h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Observations
hedgehogs 0
mosquitoes many
Canadian geese yes
Barnacle geese yes
Ring-necked parakeets yes
squirrels several
cats 2
daddy long legs spider many
clothes moths many

>> have just posted an old letter about climate change and drought as a Guide Entry- as you expressed and interest <<

A warmer Earth is indeed a more precipitous earth (greater rainfall) - whether it is a wetter Earth depends on what is meant by "wetter" - but yes as a global average one would expect the Earth to be "wetter". It would be interesting to know what the ecologist meant (the context & specifics) regarding increasing droughts with warmer temperatures (was it a particular region e.g. Southern Europe or was it globally as an average)?

Now the rest of the letter, which would be what some might describe as the Juggernaut, I with my "severely critical cap" on might describe as bordering on the irrelevant and detracting from the point of the letter ... resulting in the point as well as clarity being lost. I think the "Juggernaut" could have been shortened to a few, more direct sentences, which in effect was a biting criticism of the ecologist: suggesting the ecologist was drumming up a scare story in order to sell the importance of his own narrow minded research to justify existing & to gain more funding for his work ... and without knowing what the ecologist said etc, you might be right!

Stone Aart

I think that letter was not so much on the question of the actual climate change- as I wrote in my ps-- It was later (perhaps a couple of years) that I realised that the enlarged water cycle as I descibed it would act very much like the opening up of the cooling system within a motor car, with heat energy being transferred along with the water from the ground-sea level to the upper atmosphere and Space.

What that thrust was about was the need to manage our water as the ancients had done with three objectives
(a) to counter violent and damaging floods
(b) to capture and store water for periods of drought,
and (c) to harness the energy that lifted the water way up in the atmosphere from sea level and provided a cheap/effective/clean/natural/ and effectively inexhaustible source of energy.

I may have sent a copy to this content to Ministry of Ag/Fish (or the modern equivalent) and received a bureaucratic reply to the effect that the idea of a water grid had been considered and had been judged too expensive.. But one wonders whether they counted the cost of the kind of flooding that we have seen over the last ten years, though I was also interested to note that a new system has been set up to move excess water from the 'wet' Severn basin and into the Ouse- that flows through the drier Eastern side.

Cass

Stone Aart

As for the 'drought business' perhaps you are not a gardener, but it is not so long ago that we were being told that the British climate was going to become Mediterranean and that our English gardens would no longer be possible. No green lawns, and more and more plants that survive with hardly any rain..

And the letter was not in response to anything that the "Ecologist" had produced. I just chose it as a publication that I thought should have had an interest in sustainable living.

Cass

>> Further to "Climate Change and Drought"- my next step was to deduce that the enlarged water-cycle as described in that letter would take heat energy into the upper atmosphere where it would either be turned into dynamism (eg much more powerful Jet Stream) or get radiated into Space- from whence it came via the Sun.

Hence there would be a Global Cooling effect long-term, with the warming within the Atmosphere producing a tendency to expand the Earth's atmosphere and increase the actual surface area between the Earth system and Space - thus allowing for more heat to escape from Earth- The reverse of the Greenhouse Effect. <<

A warmer Earth is a cooler Earth in the long term? You are correct to say a warmer earth has a more intense hydrological cycle which brings more intense weather (on a globally averaged basis). But what drives the warming are increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere … and what is meant by warming is an increase in the globally averaged air temperature at the Earth’s surface (air temperature about 1.5 metres from the surface) – which is the relevant temperature to us and life on Earth. Greenhouse gases make it more “difficult” for the Earth’s surface to lose heat radiation and it is this which causes the Earth’s surface temperature to rise (on average). This effect has been known for more than a hundred years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect.

Without an atmosphere the Earths average surface temperature would be about 33 degrees Celsius lower; an average of about -18 deg C rather than about 15 degC.

The warming at the Earth’s surface is accompanied by a cooling in the upper atmosphere … stratospheric cooling … so yes you are right to say that higher up in the atmosphere there is a cooling.

Of course the overall specifics are extremely complex because the Earth system is complex (heat movement in the oceans also needs to be known – look at the effect of El-Nino on global temperatures). It is also not easy to “measure” a globally averaged surface temperature for the Earth but it is easy to measure the atmospheric composition … and this clearly shows an increase in gases that absorb terrestrial heat radiation. From what I have seen so far in terms of measurements the rise in globally averaged surface temperature is in the lower range of what has been predicted.

With regard to Britain rather than "Mediterranean" weather some models suggest a Canadian type weather if there is a shift in what is known as the Gulf-Stream - North Atlantic drift ocean current. Predictions of a warmer but drier climate for Britain would also appear to me to be a bit suspicious.

With regard over-reliance of computer models that is an allegation I have seen asserted at the door of academic economists ... and the increasing use of them in the market place, where money can be moved from A to B and then back again in microseconds & all for a search for profit and nothing to do with understanding real world business. "The dismal science" our Victorian friend Thomas Carlyle called it.

>> my OU interactive dvd, didn't quite work, no matter how hard I tried to frazzle the earth it would come up with one outcome Snowball Earth <<

So you did an OU course on climate & climate change ? The interest regarding snowball earth as I think you know (because you mentioned feedbacks) is that once the Earth gets into the snowball condition it is very difficult for it to get out from it ... because there is little absorption of solar radiation by the Earths surface (it has a high albedo).

Hi Cass,

It is not expensive to get a dog with less needs from other charities who do a through adoption process to make sure the right dog goes to the right people. My Mum's friend fosters dogs until they can be permanently rehomed, they don't have any special doggy needs and usually she has them from 4-6 weeks which might be better option for you both with living in two places.

Sounds like a good walk and talk.

I don't feel well today, very queasy and a little low, a little sun would be very appreciated failing that I am going to wrap myself up in a sleeping bag and have hot chocolate.

StoneAart

Thank you for the observational update

I am looking forward to going for some walk on the levels and seeing the birds that come and stay for winter, last year walking was limited as you needed a canoe or some such to follow public footpaths.

I did a science course with the OU, it touched on a bit of everything including climate change. The DVD was definitely incompatible that time, I could have given a hefty nudge towards the sun and it still would have frozen.

There was horizon programme on Snowball Earth which I had videoed, the kids loved it, especially my nieces, so much so when they would come and stay and I would ask them which vid they wanted to watch it would be on the request list. I wasn't complaining but was amused by them sitting there with their and cola bottles watching Horizon

Stone Aart

Of course the Greenhouse Effect is to do with impact on the radiation of heat energy from the surface of the Earth out into the atmosphere and Space.. But basic Physics tells us that heat moves by many ways- radiation, convection and ?? (forgotten the third)-contact.. What the water cycle does is physically carry the heat energy from ground-sea level in the energised water vapour, something that Greenhouse Gases can not impair. So the question comes down to whether the impairment of the radiation, that results in global warming and an increase in the role of water-vapour in moving the heat/energy is more significant than the cooling action that goes along with the increased water cycle, which has a double action. (a) the evaporation process removes heat from land and sea and takes it up into the atmosphere: and (b) the very cold precipitation that falls in the form of snow, hail and cold rain can drastically reduce temperatures at ground/sea level- as we have just experienced.

And further to computer simulation of the weather, economic etc- our daughter, having done an MA in Physics is now an Actuary daily employing computer simulations which are future projections and not prophesies or forecastes.. She has specialised in pensions..But such projections usually involve inputing different variables in order to suggest options Now in the hope of shaping the Future.- all other things being equal-- therefore discouraging Humanity to change itself in order to change the World.. Hence the widespread mood of anger and disenchantment amongst young people since the Fall of the Berlin Wall.. As Naomi Klein wrote of her year graduating c1989- it really seemed to be 'the end of History' with nothing worthwhile left to do.

