Page 62 of 118 FirstFirst ... 1252606162636472112 ... LastLast
Results 1,831 to 1,860 of 3524

Thread: General AGW discussion thread

  1. #1831
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    6,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Stroller View Post
    And as if by magic, I wake up to this.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/1...global-climate

    I hear what Ari is saying, but I think we'll find the solar effect and earth's feedbacks via water vapour and clouds dwarfs whatever the trace gases are doing, and can accomodate changes in their concentration within a vastly more powerful array of mechanisms.

    To be a even side critic, I find the following from the press release (these are a few of my least favourite things) not really world shocking:

    The research may pave the way toward predictions of temperature and precipitation patterns at certain times during the approximately 11-year solar cycle.
    for the rest, it seems like climate press releases are basically as bad as space physics press releases, for example:

    Although this Pacific pattern is produced by the solar maximum, the authors found that its switch to an El Niño-like state is likely triggered by the same kind of processes that normally lead from La Niña to El Niño.
    which seems to me to be saying nothing changes, but I guess ENSO is something different than la nina, but it is never defined anywhere, so ...

    aahhh, why do I read press releases ?!?!?!?!?!
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at

  2. #1832
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,801
    This paper is interesting.

    http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes

    Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion

    This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.
    There is interest in studying the effects of galactic cosmic rays (CRs) on Earth’s climate and environment, particularly on global cloud cover in low atmosphere (_3 km) [1–5] and ozone depletion in the stratosphere [6–16]. The former has led to a different scenario for global warming, while the latter has provided an unrecognized mechanism for the formation of the O3 hole. The discovery of the CR-cloud correlation by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [1] has motivated the experiments to investigate the physical mechanism for the correlation [3–5]. In contrast, the CR-driven electron reaction mechanism for O3 depletion was first unexpectedly revealed from laboratory measurements by Lu and Madey [6,7]. Then the evidence of the correlation between CRs, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) dissociation, and O3 loss was found from satellite data by Lu and Sanche [8]: the O3 hole is exactly located in the polar stratosphere and at the altitude of _18 km where the CR ionization shows a maximum. CRs are the only electron source in the stratosphere, while halogen (Cl, Br)-containing molecules are long known to have extremely large cross sections of dissociative attachments of low-energy electrons [9]. The latter reaction will be greatly enhanced when halogenated molecules are adsorbed or buried at the surfaces of polar molecular ice, relevant to polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) ice in the winter polar stratosphere, as firstly discovered by Lu and Madey [6,7] and subsequently confirmed by others in experiments and theoretical calculations [10–16]. For example, the dissociative attachment cross section at _0 eV electrons for CF2Cl2 ….
    One might argue that a simply time correlation does not guarantee a physical mechanism. However, there exist the following facts. (1) As discussed above, there is no alternative mechanism for the observed time correlation between polar ozone loss and CR intensity, which cannot be explained by the photochemical model predicting a monotonic recovery (increase) of the polar total ozone since 2000. (2) There is also a strong spatial correlation observed: the O3 hole is exactly located in the lower polar stratosphere at 18 km where the ionization rate of CRs producing electrons is the strongest [8,23]. (3) There are known PSC ice particles in the winter polar stratosphere. (4) Laboratory measurements and theoretical calculations have clearly demonstrated that ice surfaces can trap electrons and enhance the electron-induced reactions of halogenated species (inorganic and organic) at the surfaces by orders of magnitude, compared with corresponding gasphase reactions [6–16]. (5) Even if one still assumes that the photochemical model were the dominant mechanism,...

  3. #1833
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,086
    Does that mean I can put my treasured Halon fire extinguisher back in the cockpit of my race car now?

    Interesting stuff William.

  4. #1834
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Presumably the air back home has gotten better because California has tightened its emissions standards. The law has stepped in where individuals would not for the greater good, and the air quality improves. It's cheaper for cotton mills to spill whatever they want to, from industrial pollutants to just plain lint, into the air than to be careful about doing so. Now that the government has stepped in, they don't.
    If politicians can clean the air, then why doesn't China simply pass laws and clean its air? We individuals acting in our own interest produce the wealth and technology that allows us to reduce emissions and to afford doing so. Policy is somewhat after the fact.

