Some new articles about Global Warming

Wild Cobra
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Wild Cobra »

A few quotes out of a few articles related to Global Warming:

The Faithful Heretic:



What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.




Impure as the Driven Snow:



Belching from smokestacks, tailpipes and even forest fires, soot—or black carbon—can quickly sully any snow on which it happens to land. In the atmosphere, such aerosols can significantly cool the planet by scattering incoming radiation or helping form clouds that deflect incoming light. But on snow—even at concentrations below five parts per billion—such dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming.




http://climatesci.org/2008/03/25/new-pa ... l-warming/:



The report writes that

“…. soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2″

“In the paper, Ramanathan and Carmichael integrated observed data from satellites, aircraft and surface instruments about the warming effect of black carbon and found that its forcing, or warming effect in the atmosphere, is about 0.9 watts per meter squared. That compares to estimates of between 0.2 watts per meter squared and 0.4 watts per meter squared that were agreed upon as a consensus estimate in a report released last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N.-sponsored agency that periodically synthesizes the body of climate change research. “

and

“Ramanathan and Carmichael said the conservative estimates are based on widely used computer model simulations that do not take into account the amplification of black carbon’s warming effect when mixed with other aerosols such as sulfates. The models also do not adequately represent the full range of altitudes at which the warming effect occurs. The most recent observations, in contrast, have found significant black carbon warming effects at altitudes in the range of 2 kilometers (6,500 feet), levels at which black carbon particles absorb not only sunlight but also solar energy reflected by clouds at lower altitudes.”




Here is another interesting link:

Guest Weblog On Albedo from Mike Smith:

How many times have I stressed the soot being the cause of the northern ice melting? How many times have I pointed out adding more CO2 does almost nothing?
Snidely Whiplash
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Snidely Whiplash »

Lol, CO2 is plant food...... Fertilizer..... Plants absorb CO2, and as a result, give off oxygen.... CO2 is NOT a pollutant..... If it were, then why do commercial greenhouses and nureries pump presurised CO2 into they're greenhouses at 2-3 times the atmospheric levels to stimulate plant growth..... If CO2 were a pollutant, why would they do that...? Did you ever wonder why when you take a lush plant home from the nursery it dies back and never looks as good as it did at the nursery..??? You need more CO2....!!!!!! Do yo ever wonder why those greenhouses have that special smell to them..? It's just something you can't put your finger on..? It's CO2........ :wah:

CO2 doesn't cause global warming anyway to those who are of that religious belief.... CO2 is a result of biological activity that follows climate change due to solar and other factors within the earth that we have no part of.......

They are trying to scam you, and reach into your pockets and take your money, and the best way to do that is to scare you into letting them do it, without a fight......

:sneaky:
User avatar
Bored_Wombat
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bored_Wombat »

Wild Cobra;891603 wrote:

And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor.




This isn't even close to the figures that are being published by the scientific community.

Removing water vapour alone would only reduce the greenhouse effect by about 36%. Removing everything except water vapour would leave about 66% of the greenhouse effect.

The equivalent values for CO2 are about 9% and 26%. So CO2 is 25% or 60% as important as water vapour depending on how you treat the overlap with other gasses.

(figures from here)

The One one-thousandth figure you quote is interesting for its divergence from other figures, but, it does rather stretch one's credibility.
User avatar
Bored_Wombat
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bored_Wombat »

Wild Cobra;891603 wrote: Impure as the Driven Snow:


I notice from your link:

“…. soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2″

Which does rather contradict your claim above that water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2.

But ice does have a very high albedo, so either melting it or covering it in soot will result in the earth retaining more heat than it otherwise would.
Wild Cobra
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Wild Cobra »

Bored_Wombat;892903 wrote: This isn't even close to the figures that are being published by the scientific community.

Removing water vapour alone would only reduce the greenhouse effect by about 36%. Removing everything except water vapour would leave about 66% of the greenhouse effect.

The equivalent values for CO2 are about 9% and 26%. So CO2 is 25% or 60% as important as water vapour depending on how you treat the overlap with other gasses.

(figures from here)

The One one-thousandth figure you quote is interesting for its divergence from other figures, but, it does rather stretch one's credibility.
Keep it in perspective. He was talking about in the first 30 feet.

