brazil84's Global Warming Thread

[aptronym]

[QUOTE=Quartz]
neither of us argue the temperatures reconstructed from the ice cores, do we?
[/quote]
Yes - you do. The evidence for a Medieval Warming Period and a Little Ice Age is only made possible by examing temperature proxies. If you reject proxy temperature data, then you cannot make any claims about what the temperature was like before 1850.

@Quartz

The problem I have is that I see the correlation (that it might), but not the link that demonstrates the causation (that it does).

I’d like to clarify your position.

Do you agree that humans are the major reason for increases in greenhouse gases? (IPCC 3AR WG1: Chapter 3.4, esp. Figure 3-3; NAS CCR: Chapter 3;
IPCC 4AR WG1: Chapter 2.3, esp. Figure 2.3, and take special note of Figure 2.3(b))

Do you agree that greenhouse gases cause global warming? (first-principles derivation in post #1 and repeated in post #38; also IPCC 3AR WG1: Chapter 6.13, esp. Figure 6-6; NAS CCR: Chapter 5; IPCC 4AR WG1: Chapter 2.1, esp. Figure FAQ 2.1)

[elucidator]

I like it when the argument gets over my head. But what that has to mean is that the issue is arguable, reasonable, and that contrary arguments exist. Arguments which involve math, and lots of it!

OK. so lets say that the situation is not nearly so desperate as us eco-fanatics insist. Lets just take that as a given.

But it might be. It’s like the Heidelburg Uncertainty Thing. Maybe yes, maybe no.

But if we put the energy into it, the research, the brain power, we might just do it. Green clean energy may be possible. Or it may not.

But would you bet a dollar, flip a coin, if the payoff was a million if it’s heads?

[aptronym]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
But would you bet a dollar, flip a coin, if the payoff was a million if it’s heads?
[/QUOTE]
This thread is specifically about what the probability of heads and tails are and whether there is a positive payoff at all; I strongly object to any discussion about how much we’d bet and how big that payoff is because those are not strictly climatological questions.

It very well may be that global warming is real, anthropogenic, and harmful, but too expensive to solve - but this thread is only about the first three, because (1) scientists can only agree on the first three, and (2) the fourth question involves economics as well as politics.

[elucidator]

Gee, guy. Sorry.

[Siam_Sam]

[QUOTE=aptronym]
I guarantee you (and I believe 99% of scientists would agree with this guarantee) that there is a 0% chance of anthropogenic global warming causing the extinction of the human species.

Keep in mind that this guarantee does not include displacement of hundreds of millions from flooded lowlands, worldwide starvation due to drought, spread of tropical diseases into currently-temperate areas, or massive migrations into subpolar regions. All I’m guaranteeing is that 15 men and 15 women capable of reproducing will survive and find each other.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your answer. I’m sure there will be massive displacements. That’s why I mentioned a century or two afterward. By that time, I figure things will have settled down and people can get on with things. Personally, I see zero chance of stopping climate change. It’s just not going to happen. People and governments will still be discussing what to do right up to when the last ice particle melts.

[jshore]

[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
My question about the effects of global warming has to do with the melting of the ice caps. I understand about rising sea levels and such, but I was always led to believe that we needed the polar-ice regions to help regulate life on Earth. Something about their cooling effect. The mechanics of this escapes me now, but suffice it to say that years ago, pre-global-warming concerns, I read this.
[/QUOTE]

I think what you are probably talking about, at least in part, is the idea the the parts of the earth covered by ice sheets and glaciers is much more reflective than the part by water or land. Hence, when these melt, the earth’s average albedo (reflectance) decreases somewhat, which means more solar energy is absorbed making things warmer still. This is what is called a “positive feedback effect” because a warming effect causes a feedback that causes further warming.

It also means that there is what is called “hysteresis” in the system, which means that we can’t necessarily, say, cool the earth down to where it was before pre-industrial times simply by reducing greenhouse gases back to pre-industrial levels once, say, the Greenland ice sheet has melted. In particular, if we did that, the Greenland ice sheet would not necessarily just come back (or, if it did, it would take an awfully long time).

On the part about whether survival would be possible if we melted all of the ice sheets, well, I don’t think we would go extinct but it would certainly create huge stresses on our society and on the environment that would be quite devastating (and that I imagine could lead to a sort of breakdown of society and increase the risks of nuclear wars or other horrific conflicts). And, I believe if all the ice melted, sea levels would rise a couple hundred feet, which in many places translates to the ocean advancing tens to hundred of miles inland. The good news though is that noone really thinks we will be able to melt the East Antarctic ice sheet. We may be able to melt the West Antarctic Ice sheet and Greenland, each of which could raise the sea levels by about 20 or so feet. How rapidly that could occur is the subject of debate now…Scientists used to believe it would take millenia but there is some who now argue it could occur considerably faster.

