we know fuckall

The link is only accessible if you’ve got access to an online Nature subscription. The central uncertainties can be quickly summarized:

Ice sheets are responding dynamically (flowing), not just melting like an ice cube left on the beach. This means that the estimated 4-6 meters of seal level rise due to a 3 to 5 degrees rise in polar temperatures could happen a lot faster – in 100 years instead of in 1000 years.

The second issue is climate cycle feedbacks – meaning that as the oceans and land masses warm, they could stop absorbing as much CO2. Currently, half the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions are reabsorbed by the biosphere and oceans; that could decrease. Not only that, but a warming Arctic could release massive amounts of methane and carbon dioxide as the permafrost melts and shallow sediments in the Arctic Ocean warm.

This site provides access to Nature’s publicly available articles on the climate issue:

http://www.nature.com/news/infocus/climatechange.html

“we know fuckall“

You couldn’t be more wrong my friend. Read the 881 page IPCC 2001 report for starters and then get your hands on the IPCC 2007 report when it is released to the public in March. If you really think that we know fuck-all about climate change that is a reflection on your willful ignorance and not on the state of climate science. However, it would be equally naive to state that we know everything there is to know about climate change. Unfortunately, with the political partisanship and economic issues surrounding climate science, it becomes very difficult to have an objective discussion about the gaps in our knowledge on the subject.

Neurolingo – thanks for providing that link. I didn’t realize that there were issues with the availability. Here it is in full.

============================================

What we don’t know about climate change

The 4th Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a finely calibrated lexicon of certainty. “Virtually certain”, it blares when it assigns a 99% probability to hot days getting hotter and more frequent. “Very likely”, or more than 90% probable, are heavier rains. And so on down the list — including the wishy-washy “more likely than not” when assigning a greater than 50% probability, such as the chance that human activities are affecting the intensity of hurricanes.

Such care is crucial in a field that is still, in some areas, shot through with uncertainty. The IPCC has gone far in tightening up some key scientific unknowns about climate change (see ‘From words to action’), but many still remain. Some conclusions — such as the effect on particular regions of the world, or exactly how much sea level will rise — remain more uncertain than others. This means that there’s plenty of work left for the climate scientists on whom the IPCC process depends.

Perhaps most critically, researchers know relatively little about feedback effects that might enhance — or weaken — the pace and effects of climate change. The complex flow of carbon between soils, plants, the oceans and the atmosphere is still being pinned down by large-scale climate experiments. Some experts predict that, in a warmer world, ecosystems that are currently sinks for carbon, such as the Arctic tundra, may turn into carbon sources. But no one can yet accurately predict how this might pan out, and feedbacks among land and air could end up putting far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than currently forecast.

Other big unknowns are the effects of the take-up of carbon dioxide by the oceans, which removes the gas from the atmosphere and locks it away in the calcium carbonate of the shells and skeletons of marine organisms. Higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are expected to make the seas more acidic and slow down the rate of calcification, ultimately reducing the ocean’s ability to absorb more carbon dioxide. But precisely how the biology of marine creatures would play into that effect is unknown. Nor is it known how changes in plankton composition and coral reefs, for example, might affect carbon dioxide concentrations.

Pinning down biological feedbacks will be critical for future reports, says Richard Bellerby, a chemical oceanographer at the Bjerknes Center for Climate Research in Bergen, Norway. “We’re going blindly into the future,” he says.

Another major source of uncertainty — and of debate at the Paris meeting where the IPCC report was finalized — is the rise in sea level. In 2001, the IPCC predicted a rise of between 9 and 88 centimetres by 2100, as a result of melting ice caps and the thermal expansion of the ocean. This time around, the group has narrowed that range to between 19 and 58 centimetres. But some scientists say that this is an underestimate.

Stefan Rahmstorf, an oceanographer at the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research in Germany, believes, for instance, that global sea level could rise by much more than that. In a paper published online the day before the IPCC report’s release, Rahmstorf and his colleagues argue that sea-level rises will be close to the worst-case predictions of climate models (S. Rahmstorf et al. Science doi:10.1126/science.1136843; 2007). “If anything, the IPCC has been conservative,” he says.

Key sticking points include the inability of global climate models to produce the amount of sea-level rise observed over the past couple of decades and whether ice flow at the bases of glaciers is accelerating or not. How volatile Antarctic and Greenland glaciers might become in a warmer world is therefore pretty much guesswork.

For the first time, the IPCC report predicts how changing climate might affect particular regions of the world. But these forecasts are only in their infancy, modellers warn. For some areas, models predict specific and well understood effects, such as hotter summers in Spain and smaller snowpacks (the accumulation of snow each season) in the Rocky Mountains in the United States. But improved analyses that incorporate clouds, snow and ice into the models must be developed if regional predictions are to become more accurate, says Rasmus Benestad, a climate modeller at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute in Oslo.

Extreme weather is another example of the remaining uncertainties. Climate researchers believe that storms and heavy rainfall will become more frequent as the planet warms. But pinning down where and when that might happen is not so simple.

In the tropics, rising sea-surface temperatures can be linked in a relatively straightforward manner to storm formation, and the case for more intense storms seems more or less settled. But in the mid-latitudes, where atmospheric processes are more complex, some climate models predict more storms whereas others do not.

Improving the models, experts say, requires better data. Gaps and errors in observations are attributable to many causes: snowfall gauges that ice up, oceanographic floats that get lost, and changeovers in satellites that throw off carefully calibrated trends, to name but a few. Cloud and storm records urgently need to be reprocessed using uniform techniques, says Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and coordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on surface and atmospheric change.

“The IPCC report is a consensus report, and one that develops over nearly three years,” he says. “This means that it is not the leading — or bleeding — edge of the science.”

Oh feed back loops, where would we be with you.

Stop debating whether climate change is happening humans! You fools! Can’t you grasp the most basic principles of thermodynamics? I know you can, I’ve abducted a few of you and been bored by your crass theories about my spaceship propulsion systems.