  5. #1835
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Will you help William first? Get him to understand the difference between climate and weather?
    I'll take another stab at this: You experience weather in your immediate environment. You experience climate on graph paper.

  6. #1836
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    25,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich View Post
    If politicians can clean the air, then why doesn't China simply pass laws and clean its air? We individuals acting in our own interest produce the wealth and technology that allows us to reduce emissions and to afford doing so. Policy is somewhat after the fact.
    Laws and enforcement thereof did the job here. California's emissions standard laws have helped improve air quality everywhere cars that meet them are sold, for example. I don't think China currently cares much. Their quality control in other areas is clearly lacking, after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich View Post
    I'll take another stab at this: You experience weather in your immediate environment. You experience climate on graph paper.
    You experience climate over a number of years. Where I live, we have cool, wet winters that occasionally (as last winter) drop enough snow on us to shut down the city. We have warm, humid summers that in the last few days have been breathlessly hot, but we only get a few days over about 85 all summer. Back home, it's hot and dry all summer, and it's shocking when, in winter, the temperature dips below 40. At night.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  7. #1837
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    14,315
    The new paper, along with an earlier one by Meehl and colleagues, shows that as the Sun reaches maximum activity, it heats cloud-free parts of the Pacific Ocean enough to increase evaporation, intensify tropical rainfall and the trade winds, and cool the eastern tropical Pacific.
    Oh, hey, that sounds terribly similar to what I and others have been saying here with respect to changes in the ocean currents, the high correlation between mean Earth temps and sunspot cycles...



    Given that AGW is such an incredibly proven and absolutely undeniable fact, however, this new paper is obviously totally out to lunch, without merit, and we should still spend trillions to curb AGW as there is no way in the entire universe that mainstream climatologists, to date, were wrong in any way...

    Ok, that's not really how I feel. But it is how nearly all of the media comes across, and it's how the situation is often portrayed, even by scientists.

    The bandwagon effect doesn't make a faulty premise true.

  8. #1838
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Stroller View Post
    Does that mean I can put my treasured Halon fire extinguisher back in the cockpit of my race car now?

    Interesting stuff William.
    I never took mine out of my racecar. My life versus a little Halon, not a hard decision.

  9. #1839
    Roll up! Roll up! Come one and all! I have a great money making opportunity for anyone who believes the earth is cooling or that it's about to cool or not get any warmer. Joseph Romm is betting $1,000 that the decade from 2010-2019 will be hotter than 2000-2009 and he is offering two to one odds:

    http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/0...istory-by-far/

    Any takers?

  10. #1840
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,086
    I'll have a piece of that. I already have a $1000 dollar bet running, but I never say no to easy money from alarmists.


    I just posted this at his site:

    Sorry for the OT post Joe, but the thread I found this on is closed for comments.

    “I stand by my offer to bet $1000 that the decade from 2010 to 2019 will be warmer than the decade from 2000 to 2009. I’ll even give you 2-to-1 odds or spot you 0.1°C. And I’ll even agree to use the HadCRUT3 global mean surface temperature data set (but, no, I can’t agree to use the satellite data, since it covers parts of the atmosphere that are projected to cool).”

    Subject to your agreement to use an average of both surface indices and both satellite indices, I’ll take you up on that if you are still open to bets.

    I have a question though. If parts of the atmosphere are projected to cool, how is co2 going to be the cause of the warmer than ever decade you predict?

    Maybe I should have asked whether the surface measurements were not going to cover those parts where the atmosphere is projected to cool.

    On the subject of non-coverage of parts of the globe and the strange extrapolations which result:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/1...rature-issues/

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...ng?w=396&h=579

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate...-200906-pg.gif

    http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-conte..._1951_1980.gif
    Last edited by Stroller; 2009-Jul-20 at 11:05 AM.

