My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Essay]

On your 'real' link, I don't find anything on the deep ocean temperature variance, or an indication of how it affects the upper layer temperatures. I see a lot of boreholes on the map too; how long have we been drilling those & how is temperature data derived from them?

 

 

Deep ocean temperatures? Huh? The title is "Continental heat gain...."

 

I suspect a lot of the boreholes were done for geological sampling and research reasons.

...and I've been trying to imagine how they "measure" temperature in a profile like that. I can think of many confounding factors (and I'm not even a geologist). I trust that the methods have been vetted, but I think there is (as always) room for improvement.

If you're curious:

 

http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/huang.pdf

letters to nature [w/borehole map]

 

http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/2006EO440003.pdf

Land Warming as Part of Global Warming [Eos, Vol. 87, No. 44, 31 October 2006]

 

http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/70/4/1281.pdf

Characterizing the Two-Dimensional Thermal Conductivity Distribution in a Sand and Gravel Aquifer

 

Victor Bense at the University of East Anglia, School of Environmental Sciences

Borehole Paleoclimatology

Inversion of geothermal data for paleoclimate reconstructions has recently received increased attention because it potentially provides a means of estimating the amount of heat being stored in the Earth's continents. However, the use of geothermal data can be hampered because of the impact of land-use changes and fluid flow on heat flow patterns in the subsurface. In collaboration with H. Beltrami (St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada) I have recently been working on methodologies to correct for these effects based upon numerical modeling of subsurface heat transport.

Bense, V., and H. Beltrami (2007), Impact of horizontal groundwater flow and localized deforestation on the development of shallow temperature anomalies, J. Geophys. Res., 112, F04015, doi:10.1029/2006JF000703.

 

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43230/1/24_2004_Article_BF00878843.pdf

Inference of Ground Surface Temperature History from Subsurface Temperature Data: Interpreting Ensembles of Borehole Logs [PAGEOPH, Vol. 147, No. 3 (1996)]

 

I don't think these boreholes were drilled just to gather temp. data; they're just taking advantage of convenient circumstances.

They're even taking advantage of old lunar measurements to glean some climate info.

 

"Indeed, the long-term lunar surface temperature time series obtained inadvertently by the Heat Flow Experiment at the Apollo 15 landing site three decades ago may be the first important observation from deep space of both incoming and outgoing radiation of the terrestrial climate system. A revisit of the lunar surface temperature time series reveals distinct characteristics in lunar surface daytime and nighttime temperature variations, governed respectively by solar and terrestrial radiation."

 

http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/Huang07ASR.pdf

Surface temperatures at the nearside of the Moon as a record of the radiation budget of Earth’s climate system Please cite this article in press as: Huang, S., Surface temperatures at the nearside of the Moon as a ..., J. Adv. Space Res. (2007), doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.04.093

This study shows that the Moon is a plausible platform for monitoring the terrestrial climate system, and lunar surface temperature data comprise information on the radiation budget of Earth. The author calls for international effort to develop a network of temperature and radiation observatories on the Moon for the study of terrestrial climate change.

:confused:

 

p.s. Thanks for the Argo p.s.

...will see....

[InfiniteNow]

Post Script: Essay, you may not have seen this information, which received a critical review largely focussed on the writing style, and not critically contending the facts revealed by the mud-core research off British Columbia. Note the multiple sun cycles involved beyond the Schwabe

<yawn>

 

 

 

This is SO six pages ago... :confused:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/13705-my-belief-global-warming-getting-shaky-post213998.html#post213998

 

 

Let the hand waving begin...erm... I mean, continue... erm... I mean, <removed>. :)

[Essay]

...and not critically contending the facts revealed by the mud-core research off British Columbia. Note the multiple sun cycles involved beyond the Schwabe.:sleep:

...Also, did I see you say some part of an ocean is getting colder?

I might have been talking about how there is a lot of variability, but I don't think .... oh, well.... there is all the melting ice to think about.

