Can the atmosphere really warm? Atmospheric gas retention.

[klapauzius]

Wet, Andy H and Klapausius, wtf. You guys are thrashing each other and you are on the same team. Donald and Reg. have been quietly watching you three bash the sh!t out of each other. Enough.

No worries, this is a different kind of dispute. I think its part of a good discussion culture to not be too much on the same page. I see that both Andy and WetEV have a point.

I would side with Wet, i.e. instead of fighting the information war (perceived or real, but I actually think Andy is right that there definitely is a misinformation campaign going on), just ignore the denier noise and move forward our own agenda.


Although I wonder what the best of course of action actually is...

Naturally, voting deniers out of office would be the easiest way to get something done, but so far this has not happened.

Every two years I marvel at how people exercise their constitutional right to shoot themselves in the foot, by electing people who are utterly incapable of solving the problems of our time (or worst, actually creating them, because it serves some special interest).

Will it get worse this election cycle?

 

[AndyH]

Just one example of the folks driving the climate policy bus...

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2014/07/future-planet-alecs-secret-hands

Let’s talk about the real obstacle to fighting climate change in America: ALEC. Tomorrow, ALEC – the American Legislative Exchange Council – kicks off its annual meeting in Dallas, Texas. The group, which has already brought America such favorites as stand-your-ground-shoot-first laws and voter suppression ID laws, now has its sights set on preventing clean energy policies from spreading across the U.S.

ALEC gets a lot of its funding from Big Oil and utility corporations, so it’s only natural that it would be working feverishly to craft "model legislation" that continues America’s toxic – and deadly - addiction to fossil fuels. Over the past decade alone, ALEC has received over $500,000 from Big Oil-friendly Koch Brothers-backed foundations, and millions more from Big Oil giants like ExxonMobil.

Chris Taylor, a Democratic lawmaker from Wisconsin who snuck into ALEC’s annual meeting in Chicago last year, said, “A part of ALEC’s battle is to preserve an old economy, where coal, oil and gas remain supreme. Their defense of these industries represents the will of corporate members.”

And Nick Surgey, research director for the Center for Media and Democracy’s PR Watch, told Think Progress that, “According to the meeting agenda, legislators will be schooled on how industry wants them to talk about climate change,” He went on to say that there will be a heavy focus on the EPA’s new regulations, and that corporate lobbyists from ExxonMobil, BP, and Koch Industries will be crafting model legislation that opposes limiting carbon emissions from coal plants.

Conference goers will hear from climate-change-denying all-stars like Texas Governor Rick Perry, Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint, and former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain. They’ll also be getting a copy of the most recent “report” from the NIPCC – the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. The NIPCC is funded by the Heartland Institute, one of the major players in climate change denial, and a group which has compared people who believe in climate change to the Unabomber.

ALEC’s push to protect Big Oil interests and to sabotage clean energy policies isn’t something new. It’s been a major goal of the secretive organization for a while now. According to documents obtained by The Guardian, last year alone, ALEC pushed 70 bills in 37 states that would have hurt clean energy growth and development.

ALEC-crafted legislation has also played a major role in the battles between solar power customers and utility companies in Arizona over the past year, and also led to a Republican state lawmaker in Kansas being kicked out of that state’s Chamber of Commerce because he opposed ALEC-backed legislation that was intended to weaken Kansas’ renewable energy standards.

ALEC is also behind bills in several states that would require schools to teach climate change denial as part of their curriculum. In January of last year alone, ALEC successfully got its “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” into the Colorado, Arizona, and Oklahoma state legislatures. And some states, like Louisiana, have already adopted similar versions of that legislation.

While ALEC has been around for nearly 40 years, recent Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United have put the group's ability to influence or essentially own Republican lawmakers on steroids. Thanks to the Supreme Court-created ideas that "money is speech" and "corporations are people," ALEC has gained tremendous power, and it’s using that power to sabotage us and the only planet we can call home.

The conservative lawmakers and corporate shills who make up ALEC are the very people keeping us from developing the clean and green energy policies that are essential for the survival of our planet and the human race. As Dale Eisman, director of communications for Common Cause, put it, “Whatever the issue — labor, schools, climate, or energy — they [ALEC] are drafting bills to advance corporate interests that don’t necessarily coincide with the public interest.”

