Global warming discussion IV

[Trakar]

I have not seen this 16 June 2016 National Geographic article posted here so:
First Mammal Species Goes Extinct Due to Climate Change

I had seen this, the only problem I have with many of the species which are being pushed to the brink of endangerment and extinction is that many of them were originally put into this category by other human activities which have stressed their abilities to survive. We have destroyed habitat, killed prey and forage, or even directly hunted the creatures to the point where even relatively minor climate change issues either finish them off or leave unviable/unsustainable populations too small and too scattered to recover.

I sometimes feel like the entire planet is turning into one of those horrible ASPCA commercials!

 

[macdoc]

We are understanding more about saving species but the elephant in the room is human population.

 

[Jono]

I was given this article, as alleged evidence of global warming being gradually debunked. I only, briefly, looked at it but I was wondering if anyone here could take a look and make some sense of it?

Excerpt:

As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.

The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

 

[Pixel42]

Greenhouse gases absorb photons of infrared (heat) frequencies and retransmit them in all directions. So they will reflect some of any such energy that's generated at the top of the atmosphere back into space, and reflect some of any such energy that's generated at the bottom of the atmosphere (eg when sunlight warms the earth's surface) back down. There's no contradiction. Solar flares that are large enough to significantly interact with the earth's atmosphere are rare, so I would imagine any cooling effect is tiny compared to the warming at the earth's surface due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I was given this article, as alleged evidence of global warming being gradually debunked. I only, briefly, looked at it but I was wondering if anyone here could take a look and make some sense of it?

Excerpt:

That article is the rehash of some denialist speculations from 2012. I would say that more than a rehash it seems the end message when you play Chinese whispers.

It starts with a false assertion: "According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere." This false assertion comes from forcing the "solar flare" to become "total solar radiation".

Radiation is energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. Everyday solar radiation is almost all close infrared, visible and close ultraviolet range. A solar flare is an event that radiates from radio frequencies to gamma rays and spurts charged mass particles. The Earth magnetic field take care of those charged particles -nice auroras- and the atmosphere refuses to let most high frequency radiation in -every gas in it, including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide-.

The energy involved in the tiny fraction of solar flares that reaches the Earth is almost meaningless compared with the daily energy reaching us from the sun.

If you, who gave that article to you, or any other person want more details, ask about specific parts of it. That article is one of many similar sloppily written ones and they are designed, like the proverbial spanner/monkey wrench, to stall understanding and sow doubt, so debunking each gruesome assertion is easy but there are so many and they require so much basic physics explanation that not only they are time consuming but most hillybillies reach the comfortable conclusion that the deception must be true because debunking it requires so many words that they don't understand, so it's not debunking but a snow job.

To get a sample, just google "According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere." and you reach articles comparing the total energy emitted by one solar flare with the solar energy the Earth daily gets (1/150,000,000 of its total).

Don't get discouraged if you don't understand what is going on. That article is one of a progeny that exploits the complexity of the high atmosphere. Did you know that the thermosphere even contains a sodium layer, sodium provided by the oceans?

 

[foophil]

Another thing to keep in mind is that Natural News is a site that rarely gets science right. It is so full of junk that it is akin to getting your political news from Info Wars. It caters to a very specific group of people who want their world views reinforced through deception and lies.

 

[aleCcowaN]

If there's any doubt of that, the following paragraph should dispel it

Dr. Hansen, of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time "on science," and on "drawing attention to [its] implications for young people."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html#ixzz4Hy6oHZTv
​

 

[Trakar]

I was given this article, as alleged evidence of global warming being gradually debunked. I only, briefly, looked at it but I was wondering if anyone here could take a look and make some sense of it?

Excerpt:

Excellent commentary and breakdown all around!

Top-shelf responses, not much left to gnaw on, but for those paying attention and eager to spot all the tell-tales of such fabrications, it was very good spotting and noting the true nature of NaturalNews. I didn't see any comment, however, about the references embedded in the construction. How about the rather peculiarly named "Principia Scientific International" with its Newtonian nome, PSI (the preferred moniker) was publically formed in 2010 in accord with the group's first publication, a pseudoscience treatise called "Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory."

 

[OlivierK]

Indeed that publication was so unhinged that even Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer and Christopher Monckton denounced it as irrational.

 

[Reality Check]

I was given this article, as alleged evidence of global warming being gradually debunked.

The link was to the crank Natural News web site so that is a hint that it is wrong. The author was lying in 2013 (or parroting lies).

CME are not radiative energy (light) from the Sun - they are particles. No knowledgeable person expects CME to deposit energy in the same way as solar light. CME will collide with the upper atmosphere and thus deposit energy there. The resulting light from excited atmospheric gases will then be reflected or not by the lower atmosphere. SABER's 2013 results showed that it is mostly reflected.

No one clams that solar CME are a cause of global warming. CME are relatively tiny in terms of energy that the Sun delivers to the Earth.

The "source" is a broken link to Principia Scientific International

Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.

A quick flick through the web site reveals insults toward actual scientists (Brian Cox) and hero worship of the climate deniers Watts and Monckton. Anthony Watts shows that he knows more than the PSI greenhouse effect deniers in his article A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Sorry, but I have to post this

By the way, TSI reached a maximum of almost 1408 W/m2 last January 6th -this is a leap year- but it has today dropped below the 1400 mark, and it's going down further.

