Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

answer the question posed.

You made the thesis - now defend the argument.

Why? Don't you understand the oscillations in solar radiance during Milankovtich cycles?

Despite the constant pleading to "talk science", when actual science is presented there's a deafening silence.

If you don't understand just admit it and I will be happy to explain it to you.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm really puzzled by this in your source. Figure 3, this figure:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/krivova_2003.gif

shows from 1850 to 1970 (or thereabouts), cosmic ray flux seemed to match the rise and fall of temperatures rather well. Too well to just be coincidence. How can that be? Regardless of what match is claimed or not claimed for cosmic rays to temperatures the last 40 years (and there has been a lot of questions about temperature data during that time, by the way), why would cosmic ray flux match temperature variations the 120 years before that? Because both my source and your source seem to agree on that.

Questions about directly observed temperatures in the last 40 years have been asked and answered. The world has certainly got warmer, I'm sure you'd agree. GCR change has not correlated with that, so whatever cause and effect there may be in the past is not relevant to the current warming.

... in which case, GCR flux seems to match inferred (from Carbon 14 at least) temperature anomalies back to the year 1000 AD.


Remarkable, given that you're trying to tell us that cosmic rays have no impact on temperatures. Obviously temperatures shouldn't have any impact on cosmic rays. Agreed?

Why do you find that obvious? In some recent direct (not inferred) observations GCR's lag temperature changes, which rather suggests that temperature does indeed influence them. Also :

'And since 1990, galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth has increased - "the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures" (Lockwood 2007). In fact, cosmic ray flux on Earth recently reached record levels. According to Richard Mewaldt of Caltech, "In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years." '

This GCR theory has some serious questions to answer.

AGW, on the contrary, explains recent temperature history robustly, and of course it was predicted, unlike the many efforts to explain the warming after the event (on the "anything but AGW" principle).

Here's another source claiming to have found a strong correlation between GCR/solar variability and temperatures (inferred from ice cores in Siberia):

http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/cosmic_ray_temp_siberia_Page_09.jpg

Again, the match … at least until very recently … seems too good to simply ignore. Perhaps you can explain what's suddenly different?

A picture from "howcanpeoplebesostupid" is not the best of links to provide. You'll have noticed that the data doesn't even continue to 2000CE (it's now 2011CE). How can you expect anyone to be impressed by that? Amused, yes, but impressed ... not so much.

 

[Furcifer]

Too well to just be coincidence. How can that be? Regardless of what match is claimed or not claimed for cosmic rays to temperatures the last 40 years (and there has been a lot of questions about temperature data during that time, by the way), why would cosmic ray flux match temperature variations the 120 years before that? Because both my source and your source seem to agree on that.

They don't seem to realize the effect of over estimating the total solar radiance. Temperature is a relative measure and over estimating the flux results in small changes being smoothed out or ignored.

As an example, on a calm day, slight changes in wind speed can be easily felt. On a windy day the same changes in wind speed would be impossible to detect.

 

[BeAChooser]

Proof of global warming …

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...emisphere-covered-snow.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

[BeAChooser]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/cosmic-rays-contribute-40-to-global-warming-study/

New paper: Cosmic rays contribute 40% to global warming

January 21, 2011

… snip …

Physicist and the former ISRO chairman, U.R. Rao, has calculated that cosmic rays — which, unlike carbon emissions, cannot be controlled by human activity — have a much larger impact on climate change than The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims.

In fact, the contribution of decreasing cosmic ray activity to climate change is almost 40 per cent, argues Dr. Rao in a paper which has been accepted for publication in Current Science, the preeminent Indian science journal. The IPCC model, on the other hand, says that the contribution of carbon emissions is over 90 per cent.

 

[CapelDodger]

Proof of global warming …

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...emisphere-covered-snow.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The Daily Mail is not a credible source. It has an anti-AGW propaganda mission which it will pursue to the bitter end. They haven't thought global since the end of Empire (they weren't in favour of that). Globally, December was remarkably warm. The Daily Mail didn't report on that (against editorial policy, doncha know).

 

[Bill Thompson]

No*.

All molecules absorb different amounts of light at different wavelengths. Since the Sun is much hotter than the Earth, the majority of the radiation it emits is at shorter wavelengths. It turns out that CO₂ absorbs long wavelengths more than short ones**. This means that the radiation from the Sun passes through the atmosphere relatively unhindered, while the longer wavelength infrared radiation from the Earth is absorbed more. When this absorbed energy is later re-radiated, it is radiated in all directions, so half of it is emitted back towards the Earth rather than out into space which is where it was heading to start with. This results in a lower rate of heat transfer away from the Earth and therefore a higher equilibrium temperature.

