Premier among their many unscientific beliefs, deniers cling to the notion that some magical negative feedback will avert serious climate impacts. Sadly, we will need magic to save humanity if we foolishly decide to listen to the deniers and to keep ignoring the one negative feedback that science says can certainly save humanity—simply reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The scientific reality based on actual observations (not to mention the paleoclimate record) is that the climate models are not underestimating negative feedbacks—the models are wildly underestimating the positive or amplifying feedbacks. Among the greatest concerns is the growing evidence that the major carbon sinks are saturating, that a greater and greater fraction of human emissions will end up in the atmosphere.
A new study in Geophysical Research Letters ($ub. req’d), “Sudden, considerable reduction in recent uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the East/Japan Sea,” finds,
The results presented in this paper indicate that the rate of CO2 accumulation in the deepest basin of the East/Japan Sea has considerably decreased over the transition period between 1992-1999 and 1999-2007.
The authors explain to the U.K.‘s Guardian why this is an amplifying feedback, why warming is diminishing the ability of the ocean sink to absorb CO2:
The world’s oceans soak up about 11bn tonnes of human carbon dioxide pollution each year, about a quarter of all produced, and even a slight weakening of this natural process would leave significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere. That would require countries to adopt much stricter emissions targets to prevent dangerous rises in temperature.
Kitack Lee, an associate professor at Pohang University of Science and Technology, who led the research, says the discovery is the “very first observation that directly relates ocean CO2 uptake change to ocean warming”.
He says the warmer conditions disrupt a process known as “ventilation”—the way seawater flows and mixes and drags absorbed CO2 from surface waters to the depths. He warns that the effect is probably not confined to the Sea of Japan. It could also affect CO2 uptake in the Atlantic and Southern oceans.
”Our result ... unequivocally demonstrated that oceanic uptake of CO2 has been directly affected by warming-induced weakening of vertical ventilation,” he says ...
Lee adds: “In other words, the increase in atmospheric temperature due to global warming can profoundly influence the ocean ventilation, thereby decreasing the uptake rate of CO2.”
This study matches other recent research on ocean sink saturation. In 2007, the BBC reported, “The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world’s oceans has reduced” based on more than 90,000 ship-based measurements of CO2 absorption over ten years. The Global Carbon Project analysis of the “natural land and ocean CO2 sinks” finds:
... the efficiency of these sinks in removing CO2 has decreased by 5% over the last 50 years, and will continue to do so in the future. That is, 50 years ago, for every ton of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere, natural sinks removed 600 kg. Currently, the sinks are removing only 550 kg for every ton of CO2 emitted, and this amount is falling.
Equally ominous, many existing carbon sinks are increasing their emissions because of global warming—and the major climate models are missing these key amplifying feedbacks.
These myriad unmodeled amplifying feedbacks support the analysis that the climate is much more sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas emissions and other “forcings” than the IPCC models have been saying. In turn, this suggests that a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from preindustrial levels to 550 ppm will ultimately warm the planet far more than 3°C, as NASA’s James Hansen argues (see ‘Long-term’ climate sensitivity of 6°C for doubled CO2).
A number of major studies looking at paleoclimate data come to the same conclusion. Here are three:
- Scientists analyzed data from a major expedition to retrieve deep marine sediments beneath the Arctic to understand the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum, a brief period some 55 million years ago of “widespread, extreme climatic warming that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input.” This 2006 study, published in Nature ($ub. req’d), found Arctic temperatures almost beyond imagination—above 23°C (74°F)—temperatures more than 18°F warmer than current climate models had predicted when applied to this period. The three dozen authors conclude that existing climate models are missing crucial feedbacks that can significantly amplify polar warming.
- A second study, published in Geophysical Research Letters ($ub. req’d), looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the Middle Ages. This 2006 study found that the effect of amplifying feedbacks in the climate system—where global warming boosts atmospheric CO2 levels—“will promote warming by an extra 15 percent to 78 percent on a century-scale” compared to typical estimates by the U.N.‘s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study notes these results may even be “conservative” because they ignore other greenhouse gases such as methane, whose levels will likely be boosted as temperatures warm.
- The third study, published in Geophysical Research Letters ($ub. req’d), looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the past 400,000 years. This study found evidence for significant increases in both CO2 and methane (CH4) levels as temperatures rise. The conclusion: If our current climate models correctly accounted for such “missing feedbacks,” then “we would be predicting a significantly greater increase in global warming than is currently forecast over the next century and beyond”—as much as 1.5°C warmer this century alone.
Yes, natural negative feedbacks exist that would “eventually” absorb any excess carbon dioxide, but as one of the authors of a 2008 Nature Geosciences article explained, “not for hundreds of thousands of years” (see “Humans boosting CO2 14,000 times faster than nature, overwhelming slow negative feedbacks”).
As one recent study of the water vapor feedback concluded:
The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse-gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.
In short, absent the magical deus ex machina negative feedback, we are facing catastrophic 5-7°C warming by 2100 on our current emissions path, just as the Hadley Center recently warned.
Truly only one negative feedback in the planet’s overall carbon cycle can act with sufficient speed and strength to avert catastrophic climate impacts: The dominant carbon-based life form on this planet will have to respond to the already painfully clear impacts of our carbon emissions by slashing those emissions sharply and eventually running the planet on carbon-negative power.
The time for this negative feedback is now.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 12:16 pm
16 Jan 2009
I think you have to account for the CO2 from permafrost as a one time, one way process. Once released, it will not continue to do so. Also, open ground and vegetation is more of a CO2 trap than ice and snow, so there will be some alleviation while the ocean's ability slows.
As far as the ocean, yes, I would imagine that as total CO2 goes up there is saturation. However, why is it that your models understand the S-shaped curve when it benefits them, yet ignores it when it doesn't. For example why it is assumed that the effect of increased CO2 in the troposphere is linear to temperature. As I proposed with the idea that CO2 "belt" could also be a "sink" in that CO2 molecules could transfer and retain infrared once a critical saturation was reached.
That brings up the point that we are bottom line concerned not with "CO2" per se, but with infrared retention. Does having more CO2 in the ocean also trap more infrared in the ocean? (Not qualified to answer, but it's a thought).
The other thing that I hear little comment about is why we're experiencing any type of temperature decrease however slight. The GCMs assume that CO2 is cumulative. Even if current emissions were zero, we should not ever be seeing temperature decreases unless there was something else affecting total radiant energy on the Earth.