Not really a net cooling; just a redistribution.

 

The last line of that Patterson, Mud/Sun article:

"By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

 

...doesn't point out that never before has a species generated so much CO2, nor destroyed so much of the biome's ability to sequester CO2.

 

Sure the sun's signature can be seen. It always can be seen, superimposed over whatever other climate forcers are operating at the time.

It's just that at THIS time, CO2 buildup is a new forcer (compared to how it operated in the past).

 

fyi....

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology

Volume 226, Issues 1-2, 3 October 2005, Pages 72-92

Climate shift at 4400 years BP: Evidence from high-resolution diatom stratigraphy, Effingham Inlet, British Columbia, Canada

Alice S. Chang, and R. Timothy Patterson

 

4. Methods and materials

Piston core TUL99B03 (49° 04.275′ N, 125° 09.359′ W; 11.4 m long, 10 cm diameter; 120 m water depth) was recovered from the inner basin of Effingham Inlet in 1999 (Fig. 1C). The majority of the core contains visibly distinct sedimentary laminae, with thin (< 10 cm) nonlaminated intervals intercalated throughout the core.

...

A 15-cm long slab (called Slab 8) from core depth 870–885 cm was extracted for high-resolution stratigraphic analysis because its distinct laminae and varves which show a thinning upward sequence. The slab has been previously X-rayed to reveal its internal structures and bulk density variations.

...

A 5-mm wide sediment strip was sliced perpendicular to laminae along the edge of Slab 8 and embedded with Spurr low-viscosity epoxy resin for the production of a continuous set of thin sections. ....During the embedding process, the top 1.3 cm of the sediment strip was damaged and discarded. The successfully embedded sediments were cured, sectioned diagonally into approximately 3-cm long pieces with a bandsaw, and polished into thin section slides.

 

6.4. Climatic interpretations (Aleutian Low (AL) & North Pacific High (NPH) )

The evidence provided in Slab 8 suggests that above varve 26, where varves become more silty and the abundance of marine coastal diatom taxa decreases, the AL gradually strengthened or persisted for a longer interval during the year. Alternatively, the NPH may have become weaker or did not move as far north during the summer to initiate upwelling along the British Columbia coast. A combination of both of these factors may also compound the situation. An examination of the sediments immediately below Slab 8 indicates that the sediments in Slab 8 record a transitional period from a time of high seasonality to a time of low seasonality. Varves from at least 17 cm of sediment (60 years) below Slab 8 are thick (2–3 mm) and display distinct seasonal lamina components (Chang et al., 2003 and Chang, 2004). Therefore it appears that there were at least some 80 years of drier, high seasonality conditions before the wetter, low seasonality conditions set in, and that the climate shift occurred within a couple of decades.

 

Recent research suggests that the changing intensities and locations of the AL and NPH may reflect a higher-order forcing factor. Christoforou and Hameed (1997) and Hameed and Lee (2003) have observed that the positions of the AL and NPH are related to solar activity, namely the 11-year Schwabe sunspot cycle. They determined that during sunspot maxima, the AL system moves west by as much as 700 km while the NPH moves north by as much as 300 km. These systems move in the opposite way during sunspot minima. Other longer cycles, such as the 20–22-year Hale cycle and the 72–90-year Gleissberg cycle (Dean, 2000), both of which are modulations of the 11-year cycle, may produce a similar effect on the locations of the AL and NPH (Patterson et al., 2004a and Patterson et al., 2004b). There is now a growing body of evidence that suggests that celestial and solar factors are at least partially responsible for climate variability from daily to millennial time scales.

