Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum what a difference two years make

I presume you meant 'unintelligible' ....

To: rednewur , canuck and imrancan

Would you like some crackers and cheese to go with that WHINE?

LOL:-}

Paul
I've had about enough of your childish behavior. This forum is not the place for slanging insults and other such bad behavior. If you can't behave like a responsible adult, you can be banned.


Amaranth

I can not really believe you posted something that ingnorent...JRW #29163

Paul is now officially on my "Ignore List". No longer will I have to suffer his intelligible posts. ... Canuck #29185

I presume you meant 'unintelligible' ....Imrancan #29196

The word prejudice refers to prejudgment: making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case or event.

I didnt see any remarks from YOU while they were slanging insults and other such bad behavior's...

and if you would like to ban me then just do it.

allmighty one.

I think your all mostly a great big joke anyway.

BYE BYE...

how do I remove myself as a member from the forum?

or just remove me for me.

thanks in advance.

a very good and easy way to help our planet .. there is a recycling company that buys old things from home .. also help us earn some money!
http://www.tripleclicks.com/10551651/go

If you people have read the news you will know that here in Victoria, the southern part of mainland Australia we have had bush fires of unprecedented fury. The unprecedented bit is because every 50 years or so we have drought--we did--- still heve--- so far this year we have had 1.4 ml of rain. This was a part of the country that had jokes made of the constant rain and drizzle. For the last 12 years this has not been so. We have had the longest drought in the history of this state. Then we had a week of temperatures above 40 degrees. The hottest ever. Then a few days in the high 30s--- then a day when the temp reached a record 48 degrees. As a result the bush literally did explode when fires broke out, some from lightning, some from human carelessness or intent. The gum trees are full of oil and their leaves get burned and then they become embers, which , on the gale force winds I forgot to mention, became a fire front over 30 k wide. There is nothing that can deal with this. People tried, some survived in bunkers, though not nearly enough, others stayed and burned, or ran and were burned in their cars.

Now the point of this story is that these conditions were different and more extreme than ever before. Records have been broken, and it may all happen again next week, and definitely next year. The change is the drought and the extreme weather regarding drought, excessive heat and wind-speed.

There are not many of us here in Victoria who do not believe that at least some of this is due to Climate Change. We are like the canaries in the coal mine. We are living in Climate Ghange.. and a week or so ago 209 people died in it.

Ellis

Im sorry to hear that you guys are having it so rough down there.
that sounds like one of those disaster movies you watch on tv.
one of those that are ficticious that try to warn of climate change , yet this is no movie its the real deal.

being caught in something like that and trying to stick it out and hold your ground is very brave if you have a proper shelter
but I imagine most didnt , running from the fires would most likely be what I would have done.

but there again you cant move the roads to where you want them to be so you need to plan a evacuation route and have some way of knowing where the fires and smoke is in order to make a safe getaway.

I can just picture roads filled with cars that cant go any further because the cars in front have stopped , and then the smoke approaches suffocating those who are trapped.

and making it impossible to see where you are going if you could move your car.

the best thing to do might be to just get the heck out of there when it looks like its time to do so , and have a plan.

now off of that one and for a look at the large area of sea ice that is just not there today...

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...=20&sy=2009


look at the areas in black (surrounded by purple)in the pictures , this shows 0% sea ice.

this lack of sea ice means that the water there will get warmed
more by the sun due to its inability to reflect the suns radiation and more heat will be absorbed by the areas that have no sea ice.

also look how far the extent of snow/ice has reached into the place where people have jobs manufacturing the worlds products.
to sell to the rest of the world that is loosing the jobs they used to have because of the way buisness works today.

these buisnessmen are brilliant.

Interesting...That's a lot of ice to melt in one day. The "black" is actually ice concentrations less than 30%.

What could have caused all that ice to melt in one day? The distinct butterfly pattern suggests a meteor explosion in the atmosphere.

Oh, I haven't looked at the link yet, but...

This sounds like an area of ice that suddenly broke up...

...possibly caused by currents from below (or volcanic activity), but I'd guess currents as most likely causing an area of weaker ice to break up.

Sometimes air currents, especially if they deposit soot, can weaken the ice in certain areas... then to be broken by upwelling currents, and lateral movement of the ice.

