The Dust Bowl and Sea Level

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:56 AM GMT on June 11, 2012

Share this Blog
17
+

The Dust Bowl and Sea Level

One of my favorite blogs in my portfolio is Science, Belief and the Volcano. In that blog I referenced The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great America Dust Bowl by Timothy Egan. I will use this later in this blog.

Several people brought me the news that some in North Carolina want to fight the predictions of sea-level rise. Likewise several have mentioned Colbert’s piece on this initiative. According to the news article several North Carolina local governments have “passed resolutions against sea-level rise policies.” Here is an interesting blog in Scientific American on the proposed law.

Here is a link to the proposed bill. There is a provision that if sea-level rise projections are needed then

“These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise.”

The bill also discusses, at length, a variety of programs related to building setbacks for coastal building. Obviously, perhaps, “accelerated rates of sea-level rise” are not good for new or old construction on the coast. Not good for the insurance companies either. (and here as well)

So back to the Dust Bowl. The Dust Bowl was comprised of the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles, and the neighboring parts of Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nebraska. Three towns in the center of this region are Boise City and Guymon, Oklahoma and Dalhart, Texas. The following map from Spartacus Education sets the scene.



Figure 1: Map of the U.S. Dust Bowl Region in the 1930s, from Spartacus Education

It is hard to write in a paragraph the extremes of the degradation of the land; weather, hot and cold; dust drifts; mud falling from the sky; houses and villages buried in the dust; and a whole set of plagues and illnesses that killed and drove away people. The cause of the Dust Bowl was a convergence of many factors ranging from farm policy and farm practices; to overly ambitious civic and corporate growth; to extreme heat, drought, wind, and winter storms. From the perspective of the climate scientist, it becomes an interesting question of once the conditions of the Dust Bowl were realized, how much did the lack of vegetation and soil moisture contribute to the perpetuation of the extreme weather? (See, for instance, Schubert et al., Science, 2004)

There was also a certain element of fate. When there was a burst of development and expansion in the Dust Bowl region, there was also a period of above average rain. At some level this seemed to be known at the time, and there were those, including companies, who argued that the development of the land, the plowing, steam from the train, the disruption, was actually the cause of rain. This acceptance of the idea that people were having a positive impact on the weather, and essentially the climate, would ultimately stand in stark contrast to their denial and rejection of the notion that their behavior could be having a negative effect.

There are two points that I want to draw from the The Worst Hard Time. The first was the attempt to reframe the dust storms in support of building, development, and community. In Dalhart, Texas, the town paper, the Texan, started a campaign with a tribute to the sand storms as majestic events that should draw people in to see the wonder. There was outrage that the East Coast and national press was trying to slander the town and the region – trying to discredit the people of the region by blaming them for the degradation of the land and dust in air. There were those in the East saying that those in the Dust Bowl were exaggerating their situation trying to extort money from Washington.

There was in this campaign a quest to make the dust storms majestic and divinely positive events, a rejection of both the obvious collapse of people and towns and of the increasing scientific evidence that at the very core of the collapse was the behavior of people. From the Texan, John McCarty, wrote that people should

“view the majestic splendor and beauty of one of the great spectacles of nature, a panhandle dust storm, and smile even though we may be choking and our throats and nostrils so laden with dust that we cannot give voice to our feelings.” ( The Worst Hard Time, page 185)

There was something of boasting of bigger storms in other states. Then there was blame that dust of other states was the cause of their grief.

There was rejection of the growing scientific evidence that the breaking of the soil stabilizing root structure of the native grasses was at the foundation of the collapse. And while this science that challenged the will of the people was rejected, anecdotal evidence that was attributed with the strength of science was used when it matched their will or need. Of especial note was the observation that when there had been a rush of people to the Dust Bowl region, there had been both rain and a World War. For a hundred years people had associated rain with war. Therefore, towns would bring in experts with cannons and explosions. A literature developed on using dust as mulch for crops.

The second point I want to make is the depth of the denial or suspicion of the mounting scientific evidence that the behavior of humans was responsible for the degradation of the soil and the sky full of dirt. This was not only a position held by those with a belief that man could not, while working God’s will, cause such damage (see here, perhaps), or those with a vested interest in real estate and business, but also, President Roosevelt and many in Washington who did not want to believe that America’s destiny to make the whole country productive was challenged by pursuit of that destiny. Ultimately, however, Roosevelt accepted the scientific foundation and massive programs to stabilize and reclaim the land were initiated. Many would argue, I included, that even today we struggle to sustain this reclamation and recovery.

So I am asked about how I respond to those in North Carolina who want to reject the predictions of sea level rise – to prescribe, by law, how such predictions might be made. I start with saying I have more experience on the coast of North Carolina than most. I spent many years in Craven and Carteret County on the mouth of the Neuse River. My father had small pieces of land from Long Beach to Kitty Hawk. My job was to keep grass cut, deal with diamondbacks, and try to stop waves and water taking away land. We built cabins out of abandoned bridge trestles and telephone poles. I have built seawalls and seen these cabins moved by waves from hurricanes (They’re tough.) I can see in my mind exactly where 1 meter, 39 inches, of sea level rise will sit.



Figure 2: Cypress Knees on the shore of the Neuse River after Hurricane Floyd, 1999.

If I were standing next to the Neuse River talking to a neighbor, I would say that with the evidence and knowledge I have, that a 1 meter rise in sea level was a considered best estimate of a lot of information. If I were to conjecture, I would offer that I think that 1 meter is more likely an underestimate than an exaggeration. And as for the proposed law, I would think of previous efforts to legislate the numerical value of pi, and the people in the Dust Bowl trying to sell the idea that all of the scientific information was part of a fraud trying to advance some cultural agenda. I would dismiss the proposed law as an attempt to legislate away that which stands in the way of our desires to consume and build for our personal imperatives. I would dismiss it as politics and note the names of the un-serious politicians for the next election.


r

P.S. My last blog was reproduced at this site with the question posed to the reader:

“Is Rood being intentionally deceptive, or is he just not very bright?”

Now in my defense, I have stated a number of times over the years that I am not so smart (here for instance); hence, that question should be easy to answer. I always felt growing up that the only time I was the smartest in the room was when I was alone. So if you decide to answer that question, then the extended answer might use Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric as a hint.

Just having fun,

r



Figure 3: Dinosaur sculpture in Boise City, OK – taken June 2005 on the road.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 191 - 141

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

191. Agres
9:46 PM GMT on January 20, 2013
NYC and Hong Kong both had 3 meter storm tides last year. Hong Kong suffered almost no damage. Hong Kong was ready.

