Global Warming

[Deepwater6]

I saw a news item that said the huge pile of snow from this past winter is still there in June because of dirt and road grit is insulating it. I believe the recap said Boston. I look at Global warming the way I look at cheeseburger's. It will some day be my demise, but probably not today. Would it be possible/feasible to try and coat at least some of the glaciers and snow packs with a low cost product that would delay the pace of melting?

 

I would assume it could be applied by planes that operate like crop duster's. Of course depending on what is used it would ruin the pristine look of it, but that is better than your small country going under in another part of the world. I guess my question is how much would we need to insulate to make the melting stop or even let the glaciers grow again from the decrease of heat if we were able to do it?

[Essay]

A sort of geoengineering solution, eh? I've never heard of snow/ice being insulated by foreign materials that collects on its surface. I've heard plenty about how foreign materials, especially black carbon or soot, or any material darker than snow, will increase the melting in various ways depending on whether the contaminant (or combination of contaminants) is hydrophilic or hydrophobic in nature. The various ways that ice melts, under the influence of different materials, creates some amazing shapes and colors in ice.

 

Maybe some weird salt/mud crust develops in urban situations that does insulate the snow, but I'd expect more effects from shading--either from sun, wind, or both--by buildings in an urban setting, or a cooler(?) Spring to be more significant; but I'm just guessing about that stuff.

 

More likely is that the large (recall this past winter?) amount of snow (a large starting amount) is melting normally, and will be gone soon enough. Snow/Ice does melt in a very non-linear way; appearing not to change in volume much during the first 3/4 to 4/5 of the melting process (while undergoing internal structural changes), but then losing the remaining 60-80% of its volume during the last short period of melting (as the rearranged structure finally collapses). ...or words to that effect.

===

 

But as for geoengineering a quick fix....

I'd expect many local effects would be too severe to justify helping some small distant island nation from being overcome by sea-level rise. Imho, insulating ice would lead to dramatic local and regional (or nearly hemispheric) effects, since much of our weather is driven by the ice extent--and the seasonal, tilt-driven ice cycle. It is what drives the polar jet stream, our pressure and precipitation patterns, and the basic predictability of our weather.

 

Insulating the ice would remove it from the weather part of the cycle. How would new ice form on an insulated surface? What would happen to all the heat that normally (currently) melts over 150 billion tons of ice yearly from Greenland and N.Hemisphere glaciers? If our extra heat were not absorbed by melting or sublimating all of that ice, wouldn't it heat the air more and keep it drier?

...weakening the jet stream maybe?

 

...how much would we need to insulate to make the melting stop or even let the glaciers grow again from the decrease of heat if we were able to do it?

Protecting ice will not reduce the heating effects of greenhouse gases. Only by building up the ice's extent, to increase albedo, could the GHG heating effect be offset (but not removed) by some amount; but as it is, the extra heating prevents any buildup of ice extent or corresponding albedo.

 

Anyway... insulating a glacier might be a good "conservation" idea for local populations to protect their glacial source of water, but they'd also have to consider how the "insulation" itself would degrade and influence their soil, water, and the environment both locally and globally, over the long term.

===

 

Speaking of the long term, it's hard not to imagine any sort of "geoengineered" quick fix, that only addresses one symptom of CO2 buildup, as only masking--for the short term--an unavoidable and building set of consequences. It'd be like "fixing" the economy by contantly lowering interest rates, but without changing any of the other fundamentals that drive economic cycles, and still expecting a long-term fix.

 

Painting our roofs white would do more to lower temperatures (increase albedo) than whitening the ice-cap, Greenland, and/or glaciers. Too bad we don't have crop dusters (or Arctic research vessels) that produce white exhaust plumes. But you're right to focus on saving the ice; it is vital to the operation of our current N.Hemisphere heat-distribution and heat-loss system (weather/climate/hydrology).

[Alpine]

What you say might not be such a good idea. From what I know

 

1. Adding any foreign substance such as dirt or grit on ice will have huge effect on animals living there, especially polar bears.

2. As Essay said, any material which is darker than the ice or snow might very well increase it's melting rate.

3. If somehow the ice or snow manages to melt, the dirt and grit which might go into the ocean might be harmful to marine creatures.

