Yerushalmi
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 104
Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation
- Thread starter batvette
- Start date
- Status
r-j
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,689
OK thanks then. I think I know what you mean, since I was sure of disastrous global warming back in 1998 and sort of just ignored everything after that, sure we were all doomed.
Then when I started finding the claims about warming a bit too much, I started looking at the data, trying to ignore all sides in the war, since I didn't want to be influenced by opinions and beliefs. It was a sad state of affairs when I found both sides to be a bit too much to swallow.
Even now both sides seem to be doing a victory dance on the corpse of their enemies. Crazy town. I mean, who gets that emotional and vindictive over the weather?
What I discovered for myself was enough to make me skeptical of everyone in this fight. I do still act as if reducing emissions is good, and pollution is bad. My emotions tend to side with the alarmists, but my brain with the skeptics.
r-j
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,689
But that is not what I've been saying at all. It's the trend, the long term data that shows clearly, even now, that the warming we measure isn't warming from the AGW theory. At the present time, this does not mean it won't change of course.
But what we are seeing is the opposite of what is expected to happen. If it was one, even two extreme cold events, it's just weather. But when you have decades of data, in some cases thirty years of a cooling trend in the boreal winter, you can't handwave that away as "just weather", and still retain any credibility as a scientist.
I haven't read any papers, or even any blogs pointing out what I find obvious about the changes in temperatures. It's the reason I can't post links to much of anything. It's all from the data, not somebody spinning it.
The paper I mentioned clearly states what I had already discovered. the NH winters are not doing what the theory predicted. Not even close.
Yerushalmi
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 104
If the cooling trend in one particular location during one particular season is offset by a larger warming trend elsewhere, and the average comes out to warming, then yes, you can handwave it away.
Link me? I don't really want to search through two dozen pages of this thread to find wherever the original came from.
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
A “halt” implies there is a single cause, which isn’t the case. What is actually occulting is that there are a number of overlapping forcing that are impacting the earth’s climate and they don’t all follow the same pattern.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...bGzfpwfnv3zyGt5rwr9zURQ&bvm=bv.58187178,d.b2I
Lumping all the greenhouse gasses except Ozone together the major climate impacts over the last 100 years :
Volcanic activity – lower levels of volcanic activity raised temperatures slightly in the first part of the century, and then that rise was revered as these returned to normal.
Solar activity – increased in he first half of the century and plateau around 1950 onwards.
Aerosols – (more on these below) strong cooling influence, ramping up rapidly around 1940, then plateau and begin to decline when industrial countries begin to become concerned with pollution in the 70’s. (remember less cooling shows up as a temperate increase) Their cooling influence may be ramping up again since 2000 due to China’s rapid industrialization and poor pollution standards.
Ozone – A greenhouse gas that decreased in the atmosphere from the mid part of the century until the 1990’s. The result is cooling from the 50’s onward with the cooling impact slowly disappearing post 1990.
CO2/Methane – Warming impact that ramps up continually thought the century. It drives about half of all the warming in the first half of the century and the forcing continues to grow after that. Around 1970 it becomes large enough to dominate all the other forcing.
As promised more on aerosols. These are a very strong cooling influence. In the short term they are even stronger than CO2. CO2 wins out in the long run because it stays in the atmosphere for a lot longer.
For example if you fire up a new coal fired power plant, it begins to spew out both CO2 and aerosols, and both begin to accumulate in the atmosphere. Because the aerosols don’t last as long, after about 10 years equilibrium is reached and the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere stop rising, but CO2 levels continue to go up. Because the aerosols actually cool more than the CO2 warms this coal plant is actually a net cooling for the first 10-20 years of its life. If at any time you shut it down the aerosols leave the atmosphere within about 10 years and cooling they had been causing disappears.
Around half of all warming caused by greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic changes are currently being masked by cooling aerosols. Rapid industrialization in China may have caused aerosol levels to start increasing again, but long lived greenhouse gasses have reached the point where they outpace even this increase.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
I talked to him. Very helpful man. However, he couldn't tell me what to expect as far as a figure of tons carbon sequestration per acre per year. He said in every case it was more than annual crops and more than standard grazing. Primarily because of the huge root mass in comparison to annuals and the rest periods compared to standard grazing BMP. He also confirmed that plants feed the soil biome with sugars while they are growing. And that ultimately that carbon does get sequestered, because it is deep in the soil and gets blocked from entering the atmosphere. That the soil biology uses it instead, until it is reduced to humus and can not further be reduced. He also confirmed each time it is cut or grazed grass sheds lignified carbon as well. Between the two the carbon sequestration is significant, but varies by species, rainfall, and length of growing season. So each case is different. He had no data that even attempted to show an average. Just specific cases in specific fields under specific conditions.
I wish he could have produced a number or range of numbers, but he didn't, even when respectfully pressed. He did however tell me of a consulting service, and said for my particular area there may be data.
