Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[mhaze]

It says that we would have seen 1-2 deg more warming from CO2 if we hadn’t been pumping out aerosols. This means a higher sensitivity to CO2 not lower.

Where does it say that? I have not downloaded the paper but that does not follow from this in the abstract:

The overall aerosol and cloud induced surface climate forcing is ∼+1 W m−2−1 and has most probably strongly contributed to the recent rapid warming in Europe.

 

[Spud1k]

So you might find the ref if you did some work, it might just be a news story, it might be peer reviewed ... it might not....

It has. It was accepted for publication in GRL last month (link here, search for McAfee) and it's doi number will be 10.1029/2008GL034828.

 

[Dancing David]

I have to wonder ... if we got no real warming for the next two years, or four years, or eight years, or ...

at what point would we all call this a failed hypothesis?

I would go with ten from 2008-2018, if it remains stable that would be great.

But if it cooled that would be even better.

i am just wary of the 'ten year' thing as far as 'this decade has X amount of warming', I chose the ten years to wait because then we can see what the trend past 1998-2008 shows.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, as it happens, when everybody who knows what he is talking about agrees on a matter, that is how consensus is reached; We no longer listen to the idiots who say the world is flat or that Quantum Mechanics is just measurement error even though some of them have advanced degrees.

And if you need any proof, the state of Arctic ice is enough proof for all but true idiots and brittle ideologues.

Well, that is where this is sinmilar to plasma cosmology. The fact that there is overwhelming concsensus amongst climate researchers that 'something' is happening is interesting. The out come of the 'catastrophe or not' debate is uncertain.

yet black holes, dark matter and dark energy are the most coherent and consistent explanations for the behavior of the universe.

Climate researchers seem to beleieve that the global temperatures over land are rising. CO₂ has some effect. thoutcome is underdebate.

But there are those who beleieve what they want to believe despite the evidence.

 

[balrog666]

I would go with ten from 2008-2018, if it remains stable that would be great.

But if it cooled that would be even better.

i am just wary of the 'ten year' thing as far as 'this decade has X amount of warming', I chose the ten years to wait because then we can see what the trend past 1998-2008 shows.

I mainly asked the question to see who would at least consider the question in the first place. Or wouldn't.

 

[Spud1k]

Where does it say that? I have not downloaded the paper but that does not follow from this in the abstract:

The overall aerosol and cloud induced surface climate forcing is ∼+1 W m−2−1 and has most probably strongly contributed to the recent rapid warming in Europe.

I already tried (and evidently failed) to explain this on another thread, but here goes anyway...

Because the concentration of aerosols over Europe has been going down in recent history, their ability to suppress the warming effect of CO2 is also reduced, so the net forcing goes up, along with it the rate of warming.

Bottom line is that they're saying that if there had historically been no extra aerosols over Europe during the last century and a half, we wouldn't have had the big recent warming because all the warming due to CO2 would have already happened and the earth would be even hotter still.

 

[tyr_13]

So why did you link them? You were asked for science developed by Greenpeace, not some self published articles that no one here, no one in the IPCC and no one in the community of scientists studying global warming pays attention to.

While people like mhaze and virtually every other person on the denialist side may routinely link to papers from low quality sources, no one on the side of the science has to, they have more real papers to present then anyone could ever read.

Because I was asked to. That is science developed by Greenpeace, and at least one of the ones I linked to wasn't self-published. I didn't claim that the people of the IPCC or people here were siting them, but I did mean that the media and policy/law makers do site them. Besides that, the Greenpeace work sites some of the work of scientists studying global warming. The misuse and abuse of the AGW theory is of interest no? I know I'd like to know if my research was being misused by either people denying AGW or the opposite insane civilization hate of groups like Greenpeace. Aren't both bad?

Why are you bringing up mhaze? Is he a little bit easier to attack than me?

And here I am going back on my word to step back. Oh well.

Oh and sorry for the over-reaction to the misspelling thing. The truth is I'm a terrible speller even with a degree in English (and the mountain of writing that it took to get that degree). So it aggravates me when I get things wrong even with spell check. I should have seen the attempt to lighten things here. Sorry Pipirr.

I'm still maintaining that it is unreasonable to call someone an idiot or 'denier' based solely on their doubting the degree of man's interference in GW.

 

[Piggy]

Thank you for repeating my complaint from my prior post as if you just discovered it and as if I overlooked it.

Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats: APA

MLA
University of Arizona (2008, August 23). Drier, Warmer Springs In US Southwest Stem From Human-caused Changes In Winds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com* /releases/2008/08/080819082600.htm​

No, I was fully aware that I was swiping from your earlier post. That was the irony of your later claim that the article wasn't sourced.

​

So you might find the ref if you did some work, it might just be a news story, it might be peer reviewed ... it might not....

Let's discuss...

Human-driven changes in the westerly winds are bringing hotter and drier springs to the American Southwest, according to new research from The University of Arizona.