The North Carolina beach law is an irrational suicide pact. Since non-linear systems are well known to science, the law is arbitrary, capricious, and open to judicial challenge. Likely the law can be associated Christian teaching of the Noah Flood Myth, and thereby violates separation of church and state.

Oh, well, North Carolina voters get what they vote for. And, they will get it sooner than they think. They do not have to wait for average sea level rise, a couple of good storm will take out coastal infrastructure.

It is not my problem.

That is not exactly true, because I have friends here in California whose business depends on the Wilmington NC port. Let's see, a few storm tides, and what would be the best US port?
Member Since: August 16, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 10
190. Agres
9:13 PM GMT on January 20, 2013
By 1930, global CO2 concentrations had already starting rising, and global temperatures were rising. AGW had already started.

Certainly local land use (plowing for wheat) was a factor in starting the Dust Bowl, and local atmospheric dust was a feedback.

However, AGW made these and other local factors more effective. Without rising CO2 concentrations and rising global temperatures, the Dust Bowl would have been different.

Member Since: August 16, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 10
189. Agood
1:10 AM GMT on July 25, 2012
my classmate's aunt earned $21265 past month. she is working on the internet and bought a $360600 condo. All she did was get lucky and try the advice revealed on this site http://tiny.cc/scuxhw
Member Since: July 25, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
188. BobWallace
4:34 AM GMT on June 20, 2012
Quoting no1der:


And in the next few decades (or sooner) we may very well get a high-speed replay of the Paleocene/Eocene boundary of 55 million years ago, a brief period of very high temperatures and quite good isotopic evidence of a huge C source having rather suddenly entered the atmosphere. Presumably this was Arctic methane hydrates decomposing in a warming environment. The following 20,000 years were really hard on land mammals...

If the methane releases from the Arctic continental shelves show consistent intensification over the next few years, then as a species we are in extremely serious and likely unstoppable trouble, and much sooner than expected.



I gave you a '+' because I appreciate people bringing information. But I've got to say that I don't like the information you bring.

It's just damned scary....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
187. no1der
2:52 AM GMT on June 20, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


I do have to say that there has been a lot of hand-wringing there the last couple of days. Concern for the ice is running very high. It could be only a temporary thing due to this recent increase in melt/transport speed or it could be the beginning of something very nasty.

We're watching something that probably hasn't happened in the last 700,000 years.


And in the next few decades (or sooner) we may very well get a high-speed replay of the Paleocene/Eocene boundary of 55 million years ago, a brief period of very high temperatures and quite good isotopic evidence of a huge C source having rather suddenly entered the atmosphere. Presumably this was Arctic methane hydrates decomposing in a warming environment. The following 20,000 years were really hard on land mammals...

If the methane releases from the Arctic continental shelves show consistent intensification over the next few years, then as a species we are in extremely serious and likely unstoppable trouble, and much sooner than expected.

Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 527
186. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:52 AM GMT on June 20, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


Yep, but I struggle to keep up there. Those folks are operating way above my knowledge level. I just try to understand the basic issues.

I do have to say that there has been a lot of hand-wringing there the last couple of days. Concern for the ice is running very high. It could be only a temporary thing due to this recent increase in melt/transport speed or it could be the beginning of something very nasty.

We're watching something that probably hasn't happened in the last 700,000 years.


Ditto. The reading is interesting. I just do not know enough to make any comments. ... Where is JBastardi when I need him. He is easier to respond to. ;-)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
185. BobWallace
12:54 AM GMT on June 20, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
That's me. ;-) Hey, Bob Wallace can be seen there, too...


Yep, but I struggle to keep up there. Those folks are operating way above my knowledge level. I just try to understand the basic issues.

I do have to say that there has been a lot of hand-wringing there the last couple of days. Concern for the ice is running very high. It could be only a temporary thing due to this recent increase in melt/transport speed or it could be the beginning of something very nasty.

We're watching something that probably hasn't happened in the last 700,000 years.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
184. Neapolitan
9:25 PM GMT on June 19, 2012
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
I see your comments on Nevn's site Neapolitan ;)
That's me. ;-) Hey, Bob Wallace can be seen there, too...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13509
183. BaltimoreBrian
8:32 PM GMT on June 19, 2012
I see your comments on Neven's site Neapolitan ;)
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8581
182. BobWallace
8:20 PM GMT on June 19, 2012


The NISDC just posted an explanation of what has happened to the Arctic sea ice this year...

Link
A pattern of high pressure over the Beaufort Sea and low pressure over the Laptev Sea has been present for the past few weeks. This pattern is favorable for summer ice loss, by advecting warm winds from the south (in eastern Asia) to melt the ice and transport it away from the coastlines in Siberia and Alaska. The high pressure over the Beaufort leads to generally clear skies, and temperatures are now above freezing over much of the Arctic pack. Snow cover in the far north is nearly gone, earlier than normal, allowing the coastal land to warm faster.

Early melt onset, and clear skies near the solstice are favorable conditions for more rapid melting, and warming of the ocean in open-water areas. The persistence of this type of pressure pattern throughout summer 2007 was a major factor toward causing the record low September extent that year. Conversely, in 2010, the patterns were not as favorable for loss of ice and the seasonal decline slowed later in the summer, and the extent did not approach the record low levels of 2007.

While these patterns and conditions have looked similar to 2007, over the last couple days the high pressure pattern over the Beaufort Sea has broken down. And while the extent is at a record low for the date, it is still early in the melt season. Changing weather patterns throughout the summer will affect the exact trajectory of the sea ice extent through the rest of the melt season.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
181. BobWallace
4:06 PM GMT on June 19, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


A couple of years ago I argued with someone on the main blog over Al Gore and his predictions about the arctic ice melting. I said 2014 was entirely possible.

I stick with that. I don't think this year either. However, the concept of catastrophic failure, inthe engineering sense, is possible - I mean when designing a bridge or a building, for example, engineers try to fail at limits in predictable ways. Say if you are designing for a certain load, at that load the idea is that it fails in a relatively safe way. A catastrophic failure is when something snaps that overlaods all the other systems at once and the object collapses.

I see arctic ice that way. The idea that it continues to melt and get smaller and smaller like in a cartoon until there is a slight pop and it is all gone doesn't seem realistic. It seems rather that the warming forces get stronger at the same time that there is less reserve capability. If the fast ice in canada melts and the ice shifts, that changes currents, which shifts the ice more, which changes weather patterns... suddenly the ice, for example, slides 50 miles towards Russia. This opens whole new areas for solar heating... then in a month the whole thing cuold go.

