Posts by Zep

93

It must be "Global Warming"

by Warlock in

snow in malibu yesterday.

.

this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.

Zep

Freewilly (hi)

Since you mention Solanki. You might also wish to consider what Solanki et al has to say about solar forcing and the enhanced greenhouse effect here:

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/

"However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."

and:

"...according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in theEarth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," Prof. Sami K. Solanki

93

It must be "Global Warming"

by Warlock in

snow in malibu yesterday.

.

this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.

Zep

freewilly (gday)

The sun has increased in intensity. The IPCC reflects this fact in its assessment that the sun accounted for some warming prior to 1940. It may well be at its strongest for some considerable time. However there has been no increase in solar forcing since 1940. I think your graph shows this too BTW. Yes there are 11 yr cycles but there has been no increase in intensity. Even allowing for significant thermal inertia (something milloy seems first to be rather ignorant of, and later dismisses) temperature should have flatlined also. It hasnt, so you require another forcing to explain the continual rise in temerature.

Cosmic rays. I know milloy is on the bandwagon over at junkscience. Realclimate has discussed it here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

93

It must be "Global Warming"

by Warlock in

snow in malibu yesterday.

.

this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.

Zep

Is the additional c02 in the atmosphere ours?

Very simply YES!. Atmospheric c02 was essentially stable prior to the industrial revolution at 280ppm. The carbon cycle was in balance. Yes, lots & lots of carbon gets cycled through the various sinks but the key is that it was in balance. Carbon going into the atmosphere was balanced by carbon going out and so it was stable at 280ppm. Along comes the industrial revolution and low and behold atmopheric c02 increases. We have in fact pumped enough c02 into the ATMOSPHERE (thats where we put it) to raise its concentrations to about 500ppm. Nature has absorbed some of this obviously, because concentrations are only around 370-380 ppm. We have also cleared land. Yknow, TREES, they like c02.

Could the oceans be a source of all that atmospheric c02. Currently NO. Yes its possible in the future that they might start to fail as a sink, thats very concerning. However, at the moment, they are becoming more acidic. You know, like fizzy cordial, like coke. You makes them acidic. They are not releasing more c02 they are absorbing it.

Furthermore, we know that the carbon in the atmosphere is ours because of chemical signature analysis of the c02 in the atmosphere. Here is further reading thats discusses isotopes etc: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

As far as im aware denialists produce no alternative. Its either maybe this or maybe that, or maybe we aint found it. Maybe its underwater volcanoes. Others (scientists) say that a source large enough to increase atmospheric c02 by 20% shouldnt be too hard to find - and we essentially have found it.

Could the sun be cooking everything?

This graph is from the Max Plank Institute for solar system research:

http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/

There has been no increase in solar forcing since 1940. Satellites (those things in the sky what china was shootin at the other day) measuring the sun since late 1978 show no increase in solar forcing. This is consistent with the IPCC that says the sun accounted for about half of temperature increase prior to 1940 but has not played a role since. If you want that satellite data you should go here:

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

www.junkscience.com (from which one of the graphs above are derived) is run by non-climatologist and, until very recently, former oil and tobacco lobbyist STEVE MILLOY. I believe he a little problem with FOX news in 2005 for non disclosure (he was being paid by philip morriss). But heres a more thorough link:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy

93

It must be "Global Warming"

by Warlock in

snow in malibu yesterday.

.

this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.

Zep

Remember, that 0.03% slice has risen from ~280 ppm to ~380ppm in our present day. These levels are pathetically small compared to atmospheric levels in Earth's past (as much as 5000 ppm).

The problem isnt actually warming per se. Its the speed of warming. We could evenually adapt if it was a slower process. Our infrastructure and especially our environment the biosphere are specifically adpated to the current temperature...it would take time for them to adapt to a warmer temp. If you get too abrupt a change then our ability economically and especially natures ability to adapt and evolve is greatly hindered. Now, there has been 6+ degree change in terms of a global average from the last ice age until now, and that happened over quite a period. 0.6 over just 100 years (the warming we have seen so far) in terms of a global average is quick. And according to the IPCC thats set to get quicker as the oceans thermal inertia kicks in, and it also stops acting as an effective carbon sink (it currently absorbs half of the c02 we emitt). The IPCC projects a rise of 1.5 -4.5 degrees for the doubling of c02. Thats set to happen somewhere around 2030-50 at current rates. They settle on a 2.5 C warming for the doubling of c02 (1.25 for direct c02 & 1.25 for feedbacks)

And those pathetically small gases are responsible for a heating effect of 31oC BTW. The av surface temp of earth would be -16oC without them. Instead its 15oC. Co2 is responsible for atleast 9%+ of that warming...and considering that h20 is only ever a feeback process it can fairly be said to be responsible for even more of that warming called the greenhouse effect.