 

7. Conclusion

Sediment texture, composition and diatom assemblages were determined at subseasonal to interannual scales. The stratigraphy of Slab 8 from Effingham Inlet suggests that major environmental change can occur within a couple of decades after a relatively prolonged period of climatic stability. The progressive decrease in the thickness of the varves and changes in diatom assemblages indicate that the production of marine species, and the environmental factors that support them, deteriorated over time. The concomitant increases in silt and benthic taxa point toward enhanced precipitation and continental runoff into the basin. The causal factor behind this kind of climate and environmental shift likely involves large-scale changes in the ocean–atmosphere system, namely a transition from a climate phase dominated by the NPH to one dominated by the AL. The bidecadal-scale climate shift at 4400 years BP, along with shifts observed throughout the 20th century, indicates that these shifts, whether long or short, rapid or gradual, appear to be commonplace events.

-end-

Well there's something to look forward to

 

...btw: Sounds as if it is just one "core" after all.

 

Hmmmm....

I wonder if this AL/NPH thing will behave the same in a world with increased CO2 and lacking a polar cap.

:phones: :lol:

[Moontanman]

Here is some info from a rabid anti global warming guy.

 

Prominent MIT hurricane scientist Kerry Emanuel has publicly reversed his view regarding global warming's alleged impact on hurricanes.

“The [computer] models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us," said Emanuel, whose views on hurricanes and global warming have been prominently cited by Al Gore and other promoters of climate change fear.

He told the New York Times. "There are various interpretations possible: The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or the models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet.”

In 2005, a few weeks before Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, Emmanuel asserted in a paper that he had found statistical evidence linking rising hurricane energy and global warming.

His conversion is a very important new development in the climate debate, said Marc Morano, a top aide to climate change skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.

"First, 2007 turned out to be the ‘tipping point’ for global warming fears, and 2008 appears to be the year of vindication for skeptics as many prominent scientists reverse their climate views, more and more skeptical scientists speak out, and new data debunks man-made climate fears.

“Now another major scientist reconsiders his views on a significant aspect of man-made climate fears.”

 

There were some links in this but they didn't come out for some reason.

[InfiniteNow]

There were some links in this but they didn't come out for some reason.

 

Maybe because they provide the much needed context for the comments? I dunno. ;)

 

 

Hurricane Expert Reassesses Link to Warming - Dot Earth - Climate Change and Sustainability - New York Times Blog

 

 

The new study, in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is hardly definitive in its own right, essentially raising more questions than it resolves.

If you’re a skeptic, and you welcome these results, please remember that these are the same climate models you bash when they show global temperatures steadily rising during the next century.

 

 

 

 

Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

 

"While his results don't rule out the possibility that global warming has contributed to the recent increase in activity in the Atlantic, they suggest that other factors — possibly in addition to global warming — are likely to have been substantial contributors to the observed increase in activity," Vecchi said.

[Moontanman]

Maybe because they provide the much needed context for the comments? I dunno. ;)

 

 

Hurricane Expert Reassesses Link to Warming - Dot Earth - Climate Change and Sustainability - New York Times Blog

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

 

I'm not so much a sceptic as I think too much is being drawn from too few data points. Do I think the Earth is getting warmer in the last few thousand years, yes, is it something we can control, maybe, is it something we should be controlling, not so sure. Should we be looking at energy sources that pollute less, yes, is climate change a bad thing, maybe for us but climate change is what happens on the Earth. Far too much of the Earths history has been spent with no ice caps and large inland seas for us to be in charge of preventing this from happening again.

[Moontanman]

Maybe because they provide the much needed context for the comments? I dunno. :doh:

 

 

Hurricane Expert Reassesses Link to Warming - Dot Earth - Climate Change and Sustainability - New York Times Blog

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

 

 

Oh! Wait! Are you insinuating that I am attempting to obstificate the information by leaving out the links? I am so naive:doh: I wouldn't have pointed out they didn't transfer over if I was doing that. I never do that.;)

[Zythryn]

"First, 2007 turned out to be the ‘tipping point’ for global warming fears, and 2008 appears to be the year of vindication for skeptics as many prominent scientists reverse their climate views, more and more skeptical scientists speak out, and new data debunks man-made climate fears.