Sort of like a meteor from below....

~

Hi Paul,
Wish i wasn't so busy and missing these posts.
You have made some good points above--and nicely stated too.


One thing that I have a problem with is this idea of the pressure release causing cooling.
It's a neat idea, and technically reasonable (common sense) if you know physics, etc.
But I wonder about several aspects of scale with this idea. Both in time (time lag) and in magnitude, such as the amount of change in pressure relative to the overall pressure.

I think it more likely that these relatively small pressure changes may allow movement of the lower layers and some volcanic activity may be hastened; but the crust normally is flexed and released as the moon circles around, so it shouldn't be that dramatic of a change--except in relative location. Though I suppose the poles aren't affected as much by the lunar-tidal movement as more equatorial areas, eh? ...hmmm.

Well, also... I don't think the cooling (miniscule as it might be) will travel through the crust of the sea floor, to affect the lower ocean-water temperature, on anything but the scale of centuries. Certainly it wouldn't be an immediate effect, or even delayed by just a few years, would it?

I'd think that volcanic releases of magma to the surface would release more pressure than the amount released by isostatic changes caused by melting icemass. [maybe google: isostatic greenland --to see if i'm using isostatic right]

Gotta run for now.... Keep up the good work. Your under-apprecieated perspective on these things is usually a good challenge for me, and always good for some inspiration too.

~Later

Max



the legend shows the black as 0% and 30% as light blue.

and you might be right about this being an atmospheric anomoly as it only lasted a day.

im not sure if the satelight measures heat or if the data comes from actual imagery.

I just checked todays sea ice
and there are more black areas on the images.
I have never seen the black areas before in winter that I can recall.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...=23&sy=2009

if anyone is interested in seeing the southern hemisphere the link is below.

it seems that the below image will change on a day by day basis.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/antarctic.jpg

and here is the main page

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Hi Samwik

nice to hear from you again.

I know it sounds far fetched , but nothing else could be causing the cooling.

I think of the earth as what we think of it to be , a big oval shaped ball of magma with a very thin solid crust on top and a solid metal center.

and in my mind , I think of the decrease of pressure reaching all the way to the core , where the heat is generated.

and I think of the pressure and friction being the reason that heat is generated.

before the ice began to melt there was more pressure pressing down on the northern and southern most poles of the core.

and this pressure causing heat as the faster spinning core rubbed against the slower spinning magma.

since the earth is completely physical , I think that the earth is subject to physics.

more pressure more heat transfered into the magma.

less pressure less heat transfered into the magma.

it might take a year or so for the temperature differences to affect the crust and the oceans but they would be affected.

Im not saying that the full effect will be felt in a year or so , in fact it may take a decade or longer for the crust to feel the full effect of any lowered temperatures due to de-pressurization.

one point I would like to stress is that releasing the pressure might cause the core to spin even faster , but not as fast as it would spin if the pressure release were along the cores equator.

the reason fo this is strictly the amount of friction area at the poles and at the equator of the core.

did you know that the earth used to spin much faster than it does today , and the gravity of the moon (which was much closer then) slowed the earths rotation through the attraction and friction of massive tidal waves as high as thousands of feet high.

probably the reason the core spins faster today than the rest of the earth.

does this make any sence to you?

Thanks Paul,

Yes, frighteningly, it does make sense; but I still think the scales--both time and size--make any effect debatable.
Did you see my post on Crustal Heating?
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25277#Post25277
...be sure to scroll down within the first quote box, to see their conclusions.
===

btw, here is what I was talking about with the "butterfly" shape: Polynya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya
...well, sorta like....

~

Good grief........meteor explosions, soot, ocean currents, volcanoes.........people grasping at straws to somehow explain the 'dramatic loss' of ice cover in the Arctic. On Feb 18th 2009, everything is good.......fast forward to the Feb 20th 2009, and the 'dramatic loss' is evident.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...=20&sy=2009

Did I hear anybody ask if something is wrong with the actual satellite they use to monitor this? Na, cause that would involve the need for critical thought - something that's in extremely short supply in these here parts.
Well - how about the caveat that cyrosphere put right under the maps????
And I quote "February 17, 2009 - The SSMI sensor seems to be acting up and dropping data swaths from time to time in recent days."

