Climate Guru

Logo

Logo

De ce am ales anume aceasta denumire pentru blog-ul nostru?

Simplu,pentru ca acest blog este in primul rind un guru pentru cei care vor sa traiasca,sa respire  aer curat,sa vada vesnic cerul de o nuanta bleo-marin… si sa primeasca satisfactie de la acest proces!!!

Periodic,pe acest blog vor aparea articole despre ecologie,proiecte de salvare sau imbunatatire a mediului si ceva tot atat de interesant-emotiile blogerilor si ai celor cei inconjoara…

Octombrie 13, 2008 at 4:19 pm 1 comentariu

THE ANCIENT PAST

1300 AD

The Pentagon in their study of what is now happening in the North Atlantic ocean, has looked into the past to see when this slowing down or stoppage of the Gulf Stream has happened before and what actually took place at those time in the world’s weather patterns.

In actual fact, this North Atlantic ocean slowing or stoppage has happen hundreds of times before in the past going back hundred of millions years, but in our recent past of the last 10,000 years, it has only happened twice.

The most recent time was in the year 1300 AD, and at that time it simply slowed down. It never actually stopped. And why it slowed down, scientists are at the moment theorizing. They don’t really know why.

It resulted in abrupt global climatic weather changes that never returned to normal for 550 years. This period of time in our history has been named the “Little Ice Age” because of the havoc it caused to our weather and the dramatic cooling that resulted.

What the Pentagon has realized is that at that time of the “Little Ice Age”, the East Coast of America became extremely cold, while the middle and Western areas of the United States became so dry that the Midwest became a dust bowl and the mountain forests burned to the ground, just as they are doing right now today, for you see, this slowing down of the Gulf Stream has been going on today for about ten years. It also affected Europe dramatically as their weather changed completely during the “Little Ice Age”.

A study of the Anasazi Indians of the 14th century is enlightening. In Chaco Canyon in New Mexico the Anasazi completely disappeared, and where they went no one is sure. But one of the reasons that has emerged from the study of the New Mexico environment for their leaving the area is that soon after the turn of the 14th century, Chaco Canyon went into a drought where they didn’t receive a drop of rain for 47 years! 47 years of drought will definitely cause anyone to move. No water, no life.

The archeologists who presented this study didn’t know why the drought happened, but it is clear why it happened with the information of the Gulf Stream slowing down just before this period. And this is exactly what the Pentagon believes is about to happen here in America, Canada and Europe as we speak.

We may think that this current drought in the US West is going to stop soon, but the earth’s history with the Gulf Stream suggests strongly that it will continue for about another 40 years before it begin to regain balance.

8200 Years Ago

However, the Pentagon report believes that the Gulf Stream, from everything they know, is not just going to slow down, but rather it is going to stop. And the last time this happened was 8200 years ago.

And according to the Pentagon, from their research, this is a much more dramatic scenario. When the Gulf Stream stopped 8200 years ago, it soon left Northern Europe under a half mile of ice, and New York and England quickly endured weather similar to Siberia.

Further it resulted in a true “Ice Age” that lasted about 100 years, and so you can see why the Pentagon is so worried. According to Andrew Marshall, like Sir David King, he says that this Gulf Stream problem is a greater threat to US national security (and other countries’) than all of the world’s combined terrorism. Really, when you think about it, terrorism is nothing compared to the stopping of the Gulf Stream. It’s not even close.

Realize that without stable weather conditions, the growing of food becomes almost impossible, and according to the Pentagon, this could become such a huge problem for the world in the near future, that wars will begin to form all over the world, not for oil or energy, but for food and water.

And with whole countries having to evacuate, if this were to happen, such as Finland, Sweden and Denmark, which will be under ice, and many other countries for other reasons, this enormous immigration is what will cause the most threat to national security, again according to the Pentagon report.

This is why Andrew Marshall and Sir David King wanted the world to know about what was coming so that the world could begin to prepare for the inevitable.

Decembrie 15, 2009 at 4:29 pm Lasă un comentariu

Global cooling myth

The global cooling myth

Every now and again, the myth that „we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970’s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say „in the 1970’s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

 

I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970’s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: „…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970’s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.

George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about „extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”. The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:

Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).

The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call „imminent” (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.

Will also quotes „a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn’t. The piece isn’t from „Science”; it’s from „Science News”. There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigous journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.

The Hays paper above is the most notable example of the „ice age” strand. Indeed, its a very important paper in the history of climate, linking observed cycles in ocean sediment cores to orbital forcing periodicities. Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, „Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem). There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.

Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn’t know enough to make predictions. From the „Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations”, we find that they said we should:

  1. Establish National climatic research program
  2. Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
  3. Develope Climatic index monitoring program
  4. Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
  5. Adoption and development of International climatic research program
  6. Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network

Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.

Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:

  1. The cooling trend from the 40’s to the 70’s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
  2. Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
  3. Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.

Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.

