Global Warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StephenL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The other thing is all the predictions that were made 20 years ago about the doom we faced in 20 years - you know when 20 years into the future seemed like a long time.

U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP - entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect - Associated Press June 30, 1989

STUDY FORESEES 86 NEW POWER PLANTS TO COOL U.S. WHEN GLOBE GETS HOTTER: Global warming could force Americans to build 86 more power plants – at a cost of $110 billion – to keep all their air conditioners running 20 years from now, a new study says…Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010, and the drain on power would require the building of 86 new midsize power plants - Associated Press May 15, 1989

Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the '80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. - Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989

‘‘I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left - we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.’’ - ABC - The Miracle Planet April 22, 1990

One of the world’s leading climate experts warned of an underestimated threat posed by the buildup of greenhouse gases ’ an abrupt collapse of the ocean’s prevailing circulation system that could send temperatures across Europe plummeting in a span of 10 years. If that system shut down today, winter temperatures in the North Atlantic region would fall by 20 or more degrees Fahrenheit within 10 years. Dublin would acquire the climate of Spitsbergen, 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle. “The consequences could be devastating,” said Wallace S. Broecker, Newberry Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s - Science Magazine Dec 1, 1997

Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) July 26, 1999

A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (Malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world. - The Guardian September 11, 1999

Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries. - Charles Onians -UK Independent Mar 20, 2000

Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting even. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is," Dr David Viner, Senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia - Mar 20, 2000
These are all quotes from the popular media or government agencies. I am not surprised that they get things wrong. But please cite peer-reviewed research in scientific journals, if you want to prove that scientists are clueless.
 
By that definition a tout’s prediction of who will win the seventh race at Santa Anita is a scientific theory as well. On the other hand, if he’s missed badly on some of his previous predictions there is little reason to bet the farm on his prediction about the outcome of the next race … which is pretty much what we’re being asked to do regarding “solutions” to AGW.

Ender
Ah, but we are betting the farm regardless of which choice we make on global warming.
 
These are all quotes from the popular media or government agencies. I am not surprised that they get things wrong. But please cite peer-reviewed research in scientific journals, if you want to prove that scientists are clueless.
Where do you think they got their information?
 
Meanwhile, in the real world…
CALGARY—The head of the Royal Canadian Navy says Canada needs to bolster its military presence in the Arctic to prepare for a boom in human and economic activity resulting largely from climate change.
Global warming is thought to be occurring faster in the North than anywhere else. The gradual disappearance of sea ice is opening up commercial shipping as well as previously inaccessible areas rich with oil, natural gas and mineral resources.
“From a naval perspective, climate change probably means there will be more open water, so the Arctic Ocean will really emerge as the Arctic Ocean,” Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, said in a recent interview.
“It also means . . . that the circumpolar route will probably open to international shipping from Asia to Europe sometime in this century — probably a lot earlier than most people predicted a few years ago,” he said.
“I know that major shipping companies are planning now to be able to have ships that are first-year ice capable sailing out of Singapore and over the pole into Rotterdam.
“That’s a game changer in my view . . . a shorter distance so less time, less money.”
thestar.com/news/world/2012/02/19/climate_change_boosts_need_for_bigger_presence_in_arctic_canadian_navy_head.html
 
Since the theory of AGW is unaffected by the data - and therefore not falsifiable - it seems it fails the criterion necessary to be considered scientific as well.
Actually, theory of AGW is not dependent on temperature data. Theory of AGW is dependent on physical properties of carbon dioxide (and other gases such as methane), which have been studied extremely well, and for reasons completely unrelated to climate science.

clivebest.com/blog/?p=4597
clivebest.com/blog/?p=4697
 
Actually, theory of AGW is not dependent on temperature data. Theory of AGW is dependent on physical properties of carbon dioxide (and other gases such as methane), which have been studied extremely well, and for reasons completely unrelated to climate science.
This is both inaccurate and a great oversimplification of the problem. I suppose you could say the theory of AGW is not dependent on temperature data but the data are certainly a measure of the accuracy of the theory. Any theory which holds that “A will happen” and “B will not happen” is severely weakened when A does not happen and B does.

We may fully understand the physical properties of CO2 but we surely do not understand all the physical properties, feedbacks, forcings, etc caused by the innumerable interactions of matter and energy that make up our climate system. That we don’t understand the climate is demonstrated by the fact that all the climate models predicted (with great certainty) that something would not happen which in fact did.

Ender
 
If warming temps are not the issue why all the talk?
What he said was the theory of AGW is not dependent on warming temps. That is, they didn’t start out by observing warming temps and then say “Hey, what’s causing this?” Instead they started out with known properties of CO2 (although, as Ender says, those properties may not be so completely known in the context of the atmosphere in which it exists) and then asked the question, “What might this cause?”. Temperatures certainly are an issue. But they are an output of the theory, not an (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
What he said was the theory of AGW is not dependent on warming temps. That is, they didn’t start out by observing warming temps and then say “Hey, what’s causing this?” Instead they started out with known properties of CO2 (although, as Ender says, those properties may not be so completely known in the context of the atmosphere in which it exists) and then asked the question, “What might this cause?”. Temperatures certainly are an issue. But they are an output of the theory, not an (name removed by moderator)ut.
Yet the problem is no output to match the theory.
 
