Drought, Fire, Flood: In the News

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:22 AM GMT on July 12, 2011

Share this Blog
2
+

Drought, Fire, Flood: In the News

I have been writing about a variety of issues that I know are of interest to only a small number of people – U.S. science organizations, climate model software, and validation of climate models. I am going to move away from that arcane set of subjects for a while and spend a little more time in the climate mainstream. In this entry I want to touch on several subjects – starting with my garden.

My garden is in the flat land that is the western edge of the Great Plains, just east of Boulder, Colorado. Weather wise, it is a complex and difficult environment: more than 5000 feet above sea level, reliant upon water from the winter snow pack in the mountains, huge swings of hot and cold. In terms of climate types, I have seen region defined as both arid and semiarid. In the last week, we have had three or more inches of rain – hard driving rain with much lightning. There is water standing between the rows in the garden. The week of July 4 it was so dry there was a fire ban, and many firework fires.

Last summer in Boulder we had the Fourmile Fire, which burned thousands of acres and dozens of houses. With this rain, we have mudslides, rock slides and flash floods (Longmont Times Call). It all makes you appreciate the importance of the weather and the climate. Wet and dry. Hot and cold. ( 485 Billion Dollar Impact of Weather)

Boulder is a microcosm of what is going on in the U.S. There have been overwhelming fires in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. (Texas Fires). Dangerous drought and heat is spreading all across the southern half of the U.S. The dust storm last week in Arizona was reminiscent of pictures of the Dust Bowl. (more here). We were overwhelmed not long ago by the Mississippi River flooding. I have almost forgotten about the Missouri River flooding.



Figure 1: From KFAB Omaha News Radio. Photo Credit AP: Missouri River flood of Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant.

We see here the persistence of weather, climate, snow cover, drought, floods - one extreme after another. Jeff Master’s wrote an excellent summary of 2010-2011 as being a year of the most extreme events since 1816 – the year of Mount Tambora, a definitive and understood climate anomaly. Jeff writes that June 2011 continues the run. July 2011 is looking strong. It has been more than 300 months since there was a “below average” mean temperature. That’s a little compelling.

We are being handed one case study after another, where we see the impact that weather and climate have on us. And what is that impact? We see vulnerable people losing their homes, their crops. But where is the real threat? What does it mean that 213 counties in Texas are primary disaster areas?

Energy, economy, population – markets. We all know that the weather affects our economy. We rely on a stable climate. We see here and now an interconnected world, where extreme heat kills thousands and destroys crops and send food prices soaring. We see multiple billion dollar liens placed on our economy by floods, droughts, and tornadoes. These costs come at a time when economies all around the world are weak. There is a debt crisis, and the weather is demanding more loans. Right here and now the world is providing one climate disaster after another. The weather and climate are showing the need for more planning, for building resilience and recovery strategies. The weather and climate are revealing our vulnerabilities. While there is the obvious, the family fleeing the flood, the destroyed Joplin, Missouri hospital, there is also the accumulated impact felt through markets, higher food prices, emergency relief, things that will not be fixed, people relocating.

We are being offered lessons. I have written this far and not strung together the words “climate change” or mentioned “global warming.” This is the weather in our warming climate. The take away message from climate models, Be Prepared.

r

Rood on To the Point

Open Climate Modeling:

Greening of the Desert

Stickiness and Climate Models

Open Source Communities, What are the Problems?

A Culture of Checking


Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling:

Something New in the Past Decade?

The Scientific Organization

A Science-Organized Community

Validation and the Scientific Organization

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 365 - 315

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

co2now.org

What the world needs to watch

Global warming is mainly the result of CO2 levels rising in the Earth's atmosphere. Both atmospheric CO2 and climate change are accelerating. Climate scientists say we have years, not decades, to stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

To help the world succeed, CO2Now.org makes it easy to see the most current CO2 level and what it means. So, use this site and keep an eye on CO2. Invite others to do the same. Then we can do more to send CO2 in the right direction.

