Arctic ice

[biffvernon]

One huge difference

Venus 67million miles from the sun

Mars 142 million miles from the sun

The distance does not make as much difference as one might expect. Try (you will fail) drawing a scale diagram of the Sun, Venus and Mars at the right distances and the right diameters and note how much of the sun's rays are intercepted by the two planets and what difference their distances make.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The distance does not make as much difference as one might expect. Try (you will fail) drawing a scale diagram of the Sun, Venus and Mars at the right distances and the right diameters and note how much of the sun's rays are intercepted by the two planets and what difference their distances make.

It makes enough of one to be of significance.

BFTP

But it isn't <_<

And clearly the comparison of Earth and Venus is of utter irrelevance

BFTP

[SnowBear]

There is no getting away from the fact that the farther away from the sun a planet or moon is the colder generally it is otherwise why would our variation in orbit on Earth cause the Ice Ages.

And the biggest reason Venus is hotter, due to its being closer to the sun (and therefore more suseptable to CME and other solar storms driving off the water vapour,) the water was boiled off ages ago, no rain to clean CO2 out of the atmosphere and lay it down as rocks, therefore the carbon ladened rocks are not taken down into the planets interior due to geological activity etc, so all the carbon that is in the planets interior is slowly released via volcanoes and stays in the atmosphere and builds and builds.

So, compared to Venus. Earth ..

a. wont become a Venus ever even with our intervention, we could never hope to release the amount of carbon contained in all the rocks on Earth and also alter the Earths interior systems with our feeble efforts. Only a catastrophic collision with another large body such as a moon or large comet may change the dynamics of such systems.

b. or maybe when the Sun becomes a Red Giant in its final phases of life and its outer layers approach that of Earth by which time Earth will probably have no atmosphere and no life around to worry about it anyway as it will have been long gone.

Edited May 11, 2008 by SnowBear

[bluecon]

Looked at the same way then Water would be an extremely dangerous liquid, since if you hold your head under water you will die. And water vapour has a much greater affect on climate than CO2.

[SnowBear]

And did Venus ever have water anyway?

Bluecon, huge apologies, not too sure what you mean there? With what part of what we have been speaking here is it in comparison to? Water is a dangerous liquid to air breathers if submerged, but the link between drowning and the effect it has as a greenhouse gas I am not too sure of?

Edited May 11, 2008 by SnowBear

[eddie]

The distance does not make as much difference as one might expect. Try (you will fail) drawing a scale diagram of the Sun, Venus and Mars at the right distances and the right diameters and note how much of the sun's rays are intercepted by the two planets and what difference their distances make.

A 1 meter square area at the top of the atmosphere of Venus would recieve 4.5 times more energy from the sun than a similar area at the top of the Martian atmosphere.

[biffvernon]

A 1 meter square area at the top of the atmosphere of Venus would recieve 4.5 times more energy from the sun than a similar area at the top of the Martian atmosphere.

Thank you, I'll take our word for it, and as Devonian said "the atmospheres are about 93,000 times different".

Which is why I said "The distance does not make as much difference as one might expect."

[Osbourne One-Nil]

A 1 meter square area at the top of the atmosphere of Venus would recieve 4.5 times more energy from the sun than a similar area at the top of the Martian atmosphere.

So would a 2 square metre area.

I've edited the topic title because I'm a grammar nazi.

[The PIT]

Interesting read at the bottom of this article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7352667.stm

[millennia]

The distance does not make as much difference as one might expect. Try (you will fail) drawing a scale diagram of the Sun, Venus and Mars at the right distances and the right diameters and note how much of the sun's rays are intercepted by the two planets and what difference their distances make.

Surely you are just stating the difference in interception of solar energy as a function of apparent disc size as a function of actual disc size and distance without including the reduction of the actual intensity of the radiation as a function of the square of it's distance?

The difference between Venus and Mars in terms of energy received at the surface is vast, particularly as the infra-red is not reflected from the clouds of Venus as was originally assumed because of it's high albedo.

[SnowBear]

Interesting read at the bottom of this article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7352667.stm

Sure is interesting. The main article itself I think probably confirms what most of us think in logical terms, that cosmic particles from outside the solar system will have a low effect on climate, although it doesnt rule it out completely. If there is an influence from outside the solar system it would be from energies or particles which we know little about and/or have difficulty measuring as yet. So called dark matter and energy and isolated sub-atomic particles accelerated to the speed of light from maybe high energy bodies such as quasars and blasars and the such like.