 

But as far as geoengineering is concerned, I hope the field comes up with something brilliant. If I remember correctly, I once saw a documentary on the Discovery channel. In the documentary, they were covering up the glacier ice with a huge white sheet which they said would reflect the sunlight back. I don't know if it was successful, but I'm sure that as successful as it will be, it will change Polar bear's hunting techniques.

 

I also remember seeing another idea in which some researchers said that releasing reflective glass in the Earth's atmosphere might help regulate the climate change a little bit.

 

Will post about it if I find something about it.

[Alpine]

Here are some reports on covering the glaciers.

 

http://www.wendmag.com/blog/2009/02/18/could-covering-glaciers-in-reflective-blankets-keep-them-from-melting/

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread164618/pg1

[Deepwater6]

Essay/Alpine, Do either of you know what the leading solution that scientists are looking at as of now. Essay you refer to the Ozone and that it might be the way to attack this problem. I know Ozone is destroying our protection but does it accumulate at certian strata level or poles? If it does would the scientist work towards cleaning up that area or just stopping anything else that would add to it? Alpine thanks for the the articles very interesting. Thank you both for your insight. I'll make another cheeseburger and keep thinking on it.

[Deepwater6]

Sorry I meant Co2 build up not Ozone build up.

[Essay]

http://geology.com/nasa/carbon-dioxide-map/

 

AIRS July 2008 [Atmospheric InfraRed Sounder]

 

A NASA / university team has published the first global satellite maps of the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in Earth's mid-troposphere, an area about 8 kilometers, or 5 miles, above Earth. The team's study reveals new information on how carbon dioxide, which directly contributes to climate change, is distributed in Earth's atmosphere and moves around our world.

 

A research team led by Moustafa Chahine of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., found the distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere is strongly influenced by major surface sources of carbon dioxide and by large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns, such as the jet streams and weather systems in Earth's mid-latitudes. Patterns of carbon dioxide distribution were also found to differ significantly between the northern hemisphere, with its many land masses, and the southern hemisphere, which is largely covered by ocean.

 

The CO2 numbers on the scale bar need to be increased by about 14 points to get the 2011 picture (Hawaii Avg.= 395), but I'm sure the distribution is about the same.

 

The variance is only about (+/-) 5 ppm, so globally the average is about as good as any local variation--of less than 2%. There are some interesting patterns here, and similarities with maps of atmospheric circulation re: the ITCZ, Trade winds, and polar and subtropical jet streams.

 

Note the higher than average levels in some areas over Antarctica, even though the Southern Hemisphere has generally lower levels and some of the lowest levels surrounding Antarctica. I wonder if that collects naturally or if that is from all the scientific study and presence down there....

~

[Turtle]

I saw a news item that said the huge pile of snow from this past winter is still there in June because of dirt and road grit is insulating it. ...

 

i saw a news report on the pile too along with video of the pile. the 'dirt' was mixed into the snow, not just layered on it. given the tack the thread has taken i think this is an important distinction.

 

in my community, and presumably most, snow plow material that is collected and material from street sweepers and storm drain pump-outs are taken to a treatment facility composed of large settlement ponds. (note this is not a sewage treatment plant.) succesive settlings from pond-to-pond clean the water before it is discharged to a stream and the sludge from the ponds is periodically dredged out & taken to a landfill.

 

ps given the conditions during the snow storms, as well as the flooding after, a treatment facility would likely not be operable.

[Eclipse Now]

Is this how the air actually warms? I had the impression the radiating heat 'bounced off' the Earth and was absorbed by Co2 molecules (and other greenhouse gases) on the way up.

 

But this guy seems to have developed his own theory in an attempt to explain away global warming.

