Rapid Climate Change

[johnholmes]

re your post Roger

'On the other hand, I have found that many are unaware of non-greenhouse sources of arctic warming, especially sooty particulate deposition on the ice cap. This is what is really causing the reduction in polar ice in the northern hemisphere, in my opinion'

no argument there but your next bit is a touch unfair. This has only been happening for much less time than we, the western world, including your new home area, have been doing the same only much worse.

The proof, as far as we are able to find, is that the world has cooled and warmed since its creation. It has also rapidly warmed at times, as it is doing atthe moment. What has NEVER happened before is the input by human beings to the extent it is occurring now. That is what is the question. Not is the earth warming and is man partly responsible, of course he is. I am still open to be shown to what extent. But lets not try and shift the blame for what is happening now on our eastern cousins. We have been doing similar if not worse for very much longer, and still are.

John

[Gray-Wolf]

I must add my weight to the sentiments J.H. has just posted. To somehow remove the people who started global industrialisation from the 'blame field ' is unfair. If it didn't happen here then our companies abroad exploited weaker environmental controls in other (part of the ex-empire?) countries to poison our environment. If you feel the CO2 issue is not being fairly reported then who is responsible for your 'sooty' meltdown and what meteorological results will arise from this reduced albedo??

Our planet is slowly outgassing as it reorganises its constituents under gravity. Occasionally this 'outgassing' is on a massive scale (i.e. when a rift valley becomes a proto ocean) but never before has 'captured carbon' that has lain burried and away from the open atmosphere for geologic ages been re-released back into the environment. The CO2 that the flooding of the Deccan traps produced during the Tertiary volcanics occured over a number of thousands of years and its effects on the planets weather and eccosystem is well documented within the geological record, our releasing of the mega tons of CO2 has occured over 150yrs. Just like the atmosphere and it's 'environmental lag' with the seasons their is a 'timelag' for the effects of this extra gas to become fully apparent. I fear that at present we are still only feeling the effects from the mid 20th century 'load ' of gasses and the suppression of temperature rises that 'global dimming' caused has further skewed this to give the impression of little if any change occuring (the ongoing climate change study the BBC promoted had to be restarted when the models failed to reproduce the climate over the 20th century, the models were showing temps a good 1c above our current levels, they discovered that this would have been our climate had global dimming not happened over the second half of the 20th century to keep the temp. rise pegged)The planet is currently pushing out the greatest levels of CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution and the planetary drive is to 'clean up our act' reducing the mitigating effects of global dimming and accellerating the temperature increases.

As I posted earlier the collapse of our Ant/arctic Ice sheets is already ongoing and unstoppable. The full climatic implications of this seems unfathomable at present and may only be fully understood retrospectively (as with the collapse of the Antarctic ice shelves over the past decade) There are no winners and losers in global warming just losers, there will be no joy in saying "I told you so" as our world rapidly disolves around us so maybe living in denial of the fact that change is real and here is the only way to 'gain' out of the whole shebang..

[John Cox]

I have a simple view and I have a said this before.

3/4 of the planet is water. I dont now how much of the total of the land is densly populated but as a percentage I would say it is very small.

We think that we are the centre of the universe or in this case the earth. But this is truely not the case.

I dont believe that we have much influence of the climate of the earth.

Edited May 25, 2006 by John Cox

[Guest Mike W]

I think theirs going to be the odd reply or two to that .

Edited May 25, 2006 by Mike W

[Dawlish]

I think theirs going to be the odd reply or two to that .

dyawanna edit the spelling in that Mike!

[The Penguin]

Precisely, JC.

The great thing about Ikea furniture is that it’s simple and fashionable. Of course, the problem with Ikea furniture is also that it’s simple and fashionable.

The same can be said for the ‘I Know Everything Always’ type of argument, as it tends to pick up on the simple (purportedly incontrovertible) elements of a fashionable point of view and present them as absolute facts. Some climate change proponents’ offerings are very often reminiscent of that ultimately unsatisfying product.