93

It must be "Global Warming"

by Warlock in

snow in malibu yesterday.

.

this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.

Zep

SWALKER

The sun causing global warming is another debatable reason. It seems there may be some influence, but it seems most scientists agree it's not THE reason.

Exactly. Thats the position of the IPCC.The sun has been responsible for some warming from1900-1940. But since satellite measurements started in 1978 there has been no solar trend matching the rapid increase in temperature in that period. The stratosphere (thats the level above the troposhere) is actually cooling too. It would warm if the sun was increasing intensity.

As to warming on Pluto. How far away is pluto. Nooooo! i dont think so.

Warming on mars? One little portion of its southern ice cap shrinks and people can infer a global phenomenon on mars. If Scientists here on earth claimed there was global warming on the basis of one melting glacier theyd be laughed at. But anyway, we are measuring the sun and there has been no trend to match the temperature trend. Rule out the sun as primary cause.

93

It must be "Global Warming"

by Warlock in

snow in malibu yesterday.

.

this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.

Zep

Freewilly

Q Earth has been much hotter before (holocene, Medievil periods) What do you think was the cause of this?

This is disputed by scientists. But its not really as relevant as some like to think. Sceptics like to play on the Medieval warm period. Even if the MWP were true it tells you nothing about our current situation. For one, they dont necessarily have the same cause.

Sorry, im just gunna resort to posting links (this is a realclimate approved link)

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm.html

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/it-was-warmer-during-holocene-climatic.html

here is an article by realclimate discussing what it would mean if 'the hockey stick' (thats the temperature trend used by the IPCC) were wrong.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/

Q How would you explain the "lag effect" of CO2 exiting previous Ice ages - namely, temperature rise preceding CO2 concentration increases in nearly all glacial terminations?

obviously its a feedback process in this case. The fact that c02 wasnt an initial forcing (cause) then doesnt mean it cant be the cause of warming now. Nor does it mean it didnt accentuate the warming back then either. Consider why Venus is so hot for a minute (96% atmosphere is c02. Its has extreme temperatures despite less sunlight reaches its surface than earth).C02 has a know heating effect.

Q If humans were never on the Earth, what would you expect Earths climate, specifically in regards to temperature, to be doing? Does it makes sense that the ~18,000 year warming trend that is exiting us from the last ice age would continue, stall or reverse?

the warming trend of the ice ages stopped 1000's of years ago. In fact earth had been on a slow gradual cooling trend since then. Orbital cycles are not the cause of the current warming. They are in fact responsible for very slow cooling over these few thousand years prior to modern temperature records.

There is a theory around that states the introduction of farming practices stalled a decent into another ice age through the release of methane.

Q What role does CO2 play as a Greenhous Gas? Specifically, of all the known greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, what portion or percentage does CO2 occupy? How does Co2 compare to say... water vapor?

Yes, water vapour is the most abundant ghg...and...what does that mean?

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/climate-scientists-hide-water-vapor.html

Actually our atmosphere is CO2 impoverished. For most of Earths living history CO2 has been MUCH higher than they are now. During almost all of the paleozoic period (spanning ~300 million years) atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 10-15 times as high as they are now! Remember, we are at ~380 ppm atmospheric CO2. The Paleozoic/Cambian period had CO2a levels of ~7000 ppm. The Paleozoic/Ordovician period had levels of over 4000 ppm. The Triassic and Jurrassic had levels between 1000-2000 ppm CO2a. One interesting observation is that during the Ordovician period, when CO2a was 10 times higher than they are now, Earth experienced one of it's many ice ages.

So with a significant portion of Earth's history containing CO2a much, much higher than today, while experiencing glacation and deglacations (ice ages) is it unreasble to question the role of atmospheric CO2?

