General Climate Change Discussion

[Devonian]

Also the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by humans is 7.5 Billion tonnes, and by natural cycles 330 Billion tonnes. Now what stands out with those figures?

The missing context about the carbon cycle....

To understand lets use the bath analogy. Imagine a bath. Out of the bath flows 330L/hour - crikey, that will soon empty it! But (the context) we also (to understand the cycle) need to know into the bath flows 330L/hr. So, the level in the bath remains level. Add 7.5 L/hour to the inflow and what happens?

[stewfox]

Extremes of expected/seasonal weather are used all the time by the media to furthur the understanding of global warming/climate change.

There actually used to sell papers and/or improve viewing figures

Its not news if the Alps have had a good start to the ski-ing season, if it all green up there it would be

The Moscow mild weather is news, but then reporting on items that are just 'newsworthy' will have a bias input

My previous post seems to have been deleted ?

[smith25]

Some more info to add to the discussion:

http://www.spaceandscience.net/

****Important Update: On December 11, 2008, the SSRC sent letters to President-elect Barack Obama and nominated cabinet members urging his administration stop global warming initiatives and prepare the nation for the next climate change. (See link below Press Release SSRC 5-2008)

[HighPressure]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81217075138.htm

Yet another report telling us why cosmic rays do not impact on climate here on earth. Is this not the third time in as many years bringing us research to disprove the notion that cosmic rays can impact on how 'cloudy' the planet is (and hence it's impact on global temps)?

How many other ways do the contrarians excuse our recent temp trends (globally) in the face of the bulk of evidence that man is impacting climate/temps?

I note the first sentence from the report states "new study supports earlier findings by stating that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change" Yet the research itself is only refined to the subject of cloud? From what I understand Cosmic rays can be shown scientifically to have an effect on climate without too much controversy. Cosmic rays react in the upper atmosphere with man made CFCs in a similar way to that of UV causing ozone destruction. Ozone destruction is most definitely linked with climate change or at least not dismissed by almost every major climate body including the IPCC.

The research itself into clouds maybe accurate but its reporting by Science Daily is rather misleading!

[Kained]

To understand lets use the bath analogy. Imagine a bath. Out of the bath flows 330L/hour - crikey, that will soon empty it! But (the context) we also (to understand the cycle) need to know into the bath flows 330L/hr. So, the level in the bath remains level. Add 7.5 L/hour to the inflow and what happens?

The water goes out the overflow pipe, the system wouldn't work over a sustained period if it was so perfectly balanced.

[Devonian]

The water goes out the overflow pipe, the system wouldn't work over a sustained period if it was so perfectly balanced.

You have it backwards.

It has worked over a sustained period. It has to be in balance most of the time - has to be. Why? Because, as SC pointed out, the yearly flows of CO2 into the system via plant respiration are vast, they have to be balanced by outflow (by a 'cycle') or there would very quickly be toxic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere or none at all. No, the carbon cycle is simply that a cycle and in balance - until we came along and perturbed it that is.

[Kained]

i disagree, over the short time scale it has temporarily been in equilibrium but the carbon cycle has naturally fluctuated over time, otherwise there wouldn't be evidence of increased atmospheric carbon from ice cores. Your bath analogy has no feedback mechanisms either positive or negative while the ice cores show that there are.

[Devonian]

i disagree, over the short time scale it has temporarily been in equilibrium but the carbon cycle has naturally fluctuated over time, otherwise there wouldn't be evidence of increased atmospheric carbon from ice cores. Your bath analogy has no feedback mechanisms either positive or negative while the ice cores show that there are.

Actually, if you look at the ice cores over the last, what, 400,000 yrs, CO2 hasn't been much below 200ppm or above 300ppm. Now, in a century, a blink of the eye geologically, it's 380ppm+....

[Guest]

This was included in an earlier topic on another thread but I think it is best suited here.

"Although we have global warming at the moment I just wonder how much of this is being offset by the insertion of particulates and sulpher into the upper atmosphere from aircaft engines.

or, if Yellowstone went off, apparently it is due, we could experience a rapid cooling the type of which we have never experienced in historical times and make the "none summer" 1816 pale into insignificance."

[Chris Knight]

You have it backwards.

It has worked over a sustained period. It has to be in balance most of the time - has to be. Why? Because, as SC pointed out, the yearly flows of CO2 into the system via plant respiration are vast, they have to be balanced by outflow (by a 'cycle') or there would very quickly be toxic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere or none at all. No, the carbon cycle is simply that a cycle and in balance - until we came along and perturbed it that is.

Not so, we just came along and started to observe it, and of course, like any system in assumed equilibrium, we discovered it was actually varying. Then people who believed that it was always the same as before produced "evidence" that it was always the same as before and others, who believed it was always in flux provided "evidence" that it had always varied. Read Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" for a nice example.

(I am a little-endian by the way.)