393.69ppm







Atmospheric CO2 for June 2011

Preliminary data released July 5, 2011 (Mauna Loa Observatory: NOAA-ESRL)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
361. greentortuloni

Ceptin we don't have to go to war for it and no one ownes the wind. That probably what troubles the bought and sold GOP abut wind. If only the wind indsutry could get enough cash to bribe the politicians the way big Oil and Coal does, wind farms would be all over the place.


lets hope that never happens as it kills thousands of birds....no matter what energy we use we kill something...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:
Wind Power: Costs much more and produces just as much CO2 (for those who believe C02 is harmful).

Link


Ceptin we don't have to go to war for it and no one ownes the wind. That probably what troubles the bought and sold GOP abut wind. If only the wind indsutry could get enough cash to bribe the politicians the way big Oil and Coal does, wind farms would be all over the place.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wind Power: Costs much more and produces just as much CO2 (for those who believe C02 is harmful).

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting cat5hurricane:
As we so cordially went over time and again, Fox News is the Number 1 cable Network news in the United States.

Number 1 is number 1. I know that just guts the insides of some. I know the truth hurts.

Here, see for yourself: US Cable News

Number 1 is number 1. I'm not a mind reader or anything, but I'm guessing that there is probably a reason for that...

Like I've said, in a town with 99 normal restaurants and just one serving roadkill, the latter one will be very popular among the lovers of roadkill, as that's their only choice. ;-)

At any rate, the feds are now investigating News Corps stateside, and the roaches are scurrying for cover as the tentacles of deceit and manipulation and criminality are found to run ever deeper throughout the global organization. I doubt Fox "News" will go away entirely, but look for a severely humbling experience for O'Reilly and crew. Today's stock tip: if you own any shares of News Corps, dump them before it becomes News Corpse.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13744
Climate models can't predict past climate much less future climate. Climate "science" is anything but. It's a totally "faith-based" religion.


Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting ARMudWeather:
Not too mention, Neapolitan, if climate change really was happening, we would see higher see levels. We don't know. We haven't yet. What does that tell you. Btw..everyone has been asking. adjust your filter settings so those not logged in can see your posts. i don't think it's fair you only allow certain folks to view them. you don't wanna come across as biased now, do you?

Haven't been around long, have you? ;-)

1) Sea levels have risen. In fact, they've risen worldwide by between 4.8 and 8.8 inches in the past century. What does that tell me? That you're getting your info from the wrong place. ;-)

2) An individual user can't "unhide" his own posts. Visibility is based on a user's "karma", and that karma is determined by, among other things, the ratio of "pluses" to "minuses" his or her comments have received. (It's also determined in part by the ratio of "pluses" and "minuses" that user has himself/herself given out.) Only a logged-in user can see posts from users with sufficiently low karma, and then only if they've adjusted their filter to the appropriate setting. And, no, my karma isn't low for the reason you may think it is. More details on that next week. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13744
I will be waiting for your proof the numbers are erroneous. For the tenth time just because you say it does not not make it true. You sir are an arrogant pompous ass with no true facts.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting nymore:
Neapolitan- 46.7 is wrong sorry I messed up the math the actual number is 42.3. Having said that all I did was take your number pounds per year and convert it to liters per day for direct comparison. So here lets do this, you said man pumps 67,461,000,000,000 pounds per year of co2 into the atmosphere if we convert pounds per year to liters per day we come up with 42.3 trillion liters per day. all the rest of the numbers are not in dispute. Your facts change with the wind from 36.7 to 38 in 3 hours to 40.6 the very next day. This is a difference of over 10 percent in one day. Also you call these minor differences to put these minor differences in numbers we can all understand. I will convert the differences to feet, 3.9 trillion feet is the distance from Earth to Saturn or 746,000,000 million miles, so yea these are minor differences. BTW I left out 42.3 from the calculation but if included it is appox. 18 percent low to high or nearly a round trip from Earth to Saturn. The voyager spacecraft was launched in 1977 it reached Saturn in 1980. Nice try to call these minor errors though.