I applaud all efforts to make our technologies emit less CO2 and use less energy and use less oil based energy. Go team. I do not, however, wish to stop questioning the science...
You are now living in the Hansen Economy!
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:38 pm
16 Jan 2009
Lots of factors can make the upward trend of global warming variable across years. Clearly a large volcanic eruption near the equator can do so. It may turn out the the hundreds of fires that burned for months this last year in California served to cool surface temperatures a bit.
Do a bit of researching as to why 1998 was such an large upward spike from previous years.
To argue that if the trend is not consistently higher from year to year shows a lack of knowledge about the complexity of climate. Global temperature is as or more complex that stock market averages. While the overall value of the stock market it up over time, no one expects each year to be higher than the previous.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:46 pm
16 Jan 2009
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:38 pm
16 Jan 2009
I am told time and again that global temperature is an average. No matter what happens locally, the overall radiance of the Sun is constant (AGW). It is CO2 that traps the infrared rays and that CO2 is long lasting...not dissipating even over centuries (AGW).
Given that, even with local effects like Nina|o, the input of solar energy into Earth should be constant. If manmade CO2 output varies, the CO2 in trapped in the troposphere can only increase, not decrease (AGW). There can only be either stasis or increase in average global temperature.
So how could a local (Pacific) effect like Nino|a cause an overall decrease in global temperature?
You are now living in the Hansen Economy!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 3:57 pm
16 Jan 2009
The Sea of Japan is a marginal sea of the western Pacific Ocean, bordered by Japan, Korea, North Korea and Russia... ...Like the Mediterranean Sea, it has almost no tides due to its nearly complete enclosure.
Other sources give the surface area of the Japan sea, as ~0.28% of World sea surface area, but it is atypical because it is land-trapped and the deepest of three basins in it studied is only a small part of that ~0.28%! Apart from its lack of circulation with the wider oceans, its temperature distribution relative to the whole, is crucially also not clear herewith.
How this can be insinuated as being representative of the World's oceans absorptivity, is, to say the least, a very surprising conclusion.
Still, those that have been screaming in parallel about increasing ocean acidity, (CO2 uptake), destroying coral and shellfish etc, and thus the ecosystem, and all life on Earth, can now relax?
Joe, you really are spinning stuff again!
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:59 pm
16 Jan 2009
For a while?
Understand?
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:03 pm
16 Jan 2009
Black Wallaby - when you cherry pick part of the original post you lose your credibility.
Permalink
human power Posted 2:58 pm
17 Jan 2009
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:11 pm
17 Jan 2009
It might be better if you use straight English language, and make reference to some understandable context, or previous post or whatnot.
However, your last sentence is maybe less obscure, even if it is rather silly:
"Black Wallaby - when you cherry pick part of the original post you lose your credibility."
If I understand you correctly, whilst I have so-far only chosen to comment on the first topic of the several raised by Joe, that does not amount to cherry-picking. I was merely starting from the top. Regardless of what you think in that way, ARE YOU ABLE to critique any of the scientific observations that I made on that first matter?
Also, are you able to contribute to the discussion scientifically?
I may well move-on to commenting on the rest of Joe's stuff, when I have time, but since you can't digest even the first part of it, you would find it even harder with a much larger all embracing multi-topic post from me! (Which I don't have time for right now)
BTW, in your tongues, does `refer door' mean `refrigerator door'? (In Oz , colloquial = Fridge door)
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:52 pm
17 Jan 2009
Are you on drugs?
What does that local effect have to do with the global temperature (in this case the overall energy content of your home).
You are now living in the Hansen Economy!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:54 pm
17 Jan 2009
We do?
How about this scientist:
Weather response must be grounded in science
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008620031_ ...
As an environmental scientist, I am frustrated by the poor information distributed by public officials, the media and others regarding the current and predicted frequency of extreme weather events. It is time for the scientific community to set the record straight.
...
Clifford F. Mass is a meteorologist and professor in the University of Washington Department of Atmospheric Sciences.
You are now living in the Hansen Economy!
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:22 pm
17 Jan 2009
jab - here.
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/elninolan ...
And there's a lot more that will explain about how the welling up of cold deep water effects the global average temperture. Just google....
Sorry about the refer thing. I guess understanding that analogy required a bit too much in the way of "grasp".
---
Wallaby - yes, refer = fridge = icebox = refrigerator....
Then -
Joe's post deals with the reasonableness of generalizing from the Sea of Japan data to the rest of the ocean.
"This study matches other recent research on ocean sink saturation."
If you think about it, a lab study that involved 0.28% of anything would be a danged big sample. We get our data in most sciences on very much smaller samples.
Permalink
Burn the Witch Posted 8:15 am
18 Jan 2009
If that truly was insignificant, then so be it. But now we have an equal or probably smaller sample compared to the other argument, yet this time it's significant. I'm not entirely sure, but there seems to be some cherry picking here and it's not being done by the accused.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:04 pm
18 Jan 2009
Before papers are published in "recognized" journals they are reviewed by established people in the field. They are aware of how much is enough. And will generally ask for more if the findings run against what has been found before.
For example, just because you and a few of your friends might be 4'9" tall doesn't mean that that's the world average. People who do population studies would readily recognize that you've got a flawed sample.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 12:59 pm
18 Jan 2009
[2] If you think about it, a lab study that involved 0.28% of anything would be a danged big sample.
[1] Nice try Bob, but Joe cannot sensibly rationalise the East-Japan Sea with the various conditions in the very different and vaster oceans, and he should be more "careful" about the conclusions reached by the author`s of the paper. (See endnote BTW below)
[2] In analysing a sample from a unique 3.74 km deep basin, within an ENCLOSED SEA that in itself is not only tiny, but ALSO very DIFFERENT compared with the OCEANS of the World, then any conclusions drawn on it, can only be applied to that unique combination of variable physical conditions. These include for example, thermo-haline circulation and saline density variation, seasonal variations, sea floor topography and depths, wave and wind-pattern variation, evaporation, rainfall, river in-flows, temperature of air and water at various depths, tides, pH, and, and, will that do for now? If you have a large system of great variation and complexity, a tiny sample from a clearly atypical spot cannot be extrapolated to the whole!