“Now another major scientist reconsiders his views on a significant aspect of man-made climate fears.”

 

First, Moontanman, I realize these are not your statements:)

These are the type of dishonest quotes that really get my goat:naughty:

 

First, who in the world said the tipping point is 2007? Did they give a month, day and time as well? And then who made it 2008?

 

Then, the quotee (Imhofe?) seems to be implying that this particular scientist is reversing his position/opinion on the whole issue of climate change. From the available information he is reversing his position about the connection between climate change and hurricanes. Not that we are contributing to climate change.

 

I really wish BOTH sides would stop with the straw men and exagerations and stick to the evidence. It speaks loud enough for itself.

[REASON]

I'm not so much a sceptic as I think too much is being drawn from too few data points. Do I think the Earth is getting warmer in the last few thousand years, yes, is it something we can control, maybe, is it something we should be controlling, not so sure.

 

I think it's very important to note the dramatic increase in average global temperature over just the past 70 years. While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, the timing with respect to the abundant use of fossil fuels for energy and large scale deforestation over the same time period is unmistakable, IMHO.

 

If it is something we have caused, it ought to be something we should control.

 

 

Should we be looking at energy sources that pollute less, yes, is climate change a bad thing, maybe for us but climate change is what happens on the Earth. Far too much of the Earths history has been spent with no ice caps and large inland seas for us to be in charge of preventing this from happening again.

 

This statement assumes that we are attempting to alter what is a naturally occurring process. I would share your concern in such a situation.

 

But what if the naturally occurring process was being altered by our willful abuse and neglect? Should it not deserve the same level of concern?

 

To be honest, I'm not sure what causing the Earth to revert to no ice caps and high ocean levels would do to humanity. Are we properly adaptive to signicant rapid climate change? If there is far greater famine as a result of the continual rise in global temerature, is that justified by our resistance to change our behavior, assuming we are causing the temperature increase? Is it worth the risk one way or the other?

 

I don't think so.

[InfiniteNow]

As has been repeatedly shared in this thread already by Essay:

 

 

 

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/beltrami-etal2002.pdf

 

These fluxes indicate that 30% of the heat gained by the ground in the last five centuries was deposited during the last fifty years, and over half of the five-century heat gain occurred during the 20th century.

 

-from: Beltrami, H., J. E. Smerdon, H. N. Pollack, and S. Huang (2002), Continental heat gain in the global climate system, Geophysical Research Letters., 29(8), 1167, doi:10.1029/2001GL014310

 

 

I dunno. I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but this doesn't seem like natural variability. :)

[Moontanman]

As has been repeatedly shared in this thread already by Essay:

 

 

 

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/beltrami-etal2002.pdf

 

 

 

-from: Beltrami, H., J. E. Smerdon, H. N. Pollack, and S. Huang (2002), Continental heat gain in the global climate system, Geophysical Research Letters., 29(8), 1167, doi:10.1029/2001GL014310

 

 

I dunno. I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but this doesn't seem like natural variability. :)

 

If we had a million years of data and it agreed with your finding I would be all over it but we don't have even a small fraction of that time. For all we know we could be preventing another ice age. I'm not against slowing down or even stopping emmisions but I think we have to be realistic about how we do this. Bio fuel will only cause wide spread famine, the burning of renewable wood will cause more pollution, Solar and wind are way to expensive for the average person, take way too much room. We can't pave the planet in solar panels. Hydrogen has it's own hazards and making it is not as easy as adding a new solar panel to the house and distilling hydrogen. I see all the people yammering for a change with no idea of how to do the changing. We cannot cut out noses off to spite our faces. Nuclear power would be a big help but the very people who call for change are rabidly against nuclear power. Renewable methane could be part of the answer but no one thing is the complete answer. We are moving towards an economy that is beyond the reach of a great many if not most people of the world. Do something? By all means do it but don't do it for just the rich and well to do, have you priced a any new car lately much less a new hydrogen powered car? Is the price of gasoline a significant fraction of your income? It's at least 25% of mine even if I am very careful with it. Hydrogen is even more expensive even with out the need to buy a new car. I wonder if anyone is really aware of how this will affect the most numerous part of the population. Yes we need to look at this and do something but we don't need to make a new poverty class while we do it.