Personally, I see zero chance of stopping climate change. It’s just not going to happen. People and governments will still be discussing what to do right up to when the last ice particle melts.

Well, I am somewhat more optimistic on this than you. I think it is a huge challenge but one that we can meet…and that will, once we seriously give the market the incentives to develop the necessary technologies, may turn out to be less difficult than we imagined.

[Triskadecamus]

Well, I for one intend to reference the “Heidelburg Uncertainty Thing” a lot more, in the future.

Tris

[Mosier]

I hate to hijack the thread, but how does melting ice increase sea level? Ice takes up more volume than liquid water, so wouldn’t the sea levels drop when all the displacement-causing ice melts?

[Enginerd]

[QUOTE=Mosier]
I hate to hijack the thread, but how does melting ice increase sea level? Ice takes up more volume than liquid water, so wouldn’t the sea levels drop when all the displacement-causing ice melts?
[/QUOTE]

Melting sea ice won’t raise the water level, but the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica aren’t currently displacing any water. The Greenland Ice Sheet is about 1100 km wide and 2400 km long, and is more than 3 km thick at it’s peak - it contains more than 2.3 cubic km of ice. If it completely melts, it’s expected to raise sea level by 7 meters.

The Antarctic Ice Sheet is even bigger - about 30 million cubic km. The mass of ice in the Antarctic Ice Sheet is equivalent to about 70 meters of sea level.

[Triskadecamus]

Some of the ice is piled up a mile deep on land.

Also, as the ice that is floating melts, the temperature of the ocean will rise some. Higher temperatures for three thousand meters of water will result in some expansion of the entire mass of water proportional with the temperature increase. The exact amount of expansion that is to be expected is a nontrivial problem, even ignoring climatologic expectations of highly divergent predictions. The problem is subject to some very controversial differences of opinion among oceanologists about how the various currents exchange thermal energy. No one predicts zero expansion. But the lower values reported are sometimes only scientifically non zero.

Tris

---

Not to mention the Heidelberg Uncertainty Thing.

[Enginerd]

[QUOTE=jshore]
I think what you are probably talking about, at least in part, is the idea the the parts of the earth covered by ice sheets and glaciers is much more reflective than the part by water or land. Hence, when these melt, the earth’s average albedo (reflectance) decreases somewhat, which means more solar energy is absorbed making things warmer still. This is what is called a “positive feedback effect” because a warming effect causes a feedback that causes further warming.
[/QUOTE]

I think there’s more to the ice sheets than just the albedo feedback, though. Melting ice affects both the temperature and salinity of the ocean surface at the poles, and these two factors are what lead to deep water formation in the North Atlantic. Deep water is formed when cold, highly saline water (both these factors increase the density of water) sinks below the thermocline. Melting ice is fresh water, so the salinity of the surface water is decreased… and in climates warm enough to melt polar ice, the sea surface temperatures will be elevated at the same time. The combination of these two factors has the potential to significantly change the formation of north Atlantic deep water.

Deep water formation is a critical component of ocean circulation patterns, and also acts as a carbon sink. The organisms entrained in the sinking deep water eventually die and settle to the ocean floor, and are thereby removed from the carbon cycle. The deep ocean is the single largest carbon sink on earth, and polar ice melting has the potential to disrupt the process.

Those are examples of some of the feedback loops that have been brought up a few times in this thread. The circulations and cycles involved in the Earth’s climate are incredibly complex, and each component has the potential to affect many other components, even those that at first glance might seem unrelated.

[Siam_Sam]

[QUOTE=jshore]
Well, I am somewhat more optimistic on this than you. I think it is a huge challenge but one that we can meet…and that will, once we seriously give the market the incentives to develop the necessary technologies, may turn out to be less difficult than we imagined.
[/QUOTE]

I do hope you are right.

[Lamar_Mundane]

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
Well, I for one intend to reference the “Heidelburg Uncertainty Thing” a lot more, in the future.

Tris
[/QUOTE]

I was over at the Berg’s tonight, and we sang the dreidel song. Nothing uncertain about it.

[jshore]

[QUOTE=Enginerd]

Deep water formation is a critical component of ocean circulation patterns, and also acts as a carbon sink. The organisms entrained in the sinking deep water eventually die and settle to the ocean floor, and are thereby removed from the carbon cycle. The deep ocean is the single largest carbon sink on earth, and polar ice melting has the potential to disrupt the process.

