Global Not-warming-as-much-as-they-say

[parmenides3]

Ooos sorry, I'll ask for the mods to remove it right away.

I remember this one. He got slammed for the article. If that's his opinion, fine, but when the Mail presents it, the impression is that it has credibility (Eco-warrior say AGW is a lie). I reckon Warwick Hughes wrote it! By the way, No. 1 AHS has some new stuff to post; just waiting for the opportunity...

:)P

On the other one, Mr. S. Some of the points he makes have value. He may well be right that reducing CO2 emissions isn't going to make enough difference, for example. But his argument against AGW is weak. If he has never seen hard evidence for AGW he hasn't looked very hard. And the 'hockey stick?: http://darwin.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11676.pdf

Nobody is arguing, as he implies, that natural change doesn't occur, what they are arguing is that our emissions effect the climate. they are also arguing that more emissions will effect the climate more. He is entitled not to believe this, but there is plenty of evidence for the link between CO2 and global temperature, and plenty of evidence that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. To claim that this is irrelevant because the climate has always changed sort of misses the point.

If you want, I'll give you more on some of the other 'suspect' statements he makes.

:)P

Edited October 2, 2006 by parmenides3

[Dawlish]

I remember this one. He got slammed for the article. If that's his opinion, fine, but when the Mail presents it, the impression is that it has credibility (Eco-warrior say AGW is a lie). I reckon Warwick Hughes wrote it! By the way, No. 1 AHS has some new stuff to post; just waiting for the opportunity...

:)P

On the other one, Mr. S. Some of the points he makes have value. He may well be right that reducing CO2 emissions isn't going to make enough difference, for example. But his argument against AGW is weak. If he has never seen hard evidence for AGW he hasn't looked very hard. And the 'hockey stick?: http://darwin.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11676.pdf

Nobody is arguing, as he implies, that natural change doesn't occur, what they are arguing is that our emissions effect the climate. they are also arguing that more emissions will effect the climate more. He is entitled not to believe this, but there is plenty of evidence for the link between CO2 and global temperature, and plenty of evidence that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. To claim that this is irrelevant because the climate has always changed sort of misses the point.

If you want, I'll give you more on some of the other 'suspect' statements he makes.

:)P

I missed the 2004 date on the Bellamy article! I had a feeling it wasn't just me that would have found that article ridiculous. Some more web research just shows how much he got slammed for it. Doesn't matter to the Daily Mole. They got a headline which their Woganesque readers (hey I won't hear a word against the man - he makes me laugh, most every morning on the way into work and I forgive him his complete and utter ignorance about climate change) wanted to hear and it helped to sell the newspaper, but Professor Bellamy! He ought to be ashamed of doing that interview. It's these geographers that try to make out they know something about science that get me!

Paul

Edited October 2, 2006 by Dawlish

[The Penguin]

I agree with you about the magnificent Wogan; it’s just his Jesuit doctrine that prefers God’s will over man’s influence and presupposes against change in general. Although he may not be ignorant of the facts, merely unconvinced.

[parmenides3]

I'm sure the might Wogan would enjoy this one:

Antarctic ozone hole nears record - U.N. agency

22 Sep 2006 14:45:48 GMT

Source: Reuters

Printable view | Email this article | RSS [-]Text [+]

GENEVA, Sept 22 (Reuters) - The hole over Antarctica's ozone layer is bigger than last year and is nearing the record 29-million-square-km (11-million-sq-mile) hole seen in 2000, the World Meteorological Organisation said on Friday.

Geir Braathen, the United Nations weather agency's top ozone expert, said ozone depletion had a late onset in this year's southern hemisphere winter, when low temperatures normally trigger chemical reactions that break down the atmospheric layer that filters dangerous solar radiation.

"The ozone depletion started quite late, but when it started it came quite rapidly," Braathen told journalists in Geneva.

"It (the hole) has now risen to a level that has passed last year's, and is very close to, if not equal to, the ozone hole size of 2003, and also approaching the size of 2000," he said.

The Antarctic ozone hole was at its second-largest in 2003.

While use of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) has waned, Braathen said large amounts of chlorine and bromine remain in the atmosphere and would keep causing large reductions in the Antarctic ozone layer for many years to come.

"We will for the next couple of decades expect to see recurring ozone holes of the size that we see now," he said.

The WMO and the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) said in August that the protective layer would likely return to pre-1980 levels by 2049 over much of Europe, North America, Asia, Australasia, Latin America and Africa.

In Antarctica, the agencies said ozone layer recovery would likely be delayed until 2065.

Am I off-topic? What is this thread about anyway?

:)P

[Mr Sleet]

Interesting summary of a Loehle paper (plus references) from 2004. Makes a convincing case that all of the warming in the 20th C was natural.

