Global cooling has it's benifits.
Posted on 12/17/2007 11:43:27 AM PST by dangus
In 2000, when scientists declared that the Earth's temperature was rising, much anxiety ensued, even though the increase was only half of a degree over sixty years. In just the past year, however, the Earth's temperature has reversed, yielding back one-half of that increase.
The past month's (November's) global oceanic data from the National Climatic Data Center has now been released, and the Earth's oceans surface is .2548 degrees warmer than the 1880-2007 average. That's down from .5250 last year and .5597 roughly a decade ago.
There have been drops of roughly a couple tenths of a degree previously, in spite of the general warming trend. But such drops, blamed on "La Ninas," have occured immediately following temperature spikes. What makes this current La Nina unusual is that the current temperature drop follows an imperceptibly small temperature spike.
As a result, the cold snap is pulling down even the six-year running average of temperatures.
This does not mean that the warming trend has necessarily reversed itself; there have, indeed been declines in running averages even longer than that during this decline. In fact, a cooling trend lasted from the 1940s through the 1970s.
However, unable to justify drastic temperatures with fears of the temperature rising a single degree or less next century, the global-warming doomsday-preachers have been asserting that the surge in global warming in the late 1990s indicated an acceleration of global warming.
The notion of such an acceleration seems difficult to reconcile with the new data: The world's oceans were warmer during warm spells of the 1940s.
>”Pin the brainstem down & administer the mother of all pink bellies.
...he’ll talk.”<
-only if we can do it with an ice cold ski glove!
;^)
I'm not so sure about that. Look at this. The vertical axis should be mm not centimeters.
Then a correction to Lyman's Paper and analysis can be found here, but still show's cooling:
Don’t forget: Jet fuel (what flavor does a mini-jet use nowadays anyways?) also burns the hydrogen in the carbon+hydrogen fuel (unlike the more nearly “pure” carbon coal we are used to thinking of in big power plants), so that 1200 lbs + 3200 lbs weight balance needs to be modified slightly.
Of 100 lbs of GHG, man contributes less than .28 lbs.
(By the way, if CO2 (from all sources) is 375 ppm, is that ppm by volume or weight? )
Has anybody checked the actual rise in CO2 compared to how much we are burning to establish that the (approx) 1.5 ppm-per-per year increase could really be the result of burning coal + natural gas + petroleum? Wouldn’t it be embarrassing to the AGW group if the TOTAL of man is burning could only produce a .5 ppm increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?)
These comments from a web site discussing global warming impact of jets landing at Aspen CO shows that the problem lies with the units being quoted and cross-quoted: Total fuel available on board (gals and lbs), fuel used per flight, per flight hour, fuel used per passenger, fuel weights and CO2 weights, etc. Each number we see is accurate, but used differently.
B4 Cell:
Rick Heede: Comment:
A survey of jet turbine aircraft parked at Aspen Base Operations and Airport ramps totaled 38 on 30Jul05 in size ranging from light
Cessna Citations and Lears to large Gulfstream and Challenger aircraft with ramp weights from 10,800 to 91,400 lb.
The preponderance of aircraft were of the heavier, longer-range, larger-capacity variety of personal or corporate jets. We averaged the
fuel consumption for a basket of business jets from the Citation Bravo up to the Gulfstream 550.* The eleven jets sampled average
674 gallons (4,517 lb) of jet fuel for a 1,000 nautical mile trip, which is a standard operational and cost estimation mission in the jet
fleet management business. This also equals the performance of a Bombardier Challenger 604 and 1.11 times the fuel consumption of
a Raytheon Hawker 800 XP — both typical of the variety of aircraft flying into Aspen. **
It is likely that the selected baseline trip of 1,000 nm is conservative relative to the origins and destinations of the “average” flight to
Aspen. It is, however, a standard industry measure, and fuel consumption data will be published annually for a variety of production
aircraft.
Another conservatism in the 2004 fuel and carbon emissions estimate is that we have used the fuel performance of mostly new
production models, and the fleet average is somewhat lower “mpg” than the new aircraft. Specific fuel consumption for each type of
aircraft has (and will continue to) improve.
Finally, we have not accounted for the other atmospheric impacts of buring jet fuel at high altitudes, namely vapor trail formation,
particulates such as sulfur dioxide, NOx, and other impacts on the radiative balance of the atmosphere. Some researchers estimate
such impacts are approximately 1.5 to 3.5 times the direct impact of the carbon emissions. See IPCC 1999.
