Tag Archives: Global warming
Snowpack is No Longer a Viable Water Supply
Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, College, Crisis Management, Education, Generational, Global warming, Government, Higher Education, History, Passionate People, Science, solar, Technology, United States, Universities, US History, Water
aquifers, Dr. James E. Church, drought, Global warming, lakes, snow surveys, snowfall, snowpack, snowpack surveys, University of Nevada, UoNV, water level, water management, wet
The Sierra Nevada mountains. In the winter, cold, moist air off the Pacific Ocean is pushed up over them. The air loses the ability to hold the water vapor as it rises up and snow precipitates out. The snow piles up and waits for Spring and as the Summer approaches the warm air melts the snowpack and water flows. That is the source of the water supply for California and western Nevada. Sometimes.
Snowpack: The Alpha and Omega of Western Water Management
Sometimes the snow doesn't fall. The creeks and rivers dwindle. The water level in the lakes and reservoirs drop and a drought begins. It is a cycle that has repeated many times in the western United States, but not when so many people have been dependent on the annual water flow.
Not Good: CA drought versus wet years
In this part of the country, it is all about the snowpack. If the Sierra Nevada mountains have a good snowpack, there is water. If not, well… This is the model of water management in California and western Nevada and in the last few decades have proven that it is not a good one. Drought is not an exception in the West, but the rule. As the population grows, the Sierra Nevada snowpack becomes the enemy.
Global Warming: Raining on the Snowpack Parade
There is growing problem with the reliance on the snowpack. Global warming. The impact of the Earth's atmosphere retaining more of the Sun's energy may be that snowfall may become rare, or non-existent in temperate climates.
March 2010 Snowpack
Beyond the issue of drought is the issue of rain versus snow. The West has reservoirs and lakes, but that storage is not enough if the precipitation falls as rain, not snow. Rain also is not as efficient as snow in replenishing the deep aquifers that have been used to supplement the surface water.
Up the Creek With No Water
Drought is the new normal in regions in the West dependent on snowpack. The current response has been to push for water restrictions. This is not a flawed approach as the water users have become accustomed to the mindless waste of fresh water; however, reducing the use of water is not going to solve the problem.
Global warming is causing the precipitation to fall as rain, not snow. If water management in California and Nevada can't learn to transition off the snowpack model it won't matter how much water is saved. You can't reduce the use of water when there is no water to save.
SIDE NOTE: Creator of the Snowpack Survey
On the University of Nevada (UoNV) campus in Reno, Nevada there is a building named the 'Church Fine Arts Building.' Some even make the mistake of calling it the Church 'of' Fine Arts, which might be appropriate for some who dedicates his or her life to the Arts.
Dr. James E. Church on a snowpack survey
However, the building is named after the UoNV professor, Dr. James E. Church, who died in 1959. He taught Latin, German, and Fine Arts at the university from 1892 to 1939. He was not employed as a scientist at the UoNV; however, Dr. Church invented the snowpack survey that is still used today to determine the water content of the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada range.
It is said that he and his wife's ashes are in the cornerstone of the Church Fine Arts Building.
Dr. James E. Church
Understanding Global Warming and Cold Weather
Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Green, Health, Higher Education, Politics, Science, solar, Taxes, Technology, Universities
air masses, carbon dioxide, cold, cold air, Conservatives, Donald Trump, fluid dynamics, Global Energy Retention, Global warming, GOP, heat, meteorology, radiation, solar heating, solar radiation, storms, thermal dynamics, Trumpsters, warm air, water vapor, Weather, winter
Few things define a person's intelligence than the ability to understand complex issues. Few things define a person's stupidity than to take a complex issue and use a short-circuit of logic to make it sound simple.
Every winter some people prove their lack of intelligence and say something like, "I just shoveled five inches of global warming off my driveway." This makes other small-minded people giggle, and the speaker feel like he has just proved he is smarter than all the intelligent, educated people.
He is not.
Global Warming and Winter Weather 101
To understand the threat of global warming a person first has to understand the effect of the Earth's 23.5° tilt of its axis off the solar plane. I just lost 30% of the stupid people.
The Earth's tilt causes one hemisphere (north or south) to receive more radiant energy than the other in the few months around the solstices. This means that one of the polar regions is receiving external heat from the Sun, and the other is receiving no solar energy because it is in darkness. I'm about to lose another 20% of the stupid people.
The cold air in the polar region would stay exactly where it is if it weren't for the Laws of Thermal Dynamics. Ah, there they go. Okay, were down to the last 50% of the stupid people.
Among other things, thermal dynamics explain the behavior of the energy exchange between two substances, and Fluid Dynamics help to explain how a difference in temperature in a substance like air causes cooler air to mix with warmer air. I just lost another 25% of the stupid people. It was the 'fluid dynamics' thing, wasn't it?
The greater the difference in temperature, the greater, or more actively, the warmer air will mix with the cooler air. If the last 25% of stupid people can just hang on, I'm almost there.
Because there is more carbon dioxide suspended in our atmosphere, it absorbs more of the solar radiation, and that increases the temperature of the air. That causes more water to vaporize and it also absorbs solar radiation and that further increases the temperature of the air. Damn, I lost another 10%.
During the northern hemisphere's winter, the north polar region has a lot of cold air that desperately wants to mix with the warm air to the south to equalize the temperature between cold and warm. The greater the temperature difference, the more powerful the movement of the air toward each other. Okay, l just lost another 10%.
I see the blank faces of the last 5% of stupid people. Cold air is cold air. It remains cold as it moves toward the warm air. It is only after it mixes with warmer air (i.e.; storms) that the temperature of the two air masses begin to equalize. Oh, there go the last 5% of the stupid people.
For the rest of us, global warming creates warmer air masses and that can lead to the increased movement between the two air masses resulting in stronger winds and more cold air moving farther south. Also, warmer air can retain more water vapor, so when cold and warm air meet, the storms can result in higher precipitation.
Can Venus Be Made Habitable?