  11. #1841
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,695
    In the mid 70's my store sold citizen band radios during the craze of the time. We had a Moonraker antennae and at night we would "shoot skip" on SSB (single side band). The radio signal would bounce off layers in the atmosphere enabling communication beyond "line of sight" and the game was how far could could contact be made. From that background I came across an article in the American Airlines magazine American Way of July 2009 titled The Weatherman by Jack Boulware. The article is about Herb Hilgenberg who provides weather updates to mariners in the Atlantic and the Caribbean. He communicates on SSB radio on a frequency of 12.3590 MHz. The number of boats that he helps has been reduced, "because of the effects of a changing atmosphere, which have limited his frequency range" says the author of the article. I assume the author means that the range has been reduced at that frequency.

    Herb explains:

    I've never seen anything like it over the last twenty years... It's almost like there's no ionosphere. So right now my traffic is down.
    "When atmospheric propagation is best, extending his radio range, Herb can cover the north and south Atlantic, as far north as Greenland, as far east as Madagascar, and as far west as Baja California, and Easter Island" writes Boulware. Herb operates from Toronto.

    I take this as direct evidence of the effect of the current Solar quiescence on the layering of the atmosphere. As a side note there normally is a delay of three to four months between interview, writing the article, and publication and therefore does not necessarily reflect conditions that are extant today.
    Last edited by jlhredshift; 2009-Jul-20 at 11:05 PM. Reason: KHz (sic) MHz fixed

  12. #1842
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    25,752
    Quote Originally Posted by jlhredshift View Post
    I take this as direct evidence of the effect of the current Solar quiescence on the layering of the atmosphere. As a side note there normally is a delay of three to four months between interview, writing the article, and publication and therefore does not necessarily reflect conditions that are extant today.
    Could it be caused by something else? This, note, is a genuine question. I have no idea, not being more than vaguely aware that people are able to do such a thing in the first place. And at that, I learned it from Quantum Leap.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  13. #1843
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    792
    Shortwave or High Frequency radio signals skip off the ionosphere. The existence and strength of the ionosphere depends on the sun's activity. During the solar minimum when the sunspot count is low, the ionosphere is not strong enough to bounce signals of higher frequency.

    We are in a solar minimum. The minimum has been dragging on for longer than is typical. (A year or two longer?) Radio conditions would still be on the poor side, I think, even if the solar cycle was typical just because we would still be rising out of the solar trough, so to speak.

    The poor conditions are a consequence of low solar activity. It doesn't say anything, however, about the weather, or, um, climate.

    Jlhredshift, I think you meant to say 12 Mhz and not 12 Khz.

  14. #1844
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Could it be caused by something else? This, note, is a genuine question. I have no idea, not being more than vaguely aware that people are able to do such a thing in the first place. And at that, I learned it from Quantum Leap.
    Alot of the ions in the ionosphere are a result of the interactions between the Earth's magnetosphere and the solar wind. The quiet solar wind means that the ions are diffusing out faster than they are replenished, choking out the ionosphere. A couple good solar storms should bring things back around tho.

  15. #1845
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    25,752
    Thanks, guys. You've been very helpful. (Sam was not, but he was preoccupied, and I suspect most of the viewing audience wouldn't have cared for a lengthier explanation anyway.)
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  16. #1846
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by jlhredshift View Post
    I take this as direct evidence of the effect of the current Solar quiescence on the layering of the atmosphere. As a side note there normally is a delay of three to four months between interview, writing the article, and publication and therefore does not necessarily reflect conditions that are extant today.
    The sun has not become much more active in the last 4 months, or the last 2 years in fact. We are in a long deep solar minimum which is longer and deeper than the minimum of 1912-14

    This radio ham site has the skinny, as well as much bloviating about the climate debate.

    www.solarcycle24.com

  17. #1847
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich View Post

    The poor conditions are a consequence of low solar activity. It doesn't say anything, however, about the weather, or, um, climate.
    The number of record cold reports in comparison to record warm reports and the continuing solar quiet are purely coincidence. Do not adjust your mindset.

