Overhype on global warming

[parmenides3]

The point I was making is that the cuurent climate change 'thing' is playing on the fears of the ignorant, the'mugs',if you will. They are led to believe that climate change is due 100% to our CO2 emissions,and that natural influences and processes play no part in it whatsoever. That's the aspect that really winds me up and it needs addressing and investigating AND reporting to the 'masses' with all the vigour that AGW currently has. And this 'habit' of the media (the only exposure the 'masses' get to climate change information) to blame EVERY 'unusual' weather event on AGW is quite frankly nauseating.

Hi laserguy; explanation understood and accepted. What we're getting to here is, I suppose, what jethro was pointing to in the first place; it's the popular (mis)understanding of AGW as presented by the media which is winding everyone up.

So let's clear up an important point.

Climate change is NOT due 100% to CO2.

Lots of natural forces come into play, too, to a greater or lesser degree of influence.

The media (and others) often mistakenly try to claim/suggest that CO2 is the only thing to worry about, and that not worrying about it is like saying you don't care if we all die tomorrow. People who challenge the orthodoxy are often treated as if they are deranged, wilfully ignorant or malicious.

So now to a brief explanation (as I understand it):

The climate is changing, in that the mean temperature of the Earth has gone up by a measurable amount in the last 100 years, and the rate at which the warming has happened has accelerated in recent decades. Note, sometimes things cool a bit, but overall, this is how things stand.

Taking all of the possible causes of this trend into account (and I do mean all of them), the best explanation that science has for the trend is that it has been caused, at least in part, by the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere. This addition is linked to global energy consumption and global economic activity. The effect of the CO2 is cumulative, because it hangs around in the atmosphere. Over the past fifty years, probably 70% of the warming has been because of this cause alone (this is not uncontestable, but it is the currently understood scientific figure).

Here is the critical bit: even the most simple calculations show that, if the trend to put CO2 into the atmosphere continues without adjustment, then the global mean temperature will continue to rise. But even the most complex calculations can't tell for certain how much temperature is linked to how much CO2, exactly. The best (and being regularly confirmed as time passes) guess is that, if the amount of CO2 compared to pre-1750 doubles, the temperature will rise by around 3C, partly from the direct effect of the CO2, and mainly by feedback effects from the warming adding to the system.

What effect will this have on us and our world? A lot depends on how much warmer we think it might get, and how quickly we think this will happen. In order to try and address this question, scientists have constructed imitations of the world (models), which they do their best to make sure contain all the most important influences on the climate. These are simplified versions of the real things, even if they are vastly more sophisticated than simple pencil and paper.

The most obvious limit to knowing what will happen to the climate and to us is that we don't know what we, as a species, are going to do about our current economic and energy consumption trends. As things stand, we have done nothing. This is called the 'Business as Usual' scenario. The other limit to our understanding of the future is that we don't yet have all of the pieces to the climate puzzle; some things are happening, or seem to be happening, which are not yet well-understood.

But the suggestions, partly from the models, and partly from observation of the world's environmental systems and their reaction to change as it has happened so far, are that a future in which the mean global temperature is more than 2c above pre-industrial levels, especially if this comes sooner rather than later, will cause problems for a large number of us. Some of these problems will be physical, others will be economic.

So, with no other issues to consider (and there are many, many more), the current belief amongst most scientists, most corporations, most governments and quite a few of the general public, is that there are risks associated with a certain amount of warming which are not acceptable; in other words, they are to be avoided.

The biggest risks come from sea level rise, drought, extreme weather events, ocean circulation disruption, and the resulting agricultural, hydrological and economic consequences. A secondary concern is whether, beyond a certain amount of warming, things will start to change of their own accord, at a rate which no amount of effort will slow, but because this is far less certain, we can put it to one side for the moment.

