EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 7:28 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:43 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20499
Location: Southeastern US
Copied from one of my posts on the discussion in a professional forum

If we look at the issue from a pure science perspective what do we conclude?

We have a system (carbon cycle) which has been in balance for a significant period of time. There have been fluctuations, of course, due to increased volcanic action, massive fires, and the like, but the natural sinks work to restore the balance.

This is a very large system too, so the flows of the cycle are also very large, but still in balance.

Now, we take carbon, which has been sequestered from the system for an even more significant period of time, and reintroduce it to the cycle. The natural sinks will work to restore the balance and the cycle will continue. But, we add an ever increasing amount of formerly sequestered carbon to the cycle. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere begins to rise as a result of the cycle becoming unbalanced.

We know by calculations how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the stable period preceding the major release of sequestered carbon. We can also calculate the amount of sequestered carbon we have released back into the atmosphere portion of the cycle. We know from these calculations the amount added to the cycle exceeds the amount of change in the atmosphere by a large percentage. We also know from measurements the pH of the oceans has started to move more toward the acidic side, which indicates a major uptake of carbon.

We know from experimentation the CO2 in the atmosphere is a GHG which helps keep our planet above the black body temperature. We also know the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will have an effect on the energy retention and the average temperature of the planet.

We know from direct measurements the average temperature of the planet has shown a rising trend over the last 150 years. This is also the period during which we have been adding the known GHG.

Thus, we do not conclude the known release of sequestered carbon into the system has caused the increased concentration of a known GHG, which has in turn caused a measured warming trend above the natural variation, but that some yet unknown natural force has removed the additional carbon and another unknown natural force unrelated to the first has replaced it with a natural release of carbon, this new carbon may or may not have an impact on the GHE (if there really is a GHE) due to its special nature and the temperature increases which were measured are just measurement errors compounded over time.

Did I explain it correctly or did I miss something important? Other than abusing the concept of Occam's Razor beyond belief, that is.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:34 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2252
Location: Central Colorado
It should read "Thus, we DO conclude the known release of sequestered carbon into the system has caused the increased concentration of a known GHG, which has in turn caused a measured warming trend above the natural variation"
The rest, in that paragraph, erase.
The sequestered carbon is in the form of fossil fuels deposited over the course of hundreds of millions of years, burned by humans forming CO2 in excess of the natural system's ability to absorb. This has led to human caused global warming which then reaches a "tipping" point where tundra, then oceanic methane hydrate deposits(more sequestered carbon) release without further warming by human HGHGs. The melting icecap and glaciers also cause albedo change which causes more warming, another "tipping point".
Of course, this is only one aspect of human overpopulation, stupidity, and greed has led to pollution well beyond the biosphere's ability to absorb, and depletion of resources far beyond their natural replenishment, regeneration, and recharge rates
The effects of AGW to past tipping points described leads to what is termed in several ways. "Thermageddon" is one, and "methane turnover" is another, and "AETM", or similar to but much faster and somewhat greater that the PETM of geo-history, caused by increased vulcanism over several thousand years leading to methane turnover (with the past one mostly re-sequestered in 180K years and species diversity back up in 2 million).
Rapid catastrophic climate change is a debated possibility, over the relatively sure thing of AETM in 300 to 1500 years, and the accompanying extinctions of life which can not adapt in time. Another possibility, less debated, is that of burning nearly all the fossil fuels and going into a "runaway greenhouse effect".
This last assumes that the hundred year supply of natural gas and two hundred year supply of coal, and the 80 year supply of even remotely recoverable oil is burned, even in the face of mass starvation of the majority of humanity in a stimulated mammalian population rapid die off, most likely to occur before the fossil fuels can be burned that completely, as it has happened to other species before and to smaller secluded groups of humans.
The Juggernaut can now only be stopped by a limited nuclear war, a super volcano eruption, a quick acting 60% fatality rate global human disease, or a 3 mile wide meteor strike. All unlikely scenarios. Nature (God's Laws) will cause the population crash, followed by thermageddon, followed by a 200K year bottleneck after ELE, then 2-3 million years to full recovery without those pesky humans who caused it(who were supposed to be good stewards with knowledgeable benevolent use of the planet). A regular Biblical outcome, eh?

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:29 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Your post proved that the increase in CO2 since ~1955 when measurements of CO2 began on Mauna Loa is mostly anthropogenic, with natural variability impacting the rate at which CO2 increased during some years. The CO2 rise in the atmosphere is due to human activity.

It is also pretty well understood that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas that slows the surface radiation from reaching the TOA, making the LT and the surface warmer than if CO2 were not in the atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure also plays a key role when determining the temperature of the Lower Trophosphere.

However, no where did you prove that CO2 is responsible for most of the warming in the 20th Century and the late-20th Century. The "proof" simply was that since CO2 has risen during this timeframe, and temperatures have risen, then CO2 is causing the warming during this timeframe.

