Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
So that makes my point exactly .... planet earth will turn the extra warmth back into cold ice and cold snow ... it is self correcting cycle ...

How come this "self correction" doesn't stop tiny orbital changes from melting mile thick ice? You would think that if there really was a mechanism that opposed warming, it would prevent a glaciation from ever ending, but not only do they end they end as a result of changes far smaller than human CO2.
 
I noticed the sun and fluctuating temperatures being mentioned.
If one wanted to see if the sun even has any affect whatsoever in regard to say inconsistant heating patterns on the Earth.......
Since the Earth is so complex with all the variables being discussed, wouldnt thermometers placed on the moon prove something, since the moon is void of variables?
I also read a page or two back in this thread that CO2 levels were like 270 ppm back in 1800, while 400 ppm now. You mean they had instruments back in 1800 to know this? And also are there variations of this percentage when measured globally? Iow, did they then and do we now take measurements for this all over the world and then avg the results? If so....they did this in 1800, when we werent even flying yet? Were/are these measurements taken in the atmosphere at a certain determined height?, or dont that matter?
Also i read within these thread pages that the world has never been hotter in the last million years. How do they know that?; from Earth core samples on dry land or say even Antarctica?, or other markers, that they know for a fact that indicates this?, that there never were periods of say 20 or 100 year periods(or whatever small geologic time frame) mixed into those million years, here and there, that fluctuated greatly from the norm?
 
I noticed the sun and fluctuating temperatures being mentioned.

no you didn't - solar variance is a magnitude below the C02 signal and the sun is in a cool phase...going the wrong way and no I'm not going to explain that to you.

Since the Earth is so complex with all the variables being discussed, wouldnt thermometers placed on the moon prove something, since the moon is void of variables?

They are called satellites

I also read a page or two back in this thread that CO2 levels were like 270 ppm back in 1800, while 400 ppm now. You mean they had instruments back in 1800 to know this?
Ice cores and we have measurements at Mauna Loa annually plus isotopes able to discern the fossil fuel signal from the natural carbon cycle which is complex but understood.
Carbon cycle
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/

Also i read within these thread pages that the world has never been hotter in the last million years.

I'm not going to give you a lecture on paleoclimatology but rest assured there are multiple lines of evidence tracking both C02 levels and temperature levels.
Here is a little primer.
http://oncirculation.com/2013/04/11/what-is-paleoclimatology/

that there never were periods of say 20 or 100 year periods(or whatever small geologic time frame) mixed into those million years, here and there, that fluctuated greatly from the norm?

Yes there were variances even within the Holocene regionally as there are natural cycles like ENSO, PDO, NAO that affect large swathes of the planet....La Nina has been called North America's air conditioner

That said all shifts in climate have underlying physical reasons and the understanding of how CO2 traps IR radiation has been around for a long time.
Background/history - more than a century
http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/opinion/9574/five-things-know-about-carbon-dioxide

This projection was made in 1981 based on the understanding of the physics of global warming and the trajectory of C02 emission increases.

6a010536b58035970c016304c1339b970d-200wi

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

It was slightly conservative.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6...e [url]http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

If you are an honest enquirer, you will read the science and understand what is occurring and that it is well understood as to the mechanism....even by the fossil fuel companies themselves.

The really hard part is what to do about it.
 
Last edited:
I also read a page or two back in this thread that CO2 levels were like 270 ppm back in 1800, while 400 ppm now. You mean they had instruments back in 1800 to know this? And also are there variations of this percentage when measured globally? Iow, did they then and do we now take measurements for this all over the world and then avg the results?

The longest continuous instrumental record was begun in 1958 in Hawaii. Measurements were also collected at other sites prior to and after that date, including the South Pole:

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

By 1960, Keeling and his group had determined that the measurement records from California, Antarctica, and Hawaii were long enough to see not just the diurnal and seasonal variations, but also a year-on-year increase that roughly matched the amount of fossil fuels burned per year. In the article that made him famous, Keeling observed, "at the South Pole the observed rate of increase is nearly that to be expected from the combustion of fossil fuel".[4]

Ice cores contain samples of the atmosphere at the time the ice was laid down, so it's possible to determine what the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was thousands of years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 ka.[7] During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied between 180–210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280–300 ppm during warmer interglacials.[47][48]

If you're wondering where the CO2 goes when it's not in the atmosphere, the answer is it is mostly dissolved in the oceans. Cold water holds more CO2 than warm water, so as the world warms and cools due to forcings like the orbital variations discussed above the amount of CO2 that the oceans absorb and release varies accordingly. It's one of several positive feedbacks which explain why average global temperatures respond with such relatively large swings of temperature in response to relatively small forcings.
 