 

Mai 7, 2009 at 3:48 pm Lasă un comentariu

A newsolution to prevent climate change

What if we injected a huge cloud of ash into the atmosphere to deflect sunlight and heat?

Aprilie 22, 2009 at 10:02 am Lasă un comentariu

Global warming

it’s really thrilling

Aprilie 22, 2009 at 9:47 am Lasă un comentariu

happy earth day(22 april)

Earth Day, celebrated April 22, is a day designed to inspire awareness and appreciation for the Earth’s environment. It was founded by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson as an environmental teach-in in 1970 and is celebrated in many countries every year. This date is Spring in the Northern Hemisphere and Autumn in the Southern Hemisphere.

The United Nations celebrates an Earth Day each year on the March equinox, which is often March 20, a tradition which was founded by peace activist John McConnell in 1969.

In September 1969 at a conference in Seattle, Washington, U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin announced that in spring 1970 there would be a nationwide grassroots demonstration on the environment. This occurred during a time of great concern about overpopulation and when there was a strong movement towards „Zero Population Growth.”

Nelson viewed the stabilization of the nation’s population as an important aspect of environmentalism and later said:

„The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become … We have to address the population issue. The United Kingdom, with the U.S. supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it’s phony to say ‘I’m for the environment but not for limiting immigration.'”

Senator Nelson first proposed the nationwide environmental protest to thrust the environment onto the national agenda.” „It was a gamble,” he recalls, „but it worked.”

Five months before the first April 22 Earth Day, on Sunday, November 30, 1969, The New York Times carried a lengthy article by Gladwin Hill reporting on the rising hysteria of „global cooling”:

„Rising concern about the environmental crisis is sweeping the nation’s campuses with an intensity that may be on its way to eclipsing student discontent over the war in Vietnam…a national day of observance of environmental problems…is being planned for next spring…when a nationwide environmental ‘teach-in’…coordinated from the office of Senator Gaylord Nelson is planned….” Senator Nelson also hired Denis Hayes as the coordinator.

April 22, 1970, Earth Day marks the beginning of the modern environmental movement. Approximately 20 million Americans participated, with a goal of a healthy, sustainable environment.

Denis Hayes, the national coordinator, and his old staff organized massive coast-to-coast rallies. Thousands of colleges and universities organized protests against the deterioration of the environment. Groups that had been fighting against oil spills, polluting factories and power plants, raw sewage, toxic dumps, pesticides, freeways, the loss of wilderness, and the extinction of wildlife suddenly realized they shared common values.

Mobilizing 200 million people in 141 countries and lifting the status of environmental issues onto the world stage, Earth Day on April 22 in 1990 gave a huge boost to recycling efforts worldwide and helped pave the way for the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

As the millennium approached, Hayes agreed to spearhead another campaign, this time focused on global warming and a push for clean energy. The April 22 Earth Day in 2000 combined the big-picture feistiness of the first Earth Day with the international grassroots activism of Earth Day 1990. For 2000, Earth Day had the Internet to help link activists around the world. By the time April 22 came around, 5,000 environmental groups around the world were on board, reaching out to hundreds of millions of people in a record 184 countries. Events varied: A talking drum chain traveled from village to village in Gabon, Africa, for example, while hundreds of thousands of people gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., USA.

Earth Day 2000 sent the message loud and clear that citizens the world ‘round wanted quick and decisive action on clean energy. Earth Day 2007 was one of the largest Earth Days to date, with an estimated billion people participating in the activities in thousands of places like Kiev, Ukraine; Caracas, Venezuela; Tuvalu; Manila, Philippines; Togo; Madrid, Spain; London; and New York.

Founded by the organizers of the first April 22 Earth Day in 1970, Earth Day Network promotes environmental citizenship and year round progressive action worldwide. Earth Day Network is a driving force steering environmental awareness around the world. Through Earth Day Network, activists connect change in local, national, and global policies. Earth Day Network’s international network reaches over 17,000 organizations in 174 countries, while the domestic program engages 5,000 groups and over 25,000 educators coordinating millions of community development and environmental protection activities throughout the year. Earth Day is the only event celebrated simultaneously around the globe by people of all backgrounds, faiths and nationalities. More than a half billion people participate in Earth Day Network campaigns every year. [1]

800px-earth_flag_pd

Aprilie 22, 2009 at 9:41 am Lasă un comentariu

O nouă ipoteză: încălzirea globală a

prăjit celulele neanderthalilor

Rudele cele mai apropiate ale omului modern se poate să fi dispărut de pe faţa pământului pentru că aveau mutaţii incompatibile cu schimbările de climat.
Adaptările metabolice din Era Glaciară s-au dovedit a fi fatale pentru strămoşii omului modern după ce climatul de pe continentul european a început să se transforme, fluctuând de la perioade calde la perioade reci, preconizează Patrick Chinnery, specialist în biologie moleculară la Universitatea din Newcastle, Marea Britanie, citat de ,,Newscientist’’.
Biologul, alături de colegul său Gavin Hudson, a identificat mutaţii potenţial dăunătoare într-o secvenţă de ADN proaspăt decodificată în cadrul unui genom mitocondrial de neanderthal. Cei doi cercetători au găsit gene asociate bolilor neurodegenerative şi surzeniei. “Dacă le-am fi găsit la oamenii moderni, ar fi fost foarte grav”, se pronunţă Chinnery.
În toate celulele, de la drojdie la om, rolul principal al unei mitocondrii este să asigure energia necesară pentru alimentarea lor, proces care dă naştere moleculelor ATP.