Yet we have no answer for Haig explaining why this 0.6% drop hasn't implied global temperatures going down but slightly up. Wasn't it he knew everything about how Aton influences his subjects?

By the way, Haig, TSI reached a minimum of almost 1316 W/m2 last August 3rd and global temperatures continued to rise. From a global average of 13.04°C in January to a global average of 16.67°C.

Wow! The sun is irradiating us weaker and weaker yet the planet's temperature rose 3.6°C. How come? Isn't your Sun explaining everything, even earthquakes?

</ghosts of the cooling past>

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Found a good short and sweet video that uses a great analogy to explain the difference between natural variations and AGW.

 

[Trakar]

While I would date anthropogenic climate influences many thousands of years earlier..

Humans have caused climate change for 180 years
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/anu-hhc082316.php

An international research project has found human activity has been causing global warming for almost two centuries, proving human-induced climate change is not just a 20th century phenomenon.

Lead researcher Associate Professor Nerilie Abram from The Australian National University (ANU) said the study found warming began during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution and is first detectable in the Arctic and tropical oceans around the 1830s, much earlier than scientists had expected...

Svante Arrhenius was born back in the mid 19th century,...most prescient, given the tools and data available. Even moreso in the case of Fourier.

 

[macdoc]

I guess inefficient combustion doesn't lead to more CO2 per unit of coal but more coal being used per unit of work.
I"d guess later steam engines burned less coal to get the job done.
Given the tales of smog in the major cities during the 17th century ...I can see this early signal being detectable.

This was 1905 and coal was in use for heating - shades of Beijing to come.

At the same time there was an awful lot of deforestation going on around the world as the British Empire and others scrounged for resources, replanted for rubber and generally wreaked an early version of havoc on the environment.

The US was pretty busy deforesting as well with no offsetting replanting. Pennsylvania for one was scalped a few times. Part of the "development" was to cut the forests in say the Ohio valley and simply burn them .

 

[aleCcowaN]

Changes in land use, early industrial revolution ... virtually until 1910, given time, all emissions could be eventually be absorbed by the oceans.

I haven't checked the figures but I'm pretty certain human emissions from 2011 to 2015 have far exceeded those in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries together, and without two centuries to distribute their effects.

 

[Trakar]

Changes in land use, early industrial revolution ... virtually until 1910, given time, all emissions could be eventually be absorbed by the oceans.

I haven't checked the figures but I'm pretty certain human emissions from 2011 to 2015 have far exceeded those in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries together, and without two centuries to distribute their effects.

If we're communicating well, I follow and generally agree with your assessment.
My title comment referring to thousands of years ago was when large scale agriculture and timber harvesting began to clear-cut and reshape the surface of our planet (a process that is ongoing, though our fossil fuel combustion has more recently exceeded - and been exasperated by - those earlier impacts).

 

[Trakar]

I guess inefficient combustion doesn't lead to more CO2 per unit of coal but more coal being used per unit of work.
I"d guess later steam engines burned less coal to get the job done.
Given the tales of smog in the major cities during the 17th century ...I can see this early signal being detectable.

This was 1905 and coal was in use for heating - shades of Beijing to come.

[qimg]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/00/09/ce/0009ce7a34f3f992b985ffe805b3dfec.jpg[/qimg]

At the same time there was an awful lot of deforestation going on around the world as the British Empire and others scrounged for resources, replanted for rubber and generally wreaked an early version of havoc on the environment.

The US was pretty busy deforesting as well with no offsetting replanting. Pennsylvania for one was scalped a few times. Part of the "development" was to cut the forests in say the Ohio valley and simply burn them .

Wasteful.

There were undoubtedly local issues in 17th century (1600s) cities, though most heating was still done by wood fire except in areas where coal was readily available, and forests had already been cleared.

 

[macdoc]

Actually was thinking 18th century but the land clearing aspect went on long before that and the heavy deforestation.
Doesn't change much other than extend our record of destruction.

 

[Trakar]

Actually was thinking 18th century but the land clearing aspect went on long before that and the heavy deforestation.
Doesn't change much other than extend our record of destruction.

Fully agreed.

 

[Trakar]

Climate Change Could Put Tiny Krill at Big Risk

http://www.seeker.com/climate-change-could-put-tiny-krill-at-big-risk-1988383577.html

They may be small, but krill -- tiny, shrimp-like creatures -- play a big role in the Antarctic food chain. As climate change warms the Southern Ocean and alters sea ice patterns, though, the area of Antarctic water suitable for krill to hatch and grow could drop precipitously, a new study finds.

Most Antarctic krill are found in an area from the Weddell Sea to the waters around the Antarctic Peninsula, the finger of land that juts up toward South America. They serve as an important source of food for various species of whales, seals and penguins. While those animals find other food sources during lean years, it is unclear if those alternate sources are sustainable long-term.

Over the past 40 years, populations of adult Antarctic krill have declined by 70 to 80 percent in those areas, though researchers debate whether that drop is due to the effects of climate change, a rebound in whale populations after the end of commercial whaling or some combination of those pressures...

It isn't a matter of whether or not climate change is the primary stressor endangering a species' success, it is a matter of long-term climate change becoming a compounding factor in the recovery and maintenance of various species chains and webs.