Someone a few pages back wanted to know the 1971 name given to that supposed "new form of water" created in capillary tubes. As I recall from reading about it back then, it was called "poly-water", and was supposed to be a new form. However, subsequent investigation apparently determined it was simply an artifact of the capillaries, and not a new form of water. That leads me to wonder/question about the touting of a new form of water and a new type of bond other than the well-detailed covalent bonding of HOH, in which even the angle of the H atoms jutting away from the Oxygen atom is well-measured. As to Earth's climate, if it is getting warmer, the cause is not yet proven, though it might well be due to the well-measured increase in CO2 content, as many computer models predict. There are lots of other factors, and yes, we might well see the start of another Ice-Age as was being predicted in the 1970s due to the increasing CO2 levels, instead of a warming trend. However, all the melting/retreating glaciers seems to indicate that the oceans will rise slightly, and the green-house model might be proven correct. And just what did cause those Mammoths in the Arctic region to suddenly die while eating grasses, and end up buried in snow and frozen for millenia, only to be found in recent times with green grass still in their guts? If you take a look at the shorelines, it is easy to see from the remaining 'benches' found around the globe and on all the continents, going upslope as much as 100 meters, that the oceans have been much higher in ages past, and likewise we know they were as much as 100 meters lower in ages past. I guess we'll have to have our grand-kids tell us whether our CO2 emissions caused an Ice-Age, or a global Melt-Down. I believe I read somewhere that the last Ice-Age ended 18,000 to 12,000 years ago, raising the oceans some 80 meters during the melt-down, and the oceans stabilized their level to about 50 feet lower than today between 12,000 years ago to about 10,000 years ago (stable at that level for about 2,000 years). Thereafter there was then another further warming and melt over a few centuries, raising the ocean the last 50 feet to their current level, where it's been stable for the past 10,000 years. It was that last 'push' that then flooded the Black Sea region (which was below sea-level, much like Death Valley in California, but protected by the higher ground between the region and the then-somewhat-smaller-Mediterranean) through the Dardanelles, etc., flooding prime farm-land and pushing the villagers out (and giving rise to tales of people fleeing to hill-tops, and then having to take to boats with all their live-stock because even the hill-tops became covered with the rising waters - sound familiar?). That region is apparently being researched for those now-undersea villages, and some have apparently been found. Anyway, this is a diverse topic and it likely won't be resolved until we actually see more extinctions of corals from warming die-offs, or an actuall substantial few inches in rise in the ocean levels, which might well happen this century.
Excellent, reminds me of a joke. Man comes the bar and join a group of people. One of them says: "15" and everybody starts to grin When it's silent again another one answers: "11" and everybody laughs again. "33" shouts another, which is considered very hilarious again. So our newcomer is very puzzled and inquires what for goodness sake is going on. Well said his neighbours, we have heard all the jokes so many times so we numbered all of them, so it does not take so much time to tell them. "Ah, right", reacted the new visitor, then another one said: "63" and the crowd went beserk, rolling on the floor laughing, puzzling the visitor again :bugeye: . "Now, why is this so funny" he wants to know. "Well simple, it's a new one, we haven't heard it before." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Interglacial sea level maxima vary from 3 - 20 metres higher than today. The warmest part of the present interglacial period occurred shortly after the end of the last ice age when sea levels may have been 3 - 6 metres higher than at present.
BBCi TV aired program today called: "Clmate Chaos.*" (mainly experts and some flood etc. photos.) Most interesting part (to me) was that NOAA has been yielding to pressure from the whitehouse edits of reports. They some how got copies of the text corrected by the administration. Many examples of where the orginal report of the scientist was changed to soften impact. For example, (and only that as I did not take notes) if scietist said: "If current rate of greenhouse gas used continues, then the sea levels will rise 3 meters in next 50 years" became after Whitehouse mark up: "If current rate of greenhouse gas release increases, then the sea levels might rise 3 meters in next 50 years." After hurricane Kitrina and NASA's announcement that 2005 was the "hottest year on record" the head of NOAA was told to and did issue the very doubios statement: "There is no connection between global warming and Kitrina." NASA seems to be less vulnerable to this political pressure. BBC identified 4 of Bush's cabinet members with interest is discountion the need to limit green house gases, two were ex-oil industry CEO or nearly equivalent level. One was same of auto industry and fourth I do not remember, but also major executvie in some energy field. Bush himself is ex-CEO of minor oil company, which did not do well under his leadership. (I can't resist adding: like the US under his leadership.) Not much new on the technical front, but a good insite into how the Bush government is forcing the science to support Bush's agenda. I recommend the program, if you can see BBCi. there may be something at WWW.BBCworld.com.uk if they show again. (Check the TV schedule. note the "i" in BBCi is the international edition. ------------------------------------------------------ *BBC News The World Uncovered (r) Global Warming: Bush's Climate Of Fear American scientists accuse the Bush administration of a systematic six-year-long campaign to conceal the threat of global warming. Panorama investigates allegations that reports on climate change were altered in order to play down the scale of the problem. Above is all I found. found that that: http://www.bbcworld.com/content/template_tvlistings_net.asp?pageid=668#start For more on how US government is run for benefit of few wealthy big campaign contributers at the expense of the average citizen see thread: "How DUMB can US Voters be?" in the "Politics" forum posted 25 June 06.