That is why this image interested me. I don't know if that crack has existed before... I imagine so, but it is still proof that these off shore forces exist. As for ice melting, this year... no I think there is too much ice still even with changing currents. But next year or the year after, I think it will be gone.


I agree with you. I think we're watching the catastrophic collapse of the Arctic sea ice right now. It's a much more massive "structure" and won't come down as quickly as a failed bridge or building, but it is coming down/melting away at an accelerating rate.



Those 'lines of best fit' are not straight, they accelerate downward. If melt continues along the lines that history gives us we see first meltout in 2015.

I keep looking, but I can't find anything that is likely to even slow the melt rate. Absolutely nothing, within reason, that could reverse it.

A series of volcanic eruptions, a large meteor strike, a nuclear war - those are all of the potential 'big coolers' I can come up with.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
180. greentortuloni
3:45 PM GMT on June 19, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


Very unlikely we could see a total meltout this year. That would take something very extraordinary such as very strong and very prolonged winds blowing incredible ice through the Fram.

But we're on the way toward another drop in total volume. Perhaps a large drop in volume.

.............

Room for things to play out differently. But the outcome that's looking more likely is just plain scary.


A couple of years ago I argued with someone on the main blog over Al Gore and his predictions about the arctic ice melting. I said 2014 was entirely possible.

I stick with that. I don't think this year either. However, the concept of catastrophic failure, inthe engineering sense, is possible - I mean when designing a bridge or a building, for example, engineers try to fail at limits in predictable ways. Say if you are designing for a certain load, at that load the idea is that it fails in a relatively safe way. A catastrophic failure is when something snaps that overlaods all the other systems at once and the object collapses.

I see arctic ice that way. The idea that it continues to melt and get smaller and smaller like in a cartoon until there is a slight pop and it is all gone doesn't seem realistic. It seems rather that the warming forces get stronger at the same time that there is less reserve capability. If the fast ice in canada melts and the ice shifts, that changes currents, which shifts the ice more, which changes weather patterns... suddenly the ice, for example, slides 50 miles towards Russia. This opens whole new areas for solar heating... then in a month the whole thing cuold go.

That is why this image interested me. I don't know if that crack has existed before... I imagine so, but it is still proof that these off shore forces exist. As for ice melting, this year... no I think there is too much ice still even with changing currents. But next year or the year after, I think it will be gone.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
179. BobWallace
3:32 PM GMT on June 19, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


I've been considering the extra little spurt of thin ice at the end of last season as a freak of weather that really didn't affect much. So if that is removed from the data, what happens?

The massive drops recently are partially due to the thin ice melting. So a lot of those massive drops should be removed from the data. It still appears though that the remaining ice is in trouble, even if the thin ice melting has come to an end.

If you take away the hudson, baffin and bering seas/bays which were always going to melt, how can the rest be guesstimated? The worst appears to be the big melt in the atlantic - but parts of hte arctic appear relatively normal. So the abnormality is reduced to the barentz sea north. But unless a current drives that water towards canada, the result won't be catastrophic - or it won't be pleasant but there will still be artic ice left.


Very unlikely we could see a total meltout this year. That would take something very extraordinary such as very strong and very prolonged winds blowing incredible ice through the Fram.

But we're on the way toward another drop in total volume. Perhaps a large drop in volume.

Next year there will be slightly more incoming solar energy, the Sun is in a warming phase. CO2 is almost certain to be higher, we're aren't cutting. The Atlantic will likely be warmer. El Nino is likely to have formed up in the Pacific.

Add all that up and we'll likely see more energy flowing into a region that contains less ice. The hammer gets bigger, the nail smaller.

--

I just went through the regional graphs. 2012 is not showing any difference from other years in terms of ice close to Canada. The Canadian Archipelago is now rapidly melting, which looked like might not happen.

Ice is recently up a bit in the Greenland Sea over past years. I think that means that more ice is on its way to get transported out.

There was some thinking earlier that lots of ice had formed up toward Canada and that would cause a slowing of loss. I'm just not seeing it. That 'first year' ice seems to be melting away.

Regional Graphs

At this point I would say that the big picture is that the warmer Atlantic is extending its influence into the Arctic. The remaining ice will be chased into the furthest places, closest to Canada. But, as someone on Nevin's forum suggested, the Arctic is on its way to being an extension of the Atlantic.

Then, if it is truly only ten years from the first summer meltout to a year around ice free Arctic we're going to experience climatic and weather changes unlike any thing mankind has ever experienced.

Room for things to play out differently. But the outcome that's looking more likely is just plain scary.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
178. Neapolitan
1:47 PM GMT on June 19, 2012
State of Emergency Declared Due to Fires in Eastern Regions

Authorities on Monday declared a state of emergency in seven federal subjects in Russia's eastern and far eastern territories as forest fires continue to rage.

Emergency restrictions are now in place in the whole of the Khanty-Mansiisk autonomous district and Tyva republic, as well as parts of the Sakha republic and the Kransoyarsk, Amur, Zabaikalsky and Sakhalin regions, the Federal Forestry Agency's press service told Interfax.

- - - -

In terms of land ravaged by fires, this year has already been more severe than 2010, when drought in western Russia caused wildfires that brought choking smog to Moscow
Moscow Times article...

But I wouldn't worry about it...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13509
177. cyclonebuster
12:54 PM GMT on June 19, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
A multiplying effect, indeed. We've mentioned it before, but I can't help but wonder what's going to happen come fall and early winter when all that (relatively) warm open water starts releasing its newly-stored heat back into the atmosphere. That is, how will storms respond to more available energy than has been seen for many years? Centuries? Millennia? I have a feeling we're likely to witness some truly astounding "gales of November" five months from now--especially if El Nino can ramp up a bit more.

(And, FWIW, whatever happens this fall/winter is likely to be even more profound next year.)


Warmer water means more water vapor for more precipitation. An easy way to watch this is just turn the heat up on the pot of boiling water on the stove..........
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
176. Neapolitan
12:44 PM GMT on June 19, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
That extra space between the blue '2012' line and the dashed '2007' line indicates how much more open water there is at this point in time.

Open water = less albedo and more heat absorption.

It also means that warm water flowing in from the Atlantic has less ice to cool it off, so more melting.

It also means that there will be more fetch when the wind comes up, larger wave action to break up the ice.

Additional melting this early in the season is likely to have an add-on effect, even a multiplying effect, for the rest of the melting season.