Just accept the facts and start working out what you are going to do about it. I am so annoyed at you.

Don’t make me send down Jesus again.

No NOT jesus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That guy…..........................He takes you out to get drink,................than he leaves without paying for his tab….............................

“we know fuckall”

I think you meant to say: “I know fuckall”

huh. i took j-civ’s we know fuckall comment different – i assumed he was saying “we know, fuckall” implying yeah, we know enough to be concerned about climate change, and fuckall was aimed at the minority of people who still deny anthropogenic climate change. maybe that is because i always use fuckall as one of my responses to my environment and culture. Fuckall! has been a resounding battle cry of me and my science friends in response to our retarded world for some time now – it sort of embodies the gist of the sisyphean struggle and all. try it next time the observation of your social and environmental doom gets to you. just shout out loud “fuckall!” and keep rockin’ out. do it in the car, in the office, in the bathroom, in your sleep, its fun for the whole family! i dunno… maybe j civ could explain his intention.
until then FUCKALL!

well, except everyone in this thread. you guys are sweet. even though im pretty certain tango is a scruffy hoody clad canadian enviro-wiz and szamko is a pasty white slick haired political genius i still like to pretend they are average-to-above average height dark haired harpies in their mid 20’s who eagerly await the day when the cool people from gnn collectively bring an end to war, violent competition for resources, and our myriad environmental catastrophes and can get together for cocktails followed by a festival of dionysian delight resembling some kind of cross between a scene from Caligula and every 80’s college party flick.
until then, fuckall! and if you send jesus back, tell him he’s got a hell of a lot of water to turn into wine before he can go out and break bread and pass out fish.

peace!

Livingston, I think that comment was actually made by a greedy old oil billionaire, holed up in his mansion with his retinue of servants, trying to hold onto everything he’s managed to get his paws on over the years.. as in “We know, and screw y’all – I’ve got mine!”

Really, that’s what the gentleman was trying to say, don’t you think? Nihilistic tendencies among the old money barons are to be expected – didn’t Nero play his fiddle while Rome burned?

“But keep in mind if you think you understand climate change, you do not understand climate change.”
~Niels Bohr (mutation, see below)

Good advise to all.

If atmospheric CO2 levels were the cause of higher global average temperatures, why when CO2 levels peaked at 300 ppm did they both (CO2 and temperature) come back down again?

Wouldn’t that lead one to conclude that a warmer planet has an increased capability in terms of its natural CO2 sinks if CO2 levels were the driving force behind a warmer climate?

Isn’t just the opposite of this part of the IPCC’s predictions. That warming oceans will have a reduced capacity for the sequestration of CO2.

Or is it simply a matter that when the temperature again dropped for other reasons that CO2 levels did likewise as biological activity and the overall carbon cycle was reduced as more CO2 was sequestered than produced?

My “belief” (though I prefer theory) is based on my understanding of the physics of the solubility of gases in water.

I know, as most do who have even an elementary understanding of the properties of water, which covers 3/5ths of the earth’s surface, that by warming water you drive the dissolved gases from it.

The oceans are currently regarded as a net CO2 sink.

Warming of the oceans is predicted to reduce this capacity for the absorption of CO2 and other atmospheric gases critical to maintaining the oceans biological balance. This point of fact was made clear in the article and is supported by fact.

So we have a relatively warm climate, with accompanying relatively warmer oceans with a somewhat reduced capacity to sequester atmospheric CO2 that is at a historical peak of 300 ppm.

If this relatively high concentration of CO2 was the driving factor behind the warming, by what mechanism did the earth’s climate again cool?

Reduced sequestration and increased biological activity should cause the temperature to continue to increase until some sort of biological disaster such as the scenario in the article causes a radical change in the biosphere and a significant alteration of the natural carbon cycle.

However if the higher atmospheric CO2 levels were the result of a warmer climate and not the cause of the warming as I profess (against much opposition), then even in light of high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and warmer oceans with a reduced capacity for sequestration, the climate would again cycle into the next “ice age” with no major biological catastrophe between ice ages as is evidenced by the fossil records and earth’s relatively stable biological history in light of major past climate changes.

My “theory” that atmospheric CO2 levels, though a strong correlation admittedly exists between temperature and atmospheric CO2, were the result not the cause of temperature change hold up equally as well when considering the flip side of this equation.

In the midst of an ice age, with CO2 levels bottomed out at historical low of 180 ppm and with much of the terrestrial surface and polar oceans covered with ice, biological activity reduced and the cooler ocean surface having an increased capability to sequester CO2, what then could cause atmospheric CO2 to begin to rise again to warm the planet?

Don’t believe everything you think.
~GWHunta

Peace,

“But keep in mind if you think you understand climate change, you do not understand climate change.”
~Niels Bohr

Uhh…. the Bohr quote was “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it” – I just re-worded it in that other climate change thread (hence the “to add a new twist to a famous phrasing by Niels Bohr“).

“My “theory” that atmospheric CO2 levels, though a strong correlation admittedly exists between temperature and atmospheric CO2, are the result not the cause of temperature change hold up equally as well when considering the flip side of this equation“

That is wrong.

My “theory” that atmospheric CO2 levels, though a strong correlation admittedly exists between temperature and atmospheric CO2, are the result not the cause of temperature change hold up equally as well when considering the flip side of this equation

I love the internet so fucking much.

That is wrong?

Now there’s a flat earth answer if I’ve ever heard one.

Look, tango, I know you’ve invested heavily in climate education and could talk and write for hours on the topic.

Snark had the same attitude towards my “theory” about human induced warming, even though I readily admit that we as a species and as individuals are changing the chemical composition, volume and physical characteristics of the atmosphere.

I told Snark and anybody else interested in thinking the issue through, that human induced “global warming” is in fact caused by the fact that the added carbon in the atmosphere is in the form of CO2, which was formed from one part carbon and two parts oxygen that was already in gaseous form in the atmosphere.

That by burning fossil fuels, we are adding to both the volume and the mass of the atmosphere.

He said I was whack, that warming is primarily caused by the physical properties of CO2 allowing it capture infrared and re-radiate it back to the planet’s surface as is how most understand the issue.

He wanted some evidence. I provided it.

The EPA has been studying tailpipe emissions for years and the government understands perfectly well that a well tuned automobile with an operational catalytic converter produces about 19.5 lbs. of CO2 per gallon of gas.

A five gallon can of gasoline doesn’t weigh 100 lbs.

Burn anything, you get more atmosphere. Simple.

Since the mastery of fire, humans have been altering the mass, volume and chemical composition of the atmosphere and slightly altering climate from what it would have been without their fires burning because there was instantly more total atmosphere = more “greenhouse effect.” (along with particulates generated by the smoke)

This impact, prior to the more modern day industrial use of fossil fuels was both minimal and negligible because most of what they burned prior to coal and oil, would have eventually become CO2 through natural biological processes (or wildfire) relatively quickly anyway.

Need proof:

Q)I have a diesel car, how do I correctly account for the CO2 emissions from my car?

A)The lbs. of CO2 per gallon for diesel is 22.384 lbs. per gallon. The lbs of CO2 for gasoline is 19.564 lbs. of CO2 per gallon. So your can multiply your miles by 22.384/19.564 = 1.144 to adjust your miles correctly for diesel.

So is it scientifically correct to say that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of human induced global warming.

Absolutely.

Even Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth“ hit on the point that the atmosphere expands and contracts with the seasons (ever so slightly) and that humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere is steadily increasing the overall volume and mass of the atmosphere and that is the primary cause of human induced global warming.

But that was the “boring” scientific explanation and was quickly glossed over as he then cut to that ridiculous cartoon that further espouses the theory that climate change is the result of CO2 and the other “green house gasses” that trap “Mr. Sunbeam’s” heat and that the correlation between CO2 is evidence of the fact that CO2 levels are the driving force behind warming and not the result in a non-human influenced environment.

Why didn’t Mr. Sunbeam get his ass kicked on the way to work?

Knocked off into space before ever getting to Earth to heat the planet with their “rotting corpses.”

Gore’s conclusion: Future temperatures are dependent upon and can be reliably predicted by CO2 level.

That’s wrong.

I’ve explained that in relatively non-scientific terms that anyone can understand and if you think I’m wrong, feel free to explain it to me in the same manner I’ve put it out there.

People, most people anyway, don’t even get the very basic physics of the issue, let alone have a grasp of the complexity of the thousands of variables that combine to become the “climate.”

“Greenhouse gasses” make up about .1% of the total atmosphere.
I’m not saying that they should be ignored, or saying that emissions shouldn’t be cut.

Just the opposite, I think they should. On an individual basis. There should be a limit to the size of an individuals carbon footprint. See if Richard Branson will support that concept. We shouldn’t waste the resource on lavish lifestyles.

But not to prevent some nightmare scenario of climate “Armageddon” because that is not going to happen. The scenario in the article is poppycock.

From your link:

The most variable component of the atmosphere is water in its various phases such as vapour, cloud droplets, and ice crystals. Water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas. For these reasons and because the transition between the various phases absorb and release much energy, water vapour is central to the climate and its variability and change.

And more importantly from the same page:

Because the storage of carbon and the exchange of trace gases are influenced by climate, feedbacks between climate change and atmospheric concentrations of trace gases can occur. The influence of climate on the biosphere is preserved as fossils, tree rings, pollen and other records, so that much of what is known of past climates comes from such biotic indicators.

Focus on the bold print a moment. This is kind of like Gore. Factual, but quickly glossed over.

These words explain exactly the point I’m trying to make.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are primarily driven by climate, climate is not driven primarily by CO2 levels. Do feedbacks occur? Yes.

But if you don’t understand the basics, you can be mislead by the specifics.

Every lump of coal, every drop of oil was once a part of the biosphere.

We should use it carefully and make it last as long as possible cause it is a valuable resource. Not out of fear of a climate catastrophe.

But so long as this remains the water planet, the Earth’s climate will not become a runaway train.

The gloom and doom is not about any real impending disaster. It is about limiting growth and rationing who gets what remains of the planet’s resources for developed and to remain developed.

Carbon taxes will only be paid by those who can afford to pay them, insuring the future the rich and making certain that the poor will always be with us.

Some of them anyway.

That’s why even the fascists are now embracing “global warming” and climate chaos theory; not because they are convinced that the planet now needs saving, but because it dovetails with their agenda for the use of force against those not necessary to the fullfillment of their “American” dream and their goal of maintaining predatory global capitalism.

It is fast becoming tiresome being treated as though I’m being obtuse and too lazy to consider the evidence. I have and do. All of them.

Proclaiming understanding and providing evidence of specific feedbacks portrayed as comprehension of the total issue is obtuse and lazy.

The current media hysteria about global warming isn’t just about “environmental” concern. It is about the status quo and trying to find a way to maintain it in the face of limited resources and a rapidly expanding population.

Try and consider the validity of my arguments and continue the debate to some logical conclusions.

Sorry I quoted your misquote, I stand “corrected” on that, but maintain that I have it right with:

“Don’t believe everything you think.“

Peace,

Hunta: I do respect your depth of knowledge on the subject as well, so if I seemed dismissive of your ‘theory’ it is because it seemed to me that you were using the release of co2 under increased temp from natural C sinks to explain all of climate change, which is categorically incorrect. I should have elaborated that the phenomenon you mentioned does occur.

As we’ve covered many times, and is discussed in depth in the link that I provided, radioactive forcing of co2 from anthropogenic origin is the primary mechanism by which temp increases occur, and vastly overweighs increasing temp effects on the release of co2 from natural sinks. Although, of course, there are many other mechanisms and feedback cycles to contend with.

Regarding alterations in the volume and mass of the atmosphere being the primary cause of human induced global warming – I’m going to read up on that more and hopefully discuss it further with you.

I’m not trying to be dismissive of you, but some of your suggestions seem to indicate that you dismiss a lot of what is written in the IPCC reports. I’m not a climate expert so I shouldn’t have the final say on the matter. But since you are asking me to consider the validity of your arguments, I think it’s only fair that instead of trying to prove your own narrative you take a step back and read up on the instances where I’ve stated that you are incorrect in your reasoning.

I don’t disagree with any of the specifics in the IPCC report.

It is so carefully worded and drafted and doesn’t even go so far as to actually conclude with 100% certainty that all of the recent warming trend documented is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels and atmospheric CO2.

Water and water vapor, as the principal greenhouse gas, are the critical components of controlling the amount of the Sun’s energy that warms the Earth and distribution of that energy.

It is the abundance of water on the planet and in its atmosphere that maintains the climate within the realms that life on earth has adapted itself to.

Past, present and future. That is not going to radically change, no matter what the CO2 level currently is or is projected to become.

Will CO2 levels impact the climate? Absolutely.

Will 400 or 450 ppm be the end of life on the planet and an unmitigated climate disaster as described in the article?

Absolutely Not for a host of reasons but to put it in the most basic of terms.

Hot and humid, cold and clear. It really is that simple.

One last quote for now.

“Think for yourself, kid.”
~Barbatus (from Antz)

Peace,

“Water and water vapor, as the principal greenhouse gas, are the critical components of controlling the amount of the Sun’s energy that warms the Earth and maintains the climate within the realms that life on earth has adapted to“

Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing:

While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days). To demonstrate how quickly water reacts, I did a GCM experiment where I removed all the water in the atmosphere and waited to see how quickly it would fill up again (through evaporation from the ocean) . The result is shown in the figure. It’s not a very exciting graph because the atmosphere fills up very quickly. At Day 0 there is zero water, but after only 14 days, the water is back to 90% of its normal value, and after 50 days it’s back to within 1%. That’s less than 3 months. Compared to the residence time for perturbations to CO2 (decades to centuries) or CH4 (a decade), this is a really short time.

See also:

Water vapour act as a powerful greenhouse gas absorbing long-wave radiation. If the atmospheric water vapour concentration increases as a result of a global warming, then it is expected that it will enhance the greenhouse effect further. It is well known that the rate of evaporation is affected by the temperature and that higher temperatures increase the (saturated) vapour pressure (the Clausius-Clapeyron equation). This process is known as the water vapour feedback. One important difference between water vapour and other greenhouse gases such as CO2 is that the moisture spends only a short time in the atmosphere before being precipitated out, whereas the life time of CO2 in the atmosphere may be longer than 100 years

“It really is that simple“

Nothing about climate change is “simple.” That’s what this article under which we are writing is trying to tell us.

“It is carefully worded and drafted and doesn’t even actually conclude with 100% certainty that the warming trend that is documented is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.”

90% Hunta. That leaves 5% chance that their models could be too high, and 5% that they could be too low. In the words of the IPCC:

In general, uncertainty ranges for results given in this Summary for Policymakers are 90% uncertainty intervals unless stated otherwise, i.e.,there is an estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that range.

tango and a _pretty_rainbow,

Thanks, in my haste, I did make a mistake in the paragraph you both reprinted. My “opinions” are not as carefully crafted and worded as most of what is out there.

When taken out of the context of the paragraphs before and after it, what I said was wrong.

Replacing are with were amends this and I’ve done so that now the paragraph reads:

My “theory” that atmospheric CO2 levels, though a strong correlation exists, were the result, not the cause of temperature change hold up equally as well when considering the flip side of the equation.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Peace,

I told Snark and anybody else interested in thinking the issue through, that human induced “global warming” is in fact caused by the fact that the added carbon in the atmosphere is in the form of CO2, which was formed from one part carbon and two parts oxygen that was already in gaseous form in the atmosphere.

My issue with your ‘theory’ (really, it’s a hypothesis, nothing more) is that you’re representing it as fact when it is anything but. Since you’re advancing absolutely nothing but an a priori hypothesis, with no evidence to support your position, I really don’t fathom your arrogant certainty – especially coming from one who admonishes Tango to not believe everything he thinks.

And, sorry for the blatant appeal to authority, I’ve never heard a single atmospheric scientist explain global warming as a phenomenon primarily driven by mass and volume changes in the atmosphere. I know a fuckload of ‘em. I go to a biogeochemistry reading group every week. I’ve read hundreds of papers on global warming. I know some of the guys who worked on the IPCC report and got to read a couple of sections before it went to press. And I’ve never heard anybody say that global warming is primarily driven by atmospheric mass and volume balance alone, as you insist is the case. And frankly, I put my confidence in the scientific majority on this one.

It’s an interesting hypothesis, GW, and it deserves to be investigated and tested. You have not done so, and neither has anybody else. You, a layman, sat and thought about the topic for a while and figured out an alternate explanation for the hypothesis. That’s all great. I applaud you for thinking about it instead of just blindly accepting whatever shit CNN passes along from a press release issued by some university or agency. Where you lose me is portrayal of your alternate hypothesis as fact and a foregone conclusion, and your frankly arrogant dismissal of any other hypothesis as ridiculous and of the people who do actual research on the topic as constrained, ignorant fuddy-duddies.

Also, just because I put a high premium on rigorous scientific thinking, I might suggest that you represent it as a hypothesis, not as a theory. A hypothesis is an plausible explanation of a natural phenomenon that has yet to be supported by evidence, a theory is an explanation that is supported by all available evidence and which is not contradicted by evidence. The distinction is an important one and it is not fuzzy; the colloquial use of ‘theory’ to mean something like ‘hypothesis’ is terribly misleading.

the added carbon in the atmosphere is in the form of CO2, which was formed from one part carbon and two parts oxygen that was already in gaseous form in the atmosphere

Eh? It was in the form of hydrocarbons stored in fossil sinks. The added atmospheric carbon is derived from the combustion of those fossil sinks. Perhaps you could clarify this, because it doesn’t make a lot of sense as is and I suspect you meant something different.

Also, pointing out that a good portion of the mass of CO2 added to the atmosphere was already in the atmosphere as diatomic oxygen doesn’t seem to support your contention that the added mass of the CO2 is solely responsible for global warming.

He said I was whack, that warming is primarily caused by the physical properties of CO2 allowing it capture infrared and re-radiate it back to the planet’s surface as is how most understand the issue.

Yes. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs infrared radiation at 4.26 µm or 14.99 µm. It is an efficient insulator. That you dismiss that this phenomenon at least plays a role in global warming is, to put it bluntly, completely unfathomable to me. There are reams of papers confirming that, as Tango says above, radioactive forcing of co2 from anthropogenic origin is the primary mechanism by which temp increases occur. The thermodynamics of carbon dioxide are pretty well constrained at this point, as is the concept that adding more of a greenhouse gas to a system increases its insulating potential.

Now, I don’t doubt that volumetric changes are indeed a part of the story. There’s not a lot of evidence that quantifies that, but as you say it’s simply common sense. Whether it’s more of a driver than radioactive forcing is something I don’t think you – or anyone else – has demonstrated to my satisfaction. As I said – intriguing hypothesis, nothing more. If you have actual evidence, bring it to the table. A priori reasoning doesn’t prove anything to me.

He wanted some evidence. I provided it.

No, you started talking about EPA tailpipe emissions. Can you cite a paper?

That’s why even the fascists are now embracing “global warming” and climate chaos theory; not because they are convinced that the planet now needs saving, but because it dovetails with their agenda for the use of force against those not necessary to the fullfillment of their “American” dream and their goal of maintaining predatory global capitalism.

Don’t blame the science for its misapplication, and don’t dismiss evidence for political reasons. Frankly, this paragraph here – it worries me, because it raises the possibility to me that you’re not thinking about this objectively. Tango put it well in the other thread:

It’s apparent that you have just enough knowledge of climate change, and enough of an ideological lens through which to view it through that what ever I type into this little box isn’t going to change your mind.

It is fast becoming tiresome being treated as though I’m being obtuse and too lazy to consider the evidence. I have and do. All of them.

Might I suggest that we all get a copy of the IPCC report and read it, then? It’s several thousand pages; I haven’t read it yet and neither have you. If you’re willing, let’s take a couple of months, hack through that sucker, and then really debate the science.

So we have a relatively warm climate, with accompanying relatively warmer oceans with a somewhat reduced capacity to sequester atmospheric CO2 that is at a historical peak of 300 ppm.

Also, just a note – oceanic carbon sequestration is largely through biological (planktonic) primary productivity.

tango,

Why didn’t Mr. Sunbeam get his ass kicked on the way to Earth?

Absorbed by the “greenhouse gasses” and knocked back out to space before heating the surface, the oceans or the troposphere.

CO2 is not a one way mirror. Energy in the form of infrared comes from the Sun to warm the Earth.

It doesn’t “trap” infrared with any greater efficiency than it “blocks” it out to begin with.

What comes through the atmosphere as visible light and is subsequently converted to infrared does unbalance this equation, but again we are discussing feedbacks and secondary considerations and ignoring the both the certainties and uncertainties of the primary factors influencing climate and climate stability.

Water and water vapor. In the absence of which this planet would be totally uninhabitable.

What percentage of the total greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and the percentage due CO2. A doubling of CO2 will leave CO2 a relatively small percentage of the total.

Last question that may be most relevant to making a lasting point that we can all agree upon.

Is average global temperature and climate driven by the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere or does the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere drive average global temperature and climate?

Water = relative climate stability.

There aren’t enough fossil fuels on the planet to create enough CO2 for CO2 to replace water vapor as the primary greenhouse gas and that my friend is the Convenient Truth.

Peace,

Absorbed by the “greenhouse gasses” and knocked back out to space before heating the surface, the oceans or the troposphere.

Because greenhouse gases are not uniformly distributed throughout the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are burnt at the surface. Volcanoes erupt at the surface. Life, for the most part, resides at the surface. The hydrologic cycle, and most of the carbon cycle, occurs near the surface. Most of the mass of the atmosphere is within 10,000 feet of sea level. And the layers of the atmosphere are fairly stratified; they do not intermix readily. So, to answer your question, it’s because Mr. Sunbeam didn’t run into enough carbon dioxide to kick his ass until he was practically at the surface anyway. I seem to remember making this point to you a while ago; I’m a bit perplexed as to why you haven’t incorporated it into your suppositions up to now.

It doesn’t “trap” infrared with any greater efficiency than it “blocks” it out to begin with.

CO2 is not a reflective medium.

What percentage of the total greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and the percentage due CO2. A doubling of CO2 will leave CO2 a relatively small percentage of the total.

This question has already been answered by a number of papers. I’ve cited the papers in the article I wrote for GNN, and in many threads on global warming. The answer also lies in the IPCC reports. Every model, and every other line of evidence, supports the theory that radiative carbon dioxide forcing is now the dominant driver of global warming. That includes water vapor. And if you haven’t read those papers, I have to ask….why?

Water = relative climate stability.

You think it’s really so simple, do you?

There aren’t enough fossil fuels on the planet to create enough CO2 for CO2 to replace water vapor as the primary greenhouse gas and that my friend is the Convenient Truth.

A priori reasoning. Hypotheses, not theories. But represented, again, as “truth”, when no objective researcher or commentator would represent any theory, or hypothesis, or supposition, as anything of the sort.

There is no truth. There is merely the support of evidence.