Make that: "If current low albedo decreases, then the sea levels might rise 3 meters in next 50 years." Because it was the lack of clouds that caused the warming in the last decades: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The source however, Pallé et al (2006) is unaware of that strong correlation between the temperature and albedo It says: "Can Earth's Albedo and Surface Temperatures Increase Together?" Now if you apply Stefan Boltzman on the 10% albedo variation this would give a blackbody temperature variation of some 2.75 K but in reality it is only 0,5 degrees, which suggests that the oceans provided a strong negative feedback by adsorption of the insolation and getting warming up in the process. Of course IR re-radiation caused by greenhouse gas effect cannot penetrate water and could not have caused the ocean heating. So with this albedo variation the sequence appears to be the old hypothesis: Increase of Solar magnetic induced field -> deflection of particles towards the poles -> less condensation nuclei -> Less clouds, lower albedo -> more insolation -> global warming. Now how about: That's indeed questionable when global warming is caused by more sunlight and less clouds. However, the statement: "There is no connection between increase of greenhouse gasses and Katrina." is definitely rock solid. Why? Hurricanes are associated with high sea surface temperatures. Because IR radiation (which should have increased slightly due to the greenhouse gasses) does not penetrate in water and cannot transfer energy to water. Visible light however does penetrate about 100 meters before complete adsorption, transferring into heat. So, if the ocean surface temperatures have been higher than normal in the recent years, then that would be another confirmation of the correctness of the Less albedo - more sunlight - surface heating - negative feedback of ocean idea.
To andre: As usual, your post is informative. I was only noting in my BBCi post that the political process over rides the scientific one. It may be that the politicians are correct, in this case. I do not know, but do not like this process and do note that the US is quite alone in its position except for, I think, Australia. I have occasionally wondered about the cleaning up of particular emissions. This obvious "pollution” from diesel trucks and power plants (before they all had to install filters) may have had some effect on the lack of clouds. Could it be that the "Greens" have messed things up again? Perhaps if more CO2 etc is to be released, and we want to avoid ever stronger hurricanes etc associated with warmer oceans, we need a more cloud forming particles in the air, especially at high altitudes - hey wait a minute - that give me an idea! We could make all airplanes burn dirty fuel and leave "smoke trails" in the sky. :bugeye:
Always happy to be informative, Billy, especially when it exposes the "science-is-settled, discussion-has-ended, overwhelming-evidence, general-consensus, sceptics-are-scum" type of demagoguery. And there is plenty more where this is coming from. Australia BTW, is a country of extremes. The global warming sceptics are most active there, but the National policy is way above average warming. Something similar is true for Britain (BBC leading) and Sweden. The western country that is chilling the quickest currently, is Canada, thanks to a truely most courageous heroine in charge for climate change, Rona Ambrose. Talking about Antropogenic Global Warming, it's well known that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is minor compared to water vapor but the key of the matter is the following construction: positive feedbacks. The strongest feedback factor is supposed to be that higher atmospheric temperatures allow for more water vapor, which is the strongest greenhouse gas, causing more greenhouse effect, causing more warming and hence, more water wapor, etc, etc. Well, how about a reality check: http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/enfuem/2006/20/i03/abs/ef050276y.html Probably the study escaped the censoring because the abstract obscures the real conclusion which is in chapter six: I stop here, to allow for the impact. More on the role of aviation in climate later
After reading the entire thread i thought i'd make a quick comment As an Australian i'm quite proud of the way the Australian Government is handling the situation. The amount of greenies here that complain about contradictory things is unbelievable. "Oh we're polluting the atmosphere and we're not doing enough to change it", "Oh i can't drive my car to work because petrol is too high" etc etc... Your comments Andre are very inciteful, for many years now i've been trying to explain to people the whole climate change situation/problem, including causes and effect. Unfortunately i usually get a brick wall from people (Usually Anti John Howard(The Prime Minister)) debating the "Usual Arguments". One question i do have however, is in the 1940's, there was a significant decrease in the earths temperature, which in turn had people proclaiming "Another Ice Age is around the corner". As you can see now that argument is practically dead. What is your opinion on that situation and what could have caused it?
If so, Perhaps take a look here and find a lot of (prominent) people inside with a similar mission. But I guess the moderater is on holiday presently. I'll repost this sometimes. The cold spell was most noticable in the Arctic as can be seen here from the data of the GHNC stations at lattitudes higher than 70 degrees which I plotted as functrion of four gridcells: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Alarmist are more than happy to show only the last 35 years of that graph but the last century actually displays no significant trend. But what caused these variations? The graph suggests a decadal scale cycle, wich could be solar or a composition of several oceanic/atmospheric cycles, like the NAO, the ENSO. Obsiviously several people are working on the explanation but thus far there is nothing conclusive. But then again, how to explain all those natural cycles as can be seen here in a (tentative) reconstruction of the Greenland ice core temperatures (Alley 2000) of the last 20,000 years and the warming of the last decade projected in the blow up in red: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Absolutely fascinating stuff Andre. You don't leave much for the "Man Made Global Warming" enthusiast to argue about. From what i can gather, if we lived roughly about 11,700BC then the same computer models that predict our doom so eloquantly, would have had a heart attack. I imagine that jump was because we were coming out of an ice age? That link you provided is very inciteful... Its a pity so many people, for political or social reasons have hijacked the global warming debate and used it to force their opinions or way of life that ultimately detriments most humans. I think ultimately it wouldn't hurt to reduce greenhouse gases in a reasonable economical way, but lets get real here... We're not going to die from a "The Day after Tomorrow" calamity.
