Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thin Polar Bears Called Sign of Global Warming
Environmental News Service ^ | 05/16/2002

Posted on 05/17/2002 8:45:25 AM PDT by cogitator

Thin Polar Bears Called Sign of Global Warming

WASHINGTON, DC, May 16, 2002 (ENS) - Hungry polar bears are one of the early signs that global warming is impacting Arctic habitat, suggests a new study from World Wildlife Fund. The report reviews the threats faced by the world's 22,000 polar bears and highlights growing evidence that human induced climate change is the number one long term threat to the survival of the world's largest land based carnivores.

Global warming threatens to destroy critical polar bear habitat, charges the report, "Polar Bears at Risk." The burning of coal and other fuels emits carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases that blanket the earth, trap in heat and cause global warming.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change in the polar region is expected to be the greatest of anywhere on Earth.

"The WWF report shows that polar bears in Hudson Bay are being impacted by climate change," said Lynn Rosentrater, coauthor of the report and climate scientist at the World Wildlife Fund's (WWF) Arctic program. "The polar bear's basis for survival is being threatened by the reduction of the sea ice."

"Since the sea ice is melting earlier in the spring, polar bears move to land earlier without having developed as much fat reserves to survive the ice free season," Rosentrater explained. "They are skinny bears by the end of summer, which in the worst case can affect their ability to reproduce."

Increasing CO2 emissions have caused Arctic temperatures to rise by five degrees Celsius over the past 100 years, and the extent of sea ice has decreased by six percent over the past 20 years. By around 2050, scientists now predict a 60 percent loss of summer sea ice, which would more than double the summer ice free season from 60 to 150 days.

Sea ice is critical to polar bears' survival because it is the platform from where they hunt their primary prey - ringed seals and bearded seals. Diminishing ice cover and longer ice free periods limit the time the bears have on the ice to hunt and means that they have fewer fat resources to survive during the longer summer season.

Lower body weight also reduces female bears' ability to lactate, leading to fewer surviving cubs. Already, fewer than 44 percent of cubs now survive the ice free season.

As early as 1999, Canadian researchers noticed that polar bears in the Hudson Bay region were having trouble finding enough seals to eat due to the earlier breakup of sea ice. The scientists from the Canadian Wildlife Service found that weight for both male and female polar bears was declining, and female bears were having fewer cubs.

The impacts of global warming come on top of problems that polar bears already face from hunting, toxic pollution and oil development in the Arctic. The Arctic region is contaminated by pesticides and other chemicals carried by air and condensation from industrialized areas far to the south.

The pollutants enter the food chain, and animals at the top of the chain, such as polar bears, can carry tremendous body burdens of toxic chemicals. Research on polar bears has shown a link between high contaminant levels and reduced immune system function.

Due to the rapid pace of change in the Arctic, there is no time to lose in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, WWF argues. The group says major reductions can be achieved by using existing technologies to increase the energy efficiency of homes, businesses and automobiles, and by using renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels.

Bipartisan support has grown in Congress for a renewable portfolio standard that would ensure that 20 percent of U.S. energy comes from renewable energy by 2020. However, President George W. Bush has opposed the proposal.

World leaders will discuss a similar proposal at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in South Africa this summer. The WWF is calling on President Bush to support this initiative in Johannesburg.

"Arctic nations that are home to most of the world's polar bears should be leading the charge against global warming," said Jennifer Morgan, director of WWF's climate change program. "Instead, the United States - the world's largest global warming polluter - is essentially ignoring this problem. All eyes will be on President Bush at the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa this August to test his commitment to sustainable energy solutions for climate change."

The WWF has created a new Web site: http://www.panda.org/polarbears with extensive information about polar bears and their Arctic domain. The site includes satellite tracking of two female bears, Louise and Gro, as they roam the ice pack in search of prey.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: climate; globalwarminghoax; polarbears; wildlife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-196 last
To: Rita289
Ha! Actually, as anybody who's seen the commercials knows, polar bears prefer Coke.
151 posted on 06/12/2002 12:23:57 PM PDT by RichInOC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
Find out their weight-loss secret and use it on American kids.

It's not a secret. They aren't eating as much as they need to.

152 posted on 06/12/2002 12:36:34 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC
You're right! It's the Diet Coke! Polar bears are not part of the Pepsi Generation.
153 posted on 06/12/2002 4:27:56 PM PDT by Rita289
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

The problem is this: if there is no significant radiative transfer of heat from the lower troposphere to the stratosphere, then any changes in CO2 concentration in the lower troposphere would not affect the temperature of the stratosphere.

Precisely.

The "standard" view is that increasing CO2 concentrations in the lower troposphere absorb increasing amounts of longwave (IR) radiation, preventing it from being radiated to the stratosphere.

Which should give rise to Tropospheric warming according to the "standard" view, NO substantial warming in the Troposphere is occuring.

That process would result in stratospheric cooling. Stratospheric cooling is, in fact, observed. Thus, you have to account for the observed stratospheric cooling. Some of it, but not all, is attributable to ozone depletion.

Nothing to prevent additional water vapor from storing latent heat, it very efficiently picks up heat in evaporation as well as broadband IR absorption. Water Vapor is a couple of orders of magnitude better heat resevoir than CO2 is, as well as the fact that most of the heat held by water vapor is latent heat of vaporization & and fusion.

CO2 is a narrow band IR absorber and its latent heat characteristics are nul as far ast the atmosphere is concerned, which is why is fails do the job.

