 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Where's the Global Warming
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 18 Aug 09 - 12:06 PM So, TIA, you are advocating actions that will increase Global Warming? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:38 PM Just because beardedbruce says something doesn't make it true. And you don't want to LOSE the bet against Gore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:40 PM And YOU want to increase global warming, too? IF you reduce the pollution, that is the EFFECT of what you do, regardless of what you WANT to do. I have not bet against Gore- have you bet with him? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:59 PM Conflating aerosols of sulf with carbon, a greenhouse gas, is a bit cockamamie, Bruce. Are you being argumentative for its own sake? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 18 Aug 09 - 11:15 PM Amos, "Conflating aerosols of sulf with carbon," Who has done that????? You miss the point. The CO2 is one greenhouse gas- Water vapor and methane are others that have greater effect. The coal fired plants that produce much of the CO2 also produce the aerosols that are providing cooling. So what is it that Gore is concentrating on? CO2, and coal. The EFFECT is to ignore the other greenhouse gasses, and increase global warming by removal of the aerosols. IF G-W is not inevitable, Gore's actions are more likely to lead to it than just ignoring the problem- WHICH IS NOT what I have advocated, regardless of what you and others have said. IMO ( which I thought I was entitled to) there IS global warming, WHICH WE NEED TO ADJUST TO ( since IMO it is a factor of solar output, that we cannot control). I think that Gore is pushing a flawed solution that will not work, will prevent the actual accomadation of GW, and will cost untiold lives in the next 50 years, which could be saved with a different course of action. What Gore is pushing will cause more war and destruction than a dozen Bush presidencies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 09 - 08:20 PM Arctic temperatures hit 2,000-year high "The 1990s were the Arctic's warmest decade in the past 2,000 years, says a study released in Friday's edition of Science. The warming -- due to the release of greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere -- overpowered a natural cooling trend that should have otherwise continued. Scientists used "natural" thermometers -- such as glacial ice cores, tree rings and sediments from lakes -- to calculate the temperatures of the Arctic over the past two millennia. Instruments have been used to measure the actual temperature of the Arctic since the late 1800s. "This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system," reports study co-author David Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. In the decade of the 1990s, Arctic temperatures measured about 2.5 degrees F higher than they would have had the cooling continued. The Arctic's gradual cooling trend is due to a wobble in the tilt of the Earth, which, over the last 7,000 years, has shifted the Earth's closest pass by the sun from September to January. This reduces the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the Arctic in the summer and has caused noticeable cooler summers over the past several centuries. That is, until the effects of global warming took over. "If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," says Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study. "This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," added Schneider. These impacts include remarkable shrinking of summer sea ice due to the rising temperatures, which reached a record low extent in 2007." (USA Today) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Sep 09 - 09:45 PM From the Examiner The Briksdal glacier in Norway is growing by over seven inches a day. The glacier at the top of Canada's highest mountain, Mount Logan, has continued to grow since 1992. In fact, the official height was determined to be seven meters higher than last measure. Mike Schmidt of the Geological Survey of Canada says this is mostly due to snow and ice accumulation. Silvretta Glacier in Switzerland and the Greenland Glacier is advancing over 7 miles per year. In February of 2008 it was reported that there was a third more ice than usual in Antarctica and that the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that the 3.5 million square miles of ice cover that the earth had lost from January of 2007 to October of that year had been returned to normal levels. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:12 PM shrinking glaciers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:45 PM Seems there's a lot more measurement on the shrinking side than on the growing side, Sawz. Including photos. Why would that be? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Sep 09 - 09:07 AM Amos, See my post of 18 Aug 09 - 11:15 PM- the obvious cause is the actions of Gore et al, increasing the already significant global warming. They have been reducing COAL , and removing the aerosols that have been slowing the global warming due to increased solar output. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 04 Sep 09 - 11:31 AM bruce....your analysis of the physics involved is either a long, involved, tongue-in-cheek joke, or a bit of wishful thinking based on some set of premises extracted from a website like this. ☺ By your analysis, if we'd just all put in fireplaces and burn wood and use LOTS of hair-spray, it would solve things faster.....until.....never mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 04 Sep 09 - 01:09 PM Your problem, bb, may be this is NOT rocket science. Because to me, non-expert in almost all things, your postulation appears to stem from a mistaken place and then becomes circular. :) ************************ "Many photos he has recovered from the 1890s, the 1940s and the 1970s show how fast the glaciers have been retreating; in a few cases, however, where warming temperatures have increased precipitation at higher altitudes, some glaciers actually