.

I have always felt that ice core samples are extremely hard to date accurately

We have fresh water lakes which freeze to 3-4 feet of ice in one winter .... but if you take a cross section or core sample it can have more than 20 "layers"

.... when a group of aviators rescued WW2 aircraft that had gone down in Greenland , the ice core samples encasing it (on top of it) looked the equivalent of thousands of years (layers) ,,,, but in reality it was only about 50 years.
 
.

I have always felt that ice core samples are extremely hard to date accurately

We have fresh water lakes which freeze to 3-4 feet of ice in one winter .... but if you take a cross section or core sample it can have more than 20 "layers"

.... when a group of aviators rescued WW2 aircraft that had gone down in Greenland , the ice core samples encasing it (on top of it) looked the equivalent of thousands of years (layers) ,,,, but in reality it was only about 50 years.

Your feelings are getting less and less relevant with each post you make, and their relevance started close to, if not at, zero.
 
pretty cool 2007 video , but glaciers calving and icebergs breaking off is not a recent phenomenon .

you do have troubles connecting obvious dots eh.

a) glaciers are thinning in Antarctica and they thin by calving which also has the effect as they melt of freshening the water around the continent which is lighter than salt water and freezes quicker -

b) there is more sea ice ( which deniers trumpet about ad nauseum) and less ice on land
416685main_20100108_Climate_1.jpg

despite more moisture in the air from AGW which has driven some increase in the eastern part of the continent.

Do pay attention you MAY learn something
 
Since the Earth is so complex with all the variables being discussed, wouldnt thermometers placed on the moon prove something, since the moon is void of variables?

The moon is very near it’s black body temperature, which is what you would expect for an object without greenhouse gasses in its atmosphere. I don’t think there is informative value in looking at lunar temperature change because the period where we can do that coincides with the period where we can study the Sun’s energy output directly.

We know the Sun’s energy output hasn’t contributed to climate change in the last 35 years because we have been able to monitor it directly and see that it’s energy output has been constant over that period. Proxy evidence takes that farther back and seems to show the Sun has had little climate impact over the last millennium at least.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2040.html
Also i read within these thread pages that the world has never been hotter in the last million years. How do they know that?

This isn’t true. It was warmer 125 000 years ago, but we are rapidly reaching the point where we can no longer be sure that’s the case. Remember, though, as you go farther back in time there is more uncertainty in the proxy temperature data so the gray area gets larger. For example the Holocene optimum 8000 years ago may have been warmer than present day but we can’t say that for certain and within a few decades we will need to reverse that and say it may be warmer now but we can’t say it for certain.

or other markers, that they know for a fact that indicates this?, that there never were periods of say 20 or 100 year periods(or whatever small geologic time frame) mixed into those million years, here and there, that fluctuated greatly from the norm?
Some of the longer term proxies start to lose resolution at the decade scale. It’s possible, though unlikely very fast events would not show up, but we already know that volcanic eruptions that impact climate for only a year or so typically do show up. The probability of the proxies missing a lot of these changes is still very low, even if it’s still possible to miss a single short term event.

Something you need to remember is that the energy associated with current warming is crazy big. There is no know mechanism other than greenhouse gasses (warming) or aerosols (cooling) that could supply this type of energy.

IOW while such changes are “possible” they are only possible in the same sense its “possible” any well accepted scientific theory could be overturned by new data. There is no evidence for such changes, no known mechanism that could cause such changes and while it may be possible the proxies miss them, even that isn’t certain.

Were/are these measurements taken in the atmosphere at a certain determined height?, or dont that matter?

CO2 is a well mixed gas. The differences these things make is negligible compared to the changes in CO2. Whether atmospheric CO2 was 278ppm vs 282ppm in 1880 is really moot at this point.
 