For an example of variation, the East-Japan Sea has been compared in the sense of it being enclosed; with the Mediterranean. However, The Med' is very different in many ways including being over 2.5 times larger, and distinctly blue in colour. For your consideration, here are some interesting Mediterranean details from Wikipedia
...Evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation and river runoff in the Mediterranean, a fact that is central to the water circulation within the basin.[4] Evaporation is especially high in its eastern half, causing the water level to decrease and salinity to increase eastward.[5] This pressure gradient pushes relatively cool, low-salinity water from the Atlantic across the basin; it warms and becomes saltier as it travels east, then sinks in the region of the Levant and circulates westward, to spill over the Strait of Gibraltar.[6] Thus, seawater flow is eastward in the Strait's surface waters, and westward below...
BTW, here is the GRL Editor's Highlight, concerning the paper. (Which I'm not paying money for to read in full)
The East/Japan Sea in the western North Pacific is ventilated from the surface to the bottom of the ocean over decades. Such short overturning circulation indicates that carbon dioxide (CO2) from human emissions is able to pervade the East/Japan Sea on similarly short timescales. Three surveys of the East/Japan Sea (conducted in 1992, 1999, and 2007, respectively) have allowed scientists to measure changes in the sea accumulation rate of CO2 emitted by humans in response to changes in surface conditions. Park et al. (2008) analyzed data from these surveys and found that the average uptake rate of anthropogenic CO2 by the East/Japan Sea from 1999 to 2007 was half of what it was for the period between 1992 and 1999. Further, anthropogenic CO2 absorbed by the water more recently was confined to waters less than 300 m in depth. Because emissions have in fact accelerated over the past 10 years, the authors conclude that overturning circulation is weakening, slowing down the transport of anthropogenic CO2 from the surface to the interior of the East/Japan Sea.
Briefly, just a couple of things:
(a) The data consists of only three points in 1992, 1999, and 2007. Would you like to construct a trend on that Bob?
(b) Repeat; the paper's authors conclude that overturning circulation is weakening, slowing down the transport of anthropogenic CO2 from the surface to the interior of the East/Japan Sea.
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:29 pm
18 Jan 2009
JR is off in "never-never land" with his projection "we are facing catastrophic 5.7°C warming on our current emissions path just as the Hadley Center recently warned" and his even sillier statement that a "number of major paleoclimate data come to the same conclusion".
Let's do a quick "sanity check" on JR's "permafrost thaw" disaster prediction.
Some scientists do tell us that if temperatures continue to warm at projected rates over a very long period of time, the carbon released from thawing permafrost "could approach 0.8 to 1.1 GtC per year in the future".
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903134309 ...
This compares with current human emissions:
7.6 GtC/year from fossil fuels
1.6 GtC/year from deforestation
0.4 GtC/year from human respiration
0.4 GtC/year from cement production
10.0 GtC/year total.
So the thawing permafrost could add (some time in the far distant future, maybe, provided the current cooling trend reverses itself) 8% to 11% to the current human carbon emission.
This could (maybe, if it really happens that way) add 0.3C warming by the year 2100.
Ho-hum. Don't get so hysterical. This is no big deal, Joe.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:31 pm
18 Jan 2009
Back in February 2007 (almost two years ago now), IPCC released its 2007 SPM report, followed by the AR4 report. These were based on data from 2006 and earlier.
Cloud feedbacks were assumed (in all the climate models) to be strongly positive, contributing 1.3C to the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity assumed to be 3.2C. IPCC did concede at the time that "cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty".
There had been studies expressing doubt on cloud feedbacks, such as the one by Ramanathan et al. that stated "the magnitude as well as the sign of the cloud feedback is uncertain".
Two independent studies (Spencer et al., Norris)based on actual physical observations (rather than hypothetical model assumptions) helped to clear up this "large source of uncertainty" in showing that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative, with a 2xCO2 impact of around -1.0C (rather than a positive feedback, resulting in an impact of +1.3C as assumed by all the IPCC climate models).
Another study on water vapor feedback (Minschwaner + Dessler) shows, again based on actual physical observations, that the IPCC model assumption of "constant relative humidity with warming" is false, and that the positive water vapor feedback as assumed by the IPCC climate models is overstated by at least 0.3C.
Together these two corrections to the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C, as assumed by the IPCC climate models, result in a corrected number of 0.6C, based on actual physical observations.
Another check of this figure can be made by the actual temperature trend from 1850 to 2008, as recorded by Hadley.
This shows a linear warming of 0.65C over the entire period (linear rate of 0.041C per decade).
Several studies by solar scientists tell us that the high level of solar activity (highest in several thousands of years) resulted in natural warming of 0.35C (average value of these studies).
This leaves 0.3C for anthropogenic warming (or UHI effect or high level of El Nino occurences, etc.). But let's assume that the unaccounted 0.3C warming from 1850 to 2008 was really caused by anthropogenic forcing factors.
As IPCC tells us that all other anthropogenic factors other than CO2 essentially cancel one another out, we can assume that the 0.3C warming from 1850 to 2008 was caused by CO2, occuring over a period where CO2 increased from around 285 to 386 ppmv.
Adjusting this to a 2xCO2 scenario, one arrives at 0.7C (very close to the above value based on physically observed feedbacks from clouds and water vapor).
This is the theoretical anthropogenic warming we could expect from 1850 (285 ppmv CO2) to year 2100 (570 ppmv CO2).
As we have already enjoyed about 45% (0.3C) of this theoretical warming (at 385 ppmv CO2), we can expect another 0.4C AGW warming from today to year 2100.
This is certainly nothing to worry about.
The actual physical observations refute the model assumption of a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C.
Instead they demonstrate that this, in actual fact, is closer to 0.6 to 0.7C, as estimated by Lindzen and Shaviv + Veizer.
Good news for JR!
Max
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 10:46 pm
18 Jan 2009
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:16 am
19 Jan 2009
Links to solar studies, as requested
Scafetta and West
http://www.scribd.com/doc/334163/Phenomenological-solar-c ...
Solanki et al.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki20 ...
Soon et al.
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/so ...
Dietze
http://www.john-daly.com/fraction/fraction.htm
Lockwood and Stamper
http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/grlcover.html.
Geerts and Linacre
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots ...
Gérard and Hauglustaine
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/1/c001p161.pdf
Georgieva et al.
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76 ...
Shaviv and Veizer
http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-static&a ...
Average solar impact on 20th century warming as estimated by these various studies is 0.35C.
Hope this helps.
Max
Permalink
GlobalWarmingInc Posted 7:37 am
19 Jan 2009
That's the beauty of this country: The freedom to do what I like (within the law).