advanced..." from the link The last three years Southeast Alaska has had almost double the amount of snow that our climate stats have pegged. As I said, I am no expert - at all - but I'd like an analysis of this idea, that since #1 we are pretty far north and #2 our mountains, our latitude and the Pacific Ocean have a volatile effect on our weather #3 Therefore, ergo, and all that, when the ocean warms thus creating more moisture, does it not follow that the moisture will more frequently display as snow rather than rain? Given no more expertise than I have (Hey! I'm getting tired of that!) it makes sense to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 04 Sep 09 - 01:26 PM BillD, Did you bother to read the referenced post, or the one of 16 Aug 09 - 09:27 PM that I posted? If not, you need to, if so, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of what they say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 04 Sep 09 - 02:14 PM Yes...I read it....I do NOT see anything to support your contention. then I sat down to read the Post today http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090302199.html "Human-generated greenhouse gas emissions have helped reverse a 2,000-year trend of cooling in the Arctic, prompting warmer average temperatures in the past decade that now rank higher than at any time since 1 B.C., according to a study published Thursday in the online version of the journal Science." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Don Firth Date: 04 Sep 09 - 02:56 PM ". . . global warming due to increased solar output. . . ." This is simply inaccurate astronomy. As stated above, the sun goes through a regular 11-year cycle. Sunspot activity is on the increase right now, but this is NOT solar warming. Sunspot activity (periodic reshuffling of the sun's magnetic fields) will reach it's peak in 2112, then it will ease off until it happens again in another eleven years. This has been going on for billions of years, and other than an increase in auroral activities ("Northern Lights") when sunspot activity reaches its peak, and some radio interference, the average person doesn't even notice it. Nor does it reflect itself in the earth's global temperature. Simply business as usual. If we want to learn the causes of global warming, we need to look much closer to home. Like in the mirror, perhaps. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Sep 09 - 03:00 PM Don, There are a significant number of other solar cycles, bsides the 11 year one. When YOU have a degree in Astronomy, please come back and discuss this with me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Sep 09 - 03:18 PM "The Bottom Line Our Sun, like all stars, is a variable star. We must learn to live with the uncertainty of a star that is a product of its environment. We can expect our Sun to change when it enters regions of interstellar space where there is more or less dust, which alters the plasma characteristics. In the meantime, we can only look for reassurance by closely examining the behavior of nearby stars. A few massive CME's are the least of our concerns. " http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=by2r22xg http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/VariableSun/ smm results- 1% variable |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Don Firth Date: 04 Sep 09 - 03:56 PM No, I do not have a degree in astronomy, but it has been a life-long interest of mine, I have read a great deal about it, and have studied it formally in school--and I have spent quite a bit of time in an observatory in addition to lectures and book study. Can you say the same? I don't have a degree in music either, but I have one helluva lot of both formal training and study on my own, and I have made my living at it by both performing and teaching. Astronomy happens to be a field I know a lot about and can (and have) discussed it knowledgeabley with professional astronomers. Not only that, I keep current in the field. The sun does vary slightly in intensity, but its primary variation is the eleven year sunspot cycle. It is not regarded by astronomers as a "variable star" such as a cepheid variable. And your degree in astronomy came from what school? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 04 Sep 09 - 04:06 PM THere's no question solar incidents can wreak havoc, as in this example from the 19th century, but that does not mean they are responsible for the global warming trend. "On Sept. 2, 1859, at the telegraph office at No. 31 State Street in Boston at 9:30 a.m., the operators' lines were overflowing with current, so they unplugged the batteries connected to their machines, and kept working using just the electricity coursing through the air. In the wee hours of that night, the most brilliant auroras ever recorded had broken out across the skies of the Earth. People in Havana and Florida reported seeing them. The New York Times ran a 3,000 word feature recording the colorful event in purple prose. "With this a beautiful tint of pink finally mingled. The clouds of this color were most abundant to the northeast and northwest of the zenith," the Times wrote. "There they shot across one another, intermingling and deepening until the sky was painfully lurid. There was no figure the imagination could not find portrayed by these instantaneous flashes." As if what was happening in the heavens wasn't enough, the communications infrastructure just beginning to stretch along the eastern seaboard was going haywire from all the electromagnetism. "We observed the influence upon the lines at the time of commencing business — 8 o'clock — and it continued so strong up to 9 1/2 as to prevent any business from being done, excepting by throwing off the batteries at each end of the line and working by the atmospheric current entirely!" the astonished telegraph operators of Boston wrote in a statement that appeared in The New York Times later that week. The Boston operator told his Portland, Maine counterpart, "Mine is also disconnected, and we are working with the auroral current. How do you receive my writing?" Portland responded, "Better than with our batteries on," before finally concluding with Yankee pluck, "Very well. Shall I go ahead with business?" In terms of the relationship between the Earth and its star, it is probably the weirdest 24-hours on record. People struggled to explain what had happened. NASA's David Hathaway, a solar astronomer, said that people in the solar community were beginning to understand that there was a relationship between events on the sun and magnetism on Earth. But that knowledge was not widely disseminated."... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Don Firth Date: 04 Sep 09 - 04:08 PM "Willson says his work with ACRIM and a handful of other sensors shows not only that the total solar irradiance varies over the 11-year solar cycle, but that it has crept upward between the last two solar minimums. It's this latter claim that has sparked disagreement within the solar research community." Learn to read thoroughly, Bruce, not just the parts that support your global warming argument. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,KP Date: 04 Sep 09 - 06:42 PM This review paper from Nature might be of interest to those considering the link between solar variation and climate change: Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate KP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 04 Sep 09 - 07:38 PM Far too many posts to see if this nwas put up before...anyway, here it is http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Arctic+warming+ends+cooling+cycle/1960818/story.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 05 Sep 09 - 01:35 AM "Recent warming in the Arctic has interrupted and reversed a long-term cooling cycle triggered by wobbles in Earth's orbit, according to new research. The Arctic should still be cooling, an international team reports, but instead is warmer than it's been in at least 2,000 years, likely because of human interference. "Something perturbed the system in the 20th century, and by far the most likely culprit is greenhouse gases," says climate scientist Scott Lamoureux, at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., who collaborated on the study that will appear today in the journal Science. Earth is in the midst of a periodic and natural change in its orientation to the sun. The wobble has shifted the planet's closest pass by the sun from September to January, reducing the intensity of sunlight reaching the Arctic in summer. The new study shows summer temperatures in the Arctic cooled in step with the reduced solar energy for almost 2,000 years. Then, they report, the cooling trend was abruptly interrupted in the 20th century even though the Earth continued to move away from the sun. It's now about one million kilometres further during the Northern Hemisphere's summer solstice than it was 2,000 years ago The researchers combed through lake sediments, tree rings and ice cores to reconstruct temperatures for the Arctic going back 2,000 years, the most comprehensive long-term record yet. Lamoureux and his colleagues from the U.S. and Europe, working independently at a network of 23 sites across the Arctic, have turned up evidence of "pervasive cooling" for 2,000 years. It came to an end when burning of fossil fuels began to send large amounts of carbon dioxide wafting into the atmosphere. The reconstruction shows the last half of the 20th century was the warmest of the last 2,000 years - with four of the five warmest decades occurring between 1950 and 2000." From the link above, for which thanks. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Dec 09 - 12:06 PM Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.... There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production â€" with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas â€" parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia â€" where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree â€" a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century." A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras â€" and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 â€" years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases â€" all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. NEWSWEEK |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,KP Date: 06 Dec 09 - 12:20 PM The BBC has this discussion on its website today The arguments made by Sceptics I think you can tell which 'side' its on from the title KP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 06 Dec 09 - 12:31 PM I just checked our local weather station on the net. It is 15 degrees F right now. That is extremely cold for the Nevada desert this time of year. Last night the news said it was snowing in Houston and New Orleans. Major problem for many trees, as well as other plants and animals not used to such cold. Again, the earliest snow on record for those Gulf Coast cities. Perhaps the Global Warming crowd will go back to their earlier "impending Ice Age" tack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 06 Dec 09 - 12:40 PM PDQ: The correct name for the change-curve is climate change. I am glad you're enjoying the random cold spots. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 06 Dec 09 - 01:29 PM The BBC site that GUEST,KP links to is worth reading. It does, however, demonstrate how ossified the various sides have become. Remember, the only thing that all sides agree on is that the average temperature, as measured near the surface (above land) has risen 0.74 Co from 1845 to 1995. A period of 150 years. That is also expressed as a 1o F increase. Insignificant in the real world. Modern computer models produce whatever the programer wants. Junk Science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Dec 09 - 02:44 PM The above article was "The Cooling World" article, Newsweek, April 28, 1975 when the consensus of the scientists was global cooling. Anybody that disagreed was just plain wrong and stupid. Click here and please explain what the hell happened in 850 to cause global warming. There were no belching smokestacks and gas guzzlers back