You might recall that a few months ago I raised the conjecture that the skinny whale syndrome might be the result of having to travel too far to reach traditional feeding grounds. Over the past weekend I have heard most Pacific coast scientists tend to concur with this hypothesis. Interestingly, it appears many pods are adapting to different foods and different locations to feed. Time will tell if this will be a successful adaptation for the species.
Of greater importance, though, is my conjecture concerning diminishing quantity of ice algae, "minute vegetable forms of exquisite beauty.”, correct? If so a substantial portion of the sea will be a virtual desert in short order. If this is so, numerous species that rely on this environment will be threatened. While the peregrinate gray whale might survive diminished, other species without the intelligence or adaptability will probably disappear. This includes all higher organisms that feed on benthic crustaceans with limited range, especially walrus and ringed seal which also form a substantial part of indigenous human diet.
I was also listening to NPR, James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia hypothesis, was talking about his idea to spur the oceans to capture large amounts of CO2. This guy is dangerous. His simplistic idea is compelling and worse saleable. He totally ignores the oceanic surface layer as an insulator wishing to force cold nutrient rich water to the surface, ironically heating it. He claims that the resulting algae bloom would be no different than those naturally occurring, of course, the natural ones are quite often toxic killing all life for hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles around.
But the worst aspect of this scheme is it is a symptomatic relief not a cure, mitigating one environmental disaster by creating another (which in my opinion would ADD to global warming) is frankly stupid. No technological idea no matter how much money it makes the oil companies and the schemers can replace conservation as the primary corrective feature. We simply have to stop creating CO2 and H2O as greenhouse gases AND stop heating the waters.
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Fact and Fiction
Recently a buddy of mine suggested that I read Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear"(2004) as a way I could understand the issue of global warming. I haven't yet, but I don't think this novel will replace science at least not in my mind. And it simply can't replace observation of the natural world, especially here in Alaska.
He suggested that Crichton had provided scientific proofs to his contentions that the earth is actually cooling, and he had checked out Crichton's facts. I suspect Crichton used some data from the 70's that actually brought concerns about cooling even a possible ice age. At the time this was the best science available and also was supported by atmospheric chemistry. The concentration of sulfates and nitrates in the atmosphere had risen expontentially since the 30's causing what is referred to as a "forcing" of climate change. That coupled with nuclear testing, volcanism, "dimming" and other natural factors led to the trends noted at the time. This might have led to what science (at the time) predicted; reentry into an ice-age in less than 5000 years. Except for two mitigating factors or at least what science now thinks mitigated the situation, it might have been the case. The first being a tremendous increase in CO2 and CH4, greenhouse gases, and the second, an incredible decrease in sulfates, especially those produced by coal and diesel burning. Surprisingly, if we wished to return to the sulphuric acid fogs over London and the brown air of Los Angeles we might reverse the warming issue!
Crichton may also have used, and my buddy may also have seen certain "government" testimony refuting Dr. Hanson, the first voice to raise questions about global warming. The "government" manipulated Hanson's testimony and even his presentation of models to make him appear a "crack-pot". Luckily, his work had been published and peer reviewed, and, though the government lies are still on the books the real Hanson work has stood the test of time and is surprisingly accurate 20 years later.
But the issue is Crichton's work of fiction, or, Gore's dramatizations are just that, money making ventures into entertainment. The fact is global warming is a trend that can be measured and plotted. It does not discount local trends like cooling in certain areas. Interpretation of the facts is still wide open, like it was in the 70's. And like the 70's, and the fact of global cooling, attention to science may allow an interpretation that provides us a world that still has ice and snow.
ps: I figured on such an old book there had to be a lot of comment. This site run http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 by laboratory climate scientists shows the fiction in Crichton's "facts" point by point. They do it lot better than me, after all, I haven't read the book.
He suggested that Crichton had provided scientific proofs to his contentions that the earth is actually cooling, and he had checked out Crichton's facts. I suspect Crichton used some data from the 70's that actually brought concerns about cooling even a possible ice age. At the time this was the best science available and also was supported by atmospheric chemistry. The concentration of sulfates and nitrates in the atmosphere had risen expontentially since the 30's causing what is referred to as a "forcing" of climate change. That coupled with nuclear testing, volcanism, "dimming" and other natural factors led to the trends noted at the time. This might have led to what science (at the time) predicted; reentry into an ice-age in less than 5000 years. Except for two mitigating factors or at least what science now thinks mitigated the situation, it might have been the case. The first being a tremendous increase in CO2 and CH4, greenhouse gases, and the second, an incredible decrease in sulfates, especially those produced by coal and diesel burning. Surprisingly, if we wished to return to the sulphuric acid fogs over London and the brown air of Los Angeles we might reverse the warming issue!
Crichton may also have used, and my buddy may also have seen certain "government" testimony refuting Dr. Hanson, the first voice to raise questions about global warming. The "government" manipulated Hanson's testimony and even his presentation of models to make him appear a "crack-pot". Luckily, his work had been published and peer reviewed, and, though the government lies are still on the books the real Hanson work has stood the test of time and is surprisingly accurate 20 years later.
But the issue is Crichton's work of fiction, or, Gore's dramatizations are just that, money making ventures into entertainment. The fact is global warming is a trend that can be measured and plotted. It does not discount local trends like cooling in certain areas. Interpretation of the facts is still wide open, like it was in the 70's. And like the 70's, and the fact of global cooling, attention to science may allow an interpretation that provides us a world that still has ice and snow.
ps: I figured on such an old book there had to be a lot of comment. This site run http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 by laboratory climate scientists shows the fiction in Crichton's "facts" point by point. They do it lot better than me, after all, I haven't read the book.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
500 Miles
I’m gonna take a trip down south and see my wits. I’m also gonna see John Harrelson maybe one last time. This obsession with his first and now second death is therapeutic , keeps me from obsessing ‘bout mine.
The other reason is to look up some ol’ physicist buddies of mine. You old time readers of my works know I have been on the Global Warming kick for the past 10 years. It’s time to check the numbers, ‘cause my predictions are coming true.
A few weeks back I predicted a major heat wave, a devastating one. Well, looks like we got the heat, but luckily, 500 miles south of devastation. This year isn’t over yet, but probably we won’t get it this year so that gives us at least a year to prepare…if anyone would listen.
The other “good” news, the folks who monitor arctic ice have changed their predictions by SEVENTY years, now saying the arctic will be ice free by 2030. I’m still betting 2015 if not 2012. The issue is: they admit their computer model is wrong but they are still using it! Any model based on atmospheric chemistry and motion has got to fail. The model for global warming must be based on heat absorption and capacity of water bodies, it’s the only thing that makes sense. Free Water!
Time to go catch the Red Eye to LA…see ya!
The other reason is to look up some ol’ physicist buddies of mine. You old time readers of my works know I have been on the Global Warming kick for the past 10 years. It’s time to check the numbers, ‘cause my predictions are coming true.
A few weeks back I predicted a major heat wave, a devastating one. Well, looks like we got the heat, but luckily, 500 miles south of devastation. This year isn’t over yet, but probably we won’t get it this year so that gives us at least a year to prepare…if anyone would listen.
The other “good” news, the folks who monitor arctic ice have changed their predictions by SEVENTY years, now saying the arctic will be ice free by 2030. I’m still betting 2015 if not 2012. The issue is: they admit their computer model is wrong but they are still using it! Any model based on atmospheric chemistry and motion has got to fail. The model for global warming must be based on heat absorption and capacity of water bodies, it’s the only thing that makes sense. Free Water!
Time to go catch the Red Eye to LA…see ya!
Friday, July 27, 2007
Skinny Whales and Global Warming
Even if our own species does not go extinct in the near future, a sad consequence of global warming may be watching our neighbors on this planet die away.
Ice algae and ice bacteria are the seasonal food for both krill larvae and adults: the base of the food chain. It significantly contributes to the annual bloom of life in the cold polar and sub-polar waters and may be the primary reason polar seas are so abundant in life. The spring rain of this nutritional matter to the sea floor may also contribute to the quantity and health of floor dwelling (benthic) crustaceans; the food of gray whales.