It's something like investing. The earlier you get your money in the game, the larger it grows over the remaining time.
A multiplying effect, indeed. We've mentioned it before, but I can't help but wonder what's going to happen come fall and early winter when all that (relatively) warm open water starts releasing its newly-stored heat back into the atmosphere. That is, how will storms respond to more available energy than has been seen for many years? Centuries? Millennia? I have a feeling we're likely to witness some truly astounding "gales of November" five months from now--especially if El Nino can ramp up a bit more.

(And, FWIW, whatever happens this fall/winter is likely to be even more profound next year.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13509
175. greentortuloni
9:45 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
This may be an interesting image.



Note the large crack down the right of the northern canadian shoreline? I wonder if the entire ice mass is pulling away from teh shore a bit?
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
174. greentortuloni
8:18 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


Thought some more about this.

What's happened this year so far is that the 'extra' late season thin ice has apparently melted off. As has some additional ice.



That extra space between the blue '2012' line and the dashed '2007' line indicates how much more open water there is at this point in time.

Open water = less albedo and more heat absorption.

It also means that warm water flowing in from the Atlantic has less ice to cool it off, so more melting.

It also means that there will be more fetch when the wind comes up, larger wave action to break up the ice.

Additional melting this early in the season is likely to have an add-on effect, even a multiplying effect, for the rest of the melting season.

It's something like investing. The earlier you get your money in the game, the larger it grows over the remaining time.


I've been considering the extra little spurt of thin ice at the end of last season as a freak of weather that really didn't affect much. So if that is removed from the data, what happens?

The massive drops recently are partially due to the thin ice melting. So a lot of those massive drops should be removed from the data. It still appears though that the remaining ice is in trouble, even if the thin ice melting has come to an end.

If you take away the hudson, baffin and bering seas/bays which were always going to melt, how can the rest be guesstimated? The worst appears to be the big melt in the atlantic - but parts of hte arctic appear relatively normal. So the abnormality is reduced to the barentz sea north. But unless a current drives that water towards canada, the result won't be catastrophic - or it won't be pleasant but there will still be artic ice left.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
173. Birthmark
2:57 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
We are opening a can of truly unknown consequences to our future. Why do we seem to be in such a rush to do so? Everything that I know tells me that the can cannot be resealed and that its contents will not prove to be beneficial to us.

We can't address the problem. Profits are just too good to pass up just because it might result in the total destruction of society. Have a sense of proportion, man!

Why, yes, that was sarcasm. Why do you ask?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
172. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:32 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:
A new paper that should interest OldLeatherneck when he returns.

"ABSTRACT
Thawing permafrost and the resulting microbial decomposition of previously frozen organic carbon (C) is one of the most significant potential feedbacks from terrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere in a changing climate. In this article we present an overview of the global permafrost C pool and of the processes that might transfer this C into the atmosphere, as well as the associated ecosystem changes that occur with thawing. We show that accounting for C stored deep in the permafrost more than doubles previous high-latitude inventory estimates, with this new estimate equivalent to twice the atmospheric C pool. The thawing of permafrost with warming occurs both gradually and catastrophically, exposing organic C to microbial decomposition. Other aspects of ecosystem dynamics can be altered by climate change along with thawing permafrost, such as growing season length, plant growth rates and species composition, and ecosystem energy exchange. However, these processes do not appear to be able to compensate for C release from thawing permafrost, making it likely that the net effect of widespread permafrost thawing will be a positive feedback to a warming climate."

See full paper here.

I am in the process of reading it. Doesn't look like great news, nor does it look unexpected.

I'm gonna miss the climate I grew up with...in fact, I already do.


I just gave the paper a quick read. The paper states that there are still many unknowns concerning the carbon in permafrost locations and how it will affect any future warming of the climate. I did find this to be a bit disconcerting:

"The estimated size of the permafrost C pool can vary depending on the regions under consideration and on the depth of permafrost included. We estimate the total soil C in the northern circumpolar permafrost zone to be 1672 petagrams (Pg; 1 Pg = 1 billion metric tons), with 277 Pg of that in peat-lands. The peatland C estimate accounts for total peat depth (up to several meters) but not underlying mineral soil C. All permafrost-zone soils estimated to 3 m depth (including peatlands, but with variable depth) contain 1024 Pg C. Another 407 Pg is contained in deep loess sediment accumulations below 3 m in Siberia (Zimov et al. 2006b), and the remaining 241 Pg is estimated for deep alluvial sediment accumulations below 3 m in river deltas of the seven major Arctic rivers. Several important accounting assumptions, made in accordance with previous work, were used to arrive at this estimate: (a) All terrain lying within the circumpolar permafrost region (including both the continuous and discontinuous permafrost zones) was used in the estimate, regardless of whether specific locations were known to meet the strict time-temperature definition of permafrost. (b) Extensive northern peatlands store organic C as a result of moisture-related anoxia. Only some of these are underlain by permafrost. The peatland C pool in this estimate includes all those found in the circumpolar permafrost region (Tarnocai 2006).

Still, 1672 Pg could be an underestimate of total soil C pools in the permafrost region, because deep soils were only considered for one area in northeastern Siberia and for river deltas, and because the soil C content in the 2- to 3-m layer of most mineral soil orders was conservatively estimated because of data scarcity. Both the 2- to 3-m layer and the deep soil C estimates should be considered preliminary because a relatively small number of data points are extrapolated to large areas, but this provides a general outline to the size of this deep C pool. Overall, this permafrost C pool estimate is more than twice the size of the entire atmospheric C pool, and it is more than double previous estimates of high-latitude soil C (Gorham 1991, Jobbágy and Jackson 2000). The 0–3 m permafrost- zone soil C estimated here at 1024 Pg represents a large fraction of world soil C stocks; global soil C stocks from 0 to 3 m depth (peatlands not included) have been estimated to be 2300 Pg (Jobbágy and Jackson 2000)."


We are opening a can of truly unknown consequences to our future. Why do we seem to be in such a rush to do so? Everything that I know tells me that the can cannot be resealed and that its contents will not prove to be beneficial to us.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
171. Birthmark
2:32 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
It will be up to the weather. But I can't see a reason why we would have extraordinary cooling. Where would it come from?

More likely we'll see some high latitude heat waves and possibly strong storms. Storms can really do in the ice. And they can really mix up the water, bringing a lot of heat to the surface and getting rid of the easier to freeze fresh water layer on top.

I'm thinking more in terms of wind speed and direction. If we get a big flush like we did in 2007, then there is no doubt in my mind that we'll set a record low this year.