I am skeptical of these claims myself, but I haven't done the math. The way I absoption works, the claim could be accurate.
Wild Cobra
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Wild Cobra »

Bored_Wombat;892914 wrote: I notice from your link:

“…. soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2″

Which does rather contradict your claim above that water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2.

But ice does have a very high albedo, so either melting it or covering it in soot will result in the earth retaining more heat than it otherwise would.


Wrong link, but...

This was quoting another link. It didn't say it agreed or disagreed, or place complete percpective on it. Consider that there is agreement in the scientific community that soot is a problem.

If it purely is 'global' numbers and speaking of ice, consider how significant that 60% is when it is only occuring on ice caps.
User avatar
Bored_Wombat
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bored_Wombat »

Wild Cobra;894834 wrote: Keep it in perspective. He was talking about in the first 30 feet.

I am skeptical of these claims myself, but I haven't done the math. The way I absoption works, the claim could be accurate.


The Link wrote: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…


That's wrong. Even choosing the most favourable definition of absorbed by water vapour, only 66% (or so) is absorbed in the entire atmosphere, much less the first 30 feet.

There's a lot of errors about this subject in the blogosphere. This is why the very peer reviewed work of the IPCC is valuable, despite its conservatism due to governmental review.

They only published last year, and the one of the things that is known to a very high confidence is that anthropogenic greenhouse emission, most significantly CO2 are responsible for most (likely all) of the measured global warming since the middle of last century.

In fact that was fairly confident in the previous report of 2000, and suspected at the time of the formation of the IPCC in the late 80s.

There are multiple lines of evidence for this.
User avatar
Bored_Wombat
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bored_Wombat »

Wild Cobra;894836 wrote: If it purely is 'global' numbers and speaking of ice, consider how significant that 60% is when it is only occuring on ice caps.


Sure, it's significant.

Even this paper which is suggesting a higher significance that earlier body of work, and it might be partly right or wholly right, CO2 should not be dismissed such as How many times have I pointed out adding more CO2 does almost nothing? ... It is still the main cause.
Wild Cobra
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Wild Cobra »

Bored_Wombat;894850 wrote:

That's wrong. Even choosing the most favourable definition of absorbed by water vapour, only 66% (or so) is absorbed in the entire atmosphere, much less the first 30 feet.


I agree with the 30 feet for CO2. I think that should be 30 miles. A seroius mistake. Now the CO2 at 30 ft might be right. Bryson just died the 11th. He may have been senile when he said it, confucing facts.

Bored_Wombat;894850 wrote:

There's a lot of errors about this subject in the blogosphere. This is why the very peer reviewed work of the IPCC is valuable, despite its conservatism due to governmental review.


They really have the wool pulled over your eyes. The IPCC is a political body of nations, many hostile to the USA. They can peer review anything with activism and punditry.

Bored_Wombat;894850 wrote:

They only published last year, and the one of the things that is known to a very high confidence is that anthropogenic greenhouse emission, most significantly CO2 are responsible for most (likely all) of the measured global warming since the middle of last century.


That cannot be true. If it was, why have we been cooling since 2004?

Bored_Wombat;894850 wrote:

In fact that was fairly confident in the previous report of 2000, and suspected at the time of the formation of the IPCC in the late 80s.

There are multiple lines of evidence for this.


And 1000 years ago, the best minds in the world thought the world was flat. They were more than fairly confident. They were absolutely confident.
Wild Cobra
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Wild Cobra »

Bored_Wombat;894851 wrote: Sure, it's significant.

Even this paper which is suggesting a higher significance that earlier body of work, and it might be partly right or wholly right, CO2 should not be dismissed such as ... It is still the main cause.