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:29 am
19 Jan 2009
"Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for
the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity
has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase,
which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for
global warming."
I have just a bit of trouble reconciling that point blank statement with your assertion that the sun is the cause of our planet heating.
Now let me present you with something...
"There are several major flaws in the skeptic's assertion (that the sun is the cause of observed warming). First, only 6 planets or moons out of the over hundred bodies in the solar system to have experienced observed warming; notably, Uranus is cooling.[47]"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change ...
See, here's the problem. How can our planet be heating up from the sun while others are cooling?
Does it not sound to you that we might be getting our share of heat from the sun as are other planets but somehow managing to hang on to more than is good for us?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:58 am
19 Jan 2009
[2]...Is it thus rational to continue driving around in cars and heating and cooling houses to comfortable temperatures
[1] Sorry, but your worst-case scenario is based on what meaningful evidence?..... Please clarify!
[2] Regardless of any alleged risk of undesirable global warming, we should nevertheless drive around in the most fuel efficient x cost effective transport modes that suit our geographical living and workplace situations. We should also heat or cool our buildings as only necessary for comfort in appropriate^ dress for the season. Efficient use of resources means for instance; reduction of escalating need for new power stations, be they coal or nuclear, or whatever, and the costs and capability of inherent infrastructure needs etc.
Footnote^: Here are some laughable examples of energy WASTE by Americans in particular:
a) In a TV documentary on an Australian Antarctic base, the Aussies said they get-on very well with the Americans, but they hated visiting their base because it was uncomfortably over-heated! (HOT whilst sub-zero outside)
b) During the 80's, when I worked in the USA, in summer, I would shiver at desk if in shirt sleeves and need to wear a jacket, (top-coat), but because of the heat outside, carry the said jacket when outside. In winter, I could work at desk in shirt sleeves, and take-off my jacket!
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:17 pm
19 Jan 2009
Read all of the studies I cited (rather than "cherry-picking" one quote from one study), and you will indeed see that they conclude on average that increased 20th century solar activity (the highest in several thousand years) resulted in 0.35C warming.
This is not 100% of the observed warming (0.65C from 1850 to 2008 according to Hadley), but it represents a bit more than half over the entire period.
Most of the studies also conclude (as did Georgieva et al.) that other factors (anthropogenic, for example) may have caused a significant portion of the warming observed in "the last decades" of the 20th century.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:26 pm
19 Jan 2009
Read all of the studies I cited (rather than "cherry-picking" one quote from one study), and you will indeed see that they conclude on average that increased 20th century solar activity (the highest in several thousand years) resulted in 0.35C warming.
This is not 100% of the observed warming (0.65C from 1850 to 2008 according to Hadley), but it represents a bit more than half over the entire period.
Most of the studies also conclude (as did Georgieva et al.) that other factors (anthropogenic, for example) may have caused a significant portion of the warming observed in "the last decades" of the 20th century.
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:44 pm
19 Jan 2009
Max, you listed ten (10) links relating to solar stuff, as requested by Wallace.
He responded with:
I first opened the Georgieva et al link and here's a copy right out of the abstract...
So let's get this right Bob; You had a list of ten (10) links to study, and for some weird reason, you allege that you scanned down the list and FIRST selected #9 (# nine out of ten).
Oh really? Would not most rationalists start from the top of the list?
Do you have any comments on #9 in its full context OR on the other nine links?
Max, again, sorry to intrude into your exchange with.....
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 6:12 pm
19 Jan 2009
And we need to get our contribution out of the mix since what we are doing is hanging on to way more heat than we can live with. A 0.35C change we can live with. A 6.0C increase will be and end of life as we live it.
Any increase in solar activity is cyclic. What we are contributing is cumulative.
Perhaps what you're leaving out are the other contributing factors that we're triggering such as loss of albedo and methane release. Remember, we are definitely reducing snow/ice cover and beginning to measure methane bubble-out in both Arctic Ocean and far northern fresh water lakes. And obviously the permafrost is melting.
Now, you may be OK with the amount of warming that we may experience between now and the end of the current century. (I know I will as it's unlikely that I'll make it to mid-century.) But are you really comfortable being part of the generation that could have stopped the problem when there was still time to do so and didn't?
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 6:19 pm
19 Jan 2009
You satisfied?
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 6:31 pm
19 Jan 2009
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki20 ...
Now there should be joy down under....
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:48 pm
19 Jan 2009
Well really you should talk to Max because it is his topic, although I did (apologetically.... could not restrain myself) interfere. However, from MY viewpoint:
NO, absolutely NO, I am not satisfied. Are you now claiming that the blogosphere contains information of varying signal strength! Sheez!
Your other two posts at
1:12 AM on 20 Jan 2009
1:31 AM on 20 Jan 2009
Are I guess addressed to Max, and I leave them to him
BTW: if I can give an opinion on warming of various bodies in the solar system, (which you raised as a NEW topic), I have no interest in it, because whatever may be happening in those bodies has wildly different circumstances, full of conjecture, and not relevant to here on Earth. Period, full-stop, end of debate. (in my opinion)
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 10:28 pm
19 Jan 2009
There is a lot of active site blocking going on in Thailand because there are a lot of political "things" going on at the moment.
I find that I'm having trouble opening a new site. Once I get on I can update/post/refresh/all that good stuff.
Now, are the two related? I don't know.
But I do know that sometimes I can not get certain sites to open and often have to click up to ten times to get other sites to open.
YMMV.
---
Now, is it your opinion that the sun shines differently on different bodies in our solar system?
Would it not be the case that if the Earth warming that we are experiencing is due to solar influence that other entities being struck by rays from the same star would be also heating, and not cooling, as some are?
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 1:01 am
20 Jan 2009
The loss of the Greenland Ice Shelf and rise in sea level is measurable and I was amused by the call for a study the other day by a noted environmentalist for a study. Time lapsed photo's from space and a stick in the water will make clear the obvious. Weather the 1 or 2 degree increase in average earth temperature over the last 100 years is part of a natural cycle or not, we don't have another couple centuries to see if that is a relevant phenomenon either. I do know the tonnage of co2 introduced into the atmosphere by natural causes is measurable and by sampling core ice samples you can predict what the climate was for each period up to over 10,000 years ago. Geological studies can also give you some close indications as to the effect of co2 levels in the atmosphere during different geological epoch's. The raw tonnage of co2 being released into the atmosphere by man is measurable and the negative effects on the planet or not should be earth based at the present. Even if a solar and solar system study provides evidence that the sun is causing warming and other phenomenon the end result of the study would be totally outside our power to change.
For expediency I would go under the assumption that the sun may be causing the 1 to 2 degree increase in average temperature and create models to determine how much the additional tonnage of manmade co2 effects the environment . Different models based on ½ degree solar caused temperature increase up to 3 or 4 degrees plus the effect of dumping the co2 tonnage released b y man into the atmosphere. In short the extra manmade co2 will in the end be the only variable that we will be able to control.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:12 am
20 Jan 2009
Please don't minimize the need for more research. There's so much we still don't know.
For example, with the Greenland ice melt, one scientist has recently stated that the best explanation for the rapid ice loss has less to do with overall surface temperature and more about warmer ocean temperatures.
He feels the existing data best fits the idea that we're seeing rapid melting where the ice meets the ocean and once rapid melting has taken the glaciers back away from the shore then melting will slow.
Is he right? Does it mean that we've got a bit more leeway when it comes to ocean surface rise? More research is needed....
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:45 am
20 Jan 2009
Well, yes, it does appear that you did miss my point.
But let's first apply the "hype filter" on your post (thawing permafrost, reduced snow/ice cover, saving the planet for future generations, etc.) and get back on the topic.
[We can discuss all these other points separately.]
The Hadley temperature record tells us that we have seen a linear warming rate of 0.041C per decade from 1850, when the record started, to 2008. This represents a linear warming of 0.65C over the entire period.
The solar studies indicate that the unusually high level of solar activity contributed 0.35C to this warming, leaving 0.3C for anthropogenic causes (or other, as yet unidentified factors).
Atmospheric CO2 rose from around 280 to 385 ppmv over this period.
From this we can project the warming we can theoretically expect from today until year 2100, assuming that CO2 levels double from the pre-industrial level to 560 ppmv.
This calculated warming turns out to be 0.4C.
You wrote, " A 0.35C change we can live with. A 6.0C increase will be and end of life as we live it."
It appears that the change of 0.4C we can expect (based on the theoretical anthropogenic warming) is a "change we can live with". There is no logical reason to assume that this change will be 15 times the theoretical level from greenhouse warming, as observed over the past 150 years.
That was my point.
Max
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 4:20 am
20 Jan 2009
The observable effects of what we are already experiencing warrants targeted and specific study relevant to the immediacy of a probable planet killing problem. I will fall back on my original premise that you can't destroy matter but you can reallocate it. The redistribution of carbon from its locked up state in fossil fuel and placing it in the atmosphere may be having other effects on the life sustaining balance of the planet other than just co2 warming. I know nothing of the effects of the atmosphere to dilute the cosmic radiation that bombards the planet or how the man made co2 is effecting that filtering process. I know nothing of the effects of the other particulate and chemical elements we introduce into the atmosphere on ocean acidity or fresh water for that matter.
My cognitive and scientific environment limits me only to the directly observable. I can see the ice shelf is melting and the oceans are rising. I did not see a honey bee all last year and only about two firefly's. I find mutated salamanders and tadpoles and am missing a couple native species of aquatic life just in my limited environment. Certain evergreen trees are dying out and the winters up until this last one have not been cold enough to kill back some harmful insects in numbers sufficient to keep them under control.
I witness in real time the effects of DDT on the bird life in my environment and witness how quickly some species recovered as soon as we took it out of the environment. I do not have the scientific background to speak to the hardcore, high-end, co2 theory's and nuances of the atmosphere. I know some about radio wave propagation and have observed some changes in F layer absorption over time but it would be about as relevant as talking about the solar effects of warming on Pluto or the specific point where glacier retrieval stops.
We desperately need to know now what effect the co2 we have already added to the atmosphere has had and what will be the effect of stopping the man made co2 will have in real time. All scientific study should be directed to earth specific real time related research that will have the best chance of giving immediate and far reaching answers. The ice sheets could stop retrieving in 2020 and enough damage could have already been done to doom life as we know it on the planet by either warming specific or some peripheral atmospheric issue we are not even looking at right now.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:49 am
20 Jan 2009
You state: "We desperately need to know now what effect the co2 we have already added to the atmosphere has had and what will be the effect of stopping the man made co2 will have in real time."
I believe we do have a fair indication.
Temperature observations over the past 150 years of the Hadley record (as flawed as these may be due to all sorts of distortions, etc.) tell us that our planet has warmed by around 0.65C over this period.
Solar scientists tell us that the sun was responsible for around half of this (0.35C), leaving the other half (0.3C) to anthropogenic causes, other (unknown) natural causes or measurement artifacts and errors.
If we assume that all of the 0.3C was caused by anthropogenic factors (primarily CO2, which rose from 280 to 385 ppmv over the period) we see that a further increase of CO2 to 560 ppmv (as projected for the year 2100) will result in an additional increase of 0.4C.
This is nothing to worry about and will certainly not "doom life as we know it".
It appears that the unusually high 20th century level of solar activity has slowed down with solar cycle 24.
The unusually active warming El Nino cycles of the late 20th century have also reversed to cooling La Nina cycles.
At the same time we observe that global average temperature has cooled since around 2001.
All this despite all-time record breaking human CO2 emissions.
Sea levels are, in fact, not rising any more rapidly than they did in the early 20th century.
The total sea ice trend (Arctic plus Antarctic) appears to remain fairly constant, with major seasonal swings, as always.
We are not the "drivers" of climate, regardless of all the hype out there.
It is an illusion to think that there is anything we can physically do to significantly change our climate, either today or over the next century.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 10:04 am
20 Jan 2009
If this proves to be the consensus and the majority of atmospheric exploration trends this way I will be elated about the findings. The air in Beijing was disturbing to look at and the particulate matter is disturbing to me but I know that is not directly related to the co2 study or ramifications of co2. The health problems to humans notwithstanding I assume if the major problem with global warming is not an eminent threat we may have the luxury of time on our side as far as co2 goes. This will not help my immediate problem of coal costing me my mountains, valleys and clear water steams in the Southern Appalachian coal fields. Of course I will not muddy the original thread topic or mix apples and oranges. Out of an abundance of caution I would like to see what co2 is doing to the cosmic radiation absorption abilities of the atmosphere. Also I would like for the study you refer to duplicated by several sources before we license another 100 coal fired power generating stations.