[Zythryn]

Moon, it is precisely for the welfare of the poor that we need to do more. The rich are not going to be nearly as affected by GW as the poor are.

 

And, we do have almost a million years of data. But we don't need it. Sure, it is nice and more data is always good. But we really need to look at what is happening to our environment and the one our civilization grew and flourished in.

 

Mankind won't be wiped out. There may be economic hardship, famine, loss of homes, large migrations of people (over a few decades). Wars could even erupt in a worse case situation. The ones that will suffer the most will be the poor. So it is NOW that the poor should be demanding that the rich solve this issue as well as aiding however they can.

[REASON]

I'm not against slowing down or even stopping emmisions but I think we have to be realistic about how we do this. Bio fuel will only cause wide spread famine, the burning of renewable wood will cause more pollution, Solar and wind are way to expensive for the average person, take way too much room. We can't pave the planet in solar panels. Hydrogen has it's own hazards and making it is not as easy as adding a new solar panel to the house and distilling hydrogen. I see all the people yammering for a change with no idea of how to do the changing. We cannot cut out noses off to spite our faces. Nuclear power would be a big help but the very people who call for change are rabidly against nuclear power. Renewable methane could be part of the answer but no one thing is the complete answer. We are moving towards an economy that is beyond the reach of a great many if not most people of the world. Do something? By all means do it but don't do it for just the rich and well to do, have you priced a any new car lately much less a new hydrogen powered car? Is the price of gasoline a significant fraction of your income? It's at least 25% of mine even if I am very careful with it. Hydrogen is even more expensive even with out the need to buy a new car. I wonder if anyone is really aware of how this will affect the most numerous part of the population. Yes we need to look at this and do something but we don't need to make a new poverty class while we do it.

 

Moon,

 

These are absolutely valid concerns you are sharing here. These are the types of considerations that have to be addressed once we have arrived at the understanding that it is important that we begin to consider alternative means of producing and consuming energy. But first we must come to that realization, and find a level of acceptance and determination to succeed.

 

Once this is achieved, we must set goals, and begin to dedicate resources toward problem solving, research and development. I believe with the Green movement for instance, there is much information already available relating to passive energy solutions for residential and commercial development; Making hybrid technology in cars more widespread, if not ultimately requiring it of all new models after a certain date should not be out of the question; Devoting more of our resources toward more energy efficient public transportation systems including high speed rail such as MagLev would be good; And a lot of jobs could be created in the development and implementation of these new systems.

 

There are some excellent advancements in solar energy collection and storage, hydrogen powered vehicles, powerful battery systems, solar cells, and wind energy collection. I know these things are expensive now, but that's because they are still new. They have not yet become the norm. Think how expensive the first Ti-35 hand held calculator was when it first hit the market. Now you can get calculators with more computing power than was available to the Apollo Program for 30 bucks. Technology tends to depreciate over time as it becomes easy to mass produce. It becomes easy to mass produce because resources are devoted to their mass production, driven by profit motive.

 

Therefore, all we really have to do to solve this problem is to figure out (as the supreme capitalists we claim to be) a way to make environmentally conscious energy production and consumption.....

 

.....profitable. :)

 

And hey, I hope companies like Exxon/Mobil/Conoco/Phillips/Shell/Chevron/BP/Monsanto/ADM lead the way. They sure have the resources. All they require is the determination driven by our demand.

[CraigD]

Solar and wind are way to expensive for the average person, take way too much room. We can't pave the planet in solar panels.

