Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Let us revisit the OP claims.

Zharkova's news release is misrepresented.

“In the press release, we didn’t say anything about climate change,” Valentina Zharkova told USA TODAY. “My guess is when they heard about Maunder minimum, they used Wikipedia or something to find out more about it.” ...

Seems we are running in circles. Let me repost what I wrote last time:

Originally Posted by adoxograph

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2120566

Not at all. But for different reasons. Only big change in solar output would have a impact on temperature.

The reference you quoted is very accurate and a nice understandable sumary, except the last paragraph. I'll tell you why the last paragraph is making Valentina pulling her hair out.

I met Prof. Valentina Zharkova at a convention in Tenarife. At breakfast one of our group called her the "ice queen": because of the storm of misinformation her paper has caused. She was not amused.

Nowhere in her paper did she mention any form of cooling. Her paper was about a model for the sun’s magnetic field and sunspots, which predicts a 60% fall in sunspot numbers when extrapolated to the 2030s.

Btw. I work with Zharkova's model determining spots and magnetic activities on exoplanetary host stars.

The whole thing started when the PR guy of the Royal Society called her preparing a press release. As he did not understand "solar activities at a minimum" she said something along the line of "you know like the Maunder minimum" in the middle ages. The overly diligent PR guy made a mini-iceage out of that and released the whole thing without her knowledge.

She regrets having done this every time a Journalist calls asking for information about global cooling predicted by her.

Why does it not matter? Earth systems will always reach a state of radiative equilibrium that is

incoming radiative energy from the Sun = outgoing radiation of planet

That means that the planet is in energy balance. If a planet is not in radiative equilibrium the temperature of the planet will increase or decrease.

The amount of incoming radiation depends on the albedo of the planet or in other word the amount of incoming radiation which is not reflected back out in space. The amount of incoming radiation is determined by

P_in=(σT_⊙^4)(4πR_⊙^2)(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))

where (σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 ) represents the luminosity and a the albedo. Rp is the radius of the planet and D the distance to the star.

Considering the planet as a blackbody any radiation reaching the planet is radiated as heat (Stefan-Boltzman Law) as follows:

P=σAT^4

where T is temperature. A is the area (=4πR_p^2) as a planet most likely emits radiation spread over the whole surface which is close to a sphere. Therefore the outgoing radiation is

P_out=(σT_eq^4)(4πR_p^2)
where Teq is ((L_⊙ (1-a))/(16σπD^2 ))^(1/4)

Consequently the planet is in radiative equilibrium when

(σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 )(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))=(σT_eq^4 )(4πR_p^2 )

What does that mean for Earth? Assuming the surface of the earth without atmosphere would pretty barren I assume an albedo a=0.12 (similar to the Moon). R_⊙=6.96×108m, T_⊙=5778K, D=1.496×1011m. Rearanging the above equations we can determine T_eq by

T_eq=T_⊙ (1-a)^(1/4) (R_⊙/2D)^(1/2)=5778K(1- 0.12)^(1/4) ((6.96×10^8 m)/(2*1.496×10^11 m))^(1/2)=269.9K

If we consider Earth’s real albedo of a=0.3 we get an even lower T_eq of 254.9K. The difference to the real measured average temperature on the surface of the earth of ~287K is caused by greenhouse effect of earth’s relatively thick atmosphere. So first of all we should be grateful for the greenhouse gases, because without them Earth would be a frozen ball of ice and we would most likely not existat all.

You see solar activity plays a rather minor role. Most of the temperature control happens in the atmosphere. Maybe I'll show you how that works when I have time to prepare something.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Attachment 127852

(Clipped from the website https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/...wolf-syndrome/)

The article at the link is a good read. It suggests that the past can sometimes be a reliable predictor of the future, and that a future radically different from an observable past must have very strong arguments for support.

It also makes the case that warming ain't so bad...that it's the cooling that'll kill you. I think the author makes a good case.

Really? Anyone who includes the global cooling myth of the 1970's is not credible. In the 1970's, science was 6:1 warming:cooling.

