climate change

[Dropped Cat]

When you show us all ONE other time in the history of all things,

someone heated a light-warmed rock hotter PUTTING it in a light blocking bath of frigid refrigerants,
than BEFORE it was put in it,

you'll have shown it happened. Once we all verify it being done.

Challenge accepted.



Some claim that the explanation for global warming contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.
But does it? To answer that, first, we need to know how global warming works. Then, we need to
know what the second law of thermodynamics is, and how it applies to global warming.

Global warming, in a nutshell, works like this:

The sun warms the earth. The earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate
most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the earth stays more
or less constant.

Gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the earth's surface, making it harder for it to shed
that heat, so the earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. The added gases make
the earth warmer - like a blanket conserving body heat.

The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways.

For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

"Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."

So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won't get hotter, and the cold thing
won't get colder. That's so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives.
If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn't get hotter.

The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of
the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot,
in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake?

No.

Consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can
make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your
body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is
retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up.

You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect.
The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer.

Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are
differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat,
unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun.

But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat,
the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how
it flows between things.

To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The earth
loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the
rate of heat-loss from the surface of the earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your
body loses heat.

The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

Global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Ununionized]

You COPY PASTED a CHILDREN'S STORY providing ZERO step by step EXPLANATION of ANYTHING.


With the CHILDREN'S STORY you COPY PASTED, LEAVING OUT GREEN HOUSE GAS COOLANTS, STOPPING 20% ENERGY EVER even ARRIVING. You should be EASILY ABLE: to SHOW UP with a PROPERLY PROCESSED STEP by STEP EXPLANATION

HOW the FRIGID, LIGHT BLOCKING BATH makes a

SUN-WARMED OBJECT HOTTER

through IMMERSION INTO the LIGHT BLOCKING BATH

than BEFORE it is IMMERSED in the light blocking BATH. Then YOU'RE going to NOT be here hand waving with FAKE children's stories
about MAGICAL BATHS.

Challenge accepted. Page long, copy-pasted hand waving children's story

Dropped Cat, You need to SHOW a light warmed rock that gets WARMER

through application of a CHILLED, LIGHT BLOCKING BATH,

than OUT of a REFRIGERATED BATH
getting FULL SUNLIGHT.

And YOU CAN'T.

 

[Ununionized]

Furthermore Dropped Cat you haven't met the test of CAN YOU INDICATE PRESENCE of ELEVATED CO2 is DANGEROUS to BIODIVERSITY, or for ME.

Nor Dropped Cat have you met the simple test can you EVER: in the ENTIRE HISTORY of ALL TIME show us a TIME when WARMTH was EVER BAD for BIODIVERSITY, or ME.
Or you.

 

[Meraxes]

I can't be bothered to read all those posts with weird-ass formatting and CAPS EVERYWHERE but is that dude saying it's good to have ever increasing levels of co2 in the atmosphere? Maybe I misread...

I LOVE LAMP!!!...........yes, I actually think he believes we can breath on Venus

 

[Meraxes]

I would suggest consulting with an expert on the matter.


View Image

^^^....this

 

[VenturaHwy]

I think dropped cat did pretty well. You could also use a real greenhouse and how the glass increases or traps the heat inside the greenhouse so it gets hotter. A car does the same thing. Not saying CO2 causes this effect, I really don't know. That is the theory.

But here is the real problem with the global warming science. No one can predict the future. It is not possible.

There are stock analysis guys that sell a newsletter to subscribers. They use graphs and statistics to predict the stock market. Sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong.

Climate scientists are exactly the same…. they sell their expertise for a price.

 

[Hermanthegerman]

I don´t believe the scientists at all, i believe what old Inuit say, or hunters and farmers. Or whats happen here before my own door. Fishes in the sea that never lived her, were coming from the southern sea, a lot of birds don´t fly to the south no more in wintertime and hey the the permafrost is melting worldwide and and and,.......

 

[minds_I]

Buahahahaha, this is funny...keep poking the troll. buahahaha

 

[Dropped Cat]

The acidification of seawater as a result of high human CO2 emissions
poses a severe threat to the marine ecosystem, specifically to corals,
limpets, mussels and other calcifying organisms.

These animals grow their shells and skeletons faster but they simply dissolve away.

Mediterranean coastal ecosystems are being degraded by increasing
temperatures and we now know that this warming can make the effects
of ocean acidification worse.

We see major losses in biodiversity and the aquaculture industry is right
to be nervous about the effects of carbon dioxide.

Many corporations are heavily investing in remedy technologies that stem from the
increasing CO2 emissions.

Corporations are both the cause and cure of all our problems.


Sleep tight, lol

 

[Dropped Cat]

What is a light blocking bath anyway?