Seriously, if you want to argue about global warming you should at least learn the most basic principles involved first.

You are, however, correct that this is not actually how a greenhouse works. The greenhouse effect was named because the outcome - lower heat transfer away from the system - is the same as in a greenhouse, even though the actual mechanism is different. Interestingly, in my experience this doesn't generally lead to confusion about how the greenhouse effect works, instead it misleads people about how actual greenhouses work. Of course, technically the greenhouse effect will be at work in greenhouses as well, since no material has identical absorption at all wavelengths, it's just that the effect is insignificant relative to other mechanisms.

Also, methane is not CH.

* OK, technically yes they do. Everything, other than a perfect black body, reflects radiation. However, reflection is not relevant to the greenhouse effect, which is what the question here is about.

** Of course, this is a bit of a simplification. Absorption curves are not simple linear trends. The important point is that radiation from the Sun is absorbed less than that from the Earth, the details are not important for a general discussion such as this.

Thank you for your answers.

Now for some more "stupid" questions. I guess methane is CH4. Are these three gasses greenhouse gasses? Isn't CO2 and CH4 much more abundant and has been for centuries than C0? How heavy are these gasses? At what layer of the atmosphere do they reside? Where do they go in the end?

I remember when I used to drive towards L.A and you could not see the city because of all the CO (I thought) in the air.

What is more, I have not made up my mind on this topic and so comments that I am making some claims without knowing the details are not accurate.

So, is it true that these gasses are called "greenhouse gasses" because of how the wavelenght of light reflected off the Earth is absorbed and reflected by them?

 

[Bill Thompson]

I got some more "stupid" questions.

Carbon Dioxide, as I recall from school, is converted to oxygen by plants. Aren't there actually MORE plants now than in the 50's and 60's thanks to tree plantings and changes of deforestaion practices?

Where does the Methane and Carbon Monoxide go?

I thought that some gasses go up in the atmosphere simply because they are warm and thus thinner. Once they get cooled, the come back to the ground.

 

[CapelDodger]

If you understood the Milankovitch you'd know how significant this is.

Now it's 3 thousandths? Are you sure?

0.36%, close enough.

Before you claimed it was 3 thousandths of a percent.

Are you quite sure of that?

How did you arrive at that figure?

You provided the link.

You keep jumping around and not matter what figure you cite you deny its significance. So when does it become significant in your opinion? I'd say a value of 3/4 of the latent heat is significant.

What value of what are you referring to? And how do you arrive at it?

 

[CapelDodger]

Now for some more "stupid" questions. I guess methane is CH4. Are these three gasses greenhouse gasses? Isn't CO2 and CH4 much more abundant and has been for centuries than C0? How heavy are these gasses? At what layer of the atmosphere do they reside? Where do they go in the end?

Methane oxidises to water and CO₂. CO₂ hangs around for a long time. Carbon monoxide oxidises into carbon dioxide.

I remember when I used to drive towards L.A and you could not see the city because of all the CO (I thought) in the air.

That was only one component.

What is more, I have not made up my mind on this topic and so comments that I am making some claims without knowing the details are not accurate.

We realise you're just asking stupid questions.

So, is it true that these gasses are called "greenhouse gasses" because of how the wavelenght of light reflected off the Earth is absorbed and reflected by them?

They are called greenhouse gasses because they contribute to the inaptly name greenhouse effect.

It's been suggested that Callendar Effect would be more appropriate, but you can imagine how the denier brigade would react if we started using it instead. They'd go positively ape-doodle.

 

[lomiller]

Now for some more "stupid" questions. I guess methane is CH4. Are these three gasses greenhouse gasses? Isn't CO2 and CH4 much more abundant and has been for centuries than C0?

CO isn't an issue.

CH4 is a much stronger greenhouse gas then CO2 but has a shorter lifespan and is much less abundant. CO2 contributes ~5X as much forcing as CO2.

Both CH4 and CO2 are well mixed meaning they are about the same concentrations throughout the troposphere.

What is more, I have not made up my mind on this topic and so comments that I am making some claims without knowing the details are not accurate.

Having "made up your mind has nothing to do with whether your statements are accurate or not. You have repeatedly made incorrect statements even after you have been corrected on them repeatedly. For example...

So, is it true that these gasses are called "greenhouse gasses" because of how the wavelenght of light reflected off the Earth is absorbed and reflected by them?

