Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[macdoc]

Climate science fundamentals

http://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-1.3.html

Frequently Asked Question 1.3
What is the Greenhouse Effect?

The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

continues
http://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-1.3.html

 

[macdoc]

Climate Science fundamentals

Frequently Asked Question 2.1
How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change
and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?

uman activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out-going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.

Greenhouse Gases

Human activities result in emissions of four principal greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and the halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine and bromine). These gases accumulate in the atmosphere, causing concentrations to increase with time. Significant increases in all of these gases have occurred in the industrial era (see Figure 1). All of these increases are attributable to human activities.

* Carbon dioxide has increased from fossil fuel use in transportation, building heating and cooling and the manufacture of cement and other goods. Deforestation releases CO2 and reduces its uptake by plants. Carbon dioxide is also released in natural processes such as the decay of plant matter.

continues
http://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-2.1.html

 

[macdoc]

Climate Science fundamentals

a stumbling block for many .... persistence..

Frequently Asked Question 10.3
If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How
Quickly do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere
Decrease?

The adjustment of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to reductions in emissions depends on the chemical and physical processes that remove each gas from the atmosphere. Concentrations of some greenhouse gases decrease almost immediately in response to emission reduction, while others can actually continue to increase for centuries even with reduced emissions.

The concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere depends on the competition between the rates of emission of the gas into the atmosphere and the rates of processes that remove it from the atmosphere. For example, carbon dioxide (CO2) is exchanged between the atmosphere, the ocean and the land through processes such as atmosphere-ocean gas transfer and chemical (e.g., weathering) and biological (e.g., photosynthesis) processes. While more than half of the CO2 emitted is currently removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many millennia. Because of slow removal processes, atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase in the long term even if its emission is substantially reduced from present levels. Methane (CH4) is removed by chemical processes in the atmosphere, while nitrous oxide (N2O) and some halocarbons are destroyed in the upper atmosphere by solar radiation. These processes each operate at different time scales ranging from years to millennia.

continues
http://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-10.3.html

 

[Trakar]

(...)
The last time it was significantly warmer then today was 125kya at which point it was ~3 deg warmer then 1950, ~2 de warmer then today and about as warm as it’s expected to be in the second half of this century. Not only did human civilization not exist back then, neither did our sub-species homo sapiens sapiens. One thing we do know about this period is that it was warm enough to raise sea levels 20 feet above where they are today.
(...)
Bunk for sure. The cause for the pattern of glaciations is reasonably well understood. We should be in a modest cooling trend and instead we are in a 100 period where it’s warmed faster then any time other then the end of a glaciations. There is no interglacial warm period in the last 2 million years where the planet has subsequently warmed another 2-4 degrees in a couple centuries.

Some studies are suggesting that we are infact already warmer than any point in the last 2 million years, thier argument is that the early Eemian measures of greater than current warmth are based upon lagging indicators and our current warming is so rapid that the indicators have not yet equilibrated to the present temperature. Its been a while since I been through those particular studies, but I'll see if I can dig them up and see if they are still applicable.

 

[CapelDodger]

Got one that explains the time when the Romans had vinyards in Britain?

There's a commonly-held fallacy that wine-making died out in Britain when the Romans left. In fact, wine-making has never ceased here, and its scope is not a measure of climate. Consider that many of the Norman conquerors already had vinyards in France and Flanders, producing for export, so they had little interest in English vinyards. The Harrying of the North did for production up there, and the Dissolution of the Monasteries did for much of their production of communion wine. Production did continue though, as a hobby. In recent times it's become a small industry again.

Not everything which happened in History was caused by climate change. It's a lot more complicated than that.

 

[CapelDodger]

Any truth to this or is it bunk?

There's truth in it, but it's bunkum.

"I have heavily researched and thoroughly studied this subject matter for well over a decade, and I did so with the aide of a close acquaintance who's a department head at the USGS (A Climatologist), as well as with the great assistance of NOAA scientists. I can tell you, without a doubt, that NOTHING we are currently experiencing climate-wise is anywhere near the limits of historically proven fluctuations."