* Citation Bravo (371 gallons) up to the Gulfstream III (1,069 gallons). Other aircraft performance in our review (all fuel consumption
per 1,000 nm mission): Lear 45 (433 gallons); Lera 60 (477 gallons); Hawker 800XP (604 gallons); Citation X (576 gallons); Falcon
2000 (540 gallons); Challenger 604 (674 gallons); Gulfstream 550 (834 gallons), Gulfstream G-III (1,069 gallons); Gulfstream G-IV
(972 gallons); and Gulfstream G-V (865 gallons). See Business & Commerical Aviation (2004) Operations Planning Guide, pp. 56-85. A
“mission” includes fuel consumed for a typical sequence from start, taxi, clearance, take-off, climb, cruise, descent, landing, and taxi
to stop.
** The Hawker 800XP specification sheet (www.raytheonaircraft.com/hawker/) lists trip fuel used for a 1,000 nm trip (with 4
passengers) as 4,069 lb. The flight time is 2 hrs 25 minutes, or 4,069 lb / 6.7 lb/gallon = 607 gallons; 607 gallons / 145 minutes =
4.19 gallons per minute. This means an average fuel rate 1.90 “miles per gallon” for the whole trip, with better cruise performance
once the aircraft is at altitude. With six passengers, this equates to 1.85 lb CO2 per passenger-mile (compare to air carriers’ average
of 0.574 lb CO2 per passenger-mile).
A Gulfstream G-IV will use ~0.97 gallons fuel per nm, or 1.18 statute mpg, and a 1,000 nm trip would emit 10.25 tons of carbon
dioxide (2.54 tonnes carbon). With eight passengers this means an emissions rate of 2.23 lb CO2 per passenger mile. This “Hummer
of the Sky” is outperformed (in terms of fuel, not time efficiency) by a street Hummer H2 at, say, 9 mpg and four on-board: 0.54 lb
CO2 per pax-mile. Or rouhly equivalent if the Hummer is transporting only the driver (2.17 lb CO2/pax-mile).
However, “the larger the aircraft the fewer the passengers” seems to hold true at Aspen’s GA operations. Gulfstream aircraft — often
configured for eight or nine passengers — typically carry one or two passengers. With two passengers, a 1,000 nm trip in a G-II would
consume about 1,220 gallons of fuel and emit 12.84 tons of CO2 or 11.2 lb CO2 per passenger-mile (25,680 lb CO2 / 1,151 miles /
2 pax).
The G-IV will use an average of 7.1 gallons per minute, or 7.6 ounces per second. On take-off, however, the older G-II will consume
12,000 lb/hr at full thrust (three times cruise fuel consumption of 4,000 lb/hr). 12,000 lb/hr = 200 lb/min = 3.33 lb/sec = 0.5
gallons/sec = 10.5 lb CO2/sec = 1.3 kgC/sec.
It will be very difficult for the money makers trying to sell this nonsense to continue if the ocean temperature is low for the next 30 years. If only the cooling period started two years ago...ugh!
Quick, jump in the Gulfstream and fly back to Bali before the sheeple hear about this...
And raise your hand if you believe this will get any press.
ppmv.
Global cooling has it's benifits.
“Global warming” hoax BUMP!
Wow...good question. I’m going to work on that.
>> WORLD OCEAN HAS WARMED SIGNIFICANTLY OVER PAST 40 YEARS <<
Yes, but actually last year, there were articles talking about unexplained cooling below the surface. I don’t know if that relates to what we’re seeing with surface temperatures, but the land trend is not as clear as the SST trend.
My theory has this explained by the activity of volcanoes and volcanic vents on the Pacific Ocean floor. I can’t swim down there to check it out but I wish someone would start monitoring that activity. I really think that they probably exist in sufficient numbers and spew sufficient amounts of volcanic gas and material that they can literally affect the temperature of the Pacific that causes El Nino/La Nina and quite possibly world ocean temperatures.
That's sooooo 1975.
Does water get lighter or heavier as C02 dissolves in it?
>> My theory has this explained by the activity of volcanoes and volcanic vents on the Pacific Ocean floor. <<
They do exist, and in fantastic numbers. But the oceans are so vast, I don’t think that they’re a significant source of surface temperatures. They could be a significant source of cyclical carbon, however.
BTTT
Yes, you are correct. Of course, hydrogen is very light so it is a small, but necessary, correction.
I didn't ask that but the answer is that the weight of the H2O is constant. The weight of a volume of sea water would increase as anything is dissolved in it, if that's the question.
The oceans may be vast, but they are of a finite volume, as is the atmosphere. I remained unconvinced that the oceans are so vast that they cannot be heated up by these volcanic vents which we still know very little about. At the very least, locally the vents could, in my theory, heat the oceans enough to cause the El Nino effect from the coast of S. America to the middle of the Pacific. If you look at thermo images of the Pacific, you can see a distinct area that is cooler/hotter than the rest. This area roughly corresponds to the area of some known volcanic vents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.