Once again,reflection has nothing to do with it. The Earth heats up from the sunlight and warm objects emit infrared.

Greenhouse gasses absorb infrared in these frequencies. They then lose this energy either by collision with their neighboring molecules or re-emiting the IR photon in a random direction.

 

[Furcifer]

What leads you to believe that warming is less dangerous and harmful than cooling?

Everything. From agriculture to zoology, everything suggests our ability to weather (pun intended) the heat is far superior to our ability to weather the cold. And by "our" I mean the entire biosphere.

 

[macdoc]

Now for some more "stupid" questions. I guess methane is CH4. Are these three gasses greenhouse gasses? Isn't CO2 and CH4 much more abundant and has been for centuries than C0? How heavy are these gasses? At what layer of the atmosphere do they reside? Where do they go in the end?

Ugh lot of questions in a short passage. recognize that abundance, persistance and effect on warming ( cooling if too little ) are different for each different GHG.
You need to separate C02 and methane - C0 is completely transient and deadly, plus there are other GHG much more potent but either transient or smaller scale. Water vapour is massive and powerful but transient and magnifies the impact of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases

methane is a much more powerful GHG - 20x than C02 but has a much shorter persistance in the atmosphere.
This will help you understand why C02 is very problematic as it is cumulative
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

I remember when I used to drive towards L.A and you could not see the city because of all the CO (I thought) in the air.

Smog is a completely different aspect and is quite complex on it's own
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog
It's a local phenomena but on a grand scale Asian brown cloud ) has some play both as a positive and negative forcing on global climate ( see global dimming ) particularly in S E Asia. Particulates are double edged in terms of AGW.

What is more, I have not made up my mind on this topic and so comments that I am making some claims without knowing the details are not accurate.

sure looks like your reading sources are less than adequate then - these are a start

Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Carbon cycle
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/path201_07/notes/notes_11_13_07.htm

So, is it true that these gasses are called "greenhouse gasses" because of how the wavelenght of light reflected off the Earth is absorbed and reflected by them?

see above explanation for why its a slight misnomer in terms of single pane greenhouses.....
While greenhouses gases is a bit of a misnomer ( see post above ) modern greenhouses with multiple layers of glass selected for their absorption characteristics and also modern window systems use the same "one way" spectrum selection to control either gain or reflection. ( keep interior cooler or warmer ).

But really the stuff here is best to understand and written for laymen

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/quick/

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm

http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html

http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/climate/Climate_Change_FAQ/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/


Bottom line we have by releasing sequestered carbon through fossil fuels altered the climate for up to the next 100,000 years.
Carbon is only reduced slowly by weathering tho increased forest cover can do the job in a shorter period.
Even stopping will not change what we have initiated - it will only reduce the level of impact and onset of large changes to a degree.
This is a very recent paper on the subject.

CO2 Inertia Will Trigger Climate Change for Next Millennium, Study Says

By Thomas Schueneman

Get Shareaholic for Firefox
ul.socials li.shareaholic{background-image:url(http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/wp-content/plugins/sexybookmarks/spritegen/api/sprite.png) !important;}
According to a research study just published in the journal Nature Geoscience, climate change will persist, and in some parts of the world intensify, from the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 long after humans stop burning fossil fuels – for a millennium or more, the report says.

more
http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/...limate-change-for-next-millennium-study-says/

snip

If carbon emissions don’t stop until 2100 – more in the realm of reality than science fiction – warming could be as much as 4 degrees Celsius, or about 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, by the next millennium, almost certainly destabilizing the West Antarctic ice.

“The choices we make are sort of a multicentury legacy,” Marshall said. “The difference between 0.6-degree warming and 4-degree warming in terms of the stability of Antarctica is huge.”
​

Consequences of life through the ages
Clearly, the choices humanity makes now – every human being now alive – will reverberate through the next millenium. That’s not the kind of thing anyone is really equipped to deal with by nature. It is hard enough to just live our lives, care for our own, and hopefully grow old with some wisdom and dignity.


And so we can be forgiven if we chose not to think about it. Right?
Like it or not that question remains, and must now be answered.

it is a good idea to understand the consequences of our action ( or inaction ) now for future generations.

Can we reduce the impact by moving steadily to a carbon neutral society has Sweden has undertaken?
Yes but it takes political will and a public educated to the consequences of BAU - instead of confused by "special interests" like Exxon

But you actually have to READ the material provided. We have, over decades.

