General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Devonian]

@ Devonian:

"My advice is, if you must read The Mail, to not take a blind bit of notice of it because it's all a load of baloney. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/03/tim-nicholson-climate-change-belief

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tim-nicholson-a-green-martyr-1648388.html

Perhaps it would be quicker for YOU to tell US which ones we can believe?

Well, I can't find a mention of your 'religious mania' and 'heretics' nonsense in either of them...but I do think reading either of them will give a good overview of what is going on.

Essentially, it seems to me the 'plaintiff' (Mr Nicholson) has been told he can proceed with a case under the regulations cited. Has he a winnable case? I'm not sure, though (again, reading your links) it might be interesting to see what the companies environment policy was and if a potential problem for the company is that Nicholson wanted to enforce those policies rather then they be simple window dressing...

Edited November 4, 2009 by Devonian

[Coast]

Wasn't sure where to stick this old news item, but it is obviously quite relevant to today and certainly for me living and working so close to Lewes at this time of year:

A significant share of the UK's annual dioxin emissions are released by Bonfire Night celebrations which also create a spike in levels of other pollutants as fireworks and smoke fill the sky.

According to environmental protection charity the NSCA, around 14% of the year's emissions of dioxins can be traced back to the festival fires with particulates, carbon dioxide and sulphur compounds also seeing a surge and small amounts of highly toxic chemicals like furans, heavy metal oxides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are also released by thousands of fireworks. The NSCA's Mary Stevens said it wasn't really surprising that we see an increase in pollution from the annual event.

"We get a couple of nights of the year when everybody sets fire to everything and pollution rockets," she told edie.

While industry has been tightly regulated and incinerators cleaned up to the point that almost no dioxins are released, the same is not the case for the solid fuels we burn in the home and garden. Most dioxin pollution comes from domestic combustion," said Ms Stevens.

"Coal fires, woods fires and open air burning all contribute and obviously at this time of year there are a lot more bonfires than usual and that has an impact on air quality." Although the chemical cocktails that make up fireworks contain toxins, the environmental impact of their deposits on soil and water is insignificant and their effect on air quality is also small.

"The impact of the fireworks themselves is minimal," said Ms Stevens. "It's very low and localised but if you let off a lot of fireworks in an enclosed area - say a stadium or a square surrounded by buildings - it can be an issue. It's common sense that the air quality is reduced if it's all smoky and smelly."

The centre piece of the celebrations - the bonfire - has, however, a far greater potential for pollution. "No combustion is clean and you don't want to be burning old sofas and painted wood," said Ms Stevens.

"Burning damp, treated wood is the worst thing you can do and weather conditions at this time of year can often make things worst. If it's damp, misty and there's no wind, that's perfect for pollution."

The NSCA is not making a case against celebrating Bonfire Night, she said, as the UK has few enough national festivals as it is, but there are things we can do to minimise its environmental impact.

"It's just a question of common sense - if you set fire to something and it just smoulders and smoulders, creates a lot of smoke or releases fumes that's going to be a problem," she said. "Go to a public display or, if you are having your own fire, only burn clean, dry material."

In recent years Government has restricted the sale of fireworks and banned 'screamers' due to the noise pollution and legislators are pushing for further controls, with Lindsay Hoyle MP tabling an Early Day Motion calling for a total ban on fireworks except for licensed displays. Ms Stevens said the NSCA was not in favour of such a ban, as it could create a black market for cheap, dangerous imports, but that it would support further restriction in sale of fireworks around bonfire night, which are currently in the shops from October 15 to November 10 compared to the three-day window allowed for other traditional events

www.edie.net

[Thundery wintry showers]

I note that the legislators are campaigning for more restrictions and even bans on fireworks, whereas the article implies that bonfires are the main source of CO2 emissions ("Penny for the Guy" and all that). Something tells me that the campaigns to ban fireworks are based on other lines of argument- "the rules have to prohibit anything that can be abused- you can't differentiate responsible people from abusers- HOW do you? You can't always tell if someone's breaking the rules!"

I support the idea of "greener" bonfires though.

[noggin]

I support the idea of "greener" bonfires though.

Wot....like this one.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225144/Health-safety-killjoys-ban-bonfire--thousands-watch-virtual-giant-TV-screen.html

:winky:

[Methuselah]

Well, I'm sure it would be easy to have an industry providing renewable firewood for bonfires?

[noggin]

I always thought that carbon-trading was a rather stupid idea. What plonker thought it up?

Anyway, it doesn't look as if it is making an impression.

