Global Warming

[Volunteer_Kirby]

I believe it to be nothing more than an evolved political activist movement. The claim, in a nutshell, is that humans are the main cause of Global Warming. The claimed science behind Global Warming is considered irrefutable, but the "facts" presented are weak. Look at how much higher the temperature was during a 3,000 yr. period.

Now, another claim is that the industry is a major cause. A fallacy is this logic is the time period that the post war economic boom was around. According to their logic, temperature should have increased, since during that time the industry was really booming. Instead we find there was a decrease in temperature for decades. The Co2 increased rapidly at the time and yet the earth was getting cooler. It makes no sense. Now, here is a staggering percentage. The small percentage which Co2 takes up in our atmosphere is a mere 0.054%. That's your main cause of Global Warming. A whopping .054%.

The theory also says that if the temperature increases on land, the upper air temperatures is increasing, too. This is false - There is no evidence.

Al Gore claims the relationship between temperature & co2 is "complicated". He doesn't specify, it's just complicated. He also claims that when there is more co2, the temperature gets warmer. He fails to elaborate on the "link" between Co2 & temperature because it is misleading. Temperature rises (or falls) 1st, then Co2 follows, lagging behind by over 800 yrs.

And remember, Co2 is completely NATURAL. We don't live without Co2. Humans, cars, the industry, etc, are just a fraction to the Co2 in the atmosphere. Volcanoes add much more Co2 in the atmosphere and that's by a very wide margin - The difference between the two is massive. But the biggest source of Co2 just happens to be the oceans. The warmer the oceans, the more Co2 they produce. The colder, the more they absorb. The reason there is a big "time lag" between Co2 & temperature is because the oceans take so long to warm up and cool down.

Now to really find out what drives temperature change. You may have guessed it. It's that thing in the sky. You know, the glowing ball of fire. The Sun. Solar Physicist Piers Corbyn uses a unique technique to get temperature reading. In the press he was even heralded as a 'Super Weatherman'. What's his secret? He uses the sun as his main indicator. There is a distinct correlation between sun spots and temperature. In 1893 the British Astronomer found that there were hardly any sun spots during the 1,000 yr period called 'The Little Ice Age'. Coincidence?

Now try telling me there is no correlation between temperature & solar activity after viewing this:

It's obvious to any sensible person that Co2 isn't the main factor in temperature changes, but rather the solar activity. Right? Maybe it's just a coincidence.

Let's extend the time line now.

I hope that's clear.

We now know that the clouds have a factor on temperature, too. Clouds, as most of you know, are there as a 'cooling effect'. Now for the juicy stuff. An astronomical scientist and a geologist combined data, they found that when cosmic rays go up, the temperature went down. And when cosmic rays went down, the temperature went up.

To better understand, view this:

Now let's flip them.

Amazing. This is what is really happening: The climate is controlled by clouds, the clouds are controlled by cosmic rays, & the cosmic rays are controlled by the Sun. Again, the further clarify, let's try putting the logic of Global Warming up to the theory that the Sun is behind this madness. Now, you tell me, which depicts a more distinct correlation?

The Co2:

The Sun:

:wavey:

 

[volinbham]

I'm against global warming - except in the winter.

 

[TennTradition]

Not one single climate scientist is going to argue that the largest variable in climate and global climate isn't the sun. Of course it is. The sun will always be THE SOURCE of our average global temperature.

1) Is the point of your first figure to say that temperatures have been high in the past and will be high again in the future? If so, I don't disagree. Climate scientists don't disagree. There has been climate change and always will be - they do not argue this. What they do suggest is that we are facing a new kind of climate change - man-made. This climate change acts by exacerbating natural cycles - making it even hotter in a hot sun cycle. Also, I'm not certain when your first figure was taken from the IPCC, but I think that in 2004, that data went back on the positive side of that line.

2) Climate scientists say that if CO2 increases, then temperatures must increase? I don't think so. NO WAY. The only fallacy in logic is the one you just made. You are asserting that in order for the global warming "community" to be right, global temperatures should correlate to carbon dioxide concentration because climate scientists assert that man-made CO2 causes global warming. That isn't what global warming is about. The only strong correlation that can be drawn is between temperature and solar cycles. That correlation will continue to exist even in the face of climate change. The difference is the global temperature SENSITIVITY to the solar cycle. Note that all of your solar cycle vs. temperature data are shown on two separate axes. Individuals with their own political ax to grind make the argument you just made - knowing that when people here it they will think something that is a little different than they said. Richard Lindzen does this all the time...and it drives me crazy. He knows what he is doing....he knows that he is walking a fine line and that people perceive things differently than he says them, but he has his own agenda it seems, and is rather relentless. So, to answer your question as to why temperatures dropped in this period if CO2 levels were increasing, just look to your bottom images - it was solar cycles. But, it was also another factor that surprised scientists. The heavy amount of aerosols generated during the early post-war boom (sulfur, soot, etc.) actually lead to a net cooling effect. This effect is now accounted for in current IPCC studies. Standards were imposed to decrease the release of these particulate, which actually led to a net increase in the climate's sensitivity because these particulates stopped masking some of CO2's effects.

3) Perhaps it isn't the best analogy, but asserting that having a 0.054% CO2 level in the atmosphere leads one to suspect it can't be the cause of global warming is like someone arguing that a 0.08% blood alcohol level can't be the source of them weaving between lanes. Just like a healthy body, the atmosphere and climate are well equilibrated. In the case of the atmosphere, it is equilibrated to the natural gas levels (and natural fluxes that produce those gases and absorb those gases). However, as humans upset those natural fluxes and impose large fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere, the natural absorption cycles are not keeping up and CO2 is obviously increasing. This will in some way upset the equilibrium. Climate scientists have analyzed this disequilibrium and applied climate sensitivity analysis to predict with a high level of confidence that some amount of global warming can be expected.

4) I agree with you that Al Gore brushes over information in his CO2 vs. temperature plot - something that in my opinion he shouldn't have done. I also agree with you that in that figure, CO2 levels trail temperature by about 800 years. I also agree that that is because of the oceans. However, to stop the story here would be failing to learn an important lesson contained in the data. The very fact that global temperatures can drive CO2 levels is disconcerting. It is evidence of a rather large positive feedback mechanism that enhances human-induced global warming. If humans raise the CO2 levels and temperatures increase, then we can expect the ocean temperature to increases (slowly) and increase its CO2 output as the gas becomes less soluble. This effect is accounted for in current climate models. This is actually one of the points that I was referring to when I said that Richard Lindzen irks me. He says in interviews often that "the data suggests that temperature drives CO2, not the other way around." And - he is exactly right. However, he is talking about PAST data. In the past, we were continually pumping out large amounts of greenhouse gases. There was no human driver for increasing CO2 levels. Therefore, the data CAN'T show that CO2 can drive temperature. The data can only show that temperature drives CO2 - as solar cycles ramped up, atmospheric temperatures responded quickly, ocean temperatures responded a bit slowly, and therefore there was a time lag, but CO2 levels did respond to the temperature increases. Lindzen knows this. He chooses to sit on one side of the aisle rather smugly while Gore chose to sit on the other side of aisle rather pedantically - and both were wrong, but it is Lindzen who really irks me because he is a climate scientist, not a politician. He should be above that.

5) Again, as I said earlier, climate scientists will agree that temperature correlates to solar cycle rather well - because it is the primary driver. What those who accept global warming science (within its stated and well documented certainty levels) fear are the periods of intense solar output, which can be exacerbated by the presence of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. The hot years will be that much hotter - that's the concern. CO2 cannot reverse the effect of increased solar output because it has a positive sensitivity. On the other hand, sulfur has a negative sensitivity, increasing sulfur in the atmosphere while increasing solar output could actually induce global cooling, depending on their relative rates. In fact, I think that the volcanic eruption Pinatubo is an example of this - but I don't have data to back that up. That statement stems from recollection of past discussions with climate scientists about this issue.