[Optimus Prime]

Only 3 percent of total land area in the world is covered by urbanisation. That occupies around 3 billion people.

Although 25% of the world land area has been used by humans for Agriculture, roads, houses, ect.

Urbanisation could cover as much as 6-10% of the worlds land surface in 100 years.

[Scribbler]

KW, do you know any specific site that can give detailed, graphed presentation of the changes in the average temperature across the globe for the last century? I think it would make an interesting read

Good evening all

I think that the site you're looking for is http://www.junkscience.com

Scroll down to the "Warming" features box and select the records you want. It's all there - at least I hope it is!

[Roger J Smith]

The only point I was trying to make about eastern Asia was that the Kyoto protocols tend to let the developing nations off the hook for the time being, and this seems to be a bad approach to a supposedly global problem. I've never argued that they are primarily responsible for rising carbon dioxide levels, but we do need to be aware that there are huge pollution issues developing in China in particular. I don't consider it "unfair" to hold China to the same standards as the rest of the world, they are becoming quite a wealthy country and they should maintain the same standards in all areas of life, what's the justification for giving them a better deal than the rest of the world? If the truth came out about China, I doubt that people would buy their products or want to attend the 2008 Olympics -- there are largely unspoken concerns about human rights and environmental issues in China, but our media tilts so far to the left that they are given virtually a free ride (just as the Soviet Union was for many years, until Chernobyl). Also there is no real recognition in Kyoto of the sooty deposition problem which is the one thing I would accept as already proven in this debate. But I'm not an apologist for carbon emissions, in fact I would like to see technological change proceed as fast as possible, for any number of reasons. There is no good reason to remain dependent on oil, not environmental, political or economic.

As for Canada being my new home, well I moved here forty-nine years ago today, so I've lived here 90% of my life. Canadian political opinion on global warming tends to be divided right down the middle as with most other topics, but is more similar to European public opinion than American on most issues. There's a lot going on here in Vancouver on the alternate fuel scene, for example there's a company just a mile away from my house here that is trying to develop a workable hydrogen based fuel technology with considerable government support. I'm not sure how far along they are, but they haven't blown up yet, which is encouraging. The local air quality has been improved by 50% in recent years by strict regulations on automobile emissions -- you have to have your car tested every year here and if it doesn't pass you can't renew your registration until it does pass. I'm not sure if they have anything like that in Europe, but it's spreading to other urban parts of Canada. Also, there are a lot of hybrid fuel cars and light trucks on the road now, and city buses that run on cleaner natural gas.

The other point that is worth making since this has become a politicized debate is that there is often no correlation between a political party's rhetoric on this issue, and its track record. Our Liberal Party in Canada got the boot recently, and one of the issues that came up was that while they were big fans of Kyoto, they had traded off pollution credits with developing countries and our emissions had dropped less than even the United States, while the former prime minister was running on how much better his values were than George Bush. Even Bono, who was a big friend of our former PM, said he found our record to be pretty grim.

[Dawlish]

The only point I was trying to make about eastern Asia was that the Kyoto protocols tend to let the developing nations off the hook for the time being, and this seems to be a bad approach to a supposedly global problem. I've never argued that they are primarily responsible for rising carbon dioxide levels, but we do need to be aware that there are huge pollution issues developing in China in particular. I don't consider it "unfair" to hold China to the same standards as the rest of the world, they are becoming quite a wealthy country and they should maintain the same standards in all areas of life, what's the justification for giving them a better deal than the rest of the world? If the truth came out about China, I doubt that people would buy their products or want to attend the 2008 Olympics -- there are largely unspoken concerns about human rights and environmental issues in China, but our media tilts so far to the left that they are given virtually a free ride (just as the Soviet Union was for many years, until Chernobyl). Also there is no real recognition in Kyoto of the sooty deposition problem which is the one thing I would accept as already proven in this debate. But I'm not an apologist for carbon emissions, in fact I would like to see technological change proceed as fast as possible, for any number of reasons. There is no good reason to remain dependent on oil, not environmental, political or economic.