Of any sort.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/6510147/Carbon-traders-deny-sub-prime-crisis-brewing.html

[Methuselah]

I agree, noggin...IMO, the whole idea of carbon trading is a political subterfuge.

[VillagePlank]

Next we'll be putting out forest fires in Southern France, California, and Australia, because of their carbon emmissions. Sod the life and species that require the fires to recur regularly ...

(OK - bit of a straw-man since no-ones's actually said that - but food for thought on how far these pomegranites actually want to take us)

[Gray-Wolf]

Next we'll be putting out forest fires in Southern France, California, and Australia, because of their carbon emissions. Sod the life and species that require the fires to recur regularly ...

(OK - bit of a straw-man since no-ones's actually said that - but food for thought on how far these pomegranites actually want to take us)

We all know that some species have depended on Forrest fires for reproduction but what of increased frequency, above and beyond the natural variation, of the very thing that drives the mechanism?

Do we not risk exterminating the species by the very means they depend upon for continuance?

If we look to southern Europe/Mediterranean or Western seaboard USA/Canada are we not seeing a rise in the occurrence of such fires driven by both extended drought and human interference?

If we burn the saplings before maturation how do we reproduce?

Edited November 7, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

We all know that some species have depended on Forrest fires for reproduction but what of increased frequency, above and beyond the natural variation

Good question! Where's the data of the frequency and intensity of forest fires on a global scale - surely it must be to hand because of the sheer quantity of gases pushed into the atmosphere, and, of course, it must be included in the global climate models ...

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sure you'll have no difficulties in unravelling that one V.P.!

Om another issue we are now at the point that southern ice is responding to the 'spring thaw' and for all those trumpeting it's excesses over the 30yr rolling average this southern winter it is now falling below it.

When you couple this with the Arctic 09' ice extent now being the lowest on record (for this time of year) it makes for an intriguing snapshot of global ice extent figures which must also be looking pretty shabby.

How much heat does it take to change ice to water?

How much extra heat must be around to facilitate the phenomena we are witnessing?

Where has that extra heat come from?

[Methuselah]

Good question! Where's the data of the frequency and intensity of forest fires on a global scale - surely it must be to hand because of the sheer quantity of gases pushed into the atmosphere, and, of course, it must be included in the global climate models ...

Possibly as a constant with an inbuilt measure of uncertainty, allowing for most 'freak' occurrences, VP? But surely, over millennia (and us being in no real position to predict them?) ephemeral/capricious events like natural forest fires must be assumed to have a nonaccumulative effect on climate?

I'm sure you'll have no difficulties in unravelling that one V.P.!

Om another issue we are now at the point that southern ice is responding to the 'spring thaw' and for all those trumpeting it's excesses over the 30yr rolling average this southern winter it is now falling below it.

When you couple this with the Arctic 09' ice extent now being the lowest on record (for this time of year) it makes for an intriguing snapshot of global ice extent figures which must also be looking pretty shabby.

How much heat does it take to change ice to water?

How much extra heat must be around to facilitate the phenomena we are witnessing?

Where has that extra heat come from?

edit: nonsene deleted...

[VillagePlank]

I'm sure you'll have no difficulties in unravelling that one V.P.!

Erm; I didn't assert a claim, so it's highly unlikely that I am going to spend time showing it to be the case!

Om another issue we are now at the point that southern ice is responding to the 'spring thaw' and for all those trumpeting it's excesses over the 30yr rolling average this southern winter it is now falling below it.

When you couple this with the Arctic 09' ice extent now being the lowest on record (for this time of year) it makes for an intriguing snapshot of global ice extent figures which must also be looking pretty shabby.

How much heat does it take to change ice to water?

How much extra heat must be around to facilitate the phenomena we are witnessing?

Where has that extra heat come from?

Erm ... thermodynamics 101 ... heat is a measure of temperature of a system or object - ie the amount of energy 'trapped' in a body (think if it like snooker balls in movement on a snooker table - the faster they move the more energy is there, so the snooker table measures warmer)

So how much energy does ice need to convert to a different phase (ice to water is a phase change) see here (first link on a search by Google)

So - back to thermodynamics 101 - if the ice-caps are melting, there is less energy elsewhere to warm the planet. Basic physics - the more the ice-caps melt the less energy there is for increasing temperature of the atmosphere. Of course, the atmosphere isn't basic physics, and the reflectivity effect must necessarily come into play.

The question that is of interest (to me) is ... does the insolation reflection vs. the quantity of energy taken out of the system by phase changes come back positive or negative? A secondary question - is the total amount of ice on the planet increasing or decreasing?