6) I'm not saying you're wrong here - but I think that you failed to provide an appropriate link between cosmic rays and cloud formation. Or, are you saying that cosmic rays inhibit cloud formation?

I can't say much about this because your point isn't made very clearly. However, what I can say is that predicting cloud formation in climate models is very difficult and will continue to prove to be one of the primary factors generating uncertainty in the models. That uncertainty is identified, propagated through the calculations, and quantified to provide error bars on the resulting predictions. However, even identifying the error is difficult. This is actually an area of pretty intense research. Most scientists can agree that as ocean temperatures increase, cloud formation will increase. In general, this does provide a cooling effect. However, the degree of warming or cooling has a lot to do with what kind of clouds form, where they form, etc.

:wavey:

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

This is all over one degree over the past 100-150 years and who gets the most funding for what in the scientific community. When this is over they will focus on some other apocalyptic theory and that will be proven wrong as well. We have so many scientists and yet we still can't cure the common cold. Wonder if they may be focusing on the wrong issues here.

 

[volinbham]

Tenn Tradition - thanks for the detail about the state of GW or GCC science.

If I understand correctly, CO2 or greenhouse gases are viewed as having a moderating effect on solar cycles by increasing the effect of upswings in solar cycles. In short, the solar cycle should be causing GW now but the CO2 issue is increasing the effect.

When you say "positive sensitivity" is CO2 only viewed to be moderating in that direction? If solar cycles change towards a cooling trend is the CO2 level expected to increase/have no impact/mitigate the impact?

How do climate scientist accurately assess the impact of CO2 given a change in the solar cycle? It seems we are dealing with a new phenomenon here. Is the data sufficient to unequivocally predict this effect?

Realistically, what level of reduction in GH gases is possible and more importantly, how much change would that make to the cycle?

 

[PowerT83]

I dont know much about Global Warming, but I do know that it was almost 80 degreez in February last year thats not right.

But it was nice weather

 

[TennTradition]

Tenn Tradition - thanks for the detail about the state of GW or GCC science.

If I understand correctly, CO2 or greenhouse gases are viewed as having a moderating effect on solar cycles by increasing the effect of upswings in solar cycles. In short, the solar cycle should be causing GW now but the CO2 issue is increasing the effect.

When you say "positive sensitivity" is CO2 only viewed to be moderating in that direction? If solar cycles change towards a cooling trend is the CO2 level expected to increase/have no impact/mitigate the impact?

How do climate scientist accurately assess the impact of CO2 given a change in the solar cycle? It seems we are dealing with a new phenomenon here. Is the data sufficient to unequivocally predict this effect?

Realistically, what level of reduction in GH gases is possible and more importantly, how much change would that make to the cycle?

Great questions, volinbham.

1) What you say is correct, if we would normally expect a 2 degree increase from the upswing of a solar cycle, we might now expect a 4 degree increase because of the effect of greenhouse gases. Assessing the amount that greenhouse gases enhance the sun's effect is known as defining the climate sensitivity. As for whether or not the solar cycle should be causing warming now, I am actually unsure what cycle we are in. I think that the fluctuations are somewhat large from year to year, so defining trends may take a few years. But, I'm sure the data is out there. The plots provided in the original post don't include recent data. But, I can say this, global warming science would say that:

a) GW would increase temperatures given no change in solar input.

b) GW would increase temperatures more than "normal" given an increase in solar output.

c) GW could potentially cause temperatures to stay constant despite a fall in the solar cycle (both events would have to be very well balanced/timed, of course...so this is really just a potential case - not expected).

2) I was trying to figure out how best to define the sensitivity effect, so I went with positive and negative. The actual sign of the radiative forcing (that is, how much a particular input changes the amount of solar radiation staying in the lower atmosphere) is equal to the sign of the climate sensitivity. So, since CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a positive climate sensitivity, then this means that they result in an increase in the radiative forcing of climate (in other words, more heat gets trapped and temperatures rise). A negative radiative forcing means that a decrease in the amount of radiation reaching the lower levels of the atmosphere occurs. Sulfur has a negative climate sensitivity because it decreases the amount of solar radiation reaching us, thus cooling the earth.