The lower part where it speaks of the effects of particles damaging the ozone, it makes sense, and if research shows a strong correlation throughout the year could mean we can set up a prediction system by long term monitoring of Aurora activity. When thought on, the whole system could be such as this...

Low solar activity > low NOx > high ozone > cooler polar climate

Higher solar activity > high NOx > low ozone > warming polar climate

While high solar activity exists, the whole system could go into over drive until solar activity drops away as the lessening of the ozone in a high solar state allows even more particles to reach the surface, melting ice, damaging more ozone and so on.

Not too sure how this would effect the global climate, the researchers seem to think little at the moment, but is it possible that the polar drop in cooling abilility due to less ice because of the raised influx of particles damaging the ozone layer at the poles and creating a localised warming, effects the rest of the global systems in not being able to transfer heat from the equator to the poles as efficiently as normal?

Edited May 12, 2008 by SnowBear

[The PIT]

Not too sure how this would effect the global climate, the researchers seem to think little at the moment, but is it possible that the polar drop in cooling abilility due to less ice because of the raised influx of particles damaging the ozone layer at the poles and creating a localised warming, effects the rest of the global systems in not being able to transfer heat from the equator to the poles as efficiently as normal?

Got to have some effect and certainly could lead to colder or warmer winters locally as well.

[beng]

Sure is interesting. The main article itself I think probably confirms what most of us think in logical terms, that cosmic particles from outside the solar system will have a low effect on climate, although it doesnt rule it out completely. If there is an influence from outside the solar system it would be from energies or particles which we know little about and/or have difficulty measuring as yet. So called dark matter and energy and isolated sub-atomic particles accelerated to the speed of light from maybe high energy bodies such as quasars and blasars and the such like.

The lower part where it speaks of the effects of particles damaging the ozone, it makes sense, and if research shows a strong correlation throughout the year could mean we can set up a prediction system by long term monitoring of Aurora activity. When thought on, the whole system could be such as this...

Low solar activity > low NOx > high ozone > cooler polar climate

Higher solar activity > high NOx > low ozone > warming polar climate

While high solar activity exists, the whole system could go into over drive until solar activity drops away as the lessening of the ozone in a high solar state allows even more particles to reach the surface, melting ice, damaging more ozone and so on.

Not too sure how this would effect the global climate, the researchers seem to think little at the moment, but is it possible that the polar drop in cooling abilility due to less ice because of the raised influx of particles damaging the ozone layer at the poles and creating a localised warming, effects the rest of the global systems in not being able to transfer heat from the equator to the poles as efficiently as normal?

I suspect they are partly discussing the findings from Sloan and Wolfendale in respect of Forbush Decreases - their conclusions are disputed by Shaviv here - in fact there's a discussion between Sloan and Shaviv at the bottom too

http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale

Incidentally as to the conclusion that a negative AO has no overall global impact on temperatures - I find that surprising. If anyone has the time to correlate winter polar ice extent and N Hemispheric temperatures with the AO I'd be interested to know what they show and whether they support that conclusion.

Edited May 12, 2008 by beng

[bluecon]

Bluecon, huge apologies, not too sure what you mean there? With what part of what we have been speaking here is it in comparison to? Water is a dangerous liquid to air breathers if submerged, but the link between drowning and the effect it has as a greenhouse gas I am not too sure of?

If they are going to consider CO2 dangerous then water is far more dangerous.

Water vapour is a much greater greenhouse gas than CO2 could ever be.

Around here there is a large greenhouse operation. They truck in CO2 and pump it into the greenhouses to make the plants grow. Now that is a greenhouse gas.

[biffvernon]

Water vapour is a much greater greenhouse gas than CO2 could ever be.

Around here there is a large greenhouse operation. They truck in CO2 and pump it into the greenhouses to make the plants grow. Now that is a greenhouse gas.

:lol: :lol:

[bluecon]

And what is the purpose of this post? Seems rather like a child who does not get his way.

[biffvernon]

Just tired of explaining the difference between forcing and feedback. It's all been said before.

[bluecon]

Just tired of explaining the difference between forcing and feedback. It's all been said before.

So if the Earth is cooling and the Arctic ice caps are back to normal extent does that mean all the forcing and feedback was bunk and their effect was exagerated?

[Gray-Wolf]

So if the Earth is cooling and the Arctic ice caps are back to normal extent does that mean all the forcing and feedback was bunk and their effect was exaggerated?

Back to their normal extents????

Once again we need to explore the difference between 'extent' and thickness.