So; if we think that a certain amount of temperature rise is to be avoided, and if we think that a proportion of the recent rises can only be explained by CO2, then we need to ask; what is it we can do to reduce the risks? We cannot change natural phenomena, like the amount of solar forcing. We can, though, slow down the rate at which we pump CO2 (along with all the other pollutants) into the atmosphere. If we can slow this down enough, we might be able to slow down the rate of warming, and the fianl extent of warming. If we can do this, we will have successfully reduced the risk, even if only by a small amount.

How do we slow down CO2 emissions, without damaging the economic substructure on which our present comfort depends? Now, that's a whole other question. Regardless of the answer to that, though, the principle still holds: the only meaningful thing that can be done which might reduce the risk of future damage beyond an acceptable level is slow down CO2 emissions.

I hope this isn't all so obvious, and that it helps...

:)P

[HighPressure]

Here is the critical bit: even the most simple calculations show that, if the trend to put CO2 into the atmosphere continues without adjustment, then the global mean temperature will continue to rise. But even the most complex calculations can't tell for certain how much temperature is linked to how much CO2, exactly. The best (and being regularly confirmed as time passes) guess is that, if the amount of CO2 compared to pre-1750 doubles, the temperature will rise by around 3C, partly from the direct effect of the CO2, and mainly by feedback effects from the warming adding to the system.

Hi P3

Probably not the right place to put this point but in light of your above post I will

My uneducated view is that the understanding of chemistry within the atmosphere is very good and that is unlikely to change substantially. Our understanding of the way in which the mechanics of our atmosphere work is less known? Solar energy which hits the earth will heat surfaces that it comes into contact with, the first being our ozone layer if you remove this or a part of it then energy will pass through unabsorbed. This must mean that a higher degree of energy reaches lower levels of the atmosphere than would normally be expected if the ozone layer was complete or at perceived normal levels? In order to fully understand the effects of less ozone in the upper atmosphere we need to have a mass amount of temperature data from all levels under all ozone conditions. We also need to gain a full understanding of planetary waves and there effect on atmospheric temperatures and why their occurrences fluctuate.

I am of the opinion that CO2 along with ozone depletion is enhancing the green house effect and the replenishment of ozone will reduce the heat absorbed in the lower atmosphere and therefore a less pronounced warming effect. I believe that the reduction of sulphur emissions has skewed the calculations still further as this was artificially holding global temperatures down during the early to mid 20th century. None of this suggests that CO2 does not play a major role but in my view a supporting one.

In conclusion, I believe that the warming trend is to stark as it does not take into account an amount of catch up due to reduced sulphur emissions. C02 in the lower atmosphere is enhanced by increased energy reaching it and that the major factor governing GW will turn out to be ozone depletion.

YOU CAN SHOOT ME NOW

[jethro]

Especially for you HP; I haven't ploughed through it all as yet, certainly cannot pretend to understand all of it, but fascinating stuff in a "I need to get out more, take the anorak off" kind of way.

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen2/Rhodes.html

[Gray-Wolf]

I've seen the footage of the Belsen and Auschwitz camps when they were liberated, I've seen my pal ,Captain K's personal footage of his trip up the road to Basra after the 'Turkey shoot' in 91 but nothing has chilled me as much as the years growth and melt of the polar ice this last year as shown in the 'Cryosphere today' and it is by far the grossest thing I've witnessed.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/se....movie.2007.mov

it'll take a few minutes to load but you'll be sorry you did.

The 'single year ice' in its rotational melt as the bearing straights floods in it's warm waters is bad enough but the final jolt forward of the multiyear ice from the north shore of Greenland/Canada, before it's driven back against the coast is the most 'chilling' as,once free floating the arctic will become ice free in a matter of a couple of seasons.

Once we were told told we had 70 years of arctic 'summer ice' left, recently 30yrs of it to go and now??? 5years maybe?

'Overhype' my AR5E , the Antarctic may historically lag behind polar events but the loss of the polar ice show how soon we face the 5-7m sea level changes and the devastation (Esp. to the financial institutions that run the world......N.Y.,Square mile,Tokyo) it'll fetch to the planet.

every 1foot rise takes 100ft of coast when storm surge/tides are taken into account so 35feet would take how much land?????