then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Dec 09 - 03:07 PM Will somebody please explain this one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Mavis Enderby Date: 06 Dec 09 - 03:07 PM Thanks for the BBC link KP. I think it's fairly balanced all things considered. The saddest part of this whole business is that there are "sides". Pete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 06 Dec 09 - 03:23 PM Don't know when this US site was put up...but it's interesting anyway: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/regional-climate-change-impacts |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 06 Dec 09 - 03:57 PM Sea levels are likely to rise by about 1.4m (4ft 6in) globally by 2100 as polar ice melts, according to a major review of climate change in Antarctica. Conducted by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), it says that warming seas are accelerating melting in the west of the continent. Ozone loss has cooled the region, it says, shielding it from global warming. Rising temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula are making life suitable for invasive species on land and sea. The report - Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment - was written using contributions from 100 leading scientists in various disciplines, and reviewed by a further 200. Rising seas: A tale of two cities SCAR's executive director Dr Colin Summerhayes said it painted a picture of "the creeping global catastrophe that we face". "The temperature of the air is increasing, the temperature of the ocean is increasing, sea levels are rising - and the Sun appears to have very little influence on what we see," he said. SCAR's report comes 50 years to the day after the Antarctic Treaty, the international agreement regulating use of the territory, was opened for signing, and a week before the opening of the potentially seminal UN climate summit in Copenhagen. High rise Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the global average sea level would probably rise by 28-43 cm (11-16in) by the end of the century. But it acknowledged this figure was almost certainly too low, because it was impossible to model "ice dynamics" - the acceleration in ice melting projected to occur as air and water temperatures rise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:04 PM Hmmmm. What does this mean Amos? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:26 PM Ummmm, Sawzaw....not intending to speak for Amos...who has shown no difficulty in speaking for himself :) But, If you draw a straight line ontop of the vhart's peaks and valleys, there does seem to be a pattern of rise, between the ups and downs. One can awlways expect peaks and valleys in climate. The more energy in the system, the greater the variability....I suspect? Looks like we are currently on one of the valleys, if the pattern continues....? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:32 PM Check this one interpretation out?: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:42 PM But remember, Ed T... A rectilinear asymptote may be conceived as a tangent to the curve at an infinite distance. Perhaps that is too obvious, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:42 PM Since the major factor in absoebing transfering (to the atmosphere) heat north and south is the ocean....what is happening there is a major factor. The ocean is vast and deep(up to 5 miles deep), with many layers and currents. So, one would want to know what is happening in the deep ocean....not what satellites tell us is happening on the surface, that can be vastly different from below. Looking at one chart may tell us the current weather, but is (selectively) only one factor to be considered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 06 Dec 09 - 04:48 PM pdq ? When one wants to make a longer long term projections it is preferable to look at a long term data set (pattern) , versus what could be a one time dip...that could be an anomility. However, it isn prudent to pay attention to what is occuring now.... which could be inmportant, or not. Curves are more commonly useful in curling:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Dec 09 - 05:00 PM What do the blue and orange line mean Amos? I need a little help from an expert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,KP Date: 06 Dec 09 - 06:31 PM PDQ You mention that the only thing all/both sides agree on is that average temperature has risen by about a degree. I think the fixation with 'average temperature' rise and the calculation thereof has only served to muddy the arguments. If you think about what measuring the average temperature of the world actually implies you have to do, with all the huge changes in day/night and summer/winter temperatures, its not surprising that its hard to get good data. However there are a number of things that most people should be able to agree on, and I'd be interested to hear people's comments 1. Carbon Dioxide absorbs heat from solar radiation. The physics of that has been pretty clear for about 100 years, thanks to Arrhenius and others. 2. Humans are burning a lot of hydrocarbon fuels that have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 3. You would expect the heat absorbed by the extra carbon dioxide has to go somewhere. 4. Our global climate should be affected by the extra heat - there is more energy driving the fronts and cyclones around 5. Carbon dioxide is clearly not the only thing driving changes in global climate - there are solar variations, Milankovitch cycles etc. In particular we don't know nearly enough about the role of methane as a greenhouse gas, and the impact of aerosols in mitigating the greenhouse effect. 6. You can't make any useful conclusions about the changes in global climate from individual episodes of good/bad weather - weather is a chaotic system (especially here in the northern UK), which means tiny changes in the starting conditions have huge changes in the final weather outcome. Indeed chaos maths was first discovered by a meteorologist. 