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/geological-history-does-not-support.html

C02 does not initiate warming

It did not initiate warming then. Thats not to say it cant. It has a know heating effect.Consider again the atmosphere of Venus.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.html

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/historically-co2-never-causes.html

I "beg" to differ :) The question of "how much" and "to what extent" CO2 affects the atmosphere is central to the issue.

yep climate sensitivity to c02 is the issue.

How Much:

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

This really misses the point.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/natural-emissions-dwarf-humans.html

We have caused a 30% increase in atmospheric c02. A 50% increase of c02e (equivalent c02). 280ppm (parts per million) pre industrial to 370ppm at present is approx 30% increase.

380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- That's less than 4/100ths of 1% of all Earth's atmospheric gasses.

but not such a minor player. Its stays in the atmosphere for a considerable time. It contributes 9% + plus to the greenhouse effect. Calcultate addition positive feedback processes (as the IPCC has done) and it can have significant impact

In the following table we can see exactly what role CO2 plays as a "greenhouse gas". Of all the GH contributing gasses CO2 comprises just over 3%. So Ask yourself the queston, of that 3%, how much have humans manipulated? The answer is an additional 0.28% . Is it unreasonable to question what effect this 0.28% greenhous gas addition has?

That 3% is disputed and so is the 0.28%

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/01/water-vapor-is-almost-all-of.html

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/natural-emissions-dwarf-humans.html (again)

22

GLOBAL WARMING ALERT....

by SWALKER in

the bush administration has now decided that global warming is indeed a fact and the u.s. is now going to put the polar bear on the threatened list (barring no set-backs):.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16361087/.

swalker.

Zep

Warlock

"First of all, there is no "cause" to global warming. It is a naturally occurring cycle."

its all sorta like magic huh?

What would you say caused the ice age cycles then. Was it Milankovitch cycles + Albedo changes + positive co2 feedback mechanism (dare i say it)...or was it just magic too?

22

GLOBAL WARMING ALERT....

by SWALKER in

the bush administration has now decided that global warming is indeed a fact and the u.s. is now going to put the polar bear on the threatened list (barring no set-backs):.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16361087/.

swalker.

Zep

Zagor

"I'm getting slightly annoyed with these kinds of discussion. People, even professional scientists many times sit in either of two camps, i.e. its either sun that does the damage or it is us humans. When you look at one set of data yes you conclude that indeed sun is shining brighter, but when you look at other set of data you see indeed greenhouse gasses are having global impact. So which one do we believe???

Just stop for a moment and think, when did presence of one exclude the other??"

Climate is complex. There are many things to be taken into account. The IPCC says that the sun did indeed produce some warming from 1900>1940, along with C02. However, according to sattelite measurements there has been no increase in insolation (solar radiation) from 1978 (when satellite measures started), that would be during a period of signficant temperature increase. Further reconstructions conclude that there has been no increase in Solar forcing from 1940.

15

UN downgrades man's impact on the climate

by daystar in

.

old news, but.... .

Zep

Just to add the 4th IPCC report is due out very soon. There has been a lot of speculation as to what it might or might not contain. Mostly, it seems, from sceptics. The above article <i>has</i> confused projections for warming for the next 100 years with co2 sensitivity (when its concentration in the atmosphere is doubled). Doubling of co2 in the atmosphere is something that is anticipated to happen around 2050, depending on what man does about emissions. However there <i>is</i> apparently one change in estimates of this co2 sensitivity. Warming use to have a range of about 1.2 to 4.5 for a doubling of c02 in the atmosphere. The range has now been narrowed. The upper limit is still 4.5, however the lower limit is NOW 2 C. The article still seems confused about aerosols and their impact (they have a cooling effect in that they block solar radiation).

15

UN downgrades man's impact on the climate

by daystar in

.

old news, but.... .

Zep

My reading says that Telegraph article is inaccurate. The author has got his figures mixed up. There has been no change in the IPCCs estimates. The IPCC still has an upper estimate of 5.8 degrees C for the next 100 years. The author has quoted the figure for climate sensitivity to c02 ( the amount of warming you get when the level of c02 in the atmosphere is doubled ) as the figure for 100 years. The upper estimate for climate sensitivity when c02 levels are doubled is still 4.5 C

"It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun."

^^this is inaccurate too. The human effect is the SAME as has been thought. The current warming has been partially countered by aerosols (dust and pollutants) thereby masking the true warming effect of co2. How much aerosols are masking the warming effect of c02 is, i believe, uncertain. But there has been no downgrade of human influence on climate.