As for Canada being my new home, well I moved here forty-nine years ago today, so I've lived here 90% of my life. Canadian political opinion on global warming tends to be divided right down the middle as with most other topics, but is more similar to European public opinion than American on most issues. There's a lot going on here in Vancouver on the alternate fuel scene, for example there's a company just a mile away from my house here that is trying to develop a workable hydrogen based fuel technology with considerable government support. I'm not sure how far along they are, but they haven't blown up yet, which is encouraging. The local air quality has been improved by 50% in recent years by strict regulations on automobile emissions -- you have to have your car tested every year here and if it doesn't pass you can't renew your registration until it does pass. I'm not sure if they have anything like that in Europe, but it's spreading to other urban parts of Canada. Also, there are a lot of hybrid fuel cars and light trucks on the road now, and city buses that run on cleaner natural gas.

The other point that is worth making since this has become a politicized debate is that there is often no correlation between a political party's rhetoric on this issue, and its track record. Our Liberal Party in Canada got the boot recently, and one of the issues that came up was that while they were big fans of Kyoto, they had traded off pollution credits with developing countries and our emissions had dropped less than even the United States, while the former prime minister was running on how much better his values were than George Bush. Even Bono, who was a big friend of our former PM, said he found our record to be pretty grim.

Hi Roger.

I'm still not clear on your planetary magnetic fields and your idea that they could affect our climate and I'm not sure about this generalisation about public opinion in Canada

"Canadian political opinion on global warming tends to be divided right down the middle as with most other topics",

Is it really? if you asked Canadians (or Americans, or Brits) a question "At present, is the world warming?", would opinion be split right down the middle, or would the vast majority of Canadians (and an even larger, overwhelming majority of Canadian scientists) say that Global warming is a reality?

Such bland statements actually have their own agenda - they imply that there is a well accepted scientific case for GW not happening. I'd certainly dispute that there is any, well accepted, case for GW not happening and I doubt that a significant number of Canadians believe that GW isn't a reality. I would actually think, in percentage terms, that public opinion anywhere in the developed world is nothing like split down the middle about GW. I would attest that the majority of people accept that our planet is warming....and that they would be correct in thinking so.

[johnholmes]

hi from JC

'I dont believe that we have much influence of the climate of the earth.'

John do you honestly believe that or are you taking the michael?

John

[John Cox]

hi from JC

'I dont believe that we have much influence of the climate of the earth.'

John do you honestly believe that or are you taking the michael?

John

Hi John,

No Michael taking.

Let me clarify.

I believe that peoples perception of reality, especially those living in large urban areas, is that they are at the centre of the earth (everything revolves around them), in that they have an exaggerated view of their importance and influence on any events and this includes climate change.

Now, I am not saying that humans do not have some influence on our climate; it would be silly to say so. What I believe is that we have much, much less influence than we imagine we have. The saying “perception is reality” definitely does not apply in this case.

Perhaps you can help me out here John. Yes, we know the population is growing quite rapidly and within urban areas, as a result of this growth, temperatures are on the rise. When we hear that global temperatures have risen over the last x years where are theses measurements being taken from? If they are from thermometers mainly within urban areas then this gives a false result of overall global temperatures. Perhaps temperatures are even higher than we are recording and ice is melting more rapidly for other reasons rather than the effect we are causing.

Perhaps the temperatures are falling in rural areas? If this is the case are these drops in temperatures being recorded on the same volume (recorded stations) as the number that is being recorded in urban areas?

As the world is ¾ water how do we know whether temperatures are being recorded in ocean areas on the same scale as in urban areas? It does not take much imagination to guess that the temperatures are not being recorded as much in these areas as in urban areas.

Of course I admit that global warming is happening (ice is melting quite rapidly) but it is whether we humans are causing it or have as much influence on this warming is what I am questioning. GW has happened in the past when there was much less of us mortals around. Now I am no scientist so I probably cannot offer much to the debate in that respect.