If it is the way you say this will be the happiest I have ever been being wrong.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:06 am
20 Jan 2009
Would it not be the case that if the Earth warming that we are experiencing is [partly] due to solar influence that other entities being struck by rays from the same star would be also heating, and not cooling, as some are?
What you ask appears to be very simple and logical, however, the detail science is very complicated. Bodies of different orbits, rotational presentations, (and speeds), atmospheres, materials, atmospheric circulation, albedos, thermal lag, magnetic fields, internal energy, and, and..... Will have different thermal responses to solar inputs which BTW diminish very rapidly according to the inverse square law with distance from the Sun. Another problem is that T's cannot be directly measured but are inferred from other data, sometimes using changing methods over time. The claims made on both sides of the debate, are really not to be taken too seriously, and are full of conjecture and exaggeration.
You only have to refer to your own SourceWatch link on Climate change skeptics, to see that various scientists contradict each other on their observations and causative hypothesese. In your SourceWatch rebuttal section, that site refers to far distant Uranus as cooling; ref 47. However, here is an extract from 47, (1998) which paints a rather different and puzzling picture: (My bold emphasis added twice)
We observed a stellar occultation of the star U149 by Uranus from Lowell Observatory and the IRTF on Mauna Kea on November 6, 1998. The temperatures derived from isothermal fits to the Lowell lightcurves are 116.7 § 7.9 K for immersion, and 124.8 § 15.5 K for emersion. The secular increase in temperature seen during the period 1977-1983 has reversed. Furthermore, the rate of decrease (¸1.2 K/yr) cannot be explained solely by radiative cooling. Although the temperature structure of Uranus' upper atmosphere may be related to seasonal effects (e.g., the subsolar latitude) or local conditions (e.g., diurnally averaged insolation), these observations suggest nonradiative influences on the temperature, such as adiabatic heating/cooling or thermal conduction.
I think the latest rebuttal hypothesis for Mars is dust storms and albedo changes. (smile)
I hope this helps you understand the complexity of the science better Bob
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:11 am
20 Jan 2009
Manacker apparently doesn't understand the difference between Area and Volume.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/twits-and-ass-a ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:13 am
20 Jan 2009
Here ya go.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/09/you_cant_make_thi ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:48 pm
20 Jan 2009
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135
Extent of sea ice as of December 2008:
12.53 compared to 1979-2000 mean of 13.37 (Arctic)
12.20 compared to 1979-2000 mean of 11.08 (Antarctic)
24.73 compared to 1979-2000 mean of 24.45 (Global)
This shows no real change from the 1979-2000 mean globally.
"Thickness" measurements are flat-out guesses based on some spot measurements. Last winter they told us that the thickness had increased by 10 to 20 cm in the Arctic. There have been no published estimates for the Antarctic.
Forget it. Globally the sea ice has remained fairly constant.
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:09 pm
20 Jan 2009
Extent in August though, hasn't been at all.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:09 pm
20 Jan 2009
This is not due to CO2, of course, but a result of the air pollutants from the coal they burn.
I agree that it should be a priority to clean up any dirty coal power plants anywhere in the world, but, of course, this has nothing to do with CO2, a non-polluting natural component of our atmosphere essential to all life on our planet.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:45 pm
20 Jan 2009
"The total sea ice trend (Arctic plus Antarctic) appears to remain fairly constant, with major seasonal swings, as always."
NOAA says...
"Satellite-based passive microwave images of the sea ice cover have provided a reliable tool for continuously monitoring changes in the extent of the Arctic ice cover since 1979. During 2008 the summer minimum ice extent, observed in September, reached 4.7 million km2 (Fig. S1, right panel). While slightly above the record minimum of 4.3 million km2, set just a year earlier in September 2007 (Fig. S1, left panel), the 2008 summer minimum further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent observed over the past thirty years. At the record minimum in 2007, extent of the sea ice cover was 39% below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000. A longer time series of sea ice extent, derived primarily from operational sea ice charts produced by national ice centers, suggests that the 2007 September ice extent was 50% lower than conditions in the 1950s to the 1970s (Stroeve et al. 2008)."
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html
Max says...
"We are not the "drivers" of climate, regardless of all the hype out there."
Max forgets...
The ozone hole. Opened and (being) closed by humans.
Max says...
"(About CO2 in our atmosphere) CO2, a non-polluting natural component of our atmosphere essential to all life on our planet."
Max ignores the principle of "too much of a good thing".
Without greenhouse gases in our atmosphere we would experience the sort of drastic temperature swings that are found on our moon and plants as we know them would not grow. But good things can be overdone.
I invite Max to spend some time in a room filled with nothing but CO2 and then get back to us.
I invite Max to not experiment with the rest of us by increasing our greenhouse gases blanket. We're warm enough now, thank you...
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 5:19 pm
20 Jan 2009
"Forget it. Globally the sea ice has remained fairly constant."
NASA says...
"THE most comprehensive study to date of Antarctica's ice confirms growing concern that the ice cap is melting faster than predicted.
The implications are that the global sea level will rise faster than expected, while a huge influx of freshwater into the salty oceans could alter ocean currents.
Antarctica holds 90 per cent of Earth's ice."
It seems that most Antarctica sea ice is ephemeral, melting each Antarctic summer and refreezing each winter. Therefore there isn't a lot of change that could be observed in Antarctic sea ice as opposed to the Arctic area where historically sea ice used to remain year round.
(I suppose we might see earlier annual melting and later freezing of the Antarctic sea. But that data has yet to be presented.)
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:35 am
21 Jan 2009
Your last two posts "bobbles and bits" plus "and a bit more" rambled a bit, so I'll try to cover the points one by one as concisely as possible.
Yes, the total sea ice trend (Arctic plus Antarctic) does appear to be fairly constant, as I wrote. The Arctic is shrinking (as your NOAA report confirms) and the Antarctic is growing. Both recede in summer and grow back in winter. As one grows, the other shrinks, and together they represent some 21 to 26 million square km over the year.
The latest posted record (December 2008) shows no global change compared to the 1979-2000 baselines.
Don't mix discussions on floating sea ice (no impact on sea levels) with those of the Antarctic ice sheet. The last long-term study showed this has grown slightly on average from 1993 to 2003. I would stay away from "what if" future sea level projections of what might happen if it all melted. IPCC tells us "current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall".
Ozone hole? Get serious. We are talking about changing our planet's climate.
"Max ignores the principle of `too much of a good thing'." How much atmospheric CO2 is "too much" for whom, Bob? On what do you base this suggestion? Forget the flawed "room full of CO2" analogy or any Hansen 450 ppmv "tipping point" hype. Come with some facts or drop the subject.
You wrote: "I invite Max to not experiment with the rest of us by increasing our greenhouse gases blanket. We're warm enough now, thank you."
Who is "experimenting" with whom, Bob? Who is "the rest of us"? Who is "warm enough now"? What is this silly sentence really supposed to mean?
You seem to be of the "Goldilocks" opinion that our "globally and annually averaged" climate is "just right", and that any change would make it no longer "just right".
Tell me, is it "just right" today (January 2009) or was it "just right" before human greenhouse gas emissions started in the late 18th century?
Did the 0.3C greenhouse warming we have seen from 1850 to the present help make it "just right" today? Or did it cause it to get 0.3C warmer than "just right"?
Will it be less "just right" in year 2100 if it warms another 0.4C on average from today? How do you define "just right"?
I'd suggest that it would be wiser for you to limit your discussion to facts and figures and not get caught up in a bunch of irrelevant side remarks.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 5:59 am
21 Jan 2009
Are these posts meant to be traps for the deniers to come and peddle their BS, allowing other threads to go unmolested? If so, brilliant strategy . . .
Manaker: "The Arctic is shrinking (as your NOAA report confirms) and the Antarctic is growing."
Still not letting those pesky facts interfere with your spin, I see:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229075228 ...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:09 am
21 Jan 2009
Have you ever taken note of the tectonic considerations, and noticed the alignment with far South America, and the geological similarites
Here is an extract from: http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/202/1/ ... that might be of geological interest.
"Second, the present-day WAIS appears to be in a near maximum configuration that has existed at several times since 9 Ma but was rarely exceeded."
Here is another interesting one: "Crustal Motions of the Bedrock of the West Antarctic" (Lots of volcanoes there etc)
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/outreach/polar/pepperoni/pdfdocs ...
There is more stuff on this aspect of WAIS warming available if you are interested.
Any thoughts on that?
Have you seen the NASA image of "Hot water" all around the Peninsular area (2004) , and maybe wondered why?
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 7:12 am
21 Jan 2009
I believe I made reference to the fact that I knew the difference between particulate matter and co2 but I post so much it may not have been in this tread.
I have a problem with the way they dig coal in appaqlachia and if co2 is either determined to be a none problem or co2 sequestering takes off I am still screwed here in Appalachia.
Either will only accelerate the rate of the destruction of the southern appalachian mountains.
I realize they are not as important in the scheme of things as global warming but I am kind of partial to them.
Particulate matter, MTR, soil and water pollution caused by coal waste water impoundments. Heavy Metal and chemical toxins.
Really if it was only the mud I have to endure, or the dust or the blasting. I would still shut down every coal mine operation in the country.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:06 am
21 Jan 2009
Your reference to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is fascinating, but ithas nothing to do with Arctic / Antarctic SEA ICE, which was the topic under discussion.
If you want to jump in, fine, but it would be a good idea for you to first figure out what is being discussed - keeps you from looking silly.
Just a tip.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 12:01 pm
21 Jan 2009
http://www.grist.org/news/2009/01/21/antarctic_warming/in ...
The funny thing is that your "conversation" is nothing but a red herring, intended to produce the illusion of a controversy in order to engender inaction. And at long last, you are out of luck. No one is really buying your spin, at least no one in power.
The data is overwhelming. You were wrong, assuming you were honestly in conflict with the findings of every climatologist not in the employ of the fossil fuel industry or a right-wing spin tank taking money from said industry.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:16 pm
21 Jan 2009
"every climatologist not in the employ of the fossil fuel industry or a right-wing spin tank taking money from said industry"?
Duh! You are starting to sound irrational here.
Stick to the topics being discussed and avoid silly judgmental polemics.
Believe me, Robco1. These outbreaks just make you appear emotionally immature.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:27 pm
21 Jan 2009
But I would agree with you that if the mines are screwing up the environment, they should be forced to clean up their act.
I also agree that CO2 sequestering is a monumental boongoggle that presents more potential problems than solutions. Let the CO2 go into the atmosphere, where it is a natural and harmless constituent, rather than pumping it into underground formations with unknown consequences.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:09 pm
21 Jan 2009
A September 2007 report states that according the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_ ...
A recent report shows data that support the conclusion that the slight long-term cooling trend has continued through 2008.
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/2008-upd ...
The mean summer temperature is -15 to -35C
The mean winter temperature is -40 to -70C
Not much ice melts at these temperatures
http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/inde ...
As far as the threat of melting Antarctic ice is concerned, a long-term study published in 2006 (based on 10+ years of satellite measurements) has shown that the Antarctic Ice Sheet grew on average over that period.
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/38315t2244r5w3m4 ...
A quote from this study: "Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica." A net mass growth of 27 Gt/year is reported.
The relatively small Arctic Peninsula (0.8% of Antarctic ice sheet) has warmed, but ice mass has grown, due to increased snowfall, which exceeded the loss of glacial ice to the ocean.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (10.0%) appears to have receded, not due to melting, but due to the net flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, exceeding the mass gain from snowfall; this has apparently occurred even though temperatures have remained stable.
The much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet (89.2%) has cooled and is growing, due to increased snowfall.
IPCC states, "Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall."
Forget all the hype about 6-meter inundations caused by imminent melting or collapsing of the Antarctic ice sheet. It's just science fiction and hype.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:19 pm
21 Jan 2009
And then you ignore the latest studies that say that you are clearly wrong.
If your credibility sinks any lower you'll be jab-guy land.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 12:47 am
22 Jan 2009
The absorption or to be more exact the feeding of co2 to green algae sounds promising. Large green algae ponds along side the coal ash pond. At least now when a pond fails it will add a little color to the environment. I guess if I thought about it I would rather be slimmed than take a chance on disturbing the gaseous balance of the atmosphere.
When studying the science books and looking at the gaseous content of the air we breath I assume they are giving it as an average. I have not looked at that average over time but someone should. I have seen where they take ice core samples from the artic and can give you a break down of the percentage of each gas that makes up the air we breathe over time.
I know that what the major concern is now is upper atmosphere concentrations of co2 but I would be interested to know the oxygen co2 ratio of breathable air from 100 years ago. It may just be the pharmaceutical and health care industry pushing their products but I see more lung disorders than I did even 20 years ago. More and more people tied to an oxygen tank or sucking on an inhaler. Granted most of these problems are probably cause by direct or second hand cigarette smoke or other environmental particulate matter. We had that discussion about the Beijing air. I see a lot more early onset childhood asthma.