Firstly, we have had record low levels of ice (both extent and thickness) in the Baltic.....if we've watched the temp anoms up there over winter we'd know why....and many of the shallow sea levels are shedding their ice 2 weeks early this year.

Due to the poor thickness achieved in all areas this year, due mainly to late ice formation and disruption towards the end of 2007 this years melt may well appear alarming at it's onset as the < 1m ice disappears 'overnight'.

Ice will always form over the months of total darkness at both poles, I could not think of a time, apart from when the sun swells in it's dying throes, that this will not be the case. The measure is, and will always be , how much ice remains at the end of the melt season. Measuring the state of the ice at winters end to access it's condition is premature.

[bluecon]

Back to their normal extents????

Once again we need to explore the difference between 'extent' and thickness.

Firstly, we have had record low levels of ice (both extent and thickness) in the Baltic.....if we've watched the temp anoms up there over winter we'd know why....and many of the shallow sea levels are shedding their ice 2 weeks early this year.

Due to the poor thickness achieved in all areas this year, due mainly to late ice formation and disruption towards the end of 2007 this years melt may well appear alarming at it's onset as the < 1m ice disappears 'overnight'.

Ice will always form over the months of total darkness at both poles, I could not think of a time, apart from when the sun swells in it's dying throes, that this will not be the case. The measure is, and will always be , how much ice remains at the end of the melt season. Measuring the state of the ice at winters end to access it's condition is premature.

Well just look at the Antarctic conditions then.

And note they still have quite cold conditions in the Arctic. It will be interesting to see the effect of this on the melt.

[Gray-Wolf]

As is noted up on the thread in Weather one area of the arctic is still a few degrees below norm but how long can this situation maintain with 24hr sun up there ATM?

Once we start to see dark water in the areas then I imagine we'll see the rapid thaw most are predicting.

[SnowBear]

Lets see how it goes, it may surprise us, as you say GW, the temps are a few degrees below norm, which is a difference to the last few years. If they stay below norm with the 24 hour sun then we have to say something is different about this year. This year may be an anomaly with respect to recent years, or it may be a turn in trends to cooling.

Biff, bluecon is a new member, joined 29th March 2008, and only posted 60 odd posts. Might be someone who hasn't debated the subjects as deep as we have on here and/or learning about many systems and mechanisms? It might seem boring and that you are repeating yourself over and over, but we are always going to be having new folks drop by and we don't want to frighten them off!

Bluecon, there is the fact that a lot of the ice laid down this past winter is thinner than previous years, but the extent is over a larger area, its whether that ice "sticks" around and is built on over the next year or disappears due to it being thin. There is also a possibility that the thin ice may break up but due to ocean current may pack up into thicker ice closer to the pole before it can completely melt? Not too sure of the ocean currents up there so that's just a thought I had in passing on the subject.

[biffvernon]

Biff, bluecon is a new member, joined 29th March 2008, and only posted 60 odd posts. Might be someone who hasn't debated the subjects as deep as we have on here and/or learning about many systems and mechanisms? It might seem boring and that you are repeating yourself over and over, but we are always going to be having new folks drop by and we don't want to frighten them off!

Thankyou, Snowbear, you are quite right. Perhaps you could explain to Bluecon why CO2 is a forcing greenhouse gas and therefore very dangeroaus, while Water Vapour is a feedback greenhouse gas and we therefore do not need to worry about it in the same way.

In the meantime, Bluecon, search on RealCLimate.com and you will find excellent explanations as to the difference between forcing and feedback. They explain it so much better than I can.

Here are a couple of articles to go at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...n-6-easy-steps/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...gassy-argument/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...or-water-vapor/

[SnowBear]

Nope, wont do that. If you have a post elsewhere explaining, why not point the new member to that post as we see many of the technical guys on here doing when a previous post of theirs explains that which a member asks, or as you have now, posted the links to some information, or even directed them to the NetWeather climate change links directory which was created for such purposes as this?

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=44620

ANYWAY..kick back Biff, have a jar aint gonna argue over it.

Just as a point of interest, does anyone have a link to the global cloud cover variations for the past say two decades?

[bluecon]

In the meantime, Bluecon, search on RealCLimate.com and you will find excellent explanations as to the difference between forcing and feedback. They explain it so much better than I can.

Will the people on real climate be able to explain how during the last ten years while there has been a huge, tremendous increase in CO2 emmissions the Earth has cooled slightly? I don't see how this fits with their theorys.