This has been thoroughly discussed at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/20/sea-ice-sensor-degradation-hits-cryosphere-today/

I'll note that this does not impact the timeseries that cyrosphere publishes, because of their QA/QC - as is shown here http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg I don't see any catastrophic loss of ice cover here in the past 4 days, do you?

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming about the depressurization of the mantel transferring it's "coolness" to the earth - or other such tripe.

Hi,
Thanks for sharing your point of views on climate change.

CSK

LOL Canuk! You ruined the fun I was having! However, I don't see how reading the disclaimer is CT. You're going to have to explain that one.

Paul, the disclaimer also states...

"Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images."

Meaning anything less than 30% is "black". It helps to read.

Samwik

I wonder if these calculations and measurements in heat gain could reflect a parallel between ice melting and crustal heating due to de-pressurization that could be used in climate models.

Frightening?

have a look , picture a earth that suddenly has the same pressure distributed everywhere to the core.

the core would slow down because there woud be more pressure distributed to its equatorial areas.

you would have a brief moment of extreme high temperatures that would be generated by the additional friction , then you would have extreme cooler temperatures that are the result of less heat generated by the friction at the core.

as the earth slows due to the ice melting and being distributed to the oceans , in effect moving mass outwards from rotation , requireing more energy for rotation , the bulging of the earths oval shape will decrease slightly and apply even more pressure to the equatorial areas of the core causing even more slowing of the core , thus causing even lower crustal temperatures.

soon the earth would only have the suns warmth on the surface because the heat from core friction would cease.

and the earth would soak up any heat so fast you would never even notice it.

Singh001

your welcome

you shouldnt agree with me though because that might
cause cannuck and max and the falliblefiend and other's
to put you on their ignore list !!! oh noooo.

that would be the last thing anyone would want , LOL

and welcome to the forum.

Paul, Someday I'll get to that neat-sounding uiuc/cryosphere site [i can't believe i still haven't, but busy days afoot].
===Yikes! Runaway Icehouse Effect... Snowball Earth....
===

Otherwise....
It should be easy enough to look for data on spin rate and glaciation/ice ages, and see if there is some correlation.

I still think the effect would be slight and very delayed, and probably also attenuated by the moon, and probably distributed through the various layers of the planet before affecting the core much, but possibly still pertinant....

Interesting idea though, because following that logic, at some point the cooling would initiate another glaciation, which would reverse the effect. The poles would gain mass as the oceans lost mass--allowing the planet to speed up once again. This would heat it up the crust--melting the ice--and causing a slowing again.... Rinse and repeat--right?


A very nice self-regulating cycle.
===

Similarly, I've been wondering if the advance of glaciers would destroy enough soil (releasing CO2) to warm the planet and cause glacial retreat. That would allow soil to build up again (sequestering CO2) until enough soil built up to lower atmospheric CO2 levels--cooling the planet. This would cause another glaciation, scraping off and destroying enough soil (and microbes) to release enough CO2 to warm the planet and melt the glaciers again--repeating the cycle.

...another very nice self-regulating cycle.
....But this is just idle speculation. But....
There could be many such self-moderating parameters (insignificant or not) that we don't yet know about; superimposed over the Milankovitch--and other--cycles that we do know about.
===

Speaking of soil and glaciers: Have you read 1491?
1491 is a book by Charles C. Mann. I have this on my Kindle, and have enjoyed it many times over the past year. I'm amazed how many different insights this one book has been key to developing--from microbiology, to history and anthropology, to succession ecology and climate theory.

I'm currently reading The Web of Life, by Fritjof Capra, which emphasizes the holistic, big-picture and long-term perspective on systems. Systems like life, the planet, civilization, and even finance maybe? I haven't read far enough yet to know for sure, but at least it speaks to the value of integrative science.

Keep on workin' & thinkin' & researchin'.

~

the cryosphere today web site seems to be malfunctioning and will not display the year 2009 !! and is reverting to 1979 !!

but you can edit the address to get the desired dates.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...=01&sy=2009

plug in the desired date into the address areas as shown in the brackets below.

&sm=(((03)))&sd=(((01)))&sy=(((2009)))