  18. #1848
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    792
    Stroller, I meant my statement in more of a "show your work" kind of way. The connection between solar activity and weather would still need to be stated or demonstrated beyond mere lousy radio conditions.

  19. #1849
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich View Post
    Stroller, I meant my statement in more of a "show your work" kind of way. The connection between solar activity and weather would still need to be stated or demonstrated beyond mere lousy radio conditions.
    Well since the Michael Mann hockey stick graph of global temprerature was debunked, the co2 global warming enthusiasts have been saying the sun pretty much was the main driver of climate up until 1975 when co2 took over.

    I find this implausible, but they say that the fact the solar cycles have been getting a bit lower since then while temperature has risen would on the face of it seem to support their point.

    However, if you look into the matter a bit more closely, you will see that although the maximum amplitudes of the solar cycles 21,22,23 have fallen a bit from the 1958 all time high, they were still very strong solar cycles historically, and because they were quite short cycles, with very brief minima between, the average number of spots per month has been at an 8000 year high, as deduced from 10Be records in the geological record.

    Anytime the monthly sunspot count is above around 42 or so, the oceans store heat rather than losing it, as evidenced by the sea level increase due to thermal expansion measured by the satellite altimetry. The suns warm the oceans and the oceans warm the atmosphere, not the other way round. Sunlight by and large passes straight through the atmosphere between clouds and penetrates the ocean to a depth of around 80 meters, adding around 14x10^22J of heat between 1993-2003 alone. The ocean is currently emitting more heat than it absorbs in this period of solar quiet, which is why temperatures are currently rising. They will peak in a few months and start to fall away steeply next spring I predict.

    A lot of the heat radiated by the ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated in all directions, including downwards. This is the so called greenhouse effect. However, it is longwave radiation and it can't penetrate the ocean to a depth greater than it's wavelength. the effect is to cause evaporation, which is part of the hydrological cycle of cloud formation and precipiation. More cloud cools the earth overall, although high clouds can trap heat at night.

    As far as weather is concerned, it is quite well known that the speed of the solar wind affects our weather and climate, though the mechanism is not fully understood. It has to do with the global electrical circuit. Brian Tinsley is your man there. Google his name for several peer reviewed papers.

  20. #1850
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich View Post

    Jlhredshift, I think you meant to say 12 Mhz and not 12 Khz.
    Nope, see these two links to American Way

    First page of article pix

    Link to article

  21. #1851
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    792
    We're cool. 12000 Khz is 12 Mhz.

  22. #1852
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich View Post
    We're cool. 12000 Khz is 12 Mhz.
    Yeah, Marine band, long wave stuff.

    Edit: Joe, fixed OP

  23. #1853
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Could it be caused by something else? This, note, is a genuine question. I have no idea, not being more than vaguely aware that people are able to do such a thing in the first place. And at that, I learned it from Quantum Leap.
    Maybe this will help. Think of this as a situation that is similar to radar, wherein we are beaming 24 meter radio waves at the atmosphere and normally a fair amount are reflected at a density interface. At this time not as much is being reflected indicating a lack of an interface to reflect off of.

  24. #1854
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by jlhredshift View Post
    Maybe this will help. Think of this as a situation that is similar to radar, wherein we are beaming 24 meter radio waves at the atmosphere and normally a fair amount are reflected at a density interface. At this time not as much is being reflected indicating a lack of an interface to reflect off of.
    I wonder if the big ~4W/m^2 increase in surface outgoing longwave radiation since mid 2000 is linked to the ~30% contraction of the ionosphere following the decline of solar cycle 23. The earth's geomagnetic index is very low too, due to the sun being so quiet.

    Thing is, the solar cycle peaked after the increase in OLR. Don't know when the ionosphere contracted though. Anybody?