You will change your mind as the years go by as the earth doesn't warm with the CO2 trends.
Snidely Whiplash
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:33 pm

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Snidely Whiplash »

:wah: It's kinda funny reading these arguments about global warming, oppps, thats politically incorrect now, it's now called climate change, so the enviro-nuts can keep the masses hysterical and giving up they're money and freedoms of choice no matter whether it cools or warms around us........ LOL, and they darn well know it's going to eventually do one or the other don't they..!! :wah:

I find it ironic that people are so concerned with a species like humans, that if each one on the planet was given 1000 square feet to live in, would all fit in the state of Texas, yes, every person on the globe could fit into the state of Texas if given a 1000 sq. ft. piece of ground, or if given a 4 sq. ft. piece of groud to be counted on, could all fit into the size area of a medium city anywhere in the world............. Lol, humans are such a small part of the planets ecosystem, yet what you and I see in the media, and all of the other inputs we inhale into our beings each day make it sound like we are the biggest force in the universe...? There are even scientists saying that humans are poluting the entire universe now by exploring it, and even by looking into it with telescopes, that somehow now it's been soiled...? :wah:

There is such a pathetic part of the human race that thinks this way, it's just astounding to read this nonsense over and over, and the tainted, distorted way the forces we see and read and listen to each day make us think about the world we all live in....

:)
User avatar
Bored_Wombat
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bored_Wombat »

Wild Cobra;895293 wrote: I agree with the 30 feet for CO2. I think that should be 30 miles. A seroius mistake. Now the CO2 at 30 ft might be right. Bryson just died the 11th. He may have been senile when he said it, confucing facts.
And it should be one quarter or three fifths, not one one thousandth.

But the key difference between water and CO2 is that CO2 endures in the atmosphere. About half the CO2 ever emitted by human activity remains in the atmosphere, so it changes the climate for centuries.

Water remains in the atmosphere about a week. Emitting it doesn't change the climate, it just makes it rain.

Wild Cobra;895293 wrote: They really have the wool pulled over your eyes. The IPCC is a political body of nations, many hostile to the USA. They can peer review anything with activism and punditry.
I can only suggest you read some peer reviewed literature on the subject. I seems that you believe that the truth is to be found on political blogs rather than scientific papers.

This one is pretty famous. You could start there.





Wild Cobra;895293 wrote: That cannot be true. If it was, why have we been cooling since 2004?
Time periods of less than about 20 or 30 years (which represent about 0.4 or 0.6K at the current rate of warming) are affected by other things than the greenhouse effect, and the signal would be blurred at that scale.

Still it is not true that we have been cooling since 2004. NASA GISS data puts 2005 as the hottest year on record, and 2005, 2006 and 2007 as all warmer than 2004.



The Hadley centre data has 2005 as warmer than 2004, but 2006 and 2007 cooler.

Wild Cobra;895293 wrote: And 1000 years ago, the best minds in the world thought the world was flat. They were more than fairly confident. They were absolutely confident.
Well you're mistaken. 1000 years ago, no cosmographer worthy of note had called into question the sphericality of the earth for hundreds of years.

But that has no influence on the results of studies today. Greenhouse gasses trap heat, a result of optics. We've increased the greenhouse gas concentration, and this can be measured and attributed. It is getting warmer.

Not that hard to understand.
User avatar
Bored_Wombat
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bored_Wombat »

Wild Cobra;895295 wrote: You will change your mind as the years go by as the earth doesn't warm with the CO2 trends.


Not very likely. It would be the first time for at least 420 million years.

Write up by Yale news:

Greenhouse Gas Effect Consistent Over 420 Million Years.

...This study confirms that in the Earth’s past 420 million years, each doubling of atmospheric CO2 translates to an average global temperature increase of about 3° Celsius...



The paper:

Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years (Dana L. Royer, Robert A. Berner & Jeffrey Park, NATURE,Vol 446, 29 March 2007)

...We conclude that a climate sensitivity greater than 1.5°C has probably been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate system over the past 420 million years, regardless of temporal scaling. ...

So I tend to expect that you might be mistaken on that prediction.
Wild Cobra
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Wild Cobra »

Wow, I just received a "happy birthday" message. I even forgot I subscribes here, and eight years later, this is the last thread I responded to...
User avatar
Bored_Wombat
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bored_Wombat »

Hi Cobra.

I received a message that this thread had been replied to eight years later.

How have your last 8 years been?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12438
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by LarsMac »

Interesting to pull this thread up from the past and read the comments from the perspective of eight years later.

Since 2008, the average global temperatures have made new records nearly every year.

The CO2 and Methane concentrations in the atmosphere, likewise, have reached records never before recorded.