Quoting BobWallace:
Man, I'm really getting a swarm of hummingbirds right now. It's a light show of bright green, ruby, brown and flash.

It's a damn shame that we're screwing up this beautiful planet....

For me that would be a light show of brown...brown...brown...and flash. Colorblindness takes a bit of the beauty of the wilderness for me. I once walked right past a huge patch of bright red bee balm. My wife saw it, though, and was kind enough to point it out to me. Couldn't have been more than a quarter-acre of the stuff. :)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
170. cyclonebuster
1:09 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:
"You also do not have a solution to global warming. You might have an approach for temporary cooling, a small scale La Nina effect. At best you would be bringing cooler water from down deep, letting it soak up heat, thus cooling off the surrounding air. You would not be lessening the amount of heat stored in air/land/water. You'd be warming up the water down deeper."







To date it is the only solution to man made global warming as it would let the excess heat escape to space because it lowers GHG levels. Read this:

Gulf Stream Leaves Its Signature Seven Miles High

ScienceDaily (Mar. 20, 2008) — The Gulf Stream’s impact on climate is well known, keeping Iceland and Scotland comfortable in winter compared to the deep-freeze of Labrador at the same latitude. That cyclones tend to spawn over the Gulf Stream has also been known for some time. A new study reveals that the Gulf Stream anchors a precipitation band with upward motions and cloud formations that can reach 7 miles high and penetrate the upper troposphere. The discovery, announced by a Japan–US team of scientists, shows that the Gulf Stream has a pathway by which to directly affect weather and climate patterns over the whole Northern Hemisphere, and perhaps even world wide.“Our findings gain even more significance by the fact that the Gulf Stream is the upper limb of the Atlantic portion of the ocean conveyor belt that drives the global ocean circulation,” says co-author Shang-Ping Xie, a research team leader at the International Pacific Research Center in the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, and professor of meteorology at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa. “The conveyor belt is predicted to slow down with global warming, which implies that changes in the Gulf Stream will modulate spatial patterns of future climate change.”

Xie has been curious for some time about the response of the atmosphere to warm currents flowing within cold ocean water, such as the Gulf Stream or its Pacific counterpart, the Kuroshio. Xie says, “It has been a challenging task to isolate the climatic influence of the Gulf Stream from energetic weather variations by using conventional observations, which are spatially and temporally sporadic. Our findings were only possible because of the availability of high-resolution satellite data, an operational weather analysis, and an atmospheric circulation model.”

The first hint that these warm ocean currents have a significant effect on the atmosphere came from high-resolution NASA satellite data. These images show a narrow rain band hovering frequently over the warm flank of the currents; wind accelerates and converges over the warm flank and diverges and decelerates on the cold flank.

The satellite images, however, do not allow accurate measurements of upward motions and divergence of air in the upper troposphere, which are necessary to understand the link between the current and large-scale climate. This is where the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) analysis provided the missing data. “It is remarkable to see how the diverging winds 7 miles high show a structure similar to the converging winds and the rain clouds, all meandering with the Gulf Stream,” says lead author Shoshiro Minobe, a professor at the Division of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Hokkaido University.

The upward wind velocity is strongest about the first mile above the surface, but the Gulf Stream-following structure is clearly visible at 4 miles and still discernible at 7 miles and above. The band of diverging winds in the upper troposphere follows the meandering Gulf Stream front.

The findings from the operational weather analysis pointed to the warm flank of the Gulf Stream as the cause of the strong upward winds. “We wanted more evidence, though,” says team member Akira Kuwano-Yoshida of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), “and turned to the high-resolution Atmospheric Model for the Earth Simulator (AGCM) at JAMSTEC. We drove the model first with the actual Gulf Stream temperatures. The model successfully captured the rain band and the signature in the upper troposphere. Then we removed the sharp sea surface gradient from the Gulf Stream front by smoothing the temperature in the model. The narrow rain band disappeared.”

Finally, the team used outgoing longwave radiation satellite data to measure the cloud top temperatures. The narrow cloud band, associated with lightning, extends 7 miles high above the Gulf Stream meanders and has temperatures below freezing. All this is further evidence that the Gulf Stream influence on the atmosphere extends far above the lower atmosphere.

The Gulf Stream’s strength has changed markedly in the past as Earth has switched between warm periods and ice ages. Closely linked to these changes have been climate changes around the globe—not only in the Atlantic, but also in the Pacific and even in the Southern Hemisphere. Scientists have been puzzled at how the changes in the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (the conveyor belt) lead to climate anomalies in other regions in the Northern Hemisphere. The new study discovers a direct pathway, the Gulf Stream’s deep heating of the atmosphere. This heating generates planetary waves that can induce quite rapid changes in Earth’s atmospheric circulation and alter climate over Europe and beyond by riding on the westerly jet stream in the upper troposphere.

Journal reference: Minobe, S., A. Kuwano-Yoshida, N. Komori, S.-P. Xie, and R.J. Small, 2008: Influence of the Gulf Stream on the troposphere. Nature. March 13, 2008.


Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
169. cyclonebuster
1:06 AM GMT on June 19, 2012
??
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
168. BobWallace
11:56 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

I think that's the way of it. However, whether we get a record or not this September will be determined by the weather, correct?

Even if we don't get a record, it looks to be another year of far-above-average melt.


It will be up to the weather. But I can't see a reason why we would have extraordinary cooling. Where would it come from?

More likely we'll see some high latitude heat waves and possibly strong storms. Storms can really do in the ice. And they can really mix up the water, bringing a lot of heat to the surface and getting rid of the easier to freeze fresh water layer on top.

--

Man, I'm really getting a swarm of hummingbirds right now. It's a light show of bright green, ruby, brown and flash.

It's a damn shame that we're screwing up this beautiful planet....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
167. Birthmark
11:56 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
A new paper that should interest OldLeatherneck when he returns.

"ABSTRACT
Thawing permafrost and the resulting microbial decomposition of previously frozen organic carbon (C) is one of the most significant potential feedbacks from terrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere in a changing climate. In this article we present an overview of the global permafrost C pool and of the processes that might transfer this C into the atmosphere, as well as the associated ecosystem changes that occur with thawing. We show that accounting for C stored deep in the permafrost more than doubles previous high-latitude inventory estimates, with this new estimate equivalent to twice the atmospheric C pool. The thawing of permafrost with warming occurs both gradually and catastrophically, exposing organic C to microbial decomposition. Other aspects of ecosystem dynamics can be altered by climate change along with thawing permafrost, such as growing season length, plant growth rates and species composition, and ecosystem energy exchange. However, these processes do not appear to be able to compensate for C release from thawing permafrost, making it likely that the net effect of widespread permafrost thawing will be a positive feedback to a warming climate."

