| Author |
 Topic  |
|
fostertom
Net Member
United Kingdom
505 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Jan 2010 : 23:07:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by fostertom
Airtightness is essential, because once insulation is good, accidental airchange becomes the largest remaining cause of heat loss. An average non-airtight building will suffer 2-5 accidental airchanges per hour in any kind of a breeze. That's all the air sucked out and replaced with cold outside air every 12-30mins, which has to be heated from scratch for its short spell in the building, before being thrown away again. An airtight building can get down to 0.5 accidental airchange per hour. Airtightness goes hand in glove with 24/7 heat-recovery controlled ventilation, which can recover 80% of the heat from the air outgoing from bathrooms, kitchens etc, and pass that heat into the incoming fresh air to living rooms, bedrooms etc. That way, all the toxic pollutants that we today live in - from artificial carpets, MDF/chipboard and many other common materials - as well as radon - are continually removed. The universal - far from the 'sealed box stuffiness' that the ignorant assume - is mountain-freshness. It's usually a popular feature, especially effective in reducing allergic/asthmatic symptoms.
|
 |
|
|
half pint
Net Member
United Kingdom
253 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jan 2010 : 16:04:51
|
| i reckon it is a natural process where do they think the ice age came from dinosaurs farting to much and caused global warming? lmao but that' my opinion. |
www.cento-rebels-fire.com |
|
|
|
fostertom
Net Member
United Kingdom
505 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2010 : 11:14:51
|
50/50 that cd be true - no one really knows - yet.
Do you say that because it's not our fault, no one can make us do anything about it - it's someone else's problem?
That's what most people who say 'not our fault' want to believe.
'Not our fault' doesn't mean 'it's not happening'.
When all the arctic ice is melted (as often in previous 'natural' dinosaur-fart times), that's a 75metre rise in sea level worldwide. Do you think we should prepare for that, or see what we can do to prevent the melt?
Or 'not our problem'? |
|
|
|
fostertom
Net Member
United Kingdom
505 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2010 : 11:22:12
|
Any answers to this?
quote:
Originally posted by fostertom
What though about the transport sector? And the IC engine in particular? Remember we're looking for another 40% demand reduction, on top of buildings' 40%. It'd be interesting to hear what this forum plans to do about that.
Andy did:quote:
Originally posted by sumplug
The IC engine needs to really evolve. Using it as a pump and running it on water is one idea. I would like to see more plastics within the engine. Indeed, a whole plastic engine, with low-none friction. Very small lubrication and coolant. Direct drive [no belts or chains] and no camshft[s]. And a much more efficient fuel to power it.
Ceramics are already used in the Truck industry in engines, so lets see this technologhy transfered to the Car Engine.
But no amount of new materials or better fuel can raise the IC engine's efficiency above the absolute thermodynamic maximum of about 35% - not nearly good enough. |
Edited by - fostertom on 10 Jan 2010 11:24:52 |
|
|
|
sumplug
Moderator
United Kingdom
5112 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2010 : 12:15:06
|
According to 2007 tests, the artic Ice is actually increasing, not melting.
The world is now in a 'cold mode', and these happen every 30-40 years. History shows this.1970-2010 was the 'warm mode'
In 1917-18, it was reported the sea around the Artic was so warm, the local Fish moved away. Fisherman said the waters were clean of fish they hunt.
The Gulf stream is now over the Straits of Gibralter, not The UK,, so now, air is coming from the East and North East, which is giving all this Snow. So we have to prepare for harder, colder winters.
Its about time the scare mongers who BS about Global Warming, were told to shut up. The hard facts are stacking up against them. Warming and Cooling of the planet is a normal thing, Nothing to do with CO2.
Andy. |
Fiat Coupe 20vt
Audi A6 Avant 4.2 Sport LPG
??? Wait and see!!
|
|
|
|
julian
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
2834 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2010 : 20:50:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by fostertom
50/50 that cd be true - no one really knows - yet.
Do you say that because it's not our fault, no one can make us do anything about it - it's someone else's problem?
That's what most people who say 'not our fault' want to believe.
'Not our fault' doesn't mean 'it's not happening'.
When all the arctic ice is melted (as often in previous 'natural' dinosaur-fart times), that's a 75metre rise in sea level worldwide. Do you think we should prepare for that, or see what we can do to prevent the melt?
Or 'not our problem'?
Arctic ice melting would not increase global sea levels - the arctic ice displaces its own mass but its volume is higher than liquid water hence it floats - the end result is that if the arctic ice melted we wouldn't see a rise. The antarctic ice is another matter as it nearly all sits over a landmass. On the upside the ice records show that when the rest of the world gets warmer, antarctica gets colder - bizarre but true.
As for the question of the ice ages - they correspond to our solar system being exposed to higher levels of cosmic rays (either from nearby supernovae or from passing through one of the spiral arms of the galaxy). Natural, regular warming and cooling cycles correspond to the suns magnetic field changing. As the sun becomes more active the earth gets warmer, as the activity tails off we get cooler. Basically the more magnetic activity from the sun, the less cosmic rays gets to us.
There have been periods in the earths history where only the most basic life forms could exist. Either it was too hot or too cold. The last seriously major ice age saw life stripped back to bacteria and some simple seabourne worm like creatures that could survive by burrowing into the sea bed - those worms form the basic template for all complex life on the planet today.
Minor ice ages such as had a few thousand years ago are nothing by comparison.
The question of whether or not we have any influence on global warming or cooling is tricky simply because it is so incredibly hard to prove either way. The adoption of the stance that we are at least partially responsible is politically convenient so it stands... |
1998 Seicento 600M - extreme version
2000 Ford Explorer LPG'd up but well and truely f****d
1978 Replica Icsunonove w/Uno Turbo power (250bhp+ and 600kg)
2009 Abarth 500 |
|
|
|
fostertom
Net Member
United Kingdom
505 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2010 : 15:22:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by julian
Arctic ice melting would not increase global sea levels ... The antarctic ice is another matter as it nearly all sits over a landmass.
True, I should have said Antarctic, Greenland and other land ice. That's the 75m sea level rise.quote:
Originally posted by julian
The question of whether or not we have any influence on global warming or cooling is tricky simply because it is so incredibly hard to prove either way. The adoption of the stance that we are at least partially responsible is politically convenient so it stands...
So business as ususl then? |
Edited by - fostertom on 12 Jan 2010 15:34:44 |
|
|
|
nyssa7
Moderator
United Kingdom
586 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2010 : 12:42:51
|
Read http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
Makes a change from the usual global warming propaganda. I particularly like:
In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.
Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.
'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’
Until someone finds evidence that Range Rovers were on Mars, I shall continue to drive my 4x4 :-) |
www.nyssaracing.com
2000 Lancia kappa coupe
2002 Lancia Ypsilon LX 16v
2007 Fiat 500 1.2 Pop
2003 Cadillac Escalade EXT
1986 Lancia Yntegrale
1996 Lancia kappa 20vt race car
1986 Lancia Y10 Turbo race car
2010 Abarth 500 EsseEsse
and they are ALL LHD |
Edited by - nyssa7 on 13 Jan 2010 12:47:14 |
|
|
|
sumplug
Moderator
United Kingdom
5112 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2010 : 13:10:33
|
Hahaahahahahahaa. Well said Trevor!
Mr Viner does not say, that the world weather data taken of late by his research Unit, includes a 75% reduction of weather data from Russia, and a general reduction around the world. So how can they say the climate temps are increasing, when the data is restricted?
And how can they predict, that within the next hundred years, the climate is going to warm up dramatically? They cannot predict the weather accurately for more then 5 days, let alone 100 years!!
Andy. |
Fiat Coupe 20vt
Audi A6 Avant 4.2 Sport LPG
??? Wait and see!!
|
|
|
|
julian
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
2834 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2010 : 14:10:55
|
Don't confuse daily rainfall/cloudcover predictions with climate predictions. Cloud formation is inherently unpredictable but once formed you can make a decent prediction of where the cloud is going to go - this leaves us with a reliable forecast of about 3 days and no more. Major pressure and temperature formations are easier to map and predict and this is where all those supercomputers put their gigaflops.
Long term major trends are a bit optimistic by anyones reckoning not least of all because the source data is so contriversial. We do have a reasonably accurate record of arctic and antarctic temperatures going back thousands of years thanks to extensive ice core samples (the temperature at any given depth doesn't change that much from when the water froze so provided you are quick you can actually measure the temperature at a given depth and know what the temperature was when that ice formed). The big and even the little swings in global temperature are recorded in those ice cores.
For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark |
1998 Seicento 600M - extreme version
2000 Ford Explorer LPG'd up but well and truely f****d
1978 Replica Icsunonove w/Uno Turbo power (250bhp+ and 600kg)
2009 Abarth 500 |
|
|
|
sumplug
Moderator
United Kingdom
5112 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2010 : 18:59:39
|
And under the snow/ice of Antarctica, is rumoured to be the lost land of Atlantis. When compared to ancient maps, Antarctica is incredibly similar in shape to Atlantis!!
And cloud formation and rain, has a big influence on climate. But Mr Viner and others like him, seem to conveniently ignore the natural process of our seas [water movement], Dust, Rain, Cloud etc.
A good reasonable guess, is that man made gasses, are having a 10%influence on our climate, The rest is a natural occurrence that happens over time, and has happened for thousands of years.
Its about tine the real truth was told. Gather real evidence of weather over 100 years around the world. Not doctor evidence. Check the Ice at both Poles. Check the underwater temps of water flow. Etc etc. Then we may come up with some real answers.
The recent Copenhagen talks, were a complete waste of time. Evidence was flawed, people with evidence of no Global warming, were ignored, or booed off stages.
The truth is out there. Its time for it to be told once and for all. And not by any Government paid group either!! |
|
|
|
Martin
Administrator
United Kingdom
5718 Posts |
Posted - 28 Feb 2010 : 09:12:07
|
As you may know, I spent a long period recovering from illness..... allowing time in detailed research regarding climate change....
and I've not heard of much change in the overall situation since then
Main thing is 'Planet Humanity' are really going to need the most effective science possible and it is going to take a very long time until their understanding backs up the science and delivers more effective predictions. Alas, already, band wagon effects have hijacked most of the work... and an anti-environment backlash is inevitabe against the wild guesses and enormous resources committed in its name.
I'll try and do some of the major points as a ten point summary.
Earth Perspective - its dynamic and subject to constant change
1. Major Earth Cycles: Every 23 thousand years or so, planet earth goes through an ice age. We are over 18 thousand towards the next one. There's no evidence of any human civilisation surviving such an epoc. So if you think we can build this civiisation to last more than a few thousand years, then we face an extinction event due to the planet and freezing cold.
(When it happens man seems to migrate to the warm bit nearer the equator... rather like most of the species on the planet, we do what is necessary to survive... about every 25k years..... so the next time an environmentalist gets dewy-eyed appealing about the 'fate of the polar bears' as the arctic summer sea ice disappears, ask yourself 'when did this last happen to them before?' The answer will always be 'in one of the last interglacial periods - ie the intergalacial warming three ice ages ago was particularly warm (and lost all arctic sea ice in the summer.)
-- We have been gathering ice core tree ring and other sorts of temperature evidence to build up patterns and pictures of previous ice ages and the last ten thousand years of this one. By now in this ice age an advance of the glaciers should be evident.... for although the planet will flip in and out of ice age like conditions for a few millenia, an advance of the glacial ice heralds the onset of a general freeze. The orbit of the earth and the earth's position on its axis seems to have a lot to do with the start of many big freezes. Sometimes its bad luck to do with an unusual number of large volcanoes going off in a short time.
- So a question remains for the climate watchers... is it getting colder? I don't think there's much doubt the answer is 'No'. What does this say about the onset of the next ice age? Well we've been warming up, not cooling down, for a few thousand years. One debate is why... we are bucking the trend towards more and bigger ice sheats, reflecting more radiation into space and accelerating towards the age of ice.
- What is causing this trend? Given the complexity of the planet and all its 'systems' its not suprising that there is no definitive answer. to this question. Let's cut to the 'quick'. An obvious theory is that its man's intervention through farming and de-forestation that is making the big difference (if it turns out to be that big on a planetary level.
2. Man made changes: That the warming is mostly man made and 'un-natural' I'd agree with because on the balance of probabilities its the most likely answer to fit the observed planetary data. What is not at all clear or understood is 'HOW' these man made effects are causing planet wide effects. And not knowing 'how' means we have no decent predictions.... they are all guessing
- In come alternative motives for linking effects with man-made causes... The simple fact is that if we adopt a 'natural is good' and 'un-natural man made is bad' as some of the environmental taliban would want.... then we are doomed to mass extinction as the glaciers march on quite soon anyway.
- There are two main ways to get climate change wrong... a) is a mind numbingly science dumb yet quite people brilliant example from the environmental taliban in the so called precautionary principle. Its a bit like Catch 22 in reverse. "Anything I can name as a doubt or environmental hazard must be treated as bad and worthy of re-dress - regardless." It assumes there is 'an environmental constant - a golden age... and all the changes on the planet are bad and due to nasty man, and must be fixed. The only rule on planet earth is perpetual cyclic change. Please note this principle requires absolutely no detailed nor scientific understanding at all... merely unproven untested inaccurate 'worries or concerns' on which we must act.
b) Secondly in not limiting attention to planetary scale effects... getting the scale wrong.... does it matter what happens in one place in one year to the weather? One bad winter, one hot summer, a typhoon heads north further out of the tropics, it snows rains or hails.... arctic summer ice is smaller, snow deposits in the antarctic double.... No it doesn't matter. But get two decades including 10 record breaking years and something could really have changed.
3. Forecasting - of you don't have tested theories you have no real forecasts: The march of the Pseudo Scientists v the march of the Glaciers Geologists are hardly a species/ profession I'd ever entrust with maths/ stats modelling anyway. They are used to manipulating data close to real observations in the main. So to answer the question 'What is happening to our climate?' is frankly beyond them. In fact it requires several sciences mastered in tandem to even ask the right questions.
- [i]What you'd expect about any forecasts being offered is BIG QUALIFICATIONS and very large spreads on any numbers quoted. What we've been treated to is really the exact opposite. Whole ministries have now been formed to campaign on behalf of a 'freshly painted house of cards'. I'm not saying it cannot be true, nor that some of the steps taken on behalf of climate change are not needed and good. But the best you can say of the science involved is that its grossly immature. The passion and direction in the activities owes more to religious fervour. If the "precationary principle" is the best you've got - then you have nothing and we are all poorer for it in every sense.
- Predition Fatigue. The only approach that scientific man has to tackle such an enormous task is to decompose the planet and solar system wide contributions, and build a body of knowledge to suggest how the major sub systems, and their sub systems might work and interact..... then set about testing whether these theories really work to explain practical observations and real time trends... Already pointed out we will be ending up creating a new arm of science to fill in some of the important gaps here.
- Once that is underway we need to borrow pages from the macro economics book as the models are equally 'feedback rich' and neither systems allow for repeatable experiments so the methods have to overcome similar challenges....
Then collecting time series data and cross sectional data and asking 'Does everything still fit?'.... and of course getting the answer 'NO'.... and asking 'why' again.... This is going to go on iterating for another three to five decades at the present rate.
- How long will it take to make decent forecasts? About 50 years at the present rate....
this cimes from the complexity of the systems and sub systems, the prences of a lot of inter-dependency and feedback balancing effects. It takes an enormous number of observations, followed by theory building and testing, before we can answer 'which causes or triggers what' with any confidence at all.
The planet's mean temperature is partially sustained through the sun's activity and the reaction of the gases in the atmosphere. These gases, and their proportions are directly derived from life on the planet. And so the way life is interconnected and stabilised (damped) is key to the climate.
So by this 'walk through' alone the most obvious first steps to establishing how the planetary balances up perpetual change nominates water, in large (oceanic) and small (cloud formation)..forms, as well as the enormous amounts of atmospheric water vapour generated
.....a list..... the models must understand and include Solar activities and cycles, the interaction of the Solar System (solar winds, atomiic and sub atomic effects) with the Earth's atmosphere and electrosphere, the main elements of the biosphere sustaining the atmospheric gas mix... as well as understanding the deposition of geological strata that underpin the build up of mineral 'sinks'
.....The number of interdependencies, feedback and feedforward loops, and basic complexities in this form of system modelling, as well as the way life forms can include geometric and exponential rates of change ensures a tower block of a components/ mathematical dimensions. And system control theory can be used to take a stab at the large tasks ahead. And like today's weather forecasts, if the timing of these interactions is critical, then the forecasts will never be very accurate.
In contrast to this picture of an embrionic new science, today's clamour from the harbingers of doom has launched a world wide industry ahead of any real answers. The observations do show a warming trend with just enough of a 'spike' to raise it above the stastical noise..... but we do not know what sort, and how big a problem it is, how soon it will become an emergency, what is causing it, and therefore what to do about it for the best.
But the circus goes on. No matter that this generation is likely to be the butt of huge mirth down the century. For the responsibility of all this will lie in about two generations time. Long after the current crop of scientists politicians media and environmentalists are gone.
Is it any surprise that when the circus all come together to "bang heads" at Copenhagen... billed as the world's last chance as time runs out... fix it in ten years or it will be an irreversible climate catastrophy..... atmospheric carbon dioxide higher than 500 parts per million will produce Armageddon bla bla.... that nothing is agreed?
Would you trust people asking you for loads of money and blaming you for all their woes to forecast the future? For me, if we don't get a trusted answer to WHY and HOW and WHEN then there is no grounds for consensus. Without a model;
1) its impossible to make effective progress on something this complex without a model...
2) there's a need to validate and test theories as they are advanced, and progress an essential journey to untangle some of the cause and effect issues in the feedback loops (like the tendancy for atmospheric carbon dioxide content to follow warming out of an ice age, not lead it - please note Mr Gore)
3) to distunguish between the good and bad forecasts, and the downright loony/ the full fraud attempts from the hair shirt fundamentalists
4) Simply to help get the priorities right... and help stop idiot politicians getting awards for spouting rubbish...
Of course there are many interests not well served by such an open approach. Something costing this much needs this sort of discipline, or the final backlashes in about twenty years risk making the sunject taboo.
I'd suggest you could also focus on the use of carbon double speak and the new wave of wealth shifting in its name.... you might ask where it came from so fast.... why there is more politics than science in the Climate Change debates.
But the regular pulse of this planet comes from the ice ages. The very fact they are so stable (occur regularly) in such a dynamic system means the system's controls MUST be very stable regardless of how the variation in comditions during the cycles.
The best 'clue' as to what is involved in this control should be identifiable from observing which candidate sub systems statistically fit (track) with changes in global temperature. One candidate stands head and shoulders above any others - this is Mean Surface Sea Temparature (MSST).
You might say, 'But this is not independent of global temperature at all - its bound to track with the temperature of the planet... you are actually measuring one and the same thing!
Why this is worth a more detailed look is worthy of more typing... remember we are looking for such a powerful control of the planetary systems that it can force and break an ice age as regularly as a metronome - ie looking at the planet its should be bloody obvious
To break this sort of planetary system control should become so difficult that finding ways (scenarios) in which something else triggers the climate changes (like carbon dioxide) requires such massive changes that they can be quickly tested and rejected.
I'd still argue that its time for man to grow up - and begin to recognise some of the responibilites that come with planet wide stewardship.... but that you need to understand as much about world economics to gain the necessary insight and wisdoms.
|
Martin
|
|
|
|
fostertom
Net Member
United Kingdom
505 Posts |
Posted - 28 Feb 2010 : 12:28:20
|
| Respect! looking forward to points 4-10. Tho peak oil/peak everything (which has little to do with CC, for or against) will be with us very much sooner than CC. |
|
|
|
Martin
Administrator
United Kingdom
5718 Posts |
Posted - 04 Mar 2010 : 08:09:22
|
If item 3. is really about new science, new discipline and building a new body of knowledge. which is where I think we are now... unfortunately there are too many who can't wait - preferring to get their answers elsewhere. The answers have convinced so many that the EU has enacted a Carbon Trading System - proposed and devised in the late eighties. Can I remind why "it has to be Carbon" at fault... because Carbon is the only component in atmospheric warming that links industrial and First World activity with the Oil majors. AND for which there is any case for a globally significant man made contribution. It means that wealth re-distribution and taxing the commercially well off are possible.
Unless someone can show me a decent model/ rationale why, there is still no really plausible reason why Carbon alone can be the cause of warming. If its not Carbon then the doom predictions are just plain wrong.... they have to be and have been 'sexed up' by a factor of ten.... and even then effects will decline away as some of the planetary system controls take effect.(and that's a test of the whole thing - in three decades it will become clear who is right).. a recap.....