[Devonian]

Hi P3

Probably not the right place to put this point but in light of your above post I will :lol:

My uneducated view is that the understanding of chemistry within the atmosphere is very good and that is unlikely to change substantially. Our understanding of the way in which the mechanics of our atmosphere work is less known? Solar energy which hits the earth will heat surfaces that it comes into contact with, the first being our ozone layer if you remove this or a part of it then energy will pass through unabsorbed. This must mean that a higher degree of energy reaches lower levels of the atmosphere than would normally be expected if the ozone layer was complete or at perceived normal levels?

In order to fully understand the effects of less ozone in the upper atmosphere we need to have a mass amount of temperature data from all levels under all ozone conditions. We also need to gain a full understanding of planetary waves and there effect on atmospheric temperatures and why their occurrences fluctuate.

I am of the opinion that CO2 along with ozone depletion is enhancing the green house effect and the replenishment of ozone will reduce the heat absorbed in the lower atmosphere and therefore a less pronounced warming effect. I believe that the reduction of sulphur emissions has skewed the calculations still further as this was artificially holding global temperatures down during the early to mid 20th century. None of this suggests that CO2 does not play a major role but in my view a supporting one.

In conclusion, I believe that the warming trend is to stark as it does not take into account an amount of catch up due to reduced sulphur emissions. C02 in the lower atmosphere is enhanced by increased energy reaching it and that the major factor governing GW will turn out to be ozone depletion.

YOU CAN SHOOT ME NOW :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole#Oz..._global_warming

"Reduced ozone causes the stratosphere to absorb less solar radiation, thus cooling the stratosphere while warming the troposphere;" which is what you say "the resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation downward, thus cooling the troposphere" A better wording would be 'thus not warming the troposphere as much' but I think this is where you're not right? I think you need to show the latter is wrong, so that the former could dominate - I think that's a tall order.

Basically, the figures show the effect on low atmosphere temperatures due to ozone depletion is minimal.

Especially for you HP; I haven't ploughed through it all as yet, certainly cannot pretend to understand all of it, but fascinating stuff in a "I need to get out more, take the anorak off" kind of way.

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen2/Rhodes.html

Looks like gobbledegook to me - but perhaps you can explain it :lol:

Edited August 24, 2007 by Devonian

[jethro]

GW: Whilst not wanting to detract from your concerns over polar melt in any way I have a quick question... This may be daft, I may not have had enough of my morning coffee fix for my head to be working properly but I thought the Arctic was just like a giant ice cube, displacing its' own volume? If that's so, where do you get the 5-7m sea level rises from? Apologies if I've got my thick head on, late night...

[The PIT]

Just thinking in the past the planet has been ice free what caused that???

[Devonian]

Just thinking in the past the planet has been ice free what caused that???

What part of the past?

Recent past? The position of the continents and thus ocean currents?

[The PIT]

The Eocene

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html

Not sure what what caused it.

[jethro]

Anyone else seen this? Fascinating stuff and as the man says, it shouldn't be too long before we can check its' accuracy. I've already checked NASA, the solar info is all correct.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf200...chibald2007.pdf

[Essan]

Anyone else seen this? Fascinating stuff and as the man says, it shouldn't be too long before we can check its' accuracy. I've already checked NASA, the solar info is all correct.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf200...chibald2007.pdf

Thks. hadn't see it. Although a quick skim does suggest that fig4 is made up, based on little more than wishful thinking - and is flatly contradicted by fig6 !!!

[jethro]

Thks. hadn't see it. Although a quick skim does suggest that fig4 is made up, based on little more than wishful thinking - and is flatly contradicted by fig6 !!!

Agreed, looks like someone went bonkers with a felt tip, but figure 5 below, the IPCC chart illustrates the same but they chose not to use it again after the 1990 report. I'd hazard a guess fig 6 looks different because the graph covers a much greater time scale, hard to illustrate all the ups and downs; smoothed numbers.

