Global Warming

[camanintx]

Faulty reasoning. By arguing that CO2 could cause the last 5/6ths of warming seen in Volstok, you have shown that CO2 is non-linear, so your attempt to extrapolate a conclusion is ridiculous.

The claim that CO2 caused 5/6ths of the warming seen in Vostok was your's, not mine. Because the processes involved in climate change are non-linear, scientists use computer models based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. They test these models by comparing them with known data from the past before making any predictions from them. These models show that without the 30% increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels, the mean global surface temperature would be about 1 ºC less than it is now, proving that man-made global warming is happening. If you have access to these computer models and can show where they are wrong, I'm sure the scientific community would love to hear from you.

And you have no idea about the effect on the third world. The cost of ACs and refrigerators nearly triple. Suddenly, people can't afford refrigerators, and food poisoning occurred.

I'm sure you can produce references to these mass outbreaks of food poisoning due to the lack of CFC's.

Estimates put the cost of signing Kyoto at over $300,000,000,000
Bull. You cannot predict a non-linear system from a narrow sample size. Thats Statistics 101.

The Stern Review, a 2006 report by the former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank Nicholas Stern, suggests that an investment of one percent of global GDP is required to mitigate the effects of climate change, with failure to do so risking a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP. Which would have the most impact on our economy?

Really? There is no evidence of global warming having any adverse weather effects.

You do understand the relationship between climate and weather, don't you? As one middle school student put it, "Climate helps you decide what clothes to buy, weather helps you decide what clothes to wear." As for evidence that global warming is affecting the environment, I suggest you do some research on permafrost.

And can you prove that the rate of sea level rise has changed? Its been rising since the last ice age.

There appears to be at least two basic physical laws you are not familiar with. 1 - the warmer the water, the more volume it occupies. 2 - the warmer the surrounding environment is, the faster ice will melt. Now explain how global warming could NOT lead to rising sea levels.

 

[yossarian22]

The claim that CO2 caused 5/6ths of the warming seen in Vostok was your's, not mine.

Then give an explanation that does not imply a non-linear system

Because the processes involved in climate change are non-linear, scientists use computer models based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. They test these models by comparing them with known data from the past before making any predictions from them.

You cannot extrapolate data from a non-linear system. Ever. A sample can appear linear, even if the whole system is not. Considering the environment is much more complicated than most non-linear systems we have modeled. Perhaps when models are actually correct most of the time, we can use them for policy.

I'm sure you can produce references to these mass outbreaks of food poisoning due to the lack of CFC's.

Now when did I say mass outbreaks. The point of my stating that was meant to point out that everything we do has a negative effect. We can't have our cake and eat it too. If you want a better example, the ban of DDT killed some 30 million people. That is a conservative number. I have seen others pegging it at 50 million

The Stern Review, a 2006 report by the former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank Nicholas Stern, suggests that an investment of one percent of global GDP is required to mitigate the effects of climate change, with failure to do so risking a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP. Which would have the most impact on our economy?

Ah, the infamous Stern Report, which cherry picked the most pessimistic climate and weather data, and makes ridiculous claims?
List of criticisms.

As for evidence that global warming is affecting the environment, I suggest you do some research on permafrost.

I can show links to record high ice levels in Antarctica, but that does not show the earth is cooling does it? You have totally failed to understand my point. The Earth is warming, has been since the last ice age. Prove CO2 emissions caused an increase in warming

There appears to be at least two basic physical laws you are not familiar with. 1 - the warmer the water, the more volume it occupies. 2 - the warmer the surrounding environment is, the faster ice will melt. Now explain how global warming could NOT lead to rising sea levels.

You have totally failed to grasp the point I was making. Prove that there is an increase in the rate of the rising of sea levels. Sea levels have been rising since the last Ice Age. If we notice it dropping, it's probably a bad thing. We are overdue for an ice age. Also, sea level is not anywhere near as basic as "It got warmer, so it expanded". Soil solubility shoots a hole in that.

