Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_Plato said:
Easterbrook addresses that point. He says 95% of possible greenhouse warming could only come from water vapor. That would mean the feedbacks have to do with CO2 “levering” water vapor to create the warming. He dismisses that, however, for a number of reasons which he explains in the video. There were several other scientists who spoke to that same committee in 2013 that made the same or similar claims with regard to CO2.
Click to expand...
I may have posted this before, but here is solid primary research (from CERN) that is starting to refute the H2O feedback assumptions in the models.
youtu.be/8M3up6T9Zeg

Perhaps in the next year we will start to see lower projections for ECS with CO2 doubling.
My personal expectation is that we’ll end up with ECS = 1-2.5C with CO2 doubling.
 
Theo520 said:
I may have posted this before, but here is solid primary research (from CERN) that is starting to refute the H2O feedback assumptions in the models.
youtu.be/8M3up6T9Zeg

Perhaps in the next year we will start to see lower projections for ECS with CO2 doubling.
My personal expectation is that we’ll end up with ECS = 1-2.5C with CO2 doubling.
Click to expand...
From the video:
The effect will be to slightly reduce the projections for temperature during the 21st century.
Given that the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report argued that climate sensitivity was “likely” between 2 C to 4.5 C, your personal expectation slashes the ECS by 50%. Do you think that’s what the CERN scientist in the video meant by “slightly reduce”?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
From the video:
The effect will be to slightly reduce the projections for temperature during the 21st century.
Given that the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report argued that climate sensitivity was “likely” between 2 C to 4.5 C, your personal expectation slashes the ECS by 50%. Do you think that’s what the CERN scientist in the video meant by “slightly reduce”?
Click to expand...
We must wait for their work to be completed, and they are working on updated ECS projections.

I was very clear I wasn’t speaking for them.
 
Regarding CO2’s opaqueness to IR: that is true but only at a set of very specific frequencies. Outside of those frequencies CO2 does not absorb IR radiation at all. This is why there is such a thing as a saturation effect: once all of the IR at the frequencies CO2 absorbs is in fact absorbed, the addition of more CO2 has no effect whatever. This of course leaves open the question of whether or not those frequencies are close to saturation. As I recall, the CO2 effect is logarithmic: if doubling CO2 has effect Y, it takes 4 times that amount to double Y.

In any event, there are a number of ways to graph the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and let’s be candid about this: generally the way that is chosen is chosen because it looks to the casual observer that it prove the point: either that there is a relationship or there isn’t. I personally like the ones that don’t show a relationship.


Ender
 
Ender said:
Regarding CO2’s opaqueness to IR: that is true but only at a set of very specific frequencies. Outside of those frequencies CO2 does not absorb IR radiation at all. This is why there is such a thing as a saturation effect: once all of the IR at the frequencies CO2 absorbs is in fact absorbed, the addition of more CO2 has no effect whatever. This of course leaves open the question of whether or not those frequencies are close to saturation. As I recall, the CO2 effect is logarithmic: if doubling CO2 has effect Y, it takes 4 times that amount to double Y.

In any event, there are a number of ways to graph the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and let’s be candid about this: generally the way that is chosen is chosen because it looks to the casual observer that it prove the point: either that there is a relationship or there isn’t. I personally like the ones that don’t show a relationship.
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2012/10/The_global_temperature_chart.jpg

Ender
Click to expand...
All of this makes my head hurt. The CO2 rise in your graph is about 8%, and it’s 8% of a very small ppm as well. If you graphed it another way, it would hardly show any rise at all. If you graphed it in terms of the whole, it would look flat because in terms of ppm, 8% rise in 360 ppm is hardly anything. If my calculator and brain are working, that’s a rise of .0002.88%.

So what does all of that actually mean?
 
Ender said:
Regarding CO2’s opaqueness to IR: that is true but only at a set of very specific frequencies. Outside of those frequencies CO2 does not absorb IR radiation at all. This is why there is such a thing as a saturation effect: once all of the IR at the frequencies CO2 absorbs is in fact absorbed, the addition of more CO2 has no effect whatever. This of course leaves open the question of whether or not those frequencies are close to saturation. As I recall, the CO2 effect is logarithmic: if doubling CO2 has effect Y, it takes 4 times that amount to double Y.
Click to expand...
As I recall, saturation effects are inverse exponential. Y = e^(-r * X) if X<<(1/r) the response is almost linear.
 
Ridgerunner said:
All of this makes my head hurt. The CO2 rise in your graph is about 8%, and it’s 8% of a very small ppm as well. If you graphed it another way, it would hardly show any rise at all. If you graphed it in terms of the whole, it would look flat because in terms of ppm, 8% rise in 360 ppm is hardly anything. If my calculator and brain are working, that’s a rise of .0002.88%.

So what does all of that actually mean?
Click to expand...
This one goes back to the start of the industrial revolution

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d06dcb44970c-pi
 
Theo520 said:
This one goes back to the start of the industrial revolution

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d06dcb44970c-pi
Click to expand...
This is an example of what Ridgerunner talked about here when he pointed out that graphs give a different impression depending on the scales used. Here we have a graph where the CO2 levels have been made to fill the entire vertical range, but the temperature anomaly is arbitrarily restricted to about 10% of the vertical range to make it look like it is hardly changing at all. But if one looks only at the data and is not swayed by the visual impression of the graph. one sees that the period from 1950 to the present - the period of the largest CO2 concentration rise - is coincident with an overall rise in temperature. The graph is further misleading in drawing a red arrow at the end of the temperature anomaly line implying that the direction of change over the last 9 years of the graph is definitive of where the temperature will be going. The proper way to assess correlation is not to squint while looking at a graph, but by running the numbers into the correlation formula. In this case I am quite sure the correlation will be positive, not zero as claimed by the headline.
 
Ridgerunner said:
All of this makes my head hurt. The CO2 rise in your graph is about 8%, and it’s 8% of a very small ppm as well. If you graphed it another way, it would hardly show any rise at all. If you graphed it in terms of the whole, it would look flat because in terms of ppm, 8% rise in 360 ppm is hardly anything. If my calculator and brain are working, that’s a rise of .0002.88%.

So what does all of that actually mean?
Click to expand...
What it shows is that over the last 20ish years, CO2 has increased 8% while temperature has remained constant. That is, the “CO2 effect” has not been effective lately.

Ender
 
LeafByNiggle said:
As I recall, saturation effects are inverse exponential. Y = e^(-r * X) if X<<(1/r) the response is almost linear.
Click to expand...
The increase in temperature is linear with an exponential growth in CO2.
“It is true, that for each doubling of CO2 concentration, temperature increases by a constant value.” (Skeptical Science)Ender
 
Ender said:
The increase in temperature is linear with an exponential growth in CO2.
“It is true, that for each doubling of CO2 concentration, temperature increases by a constant value.” (Skeptical Science)Ender
Click to expand...
I was referring to your analysis of the radiation saturation effect in post #254, not to the subsequent temperature rise. Indeed, the inverse exponential function is bounded above, but the logarithm function is unbounded. So a saturation phenomenon cannot be described by a logarithm function.
 
Peter_Plato said:
geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Another source that water vapor is responsible for 95% of greenhouse effect.

pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html

That only leaves 5% for all other contributors. I don’t suppose you want to argue that CO2 is responsible for all that remaining 5%?

The first link provides the breakdown to obtain 3.6% (72.36% of the remaining 5% not attributable to water vapor.)
Click to expand...
CO2 is a forcing, while H2O is a feedback. What this means is the little warming caused by CO2 causes more water vapor (WV) to go up into the air.

I think this much is fairly well known by most people, just by experience. Warmth causes water to evaporate, it “sucks out” water from water bodies, soil, and biota (also increasing the risk of wildfires).

WV is also a greenhouse gas in that it increases the warming (and much more than CO2)…but only to a point, otherwise the additional warming from the WV would cause greater evaporation, causing greater warming, causing greater evaporation, and so on until all the water was evaporated up into the atmosphere.

But that obviously doesn’t happen. Why? The H2O molecules only stay up in the atmosphere a few days, before it precipitates down again. That’s why H2O is a “feedback” from the warming caused by other GHGs, such as CO2, and not a “forcing.”

As for CO2 in the atmosphere, about half of it comes back down to earth into plants and the oceans, etc. The other half remains there for a much longer time than H2O. They say 100 years, but a portion of it can last up to 100,000 years. That’s why CO2 is a “forcing,” and also why great warmings of the past could last up over 100,000 years.

Now CO2 also is a “feedback,” as well as a forcing, which makes the situation really harmful. The warming caused by the CO2 and other GHGs caused permafrost and ocean hydrates containing methane to melt, releasing vast stores of methane, causing greater warming, causing greater methane release, and so on, making the warming a lot greater than just the initial warming cause by our industrial & lifestyle release of CO2.

Also methane (CH4), which is some 25 times more potent GHG than CO2 lasts only about 10 years in the atmosphere before degrading into CO2… Scientists who are experts in GHGs say that it is still the CO2 which is the more dangerous GHG than CH4, since its residence in the atmosphere is so much longer.

Hope that clarifies the issue.

Christmas blessings!
 
In the long run:

More CO2 makes things warmer

Warm weather evaporates more water from the oceans

Water returns to earth as rain

Rain waters plants and we end up with more plants

More plants means more O2 and less CO2

🙂
 
gilliam said:
In the long run:

More CO2 makes things warmer

Warm weather evaporates more water from the oceans

Water returns to earth as rain

Rain waters plants and we end up with more plants

More plants means more O2 and less CO2

🙂
Click to expand...
In many parts of the world, rainfall makes a tremendous difference in plant growth, thus carbon sequestration. Where I live, it’s not arid by anyone’s usual measure, but warm waters along the northwest coast of South America and warm Gulf waters make a great deal of difference in rainfall here.

So, how does that change anything, since it never turns into desert here? Well, there are warm-season and cool-season plants, grasses being the most dramatic of them. If it’s dry in the summertime here, warm-season varieties like Bermuda, the bluestem varieties and native species like Indiangrass don’t grow. If rain is plentiful, they put on a tremendous amount of growth. Much of that growth gets returned to the soil in the form of vigorous root structure growth and pasture that gets trampled into contact with the earth and turns to soil organic matter.

That’s not to say all weather systems are the same. But it is very difficult for me to think of increased atmospheric moisture as a bad thing, particularly where there are “continental influences” that circulate warmer and cooler air back and forth, generating precipitation.
 
Theo520 said:
This one goes back to the start of the industrial revolution

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d06dcb44970c-pi
Click to expand...
Your temp graph looks way off. Here is a better one from NASA up to 2015 with both the annual and 5-year running means:



From what I understand they expect 2016 to be nearly as warm as 2015 (which was the warmest so far).

RE the discussion of CO2 (and other GHGs) causing the warming, but not entirely matching the temps, it should be pointed out that there are other factors that impact the warming, such as solar radiance, volcanoes, and various “sloshings” in the earth system, such as el nino years, etc. That’s why the warming does not exactly track the GHG levels in the atmosphere
 
gilliam said:
In the long run:

More CO2 makes things warmer

Warm weather evaporates more water from the oceans

Water returns to earth as rain

Rain waters plants and we end up with more plants

More plants means more O2 and less CO2

🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, given a chance the earth will heal. Also wind blowing that CO2 in the atmosphere against rocks turns it into calcium carbonate over a much longer time.

It’s more a matter of before we get to “in the long run” and how many people will be harmed from GW in those 100s or 1000s of years. The timeline depends on how serious we are about reducing our CO2 emissions now. I’m thinking that we’ve already missed our chances to do much good over these past 25 years (when the public became aware of CC), and we’re in for a rough ride perhaps for 1000s of years. And if we refuse to do good by God’s creation from this point on, that could stretch into 10,000s of years.

Also warming evaporates moisture from soil and biota, harming crops and increasing wildfire risk (putting CO2 back into the atmosphere).

It would be great if the warmest areas got that moisture back, but what’s happening and expected to increase is that the lower latitudes are getting dryer while more precip is flooding and causing blizzards in the higher latitudes. When it rains it pours.

Overall, there is increasing precip, just not necessarily in the places, amounts, or timings that are helpful to some crops around the world.
 
That bogus/deceptive chart re temp anomalies is from C3 Headlines.

A blogger, Greenman (who at least gives his name on his site, which C3 Headlines does NOT), explains how C3 plays tricks with real data through cherry-picking, etc to make it look like CC is not happening, which apparently they do for many/all their deceptive charts–AND they don’t have the guts to reveal who they are.

Here’s what Greenman, Martin Porter, says about such a chart:

The source of the data, the very respectable National Space Science and Technology Centre, adds a touch of respectability…

So what’s the trick?

Well, the data isn’t made up. The original numbers are all here and, although it takes a bit of time to wade through them, the figures used on the chart are correct.

What’s been done is a bit of good old fashioned cherry picking. That’s easy enough to do, but what some eagle eyed denier has spotted is that the cherries that are worth picking lie at 5 year intervals. Neat.

thesnufkin.blogspot.in/2011/03/how-to-cook-data-set.html

There are many ways to lie and deceive – beware the deceptions!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top