Global Warming?

[LeafByNiggle]

Warming clearly doesn’t mean that this December will be warmer than last December but if it has been occurring for decades then one would not expect to find after all that warming that global temperatures would be where they were 70 years ago. On an individual annual basis, perhaps, but a five year average seems less likely. I’m pretty sure that global warming, properly understood, means that the globe is supposed to be warmer now than before. It is not a statement about probabilities or trends but a statement of fact.

Well, then we are not even arguing about the same theory. But a statement about probabilities can still be a solid fact. If that were not so, the gambling houses in Vegas would not be so secure in their business plan.

The current cessation of warming has been sufficient to demonstrate the inadequacy of all the models. Why isn’t it a serious problem when all of the models turned out to be wrong?

Models are not all wrong or all right. They conform to reality more or less. It would be a serious problem if a model has more failed predictions than true ones.

The first graph is US data, the second is global. Both are from NASA/GISS and they clearly bear no resemblance to one another.
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Thanks for the link. Now we can look at the same data.

The two graphs you highlighted do bear a striking resemblance to one another. If you draw a best-fit straight line through each of them you get a line of nearly the same slope. The US temperatures seem to go from -0.4 to +0.6. The global meteorological station graph seems to go from -0.5 to +0.6. I suppose the discrepancy you refer to is the dip from 1960 to 1980, which is less pronounced in the global data, and the peaks around 1940 in the US data that are almost non-existent in the global data. This amount of variance is not surprising to me at all. The random effects in weather patterns are more likely to be of the sort that redistribute the temperatures than to raise and lower them in unison around the globe. For example, when the winds bring Arctic air into the upper Midwest, as they are doing now, that portion of the US has record cold temperatures. But the cold air coming from the Arctic is cold air that might have gone elsewhere, or even stayed in the Arctic. The “elsewhere” it might have gone is therefore likely to experience higher temperatures at the same time the upper Midwest experiences lower temperatures. Or, if the cold air had stayed in the Arctic, the Arctic itself would have remained colder. This is one way to look at the growth of ice in the Antarctic. The changes in weather patterns are keeping Antarctic winds circulating around the South Pole.

At this time I must say, Ender, that of all the people in this forum with whom I have disagreed, you have been by far the most respectful of the other person’s writings, never resorting to childish derision or put-downs - a virtue that is all too rare in this forum. I have at times given in to just those temptations, and I hope that by your fine example I may achieve that level of respectfulness toward others.

 

[Ender]

That is not how the theory goes. The atmosphere does not have to warm first.

This might be a first: a disagreement that can actually be settled because it can be answered by fact and not opinion. Yes, the atmosphere does have to warm first.

Sunlight warms the surface directly. Then the warmer surface re-radiates some of that heat back into space as infrared radiation.

Yes, agreement so far.

CO2 is more opaque to infrared radiation than the general atmosphere, so it acts just like those clouds, blocking radiative cooling, even though CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) are completely transparent to visible light.

Not exactly, and this is the crux of the matter. CO2 doesn’t “block” IR energy, it absorbs it and the absorption of energy, by definition, raises the temperature of the absorbing body. CO2 is not a mirror, it is a radiator. After absorbing the energy it is then re-radiated out in all directions, some of it returning to the surface which, through absorption, raises the surface temperature. The point is, if CO2 does not absorb energy it cannot radiate it out again to warm the earth, but if it does absorb energy then its temperature must rise. Here is Wikipedia’s definition:The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet’s lower atmosphere and surface.
If the atmospheric temperature does not rise then it is not possible for it to warm the surface beyond its normal value.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You’re right, but it’s only an initial warming, since greenhouse gases don’t hold heat indefinitely but radiate it out. Of course, the earth’s surface doesn’t hold it indefinitely either, but as more greenhouse gases are radiating more heat the cumulative effect is greater heating of the earth’s surface.

Sure, I don’t dispute this fact. The point is, it is the absorption and re-radiation of energy by the atmosphere that is warming the earth but the very fact that more energy is being absorbed by the atmosphere must cause it to get warmer. Any radiating body at a constant temperature puts out a constant amount of radiation. The only way for it to radiate more is to increase its temperature. If the earth is receiving more radiation from the atmosphere - which is the only way the earth can get warmer - then the temperature of the atmosphere must be increasing. You cannot have the one without the other and it is the atmosphere that must warm first.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The two graphs you highlighted do bear a striking resemblance to one another.

The striking resemblance I see is between the chart of global data and Mann’s hockey stick: both eliminate inconvenient data from the record, Mann by flattening the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and the global data by flattening the warming in the 40’s and the cooling in the 70’s.

