Thats the plan and the reason for the global warming lie!

It’s interesting how the discussion about the advancing glaciers in Alaska brings us to wild fires.
In this regard I would recommend a short visit to the NASA EARTH OBSERVATORY website where you have the opportunity to select “fires” observed from space.
see: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/Archive/natural_hazards_archive.php3?topic=fire

For me it was a most humbling experience to observe the immense scale and frequency of events.

(Besides the fires, stunning pictures from dust storms, volcano’s, storms, floods, the growth of algae that color the oceans blue green in spring, fantastic.)

Hardly ever mentioned besides the wild fires, the story of open coal fires, the biggest in China covering an area of thousands of miles, burning for thousands of years, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Besides the land based volcano’s the ocean floors are covered by about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 meters over the sea bed.
Many of them exchanging energy between the earth core and the oceans.
see: http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12218

Remark: It is very interesting that during a cold period there seems to be a rise in earth quake and volcanic activity as well as severe weather events?

Really unbelievable human kind is panicking about a bit of human induced CO2.
see: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/calcs.html
(If yo visit the website, also have a look at the beautiful pictures made from Greenland last april)

There is NO FIRE in the world that will stop our dominating sun from cooling our planet when it’s in a minimum and for the time to come it looks the glaciers will advance.

We can only make it worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

Hopefully the signal of advancing glaciers is understood by our world leaders so proper preparations can be made.
We have to adapt our agricultural infrastructure, secure our food supplies (2-3 years of supplies minimum), take care of sufficient reliable energy generation (forget about wind, solar and hydro electric and forget about bio fuels).

Since the global warming theory is buried by ice, coal and oil will do until we find something better.

Fire does have a lot to do with Climate. It just depends on the locale.

Large fires required sustained drying of the fuels over a season and a supression of smaller fires in the years leading up to the large fires.

Very large fire complexes require sustained drought and very warm temperatures compared to the previous years’ weather.

The very lush forests along the Olympic Peninsula and the BC Coast have some of the largest fuel loads in the world, yet rarely burn due to moist, cool conditions most years.

Alaska forests are much the same way. Most are wet, moist, and cool, with lots of scrub ladder fuels and taller evergreens. For a large fire to get going along the coast near the Gulf of Alaska requires a long warm summer or a series of them.

OTOh, fires are common in the intermountain west and California and on the Great Plains due to the long, hot, dry summers.

Even with irreproachable proof that the world is cooling econuts sail resolutely on, unphased and undaunted, lying through their teeth about global warming aided and abetted by the Mainstream Media.

It doesn’t matter who or what starts the fire; what matters is the quantity, condition, and arrangement of the fuels.

Let’s say there is an old city warehouse in your neighborhood filled with pallets, packing crates, cardboard boxes, and oily rags. It is an obvious firetrap and the neighbors have repeatedly petitioned the city to clean it up. The city sits on its fat can and does nothing. Then along comes a 1) juvenile delinquent, 2) wino, 3) crackhead, or 4) squirrel that somehow ignites the fire which then burns down the neighborhood. Who or what is to blame? The climate?

As has been pointed out here repeatedly, the globe has cooled since 2001 and the PDO has shifted to a cooler eastern Pacific. That means the Pacific coast of N. America has been doubly cooled. Has that reduced fire size and intensity? Heck no. 2008 has been the worst fire season in CA state history.

It’s the fuels…

Is this .01, .1, 1, or 10, or 100? This would then tell us whether albedo or heat transport by water vapor is the dominant cooling effect.

I would suspect that because oceans moderate climates along coasts and air temp is related to water temp which sets dew point that determines air temp, that water vapor over the oceans is the dominant mechanism.

I agree that temp does not mean much because the heat in the vertical column of air over a desert is a lot less that that over the Gulf of Mexico. The water vapor just trumps the heat in the air significantly.

Thats why I contend that if we do not have humidity rates along with the temperature records, then ALL the temp records are basically useless. Now, some of the coastal records might be useful if we have SSTs as well.

Is there a satellelite that measures outgoing energy from the Earth? How does water vapor become droplets and is there a specific radiation signature for this that can be measured?

The CR Flux water vapor theory says that condensation is a function of the CR flux – condensation dumps huge amounts of heat which is then radiated away. This makes the condenser portion of the heat pump more efficient.

IF we can find this signature, THEN measure it, THEN the CR flux theory can be proved or disproved. We can also then see part of the heat leaving the earth.

“I agree, this is interesting stuff. Let’s hope the cooling trend continues.”

Hmm, not sure I agree totally with that statement. IF we were to have a 2c drop in temperature, I believe we see more problems than if we had more warming. And God forbid, we go into a full blown ice age…-8c… we’d severe consequences.

The only good thing from a bit of cooling, would be the demise of the AGWers position, except they would say, “wait for this bit of cooling to end, THEN watch out!”

George is missing something.

The only way for the Earth to cool is to cool the oceans – mostly the tropical and subtropical latitudes. ”

Aystin; why do you jump to the conclusion that I am missing something ?