Stored as latent heat by water vapor, there is minimal temperature rise in the Troposphere,(could even fall under some conditions), allowing the Stratosphere to cool. Which is what we observe.

For Hug and Barrett's work to be applicable, an alternative explanation for stratospheric cooling must also be provided.

All that is needed is a mechanism for heat storage, water serves quite well and can explain why the Troposphere is not heating as expected in the "standard" view, and why the Stratosphere can cool, should ozone depletion not even required to explain cooling of the Stratosphere.

154 posted on 06/13/2002 12:33:18 AM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Question 1: what would be the alternative source of heat for Venus?

Remember it is not as hot as the greenhouse model ("standard" view) says it should be.

1) CO2 is not a "source" of heat in any case.

2) The only source of heat necessary is the sun, and being substantially closer provides considerable heat to assure Venus gets a sufficient supply of energy.

3) The atmosphere is 90 times as dense to act as thermal mass. That is all that is necessary, clouds are Sulfuric acid which provides an effective thermal mass as well.

155 posted on 06/13/2002 12:52:10 AM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Point is, all you have stated is predicated on a hypothetical role of anthropogenic CO2, with an apriori conclusion arising out of political agendas building on a manufactured crisis to legislate and garner political and economic power.

The sun and water vapor, cannot be made to fit that political role. CO2 being a byproduct of carbon burning, fits hat political "need" the environmental agenda provides. It isn't science that is driving the debate, it is pure and simple politics.

The Answer Lies Partly in a Better Understanding of Water's Role
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

A computer model is only as reliable as the physics that are built into the program. The physics that are currently in these computer programs are still insufficient to have much confidence in the predicted magnitude of global warming, because we currently don't understand the detailed physical processes of clouds that will determine the extent and nature of water vapor's feedback into the Earth's temperature.


And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees:


``Feedback from the redistribution of water vapour remains a substantial uncertainty in climate models...Much of the current debate has been addressing feedback from the tropical upper troposphere, where the feedback appears likely to be positive. However, this is not yet convincingly established; much further evaluation of climate models with regard to observed processes is needed."

- Climate Change 1995, IPCC Second Assessment



Images of the Earth, such as this one in the infrared, tell us much about the distribution of water vapor. Areas within the Earth's atmosphere that are extremely dry, especially in the tropics, can act as large "chimneys" that allow energy to freely radiate into space, enhancing the cooling of the Earth. The effects of the tropical dry troposphere are poorly understood, and currently are not well-incorporated into computer models of global warming.


156 posted on 06/13/2002 7:57:04 AM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

The newer estimates of radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 are between 3.5 and 4.1 Wm-2 with the relevant species and various overlaps between greenhouse gases included.

As regards the forcing issue, again the number used it is merely to force inadequate models to approximate temperature of the troposphere by changing a coefficient, and is not based or derived from fundamental physics and science of CO2 thermal activity.

Adjusting a polynomial coeffecient to make its curve match a dataset range does not in any way imply a physical basis in interpolating a dataset's values. Likewise adjusting a coefficient to make a GCM fit a dataset does not imply the coefficient has a physical reality unless the entire model is truly an accurate representation of the real world. The GCMs "assessed" by IPCC do not have that fundamental characteristic. They have gross inadequecies, which is why the coefficient are changed. If IPCC GCM CO2 forcing coefficients were based in science & physics the coefficient would not be changing. There would be no "newer estimates".

The atmospheric CO2 concentration is known, the number applied for forcing should be a fixed value if it were derived from basic science, as opposed to making a model fit.

157 posted on 06/13/2002 8:38:58 AM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Then why did the stratosphere get warmer after Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991?

The effect of Volcanoes on the Stratosphere has nothing to do with hypothetical CO2 concentrations increasing forcing in the Troposphere. It has a great deal to do with the aerosols injected into the stratosphere which absorb radiant energy inducing higher molecular motion(i.e. raising temperature) of the stratosphere.

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/rogabs.html

"By scattering some solar radiation back to space, the aerosols cool the surface, but by absorbing both solar and terrestrial radiation, the aerosol layer heats the stratosphere."

As heat absorbing aerosols drop out of the statosphere or are otherwise removed through chemical interations with ozone and breakdown by ionizing radiation & UV, the stratosphere cools back down hence a dominant source of cooling of the statosphere becomes apparent. Hence the rise in statospheric temperature from El Chichon in '82 and cooldown of the troposphere from shading induced by stratospheric aerosols, and again, with an even greater impact, by Mt Pinatubo in '91.

158 posted on 06/13/2002 6:58:54 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
I'm combining a couple of your posts here.

The stratosphere loses heat to space, and it is to thin to absorb radiant energy released from blackbody radiation and from release of latent heat of water vapor transported to the upper atmosphere.

To which I replied via query about the observed warming of the stratosphere after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

Your reply: The effect of volcanoes on the stratosphere has nothing to do with hypothetical CO2 concentrations increasing forcing in the Troposphere. It has a great deal to do with the aerosols injected into the stratosphere which absorb radiant energy inducing higher molecular motion(i.e. raising temperature) of the stratosphere.

So first you've said that the stratosphere is too thin to absorb radiant energy, and then you note that it isn't, i.e., the injected aerosols impart a warming via greater molecular motion. I prefer the latter. The stratosphere warms and cools radiatively. You're a physical chemist, and while I couldn't pass the maths required for Berkeley graduate school P-chem, I know enough to say this: temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas, liquid, or solid. Right?