If you draw a best-fit straight line through each of them you get a line of nearly the same slope.

Yes you do; you also get a very distorted picture of what’s been happening, since the changes have been anything but straight line.

I suppose the discrepancy you refer to is the dip from 1960 to 1980, which is less pronounced in the global data, and the peaks around 1940 in the US data that are almost non-existent in the global data. This amount of variance is not surprising to me at all. The random effects in weather patterns are more likely to be of the sort that redistribute the temperatures than to raise and lower them in unison around the globe.

We’re not talking about discrepancies that are either minor or short term, for which your explanation would be reasonable. 30 years of randomness doesn’t account for the differences between the two graphs.

At this time I must say, Ender, that of all the people in this forum with whom I have disagreed, you have been by far the most respectful of the other person’s writings, never resorting to childish derision or put-downs - a virtue that is all too rare in this forum. I have at times given in to just those temptations, and I hope that by your fine example I may achieve that level of respectfulness toward others.

Well, since you’ve never shown me your dark side it’s been rather easy to respond to you. Another reason is that I enjoy a good debate and you can’t get one by insulting your opponents. But thank you.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The striking resemblance I see is between the chart of global data and Mann’s hockey stick: both eliminate inconvenient data from the record, Mann by flattening the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and the global data by flattening the warming in the 40’s and the cooling in the 70’s.

What are you implying? That the global data graph is obviously falsified?

Yes you do; you also get a very distorted picture of what’s been happening, since the changes have been anything but straight line.

Not a straight line, but to my untrained eye it looks like a significant trend, given all the random perturbations, some of which are fairly long term, that are bound to happen.

We’re not talking about discrepancies that are either minor or short term, for which your explanation would be reasonable. 30 years of randomness doesn’t account for the differences between the two graphs.

The discrepancies needn’t be either minor or short term. They just have to be within the bounds of the random perturbations that produce them. If you estimate the magnitude of the discrepancies and compare them with the magnitude of the overall trend, I think the discrepancies are smaller. To really threaten the theory of global warming there would have to be a discrepancy of such a duration that it rivals the time-span over which the warming trend has been measured. It could even be that global warming itself, through changes in the wind patterns, is inducing some of these random looking perturbations - or maybe not.

CO2 doesn’t “block” IR energy, it absorbs it and the absorption of energy, by definition, raises the temperature of the absorbing body. CO2 is not a mirror, it is a radiator. After absorbing the energy it is then re-radiated out in all directions, some of it returning to the surface which, through absorption, raises the surface temperature. The point is, if CO2 does not absorb energy it cannot radiate it out again to warm the earth, but if it does absorb energy then its temperature must rise.

I stand corrected. Re-radiation does imply a necessary increase in temperature. But is there any reason to think this isn’t happening? Consider that the temperature of the atmosphere need not be as high as the temperature of the surface in order to cause net warming of the surface. That is because the heat gain comes from the visible light from the sun. That gain is balanced by a radiative loss to space in general. Anything that reduces the radiative loss to space results in a net gain of heat, and a slightly higher equilibrium temperature. To reduce the loss, the atmosphere only needs to appear warmer than the 4 degrees Kelvin of space. So if, due to CO2, the upper atmosphere “warms” from -50C to -49C, it can still cause a net increase in surface temperature over central Africa where the temperature is already +26C.

 

[Ender]

What are you implying? That the global data graph is obviously falsified?

No, not obviously, but I am pointing out an oddity that is insufficiently explained by “random variations.”

Not a straight line, but to my untrained eye it looks like a significant trend, given all the random perturbations, some of which are fairly long term, that are bound to happen.

The global chart shows a significant trend; the US chart shows something else altogether, something that doesn’t fit nearly as well with the global warming dialog.

To really threaten the theory of global warming there would have to be a discrepancy of such a duration that it rivals the time-span over which the warming trend has been measured.

What do you mean by “discrepancy”? If you mean a divergence between what has been predicted and what has actually occurred then such a discrepancy exists.

I stand corrected. Re-radiation does imply a necessary increase in temperature. But is there any reason to think this isn’t happening?

I was pointing out an error in the understanding of the greenhouse theory of warming. This becomes significant only if it is determined that the atmosphere is not warming because if the atmosphere does not warm and the surface does then some mechanism is at work other than greenhouse warming.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

The theory of AGW requires the atmosphere to warm first which then leads to a warming of the surface. If the surface warms but the atmosphere doesn’t then CO2 cannot be the cause and the theory collapses.