P.S. The graph of most recent years appears to be sinosoidal... correct me if i'm wrong... following that logic, is it possible we'll see a decline in temperature based on that graph? Not that temperature is the most important factor in GW, but yeah, just interesting to know
Well that's not how it works, Steve, you know that. A little demonization of skeptics, ad honimens and poisoning the well and nobody is listening anymore. But if you look at the empirical historic evidence and not at alleged agenda's and bribery money of oil companies, there is not much left. Well that jump, there are libraries written about that and I spend a good deal of years looking at those spikes. And indeed the orginal global warming scare is based on those. "Ten degrees of temperature change within a decade" was the slogan in the early 1990ies. And it could happen again. There is your catastrophical antropogenic warming scenario with flickering climates and tipping points. Go over it and you jump ten degrees. This is what the alarmism is all about and if you look at those jumps, who can blame them? I can prove (and explain why) those jumps are not the temperature changes that they appear to be and what those have to do with the extinction of the Mammoth and other megafauna of the Northern hemisphere. As a matter of fact, I did most of that in several older threads here. The problem however, is that it utterly and completely falsifies current paradigms of the ice age and its support for the case of global warming. So, who wants to listen to a guy who is in the demonized corner in the first place anyway.
Perhaps this should be in the "clever car" thread, but as some think the point here is to reduce green house gases - will tell how: Make car that runs on pure carbon dust. Certainly possible, and pehaps does not even need oil for lubercation as that is like graphite. True the exhaust will be pure CO2, but none of that much worse greenhouse gas H2O, which all hydrocarbon fuels and even alcohol make. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
When water is bad Billy, we call it Di Hydro Monoxide (DHMO) Anyway, the idea that any of the greenhouse gasses play a major role in global warming gets disputed every now and then. Here for instance: http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/enfuem/2006/20/i03/abs/ef050276y.html Essenhigh, Robert H., 2006. Prediction of the Standard Atmosphere Profiles of Temperature, Pressure, and Density with Height for the Lower Atmosphere by Solution of the (S-S) Integral Equations of Transfer and Evaluation of the Potential for Profile Perturbation by Combustion Emissions. Energy & Fuels Vol. 20, No 3, pp. 1057-1067, May 17, 2006 Nothing spectacular in the abstract however the conclusions (ch6) state: this is followed by an alternative hypothesis that may or may not prove to be right but that's not the point. For checking the full PDF, pm me, it's worth it. It's likely that there is consensus about a warming period from about 1980 to 1998, like there is about boiling water. Apparantly there is no consensus about it's cause.
Every time some moron claims that global warming is merely nonsense invented by a PC liberal media, or that there is noteable controversy in the scientific community about whether global warming is occuring, I reserve the right to punch a kitten in the face... hard. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 Cut the Republican bullshit. There is no notable controversy in the scientific community when it comes to the issue of global warming. You have a few fruit loops who have interests in the oil business attempting to muddy the water, but the scientific community is united when it comes to the fact that global warming is occuring, and is at least partially due to human activities. Good god, you people are idiots. Are you aware that Americans have become the laughing stock of the world, because laymen are debating about whether a scientifically established event is occurring? First evolution, now global warming. Fuck, you people are incredible.
Let's see......Hmmmm? When glaciers are continuously rapidly melting worldwide over the the past 50 to 75 years and not to mention what's happening in Antartica. Is that not caused by increased global atmospheric temperatures? If not, then what causes glaciers to melt? Global cooling? Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
A few usuful links: NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study. "This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters "Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sun Energy Output At Over 1,000 Year Peak Sami Solanki, Professor at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich Switzerland, says the Sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years than over the previous 1090 years. http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002242.html
That's interesting, and probably relevent, even though the amount of light hitting the Earth is lower than in the past due to pollution, it's called Global Dimming. This effect must have been masking the full effects of global warming.
>> But what caused these variations? how about WW2... sunk boats, bombs and broken tanks increasing the oil slick and lately just the continuing onslaught on the seas by cars/industry/war emissions is thickening the oil layer. CO2 ? LOL, no the world is drying out Southern hemisphere... badly Northern hemisphere, it will lag a while, and dry out much more slowly... a lot of ice and land mass up there But eventually all the waters of the world will be under the oil layer on the sea. And how long will this hydrology disruption stay..... ?? more than long enough to see most humans out.... an axis tilt can not be ruled out... and after ? catastrophic re-evaporation -----> ice age Who would have thought substitutuing the car for the horse would lead to annihilation
