About global warming. There are many misconceptions right?

Trevor

2007-10-15 11:14:42 UTC

I'm going to write this whilst I take a long phone call, it will probably be a lengthy response. You may want to grab a cup of coffee.

<< About global warming. There are many misconceptions right? >>

Yes there are.

<< Ok, first of all, some people seem to think that climate change 'skeptics' think that there is no global warming happening. >>

This was the primary argument they used until fairly recently, many of them actually claimed the Earth was cooling. Look back at some of the Q's and A's on here from the past.

When it became impossible to keep denying the world was warming their arguments changed, as they have done many times before.

<< Wrong. There is a concensus on that point. >>

There is now, there didn't used to be. PS, I've been involved with global warming for 24 years so have seen how the skeptics arguments have evolved over quite a long period of time.

<< The real debate is the cause of global waming/climate chance. Whether it's significantly affected by human activity or not. >>

The current line of thinking amongst many skeptics is that global warming is entirely natural but that's undergoing something of a transformation with more and more skeptics now saying that global warming may be partly human induced but that it's not such a bad thing after all.

<< The other major point which is actually a recurring theme in the IPCC report and Al Gore's 'documentary', is that carbon dioxide causes temperature increase. >>

Yes it does, explained later.

<< The fact is that throughout all history, it's been the other way around. >>

CO2, along with the other greenhouse gases, have the ability to retain thermal radiation within Earth's atmosphere. It's just as well that they do as this is the mechanism by which the planet maintains a habitable temperature, without it Earth would be a frozen ball of ice devoid of all life.

The more greenhouse gases there are the more heat is retained. At times, in the geological past, GHG levels have been many times higher than they are now and temps have been considerably higher - up to 35°C as a global average (currently it's 14.7°C).

That greenhouse gases retain heat is irrefutable, it can be demonstrated in any science lab. The higher the concentrations the more heat is retained. GHG levels are now higher that at any time since humans first set foot on the planet (387 parts per million by volume compared to a historical range varying between 180 and 290 ppmv).

One essential point that is often ignored by the skeptics is the feedback mechanisms that couple temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations. This coupling means that it's irrelevant which comes first - increased temps leads to increased levels of GHG's and vice versa.

As you point out later, warmer temps mean increased release of CO2 from the oceans, this then enters the atmosphere and leads to warming, leading to more CO2 released from the oceans, more warming and so ad infinitum. It doesn't matter where the feedback cycle starts as A follows B follows A.

It's not just the oceans and it's not just CO2 which are coupled in this manner, there are several feedback mechanisms at work, for purposed of brevity I won't go into them here.

<< Temperature increase causes CO2 increase as higher ocean temperatures liberate CO2 from the oceans and also higher ocean temperatures increase the amount of zooplankton which generate CO2. >>

In essence but it's much more complicated than that.

Zooplankton are a net sink for CO2, they consume phytoplankton which is one of the best sequesterers of CO2. When zooplankton die they sink to the ocean floor taking the sequestered carbon with them.

<< The fact is that only 5% of the CO2 output to the atmosphere every year is caused by human activities >>

It's 12%. Biomass (excluding soils) release 60 billion tons of CO2 per year, soils release a further 59Gt, the oceans release 88Gt. That's a total from natural sources of

207Gt, add to this the 29Gt from humans each year to get an overall total of 237Gt.

One essential thing you forgot to take into account - not only do the natural processes release CO2 but they absorb it as well. Soils and biomass each absorb 60Gt and the oceans absorb 90Gt - 210Gt in total and so a net sink of 3Gt of CO2 per annum.

In summary - nature removes 3 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year, humans add 29 billion tons to it (and a further 11 billion tons of other greenhouse gases).

<< and additionally, water vapour and methane are far more potent greenhouse gases. >>

The potency of greenhouse gases is measured on the Global Warming Potential scale (GWP), where carbon dioxide has a fixed value of 1 and all other gases are measured relative to CO2 and over a specified time period (that's because they become more or less effective over time). The figures below are 100 year GWP's.

Water vapour is the weakest of all the greenhouse gases, it has a GWP of approx 0.09. Further, it can only exist within the atmosphere within certain physical constraints as determined primarily by atmospheric temperature (as temp rises the proportion of water vapour the atmosphere can contain increases, when it reaches it's maximum (saturation vapour pressure or SVP) the excess is dissipated out as precipitation or deposited on surfaces as dew or frost).

Methane has a GWP of 23 meaning that it's 23 times as potent as CO2 and 256 times as potent as water vapour. The other primary greenhouse gases, as determined by contribution to global warming, are nitrous oxide and dichlorodifluoromethane which have respective GWP’s of 296 and 8500.

Water vapour is the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases, it has an average atmospheric concentration of approx 10,000 ppmv (varies due to weather, season, location etc), all other greenhouse gases combined add up to just 389 ppmv.

But the two important things to note are 1) levels of water vapour can not significantly change whereas levels of all other greenhouse gases are rapidly increasing - a 39% overall increase in just 250 years and 2) it's not the volume that's important but the overall contribution they make (volume x potency = contribution).

<< Now, am I going to be labelled as a 'denialist' for trying to get to the truth of the matter? >>

Science only advances when people ask legitimate questions, your questions were legitimate. A denialist would simply state that GW wasn't happening or wouldn't be prepared to learn facts even if they conflicted with their own beliefs.

Unfortunately at this point your willingness to learn seems to take a turn for the worse...

<< The IPCC IS not composed of scientists, but government officials. >>

The IPCC is an amalgamation of thousands of climate scientists from hundreds of organisations around the world. The IPCC produce the reports, it's the government officials who doctor them or put pressure on the IPCC to play down the effects of global warming. I know this from first hand experience of having my own reports watered down.

<< Second of all, all your references say that man has an influence on climate. Well, no duhh Einstein. The question is how much! The answer is a neglible amount.>>

I've already shown how we can and do affect the climate, here I'll use science to demonstrate how much.

Our climate has always been governed by natural cycles more than anything else. There are many such cycles that both the Sun and Earth go through. Because they're cycles we can predict their behaviour and interactions. The shortest cycle the Sun goes through as the sunspot cycle, this lasts eleven years but has almost no effect on our climate. The difference between insulation maxima and minima is less than one two thousandth of the mean solar constant (the Sun gives off a mean 1366 watts per square metre per year of energy that reaches the outer atmosphere, the maximum deviation from the mean coinciding with the peak or trough of the sun spot cycle is 0.65Wm²yr). The shortest cycle that Earth goes through is a processional or gyroscopic one, this lasts for 19,000 years.

Over many thousands or millions of years these cycles do have a profound effect on our climate and are the reason for the coming and going of ice ages for example.

The fastest known natural warming on the planet occurs at the end of a glacial period, this happened most recently some 18,000 years ago. For a period of 7,500 years the Earth warmed and the glaciers retreated. During this time average global temps rose from 7°C to 14°C, roughly 1°C per 1000 years, you can consider this to be the peak natural warming.

Compare this to what's happening now where temps are currently rising by an average of 0.0177°C per year - that's 19 times as fast as they've ever before been known to rise.

The current underlying natural warming trend is one of approx 1°C per 10,000 years, that's the same as the average global temp rose by in the 10,000 years prior to industrialisation. Compare that to what's happening now and temps are rising 177 times as fast.

<< The other sources say that greenhouse gases affect climate. Again, everybody knows this. >>

Correct.

<< You just think everybody denies it.>>

Some do, some don't.

<< I specifically made the point that CO2 is a very innocuous greenhouse gas. >>

I've given you the figures that show just how important a gas CO2 is. In terms of it's contribution to the anthropogenic global warming component it's responsible for 72% of the warming.

<< Methane and water vapour are the worst greenhouse gases >>

Methane is 23 times worse then CO2, water vapour is 11 times as ineffective.

The worst greenhouse gases are generally found amongst the synthetic ones - halons, chlorofluorocarbons etc. The worst one of all is sodium hexaflouride (SF6) which has a GWP of 31,500. Three 'drops' of SF6 cause as much warming as a million 'drops' of water vapour.

<< and only a neglible fraction of these are generated from mans activities. >>

The four primary greenhouse gases have increased in atmospheric concentration since 1750 as follows...

· Carbon dioxide up from 278 to 387ppmv - up 36%

· Methane up from 700 to 1745ppbv - up 149%

· Nitrous oxide up from 270 to 314ppbv - up 16%

· Dichlorodifluoromethane up from 0 to 533pptv - up ∞%

· All GHG's up from 279 to 389ppmv - up 39%

<< Once again, thanks for exposing the ignorance of the man-made global warming contingent. >>

Be careful, so far you've done a pretty good job of demonstrating your own ignorance.

<< Also, many of these studies were performed in the 20th century and predicted catastrophes like massive extinction and huge rises in sea level. >>

Oh dear, now you're beginning to sound more like the typical skeptic / denier by bringing up fabrications that if I asked you to substantiate with links etc you wouldn't be able to do so.

<< Unfortunately for your claims, none of that happened. >>

It didn't happen because it wasn't predicted.

<< Sea levels have risen a neglible amount since 1970 >>

Sea levels have risen faster since 1970 than at any time since the end of the last 'ice age'. They had been rising by 1mm a year, they're now rising by 3.1mm a year. Just over half of this is caused by thermal expansion of the oceans (1.6mmyr) and the remainder is caused by the introduction of meltwater runoff primarily from Greenland and Antarctica. The rate of increase is accelerating any by the end of the century it's excepted that sea levels will have risen by 750mm.

<< and there have been no mass extinctions.>>

Some species have already become extinct. It's not normally possible to blame global warming as the sole cause for the extinction of any particular species as there are invariably many other factors involved. However, there is a good correlation between the overall rate of extinctions and the average global temperature.

Many studies have been conducted into the future of fauna and flora species, all conclude that global warming will have a very damaging effect. The conclusions vary but put the figure at between 20% and 40% of species becoming extinct within the next 50 to 100 years.

<< So, you give us all those studies that show that the global warming alarmists had it all wrong and none of their predictions have come true. >>

Which predictions are you referring to? If it's the ones made up by the skeptics then you might as well go and write your own science and history books. Anyone can say anything they want, it's only relevant if it's accurate.

<< Once again, thankyou for making a case against your own arguments. >>

I've made a case based on scientific fact. Now, I've corrected many of your errors, let's see if you can go through anything I've written and correct it, or will you concede that it's accurate.

<< You make this too easy. >>

If you block out anything you don't agree with and refuse to listen to anyone with a differing opinion then you never have to face up to the facts and of course it's easy. It's an escape route than many skeptics take, it's a cop out.

2007-10-15 06:39:51 UTC

The amount of warming in the last century is still up for debate. Roger Pielke, the most respected and prolific climatologist on the planet, has complained about the quality of the surface temp record for years. Some years ago he proposed using an entirely different metric for measuring climate change, ocean heat content. According to ocean heat content, the Earth is not warming nearly as much as the GHCN temp record indicates.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/R-321.pdf

http://climatesci.colorado.edu

For this reason, Anthony Watts, a broadcast meteorologist from Chico began an all volunteer effort to document the quality of surface stations. Volunteers take digital photos of the weather stations and fill out a survey document. Watts and others study the photos and rate the weather stations on a standard scale of 1-5. CRN1 being excellent quality and CRN2 being good or acceptable. So far only 15% of stations surveyed fall into the CRN1 to CRN 2 level. The vast majority of stations show a warm bias. Watts presented his preliminary findings at UCAR in August and was very well received by the scientists there. It may be that half of the warming is not even real but an artifact of these poorly sited weather stations. See the pictures of the poorly sited stations here.

http://surfacestations.org/

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html

If you want to see his preliminary results:

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/page92.html

----------------

Bob, I was very disappointed in your profend.com website. I clicked on "Who refutes global warming?" and got a demographic from the Zogby poll, not a list of scientists. This web page does not refute, or even name, any of the scientists or the research I cite on here. Can't you find a better site?

Ben O

2007-10-15 07:00:28 UTC

The logic of climate change believers is that "There is a consensus among scientists" and by consensus, there are of course a few learned minds who disagree.

For a lot of intelligent people that's proof enough and it's self evident that those who disagree must either be delusional or stuges.

A lot of intelligent people have unshakeable faith in experts like scientists, doctors or whoever they hold in high esteem.

Others like myself acknowledge that these people are only human, not superhuman and have their own agendas and pressures. Research institutions are highly political and driven by money in the same way as any other organisation and are inteviatebly run by people whos primary expertise is dealing with the politics of the organisation. Scientists are under pressure to overplay their hands when writing papers and also produce findings that have some important impact on human society.

Trouble is that people regard healthy scepticism as an attack on the institutions and individuals that they believe in and is in effect the same as attacking someones religion. It generates anger and resentment and can only be attributed to malice or delusion.

2007-10-15 02:30:40 UTC

a note:

human intervention is adding every year, for at least 150 years now, small amounts of CO2 into the global cycle of CO2 where that gas is emitted. absorbed by flora and recycled.

but the human addition is from non floral sources, namely fossil fuels, which where removed from that cycle millions of years ago.

that slow but continuous addition is having a small continuous one way effect.

that effect is enhanced by the diminished volume of forests, which is also man made, and by natural phenomena, like the increase of water vapor and methane in the atmosphere, caused by that little nudge increased CO2 levels caused.

the total effect is exponential in nature.

Bob

2007-10-14 23:17:24 UTC

Actually most skeptics now don't even claim that man's contribution is not significant. The data is too overwhelming for that. They just say it won't be as bad as the vast majority of scientists think.

If you want to get to the truth of the matter, read the links below.

The historical lag of CO2 behind temperature is actually a very strong proof this warming is not natural. Past warmings started for other reasons and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 increased as it was released from warming oceans. But this time _there is no lag_. CO2 is going up simultaneously with temperature, because it's the main cause. More here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

These explain why human made CO2 is more important than natural CO2 or water vapor:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652

Great website for getting to the truth:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

Vasanthkumar Mysoremath

2007-10-14 23:17:01 UTC

You agree that about 5% of human activity is adding to CO2 output. Nature adopts its own mechanisms to correct any imbalance caused by natural sources, be it higher ocean temperature or methane etc. But what we are talking about is that your(human) contribution of 5% towards green house gases has to be brought down to the barest minimum so that our future generations need not point an accusing finger for not being careful in protecting the environment.

Your observation is only "stating the obvious" but what is your contribution towards a solution? Take for example, burning bulbs that contribute CO2, even during day time when the solar light is available just across our windows. Is it not misuse of costly energy. Have a look at the following -

U-SEE - We must save the world from over-exploitation of natural resources

Knowingly or unknowingly we are all partners in misusing of costly electricity for our lighting purpose during day time when the solar light is available just outside our windows. Why can't bring home the sunshine?

Yes. This has been successfully adopted by a number of people in Bangalore, India. This innovative but simple method of bringing home the sunshine was suggested to the World Bank as a Grassroots Initiative for Preservation of Natural Resourcs during IDM-2007 competition - Project U-SEE (Unlimited Savings of Electrical Energy). U-SEE does not involve any nano technology nor does it requires billions of dollars for implementation. Moreover, U-SEE you get free lighting for life. No charges.

The World Bank honored this initiative and has created a permanent blog on the World Bank URL at http://dmblog.worldbank.org/mirrors-can-bring-light-rural-homes.

How is it implemented? U need a house hold mirror of 12"X18" and a pillow. Identify where u can get maximum sunshine just outside the windows with clear glass or on the balcony, keep the pillow on a stool or chair and place the mirror on the pillow, go on nudging the mirror till the solar light is deflected from the mirror, through the window and on to the white ceiling inside your home. U will be surprised to find the light spreading from the ceiling - it can be 40 to 60 watts (see the picture above - notice tube light and table lamp in the corner are not burning but there is enough light). If u can keep a bigger mirror, u will get more bright light. U can control the light just by covering a portion of the mirror.

Earth moves on its latitude. When u find that the deflected solar light is moving elsewhere, just go to the mirror, nudge a little and u can get back your light as before. THIS IS THE BASIC IDEA and once u have done it, u be the Innovator of your light requirements for your home and U-SEE PROVIDES YOU FREE LIGHTING FOR LIFE. Many homes/huts in rural areas in developing countries do not have proper lighting and people are living in dark, damp and dingy environs but urbanites living in concrete jungles in cities with tinted glasses are misusing electricity for their lighting purpose even during day time.

U-SEE the Benefits: ONE incandescent bulb/tubelight burning for 6 hours during day time consumes 7 units of electricity in a month. If half the world can adopt U-SEE and switch off one bulb for 6 hours during day time, how much of electricity can be saved? Your guess is as good as mine + saves cost of fossil fuels, coal, water+saves cost incurred for machineries and equipments+saves overhead charges+saves transmission loss charges+saves the world from global warming (burning bulbs/CO2 etc) with n'th value+ U GET FREE LIGHTING FOR LIFE with n'th value. The savings that accrue can off set the load on our productive requirements like A/c, refrigerators, mixies, fans etc.

Solar light will be available at least for about 200 days in a year and it is infinite and why should we let it go waste? We are not harnessing this infinite energy. U-SEE is ssoo simple.

First adopt this method, innovate solutions if u face small problems. U be the winner. U-SEE It is a win win situation for all of us. Need clarifications, mail: vkumar_m@yahoo.com U-SEE - The author's ambition is to spread this friendly initiative to one and all. No charges!!

Vasanthkumar Mysoremath, Bangalore, India

2007-10-14 23:05:50 UTC

First of all, you are wrong. Before conservatives admitted the earth is indeed warming, they flat out denied it. They blamed it on the "heat island effect." Then they used satellite data from John Christy saying that the earth is actually cooling. Christy, however, has since admitted he made several mistakes and is a man made global warming supporter now.

You are indeed a denier who trusts political pundits over the vast majority of scientists.

Look up the most well estabished scientific organizations (not political organizations) doing climate/geologic research and then read what their saying.

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

1) THE AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, FOUNDED IN 1919, OVER 45,000 MEMBERS

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

2) THE U.S. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE (ALONG WITH THE NAS OF THE G8 NATIONS), FOUNDED IN 1863, OVER 2,000 MEMBERS, OVER 200 NOBEL PRIZE MEMBERS

"There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/G8_gb.pdf

3) THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, FOUNDED IN 1888, OVER 20,500 MEMBERS

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.

http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm

4) THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, FOUNDED IN 1876, OVER 160,000 MEMBERS

"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century."

http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf

5) THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGY SOCIETY, FOUNDED IN 1919, OVER 11,000 MEMBERS

"Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond."

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html

6) THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, CREATED IN 1988, HUNDREDS OF SCIENTISTS FROM OVER 130 NATIONS

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (defined in footnotes as greater then 90% likelyhood) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns"

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

7) THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, FOUNDED IN 1848, SERVES 262 AFFILIATED SOCIETIES AND ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE FOR A TOTAL OF 10 MILLION INDIVIDUALS

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

8) THE NOAA'S NA==ave now concluded that global warming can be explained by a human-caused enhancement of the greenhouse effect. It is important to remember both that the greenhouse effect occurs naturally, and that it has been intensified by humankind's input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html

9) THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, FOUNDED IN 1960, OVER 120 MEMBERS, SERVES OVER 62 PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING UNIVERSITIES AND RESEARCH CENTERS

"Together, these data show that Earth's surface air temperature has risen more than 1.1°F (0.7°C) since the late 1800s. This warming of the average temperature around the globe has been especially sharp since the 1970s. Global models at NCAR have simulated 20th century climate and found three main factors at work:

1) Solar activity contributed to a warming trend in global average temperature from the 1910s through 1930s.

2) As industrial activity increased following World War II, sun-blocking sulfates and other aerosol emissions helped lead to a slight global cooling from the 1940s to 1970s.

3) Since 1980, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions from human activity has overwhelmed the aerosol effect to produce overall global warming."

http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp

10) THE NASA'S GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES, FOUNDED IN 1961, SPECIALIZES IN SPACECRAFT OBSERVATIONS AND GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS

"A new NASA-funded study used a computer climate model to simulate the last 50 years of climate changes, projects warming over the next 50 years regardless of whether or not nations curb their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions soon. If no emission reductions are made and they continue to increase at the current rate, global temperatures may increase by 1-2º Celsius (1.8º-3.6º Fahrenheit). But if the growth rate of carbon dioxide does not exceed its current rate and if the growth of true air pollutants (things that are harmful to human health) is reversed, temperatures may rise by only 0.75C (1.35F)."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20020919/