There's truth in that, but he's actually referring to geologically proven variations (to the extent that anything's proven in Science), not historically. Not to labour the point I hope, but they are pre-historic fluctuations. The pre-historic fluctuations of interest to us are those of this inter-glacial.

"Time and again, oceanic level studies, glacier core samples, and CO2 traces have proven beyond a doubt, that we are currently very fortunate to be on a mild crest of moderation within Earth's cyclic climatological track-record."

Fortune has nothing to with it, and "mild" is meaningless in this context. By (at most) six thousand years ago humans were spread from the Arctic to the equator, neither of which is mild to people from the other. HomSap is very good at making-do with what it's given.

For much of Earth's history, it was far hotter than now, and for much of Earth's history as well, it was also much colder.

And, of course, for the bulk of Earth's history HomSap wasn't even a twinkle in evolution's eye . So it's true, but irrelevant.

"If you look at organized human civilization for instance, it first emanated from a planet that was warming towards moderation. Such a facet never existed until our current climatological peak (Which came about thousands of years ago). We have had four global temperature peaks in the past 400,000 years, and all of organized civilization has only existed upon the current one (The fifth peak)."

HomSap has only existed for about 180,000 years, so again we have irrelevance. Much ado about nothing. Our first interglacial (the previous one) saw us expand from Africa and set us up to make further technological progress during the last glaciation. When this (our second) interglacial came along we were primed to do what we've done. It's nothing to do with us waiting for the chance provided by "moderation". We'd have done it anyway.

"Within this set peak, there are constant variances (Troughs and crests), but overall we should count ourselves very fortunate to be existing upon it at all! "

It's actually other species that can count themselves lucky to still share it with us. For a lot of them, luck is running out. Unlike us they don't make the world they live in.

"If anything, you should worry more about the next major glacial period, because, as proven throughout history, it will occur again ..."

This is really silly, worrying about something thousands of years away, especially since ...

... (We will be the first organized civilization to face it as well, if we are still around that is).

and we already know how to prevent it - spread carbon-black on the ice. Meanwhile we're supposed to ignore what's happening in front of our eyes, because ...

"The bottom line, is that the aforementioned set pattern proves the natural variances of Earth's cyclic climate drama."

Ignoring the current dramatic rate of change, which is not part of the set glacial-interglacial pattern. That pattern itself is not part of our experience as a civilised species with over six billion members living off just about every available inch.

"Combine that with the fact that we are currently well within the pre-established parameters, and human forcing becomes negligible at best, unmeasurable at worst."

Abject non sequitur, of course.

Human forcing has increased atmospheric CO₂ by over 30% in the last 150 years, which is far outside the "well-established parameters" of variation in the last few million years. Not so much "negligible" as "pretty damned impressive", but that's HomSap. We establish our own parameters .

 

[Trakar]

Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts...

It's been a while since we've reviewed the mainstream science resources and references regarding climate change, and there have been many new additions and revisions over the last year or so. Additionally, several recent posts seem to be posing questions and referring to contarian pseudoscience arguments. Such can be confusing and misleading without knowing and understanding what the science says about such issues. To that end I thought I'd add a few links and descriptions of some of the mainstream references that help us to understand the issue of climate change.

We'll start with:
"Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts Over Decades to Millennia" - http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12877#description

Description

Emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels have ushered in a new epoch where human activities will largely determine the evolution of Earth's climate. Because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe. Emissions reductions decisions made today matter in determining impacts experienced not just over the next few decades, but in the coming centuries and millennia.

According to Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts Over Decades to Millennia, important policy decisions can be informed by recent advances in climate science that quantify the relationships between increases in carbon dioxide and global warming, related climate changes, and resulting impacts, such as changes in streamflow, wildfires, crop productivity, extreme hot summers, and sea level rise. One way to inform these choices is to consider the projected climate changes and impacts that would occur if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were stabilized at a particular concentration level. The book quantifies the outcomes of different stabilization targets for greenhouse gas concentrations using analyses and information drawn from the scientific literature. Although it does not recommend or justify any particular stabilization target, it does provide important scientific insights about the relationships among emissions, greenhouse gas concentrations, temperatures, and impacts.

