Global warming

[JohnB]

Bascule, the Jones paper would indicate that estimates of UHI increase during the 20th C have been grossly under rated as a model input.

 

Others point to the possibility that cloud feedbacks, rather than being strongly positive could instead be negative.

 

These would have impacts on climate sensitivity to CO2 increase and future model projections, don't you think?

 

POL,

James Hansen seems to be building a scientific consensus

Good on him. The funny thing is that in science you prove your case. What Hansen is doing is politics, not science.

 

Flannery basically wrote-off the IPCC work as horrifically outdated when he published his book in 2005, 4 years ago

Who is Flannery? And where is his time machine? He writes off a 2007 report in a book published in 2005. Good trick.

 

The IPCC is simply compromised by big oil interests.

That's the funniest thing I think I've ever seen written about the IPCC. Can I quote you on this?

[Ophiolite]

The IPCC is simply compromised by big oil interests.

I recommend one of two actions. Demonstrate the truth of this statement with some very solid evidence, or retract it. From someone who has invested as much effort in exploring the subject of global warming as you have this statement has all the appearance of a mind blinded by an agenda. It devalues your contributions to the debate and calls me to question almost everything you have ever posted.

 

Good one.

[Leison]

We know that global warming affects the weather and the earth's natural resources, but I need to know how it affects the health of people and animals around the world?

 

1 positive effect of global warming could be- as the earth warms up, CO2 increases .Researches have shown that in high amount of CO2, higher crop production. when temp used to be high during medieval period,there used to be high production of crops.

[iNow]

Unfortunately, another influence of the higher temps caused by CO₂ is changing ocean currents, which changes rain patterns and increases incidence of drought. While plants certainly intake CO₂ and do okay in CO₂ rich environments, most still need regular rainfall. Drought sort of negates the benefit you mention.

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Who is Flannery? And where is his time machine? He writes off a 2007 report in a book published in 2005. Good trick.

As I'm sure you know, there are several versions of the IPCC report/multiple assessments. Much more likely than a time machine is the fact that Flannery was referring to a previous assessment version (which go all the way back to 1990).

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm

Edited June 14, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[JohnB]

I do know that.

 

I was drawing attention (in my own unique style:D) to that fact that we were told "Flannery basically wrote-off the IPCC" without any supporting references as to:

1. Who "Flannery" is.

2. What his qualifications are.

3. Where he did this.

4. What proof he provided to back his claim.

 

I gather from "when he published his book" that he is an author. So was Jules Verne.

 

I'll put it another way.

It was basically that your material on the rising ocean levels based on IPCC measurements is hopelessly out of date because the IPCC seems to be way behind the growing consensus that 450 ppm is acceptable.

Except that I've been quoting studies more recent than the AR4 which show the AR4 scenarios to be too high.

 

In other words, the IPCC is the "go-slow" branch of climatology, the real stuff seems to be out there in peer review land and just not filtering through to the IPCC fast enough.

Would you care to share some of this "real stuff" from peer review land?

 

James Hansen seems to be building a scientific consensus around the need to get below 350ppm, NOW, "or else!"

JH left science behind some time ago. He is also somewhat famous for thinking that democracy is part of the AGW problem. Things would be sooo much easier for his ilk if the people had no say in their future.

 

Be that as it may. References please.

 

The "or else" under this new branch of climate urgency is more severe than the IPCC 450 ppm scenarios

And I would just bet that the members of this "new" branch are all climate catastrophists closely linked to James Hansen.

 

Again, references?

 

I'm not sure who to quote as authoritative on sea-levels representing this new position

Then perhaps you actually read the literature before making unsupported statements.

[jackson33]

deleted by author....

Edited June 15, 2009 by jackson33

[bascule]

Bascule, the Jones paper would indicate that estimates of UHI increase during the 20th C have been grossly under rated as a model input.

 

I worked for a climate group that specialized in studying human impacts on climate change, and the influence of UHI on things like the GHCN are certainly one of the areas of interest.

 

However the primary concern of UHI is its effect on the instrumental record: if instrument stations are located within the UHI then measurement from stations in urban areas could unduly influence our measurements of the GMST.

