Snowball Earth

For a different kind of hockey stick check out this article:-

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

An extract:-

I’m looking at the temperature record as read from this central Greenland ice core. It gives us about as close as we can come to a direct, experimental measurement of temperature at that one spot for the past 50,000 years.  As far as I know, the data are not adjusted according to any fancy computer climate model or anything else like that.

So what does it tell us about, say, the past 500 years? (the youngest datum is age=0.0951409 (thousand years before present) — perhaps younger snow doesn’t work so well?)

The charts in this article make for an interesting narrative.

p.s. the title of my post is dedicated to Graeme Bird. :-)

9 thoughts on “Snowball Earth

  1. Its nice to see that you are paying attention to the science after all this time. We must understand that an economist who tries to put forward policy without the science is someone who understands neither science nor economics.

    Bear in mind that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Nor any such thing as the greenhouse effect.

  2. Another one for “Graeme’s greatest hits”.

    1. There is no such thing as co2
    2. The $43b National Broadband Network is a good thing
    3. The government should ban voluntary banking
    4. We need more active industry policy

    What have I missed?

  3. The article says nothing about whether global warming is or is not caused by CO2. It is neutral on this issue. All it does is put current warming into perspective.

  4. Climate Audit has an article up at the moment on how the IPCC cooked the books. Well worth a read.

  5. Water vapour can in no way, on its own, act like a warming gas. Since it will catch-and-block energy from both above and below and will high-tail-it upwards. If it turns to ice in the clouds it will let out an enourmous amount of latent heat. More than half of which ought to be considered lost in space.

    It is only the prospect of a lot of it turning into microscopic liquid water way prior to it reaching cloud level …….. it is only this propensity that makes this H2O mimic this idealised warming-gas that I’ve been talking about. And it is this phase-change of water that gives us the “warming” effect that is being mistaken for the non-existent “greenhouse” effect.

    There is no “greenhouse effect”. There is no greenhouse gases.

    I better add on top of this that even CO2 can act like a warming gas, but only to the extent that there is “overturning” in the troposphere. Mostly in daylight hours CO2, in the first instance, will act like a cooling gas. Only overturning turns this thing on its head.

  6. Graemebird, there is definitely a greenhouse effect, caused by the component parts of the whole atmosphere working together, or the temperature everywhere would be vastly lower. The important questions relate to marginal effects – temperature changes from that raised level – caused by marginal differences in the atmosphere – changes in the composition of the atmosphere (as opposed to temperature changes caused by other things).

  7. I just want to say that having thought about it they are going to botch the National Broadband Network. They way they will go about it will deliver appallingly bad value for money. And if you are going to do these things at least pull the investment out of a surplus budget. They want to put us more in the hole over this matter. It is important not to rely on satellites because satellites can easily be shot down, or burnt out by an electromagnetic pulse and one day they all will be burnt out this way.

Comments are closed.