Posted on 05/25/2006 9:02:16 AM PDT by cogitator
Thank you! I really appreciate this!
Good link--- thanks!
I do feel that because the tobacco companies did it, people tend to guess that the same inference is legit with respect to pretty much all other big industries and that someone like Mike Fumento must be on the take, which I don't think is fair. And you're right, it's very tough for someone like me to make my way through this stuff and not end up relying on the same "gut" that told me Luke would marry Leia.
The history of global warming "research" is very interesting and it certainly isn't all about the hockey stick. Because the hockey stick has been criticized, it has gained an inordinate amount of skeptical attention. Note that other proxy temperature studies aren't under the same level of criticism; see the recent postings on ClimateAudit regarding the Briffa reconstruction. Paleotemperature reconstructions provide an interesting basis for comparison, but they don't affect the physics of the current situation.
CO2 trapping heat is not a hypothesis; it has been proven experimentally and with satellite data. The graphs show that all warm periods for the past 640,000 years have had high CO2 levels, and all cold periods have had low CO2 levels. The basic view of the climate science community is that the glacial-interglacial transitions induced by Milankovitch forcing are amplified by CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. There is a definite positive feedback cycle wrt CO2 in the glacial-interglacial cycles.
As I understand it, no climate models take these more complex and more significant interactions into effect - nobody knows whether more water vapor in the atmosphere leads to warming or cooling at this time. Is this true?
Not quite. Most climate models now try to model cloud feedback. But there is a wide range of scenarios and therefore the cloud feedback factor is the largest uncertainty. It could be (I wrote this before): strongly positive, weakly positive, neutral, weakly negative, strongly negative.
My guess is that there are lots of negative feedback mechanisms in the climate, hence the arguably long term stability of temperatures. Warm the planet, get lots of vegetation taking up carbon and H2O, lots of water vapor and cloud cover. Cool the planet, vegetation dies off (eventually releasing carbon and water), lots of cloudless skies, more solar radiation.
The studies I've seen do not indicate that land biota is a major control on CO2. Iron delivery to the oceans affecting phytoplankton productivity is probably more significant. If you look at the glacial-interglacial record, this has been an abnormally stable period since the last interglacial. Paleoclimatologists are still trying to figure out why this period is more stable.
Certainly, lots of catastrophic supervolcanos have interrupted normal climate in the past (4 or so in N.America over the past million years), and the earth ended up basically about the same after these events that dwarf any emissions that man can achieve.
Yes, but supervolcanoes are rare -- one of them would mess up climate a lot more than the current warming, and I'm not sure that's something to wish for. The transition to "the Earth ended up basically the same" was thousands of years long, and there's been one suggestion that the Toba eruption threatened the future existence of humankind. The perspective of the next 1-2 centuries is enough for me. (However, it would be neat to witness a supervolcano eruption, despite the potent aftereffects.)
Baloney science, I say.
Nothing you wrote supports that conclusion. In fact, the investigation of supervolcano eruptions and their effects is extremely good science.
He asked about water vapor, not clouds. Also your statement would be correct if you added "mostly all of the above". There is no one silver bullet answer to cloud feedback, it will be all of the above for different situations that will change dynamically as water vapor increases.
As to his question about water vapor, there is a hypothesis that water vapor will increase as the atmosphere warms from CO2. No question that would be a positive feedback. The amount is unknown. The main reason for the uncertainty is uneven distribution of water vapor. This is related to the cloud issue in that it depends on weather. Convection, for example, is the primary way that moisture is transferred to (and removed from) the upper atmosphere where it causes the most GH warming effect.
Vegetation is also important for weather, not just CO2. Again, to try to pin it down as positive, negative, whatever, misses the point. The point is that the only way to know the effect is detailed, accurate models which don't yet exist. An answer of "we'll just make do with the models we have" is not useful. As I pointed out in 444, that's only going to accurate results for small areas or specially tweaked "20th century reconstructions" which have little to no predictive value when tested against the rest of historical climate records.
He asked about both.
As to his question about water vapor, there is a hypothesis that water vapor will increase as the atmosphere warms from CO2.
There are at least two, maybe four, actual observations of water vapor positive feedback. I wouldn't call a mechanism with observational confirmation a hypothesis -- but I do recognize the uncertainty associated with the uneven distribution of water vapor and the transfer mechanisms.
Vegetation is also important for weather, not just CO2.
Well, yes it is, but the main topic of his post was CO2.
It is truly a fascinating demonstration of the intersection of research and policy, and unfortunately no one appears to have distinguished themselves with a clear explication of what's going on. The report of the NAS panel should be very interesting.