OK. Now you've proposed something quite interesting, which is that water vapor can explain a lot of what's not explained. That's quite consistent with the current state of knowledge regarding clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere.

All that is needed is a mechanism for heat storage, water serves quite well and can explain why the Troposphere is not heating as expected in the "standard" view, and why the Stratosphere can cool, should ozone depletion not even required to explain cooling of the Stratosphere.

The interesting thing about this to me is that the water vapor feedback is one of the primary positive feedbacks of GHG-induced warming. So, if you've got GHG-induced warming, and a water vapor feedback, then that's pretty much in-line with the mainstream view. Your major contention is still with the CO2 energy absorption.

159 posted on 06/14/2002 10:06:25 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
You might be interested in this, which apparently is a work-in-progress:

Arbiters of Energy

160 posted on 06/14/2002 10:08:22 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: DrDavid
Perhaps this tranquillizing and handling has hurt the bears health? You can't make measurements without effecting what is being measured.


"Bones, perhaps we should acquaint the environmentalists
with the Heisenberg Clause of the Prime Directive."



161 posted on 06/14/2002 10:17:02 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
But you need a mechanism for cooling.

Albedo(clouds & dust),

IR irradiation from surface absorbed in 1st hundred feet of atmosphere where it is predominately dissipated as kinetic energy.

Transport of heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere by convection dominated by
- N2 & H2 kinetic energy &
- water vapor(latent heat of vaporization/sublimation)

released radiant energy to stratosphere and on into space.

downward directed re-radiant IR is absorbed in the upper region of the atmosphere dissappated as kinetic energy not returning to the surface except by convection of cold air.

The role of CO2 is minimal by virtue of the near total absorption of IR in a very short path of troposphere. Adding more CO2 does not increase the capacity of air to absorb more IR at CO2 wavelengths, its just more molecules in the mass, same is true of NH4 & CFC's. Watervapor(latent heat), N2 & O2 kinetic energy are the dominant and overwhealming factors transporting heat from the surface to the statosphere where re-radiative loss becomes the dominant transport to space.

The main reason that I'm responding to this is that your original contention was this:

I find it interesting that out of all the range provided, the GW folks never present or even apparently consider the possibility that global climate temperatures can fall as well as rise. This is a telling note. They appear to be totally dedicated to demonstrating rising global temperture inspite of historical evidence that climates tempertures make excursions downward even with atmospheric CO2 concentrations much higher than even those assumed doublings of IPCC's GCM story lines.

Of all the mechanisms that you propose above, the only one that is capable of producing a significant global cooling is a change in albedo. As we've mentioned Mt. Pinatubo, an additional short-term mechanism is blocking of incoming solar radiation by atmospheric (volcanic, in this case) aerosols.

The significant global cooling mechanisms are those which substantially alter the Earth's radiation budget. Milankovitch forcing is therefore climatically significant because it's directly responsible for changes in the amount of solar insolation. Obviously, if the Sun's energy output was to decrease, that too would result in reduced insolation and therefore cooling. The most-commonly-held explanation for the "Little Ice Age" was a decrease in solar output during the Maunder sunspot minimum, and thus there was no Earth-based cooling mechanism. (I will note from a brief perusal of abstracts of the AGU Spring meeting, where I found the Wentz and Schabel MSU data re-analysis papers, indicates that the Maunder Minimum - LIA cause-effect relationship is not community consensus.)

A lot of people ask about the Ice Age - CO2 relationship. It appears that CO2 acts as a thermostat, but it is not the cause of major warming or cooling trends: insolation is. Once there has been a climatic shift, however, either elevated or reduced atmospheric CO2 concentrations act to maintain either a cold or warm climate, and cause 'resistance' to internal global temperature shifts. This is augmented by oceanic feedbacks, specifically iron input to the ocean via continental dust transport.

As an aside, it's interesting to me that we have different perspectives. My dalliance in geochemistry allowed me to see "beyond" chemistry; climate, specifically paleoclimate, shows the interaction and complexity of Earth's physical processes.

162 posted on 06/14/2002 10:28:37 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
The atmospheric CO2 concentration is known, the number applied for forcing should be a fixed value if it were derived from basic science, as opposed to making a model fit.

Please comment on:

6.5.3. deltaF-deltaC relationships

and

IPCC Observations of Greenhouse Gas and Radiative Forcing Changes since 1750

In the latter, particularly note the summary entitled "Radiative Forcing".

163 posted on 06/14/2002 10:38:53 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

So, if you've got GHG-induced warming, and a water vapor feedback, then that's pretty much in-line with the mainstream view

Which leads us to one of many fallacies of the GCM theories. Water Vapor is a GHG and a least 2 orders of magnitude more effective than CO2.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain the difference between the GHG H20, and the GHG CO2, that one is called (only by IPCC & their modellers) a "feedback".

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse

I know enough to say this: temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas, liquid, or solid. Right?

Sounds good, now how does CO2 contribute to temperature increase if it only absorbs and re-radiates quantum 15micron IR radation,(i.e. a delayed spontaneous & random process). Hint, it can't, It must lose the absorbed IR excitation in collisions with other molecules to manifest as a change in temperature(i.e. velocity of molecules).