 

[camanintx]

You cannot extrapolate data from a non-linear system. Ever. A sample can appear linear, even if the whole system is not. Considering the environment is much more complicated than most non-linear systems we have modeled. Perhaps when models are actually correct most of the time, we can use them for policy.

Nonlinear systems are modeled all the time in fluid dynamics, electronics, biology, etc. If climate modeling is so much more complicated, then how are second year college students doing it?

I can show links to record high ice levels in Antarctica, but that does not show the earth is cooling does it?

What part of global in "global warming" do you not understand? Record high ice levels in Antarctica is a local condition and don't tell us anything about the Earth as a whole.

You have totally failed to understand my point. The Earth is warming, has been since the last ice age.

Actually, when you look at the Vostok ice core data, you see that the last ice age ended about 15,000 years ago and temperatures rose until about 10,000 years ago, since which they have been relatively stable. Interesting isn't it that the whole history of human civilization is compressed into that tiny period between ice ages when temperatures have been stable.

Prove CO2 emissions caused an increase in warming.

Let's run through a list of assumptions and you tell me which ones you disagree with.

1. The global mean surface temperature of the Earth is increasing.
2. Humans are responsible for a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to the warming of Earth's surface.

Now, how can you say that humans are not having an impact on our climate?

Even if we don't fully understand how the climate works, doesn't it make sense to try to limit our impact as much as possible? Don't we already apply this principle when deciding whether to develop areas that may be environmentally sensitive?

 

[yossarian22]

Nonlinear systems are modeled all the time in fluid dynamics, electronics, biology, etc. If climate modeling is so much more complicated, then how are second year college students doing it?

Because that is not an accurate model of climate? You apparently do not get the difference between a chaotic and a non-linear system. I used non-linear to get the point across more easily. Every variable in climate is intertwined with one another, meaning we cannot model it very accurately. Computer models of climate are very inaccurate, and it is idiotic to base global policy off it.

What part of global in "global warming" do you not understand? Record high ice levels in Antarctica is a local condition and don't tell us anything about the Earth as a whole.

Did you fail to grasp the parallelism I was making?

Actually, when you look at the Vostok ice core data, you see that the last ice age ended about 15,000 years ago

It ended about 20,000 years ago.

and temperatures rose until about 10,000 years ago, since which they have been relatively stable. Interesting isn't it that the whole history of human civilization is compressed into that tiny period between ice ages when temperatures have been stable.

Your point being? There has still been an increase in temperature, but its less noticeable.

Now, how can you say that humans are not having an impact on our climate?

I am not saying that we have no impact on the environment, though it might seem like it since I asked you for definitive proof of the link, which can be summarized as "CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We release CO2". If we are to trust models, temperature will only rise to about .8C from the increase in CO2 concentration, far below the IPCC's most recent estimate of 1.8C. The role CO2 has as a greenhouse gas has also come under fire recently. CO2 only absorbs a narrow band of infrared, meaning it is not an extremely potent greenhouse gas. Water is far more effective and reports have linked it too 75% of current warming.

Now then, the problem I have about the whole warming debacle is not that humans are causing it, or of predicted temperature rises. My problem is with the expenditure of money on it. Is it even worth solving? The 98 El Nino had temperatures in the range of the worst IPCC reports, and there was global profit even subtracting damages from the weather. What I want is justification for the spending of trillions on a problem that 1.we might not even be able to stop and 2. might be beneficial to us.

 

[s2a]

Scientists like to point at man's contribution to global warming but I have another theory which also can help explain climate change (Not all of which is due to global warming).

I think the Indonesian earthquake which caused the Tsunami gave the earth enough of a jolt to send it slightly closer to the sun. It would not take much. Our earth is in a very delicate balance. Another possibility is that the earthquake also changed the eliptic which would have affects on climate. These things should be measurable if there is anyone capable in this thread to do so.

The religious will recognize God turning up the heat from the book of Revelation but seven times has to be figurative or we would all be crispy critters. Do the math.
I think God is sending an asteroid to hit the earth and knock it back into place but unfortuantely for the residents it destroys almost everything as well. Anyway it is nice to know that someone is interested in keeping earth a garden instead of making it into a hot spring.