Climate Stabilization Targets emphasizes the importance of 21st century choices regarding long-term climate stabilization. It is a useful resource for scientists, educators and policy makers, among others.

This report is a book published by the National Academies. You can either purchase the book or download it freely in the form of a PDF from the link above.

 

[macdoc]

Consequences unfold

Climate Change Remains a Real Threat to Corals


ScienceDaily (Oct. 13, 2010) — Hopes that coral reefs might be able to survive, and recover from, bleaching caused by climate change may have grown dimmer for certain coral species, according to new research by University at Buffalo marine biologists published this week in PLoS One.
The research shows, for the first time, that while hard corals can take up from the environment new stress-tolerant algae that provide critical nutrients, the coral may not be able to sustain the relationship with these algae over a long period, a process known as symbiosis.
The findings may mean that certain types of coral will not be able to adapt rapidly enough to survive global warming, says the study's lead author, Mary Alice Coffroth, PhD, UB professor of geological sciences in the College of Arts and Sciences.
"Our findings suggest that not all corals can maintain a long-term symbiosis with these stress-tolerant strains of algae," says Mary Alice Coffroth, PhD, UB professor of geological sciences in the College of Arts and Sciences and lead author.
"That's the problem," she says, "if they can't take up the stress-tolerant symbionts, or if they take them up but can't maintain the symbiosis with them, as we found, then they likely won't be able to adapt rapidly enough to survive global warming."

more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101011222752.htm

Talking to a friend in Australia who I sent photos of a couple of possums in our composter.
She said..."I had no idea marsupials were found that far north" ( Ontario )
I said "Yup when I was a kid, Pogo was a Georgia possum hanging out with alligators....."

When I found one under my porch 10 years ago....climate change got very real......
Critters know.....even when H Sapiens go into denial.

 

[Trakar]

The EPA Climate Change Site

In sticking with earlier comments, this is a link to the recently updated EPA climate change site:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

"...Projections of Climate ChangeAt the current rate, the Earth’s global average temperature is projected to rise from 3 to 7°F by 2100, and it will get even warmer after that. As the climate continues to warm, more changes are expected to occur, and many effects will become more pronounced over time. For example, heat waves are expected to become more common, severe, and longer lasting. Some storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent, increasing the chances of flooding and damage in coastal communities.
Climate change will affect different regions, ecosystems, and sectors of the economy in many ways, depending not only on the sensitivity of those systems to climate change, but also on their ability to adapt to risks and changing conditions. Throughout history, societies and ecosystems alike have shown remarkable capacity to respond to risks and adapt to different climates and environmental changes. Today, effects of climate change have already been observed, and the rate of warming has increased in recent decades.
For this reason, human-caused climate change represents a serious challenge—one that could require new approaches and ways of thinking to ensure the continued health, welfare, and productivity of society and the natural environment..."

 

[macdoc]

consequences now...

Regional Sea Temperature Rise and Coral Bleaching Event in Western Caribbean

ScienceDaily (Oct. 13, 2010) — The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute's Bocas del Toro Research Station and Galeta Point Marine Laboratory are reporting an anomalous sea temperature rise and a major coral bleaching event in the western Caribbean.

snip

Station personnel recorded an extreme sea water temperature of 32 degrees C. Normal temperatures at this time of year are closer to 28 degrees C. This warming event currently affects the entire Caribbean coast of Panama from Kuna-Yala to Bocas del Toro and has also been reported at sites in Costa Rica.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101012141929.h

More extreme events more often....

Extreme Heat Puts Coral Reefs at Risk, Forecasts Say

Justin GIllis New York Times 20 Sep 10;

This year’s extreme heat is putting the world’s coral reefs under such severe stress that scientists fear widespread die-offs, endangering not only the richest ecosystems in the ocean but also associated fisheries that feed millions of people.

From Thailand to Texas, corals are reacting to the heat stress by bleaching, or shedding their color and going into survival mode. Many have already died, and more are expected to do so in coming months. Computer forecasts of water temperature suggest that corals in the Caribbean may undergo drastic bleaching in the next few weeks.