So first you've said that the stratosphere is too thin to absorb radiant energy,

I said that in comparison with the troposphere that is quite true.. Obviously there are molecules in the stratosphere, sparce though they may be compared to the troposphere, and thus can manifest temperature(i.e. molecular motion), black body radiation is radiated consequent to molecular changes in motion. Radiant energy absorption on the otherhand is a quantum process that occurs at very select wavelengths dependent upon the quantum characteristics of the molecules absorbing radiant energy.

Here is a more complete picture of radiation absorption from UV through Visible to Far Infrared in comparison with Solar & Earth blackbody radiation curves.

Note the only significant CO2 absorption of Earth blackbody radiation associated with the greenhouse effect is at the 15micron band overlapped by H2O rotational absorption which aborbs 100% of earth blackbody radiation at IR wavelengths greater than 15microns.

At 15micons, absorption is 100%, and as Hug & Barret have made clear, that absorption reaches extinction in a very short atmospheric path(<100ft) near the surface of the earth.

The statosphere loses heat to space, and it is too thin to absorb radiant energy released from blackbody radiation and from release of latent heat of water vapor transported to the upper atmosphere.

and then you note that it isn't, i.e., the injected aerosols impart a warming via greater molecular motion.

The injected aerosols themselves are molecules absorbing solar radiation as well as upwelling blackbody radiation and imparting any absorbed energy to the stratosphere in collisions with upper atmosphere molecules. So where is any inconsistency? Those "volcanic" areosols are only sporadically part of the picture.

By the way, blackbody radiation is predominately due to changes in motion of molecules in interaction and collision as opposed to the spontaneous quantum emmissions at specific wavelengths of non-interacting molecules.

So, if you've got GHG-induced warming, and a water vapor feedback,

Water vapor "feedback", is an IPCC fiction. Water vapor IS the dominant GHG.

You have solar induced changes, and water vapor GHG interactions.

Your major contention is still with the CO2 energy absorption.

Have I ever said otherwise? The contention of the IPCC & their modellers is CO2 is the king and driver of the whole show. Which is a blatant fiction.

164 posted on 06/14/2002 12:01:42 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
"Bones, perhaps we should acquaint the environmentalists with the Heisenberg Clause of the Prime Directive."

I hadn't thought of extending Heisenberg Principal to Global Warmingtm even though it should have been obvious.

Global Warming caused by temperature measurements!

165 posted on 06/14/2002 12:17:54 PM PDT by DrDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
"Instead, the United States - the world's largest global warming polluter - is essentially ignoring this problem.

Pretty much sums up the entire article as a bodacious quantity of bovine fecal matter.

166 posted on 06/14/2002 12:21:42 PM PDT by N. Theknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
You should have read the caveat, which is exactly what Hug & Barret have demonstrated experimentally:

6.5.1. Factors Affecting Greenhouse Radiative Forcing

A number of basic factors affect the behaviour of different greenhouse gases as forcing agents within the climate system (Shine et al., 1990). First, the absorption strength and wavelength of the absorption in the thermal infrared are of fundamental importance in dictating whether a molecule can be an important greenhouse forcing agent; this effect is modified by the overlap between the absorption bands and those of other gases present in the atmosphere. For example, the natural quantities of CO2 are so large (compared to other trace gases) that the atmosphere is very opaque over short distance at the centre of its 15mm absorption band. The addition of a small amount of gas capable of absorbing at this wavelength has negligible effect on the net radiative flux at the tropopause.

Also the equation:

DF = 6.3 ln (C/C0) [Equation 19]

provided is empiricaly derived from justifying the IPCC models to adjust model outputs to reflect the contaminated surface temperature series, not from the basic physics of CO2 IR absorption characteristics.

Show me a derivation based in an actual controlled experiment backed up by physics not an equation reflecting the average of several incomplete and severly inadequate Global Climate models.

In the latter, particularly note the summary entitled "Radiative Forcing".

IPCC is known as much for what it doesn't say and leaves out than what it does.

1) Natural CO2 levels tend to follow, temperature change, they do not lead temperature. (due to release of CO2 from hydrates & dissolved CO2 in the oceans, increasing biomass, etc.) CO2 is an effect of temperature excursions in the atmosphere not a cause of such.

2) Much higher global temperatures with lower CO2 concentrations have existed in the past. CO2 concentration is poorly correlated with decadal & century changes in the climate.

Merely calling CO2 is a radiative forcing agent in a model does not make it a cause of global temperature change manifested in the physical world.

167 posted on 06/14/2002 4:56:15 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

the only one that is capable of producing a significant global cooling is a change in albedo.

You leave out long term solar irradiation changes which do have long term variations as well as the 100kyr orbital precession of muller, (though the latter induces a change in stratospheric cloud cover which is a change in aldebo).

Milankovitch forcing is therefore climatically significant because it's directly responsible for changes in the amount of solar insolation

Actually the theoritical Milankovitch forcing of eccentricty does not fit as well as that of orbital precession. Orbital precession accounts for the 100ky variation much better than Milankovitch, and does not suffer from several inconsistancies that arise under Milankovitch.

Read:

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/lbl-gc.htm

http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/nature.html


168 posted on 06/14/2002 5:11:38 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

My dalliance in geochemistry allowed me to see "beyond" chemistry; climate, specifically paleoclimate, shows the interaction and complexity of Earth's physical processes.

Anyone who has dabbled in prospecting, fossil collecting and rockhounding has that perspective, that along with astronomy, is what captured my interest in the sciences in my younger years under the influence of my grandfather & uncles.