  25. #1855
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by Stroller View Post
    I wonder if the big ~4W/m^2 increase in surface outgoing longwave radiation since mid 2000 is linked to the ~30% contraction of the ionosphere following the decline of solar cycle 23. The earth's geomagnetic index is very low too, due to the sun being so quiet.

    Thing is, the solar cycle peaked after the increase in OLR. Don't know when the ionosphere contracted though. Anybody?
    Check out this NASA site:

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...tmosphere.html


    Jim

  26. #1856
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,086
    Most criticism of the climate models contains the observation that they have unwarranted assumptions about climate sensitivity to co2 built into them, and therefore provide the result the modelers expect.

    Two can play at that game. What I have done is made an assumption about the degree to which changes in solar output affect the Earth, to see what sort of temperature series I can generate using sunspot numbers as a proxy for TSI, plus a terrestrial amplification however caused, along the lines of Nir Shaviv's use of the oceans as a calorimeter. To emulate ocean heat retention, I have estimated the number of sunspots at which the ocean starts gaining net heat, and made a cumulative running total from that. I've added in the PDO and AMO from 1900 to add a little realism involving the ~60 year oceanic cycles The inclusion also aids calibration of the curve against the historical temperature record. I've used HADsst2gl as the series to compare against, since SST is a reasonable proxy for ocean heat content, which is the principle driver of our climate no matter what way it's affected by anything else. I've used http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/mean:12 to plot the sst series, so you can be sure there has been no monkeying with the data. 8-)

    To spice up the discussion that I hope will follow this post, I have included a possible future scenario in my graph which emulates what I think will happen if the sun goes into a Dalton type minimum.
    Plase note that this is not a prediction, it is a possible scenario.

    So without further ado, here's the graph. Please let me have your questions and thoughts.

    http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/u...amo-2043-1.gif

  27. #1857
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Laws and enforcement thereof did the job here. California's emissions standard laws have helped improve air quality everywhere cars that meet them are sold, for example.
    And how is that working out economically in California? :-)

    I don't think China currently cares much. Their quality control in other areas is clearly lacking, after all.
    Maybe so, but that would suggest that the mere feelings of public officials and maybe the population is the holdup on pollution control in China.

    Something tells me you might discount an excerpt from a libertarian rag, but here goes:

    Earth Day, Then and Now

    From Reason Magazine: "Why has air quality improved so dramatically? Part of the answer lies in emissions targets set by federal, state, and local governments. But these need to be understood in the twin contexts of rising wealth and economic efficiency. As a Department of Interior analyst concluded after surveying emissions in 1999, "Cleaner air is a direct consequence of better technologies and the enormous and sustained investments that only a rich nation could have sunk into developing, installing, and operating these technologies." Today, American businesses, consumers, and government agencies spend about $40 billion annually on air pollution controls.

    It is now evident that countries undergo various environmental transitions as they become wealthier. Fortune's special "ecology" edition in February 1970 was far more prescient than the doomsters when it noted, "If pollution is the brother of affluence, concern about pollution is affluence's child." In 1992, a World Bank analysis found that concentrations of particulates and sulfur dioxide peak at per capita incomes of $3,280 and $3,670, respectively. Once these income thresholds are crossed, societies start to purchase increased environmental amenities such as clean air and water.

    In the U.S., air quality has been improving rapidly since before the first Earth Day--and before the federal Clean Air Act of 1970. In fact, ambient levels of particulates and sulfur dioxide have been declining ever since accurate records have been kept. Between 1960 and 1970, for instance, particulates declined by 25 percent; sulfur dioxide decreased by 35 percent between 1962 and 1970. More concretely, it takes 20 new cars to produce the same emissions that one car produced in the 1960s."
    You experience climate over a number of years. Where I live, we have cool, wet winters that occasionally (as last winter) drop enough snow on us to shut down the city. We have warm, humid summers that in the last few days have been breathlessly hot, but we only get a few days over about 85 all summer. Back home, it's hot and dry all summer, and it's shocking when, in winter, the temperature dips below 40. At night.
    We should note here that in your own lifetime, then, you experienced--and survived--a climate change that I believe is greater than the global one predicted over each of the next centuries. I believe that the Earth has been warming, but I haven't seen any evidence for the gloom and doom scenarios. If I understand the posts on this forum right, global warming has been going on since the industrial revolution. Step outside. It may be a wonderful, sunny day with lush green all around, birds singing and all that. That is what global warming is also like. We can survive that.

