Up In The Atmosphere

[johnholmes]

But within the context of rising GHG levels Jethro.

Are you saying that the scientists claim that differences in cloud can stop greenhouse warming or just augment the rate of change?

GW

why not read both the links which Jethro posted and then you have their answer?

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry John but I don't believe that this is how J. is interpreting them?

The latest research I read through showed a strong probability that the equitorial zone will be less cloudy and that this in itself will speed up our warming (augment the ghg impacts) with some increase in cloud (low level) across more northerly/southerly latitudes.

With water vapour such a large componant of the 'greenhouse effect' I accept that we do need to better understand the implications on it from our current warming but surely we are not supposed to do so against a 'stable' climate but against a warming one?

All previous warmings show a direct relationship with CO2 levels (even the Ordovician ice age now we interpret the data correctly)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627661.200-climate-control-is-co2-really-in-charge.html?full=true

so surely we must accept the link to CO2 and accept that any other 'modifications' to the climate system do not , in the end, alter the direction global temps will take if CO2 keeps rising?

[Methuselah]

If I understand the physics correctly, any feedback between CO₂ and H₂O (g) must be positive...The uncertainty lies in the behaviour of the feedbacks concerning cloud formation, i.e. what happens to the water itself, once it is already in the atmosphere??

[jethro]

GW, I'm not interpretting anything, merely reporting this latest study which says 14 of the world's top climate scientists don't know the effect on temperature that the additional CO2 will have because they don't know how the atmosphere, or more particularly clouds will behave.

More and more CO2 does not necessarily lead to temperatures inexorably rising, is really isn't that simple.

Leaving aside any thoughts of which side of this debate you favour, this does a good job of explaining what CO2 does, how and why and why there are so many unknowns for those 14 scientists (and probably a great deal more) to continue to scratch their heads over.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[pottyprof]

All previous warmings show a direct relationship with CO2 levels (even the Ordovician ice age now we interpret the data correctly)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627661.200-climate-control-is-co2-really-in-charge.html?full=true

so surely we must accept the link to CO2 and accept that any other 'modifications' to the climate system do not , in the end, alter the direction global temps will take if CO2 keeps rising?

From your quoted new scientist article

Indeed, for much of Earth's history the planet has been warmer than it is now.

So we are currently at an anomalous state then????

[sunny starry skies]

From your quoted new scientist article

So we are currently at an anomalous state then????

Err, yes, as our entire society is based on a climate and sea level close to what we have today. Imagine 100+m sea level rise and mean temperatures 6C higher, forested poles, totally different weather regimes etc. In geological times the planet has been this much warmer, but not recently. Humans will have an awful lot of adaptation to do. The planet will adapt, but can we?

sss

Edited July 4, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Gray-Wolf]

It seems to be that point of 'personal acceptance' of facts again does it not?

We have had the 'data' for years but not had the sophistication to interpret it correctly. We are told that we can now do that (and answer old questions) and some folk pretend it's just another 'stab in the dark'.

Does science progress in it's understanding of the universe or do we just choose a 'flavour' that suits the time???

[pottyprof]

Err, yes, as our entire society is based on a climate and sea level close to what we have today. Imagine 100+m sea level rise and mean temperatures 6C higher, forested poles, totally different weather regimes etc. In geological times the planet has been this much warmer, but not recently. Humans will have an awful lot of adaptation to do. The planet will adapt, but can we?

sss

So is that yes we are at an anomalous state and should me warmer than we are today? The rest of the post is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the question.

GW.

It seems to be that point of 'personal acceptance' of facts again does it not?

There's nothing personal acceptance about it. It states in your quoted article "Indeed, for much of Earth's history the planet has been warmer than it is now." I'm not making this up. All I want to know is are we at an anomalous state? Simple answer required...

[Gray-Wolf]

So is that yes we are at an anomalous state and should me warmer than we are today? The rest of the post is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the question.

GW.

There's nothing personal acceptance about it. It states in your quoted article "Indeed, for much of Earth's history the planet has been warmer than it is now." I'm not making this up. All I want to know is are we at an anomalous state? Simple answer required...

Yes we are at an 'anomalous state'.