 

Air molecules (mostly nitrogen and oxygen) collide with molecules at the surface of the Earth's crust (or on top of the ocean) and gain heat (extra kinetic energy) by conduction. They then rise by convection making space for cooler molecules to collide with the surface and repeat the process until equilibrium is achieved. The vast majority of the warming of the lower atmosphere from absolute zero (which is minus 273.15 degrees C) takes place this way, with the process still working on cloudy days and also at night. During the day the sun radiates light and heat in the form of electromagnetic radiation. We can think of the sun's radiation (or insolation) as a stream of photons which contain energy that can be converted to heat when the photons strike the Earth's surface, be that land or water. The warmer surface starts warming the air even more and heat rises by the processes explained above. Some heat is released through evapotranspiration as well. The Earth also radiates some photons itself, but being much cooler than the sun, its photons have frequencies and wavelengths in the infrared (heat) range. Carbon dioxide molecules can "capture" some of these photons, with particular wavelengths, and get warmer. But the CO2 molecules then emit another photon (in any direction) and cool off again to some extent. There may be some net warming if the emitted photon has less energy than the one which was captured. Some of this extra heat may also be transferred through collisions with other air molecules. The IPCC models assume far too much radiation from the Earth's surface instead of convection with air molecules which do not emit photons that can be captured by CO2- see this.)

 

http://climate-change-theory.com/

[kowalskil]

A sort of geoengineering solution, eh? I've never heard of snow/ice being insulated by foreign materials that collects on its surface. I've heard plenty about how foreign materials, especially black carbon or soot, or any material darker than snow, will increase the melting in various ways depending on whether the contaminant (or combination of contaminants) is hydrophilic or hydrophobic in nature. The various ways that ice melts, under the influence of different materials, creates some amazing shapes and colors in ice.

 

Maybe some weird salt/mud crust develops in urban situations that does insulate the snow, but I'd expect more effects from shading--either from sun, wind, or both--by buildings in an urban setting, or a cooler(?) Spring to be more significant; but I'm just guessing about that stuff.

 

More likely is that the large (recall this past winter?) amount of snow (a large starting amount) is melting normally, and will be gone soon enough. Snow/Ice does melt in a very non-linear way; appearing not to change in volume much during the first 3/4 to 4/5 of the melting process (while undergoing internal structural changes), but then losing the remaining 60-80% of its volume during the last short period of melting (as the rearranged structure finally collapses). ...or words to that effect.

===

 

But as for geoengineering a quick fix....

I'd expect many local effects would be too severe to justify helping some small distant island nation from being overcome by sea-level rise. Imho, insulating ice would lead to dramatic local and regional (or nearly hemispheric) effects, since much of our weather is driven by the ice extent--and the seasonal, tilt-driven ice cycle. It is what drives the polar jet stream, our pressure and precipitation patterns, and the basic predictability of our weather.

 

Insulating the ice would remove it from the weather part of the cycle. How would new ice form on an insulated surface? What would happen to all the heat that normally (currently) melts over 150 billion tons of ice yearly from Greenland and N.Hemisphere glaciers? If our extra heat were not absorbed by melting or sublimating all of that ice, wouldn't it heat the air more and keep it drier?

...weakening the jet stream maybe?

 

 

Protecting ice will not reduce the heating effects of greenhouse gases. Only by building up the ice's extent, to increase albedo, could the GHG heating effect be offset (but not removed) by some amount; but as it is, the extra heating prevents any buildup of ice extent or corresponding albedo.

 

Anyway... insulating a glacier might be a good "conservation" idea for local populations to protect their glacial source of water, but they'd also have to consider how the "insulation" itself would degrade and influence their soil, water, and the environment both locally and globally, over the long term.

===

 

Speaking of the long term, it's hard not to imagine any sort of "geoengineered" quick fix, that only addresses one symptom of CO2 buildup, as only masking--for the short term--an unavoidable and building set of consequences. It'd be like "fixing" the economy by contantly lowering interest rates, but without changing any of the other fundamentals that drive economic cycles, and still expecting a long-term fix.

 

Painting our roofs white would do more to lower temperatures (increase albedo) than whitening the ice-cap, Greenland, and/or glaciers. Too bad we don't have crop dusters (or Arctic research vessels) that produce white exhaust plumes. But you're right to focus on saving the ice; it is vital to the operation of our current N.Hemisphere heat-distribution and heat-loss system (weather/climate/hydrology).

 

 

That resonates with my ways of thinking.

 

.

[suresh123]

Global warming is the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. Since the early 20th century, Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two thirds of the increase occurring since 1980. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.

 

An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, and a probable expansion of subtropical deserts.[11] Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects of the warming include more frequent occurrence of extreme-weather events including heat waves, droughts and heavy rainfall, species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes, and changes in crop yields.