 

[aridbud]

More people on earth, less rain forests and other living matter being chopped down that offers oxygen, more pollution does not equal homeostasis (status quo).

 

[trichrider]

Study shows iron from melting ice sheets may help buffer global warming

European Association of Geochemistry

A newly-discovered source of oceanic bioavailable iron could have a major impact our understanding of marine food chains and global warming. A UK team has discovered that summer meltwaters from ice sheets are rich in iron, which will have important implications on phytoplankton growth. The findings are reported in the journal Nature Communications on 21st May, 2014*.

It is well known that bioavailable iron boosts phytoplankton growth in many of the Earth's oceans. In turn phytoplankton capture carbon - thus buffering the effects of global warming. The plankton also feed into the bottom of the oceanic food chain, thus providing a food source for marine animals.

The team, comprising researchers from the Universities of Bristol, Leeds, Edinburgh and the National Oceanography Centre, collected meltwater discharged from the 600 km2 Leverett Glacier** in Greenland over the summer of 2012, which was subsequently tested for bioavailable iron content. The researchers found that the water exiting from beneath the melting ice sheet contained significant quantities of previously-unconsidered bioavailable iron. This means that the polar oceans receive a seasonal iron boost as the glaciers melt.

Jon Hawkings (Bristol), the lead author, said

"The Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets cover around 10% of global land surface. Iron exported in icebergs from these ice sheets have been recognised as a source of iron to the oceans for some time. Our finding that there is also significant iron discharged in runoff from large ice sheet catchments is new. "

"This means that relatively high iron concentrations are released from the ice sheet all summer, providing a continuous source of iron to the coastal ocean"

Iron is one of the most important biochemical elements, due to its impact on ocean productivity. Despite being the fourth most abundant element in the Earth's crust, it is mostly not biologically available because it is largely present as unreactive minerals in natural waters. Over the last 20 years there has been controversy over the role of iron in marine food chains and the global carbon cycle, with some groups experimenting with dumping iron into the sea in order to accelerate plankton growth - with the idea that increased plankton growth would capture man made CO2. This work indicates that ice sheets may already be carrying out this process every summer.

Based on their results the team estimates that the flux of bioavailable iron associated with glacial runoff is between 400,000 and 2,500,000 tonnes per year in Greenland and between 60,000 and 100,000 tonnes per year in Antarctica. Taking the combined average figures, this would equal the weight of around 125 Eiffel Towers, or around 3000 fully-laden Boeing 747s being added to the ocean each year.

Jon Hawkings added;

"This is a substantial release of iron from the ice sheet, similar in size to that supplied to the oceans by atmospheric dust, another major iron source to the world's oceans.

At the moment it is just too early to estimate how much additional iron will be carried down from ice sheets into the sea. Of course, the iron release from ice sheet will be localised to the Polar Regions around the ice sheets, so the importance of glacial iron there will be significantly higher. Researchers have already noted that glacial meltwater run-off is associated with large phytoplankton blooms - this may help to explain why".

Commenting on the relevance of this study, Professor Andreas Kappler (geomicrobiologist at the University of Tübingen, Germany, who is also secretary of the European Association of Geiochemistry) said:

"This study shows that glacier meltwater can contain iron concentrations that are high enough to significantly stimulate biological productivity in oceans that otherwise are oftentimes limited in the element iron that is essential to most living organisms. Although the global importance of this flux of iron into oceans needs to be quantified and the bioavailability of the iron species found should be demonstrated experimentally in future studies, the present study provides a plausible path for nutrient supply to oceanic life."

###

This press release is based on the following paper: Ice sheets as a significant source of highly reactive nanoparticulate iron to the oceans. Authors Jon R. Hawkings, Jemma L. Wadham, Martyn Tranter, Rob Raiswell, Liane G. Benning, Peter J. Statham, Andrew Tedstone, Peter Nienow, Katherine Lee & Jon Telling NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 5:3929 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4929, published 21 May 2014

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-05/eaog-ssi051914.php

study here:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html

 

[trichrider]

Rapid plankton growth in ocean seen as sign of carbon dioxide loading
Johns Hopkins-led study suggests faster ecosystem change than predicted

Arthur Hirsch / November 26, 2015 Posted in Science+Technology Tagged oceanography, earth and planetary sciences


A microscopic marine alga is thriving in the North Atlantic to an extent that defies scientific predictions, suggesting swift environmental change as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the ocean, a study led by a Johns Hopkins University scientist has found.

What these findings mean remains to be seen, as does whether the rapid growth in the tiny plankton's population is good or bad news for the planet.

Published today in the journal Science, the study details a tenfold increase in the abundance of single-cell coccolithophores between 1965 and 2010, and a particularly sharp spike since the late 1990s in the population of these pale-shelled floating phytoplankton.

"Something strange is happening here, and it's happening much more quickly than we thought it should," said Anand Gnanadesikan, associate professor in the Morton K. Blaustein Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Johns Hopkins and one of the study's five authors.

Gnanadesikan said the Science report certainly is good news for creatures that eat coccolithophores, but it's not clear what those are. "What is worrisome," he said, "is that our result points out how little we know about how complex ecosystems function." The result highlights the possibility of rapid ecosystem change, suggesting that prevalent models of how these systems respond to climate change may be too conservative, he said.

The team's analysis of Continuous Plankton Recorder survey data from the North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea since the mid-1960s suggests rising carbon dioxide in the ocean is causing the coccolithophore population spike, said Sara Rivero-Calle, a Johns Hopkins doctoral student and lead author of the study. A stack of laboratory studies supports the hypothesis, she said. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas already fingered by scientific consensus as one of the triggers of global warming.

"Our statistical analyses on field data from the CPR point to carbon dioxide as the best predictor of the increase" in coccolithophores, Rivero-Calle said. "The consequences of releasing tons of CO2 over the years are already here and this is just the tip of the iceberg."

The CPR survey is a continuing study of plankton, floating organisms that form a vital part of the marine food chain. The project was launched by a British marine biologist in the North Atlantic and North Sea in the early 1930s. It is conducted by commercial ships trailing mechanical plankton-gathering contraptions through the water as they sail their regular routes.

William M. Balch of the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Maine, a co-author of the study, said scientists might have expected that ocean acidity due to higher carbon dioxide would suppress these chalk-shelled organisms. It didn't. On the other hand, their increasing abundance is consistent with a history as a marker of environmental change.

"Coccolithophores have been typically more abundant during Earth's warm interglacial and high CO2 periods," said Balch, an authority on the algae. "The results presented here are consistent with this and may portend, like the 'canary in the coal mine,' where we are headed climatologically."

Coccolithophores are single-cell algae that cloak themselves in a distinctive cluster of pale disks made of calcium carbonate, or chalk. They play a role in cycling calcium carbonate, a factor in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. In the short term they make it more difficult to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but in the long term—tens and hundreds of thousands of years—they help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and oceans and confine it in the deep ocean.

In vast numbers and over eons, coccolithophores have left their mark on the planet, helping to show significant environmental shifts. The White Cliffs of Dover are white because of massive deposits of coccolithophores. But closer examination shows the white deposits interrupted by slender, dark bands of flint, a product of organisms that have glassy shells made of silicon, Gnanadesikan said.

"These clearly represent major shifts in ecosystem type," Gnanadesikan said. "But unless we understand what drives coccolithophore abundance, we can't understand what is driving such shifts. Is it carbon dioxide?"

The study was supported by the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science, which now runs the CPR, and by the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. Other co-authors are Carlos del Castillo, a former biological oceanographer at APL who now leads NASA's Ocean Ecology Laboratory, and Seth Guikema, a former Johns Hopkins faculty member now at the University of Michigan.

http://hub.jhu.edu/2015/11/26/rapid-plankton-growth-could-signal-climate-change

 

[trichrider]

Cosmic Theories, Greenhouse Gases, Global Warming

Antero Ollila from the Aalto University (Finland) has published in the Journal of Earth Sciences and Geotechnical Engineering a very interesting paper titled “Cosmic Theories and Greenhouse Gases as Explanations of Global Warming” (link to PDF). His study concludes that “the greenhouse gases cannot explain the up’s and down’s of the Earth’s temperature trend since 1750 and the temperature pause since 1798”. I will comment briefly on this rather easy to read paper, which alas should have benefited from a more thorough proof-reading, as there are quite a few spelling errors and/or typos.

1. IPCC and competing theories.

The IPCC concludes in his AR’s that practical all observed warming since the start of the industrial age comes from human emissions of greenhouse gases; the cause of GW (global warming) clearly is inside the Earth/atmosphere system. Competing theories see (possibly exclusively) outside causes at work: solar irradiance, galactic cosmic rays (GCR), space dust, planetary positions… As the temperatures calculated by the IPCC climate models (or better, the mean of numerous GCM’s), deviate now markedly from observations, Ollila writes that the “dependence of the surface temperature solely on the GH gas concentration is not any more justified”.

fig1In this figure (fig.1 of the paper) the blue dots represent the temperature anomaly calculated using the IPCC climate sensitivity parameter, and the blue line the CO2 induced warming postulated by the Myhre et al. paper. The red wiggly curve are the observed temperatures (t. anomalies): the huge difference with the IPCC dot in 2010 is eye watering!