But I do have a strong opinion, whether it is correct or not I do not know, and that is that we are not as important to the effect on climate change on this earth as we think we are having.

A totally subjective view and perhaps a lot of twaddle but my view for what it is worth.

Edited May 26, 2006 by John Cox

[johnholmes]

thanks John,

good post, I hope you will excuse me not answering just now, I'm just off for the weekend, and your post deserves some thought before I reply.

regards and have a good weekend in the Emerald Isle.

John

Edited May 26, 2006 by johnholmes

[John Cox]

thanks John,

good post, I hope you will excuse me not answering just now, I'm just off for the weekend, and your post deserves some thought before I reply.

regards and have a good weekend in the Emerald Isle.

John

Enjoy your weekend too and catch up next week.

[The PIT]

My own belief that Global Warming is happening but is mostly natural and the human factor only a small contribution to event.

It seems that most reports are alarmist in nature and this makes me wonder if the alarmist nature is driven by the need for increased grants. No problem = No further grants.

Cutting down on emmsions is a good idea anyway as it makes for more pleasant enviroment anyway.

[kold weather]

Very intresting post John. The problem with your arguement about urban areas is the amount of weather stations across the entire planet. There are weather stations way up on mountions where you can certainly say its rural, have also seen large teperature rises.

Sea temperatures may seem hard to calculate, but even here satelites have been recording ocean temps for a good 25-30 years now (with regions in the tropics having been measured since 1950) have shown that overall surface temps are also rising.

Here's a table showing temps in the tropical regions of the Atlantic. Granted its only one region and it may well be the case thats its being altered by some local cycles but it shows a rather large increase in temps upwards at a similar rate to what the globe's been warming, its actually pretty uniform since about 1995, though this may be partly to do with the atlantic being in its warm cycle presently (Hence the upsurge of hurricanes...)

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Correlation/tna.data

Also while I'm here, can I dispel a common myth while I'm here. GW is NOT raising tropical cyclone actvity across the globe. Yes the Atlantic has seen a massive upsurge but overall there has been no rise on planet earth since at least the 80's.

Also, worth pointing out that ever increasing sea temperatures probably won't make a massive difference in terms of raising the strength of hurricanes. Because if you use common sense. If GW warms the seas, it'll also warm the upper temps which are a key part of the strength of a hurricane so actually you'll get no real gain on hurricane strength, or you'd get very little.

[Dawlish]

Very intresting post John. The problem with your arguement about urban areas is the amount of weather stations across the entire planet. There are weather stations way up on mountions where you can certainly say its rural, have also seen large teperature rises.

Sea temperatures may seem hard to calculate, but even here satelites have been recording ocean temps for a good 25-30 years now (with regions in the tropics having been measured since 1950) have shown that overall surface temps are also rising.

Here's a table showing temps in the tropical regions of the Atlantic. Granted its only one region and it may well be the case thats its being altered by some local cycles but it shows a rather large increase in temps upwards at a similar rate to what the globe's been warming, its actually pretty uniform since about 1995, though this may be partly to do with the atlantic being in its warm cycle presently (Hence the upsurge of hurricanes...)

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Correlation/tna.data

Also while I'm here, can I dispel a common myth while I'm here. GW is NOT raising tropical cyclone actvity across the globe. Yes the Atlantic has seen a massive upsurge but overall there has been no rise on planet earth since at least the 80's.

Also, worth pointing out that ever increasing sea temperatures probably won't make a massive difference in terms of raising the strength of hurricanes. Because if you use common sense. If GW warms the seas, it'll also warm the upper temps which are a key part of the strength of a hurricane so actually you'll get no real gain on hurricane strength, or you'd get very little.

Thanks kold. Well said on all counts. The idea that you can use the spread of urban environments to question whether GW is actually happening is a bit of an old chestnut. The NOAA monitors world temperatures and as I've said before, there are over 7000 monitoring sites, with readings taken daily. NOAA studies have shown that both urban and rural sites have shown similar increases in temperature and the sites which have been affected by urban encroachment have been taken into account with the graphing of temperature rise. Satellite monitoring is used too and old doubts about the validity of this have been similarly assuaged.