25 Monday Dec 2017
Posted by Paul Kiser in Green, Science, solar, Space, Technology, Travel
atmosphere, carbon dioxide, CO₂, CO², Earth, extreme makeover, Global warming, greenhouse effect, hydrogen, nitrogen, O², oxygen, solar system, terraforming, Venus, Weather
Venus: Too hot, too much atmosphere
Venus may be the future of Earth and may also hold the answers to global warming.
Earth's atmosphere is 78 percent nitrogen, 21% oxygen, (O₂,) and 1% other gases including carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water vapor. Even though CO₂ is considered a trace gas in our atmosphere it is a major player in the absorption of energy from the Sun. Nitrogen and oxygen are 'invisible' to the Sun's radiation, so the energy from the Sun passes through the two gases without being absorbed.
The atmosphere of Venus 96% CO₂ and 3.5% nitrogen, with 0.5% other gases, including water vapor. Venus' atmosphere is also extremely dense. The pressure at the surface of Venus is the same as the pressure at 1,000 meters (3,000 ft.) under the surface of Earth's ocean.
Venus is also hot. The CO₂ absorbing the Sun's energy retains the heat in a runaway greenhouse effect that keeps the temperature at 462 °C (864 °F,) both day and night.
The interesting, and terrifying fact is that the carbon found on Earth is roughly equal to the carbon found on Venus. The difference is that Earth stores its carbon in the ocean, and in calcite deposits that consists of dead marine life that settled in the bottom of an ocean and became a sedimentary rock formation.
There is also a nitrogen problem. Even though nitrogen makes up 3.5% of Venus' atmosphere, it is four times the amount of nitrogen in Earth's atmosphere.
Venus could be Earth Like if:
Almost all of the atmospheric carbon and three-quarters of the nitrogen could be transformed into solid carbon and solid nitrogen.
Some of the oxygen from the CO₂ could be liberated for the atmosphere.
The rest of the oxygen could be liberated to combine with hydrogen in the upper atmosphere to create water.
The Sun's energy could be reduced (blocked) to allow Venus to cool.
Venus' rotation could be sped up and a slight tilt in the axis to match Earth's rotation and axis.
Numbers 4 and 5 are beyond our current technology, however, solving the 1 through 3 issues are a matter of finding or creating an organism that could float in venus' upper atmosphere and convert CO₂ to O₂. This could help scientists find a way to remove the excess carbon from Earth's atmosphere and prevent global warming from becoming a runaway greenhouse effect on our planet.
It should be noted that Earth's temperature is a delicate balance between incoming and outgoing energy. We don't know at what point a runaway greenhouse effect kicks in and destroys the energy balance that maintains a near constant temperature on Earth; however, there is a point of no return where evaporating water vapor and CO₂ will absorb more energy from the Sun than what is radiated back into space. If we reach that point, Earth will become another Venus and the human race will cease to exist.
Science Versus Stupidity
31 Sunday May 2015
Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Green, Health, Honor, Internet, Politics, Religion, Science, Social Interactive Media (SIM), solar, Technology
belief, Bible, church, Conservatives, evolution, fact, Global warming, GOP, logic, Mythology, Republican, Republicans, scientific process, stupid, Stupidity, Tea Party
Earth: Victim of Stupidity
"Science doesn't have all the answers."
It's hard to know where to start when someone makes a statement like the one above. 'Science' isn't an entity, so it can't possess anything, but beyond the poor grammar is the issue of motivation and failed logic.
When a person makes this statement their motivation is often in defense of religion. The idea seems to be that if science doesn't have all the answers, then religious and mythological beliefs are valid. Using this logic one could say that because nitrogen doesn't make up all of the Earth's atmosphere, (air is 78% nitrogen,) then the air we breathe is all fairy dust.
No intelligent person would say that science has all the answers. We are just scratching the surface of understanding the mechanisms by which our universe operates. Even after science has shown us how one system works, scientists may discover that there are other factors that affect that system. We are on a path of discovery and we have a long way to travel.
However, there are no shortcuts. Just because science hasn't fully explained everything doesn't give anyone license to invent an explanation that is based on opinion or agenda. This includes explanations that were created over a thousand years ago by people who didn't even understand that urination and defecation are the end process of digestion.
All science begins with asking a question. Why? How? What? In the process of answering those questions, the scientific process rules some things out. By narrowing down what isn't a cause or a factor the scientist begins to clarify the important causes or factors. Religion ignores this process and immediately jumps to an answer that lacks any support other than, "Because I say so!"
I have no problem with anyone's mythological beliefs…until the believer wants the rest of society to abide by those beliefs. Public policies, laws, education and regulations that exist or are governed by someone's mythological beliefs is pure stupidity, even if a majority believe in the mythology.
Those that don't 'believe' in evolution, global warming, vaccinations, or any other scientifically based fact are stupid. I'm not calling anyone names, I'm saying they lack intelligence and logical thinking. They are incapable of making good decisions. They are, by definition, stupid.
Believe in God? Fine. But, giving credibility to religious beliefs over scientific fact defines one as being stupid. Making religious beliefs part of societal laws is mass stupidity.
This is Why (2015 vs the 2000's)
Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, College, Communication, Crisis Management, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, History, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Politics, Pride, Print Media, Privacy, Public Image, Public Relations, Religion, Respect, Science, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Space, Taxes, Technology, Traditional Media, Universities, US History
2004 Tsunami, 9/11, Afghani, Amazon.com, Anthrax, Assault weapons ban, Conservatives, Election 2000, Facebook, Florida vote counting, George W. Bush, Global Financial Disaster, Global warming, Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, Mars, NASA, Opportunity, Pope John Paul II, President, President Barack Obama, Republicans, Rovers, Saddam Hussein, Smartphone, Space Shuttle Columbia, Spirit, Supreme Court, Texting, Twenty-ohs, Twitter, Virginia Tech Massacre, Wikipedia, YouTube
The 2000's – The Defeat of America
Decade of Fear: Y2K, 9/11, WMD's, Katrina, Banking Collapse, Unemployment, Global Warming
Population: 281.4 million
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita: $44,492
Median Annual Income: $40,703
Life Expectancy: 76.8
Average Age at Marriage: Men 26.1, Women 23.9
% of pop. w/high school degree or higher: 80.4%
% of pop. w/college degree or higher: 24.4%
TWENTY OH's
If the 1990's were a seismic event of technological and social change, the twenty-oh's is when the tsunami of change hit. Had nothing else happened but the advancement of the Internet, the changes by that alone would have drastically remade the world as we knew it; however, the twenty-oh's were not content in merely redefining society and the way we communicate, the first decade of the new millennium was going to do an extreme makeover of all our expectations in life. Here are twenty things that made us say Oh!