Now, to answer your question about the lows, or downswings in solar cycles. A positive climate sensitivity means that GHGs will increase the temperature change due to a downswing in solar cycle. However, this doesn't mean that the temperature will actually wind up being lower in the end. You probably get where I'm going, but I'll elaborate just in case. Imagine a situation where current GHG levels trap 5% of solar flux and solar flux increases due to the sun from 200 to 250 W/m^2 (we'll assume for the sake of simplicity that temperature is directly proportional to solar flux reaching the earth). So, at 200, we have a "trapped" flux of 10 and at 250 we have a flux of 12.5. So, we'll call this a change in "temperature" from 10 to 12.5, or a 2.5 degree rise (or a 2.5 degree fall if the solar flux decreased from 250 to 200). If GHG concentration were to increase such that they now trapped 10% of the solar flux, our new numbers would be 25 at 250 W/m^2 and 20 at 200 W/m^2. So, now, a change from 200 to 250 would result in a "temperature" increase of 5 degrees (or a decrease of 5 degrees in the case of a fall from 250 to 200 W/m^2). So, a positive climate sensitivity has led us to bigger changes in temperature due to some defined change in solar input. However, also note that in the low solar cycle of 200, our "trapped" solar flux increases from 10 to 20 W/m^2 with our imposed change in GHG concentration. So, while the cooling caused by a decrease in solar cycle is larger than it would have been without GHGs, the final temperature at the end of the cooling is still larger than it would have been if the GHG concentration hadn't risen. I have over-simplified this by making temperature "equal" to "trapped" flux, but as far as I know, the resulting trends would be unchanged.

3) I'm not 100% certain how climate scientists separate the change in temperature due to CO2 (given an increase in solar output) from the more "natural" increase expected from the solar flux increase alone. While I don't know the exact procedure that has gone into the assessment of climate sensitivity, I know that I have heard discussions about experimenting, data fitting to historical GHG/temperature records, and new modeling. Each of these methods bears uncertainty, and that is why climate sensitivity numbers always have error bars. As for unequivocal prediction, I'm not sure. The error bars on some climate sensitivities are pretty large. A lot of climate science work is going into trying to reduce the uncertainty in these numbers. They are also subject to finding new sources of error that could change the sensitivity (because depending on the method they have to use, the data set as you point out, may not be very large). For example, scientists failed to realize the important cooling effect that volcanoes can have. So, when we had a string a large explosions that very well may have had a cooling effect, they didn't factor this into the calculations (because they didn't know about it) when backing out climate sensitivity parameters from historic data. So, the resulting climate sensitivities may actually have been smaller than what they should have been. I don't think that they have revised the climate sensitivities yet, but that could lead to slightly higher predictions for how much temperature increase we might expect from GW.

4) What level of GHGs is doable? I don't know about all of the GHGs, so I will limit my answer/opinion to the (little) I know about CO2 levels. We are currently near 385 ppm. I think that a target of 550 ppm is often looked to by climate scientists as a nice level that we really don't have to worry too much about. Ice shelfs and the permafrost would likely be OK at this level. However, I think that most people now feel that 550 ppm is not attainable. The new target that is looked at is about 650 ppm. This may actually be realistic, though I think that 750 ppm is where we will end up (assuming policy is actually imposed). I called this opinion because I don't have some of the data in front of me that I would need to answer this a little better. But, as I recall, these numbers have been thrown around. If I get a chance today to get the numbers in front of me, I will take a look and see if I can answer this better. If I find data I am looking for, I should be able to give you a better idea of what these CO2 levels would mean in terms of temperature increase. There is also a large British report that goes into the details of the environmental effects of these various CO2 levels, but if I find that and include it, it would only be with the disclaimer that predicted effects have a large amount of uncertainty (i.e., ice change, sea level rise, drought areas, etc.).

 

[TennTradition]

OK, so I looked up a few numbers.

Current median/mean (not sure which) predictions include:

No Policy: 3 degrees C global mean annual temperature change by 2100

750 ppm: 2 degrees C

650 ppm: 1.5 degrees C

550 ppm: 1.25 degrees C

Pretty much all policy actions would be chosen in order to mitigate potential consequences given some probability of their occurrence. So, when talking policy, it is important to talk about probabilities of reaching dangerous thresholds..in this case, the data is reaching these thresholds by 2100 (I do not know what kind of assumptions are placed into the model about solar cycles - it may be holding current solar output constant, but I do not know):

In each case the chances given are for a without policy case, a 750 ppm case, and a 550 ppm case. Some people still say 550 ppm is attainable, but it seems most are now pushing for 650.


> 6.8 degrees F global warming
a) 1 in 10 b) 1 in 29 c) < 1 in 250

>20&#37; Arctic Sea ice decrease
a) 1 in 4 b) 1 in 5 c) 1 in 100

>10 degree F Alaska warming
a) 1 in 3 b) 1 in 4 c) <<1 in 250

>2 feet sea level rise
a) 1 in 6 b) 1 in 20 c) <<1 in 250

These numbers are taken from the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Climate Change. It is worth noting that this model is in many ways more conservative than some other models. For example, the British Stern report issues the following temperature predictions:

# Carbon emissions have already pushed up global temperatures by half a degree Celsius (this is the general consensus of the IPCC)

# If no action is taken on emissions, there is more than a 75% chance of global temperatures rising between two and three degrees Celsius over the next 50 years

# There is a 50% chance that average global temperatures could rise by five degrees Celsius

 

[WA_Vol]

Regardless of what the U.S. does, the situation in China and India with regards to pollution is ridiculous. You can't even breathe in the large cities.

Why doesn't the global community address that? China could do more then everyone else because they do so little now.

 

[volinbham]

Imagine a situation where current GHG levels trap 5% of solar flux and solar flux increases due to the sun from 200 to 250 W/m^2 (we'll assume for the sake of simplicity that temperature is directly proportional to solar flux reaching the earth). So, at 200, we have a "trapped" flux of 10 and at 250 we have a flux of 12.5. So, we'll call this a change in "temperature" from 10 to 12.5, or a 2.5 degree rise (or a 2.5 degree fall if the solar flux decreased from 250 to 200). If GHG concentration were to increase such that they now trapped 10% of the solar flux, our new numbers would be 25 at 250 W/m^2 and 20 at 200 W/m^2. So, now, a change from 200 to 250 would result in a "temperature" increase of 5 degrees (or a decrease of 5 degrees in the case of a fall from 250 to 200 W/m^2). So, a positive climate sensitivity has led us to bigger changes in temperature due to some defined change in solar input. However, also note that in the low solar cycle of 200, our "trapped" solar flux increases from 10 to 20 W/m^2 with our imposed change in GHG concentration. So, while the cooling caused by a decrease in solar cycle is larger than it would have been without GHGs, the final temperature at the end of the cooling is still larger than it would have been if the GHG concentration hadn't risen. I have over-simplified this by making temperature "equal" to "trapped" flux, but as far as I know, the resulting trends would be unchanged.

lol:

This line at the end just made me laugh for some reason.

Thanks for the detailed response.

 

[TennTradition]

lol:

This line at the end just made me laugh for some reason.

Thanks for the detailed response.

I didn't mean to imply that the material was overly simple, but just that what I was saying was essentially wrong outside of the trends I was discussing because I had over-simplified. I guess it could come across a little sideways though....lol:

 

[TennTradition]

Regardless of what the U.S. does, the situation in China and India with regards to pollution is ridiculous. You can't even breathe in the large cities.

Why doesn't the global community address that? China could do more then everyone else because they do so little now.