My perspectives are much broader than the bare bones of what I have stated in this forum, most of which I prefer not to mention, but rather allow papers and substantive articles of others in the academic community to speak for me. It is useless for an internet personality to claim any credential and expect it to mean anything.

The web, I find, is a great leveler where ideas have to stand on their own more than on the personality or credentials of the speaker.

169 posted on 06/14/2002 5:31:14 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
The NASA study is based on only a few recent years. The Braithwaite study is based upon 50 years and appears more comprehensive since it is in situ and looks at temperature, precipitation, etc. effects on mass balance. The glaciers do not provide undisputed support for the surface temperature network.

The Greenland study is for only one glacier and is not a global indicator.

170 posted on 06/15/2002 6:51:36 AM PDT by Number_Cruncher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
I think the borehole measurements give the direction and relative amplitude of the temperature variations. The actual amplitude of the variations is calibrated using the nearby surface observations. If these nearby surface observations are wrong, the borehole reconstruction will have the wrong amplitude.
171 posted on 06/15/2002 6:55:03 AM PDT by Number_Cruncher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
"Eighty per cent of the adult bears in the Churchill area have been tranquillized, handled, tagged, tattooed, weighed and measured, had blood drawn, teeth checked, their behaviour and life history recorded, many more than once."

Being subjected to that kind of stress would cause any organism to lose weight.

172 posted on 06/15/2002 6:58:00 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Concerning the Mears, Schabel, and Wentz new analysis of the MSU temperature measurements, it has major flaws. An acquaintance of mine attended their talk. Apparently Mears calibrated their instruments using a climate model and this is probably why they get their large trend. Audience members pointed out about a half dozen flaws in their analysis. Their analysis does not agree with the balloons. I doubt if their results hold up.
173 posted on 06/15/2002 7:00:14 AM PDT by Number_Cruncher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
"Eighty per cent of the adult bears in the Churchill area have been tranquillized, handled, tagged, tattooed, weighed and measured, had blood drawn, teeth checked, their behaviour and life history recorded, many more than once."

Do you think the bears share 'alien abduction' stories? These bears are probably depressed, demoralized, and disenchanted after being messed with so much.

From all the Cokes these bears drink, you'd think they would put on a few pounds.

174 posted on 06/15/2002 7:02:04 AM PDT by TC Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Staff from the Environmental News Service will have to personally weigh the unrestrained bears on a scale before I believe it. What? No volunteers?
175 posted on 06/15/2002 7:14:02 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
A passage from an article on Global Warming - Time, April 9, 2001; Vol 157 #14:

"By contrast, if melting ice caps dilute the salt content of the sea, major ocean currents like the Gulf Stream could slow or even stop, and so would their warming effects on northern regions. More snowfall reflecting more sunlight back into space could actually cause a net cooling. Global warming could, paradoxically, throw the planet into another ice age."

176 posted on 06/15/2002 7:19:43 AM PDT by Exit148
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Number_Cruncher
Concerning the Mears, Schabel, and Wentz new analysis of the MSU temperature measurements, it has major flaws. An acquaintance of mine attended their talk. Apparently Mears calibrated their instruments using a climate model and this is probably why they get their large trend. Audience members pointed out about a half dozen flaws in their analysis. Their analysis does not agree with the balloons. I doubt if their results hold up.

Tnanks for the information. As I noted, a meeting presentation is not a published paper. It was primarily of interest because it was from Wentz and Co., which is not a fly-by-night group. We'll have to see what happens. When Wentz and Schabel first suggested the orbital decay correction, Spencer and Christy said it didn't make any difference -- they they proceeded to reanalyze their whole dataset because of the problem that Wentz and Schabel had found.

I'll bet part of the reason that scientists present papers at these meetings is to get an idea of what questions reviewers would ask before they actually submit a paper.

177 posted on 06/17/2002 7:53:52 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Number_Cruncher
The NASA study is based on only a few recent years. The Braithwaite study is based upon 50 years and appears more comprehensive since it is in situ and looks at temperature, precipitation, etc. effects on mass balance. The glaciers do not provide undisputed support for the surface temperature network.

Never said that they did. But I think you would probably concede that the response glaciers will have some lag time. I would propose (hoping that an actual researcher might follow up) that the glaciers are now responding to the accelerated warming that has been noted in the surface record since about 1980. I would also propose that the Braithwaite study, because if covers a 1945-1995, is going to be weighted heavily for the no-trend period, so any trend appearing near the end of the record will be hard to detect.

The Greenland study is for only one glacier and is not a global indicator.

It's the second largest ice cap in the world and it's in the high Arctic, where global warming models say the warming will be most intense. I think it bears watching. NASA is set to launch a laser altimeter satellite (Icesat) at the end of the year that is designed primarily to measure ice cap volume and changes. So we'll only have to wait 5 years or so for enough data to indicate a trend... (yawn)

178 posted on 06/17/2002 8:00:29 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Number_Cruncher
I think the borehole measurements give the direction and relative amplitude of the temperature variations. The actual amplitude of the variations is calibrated using the nearby surface observations. If these nearby surface observations are wrong, the borehole reconstruction will have the wrong amplitude.

OK. Comment on the following with respect to your position (i.e., do the following articles lend support or not to your arguments):

Borehole temperatures and past climates

Brief Introduction to the Geothermal Approach of Climate Reconstruction

Boreholes - Summary

Yes, It Has Warmed Over the Past Five Centuries

(And don't forget to note the source of the last two articles.)

