Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[lopeyschools]

Hi,

in new to JREF and I had a question. I have no formal science background but I am looking to change that.

My question is simple (I think):

if co2 blocks radiation at certain wavelengths and co2 has increased due to human emissions. Barring any other major change in climate forcings, does not the energy imbalance imply that the world must warm?

Due to my lack science background please feel free to write your response in crayon

P.S. (from my military "chemical, nuclear, radiological, biological defense class) In regards to surviving nuclear attacks, nobody is expected to survive a
direct nuclear strike (barring a bunker). Duck and cover was supposed to save you kilometers from the blast, where the effects would be similiar to a powerful earthquake. Of course this is also complete dependent on the scale of nuclear attack. Personally, in a full scale nuclear attack, I would prefer not to be on the earth.

 

[Warmer1]

And while we are thinking about the record heat in Russia and the ground being on fire, here is a video which is also from Russia, regarding the threat of the permafrost melting and as usual the researchers lighting the methane on fire. No problem with warming you say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSLHvZnbYwc


Russian wants to increase shipping through the Arctic to save money and avoid the threat of the pirates.

"Arctic shipping route is safer"
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/05/26/8505969.html

I wonder if Sarah Palin is checking out the fires from Alaska?

 

[BenBurch]

...

My question is simple (I think):

if co2 blocks radiation at certain wavelengths and co2 has increased due to human emissions. Barring any other major change in climate forcings, does not the energy imbalance imply that the world must warm?

...

Yes. It does. What it does is capture certain infrared wavelengths, and then re-radiates that energy in a random direction, with half re-radiated up and half re-radiated down. More CO2 means more IR radiation is captured and sent back down.

 

[Furcifer]

My question is simple (I think):
if co2 blocks radiation at certain wavelengths and co2 has increased due to human emissions. Barring any other major change in climate forcings, does not the energy imbalance imply that the world must warm?

Barring any feedback yes. And it is.

 

[macdoc]

Yes the world must warm and there is no negative feedback that would negate the warming..... ...there is unfortunately positive feedback - primarily water vapour that magnifies the primary driver ( fossil C02 )

There are limits to it however.

The only potential grand scale threat is rapid release of methane which is very potent ( 20x C02 but methane is short lived by comparison )

Methane is the 900 lb gorilla lurking.

The Threat of Methane Release from Permafrost and Clathrates

http://knol.google.com/k/sam-carana/the-threat-of-methane-release-from/7y50rvz9924j/32#

Events in Russia and the far north in North America are disturbing in that regard as many times the current atmospheric carbon load are locked up in permafrost.....and it IS being released.

Science stunner: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting
NSF issues world a wake-up call: "Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.”
March 4, 2010

http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/...t-methane-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-venting/

Once that starts on any sort of scale the positive feedback is enormous and over a geologic short time we can kiss our civilization and biome goodbye.
Right now it is a distant threat but there are troubling signs and no one understands the tipping point.
This is a good, current and comprehensive look.

Arctic permafrost leaking methane at record levels, figures show
Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame

David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 January 2010 19.00 GMT
Article history

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane

There is simply nothing we could do once that tipping point is reached as it scales way beyond human impact/influence.

We could however reduce the risk by putting place some curbs on animal husbandry methane sources.
From the article

While carbon dioxide gets most of the attention in the global warming debate, methane is pound-for-pound a more potent greenhouse gas, capable of trapping some 20 times more heat than CO2. Although methane is present in much lower quantities in the atmosphere, its potency makes it responsible for about one-fifth of man-made warming.

The gas is found in natural gas deposits and is generated naturally by bacteria that break down organic matter, such as in the guts of farm animal. About two-thirds of global methane comes from man-made sources, and levels have more than doubled since the industrial revolution.

Unlike carbon dioxide, methane lasts only a decade or so in the atmosphere, which has led some experts to call for greater attention to curbs on its production. Reductions in methane emissions could bring faster results in the fight against climate change,

lopey - your understanding is correct...

 

[Trakar]

Yes the world must warm and there is no negative feedback that would negate the warming..... ...there is unfortunately positive feedback - primarily water vapour that magnifies the primary driver ( fossil C02 )

There are limits to it however.

The only potential grand scale threat is rapid release of methane which is very potent ( 20x C02 but methane is short lived by comparison )

Methane is the 900 lb gorilla lurking....

It may be relatively short-lived, but even after it fully degrades, it degrades to (CH4 + 2O2 =) CO2 and H2O

 

[lomiller]

Barring any feedback yes. And it is.

Non-linearity notwithstanding this would cause the earth to warm with or without feedback.

Negative feedback would reduce the amount of warming but it would still occur. This is moot, however, as you couldn’t have glacial cycles if there were negative feedback.

