Warning Sign? Some scientists say....ominous future

Daily Herald ^ | Monday, August 14, 2006 | Associated Press

[palmer]

FARALLON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, Calif. On these craggy, remote islands west of San Francisco, the largest seabird colony in the contiguous United States throbs with life. Seagulls swarm so thick that visitors must yell to be heard above their cries. Pelicans glide.

But the steep decline of one bird species for the second straight year has rekindled scientists fears that global warming could be undermining the coastal food supply, threatening not just the Farallones but entire marine ecosystems.

[blah blah blah]

Climatologists describe global warming as a worldwide rise in temperatures caused by the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses thought to trap heat in the atmosphere. Predictions of global warmings effects include rising sea levels, fiercer storms, more wildfires and warmer oceans.

[other stuff deleted]

[palmer]

The latest information I have is that the greenland meltwater is the proverbial drop in the bucket, at most 60 cubic miles a year into 600k cubic miles of ocean (at least).

[Jack Hammer]

There's been a steep decline in one bird species for two consecutive years???

Yes, that's ominous; very ominous....

[rock58seg]

Scoff all you want, but, at least global warming got rid of all the UFO's. No more sightings since the Kooks are otherwise occupied.

[thinking]

Did ever occur to these Prophet's of doom, that maybe, the problem is over population of birds on a small territory

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

I will presume you are becoming a convert as a result of this, since oceanic surface cooling would be consistent with accelerated climate change (global warming). Naturally I assume you read this part on page 6 right?

Estimates of total sea level [Leuliette et al., 2004; http://sealevel.colorado.edu], however, show continued sea-level rise during the past 3 years. This suggests that other contributions to sea-level rise, such as melting of land-bound ice, have accelerated

Thanks for the post.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Ping.

PS don't miss page 6 in which accelerated ice melt is postulated as one of the potential causes for this phenomenon.

Please read with your sceptics eyes.

Also, couldn'g determine who funded these guys.

Cheers-

[cogitator]

Interesting. It doesn't sound like they expect the cooling trend of the oceans to continue for an extended duration.

[palmer]

True, they seem to think it will be like the early 80's. But it still begs the question of the models. The GCMs show ocean temperature changes (up and down) for certain areas for most circulation cycles. I'm not sure if any of them show an overall global drop if, for example, a couple of mostly cooling (upwelling) cycles coincide.

[pfony1]

Thanks for the "ping".

Wow...

Cooling oceans...
FROST at Lake Placid, NY in August...
"Indian Summer" temperatures arrive in Connecticut two months early...

I conclude that the "global-warming-consensus lemmings" need to replace some of their computer-generated "data" with some real temperature data, collected in the real world.

By the way, did the "cold snap" that occurred last June during the World Cup (and that left soccer players from some Caribbean nations shivering in the snow) convince any Deutscher that the "global warming theory" might, maybe, possibly have been over-hyped?

No?

Die Kleingeister sind starrkoepfig, nicht wahr?

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

You do know, of course, that rapid swings in temperature are exactly what is predicted right? You also know that "Climate Change" is the appropriate term (although the overall trend is warming) because some places will actually get colder. And, that increased deviations from the mean are what is to be expected.

It was abnormally hot in Germany for 8 weeks - including during the World Cup.

Since you know all of these things I don't need to remind you not to be one of those people who simply say, "well it was darn cold this winter" to dismiss anything that contradicts their preconceived notions.

[pfony1]

You said,

"It was abnormally hot in Germany for 8 weeks - including during the World Cup."


But the Newindpress reported in:

http://newindpress.com/sports/fifa/wc2006/News.asp?Topic=414&Title=&ID=IES20060606131814&nDate=&Sub=&

---

"Soccer heat on but it’s cold in Germany

Tuesday June 6 2006 23:39

BERLIN: The Ecuadoreans have cold. The Angolans are shivering. Trinidad and Tobago players stuffed their hands deep in their pockets as they took the field for a friendly.

In Hamburg, about 320 kilometers to the north, even the locals are bundling up in thick wool coats and scarves.

Cool temperatures are putting the b-r-r-r in Berlin and the rest of Germany, with days to go until the World Cup starts.

‘‘It’s supposed to be hot here this time of year,’’ Angola defender Luis Delgado said. ‘‘Since we’ve been here, some days have been warm, but most have been cold. ... I don’t like it.’’

Germany’s average temperature in June ranges from the upper 60s F (about 20 C) in the north to the mid-70s F (mid-20s C) in the south. Hardly tropical, but downright balmy compared with the cold, rain and gloom which has settled over the country for the past two weeks. There was even some snow at the English and Dutch training camps.

On Monday, high temperatures throughout Germany hovered in the low 50s F (low 10s C), while the low in Leipzig was 37 F (3 C). There was finally some intermittent sunshine, but not enough to warm the chill in the air."

---

And Yahoo Sports Asia had reported:

---

"Soccer: Japan's World Cup squad battling cold spell in Germany
Fri, Jun 2, 10:17 PM

TOKYO : Japan's World Cup squad are battling abnormally cold weather in Germany, hitting Celtic playmaker Shunsuke Nakamura and Brazilian coach Zico the hardest...

"I'd better sweat it out. But I feel languid," Nakamura said as he worked out in the morning when the temperature was around 10 degrees Celsius (50 Fahrenheit), Jiji Press reported from Bonn...

It has reportedly snowed in southern Germany recently while a hailstorm has struck Bonn - weather that has been putting put Zico in a constant bad mood.

"Why is it so cold everyday?" Zico complained, according to Tokyo Sports newspaper...."

---

So which should I trust? Two (of several) contemporaneous "news" reports of "cold"? Or your two-month-old memory of "warmth", a "memory" that is consistent with your own "...preconceived notions"?

Hmmm...


With all due respect, the recent effort to replace the NAME of the embattled "Global Warming Theory" with a more generic (and therefore more defensible) NAME: "Climate Change Theory" is, IMHO, a rather transparent attempt to use advertising agency SPIN for damage control. Everyone knows that "climate" has changed over the ages. The consensus about that is justified. But to me, the NAME is less important than the theory of "global warming" itself.

And I believe that the recent "prediction" that "global warming" will produce "rapid swings in temperature" is as deliberately disinformational as a slogan from George Orwell: "Cooling" is "Warming"! LOL!

As always, if you have a reference that rigorously explains how one of the effects of "global warming" will be "regional cooling", I'd really like to read it. I'd be especially interested to read such a prediction from a time before the "global warming theory" became the official, politically-correct, don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts, "consensus" opinion.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Try these for starters:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/abrupt-climate-change-faq.html

www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/hottopics/pubs/abruptclimatechange.pdf

www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_15misconceptions.html

The first talks about a Pentagon study about the potential rapid cooling of Europe.

Perhaps it was cool at the beginning of the World Cup, but it was abnormally hot for the second half and about 3 weeks afterwards. I remember the heat as unusual, not the cold. It can always be cold in Germany in the summer.

[pfony1]

Thanks for the links. I'll get to them this evening.

[pfony1]

Thanks again for the links. I've read them, and so I see they focus on "Abrupt Climate Change" and the unlikely re-occurrence of such an event.

What I really want to read is a well-reasoned explanation of how "global warming" causes "local cooling".

Last winter Siberia had record cold. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/New_Siberian_Cold_Wave_Hits_Russia_Georgia.html

This summer, Perth, Australia had record cold. http://travelpod.com/travel-blog-entries/markgemmell/auzzie_migrant/1153155600/tpod.html

I find it hard to believe that either of those events could be a result of "global warming" or the result of a change in the Thermohaline Layer off the coast of Norway. But, hey, I could be wrong.

If you are aware of any scientific theory that would prove me wrong, please share it with me.

And, of course, if I find such an theory, I'll share it with you -- possibly with a picture of me, a fork and some roasted "crow"...








the hypersalinebe linked m mostly as

[pfony1]

I was looking for an article I had read recently that reported that atmospheric temperatures (as measured by weather baloons )are much cooler than temperatures predicted by the "Global Warming Theory", when I found this:

---

VIEWPOINT: GLOBAL WARMING NATURAL, MAY END WITHIN 20 YEARS
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher.


Robert Essenhigh
The researcher suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide -- often thought of as a key "greenhouse gas" -- is not the cause of global warming. The opposite is most likely to be true, according to Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around, he says.

Essenhigh explains his position in a "viewpoint" article in the current issue of the journal Chemical Innovation, published by the American Chemical Society.

---

"According to Essenhigh's estimations, Earth may reach a peak in the current temperature profile within the next 10 to 20 years, and then it could begin to cool into a new ice age."

---

Many people blame global warming on carbon dioxide sent into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in man-made devices such as automobiles and power plants. Essenhigh believes these people fail to account for the much greater amount of carbon dioxide that enters -- and leaves -- the atmosphere as part of the natural cycle of water exchange from, and back into, the sea and vegetation.

