Can we control the temperature of Earth?

[macdoc]

It requires certain conditions to be present. Warm atmosphere carries more water vapour and when that hits continental cold high pressure you get more snow.
Your area is more maritime influence ( Gulf stream ) and was already moist and let's face it - not a huge candidate for albedo influence

Western Alaska, some parts of the Antarctic east where moist winds blow into frozen deserts and for sure the Cascades this year.

In North America the Arctic dipole saw intense cold in the interior which combined with some west to east storms off the Pacific set some snow fall records in the east.

It's also one reason the mid west is getting big time floods so often, increased snow pack combined with more rapid and earlier spring.

 

[Bjarne]

Warm atmosphere carries more water vapour and when that hits continental cold high pressure you get more snow.

First at all notice that the winter here in Denmark and the most of Europe; we have not much snow anymore but almost only rain.

Even in the Alps it has sometime been problems for the holydays industry because of too little snow.

Furthermore whether some areas (these you had mentioned) get more snow as normally doesn’t matter. 1 cm snow or 2 meter makes no difference, because the surface is anyway white.

To get it clear, you can't say that temperature increase give the northern hemisphere a larger cover of snow (more sqaure meters), that wouldn’t be true.

I assume that like Europe, also northern America also gets much more rain (less snow) in the wintertime as few decades ago.

So the accelerating decrease of the snow cover in large parts of the northern hemisphere is through the last decades certainly a serious contributor to global warming.

And as mentioned above, it could have been the suns naturally increased activity towards 1985 that have brought temperatures to that point where the snow cover begun to disappear, - this could have started an independent accelerating process, - from 1985 and until today.

Simply because of heat from the (hot) summer is accumulated in the oceans. The winter must cool that heat. If it doesn’t happen sufficiently, - temperature increase will automatically begin to accelerate.

A warm ocean prevents / delay a full snow cover to return, hence heat from the sun is no longer reflected out in space but absorbed by millions of square kilometer dark farmer fields.

Imaging because this also happens everywhere in UK, hence the western wind blowing towards central Europe is warm, - both because the Atlantic Ocean have absorbed more heat, due to a warm summer, but also because huge land masses also no longer cools the western wind sufficiently, but instead warming that wind.. Hence the western wind is warmer deep into Eurasia.

As you see this must lead to a vicious circle .

When we have mild winters it is because the Atlantic Ocean is warm. This will give rain, not snow,.
The decrease of snow cover off course reinforce the process, - which then mean the spring comes sooner, and which also mean that the summer will be warmer, and this again gives us rain in next the winter, not snow, ……etc.. etc...etc.

I am 99999934657328234658234683 % sure this is a serious factor, and properly much too underestimated.

So the sun’s large activity could until 1985 been responsible for that one important factor; - the ability / balance, - to reach full snow cover, was serious disturbed. It probably can take long time to get it back.

 

[uke2se]

First at all notice that the winter here in Denmark and the most of Europe; we have not much snow anymore but almost only rain.

Even in the Alps it has sometime been problems for the holydays industry because of too little snow.

Furthermore whether some areas (these you had mentioned) get more snow as normally doesn’t matter. 1 cm snow or 2 meter makes no difference, because the surface is anyway white.

To get it clear, you can't say that temperature increase give the northern hemisphere a larger cover of snow (more sqaure meters), that wouldn’t be true.

I assume that like Europe, also northern America also gets much more rain (less snow) in the wintertime as few decades ago.

So the accelerating decrease of the snow cover in large parts of the northern hemisphere is through the last decades certainly a serious contributor to global warming.

And as mentioned above, it could have been the suns naturally increased activity towards 1985 that have brought temperatures to that point where the snow cover begun to disappear, - this could have started an independent accelerating process, - from 1985 and until today.

Simply because of heat from the (hot) summer is accumulated in the oceans. The winter must cool that heat. If it doesn’t happen sufficiently, - temperature increase will automatically begin to accelerate.

A warm ocean prevents / delay a full snow cover to return, hence heat from the sun is no longer reflected out in space but absorbed by millions of square kilometer dark farmer fields.