Those are examples of some of the feedback loops that have been brought up a few times in this thread. The circulations and cycles involved in the Earth’s climate are incredibly complex, and each component has the potential to affect many other components, even those that at first glance might seem unrelated.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting and worrisome…and this gets back to a larger point that sometimes gets lost, namely, that the remaining uncertainties, if anything, argue for erring on the side of caution and not for continuing on an uncontrolled experiment on the climate system of our home. What we know now is that the perturbation due to greenhouse gases is significant and we know that the earth’s climate system has in the past shown a tendency to shift quite dramatically. Or, as has been said more eloquently, “The earth’s climate system is an angry beast and we are poking at it with a large stick.”

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=aptronym]
Before I post it, let me first berate you for not reading carefully. 99% of your complaints in this thread now come directly from refusing to read what is posted to you, what is linked to you, and what is cited to you.

I seriously question any sort of intellectual honesty you have.
[/quote]

I have reported this statement to the moderators. My response will depend on their response.

"based on Earth’s distance from the Sun and the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody radiation law, Earth should be a frigid -15[sup]o[/sup]C on average. Yet its average temperature is +20[sup]o[/sup]C - a 35[sup]o[/sup]C warming which is due to greenhouse gases - about 95% due to water (H[sub]2[/sub]O), and 5% due to carbon dioxide (CO[sub]2[/sub]), with all the rest of the gases contributing some miniscule amount. If the greenhouse effect were to be doubled, water would start spontaneously boiling in the tropics, and if the greenhouse effect were to be eliminated, water would freeze everywhere except for the tropics.

Not surprisingly, increasing the CO[sub]2[/sub] (or H[sub]2[/sub]O, but we don’t generate enough) will increase the greenhouse effect. This difference is anthropogenic global warming. Experimentally, we’re seeing a 38% increase in CO[sub]2[/sub] levels since the Industrial Revolution, which, if the greenhouse effect were linear, would correspond to about a 0.7[sup]o[/sup]C warming. Just to be clear, the greenhouse effect is certainly not linear, but we’re in the right ballpark here."

The calculation I was referring to was in Post 10. What you quoted is more of a conclusory statement than a calculation.

But anyway, I will do the calculation (using linear assumptions) and then show you why it’s questionnable.

Assume that total pre-industrial greenhouse warming is 35 C. If 5% is due to CO2, that’s 1.75 degrees due to CO2. 38% of 1.75 is indeed about 0.7.

Ok, now take a look at this chart that compares global temperature and CO2 levels:

This chart is a real head-scratcher for scientists trying to prove a causal relationship between CO2 and global temperatures.

. . .

[F]rom 1880 to 1910, temperatures declined despite a 15ppm increase in CO2. Then, from 1910 to 1940 there was another 15ppm increase in CO2 and temperatures rose about 0.3 degrees. Then, from 1940-1979, CO2 increased by 30 ppm while temperatures declined again. Then, from 1980 to present, CO2 increased by 40 ppm and temperatures rose substantially. By grossly dividing these 125 years into these four periods, we see two long periods totaling 70 years where CO2 increases but temperature declines and two long periods totaling 55 years of both CO2 and temperature increases.

Thus, it is unsurprising that, if you define “sensitive” as “increases with CO[sub]2[/sub]”, that the increase in CO[sub]2[/sub] would be largest with the most “sensitive” models.

Not really. It looks as though you have misunderstood my point.

It also occurred to me that another fundamental misunderstand you might have is that you think all the models predict the same CO[sub]2[/sub] increases.

Not at all. The models predict different amounts of CO2 increases AND different responses of the climate to those changes.

Is this a specific example that works, or is it a general example?

A specific example.

Do you honestly believe that any two values can be compared if their magnitudes aren’t known,

Nope. But you claim that two values can NEVER be compared if their magnitudes aren’t known. That’s simply false.

Okay, so how do you contest the satellite temperature record which matches the instrumental temperature record from 1980-2000?

Can you give me some cites and quotes? Thanks!

I’ve already quoted the selections that I believe are important. You don’t exude enough intellectual honesty to make me believe that you’re not just trying to waste people’s time.

. . .

Yes, I could. But I’d be half-tempted to fabricate a quote just to see whether you fact-check.

Lol. Do whatever you want.

Ah, but this thread is not about considering the questions out of order -

Then why did you say this earlier:

I’ve stated before that I believe these questions need to be answered in order, and that any discussion of mitigation rests on agreement on the first points.

?

