General Climate Change Discussion

[Devonian]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...-b-1221092.html

Crikey, where to begin?

Look, it isn't just me, I know it isn't. If the amount of CO2/Co2 (whichever it is!) is increasing beyond the alarmists' worst nightmares......then why is the temperature not following suit?

What alarms me is the proposals being put forward and detailed in the article.

Are temperatures rising? Well, with climate, it's all about trend.

Thus over time they are rising

but the sceptic trick is to do this

or, and this is being done, this

Do I think you can draw conclusions about climate using the second and third graph. I do not.

[Hiya]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...-b-1221092.html

Crikey, where to begin? :huh:

Look, it isn't just me, I know it isn't. If the amount of CO2/Co2 (whichever it is!) is increasing beyond the alarmists' worst nightmares......then why is the temperature not following suit?

What alarms me is the proposals being put forward and detailed in the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nam...ons_(chemistry)

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt

[Guest]

Sounds akin to opening Pandoro's box - nobody knows where it will end.

Perhaps whilst they are about it they could saturate the upper atmosphere of Venus with carbon dioxide eating/oxygen producing super organisms so that eventually we can introduce plan "C" and go there after the earth has been cocked up.

[Optimus Prime]

One thing I have learned while reading this thread is Gray Wolf has the word CO2 in seemingly every one of his posts. Guess he blames CO2 for the warming?

Edited January 3, 2009 by Optimus Prime

[Android]

The actual link in the article is to here: Cryosphere Today Homepage

From there you can find the Current Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomoly which shows that Antarctic sea-ice this year (2008) reached its highest level since satellite records began in 1979.

The anomoly doesn't show (clearly) the "highest level". The anomoly graph does show that for some part of 2008 sea ice levels were higher than they've ever been for that part of the year in the satellite records. But the highest level of ice area reached in 2008 was lower than the highest level of ice area reached in many other previous years, so claims to the contrary by that news article are incorrect. 2007 winter is the record holder for the highest level reached so my assumption was that the author has recalled that story and assumed it is a 2008 one.

My link is also from Cryosphere Today and shows the absolute ice area, which is necessary to see the maximum levels for each year.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Android

[osmposm]

If the amount of CO2/Co2 (whichever it is!) is increasing beyond the alarmists' worst nightmares......then why is the temperature not following suit?

Noggin, I hope you are just joking, but if you seriously don't know the answer to your "whichever it is!" remark, there seems little point in trying to answer your following question. Carbon Dioxide is a chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms bonded to a single carbon atom. 'C' is the chemical symbol for carbon. 'O' is the chemical symbol for oxygen. They are both elements, and they are both therefore capital letters. One 'C' + two 'O's = CO2 (or CO₂) = Carbon Dioxide. Similarly just one of each = CO = Carbon Monoxide (also a gas, but with very different properties, and only present in the atmosphere in miniscule amounts). Co (big 'C' + small 'o') is the chemical symbol for a (single) different element, the metal Cobalt: as far as I know there is little or none of that in the atmosphere.

Pleeeeeeease tell me you knew this????? It is so basic that no-one can begin to understand atmospheric chemistry - and thus the pros and cons of the AGW arguments - without it.

Ossie

Edited January 3, 2009 by osmposm

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm with you on this one Mr Meehan! If we've already muxed things up to the point that we do not what is primary or secondary impacts of our environmental vandalism then what chance do we have of introducing one 'fixit' without running the risks of Throwing us deeper into the mire?

EDIT: CO2

EDIT,EDIT: As was mentioned over on the Antarctic thread the old 'shelf' areas are now counted as 'sea area' and so will always show more 'extent' as there is more open water to now freeze. If we took the 'extent' from post 2002 (LarsenB) then we may find the km2 figure a little more reflective of current Antarctic conditions. The fact that we pulled the second largest ozone hole this season doesn't look good for strat temps (and their impacts on the continental climate) so we may still be 'preserving' the cold down there for a few years more it seems. Sadly the bigger the 'catchup' Antarctica plays when either ocean temps or ozone 'healing' brings in the changes (that are currently being put on hold) the more dramatic the 'catchup' will be.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[noggin]

Noggin, I hope you are just joking, but if you seriously don't know the answer to your "whichever it is!" remark,

Ossie

Ossie, the "whichever it is" remark was meant for the "o"/"O" bit, in that I can never remember whether it is a big "0" or a small "o" . I got well and truly ticked off for wrong-sizing the "o"/"O" once.

I know what carbon dioxide is, honest! It's just a sizing issue.

[noggin]

Are temperatures rising? Well, with climate, it's all about trend.

Thus over time they are rising

but the sceptic trick is to do this

or, and this is being done, this

Do I think you can draw conclusions about climate using the second and third graph. I do not.

Dev, this sceptic wouldn't know how to fiddle graphs!

But I think that there is cherry-picking on both "sides" (I hate that word and will endeavour to think of a less confrontational one).