[Devonian]

Agreed, looks like someone went bonkers with a felt tip, but figure 5 below, the IPCC chart illustrates the same but they chose not to use it again after the 1990 report. I'd hazard a guess fig 6 looks different because the graph covers a much greater time scale, hard to illustrate all the ups and downs; smoothed numbers.

Well, I've just added the figures from graph 4 onto graph 6. And it looks very odd to me - certainly both graphs can't be right...

Do you think the climate warmed 3C from ~800-~1100AD?

[jethro]

If you continue reading the report it says there was a 2.2 degree temp rise from 7.8 in 1696 to 10.0 in 1732 - 2.2 rise in 36 years, so I would consider 3 degrees over 300 years to be perfectly feasible. He's included all his calculations, he's used the CET and Rural US data set so there's nothing dodgy about his sources. From what I've checked so far, his solar data checks out with NASA.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Interesting chart :huh:

Atmospheric C02 currently is 385ppm.

[Gray-Wolf]

GW: Whilst not wanting to detract from your concerns over polar melt in any way I have a quick question... This may be daft, I may not have had enough of my morning coffee fix for my head to be working properly but I thought the Arctic was just like a giant ice cube, displacing its' own volume? If that's so, where do you get the 5-7m sea level rises from? Apologies if I've got my thick head on, late night...

Probably my clumbsy post!

not the Arctic that is a prob. (in terms of sea level rise that is) but the Antarctic (Ross embayment and then East Antarctic Ice sheet)

The alterations by the increase in 'dark water' across polar regions and the vastly different evaporation rates between what was once ice and will soon be water is all we have to worry about 'oop north' (along ecological decimation, altered ocean currents, different weather types from the north etc,etc)

I hear enough 'alterations' (yet again) to what is supposedly known about the ablation of the Antarctic continent to take any 'reassurance' with a pinch of salt.

Catastrophic failure of the 'Ross' would do much the same for the glaciers to it's rear (emptying the upland East Antarctic ice sheet) in much the same way as is happening with the West Antarctic ice sheet....only faster as things will be even warmer by then. The 5-7m is really about as low a figure for sea level rise as I could find as 20 to 40m would be nearer the mark with 25% of E.A.I.S. gone and ,obviously over 100m if it all goes.

[The PIT]

Interesting read I ain't qualified enough to take it apart. Look forward to someone taking apart.

[Devonian]

If you continue reading the report it says there was a 2.2 degree temp rise from 7.8 in 1696 to 10.0 in 1732 - 2.2 rise in 36 years, so I would consider 3 degrees over 300 years to be perfectly feasible. He's included all his calculations, he's used the CET and Rural US data set so there's nothing dodgy about his sources. From what I've checked so far, his solar data checks out with NASA.

But, that's to confuse the CET and which can change quite a bit year on year with the NH which is bigger and less responsive. Hemispheric temperatures simply don't jig about like local ones such as the CET.

However, the author doesn't make it very clear what areas his graphics refer to.

To think of the problem a .15C change to N American figures caused, yet somehow the errors in this report are OK?

[HighPressure]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole#Oz..._global_warming

"Reduced ozone causes the stratosphere to absorb less solar radiation, thus cooling the stratosphere while warming the troposphere;" which is what you say "the resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation downward, thus cooling the troposphere" A better wording would be 'thus not warming the troposphere as much' but I think this is where you're not right? I think you need to show the latter is wrong, so that the former could dominate - I think that's a tall order.

Basically, the figures show the effect on low atmosphere temperatures due to ozone depletion is minimal.