All these topics are included in the Maharashtra board syllabus because these topics are one of the most important global problems which world is facing.

[Michaelangelica]

Disinformation, Social Stability and Moral Outrage

By DONALD A BROWN on February 25, 2012 4:53 PM| 14 Comments | 0 TrackBacks

Preface. ClimateEthics has recently completed a detailed four part series on the ethical dimensions of climate change disinformation campaign in which we distinguish between responsible skepticism and the ethically abhorrent tactics of the climate change disinformation campaign. See the last entry:

Irresponsible Skepticism: Lessons Learned From the Climate Disinformation Campaign

 

The following entry by guest blogger, Dr. Kenneth Shockley, Associate Professor, University of Buffalo, makes a strong case that the nature of the harm caused by the disinformation campaign calls for collective moral outrage.

 

 

Disinformation, Social Stability and Moral Outrage

 

Those who deny the reality, importance, or magnitude of climate change warrant our collective outrage. Whether by action or inaction, their denial blinds us to the risks, vulnerabilities, and threats to our well-being posed by climate change. Insofar as claims of ignorance are becoming increasingly implausible, those who support or propagate the disinformation campaign about climate change are guilty of more than deception. They are guilty of exacerbating risks to our collective well-being and of undermining society.

http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/

 

[7DSUSYstrings]

Essay/Alpine, Do either of you know what the leading solution that scientists are looking at as of now. Essay you refer to the Ozone and that it might be the way to attack this problem. I know Ozone is destroying our protection but does it accumulate at certian strata level or poles? If it does would the scientist work towards cleaning up that area or just stopping anything else that would add to it? Alpine thanks for the the articles very interesting. Thank you both for your insight. I'll make another cheeseburger and keep thinking on it.

 

 

What if it becomes evident that GW is caused by changes in the solar wind and our magnetic fields, not from pollution, of which the cheeseburger is a byproduct of bovine/porcine generated methane, or perhaps it's the other way around. The point is we still can't say for certain, but every phag sucked or cheeseburger stuffed (in our faces) can't be helping.

[Turtle]

What if it becomes evident that GW is caused by changes in the solar wind and our magnetic fields, not from pollution, of which the cheeseburger is a byproduct of bovine/porcine generated methane, or perhaps it's the other way around. The point is we still can't say for certain, but every phag sucked or cheeseburger stuffed (in our faces) can't be helping.

 

good grief. no, global warming is not from solar forcing, yes we can -and do- say for certain human CO2 emmisions are accelerating climate change, and yes farming is a contributing factor. tobacco smoking!? please provide a source for your assertion(s) as is de rigueur for all such claims here.

 

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

 

One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.

 

...

[7DSUSYstrings]

Turtle,

 

I really don't have time to search today, but you're the math guy. A single phag sucked to the butt will output about .85 cu ft of various greenhouse gases including CO2 and a wide variety of hydrocarbons through destructive distillation. Assuming, quite kindly, that only half that volume escapes to the atmosphere, even say .4 cu ft to stack the comparison against my claim, multiplied by 1.7 billion cigarette packs smoked every day around the planet times 20. Do the math. You don't need a link. I'm really stacking the argument further against my suggestion by saying .85 cu ft per phag sucked, because that is really about the volume of a single, smokey exhalem or two.

 

As for the solar issue, look at your own chart. The warming trend was quite proportional till around 1980. Basically what you have shown us is the damage is done. It is unlikely this mess will repair itself in our lifetimes.

[7DSUSYstrings]

http://greenanswers.com/q/68332/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-emissions/how-much-does-cigarette-smoke-ad

 

There. Haaaappppyyyy?

[Turtle]

http://greenanswers.com/q/68332/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-emissions/how-much-does-cigarette-smoke-ad

 

There. Haaaappppyyyy?

 

not really; but it's something. i made light of that aspect of your earlier reply simply because of the miniscule contribution it has in contrast to the major CO2 contributor of burning fossil fuels. moreover, what makes me most unhappy is your suggesting there is some mistake about the fossil fuel contribution - let alone deforestation- and that instead all the climate scientists are somehow idiots or deceivers about not considering the sun's role. i'd be less unhappy if you would acknowledge that you're mistaken in that position. :smilingsun: