Imagine a basin containing four liters of water at zero deg C, in which a block of ice having a mass of 1 Kg is floating. Let’s light a fire under the basin and assume that water in the basin is absorbing heat at the rate of 2000 calories / minute. The process is assumed to be adiabatic so that we don’t have to deal with the slippery nature of heat, and we also assume that heat is transferred instantaneously to the water and ice (to make calculations simpler).
It so happens, that just before the start of our experiment, two Lilliputians friends (of Gulliver’s travel fame), one a global warming believer and another a sceptic take a wager regarding warming of the water; the sceptic offers to spend a night on the ice and measure the temperature of the water and prove that no warming is taking place. The global warming believer rows the sceptic to the ice block, leaves him there and rows back.
After measuring the temperature for fifteen minutes, where the thermometer refuses to nudge beyond the zero degree C reading, the sceptic curses the global warming crowd and falls asleep in his thermal sleeping bag. He is rudely awakened twenty minutes after he fell asleep to find that he is soaking wet and that the ice has practically disappeared. He starts the long swim to the shore and is saved from hypothermia by the gradually warming water; by the time he gets out of the water however he is badly scalded by the hot water – however happy to be alive. What happened?
Our lab thermometer shows that the temperature of the water increased as follows: (Time in minutes – Temp in degree C) 1-0, 5-0, 10-0, 30-0, 40-0, … 50-4, 60-8, 70-12, 90-20, 110-28, 130-36, 150-44, 170-52.
(Moral of the story: in such matters we cannot go by temperature readings alone )
The strongest proof that global warming is taking place is the disappearance of ice cover over the Arctic Ocean; since this fact is not in disputed, it is better that we concentrates on this issue. The laborious tabulation of temperatures worldwide to obtain global mean temperatures is important for scientific research, but not the most important proof of global warming.
from Pakistan: Kaghan loses four glaciers in twenty years: ______________________________________________________________
FROM THE WEB:
1) The long history of the science of Global Warming.
2) Climate change and the insurance industry.
3) Himalayan meltdown.
4) Time lapse proof of extreme ice loss.
5) Why climate change skeptics remain skeptical
1) The long history of the science of Global Warming ..... 30 Jun 2011
THE science behind the climate change controversy - despite recent hysterical attacks on scientific integrity - is robust, and not particularly recent. And yet, despite the heat (without depth) of the controversy about the proposed carbon tax, politicians on both sides fail to address the scientific evidence for human contribution to climate change. They say ''I believe'' or ''I reject'' without examination or analysis. There has been a spectacular failure to distinguish between genuine expertise and strongly held opinions, and an excessive deference to vested interests.
In 1824, the French mathematician Joseph Fourier anticipated what we came to call ''the greenhouse effect'', arguing that surface heat on Earth was maintained by the atmosphere - otherwise the planet's orbit was too remote from the sun for a temperature that could support life.
In 1859, the Irish physicist John Tyndall identified the role of water vapour, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) as key factors in maintaining temperature despite their tiny percentage of the total atmosphere.
3) Himalayan meltdown ... 28 Jun 2011
4) Time lapse proof of extreme ice loss.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjeIpjhAqsM
All climate models rely heavily on temperature records from thousands of recording stations around the world; if the stations are inaccurate, they can skew the results. In fact, it was Muller's concern that past climate studies might rely on too much erroneous temperature data that led him to found BEST. Statisticians on his team employed complex error analysis, averaging methods, and clever data filtering to minimize uncertainty in their set of 1.6 billion temperature reports; the team also separately analyzed a subset of the data coming from only the highest quality stations.
Though they ended up finding the same 1 degree C of warming since the 1950s that past climate studies found, they reduced the statistical uncertainty in that result nearly to zero.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57329755/why-climate-change-skeptics-remain-skeptical/
1) The long history of the science of Global Warming ..... 30 Jun 2011
THE science behind the climate change controversy - despite recent hysterical attacks on scientific integrity - is robust, and not particularly recent. And yet, despite the heat (without depth) of the controversy about the proposed carbon tax, politicians on both sides fail to address the scientific evidence for human contribution to climate change. They say ''I believe'' or ''I reject'' without examination or analysis. There has been a spectacular failure to distinguish between genuine expertise and strongly held opinions, and an excessive deference to vested interests.
In 1824, the French mathematician Joseph Fourier anticipated what we came to call ''the greenhouse effect'', arguing that surface heat on Earth was maintained by the atmosphere - otherwise the planet's orbit was too remote from the sun for a temperature that could support life.
In 1859, the Irish physicist John Tyndall identified the role of water vapour, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) as key factors in maintaining temperature despite their tiny percentage of the total atmosphere.
Warm air holds more water. More evaporation generates more energy, intensifying storms, droughts and floods. Pumping more greenhouse gases into our atmosphere is likely to tweak events such as the La Nina phenomenon, linked to very dry weather in Western Europe, which follows an exceptionally chilly winter, the coldest in Britain for 300 years. The past year has seen weather extremes in Australia (floods), Russia (drought), Latin America (floods), China (drought, and now floods), and New Zealand (floods), to name a few.
"We are getting into very risky territory," says Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The price of doing nothing, she says, could be US$1 trillion a year to mitigate the effects of climate change.
For those in the risk management business, simply denying climate change is not an option. Increasingly, the insurance industry is showing the way forward. It involves tough calls to protect the bottom line: dumping customers with properties on floodplains, or in hurricane-prone areas, while insuring "green" technologies that offer the best chance of slowing warming and protecting investments.
3) Himalayan meltdown ... 28 Jun 2011
When people talk about global warming and its impact on the world, we generally think about rising sea levels - and the threat that may pose to coastal areas or low-lying cities, such as Bangkok.
It depends where you live, of course. People in mountainous areas, such as the Himalayas, face a very different challenge: a higher snowline, plus ice-caps and glaciers melting at a quicker rate than ever before.
Faster-melting glaciers - and bigger glacial lakes with the potential to burst their banks and sweep away any number of villages downstream - are a problem faced by communities in various countries.
This phenomenon is the subject of a fascinating new documentary that's a co-production of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Arrowhead Films.
"Revealed: The Himalayan Meltdown" examines the shrinking glaciers of the Himalayas and the effects they have on the lives of people in five countries - Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India and Nepal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjeIpjhAqsM
Most of the time, art and science stare at each other across a gulf of mutual incomprehension. There is great confusion when the two look at each other. Art, of course, looks at the world through the psyche, the emotions - even the unconscious at times - and of course the aesthetic. Science tends to look at the world through the rational, the quantitative - things that can be measured and described - but it gives art a terrific context for [knowledge and] understanding.
In the Extreme Ice Survey, we're dedicated to bringing those two parts of human understanding together, merging art and science to the end of helping us understand nature and humanity's relationship with nature better. Specifically, as a person who's been a professional nature photographer my whole adult life, I am firmly of the belief that photography, video and film have tremendous power to help us understand, and shape the way we think about nature and about ourselves in relationship to nature…
Read more: http://www.sweetspeeches.com/s/215-james-balog-time-lapse-proof-of-extreme-ice-loss#ixzz1U3taSYae
5) Why climate change skeptics remain skeptical
Though they ended up finding the same 1 degree C of warming since the 1950s that past climate studies found, they reduced the statistical uncertainty in that result nearly to zero.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57329755/why-climate-change-skeptics-remain-skeptical/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
