The New Global Warming Thread

[Lucky Shot]

My favorite quote from the article...

"The biggest negative spin-off is that people continue to mine coal, so if you happen to live in Kentucky they'll strip-mine your backyard," said Stuart Haszeldine, professor of geology at Edinburgh University.

If I don't want someone to strip mine my yard, then I should buy into what you are saying.

Lucky Shot

[xTYBALTx]

I would like to come out firmly in opposition to strip mining your backyard.

[norden]

Originally Posted by Franko

Well if climate change is real, which it appears to be, regardless of whether or not you think its anthropogenic, you may get your wish on population control because the biosphere is quite sensitive to any change, and we've become quite used to a certain standard of living that requires ecosystems to perform a certain way. If ecosystems collapse, we collapse.

Considering the earth's climate is always changing, I don't buy into the fact that ecosystems are fragile. I would say they are robust - else everything would be dead already.

[Switch]

Our climate certainly does fluctuate and has naturally occurring cycles.

The crux of the argument, however, is that this current change in climate is markedly different in that has been significantly altered due to human development. Specifically the unnatural release of green house gases that contribute to the natural warming cycle.

Even if you believe that we may be in the middle of a natural temperature shift, you can't deny that the astronomical number of industrially produced emissions (cars included) have significantly contributed to the abundance of chemicals that naturally cause warming.

Allow me to whip out my text book:
Hill, Marquita K., "Understanding Environmental Pollution Second Edition" Cambridge Press 2004
Bam -- chapter 7: Global Climate Change.

There are many points, but here's a simple one.

There are many gases that contribute to global warming. I use the term generally here, as the act of making the earth warm is good, on the whole.
Historically (naturally) H20, CO2, CH4, N20 are what have helped warm our planet and caused it to reach its current climate range by trapping radiated heat from sunlight on the earths surface. yay.

Now, consider the difference between the amount of these gases that existed before human industrialization and the quantity that exists now.

----aside--- I've excluded H20 As I don't have #'s for it. It's ubiquitous anyway, so I'm not sure exactly how overall moisture levels change; sure it gets dry one place, but that means evaporation is wetting somewhere else ---- unless you consider the locking of water in ice. In which case the melting of glaciers will contribute to the warming vapors -----

I'm citing a chart on page 157 here -- though I will provide a link to the data on which it was based, my only caveat is that the data has been updated since publication. Point is still valid as in all cases the new quantities have INCREASED compared to the levels cited in chart.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Historic Figures are from 1750. Current figures are within last few years. Warming vs CO2 demonstrates warming potential compared to CO2. To clarify, N20 is 300 times greater than CO2 in its potential to warm. CH4 at 23 times greater. delta is the change in value from historic to current. Delta x Potential is just that, though it takes more interpreting than I'm providing here to actually appreciate

------ Historic -- Current---- WarmingvsCO2--- delta---delta X potential
CO2---280ppm-----370ppm------1--------------- 90ppm---- 90
CH4 ---700ppb----- 1720ppb-----23------------- 1020ppb--- 23460
N20 ---275ppb ----- 314 ppb----300-------------39ppm----- 11700


It is clear to see that from 1750 there has been a change between CO2, CH4, and N20 levels. Since these gases naturally contribute to warming, by adding more, it follows that the warming rate will increase.

Easy enough -- Add more natural warming gases and the process will increase.

Now lets consider gases that didn't even exist!
CFC's, for instance. Refer to link for a chart and check those numbers.
We've thrown new non existent warmers in the mix. CFCs carry warming potentials from 140-warmingVsCO2 to 22,000-warming vs CO2. That certainly won't detract from warming.



In short -- I don't contest that natural warming occurs in cycles that can include warmer periods (altithermal or Holecen climate change for example). The point is that the current change that is happing is clearly correlated to an unnatural abundance of green house gases, many of which never existed in any appreciable quantity in the past. Moreover, 20 years ago when 'whack job scientists' warned of what was to come, people laughed. Those predictions have proven true and it is no longer taboo to consider the science (much thanks to some strange weather patterns and changes in ocean temp and fauna dispersal).

[Franko]

Originally Posted by norden

Considering the earth's climate is always changing, I don't buy into the fact that ecosystems are fragile. I would say they are robust - else everything would be dead already.

Sorry to disagree, but ecosystems have been collapsing quite regularly because of human involvement alone, even without the spectre of climate change. Maybe you are thinking specifically about exctinction, which is really just the punctuation point after the events precipitating collapse.

Just as a few examples: Cod still exist, but overfishing on the east coast has fundamentally altered the population to such a level that they cannot continue their normal pre-overfishing behaviour such as migratoty, spawning and feeding habits, all of these things compose the ecosystem they are a part of and support. Secondly, North American song birds are endangered solely because their ecosystem, wooded areas, are to a large degree cut back to within a 100 metre width. Many song brids need at least this 100 metre width as a buffer zone to prevent other predatory species like cowbirds, jays, and grackles from eating their eggs or placing their own in the nests. The same or similar situations also apply to the draining of wetlands, the removal of prairie lands and the salination of freshwater areas (i.e, Lake Ponchartrain in Louisiana). The inidivual species within the ecosystems either adapt to the alteration or die.

[Lucky Shot]

@ Switch:

There are many who feel that Carbon Dioxide concentrations are a consequence and not a leading indicator of temperature change. Watch this video for an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRKApUV-aU

Water Vapor has a bigger impact on warming then CO2, but the most important factor for warming is Solar Activity.

Lucky Shot

[Switch]

CO2 concentrations shifts during previous climate changes are not analogous to the current situation. The indisputable truth of today is that we are burning billions of gallons of fuel and have been inundating our atmosphere with CO2 emissions for over 100 years. There is no refuting that when you burn something CO2 comes out. Everyone agrees that we have been burning coal and oil, correct? The gas that is released during burning goes into the air. Period. That's where the current CO2 levels have come from.

To make this easier to understand, look for data about lead in the air. Look at how lead concentrations have changed since the introduction of leaded gasoline and then see how it dropped during the phase out and inception of mtbe and alternative oxygenates/knock fixers.
Now suppose ice core samples showed that lead appeared after a climate shift. Do you see how these are not related even if they both mention lead in the air?

There may have been other natural climate shift phenomenon in the past that result in a trailing CO2 rise after the shift. That's a reasonable hypothesis given the available data (taking that video at face value). That said, it does not refute the current claim in any way whatsoever.

The ice core data sheds no light on what would happen if unprecedented amounts of CO2 were artificially released into the atmosphere (which is what we do by driving our cars every day and running our factories).

Can we not debate that burning fuel releases CO2. It just sounds silly to ignore billions of gallons of fuel exhaust and say hey, ice core data suggests this could be the result of climate change. CO2 is in the air at elevated levels because we're burning coal and oil.

[Kerostasis]

You do realize that CO2 is released into the air every time you take a breath, right? Similiarly for every other animal life form on the planet, plus lots of types of bacteria and other life forms.

You act like cars are the only source of CO2 in our atmosphere. You also act like our planet does not have equilibrium-mechanisms that control the levels of CO2 in the air. Volcanic eruptions, for example, put out vastly higher quantities of many different pollutants, including CO2, than we do, and yet the ecosystem absorbs them and then returns to equilibrium.

[Lucky Shot]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.

Lucky Shot

[norden]

Originally Posted by Franko

Sorry to disagree, but ecosystems have been collapsing quite regularly because of human involvement alone, even without the spectre of climate change. Maybe you are thinking specifically about exctinction, which is really just the punctuation point after the events precipitating collapse.

Just as a few examples: Cod still exist, but overfishing on the east coast has fundamentally altered the population to such a level that they cannot continue their normal pre-overfishing behaviour such as migratoty, spawning and feeding habits, all of these things compose the ecosystem they are a part of and support. Secondly, North American song birds are endangered solely because their ecosystem, wooded areas, are to a large degree cut back to within a 100 metre width. Many song brids need at least this 100 metre width as a buffer zone to prevent other predatory species like cowbirds, jays, and grackles from eating their eggs or placing their own in the nests. The same or similar situations also apply to the draining of wetlands, the removal of prairie lands and the salination of freshwater areas (i.e, Lake Ponchartrain in Louisiana). The inidivual species within the ecosystems either adapt to the alteration or die.

Yeah, when you destroy an ecosystem, it gets destroyed. That doesn't mean they are fragile though.

[norden]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

You do realize that CO2 is released into the air every time you take a breath, right? Similiarly for every other animal life form on the planet, plus lots of types of bacteria and other life forms.

You act like cars are the only source of CO2 in our atmosphere. You also act like our planet does not have equilibrium-mechanisms that control the levels of CO2 in the air. Volcanic eruptions, for example, put out vastly higher quantities of many different pollutants, including CO2, than we do, and yet the ecosystem absorbs them and then returns to equilibrium.

Volcanoes do NOT put out more CO2 than we do.

[norden]

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that,[/url]

That's per year. The best figure I've seen is that 40% of the extra amount get sinked, meaning 1.9% stays. That adds up after a while.

[norden]

Political activists and some industrial organizations often make the incorrect argument that carbon dioxide is unimportant because it is a relatively small contributor to the overall greenhouse effect. But the other large contributer [water] is, for all intents, constant as lon as the temperature does not change. And if an additional increment of CO2 warms the planet, the increased evaporation from the ocean will admit more water vapor to the atmosphere, which theoretically also will raise the temperature.

The same activists often also contend that only a small fraction (about 5 percent) of the total amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere each year is from human activity, and therefore the human contribution is inconsequential. That is simply not true.

That's from Patrick Michaels. The CATO institutes climatologist and man-made global warming skeptic

[Lucky Shot]

Originally Posted by norden

That's from Patrick Michaels. The CATO institutes climatologist and man-made global warming skeptic

And with greater evaporation comes more frequent rainfall? Is this the side effect that would cure world droughts?

Lucky Shot

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

You're citing an article summarizing a (probably paid) meteorologist (not a climatologist) giving a speech at a New Zealand federated farmers meeting. I think we've had enough biased reports from both sides of this debate. I don't think any reports on climate change are reliable unless they come directly from a scientific organization, at this point the IPCC is a good source considering they've put an extensive amount of time and effort into investigating this debate. All that aside, this brief article is factually negligent.

The short answer to the water vapor effect with regard to the greenhouse effect is that most (not all) climatologists hold that it is part of a feedback system and not a forcing system. The issue with manmade (non natural) CO2 is that it is most definitely a forcing system - the Earth has no natural balancing mechanism, or feedback, for. So even if manmade CO2 represents a mere 5% of total CO2 emissions, that is 5% that the Earth's natural systems cannot balance. The true uncertainties lie in how these feedback systems can be correctly modeled so that predictions in how they react to increased (unnatural) influence can be predicted. So far, the warming predictions seem to be holding true, and that is worrying the vast majority of scientists in this field.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
I think this study summarizes the argument quite nicely, and offers some excellent insights into not just the numbers, but also the variables involved with modeling feedback vs. forcing. Realclimate.org also offers much better sources than newspapers, or governments for that matter.