With regard to the suggestions in the article.......IF man has wronged the climate by upsetting a balance somewhere, then interfering again is dangerous. Two wrongs have never made a right and the thought of where this might lead is very scary, indeed.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't like the sound of artificially tampering with aspects of the atmosphere that have little to do with AGW, such as limiting solar input. Things like that could end up being necessary in the long run, but as yet, the evidence that anthropogenic forcing will bring about catastrophic levels of climate change is far from convincing. Yes, it still appears highly likely that we're affecting the climate, but the question remains, by how much?

I do, however, think ideas to take CO2 out of the atmosphere have a lot of positive potential, provided that the residues can be stored in a way that doesn't result in the CO2 being re-emitted back into the atmosphere. After all, one of the most convincing arguments behind the AGW hypothesis is that human emissions are increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere- so if we try to reduce it back to, say, 1950s levels, then we'd merely be eliminating much of the anthropogenic contribution via CO2. Of course that would still leave the other gases that are being added to through anthropogenic forcing, but most scientific evidence still supports CO2 being the biggest contributor.

[Android]

we'll be lucky to reduce co2 to 2030 levels. All the targets are pipe dreams as governments are totally incapable of the organisation required.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Android

[Gray-Wolf]

we'll be lucky to reduce co2 to 2030 levels. All the targets are pipe dreams as governments are totally incapable of the organisation required.

I'd agree. The Capitalist system will not embrace reductions unless there is profit to be made, we will not stop consuming, the developing world will increase it's demands on goods.

Though walking blindly into the worst AGW can bring whist it is still near 'invisible' (in terms of impacts affecting 1st world Joe) CO2 will continue to increase year on year (as it had since we knew we should be reducing) as it has since the 1850's.

As a species we seem to only react to a 'present threat' and whilst folk see AGW as nothing more than a 'soon to be impacting us' issue we have not impetus to change.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Roger J Smith]

"Apparently the reforestation of agricultural lands post pandemic population collapse in the America's pulled down so much CO2 as to trigger the LIA......."

You're kidding, right?

[Gray-Wolf]

"Apparently the reforestation of agricultural lands post pandemic population collapse in the America's pulled down so much CO2 as to trigger the LIA......."

You're kidding, right?

That's what their number crunching confirms. Now just imagine what the recent deforestation.......

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90104093542.htm

,which appears to be continuing apace, means in terms of loss of carbon sink/CO2 output means (before we look at our fossil fuel inputs) if the re-forestation of the Meso-American civilisations field systems can influence such climatic changes.

If you do not credit CO2 with the ability to impact climate then you will obviously, disbelieve. If you check out the paper and it's figures (and understand CO2's role in climate) then you will find confirmation that we truely are are busy wrecking our (the one we grew our current civilisation in) environment and climate......

Ho Hum......

[Methuselah]

What I don't get, is that the same sceptics that deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas (when manmade anyway), put forward all kinds of natural causes of GW: volcanism generally; as-yet undiscovered undersea volcanoes; reduced amounts of mountain-building; reduced monsoonal activity etc. ad infinitum...Which is all-well-and-good; all such processes would indeed do something: they'd cause a build-up of atmospheric CO2.

Now for the tricky part...If CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas then how can these 'natural' processes work?

[Gray-Wolf]

But why stop at the amazon?

Canada's 'lung's' which used to be a CO2 sink are now acting as a CO2 source due to the impacts of AGW.......

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...,0,539661.story

[jethro]

What I don't get, is that the same sceptics that deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas (when manmade anyway), put forward all kinds of natural causes of GW: volcanism generally; as-yet undiscovered undersea volcanoes; reduced amounts of mountain-building; reduced monsoonal activity etc. ad infinitum...Which is all-well-and-good; all such processes would indeed do something: they'd cause a build-up of atmospheric CO2.

Now for the tricky part...If CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas then how can these 'natural' processes work?

Can't say that I know any sceptics who deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas; natural or otherwise. The scepticism arises from a classic chicken and egg situation - what comes first, warming or CO2? There are arguments for both.

Then there's the scepticism relating to the actual impacts of CO2, if you look at the known physics and chemistry (scientific law), then the steep increases in emissions in recent times, cannot be responsible for the sharp up-turn in temperatures. The first early emissions, back at the start of the industrial age would have had the most impact/effect, latter day emissions, less so - the more you add, the less impact it has.

Then you have to get onto the scepticism relating to the IPCC projections - if we add X amount of CO2, it will result in X amount of increase in temperatures. If we knew everything about sinks/feedbacks etc, we might be in a position to be so certain, but we don't.

Of course all the temperature projections are supremely dependent upon feedback mechanisms, primarily oceans and clouds - CO2 is pretty inept at increasing temperatures.

Water vapour is THE winner in greenhouse gases and we're still no where near to understanding the complete hydro system. Quite how we can then determine what effects increased CO2 will have on this, is beyond me. Last I heard, those big, fat, fluffy clouds which were supposed to happen, which will wrap and trap the heat, aren't playing ball; instead we're getting Cirrus clouds which disperse heat to the atmosphere.

There's a great deal more to scepticism than flippantly dismissing the whole thing as poppycock. I for one have tried incredibly hard to see and understand the total certainty of the AGW stance and for the life of me, I can't. Everywhere you look, you find uncertainty, unknowns and contra arguments/evidence. The AGW side can say till they're blue in the face that the science is settled, but it isn't; no where near.