Positive feedback, which is what’s seen in past climate change, would amplify the amount of warming.

 

[macdoc]

It may be relatively short-lived, but even after it fully degrades, it degrades to (CH4 + 2O2 =) CO2 and H2O

urk aren't you just the bearer of glad tidings.....NOT

 

[CapelDodger]

if co2 blocks radiation at certain wavelengths and co2 has increased due to human emissions. Barring any other major change in climate forcings, does not the energy imbalance imply that the world must warm?

It does, in and of itself, until the world warms enough to give off enough more IR to balance the blocking effect.

I find it interesting that the denial community is actually splitting over the very existence of the "greenhouse effect", with accusations of treason being flung at the likes of Spencer and even the swivel-eyed Viscount Munchkin for acknowledging its reality. Interesting and very amusing .

 

[Furcifer]

Negative feedback would reduce the amount of warming but it would still occur. This is moot, however, as you couldn’t have glacial cycles if there were negative feedback.

lol, what? There most certainly are negative feedbacks

 

[macdoc]

What negative feedbacks would those be?

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

The only ones yammering about negative feedback are deniers like Watts and Spencer.

Clouds are a mixed bag

Cloud feedback is the coupling between cloudiness and surface air temperature in which a change in radiative forcing perturbs the surface air temperature, leading to a change in clouds, which could then amplify or diminish the initial temperature perturbation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_feedback

If you have another feedback in mind that is truly negative please enlighten us.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I've posted this here, rather than start a new thread, which I gather is the right thing to do now the AGW debates here have changed? This seems to be a catch-all thread.

Interesting to see this paper reported at ClimateAudit:

A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable?

... in which statisticians once again side with the McIntyre / McKitrick side of the paleo climate reconstruction debate.

Whilst I remain agnostic on the topic of AGW, one thing I never understood about the debate was the way the pro-AGW camp rallied around the very poor standard of statistical analysis conducted in the paleo climate reconstructions. Bad analysis is bad analysis and when people rally around bad analysis, it is simply clear that people are unwilling to hear valid criticism.

This isn't new: many heavyweight statisticians have already sided with the views of McIntyre and McKitrick, including the likes of Ed Wegman and Ian Jolliffe.

Doubtless we will get the usual crowd here defending the IPCC position. Bad news for you guys: science is self correcting. And even though climate journals are currently publishing bad analysis with outdated and incorrect statistical methods, eventually people who really understand how to do statistics will put them right. But those who defended bad science will lose an awful lot of credibility in the process.

 

[CapelDodger]

lol, what? There most certainly are negative feedbacks

There most certainly are glacial cycles, which is very unlikely with negative feedback. The geological record reveals rapid changes between glaciations and inter-glacials, which speaks of positive feedback given that no single forcing can explain them.

So your negative feedbacks (which are?) obviously don't outweigh positive feedbacks in a warming environment. That's where Lindzen's Iris fell apart : designed to show that AGW wouldn't happen it accidentally showed that this whole interglacial never happened. The one we're living in, the one HomSap developed agriculture in, the one it developed civilisation in, and a technological society.

Lindzen would still be back at the drawing-board on that one if he'd ever had any belief in it in the first place. He didn't, of course.

 

[macdoc]

CS - I suggest you look at the physical evidence and observation of what is occurring right now

it's getting warmer We're primarily reponsible due to release of fossil carbon by humans
as AGW unfolds instead of the retreat to playing with numbers.

No amount of "correcting" will change the science or the reality...instead of siding with the likes of Watts et al who have NO credibility left at all despite your protestations to the contrary....perhaps move on to methods of dealing with the human induced warming - where there is indeed contention as to timing and severity by region.

Try looking at the climate science papers instead of the nonsense from CA et al who really have become skipping records with nothing further to contribute to the discussion.

and perhaps offer a climate science backed reason for this ..

June Earth's hottest ever: US monitors
July 15, 2010 NASA image of the Earth

Last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday, amid global climate warming worries.

Last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday, amid global climate warming worries.

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature data also found the January-June and April-June periods were the warmest on record, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, which based its findings on measurements that go back as far as 1880.

In June, the combined average for global land and ocean temperatures was 61.1 degrees Fahrenheit (16.2 Celsius) -- 1.22 degrees Fahrenheit (0.68 Celsius) more than the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees Fahrenheit (15.5 Celsius).

MORE
June Earth's hottest ever: US monitors

Trend continues with second hottest July on record
August 14, 2010 By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID , AP Science Writer

(AP) -- The Earth continues to feel the heat. Last month was the second warmest July on record, and so far 2010 remains on track to be the hottest year

Worldwide, the average temperature in July was 61.6 degrees Fahrenheit (16.5 Celsius), the National Climatic Data Center reported Friday. Only July 1998 was hotter since recordkeeping began more than a century ago.