The impact and appreciation of ice algae is a relatively new science spearheaded by Lisa Clough of Eastern Carolina University, and is still being quantified. One thing has become apparent though, ice algae is a “higher” quality food source than phytoplankton and is not replaceable on a one to one scale. Furthermore, while most phytoplankton remain dormant in dark winter months, ice algae can uniquely extract energy and multiply in brine channels in sea ice. This allows polar krill species to feed year round and maintain significant populations not to mention the spring break-up fertilization of the sea floor
.
Krill, too, are affected by water temperatures. A massive coccolithophore bloom in the Bering Sea in 1998 resulted in a substantive decline in krill populations. Krill could not feed on the diminutive phytoplankton. Krill are not the direct food source for gray whales as they are for other baleen whales but presumably the benthic crustaceans which feed the grays have a similar relation to ice algae. Krill may be a signal but the Northern Gray whale is probably a threshold species.
Recently, it has been noted that the Northern Gray whale population is suffering a drastic weight loss with the accompanying reproductive difficulties, morbidity and mortality. The populations suffering weight-loss may be diseased or may be stressed by other environmental factors, but, one possible hypothesis is that there simply isn’t enough food for them. As ocean temperatures rise there is less and thinner ice and a shorter “winter” as well, resulting in appreciably less ice algae, especially in the shallow Bering and Chukchi seas, where new data shows 20% reduction in sea ice in just the past few years. Seasonal sea ice in the deeper Arctic Ocean is becoming more common and ice algae may be forming in quantity there, but, this does not mitigate the gray whales problem as both the gray’s primary food and the gray’s ability to harvest seem limited to a depth of less than 300 feet.
An additional problem may include the increased distance of migration. The gray whale is already considered to have the longest migration of any mammalian species at about 22,000 km adding another 2000 km might simply be a sea too far.
Ice algae and ice bacteria are the seasonal food for both krill larvae and adults: the base of the food chain. It significantly contributes to the annual bloom of life in the cold polar and sub-polar waters and may be the primary reason polar seas are so abundant in life. The spring rain of this nutritional matter to the sea floor may also contribute to the quantity and health of floor dwelling (benthic) crustaceans; the food of gray whales.
The impact and appreciation of ice algae is a relatively new science spearheaded by Lisa Clough of Eastern Carolina University, and is still being quantified. One thing has become apparent though, ice algae is a “higher” quality food source than phytoplankton and is not replaceable on a one to one scale. Furthermore, while most phytoplankton remain dormant in dark winter months, ice algae can uniquely extract energy and multiply in brine channels in sea ice. This allows polar krill species to feed year round and maintain significant populations not to mention the spring break-up fertilization of the sea floor
.
Krill, too, are affected by water temperatures. A massive coccolithophore bloom in the Bering Sea in 1998 resulted in a substantive decline in krill populations. Krill could not feed on the diminutive phytoplankton. Krill are not the direct food source for gray whales as they are for other baleen whales but presumably the benthic crustaceans which feed the grays have a similar relation to ice algae. Krill may be a signal but the Northern Gray whale is probably a threshold species.
Recently, it has been noted that the Northern Gray whale population is suffering a drastic weight loss with the accompanying reproductive difficulties, morbidity and mortality. The populations suffering weight-loss may be diseased or may be stressed by other environmental factors, but, one possible hypothesis is that there simply isn’t enough food for them. As ocean temperatures rise there is less and thinner ice and a shorter “winter” as well, resulting in appreciably less ice algae, especially in the shallow Bering and Chukchi seas, where new data shows 20% reduction in sea ice in just the past few years. Seasonal sea ice in the deeper Arctic Ocean is becoming more common and ice algae may be forming in quantity there, but, this does not mitigate the gray whales problem as both the gray’s primary food and the gray’s ability to harvest seem limited to a depth of less than 300 feet.
An additional problem may include the increased distance of migration. The gray whale is already considered to have the longest migration of any mammalian species at about 22,000 km adding another 2000 km might simply be a sea too far.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Ice Free Global Warming
About 7 years ago I proposed that the carbon-dioxide model could not properly predict the effects of global warming. I went around to all the folks I knew and said the sky is falling a lot faster than you think maybe twenty times faster; maybe even faster than that.
Of course, they said I was crazy. How could I know (anything)? I had based my hypothesis on observation, simple math and the notion of a battery for storing energy. No I didn’t use a super computer, just a notebook, the kind you use a pencil with, and a lot of shoe leather, from Key West to Deadhorse, from Baja to Gander.
I’d like to say I’m pleased to be vindicated, and in a way I am, but, I am actually more frightened. I suspect any of you who are concerned about our existence have read the latest on Arctic ice…that based on anecdotal and direct evidence the Arctic ocean will be ice free by 2050…that the computer model was wrong. And it is still wrong. It is the wrong model.
I still would bet that the planet will be basically ice free in about 12 years. Sure there will be a lot of ice in Antarctica and Greenland, and there is some evidence that Siberia will be colder and drier, but, folks won’t be coming to Alaska to see glaciers.
What’s frightening is dogma, scary religious dogma by the very scientists who we need to rely on. We need to find a solution to our problem quickly: a dramatic solution. Or, we can allow the planet to provide a dramatic solution, the one that resembles the raging fever and the dying bacteria.
We need to recognize that there is no “green” in burning. We can not burn our way out of this no matter how “clean” the fuel. We also must release the stored energy in our dammed rivers. We MUST stop consuming for its own gratification, not just the fuel at the pump, but also the goods and products produced by fire, shipped by fire, packaged by fire, even cooled by fire. Then in about 300 years we might see a turn around.
Of course, they said I was crazy. How could I know (anything)? I had based my hypothesis on observation, simple math and the notion of a battery for storing energy. No I didn’t use a super computer, just a notebook, the kind you use a pencil with, and a lot of shoe leather, from Key West to Deadhorse, from Baja to Gander.
I’d like to say I’m pleased to be vindicated, and in a way I am, but, I am actually more frightened. I suspect any of you who are concerned about our existence have read the latest on Arctic ice…that based on anecdotal and direct evidence the Arctic ocean will be ice free by 2050…that the computer model was wrong. And it is still wrong. It is the wrong model.
I still would bet that the planet will be basically ice free in about 12 years. Sure there will be a lot of ice in Antarctica and Greenland, and there is some evidence that Siberia will be colder and drier, but, folks won’t be coming to Alaska to see glaciers.
What’s frightening is dogma, scary religious dogma by the very scientists who we need to rely on. We need to find a solution to our problem quickly: a dramatic solution. Or, we can allow the planet to provide a dramatic solution, the one that resembles the raging fever and the dying bacteria.
We need to recognize that there is no “green” in burning. We can not burn our way out of this no matter how “clean” the fuel. We also must release the stored energy in our dammed rivers. We MUST stop consuming for its own gratification, not just the fuel at the pump, but also the goods and products produced by fire, shipped by fire, packaged by fire, even cooled by fire. Then in about 300 years we might see a turn around.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Hypothetical #3 Global Warming, Man and Water
Hypothetical #3 Global Warming, Man and Water
I have no doubt that human activities contribute to global warming. I have personally and anecdotally observed local warming trends from the Keys of Florida to the Northwest Arctic, from Mazatlan to Gander, Australia to Chukotka and from sea level to nearly 14,000 feet. But the numbers are huge and unwieldy and proofs have yet to be seen; not that of warming, but of man’s causal relation to that warming.
I think one of the problems may be that we are looking to the wrong place. Because we burn stuff and create some 9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year and graphs seem to show a correlation between CO2 and warming trends science seems to favor this as the cause. A few years ago it was deforestation of the Amazon basin and lack of winter snow cover. Probably all are contributors.
I was high in the Sierras one summer contemplating water as kinetic and thermal energy storage when the question popped out…Where is the battery for global warming? The difficulty with the CO2 model is that the infra-red reflectivity required for the model to work really requires clouds of dry-ice, like those experiments from 7th grade. It also seems to suffer from some reality problems, in that CO2 quantities are predictive in current atmospheric models as compared to actual quantities in ice core samples. The ice core samples also presume a homogeneous atmosphere rather than the climatic soup we are familiar with. Also, 9 billion tonnes a year from human sources seems like a lot, especially if you think ozone and sulfurous haze over Denver is what science is talking about, but compared to natural sources for CO2 , it is a fractional percentage. When those numbers are compared to the vast increase in biomass in the northern hemisphere, some estimates are close to 10 trillion tonnes of new growth, direct CO2 contributions to global warming seem slight. The atmosphere is also a crummy place for storing energy.
I would be the first to agree that the natural system is so complex and may be so delicate that these changes in atmosphere could indeed create the problems we see but I think there is a more insidious and counter intuitive man-made cause and that is: water works. For several thousand years we have slowly been altering the water-cycle, slowing it down and adding vast amounts of solar energy to it. I believe enough to change the balance of nature.
Today, every major river and most minor rivers and steams have been dammed, channeled and “tamed” producing solar energy “batteries” of trillions and trillions of kilo-calories of solar energy. Curiously, in northern climates these batteries are self-insulating. It is true that the fresh water part of the water cycle is just a drop in the bucket but compared to atmospheric mass it is actually significant.
This warm water has also helped warm the oceans, warmed the atmosphere, and created more “warm” biomass. It has converted “kinetic” water in glaciers, ice caps and mountain snows into more “thermal” water. Irrigation for instance is not benign; it enhances solar thermal absorption through evaporation. Similarly, we also take “kinetic” water in thermally stable aquifers and “heat” it by bringing it to the surface. As a final measure more than 90% of our energy use is involved in heating water, even non-fossil fuel sources like nuclear energy. Did you know that in your car more energy is used in heating water than in producing motion? Thermal maps of our coast show the impact of human induced warming of our oceans.
But it is probably the lakes that are the biggest change. Without a lot of help I can’t provide the numbers but here is a mental picture of just one man- made battery. At one time the Colorado River passed through Boulder Canyon. It was fast moving, a couple hundred yards wide at best and a few feet deep. It probably gave off more energy than it absorbed. Even in the middle of the desert it was really a mountain stream, clear and cold. Today at Lake Mead it is a dark deep energy sink absorbing daily billions and billions of kilo-calories of solar energy. The evaporation from the lake is millions of times greater than the historic river further disrupting the water cycle. When the hot salty remains of the Colorado reach the Sea of Cortez it further heats rather than cools the ocean. Evaporation from the heated ocean is greater as the warmed air can hold more moisture in raised saturation points and the temperatures of the entire cycle are increased. The denser atmosphere does not cycle as readily to higher levels and less energy is released to space.
I believe that human disruption of the “water-cycle” is large enough to create the kind of changes we see. It even contributes to the “greenhouse” effect in that water is a “greenhouse” gas only slightly less reflective than carbon-dioxide. This new cycle would be enhanced by carbon-dioxide in the creation of more biomass. The biomass “frees” more water and the temperatures of the entire cycle are increased.
If I am correct in this assumption the atmospheric temperatures will increase at a substantially faster rate than the CO2 model. I think we are seeing that already. In 1999 when I proposed this idea the CO2 folks model showed global temperatures significantly less than they are today. It is still my contention that substantive change will occur in years not the decades they propose.
The cure is just as hard to swallow, maybe harder because we have always assumed clean and benign with water, as giving up burning. I think results would be quicker, maybe only a generation or two to cool the planet if we blew up all the dams, stopped irrigation and pumping the aquifers.
One benefit might be a whole lot less people running around.
I have no doubt that human activities contribute to global warming. I have personally and anecdotally observed local warming trends from the Keys of Florida to the Northwest Arctic, from Mazatlan to Gander, Australia to Chukotka and from sea level to nearly 14,000 feet. But the numbers are huge and unwieldy and proofs have yet to be seen; not that of warming, but of man’s causal relation to that warming.