7. Changes in average temperature don't kill you - its the possible increase of extreme events that's damaging. Its a problem if a 1 in 300 year flood actually happens every 25 years. 8. At some point we will have to move to a renewable non-fossil fuel economy so it makes sense to invest in these technologies. Given the sources of much of the world's oil and gas there are probably good political reasons for doing so. 9. The cost of converting large quantities of the world's power supply to renewables/nuclear could be huge (the International Energy Authority are talking about a trillion dollars a year for the next thirty years!), but its not dissimilar to the amounts Governments are spending/talking about spending to reflate the world economy out of the current recession/depression. 10. Although a lot of attention is focused on the impact of transport (from SUV's to air travel), actually the biggest source of greenhouse gases is the heating lighting and air-conditioning of buildings (about 40% in the UK). Reducing the carbon footprint of buildings can usually be achieved by decreasing their energy consumption - in other words it can save you money to reduce your emissions. There are lots of easy gains here - there is typically a 500% difference in energy consumption between the best and worst office buildings for example. So it makes sense to 'turn the lights off when you go home'. I don't know about every point but I would hope that many of the contributors to this debate would actually agree with much of the above. As a personal note I have sufficient technical background to understand some of the climate science but am not a practicing researcher in the area. I used to work for an oil company, and indeed still own shares in it. I do produce a number of studies into the economic impact of global warming and some of the amelioration strategies. Looking forward to hear your comments. KP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 06 Dec 09 - 07:34 PM GUEST, KP... Thank you for declaring this a debate. It should be, but a quick check of earlier posts suggests it is more a shouting match. I will address a few points... "Carbon Dioxide absorbs heat from solar radiation." Please explain the difference between "CO2 absorbs heat" and "CO2 reflects heat back to Earth". "Humans are burning a lot of hydrocarbon fuels that have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." Well, 35% of all atmospheric carbon is returned to the Earth each year, so "stuff" produced by factories during the early days of the Industrial Revolution is long gone. Also, you seem to be a physics/chemistry type. You did not mention that plants take in CO2 and give us back Oxygen is such quantities that the human-sourced CO2 insignificant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 06 Dec 09 - 09:02 PM A good summary on the importance of the oceans to climate and absorbing atmospheric carbon: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Mavis Enderby Date: 07 Dec 09 - 02:33 AM Excellent post KP. I think the point you make about fossil fuels running out (and the politics of obtaining what remains) is reason alone to act, along the lines you suggest: i.e. investing in renewables/nuclear* combined with efficiency increases. Combine this with the precautionary principle regarding potential climate change due to C02 from fossil fuels and I think the need for action becomes even more critical. It would be nice if governments offered a little more "carrot" and less "stick" though in helping us reduce energy usage or general consumption. Pete. *I'm not convinced about nuclear though. Safety + waste issues... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,KP Date: 07 Dec 09 - 06:47 AM PDQ, You asked: "Please explain the difference between "CO2 absorbs heat" and "CO2 reflects heat back to Earth". Hope this is neither too pedantic or simplistic, but here goes. A multi-atom molecule like carbon dioxide absorbs electromagnetic radiation. The radiation hitting each molecule imparts energy to the molecule (at uv and high frequencies the molecules vibrate, at lower frequencies the molecules just spin and twist). Some of the energy is therefore used up in making the molecule spin/twist/vibrate (yup, sounds like 1960's pop music...) and less is available for other purposes. This is energy absorption. Only certain frequencies excite these various rotation/vibration modes (like the way a guitar body vibrates best at certain frequencies/notes), so if you measure the spectrum of em radiation going through CO2, you'll see reductions in radiation intensity at these particular frequencies. One big point of argument is how broad these absorption bands are, and whether the large band for water vapour overlaps and swamps the smaller one for CO2. The 'greenhouse' process can be summarised as: 1. high energy radiation from the sun impacts the earth, warming it 2. As the earth warms up, it then radiates heat in the form of lower energy infra-red rays 3. CO2, water, and methane absorb much of this radiation coming from the earth which would otherwise be 'lost in space' 4. This absorption of radiation speeds up/twists/turns the various absorbing molecules so they have more energy. This then causes (but its not the only cause) the variety of secondary effects we call 'climate change'. I find it more conceptually useful to say that CO2 puts more energy into the global climate system than to talk about average temperature. With more energy in the system, you'd expect to get more extremes (hurricanes being more intense, hotter places being hotter, wetter places being wetter, but also anomalous cold spots). One consequence of climate change might be to disrupt the Gulf Stream warm current which would make northern Europe a lot colder. Reflection on the other hand is where the radiation just 'bounces off' the molecule without being absorbed. This happens when solar radiation hits for example a symmetrical molecule like nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2). It also happens, (as BeardedBruce's article points out) when you have aerosols - tiny droplets in the atmosphere. These aerosols reflect the sun's radiation back out to space and mitigate the warming effects. Producing more aerosols in the atmosphere is a potential approach to controlling/reversing climate change. Just burning more dirty coal probably isn't the answer though - for one the cooling impact discussed in the final paragraphs of that article are quite small, partly because the aerosols are largely in the lower atmosphere. Also, the aerosols you get from coal burning are essentially dilute sulphuric acid aka 'acid rain'. What you'd need would be less toxic aerosols, higher in the atmosphere where smaller quantities would have a bigger impact. So it is not really accurate to say that CO2 reflects heat back to earth - it is really the absorption process that is causing the 'greenhouse effect'. Hope this helps. I'll see if I can find some references, and address your other point about CO2 in plants, a bit later. regards KP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 07 Dec 09 - 11:20 AM Here is a bio of the "Father of Global Warming": Roger Revelle Born: March 7, 1909 Seattle, Washington Died:July 15, 1991 (aged 82) San Diego, California PhD: University of California, Berkeley UC San Diego's first college is named Revelle College in his honor. Roger Revelle was born in Seattle to William Roger Revelle and Ella Dougan, and grew up in southern California, graduating from Pomona College in 1929 with early studies in geology and then earning a Ph.D. in oceanography from the University of California, Berkeley. Much of his early work in oceanography took place at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) in San Diego. He was also Oceanographer for the Navy during WWII. He became director of SIO from 1950 to 1964. He stood against the UC faculty being required to take an anti-communist oath during the Joseph McCarthy period. He served as Science Advisor to Interior Secretary Stewart Udall during the Kennedy Administration in the early 1960s, and was President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1974). Revelle was deeply involved in the growth of oceanography in the United States and internationally after World War II. Working for the Navy in the late 1940s, he helped to determine which projects gained funding, and he promoted the idea that the Navy ought to support "basic research" instead of only trying to build new technology. At Scripps he launched several major long-range expeditions in the 1950s, including the MIDPAC, TRANSPAC (with Canada and Japan), EQUAPAC, and NORPAC, each traversing a different part of the Pacific Ocean. He and other scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography helped the U.S. government to plan nuclear weapons tests, in the hope that oceanographers might make use of the data. Revelle was one of the committee chairmen in the influential National Academy of Sciences studies of the biological effects of atomic radiation (BEAR), the results of which were published in 1956. In 1952, along with Dr. Seibert Q. Duntley, he successfully moved the MIT Visibility Lab to SIO with financial support of the U.S. Navy. Along with oceanographers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Revelle planned the American contributions to the oceanographic program of the International Geophysical Year (IGY). He became the first president of the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research, an international group of scientists devoted to advising on international projects, and he was a frequent advisor to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, created in 1960. Revelle was instrumental in creating the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1958 and was founding chairman of the first Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean (CCCO) under the Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) and the International Oceanic Commission (IOC). During planning for the IGY, under Revelle's directorship, SIO participated in and later became the principal center for the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Program. In July 1956, Charles David Keeling joined the SIO staff to head the program, and began measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa Observatory on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and in Antarctica. In 1957, Revelle co-authored a paper with Hans Suess that suggested that the Earth's oceans would absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity at a much slower rate than previously predicted by geoscientists, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a "greenhouse effect" that would cause global warming over time. Although other articles in the same journal discussed carbon dioxide levels, the Suess-Revelle paper was "the only one of the three to stress the growing quantity of CO2 contributed by our burning of fossil fuel, and to call attention to the fact that it might cause global warming over time." Revelle and Suess described the "buffer factor", now known as the "Revelle factor", which is a resistance to atmospheric carbon dioxide being absorbed by the ocean surface layer posed by bicarbonate chemistry. Essentially, in order to enter the ocean, carbon dioxide gas has to partition into one of the components of carbonic acid: carbonate ion, bicarbonate ion, or protonated carbonic acid, and the product of these many chemical dissociation constants factors into a kind of back-pressure that limits how fast the carbon dioxide can enter the surface ocean. Geology, geochemistry, atmospheric chemistry, ocean chemistry ... this amounted to one of the earliest examples of "integrated assessment", which 50 years later became an entire branch of global warming science. During the late 1950s, Revelle fought for the establishment of a University of California campus in San Diego. He had to contend with the UC University Board of Regents who would have preferred merely to expand the University of California, Los Angeles campus rather than create an entirely new campus in San Diego. He also faced local San Diego politicians and businessmen who tried to undermine establishing the new campus near the original Scripps Institute in La Jolla by suggesting it be placed in less optimal sites in San Diego proper, such as near San Diego State University or in Balboa Park. The watershed decision was made in 1959, with the first graduate students enrolled in 1960, and the first undergraduates in 1964. Revelle's struggle to acquire land for the new campus put him in competition with Jonas Salk, and Revelle lost some of what he called the "best piece of land we had" on UCSD's eventual Torrey Pines site to the fledgling Salk Institute. In later years Revelle continued to show some animosity toward Salk, once saying, "He is a folk hero, even though he is... not very bright." When at Scripps and while building UCSD, Revelle also had to deal with a La Jolla community that refused to rent or sell property to Jews. In addition to battling the anti-semitic restrictive covenant of La Jolla real estate, Revelle helped found a new housing subdivision for Scripps professors, partially because some of them would not have been allowed to live in La Jolla. Revelle left Scripps in 1963 and founded the Center for Population Studies at Harvard University. In over ten years as director there, he focussed on the application of science and technology to the problem of world hunger. In 1976 he returned to UC San Diego as Professor of Science, Technology and Public Affairs (STPA) in the school's political science department. It has been alleged that near the end of his life Revelle expressed doubts about climate change, but his daughter wrote that Revelle ...remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore's professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming. Nothing could be farther from the truth. When Revelle inveighed against "drastic" action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense - measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate." During his last decade at UCSD and SIO, Revelle continued to work and teach. In the early 1980s, he taught undergraduate STPA seminars twice a year, in Energy and Development (mainly on problems in Africa), the Carbon Dioxide Problem (known now as the Global Warming problem), and Marine Policy. In 1986 he won the Balzan Prize for Oceanography/Climatology. A 1990 heart attack forced him to move his course to the Scripps Institution from the Revelle College provost's office, where he continued to teach the Marine Policy program until his death the following year. In 1991, he was awarded the National Medal of Science by President George H.W. Bush (one of about 500 recipients in the 20th Century). He remarked to a reporter: "I got it for being the grandfather of the greenhouse effect." Revelle died in San Diego on July 15, 1991 of complications of cardiac arrest. He was survived by his wife, Ellen Clark Revelle (1910-2009) three daughters, and one son, William, as well as numerous grandchildren. In his honor, a new research vessel at the Scripps Institution was christened R/V Roger Revelle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 07 Dec 09 - 11:45 AM Your point? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 07 Dec 09 - 11:57 AM TO answer the OP: Right here, Temperatures are changing in the lower atmosphere - from the Earth's surface all the way through the stratosphere (9-14 miles above the Earth's surface). Scientists are working to document temperature trends and determine their causes. Surface Temperature Change Figure 1: This diagram (See link above) shows global mean surface temperature anomalies over land and ocean from 1880 to 2008. The anomalies are in comparison to the 1901-2000 mean. From the late 1800s to the late 1930s, temperatures were below the long-term mean. Between the late 1930s and late 1970s temperatures ranged above and below the long-term mean. Since 1980 temperatures have been well above the long-term mean. Figure 1: Annual Average Global Surface Temperature Anomalies 1880-2008. Courtesy NOAA (Surface temperature records such as the one shown here have been quality controlled to remove the effects of urbanization at observing stations in and around cities). United States Surface Temperature Trends Observations compiled by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center indicate that over the past century, temperatures rose across the contiguous United States at an average rate of 0.11°F per decade (1.1°F per century). Average temperatures rose at an increased rate of 0.56°F per decade from 1979 to 2005. The most recent eight-, nine-, and ten-year periods were the warmest on record. Warming occurred throughout most of the U.S., with all but three of the eleven climate regions showing an increase of more than 1°F since 1901. The greatest temperature increase occurred in Alaska (3.3°F per century). The Southeast experienced a very slight cooling trend over the entire period (-0.04°F per century), but shows warming since 1979. Thumbnail map of the United States, depicting annual mean temperature anomalies from 1901 to 2005. The map shows which areas of the country that have warmed or cooled during this period. Warming occurred throughout most of the U.S. during this period, with all but three of the eleven climate regions showing an increase of more than 1°F since 1901. The greatest temperature increase occurred in Alaska (3.3°F per century). The Southeast experienced a very slight cooling trend over the entire period (-0.04°F per century), but shows warming since 1979. Figure 2: Annual Mean Temperature Anomalies 1901-2005. Click on Thumbnail for full size image. Data courtesy NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9°F since 1880 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now "unequivocal," based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC, 2007). According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 2008 State of the Climate Report and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) 2008 Surface Temperature Analysis: * Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F. * The Earth's surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century. * The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005. Additionally (from IPCC, 2007): * The warming trend is seen in both daily maximum and minimum temperatures, with minimum temperatures increasing at a faster rate than maximum temperatures. * Land areas have tended to warm faster than ocean areas and the winter months have warmed faster than summer months. * Widespread reductions in the number of days below freezing occurred during the latter half of the 20th century in the United States as well as most land areas of the Northern Hemisphere and areas of the Southern Hemisphere. * Average temperatures in the Arctic have increased at almost twice the global rate in the past 100 years. The IPCC has concluded that most of the observed warming in global average surface temperature that has occurred since the mid-20th century is very likely a result of human activities (IPCC, 2007). During the first half of the last century, there was likely less human impact on the observed warming, and natural variations, such as changes in the amount of radiation received from the sun, likely played a more significant role. Tropospheric Temperature Change Measurements of the Earth's temperature taken by weather balloons (also known as radiosondes) and satellites from the surface to 5-8 miles into the atmosphere - the layer called the troposphere - also reveal warming trends. According to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center: * For the period 1958-2006, temperatures measured by weather balloons warmed at a rate of 0.22°F per decade near the surface and 0.27°F per decade in the mid-troposphere. The 2006 global mid-troposphere temperatures were 1.01°F above the 1971-2000 average, the third warmest on record. * For the period beginning in 1979, when satellite measurements of troposphere temperatures began, various satellite data sets for the mid-troposphere showed similar rates of warming — ranging from 0.09°F per decade to 0.34°F per decade, depending on the method of analysis. Stratospheric Temperature Change Weather balloons and satellites have also taken temperature readings in the stratosphere – the layer 9-14 miles above the Earth's surface. This level of the atmosphere has cooled. The cooling is consistent with observed stratospheric ozone depletion since ozone is a greenhouse gas and has a warming effect when present. It's also likely that increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the troposphere are contributing to cooling in the stratosphere as predicted by radiative theory (Karl et al., 2006). Recent Scientific Developments The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) recently published the report "Product 1.1 Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences," which addresses some of the long-standing difficulties in understanding changes in atmospheric temperatures and the basic causes of these changes. According to the report: * There is no discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere. This discrepancy had previously been used to challenge the validity of climate models used to detect and attribute the causes of observed climate change. * Errors identified in the satellite data and other temperature observations have been corrected. These and other analyses have increased confidence in the understanding of observed climate changes and their causes. * Research to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed temperature change shows clear evidence of human influences on the climate system due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and stratospheric ozone. * An unresolved issue is related to the rates of warming in the tropics. Here, models and theory predict greater warming higher in the atmosphere than at the surface. However, greater warming higher in the atmosphere is not evident in three of the five observational data sets used in the report. Whether this is a result of uncertainties in the observed data, flaws in climate models, or a combination of these is not yet known. Top of page References * IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Exit EPA DisclaimerContribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning (eds.)]. * National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. Exit EPA Disclaimer National Academy Press, Washington, DC. * Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. Thomas R. Karl, Susan J. Hassol, Christopher D. Miller, and William L. Murray, editors, 2006. A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,TIA Date: 07 Dec 09 - 12:04 PM Sawzaw: The graphs you keep providing for Amos to interpret have very cleverly chosen axis limits. One begins at 1998 - which is an historic peak, so of course all that follows looks like cooling. Another starts at 1979 - similar trick. The third starts at maybe 2000 (the legend partially covers the axis) - same trick. The farther back you look, the more pronounced the current warming trend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,KP Date: 07 Dec 09 - 12:53 PM AAArgh! I wrote a longish exposition to pdq's second question/comment and it vanished when I tried to preview it. I'll try again. I said: "Humans are burning a lot of hydrocarbon fuels that have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." PDQ said' Well, 35% of all atmospheric carbon is returned to the Earth each year, so "stuff" produced by factories during the early days of the Industrial Revolution is long gone. Also, you seem to be a physics/chemistry type. You did not mention that plants take in CO2 and give us back Oxygen is such quantities that the human-sourced CO2 insignificant.' I think the numbers look like this: 800 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2 in atmosphere 2000 Gt in various biomass sinks 9 Gt added each year, 5 Gt removed by various 'sinks' 61 Gt involved in plant photosynthesis but 60 Gt returned by plant respiration. So 1 Gt acts as a 'sink' (included in 5 Gt above) carbon cycle diagram These people reckon that it will take a long time to lower CO2 down to pre-industrial levels Carbon is forever But like you say, I'm a physics/chemistry guy so some of this plant science is not my forte! cheers KP |
