Hi Sterling, Larry, all - Having just tried to establish the data on basic long term climate trends in North America as part of "Man and Impact in the Americas", I hope you'll allow me to
briefly opine on both the Earth-Sun system and impact. The best explanation of our sun's variability that I have seen is that of Timo Niroma, who ties it to the influence of Jupiter's gravity on our sun's fusion reaction. The best explanation I have for the effects of that variability on our climate is that these gravity changes change the type of radiation thrown out from our Sun, which changes the amount of ozone produced. This ozone acts as a valve on solar flux to the Earth, blocking UV and reflecting back infrared. Due to Freon, we now have large holes in the ozone over both poles. As far as the end of the last Ice Age goes, the First Peoples remember exactly what happened, and this is demonstrable. When the Bering Straights were closed by ice pack, warm water flowed off the west coast of today's Canada. That warm water produced snow cover in northern North America, which reflected sunlight back into space. Thus the Earth's temperature was lower. A comet impact, most likely a fragment of Encke, opened the Bering Straights ice pack and produced the Alaskan and Siberian Mucks. Colder water meant less Canadian snow, meant less reflection, meant a warmer Earth. The traditions and the data supporting them are available in "Man and Impact in the Americas", which can now be ordered through booksellers dealing with amazon.com. There have been horrifying climate collapses in North America, and they will happen again, but sadly I have no idea exactly when. For these, see "Man and Impact in the Americas." As some of you may be aware, since January 2004 Dr. Peiser has generally focused the Cambridge Conference on bad CO2 "science" instead of on impact. The important part of this debate for me is that when Pres. W. Bush vetoed Kyoto he promised more money for climate research, money which has not come through. We need to know the effects of CO2 on our climate, and we need to know them now. (As far as NASA goes, this data is way more important than contracts to Thiokol for new launchers for manned Mars flight.) Peiser figures the CO2 effects are about half as bad as the climate doomsters, and I think he is probably right. But half as bad is bad enough. One thing for sure, and here Peiser is absolutely correct, this problem will not be solved by shuffling paper. In the US, we need to get off of oil, and we should be going to biofuels (ethanol and bio-deisel) right now. We also need to get off of coal and go to new nuclear electric plants, but for some reason you aren't hearing the climate doomsters talking about this. Given what's going on in Lebanon, I want to state publicly here that I completely disagree with Peiser in his opinion that the problems in the mideast are being primarily driven by population pressures. Well, that's it. Thanks for your patience here on all of this. I hope the copy of "Man and Impact in the Americas" which I mailed to Piper Hollier has arrived. I want to thank him once again for the Canyon Diablo, and I hope to taking off the oxidation layer this week. In closing, 64 fragments of comet SW3 and its dust stream are headed back near the Earth in 2022, if not in late 2011 or 2017. good hunting, Ed --- "Sterling K. Webb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, Larry, List, > > > Yeah, I think so, but this is not my field, so > why would > anyone ask? The correlation of CO2 level with mean > global > temperature has big excursions in it, most notably > in the > case of the planet cooling down for almost 30 years > (1940 > to 1970) while CO2 went up and up like always. On > the other > hand the correlation of mean global temperature with > solar > output matches up much better with very few > excursions. > > To me the chief problem with current thinking, > however > many factors you can get into the models, is that > it's a simple > theory, a one-factor-drives-all theory, and that > just seems > unlikely in anything so horrendously complex. There > are, > for example, geolgical periods (135-140 mya) when > climate > was always in the modern range but the CO2 levels > were > 3900 ppm, more than ten times the modern level. > Suppose > they got a zoning variance? > > Another solar factor is the length of the solar > cycle. It's > variable as you know. Short cycles crowded together > always > deliver more heat to the Earth than long ones. In > fact, the > correlation between length of solar cycle and mean > global > temperature is 0.95, which is really tight. And > we've been > having short crowded cycles and are due for another > early > Solar Max, the biggest in 50 years, in 2010-2012, or > so says > the conveyor belt theory of sunspots. > > Me? I'm buying a bigger air conditioner. > > Another fallacy is the notion that the Sun's > output never > varies by more than +/- 0.1%. Pfui! (Pardon the > German > Phooee; it just seemed appropriate.) A study of the > 30 nearest > G0 stars just like our big buddy show variations of > +/- 0.45% > in the short term. Is our Star not as whimsical as > its brother > Stars? Copernican principle says, "Don't count on > it." > > Actually, it would take solar variation of about > +/- 0.5% > to account for all the climate changes of the last > 10,000 years. > So, yeah, I think all our energy comes from the Sun, > as the first > cause of climate, although modified by lots of > factors after it > gets here. > > Another point not well understood is the > distribution > of energy on the planet. MOST of the energy arrives > at the > equator. Long fiddles about irradiation at 65 > degrees of > latitude in the summer is meaningless, even though > every > theorist (like Milankovich