Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
bobwtfomg said:
Oh and Alec, no offence meant, but your English, though very good, isn't as perfect as you may think it is. Sometimes your sentence constuction leaves your meaning somewhat ambiguous. For example "And no ESL was the cause of it" as it stands is meaningless. On it's own I would interpret it as "And no, ESL was the cause of it" where you're saying "ESL was the cause" and prefixing this with "And no" to contradict a previous statement and add emphasis. From context though I'm guessing you meant "And ESL wasn't the cause of it" or possibly "And no, ESL wasn't the cause of it"
Click to expand...

No possible offence as that's rigorously true; I never said that my English level were better than intermediate. What I can't see is why some find so difficult to understand half-tongue in the presence of a half-tongue public. There are just the people who want to communicate and those who give a darn, and the matter of language only has been used here as part of argumentations. In other fora, with even more primitive and chauvinist public, I have had worst discussions and never the problem of language has emerged as part of the argumentation.

Now I reckon that most participants here barely read the messages; they just scanned them like a person in a train station does, barely listening the messages given through the loudspeakers just to learn if there was some change of plans. In that poor context is obvious that every word have to be placed precisely or the chap would be forced to read carefully the posts indeed to understand it. Shame on who does this and complain.
 
macdoc said:
Alec

Stop including me in your diatribes. I asked Trakar a question not you. Where did he get 0.2 degree to equilibrium on a stopping cold scenario.?
Click to expand...

Stop playing the fool and using smoke screens. You haven't answered what I asked you on this very subject so I presume confirmed you mixed two scenarios in one.

macdoc said:
+1 to 1.2 ...from where Alec -??? you think you are being clear - you are not.
With no baseline it's meaningless....is this base period: 1951-1980? That's what NASA uses and we are .76C over so above that at 396 ppm.


Alec wrote


So you are not using the NASA baseline at all but one that already includes the .76 observed to date above their baseline.:confused: !!!!!
C'mon Alec that's awfully confusing.
Click to expand...

So, bickering with you is essential to get you reading else's posts. At last you read my posts and it's not confusing at all. As you quoted, it always was over 2013 conditions. It never could have been otherwise, but your confusion exceeds scenarios and extends to baselines.


macdoc said:
How do you square your +1 to 1.2C in 250 years with this from Real Climate



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/can-2c-warming-be-avoided/

and

this from another realclimate article on a stop cold scenario - here is the graph

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/junk album/cc_commitment.jpg



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/climate-change-commitments/

unless you were implying a drop from 2.0 degrees over base period anticipated in the 400 ppm article above, to 1.0 to 1.2C over that same baseline 250 years out.

In other words the global temperature declines with no additional anthro C02.??

At all times under all scenarios with anthro C02, due to the lag, there will be a certain amount of warming to come until equilibrium is reached....when is that point?
From the graph above it's not hitting equlibrium even 300 years out. :boggled:
Click to expand...

I'll take a look to those links tomorrow morning. You are saying a lot of thing at the same time, some of them contradictory. I'll help you out of your confusion, but be patient.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Stop playing the fool and using smoke screens. You haven't answered what I asked you on this very subject so I presume confirmed you mixed two scenarios in one.



So, bickering with you is essential to get you reading else's posts. At last you read my posts and it's not confusing at all. As you quoted, it always was over 2013 conditions. It never could have been otherwise, but your confusion exceeds scenarios and extends to baselines.




I'll take a look to those links tomorrow morning. You are saying a lot of thing at the same time, some of them contradictory. I'll help you out of your confusion, but be patient.
Click to expand...

why do you not simply link to the study you took your numbers from? it would make everything very easy.
 
bobwtfomg said:
If there's been any recent reseach that suggests the ocean is close to stopping being a carbon sink, I'm afraid I missed it.
Click to expand...

The net absorption of CO2 by the oceans depends on imbalances. How much "CO2" can contain ocean water depends on temperature and pressure. The actual average content of inorganic carbon in the oceans is 0.032 g/dm3. Fresh water at normal pressure can hold 0.17g of CO2/dm3 (that's 0.05g of carbon) at 20°C, so basically you would need to heat up the oceans an average of 14°C and throw into them some 50,000 GT of CO2 to saturate them. And I'm still keeping an ace in the sleeve: under high pressure sea water can hold even more carbon -that doesn't mean it actually does, and that's the difference between real risks and hysterical fantasies-.

So, it'd look like there's no problem at all. But the problem is that waters close to the surface can be warm enough to become "reluctant" to absorb more CO2 and that hinders the process that links the atmosphere with the oceans, so it's expected that the ocean system is going to absorb in the future a declining percentage of human emissions and some areas in the ocean are or may become "emitters". But you won't find any risk in the next several decades.

Coupled atmosphere-ocean models include modules dealing with this. You can download some of them or run them on-line. I've had a headache making gmake for Windows work in Windows 7 64bits together with my PERL installation -Active Perl- to compile and run on low resolution GISS GCM ModelE and get by myself the same graphics I was shown in one of the research centers I visit, for instance, that of what happens in a stop cold emissions scenario.
 
Alec - you make mistakes due to language and haste and you are too arrogant to admit it.
And piss off with the patronizing - if I want help from you I'll ask.
I tend to ask Gavin et al instead.
All I'm trying to do is clarify what you won't.
See the preceding post to this.
The confusion you are dishing up as over reaching knowledge isn't.

Providing temperatures as working out of a 2013 baseline is simply ludicrous.

One way to illustrate changes in global atmospheric temperatures is by looking at how far temperatures stray from “normal”, or a baseline. For the following map, NASA picked a baseline period using temperatures between 1951 and 1980, and compared temperature global temperature readings from 2012.


Temperature anomalies are displayed for 2012 (top), and over time (bottom) in this NASA graphic. The warming trend is apparent from the 1880s onward.

NASA’s Earth Observatory blog explains:

The average temperature in 2012 was about 14.6 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), which is 0.55°C (1.0°F) warmer than the mid-20th century base period. The average global temperature has increased 0.8°C (1.4°F) since 1880, and most of that change has occurred in the past four decades.
Click to expand...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...long-term-global-warming-trend-is-continuing/

When I am talking about 4C increase it's from the baseline not from now, it's never been from now for my posts so you can do your own math as to what it means in your non-standard terminology.

Global

The global (land and ocean) average temperature increase between 1850 and 2010 was 0.81 0C using combined UK Met Office Hadley centre and University of East Anglia - Climate Research Unit HadCRUT3 dataset compared to the 1850 - 1899 period average temperature and 0.89 0C using Goddard Institute for Space Studies - GISS dataset compared to the 1880 - 1899 period average temperature. All used temperature records show the 2000s decade (2001 - 2010) was the warmest decade.
For the HadCRUT3 and GISS datasets the rate of the global average has increased from around 0.06 0C per decade over last 100 years, to 0.18 - 0.22 0C in last decade.
The best estimates for projected global warming in this century are a further rise in the global average temperature from 1.8 to 4.0 0C for different scenarios that assume no further/additional action to limit emissions. The EU global temperature target is projected to be exceeded between 2040 and 2060, taking into account all six IPCC scenarios.
Click to expand...

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-m.../global-and-european-temperature-assessment-4
 
Last edited:
aleCcowaN said:
The net absorption of CO2 by the oceans depends on imbalances. How much "CO2" can contain ocean water depends on temperature and pressure. The actual average content of inorganic carbon in the oceans is 0.032 g/dm3. Fresh water at normal pressure can hold 0.17g of CO2/dm3 (that's 0.05g of carbon) at 20°C, so basically you would need to heat up the oceans an average of 14°C and throw into them some 50,000 GT of CO2 to saturate them. And I'm still keeping an ace in the sleeve: under high pressure sea water can hold even more carbon -that doesn't mean it actually does, and that's the difference between real risks and hysterical fantasies-.

So, it'd look like there's no problem at all. But the problem is that waters close to the surface can be warm enough to become "reluctant" to absorb more CO2 and that hinders the process that links the atmosphere with the oceans, so it's expected that the ocean system is going to absorb in the future a declining percentage of human emissions and some areas in the ocean are or may become "emitters". But you won't find any risk in the next several decades.