That is not sufficient enough to base such conclusions, because many many other factors are being ignored when one makes that statement.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:35 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
There really is no real other way around it that the argument that the AGW Proponents present is flawed, based off of the last 11 years of no warming in the LT/Surface/SSTs/0-700 meters of the ocean, while the accumulated radiative forcing from CO2 as predicted by the climate models was supposedly the highest over the last decade.

Image

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/ten ... e-warming/

Quote:
So what is happening? You cannot simply say a lack of warming in 10 years is not that unusual, and that there have been previous 10-year periods without warming, too. No, we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system. One cannot compare on an equal basis the last 10 years with any previous decades without warming.
There are 5 possibilities for the recent cessation of warming which are most discussed:

1) cooling from anthropogenic aerosols has been cancelling out warming from more greenhouse gases

2) natural cooling from internal climate fluctuations or the sun is cancelling out the GHG warming

3) increased ocean mixing is causing the extra energy to be distributed into the deep ocean

4) the temperature ’sensitivity’ of the climate system is not as large as the IPCC assumes.

5) there is something fundamentally wrong with the GHG warming theory itself


_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:39 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20499
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Your post proved that the increase in CO2 since ~1955 when measurements of CO2 began on Mauna Loa is mostly anthropogenic, with natural variability impacting the rate at which CO2 increased during some years. The CO2 rise in the atmosphere is due to human activity.

It is also pretty well understood that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas that slows the surface radiation from reaching the TOA, making the LT and the surface warmer than if CO2 were not in the atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure also plays a key role when determining the temperature of the Lower Trophosphere.

However, no where did you prove that CO2 is responsible for most of the warming in the 20th Century and the late-20th Century. The "proof" simply was that since CO2 has risen during this timeframe, and temperatures have risen, then CO2 is causing the warming during this timeframe.

That is not sufficient enough to base such conclusions, because many many other factors are being ignored when one makes that statement.


I never quantified the temperature increase to CO2, but the fact the CO2 increased and is a GHG is evidence of a cause and effect at some level. There are many other impacts, that could affect the temperature, but that includes both negative and positive influences. Given the reference to Occam's Razor the CO2 impacts are also more likely related to the rising temperature rather than not.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:42 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

I never quantified the temperature increase to CO2, but the fact the CO2 increased and is a GHG is evidence of a cause and effect at some level. There are many other impacts, that could affect the temperature, but that includes both negative and positive influences. Given the reference to Occam's Razor the CO2 impacts are also more likely related to the rising temperature rather than not.


Agreed.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:49 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20499
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
There really is no real other way around it that the argument that the AGW Proponents present is flawed, based off of the last 11 years of no warming in the LT/Surface/SSTs/0-700 meters of the ocean, while the accumulated radiative forcing from CO2 as predicted by the climate models was supposedly the highest over the last decade.

Image

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/ten ... e-warming/

Quote:
So what is happening? You cannot simply say a lack of warming in 10 years is not that unusual, and that there have been previous 10-year periods without warming, too. No, we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system. One cannot compare on an equal basis the last 10 years with any previous decades without warming.
There are 5 possibilities for the recent cessation of warming which are most discussed:

1) cooling from anthropogenic aerosols has been cancelling out warming from more greenhouse gases

2) natural cooling from internal climate fluctuations or the sun is cancelling out the GHG warming

3) increased ocean mixing is causing the extra energy to be distributed into the deep ocean

4) the temperature ’sensitivity’ of the climate system is not as large as the IPCC assumes.

5) there is something fundamentally wrong with the GHG warming theory itself



6) something else is going on.

My favorite quote from the article:

The public already knows how awful scientists are at forecasting the future…

including Roy Spenser and Lindzen? :mrgreen:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:51 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

including Roy Spenser and Lindzen? :mrgreen:


You spelled Trenberth and Hansen's names wrong Wayne :razz:

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:52 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20499
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

including Roy Spenser and Lindzen? :mrgreen:


You spelled Trenberth and Hansen's names wrong Wayne :razz:


No, I checked the dictionary and even compared the pictures .... O:)

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:22 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Snow?

Have you been able to log into the environemnt forum?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:29 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
My take on it is this: it does not matter if the increase in GHGs is primarily anthropogenic or not, we should not knowingly make matters worse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:30 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Well said, sir! =D> :clap:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:36 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Iowanic wrote:
Snow?

Have you been able to log into the environemnt forum?


No, sir.

It won't even let me access the page anymore.

It says "Internet Explorer cannot display this webpage."

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:43 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Ann Vole wrote:
My take on it is this: it does not matter if the increase in GHGs is primarily anthropogenic or not, we should not knowingly make matters worse.


Agreed that the human influence should be kept to the minmum in case things get out of hand, but would increased Carbon Dioxide make things worse? Would warming make things worse?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:57 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2252
Location: Central Colorado
Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Posted on 16 March 2012 by Glenn Tamblyn

In a previous post we discussed how the argument that the Earth has stopped warming doesn't make much sense because the people claiming this don't know how to draw their 'system boundaries' correctly - how can you work out whether the Earth is warming if you don't take account of all the places where it may be warming? And most commentary seems to only focus on surface temperatures. Which is only 3% of the Total Heat Content change.