According to comprehensive plans such as Zweibel, Mason and Fthenakis’s “Solar Grand Plan”, all of the energy needs of the US ca. 2050 (about [math]2.9 \times 10^{12} \,\mbox{W}[/math]) -would require only about 165,000 square miles of collectors, and would not be prohibitively expensive. This includes large inefficiencies necessary to store energy gathered during bright daylight hours for use at night and on less bright days using durable and low cost compressed air systems. It’s expected that the highest average daily solar radiation receiving land in the American Southwest will have about 250,000 square miles of otherwise unutilized land at this time.

 

I’m skeptical that the engineering approaches of the Solar Grand Plan are the best possible, but this extensively researched plan serves to illustrate that very large solar power systems are feasible.

[InfiniteNow]

According to comprehensive plans such as Zweibel, Mason and Fthenakis’s “Solar Grand Plan”, all of the energy needs of the US ca. 2050 (about [math]2.9 times 10^{12} ,mbox{W}[/math]) -would require only about 165,000 square miles of collectors, and would not be prohibitively expensive.

And, their plan was amazingly conservative, indeed. I'd suggest it could be done faster, cheaper, and save more money in the long run.

 

From the link:

 

In extending our model to 2050, we have been conservative. We do not include any technological or cost improvements beyond 2020. We also assume that energy demand will grow nationally by 1 percent a year. In this scenario, by 2050 solar power plants will supply 69 percent of U.S. electricity and 35 percent of total U.S. energy. This quantity includes enough to supply all the electricity consumed by 344 million plug-in hybrid vehicles, which would displace their gasoline counterparts, key to reducing dependence on foreign oil and to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Some three million new domestic jobs—notably in manufacturing solar components—would be created, which is several times the number of U.S. jobs that would be lost in the then dwindling fossil-fuel industries.

 

The huge reduction in imported oil would lower trade balance payments by $300 billion a year, assuming a crude oil price of $60 a barrel (average prices were higher in 2007).

 

Since the price per barrel of crude oil hit $114 last week, and all indicators suggest prices will continue on their climb, this will save more than just the environment, but a metric assload of money as well. :shade:

 

 

 

 

Without subsidies, the solar grand plan is impossible. Other countries have reached similar conclusions: Japan is already building a large, subsidized solar infrastructure, and Germany has embarked on a nationwide program. Although the investment is high, it is important to remember that the energy source, sunlight, is free. There are no annual fuel or pollution-control costs like those for coal, oil or nuclear power, and only a slight cost for natural gas in compressed-air systems, although hydrogen or biofuels could displace that, too. When fuel savings are factored in, the cost of solar would be a bargain in coming decades. But we cannot wait until then to begin scaling up.

[REASON]

I'm sorry. Did I forget to mention the war for oil? Other than protectionism of Israel, I imagine our interest in meddling in the Middle East would significantly wither once we became more energy independent, and we wouldn't have to keep pouring so much of our precious resources, including the lives of our citizens, toward what is obviously such a destructive effort. And I would not be surprised if they would be pleased if we left them alone considering that's what they keep saying they want. :)

 

Maybe we could come up with some more positive and constructive ways to influence them if it remains our interest improve their way of life. You know, something that actually works. Ultimately, unless they are involved in attacking us or our allies, or some kind of ethnic cleansing, it seems whatever they do is really their business. I would expect we should be treated the same.

 

Meanwhile, we could redirect just a portion of these destructive war oriented expenditures toward strengthening our energy independent infrastructure and set a truly moral example to the world by becoming the leader in the development, production, and sale of new clean energy technologies.

 

Or, we can continue down our current path, outsourcing all of our engineering and manufacturing jobs, casting doubt in legitimate science, and watching from the sidelines as the dollar continues to tumble, the price of oil continues to rise, and other advanced nations take the lead.

 

It shouldn't be a difficult choice to make.

[Moontanman]

I have got to stop posting late at night!