Ender

No that’s what the theory used to be. now that we have had no warming for 17 years they have decided to change the name to “Climate Change” and blame just about every weather event with winds over r 20 miles an hour being caused by it.

 

[Ender]

No that’s what the theory used to be. now that we have had no warming for 17 years they have decided to change the name to “Climate Change” and blame just about every weather event with winds over r 20 miles an hour being caused by it.

That’s what non-scientists are saying but it is still important to know what the scientific theory is and what data are significant. That is, for the greenhouse effect to be at work the surface (including the seas) cannot warm unless the atmosphere warms first.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, not obviously, but I am pointing out an oddity that is insufficiently explained by “random variations.”

I don’t understand the insufficiency. Perhaps you are expecting more uniformity from the natural world than I am?

The global chart shows a significant trend; the US chart shows something else altogether, something that doesn’t fit nearly as well with the global warming dialog.

I am looking really hard at those graphs to try to see what you see. Have you taken into account that the vertical divisions in the US chart are every 0.5 degrees while the vertical divisions in the global chart are every 0.2 degrees? That makes them look artificially different. If they were graphed at the same vertical scale they would look a lot more similar. But as I said before, the slope of the best-fit line for each graph is about the same: +1 deg. C per 120 years.

What do you mean by “discrepancy”? If you mean a divergence between what has been predicted and what has actually occurred then such a discrepancy exists.

I was referring only to the difference between the two charts, irrespective of their meaning for global warming, since you were focused on that difference being something of a problem.

I was pointing out an error in the understanding of the greenhouse theory of warming. This becomes significant only if it is determined that the atmosphere is not warming because if the atmosphere does not warm and the surface does then some mechanism is at work other than greenhouse warming.

But consider that the major constituents of air which are not greenhouse gases (N2, O2, etc) do not absorb or emit IR radiation at all, regardless of their temperature, like CO2 and other greenhouse gases do. So, for example, pure N2 and O2 at 10 degrees C are not going to absorb or re-radiate any IR radiation from the surface, so the surface would see only the 4 degree K of deep space. On the other hand, a mixture of N2, O2, and CO2 at 5 degrees C is going to absorb and re-radiate some IR radiation, and the surface will see an average sky temperature that is a good deal warmer than 4 degrees K. So here we have a scenario where 10 degree atmosphere allows the surface temperature to drop, while 5 degree atmosphere (including CO2) impedes some of that surface temperature drop. So if, over time, the atmosphere developed a higher concentration of CO2, it is possible that the surface temperature could warm over the same time interval where the average air temperature is cooling. This is true despite the fact that, as you pointed out, the CO2 is undergoing a temperature rise as it blocks IR.

 

[weller2]

Let’s stop right here Professor…

You said: “Speaking of which, technically, CO2 is also not a driver, but a feedback.”

The warming is caused by increased CO2 feedback at constant solar (name removed by moderator)ut.

Let me explain. Earth receives energy from the Sun, so Sun is the DRIVER. CO2, in turn, controls how much heat escapes from Earth’s atmosphere.

Example with made up numbers:

Say that the temperature at dawn is 0C. Then the Sun rises and warms the Earth, and the temperature at dusk is 10C. Then the Sun sets, and Earth starts radiating the heat out into space. CO2 controls how much heat is radiated out (more CO2 – less heat radiated out). Say that at “normal” CO2 level enough heat will be radiated out that the temperature at the next dawn is 0C. The cycle repeats.

Let’s say that you increase CO2, so now less heat can escape during the night, and now the temperature at dawn is not 0C but 0.01C. The Sun will add 10C to that over the day, so you now have 10.01C at dusk. Since now only 9.99C worth of energy is radiated out, you have 0.02C by the next dawn. On the third day, the temperature at dawn is 0.03C etc. After 100 days, you will have 1C at dawn and 10C at dusk – i.e. 1 degree warmer.

However, effectiveness of CO2 “thermal blanket” decreases with temperature. So, say that with 1 degree warmer on average, now only 0.005C will be retained over night. In other words, on day 101 the temperature at dawn is 1.005C. So on day 200, the temperature at dawn is 1.5C. On day 300, it is 2C. At this point, effectiveness halves again (now only 0.0025C is retained over night), so on day 400 we have 2.25C, etc. Eventually, the temperature will stabilize at the new equilibrium.

Real numbers: With Earth’s climate, it s currently believed that each dubling of CO2 causes a warming of about 3 degrees C. So 300ppm → 600 ppm means 3 degrees warmer. Then it takes going from 600 to 1200ppm to have another 3 degrees warming.

