[Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone? and Inertia

Sean K. Barry sean.barry at juno.com
Fri Apr 25 02:33:40 CDT 2008

Previous message: [Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone?
Next message: [Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone? and Inertia
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi TP readers,

In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of
Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San
Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

That's quite a quote. It gave me the most pause. Did you go to the site with Phil's paper and read the Gabrielli paper referenced at the bottom? Gabrielli threw in the radiological evidence of space bourne iridium and platinum in the Greenland Ice sheet as having been the cause of the previous cooling into last Ice Age.
Meteoric smoke fallout over the Holocene epoch revealed by iridium and platinum in Greenland ice
Paolo Gabrielli1<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7020/pdf/nature03137.pdf#a1>,2<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7020/pdf/nature03137.pdf#a2>,

So is it a crap shoot, then ? No pattern? No trends? It's a chaotic system to be sure, but most of the time (on human time scales) inertia rules, I think. It does at least by the human standard of one lifetime of observances. So, like a surfer or a career person, the easiest way is to go with the flow. Observe the flow first, then go. It is always easy to wonder about "What ifs?" that would throw a wrench into the inertia, (the easier more obvious way to go). The wondering gets especially varied and easy, too, when we consider low probability stuff (if we get beyond 1 in 500 or so?). The thing about inertia is that it is mostly unobservable, until something attempts to operate against it. Or, if you consider observing long term, current trends, then the inertia is obvious.

I think that if you carefully observe the trends in many of the atmospheric and climate variables, you can see accelerating changes (e.g. GHG concentrations rising faster than last year [which was faster than the year before that], average temperature increases [11 of the last 13 years were record global average annual temp increases], stronger storm records [unprecedented back-to-back, level-5 hurricanes in one year and hurricanes in northern latitudes], and more Arctic sea ice loss this year than last year (which was more than the year before that).

These kinds of accelerating changes in the variables have inertia, too. I have some analogies to express how I think spurious "What ifs?" can effect the inertia of observable prominent accelerations.

1) While you stoke the train boiler full of coal, running downhill, what if a fox runs across the tracks? Tap the brakes and/or blow the whistle?

2) Back to the surfer analogy... You see the tight curl of the wave closing on your right, in front of you, AND you see the beach to your left, with the shelf just underneath your surfboard? What if a starfish blasts out of the water near your right eye? Do you dive left?!

3) What if the older bullies surround you and are pushing the merri-go-round you are riding faster and faster? When and where do you jump off before you get hurt?

I would try to observe carefully the inertial status of current environment viewed over some time frame to the recent past, say a decade, or a lifetime, a century, or whatever. Based on what I observe is in stasis over that time and the characteristics of the observable changes during that time (pronounced recurring gains, prolonged duration, etc), then I would decide, also expecting the inertial effects.

The way things are, the way things go, which have observably large inertia behind them ARE THE MOST LIKELY to be playing out next. This is usually pretty obvious, whether people know or can observe it, or not.

Regards,
SKB

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Ludlow<mailto:mark at ludlow.com>
To: 'Kurt Treutlein'<mailto:rukurt at westnet.com.au>
Cc: 'terra pretta group'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone?

I love things that are written in one-or-two paragraph sentences.

My concentration span really doesn't extend much further.

One more thing to worry about!

Whatever will we do if that pesky old sun does not cooperate?

How long must I pause to think about this?

{8>)

-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org>
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Treutlein
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:24 PM
Cc: terra pretta group
Subject: [Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone?

Hi all,

Here is something to look at and think about. If it's true then TP
becomes even more important, not from a GW point of view, but from the
point of view of improved soil fertility.

Am I saying it's true? NO, I'm not a fanatical for nor against GW
believer, but it does give one pause to think about the possibility of
the solar cycles being much more powerful than the GHGs in the atmosphere.

Kurt

############

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
Phil Chapman
The Australian
Wed, 23 Apr 2008

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com<http://www.spaceweather.com/>,
where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and
Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point
between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average
temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past
decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of
carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate
Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in
New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote
Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in
2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and
it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon
recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally
cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in
China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the
austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the
place in 1770.

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from
events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as
transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat
variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March
last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that,
with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and
lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within
24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be
many more, and soon.

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between
variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a
cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold
period that lasted several decades from 1790.

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's
Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due
to the lack of sunspots.

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of
cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it
is cause for concern.

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin
contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little
ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the
previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are
many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate
agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would
increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning
changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from
cold-related diseases.

There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The
Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past
several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our
planet.

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and
Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is
interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting
less than 10,000 years.

The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called
the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know
that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global
temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.

The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for
another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in
2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued
for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing
under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe
beyond imagining.

Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by
millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000
centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.

If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or
at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon
enough and on a large enough scale.

For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them
to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the
reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.

We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent
greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the
continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the
deposits.

We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50
that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.

The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much
less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.

All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the
blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global
cooling instead.

It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations,
careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global
warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.

In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of
Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San
Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/154424-Sorry-to-ruin-the-fun-but-an-ice-ag<http://www.sott.net/articles/show/154424-Sorry-to-ruin-the-fun-but-an-ice-ag>
e-cometh

############

_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080425/9cbc3f1f/attachment.html

Previous message: [Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone?
Next message: [Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone? and Inertia
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the Terrapreta mailing list