PS May I ask again if someone can tell me how to use the "quote" button to reply to a small part of someone's post?? I know I'm thick, but I can't do it!!

[Gray-Wolf]

Also while I'm here, can I dispel a common myth while I'm here. GW is NOT raising tropical cyclone actvity across the globe. Yes the Atlantic has seen a massive upsurge but overall there has been no rise on planet earth since at least the 80's.

Also, worth pointing out that ever increasing sea temperatures probably won't make a massive difference in terms of raising the strength of hurricanes. Because if you use common sense. If GW warms the seas, it'll also warm the upper temps which are a key part of the strength of a hurricane so actually you'll get no real gain on hurricane strength, or you'd get very little.

I don't know if you should sound as though this is the final word on the subject. My understanding (and do correct me if I have been mis informed) was that the extra 'heat' available to the storms meant that they effectively grew taller (punching through the tropopause and on into the stratosphere) If this didn't occur then I'd be forced to concede that the potential difference in temps from the cloud base to the cloud tops would remain constant as the whole system heats up at a constant rate, as it is the increase in temperature is effective producing a taller troposphere leading to the massive differences in temperature from cloud base to cloud tops (as if the lower level has been extended as the cloud top temps are the area least affected and remain within the ranges we are accustomed to) I have a pet theory that the 'hybred storm/hurricanes owe their unique existance to there 'extra' developmental height and so confound the experts by growing in 'cool' water and outliving their predicted lifespans. The 'superstorm' that produced Boscastle was incredibly high and the Meto put this extra height as the main reason for what happened there.

The same could be said for our anomalous sea temps but the depth of heating/mixing may be key here (as the warm current around Cuba over the past few years has shown us) and these really DO influence the size and ferrocity of Hurricanes (as last years major storms highlighted).

[kold weather]

The key is Gray-Wolf is just how fast the upper parts of the atmopshere is warming in comprasion to the sea temps. The warming of the seas probably has a little to do with the increase in strength, but I don't think its really that great, maybe 5mph difference for every 1C above average or something like that I'd think as increased height of CB's do make a little bit of a difference in terms of strength I suppose, but its certainluy not the main fdriver in making the storms stronger.

The main problem is hurricanes also require a certain temp at higher levels, something like -60C. now the higher the temps at the surface the lower that -60C can go but with the higher regions warming you really see no net gain. In the end its all down to laspe rates, course the bigger the CB's are, the bigger the lapse rates can become and the astronger the storms get the larger the CB's can become so I suppose an increase in SST's will make a small difference.

On your second point, its worth remembering that actually cloud tops weren't that high, so I don't think it was the extra hieght to the clouds that had any impact to the strength of the clouds, in fact NHC even state that low cloud tops was what saved those hurricanes from being smashed apart by shear.

I tend to favor another idea that involves cold upper air temps (which goes back to my first point) Upper temps were much colder then over the tropics for those hybrids, so while SST's were lower, the lapse rates were very similar which mant a similar amount of energy was aviable to those storms as the one in the south.

What we saw when it came to the Loop current was when the storm arrived over the loop current the lapse rates increased greatly which meant more energy for he storm and more power. The same thing for the Gulf stream.

I'm sorry, I should have said this was all my veiws on my first post but I forgot, so I'll just say it now!

[Thundery wintry showers]

For the record, although I like to keep an open mind on climate change, my views are similar to those of John and Superted. I do think that the balance of evidence suggests that humans are having some input.

As for whether GW will cause storms and tropical events to get stronger, I think we can only theorise at this stage. The atmosphere is so complicated in the way that it works, that there are all manner of possibilities- that's why academics are developing highly complex models for these sort of things.

The main things that can't be disputed IMO are: A. the planet is getting warmer, B. climate change has always happened and the planet has always undergone warming and cooling phases, C. humans are pumping pollutants into the atmosphere that, scientific evidence suggests, could be increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

[Dawlish]

For the record, although I like to keep an open mind on climate change, my views are similar to those of John and Superted. I do think that the balance of evidence suggests that humans are having some input.

