Re: Cold, hard facts defy the doomsayers


"Jim Lillie" <jimlillie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Q7WdnXFrHPTPLJTZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
George wrote:


Al Zenner wrote:

I've snipped a lot out for brevity, and it is still too long.


People didn't believe for many years that the ozone was being affected
by manmade chemicals (some still refuse to believe it), yet NASA's
satellite data has essentially put that argument to rest.

I am a digital electronics engineer, not a climatologist. Yes there is
satellite data on ozone depletion that points at man made chemicals. But
there are several points that bother me.

1. Refrigerants are heavier than air. When released they should sink,
and only slowly a portion diffuses very high.

Ever hear of dispersion? Ever hear of the wind?

2. Most are released in the Northern hemisphere. With the equitorial
heating I understand there is not a lot of mixing between hemispheres.

At the altitude of the ozone layer, mixing is not a problem.

3. Most weather is well below the stratosphere and the ozone layer.

And?

4. The 'ozone hole' is in the southern hemisphere, with a much smaller
one in the north. Major predicted ground effects are not found either
currently or historically.

I suspect you haven't stood beneath the ozonehole long enough. Try again,
and call me when you recover from that nasty sunburn.

5. Historically the 'hole' appeared in the first satellite data and was
initially dismissed as an artifact. So we do not know that it is new
since industrialisation. Volcanoes and ocean spray chlorine are much
older.

Chlorine is not released in substantial quantities by volcanic action
unless there is a really big eruption, which is infrequent. And chlorine is
very reactive, so it doesn't stay around long enough to reach the ozone
layer in significant quantities. CFCs are very persistent, and practically
non-reactive. Except that it reacts vigorously with ozone in the presence
of strong sunlight.

That ozone is affected by chemicals has always been clear. How much of
the effect comesfrom manmade chemicals vs. how much is from natural
effects is what has been questioned.


No reputable scientist I am aware of questions the detrimental effect of
chlorofluorocarbons on the ozone layer, Al. They have been detected
within the layer itself.

>
The Sahel is expanding rapidly as we speak. So is the Gobi desert.
The
American Southwest has been in a prolonged drought with no end in
sight.
The arctic and subarctic permafrost is melting in large regions of the
north. The glaciers in Greenland and in Antarctica are showing
significant melting. I think we have less time that you think we do.


Paleo records show severe desert conditions in the US southwest such that
we currently are having a warm dry spell.

Umm. Want to clarify what you are saying here?

Up north in the
permafrost, how far north of the 'tree line' are tree stumps showing it
used to be forest?

There are a few forests now in the arctic. More are likely to begin
growing in the future due to the warming there. What's your point?

We are even
less prepared for what will undoubtedly be a global loss of coastal
habitat.


But this has been occuring since the last glacial maximum.
People move to the shore every year, and then complain about erosion.

The last glacial maximum was 18,000 years ago. There weren't too many
humans around then. There are 6.5 billion now, mostly living in coastal
areas. That last glacial episode (the Wisconsin here in the states)
started about 100,000 years ago. Not a lot of souls then either.


You should look at this report carefully.

I will. But it all lacks long term baseline information. Usually nature
bumps along with changes coming in spurts. I agree the general trends
look a lot like we're headed into global warming, but OTOH nothing we
have is definitive in describing anything falling outside some long term
norms which we don't know as well as we wish to know.


The average global temperature being higher now than at any time in the
last 400,000 years (according to measurements taken from Antarctic and
Greenland ice cores) is pretty definitive.



Chart in Scientific American for the last several glacial periods implies
that we should be well down into the next ice advance. Instead for the
last 10K we have an irregular flat trend different from all previous
cycles. This is not since industrialization but the start of cattle
herding and land clearing for crops.

I have no doubt that those activities also had an effect on ther climate.
It certainly had an effect on the vegetation in areas where those practices
were common. Considering the relatively low impact of these activities
pre-industrial revolution compared to today, and compared to industrial and
post-industrial revolution emissions, I think the point is moot.

If causality and solutions were clear cut then there would be no foot
dragging about taking countermeasures against global warming. In the
last 20 million years,what's the warmest the earth has been? Are we
apt to exceed that?




Milankovitch's theory is but one piece of the climate change puzzle.
Don't be lulled into thinking that that climate is so one dimensional
that it can be predicted by a single parameter. If there were no human
effects on climate, it would likely be much easier to verify that
theory. The problem is that our emissions have changed the experiment,
which is likely changing the outcome. For instance, we are currently in
a interglacial period. Since industrial emissions didn't occur during
any of the previous interglacial periods, the likely reason why we have
a much higher global average temperature now than at any time during the
past 400,000 years is due to those emissions. The standard Milankovitch
theory does not account for the terminations of the ice ages.
http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/Causality.pdf
George

George; you are a knowledgeable and reasonable person. Your posts are
informative and the referances I often bookmark for rereading. I do
change my mind when presented with good reasoning and data, but slowly!

Take your time. There's no immediate rush.

Here in Vermont we used to have 5Km of ice and year around sledding. Due
to global warming we now have months of poor sledding. I have seen years
of heavy snow and light snow. This has been a light snow year. Last
night our forcast of light flurries resulted in 12 - 16". Climate is
what you expect, weather is what we get.

I don't presume to confuse climate with weather. Apples and oranges.
Having said that, global warming predicts the kinds of weather changes we
are currently seeing, and there is little data to support the notion that
it is just another "cycle" of extreme weather, especially when we see these
changes happening globally.

Geologically I live below the rock surfaces on a glacial morraine above a
major river valley (Winooski = onion) 10Km from Lake Champlain.

Sounds nice. I live on the largest valley train and glacial outwash
deposit on the Ohio River. It is up to 150 feet thick. Hot as hell in the
summer with stifling humidity (if you go to Florida in the summer, the only
difference between the weather there and here is the intensity of the
sunlight. You burn faster in Florida.

George


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hubris runs riot in Global Warmies
    ... and no one, no matter how fucking annoying, no matter how really ... squall in the bay is a result of Global Warming. ... but longer term trends in climate change are "less" so. ... Anyone who claims to predict the weather beyond ten years is claiming ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Hubris runs riot in Global Warmies
    ... of Global Warming that the Global Warmies are always accusing their ... squall in the bay is a result of Global Warming. ... but longer term trends in climate change are "less" so. ... Anyone who claims to predict the weather beyond ten years is claiming ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: NDC-Global warming stuff
    ... wetter weather brought on by global warming could ... > increase outbreaks of the plague, which has killed millions down the ages ... > from normal cyclical climate changes. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: 2007 the hottest year on record in the Northern Hemisphere.
    ... What has the two parties platforms said about Global Warming and what they would do about it? ... WASHINGTON - When the calendar turned to 2007, the heat went on and the weather just got weirder. ... European climate expert Phil Jones, ... Worst of all - at least according to climate scientists - the Arctic, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT: One more for the deniers
    ... Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years. ... least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, ... The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North ... the scientists said: ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)