Nymore, you simply can't take numbers I posted, do your own erroneous conversions and calculations on them, then post your own results as "proof" of my intellectual dishonesty. I realize doing so is SOP for the likes of Watts and Monckton and Fox "News" types, but in the world of science, that's called "distorting". Stop. Seriously. You're at risk of losing your credibility with me. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13744
As for your posts being over my head as you claim I sir have buried you twice in one day with actual facts so it may not be me over my head it maybe you.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Neapolitan- 46.7 is wrong sorry I messed up the math the actual number is 42.3. Having said that all I did was take your number pounds per year and convert it to liters per day for direct comparison. So here lets do this, you said man pumps 67,461,000,000,000 pounds per year of co2 into the atmosphere if we convert pounds per year to liters per day we come up with 42.3 trillion liters per day. all the rest of the numbers are not in dispute. Your facts change with the wind from 36.7 to 38 in 3 hours to 40.6 the very next day. This is a difference of over 10 percent in one day. Also you call these minor differences to put these minor differences in numbers we can all understand. I will convert the differences to feet, 3.9 trillion feet is the distance from Earth to Saturn or 746,000,000 million miles, so yea these are minor differences. BTW I left out 42.3 from the calculation but if included it is appox. 18 percent low to high or nearly a round trip from Earth to Saturn. The voyager spacecraft was launched in 1977 it reached Saturn in 1980. Nice try to call these minor errors though.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting Neapolitan...

It's late, and I'm going to bed, but I may try to address this in the morning. In the meantime, though, since you posted graphs from an uber-denialist site--Climate4You.com--I thought I'd share something that site's owner said: "I expect it will be colder over the next three years." -- Ole Humlum, January, 2008.

P.S. -- We've been over this before: not all OLR is the same. State otherwise as often as you wish, but OLR at the bands absorbed by CO2, methane, and other GHGs has been decreasing, not increasing.


Climate4you is not a "denialist site." It is a site that has all of the data needed to make one's own individual hypotheses about the Climate.

In every single image there is on Climate4you, there is a link back to the raw data. For example, the caption with OLR:

Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR; red graph) anomaly at the top of the atmosphere above Equator between 160oE and 160oW since 1979 according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center (CPC).

And we have been over this in the past as well, Nea. Regardless of if CO2 is the main driver of the climate or not, increasing amounts of CO2 would block OLR in the CO2 Spectrum! This tells you absolutely nothing!

If CO2 were the driver of climate, you would notice an overall drop in OLR. The models indicated this.



(Note that this image comes from Lindzen and Choi 2009.)

This image shows that the climate models predicted an overall drop of OLR (not just the OLR in the CO2 Spectrum) at the TOA, due to GHGs being the primary driver of the climate, and trapping some of the OLR.

However, reality is completely different.

The ERBE data has shown time and time again, that every single Climate Model predicted a decrease in OLR at the TOA as temperatures increased due to GHG warming. However, the ERBE data shows that as temperature increases, so does OLR. The only way that this could create warming, is if the ISR was also increasing. A decrease in Cloud Cover through decreasing GCRs is the only explaination to the late-20th Century Global Warming, as it is the only explaination that has both an increase in ISR and an increase in OLR. This adds an additional 17 w/m^2 to Earth's Energy Budget, if all clouds were to be removed.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MississippiWx75:
@337: It's late, and I'm going to bed, but I may try to address this in the morning.

Hang on, you mean you sleep. I guess even the big ego types like you need your beauty rest. Sleep well, and we'll do it all again tmrw.

Nothing constructive to add? Again?

Pity...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13744
Quoting GerlindeEspinosa:
So, I have something to spitball with you this morning. Why is it that C02 from carbon emissions is that much more harmful and detrimental to the globe than C02 from volcanic eruptions?

Because there's so much more of it.

From Oregon State: Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. While this is a conservative estimate, man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.

From the USGS: The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

It would take roughly 700 Pinatubo eruptions a year--or 3,500 Mount St. Helens ones--to equal annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Or to put it another way: it takes about 2.7 days (65 hours) of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to equal the annual amount produced by global volcanism.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13744
Methane (CH4) is the primary component of natural gas and an important energy source. Methane is also a greenhouse gas, meaning that its presence in the atmosphere affects the Earth’s temperature and climate system. Due to its relatively short life time in the atmosphere (9-15 years) and its global warming potency — 20 times more effective than carbon dioxide (CO2) in trapping heat in the atmosphere — reducing methane emissions should be an effective means to reduce climate warming on a relatively short timescale

Link


U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists
Future water and energy shortages predicted to change face of American agriculture
FOR RELEASE: Aug. 7, 1997

Contact: Roger Segelken
Office: (607) 255-9736
E-Mail: hrs2@cornell.edu

MONTREAL -- From one ecologist's perspective, the American system of farming

grain-fed livestock consumes resources far out of proportion to the yield, accelerates soil erosion, affects world food supply and will be changing in the future.

"If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal. Or, if those grains were exported, it would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year, Pimentel estimated.

With only grass-fed livestock, individual Americans would still get more than the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of meat and dairy protein, according to Pimentel's report, "Livestock Production: Energy Inputs and the Environment."

An environmental analyst and longtime critic of waste and inefficiency in agricultural practices, Pimentel depicted grain-fed livestock farming as a costly and nonsustainable way to produce animal protein. He distinguished grain-fed meat production from pasture-raised livestock, calling cattle-grazing a more reasonable use of marginal land.

Link


Well, using the data above, if your're serious about
reducing GHG's, you remove the US livestock
population and start growing wheat, you can feed the
world and get a 20x reduction on global warming.

so when do we start ????

Neap, CB, Pat, ?

CH4_1000.org


Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
Quoting greentortuloni:


That's much higher than the amount of black paint versus swimming pool water in a swimming pool yet people paint their swimming pool black to heat it.


Or how about the black swimming pool cover?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting RustyShackleford:


.039% is how much is in the atmosphere ;-)

Dang that stinks doesn't it?

The warming can't happen just because of that can it? .039% nah no way.


That's much higher than the amount of black paint versus swimming pool water in a swimming pool yet people paint their swimming pool black to heat it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

It's late, and I'm going to bed, but I may try to address this in the morning. In the meantime, though, since you posted graphs from an uber-denialist site--Climate4You.com--I thought I'd share something that site's owner said: "I expect it will be colder over the next three years." -- Ole Humlum, January, 2008.

P.S. -- We've been over this before: not all OLR is the same. State otherwise as often as you wish, but OLR at the bands absorbed by CO2, methane, and other GHGs has been decreasing, not increasing.


The science is still undefined primarily over the
long haul, the issues will be debated for a long
time, and some theories are not flexible.

So it comes down to:






Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
Quoting Snowlover123:
Quoting Neapolitan...

What we know (and by "we" I mean "intellectually honest people"):

1) The earth's temperature is rising rapidly.

2) Increasing concentrations of CO2 are the primary driver of that warming.

3) We are pumping approximately 40 trillion liters of CO2 into the environment each day from the burning of fossil fuels alone.


1) Temperatures have risen substantially faster than today in the past, and falls within the natural variation.



Image Caption:

Holocene climate is characterized by rapid climate change events and considerable complexity. GISP2 Holocene ¶18O (proxy for temperature) (Grootes, et al., 1993) and EOF1 (composite measure of major chemistry representing atmospheric circulation) show parallel behavior for the Early Holocene but not for the Late Holocene (O'Brien, et al., 1995). Worldwide glacier expansions and syntheses of various climate proxy records from Europe, Greenland, North America, and the Southern Hemisphere showing cold periods (Denton and Karlen, 1975; Harvey, 1980; Andrews, et al., 1972) that match the GISP2 EOF1 (atmospheric circulation).



2) CO2 is not even the cause of 10% of the observed Climate Change since 1979.

If Carbon Dioxide were driving temperatures, we would notice a few things:

OLR would be decreasing due to Back-Radiation from GHGs.

As OLR goes down, temperature goes up.

None of these have been observed. In fact OLR has been increasing since 1979.



This is an indicator that the change must be occuring with the ISR, since if ISR were not increasing, the increase in OLR would produce cooling.

The only possible factor that causes both an increase in ISR and OLR is Cloud Cover, and since Cloud Cover reflects more radiation than it traps radiation, less cloud cover would mean a warmer Earth. If all clouds were to be removed, an extra 17 w/m^2 would be added to Earth's Energy Budget.

From climate4you.com...

Quote:

The overall reflectance (albedo) of planet Earth is about 30 percent, meaning that about 30 percent of the incoming shortwave solar radiation is radiated back to space. If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m2 to 288 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m2 being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m2. So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above). This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below).




The radiative forcing that clouds have had on the Climate from 1983-2004 is an additional 7 w/m^2 in Earth's Energy Budget, (since High Clouds, have been increasing slightly and they cause warming, and Low Clouds, which cause cooling have been decreasing dramatically. (LINK)

The effect that Carbon Dioxide has had over a 104 year period was 1.4 w/m^2.

Multiply 1.4 by .21 to get the radiative forcing that Carbon Dioxide has had over this timeframe. This gets you .294 w/m^2.

Divide this by 7 w/m^2.

The effect that CO2 has had on climate, compared with only the cloud forcing, is 4%. This is .014 Degrees C.

Factor in Feedbacks, ENSO, the PDO, AMO, IOD, QBO, Ozone Depletion due to volcanism, sulfate aerosoles due to volcanism, the solar AA index... etc.

We can see how small CO2 is in the whole field of Climate Change.

3) That is very very small compared to the overall compisition of the atmosphere.





It's late, and I'm going to bed, but I may try to address this in the morning. In the meantime, though, since you posted graphs from an uber-denialist site--Climate4You.com--I thought I'd share something that site's owner said: "I expect it will be colder over the next three years." -- Ole Humlum, January, 2008.

P.S. -- We've been over this before: not all OLR is the same. State otherwise as often as you wish, but OLR at the bands absorbed by CO2, methane, and other GHGs has been decreasing, not increasing.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13744
Quoting nymore:
Neapolitan- Concerning post 310 and 314 showing you are less than honest. I think I will take a crack at it. I know I can prove you wrong but I would rather let you do that. Neapolitan says in the following post these things. May 31 post # 170 46.7 trillion liters per day, June 30 post # 411 36.7 trillion liters per day, now just 3 hours later same day post # 451 38 trillion liters per day, July 1 post # 539 40.6 trillion liters per day and today post # 310 40 trillion liters per day. I would like to thank Neapolitan for proving Neapolitan wrong. Once again thank you Neapolitan for pointing out your less than honest numbers and your intellectual dishonesty. You were just pwned ;-)

I'm glad you continue to obsess over research things I've written. I appreciate the attention, I really do. Now, in your diligent research, you noticed the numbers vary, so you'll also have doubtlessly noticed that they generally stay in the same ballpark; this is due to my consulting with various references for global emissions totals, some of which disagree by minor amounts. That's how science works, my young "pwner": constant refinement as new data is found and validated. (For the 40 trillion figure--which I've used many more times than you listed--I finally went with these numbers as they are the most widely cited.)