What is unfolding this year is only the second known global bleaching of coral reefs. Scientists are holding out hope that this year will not be as bad, over all, as 1998, the hottest year in the historical record, when an estimated 16 percent of the world’s shallow-water reefs died. But in some places, including Thailand, the situation is looking worse than in 1998.

http://wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com/2010/09/extreme-heat-puts-coral-reefs-at-risk.html

so reefs that survived 10,000 years....gone in just a few....

Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification

O. Hoegh-Guldberg,1* P. J. Mumby,2 A. J. Hooten,3 R. S. Steneck,4 P. Greenfield,5 E. Gomez,6 C. D. Harvell,7 P. F. Sale,8 A. J. Edwards,9 K. Caldeira,10 N. Knowlton,11 C. M. Eakin,12 R. Iglesias-Prieto,13 N. Muthiga,14 R. H. Bradbury,15 A. Dubi,16 M. E. Hatziolos17
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts per million and global temperatures to rise by at least 2°C by 2050 to 2100, values that significantly exceed those of at least the past 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. Under conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less diverse reef communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained. Climate change also exacerbates local stresses from declining water quality and overexploitation of key species, driving reefs increasingly toward the tipping point for functional collapse. This review presents future scenarios for coral reefs that predict increasingly serious consequences for reef-associated fisheries, tourism, coastal protection, and people. As the International Year of the Reef 2008 begins, scaled-up management intervention and decisive action on global emissions are required if the loss of coral-dominated ecosystems is to be avoided.
more
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/318/5857/1737

 

[Trakar]

United States Global Change Research Program

http://www.globalchange.gov/

The National Climate Assessment

The National Climate Assessment (NCA) is being conducted under the auspices of the Global Change Research Act of 1990, which requires a report to the President and the Congress that evaluates, integrates and interprets the findings of the $2.6 billion federal research program on global change (USGCRP) every four years.

National climate assessments act as a status report on climate change science and impacts. They are based on observations made across the country and compare these observations to predictions from climate system models. The NCA aims to incorporate advances in the understanding of climate science into larger social, ecological, and policy systems, and with this provide integrated analyses of impacts and vulnerability. The NCA will help evaluate the effectiveness of our mitigation and adaptation activities and identify economic opportunities that arise as the climate changes. It will also serve to integrate scientific information from multiple sources and highlight key findings and significant gaps in our knowledge. The NCA aims to help the federal government prioritize climate science investments, and in doing so will help to provide the science that can be used by communities around our Nation try to create a more sustainable and environmentally-sound plan for our future.

 

[Trakar]

NASA: Earth Observatory

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/

Global Warming

Throughout its long history, Earth has warmed and cooled time and again. Climate has changed when the planet received more or less sunlight due to subtle shifts in its orbit, as the atmosphere or surface changed, or when the Sun’s energy varied. But in the past century, another force has started to influence Earth’s climate: humanity

What is Global Warming?
Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.

How Does Today’s Warming Compare to Past Climate Change?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. But the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

Why Do Scientists Think Current Warming Isn’t Natural?
In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes unrelated to human activity. These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.

How Much More Will Earth Warm?
Models predict that as the world consumes ever more fossil fuel, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise, and Earth’s average surface temperature will rise with them. Based on plausible emission scenarios, average surface temperatures could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century. Some of this warming will occur even if future greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, because the Earth system has not yet fully adjusted to environmental changes we have already made.

How Will Earth Respond to Warming Temperatures?
The impact of global warming is far greater than just increasing temperatures. Warming modifies rainfall patterns, amplifies coastal erosion, lengthens the growing season in some regions, melts ice caps and glaciers, and alters the ranges of some infectious diseases. Some of these changes are already occurring.

References and Related Resources

 

[CapelDodger]

nope - it has been indefinitely delayed by our actions.

We know how to prevent another glaciation, and it's hard to see what we'd gain from it, then assuming (as I do myself) that we survive as a technological civilisation the next glaciation, should we permit one, will be performance art on a really large scale.

Something to distract people from how horriby wrong the terraforming of Mars went perhaps ...