I strongly encourage you to read the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports.

Snark,

Let’s leave fossil fuels out of this for a minute. I as you know burn wood.

Say it takes approximately 15 tons of firewood to heat my home through the winter.

I put 15 tons of mass into the woodstove. I take out a several hundred pounds of ash. Some smaller percentage of this mass rains down due to gravity as lighter ash or is precipitated out of the atmosphere much later with the rain as particulate matter after leaving my chimney.

A few pounds of creasote is formed in the lining of the chimney flue and will need to be cleaned out.

The bulk of the mass of the wood has been oxidized and converted to CO2, which as tango pointed out, some of which may remain in the atmosphere for as long as 100 years.

The atmosphere is now of greater mass and volume since I burned that 15 tons of firewood. That isn’t theory, that isn’t hypothesis, that is a fact.

Truth if you will.

More gas leaves the house out the chimney, than comes into the stove to “fuel” the fire. Most just passes through and leaves as it came in.

But there is less oxygen in the exhaust (smoke) leaving the chimney than entered the stove that has become CO2.

That 15 tons of firewood, depending on the efficiency with which it is oxidized and initial moisture content and a thousand other smaller variables will become at least 35 to 40 tons of CO2.

One gallon of gasoline = 19.5 lbs of CO2

Buildings / Lifestyle: – Electricity: 1.5 pounds of CO2 per kWh – Oil: 22 pounds of CO2 per gallon – Natural Gas: 11 pounds of CO2 per therm – Propane, “bottled gas”: 13 pounds of CO2 per gallon – Trash and recycling: 3 pounds of CO2 per pound of solid waste
Transportation: – Gasoline: 19.5 pounds of CO2 per gallon – Car air conditioners: 4,800 pounds of CO2 each – Air travel: 0.9 pounds of CO2 per mile – Bus, urban: 0.7 pounds of CO2 per mile – Bus, intercity: 0.2 pounds of CO2 per mile – Train and subway: 0.6 pounds of CO2 per mile – Taxi: 1.5 pounds of CO2 per mile

I’m thinking some of the difficulty in making the points I’m trying to make is language related and I appreciate your advice.

I also think it is partly due to resistance to critical and independent thought and understanding of the basics of climate and material physics and an overemphasis on feedbacks and secondary phenomena.

Sometimes oversimplifications can be enlightening.

Yes. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs infrared radiation at 4.26 µm or 14.99 µm. It is an efficient insulator. That you dismiss that this phenomenon at least plays a role in global warming is, to put it bluntly, completely unfathomable to me.

Dismiss. Not at all. It is a small piece of the overall equation and is treated as the be all, end all of the topic.

If you can grasp this concept, you get it, you understand global warming and the threat that CO2 is to the climate.

You point out that CO2 in the atmosphere is an efficient insulator.

Why didn’t Mr. Sunbeam get his ass kicked on the way to Earth?

The Sun’s heat should be as insulated out as it is held in then.

As for not being CO2 not being a reflective medium.

The atmosphere is somewhat opaque when it comes to infrared energy. The infrared (heat) energy passing through the atmosphere that is absorbed and re-emitted by water vapor, CO2 and the other “green house” gasses increases this opacity and in effect refracts this energy and scatters it.

When the sun is shining there is a great deal more infrared energy coming towards the direction of the surface than there is leaving it.

Peace?

The atmosphere is now of greater mass and volume since I burned that 15 tons of firewood. That isn’t theory, that isn’t hypothesis, that is a fact.

So it is, but you’ve not convinced me that it has relevance to global warming. Merely stating the near-tautology that adding carbon to the atmosphere creates more atmospheric mass is all very well, but you have not demonstrated the link between that phenomenon and the phenomenon of global warming.

Every model to date has found that the best fit of modeled to actual climate change involves radiative forcing due to increased concentration of CO2. That’s including changes in solar irradiance, geological processes, hydrological cycles, all of it. Put another way, radiative forcing perfectly explains the temperature rise. If volumetric explanations are a better fit, first you’d have to explain why, and then you’d probably have to explain why it perfectly apes the changes we’d expect from radiative forcing of CO2.

Why didn’t Mr. Sunbeam get his ass kicked on the way to Earth?

See above.

I also think it is partly due to resistance to critical and independent thought and understanding of the basics of climate and material physics and an overemphasis on feedbacks and secondary phenomena.

You’re right. My thinking is not independent. It is dependent on evidence. It is dependent on modeling. It is dependent upon what has been demonstrated in the literature. It is not dependent on my own take on things, derived from a non-expert command of the literature and theory. It is not dependent on a conviction that all global warming science is an elite plot.

Again simplification may help:

The total atmosphere has a given mass and an average specific heat for each of the gasses of which the atmosphere consists. It is possible to estimate the total amount of heat energy in BTU’s or Kcals for the entire atmosphere.

We have but one atmosphere. It is of a somewhat greater volume today than it would have been had humanity not burned gigatons of hydrocarbons sequestered in the Earth.

Thus the total atmosphere has a greater overall specific heat capacity than it would have had otherwise.

This does increase the overall “greenhouse” effect of the atmosphere.

The most variable and shortest lived of the constituent portions of the gasses that make up the atmosphere is water vapor and how warming will effect its behavior in the atmosphere is the single most important considersation in climate science and prediction.

It is not dependent on a conviction that all global warming science is an elite plot.

Check your bias meter here Snark. “global warming science?”

The conclusion shouldn’t be in the title.

Peace,

Furthermore,

I do not deny that higher levels of CO2 can and do increase irradiative forcing in the atmosphere.

So do increased amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere.

Nor do I deny the fact that there is anthropogenic warming.

Denial of human influence on the climate is ludicrous.

We’ve made and continue to make some very significant alterations to the environment. Some of them are almost immediately reversible.

My argument is against the not so subtle persuasion that is going on that we are on the brink of a major calamity, that immediate and decisive action is necessary yesterday, or what we are doing will put the entire planet and every form of life on it in imminent danger.

I was particularly taken aback by this particular article, and the attitude which is suddenly in vogue that it may already be too late.

This does nothing to promote the necessary change.

Find me a majority consensus of scientists who’ll validate this climate prediction.

It is poppycock.

I just re-read Snark’s article and would like to congratulate him as well for his endeavor and success with it and share a paragraph.

With the simulation results verified experimentally, they can be used to make predictions for the future. It is estimated that Earth will gain at least two or three degrees in the next century, making for an increase of about 4 degrees C worldwide in 200 years. They’ve also been run to figure out what would have happened without greenhouse gases from fossil fuels, revealing that without human influence the climate would have actually cooled, not warmed.

My take on it:

Simulations are tweaked to mirror the results. If they don’t, there is something wrong with the model. But even if the simulation model matches the known experimental results that doesn’t guarantee the future predictions of the model, or that you can remove one variable and forecast what the “alternative future” would have been.

Hand in hand with the 20th century’s industrial development and radical increases in fossil fuel use with accompanying increased CO2 emissions has been a quantum leap in the amount of farmland irrigated either with waters that have been rerouted to vast tracts of farmland that used to be desert, forests or grasslands or pumped up from aquifers deep underground.

You think burning 20,000,000 barrels of oil a day is an unfathomable volume of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Water vapor is the most critical and important “green house gas.”

Show me the chart that factors in the impact of 20th century agricultural practices regarding the countless billions of tons of water that formerly found its way to the oceans via rivers and streams or into underground aquifers that are now diverted to vast tracts of what used to be desert and prairie?

How many gigatons of additional water vapor are added to the atmosphere on a continuous basis throughout the growing seasons and even while fields lay fallow?

What impact is this additional water vapor having on both the weather and the overall climate.

There are reasons for the extreme weather and atmospheric instability of “tornado alley.”

Kansas has nearly 3 million irrigated acres. State water law requires that water be used beneficially for the overall good of the citizens of Kansas. Approximately 85% of the water in Kansas that is diverted from groundwater and surface water supplies is used for irrigation. Although this irrigation water is utilized on only 14% of the cropland, it accounts for 33% of the state’s crop production. K-State Research and Extension is committed to developing and promoting new irrigation technologies that will be environmentally and economically efficient while conserving and protecting limited water resources. This site is devoted to general irrigation information and practices.

The brown side of the “green” revolution.

Is your sprinkler as big a factor in anthropogenic warming as your lawn mower?

Making the deserts bloom. Not a factor in global warming? Or how big a factor in global warming?

How much of the planet’s terrestrial surface is now used for agricultural purposes?

The mighty Colorado river used to run to the sea, now it is dispersed to the sky via millions of acres of cropland.

How does crop evapotranspiration vary from the natural plants and biosystems that would otherwise inhabit this planet?

We’ve all seen photos a the house built of the thick sod that used to cover much of what used to be a vast prairie. Corn is planted in rows and sprayed with RoundUp to prevent anything from growing besides the corn.

How effective can that be regarding maintaining the moisture within the soil?

Wouldn’t that be a significant factor in the equation regardless of whether the acreage used for cropland was irrigated or not?

O.K. then all we have to do to save the glaciers is stop driving, heating and lighting our homes and businesses then what? Stop eating?

In closing once again:

Don’t believe everything you think.

Peace,

How many gigatons of additional water vapor are added to the atmosphere on a continuous basis throughout the growing seasons and even while fields lay fallow?

I’m working on a presentation right now and don’t have much time to discuss, but you’re neglecting the fact that the atmosphere has a finite capacity for water vapor; the hydro cycle is a far different beast than the carbon cycle.

tango,

*Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing?*

Sorry I didn’t pick up on this sooner, but please tell me how pumping billions of gallons of water from an aquifer and dispersing into the atmosphere could possibly be a feedback to warming?

Hunta,

Check the atmospheric half-life of that water vapour.

tango,

Think. Then think about the fact that the tap is never really turned off, so the half-life isn’t an issue.

Humidity is a huge factor. If irrigation and agriculture ended this summer and what was formerly prairie or forest was returned to being just that, I agree, it would no longer be a factor.

That said, the plows will soon be tilling and the seeds planted and the sprinklers will be spraying.

It only takes a few days for the water in a stream to flow to the sea, but that doesn’t keep the salmon from finding it to spawn season after season.

The IPCC report is CO2 centric.

Peace,

“Think“

Uh… huh…

This discussion is over.

Evapotranspiration (ET) occurs when irrigation water:

Evaporates from the soil surface = evaporation

And is drawn up through the roots of plants and escapes into the air through pores in the leaves and stems = transpiration

Only a small portion of the water you use to irrigate your crops and landscape is actually used to make plant tissue. The majority of the water taken up by the plants is used to keep the plant cool. This is accomplished through transpiration. By keeping track of ET, you can provide the amount of water your crops and lawns need. Applying water based on ET will prevent applying excess amount or deficient levels of water.

Think.
Uh… huh
This discussion is over.

Lame.

tango,

Get real for a minute. What is the half life of irrigation? Human agriculture?

There is no half-life. It is ongoing, it is relentless.

Our agriculture is growing right along with the population growth.
And the warming.

I meant no offense and you should know that.

Asking somebody to think and consider the validity of what they are saying as well as hearing is anything but insulting.

You could help me with this.

I’ve made a preliminary search of the 2001 IPCC Report to find everthing they’ve included with regard to this issue and found it lacking.

You are much more familiar with the work than am I and could point out where this issue is adequately covered.

If I’ve missed it?

Understanding this issue is critically important.

Everybody is talking about how humans are altering the carbon cycle. I’m well aware of the figures regarding what percentage fossil fuel use has become of the total carbon cycle.

What impact are we having on the hydrological cycle and how is that impacting global temperature and climate?