Coupled atmosphere-ocean models include modules dealing with this. You can download some of them or run them on-line. I've had a headache making gmake for Windows work in Windows 7 64bits together with my PERL installation -Active Perl- to compile and run on low resolution GISS GCM ModelE and get by myself the same graphics I was shown in one of the research centers I visit, for instance, that of what happens in a stop cold emissions scenario.
Click to expand...

that sounds very simplified. and this part of the science is not at all as clear as some might think. as far as i know there still is a huge lack of data especialy from coastal areas. things like the "continental shelf pump" etc and alot of uncertainties. and some simple model runs will not get you a good answer yet.
i would argue this question cannot be answered yet.
 
bobwtfomg said:
It is my, admittedly limited, understanding of the science that almost half of current anthropogenic CO2 emissions are being absorbed by the oceans/biosphere, whilst I've read that there are concerns that these carbon sinks are becoming less effective as temp and ocean CO2 concentration continue to rise, I've not come across the idea that they might suddenly turn into emitters of CO2.
Is this backed by any science? Got a link?
Click to expand...

In the statement you quote me as referring to "natural sources," I am not talking just about the ocean sink. In fact, the surface sinks (major watershed forests, prarielands, and permafrost) are more immediate threats and concern. The northern permafrosts contain at least a doubling of current atmospheric ratios in carbon in the top 3 meters of surface. Much of that will likely be warmed and released within the next century.

"Suddenly," is inaccurate in most common senses of usage. From a geological standpoint, however, anything that happens over a timeframe of less than a millenia is usually considered extraordinarily fast. More to your question, many regions of the planet's oceans are already net emitters of CO2, most especially the surface waters in regions of the equitorial band. This is in tune with statements made by Pixel42. There are many other factors in this general area of consideration, such as upwellings and stratification issues for instance.

In some of areas the deeper colder waters are actually more heavily saturated with CO2 than the warmer surface waters, in areas where upwellings occur this more heavily saturated cold water will not absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere and as it warms on the surface it cannot hold onto all the CO2 that it already has and thus emits some of its load.

What is occurring in other areas of the higher latitude oceans is that we are getting warmer fresher waters overlaying much of the cooler saltier waters that normally drag the CO2 from the surface to the ocean depths in the normal course of the conveyor currents. This stratification reduces the absorption of atmospheric CO2 and causes a stagnation of circulation. I don't see anything that looks like major currents will shutdown but even a slowing of the thermohaline circulations will cause a lot of problems with one of the major heat flow engines of our environment as well as the impact upon CO2 absorption.

The entirety of the oceans do not need to become a saturated CO2 emission source for net oceanic emissions to change dramatically. Until the industrial revolution, it is generally accepted that the oceans were a net source of atmospheric CO2 rather than being a sink, it is only after we started pumping more carbon into the atmosphere that the oceans started trying to play catch-up striving for equilibrium.

References:

"Policy Implications of Warming Permafrost" - http://www.unep.org/pdf/permafrost.pdf

"Amount and timing of permafrost carbon release in response to climate warming" - http://www.researchgate.net/publica...carbon_release_in_response_to_climate_warming

"Soils emitting more carbon dioxide: Trend could exacerbate global warming." - http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100324/full/news.2010.147.html

(following is a term-paper not a journal paper, but is well stocked with supporting references - mainly included for Fig. 1, but the information looks good with a quick look-through)

"The Coastal Ocean:A Source or a Sink of Atmospheric CO2?"
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/MAJOREK_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf

"Wind-Driven Upwelling in the Southern Ocean and the Deglacial Rise in Atmospheric CO2" - https://edit.ethz.ch/umweltphysik/education/biogeochem_cycles/reading_list/anderson_sci_09.pdf

"Impact of the Ocean’s Overturning Circulation on Atmospheric CO2"
http://mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~andreas/pdf/S/schmittner07agu.pdf

This is just a quickly gathered sampling of references retrieved with a quick search, I don't have access to my databases right now but will try to put together a better set of references for you when I return home next weekend, if you'd like.
 
IPCC uses standard terms for different confidence levels:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

FQ4gM2f.png



qF2Xza8.png




Has anyone compiled the most important bits of AGW info together with these IPCC confidence levels to one place?
 
Last edited:
What is the current understanding of the increase in extreme weather events? And what is the confidence / agreement level?

I'm reading the SREX at the moment: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_Full_Report.pdf

...but I'd appreciate a quick summary and relevant quotes / sources to save time!