    Your example here illustrates the concept of climate well--at least regional climate. Is there a global climate? I have been trying to come up with a way all your regional climate descriptions might conflate to a single global climate description, but nothing really makes much sense.

  28. #1858
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    25,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich View Post
    And how is that working out economically in California? :-)
    Better than deregulation?

    Maybe so, but that would suggest that the mere feelings of public officials and maybe the population is the holdup on pollution control in China.
    The "mere feelings of public officials" is, logically, part of what's holding up laws or the enforcement thereof.

    Something tells me you might discount an excerpt from a libertarian rag . . . .
    For what I hope are obvious reasons.

    We should note here that in your own lifetime, then, you experienced--and survived--a climate change that I believe is greater than the global one predicted over each of the next centuries. I believe that the Earth has been warming, but I haven't seen any evidence for the gloom and doom scenarios. If I understand the posts on this forum right, global warming has been going on since the industrial revolution. Step outside. It may be a wonderful, sunny day with lush green all around, birds singing and all that. That is what global warming is also like. We can survive that.
    You're right--I survived just fine. If, however, I were to take a square mile of LA County ecosystem and transplant it outside of town, taking that square mile and transplanting it back home, they'd both die. Not least because the odds of having a stream somewhere in that stretch are far better up here than down there! The problem with a lot of anti-AGW arguments I've seen has to do with an anthropocentrism. What people can survive--what, I will grant you, even a lot of the trees could survive--a lot of other things can't. Coral, for example, requires a very specific ocean temperature and depth. Fiddle a very little with that, and coral dies.

    Your example here illustrates the concept of climate well--at least regional climate. Is there a global climate? I have been trying to come up with a way all your regional climate descriptions might conflate to a single global climate description, but nothing really makes much sense.
    I am, as we've established, not an expert. My own personal mental image of global climate, which may well be wrong, is sort of like a pattern of colours superimposed on a globe. If, as they are in my head, Washington is forest green and Los Angeles is sort of brown-gold, there are places where the one shades into the other. Sometimes, dividing lines are relatviely sharp--usually when you're crossing a mountain range--but global climate change, to me, is when the pattern of colours changes. If, for example, we start to dry out--a catastrophic event for a rain forest!--we'd go more yellow. I realize this is an extraordinarily artsy way of thinking about it, but you work with what you've got, right?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  29. #1859
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    . Coral, for example, requires a very specific ocean temperature and depth. Fiddle a very little with that, and coral dies.
    Coral dies every day. As the sea floor cools it sinks taking the sea mounts(volcano) with it and you get a guyot with a dead coral reef. Sea level rose dramatically (300 to 400 feet in 1k to 2k years) at the end of the last stadial (ice age) and the eustatic sea level rise has tapered off since then, yet we have coral reefs everywhere. Those little guys survived dramatic climate change and eustatic sea level rise through the Pleistocene. The few feet of potential sea level rise that is left won't even phase them.

  30. #1860
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    792
    To add to that, the Great Barrier Reef made a surprising recovery after being killed off apparently from my SUV:

    Australian Scientists Celebrate Great Barrier Reef Recovery

Similar Threads

  1. A general gardening thread
    By TheOncomingStorm in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 295
    Last Post: 2013-May-09, 05:57 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2010-Aug-07, 02:40 AM
  3. MOND - a general discussion
    By Nereid in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 242
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-18, 01:06 PM
  4. A General Discussion of the Alternative Approach
    By Tim Thompson in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 2005-Jul-27, 01:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •