Dramatic biological responses to global warming in the Arctic, page 1

Arctic now warmest in 2000 years, researchers say

Carbon dioxide and other gases generated by human activities overwhelmed a 21,000-year cycle linked to gradual changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun, an international team of researchers reported on Thursday in the journal Science.

"I think it really underscores how sensitive the Arctic is to climate change ... and it's really the place where you can see first what's happening to the (climate) system and how the rest of the Earth will or might follow," David Schneider, a co-author and a scientist with the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research said in a telephone interview.

Let's start with the warming Arctic.

A quick Google landed several hits mentioning an increase in Arctic temperatures. It also landed several hits mentioning a decrease in Arctic temperatures. If one looks more closely at the actual data, one will see that certain areas are increasing in average temperature, while others are not. The temperature anomalies are location-specific, and while widespread, do not include the entire Arctic.

The general 'consensus' among those who proclaim that the Arctic is warming is that CO2 levels are increasing the amount of heat in the atmosphere by absorbing solar radiation and radiating it as heat. CO2 does have this property. It will, on average, absorb and re-emit light as heat amounting to 16% of the available sunlight hitting it.

CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, amounting to approximately 378 ppmv (parts per million by volume)[1]. That means the atmosphere is 0.0378% CO2 on average at present. Taking this into account, the total amount of solar radiation that CO2 is responsible for absorbing and re-emitting as heat is 0.000378 x 0.16 = 0.00006048 or 0.006048%.

The atmosphere is about 17.25x10^12 cubic kilometers (17.25x10^21 m^3)[2]. It has a density of 1.2 kg/m^3[3]. So a little calculation gives us a total of 20.7x10^21 kg of atmosphere. The area of the planet calculates to approximately 510x10^6 km[4] and the area of the planet above the Arctic Circle is about 21.1x10^6[5]. This means that the Arctic contains 4.14% of the surface area of the planet, and thus 4.14% of the atmosphere is above it. 14.4% of 20.7x10^21 m is 857x10^18 kg (857x10^21 g) of atmosphere.

The specific heat capacity of air is 1.012 J/(gK)[6]. So it will require 1.012 x 857x10^21 = 867X10^21 Joules of energy to raise the temperature of the atmosphere above the Arctic Circle by 1 degree Celsius. Now, assuming that increase in temperature is coming from CO2 alone, and remembering that CO2 will absorb and re-emit 0.006048% of the energy coming into the atmosphere, the total amount of solar radiation that is required to be coming in to allow for a 1 degree temperature rise is 867x10^21 / 0.00006048 = 14.3x10^27 joules of energy from the sun entering the area of the Arctic Circle.

The amount of energy from the Sun that reaches the Earth annually is 4 x 10^18 Joules.

Source: www.makeitsolar.com...

The sun will require 3.5 billion years for enough solar radiation to cause CO2 to raise the atmosphere above the Arctic Circle by a single degree. If all the solar radiation coming into the entire planet were to be concentrated into the area of the planet above 66.5 degrees (the Arctic Circle), and assuming that nothing else was involved but CP2 absorption and no heat were lost to space, it would take 3.5 billion years for the temperature to raise 1 single solitary degree.

Someone will state that there are other forces at work; there are. They will say that it is not only CO2 absorbing energy, and that the CO2 is just absorbing more; that is correct. They will state that the additional CO2 is enough to tip the scales toward warming. NO! If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere absorbing and re-emitting light as heat, the amount of energy lost throughout the entire planet would be enough to drop the air temperature only in the region above the Arctic Circle by one degree in 3.5 billion years.

CO2 cannot be responsible for the ice melting.

But as I mentioned above, there are areas which are warming enough to cause glacial melt. Ironically, if you research the locations of undersea volcanic activity, you will notice a striking correlation between the locations of glacial melt and the locations of the volcanic activity.

In other words, you can complain about how we are destroying our environment with CO2 all you want. We are damaging it, but not with CO2. As long as you concentrate on CO2, you are allowing big business to get away with dumping real pollutants. As long as you concentrate on CO2, you are ignoring the very real changes taking place and will not be prepared when the carbon credit scam does nothing.

Deny ignorance, people. That is the opposite of embracing ignorance.

TheRedneck

- en.wikipedia.org...
- answers.yahoo.com...
- en.wikipedia.org...
- en.wikipedia.org... lists the mean radius of the earth as 6371 km. The area of a sphere is 4Πr².
- en.wikipedia.org... and based on the latitude of the Arctic Circle as 66.5°.
- en.wikipedia.org...