As for whether GW will cause storms and tropical events to get stronger, I think we can only theorise at this stage. The atmosphere is so complicated in the way that it works, that there are all manner of possibilities- that's why academics are developing highly complex models for these sort of things.

The main things that can't be disputed IMO are: A. the planet is getting warmer, B. climate change has always happened and the planet has always undergone warming and cooling phases, C. humans are pumping pollutants into the atmosphere that, scientific evidence suggests, could be increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

I agree TWS; 3 indisputable facts. The three things that are in dispute (and fascinating the discussion about the dispute is) are:

1. Will the global warming continue?

2. What is causing it?

3. Can anything be done about GW?

For 1, I'd go for yes - the bulk of the the evidence points to a continuition; for 2, I'd go for probably humans, but I could be convinced by something else, rather than increasing CO2, being the cause of the warming; for 3, Dunno, until the cause is determined. Until then we may be doing things which will prove entirely unnecessary, or not doing anything like enough!

[The Eagle]

I agree TWS; 3 indisputable facts. The three things that are in dispute (and fascinating the discussion about the dispute is) are:

1. Will the global warming continue?

2. What is causing it?

3. Can anything be done about GW?

For 1, I'd go for yes - the bulk of the the evidence points to a continuition; for 2, I'd go for probably humans, but I could be convinced by something else, rather than increasing CO2, being the cause of the warming; for 3, Dunno, until the cause is determined. Until then we may be doing things which will prove entirely unnecessary, or not doing anything like enough!

1. Will Global Warming continue? No one knows.

2: What is causing it? No one knows.

3. Can anything be done about GW? No one knows.

I really dont think we know enough about the issue for anyone to give a right or wrong answer to any of those questions tbh.

[John Cox]

1. Will Global Warming continue? No one knows.

2: What is causing it? No one knows.

3. Can anything be done about GW? No one knows.

I really dont think we know enough about the issue for anyone to give a right or wrong answer to any of those questions tbh.

Hi icicles,

A real Irish response (Non commital).

If I had to pin my colours to the mats I would not disagree with you.

However.... I would say the signs are "possibly" there that global warming is happening and the NAD is "possibly" shutting down.

I agree TWS; 3 indisputable facts. The three things that are in dispute (and fascinating the discussion about the dispute is) are:

1. Will the global warming continue?

2. What is causing it?

3. Can anything be done about GW?

For 1, I'd go for yes - the bulk of the the evidence points to a continuition; for 2, I'd go for probably humans, but I could be convinced by something else, rather than increasing CO2, being the cause of the warming; for 3, Dunno, until the cause is determined. Until then we may be doing things which will prove entirely unnecessary, or not doing anything like enough!

Hi Dawlish,

Agree with your view on 1 & 3.

Disagree with 2. Dont think humans are mainly responsble.

Edited May 27, 2006 by John Cox

[The Eagle]

Hi icicles,

A real Irish response (Non commital).

If I had to pin my colours to the mats I would not disagree with you.

However.... I would say the signs are "possibly" there that global warming is happening and the NAD is "possibly" shutting down.

Hi John,

I was going to reply to the post first but then I spotted this:

'the NAD is "possibly" shutting down.' We might actually see some real winter weather then

Im more confused then anything about the whole theory. So many different takes on it and both sides think they are right

[John Cox]

Hi John,

I was going to reply to the post first but then I spotted this:

'the NAD is "possibly" shutting down.' We might actually see some real winter weather then

Im more confused then anything about the whole theory. So many different takes on it and both sides think they are right

Hi Icicles.

Apart from the scientific theories that the NAD is beginning to shut down the fact that the atlantic has been generally quiet for the last 18 months makes me think that this change might have actually commenced

As you said "who knows for certain" is of course the big question.

All i know is that the answer may well be shown over the next few years. If it does not happen i will be the first to hold my hands up and say that my view was wrong.