and all the others) have > gone on > about it endlessly. Irrelevant. > > Energy absorption is proportional to the cosine > of its > incidence, by latitude and again by diurnal angle, > so it's > the cosine squared that counts. Make a cos^2 map of > the > Earth and you'll see that 88% of the Sun's energy > arrives > in the tropic zone and less than 3% in the polar > zones. It > just doesn't matter what happens at the poles. > (Which is > why the albedo effect doesn't become a big factor > until > the ice sheets spread into the south. If they reach > the 35th > to 30th degree of latitude, we in deep... stuff. If > they stay > above 60, the effect is small.) > > It's kind of spooky. About 12 miles north of my > house > is where the ice cap stopped at the height of the > last > glaciation, with one big toe over the 40 degree > line. About > four blocks from my house is a nice "little" two to > three > ton erratic that nobody wanted to mess with, just > sitting > there right on the edge of the road, taking > occasional tribute > from the fenders and corners of careless cars and > drivers. > > The polar climate is determined almost entirely > by heat > transport and that's almost entirely by ocean > currents from > the tropics. When Anatartica was polar in the > ice-free ages > (no ice anywhere on the planet), the big-eyed > dinosaurs > roved hot, wet, winter forests without sunlight for > months. > A sunless polar winter didn't cool them down much at > all. > > Whatever cause ice ages vs. no ice ages happens > at > the equator, as paradoxical as that sounds. I have a > long > theory about thermohaline circulation that explains > what > turns ice ages on and off, but like Fermat, there's > not > enough room in the margins... (Boy! Are you lucky!) > > And lastly, a fine study of the evolution of > global > warming theory: A book by Spencer Weart, "The > Discovery > of Global Warming." Nothing tells you more about a > theory > that how it got here. And the American Institute of > Physics > has more than the full book, a longer more detailed > version > (250,000 words), up on its website: > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html > and they do something I wish more websites would do. > They have the entire website downloadable as a ZIP > file > that you can take and read at your leisure, with the > links > modified to work in the off-line text. Very nice of > them. > > > Sterling K. Webb > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Larry Lebofsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Sterling K. Webb" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>; "Mike > Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 9:04 PM > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Cosmic Dust in > Terrestrial Ice MORE > > > > Hi Sterling: > > > > Some of my best friends (who are atmospheric > scientists) do not believe in > > global warming. I agree that there are just too > many factors involved and > > you > > can get almost any answer you want. While I > personally believe that > > cutting > > CO2 emissions is not a bad idea, it should be > realized that Mars is having > > a > > warming trend and I am not sure anyone really > knows why. Is the Sun > > responsible? > > > > Larry > > > > Quoting "Sterling K. Webb" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> Hi, Mike, Larry, > >> > >> Mike, Rob Matson posted a very funny > >> website URL: > >> http://www.dhmo.org/ > >> outlining the "consumer" hazards of DHMO, > >> which is DiHydrogen MonOxide, which many > >> "non-scientific" persons call just plain WATER. > >> The website is hilarious. > >> > >> Larry, there are many components to > calculating > >> warming vs. cooling for the overall hydrology at > any > >> temperature, so many that none of the models can > agree > >> on any result for the overall role of water, so > all the > >> "global warming" models are fudging their results > in > >> this regard with simple "plug-ins" which ignore > water, > >> yet we're supposed to take them seriously. > Pul-eeze. > >> > >> I'm just saying that the perfect summation of > all effects > >> is to be found in reality, but whether the > climate drives > >> the water or the water drives the climate, who > can tell? > >> > >> The same is true of CO2 and climate. Which is > the > >> driving factor? The "global warming" version is > that > >> CO2 drives climate. William Ruddiman (UVa) has > >> just published an analysis that concludes that > climate > >> drives CO2: > >> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060725074044.htm > >> Complete text (.pdf) at: > >> > http://www.clim-past.net/2/43/2006/cp-2-43-2006.pdf > >> > >> Two years ago, Ruddiman published a paper > that > >> concluded that human activities that increased > CO2 > >> levels accelerated the end of the last glacial > period and > >> precipitated the interglacial we now enjoy. > (According > >> to the Milankovich cycles, it was early). > >> > >> Personally, I think that about the time we > get everybody > >> "on board" with global warming and are committed > to > >> and exercising real control of CO2, the climate > will turn > >> colder. I call it the Principle of Perversity. > The one thing > >> you can count on weather and climate doing? > Change. > >> > >> > >> Sterling K. Webb > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Mike Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com> > >> Cc: "Mike Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 7:01 PM > >> Subject: [meteorite-list] Cosmic Dust in > Terrestrial Ice ENDING > >> > >> > > > > ______________________________________________ > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > > > > ______________________________________________ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