Also identifies an abrupt warming starting in the early 1400's until the mid 1500's , similar to our current situation, where there has been a gradual increase for the past 100 years.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien.../V7/N4/EDIT.jsp

[parmenides3]

Interesting summary of a Loehle paper (plus references) from 2004. Makes a convincing case that all of the warming in the 20th C was natural.

Also identifies an abrupt warming starting in the early 1400's until the mid 1500's , similar to our current situation, where there has been a gradual increase for the past 100 years.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien.../V7/N4/EDIT.jsp

I think the Loehle paper probably is interesting; there are plenty of googly references to it, but I wouldn't necessarily have chosen this site for a commentary on it: CO2 Science is run by the Idso family, who are funded by Exxon. So what? you may say. Sites such as these are controversial; they can often take material out of context and misrepresent the data (I'm not suggesting that they have done that here, necessarily). I haven't yet found a critique of the Loehle paper; when I do, I'll get back to you. Good find, though. By the way, Loehle is also cited on Steve McIntyre's blog, Climate Audit.

:)P

[BrickFielder]

There is a real risk that people get tunnel vision about greenhouse gases and specifically CO2. There have been times on earth when CO2 was significantly higher than it is today and in fact it is only over the last few centuries that large forest fires and grassland fires have been to some extent tamed(Anyone remember stubble burning where fields across the UK were set on fire). Even the science of the greenhouse gas does not work to well, as the dynamics of the atmosphere are different to the air inside a greenhouse. If temperatures increase then more cloud should be produced which reflects more light (depending on the height of the cloud) which reduces temperature. It is a bit like painting the outside of your greenhouse glass silver which just leaves you with a cold dark room.

This does not mean the green house affect of CO2 is not real, it means that to some extent it is mitigated and there are negative feedback mechanisms which may limit its affect. By focusing solely on CO2 we ignore particulates, NOX (nitrogen oxides),CFC's and other potentially sources of global warming. No wonder european emission controls are looked apon as being a bit half hearted and focused in the wrong areas. Changes to ozone concentrations and other chemical changes in the stratosphere may well be having a much greater affect on global temperatures than greenhouse gases.

Edited October 4, 2006 by BrickFielder

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Thanks for that graph BF. Certainly one of the most interesting and intreuging graph i've seen.

[parmenides3]

Don't assume that I'm going to contradict you, Brickf.; I think you have several valid points. But what is the 'message' of the graph, please?

:)P

[The Penguin]

Whatever else this shows, to me the pertinent points seem to be, 1, average global temperature appears to be regulated within the range 12C to 22C, and 2, there must be other factors constraining this regulation to a far higher extent than CO2 does.

Of course, we’ll have to keep an eye on this for the next 600 million years or so to see if the present trend continues or a currently subjugated trend arises.

[parmenides3]

Whatever else this shows, to me the pertinent points seem to be, 1, average global temperature appears to be regulated within the range 12C to 22C, and 2, there must be other factors constraining this regulation to a far higher extent than CO2 does.

Of course, we’ll have to keep an eye on this for the next 600 million years or so to see if the present trend continues or a currently subjugated trend arises.

One word: Sun.

Second words: relevance to today?

last word (you wiDoh a dumb swear filter got the better of me): Vostok.

:)P

[Devonian]

Whatever else this shows, to me the pertinent points seem to be, 1, average global temperature appears to be regulated within the range 12C to 22C, and 2, there must be other factors constraining this regulation to a far higher extent than CO2 does.

Of course, we’ll have to keep an eye on this for the next 600 million years or so to see if the present trend continues or a currently subjugated trend arises.

A highly speculative graph. I'll try to dig out more on it. Suffice to say, treat it with suspicion. Why? Becuase it's what sceptics want to see...

[Essan]

A highly speculative graph. I'll try to dig out more on it. Suffice to say, treat it with suspicion. Why? Becuase it's what sceptics want to see...

Sceptics? Why would they want to see graphs like this? It's hardly persuasive of anything. It might suit AGW deniers who don't understand much about Earth's history though ...

We can only have a rough idea of paleo temps and CO2 concentrations, but the graph looks familiar to me from pre-AGW, geology, days, so it's probably about right. Totally meaningless as far as the current debate is concerned of course since you can't compare like with unlike - and I'm pretty sure the Sun is stroinger today, the continenets configured differently and all manner of other things have changed over the past 1,000,000,000 years or so

[West is Best]

There is a real risk that people get tunnel vision about greenhouse gases and specifically CO2. There have been times on earth when CO2 was significantly higher than it is today

Completely untrue. Latest levels are higher than at any time in the previous 650,000 years of measurable levels. In fact the current rate passing 400 ppm is twice as high as at any other time.

All indicators point conclusively to AGW - and the rate is now so dramatic and sharp that even alarmists of a few years ago are looking like moderates today.

Only non-scientists argue against human affected Global Warming these days. Of 928 peer reviewed papers in scientific journals over the last decade not one argued against AGW, in contrast to 55% that did in the popular press. The sceptic argument is put out by the energy lobbies and has no basis in fact. Graphs such as the one BF put up are entirely spurious - they are based on zero scientific measurement.

There is no debate.

Edited October 4, 2006 by West is Best

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

There is no debate.

Come on Richard...there is no such thing as 'no debate'.

[West is Best]

Come on Richard...there is no such thing as 'no debate'.

Really?

As I mentioned just now in the GW thread ... and as Al Gore persuasively concludes in An Inconvenient Truth, would you debate with Hitler?

Some things are too important to mess with anymore, and this is one of them. The debate's over. It's time for action.

[Essan]

Really?

As I mentioned just now in the GW thread ... and as Al Gore persuasively concludes in An Inconvenient Truth, would you debate with Hitler?

Well, Gore has been campaigning against global warming for 30 years .... so he must be right!

There is little question that CO2 levels are now higher than at any time in recent geological times, nor that such an increase is a result of human activity ie burning fossil fuels.

To what extent that increase in CO2 impacts on regional climate changes is another matter and most definitely open to debate. As indeed is how current climatic changes compare with the past few thousand years during which similar conditions to today have occurred with much lower CO2 levels (arctic sea ice may soon be down to 2,200BC levels for example )

Of course, I do agree more with you call for action: if that means reducing energy consumption and general pollution Makes me laugh how folk in the UK complain about their energy bills. Bit like standing in the rain and complaining that you're getting wet .... )

Edited October 4, 2006 by Essan

[Gray-Wolf]

My, my that graph does illustrate the reduction in global vulcanism as the moons distance from the Earth increased over time .

[parmenides3]

My, my that graph does illustrate the reduction in global vulcanism as the moons distance from the Earth increased over time .

You'll enjoy this, then:

Millennial Climate Variability: Is There a Tidal Connection?

Walter MunkA, Matthew DzieciuchA, A. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, and Steven JayneBB. CIRES and Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

ABSTRACT

Orbital forcing has long been the subject of two quite separate communities: the tide community is concerned with the relatively rapid gravitational forces (periods up to 18.6 yr) and the climate community with the long-period Milankovitch insolation terms (exceeding 20 000 yr). The wide gap notwithstanding, the two subjects have much in common. Keeling and Whorf have proposed that the millennial climate variability is associated with high-frequency tidal forcing extending into the 10-octave gap by some nonlinear process. Here, the authors distinguish between two quite distinct processes for generating low frequencies: (i) the “traditional” analogy with eclipse cycles associated with near coincidence of the appropriate orbital alignment of the Sun, the Moon, and Earth, and (ii) sum and differences of tidal frequencies and their harmonics producing low beat frequencies. The first process is associated with long time intervals between extreme tides, but the events are of short duration and only marginally higher than conventional high tides. With proper nonlinearities, (ii) can lead to low-frequency tidal forcing. A few candidate frequencies in the centurial and millennial band are found, which prominently include the Keeling and Whorf forcing at 1795 yr. This is confirmed by a numerical experiment with a computer-generated tidal time series of 275 000 yr. Tidal forcing is very weak and an unlikely candidate for millennial variability; the Keeling and Whorf proposal is considered as the most likely among unlikely candidates.

Manuscript received February 19, 2001, in final form July 27, 2001

DOI: 10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<0370:MCVITA>2.0.CO;2

:)P

[BrickFielder]

Completely untrue. Latest levels are higher than at any time in the previous 650,000 years of measurable levels. In fact the current rate passing 400 ppm is twice as high as at any other time.

All indicators point conclusively to AGW - and the rate is now so dramatic and sharp that even alarmists of a few years ago are looking like moderates today.

Only non-scientists argue against human affected Global Warming these days. Of 928 peer reviewed papers in scientific journals over the last decade not one argued against AGW, in contrast to 55% that did in the popular press. The sceptic argument is put out by the energy lobbies and has no basis in fact. Graphs such as the one BF put up are entirely spurious - they are based on zero scientific measurement.

There is no debate.

I am not arguing about whether AGWis happening I am questioning whether CO2 is the main cause. The graph is produced by a combination of measuring air trapped within frozen ice and fossil measurements and I suspect shows semblance of truth.

A 1993 model by Jim Kasting of Pennsylvania State University estimates that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the Earth's early atmosphere must have been 10 times to as much as 10,000 times today's level, in order to compensate for the young (and fainter) sun. Now, a measurement of the fossil record using a new instrument has confirmed a portion of the model. Atmospheric CO2 level 1.4 billion years ago was at least ten to 200 times greater than today, according to the new research.

