A bipolar solar disorder 12

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Ana Unruh Cohen Posted 1:32 pm
   19 Apr 2006

   Real dimmingReal Climate has more on the science behind the show.

   Permalink

2. 

   originalbranek Posted 2:12 am
   20 Apr 2006

   DimmingThe show was an eye opener. What amazed me the most was the effects of having aircraft in NA grounded for the 3 days following 9/11.Also,does anyone remember the famous London fog? They don't get that anymore because the particulate from their chimineys is no longer a problem.

   Permalink

3. 

   atreyger Posted 2:21 am
   20 Apr 2006

   YepAnother factor that no one mentions is the carbon deep sea cycle. The water in the oceans completes a full cycle in about 300 years. Right now, the water in the ocean (not algae, different, but related issue) is sequestering CO2 and is being 'dragged' under not to return for 300 years. The areas of upwelling around the western portion of all continents are bringing up atmospheric gases from 300 years ago. That means that right now we are only feeling the effects of the initial Industrial Age carbon from the oceans, while in 300 years earth will experience the carbon from now. Most climate prediction scenarios are only geared for the next 100 years, without taking this into account (rightfully so).
   Can you see the potential problem?

   Permalink

4. 

   Wiseacre Posted 5:49 am
   20 Apr 2006

   global CO2 riseI know this comment may ire, or fail to inspire,  but it really distresses me to see the environmental community putting its rep on the line by presuming to know the outcomes of anthropomorphic global CO2 rise. Granted the disturbance threatens current patterns and distribution of life on earth. Granted a precautionary approach, including Kyoto, is warrented at this time.
   However, the CO2 rise is not necessarily synonymous with sea level rise, global warming and other outcomes. Add to the list of possible outcomes incipient glaciation. The modeling and data for substatiating any outcomes are only at a point where ultimate outcomes are in the realm of wild speculation.
   As an example: ask any of your favorite sea level rise researchers whether any of the models and studies used on, deep ocean currents, sea level change, temperature and precipitation ever factor in intra annual (seasonality)scales of change in distribution of precipitation. Or whether the ice and ocean sediment records can parse out fine distributory effects.
   Consider the massive snow packs that have failed to completely melt in the high seirra the last few years-why? the rain fall has been skewed from recent historical  6 month Bell shape Oct - March to a 7 month or longer snow season with significant late season precip.
   So, while continuing to advocate for caution and conservation, can we start to broaden our view on the possible outcomes of human induced CO2 change. Over the long haul it may add to our credibility.
   
   SJR

   Permalink

5. 

   Wiseacre Posted 5:53 am
   20 Apr 2006

   whoopsthat should be anthropogenic CO2
   
   SJR

   Permalink

6. 

   atreyger Posted 1:48 pm
   20 Apr 2006

   See, I disagreeI don't see how incipient glaciation could occur with CO2 rise. I mean, it's true that local glaciers may become larger due to the change in local precip and temps. But with the fact that the vast majority of large glaciers are melting, rather than building, I don't see how an ice age could form any time soon. It's not like "Day after tommorow", it will more likely be on the order of a millenia or two at best.

   Permalink

7. 

   amazingdrx Posted 9:15 pm
   20 Apr 2006

   No"...can we start to broaden our view on the possible outcomes of human induced CO2 change."
   We can't.  We have to start calling whatever it is that is happening global climate disaster.
   No more coddling the corporatists who would use any waffling on our part to encourage agribizz ethanol, clean coal, and nuclear power.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

8. 

   Wiseacre Posted 3:43 am
   21 Apr 2006

   global climatedr.x,
   
   I do not disagree with calling it the global climate disaster or the urgency that should propel such a message into the chambers of the "deciders".
   atretyger,
   
   Not to belabor the point, but, our credibility suffers when new information such as the particulate anomaly reveals that the warming may not be occurring at the intensity indicated by models and limited monitoring.
   Consider this small thought exercise: If ice ages are possible (we cannot ignore the evidence)by what mechanisms would the earths oceans be evaporated and that moisture be driven to the poles to fall as frozen water in quantities sufficient to drop oceam levels by 100 feet or greater and simultaneously build ice fields 1000 feet deep in geologically breif timeframes. The best answer, maybe the only reasonable answer, would be a sharp, breif but unsustainable rise in temperature. Go to
   
   http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
   
   to see more.
   My point being, the environmental movement needs to be more circumspect with re to claims of outcomes. Such reserve can only improve the efficency with which the message of climactic disruption will be distributed. Sound the alarm, yes; foster debate,yes; demand action, yes; be effective!
   
   SJR

   Permalink

9. 

   Wiseacre Posted 3:47 am
   21 Apr 2006

   climate disastercircuspect with regard to the cold earth outcome as well!!
   
   SJR

   Permalink

10. 

    sunflower Posted 7:19 am
    21 Apr 2006

    "global brightening"A theory exists that "Ice Ages" are caused by "global brightening" which cause plants to more efficiently absorb CO2 effecting a reverse global warming, that is "global cooling".  "Global dimming" may be a significant cause of increased CO2 from plants not seeing as much light and absorbing less CO2.  A solution to global warming may exist in global brightening accelerating plant and plankton growth.

    Permalink

11. 

    amazingdrx Posted 11:05 pm
    21 Apr 2006

    HmmmThat "global brightening" brings up an idea sunflower.
    How about floating net devices of some kind that use wind and wave power to areate the ocean to a greater degree?  The CO 2 would be locked into accelerated algae growth and ocean food cycles.
    This would be an effect of floating wavepower stations also, but could it be enough to signifigantly effect the global greenhouse gas balance?
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

12. 

    sunflower Posted 1:45 am
    22 Apr 2006

    PlanktonThe ocean is a big place, lots of surf.  The point is to reduce particulates so that plankton can flourish on sunlight and CO2.

    Permalink