Your right Dev current understanding suggests no real effect from Ozone depletion on GW, but I think the IPCC's explaination is simplistic. You will note from my original point I am not calling AGW rubbish or suggesting CO2 is the good guy. Ozone depletion and its knock on effects are not fully understood as are its biological effects on Phytoplankton and the oceans as a whole. I do not know enough to argue against complex chemistry so I accept these processes as being understood, but I am yet to be convinced that there is any real understanding to allow the IPCC to make this claim:

"the resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation downward, thus cooling the troposphere. Overall, the cooling dominates; the IPCC concludes that "observed stratospheric O3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system"[36] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m2)"

[jethro]

But, that's to confuse the CET and which can change quite a bit year on year with the NH which is bigger and less responsive. Hemispheric temperatures simply don't jig about like local ones such as the CET.

However, the author doesn't make it very clear what areas his graphics refer to.

To think of the problem a .15C change to N American figures caused, yet somehow the errors in this report are OK?

What? Can you explain that again please, I don't understand what you are questioning.

[Essan]

What? Can you explain that again please, I don't understand what you are questioning.

What Peter is saying is that the "2.2 degree temp rise from 7.8 in 1696 to 10.0 in 1732" is simply cherry picked data from the CET record and totally meaningless (it also appear to be wrong! 1696 was 8.5c and 1732 9.7c)

For example, I could point out that in 1686 the CET was 10.1c - so in fact the CET record for the period quoted shows a fall! Or that between 1986 and 2006 there was a rise of 2.1c

The CET varies from year to year and, in any case, is not representative of the N Hemisphere (else 1976 wouldn't be known for being such a cold summer!)

[parmenides3]

Anyone else seen this? Fascinating stuff and as the man says, it shouldn't be too long before we can check its' accuracy. I've already checked NASA, the solar info is all correct.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf200...chibald2007.pdf

Hi, jethro. Regret to say, on even a short reading, it is clear that this is all wrong. There are so many errors and false assumptions in it it's hard to know where to start. But it is also easy to see why this might look impressive. It has lots of graphs, [almost all created by the author or 'Idso C.' (check him up)], it looks 'scientific' and it makes claims which you would like to be true (I believe).

This is similar in construction to the TGGWS programme, in that it takes some suspect initial information, alters what it needs to in order to support its hypothesis, and claims evidence from data which is out of date, inaccurate, or invented.

Bottom line, Archibald's (look him up, too) summary is that it's all sunspots and a bit of warming will be good for us anyway.

AF's impressive graph comes from Idso, too, and it is based on false assumptions, so might look pretty, but tells us nothing (it is, basically, untrue).

I'll post a link to a recent scientific summary of all the recent research on solar influences shortly, and you can decide for yourself which is more convincing.

Bottom bottom line: it's a l*#@d of B@11#%ks.

:)P

[Devonian]

What Peter is saying is that the "2.2 degree temp rise from 7.8 in 1696 to 10.0 in 1732" is simply cherry picked data from the CET record and totally meaningless (it also appear to be wrong! 1696 was 8.5c and 1732 9.7c)

For example, I could point out that in 1686 the CET was 10.1c - so in fact the CET record for the period quoted shows a fall! Or that between 1986 and 2006 there was a rise of 2.1c

The CET varies from year to year and, in any case, is not representative of the N Hemisphere (else 1976 wouldn't be known for being such a cold summer!)

Yes that Andy, but also that you can't compare the CET with the Northern Hemisphere (NH). The 3C in fig 4 is for the NH not the CET. The author is claiming the NH warmed by 3C from ~800 to ~1100 - that's a preposterous claim. In fact he's, I can only guess, assumed a scale on a figure from the 1990 IPCC report that was schematic and had no scale and which makes it look like 3C.....

I'm also saying if you put graphs 4 and 6 into a similar scale they disagree with each other - they can't both be right despite the fact they both purport to show the NH.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Devonian

[parmenides3]

Here's the link to Mike lockwood's paper on solar forcing of the climate: http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proce...spa20071880.pdf

It is a useful exercise to compare how this paper has been constructed, and what its sources are, compared to the Archibald presentation.

:)P

[jethro]

P3, I'll get back to you on the accuracy/validity issues when I've had a chance to read more, but I'd just like to know, what it is you think I would like to see or be true?

Edited August 25, 2007 by jethro