Cecil is exactly right for the exact question he is answering: “Is Kyoto a good treaty?” And the answer is, correctly, no. At the present time, emissions are proportional to economic output; at the present time, there is no way to cut emissions without cutting economic output. Hence, Kyoto will not work as a treaty so long as emissions are proportional to economic output.

However, if there comes a day when we can cut emissions without hurting our economy, Cecil would have to change his answer. Whether that day is now is a whole other debate.

Sure.

Don’t you dare think about turning that question into the topic of this thread.

Dude, you’re the one who brought up economic growth – it wasn’t me. But I’m happy to cease discussion of the issue in this thread and leave the discussion for my economic growth thread.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=Enginerd]

Those are examples of some of the feedback loops that have been brought up a few times in this thread. The circulations and cycles involved in the Earth’s climate are incredibly complex, and each component has the potential to affect many other components, even those that at first glance might seem unrelated.
[/QUOTE]

That may be, but the null hypothesis should be that the system is dominated by negative feedback loops, rather than positive ones.

Why? It’s explained very well on this page:

Chapter 5 (Skeptics Guide to Global Warming): Computer Models and Predicting...

Start reading at “Climate Sensitivity and the Role of Positive Feedbacks”

Almost every process you can think of in nature operates by negative feedback. Roll a ball, and eventually friction and wind resistance bring it to a stop. There is a good reason for this. Positive feedback breeds instability, and processes that operate by positive feedback are dangerous, and usually end up in extreme states. These processes tend to “run away.” I can illustrate this with an example: Nuclear fission is a positive feedback process. A high energy neutron causes the fission reaction, which produces multiple high energy neutrons that can cause more fission. It is a runaway process, and it is dangerous and unstable. We should be happy there are not more positive feedback processes on our planet.

Since negative feedback processes are much more common, and since positive feedback processes almost never yield a stable system, scientists assume that processes they meet are negative feedback until proven otherwise. Except in climate, it seems, where everyone assumes positive feedback is common.

. . .

Perhaps most damning is to ask, if this really is such a heavily positive feedback process, what stops it? Remember the chart from earlier (show again at the right), showing the long-term relationship of CO2 and warming. Also remember that the data shows, and even AGW supporters acknowledge, that temperature rises led CO2 rises by about 800 years. Their explanation is that “something” caused the temperature to start upwards. This higher temperature, as it warmed the oceans, caused CO2 to outgas from the oceans to the atmosphere. Then, this new CO2 caused the warming to increase further. In other words, outgassing CO2 from the oceans was a positive feedback to the initial temperature perturbation. In turn, the IPCC argues there are various other positive feedbacks that multiply the effect of the additional warming from the CO2. This is positive feedback layered on positive feedback. It would be like barely touching the accelerator and having the car start speeding out o f control.

So the question is, if global temperature is built on top of so many positive feedbacks and multipliers, what stops temperature form rising once it starts? Why didn’t the Earth become Venus in any of these events? Because, for whatever else it means, the chart above is strong evidence that temperature does not run away.

[Sam_Stone]

Personally, I believe that that the best interpretation of current science is that global warming is occurring, and man is partly responsible for it. However, I hate to see the politicization of science, and the global warming debate is far too politicized. Skeptics have a hard time getting government funding. Rent-seekers are using the global warming argument to attempt to push forward their own personal agendas. Too many of the people involved in the debate have financial interests in it coming out in their favor - either for or against. So it’s important to make sure the skeptical voices are not quashed in the stampede. With that in mind, here are some recent articles and papers on the other side of the debate:
Skeptical Scientists descend on Global Warming Conference

List of Scientists who switched from being Global Warming supporters to Skeptics

IPCC Falsifies Sea Level Data

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures.

Cirrus disappearance: Warming might thin heat-trapping clouds

This link is interesting, because one of the effects in current climate models of global warming is that cloud cover would be increased, trapping more heat. According to the study above, actual measurements show the reverse - heating thins the high cirrus clouds that trap heat. If the study is correct, estimates of the effects of Co2 emissions could be as much as 75% too high.

Here’s an article summarizing a peer-reviewed paper denying the effects of CO2 on warming: Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

Here’s a detailed article by Lord Monckton debunking some of the model predictions of global warming: Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?

I would by no means call the debate closed. For that matter, no scientific debate should ever be called ‘closed’ but should always be open to new evidence and new theories. The global warming debate is showing signs of moving from reasoned scientific debate to political theater.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Personally, I believe that that the best interpretation of current science is that global warming is occurring, and man is partly responsible for it. However, I hate to see the politicization of science, and the global warming debate is far too politicized.
[/QUOTE]

I can see that, however I see more evidence that the efforts to politicize this are more in favor of minimizing the effects of global warming.