4. Planetary Greenhouse Gases: One of the first things I looked for was any work on estmating the 'Green House Effect'. One of the most open was the US Government's data on the atmosphere.
I wanted to get an understanding of how they calculated the Greenhouse Effect. If I've understood, its derived from forecasts of 'greenhouseness'.... the recipe looks like this.......
a) List all the atmospheric gases by their volume
b) List their index of relative greenhouse effectiveness - or assign a coefficient of warming effect to each gas based on its perfomance in the lab (and the time spent in the atmosphere)
c) Allocate changes in atmospheric warming conditions based on changes (or predictive changes) in the amounts of gas in the atmosphere.
It was gving a coefficient of warming due to atmospheric carbon dioxide of about 15%. Not enough to cause any disaster. What was worrying/ interesting was the Methane contribution - which molecule to molecule is 20 times more greenhouse effective than carbon dioxide.
I've produced details of their results in posts before. They give a two to three hundred year window before warming gets really serious (about a three degree rise in average global temp.).
This was not the shock to me. In their data there was no mention of water vapour. Now being good physicists they'd listed all the gases, but not water vapour as it isn't a gas!! Problem is water vapour is a green house gas. In fact it is THE atmospheric greenhouse gas by volume. So important is water vapour that it dwarfs the contribution of all the other gases put together.
Digging a bit deeper this form of 'warming coefficient of the gases' was being very widely used ideed. What I'm saying is that the coefficients being used were accurate, but their atmospheric coefficients by volume are not worth the paper they are written on. Even worse, too many of the models used a double mistake. They assumed that the only gas significantly changing by volume was carbon dioxide - and over the decades they were forecasting for - any temperature changes can be assigned to this gas as a 'delta' In other words because water vapour is not present in the original calculations, changes that should be assigned to it are being assigned to carbon dioxide instead. .
I believe, in other forms, this remains the most common forecasting error.... because really, the main effort should be concentrated on understanding how the water cycle, and changes in atmospheric water vapour affects global warming. Its a real problem for the politics of global warming..... as the man made contribution to the planetary water cycle can be varied a hundred fold..... and it would not make more than a hundredth of one percent difference on a planetary scale. So exit 'nasty man made effects'.
But it gets worse for time series forecasting... as atmospheric water vapour can create clouds.... and high level clouds reflect radiation away (reducing the greenhouse effect).
It doesn't stop there. One of the key observations and predictions of global warming is the massive amount of additional energy (latent energy from the rise in average temperature) that hurricanes and typhoons would be more frequent and more powerful. These are atmospheric features that reach from sea level to near the top of the atmosphere. They don't merely expend massive amounts of energy in churning the air mass, they also connect the bottom of the air mass to its upper layer... and this has a cooling effect on a planetary scale. Now I've not been allowed back in to follow up this one - it no longer has public access.
But, again without an overall model that explains time series observations throught the ice ages and history.... which allows, accounts for and validates the planetary feedback controls.... THERE ARE NO RELIABLE FORECASTS.
It doesn't stop there. Built in we don't appear to have a reliable model of the effective scrubbing of the atmosphere - in particular wash out of the man made particulates, and gases like sulphur and carbon that dissolve in the rain. (Or come to that volcanic ash). But we know from temp. calcs and upper air clarity from the satellites that it reduces volcanic particulates by about 50% every 2 3 or 4 years
The ocean surface layer appears to be more than 25% more acid than it was in prehistory. I accept that as part of modern studies - don't understand how they got there. Now this is proposed as a means of locking carbon and sulphur back into the rock strata..... via ocean microbes that consume and use it, die and fall to the bottom, get buried etc.
At this point - think I should acknowledge Julian's new post here. I'd come across the upper atmosphere cloud formation variables, including sub atomic particles contribution via cosmic radiation..... but i hadn't stopped on it... because, to repeat, if I'm right about the major planetary system controls (using system control theory) - that it's likely to be big and bloody obvious to produce such a regular ice age cycle through hundreds of iterations.... and against such a dynamically variable environment.
a) To get Carbon Dioxide atmospheric warming to match the urgency required IT HAS TO BE USED AS A TRIGGER FOR ANOTHER GREENHOUSE PROBLEM. Originally, the doom mongers tried global changes in the ice sheets, and then added farming effects, and then added CO2 leaching... from places like exposed peat/ ex jungle, Tundra. anywhere where man was involved.
b) The next urgency issue is how to make it irreversible..... otherwise man will simply be able to add COUNTERMEASURES to reduce the warming effect. Not heard too much about these have you? That's because it not interesting enough and is politically incorrect. It looks like we can get enough particulates into the upper atmosphere (simulate volcanoes a little), as well as using enhanced oceanic microbe blooms to counter CO2 warming effects quite cheaply.
To make warming a disaster (irreversible) we have to look at the best disaster candidate..... the truly massive amounts of Methane locked at pressure in the sea beds. The idea comes from studying extinction events in the fossil record (for which we have to go back hundreds of millions of years). Here again we have another monster to look at.... just as the normalised models for carbon begin to predict 'the problem is on a scale of decades away' another monster 'in extremis' arrives - as a rabbit out of the hat'.
5. Agendas (& the current models): Where do the climate disasters come from? Its not driven by the science,... 'a million climatologists every day pick up a tin of gases and say... carbon meanz change'. and the political implaction of the Heinz beans advert.... How can they all be wrong?
Well nothing about the carbon numbers stacks up very well. If the cause is carbon dioxide, then the projected man made emissions are puny.... in the 2005 post I did some calculations to show, even when you took worst case in everything we'd make a 2 degree rise by about 2100-2120 and 1 degree after 2080.
It matters hugely to our hair shirt fundamentalists who'd like anyone even dreaming of consuming stuff not recognised by a Middle Ages peasant to die a painful slow death (just prior to re-cycling).. It matters to our under 16 year olds, whom I notice with a mixture of alarm and depression can all explain how climate change is coming about and why, but dont get the link between their own well being and wealth creation.
The basis for current forecasting tends to come from inadequate climate models.... they are inadequate because they come from long range weather models with interactions between oceanic and continental heat sources... its looking at planetary average temp. let's do a recipe again...
This is the 'quick and dirty' of the weather based climate models...
Aim: identify extent of global warming due to the greenhouse effect
a) Assume everything else held constant
b) Identify global baseline and trends on average temp
c) Run through model precipitation and cloud effects
[add oceanic temp effects on some models]
d) Identify correlation rate between atmospheric CO2 in parts per million and greenhouse warming between baseline & present day data
e) Extrapolate for future predictions based on CO2 ppm levels
To repeat, this is not good enough - it won't create or explain the time series and historic record of the inter glacial cycles... so it can't be validated as representing 'a simulation' of the earth's planetary past. No validation means no decent predictions.
Lets go back to the item 4 list... Principle One: to explain what's happening represent all the planetary systems and sub systems, biosphere, electrosphere, oceanic, continental & solar effects, understand and validate the interactions of the planetary balancing controls....
On Aim or Requirement: Compare and contrast man-made climatic change against typical planetary variations, predicting impact and timing of effects.
- Explain man made causes with a view to employing countermeasures -
suggesting timing and extent of countermeasures needed
- Explain and distinguish natural variabilities from man made
- Validate against past planetary data (ice age & inter-glacial trends)
- Sensitivity - Advise on timing of countermeasures to be most effective.
So the tests would be against several previous ice ages, and explain the anomolies within the man made era (about 6 thousand years). With a resolution level (predictions) based on a decade or two (to allow for contingency action).... so the models have to explain....
Cross sectional and Time series results requirements for validity:
12 or so Ice Ages of 25000 years each - explain differences in each
Last 6000 years explaining the historic man made impacts and effects
Effects Changes and Impacts on Every decade of next 300 years
Disaster Scenarios based on previous extinction events of millions of years ago (Hint: should really put this into number of glacial cycles to get the right planetary perspective a million years equals about 40 ice ages.... so 200 million years is about 8000 ice ages ago)
In a previous post I did some sensitivity analysis on this sort of data history.... its another way of saying the same thing about Carbon Dioxide.... that it can't be Carbon DIoxide alone doing it.... the stated predictions or behaviour of climate change does not match the growth of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.
Carbon Sensitivity Lets try it without painting a verbal stats. picture... atmospheric Carbon Dioxide through the 6000 year man made baseline starts in the 180ppm (parts per million) region, grows to about 260ppm during industrialisation and reached about 360ppm in the last decade. (You may remember we were using samples from the middle of the Pacific at mountain top level - it makes a big difference with such a small amount of gas). If you plot this figure, it's acceleration or growth rate is still arithmetic in nature.... that is the growth in warming effect can only grow in proportion to the number of CO2 molecules abroad.
To make for disaster we need to be seeing AN EXPONENTIAL rise in atmospheric CO2. Because the CO2 effects predicted come from the physical presence of the molecules... to increase the change in warming we need to vastly increase the amount of CO2, and continue to increase the increases all the time. Sorry folks, but our ecomomies are just not capable of keeping this acceleration in CO2 production up.
And therein is the big test for mankind. We only have to wait to see if the INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 is sustainable. For if it isn't, then all this panic will just fall away. We'll have enough data (of the changes) in a few decades to tell. You can only keep up the manmade effects by adding in large amounts of CO2 leaching out of the earth.
But the side of this equation most neglected by the Great Warming Lobby is actually the most obvious on the planet.... its to do with the control of CO2 at planetary levels. We should start by asking
"Where does the vast majority of Carbon on the planet actually reside?"
In life forms? Nope, tiny. In the sea? Nope. In oil deposits? Nope. In coal deposits? Nope. In soil? Nope, but your getting warmer.... its in the limestone rock strata all around the planet, and when they get subsumed on techtonic plates its taken into the interior. But the large - overwhelming scale of carbon deposits are in the rocks. Its easy to think of this as a very slow acting process as it has continued for over 2 billion years. But is it slow acting?
[b]This depends on what governs the process! Do the planetary controls kick in making it ever more difficult to increase atmospheric CO2? Does this sort of thing happen in time to save "economic man". Or is it so slow as to be irrelevent?
We need to look carefully at the typical, and the current, inter-glacial eras and ask "what happens to the Carbon, when and how is it liberated into the atmosphere?"
We can also say that, as a bonus the world has become more sensitive to the possibility that man is having long term effects on the planet. And the need for stewardship is acknowledged. But this does not prove the doom mongers are either correct, or even playing in the right park.
7. World Shifts, Peak Oil and World Financial Issues: The point is such a drastic change in direction has other legitimate justifications besides Global Warming. The most obvious one is the Age of Oil connection. Again from previous posts... its not a question of when the oil starts to run out. Peak Oil is really about when growth in oil supply can no longer keep\pace with increases in world demand. World growth is then subject to more price instability commodity price inflation and more financial instability from ever larger wealth funds (Hot Money). You could note one of the reasons cited for the States taking up the environmental cause is to regain energy independence.
A similar thing happened to the Gold Standard. Once, a few decades back, our international currencies were all backed by gold... and pegged to the value of gold. Unfortunately the demand for gold totally out stripped supply.... due to the growth in world trading another currency standard had to be constructed.
The economic damage of sticking with oil will become too much.... and that's how I'd define Peak Oil.... the signal for medium term energy substitution and future economic security.
8. Alternative Energy Sources: I remain optimistic.... that there is a) enough commercial pressure in the West to force economic disciplines of effectiveness and performance onto a large body of environmentalists, and b) enough environmental pressure on commerce to force a large body of them to innovate and apply new technologies to find marketable answers.
Personally I'd wish for my own government's role, into helping develop and innovate in making (initiating) these new markets. Trying to re-engineer my habits based on adding taxation, jacking up energy costs based on expensive wind farms we import, can only work on the margin of supply and need back up capacity when the wind doesn't blow at the right speed.... I don't regard as reliable progress.
9. Doing the Right Thing for the Wrong Reasons: The ultimate in 'pragmatics' as some US commentators would have it - or the art of muddling through. Despite some miserable looking science, and a lot of con artists, there is still a legitimate problem to do with man made global warming isn't there? It is worth persuing isn't it?
But not because us First Worlders will all be roasting in a Global Warming Hell within 20 years if we don't all jump into line and dance to the latest environmental disaster jig.
We still have a growing world population, a lack of water for drinking and growing a lot more food, depletion of natural resources and reduction of environments and species.
And this leads to some sort of conclusion..... we need the good science because actually these global warming issues are connected to changes in our environment..... and that's connected to everything else. It also leads me to another slightly different prediction.... that whereas the Kyoto proposals were really agreed by closely interested parties with few immediate costs attached to the principles, to make Copenhagen work would require much more resources committed in the near term.... and compliance from the world's major players. Everyone's different agendas were on show. Politicians now have to go home and explain why they should make their people a lot poorer. No longer easy... is this welcome to the main stream for the environment?
10. Why then we really need the best science possible..... because this is going to be the framework for studying the best options for the planet as a whole and building a set of frameworks (models) to help make decisions..... it is one of the ultimate 'big picture' frameworks.... and we'll be needing it to help answer any of the continental scale questions in the future. It's not just about Global Warming and Climate Change, but actually about "How the Planet Works".... [and what we can do to help].....
and I would look to the discussion about realistic countermeasures to global warming (via ocean microbe bloom enhancement, and depositing significant amounts of particulates into the upper atmosphere etc) to signal that the rational world has acknowledged we have a man made warming problem, and need to balance it/ buy more time.
There's a lot of emotional politics of denial about - for instance over the European mini ice age of the sixteenth century. We know from historical accounts of ice fairs on the frozen Thames and other European rivers that we went through about a century of very bad winters, whereas the cathedral building era of the thirteenth century was carried on farming surpluses from a long series of excellent harvests.. Was this global or continental? Just oceanic current flux or Is it just because the sun shines more variably than we've assumed?
Again this suggests the sort of resolution needed in the modelling - ti fit and explain time series anomolies from the data. Its going to be some time in coming.
[b]SUMMARY[\b]
I'm going to try reducing this all to a set of statements.... as put like this they make a set of testable predictions....
- Its a faintly remote possibility for Carbon Dioxide to cause a sustained global warming crisis through man-made actions as a) there isn't enough of it b) its growth can't be sustained through man's actions c) no account has been taken of the planetary controls that will naturally engage and re-capture carbon.
- Environmentalists have been using a con-trick, tieing all significant planetary warming effects to atmospheric carbon, when in fact they are mainly due to water vapour. So changes in average world temperature are wrongly assigned to CO2. Changes in Mean Surface Sea Temperature - causing oceanic surface evaporation, and increased water vapour effects will generate a better causal fit to planatary av. temp. than atmospheric CO2.
- Predictions in av. temp growth.... over the next few decades, despite growth in atmospheric CO2 there will be a limited overall rise in av. global temp. a) temp rise due to CO2 will be proportionate to its fractional contribution to overall atmospheric warming. b) Seriously Inadequete attention has been given to the planet's systemic controls, that these will act to cap greenhouse warming effects through atmospheric and biological controls within years and decades.
- There is little good science behind the global economic change lobbies.... their agendas do not rely on the veracity of global warming science... and will abandon the global warming/ climate change themes when the effects prove more limited and short term than desired.
- The call to account of politicians and decision makers for committing so much resources will be too late.
- The need for planetary level models and decent forecasts will not diminish, the question will be whether this form of science will be too discredited by the miserable quality of current efforts.
- CO2 based climate change may become marginal, but man's impact in other environmental issues (for instance species extinction, local environmental conservation, improved planning effectiveness and sustainability)
- Getting your head around the broad scale of planetary effects, rather than the local and insugnificant needs to begin with understanding the ice age pulse, and what happens during this cycle, and why.
- We are not well schooled to think in cycles and control loops but atleast get rid of the histeria.... this planet is both dynamic and in perpetual change.... its changes are cyclical, very long lived and very complex.... this alone ensures they have great stability down thousands of iterations.
- I am at a loss to explain how we got to this state of play, but I'll offer odds of 5 to 1 against CO2 being the main villain here!
Notes:
.............................CO2 in parts per million.......................
1st millm 180-260 C17th 220 C19th 260-280 C20th 260-300 C21st 320-360 (Latter observations use ONLY Hawaii Observatory as, of course its too easy to get 'sexed up' readings adding other site 'contaminations')
There is a linear or constant relationship in growth of the atmospheric CO2 and its warming effect.
Notes: In previous ages we have seen 900-1100 ppms (when the main coal seams were laid down) UK's Chief Scientific Advisor has suggested 500ppm as a point at which we are certain everything will still be ok.
Feedback controls.. The regularity of ices ages, and their homogeneity implies there must be very powerful planetary effects to shape them. Given when the growth in atmospheric CO2 occurs in the ice age cycle (later on as earth emerges into the interglacial warm period) part of these controls IS biological in nature.
In a few thousand years these biological controls can soak up the CO2 again. Do we have any candidates? Yes, the oceanic blooms of algae and other oceanic microbes, exploiting the amount of carbon in the oceans, and warmer ocean surface layers changing the number and type of microbes.
If part of the planetary controls for CO2 include microbes, then these have a ready capacity to grow exponentially, very quickly. They can outstrip manmade and any other atmospheric CO2.
And countermeasures to manmade polution could then include encouraging them.
Too much dodgy science from the carbon lobby.
Man has some real environmental problems to sort out, caused largely by himself.... but global warming from atmospheric carbon dioxide looked like a good first guess. Very soon (in a matter of a few decades) it will become very clear how good or bad a guess it really was. I'm afraid its going to be a bad one, and with it is likely to go the environmentalist credibility
Looking at Methane and other worries, it would be a big mistake not to formerly build the real science needed to fully understand these questions. But most of the current clamour has more to do with wealth redistribution and third world enablers than solid science.[/i]
Against this, I'm not sure where to rate cloud formation from high energy sub-atomic impact.... because the most basic and massive issues are still missing from the allegedly reputable climate models.
The Climate Change issues are too important to be left to hair shirt fundamentalists and bad science or the likes of the CRU and IPCC alone.
This new science, like any other, needs to be opened up and fully transparent in research, data and theories. If this had been done from the start, instead of relying upon biased peer group review with fellow pro-warming/ pro-first world punishment lobbies, we could have been making real progress by now. Instead a backlash against the whole thing is liable to put resaerch back a generation.
I wouldn't want to trust any of the current lot with any important forecasting - in my opinion they are simply not credible enough. I want to be able to check the working of people I wouldn't trust. And it gets worse when they are adjusting satellite and surface data to find very small temperature changes. This is where you need critical close review the most.
The whole thing will benefit from critical justification, in particular by sceptics... as happens in real science.
We have the time, in most scenarios (better than 99% of them), to wait until the baseline data records have been running for another 20 or 30 years.... by then it will become apparent that the IPCC policy decisions are largely baseless.... not because manmade warming is not taking place, but because its drivers and the link between atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature rise HAS BEEN FIXED to favour the IPCC policy needs for urgency and causal exageration.
|
Martin
|
|
|
|
Pottsy
Moderator
United Kingdom
285 Posts |
Posted - 05 Mar 2010 : 04:11:31
|
Pity about your closing comments there, Fearless Leader. Perhaps you'll edit and close it off for us.
Still trying to get my head around Sumpies' comment about the Gulf Stream tracking through the Gibraltar Straits - I thought that the Gulf Stream was a circulatory system. That being so, how is it able to enter the Med, which is a 'closed' system, and to re-exit, presumably passing itself? I dare say an explanation will be forthcoming........
Meanwhile, back in the Antartic, we have a lump of ice the size of either: a). Dorset or b). Luxembourg, ready to end life on earth (again), depending on which rag you read
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1253919/Iceberg-size-Luxembourg-plunge-Europe-cold-winters.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2869904/Giant-iceberg-to-change-weather.html
Tell you the truth - I'm just about eco'd-out. It's either too hot/cold/toxic/overcrowded/atom-bomb ten seconds to midnight/pandemic-ed/impotent/genetically damaged/falling into the sun/falling out of orbit/poisoned/irradiated/tsunamied/avalanched/too much saltwater/too little saltwater/ozoned/too much rain/too little rain/volcano-ed/pthalates/benzined/meteorites-asteroid-solar winded/statins-no statins/high protein-low protein-no protein/tap water-bottled water/2 freakin' units of alcohol-a-day/peanut allergies/namby bleedin pamby nanny state cradle-til-your-early-grave bullpup .........(gasps for breath).
Sorry fellow survivalists .... just got my gas bill. With my current income it looks like I'm going to be severely anaemic and Vitamin E deficient for the forseeable future .....(think about it) |
Pottsy
|
Edited by - Pottsy on 05 Mar 2010 09:14:19 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Off topic-ish - global warming again