From the popular media I've received a clear picture that droughts, heat waves, floods, tornados, etc. are all becoming more intense and more numerous because of AGW. I'd like to present IPCC confidence levels with these claims.

EDIT:

Tim Palmer from Oxford on the increase of extreme weather events (1 min 33 sec):

Are extreme weather events going to increase?

 
Last edited:
Here's a short video overview of the SREX report by IPCCGeneva YouTube channel:

Overview of the IPCC Report on Extreme Events (SREX)



Here's a bit more detailed SREX overview (6 min 16 sec):

SREX Presentation: Chris Field at COP18



EDIT: They have a SREX playlist with 7 different video clips: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11970AA1CB21A33C
 
Last edited:
Only two years after record flooding in Queensland, more record flooding, plus a record number of tornadoes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-28/qld-flooding-alert-moves-south/4486666?WT.svl=news0

Both are extreme events, once in a hundred years or decades. Looking like it's more than just a coincidence, and we aren't over this years cyclone season yet. The irony is that the 2011 floods caused major problems for the growing coal mining industry.
 
Erring on the side of least drama?

"Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?"
Keynyn Brysse a,*, Naomi Oreskes b, Jessica O’Reilly c, Michael Oppenheimer d

http://www.wageningenur.nl/upload/f2601035-3fa4-41cb-b0f5-77de713695fc_erring.pdf

9. Conclusion Evidence from recent analyses suggests that scientists, particularly acting in the context of large assessments, may have underestimated the magnitude and rate of expected impacts of anthropogenic climate change. We suggest that this underestimation reflects a systematic bias, which we label ‘‘erring on the side of least drama (ESLD)’’. ESLD is consistent with a broad pattern in earth science, in play since the mid-19th century, of eschewing catastrophic accounts of natural phenomena. While physicists and chemists do not share this particular history, they do share a broader pattern in science of skepticism toward dramatic explanations of natural phenomena. This stance arises, we suggest, from the core scientific values of objectivity, rationality, and dispassion, which lead scientists to be skeptical of any claim that might evoke an emotional response.
Our hypothesis of ESLD is not meant as a criticism of scientists. The culture of science has in most respects served humanity very well. Rather, ESLD provides a context for interpreting scientists’ assessments of risk-laden situations, a challenge faced by the public and policy-makers. In attempting to avoid drama, the scientific community may be biasing its own work—a bias that needs to be appreciated because it could prevent the full recognition, articulation, and acknowledgment of dramatic natural phenomena that may, in fact, be occurring. After all, some phenomena in nature are dramatic. If the drama arises primarily from social, political, or economic impacts, then it is crucial that the associated risk be understood fully, and not discounted.
Click to expand...
 
Kumar said:
A confusion:

When global warming is increasing, how it is too cold this year?
Click to expand...

Global warming has to do with long-term averages. So looking at one single, particular year doesn't really say much.
 
An interesting article on the value of climate research in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4484848.html?WT.svl=theDrum

Research into Australia's unique climate has proven invaluable in dealing with bushfires and other extreme weather threats, writes Fred Hilmer. Shouldn't we also listen to what it says about global warming?

The recent heatwaves and raging bushfires have been a stark reminder of Australia's particular vulnerability to extreme weather events. But amid the chaos and behind the tales of heroism and personal tragedy is a good news story - and it's about the value of science and scientific research.

There can be no doubt that our capacity to accurately predict weather extremes and track potential bushfires has saved lives and property.

That we now have access to remarkably sophisticated and accurate forecasts of impending heat waves and bushfire risk, and management plans in place to minimise their impact, is no accident. It's the result of decades of research and intensive data collection both here and overseas: because of course while weather is local, climate systems are regional and global.

Only continuous investment in serious, substantial research has enabled us to reach our current level of understanding of our dynamic and complex environment - and will enable us to respond and adapt to more extreme and frequent future climatic variations.
Click to expand...
 
Kumar said:
A confusion:

When global warming is increasing, how it is too cold this year?
Click to expand...

Who says it's too cold?

If by "this year" you mean 2013, it's far too early to say anything. If you mean 2012, it was the 10th warmest year since 1880 and 0.57 degrees above average.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom