Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Sandvol]

Global warming denialism isn't the only form of pseudoscientific BS. Every environmental/health movement that undercuts industry profits has been met with the same smear campaigns. From "smoking doesn't cause cancer" to "CFCs don't destroy ozone" to "SO2 doesn't cause acid rain" to "DDT is harmless", every science denialism campaign has the same mantra.

Biologists have it just as bad. Evolution is obvious but people reject it on religious/political grounds.

Btw climate change science isn't one independent field. It's interdisciplinary. The problem has been attacked from many angles.

But, what you academics don't understand is that industry profits are the economy. That is how we eat and have a place to live and clothes on our backs.

 

[Sandvol]

Those aren't the only two greenhouse gases but yeah. Keep in mind if there were no greenhouse gases we'd be way way below zero. Space is a cold place.

Mars has no atmosphere and it has a temperature doesn't it? So, we're not talking absolute zero.

 

[Sandvol]

It is just that it is difficult for me to believe that a 1% change in green house gas has caused a 1C rise. I'd like to see some mathematical correlation between absolute concentration of green house gas and global mean temperature. Is there anything like that? (Not just CO2.)

 

[Sandvol]

Global warming denialism isn't the only form of pseudoscientific BS. Every environmental/health movement that undercuts industry profits has been met with the same smear campaigns. From "smoking doesn't cause cancer" to "CFCs don't destroy ozone" to "SO2 doesn't cause acid rain" to "DDT is harmless", every science denialism campaign has the same mantra.

Biologists have it just as bad. Evolution is obvious but people reject it on religious/political grounds.

Btw climate change science isn't one independent field. It's interdisciplinary. The problem has been attacked from many angles.

It is kind of funny you mention DDT. Malaria has killed a lot of people since DDT has been banned.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

Mars has no atmosphere and it has a temperature doesn't it? So, we're not talking absolute zero.

Mars has an atmosphere. Actually, every planet has an atmosphere. While it may be only 1/10 of Earths, Mars definitely has one.

Also, he never said absolute zero. I am pretty sure it doesn't reach absolute zero even in the coldest, darkest regions of space.

 

[BartW]

But, what you academics don't understand is that industry profits are the economy. That is how we eat and have a place to live and clothes on our backs.

I understand that but people still deserve to know that smoking causes cancer etc. Policy shouldn’t be based 100% on short-term profit for a select few. It’s not science vs. industry per se. It’s science against industry whose profits are cut by said science. Fossil fuel industries in this case. Like I linked earlier, you don’t see any AGW denialists in the insurance/reinsurance industry.

Mars has no atmosphere and it has a temperature doesn't it? So, we're not talking absolute zero.

Mars has a thin mostly CO2 atmosphere. It’s not at absolute zero but it’s a good 100K colder than earth.

It is just that it is difficult for me to believe that a 1% change in green house gas has caused a 1C rise. I'd like to see some mathematical correlation between absolute concentration of green house gas and global mean temperature. Is there anything like that? (Not just CO2.)

Yes you can find similar plots for CH4, N2O, etc. CO2 is the second most prevalent GHG after H2O and remains in the atmosphere the longest. And it’s our #1 emssion, hence the focus on CO2.

It is kind of funny you mention DDT. Malaria has killed a lot of people since DDT has been banned.

Malaria thing is unfortunate but mosquito populations were developing widespread resistance to DDT by the time it was banned. The pros of DDT don’t outweigh the environmental and human health risks. There are safer alternatives but DDT is still used as a last resort.

 

[BartW]

moersch mcsween and one more guy who i cant remember taught me planetary. moersch was super smart and he was talking about how much fun he had controlling the mars rovers which was pretty cool too.

ive heard people make that comparison before. venus is such a weird planet, given its similar size to earth, but sulfur heavy atmosphere and lack of plate tectonics

Dunn maybe? He was the 3rd prof for our 380 class.

Jeff is incredibly smart. When he was an undergrad at Cornell he worked with Carl Sagan, who's easily among my top 5 idols

 

[BartW]

Mars has an atmosphere. Actually, every planet has an atmosphere. While it may be only 1/10 of Earths, Mars definitely has one.

Also, he never said absolute zero. I am pretty sure it doesn't reach absolute zero even in the coldest, darkest regions of space.

Right on. Mars actually has a really cool atmosphere. The CO2 concentration varies seasonally as its CO2 ice caps expand and retreat.

 

[zreeves]

Dunn maybe? He was the 3rd prof for our 380 class.

Jeff is incredibly smart. When he was an undergrad at Cornell he worked with Carl Sagan, who's easily among my top 5 idols

i think it was dunn. and yea jeff is super smart. that is so awesome that he got to work with carl sagan. i would love to work with someone like that. i couldnt even imagine how awesome that would be.

 

[Sandvol]

Mars has an atmosphere. Actually, every planet has an atmosphere. While it may be only 1/10 of Earths, Mars definitely has one.

Also, he never said absolute zero. I am pretty sure it doesn't reach absolute zero even in the coldest, darkest regions of space.

I don't think it is even 1/10th is it? There is no such thing as zero in the real world I understand that but my point was the starting point isn't absolute zero. The total greenhouse gas concentration is 10,400 ppm what would temp be if it goes to 9000 ppm? And, what is Mars greenhouse gas concentration?

 

[Sandvol]

I understand that but people still deserve to know that smoking causes cancer etc. Policy shouldn’t be based 100% on short-term profit for a select few. It’s not science vs. industry per se. It’s science against industry whose profits are cut by said science. Fossil fuel industries in this case. Like I linked earlier, you don’t see any AGW denialists in the insurance/reinsurance industry.



Mars has a thin mostly CO2 atmosphere. It’s not at absolute zero but it’s a good 100K colder than earth.



Yes you can find similar plots for CH4, N2O, etc. CO2 is the second most prevalent GHG after H2O and remains in the atmosphere the longest. And it’s our #1 emssion, hence the focus on CO2.



Malaria thing is unfortunate but mosquito populations were developing widespread resistance to DDT by the time it was banned. The pros of DDT don’t outweigh the environmental and human health risks. There are safer alternatives but DDT is still used as a last resort.

I was wondering though are there plots for total greenhouse gas concentration versus temperature?

 

[BartW]

I don't think it is even 1/10th is it? There is no such thing as zero in the real world I understand that but my point was the starting point isn't absolute zero. The total greenhouse gas concentration is 10,400 ppm what would temp be if it goes to 9000 ppm? And, what is Mars greenhouse gas concentration?

Mars’ atmosphere is ~1% of Earth’s and ~95% CO2. So the GHG concentration is ~950,000 ppm but fuzzy math aside I think you’re approaching the question backwards. Historically greenhouse gases don’t drive temperature change. Solar irradiation, which varies with Milankovitch cycles, is the primary driver of temperature change. Increased temperature causes increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which act as a positive feedback to further increase temperatures (and vice versa). That’s why people say the CO2 curve “follows” the temperature curve. If you look at the Vostok ice core plots you’ll see CO2 change slightly lags temperature change.

What’s alarming about recent changes is that temperature now lags CO2. That means recent temperature change is not driven by solar irradiance (which is, in fact, decreasing) – it’s due to the increase in greenhouse gases.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

I was wondering though are there plots for total greenhouse gas concentration versus temperature?

A quick google yielded this figure from AR4. There’s more complete & up-to-date figures in chapter 6 of AR5 (but it's in pdf so I can't link it).

TS.2.1.1 Changes in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide

I didn’t see any figures that included H2O, but that makes sense. Such a plot would be uninformative since water vapor concentration varies greatly over space and time. There would be no way to get a sample representative of the average global atmospheric concentration.

Edit: I realize it's parametrized as a function of time and not specifically total greenhouse gas concentration vs. temperature like you asked. I don't know if that's been done or if its even doable considering how H2O varies with the weather. But you can see the positive correlation between temperature and each individual gas

 

[Weezy]

I don't doubt the climate scientists, but I do hate the current research funding model. I would guess 90% of climate scientist research funding comes from the government*, and I would strongly guess that funding is gone if the impacts of man-made global warming is anything but damaging. Scientists aren't all that different from other people. They have their own interests at heart to a certain extent. Also, research funding being politically motivated is nazi-ish. I'm not sure how to fix that. I think our state of politics is a bit out of control.

That being said, I have no reason to distrust the climate scientists.

*The other 10% from the oil industry. I guess all funding is from somebody expecting a certain outcome.

 

[Sandvol]

Mars’ atmosphere is ~1% of Earth’s and ~95% CO2. So the GHG concentration is ~950,000 ppm but fuzzy math aside I think you’re approaching the question backwards. Historically greenhouse gases don’t drive temperature change. Solar irradiation, which varies with Milankovitch cycles, is the primary driver of temperature change. Increased temperature causes increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which act as a positive feedback to further increase temperatures (and vice versa). That’s why people say the CO2 curve “follows” the temperature curve. If you look at the Vostok ice core plots you’ll see CO2 change slightly lags temperature change.

What’s alarming about recent changes is that temperature now lags CO2. That means recent temperature change is not driven by solar irradiance (which is, in fact, decreasing) – it’s due to the increase in greenhouse gases.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?



A quick google yielded this figure from AR4. There’s more complete & up-to-date figures in chapter 6 of AR5 (but it's in pdf so I can't link it).

TS.2.1.1 Changes in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide

I didn’t see any figures that included H2O, but that makes sense. Such a plot would be uninformative since water vapor concentration varies greatly over space and time. There would be no way to get a sample representative of the average global atmospheric concentration.

Edit: I realize it's parametrized as a function of time and not specifically total greenhouse gas concentration vs. temperature like you asked. I don't know if that's been done or if its even doable considering how H2O varies with the weather. But you can see the positive correlation between temperature and each individual gas

I did a brain fart on my math though. If the Earth's atmosphere is 3% water vapor that is 30,000 ppm (1% approximately 10,000ppm). So the premise is a 100ppm change in CO2 or 0.3% raises the Earth's temperature by 1C.

 

[Sandvol]

Mars’ atmosphere is ~1% of Earth’s and ~95% CO2. So the GHG concentration is ~950,000 ppm but fuzzy math aside I think you’re approaching the question backwards. Historically greenhouse gases don’t drive temperature change. Solar irradiation, which varies with Milankovitch cycles, is the primary driver of temperature change. Increased temperature causes increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which act as a positive feedback to further increase temperatures (and vice versa). That’s why people say the CO2 curve “follows” the temperature curve. If you look at the Vostok ice core plots you’ll see CO2 change slightly lags temperature change.

What’s alarming about recent changes is that temperature now lags CO2. That means recent temperature change is not driven by solar irradiance (which is, in fact, decreasing) – it’s due to the increase in greenhouse gases.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?



A quick google yielded this figure from AR4. There’s more complete & up-to-date figures in chapter 6 of AR5 (but it's in pdf so I can't link it).

TS.2.1.1 Changes in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide

I didn’t see any figures that included H2O, but that makes sense. Such a plot would be uninformative since water vapor concentration varies greatly over space and time. There would be no way to get a sample representative of the average global atmospheric concentration.

Edit: I realize it's parametrized as a function of time and not specifically total greenhouse gas concentration vs. temperature like you asked. I don't know if that's been done or if its even doable considering how H2O varies with the weather. But you can see the positive correlation between temperature and each individual gas

No, that would be 1% of about 30,000 ppm or 300 ppm CO2 wouldn't it? Another way, 950,000PPM would be gas concentration on Earth so 950X.95=902PPM CO2 on Mars.

 

[Sandvol]

I guess I really need to read up on this a lot more. I would think CO2 would be more critical in colder regions like the poles because its freezing point is -108F. Whereas you'd think water would not act as much of a green house gas in those regions. But, you'd think in the non-polar regions we'd have an over abundance of greenhouse gas and CO2 would be very little factor.

 

[TennTradition]

How is infrared radiated from the Earth? By what mechanism? Are you talking water molecules? Also, isn't water vapor at a much higher concentration in the atmosphere than CO2?

By the mechanism described by Wilhelm Wien, for which he won the Nobel prize. (See black body radiation).

Water is a green house gas, but it is roughly at its equilibrium concentration globally (that's why there are big pools of water everywhere, such as the oceans). So, the effect of water on temperature is already locked in and not increasing, absent some other forcing which increases global temps and therefore increases the equilibrium water level in the atmosphere (see CO2 - water positive feedback warming).
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[TennTradition]

Wasn't it the far left think tanks who wanted us to sign the Kyoto Treaty? That would have been a rational act.

We did sign it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BartW]

I guess I really need to read up on this a lot more. I would think CO2 would be more critical in colder regions like the poles because its freezing point is -108F. Whereas you'd think water would not act as much of a green house gas in those regions. But, you'd think in the non-polar regions we'd have an over abundance of greenhouse gas and CO2 would be very little factor.

Interesting thought. I suppose since the % H2O is dependant on temperature there would usually be less at the poles, making the relative importance of CO2 greater there. I think I’ve seen regional or at least latitudinal breakdowns of forcings but I’d have to dig around.

Regarding Mars, I wasn’t following your math earlier but let's work it out real quick. Earth’s atmosphere has ~400 ppm CO2. According to wiki Mars’ atmosphere is 0.6% as thick as Earth’s and 96% CO2. On Mars, that’s 960,000 ppm. The Earth equivalent would be 0.96*0.006 = 5.76E-3 or 5760 ppm (or 0.576%). Is that what you’re asking?

Anyhow, the relative amounts of CO2 and H2O don’t accurately convey their relative significance to our greenhouse effect. Using spectroscopy we can measure the radiation emitted from the surface and the radiation leaving the top of our atmosphere.

From this we can calculate how much energy is being trapped by each gas. The radiative forcing due to H2O is 75 W/m2 and the forcing from CO2 is 32 W/m2 (Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse works). The daily average insolation for earth is about 250 W/m2 (Earth’s Insolation). So maybe that paints a better picture of how a 40% increase in CO2 from pre-industrial times can raise global temperatue 1 degree (or more). Also keep in mind that water vapor is a feedback, not an independent forcing. The amount of water vapor in the air is almost entirely determined by the temperature, at least anywhere that has surface water (like, the 70% of the planet that's oceans). So it can’t ‘cause’ global warming, it can only amplify it.

I’m not asking anyone to take my word for it, nor do I expect them to – that would be a messageboard first. I can only hope that I’ve dispelled enough myths and shown enough pretty pictures that it sparks interest, and that perhaps you will investigate the science yourself and see that there really is a very robust internally consistent body of evidence that indicates we are causing global warming.

Healthy skepticism is a good thing but it’s also important to keep an open mind and not shrug off ideas that you don’t understand. Don’t believe everything you hear in the media, from politically biased sources, or even your friends. Look it up yourself. I can understand why you folks are suspicious – there certainly are far left environmental wackos that cry wolf and Al Gore isn’t the greatest face for a movement. And I can see how you’d think climate scientists ‘need’ AGW to keep funding coming, but that’s just not true. Climate science would still get funding simply to advance human knowledge, just like a lot of science. And as I’ve mentioned, there are also climate scientists in the private sector. The notion that climate scientists are being paid under the table to falsify their data and push some environmentalist agenda is IMO incredibly insulting. These are intelligent hard-working people all over the world that have put blood sweat and tears into this research. And most of them don’t get paid squat compared to other geoscientists. If they were in it for the money they would have gone into oil or minerals.

I hope you can see why Mann would be unwilling to give his data to well-known denialists, when all they’re going to do is poke holes and misrepresent it. And perhaps this helps explain the unpleasant language in the hacked e-mails. From our perspective, it’s like debating holocaust denialism. I know I’ve been abrasive and for that I apologize. It wasn’t my intention to get snarky but this is a heated topic (pun intended). I’m sure you’re an intelligent fellow SV, but in this case you’ve been misled.

:hi:

 

[zreeves]

I hope you can see why Mann would be unwilling to give his data to well-known denialists, when all they’re going to do is poke holes and misrepresent it. And perhaps this helps explain the unpleasant language in the hacked e-mails. From our perspective, it’s like debating holocaust denialism. I know I’ve been abrasive and for that I apologize. It wasn’t my intention to get snarky but this is a heated topic (pun intended). I’m sure you’re an intelligent fellow SV, but in this case you’ve been misled.

:hi:

this thread has been one of the most polite "political" discussions i have ever seen and/or been a part of. pats on the back all around.

correct me if im wrong bart, but the analogy i always heard about the CO2 layer/o-zone is that with the CO2 being added by humans, it is like going from a blanket for the earth to a heated blanket for the earth. maybe you have heard a better one? you gave great details, but personally i love simple conceptual metaphors

 

[BartW]

this thread has been one of the most polite "political" discussions i have ever seen and/or been a part of. pats on the back all around.

correct me if im wrong bart, but the analogy i always heard about the CO2 layer/o-zone is that with the CO2 being added by humans, it is like going from a blanket for the earth to a heated blanket for the earth. maybe you have heard a better one? you gave great details, but personally i love simple conceptual metaphors

I've never heard it put like that. I could see it being a little misleading since greenhouse gases just trap energy and don't have an external energy source. Maybe a better analogy would be going from a blanket to a duvet?

 

[zreeves]

I've never heard it put like that. I could see it being a little misleading since greenhouse gases just trap energy and don't have an external energy source. Maybe a better analogy would be going from a blanket to a duvet?

perhaps yes. i guess the point was made either way though

 

[Sandvol]

Interesting thought. I suppose since the % H2O is dependant on temperature there would usually be less at the poles, making the relative importance of CO2 greater there. I think I’ve seen regional or at least latitudinal breakdowns of forcings but I’d have to dig around.

Regarding Mars, I wasn’t following your math earlier but let's work it out real quick. Earth’s atmosphere has ~400 ppm CO2. According to wiki Mars’ atmosphere is 0.6% as thick as Earth’s and 96% CO2. On Mars, that’s 960,000 ppm. The Earth equivalent would be 0.96*0.006 = 5.76E-3 or 5760 ppm (or 0.576%). Is that what you’re asking?

Anyhow, the relative amounts of CO2 and H2O don’t accurately convey their relative significance to our greenhouse effect. Using spectroscopy we can measure the radiation emitted from the surface and the radiation leaving the top of our atmosphere.

From this we can calculate how much energy is being trapped by each gas. The radiative forcing due to H2O is 75 W/m2 and the forcing from CO2 is 32 W/m2 (Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse works). The daily average insolation for earth is about 250 W/m2 (Earth’s Insolation). So maybe that paints a better picture of how a 40% increase in CO2 from pre-industrial times can raise global temperatue 1 degree (or more). Also keep in mind that water vapor is a feedback, not an independent forcing. The amount of water vapor in the air is almost entirely determined by the temperature, at least anywhere that has surface water (like, the 70% of the planet that's oceans). So it can’t ‘cause’ global warming, it can only amplify it.

I’m not asking anyone to take my word for it, nor do I expect them to – that would be a messageboard first. I can only hope that I’ve dispelled enough myths and shown enough pretty pictures that it sparks interest, and that perhaps you will investigate the science yourself and see that there really is a very robust internally consistent body of evidence that indicates we are causing global warming.

Healthy skepticism is a good thing but it’s also important to keep an open mind and not shrug off ideas that you don’t understand. Don’t believe everything you hear in the media, from politically biased sources, or even your friends. Look it up yourself. I can understand why you folks are suspicious – there certainly are far left environmental wackos that cry wolf and Al Gore isn’t the greatest face for a movement. And I can see how you’d think climate scientists ‘need’ AGW to keep funding coming, but that’s just not true. Climate science would still get funding simply to advance human knowledge, just like a lot of science. And as I’ve mentioned, there are also climate scientists in the private sector. The notion that climate scientists are being paid under the table to falsify their data and push some environmentalist agenda is IMO incredibly insulting. These are intelligent hard-working people all over the world that have put blood sweat and tears into this research. And most of them don’t get paid squat compared to other geoscientists. If they were in it for the money they would have gone into oil or minerals.

I hope you can see why Mann would be unwilling to give his data to well-known denialists, when all they’re going to do is poke holes and misrepresent it. And perhaps this helps explain the unpleasant language in the hacked e-mails. From our perspective, it’s like debating holocaust denialism. I know I’ve been abrasive and for that I apologize. It wasn’t my intention to get snarky but this is a heated topic (pun intended). I’m sure you’re an intelligent fellow SV, but in this case you’ve been misled.

:hi:

So insolation acts as insulation. Are you saying Mar's CO2 concentration is 960,000 ppm? Or are you saying if Mar's atmosphere was equivalent to Earth it would be 960,000 ppm? Also, you're saying it can only amplify it dependent on its local concentration in the atmosphere? Also, I've never said I thought climate scientists are getting paid under the table. I think Mann et. al have acted unethically because they haven't been transparent. You have a guy like Muller who says "Here's my work take your shots." And, then you have a guy like Mann who doesn't want to defend his work. The former depicts someone who doesn't really seem to be in it for the knowledge sake but agenda driven fanatic and the latter is someone who really wants to understand for knowledge sake and says please show me where I'm wrong so I'll learn.

 

[Sandvol]

We did sign it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Was it Clinton who signed it? I'm not quite sure I understand that. How our treaty process works is 2/3 vote from Senate to approve and then President ratifies. That hasn't been done. I don't think you'd ever get a 2/3 vote from Senate on Kyoto Treaty.

 

[Sandvol]

I think I remember now. You have to use partial pressures of gas. (Been too damn long since I've done this.) So for Earth at 100,000 Pa and Mars is at 600 Pa. It would be 0.0004(100,000) versus 0.95(600)Pa. So partial pressure of CO2 on Earth is 40PA versus 570Pa on Mars. So that would give 570/40 X 400=5700ppm C02 on Mars which is what you got above. Where did all that damn CO2 come from on Mars and why isn't it hotter there? There has to be a role the total pressure has that we don't understand. Has there been any studies on heat effects of atmospheric pressure? Maybe Earth's atmosphere would be a whole lot hotter but water acts as a cooling effect on the temperature and its green house gas effect is negligible. And, maybe the whole concept of green house gas is a red herring. I wonder if the atmospheric pressure of Earth fluctuates a lot due to outside forces like Solar magnetic variations or cycles and that plays more of a factor in climatic cycles due to causing atmospheric pressure fluctuations?