Now, so far as the first number you quoted--46.7 in comment #170 on 5/31--it appears you made a mistake. I posted a ZD Net article in that comment, and followed it with this bit of text: "(As an aside: how anyone can think that pumping 67,461,000,000,000 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere each year--342,000 pounds per square mile of earth's surface; 2.14 million pounds each second-- won't have an effect on the climate is entirely beyond me.)" No mention of "46.7", so that's your error, not mine. Because of that, we'll remove that one from the totals, leaving the following:

36.7 trillion liters per day
38 trillion liters per day
40.6 trillion liters per day
40 trillion liters per day

Now, if you're absolutely convinced that the minor differences between those four figures show "intellectual dishonesty", I'm not sure what to tell you. But please do keep reading my old posts, even if you do so as part of another fruitless witch hunt; you'll find most of them very informative, or at least the ones that aren't over your head. Better luck next time. ;-)

(FWIW, the actual amount is higher than 40 trillion liters per day, as the 40 trillion is a rounded down number; it only includes direct CO2 emissions; and the numbers are based on 2008's emissions total, which were less than 2010's. Just so you know.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13744
Quoting RustyShackleford:


ha

You have no answer



I got it but I want you to think about it.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting RustyShackleford:


What is the difference than from people picking 1998 as a starting year for temps.

You just picked a low point till now.


Think about it then get back to me!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459


The deception by the warmists is beyond the pale. They are clinging to a sinking ship. I wonder why. Are they afraid to admit that their "science" is nothing but ideology? That's my guess. They don't want man using internal combustion engines any longer unless it's themselves, of course.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Neapolitan- Concerning post 310 and 314 showing you are less than honest. I think I will take a crack at it. I know I can prove you wrong but I would rather let you do that. Neapolitan says in the following posts these things. May 31 post # 170 46.7 trillion liters per day, June 30 post # 411 36.7 trillion liters per day, now just 3 hours later same day post # 451 38 trillion liters per day, July 1 post # 539 40.6 trillion liters per day and today post # 310 40 trillion liters per day. I would like to thank Neapolitan for proving Neapolitan wrong. Once again thank you Neapolitan for pointing out your less than honest numbers and your intellectual dishonesty. You were just pwned ;-)
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting Neapolitan...

What we know (and by "we" I mean "intellectually honest people"):

1) The earth's temperature is rising rapidly.

2) Increasing concentrations of CO2 are the primary driver of that warming.

3) We are pumping approximately 40 trillion liters of CO2 into the environment each day from the burning of fossil fuels alone.


1) Temperatures have risen substantially faster than today in the past, and falls within the natural variation.



Image Caption:

Holocene climate is characterized by rapid climate change events and considerable complexity. GISP2 Holocene ¶18O (proxy for temperature) (Grootes, et al., 1993) and EOF1 (composite measure of major chemistry representing atmospheric circulation) show parallel behavior for the Early Holocene but not for the Late Holocene (O'Brien, et al., 1995). Worldwide glacier expansions and syntheses of various climate proxy records from Europe, Greenland, North America, and the Southern Hemisphere showing cold periods (Denton and Karlen, 1975; Harvey, 1980; Andrews, et al., 1972) that match the GISP2 EOF1 (atmospheric circulation).



2) CO2 is not even the cause of 10% of the observed Climate Change since 1979.

If Carbon Dioxide were driving temperatures, we would notice a few things:

OLR would be decreasing due to Back-Radiation from GHGs.

As OLR goes down, temperature goes up.

None of these have been observed. In fact OLR has been increasing since 1979.



This is an indicator that the change must be occuring with the ISR, since if ISR were not increasing, the increase in OLR would produce cooling.

The only possible factor that causes both an increase in ISR and OLR is Cloud Cover, and since Cloud Cover reflects more radiation than it traps radiation, less cloud cover would mean a warmer Earth. If all clouds were to be removed, an extra 17 w/m^2 would be added to Earth's Energy Budget.

From climate4you.com...

Quote:

The overall reflectance (albedo) of planet Earth is about 30 percent, meaning that about 30 percent of the incoming shortwave solar radiation is radiated back to space. If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m2 to 288 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m2 being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m2. So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above). This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below).




The radiative forcing that clouds have had on the Climate from 1983-2004 is an additional 7 w/m^2 in Earth's Energy Budget, (since High Clouds, have been increasing slightly and they cause warming, and Low Clouds, which cause cooling have been decreasing dramatically. (LINK)

The effect that Carbon Dioxide has had over a 104 year period was 1.4 w/m^2.

Multiply 1.4 by .21 to get the radiative forcing that Carbon Dioxide has had over this timeframe. This gets you .294 w/m^2.

Divide this by 7 w/m^2.

The effect that CO2 has had on climate, compared with only the cloud forcing, is 4%. This is .014 Degrees C.

Factor in Feedbacks, ENSO, the PDO, AMO, IOD, QBO, Ozone Depletion due to volcanism, sulfate aerosoles due to volcanism, the solar AA index... etc.

We can see how small CO2 is in the whole field of Climate Change.

3) That is very very small compared to the overall compisition of the atmosphere.




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Cool, please direct us to the study. Thanx




Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Nope it is more of a parabolic curve.



Cool, please direct us to the study. Thanx
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:
Ok, lets try this again. Please dissect these numbers and show how they are wrong. They are several years old, so it should be easy.

C'mon, no evasive maneuvers ;)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data .html

So you are saying CO2 and temp have a linear relationship?


Nope it is more of a parabolic curve.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Ok, lets try this again. Please dissect these numbers and show how they are wrong. They are several years old, so it should be easy.

C'mon, no evasive maneuvers ;)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data .html
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Thicker blanket.


So you are saying CO2 and temp have a linear relationship?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RustyShackleford:
I want to know how .039% of carbon dioxide is enough to warm the atmosphere as quickly as you would like believe.

Especially coming off of an Ice Age.

Warming planet is what it is supposed to be doing.


Thicker blanket.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting Patrap:
co2now.org

What the world needs to watch

Global warming is mainly the result of CO2 levels rising in the Earth's atmosphere. Both atmospheric CO2 and climate change are accelerating. Climate scientists say we have years, not decades, to stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

To help the world succeed, CO2Now.org makes it easy to see the most current CO2 level and what it means. So, use this site and keep an eye on CO2. Invite others to do the same. Then we can do more to send CO2 in the right direction.

393.69ppm







Atmospheric CO2 for June 2011

Preliminary data released July 5, 2011 (Mauna Loa Observatory: NOAA-ESRL)


20 years ago I thought I would never see 400ppm Co2 in my lifetime looks like I may be very wrong about that!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting RustyShackleford:


And yelling Fire in a crowded theater is against the law yet you still do the same thing here!!!

Your analogy you used yesterday was a horrible one.

You don't understand the whole Climate but you think you do.

Your coming to a conclusion way to quickly.

Answer this please

Aren't we coming off an Ice Age?


I don't know why you are hoping for logic from a Gaia worshiper. The recovery from the last ice age ended about a decade ago and the temps will begin falling noticeably soon. The average global temperatures have been relatively stable for the past few years.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting Patrap:
JB says dat cooling is gonna start,,er,,next month.

again.

LoL


I see you're a devout follower of JB. As you like to laugh at your own posts -- LoL
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
How is this 40 trillion liters per day estimate made? From what I see estimates vary by a factor of 6 or 7 for metric tons. How can these numbers be believed when they vary by such factors? How much is from fossil fuels alone? Also what temperature and atmospheric pressure.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting RustyShackleford:


.039% is how much is in the atmosphere ;-)

Dang that stinks doesn't it?

The warming can't happen just because of that can it? .039% nah no way.

As I've said, you may believe whatever you wish, regardless whether it's based in science or not. This is, after all, America...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13744

Viewing: 365 - 315

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.