179 posted on 06/17/2002 9:07:17 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Anyone who has dabbled in prospecting, fossil collecting and rockhounding has that perspective, that along with astronomy, is what captured my interest in the sciences in my younger years under the influence of my grandfather & uncles.

My "dalliance in geochemistry" means that I took a few grad-level courses in geochemistry and geophysics. I might've switched from my failed Ph.D. program in chemistry over to geochemistry, but I realized I liked making a living doing something relatively easy too much.

180 posted on 06/17/2002 2:02:57 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Which leads us to one of many fallacies of the GCM theories. Water Vapor is a GHG and a least 2 orders of magnitude more effective than CO2.

That's a known. Earth would be way below freezing if not for water vapor.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain the difference between the GHG H20, and the GHG CO2, that one is called (only by IPCC & their modellers) a "feedback".

I'm not sure. In the message I received from James Hansen when I asked the question about positive feedbacks, he said it was due to the increase in the relative humidity of the atmosphere caused by warming. That's all I can say about it -- database is empty beyond that datum.

I know enough to say this: temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas, liquid, or solid. Right?

Sounds good, now how does CO2 contribute to temperature increase if it only absorbs and re-radiates quantum 15micron IR radation,(i.e. a delayed spontaneous & random process). Hint, it can't, It must lose the absorbed IR excitation in collisions with other molecules to manifest as a change in temperature(i.e. velocity of molecules).

No doubt about that. Everything I've read about the greenhouse effect says that CO2 and other GHGs "absorb and re-radiate" longwave radiation. Presumably if some of the re-radiated radiation is transferred to other molecules, the atmosphere heats up.

So first you've said that the stratosphere is too thin to absorb radiant energy,

I said that in comparison with the troposphere that is quite true.. Obviously there are molecules in the stratosphere, sparce though they may be compared to the troposphere, and thus can manifest temperature (i.e. molecular motion), black body radiation is radiated consequent to molecular changes in motion. Radiant energy absorption on the otherhand is a quantum process that occurs at very select wavelengths dependent upon the quantum characteristics of the molecules absorbing radiant energy.

That makes more sense. What you said initially didn't make sense to me.

At 15 microns, absorption is 100%, and as Hug & Barret have made clear, that absorption reaches extinction in a very short atmospheric path(<100ft) near the surface of the earth.

I understand that to be the core of their argument, and I did find it curious to read the section you called the "caveat" (one of two reasons that I wanted you to comment on that section). My question when I read that paragraph is: they say the addition of a "small amount of gas" has a negligible effect on net radiative flux at the tropopause. All I can conclude for the GHG argument is that increasing CO2 by ppm is not a "small amount" of gas. If that was not the case, then there wouldn't be any CO2 greenhouse effect to speak of. Since the IPCC speaks of a CO2 greenhouse effect, I have to draw the conclusion above -- and I can't argue it beyond that. Together we've stated Hug and Barrett vs. the IPCC: we can't push the argument any further. If Hug and Barrett's argument has merit, they'll eventually get more notice. Hug has published (though it's a German journal). If the give-and-take there gets noisy enough, it will get picked up elsewhere.

The statosphere loses heat to space, and it is too thin to absorb radiant energy released from blackbody radiation and from release of latent heat of water vapor transported to the upper atmosphere.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that no atmospheric molecules in the stratosphere can absorb longwave radiation?

The injected aerosols themselves are molecules absorbing solar radiation as well as upwelling blackbody radiation and imparting any absorbed energy to the stratosphere in collisions with upper atmosphere molecules. So where is any inconsistency? Those "volcanic" aerosols are only sporadically part of the picture.

Actually (drum roll) they might end up being a significant influence. Just saw this while looking at new pictures in the NASA Earth Observatory:

STUDY OF DUST IN ICE CORES SHOWS VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS INTERFERE WITH THE EFFECT OF SUNSPOTS ON GLOBAL CLIMATE

Your major contention is still with the CO2 energy absorption.

Have I ever said otherwise? The contention of the IPCC & their modellers is CO2 is the king and driver of the whole show. Which is a blatant fiction.

No, you haven't. But until somebody reputable in the climate change community stands up and says "Ohmigod, we screwed up -- look at this paper by Hug and Barrett!", I am going to harbor my suspicion that their experimental result doesn't transfer properly to the atmospheric system due to an overlooked dynamic process. And before making a considerable effort to try and convince me (though you can do whatever you want in terms of illustrating the point), I'll tell you that there isn't much more you can say for my thick-headed benefit. I understand Hug and Barrett's point enough to perceive how it conflicts with the standard GHG-induced warming view. I don't think you can provide any material that resolves that conflict.

181 posted on 06/17/2002 2:26:46 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: cogitator; number_cruncher

(And don't forget to note the source of the last two articles.)

What does an increase in global temperature returning to interglacial norms from the little ice age:

Climate of the last 2400 years

Climate of the last 12,000 years

have to do with the IPCC storylines pushing the anthropogenic CO2 theory for warming at this time?

The point of the two articles from CO2 Science was that global increases in temperature are not caused by CO2 increase, read:

CO2-Temperature Correlations

From the same source.

Yes global temperatures have, and can change, the issue is more about whether or not a substantive or dangerous trend is currently in place and if one is, what if anything other than adaptation is the appropriate response. The evidence dose not support the conclusion of a critical or even marginally non-beneficial trend.

182 posted on 06/17/2002 2:30:45 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
IPCC is known as much for what it doesn't say and leaves out than what it does.