So in this follow-on we would like to try and convey this warming from all the parts of the climate system in terms that we can all grasp. Grasp at an imaginative and visceral level. Because numbers, no matter how accurate, can be rather dry and hard to digest.
Do the math, Follow the heat....

Previously we showed the following diagram from the IPCC's 2007 AR4 report, highlighting the warming of the atmosphere and how small it was compared to the total warming.

Now we would like to focus on the total figure at the bottom and try to convert that into numbers that we can all get our heads around. To try and make numbers with lots of zeroes meaningful.

The total heat accumulation in the environment from 1961 to 2003 is estimated as 15.9 x 1022 Joules. Got that? Is that clear in your head? Now read on...

Next, this graph from the National Oceanographic Data Centre, looking at Ocean Heat Content in the upper half of the ocean shows the following:

Roughly 5 x 1022 Joules since 2003. Since the IPCC's graph above up to 2003 shows that most of the energy from global warming is in the oceans, to a first approximation, Ocean Heat Content change since then is going to be close enough to the Total Heat Content change.

So, total heat content change from 1961 to 2011 - 50 years - is approximately 21 x 1022 joules.

210000000000000000000000 joules

(a joule is 1 watt for 1 second. So a 100 watt light bulb will use 100 joules in 1 second)

A BIG number but somewhat unreal. So how much heat is this. What could it do? What is it in the real world, where we don't routinely look at numbers that big.
That is HOW Big...?

This is a rate of heating of 133 Terrawatts. Or 0.261 Watts/m2.
133 Terrawatts is 2 Hiroshima bombs a second. Continually since 1961." (Now, that is a lot of AGW!!)
More:
"States, setting a mountain of new records
By Janet Raloff
Web edition : Tuesday, April 10th, 2012
People may argue about why Earth is warming, how long its fever will last and whether any of this warrants immediate corrective action. But whether Earth is warming is no longer open to debate. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just published domestic examples to reinforce what Americans witnessed last month — either on TV or in their own backyards.

Let's start with the heat: March 2012 temperatures averaged 10.6° Celsius (51° Fahrenheit) — or 5.5 °C warmer than the 20th century average across the contiguous United States. Throughout the more than 115 years that national U.S. weather data have been compiled, only one other month (January 2006) surpassed this past March in its departure from the average.

In all, U.S. weather stations logged almost 15,300 all-time highs, last month, roughly half of them for nighttime temps. “There were 21 instances of the nighttime temperatures being as warm, or warmer, than the existing record daytime temperature for a given date,” NOAA’s new analysis finds. Only Alaska bucked the trend; its temperatures were the tenth coolest for March.

Nor was last month the only anomalous period. The first three months of 2012 also set a record for toastiness across the contiguous United States, with an average temperature throughout the period of some 5.6 degrees above the long-term average. Sixteen states had temperatures ranking among their 10 warmest for the quarter. None of the contiguous states posted a quarterly composite for January through March that fell below its long-term average.

In many regions, March weather anomalies sparked conversations. At the Society of Toxicology meeting in San Francisco, for instance, I ran into three researchers who remarked on needing sweaters. All said it was warmer at home than at the meeting — home being Michigan, Maine and Indiana. In the DC area, people ogled earlier-than-normal blooms in their yards and on century-old cherry trees lining the Tidal Basin.

Nationally, the entire 2011-to-2012 cold season (October through March) proved especially mild. It was the second-warmest on record across the 48 states.

Accompanying the heat came a diminished rainfall. Nationally, the 2012 precipitation average is somewhat more than 0.7 centimeters (0.29 inches) below average. As of last week, one-third of the lower 48 states were experiencing drought — up from 18.8 percent this time last year.

The heat stirred up weather systems, driving plenty of big storms. March 2012 saw more than 220 tornadoes — or almost 2.8 times the long-term average for that month. One particularly severe spell on March 2-3 caused 40 deaths and racked up an estimated $1.5 billion in commercial and property losses.

The “Climate Extremes Index” — a scale introduced 16 years ago — attempts to quantify trends in extreme weather by identifying the percent of the contiguous states that fall outside the norm of temperature, precipitation, severe drought and hurricanes (or tropical storms) making landfall. So far, the 2012 index rating is 39 percent, or about twice the expected value.

Weather records are just one quantifiable measure of warming. Many others can be harder to eyeball. For instance, the annual mean sea surface temperature for last year was the 9th warmest for the period that started in 1880. (The 10 warmest years have all occurred since January 2000.)

We reported a wealth of analyses last year pointing to the Arctic having evolved “to a new normal,” with warmer, drier weather. Last July, researchers announced that relatively deep coastal waters off Greenland are now expected to warm considerably faster than elsewhere by the year 2100, exaggerating the risk of ice sheet melting and global sea-level rise.

Many people won't complain about a somewhat balmier winter or marginally early spring. But warming isn't a cold-weather phenomenon. It's a 24/7 event occurring year-round. And at least here in the nation's capital, an increase in the normal summer-long muggy heat is not something I can imagine anyone welcoming."

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Last edited by Johhny Electriglide on Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group