I think one of the problems may be that we are looking to the wrong place. Because we burn stuff and create some 9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year and graphs seem to show a correlation between CO2 and warming trends science seems to favor this as the cause. A few years ago it was deforestation of the Amazon basin and lack of winter snow cover. Probably all are contributors.
I was high in the Sierras one summer contemplating water as kinetic and thermal energy storage when the question popped out…Where is the battery for global warming? The difficulty with the CO2 model is that the infra-red reflectivity required for the model to work really requires clouds of dry-ice, like those experiments from 7th grade. It also seems to suffer from some reality problems, in that CO2 quantities are predictive in current atmospheric models as compared to actual quantities in ice core samples. The ice core samples also presume a homogeneous atmosphere rather than the climatic soup we are familiar with. Also, 9 billion tonnes a year from human sources seems like a lot, especially if you think ozone and sulfurous haze over Denver is what science is talking about, but compared to natural sources for CO2 , it is a fractional percentage. When those numbers are compared to the vast increase in biomass in the northern hemisphere, some estimates are close to 10 trillion tonnes of new growth, direct CO2 contributions to global warming seem slight. The atmosphere is also a crummy place for storing energy.
I would be the first to agree that the natural system is so complex and may be so delicate that these changes in atmosphere could indeed create the problems we see but I think there is a more insidious and counter intuitive man-made cause and that is: water works. For several thousand years we have slowly been altering the water-cycle, slowing it down and adding vast amounts of solar energy to it. I believe enough to change the balance of nature.
Today, every major river and most minor rivers and steams have been dammed, channeled and “tamed” producing solar energy “batteries” of trillions and trillions of kilo-calories of solar energy. Curiously, in northern climates these batteries are self-insulating. It is true that the fresh water part of the water cycle is just a drop in the bucket but compared to atmospheric mass it is actually significant.
This warm water has also helped warm the oceans, warmed the atmosphere, and created more “warm” biomass. It has converted “kinetic” water in glaciers, ice caps and mountain snows into more “thermal” water. Irrigation for instance is not benign; it enhances solar thermal absorption through evaporation. Similarly, we also take “kinetic” water in thermally stable aquifers and “heat” it by bringing it to the surface. As a final measure more than 90% of our energy use is involved in heating water, even non-fossil fuel sources like nuclear energy. Did you know that in your car more energy is used in heating water than in producing motion? Thermal maps of our coast show the impact of human induced warming of our oceans.
But it is probably the lakes that are the biggest change. Without a lot of help I can’t provide the numbers but here is a mental picture of just one man- made battery. At one time the Colorado River passed through Boulder Canyon. It was fast moving, a couple hundred yards wide at best and a few feet deep. It probably gave off more energy than it absorbed. Even in the middle of the desert it was really a mountain stream, clear and cold. Today at Lake Mead it is a dark deep energy sink absorbing daily billions and billions of kilo-calories of solar energy. The evaporation from the lake is millions of times greater than the historic river further disrupting the water cycle. When the hot salty remains of the Colorado reach the Sea of Cortez it further heats rather than cools the ocean. Evaporation from the heated ocean is greater as the warmed air can hold more moisture in raised saturation points and the temperatures of the entire cycle are increased. The denser atmosphere does not cycle as readily to higher levels and less energy is released to space.
I believe that human disruption of the “water-cycle” is large enough to create the kind of changes we see. It even contributes to the “greenhouse” effect in that water is a “greenhouse” gas only slightly less reflective than carbon-dioxide. This new cycle would be enhanced by carbon-dioxide in the creation of more biomass. The biomass “frees” more water and the temperatures of the entire cycle are increased.
If I am correct in this assumption the atmospheric temperatures will increase at a substantially faster rate than the CO2 model. I think we are seeing that already. In 1999 when I proposed this idea the CO2 folks model showed global temperatures significantly less than they are today. It is still my contention that substantive change will occur in years not the decades they propose.
The cure is just as hard to swallow, maybe harder because we have always assumed clean and benign with water, as giving up burning. I think results would be quicker, maybe only a generation or two to cool the planet if we blew up all the dams, stopped irrigation and pumping the aquifers.
One benefit might be a whole lot less people running around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)