 

The nice thing about UHI is that it too can be modeled, and when NASA compiles its assessments of the GMST I'm fairly certain UHI is included in their calculations, although don't quote me on that.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Note: this topic is an interesting enough one I think it deserves its own thread.

 

JohnB, the paraphrased argument in the opening post of the new thread isn't intended to be your own but it is a rather common one I've seen. I'm not trying to strawman you or anything.

[Leison]

Unfortunately, another influence of the higher temps caused by CO₂ is changing ocean currents, which changes rain patterns and increases incidence of drought. While plants certainly intake CO₂ and do okay in CO₂ rich environments, most still need regular rainfall. Drought sort of negates the benefit you mention.

 

new researches have shown that the temp causes increase in CO2, not CO2 causes temp rise!!!

and another fact is -rise in temp is followed by rise in CO2 by 100 years!!

[UC]

new researches have shown that the temp causes increase in CO2, not CO2 causes temp rise!!!

and another fact is -rise in temp is followed by rise in CO2 by 100 years!!

 

Peer reviewed paper or it didn't happen.

[iNow]

Hell... Basic chemistry about IR absorption in CO₂ (about which we've known since 1962 or earlier) proves him wrong, but hey... yeah... let's see if he can possibly find a peer reviewed paper to support his silly claim. Should be fun to watch.

 

 

<emphasis mine>

http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm

What do we mean by molecular vibrations? Picture a diatomic molecule as two spheres connected by a spring. When the molecule vibrates, the atoms move towards and away from each other at a certain frequency. The energy of the system is related to how much the spring is stretched or compressed. The vibrational frequency is proportional to the square root of the ratio of the spring force constant to the masses on the spring. The lighter the masses on the spring, or the tighter (stronger) the spring, the higher the vibrational frequency will be. Similarly, vibrational frequencies for stretching bonds in molecules are related to the strength of the chemical bonds and the masses of the atoms. Molecules differ from sets of spheres-and-springs in that the vibrational frequencies are quantized. That is, only certain energies for the system are allowed, and only photons with certain energies will excite molecular vibrations. The symmetry of the molecule will also determine whether a photon can be absorbed.

 

The number of vibrational modes (different types of vibrations) in a molecule is 3N-5 for linear molecules and 3N-6 for nonlinear molecules, where N is the number of atoms. So the diatomic molecule we just discussed has 3 x 2 - 5 = 1 vibration: the stretching of the bond between the atoms.

Carbon dioxide, a linear molecule, has 3 x 3 - 5 = 4 vibrations. These vibrational modes, shown in Figure 4, are responsible for the "greenhouse" effect in which heat radiated from the earth is absorbed (trapped) by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.

The arrows indicate the directions of motion. Vibrations labeled A and B represent the stretching of the chemical bonds, one in a symmetric (A) fashion, in which both C=O bonds lengthen and contract together (in-phase), and the other in an asymmetric (B) fashion, in which one bond shortens while the other lengthens. The asymmetric stretch (B) is infrared active because there is a change in the molecular dipole moment during this vibration. To be "active" means that absorption of a photon to excite the vibration is allowed by the rules of quantum mechanics. [Aside: the infrared "selection rule" states that for a particular vibrational mode to be observed (active) in the infrared spectrum, the mode must involve a change in the dipole moment of the molecule.] Infrared radiation at 2349 (4.26 um) excites this particular vibration. The symmetric stretch is not infrared active, and so this vibration is not observed in the infrared spectrum of CO2. The two equal-energy bending vibrations in CO2 (C and D in Figure 4) are identical except that one bending mode is in the plane of the paper, and one is out of the plane. Infrared radiation at 667 (15.00 um) excites these vibrations.

 

 

 

 

Now, yes... Increases in temp will allow for other processes to occur, processes which will add additional CO₂ to the atmosphere, but this in NO WAY negates the fact that CO₂ leads to an increase in temperature.

 

 

 

Let's make this simple for our readers, shall we?

 

xl3xlLPrAB8

Edited June 16, 2009 by iNow

[swansont]

Peer reviewed paper or it didn't happen.