Seems no one has collected data from enough areas to make a scientific opinion, except to say that in all cases it was significantly better than annual crops, and it could be possible.
He encouraged me to continue my trials and said it sounded like it could work.
I guess I got about as much as I could expect from the phone.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
In the Royal Society summary link you've been reading there are three sections: Aspects of climate change on which there is wide agreement, Aspects of climate change where there is a wide consensus but continuing debate and discussion, and Aspects that are not well understood. r-j said:
The quote is actually in the second section:
From NOAA's state of the climate summary for 2012 (figures are degrees C relative to the 20th century average):
Global
Land: +0.96 ± 0.20
Ocean: +0.45 ± 0.03
Northern Hemisphere
Land: +1.06 ± 0.26
Ocean: +0.46 ± 0.04
Southern Hemisphere
Land: +0.69 ± 0.12
Ocean: +0.45 ± 0.03
Looking at the data for previous years the pattern seems to be consistent: the greatest warming is occurring over land in the northern hemisphere, as predicted.
A link I gave earlier breaks the data down by season (but not by land and sea): http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics.html
You can see that it's the "in winter" part of the prediction that doesn't seem to be panning out. Why that should be is the subject of much current research and speculation.
r-j
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,689
If that were the case, we wouldn't even be discussing it. But NH winters, even with the entire NH included, don't show warming right now. In fact, it's cooling, even with the entire NH included. But that isn't even the real issue, it is where the warming is supposed to happen that is important.
I don't blame you. The paper is Cohen, J. L., et al., 2012: Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling. Environmental Research Letters, 7:014007. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014007.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014007
full paper for free
http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf
Belz...
Fiend God
Sounds like preaching, to me. I didn't ask you for a video. I want a reasoning and some hard facts.
So look back. I can wait.
I only dip into this thread when I have spare time, so I miss a lot of fair questions, some I just ignore if they are boring, people can find their own answers. Does that make me a bad person?
That makes you one with less credibility, anyway. If you want people to take your claims seriously, and convince them that they are the result of logic, reason and evidence ("Spocking") and not wishful thinking or ideology, you'll have to do better than that.
I think you'll find I'm quoting Scientists. Don't shoot the messenger
Don't play with me. NO ONE who knows even a bit about this topic thinks that cool trends during parts of a year mean that warming isn't happening globally over a long period of time.
Belz...
Fiend God
Belz...
Fiend God
Did I say it proves AGW? It was a response to the ridiculous posts about icebound ships etc.
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
While there has been an observed trend to increasing sea ice in Antarctica it’s actually only been the last couple years where it’s bounced in and out of statistical significance. IOW until the last couple years you couldn’t say that this trend was anything more than normal year to year variation.
The interesting thing is that there has been a statistically significant increase in both air and water temperatures over this same period. Why there would be more ice despite warmer air/water is something of a mystery, but most likely it’s related to salinity.
That said, Antarctica can’t be compared to the Arctic. First of all the increase in the Antarctic is very small. Second the geography of the two is places is completely different. This means that while arctic ice is disappearing during summer when the Sun shines close to 24 hours a day so sunlight that used to be reflected by ice is now absorbed by the dark open water. Changes in Antarctic ice can only really occur during winter when there is very little sunlight to be reflected or absorbed.
What this means overall is that while summer ice in the arctic is a major climate indicators that could seriously alter North American weather patterns, change sin the Antarctic are small with no real larger impact and at most amount to a small mystery as to why there is more ice despite warming air/water.
The top layer of the ocean freely exchanges CO2 with the atmosphere so the two tend to increase/decrease together. The result is that new CO2 emitted into the atmosphere ends up split between the two, with the ocean actually taking a slightly larger share. There are some land based CO2 sinks that behave similarly.
The rate at which this CO2 makes its way into the deep ocean is much slower. This takes hundreds or thousands of years. Over this time scale ~90% of CO2 emissions end up in the oceans.
The new (fossil) CO2 itself, however will continue to be actively exchanged between the air and ocean for over 100 000 years. For anything resembling human time scales ~10% of CO2 emissions will remain in the atmosphere permanently.
The other thing to be aware of is that the oceans ability to hold CO2 drops as temperature increases. As the planet warms the some of vast amount of CO2 stored in the oceans will begin to be emitted back into the atmosphere. This is actually one of the main processes that drive de-glaciations. Small warming causes oceans NH land to release CO2, which drives the majority of the ~6 deg temperature change.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Post #1981
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
Thanks. Sorry, Yerushalmi.
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
A few years ago someone here tracked his predictions with actual outcomes. His success rare was basically no different than random chance. Predictably his failed predictions disappear from his site.
This is basically the same scam “psychics” employ all the time to prove how good their paranormal powers are...
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
'Twas me. Haig quoted his predictions, I picked out the 10 most specific and tracked them over the next few months. Just 2 proved correct.
- Status