If want to have any chance of saving the human race from the greatest threat it has ever faced, then we need to start putting public interests ahead of corporate interests, and the only way we can do that is by getting money out of politics. We need to amend the Constitution, to say that money is not speech, and that corporations are not people. The future of our planet depends on it. Go to www.movetoamend.org to learn all about it.

And just one example of how the 'bus drivers' know the route and destination... (Read the entire piece if you care to - no single clip can do it justice.)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations

At the lectern in Austin, however, Venable—a longtime political operative who draws a salary from Americans for Prosperity, and who has worked for Koch-funded political groups since 1994—spoke less warily. “We love what the Tea Parties are doing, because that’s how we’re going to take back America!” she declared, as the crowd cheered. In a subsequent interview, she described herself as an early member of the movement, joking, “I was part of the Tea Party before it was cool!” She explained that the role of Americans for Prosperity was to help “educate” Tea Party activists on policy details, and to give them “next-step training” after their rallies, so that their political energy could be channelled “more effectively.” And she noted that Americans for Prosperity had provided Tea Party activists with lists of elected officials to target. She said of the Kochs, “They’re certainly our people. David’s the chairman of our board. I’ve certainly met with them, and I’m very appreciative of what they do.”

A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, “The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It’s like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud—and they’re our candidates!”

 

[Nubo]

Wet, Andy H and Klapausius, wtf. You guys are thrashing each other and you are on the same team. Donald and Reg. have been quietly watching you three bash the sh!t out of each other. Enough.

No worries, this is a different kind of dispute. I think its part of a good discussion culture to not be too much on the same page. I see that both Andy and WetEV have a point.

I would side with Wet, i.e. instead of fighting the information war (perceived or real, but I actually think Andy is right that there definitely is a misinformation campaign going on), just ignore the denier noise and move forward our own agenda.


Although I wonder what the best of course of action actually is...

Naturally, voting deniers out of office would be the easiest way to get something done, but so far this has not happened.

Every two years I marvel at how people exercise their constitutional right to shoot themselves in the foot, by electing people who are utterly incapable of solving the problems of our time (or worst, actually creating them, because it serves some special interest).

Will it get worse this election cycle?

We get the government we deserve.

 

[WetEV]

Anthony Watts:

Amusing fact about Anthony Watts, he owns an electric car, a 2002 Ford “Think” pickup.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/12/what-ive-been-up-to-electrifying-my-ride/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[klapauzius]

We get the government we deserve.

Maybe we deserve better?

Different people seem to worry about different things...In Germany, irrational fear of nuclear power translated into quite dramatic and sudden changes in the energy policy, while the real accident had happened half a world away.

But it shows that expression of political will can lead to change.

It seems, Americans are afraid of the wrong things (equally irrationally though...)?

 

[AndyH]

Cat the atmosphere really warm? Yes. And so can the ground. And the formerly-permafrost. With explosive results - both for the ground and for atmospheric warming. Whee, isn't this fun?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/01/3466466/siberian-craters-permafrost-climate-change/

Russian scientists have determined that a massive crater discovered in a remote part of Siberia was probably caused by thawing permafrost. The crater is in the Yamal Peninsula, which means “end of the world.” It caught hold of the media spotlight in mid-July when it was spotted by oil and gas workers flying over the area. At roughly 200 feet wide and seemingly bottomless, speculation abounded about the cause with the Siberian Times reporting that, “theories range from meteorites, stray missiles, a man-made prank, and aliens, to an explosive cocktail of methane or shale gas suddenly exploding.”

“The world is getting warmer, and the additional release of gas would only add to our problems,” said Jeff Chanton, the John Widmer Winchester Professor of Oceanography at Florida State and researcher on the study. According to Chanton, if the permafrost completely melts, there would be five times the current amount of carbon equivalent in the atmosphere.

 

[DATsunONE]

It looks like a lot of well informed people sound in on this thread. Good! If you thought you had a handle on explaining the green house effect, try answering this question: Why is one pole melting while the other pole is growing? Here's a bit of background info.

In it's latest Climate Change Report, the UN only mentions that, the axis shift "by hundreds of km" will affect all climate zones; which, in turn, will have a dramatic impact on the "global agricultural potential". In spite of the fact that, the UN recognized this "high vulnerability topic", back in 1990, they never elaborated any further; not in this UN Climate Change Report nor, any other.