(I do think this debate really has 3 sides, one worrying a lot, one that says it is worrying about it but doing little (so far this seems to be the consensus) and the one that tries to say nothing is happening)

Ignoring that there is indeed a political force driving the side that is denying the best evidence is more damming to me than a side that comes with the best evidence and has political backing. To prop up political differences is useless unless we check what is the data that is supporting one side.

And ignoring that the side that wants to deny this all together is the side that is being keep alive when there are bad scientific reasons for it is the biggest mistake.

Incidentally many of your links are pointing to evidence from Monckton:

RealClimate: WSJ Editorial Board: Head Still Buried in the Sand

WSJ Editorial Board: Head Still Buried in the Sand

While the rest of the world has basically accepted the conclusion of the latest IPCC report, one small village still holds out against the tide - the Wall Street Journal editorial board. This contrasts sharply with the news section of the paper which is actually pretty good.

…

This would not be of much concern if the WSJ wasn’t such an influential paper in the US. However, the extent of its isolation on this issue is evident from the amusing reliance on the error-prone Christopher Monckton. They quote him saying that the sea level rise predictions were much smaller than in IPCC TAR (no they weren’t), that the human contribution to recent changes has been ‘cut by a third’ (no it hasn’t), and that the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was written by politicians (no it wasn’t - the clue is in the name).

Even more wrong is the claim that "the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous ‘hockey stick’ ". Not only are the three original “hockey stick” reconstructions from the IPCC (2001) report shown in the (draft) paleoclimate chapter of the new report, but they are now joined by 9 others. Which is why the SPM comes to the even stronger conclusion that recent large-scale warmth is likely to be anomalous in the context of at least the past 1300 years, and not just the past 1000 years.

Thus on any index of wrongness, this WSJ editorial scores pretty high. What puzzles us is why their readership, who presumably want to know about issues that might affect their bottom line, tolerate this rather feeble denialism.

Here is an examination of the evidence from Douglas that Monckton referred to:

RealClimate: Tropical tropospheric trends

By the way: are they right when they are saying that the Monckton paper was not peer reviewed? If that is so what I see here is indeed a paper by a policy institute, as political as you can get.

[Sam_Stone]

I don’t know about the Monckton paper being peer reviewed. The study before that, however, IS peer reviewed, and is very recent science (being published this month). If their conclusions are correct that warming tends to decrease the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, then that will require a significant downward reduction in the global warming estimate from current models.

And if it’s correct that the downwards correction could be as much as 75%, then that would put even the high-level estimates of warming in the range where the economic effects are not necessarily negative.

BTW, for people like me who lean towards global warming but hate the left-wing tilt of most warming advocates, circuses like the Bali conference do more harm than good. For example, this week they lambasted Canada. In the past, Canada has been held up as one of the ‘good guys’. This despite the fact that the previous government in Canada has a worse environmental record than the current one, and presided over a huge increase in CO2 output. So why the sudden hatred of Canada? Gee, you don’t suspect it might be that we elected a conservative government, do you?

Likewise, watching Gore shake his fist at his own country and claim that the U.S. is the biggest problem is really annoying, especially coming a week after China announced that they’d crank out as much CO2 as they damned well please, and the rest of the world could go stuff it.

The Bali conference is like all these other conferences - rich people with power show up to pat each other on the back, tell each other how wonderful they are while jetting around the world and hanging out on yachts after the conference, and issuing a series of press releases which call for global government, more regulations, and point fingers at every conservative or free market supporter they can find.

Global warming would gain much more acceptance from the right and from the business community if they didn’t suspect that much of the hysteria is designed to promote a political agenda they disagree with.

[Quartz]

[QUOTE=aptronym]
Yes - you do. The evidence for a Medieval Warming Period and a Little Ice Age is only made possible by examing temperature proxies. If you reject proxy temperature data, then you cannot make any claims about what the temperature was like before 1850.
[/quote]

You’ve got me thoroughly confused. I’m not arguing the temperatures. Or the ice cores.

Do you agree that humans are the major reason for increases in greenhouse gases?

I agree that we’ve been emitting plenty of CO2.

Do you agree that greenhouse gases cause global warming?

Wrong question. I’ll repeat: has the CO2 we’ve emitted caused the warming we’ve seen? It is entirely possible - there’s a good corellation - but TTBOMK, it has yet to be proven. But there might be another cause entirely: we’re currently at the warming level of the MWP and AGW didn’t cause that. Or did it?