2. The outside, cosmic models.

Ollila studies 4 cosmic models (which he blends into 3 combinations): variations of TSI and solar magnetic field, GCR, space dust and astronomical harmonics , as proposed by Nicola Scafetta. What many of these causes have in common, is that they could influence cloud coverage: the variations of cloud percentage is the elephant in the room! One percent variation in cloud cover is assumed to cause 0.1°C temperature change. Satellites shows that cloud coverage has varied up to 6% percent since 1983, which would explain a 0.6°C warming.

Combining space dust, solar variations and greenhouse gases together, he finds the following figure, extending to 2050 (fig.8 of the paper):

fig8
Here the red dot shows the average warming in 2010 given by the mean of 102 IPCC climate models; the black curve represents Ollila’s calculation. This figure shows, as many other authors predict, a (slight) cooling up to 2020, and then a 30 year period of practically no warming.

In another try, Ollila left out the putative influence of the increasing GH concentration. His justification are famous papers by Dr. Ferenc Miscolszi, a former NASA physicist, where this author proposes the theory that the impact of an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases will be cancelled out by a drying of the atmosphere (i.e. a decrease of absolute water vapour content). Miskolszi is able to reconstruct the past temperature variations beautifully, so this “outlandish” theory about a saturated greenhouse effect should not simply be discarded or ignored (read comments here and here).

This gives the following figure (fig.9 in the paper), with the black curve corresponding to the output of the calculations including only the SDI (star dust index) and TSI (total solar irradiance).

fig9

Now look at this: Ollila’s prediction of a coming longer lasting cooling period is nearly identical to the predictions based on the current (and next) very weak solar cycles !!!

3. The crucial role of water vapour

This whole paper stretches again and again the importance of getting the vapour content of a future climate right: the IPCC still assumes a constant relative humidity, i.e. an increasing water content with rising temperatures, and as a conclusion a positive feedback of the CO2 induced warming. Observations show that this has not been the case: the total water content of the atmosphere has not increased, as shown on this graph from http://www.climate4you.com (upper blue curve):

climate4you_watervapour

4. Conclusion

This is a paper I urge you to read. It clearly shows that climate science is far from settled, and that the naive, drastic and hurting climate politics proposed by EOL (end-of-life) presidents or advocacy groups could well try to influence a parameter (CO2) which has only a minor influence: this means much pain for very little or no gain!

so sorry the graphs didn't follow. see link.

https://meteolcd.wordpress.com/2015/08/27/cosmic-theories-greenhouse-gases-global-warming/

 

[trichrider]

The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S136468261200...t=1453144354_44ba1342ae5a852a7da1b78963bc9bc1

 

[trichrider]

http://sidc.oma.be/index.php3

http://www.climate4you.com/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century.html

http://spaceweathernews.com/

 

[armedoldhippy]

The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S136468261200...t=1453144354_44ba1342ae5a852a7da1b78963bc9bc1

here comes the next "ice age" panic, LOL! i've lived through two mini ice age panics & one global warming hysteria. also 58 summers & winters. some were warmer, some were colder. Mother Nature does not give a fuck what you want to happen. i just hope to survive to smoke legal weed and bask in the spring sunshine...

 

[_tessarecting]

Climate change comes from within.

 

[trichrider]

here comes the next "ice age" panic, LOL! i've lived through two mini ice age panics & one global warming hysteria. also 58 summers & winters. some were warmer, some were colder. Mother Nature does not give a fuck what you want to happen. i just hope to survive to smoke legal weed and bask in the spring sunshine...

sorry. point and shoot.
no panic there hippy, i'd bet that link happened to be one of the "panics" you already lived through...it was from 2012 i think.

yeah it was...and is closer to reality than 'global warming/climate change' hysteria...perhaps you overlooked the prediction of that 'panic' of cooling happened and is happening right now...not warming.

dead on illustrative of the "The Science is Settled" attitude.

temperature alone is not climate, and no nature doesn't give a hoot what we want to happen...does it?

no matter what we do, nature will do what it does. if that means extincting mankind, there would be no way to overcome or change that...mankind would disappear and you would miss that spring sunshine.

obligating taxes based on conjecture and whimsy...many of us will see that though through higher taxes and fees, higher prices, and fewer liberties...thanks to the criminal vagaries of some purchased science and evil intent on behalf of 'those in charge'.

at least you're not pretending to care...

 

[armedoldhippy]

oh, i care alright. i simply do not believe that there is anything that we can do to stop Mother Nature from doing whatever she pleases. yes, we COULD explode enough nuclear weapons to cause a global nuclear winter & stave off global warming, but does anyone here think that is a good idea? really??? cause the biggest mass extinction (probably including our own) in the history of the planet so that the streets in Miami do not flood during high tides? the Gulf of Mexico at one time (BEFORE we caused (if it IS our fault) global warming & melted glaciers etc) reached as far up as southern Illinois. then, it got cold for so long that there was a land bridge between Alaska & Siberia. and WE didn't have fuck to do with it! imagine that...