Imaging because this also happens everywhere in UK, hence the western wind blowing towards central Europe is warm, - both because the Atlantic Ocean have absorbed more heat, due to a warm summer, but also because huge land masses also no longer cools the western wind sufficiently, but instead warming that wind.. Hence the western wind is warmer deep into Eurasia.

As you see this must lead to a vicious circle .

When we have mild winters it is because the Atlantic Ocean is warm. This will give rain, not snow,.
The decrease of snow cover off course reinforce the process, - which then mean the spring comes sooner, and which also mean that the summer will be warmer, and this again gives us rain in next the winter, not snow, ……etc.. etc...etc.

I am 99999934657328234658234683 % sure this is a serious factor, and properly much too underestimated.

So the sun’s large activity could until 1985 been responsible for that one important factor; - the ability / balance, - to reach full snow cover, was serious disturbed. It probably can take long time to get it back.

Just so I understand you correctly: You are 9999whatever% certain that the earth is warming because we get less snow?

That is, the cause/effect relationship globally is that less snow > warmer earth?

 

[Bjarne]

Just so I understand you correctly: You are 9999whatever% certain that the earth is warming because we get less snow?
That is, the cause/effect relationship globally is that less snow > warmer earth?

It is one of the contributions, yes, and maybe underestimated.
For example the snow cover of Europe is almost gone in the wintertime.
Even large parts of Norway’s have no snow, and when it comes it is much later than few decades ago.
Million of square kilometer dark farmer field absorbs huge amount of energy compared to snow covered farmer fields.
I believe this is a very important factor, yes.

 

[macdoc]

You are wrong - snow cover is not directly related to warming at all - and the entire warmth increase to date attributable to humans is .6 degrees globally - not something that shows up locally
- it's related to more moisture in the air hitting a cold air mass.
Do you EVER read what you've been told about?

Norway is not the planet and you need to read some climate science - you ARE in a science forum

The answer to the OP question.

Yes we can.
Yes we are.

Tho we are not doing so in a controlled manner. Could we cool it - yes.
Are we warming it? Yes

 

[uke2se]

It is one of the contributions, yes, and maybe underestimated.
For example the snow cover of Europe is almost gone in the wintertime.
Even large parts of Norway’s have no snow, and when it comes it is much later than few decades ago.
Million of square kilometer dark farmer field absorbs huge amount of energy compared to snow covered farmer fields.
I believe this is a very important factor, yes.

Again, you actually believe that the planet got warmer after the amount of snow went down?

I'm having a hard time believing you, sorry. I'm flabbergasted, I suppose.

 

[Reality Check]

It is one of the contributions, yes, and maybe underestimated.
For example the snow cover of Europe is almost gone in the wintertime.
Even large parts of Norway’s have no snow, and when it comes it is much later than few decades ago.
Million of square kilometer dark farmer field absorbs huge amount of energy compared to snow covered farmer fields.
I believe this is a very important factor, yes.

You may believe this but climate scientists actually measure it
CO2 is not the only driver of climate

Surface Albedo has changed due to activity such as deforestation. This increases the Earth's albedo - the planet's surface is more reflective. Consequently, more sunlight is reflected directly back into space, giving a cooling effect of -0.2 Wm-2.
...
CO2 levels have increased from around 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 384 ppm in 2009. The radiative forcing from CO2 is +1.66 Wm-2. CO2 forcing is also increasing at a rate greater than any decade since 1750.

Thus the actions of farmers have an cooling effect of -0.2 W/m^2 which is 1/8th that of the heating effect of CO2 (+1.66 W/m^2).
In a list of 11 factors that contribute to the climate, deforestation comes 8th in radiative forcing. This is not that important and is included in climate models. It is definitely not important enough to be the primary driver of climate change.

 

[Bjarne]

You are wrong - snow cover is not directly related to warming at all

Crap, You can see that professor RC do agree that you are wrong.

and the entire warmth increase to date attributable to humans is .6 degrees globally

Crap, only since 1985 the temperature has increased relative more than the suns activity.

Norway is not the planet and you need to read some climate science - you ARE in a science forum

It is not only small parts of Norway; I mentioned Norway just to show that the snow cover is affected far more north than you maybe would believe.
BIG part of the western Eurasia does: no longer / have less/ or delayed snow cover.
And I guess the same case in parts of the northern America too.

Thus the actions of farmers have an cooling effect of -0.2 W/m^2 which is 1/8th that of the heating effect of CO2 (+1.66 W/m^2).

It sounds: under estimated or wrong.

In a list of 11 factors that contribute to the climate, deforestation comes 8th in radiative forcing. This is not that important and is included in climate models.

I think you could have forgotten the 2 most important:

• Mass emotion
• The quote below:

Friis-Christensen and Lassen's theory to explain this correlation was that if the time duration between solar maxima peaks was shorter, then the earth was collecting more net energy overall than if the time between maxima was longer. The cycle averages 11 years, but it does shorten to about 10 years at times, and can open out to 12 years. From the maximum of 1980 to that of 1990, the cycle was only 10 years, resulting in the 1980s collecting greater warmth from the Sun than would be usual for other cycles http://www.google.dk/imgres?imgurl=h...OkFobaOPTktZsD .

 

[MRC_Hans]

Not in Europe.
For example in Denmark we had have many years with only few weeks snow cover.
It wasn’t so few decades ago.

Off course such will contribute to accelerate temperature increase.

Not really, because there is so litte sunlight in Denmark in the winter that it plays a vert small role for the temperature. The winter temperature in Denmark (as in England and most of Scandinavia) is heavily dominated by the temperature of the northern Atlantic Ocean.

Bjarne, perhaps you should refrain from venturing into yet another area you know next to nothing about. Stick to gravity, you look plenty silly doing that.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

Crap, You can see that professor RC do agree that you are wrong.

Crap

1. I (RC) am not a professor and have never claimed to be one.
2. I have not commented at all about snow cover.
3. I do agree that snow cover is not directly related to global warming. It is a consequence of and a feedback mechanism to global warming that is driven mainly by increases in CO2.

Yet another fundamentally flawed idea from Bjarne

 

[Bjarne]

Not really, because there is so litte sunlight in Denmark in the winter that it plays a vert small role for the temperature.

We are not only talking about Denmark, but the whole western Eurasia, (and many other places where the snow cover disappears / are delayed etc,) and where the Sun off course also shines in the Winter.

The winter temperature in Denmark (as in England and most of Scandinavia) is heavily dominated by the temperature of the northern Atlantic Ocean.

Right + OFF COURSE how much heat is absorbed by Jens Peter Jensen ploughed fields.

 

[MRC_Hans]

We are not only talking about Denmark, but the whole western Eurasia, (and many other places where the snow cover disappears / are delayed etc,) and where the Sun off course also shines in the Winter.


Right + OFF COURSE how much heat is absorbed by Jens Peter Jensen ploughed fields.

Moving the goalposts again.

For example in Denmark we had have many years with only few weeks snow cover.

My bolding.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Moving the goalposts again.

My bolding.

Hans

The clouds cover in Denmark varies from year to year.
This winter it was very cloudy and cold, (exactly like Henrik Svensmarks theory predicts)

And sunny days all the heat was reflected due to the complete snow cover .

Was the amount of clouds + heat reflection why the winter was so cold here and many places?
Or WHY suddenly so cold

 

[Pixel42]

Was the amount of clouds + heat reflection why the winter was so cold here and many places?

No.

Or WHY suddenly so cold

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html

 

[Bjarne]

Double

 

[Bjarne]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html

Of course you can always find deviation in the weather, for a short period, also big difference.

Goose Bay New foundland is almost only a rock compared to the rest of the northern hemisphere, (and so far south as France I belive) .

Also the Southern Greenland there was hidden by a little tongue of warmer weather as “normal”.

But this is to my opinion not a big Story. – The same thing happened in general 1000 years ago; > Greenland was not long ago always averagely 1 degree warmer than now.

Rather ask why we had so much cold western wind, (and cold wind from North) this winter ? .

This is not a result of a suddenly CO2 release. – So the answer is we don’t know why this winter was “normal cold” 95% of the places of the Northern hemisphere. .

What would you say if also the next winter would be colder, and the next and the next etc. ?

I guess you would desperate search for small places on the Northern hemisphere that is a little or more warmer than "normal".