Mitocondriile din corpul omului îşi fac treaba destul de eficient în condiţii ideale, generând 36 de asemenea molecule cu ajutorul energiei înmagazinate într-o singură moleculă de glucoză.

Mutaţiile care reuşesc să străpungă această eficienţă generează, în schimb, căldură, un proces care ar fi putut fi util pentru adaptarea neanderthalienilor la temperaturi scăzute. Cu toate acestea, un habitat mai cald şi mai puţin stabil din punct de vedere climatic ar fi putut fi fatal pentru strămoşii omului modern “dotat” cu asemenea mutaţii. Având în vedere că a fost decodificată o singură secvenţă de ADN neanderthalian, această ipoteză rămâne provizorie.
Extincţia neanderthalienilor acum 25.000 de ani rămâne încă fără explicaţie. Una dintre teorii spune că ei au pierit în faţa competiţiei cu oamenii moderni, alta că au fost eclipsaţi economic de către aceştia.

Decembrie 21, 2008 at 3:29 pm Lasă un comentariu

Another point of view..a bad one

Eu tin cu incalzirea globala

Toata lumea ma zapaceste cu incalzirea globala. Ca cica e naspa, ca cica o sa ma omoare. Ca navaleste caldura peste mine si nu o sa mai sforai romantic in frigul apartamentului comunist. Ca ma voi exhibita in fata administratorei in chiloteii mei rosii, de asta data obligat de clima. Ca voi face baie in fata blocului pentru ca vor creste oceanele cu 200 de metri, cu cat sunt eu deasupra marii in plina campie de Vest (vai, ce mult nu-mi doresc!).

Ca eu fumez, ca tata fumeaza, ca toti amicii mei fumeaza e definitiv rau – contribuim usor dar sigur la incalzirea globala. Ca ascult muzica in niste boxe care consuma cat frigiderul e iarasi rau (imi spun si vecinii, trebuie sa fie adevarat). Ca televizorul ramane deschis, sa vorbeasca Turcescu de unu’ singur (ca televizorul, vorba aia) in bucatarie e desigur la fel de rau. Incalzire globala, nene!

Dan Dumitrescu m-a convins sa-mi fac semi-bezna in casa, ca sa cresc procentul de becuri economice de la 10% la cel putin 50. Am facut-o si pe asta. Am umplut casa de becuri economice/ecologice. Acum sunt cu nu-stiu-cat-la-suta mai economic si ecologic, dar ma adaptez cam greu la viata in intuneric oferita de becurile de 200 de mii bucata. Au o echivalenta cu becurile normale scrisa pe cutie data dracului.

In stilul asta o sa mor in bezna, vorba lui GK.

Ok, e rau, probabil e grav, omenirea se duce dracului din cauza stratului de ozon care se subtiaza si toti o sa ne incalzim in nu-stiu-cati-ani de nici antiprespirantul lui Roxana (Rexona, sau cum o cheama) nu o sa ne mai pazeasca de behait. Dar totusi, cand?

Nu stiu cum sa spun, dar eu nu vad incalzirea aia globala cu tzespe grade in plus niciunde. Dimpotriva. Aseara am venit de la o bere si afara erau 2 grade si jumatate de milimetru. E noiembrie. FFS! Voiam sa merg pe jos, dupa 100 de metri m-am razgandit si am luat un taxi (pe motorina, poluant, alea, huo!).

Poate suna dubios, dar tare m-as fi bucurat de un pic de incalzire, din aia globala, macar zonala de-ar fi fost… Un 10 grade, acolo, chiar nu ar fi stricat. Sa mai astept mult oare?

PS: vorba unui prieten “nu mai bea, bai, lichide care pot ingheta” (se referea la bere). Da, o fi greseala mea

PS2: pentru aia care spun ca de caldura nu poti face nici sex. Mit urban. Am facut eu, bine mersi, asta vara in Bucuresti, la 38 de grade afara (la umbra masurate), in bloc de beton, atat de comunist cat poate fi el, facut in anii ‘70, la etajul 8, ultimul deci, in camera din coltul cu soare. Si nci nu am slabit (prea disperarea fostei prietene).

Haidem cu incalzirea.

Decembrie 21, 2008 at 3:26 pm Lasă un comentariu

Articole mai vechi


Blog Stats

  • 612 hits