My basic point is that it is obvious that there are a lot of negative feedback mechanisms working powerfully to stabilize the climate on earth. Tiny injections by man (dwarfed by natural events throughout the ages) are not going to affect the climate to any great extent - it is shear nonsense.
He (cogitator) doesnt get it. That climate phenomena consist of complex, choatic, non-linear, often cyclic, processes, with an abundance of compensating mechanism, in addition to the fact that their is no accurate/reliable long term database of relevant information, has been established by numerous qualified scientists in peer reviewed publications and other commentary.
To the cool-aid drinking, true believers in "Global Warming" the successive manipulation of models to accomodate data discrepancies with increasingly preposterous theories about "tipping points" backed by the imaginary consensus of experts, makes them immune from reason and rational behavior.
It was silly enough when these quacks were claiming toxic polutants were going to kill humanity, but this new offensive against civilization based upon trivial atmospheric increases in the deamon CO2 molecule (note they differentiate between the good natural molecule and the bad human generated version) is truely a farce.
The big laugh is that they are happy with Al Gore as their spokesperson.
When cornered with irrefutable logic they retreat to a theme of more research being warranted, however, the theme of the article which initiated this thread was expressly..:the time for skeptcism is over".
To show that your point is correct, list the positive and negative feedback mechanisms in order of importance. You don't have to quantify them accurately, just list them according to how much they will affect the climate. (For further demonstration, estimate the time-scales that each feedback mechanism operates on.)
If I don't get it, then list the first five peer-reviewed references I should read so that I do get it. If you want, add three relevant and insightful comments I should read. I'm getting darn tired of people saying I don't get it when I've been pretty up-to-speed on the current state of the science and the current state of the skeptical arguments. Such as asking for proof that the increase in CO2 since 1850 was primarily due to fossil fuel burning. (yawn)
but this new offensive against civilization based upon trivial atmospheric increases in the deamon CO2 molecule (note they differentiate between the good natural molecule and the bad human generated version) is truely a farce.
30% higher than the natural maximum observed over the past 640,000 years, over a span of 150 years, does not count in my book as trivial. And note that it is possible to tell the difference between C entered into the atmosphere by human activities and natural C fluxes. (I think that must have jarred you a bit.) CO2 acts the same, whether a given molecule resulted from human activities or from a natural process, but the reason atmospheric concentrations are increasing is the human contribution.
The proof will be in in about 10 years. By then the IPCC and all its minions and cohorts will have moved on to some new assault on civilised activity. (Note: its no coincidence that the governing and administrative structures of the IPCC closely resemble the administrative organisation of the People's Republic of China -- dissent simply disappears).
Your studies and the theories they espouse are worthless because they are plagued by uncertainty, which you and they sometimes acknowlege, in a range greater than the subject matter they purport to explain.
Again, total CO2 comprises 3/100ths of total atmospheric gases, even after the supposed 1 degree F increase in GAT over the last 100 years. Total human output annually of C02 emissions is in the range of 1/170th of total CO2 emissions. At least 97.5 % of total emissions are absorbed through various procesess without regard to the source of the molecules. CO2 comprises 1/10th or less of greenhouse gases.
No temperature data prior to 1979 (satellites) can be presumed accurate for purposes of measuring GAT.
Hugh natural variatioins in temperature, climate chemistry, and CO2 levels characterize the long term history of earths climate.
The article posted to initiate this thread makes the claim that as to Anthropogenic Global Warming, "the time for skeptcism is over."
On the basis of speculative, erroneous and proxy data, AGW enthusiast believe it is possible to conclude serious climatalogical harm is iminient or at least unavoidable, unless significant intervention in Anthropogenic CO2 emissions is now undertaken, such as by adopting Kyoto.
I say, this is less serious a threat than cyclomates, one of the original environmental frauds, in a long series.
CO2 is the most common gas in the atmosphere affecting Earth's radiative balance. Your total human output stat ignores the fact that natural sources and sinks are essentially in balance, such that the human contribution (6-7 Petagrams C annually) is what causes the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
No temperature data prior to 1979 (satellites) can be presumed accurate for purposes of measuring GAT.
You do know, I assume, the current warming trend based on satellite data?
On the basis of speculative, erroneous and proxy data, AGW enthusiast believe it is possible to conclude serious climatalogical harm is iminient or at least unavoidable, unless significant intervention in Anthropogenic CO2 emissions is now undertaken, such as by adopting Kyoto.