See full paper here.

I am in the process of reading it. Doesn't look like great news, nor does it look unexpected.

I'm gonna miss the climate I grew up with...in fact, I already do.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
166. Birthmark
11:46 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
It's something like investing. The earlier you get your money in the game, the larger it grows over the remaining time.

I think that's the way of it. However, whether we get a record or not this September will be determined by the weather, correct?

Even if we don't get a record, it looks to be another year of far-above-average melt.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
165. BobWallace
11:17 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


I agree with you about the arctic ice being dimenished. I'm just trying to seperate the mechanism of the decline into two parts: the 'normal' global warming trend and the 'thin ice' trend; just hoping the thin ice trend will end and the 'normal' global warming trend will be less severe.



Thought some more about this.

What's happened this year so far is that the 'extra' late season thin ice has apparently melted off. As has some additional ice.



That extra space between the blue '2012' line and the dashed '2007' line indicates how much more open water there is at this point in time.

Open water = less albedo and more heat absorption.

It also means that warm water flowing in from the Atlantic has less ice to cool it off, so more melting.

It also means that there will be more fetch when the wind comes up, larger wave action to break up the ice.

Additional melting this early in the season is likely to have an add-on effect, even a multiplying effect, for the rest of the melting season.

It's something like investing. The earlier you get your money in the game, the larger it grows over the remaining time.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
164. cyclonebuster
11:13 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


OK, if you have proof here's what I would suggest you do.

1) Work up your 'elevator pitch', get ready to thoroughly describe your idea in no more than two minutes. Preferably one minute.

2) Work up a one page written description of your idea and your proof. Stick on additional details on attached pages if necessary, but make sure you get your salient points across in as few paragraphs as possible.

3) Visit every college and university within your reach. Determine the office hours of every staff member in civil engineering and any other field that might understand what you are proposing.

4) Visit each faculty member, ask for a couple of minutes of their time. Give them your pitch and your handout, along with your contact information.

5) Expect a lot of rejection. Make an attempt not to bug.

If you've got a valid idea eventually someone will take a few minutes to think it through and help you get started on the process.

Don't try to use the video. In it you violate "The Rule of One Variable". You do not stabilize the tube which means that you cannot determine whether the dye appeared because of temperature differential or tube movement.

You also collected no data. There's no temperature differential data, no flow data, no current data, nada.

Your device is only in play for a few seconds. There's no indication if flow is occurring due to temperature differential that the flow is significant nor that it would persist for more than a few minutes or hours.

You also do not have a solution to global warming. You might have an approach for temporary cooling, a small scale La Nina effect. At best you would be bringing cooler water from down deep, letting it soak up heat, thus cooling off the surrounding air. You would not be lessening the amount of heat stored in air/land/water. You'd be warming up the water down deeper.

So, have at it. And good luck. Perhaps you'll become famous and we can say "we knew you when"....


Heat rises so it will not cool water deeper than it is drawing from. The current as noted in that video is 1/4 mph 20 times slower than the Gulfstream current and it still works.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
163. BobWallace
11:00 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:


I proved it before the video was made.......


OK, if you have proof here's what I would suggest you do.

1) Work up your 'elevator pitch', get ready to thoroughly describe your idea in no more than two minutes. Preferably one minute.

2) Work up a one page written description of your idea and your proof. Stick on additional details on attached pages if necessary, but make sure you get your salient points across in as few paragraphs as possible.

3) Visit every college and university within your reach. Determine the office hours of every staff member in civil engineering and any other field that might understand what you are proposing.

4) Visit each faculty member, ask for a couple of minutes of their time. Give them your pitch and your handout, along with your contact information.

5) Expect a lot of rejection. Make an attempt not to bug.

If you've got a valid idea eventually someone will take a few minutes to think it through and help you get started on the process.

Don't try to use the video. In it you violate "The Rule of One Variable". You do not stabilize the tube which means that you cannot determine whether the dye appeared because of temperature differential or tube movement.

You also collected no data. There's no temperature differential data, no flow data, no current data, nada.

Your device is only in play for a few seconds. There's no indication if flow is occurring due to temperature differential that the flow is significant nor that it would persist for more than a few minutes or hours.

You also do not have a solution to global warming. You might have an approach for temporary cooling, a small scale La Nina effect. At best you would be bringing cooler water from down deep, letting it soak up heat, thus cooling off the surrounding air. You would not be lessening the amount of heat stored in air/land/water. You'd be warming up the water down deeper.

So, have at it. And good luck. Perhaps you'll become famous and we can say "we knew you when"....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
162. Birthmark
8:49 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
More verification that the original hockey stick is fraud and the authors knew it before it was presented:

Link

You seriously think that that refutes Mann's hockey sticks...and all the subsequent hockey sticks? Tell me why, if that is what you think. (Difficulty: Your reason(s) must be scientifically sound.)

I think you're cherry-picking. ;^)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
161. Birthmark
8:46 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting iceagecoming:
I wonder if it can calculate the number of computers used and the energy wasted to incorrectly predict the lack of sealevel increase in 100 years.

That's easy. Hold both hands in front of you and count to zero.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
160. Birthmark
8:35 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:


Please, post on the WUWT blog and straighten those crazies out.

I might just do that. What a fifteen minutes that'll be!! LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
159. no1der
8:33 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting martinitony:


Okay. So, here is what stupid would be. If the glaciers were melting rapidly in the 1930s and then they slowed because of something and then they resumed, it would not be wise to assume that the resumption was caused by some other factor not present in the 1930s unless there was proof of that factor's exclusion as that cause.
So, it could be that the current melting taking place is caused by AGW, but it could also be that it is caused by the gradual warming of the Earth that has been going on NATURALLY for centuries.
There is nothing to debate here.


Please either:

A. Disprove the IR absorption spectrum of CO2

or:

B. Disprove the IR absorption spectrum of CO2.

Your choice. Then we'll have something to debate.
Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 527
158. cyclonebuster
8:12 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Further proof that denialism causes blindness, if you ask me. Any seeing (and honest) person can see that the recent warming has not been an inter-annular spike, but a multi-decadal rise. If you're having trouble seeing it, I'll be happy to annotate the image as they've done there...


Correct a multi-decadal rise since the Industrial Revolution......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
157. Neapolitan
8:08 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
More verification that the original hockey stick is fraud and the authors knew it before it was presented:

Link
Further proof that denialism causes blindness, if you ask me. Any seeing (and honest) person can see that the recent warming has not been an inter-annular spike, but a multi-decadal rise. If you're having trouble seeing it, I'll be happy to annotate the image as they've done there...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13509
156. Neapolitan
7:54 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
And still another paper has been published that shows the planet is heating up because of us:
Human-induced global ocean warming on multidecadal timescales

Large-scale increases in upper-ocean temperatures are evident in observational records1. Several studies have used well-established detection and attribution methods to demonstrate that the observed basin-scale temperature changes are consistent with model responses to anthropogenic forcing and inconsistent with model-based estimates of natural variability. These studies relied on a single observational data set and employed results from only one or two models. Recent identification of systematic instrumental biases in expendable bathythermograph data has led to improved estimates of ocean temperature variability and trends and provide motivation to revisit earlier detection and attribution studies. We examine the causes of ocean warming using these improved observational estimates, together with results from a large multimodel archive of externally forced and unforced simulations. The time evolution of upper ocean temperature changes in the newer observational estimates is similar to that of the multimodel average of simulations that include the effects of volcanic eruptions. Our detection and attribution analysis systematically examines the sensitivity of results to a variety of model and data-processing choices. When global mean changes are included, we consistently obtain a positive identification (at the 1% significance level) of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed upper-ocean temperature changes, thereby substantially strengthening existing detection and attribution evidence.
For those following at home,the score is now roughly 20,000 to 0.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13509
155. NeapolitanFan
7:29 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
More verification that the original hockey stick is fraud and the authors knew it before it was presented:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
154. cyclonebuster
7:22 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting iceagecoming:



How many windmill's does it take to run Big Blue?


Energy efficient

The IBM supercomputer is also more energy efficient than the Fujitsu model.

Sequoia consumes 7.9 megawatts compared to the K computer which uses 12.6 megawatts.

Mr Turek described Sequoia as the "pinnacle of energy efficiency" and said the reaction had been "very enthusiastic."

"Government laboratories in Europe have already expressed interest," he said.
Picture of first supercomputer on Top 500 CM-5/1024 designed by Thinking Machines was the first supercomputer on the list.

The list is published every six months by German Professor Hans Meuer and US-based Professor Jack Dongarra.

Prof Dongarra told the BBC it was unlikely that another manufacturer would overtake IBM in the next year.

"Sequoia is very impressive," he said.




Link


Can it comprehend the Tunnels?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
153. cyclonebuster
7:20 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


1) You have an unproven idea.

2) Therefore trying to argue that you idea could solve the problem of melting ice in the Arctic has no wings.


I proved it before the video was made.......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
152. iceagecoming
7:19 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
I wonder if it can calculate the number of computers used and the energy wasted to incorrectly predict the lack of sealevel increase in 100 years.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
151. Neapolitan
7:18 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting iceagecoming:






Of the constitution's 40 signers, 23 were veterans of the Revolutionary War.[1] Jonathan Dayton was the youngest to sign the Constitution, at the age of 26, while Benjamin Franklin, at the age of 81, was the oldest.

let us recall who comes to mind for contribution to our nation, Dayton or Franklin.
In no particular order: A) Politics isn't the same as science. B) Franklin was every bit as prone to silly thinking in his old age as anyone. C) I never claimed that all very old people were the same. D) Franklin was an active participant in democracy right through the end of his life; Lovelock hasn't been a practicing scientist since the late 1960s. E) Lovelock was accused earlier on by many AGWT-supporting scientists of being too alarmist; it's evident that his personal pendulum has swung from too far one to too far the other.

I'll say it again: the dwindling denialist community want to use a 92-year-old non-practicing scientist given to hyperbole as a "credible" skeptic, they're certainly welcome to. But I doubt it'll bolster their credibility much...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13509
150. iceagecoming
7:14 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


Yes, EVs powered by coal would be bad.

Now, please go back up the thread to where I gave you information about how grids are getting cleaner.

How are we going to regulate the grid supply? Well, the EPA just dropped a hammer on a bunch of dirty coal plants. That's one way.

Additionally the very cheapest way to charge EVs will be wind farms. Onshore wind tends to blow harder at night when grid demand is low. That decreases the profit margins for wind farms because they have to sell a lot of their output into a low priced market.

Bring a lot of EVs on the grid, EVs sitting connected to the grid all night long, and you create a profitable off-peak market for wind farms. They can sell their power to EVs at a decent rate and that will allow the wind farms to expand, giving us more inexpensive wind output during peak hours.

More inexpensive wind on the grid during peak hours forces fossil fuel sources off. That's regulation by market forces.




How many windmill's does it take to run Big Blue?


Energy efficient

The IBM supercomputer is also more energy efficient than the Fujitsu model.

Sequoia consumes 7.9 megawatts compared to the K computer which uses 12.6 megawatts.

Mr Turek described Sequoia as the "pinnacle of energy efficiency" and said the reaction had been "very enthusiastic."

"Government laboratories in Europe have already expressed interest," he said.
Picture of first supercomputer on Top 500 CM-5/1024 designed by Thinking Machines was the first supercomputer on the list.

The list is published every six months by German Professor Hans Meuer and US-based Professor Jack Dongarra.

Prof Dongarra told the BBC it was unlikely that another manufacturer would overtake IBM in the next year.

"Sequoia is very impressive," he said.




Link
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
149. iceagecoming
6:57 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Back in April, 92-year-old James Lovelock--founder of the "Gaia Hypothesis"--made headlines for the first time in decades by suddenly announcing that he'd been too alarmist about GW, and now believes that it's not a problem, that the UN and the IPCC are evil consortiums of socialists, that all scientists are lying, that even if the world gets warm it won't be for centuries, and even if it does it won't be that bad, and even if it is it's not man's fault. And so on. In other words, he seems to have "suddenly" swallowed the denialist POV hook, line, and sinker. That's happened before with very elderly and long-out-of-practice scientific types. And nearly every time it has, the denialosphere has gone bonkers announcing the recantation.

Well, now it seems that Lovelock really enjoyed his few minutes in the spotlight, and is clamoring for more. In an interview in The Guardian, Lovelock has stated his ideological hatred of "liberalism", and his newfound embrace of fracking--though he explains that the latter is because his home heating oil costs are high, so therefore he's willing to deep-six the planet to save himself a few bucks.

I wish Lovelock many years of happiness in his doddering old age. I really do. But if denialists want to use a fading 92-year-old who hasn't held an official scientific position in 45 years--and that's certainly their right--I'm not sure how much traction they'll be able to get. With fact and logic and common sense increasingly against them, I suppose they're gonna need all the help they can get, I guess. More power to them, I say. ;-)






Of the constitution's 40 signers, 23 were veterans of the Revolutionary War.[1] Jonathan Dayton was the youngest to sign the Constitution, at the age of 26, while Benjamin Franklin, at the age of 81, was the oldest.

let us recall who comes to mind for contribution to our nation, Dayton or Franklin.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
148. BobWallace
6:47 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:



I would say restoring Northern Arctic Ice is worthwhile wouldn't you?


1) You have an unproven idea.

2) Therefore trying to argue that you idea could solve the problem of melting ice in the Arctic has no wings.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
147. cyclonebuster
6:33 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


I'm in no position to judge whether your idea works or not. I didn't find the video very convincing, waving a tube around and showing that dye makes it out the top end is pretty minimal "proof".

I'd say you need to build a large scale model and collect some quality data. Apply for grant money if you think you have a good idea.

Continuing posting here is getting you nowhere.

And remember that some things do work. But they don't work good enough to be worthwhile....



I would say restoring Northern Arctic Ice is worthwhile wouldn't you?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
146. BobWallace
6:30 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:
As Hugh Willoughby told me during our phone conservation. "Your Tunnel idea does work"


I'm in no position to judge whether your idea works or not. I didn't find the video very convincing, waving a tube around and showing that dye makes it out the top end is pretty minimal "proof".

I'd say you need to build a large scale model and collect some quality data. Apply for grant money if you think you have a good idea.

Continuing posting here is getting you nowhere.

And remember that some things do work. But they don't work good enough to be worthwhile....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
145. cyclonebuster
5:43 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
As Hugh Willoughby told me during our phone conservation. "Your Tunnel idea does work"
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
144. cyclonebuster
5:37 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
Boiling it down...

"Wind energy does not heat the lower atmosphere. There may be a very, very slight shift in heat distribution, but it's inconsequential. Wind turbines do not generate heat."

"could cause temperatures to rise by one degree Celsius in the regions on land where the wind farms are installed, including a smaller increase in areas beyond those regions"

Redistribution. Minor.

--

"intermittency of wind power could require significant and costly backup options, such as natural gas-fired power plants"

Or wind power on line could result in less use of present fossil fuel generation.

Or wind power could be backed up with storage. Battery storage is looking very promising.

--

"A quick note on Tidal Turbines. They are built to run in both directions as the tides go in and out in both directions and will have to stop during tide changes for about 1 to 2 hrs until the current speeds back up. "

So? Current stream turbines will evolve from tidal turbines. The lessons learned about building turbines that remain submerged in salt water for their entire lives will apply. Current turbine mounts/blades will be simpler to build as they will not have to be bidirectional. The turbines will be largely the same.

--

Has it occurred to you that you've posted your tunnel idea dozens of times on this site and no one is supporting your idea?

Have you considered the possibility that you either a) have an idea that doesn't work or b) you have not found a way to demonstrate that your idea works?

Continuing to post the same cartoon and pepper comments with "tunnels" isn't getting you anywhere.






Demonstration

Link

img src="">
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
143. BobWallace
5:28 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Boiling it down...

"Wind energy does not heat the lower atmosphere. There may be a very, very slight shift in heat distribution, but it's inconsequential. Wind turbines do not generate heat."

"could cause temperatures to rise by one degree Celsius in the regions on land where the wind farms are installed, including a smaller increase in areas beyond those regions"

Redistribution. Minor.

--

"intermittency of wind power could require significant and costly backup options, such as natural gas-fired power plants"

Or wind power on line could result in less use of present fossil fuel generation.

Or wind power could be backed up with storage. Battery storage is looking very promising.

--

"A quick note on Tidal Turbines. They are built to run in both directions as the tides go in and out in both directions and will have to stop during tide changes for about 1 to 2 hrs until the current speeds back up. "

So? Current stream turbines will evolve from tidal turbines. The lessons learned about building turbines that remain submerged in salt water for their entire lives will apply. Current turbine mounts/blades will be simpler to build as they will not have to be bidirectional. The turbines will be largely the same.

--

Has it occurred to you that you've posted your tunnel idea dozens of times on this site and no one is supporting your idea?

Have you considered the possibility that you either a) have an idea that doesn't work or b) you have not found a way to demonstrate that your idea works?

Continuing to post the same cartoon and pepper comments with "tunnels" isn't getting you anywhere.




Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
142. cyclonebuster
5:23 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


Well, if the Earth had been NATURALLY warming prior to the Industrial Revolution when we started burning large amounts of fossil fuels.

Problem with that is, the Earth was in a long term cooling phase, drifting toward another ice age many, many years into the future.

It's pretty clear that mankind started heating the Earth when we started agriculture a few thousand years ago. We kicked it up a big level when we started burning large amounts of coal and then gave it another boost when we added oil to our toxic mix.

Then for a few years as we rapidly recovered from WWII we threw a great big sunscreen into the air which caused us to 'go dim' and cool off for a while.

The period of global dimming and resulting cooling was an unintentional period of us practicing geo-engineering.

The most common "solution" for runaway heating is to once more toss massive amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. The cure that kills....





Sulfuric Acid isn't to good for our oceans,forests and lakes is it?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
141. BobWallace
5:17 PM GMT on June 18, 2012
Quoting martinitony:


Okay. So, here is what stupid would be. If the glaciers were melting rapidly in the 1930s and then they slowed because of something and then they resumed, it would not be wise to assume that the resumption was caused by some other factor not present in the 1930s unless there was proof of that factor's exclusion as that cause.
So, it could be that the current melting taking place is caused by AGW, but it could also be that it is caused by the gradual warming of the Earth that has been going on NATURALLY for centuries.
There is nothing to debate here.


Well, if the Earth had been NATURALLY warming prior to the Industrial Revolution when we started burning large amounts of fossil fuels.

Problem with that is, the Earth was in a long term cooling phase, drifting toward another ice age many, many years into the future.

It's pretty clear that mankind started heating the Earth when we started agriculture a few thousand years ago. We kicked it up a big level when we started burning large amounts of coal and then gave it another boost when we added oil to our toxic mix.

Then for a few years as we rapidly recovered from WWII we threw a great big sunscreen into the air which caused us to 'go dim' and cool off for a while.

The period of global dimming and resulting cooling was an unintentional period of us practicing geo-engineering.

The most common "solution" for runaway heating is to once more toss massive amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. The cure that kills....



Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344

Viewing: 191 - 141

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.