Edited December 19, 2008 by Chris Knight

[Methuselah]

There is so much we still don't know about the sun, yet you seem to be able to dismiss it's impact on our climate. AGW is a close minded religion, who refuse to accept that there are bigger players in our climate other than man!

Indeed SC, there is a great deal we don't know about the Sun. So how can you claim to know that it's driving all climate change? We do know quite a lot about CO2 though?

Also the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by humans is 7.5 Billion tonnes, and by natural cycles 330 Billion tonnes. Now what stands out with those figures?

That when taken in isolation like that they are wholly irrelevant?

Or that 7.5/330x100=2.27%?

Or that 7.5 billionx20=150 billion?

[Devonian]

Not so, we just came along and started to observe it, and of course, like any system in assumed equilibrium, we discovered it was actually varying. Then people who believed that it was always the same as before produced "evidence" that it was always the same as before and others, who believed it was always in flux provided "evidence" that it had always varied. Read Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" for a nice example.

(I am a little-endian by the way.)

Chris, why do you assume that people assumed? Have you studied the carbon cycle to a high level of understanding like those who have studied the carbon cycle to a high level of understanding have? How do you know better than them?

Please explain to me how the Carbon Cycle, given the vast natural fluxes of carbon on scales of years, can but be in rough balance (rough as in it has varied by no more than about 100ppm over the last 400,000 years odd). As I've said, given the vast fluxes if the CC ever went out of balanced in a few tens of years life would either be asphyxiated or there would be no atmospheric CO2...

[ghrud]

Actually, if you look at the ice cores over the last, what, 400,000 yrs, CO2 hasn't been much below 200ppm or above 300ppm. Now, in a century, a blink of the eye geologically, it's 380ppm+....

Just to put a bit of perspective on this -

How small is PPB?

You stock up with 10,000 boxes of tissues, each with 200 sheets. You use two sheets.

or

A 30 second TV commercial, relative to the time in one year, is about one part per million.

[Gray-Wolf]

I've often mooted that we find it easy to accept the massive impacts man has had on the surface/oceans of the planet but less so the couple of miles of the planet above our heads. Our drastic altering of the planet with the advent of 'settled' living is one such point, no one can deny the impacts of deforestation on the UK over the last 8,000yrs, but did this alter the climate as well as the surface??? New research says that it did and that we can move back from the industrial revolution as a start point for human induced climate change......

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81217190433.htm

[Devonian]

Just to put a bit of perspective on this -

PPM

Ad it's not one ppm it's 380 ppm or .038%. And, indeed it still doesn't sound like much. Which just goes to show a little CO2 goes a long way climate wise.

[ghrud]

PPM

Ad it's not one ppm it's 380 ppm or .038%. And, indeed it still doesn't sound like much. Which just goes to show a little CO2 goes a long way climate wise.

Yes, sorry I did notice my mistake :o putting PPB instead PPM but couldn't be bothered to change it as I had some Christmas shopping to do. However, my point was how insignificant an extra 80 PPM is by giving an example of how small 1 PPM is. Still, I must say you're on the ball can't of be on the christmas pop yet then!

[VillagePlank]

Which just goes to show a little CO2 goes a long way climate wise.

So, does CO2 have a linear effect on climate, or, indeed, does it have a nonlinear effect? Do you really understand the difference?

It's an important question - particularly that you would say that more CO2 is bad, and less is good? And at what levels? And at what concentrations - if it is linear (as you clearly imply) that means more CO2 means warmer climate? I thought that this is untrue; that, in fact, CO2 has a limiting effect as it's concentrations increase - if not nonlinear then, at least, an exponential reducing effect? I am no climatologist, and no statistician, but, please, show me the way - show me that either, or both, is true!

I have to be honest, in that I presume you haven't the first clue? I can tell you - it's much more complex than a very very simple leaky integrator. Much more complex - so complex, in fact, that the worlds most pwerful computers are used to crunch the numbers (well those we know about, anyway, look in a back room in Wall Street, to find more powerful computers)

Please tell me I am wrong! You see such a statement as yours above implies, above all things, simplicity. I'm afraid to say, it just doesn't exist. It isn't as elegant as you would make it, it isn't as simple as you would say it, and it has never been easy to understand as you might imply.

Ever.

Edited December 19, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Iceberg]

To be fair VP, I don't think Dev said that it was a simple relationship between ppm and temperature. Just that a small amount of CO2(in relation to the whole atmosphere) has relatively large effect on climate.

I think Dev would actually agree with you that it's not simple therefore there has to be some kind of trust in the mathematical modelling that the experts are doing, rather than picking holes in it from an armchair. I am not saying believe everything, but you should trust that they at least are trying to understand the relationship as best they can and with there super computers they probably have a pretty good handle on it.

[VillagePlank]

with there [sic] super computers they probably have a pretty good handle on it.

I doubt it. If they did we'd know the CET score for next year - without a shadow of a doubt this is a work in progress; and, for sure, the best results, so far, is that CO2 is the devil in a warming climate.