Y2K, the disaster that never came (Jan. 2000)
Elections of 2000
Florida election fiasco (Nov./Dec. 2000)
Supreme Court appoints George W. Bush as President (Dec. 2000)
Attacks of September 11, 2001
Anthrax letters
Wars of Just Because
Afghanistan (2001-2014)
Iraq (2003-2011)
Rise of Smaller and Smarter Technology (Entire Decade)
Space Shuttle Columbia destroyed on reentry (Feb. 2003)
Mars Rovers bounce to successful landings and missions
Spirit (June 2003)
Opportunity (July 2003)
Saddam Hussein captured (Dec. 2003)
Assault weapon ban expires (Sept. 2004)
Online Wonders
Indian Ocean Earthquake/Tsunami (Dec. 2004)
Pope John Paul dies (Apr. 2005)
Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 2005)
Virginia Tech Massacre (Apr. 2007)
Global Economic Disaster (2007-08)
Financial giants collapse
Housing market collapses
Auto industry collapses
Massive unemployment
Price of gas soars, and falls….as a function of conservative politics
Barack Obama elected as President (Nov. 2008)
The Twenty-oh's began with the most bizarre Presidential election in American history, followed by the most shocking attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, followed by two United States initiated wars that would be fought simultaneously, followed by the loss of the Space Shuttle and its crew on reentry to Earth, followed by an earthquake/tsunami that would kill almost a quarter of a million people in 14 countries in one day, followed by a massacre at Virginia Tech, followed by a near meltdown of our global financial system, followed by an African-American being elected as President.
THE GREAT CONSERVATIVE FAILURE
Despite all that happened, it was politics that defined the 2000's. Keeping with the two-faced Reagan policy of "America Can't" and money must be taken from the poor and given to the rich, President George Bush took the cost of running two wars off the books so that he could look like he was cutting government spending when he was, in fact, putting the government deeper in debt and running massive deficits.
Behind the scenes, a decade of conservative-driven deregulation in the financial industry created a bad debt bomb that exploded in 2007-08. Almost overnight, America's economy was devastated by greed and a lack of common sense. People who saw the disaster coming took the attitude that everyone else was unethical, so why should I be the only good person? When the curtain fell on Wall Street, Republicans, who created the environment for the disaster, quietly stepped away and whistling as if they were unaware there was a problem.
Bush 43, was completely out of his league in dealing with the problem. To repair the damage to our economy would require taking actions that was would essentially prove that the Reagan doctrine was the cause of the disaster, and President Bush was not willing to take the necessary actions. Fortunately, Barack Obama had just been elected and, with Bush impotent in action, the 44th President stepped up and began to manage the crisis and establishing a plan of recovery.
The Republican caused disaster did not cause conservatives to humbly acknowledge their failure, but rather pushed them to further deny the facts. As the economy began recovering, conservatives began blaming Democrats for not making the recovery happen faster. As conservative predictions of Democratic policy failure began to be proven wrong, conservatives began raising absurd and meaningless issues to redirect people's attention (e.g.; Obama was not an American, Obama was a Muslim, Obama had a secret plan to take everyone's guns away, etc.)
Because the Reagan doctrine was based on white, 1950's suburban thinking, the hate for President Obama came naturally to the white, male voter. Instead of a political correction for the failed Reagan agenda, conservatives became even more rabid and illogical. By the end of the decade America was heading for defeat at the hands of conservatives who had taken away American prosperity and were unwilling to accept any idea that didn't match their failed version of the world.
NEXT: Epilogue
THE SERIES: The 1950's The 1960's The 1970's The 1980's The 1990's
Smoke Adds To Global Warming
Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Ethics, Green, Health, Politics, Science, solar, Universities
atmosphere, children, environment, Ethics, Global warming, infrared, King fire, Nevada, Reno, Rim fire, smoke, solar, Sun
September morning smoke haze over Reno, Nevada caused by California King fire
Seventy-eight percent of the Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen, and twenty-one percent is oxygen. Both of these gases do not absorb infrared radiation. The heat from the Sun passes through nitrogen and oxygen. When scientists refer to global warming they are not talking about the two gases that make up 99% of our atmosphere.
Global warming is what happens in one percent of the atmosphere. Carbon, water vapor, and other trace gases/particles absorb infrared radiation from the Sun, and from solar infrared radiation that.is reflected off the Earth's surface. One percent of our air holds the balance between continuity of our climate and rapid variances.
Some are proud of their role in causing devastating environmental change.
This summer one of my friends, Dr. Narayan Adhikari, completed his doctoral theses. He studied the rate of infrared absorption in the atmosphere by using instruments that regularly measured the air over various locations in northern Nevada. His research included two significant events that impacted the air quality in the Reno, Nevada area. One event was a dust storm in June of last year and the other was smoke from the Rim fire in California in August of 2013.
Both of these events gave him the opportunity to measure the impact of infrared absorption when the atmosphere has a dramatic increase in amount of aerosol particulates. The results of his studies indicate a significant increase in heating of the atmosphere by infrared absorption during such events.
This debunks the idea that clouds, smoke, and other 'sun-blocking' events might help cool the atmosphere. Smoke from fires, such as the King fire currently burning in California will trap more heat and cause increased global warming.
2012: The Year That Didn't
29 Saturday Dec 2012
Posted by Paul Kiser in Crisis Management, Government, History, Opinion, Politics, Pride, Space
2012, Affordable Care Act, Apocalypse, Climate change, Curiosity, December 21, Doomsday, Facebook, gay marriage, Global warming, Greece, London, Mars, Mars Rover, Mars Science Lab, Mitt Romney, Recession, Summer Olympic Games
Game over, man, game over…oh, wait, false alarm.
A lot of things were supposed to happen in 2012, but they didn't. Here are a selected few of the 'didn'ts from this past year:
The Apocalypse didn't happen on December 21, or any other day this year, nor the cataclysmic asteroid, the massive solar flares from the Sun, nor the shift of the magnetic poles. All part of the end of the world scenarios planned for this year that didn't materialize.
2012 will also be known for what Congress didn't accomplish. It was labeled the 'Do Nothing' Congress for the obstructionist attitude of conservatives who sought to keep President Obama and Democrats from governing the country.
Facebook was going to be the stock to own and once on the market the sky would be the limit on its per share price. Somebody forgot to tell the grumpy old white investors that the thing they love to hate was supposed to go big.
The face that didn't.
President Barack Obama was supposed to be humiliated in a landslide loss to Mitt Romney. He wasn't humiliated and he didn't lose.
Romney also predicted that London's security wasn't ready for the Summer Olympic Games. They were and Romney publicly embarrassed himself and the United States.
Greece was supposed to have a major economic disaster and bring down the rest of Europe. It didn't, but many still have high hopes it will collapse in 2013.
The Arab Spring of 2011 was supposed to lead to more democratic countries without dictators. Somebody forgot to tell Egypt.
Outlawing gay marriage was supposed to be part of many States final solution in destroying gays and lesbians. It turns out America isn't that hateful, nor that stupid.
The Supreme Court was going to rule the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. They didn't.
Climate change skeptics were financing studies to prove that Global Warming is a hoax. They didn't and it isn't.
The landing of the NASA/JPL's mission to Mars was going to be too complex to succeed and result in a spectacular U.S. failure. The MSL (Mars Science Lab) rover team delivered on all their promises and Curiosity is going places no other country can hope to match for years.
Massive protests by the Occupy movement were going to lead to riots and a general societal breakdown. It didn't happen, but the Occupy movement was heard at the ballot box in November.
America's economy and unemployment were going to reverse and fall back into a recession in 2012. Our economy and unemployment continue to defy the skeptics.
Gloom and doom was the expectation by many during this past year. As bad as 2012 was supposed to be, let's hope that 2013 will restore a more positive attitude in our nation….right after we fall off the fiscal cliff.
Romneylans: A New Species of Stupidity
21 Tuesday Aug 2012
Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, Honor, Politics, Religion, Science, Taxes, US History, Women
ACA, Affordable Care Act, Christianity, Climate change, Conservatives, economy, George W. Romney, Global warming, guns, Healthcare, Immigration, Jesus Christ, jobs, Mitt Romney, New Testament, NRA, patriotism, Romans 14:10, Romneylans, Romulans, Todd Akin, Unemployment
Romulans of the Star Trek kind
Romulans (Star Trek Series): A alien race ruled by a hierarchical society that is always at war or in an uneasy truce with almost everyone, noted by an almost illogical egocentric society using cunning and deception to gain the advantage. Also identifiable by their pointy ears and uni-haircut.
Todd Akin: Romneylan of the stupid kind
Romneylans (rom-nee-lans): Similar to Romulans, but without the pointy ears and the spiffy haircut.
Romneylans have invaded Earth (specifically the United States) and if they are not defeated we risk losing everything that makes America great.
Ironically, Romneylans are NOT identified by their alleged support of candidate Mitt Romney. Romneylans are actually united by an irrational hate for President Obama. If Bozo the Clown were running against President Obama, Romneylans would vote for Bozo. (NOTE: Mitt Romney is NOT Bozo the Clown and my apologies to any clown named Bozo.)
Romneylans are also noted for their hate for liberals, rejection of reason, and an unshakable commitment to stupidity. Some examples:
Patriotism: Romneylans (A.K.A.: Conservatives) believe that if you don't agree with them then you are not an American. That in itself is stupid, but what takes it to a new level is the idea that beating your breast about America's military might is considered patriotic, but it is unpatriotic if you support the civil servants that serve our country with honor and have made America the envy of the citizens of most other countries. Romneylans think that dismantling our government is patriotic.
Religion: Romneylans claim to be Christians. Christianity is identified as the belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings that can be found in the New Testament. Romans 14:10 of the New Testament states:
But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Romans 14:10 King James version
No need to interpret what is being meant by not judging others. Yet, Romneylans feel compelled to declare that the Bible gives them the right to persecute and pass judgement on almost anyone. Ironically, Jesus Christ is one of the most compassionate religious figures in human mythology, but Romneylans love saying "hate the sin, not the sinner," which is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever said by a group of people known for stupid remarks. A glance at any Romneylan Facebook page and it is easy to determine that their hate is boundless and their compassion for anyone they hate is nonexistent.
Economy: The depth of stupidity of Romneylans is most evident with their take on the economy. The 2007-09 economic collapse in America occurred as a direct result of unbridled greed in private business and a lack of ethics throughout business in general. That is documented.
However, Romneylans believe that the economic collapse was caused by government regulation and that our economy can be restored by eliminating any of the safeguards that make ethical business possible. Romneylans depend on a permanent state of denial about what Conservatives and conservative policies did to bring America to the brink of disaster.
US Employment Data
Jobs: The impact of the 2007-09 Recession on jobs was felt through the first quarter of 2010. There is no magic bullet to recover the jobs lost during that time, but what is not going to help our nation's unemployment is to eliminate civil service jobs that employ millions of middle class citizens. Romneylans rabid hate for government is the classic 'biting the hand that feeds you' syndrome.
Healthcare: One of the biggest problems America has faced in the last thirty years is the rising cost of healthcare. A major component of this issue is the uninsured citizen without access to affordable healthcare. The uninsured person can't afford to see a doctor for preventive, or minor health issues, so this often results in that patient receiving no care until it becomes a major health problem. That increases the cost of treatment for which we all indirectly pay. The Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA) solves this problem.
However, Mitt Romney, nor his major contributors will ever have to worry about access to proper medical treatment, thus they don't care about the millions of Americans who have no access. Ironically, many Romneylans will benefit from ACA either directly or indirectly. Unfortunately, stupidity rules the day with conservative voters and they have convinced themselves that ACA is akin to the Apocalypse, thus it must be stopped before it can take effect.
Another issue is women's health, in particular, contraception and abortion. While some may say this is another religious issue, for Romneylans it seems to have more of a tie to the gender that is making most of the noise. (See Conservative Pig Influenza of 2012.)
Science: Anyone who seriously believes that Creationism should be taught in public and or private schools as an alternative option to evolution is certainly a Romneylan. Creationism has no basis as a rational explanation for how the universe and humans came into existence but that doesn't stop Romneylans from declaring mythology as science.
Regarding climate change, science has demonstrated that we are witnessing an extraordinary change in Earth's climate on a scale that exceeds any climate change during the last 600,000 years. A study funded in part by conservatives to disprove the science of global warming ended up confirming the data.
This doesn't stop a Romneylan. They dispute science by being 'skeptical.' Skeptical is another way of saying, "I'm being stupid."
Immigration: The Hispanics population in America is growing; however, Mexicans coming to America is not what is driving Conservatives panic attack on this issue. They are just scared white men. That's sad, but Romneylans are taking their panic and turning into an issue that is long on fear mongering and short on facts. Romneylans are now trying to arm themselves and monitor the border. Guns and vigilantes can be entertaining, but not very smart.
One of the ironies is that most Romneylans nay not know that Romney's father was born in Mexico when his family fled there to avoid prosecution by the United States of America. His family returned when they became concerned about violence in Mexico.
Romneylan with an open mind?
Guns: I was raised in one of America's prime hunting communities. I was one of the first to complete an NRA (National Rifle Association) safety course. In addition, I was taught that guns and people don't mix, so we had a rule to not come back into town with a loaded gun after hunting. Safety and respect for others was key.
Then the NRA became political and this was the cry of gun owners:
When guns are outlawed, only Outlaws will have guns
Clever. Here's the reality. Almost every person will at some point in their lives be filled with so much anger that they will have a fleeting desire to injure or kill someone else. The NRA wants that person to have a gun accessible so they can act on that impulse. Does that seem smart or stupid?
Are We Missing an Ice Age? (Part III of III)
Posted by Paul Kiser in History, Science
apsidal precession, axial precession, Earth Science, Earth's orbit, eccentricity, Global warming, Ice Age, insolation, Milankovitch Cycles, Milution Milankovic, obliquity, Warm Age
PART III – Should We Be In An Ice Age Now?
IMAGE 1.0 - The Northern Hemisphere at the end of the last Ice Age (10,000 years ago)
RECAP: In Part I of this series, we looked at how scientists have determined that Earth has experienced regular cycles of cold climates followed by brief periods of warm climates during the last 400,000 years. We learned that the current cycle has been different because the warm period has persisted when past warm climates have rapidly dropped back into a cold climate. We also discussed how the Sun acts as a 'battery charger' for Earth's climate.
Part II of the series explained that Earth's orbital relationship with the Sun also follows a cyclic pattern and that almost 100 years ago, a Serbian named Milutin Milanković proposed possible mechanisms related to Earth's tilt and orbit that could be the root cause of the regular cycle of Ice Ages.
No one can say for certain whether or not that we should be in an Ice Age today. Past Warm Ages have typically collapsed back into a cooler period within a few thousand years followed by a complete return to an Ice Age within about 10,000 years. If Earth past climate history is correct then our planet should be in a cooling period, if not into a full-scale Ice Age. Instead, Earth is warming. The Milankovitch Cycles don't all concur on this issue, but there is some intriguing evidence that suggests we have missed a cooling period based on Earth's orbit and tilt.
Consider the factors discussed in Part II of this series.
Orbit Eccentricity or Circular to Ellipse
Our orbit eccentricity is about one-third the way from our lowest level, meaning Earth's orbit is becoming more circular. It's cycle is about the same as Earth's climate cycle, so it could be a significant factor. Interestingly, the eccentric peak of .02 during the current cycle was half to one-third of the peak past three cycles (.04 to .06.)¹ Could that be a factor in the prolonged warm period? Possibly, but why? Earth just passed the peak a few thousand years ago so, does a low peak eccentricity result in a prolonged Warm Age?
Paul Kiser
Obliquity or Earth's Tilt On Its Axis
Earth is about halfway between our high and low peak tilt angles. Our planet's tilt, or obliquity is on an approximate 41,000 year cycle, so we were just passing through our highest peak obliquity at the start of this Warm Period. If high tilt angle is a trigger for a Warm Age, then we should be cooling down, unless obliquity must be coupled with another factor to trigger a cooling period.
Axial Precession or Earth's Wobble
Earth's axis wobbles and it takes 26, 000 years to complete one cycle. It is hard to see a connection with the slow regression of the seasons and Earth's climate, but perhaps the cycle of axial precession couples with another factor to trigger a cooling period, or sustain a Warm Age.
IMAGE 1.1 - Apsidal Precession - The Creep of the Seasons in Earth's Orbit
Apsidal Precession or The Hulu Hoop Effect
Apsidal precession is factor has some interesting possibilities on how it might impact Earth's climate. Currently the Summer in the northern hemisphere occurs when Earth is farthest from the Sun (aphelion.) Our closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) occurs during Summer in the southern hemisphere.
IMAGE 1.2 Land Masses in the Northern Hemisphere
IMAGE 1.3 - Land Masses in the Southern Hemisphere
Earth's northern hemisphere is about 40% land and 60% water. The southern hemisphere is about 20% land and 80% water. Land that is not covered with ice absorbs more energy than water because water reflects more of Sun's energy back into space. In Part II we learned that the hemisphere that is in summer during perihelion receives 23% more solar radiation. Because of the greater land mass, the northern hemisphere will retain more of the summer Sun's energy in 10,000 years (when perihelion occurs in July) than the southern hemisphere does currently.
From a standpoint of apsidal precession, Earth should be in the coldest period since we are closest to the Sun when the smallest percentage of our land mass will absorb the energy or insolation.
Orbital Inclination
The tilt of Earth's orbital plane off of the invariable plane is on a 100,000 year cycle, which coincides with Earth's climate cycle. Since higher angles of our orbital plane result in a higher obliquity and magnify the effect of land mass absorption differential between the two hemispheres, it could be a factor in triggering the Ice/Warm Age cycles; however, it is unclear how this factor could contribute to the prolonged warm period.
Are We Missing an Ice Age?
Earth's climate cycle does not follow a perfect 100,000 year pattern. Most people would be happy if we never went into another Ice Age; however, if we have missed the trigger of the next Ice Age, what does that mean for our climate? Will Earth's delicate climate balance be ruined leading into a runaway warm period or will the next Ice Age come in a rapid onset like in a disaster movie?
The Sun charges Earth's climate 'battery' and variations in how much solar radiation our planet absorbs dramatically affects the environment for all life. It will be important for scientists to discover what is happening to our climate and why. Life on Earth exists in a narrow band that is not to cold and not to hot and we have no practical methods to reinforce or siphon off the Sun's energy in a crisis.
While scientists to continue to examine this issue there are other issues that should be considered beyond climate. At least for the past 400,000 years, the Warm Ages have been relatively brief periods. It is during those brief periods of warmth that life has flourished, then the Earth has been cleansed with the next Ice Age. What will happen as insects, reptiles, and bacteria continue to evolve and expand without an Ice Age to push back their spread across the globe? Is it possible that too much life will threaten human existence?
These are all questions that have to be answered as long as the Earth continues to avoid the next Ice Age.
PART I – Should We Be In An Ice Age Now?
PART II – Understanding the Milankovitch Cycles, Clues to Earth's Climate Changes
¹Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia. (2011). Milankovitch Cycles. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles.
IMAGE 1.0 – Image thanks to http://www.space4case.com/mmw/pages/space4case/solar-system/earth/artic.php
IMAGE 1.1 – Image thanks to Wikimedia Commons at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Precession_and_seasons.jpg
IMAGE 1.2 – Image thanks to http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/humm/WhyComeGlobalGame.html
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype: 775.624.5679]
Are We Missing an Ice Age? (PART II of III)
16 Wednesday Nov 2011
aphelion, apsidal precession, axial precession, Earth's orbit, Earth's Wobble, eccentricity, Global warming, Ice Ages, invariable plane, Milankovitch Cycles, Milution Milankovic, obliquity, orbit, orbital inclination, orbital plane, perihelion, solar system, Tilt, Warm Ages
Milutin Milanković proposed possible mechanisms related to Earth's tilt and orbit that could be the root cause of the regular cycle of Ice Ages. His theory, outlined in several papers from 1912 to 1920, is now referred to as the Milankovitch Cycles¹. This theory outlines four factors that change the amount of solar radiation received by the Sun, which could explain why Earth experiences dramatic changes in its climate over a 100,000 year cycle. In addition, there is a fifth factor that has been added to the Milankovitch Cycle theory, which also follows a 100,000 year cycle and may also be contributing triggering our Ice/Warm Age cycles.
FACTOR ONE
Eccentricity or Earth's Orbit – From a Circle to Oval and Back
IMAGE 1.0 -Earth's Orbit: High Eccentricity vs. Low Eccentricity
Earth's orbit changes from a nearly perfect circle, to an oval (technically, an ellipse) over a period of thousands of years. The cause of this elongation or eccentricity of our orbit is due to the gravity influences of Jupiter and Saturn, which are much farther away from the Earth than the Sun, but exert enough pull to periodically stretch our orbit out of its circular shape.
In an orbit that is a perfect circle the amount of energy the Earth receives is relatively constant throughout the year, assuming the Sun is generating a constant amount of energy (which it doesn't.) However, when Earth's orbit is an ellipse (or more eccentric) the Earth receives more energy when it is closer to the Sun than when it is farther away.
Earth's orbit eccentricity varies from .005 (low) to .058 (high) and the cycle of low to high eccentricity is roughly 100,000 years. Our orbit had major peak eccentricities of .04 to .06 at approximately 120, 220, 320 thousand years ago. These peaks fall about 10,000 to 20,000 years before the start of the last three Warm Ages.
Currently the eccentricity of our orbit is .017 and it is falling from a minor peak of about .02. That means that Earth's orbit is about one-third the way from our lowest eccentricity and becoming more circular. The eccentricity of Earth's current orbit creates about a three million mile difference between its closest and farthest approach to the Sun. Earth at perihelion (closest to the Sun) is 91.4 million miles away from the Sun. At aphelion the Earth is 94.5 million miles away.
FACTOR TWO
Obliquity or the Severity of Earth's Tilt
Currently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from the Sun's orbital plane, but that is not constant. The Earth's tilt or obliquity is decreasing from the high obliquity (tilt angle) of 24.4° towards the low of 22.1º. It will take Earth about 10,000 years to reach the low point in a 41,000 year cycle.
For comparison, Mars' current obliquity is 25.19° and varies from 10° to 40° over hundreds of thousands of years. Venus' obliquity is 177.4°, which means that the planet is so tilted that its 'north' is facing south. That may seem strange to have an obliquity greater than 90°; however, since Venus' rotation is retrograde (Venus turns in the opposite direction of Earth) scientists consider its 'up' side to have been literally turned upside down.
IMAGE 1.1 - Tilt or Obliquity of the '8' Planets and Pluto
Higher obliquity is believed to result in the Earth absorbing more solar radiation (insolation) because the higher latitudes receive more sunshine in the summer. Earth's current Warm Age began at about the same time as our peak obliquity, so there is evidence that this theory is valid.
FACTOR THREE
Image 1.2 - Earth's Wobble is called Axial Precession
Currently the north pole, or axis, points towards the star called Polaris. That is temporary because the Earth wobbles. This wobble is called the Axial Precession. Over time our north axis will no longer be aimed at Polaris, but instead will leave us without a 'North Star' until Earth's north axis points to Vega, Deneb, or another bright star or galaxy.
It takes about 26,000 years for the wobble to complete one full cycle and during that cycle the Earth's wobble will cause a slow change in the seasons. This is because the axis wobble alters the direction of our tilt during every orbit of the Sun. When the Earth returns to the same relative position in its orbit, the axis will point to a slightly different place than it did the prior year. The axis will have reached that point earlier, so our seasons slowly move backward.
FACTOR FOUR
Apsidal Precession or The Hula Hoop Effect
IMAGE 1.3 - This graphic shows Apsidal Precession (Click to Activate)
One of the more interesting factors is Apsidal Precession. If you think of Earth's orbit as a hula hoop and your waist as the Sun (no, it's not that big,) as the hula hoop goes around, the 'orbit' shifts. Any particular point on the hula hoop will move from being closest to your waist and then it will shift to be the farthest away from you waist. Our seasons do the same thing as Earth's orbit slowly shifts or precesses.
Currently, summer in the northern hemisphere occurs when the Earth is the farthest away (aphelion) and in winter we are closest to the Sun (perihelion.) In the southern hemisphere it is exactly opposite. During the summer in the southern hemisphere (Earth at perihelion) it receives 23% more solar radiation than the northern hemisphere does during its summer, which occurs at the aphelion. It takes about 21,000 years for the Apsidal Precession to cause the seasons to make a full cycle, so in about 10,000 years, the northern hemisphere will experience summer at perihelion.
FACTOR FIVE
Orbital Inclination or Our Orbits Tilt From the Orbital Plane
IMAGE 1.4 - Earth's Orbital Plane from the Solar Systems Invariable Plane
By averaging the orbits of the eight planets scientists have created one plane that is considered the invariable plane. Jupiter is almost on this invariable plane; however, Earth and the other six planet's orbital planes are tilted or inclined from the invariable plane.
Not only is Earth's orbital inclination 1.57° off the invariable plane, the amount of tilt changes on a cycle that repeats every 100,000 years. Earth's variance during that cycle can be as much as 3° off the invariable plane, which is additive to Earth's obliquity or tilt on its axis. That means that increased orbital inclination magnifies the effect of Earth's obliquity.
This factor was not part of Milankovic's original theory; however, scientists have added it to the Milankovitch Cycle because it impacts the amount of insolation the Earth receives and because it follows the 100,000 year cycle.
In Part II, we have discussed five cyclical factors that change the amount of insolation the Earth receives and where Earth is in all five cycles. In Part III we look at how Earth's climate seems to be on a hair-trigger and why we should or should not be in an Ice Age now.
PART I – Are We Missing An Ice Age?
IMAGE 1.0 – Image thanks to http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter16/mil_cycles.html
IMAGE 1.1 – Image Copyright 1999 by Calvin J. Hamilton. Found at http://www.solarviews.com/cap/misc/obliquity.htm
IMAGE 1.2 – Image thanks to http://tomsastroblog.com/archives/8047
IMAGE 1.3 – Graphic thanks to Wikimedia Commons at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Precessing_Kepler_orbit_280frames_e0.6_smaller.gif
Are We Missing an Ice Age? (Part I)
Earth's orbit, Global warming, Ice Age, Ice Ages, ice core data, interglacials, Milankovitch Cycles, Milution Milankovic, solar radiation, Warm Ages
There is no doubt that Earth has a fairly consistent cycle of Ice Ages followed by interglacials, or Warm Ages. Using physical geologic evidence of the last Ice Age, and by analyzing and comparing ice cores, ocean sediment cores, and other samples that preserve air and climate data within them, scientists have an understanding of Earth's overall climate back for over 400,000 years.
GRAPH 1.0 - Vostok Ice Core Data
There is a pattern to the data that suggests an approximate 100,000 year cycle that includes a 90,000 year cold period (Ice Age) followed by a brief 10,000 year warm period (Warm Age.) While this cycle can vary, the fact is that we have been in a Warm Age for over 10,000 years. Another unusual aspect of the current pattern is that typically the Warm Age rises to a sudden peak followed by a fairly rapid cooling period. The current Warm Age suddenly began and peaked about 11,000 years ago. The Earth has stayed relatively warm, and is in fact, continuing to get warmer.
The question is, are we missing an Ice Age?
GRAPH 1.0 is the data from the Vostok Station ice cores in the Antarctica. The top (blue line) graph indicates the trending air temperature, the middle graph (green line) indicates CO² levels trapped in the ice, and the bottom graph (red line) indicates the dust found in the ice samples. Note that present day is on the left side of all of the graphs and to the right is going farther back in time. Ice core data is not precise because of several factors; however, the data indicates the conditions within a 6,000 year margin of error.
The data indicates that there was a sudden warming starting at about 15, 140, 245, and 330 thousand years ago. The CO² has similar peaks but lags behind the temperature increases by 200 to 600 years. Dust seems to also correlate with the temperature variations, but whether low dust causes warmer temperatures, or warmer temperature cause a cleaning of atmosphere by increased rain, is unknown.
The consistency of the cycles indicates that there is some mechanism that drives the cold/warm periods which would be difficult to explain using Earth-bound causes. Volcanic periods, plate tectonics, ocean currents and other activities on Earth that might influence our climate don't seem to have cycles that could be matched to the ice core data; however, there are exo-mechanisms (outside of Earth) that could help to explain the Ice/Warm Age cycles.
Earth as a Battery
Everyone knows that the Earth warms in the Spring and Summer and cools in the Fall and Winter. The reasons for this are due to Earth's 23.5° tilt as we orbit around the Sun (SEE: 23.5 Degrees = Seasons on Earth.) Based on our firsthand experiences, it might be easy to believe that the Earth's relationship to the Sun, outside of the annual march of the seasons, is relatively constant; however, it is not.
Earth's orbit and tilt change over time and there is a significant difference in how much of the Sun's energy (solar radiation) that Earth receives based on its relative position with the Sun. This is important because the energy our planet receives from the Sun is like a battery charger for our climate. When Earth absorbs more energy, the battery charges and we have a warmer, more active climate. When the Earth absorbs less energy, it cools and our climate reacts accordingly.
There are multiple factors that change Earth's position in relationship to the Sun. Almost 100 years ago, Serbian geophysicist and civil engineer, Milutin Milanković noted these astronomical variations and suggested a theory of climate change based on these factors now known as the Milankovitch Cycles. In Part II of this series we will learn about the changes in Earth's orbit and tilt that result in variation of the amount of solar radiation our planet receives. In Part III we will discuss Earth's current status in the Milankovitch Cycle and why we may be overdue for an ice age.
Muller: "global warming….why you should not be a skeptic"
Posted by Paul Kiser in Politics, Science
Dr. Richard Muller, erkeley Earth Surface Temperature, Global warming, Jon Stewart, Koch, Muller, Richard Muller, skeptics, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
On October 21, Dr. Richard Muller published an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) presenting the results of a two-year exhaustive study of the world temperature records using multiple methods to verify the data. The verdict, global warming is real and the skeptics are wrong.
This was news because Dr. Muller, a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, has been one of the 'legitimate scientists' that skeptics have relied on to support their position that global warming is a myth. This startling announcement was largely ignored by the news media until Jon Stewart had a field day with the announcement on his October 26 episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Since airing, several other news media outlets have picked up the story, including MSNBC, and The Huffington Post.
Richard Muller says it's real
Part of the lack of awareness is partially due to Dr. Muller spending the first half (516 out of 1009 total words) of his Op Ed piece restating why he thinks people should be skeptical of global warming. Since most people don't read past the first few paragraphs it was easy for the heart of his announcement to remain buried in the last half of the article where he finally states:
…But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.
Conservatives, who are consistent skeptics of global warming, have accused scientists of almost every type of conspiracy and evil motivation in order to throw a blanket of doubt on legitimate, scientific research which have uncovered a significant change in Earth's climate. On the Daily Show's episode, Stewart shows clips of Texas Governor and presidential candidate, Rick Perry accusing, "a substantial number of scientists…" of "…manipulating the data…" in order to get funding for their projects. On the same show, a comical interview of Republican Strategist Noelle Nikpour has her stoically accusing scientists of making up data "…for their own finanshual (sic) gain…" and adds that "every American…would have a gut feeling…" that scientific data is wrong.
Muller's analysis is part of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study and is a review of the scientific data used to determine whether the average surface temperatures (historical and present day) are reliable. The study received $150,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, associated with the Koch brothers, who made their money in the oil industry. The study also received $100,000 from both the William K. Bowes Foundation and a foundation established by Bill Gates.
In the WSJ article Muller explains:
…When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that.
Will this quiet the skeptics? Probably not, but facts don't usually get in the way of people in denial.
This article first published as
Muller: "global warming…why you should not be a skeptic"
on Technorati.com
Global Warming According to the Village Idiot
Posted by Paul Kiser in Science
Global Energy Retention, Global warming, solar energy
I always cringe when I read or hear someone remark, "I just cleared six inches of Global Warming off my driveway." It sounds clever, but I when I read or hear this from someone I find myself hoping that the person is trying to make a joke about themselves, and not that the person is trying to make some political statement that they have proof that contradicts real science. Suffice to say that even the most unsophisticated person should know that an observation at any one location is not a valid measure of global change; however, there is more to this issue.
First, the term Global 'Warming' is a poor description of what would better be referred to as Global Energy Retention. What most people know about the Sun is that it is bright and hot and therefore anything to do with the sun is a light or a 'heat' issue. The fact is that the Sun's output is energy, and light and heat are merely the forms of energy that we can see and feel. The major player in 'Global Warming' is infrared energy, which is a type of energy we can't see but that we can feel as warmth. The problem is that carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere causes some infrared energy to bounce back to the Earth and the amount of CO2 has dramatically risen in the past 100 years. Because infrared energy is associated with 'heat' it would seem to make one believe that this is an issue only about higher temperatures, but it is not.
We don't 'feel' visible light; however, visible light can turn into infrared energy by hitting a dark colored surface. The 'heat' we feel off of asphalt is visible light energy that has been converted into infrared energy. This is an important distinction because while we associate infrared with 'heat', other types of energy can be converted into infrared energy AND infrared energy can be converted into non-heat energy. For example, the energy that is absorbed in the ocean can evaporate water that can create clouds. Likewise, the energy absorbed by the oceans and the land can cause air to heat and begin moving causing wind. In both situations infrared energy becomes the energy that is converted from 'heat' to another kind of energy. This is why it's so important to understand that Global Warming is not just about 'heat' but it is about the Earth retaining more energy.
It is likely that the reason that Global Warming was coined as the term to describe the retention of more solar energy was to help non-scientists and politicians to better understand the effect. The problem with the term is that it creates the impression that with every new day, month, season, and year we should be observing higher temperatures than we remember from the previous year. But because energy can be converted, the retention of more infrared energy does not necessarily mean higher temperatures as some of the excess infrared will be converted into wind and storms.
So where is all this extra energy now? It seems much of the extra energy is being transported (by the oceans and air over the oceans) to where Earth is coldest, the poles. We are seeing a major change in the Antarctic ice shield which makes sense as the Southern Hemisphere is predominantly oceans. We are also seeing more hurricanes and major storms (including snow storms) that indicate 'Global Warming' is powering up the weather dynamics across the Earth. The point is that 'Warming' is a misnomer when we discuss the impact of Earth's Energy Retention because the end product is not always 'heat'.
However, even if there were no issue on energy retention, the idea that a person can judge global weather patterns from what the amount of snow on their driveway is pathetic. It is akin to standing in the kitchen with the refrigerator door open and saying the house is cold. There is no doubt that 1) we have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we have had in millions of years, and a dramatic increase in the last 100 years, and 2) more carbon dioxide means more absorption of infrared energy. The situation is real and while the long term impact of Earth's energy retention cannot be fully understood it never will be a political or a laughing matter.