That Co2 is the cause of global warming could be a 2% truth but also a 79 % truth, - we simply don’t know.

 

[Pixel42]

Of course you can always find deviation in the weather, for a short period, also big difference.

Well spotted.

Rather ask why we had so much cold western wind, (and cold wind from North) this winter ?

Already asked and answered.

This is not a result of a suddenly CO2 release.

Whoever said it was?

– So the answer is we don’t know why this winter was “normal cold” 95% of the places of the Northern hemisphere.

It wasn't. Take another look at the map at the end of the BBC article. The area of the NH that was signficantly warmer than usual is about equal to the area that's significantly cooler. So that's about 50%, not 95%. And we do know why.

What would you say if also the next winter would be colder, and the next and the next etc. ?

You mean as this last one was, i.e. over about 50% of the NH including the UK? I would say "Hey, looks like the Arctic Oscillation is shifting to be more frequently strongly negative. Damn, that means my winter fuel bills are going to be higher". I would not, of course, conclude anything about global temperature trends or the effect of higher CO2 on them, because I would have no reason to do so.

I guess you would desperate search for small places on the Northern hemisphere that is a little or more warmer than "normal".

That's too stupid for a response.

That Co2 is the cause of global warming could be a 2% truth but also a 79 % truth, - we simply don’t know.

We know with 100% certainty that increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will increase average global temperatures, all other things being equal. It's simple physics, known and understood for well over a century.

 

[Bjarne]

e know with 100% certainty that increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will increase average global temperatures,

Right

. It's simple physics, known and understood for well over a century.

No because you cannot prove that how much CO2 will lead to how much temperature increase.
But we know cosmic rays can cause condensation, and hence off course clouds, - it is experiential proven. But again we don’t know how much cosmic rays will leads to haw many clouds.
So the uncertainties on both side seems to be the same.
We know the cosmic rays for long time have been almost completely parallel to the temperatures curve, except the last 25 years.

Notice that the duration between solar maxima peaks seems now to get longer now, this could according to some scientist mean more cosmic rays and hence colder weather.
But probably also the Sun / Earth MF alignment could also play a role.
Furthermore, - the amount of cosmic rays hitting the solar system difference places on our path in the galaxy is important, - but how can we know how much have hit our solar system the last 25 years, compared to the time before.
There is too much uncertainties to that something exactly can be said.
We cannot conclude that the sky is blue because of oxygen is blue. Science must be objective, provable, and possible to replicate with predictable results.
We are not that far yet.

The next 10 to 20 years we will know a lot more. In the meantime a new(short or long term) ice ice age could in principle have started. So maybe we shall not paint it all too black.
But yes any doubt must benefits the lacking nature resources and Mother Earth, anything else would be stupid.
But our “knowledge” concerning that question is not based on the purely ice-cold objective scientific methods, but rather mass emotion.

I am not saying mass emotion is bad and that there are no possible “warning signs” but I am only saying; we are far from evidence.

Exactly like many are preparing for the worst possible scenario, - we also should be prepared that we could get a bucket of ice cold water in our heads when temperature suddenly begins to decrease., - or that an 90.000 years long ice age strikes, - hence I believe we would be very happy for the maybe 1 - 2 degree temperature increase we maybe are to blame for.
This would give us 90.000 years to build some more wind miles and find different energy sources.

The deviation between temperature and the Suns magnetic field seems always to have been pretty parallel, but yes the last 25 years look special. – But maybe this as well is normal.

Also remember to ask why is it only the last 25 years that no more is parallel, why not the last 100 years, (since the industrialization started.)

I know you can choose totally to ignore that temperature and the suns activity are so much parallel, and blame CO2 for all the temperature rise the last 100 years, – But this would not be fair to the Sun, because several hundred years ago observation shows that the suns activity and temperature on Earth is indeed connected. It would also not be fair to the fact that we know there was an unexplained cold period in the middle of the last century, or that there was a even warmer period 1000 years ago. -etc ...etc...etc...

 

[macdoc]

 

[Trakar]

I find it more sad than funny, a slow motion trainwreck which unfolds a bit more each time I check the thread.