In other words, the choice is between your convenience and the life of your grandchildren – and I understand why many people are willing to opt for the former.
Why is that view shared ion the environment but never on the issues of debt and economics? Shouldn’t we not foist any of our problems on future generations?
 
Yet the problem is no output to match the theory.
It is a problem, but in a different sense than you think.

Increased atmospheric content of CO2 must increase the total amount Earth’s heat energy. This is a direct consequence of physical properties of CO2.

The tricky question is where this extra energy is going. In a naive model, this energy would just increase air tempearture. However, there is more to the Earth system than just air. So if the air temperature is not rising, it means that all this extra energy is doing something else – for example melting polar ice caps. It cannot simply disappear.

So, if excess energy is going into melting polar ice at a higher rate than previously thought – that would mean that our models have overestimated temperature rise, but underestimated sea level rise. Good news for farmers, but very bad news for people in coastal areas. Extremely bad news for the folks in Bangladesh. (By the way, did you know that India is building a 3500km long fence on the border with Bengladesh, anticipating waves of climate refugees?)

The “warming has stopped!” crowd would have you believe that you can put energy into the system with impunity. This is nonsense. This missing energy is going somewhere, doing something, and if we don’t find out what it’s doing – it will finally manifest itself, probably in a way which will bite us hard.

By the way, when you are arguing that there is no warming, several countries are plotting how to take over the defreezing Arctic: economist.com/node/21556798
 
It is a problem, but in a different sense than you think.

Increased atmospheric content of CO2 must increase the total amount Earth’s heat energy. This is a direct consequence of physical properties of CO2.
This is incorrect. This assumes, among other things, that increased CO2 has only one effect which is clearly not the case.
The tricky question is where this extra energy is going. In a naive model, this energy would just increase air temperature.
It may be a naive model but it pretty accurately describes the theory of AGW … based on the characteristics of CO2.
So if the air temperature is not rising, it means that all this extra energy is doing something else – for example melting polar ice caps. It cannot simply disappear.
The physical properties of CO2 led to the prediction that increasing CO2 it will increase atmospheric temps. The theory does not account for the polar ice caps melting unless the temperature of the atmosphere increases. If atmospheric temperatures are not rising, and for the past 15 years they have not, then this is a significant problem for that theory - and for your assertion that additional CO2 must increase the total amount of the Earth’s heat energy because CO2 concentrations have continued to increase during the entire time that the atmospheric temperature has not.
This missing energy is going somewhere, doing something, and if we don’t find out what it’s doing – it will finally manifest itself, probably in a way which will bite us hard.
I will grant that AGW is a very versatile theory in its ability to explain why, when the data do not conform to its predictions, this merely shows the theory right in ways we didn’t even know about. I think it needs a few more epicycles.
By the way, when you are arguing that there is no warming…
Should we not have acknowledged that there hasn’t been any warming for 15 years?

Ender
 
Why is that view shared ion the environment but never on the issues of debt and economics? Shouldn’t we not foist any of our problems on future generations?
Because discussion of climate is informed by 21st century models of climate, while discussion of economy (especially in politics) is informed by 19th century models of the economy. If you think about it, the global warming controversy is nothing but a clash between 21st century climate science and 19th century economics.

21st century climate science says that there is a maximum amount of CO2 which can be pumped into the air – going above that limit will trigger a planetary catastrophe. Whether the limit is 450ppm, 600ppm or 1000ppm is secondary.

19th century economics says that there is no such thing as limits to growth. In fact, the capitalist system requires infinite growth to sustain itself: investment is financed with debt, which must be paid back with interest – so GDP must always increase. Problem is that GDP is proportional to energy use (on average, 1 kWh of energy produces $0.47 of GDP). Energy production, in turn, produces CO2. So the debt-based economic system requires infinitely increasing GDP, which requires infinitely increasing energy production, which means infinitely increasing CO2 production.

Therefore, the humanity is faced with several bad choices:

(1) Keep producing CO2 at an increasing rate. That is sure to trigger a planetary catastrophe sooner or later.

(2) Reduce CO2 production by stopping growth. This is sure to cause the entire debt-based economy to collapse.

(3) Retool the economy to produce more dollars of GDP per kWh of energy and more KWh of energy per kg of CO2. This is theoretically possible, but very expensive (which means even more debt). Upside: this seems to be already happening, although slowly.

(4) Do nothing, and let the next president / next generation deal with the problem. They will have to deal with a bigger problem, but it will be their problems, not yours.
 
It is a problem, but in a different sense than you think.

Increased atmospheric content of CO2 must increase the total amount Earth’s heat energy. This is a direct consequence of physical properties of CO2.
Really?

From your source:

skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm

Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years - so where is the direct consequence?

It’s not even the highest amount of heat energy in 15 years, let alone 100 years or 1000 years.

A trace gas that doubles and is still a trace gas?
 