[RedShift]

All I want to know is are we at an anomalous state? Simple answer required...

Yes. Is that simple and relevant enough?

[Gray-Wolf]

So , P.P. ,where has your line of questioning brought us?

We all know the present cycle of glacial/interglacial is novel for the planet and that if we melted all the ice the planet would find it difficult to regrow it ,now we have altered the GHG levels of the atmosphere, but what have we gained from this line of enquiry?

[jethro]

Well we don't seem to have achieved a discussion which acknowledges the roles that a multitude of different drivers plus negative and positive feedbacks have, we're still at the "CO2 is the b-all and end-all" of everything apparently.

What about ozone GW, soot, particle aerosols, clouds, water vapour and humidity, to name but few.

[Methuselah]

So , P.P. ,where has your line of questioning brought us?

We all know the present cycle of glacial/interglacial is novel for the planet and that if we melted all the ice the planet would find it difficult to regrow it ,now we have altered the GHG levels of the atmosphere, but what have we gained from this line of enquiry?

I'm sorry, Ian. But we don't know these things at all...We may, however (after assessing all the research) believe it all to be the case...

[Gray-Wolf]

As of old J' (with C-Bob and V.P.) I have to plead ignorance and ask to understand the 'Big Picture' before I feel confident enough to zoom in to the constituents (to weight their influence?).

Until we can find some commonality with the impacts of mans impacts across the globe ,and their probable impacts on 'closed system' of our troposphere (and beyond? with the increase of Noctilunimescent in the Strat) I find it difficult to 'zoom in' and look at individual impacts.

Take soot. We've always had wildfire and so always had 'soot' but since the advent of man and his attempts to 'tame' his environment how has the soot burden increased? The first folk into Australia (35,000yrs ago?) and their burning of the NW territories or the burning of our own flag fen (8,000yrs ago?) must add into the 'natural' surely? Come the 1850's and the emergence of the industrial revolution the 'soot' issue must have altered significantly. During the 90's and early noughties we get China and it's 'brown coal' habit with the resultant step up of 'soot' emissions around the northern hemisphere (remember the Siberian 'Green Snow' in 08?).

How can we realistically start to weigh the impacts of such things if we cannot agree that man is significantly changing the atmosphere of his planet and this ,in turn, is impacting the circulation of both air and ocean?

CO2 is the most focused on by far as it is something we know warms (or cools) our planet over the geological record so surely it is something worthy of further study? the minutia that augment/offset this warming must surely be the cherries on the cake?

The fact that this gas hangs around for up wards of 1,000yrs gives ample opportunity for many 'natural warming events' to enable the GHG's to do their job even if we have temporary slowdowns in the rate of warming as the 'cool cycles' play their part.

The initial 'inertia' of the planet appears to have been overcome through the 80's and the warming trend has since become firmly established even through minor 'cooling events (eruptions/Nina's etc.).

Like a supertanker it takes a lot of energy to overcome the inertia and get the thing moving but once in motion it takes a hell of a lot to then stop it. The supertanker that is our atmosphere is now moving, what can we hope for to halt and reverse that motion?

I'm sorry, Ian. But we don't know these things at all...We may, however (after assessing all the research) believe it all to be the case...

Oooo Pete , you old pedant! I withdraw 'Know' for observe then?

[pottyprof]

A nice easy to follow powerpoint on SpaceWeather.com about the condition of the stratosphere.

http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Richard_Keen.ppt

I thought it was interesting anyway....

[knocker]

Will more Ozone make us warmer or colder?

Tropospheric or stratospheric ozone?

[jethro]

Either and both.

[knocker]

Either and both.

Briefly regarding stratospheric ozone.

Stratospheric ozone absorbs significant amounts of both incoming ultraviolet radiation, harmful to life, and outgoing terrestrial long-wave reradiation, so that its overall thermal role is a complex one. Its net effect on earrh surface temperatures depends on the elevation at which the absorption occurs, being to some extent a trade-off between short-and long-wave absorption in that:

1 An increase of ozone above about 30 km absorbs relatively more incoming short-wave radiation, causing a net decrease of surface temperatures.