Are you truly satisfied with just dropping out of this discussion based on Think?

Do you really think diverting millions of cubic acres of water from the sea to the sky, day after day, year after year, in ever increasing volumes is having a negligable impact on weather and climate?

Do you want to understand the big picture or just the fossil fuel aspect?

Fact or fiction, tango?

You decide.

One kilogram of grain requires around 1000 litres of water to grow. It takes 16 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef. That’s 16,000 litres of water per kg of beef.

So, next time you look at a 16 ounce steak on a plate think,
“That’s over seven cubic metres of water!”

Agricultural irrigation on average adds nearly 12 cubic kilometers of water, in the form of water vapor to the atmosphere each and every day.

This is just the tip of the agricultural climate impact iceberg.

Peace,

Is there really a valid correlation between temperature changes and fluctuations of the CO2 level? Well, an ice-core sample from Vostok in Russia provides data going back almost 450,000 years on temperatures and CO2 levels. I’ve taken the data from both results and plotted them on the same graph below. I believe that anyone would agree that there is an excellent match that higher CO2 levels mean elevated temperatures and vice versa.

Bold print?

Peace,

tango,

Just spent the last three hours or so doing a very comprehensive job of following up on this issue after re-reading some more of the IPCC material you recommended.

I was planned on posting it here, then cruised up this thread and I see this is no longer a discussion.

Neither you (or any of the others) are interested in following this thread because you are either already certain you fully comprehend the issue entirely and I simply don’t; or you really don’t care if you do or don’t so long as what you have to say on the topic is PC.

Best just blog on somewhere else.

Peace my Friend.

What we don’t know about climate change

We don’t want to know.

Hunta I posted this in a different thread but I figured I’d post it here so you’d actually see it.:

First, I appologize for getting short with you when you told me to ‘think’ in an earlier thread. It was an incredibly arrogent comment on your part, but that did not excuse my reaction.

I’ve been reading more about water vapour and climate change. I found some interesting speculation on the role of water vapour in climate change. As I’ve mentioned previously, evidence shows that water vapour is the primary natural radiative forcing molecule in the atmosphere. And land use patterns indicate that it does play a role in climate change ^{1, 2}.

I have also found numerous studies that show that increased water vapour is a feedback of increasing temperature^2, 3, 4, 5, 6^.

It is pretty clear that anthropogenic water use does emit a large amount of water vapour into the atmosphere per annum. However, while water vapour does have a high value of radiative forcing, it a) has a very short half-live in the atmosphere, and b) tends to accumulate as cloud cover, which actually has a net cooling effect on the local microclimate. It is also well demonstrated that the increase in water vapour in the atmosphere (both from feedback and as a direct result of irrigation) increase percipitation events, moving atmospheric H20 back into terrestrial and marine environments ³.

Water vapour is clearly the most important greenhouse gas over geologic time ^{7, 8}. What I’m saying is that there is not enough evidence to support your absolute certainty in your hypothesis. The evidence does, however, point to it playing an important role in local forcing, but is currently not believed to have a significant effect on global temperature.

This discussion not about either of us being right or wrong – I’m struggling to learn as much as I can about climate change, and always appreciate new information to aid in my endeavours.

=====================================================

¹ Pielke et al. 2002. The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases. Philos Trans R Soc London A 360, 1705–1719

² Boucher et al. 2004. Direct human influence of irrigation on atmospheric water vapour and climate. Climate Dynamics 22, 597–603

³ Prowse et al. 2006. Climate Change Effects on Hydroecology of Arctic Freshwater Ecosystems. Journal of the Human Environment 35, 347-358

⁴ Minschwaner et al. 2006. Multimodel Analysis of the Water Vapor Feedback in the Tropical Upper Troposphere. Journal of Climate 19, 5455-5464

⁵ Soden and Held. 2006. An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Models. Journal of Climate 19, 3354-3360
⁶ Collins et al. 2006. Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases: Estimates from climate models in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006713

⁷ Beerling and Valdez. 2005. Radiative forcing by non-CO2 greenhouse gases in the early Eocene. Geological Society of America 37, 266

⁸ Bush 2005. CO2/H20 and orbitally driven climate variability over Central Asia through the Holocene. Quaternary International 136, 15-23

====================================================

“We don’t want to know“

Oh, and that’s bullshit – considering you posted it underneath an article that basically says, “Hey, here’s a some things about climate change that we know little about and we need to find an answer to.”

“Best just blog on somewhere else“

Not a bad idea, I’ll consider your proposal.

Not a bad idea, I’ll consider your proposal.

jeezus christ man, don’t even joke about that

“Best just blog on somewhere else“

That wasn’t a recommendation for you or anyone else.

That was me thinking out loud. Better to blog the material myself than carry on here solo. I had a post nearly as long as the pre-existing thread I’ve been researching the past few days. But when you get to your 7th consequitive post it is time to wake up and realize you’re singing in the shower.

It’s been a lonely couple of days for this thread.

I’d like to get a handle on how to better convey the message to get people to look at this problem outside the current CO2 centric lens.

It is relatively simple to understand the mechanisms and it does much to explain why the Northern Hemisphere has been impacted more severely, especially in the Artic, while the Antartic hasn’t seen the same extent of impact from the warming of the past 50 years.

As for the impact that just agricultural irrigation alone has on the climate; before even considering the infrared that is re-radiated by the additional water vapor once it has been added to the atmosphere, it is equivilent to taking all the worlds nuclear power plants, coal fired power and steam plants, all the natural gas and propane burned for electricity and heat, as well as all the oil and gas used for home heating and transportation and converting this energy to steam and releasing it directly into the atmosphere. X20

I’ve done the physics and the math and am working on a means to put forth a straightforward and simple analogy to better explain the “theory.”

Now after considering the impact that this water vapor has once it has been added to the atmosphere in magnifying the “green house effect” it is not simply a factor, it is a primary cause of anthropogenic warming.