"Do the math?"

OK. I'll try.

What figures do you present that we should figuratively compute to arrive at a compelling conclusion?

Let's see if "things" add up the way you suggest they might, or should.

 

[Muffled]

"Do the math?"

OK. I'll try.

What figures do you present that we should figuratively compute to arrive at a compelling conclusion?

Let's see if "things" add up the way you suggest they might, or should.

7 X 120F = 840F. That would make my blood boil, lol.

 

[camanintx]

Because that is not an accurate model of climate? You apparently do not get the difference between a chaotic and a non-linear system. I used non-linear to get the point across more easily. Every variable in climate is intertwined with one another, meaning we cannot model it very accurately. Computer models of climate are very inaccurate, and it is idiotic to base global policy off it.

I do understand the difference between chaotic and non-linear systems but you don't appear to understand the difference between weather and climate. We don't need to know what the actual temperature is at any specific location to predict where the global mean temperature is going. While there may be debate if the increase over the next century will be .8C or 1.8C, we can say for certain that there will be an increase and that our actions are contributing to it.

I am not saying that we have no impact on the environment, though it might seem like it since I asked you for definitive proof of the link, which can be summarized as "CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We release CO2". If we are to trust models, temperature will only rise to about .8C from the increase in CO2 concentration, far below the IPCC's most recent estimate of 1.8C. The role CO2 has as a greenhouse gas has also come under fire recently. CO2 only absorbs a narrow band of infrared, meaning it is not an extremely potent greenhouse gas. Water is far more effective and reports have linked it too 75% of current warming.

If you want to debate the details of climate change cause and effect then do so, but please refrain from making statements like "prove global warming is happening" then saying "that's not what I meant" when proof is given. It would also help if you linked to information supporting your claims.

Now then, the problem I have about the whole warming debacle is not that humans are causing it, or of predicted temperature rises. My problem is with the expenditure of money on it. Is it even worth solving? The 98 El Nino had temperatures in the range of the worst IPCC reports, and there was global profit even subtracting damages from the weather. What I want is justification for the spending of trillions on a problem that 1.we might not even be able to stop and 2. might be beneficial to us.

I couldn't find any numbers for the 98 El Nino event, but the 82-83 event resulted in an $8 Billion net loss to the world economy. Since the 97-98 event was considerably stronger, it's effects were likely larger as well. Your demand for justification for the spending reminds me of the old Midas commercial, "You can pay me now or you can pay me later," except the bill later will be much higher.

 

[yossarian22]

I do understand the difference between chaotic and non-linear systems but you don't appear to understand the difference between weather and climate. We don't need to know what the actual temperature is at any specific location to predict where the global mean temperature is going. While there may be debate if the increase over the next century will be .8C or 1.8C, we can say for certain that there will be an increase and that our actions are contributing to it.

We can't predict the global average accurately. Models are notoriously inaccurate.
We know there is going to be an increase. That is definitive. The Earth has been warming for the past 20,000 years. It will keep warming. When it stops, that is bad. Will there be an appreciable increase in the rate of warming? Is there even an appreciable increase in warming? This has failed to be demonstrated as our data is sketchy at best when we go back more than 50 years ago. Build a parking lot next to a weather station and the station will record an increase in temperature. Asphalt absorbs heat.

I couldn't find any numbers for the 98 El Nino event, but the 82-83 event resulted in an $8 Billion net loss to the world economy. Since the 97-98 event was considerably stronger, it's effects were likely larger as well.

There was a $12 billion net profit. After compensating for damage. I have yet to see evidence of global warming being bad for us. There is no evidence for more frequent and/or more violent hurricanes. Even a cursory glance over the data tells us that. There has been no documented increase in droughts, in fact, the exact opposite has occurred. There have been less droughts.
Sources for various data.
De Morgen: Home
Not from a scientific journal. Its in Dutch, can't find it in English.
Summary: "Water vapor responsible for 75% of the greenhouse effect; CO2 plays a very small role in actual warming. It further states that the current warm winters are caused by the North Atlantic Oscillation, and not rising CO2 levels.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
Summary: IPCC estimates are too high. We have already gone through the majority of the warming.
SpringerLink - Journal Article
Summary: Only 40% of current warmings can be contributed to CO2. It predicts a cooling over the next two decades
Abrupt changes in rainfall during the twentieth century
Summary: Severe droughts becoming less frequent.
http://caos.iisc.ernet.in/Monsoon_Prediction_2004.pdf
Summary: The failure to predict monsoons.
Amazon Forests Green-Up During 2005 Drought -- Saleska et al. 318 (5850): 612 -- Science
Summary: Short term droughts apparently advantageous to rain forests, contrary to models.
The link I had to the El Nino of 98 has died, and the only other net source I have is on a database, and that only mentions it in passing. There are some books on it though.

 

[s2a]

7 X 120F = 840F. That would make my blood boil, lol.

Cute...but not compelling.

Try again. ;-)

 

[camanintx]

We can't predict the global average accurately. Models are notoriously inaccurate.
We know there is going to be an increase. That is definitive. The Earth has been warming for the past 20,000 years. It will keep warming. When it stops, that is bad. Will there be an appreciable increase in the rate of warming? Is there even an appreciable increase in warming? This has failed to be demonstrated as our data is sketchy at best when we go back more than 50 years ago. Build a parking lot next to a weather station and the station will record an increase in temperature. Asphalt absorbs heat.

There is a new article out in Science Magazine about the uncertainty in climate modeling. You might find the focus of this article quite interesting.

We show that the breadth of the distribution and, in particular, the probability of large temperature increases are relatively insensitive to decreases in uncertainties associated with the underlying climate processes.

Just because climate models are not able to assign a specific value to climate sensitivity doesn't mean that effects are unknown. The paper shows that even with the uncertainty in climate sensitivity, with current CO2 emissions, we will almost definitely see anther degree of warming by 2029 and another 2 to 5 degrees by 2099.

 

[painted wolf]

Ancient Fossil Evidence Supports Carbon Dioxide As Driver Of Global Warming

And its not just the cows fault.
Methane Bubbling From Arctic Lakes, Now And At End Of Last Ice Age

wa:do

 

[yossarian22]

Ancient Fossil Evidence Supports Carbon Dioxide As Driver Of Global Warming

Lets summarize this paper.
They take a bunch of fossils from a time. Over this period, they show that there are high temperatures and CO2 concentrations. From fossils 100,000,000 years more recent, they take data from a another proxy, and note that there are low temperature and CO2 concentrations. They then draw the conclusion that CO2 is the driving factor of global warming.
This would probably earn a D just for effort if I gave this to a statistics professor I know. The conclusions they make are heavily flawed. They show that CO2 has a correlation with temperature. They then assume that CO2 must cause global temperatures to vary. Besides the old statistics adage "Correlation does not imply causation", how do you know that temperatures do not cause CO2 concentrations to differ? They fail to show that there are no lurking variables or show the the two variables are not confounded.

 

[yossarian22]

Just because climate models are not able to assign a specific value to climate sensitivity doesn't mean that effects are unknown

The effects are unknown. Temperatures will be rising anyways, the unknown bits are how much will the temperature rise, and how much will the rate of the rise increase.

The paper shows that even with the uncertainty in climate sensitivity, with current CO2 emissions, we will almost definitely see anther degree of warming by 2029 and another 2 to 5 degrees by 2099.

Hah. Just like we would definitely have a population of 9 billion by 1990? The climate models cannot predict past climates, so why should we trust their results on the future?

 

[painted wolf]

CO2 is a known greenhouse gass. It has been demonstrated to increase temperatures by absorbing and emitting infrared radiation.
Its basic physics that more CO2 will mean higher temperatures.
The fossil evidence supports the modern evidence of CO2 influence on global temperatures.

Honestly I find the "100% proof" argument about global warming to be the same as the "100% proof" argument about evolution.

CO2 may not be the only greenhouse gass, but it is the one we can actually do something about.
(that and surface level ozone)

wa:do

 

[yossarian22]

CO2 is a known greenhouse gass. It has been demonstrated to increase temperatures by absorbing and emitting infrared radiation.

Not only does it absorb a narrow band of infrared, it lags behind rises in temperatures.
That paper makes fundamentally flawed assumptions.

Honestly I find the "100% proof" argument about global warming to be the same as the "100% proof" argument about evolution.

I am not arguing because there is not 100% proof of global warming, we should do nothing. 100% proof of any theory is physically impossible anyhow.

CO2 may not be the only greenhouse gass, but it is the one we can actually do something about.
(that and surface level ozone)

We probably can't do anything about it. The third world is developing. Emissions will rise no matter what we do as the number of people on the earth increase. If the premise of CO2 being the primary driver of global temperature is accepted, we would have to return to 1840 level populations to stop the increase.
It is impossible to switch to even 40% alternative energy to lower emissions. Hydro is tapped out. Wind-farms are very noisy and tend to chop birds up and don't work everywhere. Solar sounds great. Too bad we would have to plate over Texas to provide us enough energy. We can't use geo-thermal everywhere.
The cost of lowering emissions to the level wanted by the Kyoto Accords has estimates ranging from $300,000,000,000 to $1,000,000,000,000. Lowering emissions to the level wanted by the Kyoto Accords would have the effect of lowering the rise in global temperature by .025C. I would much rather put $300,000,000,000 in other more worthwhile things than lowering temperature rises by a trivial amount. Thats money that can be used to fight starvation and disease.
Regardless of the expense, I have yet to see compelling evidence that global warming would even be bad for us.

 

[painted wolf]

Not only does it absorb a narrow band of infrared, it lags behind rises in temperatures.

not entirely... this is a common misunderstanding that is often misused in debates on global warming.

RealClimate » What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

also chain reactions are well documented in science... we are talking about complex systems not simple 1+1 math.
A rise in temperatures causes more CO2 to be freed from permafrost... more CO2 increases the temperature... releases more CO2...
Now we add a bunch of extra CO2 to the system... and the effect is magnified. This called an Interactive effect.

Ps. a narrow band of Infrared is still a large and dangerous band (infrared is a much wider band than visible light). Like a narrow band of any radiation. Hence we use CO2 lazers.... I wouldn't want to be hit by one just because its only using a narrow band of Infrared. :bonk:

wa:do

 

[yossarian22]

not entirely... this is a common misunderstanding that is often misused in debates on global warming.

Where did I say it disproved the link between CO2 and temperature?

RealClimate » What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

A summary of the arguments. "CO2 could have caused the last part of the warmings", which is great and all, but it destroys our ability to predict the effect of CO2. We know it causes warming, but the Earth is warming anyways. We need to document an increase in the rate of temperature rise, but our data is spotty at best. Heat islands around urban areas screw up our weather data. Build a parking lot near a weather station, and it will document an increase in temperature.

also chain reactions are well documented in science... we are talking about complex systems not simple 1+1 math.

This is precisely what I have been arguing. Its non-linear. CO2 and temperature form a feedback loop
What is the effect of increased CO2 concentrations on temperature?
The answer is something we cannot model even remotely accurately because a feedback loop is formed and there are far too many variables to manage. Such are the problems of modeling chaotic systems.

Ps. a narrow band of Infrared is still a large and dangerous band (infrared is a much wider band than visible light).

CO2 is not the most effective greenhouse gas by any means. Its narrow absorption band (not a relative measure, but a range of frequencies it absorbs) is much too narrow to be the predominant cause of climate change.

 

[painted wolf]

No the summery of the argument is this... "Initial temperature rise was natural, however the rate of temperature rise is accelerated by the additon of more and more carbon dioxide."

Satalites are not fooled by being next to a parking lot. Nore are weather stations like the one at Mount Washington.

CO2 reflects infrared at a "narrow range" as you said and this may not seem like much at first glance however than narrow range is wider than the whole visable sprectrum! Infrared is more than ten times the range of visible light, and even a "narrow range" is huge.

Picture from here: Carbon Dioxide, CO<SUB>2</SUB>

And yes, water vapor is more of a greenhose gass than is CO2, but unlike CO2 water vapor leaves the atmosphere far faster and hasn't seen much of a jump in concentration. Methane is also a greenhouse gass that is seeing a spike, but that spike is due to the warming already caused by CO2. Much of the methane spike is from formerly trapped pockets under permafrost leaking out now that they are melting.
Hooray another feedback loop.

Face it the system has been buggered up... we need to do something and man made CO2 is the most logical choice to start with.
The Greenland Norse had a choice, eat fish and seals or starve to death... They whined and delayed untill it was too late. They starved to death with food all around them.

Surely we are better at planning than that.... but likely not.

wa:do

 

[yossarian22]

No the summery of the argument is this... "Initial temperature rise was natural, however the rate of temperature rise is accelerated by the additon of more and more carbon dioxide."

Meaning non-linearity. I took that from RealClimate I think

Satalites are not fooled by being next to a parking lot.

1. How long have satellites been capable of determining surface temperature

Nore are weather stations like the one at Mount Washington.

Urbanization within 30 miles of a weather station causes an increase in temperature, depending on the size of development, but the average I have seen is 1.5C

CO2 reflects infrared at a "narrow range" as you said and this may not seem like much at first glance however than narrow range is wider than the whole visable sprectrum! Infrared is more than ten times the range of visible light, and even a "narrow range" is huge.

Unfortunately, the sun does not emit as much of this "huge" range of infrared that CO2 absorbs, and what little it does is absorbed by the atmosphere

Most of the light from the sun comes in the visible or near visible spectrum

I can also show a few feedbacks that decrease the temperature with increased CO2, but listing all possible mechanisms would take up our entire lifespans.

Face it the system has been buggered up...

How so? I have yet to see anything compelling enough to justify spending tens of trillions of dollars (going to have to measure in Euros or Canadian dollars soon) on a problem that may not exist (probably would be beneficial to us anyhow) instead of using it for more worthwhile causes such as poverty, disease, and starvation.

The Greenland Norse had a choice, eat fish and seals or starve to death...

Our choice is more like eat fish and seals or there is a small percentage that the crab population may boom which probably would be beneficial.

 

[painted wolf]

1. How long have satellites been capable of determining surface temperature
satalites have been recording earth temperatures since the 1970's
Urbanization within 30 miles of a weather station causes an increase in temperature, depending on the size of development, but the average I have seen is 1.5C
Urbanization is a town of just over 700 people spread out over 50 square miles more than 30 miles away. Urbanization isn't much of an issue for Mount Washington.
Unfortunately, the sun does not emit as much of this "huge" range of infrared that CO2 absorbs, and what little it does is absorbed by the atmosphere
Other than pointing out the use of "little" you have going here... CO2 is in the freakin atmosphere absorbing the Infrared!!! We arn't talking about the 40% that reaches the surface!
How so? I have yet to see anything compelling enough
You probably never will...
to justify spending tens of trillions of dollars (going to have to measure in Euros or Canadian dollars soon)
Blatent scare tactic... changing your light bulbs and driving a fuel effienct car arn't going to cost anyone trillions of dollers. Most power plants in the US are in need of replaceing anyway, its just a question of using an old ineficent design or a modern effienct one.
on a problem that may not exist (probably would be beneficial to us anyhow) instead of using it for more worthwhile causes such as poverty, disease, and starvation.
Try fixing the cause of poverty, disease, and starvation rather than slaping a band-aid on it.
Most of the problems are due to environmental factors like desertification, aquifer collapse and disease is mostly due to bush meat.

If you are willing to spend the trillions to help the poor, starving and sick, then freakin help them...stop giving all that money to US agriculture and help the people get jobs by helping them use thier environment in a sustainable way.

wa:do