 

[Trakar]

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

•Introduction
•Frequently Asked Questions:

1.What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?
2.Are greenhouse gases increasing?
3.Is the climate warming?
4.Are El Niños related to Global Warming?
5.Is the hydrological cycle (evaporation and precipitation) changing?
6.Is the atmospheric/oceanic circulation changing?
7.Is the climate becoming more variable or extreme?
8.How important are these changes in a longer-term context?
9.Is sea level rising?
10.Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?
11.What about the future?

These sites generally represent the science in an easy to understand, non-technical manner. I pop a few sites like these up every day for the next few days, and gradually start working in a few more involved and detailed scientific sites and papers.

T. Shaitanaku

 

[Matt Giwer]

This is what people don't seem to get....carbon persists...it does not drop out quickly the way most other GHG do. In human scale it is there indefinitely unless we actively remove it.

Odd. I always had the idea that CO2 was the only source of carbon for plants. And as it gets warmer plants grow for more months and further north increasing the total quantity of CO2 removed from the atmosphere and oddly things stay in balance with the positive feedback.

So if we raise it 1/3 as we have....and the planet has not seen that level for 15 million years.....

Yet the world is still here. How sad.

 

[Matt Giwer]

* Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming

An excellent absorber but no where near as good an absorber as rocks and soil and water and plants and whatever else one might think of that I failed to mention.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Northwest passage opening means that circulation patterns change both in the sea and atmosphere with further knock-on effects. Also opening up the region to exploitation and potential conflict (as shown by the Russians, Canada and the US).

Politics and conflict are human choice and as such not part of the discussion.

As for the circulation changing -- SO? This would hardly be the first time it has been ice free. The last time it was ice free for a long time Britain had a tropical climate -- so did the tropics. The palm tree franchise I bought for DC back in the 70s might finally pay off.

Just because temperatures increase does not necessarily mean that the soils become useful arable land

The land is the land. It is the same as it is in places less frozen. The northern limit of farming is determined by temperature not soil. The soil does not magically change just north of the current temperature limit.

As to the land there is an asterisks load of it in Canada and Siberia that is flat and virgin. The young US advertised for immigrants selling the virgin farm land available for the taking.

How much are these dikes going to cost? What about the cost of their potential failure? How does it help the people of places like Bangladesh?

Cost: A hell of a lot less than lining the coast with wind farms.

Failure? That is why we hire the Dutch to teach us how to do it right.

Bangladesh? Their dikes are built with very cheap labor. Or they get on with modernization and move inland. Can't solve everyone's problem. And they will be the last to stop burning fossil fuels so they don't get to claim innocence.

Then there's the problem of changes in water distribution. Himalyan glaciers feed many rivers that support a significant portion of the worlds population, their eventual loss will cause massive problems.

Nuclear power and desalinization plants solve everything but the Jane Fonda School of Nuclear Physics is against the obvious solution. Shows what happens when melters ally themselves with such experts.

For India in particular they have already screwed themselves overusing their groundwater.

For the Himalayas, the height determines how cold even in the tropics as Kilimanjaro shows. Its glaciers are going away because of farms replacing jungle on the windward side.

You are aware the nonsense about the Himalayas losing there glaciers "real soon" has been exposed as another melter fraud are you not?

 

[Matt Giwer]

What an odd question. The global effect is the sum total of the regional effect. Why are you suggesting it’s impossible to know both?

The URL said a few parts of a few countries. If you want to show some magic "global dimming" you have to do a hell of a lot more than that.

Arguing from the particular to the general has been an identified logical fallacy for some 2500 years. This is a practical example of the principle of the fallacy.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Relative to what? You have not context to say whether that’s a tiny change or a massive one. Surely you don’t think that “it doesn’t matter just because the number is less then 1”?

Relative to absolute zero of course. What else would it be in reference to? It is an indicator of stability.

 

[Matt Giwer]

BTW temperature != heat content.

Of course not. That is elementary physics.

The heat uptake in the oceans over the last 30 years is an order of magnitude greater then the impact energy of the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

But that statement is ********. That sounds like something from a Discovery Channel filler.

The energy required to melt the ice Greenland is currently loosing is comparable to several thousand Hiroshima atomic bombs every year. On any human scale we are talking about massive amounts of energy.

Excuse but mention of Hiroshima bombs is proof positive of Discovery Channel asterisks.