The past could be a good predictor, but the conditions have changed substantially.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Now that's not very nice. In fact it's very rude, condescending and arrogant. I have more of a clue about climate change than you would ever be able to comprehend. You see I ask questions. Those who don't ask questions. Or I should say those who don't question hypothesis and therom and question rigorously are the non scientists. Challenging assumptions and observations is so fundamental to science that if it's not done then it can not be called science. And those who ridicule such questioning can hardly call themselves scientists.

If you had any inkling of climate change science you would have questioned the misrepresentation of Zharkova's presentation. You just blindly accepted it; you did not challenge it.

Read adoxograph's post above.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ok, here's a crackpot theory for you. All organisms on the planet have evolved to fill a niche. Human societies, almost without exception, have utilised fire. Perhaps our niche is to consume energy. Sound crazy, yes?

well, you did warn us.

Well, pause and think about it for a moment. Prior to humans, all excess energy collected in the environment. Vast forests, dead wood, lakes of oil, reservoirs of gases and stratas of coal. This vast store of energy collected over many, many millennia and was reaching the point where it posed a very real risk to endangering all life on earth. It endangered life by locking up carbon. Carbon vital for maintaining a temperate climate and for providing raw building material for all plant life. It also resulted in an extremely volatile, high fire risk environment. In simple terms, humans simply returned the CO2 to the environment in a controlled manner that plants had previously extracted.

So, along comes humans, to solve the problem. They consume this excess energy, releasing the by products back to the natural cycle. In fact we become so good at filling this niche that not only do we loose most of our hair (because we can just light a fire to keep warm) but we are so efficient that no other species, aside from Neanderthal man of course, evolves to compete with us in this niche.

I keep looking for the winky.

Microbes, fungi, bacteria - all are massively more efficient at processing organic material, there's way more of them, and they are capable of changing and adapting at a rate that's orders of magnitude faster than mammals.

So, no, I suspect the planet doesn't have an ecological need for mass-scale, rapid release of the carbon sequestered in fossil fuel.

When the energy runs out, the niche disappears and human populations will shrink en-masse, just as with any other organism that has it's niche disappear.

All is not lost, however, as a simple solution to feed our need to consume energy in a fossil fuel devoid world is to create a [X]

Well, since our massive brains can foresee the end of fossil fuels, should we not get on with the job of creating new sustainable energy source X, Y, or Z, and make better use of known alternatives like N(uclear)? And maybe moderate the consumption of fossil fuels to make them last longer?

In North America, the growing car segments are trucks, SUVs and muscle cars. Is this the action of a society that cares whether developing countries have all the cheap energy they will need? This fact lays bare the hypocrisy of many deniers.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Missed the whole point again?

The OP said it is going to get cooler. Which is quite possible.

And since cold is more harmful than warm, we should be preparing to deal with it.

I am selling glacier insurance as a side line to my rapture pet care company.

Would you like a quote?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Really? Anyone who includes the global cooling myth of the 1970's is not credible.

The stench of hypocrisy overwhelms...

If your measure of credibility is a single point of error, you would have abandoned the pro-AGW/CC arguments a long time ago.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

well, you did warn us.

I keep looking for the winky.

Microbes, fungi, bacteria - all are massively more efficient at processing organic material, there's way more of them, and they are capable of changing and adapting at a rate that's orders of magnitude faster than mammals.

So, no, I suspect the planet doesn't have an ecological need for mass-scale, rapid release of the carbon sequestered in fossil fuel.

Well, since our massive brains can foresee the end of fossil fuels, should we not get on with the job of creating new sustainable energy source X, Y, or Z, and make better use of known alternatives like N(uclear)? And maybe moderate the consumption of fossil fuels to make them last longer?

In North America, the growing car segments are trucks, SUVs and muscle cars. Is this the action of a society that cares whether developing countries have all the cheap energy they will need? This fact lays bare the hypocrisy of many deniers.

Microbes do two tenths of zip. I know you alarmist types don't like observable facts to get in the way of a good theory, but if microbes were so crash hot at processing organic material we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Microbes do two tenths of zip. I know you alarmist types don't like observable facts to get in the way of a good theory, but if microbes were so crash hot at processing organic material we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we?

Finally. The winky.

But pray continue. Your take on microbiology is novel.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Microbes do two tenths of zip.

OK... wish I had put on my glasses. I read that as: "microbes do two tenths of a lap"..



Carry on..

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

And what models would they be?

Manabe, S., and R.J. Stouffer. 1980. "Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere." Journal of Geophysical Research 85, 5529–5554.

[GoingWalkabout]

Reefmagnet said "All is not lost, however, as a simple solution to feed our need to consume energy in a fossil fuel devoid world is to create a worldwide grid of linked solar (and perhaps wind and tidal also) farms to solve the current problems with supply using these technologies."

Typical AGW nonsense. You obviously are not a nature preservationist since you don't care how many birds are slaughtered by your fanciful windmills. As for solar replacing fossil fuels the energy figures just don't add up. The land to power ratio is horrible and would end up making so much of our land mass unusable. As for tidal energy, good luck with that energy boondoggle.

I see you left out nuclear. Various forms of existing and yet to be created nuclear reactors can in fact replace most of our fossil fuel energy. Disposal has always been the issue however with creative solutions as inner earth and or space disposal methods I'm convinced the trash can effectively be put out of harms way.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Every once in a while it's important to have a reminder here.
The MMGW Cultists are not debating Science, they are not advancing a Scientific theory or hypotheses with testable and provable models, as science requires. So to debate, argue and deal with them on that level is a waste of your valuable time.

They are Jihadists on a Religious Pilgrimage from the Church of Gia.
CO2 is the Sin.
Carbon credits their indulgences.
CO2 reduction and raising awareness of is their Gospel and redemption.
Climate Change Deniers are their infidels.
Just listen to them, don't you want to "save the world" from the evils of man?

Once you understand what you are dealing with, so much of their nonsensical arguments start to make sense when views as a Religion.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Every once in a while it's important to have a reminder here.
The MMGW Cultists are not debating Science, they are not advancing a Scientific theory or hypotheses with testable and provable models, as science requires. So to debate, argue and deal with them on that level is a waste of your valuable time.

They are Jihadists on a Religious Pilgrimage from the Church of Gia.
CO2 is the Sin.
Carbon credits their indulgences.
CO2 reduction and raising awareness of is their Gospel and redemption.
Climate Change Deniers are their infidels.
Just listen to them, don't you want to "save the world" from the evils of man?

Once you understand what you are dealing with, so much of their nonsensical arguments start to make sense when views as a Religion.

Since they're apparently so frustrated trying to convert the infidels from the civilized world, maybe they'd be better off proselytizing to other types of true believers.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Attachment 127852

(Clipped from the website https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/...wolf-syndrome/)

The article at the link is a good read. It suggests that the past can sometimes be a reliable predictor of the future, and that a future radically different from an observable past must have very strong arguments for support.

It also makes the case that warming ain't so bad...that it's the cooling that'll kill you. I think the author makes a good case.

Originally Posted by Wanderlust

Just picking up on the chart posted by fryewe, look what happens if you crop the future predictions.

The present looks uncannily similar to the past doesn't it? The time is right for another peak. So what caused those virtually identical spikes in the past? When will a model predicting the future actually work as predicted?

Just look what happens when you don't cherry-pick your start and end dates.

What's also interesting about this long-term pattern is that we are not even close to achieving the levels of peak warming from previous cycles that occurred long before CO2 reached current levels. And then there's that pesky MWP.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Manabe, S., and R.J. Stouffer. 1980. "Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere." Journal of Geophysical Research 85, 5529–5554.

1980, aye. Isn't odd that plenty of research has been done in the interim to find out exactly why this is the case with no real definitive answer. From ocean currents, ozone holes, wind patterns, geographical features and even ice growth and shrinkage patterns affecting sunlight energy absorption. What did the 1980 paper claim was the reason?