And in the US, still, Congress waffles.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Bored_Wombat
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bored_Wombat »

Well January was mad hot, but February was completely nuts.



This jump looks bigger than '98

The Satellite temperature measurements agree:



But HadCRU doesn't have Feb up yet.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15919
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Bored_Wombat;1493729 wrote: Well January was mad hot, but February was completely nuts.



This jump looks bigger than '98

The Satellite temperature measurements agree:



But HadCRU doesn't have Feb up yet.


The trend line is certainly clear from those graphs but that last spike is, as you say, nuts.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39043
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by spot »

And from the Arctic Sea Ice measurements, today is the least amount of Arctic sea ice ever seen on any day in March.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Bored_Wombat
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bored_Wombat »

The northern summer sea ice loss is going to be the first high cost high casualty impact, unless there's something nasty coming quicker that we've missed.

It's got that horrible positive feedback from the extent, but the volume is dropping pretty much steadily, and it's 2/3rds gone since 1980:

User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15919
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Come the summer we'll see the true extent of the damage :-

Attached files
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15919
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bryn Mawr »

CO2 emissions are currently running at forty billion tonnes a *year* - that's obscene :-

Rate of carbon emissions put in context - BBC News
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39043
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by spot »

Too many damn cows, for one thing. Buy a cow, it chops down a thousand trees to get grazing rights and then it just farts around for years.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6452
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by FourPart »

Although the majority of gases from cattle (cows & sheep) actually comes from burping rather than farting.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39043
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by spot »

Designed by humans, that's why. Can't even fart right.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39043
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by spot »

Bryn Mawr;1493764 wrote: Come the summer we'll see the true extent of the damage :-


I just had a look - it's now been a record low continuously since late October last year, with the exception of the last week of January. I can't see any other year where the extent has been a continuous record low for so long.

Last November, when sea ice should have begun thickening and spreading over the Arctic as winter set in, the region warmed up. Temperatures should have plummeted to -25C but reached several degrees above freezing instead. “It’s been about 20C warmer than normal over most of the Arctic Ocean. This is unprecedented,” research professor Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University told the Guardian in November. “These temperatures are literally off the charts for where they should be at this time of year. It is pretty shocking. The Arctic has been breaking records all year. It is exciting but also scary.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ate-change



I'm not impressed by the proposal in the article, mind.

I'm doing my bit, it's a sunny day and the midday indoor temperature is 44°F (7°C), humidity 68%, and I have 16 windows open to air the place while the breeze is dry. I'm wearing my fleece.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15919
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bryn Mawr »

spot;1506599 wrote: I just had a look - it's now been a record low continuously since late October last year, with the exception of the last week of January. I can't see any other year where the extent has been a continuous record low for so long.

Last November, when sea ice should have begun thickening and spreading over the Arctic as winter set in, the region warmed up. Temperatures should have plummeted to -25C but reached several degrees above freezing instead. “It’s been about 20C warmer than normal over most of the Arctic Ocean. This is unprecedented,” research professor Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University told the Guardian in November. “These temperatures are literally off the charts for where they should be at this time of year. It is pretty shocking. The Arctic has been breaking records all year. It is exciting but also scary.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ate-change



I'm not impressed by the proposal in the article, mind.

I'm doing my bit, it's a sunny day and the midday indoor temperature is 44°F (7°C), humidity 68%, and I have 16 windows open to air the place while the breeze is dry. I'm wearing my fleece.


The summer levels are far more indicative of the long term trend but yes, temperatures twenty degrees above the long term average are scary.

In the Antarctic things are as bad. For a long time the Antarctic was bucking the trend but no longer :-

Amundsen Sea nearly free of ice

Extent is tracking at records low levels in the Southern Hemisphere, where it is currently summer. As shown in this plot for February 5, this is primarily due to low ice extent within the Amundsen Sea, where only a few scattered patches of ice remain. By contrast, extent in the Weddell Sea is now only slightly below average. This pattern is consistent with persistent above average air temperatures off western Antarctica.


Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15919
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Some new articles about Global Warming

Post by Bryn Mawr »

The Antarctic continues to break new record lows. The upturn should have started ten days ago but the ice extent is still going down :-

Attached files

Return to “Conservation The Environment”