[Iceberg]

We think the science is settled WRT to AGW being 99% certain, but equally no AGW scientist pretends that he knows what will happen, becuase as you say so much is unknown about the consequences, hence the temperature ranges from 2C to 10C by 2100...

[jethro]

We think the science is settled WRT to AGW being 99% certain, but equally no AGW scientist pretends that he knows what will happen, becuase as you say so much is unknown about the consequences, hence the temperature ranges from 2C to 10C by 2100...

As I understand it, not quite.

This 99% certainty is a bit of a misnomer, with the information we have available thus far, the claim is 99% certainty. However, and this is according to the IPCC, (not some doubtful sceptic blog) we do not know enough about clouds, ocean cycles and water vapour feedback to be able to accurately judge or measure their impact.

Rough estimates are:

50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour

25% is due to clouds

20% is due to CO2

The rest an assortment of other gases.

So... we are 99% certain about 20% of the atmosphere and we're supposed to know what's going on, claim the science is settled and dismiss scepticism and sceptics.

Mmmm, something doesn't quite add up there :o

[Chris Knight]

As I understand it, not quite.

This 99% certainty is a bit of a misnomer, with the information we have available thus far, the claim is 99% certainty. However, and this is according to the IPCC, (not some doubtful sceptic blog) we do not know enough about clouds, ocean cycles and water vapour feedback to be able to accurately judge or measure their impact.

Rough estimates are:

50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour

25% is due to clouds

20% is due to CO2

The rest an assortment of other gases.

So... we are 99% certain about 20% of the atmosphere and we're supposed to know what's going on, claim the science is settled and dismiss scepticism and sceptics.

Mmmm, something doesn't quite add up there <_<

No, that can't be right. We are 99% certain about all these estimates. As in Superman III, the unknown is TAR - believe me, I worked in the labs of a Nobel Laureate (Sir Geoffrey Wilkinson) for a time, and the commonest result of all our experimental preparations was TAR - the compound that would not crystallize, nor could be subjected to analysis due to its amorphous qualities.

If the analysis of the atmosphere does not contain TAR, then the result is suspect.

[Methuselah]

Can't say that I know any sceptics who deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas; natural or otherwise. The scepticism arises from a classic chicken and egg situation - what comes first, warming or CO2? There are arguments for both.

Then there's the scepticism relating to the actual impacts of CO2, if you look at the known physics and chemistry (scientific law), then the steep increases in emissions in recent times, cannot be responsible for the sharp up-turn in temperatures. The first early emissions, back at the start of the industrial age would have had the most impact/effect, latter day emissions, less so - the more you add, the less impact it has.

Then you have to get onto the scepticism relating to the IPCC projections - if we add X amount of CO2, it will result in X amount of increase in temperatures. If we knew everything about sinks/feedbacks etc, we might be in a position to be so certain, but we don't.

Of course all the temperature projections are supremely dependent upon feedback mechanisms, primarily oceans and clouds - CO2 is pretty inept at increasing temperatures.

Water vapour is THE winner in greenhouse gases and we're still no where near to understanding the complete hydro system. Quite how we can then determine what effects increased CO2 will have on this, is beyond me. Last I heard, those big, fat, fluffy clouds which were supposed to happen, which will wrap and trap the heat, aren't playing ball; instead we're getting Cirrus clouds which disperse heat to the atmosphere.

There's a great deal more to scepticism than flippantly dismissing the whole thing as poppycock. I for one have tried incredibly hard to see and understand the total certainty of the AGW stance and for the life of me, I can't. Everywhere you look, you find uncertainty, unknowns and contra arguments/evidence. The AGW side can say till they're blue in the face that the science is settled, but it isn't; no where near.

Thank you for that, Jethro. Well put...And I do agree with you that there are very many unknowns and uncertanties involved. :lol:

[noggin]

If it is believed that the LIA was due to re-forestation, then why not have a worldwide re-forestation programme now? Everyone (I hope!) likes trees and it might pacify the AGWers by reducing the amount of CO2 :lol: around. Or is it not a two-way thing?

[jethro]

No, that can't be right. We are 99% certain about all these estimates. As in Superman III, the unknown is TAR - believe me, I worked in the labs of a Nobel Laureate (Sir Geoffrey Wilkinson) for a time, and the commonest result of all our experimental preparations was TAR - the compound that would not crystallize, nor could be subjected to analysis due to its amorphous qualities.

If the analysis of the atmosphere does not contain TAR, then the result is suspect.

Damn those salami slicers!!!

[noggin]

http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/tmp/graph-Jan...36090698242.gif

This is a nice graph thing.

* awaits slings and arrows*

[Methuselah]

CO2 vs H2O...chicken and egg, but is it really?

I can appreciate how increased CO2 will lead to increased H2O. A positive feedback mechanism.

But, increased H2O levels will cause a reduction in CO2 due to increasing rainfall acting on rocks, laying down carbonates. A negative feedback mechanism