SD links to some sort of University press release interviewing a scientist, which a reader then finds on his own that there is no peer reviewed published work?

SD was perfectly up front about what it was they were summarizing. Their citation was correct. There was no attempt to fool anybody about anything.

When journal publications are cited, those are properly and completely sourced, too. No guesswork on anyone's part is involved.

And if you think following their link to the UAz Web site and doing a search for the article is too difficult for you, then I suggest you stop posting on threads like this.

You cited this junk as proof of what, exactly?

You need a reminder again, already?

The claim was made that none of the articles on SD's climate page cited the impact of human activity. I browsed over there and the one at the top of the page -- that one -- did.

 

[Piggy]

It has. It was accepted for publication in GRL last month (link here, search for McAfee) and it's doi number will be 10.1029/2008GL034828.

Which information, btw, was in the article, had mhaze decided to actually read it, which apparently he did not:

McAfee and Russell, a UA assistant professor of geosciences, will publish their paper, Northern Annular Mode Impact on Spring Climate in the Western United States, in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funded the research via the Climate Assessment for the Southwest program at the UA.

Paragraph 10.

Again, mhaze, if you cannot be bothered to read articles, or to click on links and find sources when given an author, title, and date, then really, you should not be attempting to make the kinds of posts you are trying to make here. Or anywhere else.

 

[mhaze]

....if you cannot be bothered to read articles, or to click on links and find sources when given an author, title, and date, then really, you should not be attempting to make the kinds of posts you are trying to make here. Or anywhere else.

SD links to some sort of University press release interviewing a scientist, which a reader then finds on his own that there is no peer reviewed published work?

But there "will be". Right, I missed that, because I was looking for a citation and there was none. Well, bring the article back when it exists.

Right now you have not brought anything worth reading into the discussion with that "news blurb".

 

[Piggy]

SD links to some sort of University press release interviewing a scientist, which a reader then finds on his own that there is no peer reviewed published work?

But there "will be". Right, I missed that, because I was looking for a citation and there was none. Well, bring the article back when it exists.

Right now you have not brought anything worth reading into the discussion with that "news blurb".

No, you missed the fact that their work has been accepted for publication because you didn't bother to actually read the article. And you know good and well there was a citation.

And now you're pretending not to know why I cited it in the first place, despite being told twice.

Now, do you care to continue doing the cha-cha, mhaze, or would you care to put down your soda straw and we can look at the question of whether there is an actual scientific controversy over AGW, or whether claims of a controversy are as false as Ben Stein's claims of a controversy over evolution?

Your choice.

 

[mhaze]

I already tried (and evidently failed) to explain this on another thread, but here goes anyway...

Because the concentration of aerosols over Europe has been going down in recent history, their ability to suppress the warming effect of CO2 is also reduced, so the net forcing goes up, along with it the rate of warming.

Bottom line is that they're saying that if there had historically been no extra aerosols over Europe during the last century and a half, we wouldn't have had the big recent warming because all the warming due to CO2 would have already happened and the earth would be even hotter still.

No, neither you or Lomiller failed in explaining the high sensitivity to aerosols required in GCM if they have high CO2 sensitivity. What you both seemed to miss was the article linked to and to which you framed a response, is quite different. Both of you framed a standard Warmer talking point on aerosols. Irrelevant.

GOODBYE air pollution and smoky chimneys, hello brighter days. That's been the trend in Europe for the past three decades - but unfortunately cleaning up the skies has allowed more of the sun's rays to pierce the atmosphere, contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred.
Since 1980, average air temperatures in Europe have risen 1 °C: much more than expected from greenhouse-gas warming alone. Christian Ruckstuhl of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland and colleagues took aerosol concentrations from six locations in northern Europe, measured between 1986 and 2005, and compared them with solar-radiation measurements over the same period. Aerosol concentrations dropped by up to 60 per cent over the 29-year period, while solar radiation rose by around 1 watt per square metre

"The decrease in aerosols probably accounts for at least half of the warming over Europe in the last 30 years," says Rolf Philipona, a co-author of the study at MeteoSwiss, Switzerland's national weather service. The latest climate models are built on the assumption that aerosols have their biggest influence by seeding natural clouds, which reflect sunlight. However, the team found that radiation dropped only slightly on cloudy days, suggesting that the main impact of aerosols is to block sunlight directly.
​

http://environment.newscientist.com...rate-of-warming.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

Christian Ruckstuhl et al
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L12708, doi:10.1029/2008GL034228, 2008
Aerosol and cloud effects on solar brightening and the recent rapid warming




IPCC Conjectures on Radiative Forcings:

 

[bobdroege7]

Meanwhile, the arctic is at near-record melt conditions;

Fancy a Baked Alaska for your birthday?

 

[Piggy]

Irrelevant.

How do you make it out the door in the morning?

