Global cooling?

[Dr Mordrid]

http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041447-2345r

Remember people; the suns output is variable and has caused cyclical cooling many times before.

Thing to watch: the sunspot count. More sunspots = warmer earth. Less sunspots = cooler earth.

The last 60 years the sunspot activity has been abnormally high, which typically indicates a warming trend on Earth. Once this cycle stops you may wish global warming were stronger than it is

Interesting read: http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/arc...unclimate.html

While a 05% variability may not sound like much, it is when you add up the number of sq. meters on the Earth x the output.

Yeah Brian....man does more

Just remembert this though: water vapor and not CO2 is the biggest greenhouse gas, by far.

Dr. Mordrid

[Mehen]

We just had the warmest January ever recorded here in Winnipeg, about a full 10C warmer than normal. I love it. Got to get out to the rinks without freezing our butts off.

I think I will buy a Hummer. I like global warming.

[schmosef]

Ahh... the salad days of global warming.

[Brian Ellis]

Yeah Brian....man does more

Just remembert this though: water vapor and not CO2 is the biggest greenhouse gas, by far.

It is true that water vapour is a global warmer (thank goodness), but man has not changed the annual mean water vapour content, in either hemisphere, by a single jot. It is exactly the same as it was 150 years ago. Man has changed the CO2 content from 280 ppm to about 400 ppm in the same period and the CH4 content from 800 ppb to 1800 ppb.

The water vapour content is regulated by a very powerful negative feedback, according to the seasons and the hemisphere. The biggest variations are in the N. hemisphere 1.9 eq.cm in January to 3.4 eq.cm in July (S hemisphere 2.5 and 2.0 resp). An eq.cm. is the amount of rain that would fall across the hemisphere, in cm, if all the vapour were converted to rain. You must not forget, either, that, although water vapour traps long wave IR from the earth's surface, it also reduces the energy reaching the surface because of the high cloud albedo, so that it is both cooling and warming.

Remember also, only a mean 0.035% (~12E12 tonnes) of the earth's fresh water is locked in the atmosphere at any given time against 1.31E18 tonnes of all water.

As for solar and geophysical variability, literally many tens of cyclical, quasi-cyclical, acyclical and random forcings are factored into the climate change modelling and have been for many years. Solar variations do include the 11 year sunspot cycle, the 22 year magnetic cycle, solar wobble, solar flare activity. A few of the geophysical factors include the orbital eccentricity, the obliquity and the precession of the earth, the tectonic and volcanic processes, the atmospheric composition and many more.

It is therefore ridiculous to claim that such things have been ignored. It is true that we do not know every factor, but our ever-increasing knowledge leaves no reasonable doubt that man is altering the climate of the planet we are renting during our short lives. This is summarised by a quotation from Robert Watson, Co-chair of the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol and former Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, one of the world's most renowned atmospheric scientists:

Although scientific evidence that human activities were causing stratospheric ozone depletion was quite robust in the late 1980s, there were a number of sceptics who said, "wait for perfect knowledge; there is uncertainty in the ozone models." Unfortunately, the sceptics were absolutely right. The models were inaccurate. They underestimated the impact of human activities on stratospheric ozone. This means that with the Montreal Protocol and its adjustments and amendments, society will have to live with stratospheric ozone depletion not only over Antarctica, but over all of the globe, except for tropics and subtropics, for at least another 50 years. Some of the same sceptics are now saying that not enough is known about climate change.

[TransformX]

I've read/heard once that a single volcanic eruption brings out more pollution than several atom bombs and much more pollution than humans create in a hundred years. Is that still true?

[Brian Ellis]

I've read/heard once that a single volcanic eruption brings out more pollution than several atom bombs and much more pollution than humans create in a hundred years. Is that still true?

Yes and no. An eruption may be major (Krakatoa, Mt. St. Helens, Pinatubo etc.) or something right down to almost negligible proportions. The very explosive ones throw enormous quantities of cooling dust and sulfate aerosols into the troposphere and stratosphere and these can take a few years to settle out. The Krakatoa dust cloud had a folded-e residence time, measured by incident solar radiation, of about 1 - 2 years; this was unusual in that it affected both hemispheres, as the volcano is close to the equator. Mostly, the effects are hemispherical and cause temperature changes of -0.1 t o -0.2°C for very short times. Polluting gases are mainly SO2 and H2S, both of which "rain out" in less than a week after emission, during which time that have mixed heterogeneously round the globe at the latitude of the eruption. However, there is much local short-lived pollution which will kill every living thing within a certain irregular radius. This can be just dust (Vesuvius AD 79) or chemical (Mt. St Helens). However, it is not all bad: some of the dust can be very fertile (cf. Etna and Lanzarote vineyards).

So, integrated over time, the pollution from volcanos has little effect, even though the short-term effects can be very severe. Compared with nuclear devices, the worst pollution from a volcano is negligible, because the radiative effects are very small, whereas the bomb can leave very-long term severe radiative effects that may cause problems many years later. In reality, they cannot even be compared, any more than an apple with an orange.

[TransformX]

Yes and no. An eruption may be major (Krakatoa, Mt. St. Helens, Pinatubo etc.) or something right down to almost negligible proportions. The very explosive ones throw enormous quantities of cooling dust and sulfate aerosols into the troposphere and stratosphere and these can take a few years to settle out. The Krakatoa dust cloud had a folded-e residence time, measured by incident solar radiation, of about 1 - 2 years; this was unusual in that it affected both hemispheres, as the volcano is close to the equator. Mostly, the effects are hemispherical and cause temperature changes of -0.1 t o -0.2°C for very short times. Polluting gases are mainly SO2 and H2S, both of which "rain out" in less than a week after emission, during which time that have mixed heterogeneously round the globe at the latitude of the eruption. However, there is much local short-lived pollution which will kill every living thing within a certain irregular radius. This can be just dust (Vesuvius AD 79) or chemical (Mt. St Helens). However, it is not all bad: some of the dust can be very fertile (cf. Etna and Lanzarote vineyards).

So, integrated over time, the pollution from volcanos has little effect, even though the short-term effects can be very severe. Compared with nuclear devices, the worst pollution from a volcano is negligible, because the radiative effects are very small, whereas the bomb can leave very-long term severe radiative effects that may cause problems many years later. In reality, they cannot even be compared, any more than an apple with an orange.

Thanks for a very sensible answer

[KRSESQ]

We just had the warmest January ever recorded here in Winnipeg, about a full 10C warmer than normal. I love it. Got to get out to the rinks without freezing our butts off.

Same here. End of November and well into December was bitterly cold, then just before Christmas it warmed up and we ended up with the warmest January on record. Now February is chilling out again and we're expecting arctic lows by the end of the month. March should warm up nicely again, then April will be crappy (possibly with a blizzard).

One of those years when the weather cycles widely. Next winter or two should be more consistantly cold, followed by several winters of more consistantly warm weather.

A side note: for the past four years or so the snowfall has been well below normal (not that I'm complaining). Overall, it does seem like the REALLY deep snows of my childhood are a thing of the past.

I should write an Almanac!

Kevin

[GT98]

The reason why North America was so warm in January was because of The Artic jetstream being so far North, was nice while it lasted.

The Warmest winter I remember was back in 1998...we had several days in January and Feb when it was 50 degress out.

Didnt get any snow whatso ever....till the first day of spring and got an inch

[Brian Ellis]

Please don't mix up weather and climate: two entirely different things.

[Brian Ellis]

Even the extreme right wing evangelical Christians are urging the Administration to take action on climate change.

We care about these projected impacts of global warming because they are a profound challenge to Christian justice and Jesus' call to care for "the least of these" (Mt. 25:40, 45). Pollution that causes the threat of global warming violates Jesus' Great Commandments to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Mk. 12:30-31), and the Golden Rule to "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Lk. 6:31). And global warming is a breach of our responsibility to care for God's other creatures (Gen. 2:15). Failure to act to reduce the impacts of global warming denies Christ's Lordship.

Also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4695320.stm

Happily, there are other initiatives in the USA to help assume the country's responsibilities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/4693600.stm

[Brian Ellis]

Nasa have just issued their 2005 summation at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

[Lizzard[MPE]]

The reason why North America was so warm in January was because of The Artic jetstream being so far North, was nice while it lasted.

The Warmest winter I remember was back in 1998...we had several days in January and Feb when it was 50 degress out.

Didnt get any snow whatso ever....till the first day of spring and got an inch

I remember a day in Jan of when i was around 7 or 8 that was in the 80's

[Dr Mordrid]

Current models of course don't take into account much recent research. Example;

Analysts say this years warm weather is largely due to a change in proportion between high and low altitude clouds. This year favored high altitude clouds, which are thermal blankets. OTOH low altitude clouds are solar reflectors that actually cool the Earth.

Many have assumed that high altitude and low altitude clouds are mostly a local phenomenon, but that's not correct. More recent data shows that variations in cosmic ray levels and even GRB's (gamma ray bursts) can affect clouds and therefore global warming.

The mechanism is by providing a particle shower which in turn increases high altitude clouds by providing condensation nuclei, not unlike how a cloud chamber works (particle detector formerly used in accelerator experiments). This idea was poo-poo'ed in the 1998-2002 years, but this year things are a'changing.

Because of the intensity of cosmic rays and GRB's they are strong enough to not only penetrate our magnetosphere but to cause particle showers that even reach the ground.

Bottom line: our environment has far more factors involved than any current warming model.

Dr. Mordrid

[DukeP]

Current models of course don't take into account much recent research. Example;...
Bottom line: our environment has far more factors involved than any current warming model.

Dr. Mordrid

Which doesnt in any way prove that our current models are incorrect.

All things being equal, even unknown factors tend to distribute evenly.

~~DukeP~~