[sdantonio]

Geoff,

Excellent "IF Game". I like the way you think. The only point I would make is that is the past 10 years or so the sun has become noticeably dimmer (noticeable to very sensitive scientific instruments). This is due to soot (particulates) in the atmosphere. I have no idea at all how much this would counter the effect of the reduced cloud formation, if at all.

So do we hurry up and pump more soot into the air. I think this would have it's own problems.

There was a study just released today. One of the global warming folks big "if's" is the possible melting of the Greenland glacier (sea levels rise, mass panic, Las Vegas gets flooded, Elvis returns, etc). According to this study, in the last big global warming event 169,000 years ago) where the mean temp of the earth went up 9 degrees, the majority of this ice sheet stayed intact and didn't melt. I didn't listen to carefully to the report, but it was based on DNA analysis of organisms trapped in the glacier and using that to identify the organisms and then extrapolate back to how thick the glacier was when they were trapped.

Looks like I'm not getting my beach front property any time soon (going to be stuck 50 miles inland I guess)

[Geof]

... According to this study, in the last big global warming event 169,000 years ago) where the mean temp of the earth went up 9 degrees, the majority of this ice sheet stayed intact and didn't melt. I didn't listen to carefully to the report, but it was based on DNA analysis of organisms trapped in the glacier and using that to identify the organisms and then extrapolate back to how thick the glacier was when they were trapped....

Yes I read that one.

The "soot" bit I have read about and I think it is not soot but things such as sulfur dioxide which can cause high level haze. As far as I can gather reading different sources there is disagreement whether this cause cooling or warming.

martinw; It sounds like the Wiki people are getting a bit carried away...they do sometimes. Here is the simple minded meaning I am using; "The term albedo (Latin for white) is commonly used to applied to the overall average reflection coefficient of an object". Viewed from above, on average, clouds are whiter than ground and they scatter back incident radiation. There is controversy, as I mention above, as to whether clouds are net warmers or coolers.

[martinw]

Dear Geof and Steve,

Thank-you for the posts.

I live and learn.


Best wishes

Martin

[sdantonio]

Martin,

The easiest way to think of albedo is, as Geoff said, white. To be a little more specific, the lighter the color the more it will reflect light, the darker the color, the less reflected light.

In planetary physics, celestial bodies are generally characterized by their albedo. Given a star 93 million miles away your less likely to bump into a clean snowball than a lump of coal because more light will be reflected from the snowball (and it will be more easily seen) due to it's higher albedo (or coefficient of reflection).

Geoff's point is that the fluffy white clouds reflect a lot of the suns energy back into space, keeping the earth cool (something easy to verify by just standing outside on a hot day and waiting for a cloud to pass overhead which is also equivalent to walking under a shady tree). Global warming, coupled with decreased cloud formation (due to increased solar flare activity) may just give me my beach front property.

[punisher454]

There is so much junk science associated with the "Global Warming" hysteria it too much to keep track of.

The earth is always in some type of ice age, I believe were coming down off one now, but when thats done we'll be coming into another one at some point.

AlGore's global warming map was critically flawed. He used a Mercator projection. He was showing polar areas that had receded. Well the numbers would have looked quite different with an accurate map projection.

Picture a glass of ice water, with ice cubes floating around in it. The top third or so of the cubes sticks above the waterline. This is the earth. Now let the glass of ice water warm up and the cubes melt, does the water level raise?

At most all we could cause the sea levels to raise is probably a lot more like a few inches, not a hundred feet.

The whole "we only have thirty years of oil left" thing is total BS too. Thats what they were saying many years ago, we'd be out now if it was true. Thirty years from now they will be saying the same thing, and there's a reason for that too. It is because of accounting practices that consider future reserves to have less value based on how far into the future they will be available. SPV (Sum of Present Value) Its BS.

What I am expecting to happen is we (society) will give in to the BS the greenies are pushing (its already happening). Years from now everything will still be okay and those wacko's will claim we were saved thanks to them, and they'll just get worse then!!

[Geof]

.... Picture a glass of ice water, with ice cubes floating around in it. The top third or so of the cubes sticks above the waterline. This is the earth. Now let the glass of ice water warm up and the cubes melt, does the water level raise?

At most all we could cause the sea levels to raise is probably a lot more like a few inches, not a hundred feet............

It is okay to be a skeptic but make sure your scepticism is well founded.

What you say is correct for ice that is floating in the sea. When ice on land melts and the resulting water flows into the sea the then the sea level will rise.

There is enough water in the ice on the Antartic continent and Greenland that if it did melt then sea levels would rise many tens of feet.

The big question is will it melt.

[martinw]

The big question is will it melt.

And the Climate Change industry will reply.."We can't take the risk, Geof"

On and on it goes...

Best wishes


Martin

[martinw]

Geoff's point is that the fluffy white clouds reflect a lot of the suns energy back into space, keeping the earth cool (something easy to verify by just standing outside on a hot day and waiting for a cloud to pass overhead which is also equivalent to walking under a shady tree). Global warming, coupled with decreased cloud formation (due to increased solar flare activity) may just give me my beach front property.

Dear Steve,

Yes, I can see that the white fluffy stuff could reflect solar radiation back into space, but won't it also prevent the Earth's heat being radiated back out as well, and cause the Earth to be warmer.

Sorry if my physics is iffy.


Best wishes


Martin

[Geof]

Dear Steve,

Yes, I can see that the white fluffy stuff could reflect solar radiation back into space, but won't it also prevent the Earth's heat being radiated back out as well, and cause the Earth to be warmer.

Sorry if my physics is iffy.


Best wishes


Martin

Your Physics is not iffy; that is the crux of the controversy.

If you have clouds only during the day and clear at night it is obvious that the net effect is cooling.

If you have clear during the day and cloudy at night the net effect will probably be heating.

If you have completely clear skies day and night there are very wide diurnal temperature swings; these are typical desert conditions.

If you have constant overcast cloud day and night you have small diurnal temperature swings.

But in the third and fourth situation which gives the greatest NET heat gain? It depends on where this is happening, does the earth's surface in that region have a high or low albedo? There are so many variables you can make your reasoning fit any conclusion.

The response of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Crowd is: "it is so complicated we will ignore it."