Because discussion of climate is informed by 21st century models of climate, while discussion of economy (especially in politics) is informed by 19th century models of the economy. If you think about it, the global warming controversy is nothing but a clash between 21st century climate science and 19th century economics.

21st century climate science says that there is a maximum amount of CO2 which can be pumped into the air – going above that limit will trigger a planetary catastrophe. Whether the limit is 450ppm, 600ppm or 1000ppm is secondary.
What if its 5000PPM?

What point is maximum? 5%? 10%? Right now CO2 makes up .038% of the atmosphere. Does doubling it or even tripling it have any effect at all? It could go up 25 times and still not be 1% of the atmosphere.
 
If atmospheric temperatures are not rising, and for the past 15 years they have not, then this is a significant problem for that theory - and for your assertion that additional CO2 must increase the total amount of the Earth’s heat energy because CO2 concentrations have continued to increase during the entire time that the atmospheric temperature has not.
Oh, but I agree that there has been no warming for the last 15 years. But it’s not a problem for the theory behind AGW, it’s a problem for climate models and their predictive value. That’s practice, not theory.

The theory behind AGW is heat transfer through radiation. Observe the following fact: Earth is surrounded by vacuum of space. The only way to transfer heat through vacuum is via electromagnetic radiation. So Earth receives heat from the Sun through radiation and loses heat by radiating it into space. (This is why clear nights are colder then cloudy nights – there are no clouds to absorb infrared radiation from the ground and re-radiate it towards ground, so the heat is radiated out into space).

But, while Sun’s radiation peaks at visible wavelengths, Earth’s radiation peaks in infrared – that’s described well enough by a simple blackbody model. CO2 absorbs light at infrared wavelengths, which means it’s (mostly) transparent for Sun’s radiation, but (mostly) opaque for Earth’s radiation – Earth’s radiation is absorbed by CO2. In other words, the more CO2, the less heat gets radiated out into space. And, since there’s no other mechanism for transfering heat out into space – it means that Earth’s total energy must increase. Whether that extra energy goes into increasing air temperature or melting ice is a very interesing question in itself, but it has no impact on the basic fact: this extra energy is trapped somewhere on Earth.

(If you’re still in doubt, compare Earth and Venus. Venus receives 2 times the amount of solar radiation Earth does. Earth has an average surface temperature of 300K. Venus’ surface temperature is not 600K as you’d expect, but 750K. Why? A lot of greenhouse in the atmosphere. More to the point, temperature on Venus does not change. On Earth, a 20K temperature difference between day and night is not uncommon. On Venus, the temperature does not change between day and night – all heat that ground radiates during the night is absorbed by the atmosphere and radiated back down – despite the fact that night on Venus lasta 120 Earth days.)
The theory does not account for the polar ice caps melting unless the temperature of the atmosphere increases.
Huh? Temperature has increased – it was increasing regularly until 1998. Apparently, in 1998 air temperatures in polar regions (which heat most, BTW) has crossed some threshold and extra energy is now being diverted into melting ice. Try heating a mixture of water and ice in the kitchen – you’ll observe that despite putting energy in, the temperature stays at 0C until all of the ice melts. So lack of warming is perfectly consitent with the theory that we have now switched from “air heating mode” to “ice melting mode”. This will persist until all ice which can melt in present conditions will melt – then the warming will resume until it hits the level where other ice deposits will start to melt.
 
What if its 5000PPM?
It does not matter: the infinite growth model will hit any limit – several years sooner or later. (Literally several years, due to basic properties of exponential function!)

Even if CO2 was completely harmless, we would finally run out of hydrocarbons. And even if we had an unlimited amount of hydrocarbons – we would finaly run out of oxygen.

19th century economics of infinite growth cannot be realized on a finite planet, period.
Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years - so where is the direct consequence?
In the pipeline – temperature is predicted to stabilize around the year 2400.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/25954587/1_2.jpg

nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/what-happens-after-global-warming-25887608

That’s the beauty of global warming – we get all the benefits of burning fossil fuels, our descendants will get all the costs!
 
The theory does not account for the polar ice caps melting unless the temperature of the atmosphere increases.

Ender
Let me emphasize what weller2 already said about this. It takes about one BTU of energy to raise the temperature of one pound of ice 2 degrees Fahrenheit. This continues all the way up to where the ice reaches the melting point. Then, to melt that same one pound of ice, it takes about 144 BTUs to melt it. Compare this with just one BTU to just raise the temperature of ice 2 degrees. When the ice melts it changes from ice at 32 degrees to water at 32 degrees. There is no significant temperature change in the ice/water. The energy goes entirely into changing the phase of the material from solid to liquid. So all that you need to understand a 15-year pause in the atmospheric temperature rise is that increased circulation of air currents and ocean currents is transferring heat into the polar ice more efficiently that before. This could actually have the effect of cooling the atmosphere temporarily - until the ice is depleted to the point where it no longer constitutes enough of a heat sink to prevent temperatures from rising, at which point temperatures can continue rising. Using polar ice to prevent atmospheric heating is a lot like opening the refrigerator door to cool your kitchen. It works - but only briefly.

So this temperature plateau combined with the observed melting of the polar ice tends to confirm the theory rather than refute it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top