[Gray-Wolf]

If we look at the N. Hemisphere seasonal plots you can clearly see the 'recovery' plotted in the summer,spring and winter plots but the Autumn? the annual? The open water soaking up that energy seems not only to be a strong enough driver to keep the autumn fig, on a downward trend but is also strong enough to over-ride the 'gains' posted for the other 3 seasons.For those who don't yet grasp the significance of the Arctic Amplification this may prove useful.

EDIT: Didn't spot your response V.P.!

So the loss of N.Hem ice since 03' (keeping it permanently below the rolling Av. base line) is probably what reduced the warming in the atmosphere we have been seeing?

Once this ice is thinned to single year (as per the Antarctic) and so easier to melt in spring does this not ;

a/ release more energy to warm the atmosphere?

b/ open up a large area of extra ocean to be heated and thus delay ice reformation in winter allowing more energy to roam the atmosphere instead of turning water to ice in autumn and so lengthen the period of positive heat accumulation in the northern hemisphere??

Edited November 7, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

If we look at the N. Hemisphere seasonal plots you can clearly see the 'recovery' plotted in the summer,spring and winter plots but the Autumn? the annual? The open water soaking up that energy seems not only to be a strong enough driver to keep the autumn fig, on a downward trend but is also strong enough to over-ride the 'gains' posted for the other 3 seasons.For those who don't yet grasp the significance of the Arctic Amplification this may prove useful.

Err.. FAIL. Global data only please. You'd be the first to say that growing grapes in Yorkshire was a local effect - so we can conveniently ignore this on that basis?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Err.. FAIL. Global data only please. You'd be the first to say that growing grapes in Yorkshire was a local effect - so we can conveniently ignore this on that basis?

Global sea ice graph from Cryosphere Today (I believe the same source as the previously posted NH sea ice graph).

CB

EDIT - According to graphs from Crysophere Today, the NH sea ice anomaly is about 1.5 million below the long term average. The global sea ice anomaly is about 1.25 million below the long term average. So this means that SH sea ice is 0.25 million above the long term average?

Edited November 7, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[VillagePlank]

Surely not, CB - there must be some mistake. Global sea-ice levels back to their mean as it was in the late 1970's? That can't possibly be true. See, blog comment: here

Once this ice is thinned to single year (as per the Antarctic) and so easier to melt in spring does this not ;

a/ release more energy to warm the atmosphere?

b/ open up a large area of extra ocean to be heated and thus delay ice reformation in winter allowing more energy to roam the atmosphere instead of turning water to ice in autumn and so lengthen the period of positive heat accumulation in the northern hemisphere??

But, as per your source (adjusted to show global extents and not the ice-pack on Ben Nevis ) this is not what is being observed. Theory and observation should match ... shouldn't they?

I'll ask the question again.. does the insolation reflection vs. the quantity of energy taken out of the system by phase changes come back positive or negative? A secondary question - is the total amount of ice on the planet increasing or decreasing?

Edited November 7, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

Erm; I didn't assert a claim, so it's highly unlikely that I am going to spend time showing it to be the case!

Erm ... thermodynamics 101 ... heat is a measure of temperature of a system or object - ie the amount of energy 'trapped' in a body (think if it like snooker balls in movement on a snooker table - the faster they move the more energy is there, so the snooker table measures warmer)

So how much energy does ice need to convert to a different phase (ice to water is a phase change) see here (first link on a search by Google)

So - back to thermodynamics 101 - if the ice-caps are melting, there is less energy elsewhere to warm the planet. Basic physics - the more the ice-caps melt the less energy there is for increasing temperature of the atmosphere. Of course, the atmosphere isn't basic physics, and the reflectivity effect must necessarily come into play.

The question that is of interest (to me) is ... does the insolation reflection vs. the quantity of energy taken out of the system by phase changes come back positive or negative? A secondary question - is the total amount of ice on the planet increasing or decreasing?

Hi VP, do you mean the 'faster' the ice-caps are (in the process of) melting? I'm not trying to funny or anything...

The doomsday scenarios suggesting an ice-free Arctic give me the 'willies' for one main reason: the latent heat of the ice->water phase change is far greater than that required for merely warming-up water. IMO, melting ice (ignoring albedo!) is a self-limiting -ive feedback in a warming world...So, from where I'm sitting, there must be a degree of ice-cover (a threshold) below which, warming will accelerate. (As an ever-increasing component of heat will stay sensible?)

All this ASSUMES, other things being equal, that heat-in will exceed heat-out...Not a very tenable assumption, I know!

Bear with me, VP. I'm on an heuristic!

[VillagePlank]

Hi VP, do you mean the 'faster' the ice-caps are (in the process of) melting? I'm not trying to funny or anything...

The doomsday scenarios suggesting an ice-free Arctic give me the 'willies' for one main reason: the latent heat of the ice->water phase change is far greater than that required for merely warming-up water. IMO, melting ice (ignoring albedo!) is a self-limiting -ive feedback in a warming world...So, from where I'm sitting, there must be a degree of ice-cover (a threshold) below which, warming will accelerate. (As an ever-increasing component of heat will stay sensible?)

All this ASSUMES, other things being equal, that heat-in will exceed heat-out...Not a very tenable assumption, I know!

Bear with me, VP. I'm on an heuristic!

Yup - mainly true, but ... we can't just look at the Arctic and correlate to global temperatures - and this, tacitly, is what is going on here - the place is in darkness for 6 months of the year! This is certainly worthy of some good modelling, science, and mathematics - and the calculus to do this is well known, and easy to find ... perhaps another thread?

Edited November 7, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

CB

EDIT - According to graphs from Cryosphere Today, the NH sea ice anomaly is about 1.5 million below the long term average. The global sea ice anomaly is about 1.25 million below the long term average. So this means that SH sea ice is 0.25 million above the long term average?

Looks to me like both anom lines (from C.Today) are below the average?

I know C.T. are 3 or 4 days behind in their 'daily plots' d'ya think you may be looking at older data still?

We are both looking at the 'time of year plots ' as well aren't we?

- the place is in darkness for 6 months of the year!

So no energy from the sun is present over that time? even when that energy was soaked up by water elsewhere (or air masses) and transported into the region?

EDIT: The northern Hem.s ice burden appears to be being eroded (not only sea ice but land based ice) and surely when this is at an end more energy is then available for other 'job's'?

Edited November 7, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

So no energy from the sun is present over that time? even when that energy was soaked up by water elsewhere (or air masses)

YES!!!! and it's released over time depending on how much energy is actually there. Sound familiar?

Edited November 7, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

YES!!!! and it's released over time depending on how much energy is actually there. Sound familiar?

Oh yes V.P. it does! but I think Pete and I are mooting that there may well be more energy becoming available into that system when the energy spent on ice melt is no longer required to do that job.

What happens to the L.I. model at this point? no more energy is majiked into being just 'redeployed' from other previously 'balanced' areas.

Do we see change?

Edited November 7, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

Yup - mainly true, but ... we can't just look at the Arctic and correlate to global temperatures - and this, tacitly, is what is going on here - the place is in darkness for 6 months of the year! This is certainly worthy of some good modelling, science, and mathematics - and the calculus to do this is well known, and easy to find ... perhaps another thread?

I take your point about 'total' ice - true of course...Good idea about another thread but, tbh, my maths is certainly not quite up to it.

[VillagePlank]

Oh yes V.P. it does! but I think Pete and I are mooting that there may well be more energy becoming available into that system when the energy spent on ice melt is no longer required to do that job.

According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law the more energy there is the faster the energy will be released - and the less energy there is, the slower it will be to lose.

There might well be a tipping point - I think that there is, and that this neatly explains the maximum temperature on the Vostok ice-core record (ever noticed that there actually is a maximum temperature of the planet?) where as soon as that temperature is reached the planet quickly descends into an ice-age.

What happens to the L.I. model at this point? no more energy is majiked into being just 'redeployed' from other previously 'balanced' areas.

See comments above - that point is undefined being that the LI is a continuous not a discrete function. Think of it this way - the rate of change of temperature will be smooth with either gradual extent loss or gain. If it disappeared in an instant (impossible) then they'd be such a step change. But it won't, so it's a hypothetical question that, whilst interesting, is pretty much a red herring.

Edited November 7, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law the more energy there is the faster the energy will be released - and the less energy there is, the slower it will be to lose.

Would that be the one that (with a black-body radiating into a perfect vacuum) depends on T⁴; and when adapted to heat flow (from one body to another) on T₁⁴-T₂⁴?

There might well be a tipping point - I think that there is, and that this neatly explains the maximum temperature on the Vostok ice-core record (ever noticed that there actually is a maximum temperature of the planet?) where as soon as that temperature is reached the planet quickly descends into an ice-age.

Of that, I remain unconvinced...Just because the planet's never exceeded a certain temperature, doesn't make that certain temperature an unbreachable barrier?