Some of the longer term proxies start to lose resolution at the decade scale. It’s possible, though unlikely very fast events would not show up, but we already know that volcanic eruptions that impact climate for only a year or so typically do show up. The probability of the proxies missing a lot of these changes is still very low, even if it’s still possible to miss a single short term event.

good point I forgot about volcanic eruptions as markers in the climate record.
Here is Pinatubo in a short time scale
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID11224/images/Screen_shot_2009-12-15_at_2_39_41_PM.png

If you are interested in paleoclimate - Lake Baikal is a goldmine of information still be developed

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/baikal/

snip

Sediments of Lake Baikal reach thicknesses in excess of 7 kilometers (4 miles), and the rift floor is perhaps 8 to 9 kilometers (more than 5 miles) deep, making it one of the deepest active rifts on Earth. The shallowest sediments may contain the only known freshwater occurrence of natural gas hydrates. Maps of complex fault patterns and changing depositional environments provide the first opportunities to describe the development of the lake and to help explain its unique flora and fauna.
Unique characteristics of the Lake Baikal environment combine to produce an especially promising site for studies of climate history.

Baikal is the largest freshwater lake on Earth containing 23,000 cubic kilometers of water, or roughly 20 percent of the world's total surface fresh water. It contains as much fresh water as the Great Lakes of North America combined. At over 1,600 meters (5250 feet), it is the deepest lake in the world, and at perhaps more than 25 million years old, the oldest as well. The water of Lake Baikal is so fresh that calcium carbonate does not survive in the fossil record. Despite the lake's great depth, its water is well-oxygenated throughout creating unique biological habitats.

The high latitude of Lake Baikal makes it particularly sensitive to climatic variations.

Climate variations, including those resulting from atmospheric accumulation of carbon dioxide, are more pronounced at higher latitudes. Although the lake contains a record of glaciation of surrounding mountains in its sediments, it is unique among large, high-latitude lakes in that its sediments have not been scoured by overriding continental ice sheets.
United States and Russian studies of sediment cores taken from Lake Baikal provide a detailed record of climatic variation over the past 250,000 years.

Much attention is focused on numerical models of climate change but there have been few means for reliably testing or modifying boundary conditions of general circulation models. Studies of sedimentary environments in Lake Baikal provide important opportunities to establish ground truth for general circulation models. Very little data exist for long-term climate change from continental interiors; most of the data record derives from the marine or maritime environments. Finally, studies of past environments contribute to understanding the extent to which human activity affects natural conditions in the lake.
 
Last edited:
"What a great week for the alarmists. Expedition to demonstrate the impact of global warming on Antarctica stuck in unprecedented ice, while a near record breaking cold wave hits North America. Mother nature is refusing to cooperate. What will the shaman and charlatans do to convince the people that the globe is really warming because of their prosperous life-style."
:D
 
Oh dear....
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-cloud-mystery-global-temperatures-4c.html
Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4C by 2100:
Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature. Scientists found global climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than most previous estimates.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-cloud-mystery-global-temperatures-4c.html#jCp
 
Haig
Do you have anything aside from agitprop to contribute to a science thread.

Both your bits of "evidence" have been explained but there is nothing so pathetic in a science forum as someone with their ideological heels dug in like a stubborn mule.

Exxon CEO: Climate Change Poses Significant Risk, but Outcome is ...
breakingenergy.com/.../exxon-ceo-climate-change-poses-significant-risk...‎
May 29, 2013 - ExxonMobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson acknowledged the risks posed by climate change at the company's annual meeting on May 29, but ...

So Haig......Is the head of Exxon wrong on fossil fuel induced climate risk or are you.??

He acknowledges the reality.....what's with you??? miss the memo that the denial game is over??? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Lennart - ouch is for sure...:boggled:

The result is that when water vapour processes are correctly represented, the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide - which will occur in the next 50 years – means we can expect a temperature increase of at least 4°C by 2100.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-cloud-mystery-global-temperatures-4c.html#jCp

This makes some sense as the 1981 projection erred on the low side as well.
"at least 4 degrees"...oh joy. :boxedin:

Gavin at realclimate is working on an analysis. Such a lovely way to kick off 2014...here is the heart of it...

"Our research has shown climate models indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation," said lead author from the University of New South Wales' Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Prof Steven Sherwood.

"When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide."

The key to this narrower but much higher estimate can be found in the real world observations around the role of water vapour in cloud formation.
Observations show when water vapour is taken up by the atmosphere through evaporation, the updraughts can either rise to 15 km to form clouds that produce heavy rains or rise just a few kilometres before returning to the surface without forming rain clouds.

Prof Steve Sherwood explains research into cloud mixing that indicates our climate is highly sensitive to a doubling of carbon dioxide. His findings suggest Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is at least 3°C.
:(
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom