The REAL global warming

[dcraig1]

(*)- actual pollution that is, as opposed to the "pollution" by CO2 - quite ridiculous since CO2 is produced naturally by humans and other mammals, and is an essential part of the photosynthesis cycle.

Depends on what you mean by a "pollutant". It is a greenhouse gas which causes highly undesirable global temperature change. You can call that a pollutant or not, but that doesn't change the science.

CO2 is most certainly a pollutant when changes in atmospheric concentration of C02 cause change in ocean pH of sufficient magnitude to threaten ocean ecosystems and in particular coral reefs. The evidence on this is already quite clear with Ocean pH having decreased by 0.1 since preindustrial era which much greater changes forecast. The detrimental effects on coral of such changes in pH have been confirmed in laboratory experiment.

You can read more about the evidence for and issues surrounding ocean acidification here:

http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/20_2/20.2_caldeira.pdf

But I'm sure that's of no real interest to you as you clearly know everything there is to know about whether CO2 is a pollutant or not. After all there is a clearly a logical progression and no further thought about the matter is required:

CO2 essential part of photosyntheses => under no circumstance can CO2 ever be a pollutant.

There is no logic in that.

Attached. CO2 levels in ocean:

 

[maiden22]

Taking things a little further back, no-one has ever explained to me why we focus so much on CO2. It represents a tiny proportion of the world's atmosphere, whereas water vapour, also a "greenhouse gas", makes up around 95%. I am aware that CO2 is stronger in this respect as it were, but how can CO2 possibly have such a huge effect when it is only 0.038% of the atmosphere?

And exactly how much is generated by humans? And how did coral survive in eras when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 10 times what they are today? And where did that CO2 come from, assuming T Rex wasn't tooling around in an SUV and leaving the little red light on his telly on?

 

[dcraig1]

Taking things a little further back, no-one has ever explained to me why we focus so much on CO2. It represents a tiny proportion of the world's atmosphere, whereas water vapour, also a "greenhouse gas", makes up around 95%. I am aware that CO2 is stronger in this respect as it were, but how can CO2 possibly have such a huge effect when it is only 0.038% of the atmosphere?

That's a pretty reasonable question. (But the bit about water vapor being 95% of the atmosphere is quite wrong - the great bulk of the atmosphere is nitrogen).

The attachment shows NASA's assessment of climate forcings for the period 1750 to 2000. "forcings" simply means the degree to which various factors that are known to have changed (known by observation and measurement) have resulted in climate change. CO2 is the most important factor.

Obviously deriving these figures is pretty technical stuff. Reduced to it's simplest expression, one could say that the earth has a heat "budget". The earth receives heat from the sun, some is trapped in the land surface, some in the oceans and some in the atmosphere. What is not trapped is radiated off into space, Atmospheric conditions affect the amount of heat radiated off into space.

There is (or rather has been) a kind of balance here which has kept climate in more or less a stable state over "longish" periods. The question is how much change in atmospheric composition can occur without highly undesirable changes to that balance. That is one of the issues that climate models are intended to improve the understanding of.

Just saying CO2 is only x% of the atmosphere doesn't at all address this question. As a metaphor, one can think about a see-saw on children's playground. If there are equal weights on each end, then it is in a kind of equilibrium. But add some small weight and it tips rapidly. In this case the equilibrium is unstable and the earths heat budget is fortunately not that unstable. How stable it really is the subject of rather extensive research and that is what the determination of climate forcings is all about.

It should be understood that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. This can be determined from the physics and chemistry. No climate models needed for that. The sixty four dollar question is the magnitude of warming that can be expected due to CO2 in the extraordinarily complex system that is the earths climate. The attached chart shows a piece of NASA's assessment.

One other reason that CO2 is considered so important is that it is expected to increase more rapidly than other greenhouse gases such as methane and CFCs for economic reasons.

And finally CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for a LONG time until scrubbed by natural processes. Hundreds if not thousands of years. A lot longer than methane. All will not be put right simply by turning off the tap sometime in the future.

 

[Splitlink]

That's a pretty reasonable question. (But the bit about water vapor being 95% of the atmosphere is quite wrong - the great bulk of the atmosphere is nitrogen).

The attachment shows NASA's assessment of climate forcings for the period 1750 to 2000. "forcings" simply means the degree to which various factors that are known to have changed (known by observation and measurement) have resulted in climate change. CO2 is the most important factor.

Obviously deriving these figures is pretty technical stuff. Reduced to it's simplest expression, one could say that the earth has a heat "budget". The earth receives heat from the sun, some is trapped in the land surface, some in the oceans and some in the atmosphere. What is not trapped is radiated off into space, Atmospheric conditions affect the amount of heat radiated off into space.

There is (or rather has been) a kind of balance here which has kept climate in more or less a stable state over "longish" periods. The question is how much change in atmospheric composition can occur without highly undesirable changes to that balance. That is one of the issues that climate models are intended to improve the understanding of.

Just saying CO2 is only x% of the atmosphere doesn't at all address this question. As a metaphor, one can think about a see-saw on children's playground. If there are equal weights on each end, then it is in a kind of equilibrium. But add some small weight and it tips rapidly. In this case the equilibrium is unstable and the earths heat budget is fortunately not that unstable. How stable it really is the subject of rather extensive research and that is what the determination of climate forcings is all about.

It should be understood that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. This can be determined from the physics and chemistry. No climate models needed for that. The sixty four dollar question is the magnitude of warming that can be expected due to CO2 in the extraordinarily complex system that is the earths climate. The attached chart shows a piece of NASA's assessment.

One other reason that CO2 is considered so important is that it is expected to increase more rapidly than other greenhouse gases such as methane and CFCs for economic reasons.

And finally CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for a LONG time until scrubbed by natural processes. Hundreds if not thousands of years. A lot longer than methane. All will not be put right simply by turning off the tap sometime in the future.

Your see-saw explanation shows how finely tuned all this is. It doesn't take too much of anything to disrupt life on this planet. Even a few centimetres rise of the sea level will be disastrous for someone.

 

[maiden22]

Hmm, I'm not sure where I got the 95% figure from. I know that Nitrogen makes up the vast bulk of dry air, but I thought that the atmosphere as a whole was significantly different.

I love the analogy of the see-saw - haven't actually seen that one before. But surely, it is a poor one designed for soundbite purposes. The two must be completely different scenarios.

The other thing I don't understand is the extent of the "panic", given that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is one of diminishing returns - it is not linear.

 

[dcraig1]

I love the analogy of the see-saw - haven't actually seen that one before. But surely, it is a poor one designed for soundbite purposes. The two must be completely different scenarios.

Partially guilty as charged - it is a bit of a sound bite. But the concept of systems in equilibrium and that equilibrium may be perturbed by what seem to be very small changes to their inputs is very valid. As is the point that you cannot make assumptions along the lines of there is only x% of CO2 in the atmosphere therefore it cannot affect climate. The best evidence available is that it DOES affect climate.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

Depends on what you mean by a "pollutant". It is a greenhouse gas which causes highly undesirable global temperature change. You can call that a pollutant or not, but that doesn't change the science.

CO2 is most certainly a pollutant when changes in atmospheric concentration of C02 cause change in ocean pH of sufficient magnitude to threaten ocean ecosystems and in particular coral reefs. The evidence on this is already quite clear with Ocean pH having decreased by 0.1 since preindustrial era which much greater changes forecast. The detrimental effects on coral of such changes in pH have been confirmed in laboratory experiment.

You can read more about the evidence for and issues surrounding ocean acidification here:

http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/20_2/20.2_caldeira.pdf

But I'm sure that's of no real interest to you as you clearly know everything there is to know about whether CO2 is a pollutant or not. After all there is a clearly a logical progression and no further thought about the matter is required:

CO2 essential part of photosyntheses => under no circumstance can CO2 ever be a pollutant.

There is no logic in that.

Attached. CO2 levels in ocean:

I promise I will look at that more closely when I have a bit more time. Just now I want to reply to a couple of points:

I'd be grateful if you wouldn't put words into my mouth or make judgements about what may or may not be of interest to me. Of course I don't know all about CO2 and whether it's a pollutant or not but I do know that it is literally as natural as breathing. Yes it's true that if we were to breathe in incorrect proportions of nitrogen, oxygen and CO2 it could be dangerous for us, but that happens only in unusual circumstances and it would still be perverse to regard this as pollution. My OED doesn't give a definition for "pollutant", but for "pollute" it gives: 1. contaminate or defile (the environment) 2. make foul or filthy 3. destroy the purity or sanctity of.

"Pollute" is just a highly inappropriate word for CO2, even if it does exactly what the most enthusiastic proponents of man-made-global-warming theory say it does. The greenhouse effect is also perfectly natural; without it we would freeze. The question at issue is whether or not further increases of CO2 will lead to positive feedback in global temperatures leading to a "tipping point".

On CO2 and pH of oceans:

- Is that all oceans? (if it's a global effect then it would have to be).
- How do you know it's the CO2 that is altering the pH?
- those "forecasts" you mention - that'd be with a climate model I suppose. We've seen the quality of the code in some of those models recently used by the UEA CRU. And the model is not the same as the reality.
- laboratory tests are also not the same as in situ.

"highly undesirable global temperature change"

Just for interest, how would you define a "highly desirable global temperature change" then? I mean, let's just imagine you were a real master of the universe (instead of just a trading one), and had your finger on the global thermostat, where now would you be setting it to?

 

[montmorencyt2w]

Hmm, I'm not sure where I got the 95% figure from. I know that Nitrogen makes up the vast bulk of dry air, but I thought that the atmosphere as a whole was significantly different.

I love the analogy of the see-saw - haven't actually seen that one before. But surely, it is a poor one designed for soundbite purposes. The two must be completely different scenarios.

The other thing I don't understand is the extent of the "panic", given that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is one of diminishing returns - it is not linear.

95% & Nitrogen: I don't know if it answers your specific question maiden22, but there is a lot of stuff here: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm

One thing that a lot of people don't seem to realise is that the most significant greenhouse gas is in fact water vapour. I suppose some people might want to call that a pollutant as well.

As for panic. I understand why this is, if the science is exactly what has been claimed: e.g. the existing warming will lead to further release of CO2 from the oceans as they warm up which will (according to the theory) lead to further warming which will lead to further release of CO2 ...etc etc. positive feedback in other words. Yes, it could be catastrophic if it were to happen. The question is: will it? The problem is that this does not take into account so many other variables such as clouds, precipitation, sun-activity....partly because the basic science of how these all fit together still isn't known all that well, apparently.

The models are showing us positive temperature feedback because they have been programmed to do so. I am not saying this has been done for mendacious reasons but because the science is not fully known, so a lot of factors are simply ignored or guessed at.
That's a very crude paraphrasing of a lot of reading; go read yourself, and no, I don't claim to be an expert, I'm just a lay-person with some knowledge of science and the scientific method. Compare dccraig's reference with the one I have given above and see what you make of it all.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

Something to add to the mix: Re: The REAL global warming

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Stagnating Temperatures
Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Marotzke and Leibniz Institute meteorologist Mojib Latif are even convinced that the fuzzy computing done by Rahmstorf is counterproductive. "We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations," says Latif. For this reason, he adds, it is dangerous to cite individual weather-related occurrences, such as a drought in Mali or a hurricane, as proof positive that climate change is already fully underway.

"Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line. In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal," says Latif.

 

[maiden22]

That CRU thing just keeps getting worse and worse. What on earth's next? Using a sample of only 12 trees and leaning heavily on one outlier?

What's that? Really?

Oh bugger.

 

[dcraig1]

Re: Something to add to the mix: Re: The REAL global warming

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Der Spiegal doesn't quite say it, but do come quite close to the denialists "argument" that "it's cooling" because "the hottest year on record is 1998". An assertion the denialists then "illustrate" by showing a 10 year chart of the Hadley (UK) temperature record. Der Spiegal illustrates this with temperature delta map from 1999 to 2008.

As has been said time and time again by all climate scientists, it is quite possible that in the long term warming trend, no new high may be made for periods of ten years or even more. There are shorter term cyclical features of climate that affect temperature. Temperatures are well within the range of IPCC projections.


This silliness about 10 year cooling is analogous to a trader looking at an intraday chart, finding there has been little change in price between 12:00 PM and 12:15 PM and declaring "Told ya this stock ain't going up today!".


In any case, it is not entirely clear which is the year with the highest temperature (and it doesn't especially matter). The Hadley data says it's 1998, and the NASA data says it's 2005. A fact conveniently overlooked by the denialists. There is some discussion about the methodology used in compiling the two datasets - just discussion (no conspiracy!).

A couple of cyclical features of climate that have been influential in lowering temperature in the last few years have been La Nina and a low of the solar cycle. 2009 is showing a strong El Nino. NASA's forecast has been for 2009 to be the 5th hottest year on record, but that could go as high as the 2nd as El Nino develops.

A far better sense of what climate is doing can be had from this animation:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/animations/a10_1881_1998_2fps.mp4

 

[dcraig1]

It's NOT Cooling

The attached shows 2009 temperature compared to 2007 and 2005. It also shows monthly change for each of the three years. For the latter part of 2009 this is pushing the all time highs.
Charts are from NASA:

 

[dcraig1]

Just for interest, how would you define a "highly desirable global temperature change" then? I mean, let's just imagine you were a real master of the universe (instead of just a trading one), and had your finger on the global thermostat, where now would you be setting it to?

Has all reason and common sense flown out the door? Do you really think that a 4C average rise in temperature would not have the most serious consequences? We're not adjusting the thermostat on an air conditioner.

Go and ask the survivors of last years Victorian bush fires what they think about an extra 4C. Not whether they like the idea, but whether they think they could actually survive.

 

[maiden22]

What is the evidence that the bush fires are caused by global warming and not, for example, by poor land and forestry management?

And post 51! We disagree, but I'm getting to really admire your style. It is not the holocaust deniers who point to short-term trends as evidence of anything - in fact, one of their main points is that one cannot tell anything meaningful from them, as short term cycles change all the time. Warming prior to the war (and oddly enough the large increase in CO2 emissions), cooling from the 40s to the 70s which led informed and expert opinion to fear catastrophic global cooling and so on.

Rather it is informed and expert opinion that seeks to use rare weather events and short term trends to stoke up fears over global warming. Which, according to the satellite measurements, is not happening. Admittedly, it is the msm which is the major culprit in the "unusually hot summer - we're all doomed" game, but this invariably in favour of the alarmist position.

It is nice of you to keep posting various charts, but the problem is people are rightly sceptical given the shocking sloppiness of much of the high profile "evidence" and data-gathering techniques. You must be aware of the scandal currently engulfing the CRU. A far greater scandal is its refusal to release data on spurious pretexts, and later admission that much of its own original data had been "lost" (whilst moving, wasn't it?).

Or the claim that the ice caps are melting? When the continent that holds over 90% of the world's ice is growing and not shrinking. Or presenting glacial calving as "melting". Or the snows of Kilimanjaro - is anyone still trying to pin that on global warming?

And who could forget Mann et al and the delightful hockey stick - one of the worst and most obvious frauds in recent and not so recent memory? Not to mention his persistent refusal to release his data because it might be used to "discredit" him.

Pity the poor people of Tuvalu, soon to drown beneath the ocean raised on Westerners' greed. Regrettably, repeated surveys have shown sea levels falling in that area, but no matter. Rent-seeking has little time for truth.

The list is endless.

You yourself have remarked upon the complexity and uncertainty in various areas of this subject. When one is contemplating the kind of costs that the experts wish to impose, "sentence first, verdict afterwards" will not serve.

 

[dcraig1]

What is the evidence that the bush fires are caused by global warming and not, for example, by poor land and forestry management?

Nobody is saying that Australian bushfires are "caused" by global warming. And they are not "caused" by poor management either. I posed the question of their severity in the event of substantial temperature rise. And you chose to create a straw man.

And post 51! We disagree, but I'm getting to really admire your style. It is not the holocaust deniers who point to short-term trends as evidence of anything - in fact, one of their main points is that one cannot tell anything meaningful from them, as short term cycles change all the time.

That is manifestly untrue. The last 10 year temperature charts from Hadley data are all over the denialist blogosphere presented as evidence of cooling.

Warming prior to the war (and oddly enough the large increase in CO2 emissions), cooling from the 40s to the 70s which led informed and expert opinion to fear catastrophic global cooling and so on.

There was never a scientific consensus on cooling in the '70s. To maintain otherwise is a straight out lie. All the climate models address the cooling periods as well as the warming. And they all include negative forceings as well as positive. The negative forcings include atmospheric particulates including sulphur compounds. The models account for the cooling periods.

Rather it is informed and expert opinion that seeks to use rare weather events and short term trends to stoke up fears over global warming.

Not true. It is politicians that do that.

It is nice of you to keep posting various charts, but the problem is people are rightly sceptical given the shocking sloppiness of much of the high profile "evidence" and data-gathering techniques. You must be aware of the scandal currently engulfing the CRU. A far greater scandal is its refusal to release data on spurious pretexts, and later admission that much of its own original data had been "lost" (whilst moving, wasn't it?).

Well, most people aren't skeptical. Here in Australia, public opinion has consistently and repeatedly supported action to mitigate climate change. It very much looks like there will be a double dissolution (complete spill of all House of Reps and Senate seats) election early in the new year. And here is another prediction - the right wing loony deniers will be wiped out in an election that is fought on the single issue of climate change. This election may finish the right in Australia for a generation. And it may be the first election in the world contested on the issue of climate change - watch this space.

I'm not getting into a slanging match about the CRU emails. More openness in science would be a highly desirable goal. But no substantive evidence of scientific falsification has been put forward. Until it is, all this stuff is just noise.

In any case, if you want an alternate to CRU for models and data, they are available at NASA. Source code and all. So knock yourself stupid in an attempt to imply malfeasance on the part of the NASA researchers:
http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/
or here http://data.giss.nasa.gov/

Or the claim that the ice caps are melting? When the continent that holds over 90% of the world's ice is growing and not shrinking. Or presenting glacial calving as "melting". Or the snows of Kilimanjaro - is anyone still trying to pin that on global warming?

Wrong again. The latest studies show both the West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets losing mass. There is no dispute that Greenland ice sheet is losing mass and the polar ice is melting. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 

[SAINT]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Unfortunately the UEA don't hold onto the raw data and cannot pass it on under freedom of information.

 

[dcraig1]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Unfortunately the UEA don't hold onto the raw data and cannot pass it on under freedom of information.

It is my understanding that the national meteorological services from something like 150 countries are the origin of the raw data. They still hold this data and anybody is quite free to contact them and conclude the relevant agreements to obtain the data. So contrary to all the hysteria, the data still does exist.

 

[Gumping]

Keep it going guys!!

