Global Cooling

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:44 pm

uh oh.,........so, who's fault is that?

*fault, I made a geology joke*

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:45 pm

That's got to be nigh impossible to measure!

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:47 pm

good point.
But, I bet, that statement may well elicit some research dollars for them.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:30 pm

Well Duh! It's Bush's fault!

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:52 pm

I'm not sure that I've got the interpretation of the previous short comments correct, but it's worth a few words anyway.

1. Methane is a strong greenhouse gas. There has been quite a bit of speculation about positive feedback involving methane, but not nearly enough data.

2. The methane from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is not a political observation, it is an empirical observation. It is not impossible to measure, just expensive. What makes this newsworthy is that the level of methane observed is higher than expected, and that a previous assumption about containment of the underlying methane by the Arctic Ocean has proven to be not correct.

3. One reason that it needs more study is that we don't know if the methane outgassing is increasing. We don't have a lot of data from this region.

4. There needs to be better accounting for the methane budget in the climate models. This is not to disprove the models, but to make them more accurate.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:25 pm

Not impossible, doc, NIGH impossible. Padding makes the world go round.
They probably took samples of seawater, measured the amount of suspended methane and extrapolated. Is that a good guess for a humanities major?

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:43 pm

The NSF article indicates methane sampling in seawater at various depths, from surface sea ice, and from the atmosphere at least at two levels (10 meters and 2000 meters). The sampling data were from 2003 through 2008. I can't swear to their methods, and it's not my field, but the description sounds like they were reasonably thorough.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:12 pm

You can do a lot if you have enough interns!

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:08 am

Don't read this when you are tired. But read this. One with an engineering or scientific background will get the most out of it. For many others there will be eyes glazing over:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/08 ... are-round/

Token · Post by **Token** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:23 pm

A perfect example of why the AGW theory has become dogma:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true

The AGW sheeple (yeah, I used they word deliberately) are concerned about the oceanic shiping industry reducing the content of Sulphur in their diesel. The biggest poluter on the planet is cleaning up their act and the AGW mesiahs cry foul.

Realy makes you think about the hidden agenda.

I love me a good paradox.

Edit for bad spellllling. There is probly more o dat.

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:14 pm

The physical facts are simple.

Increasing SO2 reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, making it cooler. Volcanoes, coal burning, and diesel burning are some significant SO2 sources. SO2 emissions also have negative health effects, and can cause acid rain (a real problem before SO2 emissions were regulated for cal-fired power plants in the US, and a current severe problem in China).

Increasing CO2 does not affect visible light much at all, but increases the scattering of infrared (heat) radiation. This tends to trap heat close to the ground, which leads to increased warming.

Using SO2 to compensate for CO2 is a fool's errand. It is roughly equivalent to using methamphetamine to compensate for sleeping pills. Bad things happen to the system.

What environmentalists want is clean air and a balanced amount of CO2, enough to keep us from either freezing or baking. Portraying this desire as a paradox is a very weak straw man.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:21 pm

Because we get one set of wavelengths from the sun, from IR through the visible spectrum, to UV. But the heat that tries to escape the earth is at IR wavelengths. SO2 and CO2 interact differently with these wavelengths.

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:29 pm

SO2 emitted from large volcano eruptions in the past have caused extreme global cooling and was also responcible for the "Little Iceage" that lasted from about the 16th to the 19th centuries.

"Volcanic activity
Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world also experienced heightened volcanic activity.[52] When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole Earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur in the form of SO2 gas. When this gas reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching Earth's surface. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without a Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe. Other volcanoes that erupted during the era and may have contributed to the cooling include Billy Mitchell (ca. 1580 Â± 20 ), Mount Parker (1641), Long Island (Papua New Guinea) (ca. 1660), and Huaynaputina (1600).[10]"

The cooling effect works, but it's not really the best way to go about it.

-Badger

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:39 pm

capjbadger wrote:The cooling effect works, but it's not really the best way to go about it.

WHAT??!! Volcanoes can be fun!!!

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:07 pm

"Dr Pachauri said he wanted more power over the IPCC secretariat and an extra $1million (Â£671,000) a year to fund its work, on top of the $5million it already receives. The IPCC is planning to recruit more spin-doctors to help it promote its work "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 078140.ece

Hey, bottomless budgets and "spin Doctors" That will DEFINITELY stop global warming.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:45 pm

The cooling effect works, but it's not really the best way to go about it.

So if you were planet Earth, you would do things differently? I'm just guessing here, but who has the hubris to tell the Earth it is doing it wrong?

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:51 pm

[youtube][/youtube]

LeChatNoir · Post by **LeChatNoir** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:53 am

Trishntek wrote:
The cooling effect works, but it's not really the best way to go about it.
So if you were planet Earth, you would do things differently? I'm just guessing here, but who has the hubris to tell the Earth it is doing it wrong?

I guess "best way" depends on who you're asking... the Earth or the inhabitants. We're just sort of a new itchy spot for the planet. I wonder how hard it will scratch.

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:07 pm

Recent news: Prof. Phil Jones has been exonerated by the British House of Commons.

I'm sure that this will cut no ice with those who set out to demonize him, but it might help with people who have read the accusations and are open to the evidence.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:52 am

Darwin claims another fool;
http://www.thefoxnation.com/global-warm ... antarctica

Actually, they were a bit early for April fools day

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:53 pm

How nice. A fighter-bomber that runs on biofuel.

Ain't that nice? Save the earth whilst carpet-bombing.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:12 pm

we got about 3" of global cooling last night............

luckily, it's melting today

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:00 pm

What? I gave you 9 inches of global warming last night, baby, and you didn't complain!

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:11 pm

And now it seems that significant methane venting is happening not just from tundra regions but off shore as reported by Russian scientists this week.
Quote:
Shakhova et al., Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, Science 237: 1246-1250, 2010

Shakhova et al., The distribution of methane on the Siberian Arctic shelves: Implications for the marine methane cycle, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L09601, doi:10.1029/2005GL022751, 2005

Westbrook, G., et al, Escape of methane gas from the seabed along the West Spitsbergen continental margin, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L15608, doi:10.1029/2009GL039191, 2009

methane hydrates? or just methane trapped in the glacial ice itself?

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:30 pm

dr.placebo wrote:Recent news: Prof. Phil Jones has been exonerated by the British House of Commons.

I'm sure that this will cut no ice with those who set out to demonize him, but it might help with people who have read the accusations and are open to the evidence.

"and that Dr. Jonesâ€™s actions were â€œin line with common practice in the climate science community,"
Yep, I believe that. S.O.P.!! One lying bastard exonerated by a pack of lying bastards.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:13 pm

methane hydrates? or just methane trapped in the glacial ice itself?

As I understand it the methane is coming about by tundra decomposition as permafrost levels go deeper into the ground as a result of climactic fluctuations in parts of the north.

I also understand that some of the coastal shelf methan release is a different animal altogether. I'm not too well read on that one so I'll keep my comments to myself until I feel I understand what the reports are suggesting.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:48 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:What? I gave you 9 inches of global warming last night, baby, and you didn't complain!

you're thinking in squares again, aren't you Dougly...............

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:00 pm

More like his usual one-liners that contribute nothing to the discussion.

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:39 pm

badger .... i know it's a difficult concept, but some people have a sense of humor, and this forum is for their enjoyment, too.

radical inclusion, and all that.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 9:39 am

Badger wrote:More like his usual one-liners that contribute nothing to the discussion.

Sorry about the off-topic remarks, Badger!

All right, April Fools, I don't give a shit!

Don't complain! Participate!