It is rough in most Chinese and Indian cities, but that is primarily air pollution of the non-CO2 variety. The air quality of their cities isn't really a global commons problem. And, it isn't an international problem unless acid rain starts falling in neighboring countries as a result (such as we were doing to Canada).

As for greenhouse gases (which are a connected, but separate issue from air quality), China can do a lot. It is difficult to find a medium between not overly-restricting their early growth as a more industrialized country and allowing them to freely pollute. However, one must be found - no resolution to the GW issue will be found without China at the table (or India for that matter).

 

[TennTradition]

My last post made me think a bit about the recent court ruling to include GHGs among the gases of the clear air act. As I said above, GHGs and primarily CO2 are related, but separate from other air pollutants. The nature of their effect is entirely different. I wonder if the Clean Air Act will require amendment to address these differences if GW concerns are realized - or if the EPA can just regulate without further amendment....

 

[The Dude]

Whether global warming is real or not, I don't like corporate polluters.

 

[TennTradition]

Whether global warming is real or not, I don't like corporate polluters.

I agree with you, given a good definition of pollution. k:

 

[myrobbins7]

Whether global warming is real or not, I don't like corporate polluters.

I agree, theres alot of them to.

 

[MG1968]

I'm still gonna buy an SUV. That way, when the Ice Age hits in a few years, I'll be able to drive on top of all the Hybrids stuck in the snow.

 

[TennTradition]

I'm still gonna buy an SUV. That way, when the Ice Age hits in a few years, I'll be able to drive on top of all the Hybrids stuck in the snow.

:crazy:

 

[MG1968]

In the future, I'm going to refrain from posting in GW threads. I'm a skeptic and think the religious tone that some GW proponents adopt is scary. I'm not really going to buy an SUV (I'm too upside down on my 05 Chrysler minivan right now), but if I did, it sure wouldn't be one of the behemoths. As much as I'd like to stick it in the eye of the more militant environmentalists out there, the pragmatist in me dictates that my pocketbook is far more important than their faux SUV-rage.

 

[TennTradition]

In the future, I'm going to refrain from posting in GW threads. I'm a skeptic and think the religious tone that some GW proponents adopt is scary. I'm not really going to buy an SUV (I'm too upside down on my 05 Chrysler minivan right now), but if I did, it sure wouldn't be one of the behemoths. As much as I'd like to stick it in the eye of the more militant environmentalists out there, the pragmatist in me dictates that my pocketbook is far more important than their faux SUV-rage.

Truth be told, the personal automobile sector is such a small part of GHG emissions that these "personal sacrifices" don't really make the dent that some would like to believe. I'm not a big fan of militant environmentalists - nor am I a big fan of choosing to pollute unnecessarily out of spite.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Want less Global Warming??

Eat more COW!!

This way there are less cow farts since cow farts contribute more to GW than man does according to research that has been done.

 

[TennTradition]

That's a pretty misleading statement if you think about it. First, there wouldn't be as many cows if humans were domesticating them and eating them. So, GHG emissions from cattle (which is actually more from belch than flatulence) are in many ways man-made. Even still, the world-wide cattle emissions (when weighted for global warming potentials of the various gases so that they are all on the same playing field) is just a little more than the transportation sector. So, there is no way that they contribute more to global warming. It is significant, don't get me wrong, but it is not more than man's impact.

With that said, though, the point you raise is a good one (even if it is probably said in a tongue-in-cheek way). This is actually a place that, if we decide we need to address GW, changes to feed and grazing conditions can be made to make deep cuts in emissions. For what it is worth, these emissions are factored into all GW analyses along with power plants, automobiles, etc.

Note: I tried to find world-wide data for this to reference, but all I could find was articles referencing that the cattle total was more than the transportation sector. This is actually included usually as man-made emissions under agriculture. In the US, it is no-where close. Cattle are only responsible for about 150 Tg CO2 equivalent, while fossil fuel burning is responsible for about 5,000 Tg CO2 equivalent.