The point being not the cause so much as the benefit or detriment of higher oxygen verses co2 content in ground level atmosphere. The air we breath. I know the school of thought is most of the co2 will concentrate in the upper atmosphere. Will there be a saturation point where the upper level co2 envelope extends downward and you get a higher concentration at ground level.
I know co2 is heaver than some gasses and need to go back and get the specific gravity but the gas in used in the welding industry as a shielding gas. It is heavy enough to shield the molten metal puddle from other gases in the atmosphere until the molten metal puddle solidifies.
Even if the co2 effect on global warming or weather turns out to be insignificant every other effect of higher co2 levels need to be explored. Black lung is a major problem in the coalfields we could use a little extra oxygen.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:26 am
22 Jan 2009
If you want to sound like you have a clue in this discussion, it would be better to drop silly statements such as those you just made, and bring some facts (that is, if you have any).
Antarctica is not warming up. In fact, the record shows that it has been cooling slightly for quite a while.
On balance, the Antarctica Ice Sheet does not appear to be losing mass, based on long-term studies published in 2006.
If you have results from a more recent long-term study showing a net mass loss, please cite the reference.
Antarctic sea ice has also been expanding. This gets much less media attention than the offsetting net contraction of Arctic sea ice, but it is happening just the same.
Bring facts, Bob, and you'll be taken more seriously.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:46 am
22 Jan 2009
CO2 is not pollution.
CO2 is a colorless, odorless naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere, which is essential to all life on our planet.
Every time you exhale you are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The same is true for all animals.
CO2 has no harmful effect whatsoever on human (or other animal) life at the concentrations we see today or can imaging in the future.
If ALL the fossil fuels of our planet (yes, including all the coal) were to be burned and all the CO2 generated were to remain in the atmosphere, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could reach a hypothetical level of around 1100 ppmv, or around 4x the level assumed for "pre-industrial times" of 280 ppmv.
At this level the greenhouse theory tells us we would see another 1C warming above today's temperature. This is supported by the actual warming from CO2 we have experienced from 1850 to today (around 0.3C).
Let's concentrate on REAL pollution problems out there (there certainly are plenty, not to even mention cigarette smoke) and forget this hypothetical problem created by the virtual world of computer models.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:03 am
22 Jan 2009
Checking "black lung disease" on the internet I read, "Black lung disease is the common name for coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP) or anthracosis, a lung disease of older workers in the coal industry, caused by inhalation, over many years, of small amounts of coal dust."
So it's coal dust, not CO2 that causes this disease.
To your statement that "we could use a little extra oxygen", I'd say we may not need a "little extra", but we surely don't want "a whole lot less" oxygen.
Wikipedia tells us that.our atmosphere has 20.95% by volume oxygen and 0.038% by volume CO2.
If we were to completely burn all the fossil fuel reserves of our planet, and all of the CO2 generated would stay in the atmosphere, this is estimated to cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to 1100 ppm (or 0.11 vol %).
OSHA tells us that 5000 ppm CO2 is the threshold value for occupational safety, so we would be well below that value.
OSHA also tells us we need a minimum of 12% oxygen (people with medical conditions may even need 15%) to avoid problems (headaches, loss of concentration, etc.)
Each mol of CO2 generated consumes a mol of oxygen, so the oxygen content of our atmosphere would be reduced from
20.95% today, to
20.95 - 0.11 + 0.038 =
20.88% some day in the far distant future, when all fossil fuel reserves are used up.
I do not believe that anyone would notice this minor change, do you?
Excluding the potential impact on our planet's climate I think we can safely rule out human CO2 emissions as a threat to human health.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 6:21 am
22 Jan 2009
With 50% of our power generation coming from coal, dismantling a sector of our infrastructure that makes up trillions of dollars of our overall economy would be very detrimental to the economic recovery. We should take the time study the science and move toward alternative energy based on cost efficiency if it is obvious we have the luxury of time.
Mountain Top Removal that is my pet peeve at the moment is of immediate importance to me. Having stated that I am a fiscal conservative. I do not want to see the economic recovery put in jeopardy by forcing a move from a lower cost energy souse to an alternative to quickly because of an emotional response. However I feel stopping MTR will not have a serious effect on the overall coal bottom line. The Eastern Coal production from MTR will switch to Western Coal that is cheaper to mine and cleaner, low sulfur and a lot of it does not have to be washed. The price of coal will be effected only as long as it takes the West to pick up the production stopped in the Eastern Coal Fields. The Eastern Coal over all production will be back at MTR production levels because we still have an abundance of underground mining of coal. The only reason the coal corporations use the MTR methods is because the profit margin is greater than Underground mining.
They may not enjoy the same margin of profit by being driven back underground but there is a profit to be made or we would not have any underground mining at all at this time. It takes more money to comply with the MSHA regulations for underground mining and it is more labor intensive. The labor intensive part being a good thing for the local economy and workers because it takes about 4 times as many people to mine underground. As for the people who like to strip coal they can relocate out West where they have the same type of equipment doing essentially the same type of mining, only on flat prairie land that is predominately grass land.
I do not believe in switching our problem to a different area of the country but they are going to strip western coal no matter what happens with the MTR problem. I do not feel filing those flat land pits back up with the removed overburden, spreading a little top soil on it and sowing it with grass seed is reclamation. However it comes a lot closer than spraying a little grass seed on a covered up valley that used to have a fresh water stream and be part of a deciduous forest covered mountain.
I will reserve judgment on the immediacy of the co2 problem but MTR needs to be stopped now. I do not see how the destruction of the southern Appalachian forest can be tolerated especially when stopping MTR will not have a negative effect on the economy or the coal industry as a whole.
We are not allowed to destroy Yellow Stone for aesthetic as well environmental reasons no matter what the economy is doing. The southern Appalachian mountains should be viewed the same way especially since it will have no economic impact on the overall economy.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:10 am
22 Jan 2009
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/21/an ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:19 am
22 Jan 2009
I can't argue with your viewpoint on MTR coal mining. Mining companies should be forced to run their operations in an environmentally sound fashion.
The southern Appalachians have a natural beauty (not only in the protected Smoky Mountain National Park and the many regional parks that have been established), and this beauty should be preserved.
Max
Permalink