Not exactly; the data is increasingly accurate and indicative of current trends, despite your unreferenced and unsupported disparaging assertions. The unfiltered view is that the next decade is important for changing the emissions track (energy policy and infrastructure is one way to do this); longer delays increase the possibility of deleterious climate effects from warming, but they are not yet at the point of probable. And I don't think emissions controls are feasible and I've never supported the Kyoto Protocol.
| positive feedbacks: | negative feedbacks: |
| diffuse convection | concentrated convection |
| high topped (cold) clouds |
low topped (warm) clouds |
| clouds at night | clouds during the day |
| higher latitude clouds | lower latitude clouds |
| steady jet stream | amplified jet stream |
| rotting vegetation | burned or harvested vegetation |
| ocean stratification | ocean circulation |
The time scale of the weather feedbacks is hours or days, vegetation (although weaker) is months, ocean changes could happen in decades, others are much longer. Some long term positive feedbacks: melting glaciers, melting tundra, Other negative feedbacks: plankton, vegetation on land, ocean level, Long range variable forcings (not feedbacks): sun intensity, earth tilt, magnetic field (cosmic rays), etc.
Some of the weather related feedbacks may seem at odds: how can concentrated convection cool the climate when high-topped, cold clouds warm the earth? The models support the answer that upper tropospheric moisture causes warming in cloud free conditions, so concentration convection (e.g. tropical storms) causes a subsidence zones around them with little upper tropospheric moisture.
At the beginning of this thread he was breathlessly hyping the rapid change (i.e. tipping point) idea. By the end, with some more facts arrayed against him, he says "not yet at the point of probable" in typical understatement. It's the same pattern on most threads, hit the uninitiated with hype, then give a more considered view (if pressed to) once nobody is listening.
Climate Change and Tropospheric Temperature Trends
From this data page:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
you can see the Univ. Alabama - Huntsville estimated temperature trends. Their global trend is currently 0.13 C per decade. This is the trend of several different MSU/AMSU lower troposphere temperature trend analyses; the RSS group is around 0.19. Both trends in the lower troposphere are now in line with the surface trend.
Description of MSU and AMSU Data Products
Show me an example of "breathlessly hyping" the tipping point idea. I wrote this:
"Flannery takes a worst-case tack. There is a decent amount of opinion in the scientific community that significantly reducing the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere would be beneficial, but to really have an effect changes in emissions need to start soon (5-10 year horizon)."
Does that constitute "breathlessly hyping"? If it is, then I'm saying what other climate scientists are also "breathlessly hyping". Have you read Hansen's Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb?" Here's a relevant excerpt:
"The dominant issue in global warming, in my opinion, is sea level change and the question of how fast ice sheets can disintegrate. A large portion of the world's people live within a few meters of sea level, with trillions of dollars of infrastructure. The need to preserve global coast lines, I suggest, sets a low ceiling on the level of global warming that would constitute DAI." (DAI stands for "dangerous anthropogenic influence".)
coupled with
"I argue that the level of DAI is likely to be set by the global temperature and planetary radiation imbalance at which substantial deglaciation becomes practically impossible to avoid. Based on the paleoclimate evidence discussed above, I suggest that the highest prudent level of additional global warming is not more than about 1 °C. In turn, given the existing planetary energy imbalance, this means that additional climate forcing should not exceed about 1 W/m2."
and importantly, this:
"It is apparent that there is considerable uncertainly about the level of global warming that will constitute DAI. This should be an area of focused research in coming years, especially since precise monitoring of ice sheet behavior is now possible. The NASA IceSat mission, monitoring ice sheet topography with centimeter scale precision, should be used to revitalize glaciological studies and test ice sheet modeling capabilities."
So, when I say that there is opinion that changes in emissions need to start soon, this is with the Hansen's DAI concept in mind. If you read the paragraph directly above, and the rest of the article, you'll see that DAI is not yet fully defined. So therefore I think I'm justified in saying that DAI is not yet at the point of probable. In a decade I might change that statement to "DAI is now at the point of probable unless drastic and immediate steps are taken".
I also wrote this:
"The main problem is the pace at which climate change-related effects could happen over the next couple of centuries. The faster the pace, the harder it would be to adapt to the changes (and a faster pace implies a higher likelihood of abrupt and unanticipated effects)."
and this:
"the author [Flannery] adopts a bad-case perspective. He isn't necessarily right. Number one, presuming this is Centigrade, the majority of the models converge around 2-3 C for warming by 2100. (I actually happen to think that the quote is for Fahrenheit degrees, because the maximum - highly unlikely - predictions are 6 C or 10 F)." [end paren added]
I looked through post 350, so I think I covered the beginning of the thread adequately. I agree with the view that we are in a crucial 5-10 year period during which effective changes could be initiated. Since we don't know what could happen in 10 years, we aren't at a point now where I could honestly say that there will be significantly deleterious effects by 2100 based on current trends. But in 10 years I could think a lot differently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.