Cass

In brief increased levels of anthropically generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (CO2, N2O, CH4, CFCs ... from fossil fuel production & combustion, land change, manufacturing) give rise to global warming through increased opacity of the atmosphere to terrestrial radiation: solar energy into the Earth system is not affected but energy out of the Earth system (terrestrial infra red radiation) is decreased. As a result the temperature of the Earths surface increases because there is a net input of solar energy. The increase temperature at the Earths surface results in an increase in terrestrial radiation emitted at the surface and this process continues until a new balance is reached between energy in and energy out at the top of the earths atmosphere. This is fairly easy to calculate.

What is not easy to calculate is the Earth system response to the increased surface temperature - including both physical and biological responses. Such Earth system responses can either enhance the effect, as in a runaway "greenhouse" effect as per Venus, or reduce the effect (as per the Gaia hypothesis). Reponses that enhance the temperature increase are called positive feedbacks & responses that reduce the temperature increase are called negative feedbacks.

Now you have identified two negative feedbacks - increased convection at the earths surface & increased evaporation / precipitation. Now these can be calculated to a reasonable accuracy. Note that convection and water recycling only occurs in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere). However there are also positive feedbacks associated with the same process - water vapour is a greenhouse gas - the more humid the atmosphere the less terrestrial radiation that can escape. Loss of ice cover at the Earths surface is a positive feedback (reduced albedo hence more solar radiation absorbed) - the Arctic is showing the greatest regional increase in surface temperature. Clouds can act both as a positive feedback and a negative feedback. ... there are numerous positive and negative feedbacks and each need to be quantified to determine whether the overall feedback of the earth system is positive or negative. Current calculations suggest that the overall response is a positive feedback resulting in an approximate doubling of the temperature increase.

Note there are also potential trigger points in this process. If temperatures increase above certain values there can be sudden releases of stored methane in the earths "surface" -- melting of the Eurasian tundra belt will release methane stored in frozen soils, similarly warming of shallow lakes and seas can decompose what are known as clathrates - releasing methane. North-west Europe is warmed by the gulf stream - north atlantic current: changes to this can lead to local cooling in North-west Europe. Vegetation is slow to respond to changes in temperature ... for example it is predicted that rainforests will suffer from dieback as the temperature zones change ... they will have to shift northwards to find their optimum growing temperature etc ... but they may not be able to respond to the rapidity of the change (over a hundred year period).

So there are many many feedback processes to consider and these all need to be quantified as best as possible to determine likelihood of effect & subsequent impact. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change publish state of the art knowledge every five years on this matter.
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm#.UjhmdXBwZjo
Reports: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.Ujhcq3BwZjp

Now although it may seem that our governments (Britain & EU) are doing something about curbing our emissions by slapping taxes on our fuel etc ... this is merely cosmetic because at a global level we are burning more and more fossil fuels. For example in Britain if we consider production within Britain then it looks like we are emitting less GHG / CO2 ... however if we consider the production associated with our consumption (i.e. production in China, India etc plus shipping of these products to Britain for consumption) ... then Britain is actually emitting more GHG / CO2.

So in the end it doesn't really matter how accurate the predictions will be ... we will find out soon enough (this generation & the next).

Just one caveate - don't confuse regional change for global change - there will be those that gain and those that suffer with "climate change" ... and yes climate changes naturally as well ... it just happens that during the growth of human civilisation the climate has been pretty well stable (more or less) ... this period is known as the Holocene.

Hi Stone Aart

But the Greenhouse Gas effect of water vapour in the atmosphere presupposes something akin to the Nuclear Winter or volcanic ash model when a relatively static layer is formed that blocks out the Sun's radiated heat and locks in the Earth's radiated heat.

This presupposes a predominance of Cumulus clouds, rather than things like Cumulo Nimbus which contain those violent upward and downward currents that produce electricity (as modelled in the Van der Graf Generator)

But talking of 'models' if we accept that the mass of the oceans is a layer on the Earth with some similarities to the Atmospheric layer we have probably all experienced the difference in swimming in a calm sea which has been warmed for some time, and swimming in an apparently calm sea that is still being agitated by waves, even if they do not actually materialise, we feel how they bring up from the deep those sudden bands of much colder water... Just the mirror opposite of the way that the circular motion in the clouds (a recent one heading for Italy and the Balkans was 7 kilometres high) brings down cold from above.

But the key point (an obsession of mine from the early 1960s) is that Victorian Britain already showed the disastrous consequences of moving from a sustainable economic system that lived in harmony with Nature- as in the English initial "Industrial Revolution" - making more efficient use of muscle, water and wind power, plus renewable raw materials, and the "Windfall Opportunism" which started using finite resources that very quickly overwhelmed the existing ecosystems..

The Future is uncertain and unpredictable- but History gives shows how "English Peace" worked.

Cass

I will be in communicado for another week. I think I might have taken this thread on a detour and the hedgehogs seem to have gone into premature hibernation. I hope your OU science course was enjoyable. Nowadays there are more options for studying online with various free (as well as not free) on-line courses
http://www.extension.harvard.edu/open-learning-initiative
http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses

Thanks for the links

Don't worry about the detours

See you when you get back

Hi Stone Aart

Hope you enjoy whatever..

After my last post about the difference between a stable layer of cloud/or ash or Greenhouse Gases- producing various effects of global warming or Nuclear/Volcanic winter- and one that is very agitated, and tends to pile the water up in great tall masses of cloud, sticking with my 'water-mirror' model, --- I was thinking of the way that one always stirs jam to stopping the layer at the bottom from getting too hot, sticking to the bottom of the saucepan and burning.. (Of course contact with extreme cold would also lead to the botton layer sticking and, in that case, getting frozen).

Stirring the jam- or stirring the atmosphere mixes up the heat to produce a lower average temperature.

Cass

The jam would be at the same average temperature but the heat will be more evenly distributed. Energy / heat loss will occur, as before, at the interface between the jam and everything that is not jam. Maybe I should make jam. I was reading an article the other day about the origins of jam ... the need to preserve fruit ... to preserve fruit as an edible, storable food. Similarly cheese was a means to preserve milk ... to preserve milk as an edible, storable food.

ps thanks for your wishes

Stone Aart

Yes. Average was the wrong word.. I suppose I should have said 'averaged' or 'mean-standardised'.. As for jam making, I keep telling younger people (at this harvest time of year) about jam making, pickling and preserves that were all part of the pre-electrical white goods age.. Not to mention smoking and salting.

Cass

I think I misinterpreted you - yes the average temperature in the lower layer of the jam would be lower after stirring (but the average temperature of the jam ... averaged over all the layers ... would be the same).

A commonality is seeing a flattened hedgehog along the roadside. Less common is seeing a flattened pigeon. Last week in London across the multi-laned Edgware Road I saw a pigeon meet its demise. Walking from Hendon station up the hill I noticed some activity in the sky across the street but below the skyline of the buildings. Some feathers being scattered and as I looked I saw two birds dancing, grappling in mid-air. They separated and the falcon arced it's way up and over the buildings and disappeared whilst the pigeon glided down onto the road below, a road filled with stop start slow moving dense traffic. I looked and saw the silvery and smooth pigeon bobbing its head and frantically moving around the traffic. Some cars stopped and there was some beeping, but one or two cars kept going at their slow pace and the next I saw was a pile of disrupted feathers with a pair of broken wings sticking out of the asphalt.

So moral of the story? It seems to me that the pigeon had a small window of opportunity, maybe between five to ten seconds, when it could have flown off ... but maybe having just been attacked by a falcon it was too scared to go air borne again ... and ended up dying from another danger. So moral of the story is when you are thrown into confusion keep your wits about you as it is likely to be something else (a secondary danger) that ends up being your undoing.