“FINAL DRAFT IPCC WGII AR5 Chapter 1
Chapter 1. Point of Departure
1.1.2. Evolution of the WGII Assessment Reports and Treatment of Uncertainty
1.1.2.1. Framing and Outlines of WGII Assessment Reports
. . . .
The WGII FAR (296 pages) was organized into six major sectors: agriculture and forestry, terrestrial ecosystems, water resources, human settlements, and oceans and coastal zones. The report focused on the anticipated climate changes for a doubling of CO2. The FAR Summary for Policymakers (SPM) highlighted the coupling of anthropogenic non-climate stresses with climate variability and greenhouse-gas-driven climate change. Given the state of the science in 1990, the FAR has understandably low confidence on some high-vulnerability topics (e.g., global agricultural potential may either increase or decrease), but is more quantitative on large-scale climate impacts (e.g., climatic zones shift poleward by hundreds of km). Health impacts were vague, emphasizing ozone depletion and UV-B damage. The IPCC WGII 1992 Supplementary Report followed with four assigned topics (regional climate change; energy; agriculture and forestry; sea-level rise) and was primarily a strategy report, e.g., urging that studies of change in tropical cyclones are of highest priority (IPCC, 1992).” p. 5; 28 October 2013

The top (the North Pole) appears to be melting at a rate of, at least, 9% a decade, while the bottom (the South Pole) appears to be increasing at a similar rate.

"The end of this year’s Arctic sea ice melt season is imminent and the minimum extent will be slightly lower than last year’s, making it the sixth lowest extent in the satellite record. Earlier in the month, a small area of the Laptev Sea ice edge was within five degrees of the North Pole. This appears to be the result of persistent southerly winds from central Siberia. Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice is poised to set a record maximum this year, now at 19.7 million square kilometers (7.6 million square miles) and continuing to increase." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Further;

"In 2002, a series of scientific studies pointed to dramatic changes in Arctic sea ice. Sea ice that survives the summer and remains year round—called perennial sea ice—is melting at the alarming rate of 9 percent per decade, according to a study by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center senior researcher Josefino Comiso." http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Such a differential in weight of polar ice caps would affect an axis shift because it would affect the Earth's moment of inertia.

"CHANGES IN ROTATION
. . . .
Over millions of years, the rotation is significantly slowed by gravitational interactions with the Moon; both rotational energy and angular momentum are being slowly transferred to the Moon: see tidal acceleration. However some large scale events, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, have caused the rotation to speed up by around 3 microseconds by affecting the Earth's moment of inertia.[35] Post-glacial rebound, ongoing since the last Ice age, is also changing the distribution of the Earth's mass thus affecting the moment of inertia of the Earth and, by the conservation of angular momentum, the Earth's rotation period.[36]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dan

PS: By the way, the initiative process in the United States is about to change dramatically. When petitions can be signed online, the cost of bringing an initiative will be reduced to an acceptable level.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Since the seasons are inverted in the northern and southern hemispheres, and since the earth is farther away from the sun when the southern hemisphere is in winter, and since there is more evaporation due to the higher average temperatures - there is more precipitation in general. And since it is still cold enough in the winter to freeze - is the reason that Antarctica is "growing" during the winter. It doesn't mean is getting colder in Antarctica.

But BOTH the Arctic and the Antarctic are shrinking more than they used to in their respective summers. The Arctic is likely to be ice free in the summer within a decade or two. The West Antarctic ice sheet is also possibly going away within a century or two. The higher ocean temperatures are largely responsible for this.

The lowered albedo of the Arctic in particular during the summer - when there is sunshine 24/7 - means that now that there is a lot more open water, there will be additional warming, and therefore additional melting. Which means more warming ... Greenland also has a much lower albedo - due to soot and algae growth, so this means that it will melt more and more quickly - it already is.

And ocean level rise is another feedback loop - the floating ends of glaciers and the West Antarctic ice sheet are already being floated more - and that water is warmer than it used to be, so this accelerates melting. Which raises the sea level even more, which leads to more melting. And so on.

 

[DATsunONE]

Neil.

I see. Thanks for the information. It is extremely useful; meaning I am actively engaged in resolving this problem, at the highest levels. I asked all the authorities, including the UN, for their data and clarification, and none of them got back to me. I suspect that they are concealing the truth to avert world wide panic, as long as possible.