And the January-July period was the warmest first seven months of any year on record, averaging 58.1 F (14.5 C). In second place was January-July of 1998.

The report comes after a month of worldwide extremes including floods, fires, melting ice and feverish heat. Atmospheric scientists have grown increasingly concerned about human-induced global warming in recent years, though political pressures and fierce arguments about climate change have slowed efforts to develop solutions.

MORE

Trend continues with second hottest July on record

must be getting cooler ....July only the 2nd hottest ....

 

[a_unique_person]

I've posted this here, rather than start a new thread, which I gather is the right thing to do now the AGW debates here have changed? This seems to be a catch-all thread.

Interesting to see this paper reported at ClimateAudit:

A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable?

... in which statisticians once again side with the McIntyre / McKitrick side of the paleo climate reconstruction debate.

Whilst I remain agnostic on the topic of AGW, one thing I never understood about the debate was the way the pro-AGW camp rallied around the very poor standard of statistical analysis conducted in the paleo climate reconstructions. Bad analysis is bad analysis and when people rally around bad analysis, it is simply clear that people are unwilling to hear valid criticism.

This isn't new: many heavyweight statisticians have already sided with the views of McIntyre and McKitrick, including the likes of Ed Wegman and Ian Jolliffe.

Doubtless we will get the usual crowd here defending the IPCC position. Bad news for you guys: science is self correcting. And even though climate journals are currently publishing bad analysis with outdated and incorrect statistical methods, eventually people who really understand how to do statistics will put them right. But those who defended bad science will lose an awful lot of credibility in the process.

I'm defending them against the public hatchet job that's been done on them. The case for AGW is not based on the 'hockey stick', and the IPCC reports say that the science is not that 'hard' at present. The scientists have been doing what all research scientists do, going into unknown areas and doing the best they can. Science is self correcting, and it's self correcting because it is an iterative process. McIntyre's self important pomposity and snide, backhanded accusations of fraud are the 'anti-science' that has been happening. If every scientist that took a step into the unknown had to put up with what these scientists have had to, it would be a huge impediment to research and the advancement of knowledge.

If you read the actual paper, they agree that the evidence is that the current temperatures are likely to be unprecedented, which was the whole point.

 

[Trakar]

I've posted this here, rather than start a new thread, which I gather is the right thing to do now the AGW debates here have changed? This seems to be a catch-all thread.

Interesting to see this paper reported at ClimateAudit:

A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable?

... in which statisticians once again side with the McIntyre / McKitrick side of the paleo climate reconstruction debate.

Whilst I remain agnostic on the topic of AGW, one thing I never understood about the debate was the way the pro-AGW camp rallied around the very poor standard of statistical analysis conducted in the paleo climate reconstructions. Bad analysis is bad analysis and when people rally around bad analysis, it is simply clear that people are unwilling to hear valid criticism.

This isn't new: many heavyweight statisticians have already sided with the views of McIntyre and McKitrick, including the likes of Ed Wegman and Ian Jolliffe.

Doubtless we will get the usual crowd here defending the IPCC position. Bad news for you guys: science is self correcting. And even though climate journals are currently publishing bad analysis with outdated and incorrect statistical methods, eventually people who really understand how to do statistics will put them right. But those who defended bad science will lose an awful lot of credibility in the process.

And what journal was this paper published in?

 

[macdoc]

I suspect he thinks "negative feedback" with cooling. In fact C02 and water vapour provide positive feedback in a cooling environment brought on by orbital positioning.
They magnify the cooling in that situation.

 

[macdoc]

What journal? None that I can see and the authors have no background in climate

Abraham Wyner
Department of Statistics
The Wharton School

A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TEMPERATURE PROXIES:
ARE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES OVER
THE LAST 1000 YEARS RELIABLE?

http://stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~gadam/seminar_files/Abraham Wyner - Title and Abstract.pdf

Wharton School of Business. ...that paragon of climate science...

Nothing left for the deniers other than question numbers from the past as if it bears significance to the current state of the planetary energy budget.

 

[Furcifer]

What negative feedbacks would those be?

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

The only ones yammering about negative feedback are deniers like Watts and Spencer.

Clouds are a mixed bag

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_feedback

If you have another feedback in mind that is truly negative please enlighten us.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

Holy handwaving, "What negative feedbacks? These negative feedbacks? Nothing to see here!"

The climate is dominated by negative feedbacks, without them the planet would be much hotter than it is. MUCH. Radiative cooling, convection, increased biological activity and clouds to name a few.

The lying and handwaving has to stop. The notion that there are no negative feedbacks and only positive ones is laughable.

 

[lomiller]

lol, what? There most certainly are negative feedbacks

and they are much smaller then the positive feedback. Why do you find this difficult to understand?