I think this thread highlights the issue very well. Personally, I find alot of the science unconvincing from both sides: the deniers and the pro- . The problem is getting access to the raw data, rather than listening to the various people's interpretation of data. And of course, being ar$ed to do it at all.....
And the reality is that climate is too complex to be estimated in models based on what amount to minutiae, and various methods of 'smoothing' could probably be applied to data to reinforce the opinions of either side.
From my reading of the data, climate is moving within historical bounds, sea levels are within historical levels and atmospheric CO2 is at historically precedented levels. However, current anthropogenic activity is totally unprecedented.
I always find myself concerned that global warming lobbyists tend to be very left-wing, and the right is seen to be very anti- as implied in some of dcraig's posts: The 'politicisation' of the issue tends to run down very familiar paths.
I'm also struck by how much of the debate centres around wind, nuclear and solar energy plus a bit of wave. Why is geothermal never mentioned? Iceland gets a tremendous amount of it's power from geothermal energy, which is clean, renewable and unlike many of these energy sources, is constant day- and year- round. Yet it is never mentioned in any white papers, despite being extremely easy and cheap to install in homes. Maybe it doesn't create enough jobs.......

So we know there are places to go to see pro global warming arguments. There are places to go to see anti global warming arguments....where are the fence-sitters?

 

[dcraig1]

Keep it going guys!!

The problem is getting access to the raw data, rather than listening to the various people's interpretation of data.

Lack of access to data is largely a myth deliberately fostered by the anti AGW mob. RealClimate has assembled a partial list of data sources:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

The NASA GISS data and models (incl source) are available for download. All you need to run the models is a Unix workstation (eg a Linux PC). I reckon that you could probably get 'em to run on a Windows box under cygwin with fairly little effort.

And the reality is that climate is too complex to be estimated in models based on what amount to minutiae, and various methods of 'smoothing' could probably be applied to data to reinforce the opinions of either side.

Purely your opinion. It is inevitable that models and simulations MUST be used. What is the alternative - construct a clone earth and conduct geo engineering on a vast scale? Climate scientists use models to help understanding as well as making projections.

In any case CO2 IS a green house gas. This has been known for a long, long time. Estimates of how an increase in CO2 affects temperature go back to the early part of the 20th century. It is fairly basic physics.

From my reading of the data, climate is moving within historical bounds, sea levels are within historical levels and atmospheric CO2 is at historically precedented levels. However, current anthropogenic activity is totally unprecedented.

I suppose, if you move your historical bound far enough any amount of climate change will still fit into some sort of bounds. The issues of trend and rate of change are critical. And should we all sit around waiting for whatever bounds we may think reasonable to be exceeded?

I always find myself concerned that global warming lobbyists tend to be very left-wing, and the right is seen to be very anti- as implied in some of dcraig's posts: The 'politicisation' of the issue tends to run down very familiar paths.

That's not entirely true, in any case what matters is the truth or as close to the truth as we can get. The politics of climate change is most certainly an interesting topic - for humans. The climate couldn't care less.

I'm also struck by how much of the debate centres around wind, nuclear and solar energy plus a bit of wave. Why is geothermal never mentioned? Iceland gets a tremendous amount of it's power from geothermal energy, which is clean, renewable and unlike many of these energy sources, is constant day- and year- round. Yet it is never mentioned in any white papers, despite being extremely easy and cheap to install in homes. Maybe it doesn't create enough jobs.......

Possibly because they are the most mature technologies. There is current research into geothermal and not only in places like Iceland where the geology makes it much easier. The wildcard that hardly ever gets a mention is fusion, which could be the real holy grail. Nobody really knows when it might be, because it is probably the most difficult engineering task ever attempted. I watched a documentary on fusion presented by Brian Cox recently. It mentioned that the UK spends more on mobile ring tones than fusion research. Fusion may be well down the track, but that neglect just strikes me as idiotic.

 

[jaspertrademaster]

The climate trends run in huge cycles that vary slightly because of specific variables. The northern US had higher than average temps this year. It is my opinion that there is very little proof that global warming is the huge threat is is posed to be and more a ploy for certain faction to profit from peoples fear.