 

[bobdroege7]

Any change caused by a change in CO2 concentration in low and high cloud cover, or atmospheric water vapor levels and distribution, which results in a more outgoing IR or more VR/IR reflected before reaching the lower atmosphere. Note only very small percentage changes on a global basis are required.

The actual 20th century numbers don't seem to validate a CO2 sensitivity that is high due to positive feedback. So it is reasonable to ask what negative feedbacks are at work and what hypothesized positive ones are not working as advertized.

Ah, a simple no would have sufficed.

And you deny the existance of positive feedbacks?

Isn't that what the original OP is about, the release of enormous amounts of CO2 from the permafrost as the Arctic warms.

The Arctic is warming, is it not? Isn't it standard global warming theory that the poles will warm more than the equator?

Doen't seawater release CO2 as it warms, in accordance with Henry's Law?

What about the paleoclimate records showing CO2 rising after global warming?

Positive feedback, no?

 

[mhaze]

Ah, a simple no would have sufficed.

And you deny the existance of positive feedbacks?

Isn't that what the original OP is about, the release of enormous amounts of CO2 from the permafrost as the Arctic warms.

The Arctic is warming, is it not? Isn't it standard global warming theory that the poles will warm more than the equator?

Doen't seawater release CO2 as it warms, in accordance with Henry's Law?

What about the paleoclimate records showing CO2 rising after global warming?

Positive feedback, no?

Sure, there are both types of feedbacks.

Well, you did not like my analysis of the 07C 20th century warming, your turn. Take the 0.7C number, your choice of feedbacks (already within it) and what do you deduce or forecast?

 

[Spud1k]

Sheesh, I tried. Here goes one more time...

No, neither you or Lomiller failed in explaining the high sensitivity to aerosols required in GCM if they have high CO2 sensitivity. What you both seemed to miss was the article linked to and to which you framed a response, is quite different. Both of you framed a standard Warmer talking point on aerosols. Irrelevant.

The 'standard warmer response' also happens to be scientifically correct. Live with it.

I'm not disputing that aerosols have a cooling effect. Neither am I disputing that the reduction in aerosols over Europe (and presumably North America as well) has had a net warming effect. The point you are missing is that if the effect of CO2 was negligible (as you claim), then the aerosols would have caused global cooling in the early 20th century and the recent warming (caused by the reduction in aerosols) would be taking us back up towards 19th century temperatures, before human activity started producing aerosols on a large scale. Of course, that hasn't been what's happened. Instead, we've had net warming since then, which has to have been caused by something.

If, as suggested, the cooling brought on by the direct radiative effect is bigger than what is currently being used by the models (which is a possibility no-one is disputing), that means the effect of the positive forcings (e.g. CO2) must be even greater to account for the overall warming that has occurred. So that line of logic actually defeats your argument about CO2.

 

[bobdroege7]

Sure, there are both types of feedbacks.

How about a negative feedback from increased CO2?

No evidence eh?

Well, you did not like my analysis of the 07C 20th century warming, your turn. Take the 0.7C number, your choice of feedbacks (already within it) and what do you deduce or forecast?

Since the atmospheric lifetime for CO2 is between 5-200 years, it is possible we have not experience all the warming from the 20th century increase in CO2. I'd say another 0.2 to 0.5 C warming in the pipeline. (SWAG for sure) SWAG = Scientific wild ass guess
Not counting the feedbacks that are not already in the 0.7C, see the seas are still warming the ice is still melting and 2007 was still the second warmest year on record (recent of course)

I see no stopping CO2 before it gets to 450.

And there be tipping points before then.

My deduction is that the cow is out of the barn and closing the door won't keep the seawater off of my property. I'll be long gone but I'll forecast no ice at the poles by 2500.

And a lot of strife and discontent.

And my poor buddies at my alma mater will be out of a job/research work as there will be no cryosphere.


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/

 

[mhaze]

Sheesh, I tried. Here goes one more time...The 'standard warmer response' also happens to be scientifically correct. Live with it.

I'm not disputing that aerosols have a cooling effect. Neither am I disputing that the reduction in aerosols over Europe (and presumably North America as well) has had a net warming effect. The point you are missing is that if the effect of CO2 was negligible (as you claim), then the aerosols would have caused global cooling in the early 20th century and the recent warming (caused by the reduction in aerosols) would be taking us back up towards 19th century temperatures, before human activity started producing aerosols on a large scale. Of course, that hasn't been what's happened. Instead, we've had net warming since then, which has to have been caused by something.

If, as suggested, the cooling brought on by the direct radiative effect is bigger than what is currently being used by the models (which is a possibility no-one is disputing), that means the effect of the positive forcings (e.g. CO2) must be even greater to account for the overall warming that has occurred. So that line of logic actually defeats your argument about CO2.

Where and how are you getting to these conclusions, by assuming zero or statistically insignificant natural variability? That seems the only way your argument makes sense. But there are more than little problems with such a view.

 

[BenBurch]

Meanwhile, the trend line on this year's arctic melt has not broken towards "cooling";

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png