1) Natural CO2 levels tend to follow, temperature change, they do not lead temperature. (due to release of CO2 from hydrates & dissolved CO2 in the oceans, increasing biomass, etc.) CO2 is an effect of temperature excursions in the atmosphere not a cause of such.

Precisely why it is so difficult to determine the climate response to increasing atmospheric CO2 at the current rate. There are no paleoclimate analogs to this situation. (By the way, I don't know of any significant CO2 hydrates in the ocean, though they can form at depth from injected CO2. Methane hydrates, on the other hand, could be very signifcant.)

2) Much higher global temperatures with lower CO2 concentrations have existed in the past. CO2 concentration is poorly correlated with decadal & century changes in the climate.

Medieval Warm Period, or an earlier and longer epoch?

Merely calling CO2 is a radiative forcing agent in a model does not make it a cause of global temperature change manifested in the physical world.

As I noted earlier, the paleoclimate view of CO2 is a climate "thermostat" (whether or not you like the Gaia viewpoint). CO2 concentrations act to maintain either a warm or cold global climate.

183 posted on 06/17/2002 2:33:22 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

from James Hansen when I asked the question about positive feedbacks, he said it was due to the increase in the relative humidity of the atmosphere caused by warming.

In short he passed off to the IPCC view of water vapor as feedback by selective redefinition so it can be shunted aside as the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas. To admit to H20 being a GHG that would be to admit to the inconsequentiality of anthropogenic CO2 as a problem.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that no atmospheric molecules in the stratosphere can absorb longwave radiation?

N,o I am saying the stratosphere's composition is such that water vapor is not the dominant factor of longwave absorption that it plays in the troposphere. The IR transmission window is much broader in the stratosphere, with O3 @ 10 & 15u playing the dominant role of any "longwave absorption" on very narrow absorption lines.

CO2 absorption above 11km is virtually nonexistant. H2O absorption is very attenuated. There is virtually no IR absorption by N2 and O2, they absorb UV radiant energy only and aquire heat from kinetic collision with IR active gasses.

But until somebody reputable in the climate change community stands up and says "Ohmigod, we screwed up -- look at this paper by Hug and Barrett!", I am going to harbor my suspicion

The UN's IPCC and their modellers perhaps? I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'll continue to go along with these folks, until there is a clear and convincing demonstration of the validity the UN sponsored IPCC Global Warming bandwagon. That clear and convincing demonstration answering the counterpoints has yet to surface, and mere academic creditials bolstering yet more words in not going to do it.

ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING PETITION PROJECT:

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

***

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.

 

And what did they sign?

Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.


184 posted on 06/17/2002 2:58:28 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

As I noted earlier, the paleoclimate view of CO2 is a climate "thermostat" (whether or not you like the Gaia viewpoint). CO2 concentrations act to maintain either a warm or cold global climate.

In comparison to and in the presence of watervapor. It has a negligible role(inspite of The IPCC's redefinitions). I will admit that CO2 has a stonger role in the dry glacial periods where atmospheric H20 concentrations are much lower. The Oceans & ice caps have a much greater effect and capacity to act as a thermal buffer or "thermostat" than any concentration of CO2.

Take away water then you have a Martian or Venesian scenario, but as long as there is substantial open water on this planet, the role of CO2 is consigned to a marginal role at the very most.

185 posted on 06/17/2002 3:20:51 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

My question when I read that paragraph is: they say the addition of a "small amount of gas" has a negligible effect on net radiative flux at the tropopause.

Certainly depends on what they mean by "small", an increase of 320ppm is no "large" increase in my book, especially in comparison to H20 concentrations that vary from nil to 20000ppm as a matter of natural variation day to day and from geographical area to area, and have a direct impact on how much IR is available for absorption by CO2 as well as the problems associated with the CO2 IR extinction distance of <100ft at ground level.

186 posted on 06/17/2002 4:37:32 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Somehow, I think that the number of blue-haired snowbirds in Miami would be as accurate a measure of global warming as the weight of polar bears is.

-PJ

187 posted on 06/17/2002 4:39:47 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cogitator
P.S.

The problem in not what is small in absolute terms, but what is small when dealing with concentrations where IR absorption is at saturation levels as it is with CO2 & the earth's atmosphere.

At those levels, doublings of concentration do not appreciably change the amount of IR that is absorbed as all the available IR at the nominal wavelength is already absorbed. additional concentration cannot cause an additional effect. The ultimate limiter is the amount of IR available in relation to the limiting concentration of the GHG that causes extinction and the exchange of heat to other molecules kinetically.

In the presense of a gas, such as water vapor, whose IR absorption overlaps critical wavelengths, the issue becomes especially important in determining the actual effect of the minority GHG.

188 posted on 06/17/2002 4:56:57 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
from James Hansen when I asked the question about positive feedbacks, he said it was due to the increase in the relative humidity of the atmosphere caused by warming.

In short he passed off to the IPCC view of water vapor as feedback by selective redefinition so it can be shunted aside as the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas. To admit to H20 being a GHG that would be to admit to the inconsequentiality of anthropogenic CO2 as a problem.

Remember the Earth Observatory article about clouds I offered a couple of days ago? Well, the next one in the series is out. It provides a very clear description of the interaction of CO2 and water vapor. At least for this group, it's pretty obvious that water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

Does the Earth have an Iris Analog?

In particular, note the paragraphs beginning "Although carbon dioxide gets most of the bad publicity..." and "This is a terrifically important feedback," Lindzen concludes..."