I’m alread concerned that I am abusing Anthony’s hospitality, by posting such long tomes; and I simply can’t throw in every detail that comes to mind.
The earth cools in many ways; which is why I personally believe the whole concept of a global mean temperature or ersatz substitutes like GISStemp or HADcrut, have no scientificbasis or justification at all. The Two I mentioned as well as RSS, and UAH are reputedly the results of performing some certain algorithms on some sets of data; different for each of those groups. So long as you don’t change the algorithm, and you gather the raw data from the same locations and instrumentation; then it might be interesting to compare one year’s or month’s results with another’s; but that is all you can do. None of those four “anomaly” reports can be construed to be giving the actual mean temperature of the earth (which would immediately vaporize every living thing on the planet) nor even the mean surface temperature of the earth, although I suspect that the two satellite based groups UAH and RSS come closer to reading actual surface temperatures. But so what; the thermal fluxes at any location on earth are not simply related to the local temperature.
You mentioned cooling the ocean. The oceans cool by a variety of processes, and I am sure my explanations are quite pitiful compared with the complexity of the reality.
The deep oceans behave quite closely to what a Black body would do. For solar radiation, you have a normal incidence reflection coefficient of 2% due to the refractive index (1.33) of water, and the usual Fresnel reflection laws. Over the complete hemisphere of incoming radiation, the total reflectance is more like 3%, because of the higher reflection coefficient for incidence beyond the Brewster angle up to grazing incidence. So 97% of the incident radiation enters the water, and procedes into the depths in a spectral manner that looks almost like the inverse of the solar spectrum. The green wavelenths go deepest, and the shorter, and longer wavelenghts are absorbed at shallower depths, till at 10-50 microns in the IR, the top 10 microns completely absorbs. So unless the water is shallow enough to see the bottom, about 97% of the solar radiation is absorbed in the ocean so it is like a grey body with a 0.97 absorbtance. Following Kirchoff’s law, it should then emit black body radiation with a 97% emissivity. If the water temperature was 15C, the so-called global average, that emission should be about 378 Watts per square meter (0.97 x 390). The actual emission should depend on the local surface temperature, because any IR emitted from cooler deeper water, is going to be at wavelenghts longer than 10.1 microns, which is the black body peak at 15 deg C. So it will be immediately re-absorbed in the next few microns of water; which warms that layer and so on till that energy reaches the surface. Since seawater of greater than 2.47% salinity has no density maximum short of its freezing point, like fresh water does, then the vertical temperature gradient will result in an upwards convection of the warmed water; so eventually much of that absorbed solar energy is transported back to the surface. Direct conduction is going transport heat in all directions both up and down, as of course does the radiation, but in the end, I believe the convection wins. this is an area where I don’t have information on the rates to say how much goes up and how much goes down. Tides and waves and storms of course confuse the issue. I’m sure oceanographers have a better understanding of the real numbers.
When the heated water gets to the surface film, then the IR radiation can finally escape with a spectrum that depends on the surface temperature. I believe UAH (probably RSS too can dirtectly read the surface temperature based on the surface IR emission spectrum. Wish I could talk to Roy Spencer or John Christie about that.

Well then you get the evaporation from the surface which takes with it about 590 calories per gram (well it’s 587.6 for 15 deg C water) but there again I don’t know evaporation rates, and the winds over the surface have a lot of influence, since that carries off the moisture to some place else.

Now over a tropical desert, the situation is quite different. The ground temperature could be +60C or hotter, and there is no water to evaporate. Depending on the surface rock; the emissivity may be only 40%, but the black body radiation would be about 1.8 times as high as at 15 C because of the 4th power Stefan Boltzmann law. The wavelength peak also moves down to around 8.9 microns or so, due to the Wien displacement law. Other than the lower emissivity, the radiation from these hot deserts is much higher than from ground that is at 15 C or Vostock ice that may be at -90C in the Antarctic winter night. So the actual surface IR radiation covers a range of more than 11 to one in radiance, and the spectral peak ranges from about 8.9 to 15 microns over the temperature range.

In a pine forest of a tropical rain forest, the thermal processes are different again and differently related to the local temperature.

That is why I maintain that there is no scientific significance to any computation of a mean global temperature; what you really want to know is the earth gaining energy from the sun, or is it losing energy to space, and cooling down, and it is the very hottest regions of the surface that are cooling the earth; not the polar cold regions; and that includes the so-called heat islands. Thoufgh city asphalt absorbs a lot of solar energy, it is also radiating like crazy during the daylight, and it cools very rapidly after sunset. the problem with heat islands, is that the temperatures measured there are being applied improperly to areas remote from the thermometer, where the thermal conditions are quite different.

Not being in the field, I have difficulty geting access to raw data, so largely I can only wave my hands in a qualitative fashion; whereas I would rather be able to give more quantitative input. I leave it to the climate experts who do have the data, to put flesh on my skeletal comments.

http://www.cmiae.org/glacier-lichen.htm
http://www.geog.uvic.ca/dept2/faculty/smithd/geog477/paper2.pdf

On her second visit to Glacier National Park in 1894, Mary Vaux (pronounced “vox”) was aghast at how the Illecillewaet Glacier had retreated since her previous visit seven years earlier.

AGW what AGW.

In contrast, I propose other factors were are work in the population tripling than temperature fluctuating a couple of degrees.
But then again I’m not a climate “scientist” looking for funding and trying to invent crisis to support said funding.

Like every October, when the Santa Ana winds strengthen wildfires in southern California, the debate is on. Is the seeming increase in recent California fires, as Gov. Schwarzenegger suggested this summer, due to higher temperatures and droughts brought about by global warming? Or are the fires a lot like hurricanes—similar in strength and number over the past century, but perceived as a lot more damaging now because there are simply a lot more houses (and camera crews) in the way?