 

Actually, it did happen, and there are peer-reviewed papers that say so. What they don't say, AFAIK, is that this is the only way it can happen.

 

But a claim like that must link to a specific source to be considered credible, so that the interested reader might have an opportunity to confirm the summary, or go and show that the paper doesn't say what the poster thinks it said. I am confident the latter is the case here, but I can't debunk a source that's not given — and that's why bald assertions are given basically zero attention and aren't worth the electrons used to display them.

[bascule]

new researches have shown that the temp causes increase in CO2

 

Actually, very old research shows that dissolved CO₂ enters the atmosphere as the temperature increases. This is occurring right now as a feedback of recent temperature increases. There are also huge seasonal fluctuations of dissolved CO₂ as it's absorbed into the water and emitted back into the atmosphere.

 

not CO2 causes temp rise!!!

 

Indeed it is unusual for CO₂ to act as a climate forcing at all. Typically CO₂ levels increase in response to increasing temperatures caused by other forcings. The leading explanation on the matter is that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are an unnatural event which has no past precedent, and now CO₂ is actually becoming a radiative forcing, rather than a response.

 

and another fact is -rise in temp is followed by rise in CO2 by 100 years!!

 

This is wrong. The lag is typically 800 years.

 

You might try reading this. It's a nice explanation for laymen:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

[iNow]

I don't blame Al Gore. I blame the active disinformation campaign which paralleled the lies we were told about cigarettes not causing cancer.

 

 

 

2T4UF_Rmlio

 

 

 

Naomi Oreskes: You CAN Argue with the Facts - Full Talk

[JohnB]

Indeed it is unusual for CO2 to act as a climate forcing at all. Typically CO2 levels increase in response to increasing temperatures caused by other forcings. The leading explanation on the matter is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are an unnatural event which has no past precedent, and now CO2 is actually becoming a radiative forcing, rather than a response.

 

I think the problem I have with this idea is that the record shows that at no time in the past has CO2 been strong enough to either initiate a warming cycle or continue one. If we look at the ice cores, we see that even when the temp drops, the CO2 is still rising.

 

Just keeping things in the vernacular for a little while.

 

As I understand the idea a Milankovitch cycle starts the process of warming which releases CO2 which takes over as the climate driver. (Or amplifies the original driver as a feedback)

 

If CO2 takes over as the climate driver then for the temp to drop while CO2 is still rising, then there must be an unknown negative driver come into play. Yet there is no evidence of such a strong negative driver or feedback. (At least I've never read of a candidate that fits.) Logically then, CO2 has not been shown in the record to be a strong driver. If it were, we would presumably have some indication as to the nature of the even stronger driver that overcame it's effect in the past.

 

If CO2 was "only" a feedback in previous cycles, then it's effect only held while the original driver was in play. Once the original driver reversed or vanished (Milankovitch cycle switching to "negative" mode.) then CO2 was not strong enough to keep the warming cycle going and temps dropped.

 

I can't see how the record can be seen as consistent with the idea that CO2 is either a "strong" driver or feedback. If it were a "strong" feedback temps would have continued to rise in previous cycles, but they didn't. If it were a strong forcing in it''s own right, it would have initiated warming cycles, yet again, it didn't.

 

One obvious answer as to why this warming period is different is to say "This CO2 rise is caused by man". The "cause" is irrelevent. If the temp is going to increase due to increased CO2 then where it came from makes no difference. The atmosphere cannot distinguish between natural CO2 and that from human emmissions. It's CO2, one carbon and two oxygen and the atmospheric response will be the same regardless of the molecules origin.

 

There may be an argument that there is a difference (that leads to CO2 being a forcing in it's own right) because of the magic 300 ppm.

 

As shown by this graph

 

the only real difference is that in previous cycles we haven't crossed 300ppm during a warm period.

 

On the flip side, it must be noted that previous cycles were warmer than our current one even with lower CO2.

 

As an aside, I haven't seen a really good explanation yet as to why the current interglacial seems strangely constant in temp when compared to the sharp rises and falls of previous ones. It has been put forward that the development of agriculture has had sufficient effect to modify the climate for thousands of years.

 

Should this be correct I can only say "Thank God" because we would otherwise have followed the previous patterns and it would be around 2 degrees colder than it is and we would be on the way to the next ice age. Oh goody.

 

But back to 300 ppm.

 

Is it a "tipping point" that allows CO2 to become a driver in its own right and cause massively increased warming?

 

This graph

 

says maybe not. Even with CO2 in the thousands of ppm we idn't get greatly increased warming. This would tend to reinforce the idea that CO2 is not more than a "weak" feedback at best.

 

A difficulty with the graph above and any others like it is the lack of temporal resolution. I don't know if anything can be done about that but I somehow doubt it. What I do find interesting is the apparent 22 degree "ceiling". No matter how high the CO2 climbs, 22 degrees seems to be the maximum temp.

 

This implies to me that around that temp, some very strong negative forcing must come into play.

 

Anyhoo, the above is pretty much why I remain unconvinced that CO2 is a strong forcing agent. There are a couple of others concerning assumptions that will probably come up in your UHI thread.

[Tolmosoff]

Global warming of our oceans will force all fish to Alaska and South America dureing this time.

The end of our world ? NO !!! For when the ocean warms up we'll have weather like never seen in mans history like the days of Noah.

 

We'll have more rain comeing from our ocean and a massive cloud cover to block out our sun and throw our earth into a global deep freeze with a mile thick of Glasier on American soil.

We won't have to wait for an asteroid to block out our sun.

 

Yes our world has a way of recycleing itself.

[swansont]

This graph

 

says maybe not. Even with CO2 in the thousands of ppm we idn't get greatly increased warming. This would tend to reinforce the idea that CO2 is not more than a "weak" feedback at best.

 

A difficulty with the graph above and any others like it is the lack of temporal resolution. I don't know if anything can be done about that but I somehow doubt it. What I do find interesting is the apparent 22 degree "ceiling". No matter how high the CO2 climbs, 22 degrees seems to be the maximum temp.

 

This implies to me that around that temp, some very strong negative forcing must come into play.

 

Anyhoo, the above is pretty much why I remain unconvinced that CO2 is a strong forcing agent. There are a couple of others concerning assumptions that will probably come up in your UHI thread.

 

Thy system is nonlinear. The CO2 forcing is logarithmic (at least at the current concentrations) and blackbody radiation varies as T^4. So linearly increasing concentrations represent a diminishing increase in forcing, and rising temperatures radiate proportionally more energy.

 

So one problem here is that the values are presented on a graph with a linear scale, when the effects are not linear. A change from 200 ppm to 1000 ppm of CO2 is going to have the same effect on forcing as the increase from 1000 ppm to 5000 ppm. An ideal blackbody at 295K radiates almost 15% more energy than one at 285 K, even though that's only a 3.5% increase in temperature.

[Tolmosoff]

I would hate to see a moon sized Rogue Asteroid headed our way and plunge deep into our earth.

I wonder what that would do to our tektonic plates.

Our land mass mite be different when we're gone.

[Tolmosoff]

No, I guess I must have missed your letter. Write back.

[swansont]

Some of us are trying to have an adult discussion here. If you can't keep it on-topic, please re-think your decision to post. Take the banter, etc., to general discussion

[Dudde]

I've been looking online for a while and can't seem to find any answers to my n00bish questions, wouldn't the ice sheets melting into the ocean help keep the oceans (and earth) cool for the time that we have them to melt? I know it's kind of a climate stabilizer for times in the past when it got warmer - but they're disappearing a lot faster this time around IIRC. Or does that not have anything to do with global warming?

[bascule]

I've been looking online for a while and can't seem to find any answers to my n00bish questions, wouldn't the ice sheets melting into the ocean help keep the oceans (and earth) cool for the time that we have them to melt? I know it's kind of a climate stabilizer for times in the past when it got warmer - but they're disappearing a lot faster this time around IIRC. Or does that not have anything to do with global warming?

 

No.

 

Ice sheets are highly reflective and bounce a lot of energy back into space. The ground underneath them (or oceans in the case of sea ice) is comparatively dark, absorbing that energy.

 

So when ice sheets or sea ice melts, it changes the albedo (i.e. reflectivity) of the earth's surface, causing more energy to be absorbed rather than reflected back out into space.

[PoWn3d_0704]

Alright.... look. I'm absolutely not an expert on Global Warming whatsoever. Sorry iNow. This is my high unprofessional view on the subject. Water vapor, a greenhouse gas, is the number one cause of all global warming... it is the NATURAL driving force behind how the earth warms/cools. Here is a nice website I found. The number you want to look at is the 0.28% we humans contribute to the problem if Water Vapor is included. it makes absolutely no sense to NOT include water vapor, since it is in our atmosphere and it does contribute. I haven't really had time to read all of the posts since mine, but here is the source i have.

 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[swansont]

Alright.... look. I'm absolutely not an expert on Global Warming whatsoever. Sorry iNow. This is my high unprofessional view on the subject. Water vapor, a greenhouse gas, is the number one cause of all global warming... it is the NATURAL driving force behind how the earth warms/cools. Here is a nice website I found. The number you want to look at is the 0.28% we humans contribute to the problem if Water Vapor is included. it makes absolutely no sense to NOT include water vapor, since it is in our atmosphere and it does contribute. I haven't really had time to read all of the posts since mine, but here is the source i have.

 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

This is a classic misdirection, using percentages to mask the argument, on top of the outright lying.

 

First, I'll address the lie: Water is included in the models. To claim otherwise is blatant dishonesty. Water is not included in the list of anthropogenic greenhouse gases because it isn't considered one. Water concentration doesn't vary all that much, when looking that the global average — there is a limited amount the atmosphere can hold, and the residence time is short. Water vapor tends to condense on nucleation sits and fall back to the earth as macroscopic collections, as you are no doubt aware. The forcings that are considered are from anthropogenic gases that can change in concentration, not the natural ones that won't.

 

Now, the misdirection: GHGs are dismissed because they only comprise a fraction of a percent of the whole, and the implication is that a small effect can be ignored, because the effect must be huge. Bull.

 

Look at the numbers given by both iNow and bascule early in this thread, or from ref 1 of your link The forcings are of order a watt, while the sun gives us more than a kilowatt, per m^2. So the effects are less than a percent change in the incoming energy. But 1 Watt/m^2 is more than 10^14 Watts over the exposed surface of the earth. By expressing the numbers as a percentage, it makes a significant effect look insignificant.

 

Now that we have the numbers, you have the task of explaining how trapping an extra 10^14 Watts will have no effect on the planet's temperature.

[iNow]

This has already been covered neatly by swansont, but just to summarize:

 

Water is a feedback, not a forcing.

Water only stays in the atmosphere for about 10 days. Then we get this neat little thing I like to call "rain."

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries, and possibly even millenia. Since it stays there for so long, every single new bit of CO2 adds to what came before, like a giant pile of trash.

Sure, a single piece of rubbish won't cause much trouble, but add it on top of a pile which has been building for 150 years... well, you get the point.

 

As for the overall amount, that's irrelevant. You're suggesting that because CO2 makes up such a small overall percentage of our atmosphere that it couldn't possibly be the driver of our temperature trends. Well, I'll tell you what. How about you let me make the air in your bedroom 1% military grade toxic nerve gas. Then, when I'm explaining to your parents why you're dead, I'll just tell them it couldn't possibly have been the nerve gas because it comprised such a small percentage of the air. They should buy that, right?

 

So, no need to apologize to me. You should apologize to yourself for the complete lack of respect you have for your own mind and the lack of discrimination you use about the information with which you litter it. As an aside, I always LOVE posts which state, "I haven't read the last several posts in this thread, but..." That's just Classic.

Edited June 20, 2009 by iNow

[PoWn3d_0704]

Sorry. 14 year old mistake.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Do you think the Earth is going to cool down? I mean... the Earth does cycle, and it WILL eventually cool down. (Hasn't the Earth been cooling lately anyways?) (And DON'T bash me for saying that. I don't know ANYTHING, that's y i'm here.) What do you think is going to happen in the long run?