The findings are reported in the September 18, 2003, issue of Nature by Alan Jay Kaufman of the geology department at the University of Maryland and Shuhai Xiao of the geosciences department at Virginia Tech ("High CO2 levels in the Proterozoic atmosphere estimated from analyses of individual microfossils").

I can see your argument that only the last 650,000 years is relevant . It was interesting to read Dr Corinne Le Quéré report from the british antartic survey group about CO2 level measurements and how CO2 levels noticeably began to rise around 250 years ago. This would tend to coincide with the start of large scale clearing of forests across northern and southern America and across large parts of Europe (Linking reduction in absorption rather than emissions to temperature). If you graph CO2 levels (raw data from the ice cores) and temperatures over the last 300 years then there is at first glance (adjustment for solar output puts it slightly better) poor correlation between temperatures and CO2. The only stastitically conclusive affect on temperatures is by aerosols from volcanic eruptions, which is why I maintain that CFC's and other forms of emission are equally if not more important than CO2.

CFC's and ozone

[parmenides3]

I am not arguing about whether AGWis happening I am questioning whether CO2 is the main cause. The graph is produced by a combination of measuring air trapped within frozen ice and fossil measurements and I suspect shows semblance of truth.

I can see your argument that only the last 650,000 years is relevant . It was interesting to read Dr Corinne Le Quéré report from the british antartic survey group about CO2 level measurements and how CO2 levels noticeably began to rise around 250 years ago. This would tend to coincide with the start of large scale clearing of forests across northern and southern America and across large parts of Europe (Linking reduction in absorption rather than emissions to temperature). If you graph CO2 levels (raw data from the ice cores) and temperatures over the last 300 years then there is at first glance (adjustment for solar output puts it slightly better) poor correlation between temperatures and CO2. The only stastitically conclusive affect on temperatures is by aerosols from volcanic eruptions, which is why I maintain that CFC's and other forms of emission are equally if not more important than CO2.

CFC's and ozone

How does that tally with this, Brick? A discussion of the calculation of relative forcings:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...b2sub/#more-355

:)P

[BrickFielder]

The article suggests anywhere between 26 - 80 % of warming is due to CO2 and even this is an estimate. Taking into account the newunderstanding on the links between the stratosphere and troposphere I think I can reasonably argue that CO2 is not the main cause of warming. The last line I think sums it up though.

In summary, I hope I've shown that there is too much ambiguity in any exact percentage attribution for it to be particularly relevant, though I don't suppose that will stop it being discussed. Maybe this provides a bit of context though...

[parmenides3]

The article suggests anywhere between 26 - 80 % of warming is due to CO2 and even this is an estimate. Taking into account the newunderstanding on the links between the stratosphere and troposphere I think I can reasonably argue that CO2 is not the main cause of warming. The last line I think sums it up though.

Wow! It's a long trip from 'no exact percentage' to 'not the most important', Brickf. And I should point out that the article does have CO2 as the largest forcing (compared to CFCs, NO2, etc.) . That it is not the only forcing is evident. That the sum of other forcings probably exceeds the individual forcing of CO2 is probably also correct, but this is not the same as the claim you appear to be making here.

Attached is a long, detailed and (hopefully) relevant pdf from Hadley on the forcings used in two of their models a few years ago. It is a little out of date; things change so quickly these days, but it does explain both the science and the mathematics in soem details, so I think some of the NW regulars will enjoy it:

:)P

Edit: Blimey! Synchronicity at work again; today's latest offering on RC is the paper Brick posted earlier, tidied up. I reckon they must read our site. Updated version: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...b2sub/#more-355

Conclusion clear: CO2 is the boss.

:)P

forcings.pdf

Edited October 4, 2006 by parmenides3

[BrickFielder]

Results are from HadCm3. HADGEM1 reduces the affects of CO2 as a percentage , but it will not be untill HADGEM2 that the carbon nitrogen cycle and atmospheric chemistry will be included.

Hadley Center Climate modelling

UKCA

The carbon nitrogen cycle is about how Carbon is absorbed and this suggest there is a limitation in the understanding of feedback mechanisms to do with CO2 in the climate models. Basically the models do not accurately take into account faster plant and sea CO2 absorbtion due to warming. This sort of implies that a balancing point will eventually be reached.

The atmospheric chemistry is a complex business and things like HCFC the alternatives used to CFC's are having large unforecast affects.

Edited October 5, 2006 by BrickFielder

[VillagePlank]

As I mentioned just now in the GW thread ... and as Al Gore persuasively concludes in An Inconvenient Truth, would you debate with Hitler?

Time to invoke Godwin's Law, methinks