Let me summarize. Correct me if I'm wrong. All things remaining the same, meaning no significant changes; the Arctic is expected to be ice free in the summer in one to two decades (10 - 20 yrs.) whilst the West Antarctic ice sheet is expected to disappear within one to two centuries (100 - 200 yrs.). If that is the case, then there will be a significant axis shift within ten to twenty years (10 - 20 yrs.). I haven't calculated the shift or the affects to be expected therefrom, yet. I had hoped that the people who did that would, already, have divulged that information to me but, they refuse to do so.

Don't despair. There are solutions, in addition to total abstention; and, I don't mean mass exodus to other planets, either. When all the authorities cannot ignore the truth, any longer, they will come to the truthsayers for those solutions. They will avoid scientists who disseminated lies. Keep disseminating the truth. I hope you stay in touch with me. I will need as many real scientists as I can find, when the time comes.

Among the various projects I am working on, to avert global warming, I am implementing the "Initiative's Initiative". Once it passes into law, initiative petitions, in the United States, can be signed online. This will place the power in the hands of the people. I will discuss that more with you later.

Dan

 

[NeilBlanchard]

If we do nothing to change - then yes - we're screwed. Climate change could be 10-12C warming.

I don't think the "axis shift" will be as quick as you say. But there will be significant changes: the Antarctic ice is now changing the shape of the earth. The "extra" gravitational pull of the Antarctic ice shifts the oblate spheroid bulge southward. If/when Antarctica melts, a couple of hundred years later, the ocean level shifts northward. The ocean level average can be projected, but the actual change in the northern hemisphere will be well above average.

At the moment, there is a mountain called Mt Chimborazo in Ecuador - that is closer to space than Mt Everest. Because of the "extra" gravity of Antarctica. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9428163

Antarctica will no longer be pressed downward by almost 1/2 mile - as it is now. This will change the pressures on all the tectonic plates around the world. Which will change the volcanoes and the earthquakes. Greenland is also doing similar things, to a lesser extent.

It may lengthen the day, over the long term.

+++++++++++

We all need to do all that we can to avert the worst. We gotta' get off of fossil fuels completely in a couple of decades.

 

[DATsunONE]

Neil,

Again, most informative. That is a better explanation, by far, as to the anticipated impacts on tetanic plates. Your references (evidentiary support) are extremely important for my work. Please continue to provide them.

Your perception is correct in that my understanding of the cause of those impacts would be, primarily, axis shift. I saw the UN mentioning axis shift, without explanation or evidentiary support and, in the absence thereof, had to extrapolate and surmise.

I do not see the world abstaining from the emission of green house gases, in time; and, certainly, not in time to avoid the impacts of the damage done, already. It is my contention, in the academic community, that much more has to be done; in addition to complete abstinence from emitting green house gases. I am working on all the projects I think may be needed; regardless, of whether I gain support for this contention. There is no time to wait for confirmation. Nor, it is worth taking the chance that I am wrong. You can put those tools down, if unneeded. However, if I don't start making those tools, now, they won't be there, if needed, in time to do the job.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

Neil

I will elaborate, (in lay terms), on both (cumulative) expected effects of global warming, given little (what is actually happening) change for the better; (1) the difference in mass on gravitational pull; and, (2) the difference in mass on moment of inertia. I'll start with yours; the first one.

To restate what you said, and correct me if I’m wrong; the Antarctic ice effects a greater gravitational pull than any other equal area of mass, on Earth. Gravitational force pulls straight to the center. That relative additional gravitational pull (force), of the Antarctic ice, shifts the Earth (an oblate spheroid bulge) southward. As the Antarctic ice melts, over a period of 100 - 200 years, ocean level increases. In addition, as greater gravitational pull southward decreases, additional ocean level increases northward. In other words, the ocean level increase in the northern hemisphere will be much greater (higher) than the average ocean level increase, throughout the rest of the world. In addition, as greater gravitational pull (the pressure) southward decreases, pressures on all the tectonic plates, throughout the world, will change. Such changes, in a relatively short period of time, will trigger an in exorbitant amount of earthquakes and volcanoes, as well as the magnitude thereof, throughout he world. In addition, as greater gravitational pull southward decreases, daytime will increase throughout the world.

Dan