But make no mistake - it isn't simple, it isn't obvious, and it is subject to change.

[PersianPaladin]

So, does CO2 have a linear effect on climate, or, indeed, does it have a nonlinear effect? Do you really understand the difference?

It's an important question - particularly that you would say that more CO2 is bad, and less is good? And at what levels? And at what concentrations - if it is linear (as you clearly imply) that means more CO2 means warmer climate? I thought that this is untrue; that, in fact, CO2 has a limiting effect as it's concentrations increase - if not nonlinear then, at least, an exponential reducing effect? I am no climatologist, and no statistician, but, please, show me the way - show me that either, or both, is true!

I have to be honest, in that I presume you haven't the first clue? I can tell you - it's much more complex than a very very simple leaky integrator. Much more complex - so complex, in fact, that the worlds most pwerful computers are used to crunch the numbers (well those we know about, anyway, look in a back room in Wall Street, to find more powerful computers)

Please tell me I am wrong! You see such a statement as yours above implies, above all things, simplicity. I'm afraid to say, it just doesn't exist. It isn't as elegant as you would make it, it isn't as simple as you would say it, and it has never been easy to understand as you might imply.

Ever.

I think you're confusing the dynamics and complexities of meteorology and the actual forcing elements (sun, SST's, greenhouse gases) that drive the complex system. You put more greenhouse gases; you add more energy into the system - with this naturally having feedback mechanisms but with the overall result being significantly measurable consequences on the atmospheric profile and momentum. See the 'even larger teapot' thread in the Winter Discussion to understand the implications of stratospheric cooling (in response to greater warming at lower levels) for our winters.

Edited December 19, 2008 by PersianPaladin

[VillagePlank]

I think you're confusing the dynamics and complexities of meteorology and the actual forcing elements

Errr ... no, I am not.

Dynamics and complextities of meteorology are driven by the forcing elements, are they not? They conglomerate to form the same equation?

Unless, of course, you know something different - it's all good fun to split semantics and syntax, but let's be honest about it huh?

(EDIT - oh and by the way more greenhouse gases do NOT add more energy into the system. You can't create energy according to all sorts of laws written by people who have been dead a long time ago. I think you'll find that it works because less energy escapes the system - (greenhouse gases absorb radiation and because it's been absorbed it then radiates a portion of that abosbrtion back to earth - nothing has been 'created' Next you'll be telling me that the radiation is reradiated!)

Edited December 19, 2008 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

Errr ... no, I am not.

Dynamics and complextities of meteorology are driven by the forcing elements, are they not? They conglomerate to form the same equation?

Unless, of course, you know something different - it's all good fun to split semantics and syntax, but let's be honest about it huh?

(EDIT - oh and by the way more greenhouse gases do NOT add more energy into the system. You can't create energy according to all sorts of laws written by people who have been dead a long time ago. I think you'll find that it works because less energy escapes the system - (greenhouse gases absorb radiation and because it's been absorbed it then radiates a portion of that abosbrtion back to earth - nothing has been 'created' Next you'll be telling me that the radiation is reradiated!)

Now you're sounding condescending (which is actually typical of your posts really).

Yes, more energy is added into the system because it is released; transferred from a stable form into a system where it becomes an added forcing mechanism.

[Iceberg]

I doubt it. If they did we'd know the CET score for next year - without a shadow of a doubt this is a work in progress; and, for sure, the best results, so far, is that CO2 is the devil in a warming climate.

But make no mistake - it isn't simple, it isn't obvious, and it is subject to change.

VP I think your mistaking a model that keeps other variables stable and varies CO2 PPM and then makes a judgement on Temperature which I think is still complicated but they have a handle on.(This is what I thought you were talking about)

And a model that does the above but factors in positive and negative forcings etc such as water vapour which certainly isn't and this is why there is a difference between possible warming of 2C and 10C.

And VP why are you having this conversation when the 12Z is coming out and we will be snowed in by T300Z. :o

[VillagePlank]

Now you're sounding condescending (which is actually typical of your posts really).

Yes, more energy is added into the system because it is released; transferred from a stable form into a system where it becomes an added forcing mechanism.

No it is not.

The energy is already there it just can't, if you'll excuse the bluntness, escape. More CO2 does NOT add more energy into the system.

If you really believed that is the case why is the temperature falling when CO2 is rising?

VP I think your mistaking a model that keeps other variables stable and varies CO2 PPM and then makes a judgement on Temperature which I think is still complicated but they have a handle on.

Certainly a model to keep an eye on for future developments, but I am not confusing it with the facts.

And VP why are you having this conversation when the 12Z is coming out and we will be snowed in by T300Z.

Yeah - good point :o

[PersianPaladin]

No it is not.

The energy is already there it just can't, if you'll excuse the bluntness, escape. More CO2 does NOT add more energy into the system.

If you really believed that is the case why is the temperature falling when CO2 is rising?

So you completely ignore my point about feedback mechanisms and overall mounting trends.

:o