So at least for Lindzen, one of the more important skeptical scientists, there's no doubting the importance of the water vapor feedback we've been discussing.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that no atmospheric molecules in the stratosphere can absorb longwave radiation?

No, I am saying the stratosphere's composition is such that water vapor is not the dominant factor of longwave absorption that it plays in the troposphere. The IR transmission window is much broader in the stratosphere, with O3 @ 10 & 15u playing the dominant role of any "longwave absorption" on very narrow absorption lines.

That is MUCH clearer now. Obviously ozone is significant in the stratosphere because ozone depletion is affecting stratospheric temperatures to an extent.

CO2 absorption above 11km is virtually nonexistant. H2O absorption is very attenuated. There is virtually no IR absorption by N2 and O2, they absorb UV radiant energy only and aquire heat from kinetic collision with IR active gasses.

OK. (I want to do a bit of research on this, but not while posting this reply.)

But until somebody reputable in the climate change community stands up and says "Ohmigod, we screwed up -- look at this paper by Hug and Barrett!", I am going to harbor my suspicion

The UN's IPCC and their modellers perhaps? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Not everybody is in the IPCC. What they need is a respected maverick: somebody who is known well enough to be influential, but someone who considers alternatives to the mainstream consensus. Not to drop names, but someone I am aware of who fits this "profile" is Raymond Pierrehumbert.

I'll continue to go along with these folks, until there is a clear and convincing demonstration of the validity the UN sponsored IPCC Global Warming bandwagon. That clear and convincing demonstration answering the counterpoints has yet to surface, and mere academic creditials bolstering yet more words in not going to do it.

Well, in that vein, I emailed Henry Pollack about some outstanding borehole temperature questions that I would like to resolve. Haven't heard back from him yet, but it has only been a day.

189 posted on 06/18/2002 1:31:13 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

there's no doubting the importance of the water vapor feedback we've been discussing.

LOL, the point I am trying to make, is not that water vapor cannot "act as a feedback", obviously it does in response to solar input through oceans, geological, biomass and anthropogenic mechanisms.

CO2 is added to and subtracted from the atomsphere from oceans, geological, biomass and anthropogenic mechanisms acting as a feedback to solar input in the same manner, though at an attenuated degree in comparison to H20.

The Position of IPCC is that the dominant driver is CO2 and everything else is considered as a source of minimal change(i.e. solar flux) or is a feedback in relation to CO2 forcings. The nonsense of IPCC and the UN agenda is to place CO2 into a politically dominant role and does so by identifying water vapor as a "feedback" redefining it into a secondary role and placing other minority IR active gases as "GHG" to encourage regulation anthropogenic CO2 sources as a political goal.

That IPCC characterisation, which Hansen repeats, is one of many things that I and others take objection to, for that characterisation obscures reality to support a political agenda.

190 posted on 06/18/2002 2:43:21 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Number_Cruncher
Just thought you might like to read this:

Glaciers Melting at an Accelerated Pace

191 posted on 07/18/2002 11:45:47 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Please see Fig. 9.1 of the TAR "Climatic interpretation of glacier records", compiled by Oerlemans, University of Utrecht, (Data from the World Glacier Monitoring Service). In nearly all the mountain glacier records, the vast bulk of glacial retreat occurred between 1900 and 1950, and the trends since then are not very clear. Not a very good proof of global warming and glacial retreat.

Glaciers have been melting for hundreds of years as the world has emerged from the Little Ice Age.
192 posted on 07/26/2002 4:40:44 PM PDT by Number_Cruncher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Number_Cruncher
Glaciers have been melting for hundreds of years as the world has emerged from the Little Ice Age.

The term "accelerated" was used in the article and in the title of the article. Do you agree or disagree with the author's assessments of the recent trends in Alaska?

What TAR are you referring to? IPCC's Third Assessment Report? I would find that surprising.

193 posted on 07/29/2002 8:07:39 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
You are missing the point. The figures shows that worldwide the melting of glaciers has decelerated in the last 50 years compared to the previous 50 years. Some glaciers in Alaska may be an exception to this deceleration.

One Alaskan glacier that is surging.

194 posted on 08/02/2002 1:59:25 PM PDT by Number_Cruncher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Number_Cruncher
The figures shows that worldwide the melting of glaciers has decelerated in the last 50 years compared to the previous 50 years.

First of all, was this from the IPCC TAR? What is the period of time the data covers? In an earlier exchange of posts, I noted that one of the articles you cited was for trends through 1993. The importance of the term "acceleration" is that it is being seen now.

Second, I'd like to know how the assessment is being made. The Alaska measurements are one data set. Another data set is in the Himalayas, where glaciers are melting at such a rate that the meltwater lakes below them are posing serious flood hazards.

There are a lot of glaciers in Alaska and the Himalayas. So "overall", where are glaciers not receding as fast?

195 posted on 08/05/2002 8:48:31 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
cogitator: "I predict that by 2012 a lot of these suggested trends will turn out to have been quite accurate predictors."

Always Right: "Oh please take me up on that. I have at least $10K I would put down against the wacko-environmentalist worst-worst-worst case computer similations being anywhere close to correct."

Considering the whackos were calling for an acceration of global warming and it flattened out, I am thinking I was correct.

Always Right: 1

Consensus of the Greatest Scientists in the world: 0

196 posted on 01/30/2012 10:04:40 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-196 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson