems to me to be a great problem for all the “cause theories” that place emphases on the tilt of Earth axis etc. - Part of the reason I agree with you that we really do not have an adequate understanding of the actual Ice Ages. Again let me note that the asymmetric Ice Age of Dark Visitor is IMHO better understood, and fundamentally different. As you understand climate better than most here, I would like your opinion about the climate mechanism of the Dark Visitor Ice Age. Especially the idea that WARMER winters (followed by colder summers) in a slightly more elliptic Earth orbit may produce the Dark Visitor type asymmetric Ice Age. I am not even seriously suggesting that one is about to begin in the Northern Hemisphere's winter of 2008, although that is the prediction in Dark Visitor. Dark Visitor was written because I am very concerned about the jobs opportunities that will be open in US for my grandchildren and the economic health of the US in general. It is a recruiting tool for science students. About 4 years ago, there was an article in my alumna magazine that told of a grant to many students of "account money"* for investment in the stock market and gave some results, one of which was "too much" for me - Almost all of the science students who had participated, had selected carriers in the financial field after graduation. Although I, retired physics professor, recognized that there was little I could do, I decided to "strike back" as best as I could. I wrote Dark Visitor with first four chapters mainly a story of the background of the principles characters as a "hook" to get non-science students to read it. (My target readers would never knowingly open a science book.) All of the science is woven into the story of a coming cosmic disaster so as to not lose these readers before I scare them so much that they may at least be interested in learning if it is possibly true that the Northern Hemisphere will be covered by deep ice before the make their first million as a stock broker or corporation lawyer, etc. For example, all of Keplers laws are in the book, explained and numerically illustrated, but to avoid appearing to be "teaching physics" they are not named, but only come up naturally in the story as the astronomer (who is too busy to write the book while looking for gravitational lens effects as the Dark Visitor passes in front of stars so his rough trajectory data, computed from his analysis of small perturbations of Pluto's orbit, can become precise.) explains to his friend, a history Ph.D. and former college roommate, who is writting the book and needs help understanding some of the physical effects that will cause the worst disaster in human history. The reason I think that Dark Visitor may recruit a few science students is that it is not "science fiction," in the usual sense. - It is entirely possible that the Earth may/can be plunged into the "one hemisphere Ice Age" I describe in the book. That is, these non-science students will not find any physical errors that allow them to dismiss the basic facts of the story. I used Orson Well's "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast as the guiding model for Dark Visitor. If you are too young to know what panic that broadcast provoked see: http://history1900s.about.com/od/1930s/a/warofworlds_2.htm The home page of the set of web sites under my name gives more details (now three years old) of why I think US needs to stop depending, as it currently does to large extent, on the hard-working, bright, mainly oriental science students, who will soon being going home as the US economic mess will no longer be able to support science as it has in the past. (China is building 50 "Harvard or better" university centers, and paying higher than US salaries to attract world-class, experienced professors to staff them from all over the world, US included.) US science heed to be based more on native students so the now "reverse brain drain" will not be the disaster I expect it will be despite my feeble efforts with Dark Visitor ------------------------------ *Participants got to keep half of the profits they made, and other half went to a schollarship fund. (A bribe to the university, IMHO, to allow the use of student lists etc.) Sponsor "ate" all loses. - Funds were actually invested, not like the investment game thread active here.
- I didn't click the link because I didn't feel I'd been given a reason to do so. I still don't :l I'm sorry if I'm coming off as arrogant or something here, but I do have a term paper, and I don't have time to chase after your point just because you're unwilling to make it clearly.
Andre, I'm not up with all the inns and out of the global warming terminology and therory/thesis but if I understand some of what I read, man may have very little to do with the global warming and cooling cycles, that nature is the deciding factor,this may be a some what simple explanation but am I on the right track?
Billy T, Sorry for the delay, I've visited your page and I think I understand your message. Basically an extreme version of the combined Milankovitch cycles. This way, assymetric hemispheric ice ages seem to be possible indeed, and one of the critiques of the Milankovitch hypothesis is the constant balance of energy. Nevertheless the cycles seem to be everywhere even in many circular reasoning Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . Not something to dismiss easily. And always expect the unexpected like re-arranged ocean flows, which play an important part in our ice ages. But, there are many more thoughts required about the role of physics to solve those enigma's and we are trying to do so. Are you familiar with our mammoth extinction and clathrate hypothesis. My study partner made this Power point presention at the Congress of the World of Elephants: http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/BB.ppt which requires the speaking notes to understand: http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Hot Springs.doc The paper has been submitted to Quartenary International (nr QUATINT-D-06-00028. The Late Pleistocene Extinction of the Woolly Mammoth and His Contemporaries and the Clathrate Gun, Non calor sed umor) There are some physical processes, rather different than the current views. And then the extreme physics of planet Venus must certainly be interesting to you too. But one thing at a time.
That's basically the idea. Whilst the physics of greenhouse gas in a clean labratory environment is pretty clear and of surprisingly low impact (0,7C per doubling of CO2 instanteneously and 1C after regaining thermal balance), but it's role in the complex Earth environment with amplifying factors and feedbacks, is not understood at all. However there once was a hockeystick, see IPCC TAR Summary for policy makers (fig 1b page 3 and compare with fig 2 page 6) that showed a 110% correlation between CO2 and temperature of the last 1000 years. Problably the biggest brain paralyser in the history of mankind. Currently the hockeystick can be considered refuted and debunked but the damage has been done, and we are stuck with a brainwashed generation of warriors determined to save the climate, while there are so many other really endangered things to be saved. The reality is inherently more complex Like the role of the solar cosmic rays cycles tied to the length of the sun spot cycles in providing condensation nuclei which leads to more or less cloudiness, which leads to variation in insolation. And as it happens there is much more proof for such an mechanism as I showed here with the correlation between the reflectivity (cloud variation) and global temperature: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! An r2 (statistical significance) of 57% is rather significant, enough to point to the variation of cloudiness as the main cause of the current global warming. If this mechanism really works then we are heading to a much solar cycle for 2008-2010 and another deep minimum in 2030. I hope this helps, I-don't-know.
Yes as far as I can understant your information it helps, and as I've found the more you read about something the more you are able to understand, there is still a lot I have to figure out about what you have posted but I'm glad to know I am on the right track. Thanks
Volcanos actually contribute to cooling of the Earth, since the gasses are usually combined with tremendous amounts of dust.
Vulcanoes indeed contribute to a short-term cooling, that's been pretty well established - e.g. the "little ice age" was caused by, among other things, just that; increased vulcanic activity. - That's not entirely true. e.g. the feedback of the most significant greenhouse gas, namely water vapour, has been shown to amplify the effect of the CO2 since a warmer atmo can hold more water vapour. - Well, first of all, it's not quite that simple, secondly, it's not like that particular model was the only one in the world. Here are ten more: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png The graph I have kept showing is also not the infamous "hockey stick". I'd accuse you of using a shady debating technique, but seeing that you were nice enough not to get insulted by my, admittedely rude, tone in my last post, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - You're acting as if these things aren't already taken in to account by the other models.
Andre, I'm looking for information on how much greenhouse gas is realeased from volcanoes, world wide in relation to realeases from the industrial nations of the word, also 1st world vs 3rd world, could you point me to some web sites, thank you. The only info I found was on Kilauea, 22 billion ton a year.
Seeing that I happened to be around, Here you go, from the U.S. Geological Survey: - http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
No most definitely not. This is where is all hinges upon. You need a strong positive feedback and there is one single case for that, the cooling after the Pinatubo eruption in 1992 but there are many physical reasons why the feedback is rather negative than positive The ten more don't show but I know the spaghetti graph. The point is not the warming after 1850 the blade of the stick, the point is the lack of variability before that, as well as the spinning to produce that result And indeed they are not. The Palle-et-al 2006 study about albedo came as a complete surprise for the hockey team, and sure enough it was denied away (somewhere in realclimate), implying that it's not in their models. Buffalo Roam The amount of CO2 of our current Volcanos would not really change much in the CO2 concentration. It's juggling with very big numbers, but the atmospheric volume vastly outnumbers the immense amounts of ejected CO2. Here is a good volcanic database link but no CO2 estimates I'm afraid. http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/
Thank you, Andre,do you know wich produces more greenhouse gases volcanoes or humans? I don't know, just looking at the numbers on your site they don't seem to add up, But I'm not versed enough to explain what I see, but it dosn't add up?