2 An increase of ozone below about 25 km absorbs relatively more outgoing long-wave radiation, causing a net increase of surface temperatures.

[knocker]

Aerosols: Tiny Particles, Big Impact.

Take a deep breath. Even if the air looks clear, it’s nearly certain that you’ll inhale tens of millions of solid particles and liquid droplets. These ubiquitous specks of matter are known as aerosols, and they can be found in the air over oceans, deserts, mountains, forests, ice, and every ecosystem in between. They drift in Earth’s atmosphere from the stratosphere to the surface and range in size from a few nanometers—less than the width of the smallest viruses—to several several tens of micrometers—about the diameter of human hair. Despite their small size, they have major impacts on our climate and our health.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page1.php

This map shows the global distribution of aerosols and the proportion of those aerosols that are large or small. Intense colors indicate a thick layer of aerosols. Yellow areas are predominantly coarse particles, like dust, and red areas are mainly fine aerosols, like smoke or pollution. Gray indicates areas with no data. (NASA map by Robert Simmon, based on MODIS data from NASA Earth Observations.)

Image NASA

[Timini Cricket]

Ozone has a short half life, especially in the presence of water and organic matter, a few minutes at ambient temperature, before it oxidises some reduced substance ( e.g. an incompletely oxidised hydrocarbon) or forms hydroxyl free radicals with water. Despite a continuous cycle of production from chemical sources, electrical ionisation and radiation, below 12 Km, ozone is so transient as to have negligible effects on the long wave radiation in the Troposphere, compared to the major component greenhouse gases.

In the Stratosphere, it's half-life is also quite short due to thermal decomposition, but measured in units of a few days near the Stratopause at 270K, up to months near the colder Tropopause at about 220K.

As well as screening the more active solar ultraviolet radiation wavelengths, the Ozone layer absorbs solar infrared too in the complex series of photo- and thermo-chemical reactions of the Chapman cycle, and little if any of this part of the longer wave solar spectrum directly reaches the troposphere. Atmospheric chemists usually like to discount the thermal part of the reaction by invoking an entity "M" which stands for "a molecule that carries off the excess heat", a sort of a non-specific catalyst. This is a peculiar kludge by chemists, who are usually as obsessive as accountants in making their books or equations balance.

edit to make quotation marks balance!

Edited December 21, 2010 by Timini Cricket

[knocker]

In a study published December 20 in the Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences (PNAS), a team of researchers including University of New Hampshire scientists Wilfred Wollheim, William McDowell, and Jody Potter details findings that show emissions of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide from global rivers and streams are three times previous estimates used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the leading international body for the assessment of climate change.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-12/uonh-ush122110.php

[Gray-Wolf]

In a study published December 20 in the Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences (PNAS), a team of researchers including University of New Hampshire scientists Wilfred Wollheim, William McDowell, and Jody Potter details findings that show emissions of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide from global rivers and streams are three times previous estimates used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the leading international body for the assessment of climate change.

http://www.eurekaler...h-ush122110.php

For those of us that see GHG's producing problems for the planet this is another worry (like CO2 levels running beyond the 'W.C.S.' of the TAR4 or the 'methane issues now coming into play) for those who do not see man's influence as a 'problem' 'so what?' :smiliz19:

Edited December 22, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Village]

I personally think its a good thing to try to reduce our emissions relative to energy production. However, one must keep this in perspective.

The best estimates currently are that 97% of the total increase in CO2 can be attributed to natural processes. CO2 is not a polutant, its quite the opposite and the more there is available then the more life there is and this leads to greater diversity also.

Further, we must make sure that we dont restrict too much progress in doing so because ultimately its only progress which will ensure our future. If we do not progress we are most definitely doomed.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Village

[Gray-Wolf]

. If we do not progress we are most definitely doomed.

And if we progress as we have been doing we are most definately doomed.........:smiliz19:

[knocker]

The best estimates currently are that 97% of the total increase in CO2 can be attributed to natural processes. CO2 is not a polutant, its quite the opposite and the more there is available then the more life there is and this leads to greater diversity also.

CO2 levels are higher now than they have been for two million years. Were these natural processes lying dormant all this time?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090618-co2-highest-carbon-dioxide.html