 

[Furcifer]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/cosmic-rays-contribute-40-to-global-warming-study/

I posted that article a week ago. Here's the response to that scientific study:

opening line of the email to the editor opinion piece cited:
"Climate science theology"!?!?
Really!?
The standards of what passes for science in some societies is truely amazing, but given some of the arguments and tantrums witnessed in this very thread, probably shouldn't be considered inordinately peculiar.

Yes that's right, they totally ignored the article and instead attacked a poster's response in the op-ed.

You'll note the Mister's observation from the article:
“There is a groupthink in climate science today. Anyone who raises alternative climate theories is immediately branded as a climate atheist in an atmosphere of climate evangelists,” he said"

There's no scientific rebuttal, instead they use labels to attack the character of anyone presenting studies that question consensus views. This isn't about science anymore, it's clearly motivated by political agenda.

 

[Java Man]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/cosmic-rays-contribute-40-to-global-warming-study/

It still doesn't make man made CO2 emissions irrelevant.

This means that increased carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere are not as significant as the IPCC claims. Of the total observed global warming of 0.75 degrees Celsius, only 0.42 degrees would be caused by increased carbon dioxide. The rest would be caused by the long term decrease in primary cosmic ray intensity and its effect on low level cloud cover.

Let's rephrase the previous paragraph in another way:

This means that increased carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere are not as significant as the IPCC claims. Of the total observed global warming of 0.75 degrees Celsius, only 0.33 degrees would be caused by the long term decrease in primary cosmic ray intensity and its effect on low level cloud cover. The rest would be caused by increased carbon dioxide.

In other words less than half is caused by cosmic ray intensity and the rest is CO2. So if we did not have the increased carbon dioxide the observed global warming would be only 0.33 degrees Celsius. In a hypothetical point in which the temperature increase reaches 1.5 degrees Celsius (twice as much as today). Extrapolating from these values then 0.66 degrees would be from cosmic ray intensity the rest from CO2 (0.84 degrees). So a very catastrophic 1.5 degree increase in average temperature would be less than the perceived today (0.75) if we didn't have CO2 emissions.

So yes CO2 is not the only contributor, but according to your article it is the major contributor. Were it not there we'd be having considerably better climate.

 

[Dancing David]

I got some more "stupid" questions.

Carbon Dioxide, as I recall from school, is converted to oxygen by plants. Aren't there actually MORE plants now than in the 50's and 60's thanks to tree plantings and changes of deforestaion practices?

Where does the Methane and Carbon Monoxide go?

I thought that some gasses go up in the atmosphere simply because they are warm and thus thinner. Once they get cooled, the come back to the ground.

Deforestation alone will decrease biomass of chlorophyl over row crops and replanted forests.

 

[Dancing David]

Everything. From agriculture to zoology, everything suggests our ability to weather (pun intended) the heat is far superior to our ability to weather the cold. And by "our" I mean the entire biosphere.

Incorrect, biomass increases in areas that are not under galciers during ice ages. Preciptations rises. Biodiversity near the glacial fronts rises, ocean biomass increases.

 

[lomiller]

I posted that article a week ago. Here's the response to that scientific study:

That isn’t a link to a study it’s a link to a known woo site that talks about a “paper” but never actually references it. We have no way of knowing if a) the paper actually exists, b) where it was published, c) what’s actually in it, d) how the scientific community has responded to it.

Given that if this paper actually exists it goes against all the peer reviewed material that has already been published these are kind of important. They do mention the authors name and it’s trivial to verify he has almost no record of publication on the subject of climate change.

 

[daenku32]

There's no scientific rebuttal, instead they use labels to attack the character of anyone presenting studies that question consensus views. This isn't about science anymore, it's clearly motivated by political agenda.

Did you attempt to scientifically rebut the claims in the study?

A skeptic would be a skeptic, even when it comes to studies used to show that CO2 is not a problem. Every time I see a "climate skeptic" post a link to authoritative source, they don't seem very interested in spending the time rebutting it as they would if the study was a bit less politically convenient.

Personally, I don't have time to spend rebutting it personally. And I don't expect the usual skeptics to do it either. It's up to places like RealClimate, amiright?

 

[Trakar]

Everything. From agriculture to zoology, everything suggests our ability to weather (pun intended) the heat is far superior to our ability to weather the cold. And by "our" I mean the entire biosphere.

Demonstrate your evidence, it is neither apparent nor obvious.

Demonstrate any evidence which indicates that it would be easier for our biosphere to survive and thrive in an environment 20ºC higher than the current average than it would be for our biosphere to survive and thrive in an
environment 20ºC cooler than the current average.