The reason CO2 is called a FEEDBACK is that CO2 does not put new energy into the system – it causes the escaping energy to be retained, i.e. FED BACK into the system.

Regarding the fact that CO2 follows temperature in the geologic record:

Earth’s biosphere tends to produce more CO2 at higher temperature. You probably have seen that – if you leave organic waste outside in the summer, it will start decaying (and stinking) much faster than in winter.

So what you can see when the glaciation ends is that the temperature rises, biosphere starts releasing CO2, which causes even more warming – until a new equilibrium level is reached. Think of it this way: temperature is the capital, while CO2 is interest. Interest follows debt, but interest also adds to debt. Saying that CO2 does not cause warming because it lags temperature, is the same as saying that interest does not cause increase in debt, because interest lags debt.

Next: “CO2 is CO2 - does not matter if it’s anthropogenic or natural”

That leaves man out of the whole equation. Why are we arguing about this???

Let’s keep with the debt analogy.

Say that you have $1000 debt, which generates $100 interest per year (natural CO2 sources). But, each year you have $100 income which you use to pay back the intest (natural CO2 sinks), so your total debt (temperature) remains at $1000.

Now, FED increases interest rates, so you now have $200 interest per year (anthropogenic plus natural CO2 sources combined), but your income is still $100 (nature’s capacity to absorb CO2 did not change). What will happen with your debt (temperature)?

I’m not a scientist and I don’t spend much time reading Science Magazine, but there was an article written by a blue-ribbon panel who concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century.

That’s unfortunately true. But it’s the rate of increase that counts also. Remember that temperature increases by 3 degrees per each DOUBLING of CO2. So, basically, here are the realistic scenarios for 2100AD:

• emission reduction which means 600ppm of CO2 and 3 degrees warming, economic stagnation and several wars over water
• no emission reduction, we mine all the carbon there is, CO2 rises to 1200-2000ppm, temperature increases by 6-8 degrees, and we have a major catastrophe. Think Permian-Triassic extinction, 8 degrees warming, 96% of life wiped out.

Since man is a natural resident of Earth and fossil fuels are a natural resource, man is doing nothing wrong by burning these God given gifts to keep warm and provide transportation.

Uranium is also a natural resource. Is man doing nothing wrong by mining uranium, assembling it into weapons, and using these weapons to safeguard his property of land?

Is it God’s will that man wipes out most life on Earth and himself, so cockroaches can claim dominion of land?

 

[weller2]

CO2 is not a mirror, it is a radiator. After absorbing the energy it is then re-radiated out in all directions, some of it returning to the surface which, through absorption, raises the surface temperature.

If there is no CO2, an IR photon emitted from the ground escapes into space.

If this photon hits a CO2 molecule, it will get re-radiated in a random direction. So there’s 50% chance that it will get radiated back down, and 50% chance that it will get radiated out into space.

So effectively, you have a mirror which reflects half of IR photons back (at least at the wavelengths corresponding to CO2 absorption spectrum).

 

[weller2]

This becomes significant only if it is determined that the atmosphere is not warming because if the atmosphere does not warm and the surface does then some mechanism is at work other than greenhouse warming.

But we have also observed stratospheric cooling (i.e. top of the atmosphere is becoming cooler).

This is exactly what you’d expect if IR was being trapped in lower atmosphere.

 

[weller2]

That’s what non-scientists are saying but it is still important to know what the scientific theory is and what data are significant. That is, for the greenhouse effect to be at work the surface (including the seas) cannot warm unless the atmosphere warms first.

But heat is being exchanged between land, ocean and air all the time.

If you have a heat exchanger and you increase temperature in the primary loop, then temperature in the secondary loop will increase immediately.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Sure, I don’t dispute this fact. The point is, it is the absorption and re-radiation of energy by the atmosphere that is warming the earth but the very fact that more energy is being absorbed by the atmosphere must cause it to get warmer. Any radiating body at a constant temperature puts out a constant amount of radiation. The only way for it to radiate more is to increase its temperature. If the earth is receiving more radiation from the atmosphere - which is the only way the earth can get warmer - then the temperature of the atmosphere must be increasing. You cannot have the one without the other and it is the atmosphere that must warm first.

Ender

Not necessarily, Ender, because there are other factors that go into the relative temperature of the atmosphere. That’s why I think atmospheric readings are unreliable since they fluctuate greatly and are more greatly affected by other factors.

However, ocean temperatures have shown to be steadily increasing (though, the rate of this increase is disputed and varies). And apart from the actual measurement of these changes, we can see the consequences, such as polar ice melting and coral bleaching. I mean, how else would you explain such things?

Personally, I don’t see what the big deal is. I know this debate has a strong moral component too and some who deny climate change do so for justifiable moral reasons (such as abominable human population controls, etc.). Still, aren’t we supposed to be stewards of our planet? I’ve lived in China for two years and the major cities there are environmentally sickening: the quality of the air is poor, there are very few trees, even less native wildlife, etc. I certainly don’t want my city to be like that.

 

[alevanpa]

“we” are dumping what? We aren’t doing anything. Rich industrialists will not pay for off the shelf technology that will cut smokestack emissions. China wants to burn as much coal as possible. The oil companies do not want to go out of business. Renewable energy will cut, and is already cutting, the most important thing in the world, profits. So anyone reading this who is not part of the oil business or owns a factory complex can only do what we can. Buy a hybrid or an electric car. Yes, it will need electricity but solar cells are gaining in conversion capacity. And the steel industry is concerned as well.

Peace,
Ed

Are you serious!?
First of all, to get rid of CO2, we would have to eliminate every breathing thing on earth. Every single thing that takes a breath in emits CO2 out. But, that still would not remove CO2 from the atmosphere because CO2 is actually created naturally by the earth and it’s atmosphere. There is no getting away from CO2. It’s ridiculous to even try.
If you’re really concerned about pollution from burning fossil fuels, start clamering for nuclear power. That would provide all the “clean” energy we could possibly want. Instead of buying junk “hybrid” cars, or installing acres and acres of windmills–and complaining about Oil Company profits–we could actually have energy and a “clean” environment.

Merry Christmas,
Al

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Are you serious!?
First of all, to get rid of CO2, we would have to eliminate every breathing thing on earth. Every single thing that takes a breath in emits CO2 out…

Relax. No one is suggesting that all CO2 be removed from the atmosphere.

If you’re really concerned about pollution from burning fossil fuels, start clamering for nuclear power.

Many who are concerned about global warming are doing exactly that already.

Instead of buying junk “hybrid” cars…

Well, hybrids do have their problems. An all electric car charged by nuclear power would be nice, as soon as we develop battery or other storage technology to match the energy density of petroleum.

or {instead of} installing acres and acres of windmills…

Not instead of - in addition to. Having a diversity of clean sources is a good thing. We don’t want to put all our eggs in one basket. Although wind does have the drawback that it is often generated far from the point of use, requiring longer transmission lines. But for some places, like a big city near a wide open windy plane, it makes lots of sense.

 

[dshix]

If the US government would stop blocking thorium, we could have been out of this energy problem 40 years ago.

 

[JB_Dugan]

On the contrary, it is a position of humility that prompts one to say “I don’t deserve to burn all this coal and risk that those who come after I am gone might not have such a wonderful world in which to live as that which I have ravaged for my own pleasure”.

Apparently you have little faith in man’s adaptability to nature.

Only one hundred years ago the consensus of renowned scientists as well as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council agreed that the best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones — immigrants, Jews, Blacks, degenerates, the unfit, and the “feeble minded”. The solution was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.

We have come a long way in 100 years. We have been to the moon. We have air conditioning and even memory chips…

Do you think things will really be worse or better in the next generation???

 

[frobert]

Apparently you have little faith in man’s adaptability to nature.

We have come a long way in 100 years. We have been to the moon. We have air conditioning and even memory chips…

Do you think things will really be worse or better in the next generation???

There are many engineers, economists, geologists, ecologists and many others from a variety of fields who believe that progress in the next 20 years will not be anything like that of the past 20 years. If you want to read about what some of the brightest people in their respective fields are saying and why (you don’t have to agree) check out www.peakprosperity.com/

 

[alevanpa]

Apparently you have little faith in man’s adaptability to nature.

Only one hundred years ago the consensus of renowned scientists as well as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council agreed that the best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones — immigrants, Jews, Blacks, degenerates, the unfit, and the “feeble minded”. The solution was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.

We have come a long way in 100 years. We have been to the moon. We have air conditioning and even memory chips…

Do you think things will really be worse or better in the next generation???

Dugan,

I like you! You make sense–and in this blog there is a serious lack of that particular commodity.

Yes, the world will be better for the next generation if creative people are allowed to invent new gadgets and sell them for their personal profit; business (large and small) allowed to use them, as they think they need, for their benefit and profit; and the rest of us to use them for our personal benefit and profit.

Unfortunately, it often seems, to me anyway, that the insane–or, at least, blockheads-- are in control, and that’s scary. But, like St. Paul says: “…we have hope…” In the end, I think, the majority of us (Americans) will vote for sanity and progress, and drag the rest of the world along with us into the future.