"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer."

How could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of information, as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report on carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information about water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed water or cloud, which is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere; and most subsequent investigations into this area evidently have built upon the pattern of that report.

For his hypothesis, Essenhigh examined data from various other sources, including measurements of ocean evaporation rates, man-made sources of carbon dioxide, and global temperature data for the last one million years.

He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

Some scientists believe that the human contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, however small, is of a critical amount that could nonetheless upset Earth's environmental balance. But Essenhigh feels that, mathematically, that hypothesis hasn't been adequately substantiated.

Here's how Essenhigh sees the global temperature system working: As temperatures rise, the carbon dioxide equilibrium in the water changes, and this releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to this scenario, atmospheric carbon dioxide is then an indicator of rising temperatures -- not the driving force behind it.

Essenhigh attributes the current reported rise in global temperatures to a natural cycle of warming and cooling.

He examined data that Cambridge University geologists Nicholas Shackleton and Neil Opdyke reported in the journal Quaternary Research in 1973, which found that global temperatures have been oscillating steadily, with an average rising gradually, over the last one million years -- long before human industry began to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Opdyke is now at the University of Florida.

According to Shackleton and Opdyke's data, average global temperatures have risen less than one degree in the last million years, though the amplitude of the periodic oscillation has now risen in that time from about 5 degrees to about 10 degrees, with a period of about 100,000 years.

"Today, we are simply near a peak in the current cycle that started about 25,000 years ago," Essenhigh explained.

As to why highs and lows follow a 100,000 year cycle, the explanation Essenhigh uses is that the Arctic Ocean acts as a giant temperature regulator, an idea known as the "Arctic Ocean Model." This model first appeared over 30 years ago and is well presented in the 1974 book Weather Machine: How our weather works and why it is changing, by Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist magazine.

According to this model, when the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as it is today, Essenhigh said, it prevents evaporation of water that would otherwise escape to the atmosphere and then return as snow. When there is less snow to replenish the Arctic ice cap, the cap may start to shrink. That could be the cause behind the retreat of the Arctic ice cap that scientists are documenting today, Essenhigh said.

As the ice cap melts, the earth warms, until the Arctic Ocean opens again. Once enough water is available by evaporation from the ocean into the atmosphere, snows can begin to replenish the ice cap. At that point, the Arctic ice begins to expand, the global temperature can then start to reverse, and the earth can start re-entry to a new ice age.

According to Essenhigh's estimations, Earth may reach a peak in the current temperature profile within the next 10 to 20 years, and then it could begin to cool into a new ice age.

Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than in other studies.

"If there are flaws in these propositions, I'm listening," he wrote in his Chemical Innovation paper. "But if there are objections, let's have them with the numbers."

---

Eine interessante Wendung, nicht wahr?

[pfony1]

I think this article is interesting:

http://entropy.brneurosci.org/co2.html

The following points were new to me:

(1) "...water vapor [contributes] between 90 and 95% of the [greenhouse gas] warming effect...Carbon dioxide... absorbs more infrared radiation than water on a per-molecule basis and contributes about 84% of the total non-water greenhouse gas equivalents...or about 4.2-8.4% of the total greenhouse gas effect."

(2) "...Even though most of the so-called greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, about 1-2 degrees of our current empirically-measured temperature of roughly 288 K (59° F) can be attributed to carbon dioxide. Water vapor at least 99.99% of 'natural' origin, which is to say that no amount of deindustrialization could ever significantly change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere."

(3) "...The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is less than the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day -- it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can't make it any darker...."

(4) "...The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations..."


The article (without graphs)is here:

---

Cold Facts on Global Warming
Introduction
What is the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide to global warming? This question has been the subject of many heated arguments, and a great deal of hysteria. In this article, we will consider a simple calculation, based on well-accepted facts, that shows that the expected global temperature increase caused by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is bounded by an upper limit of 1.4-2.7 degrees centigrade. This result contrasts with the results of the IPCC's climate models, whose projections are shown to be unrealistically high.


The Greenhouse Effect
There is general agreement that the Earth is naturally warmed to some extent by atmospheric gases, principally water vapor, in what is often called a "greenhouse effect". The Earth absorbs enough radiation from the sun to raise its temperature by 0.5 degrees per day, but is theoretically capable of emitting sufficient long-wave radiation to cool itself by 5 times this amount. The Earth maintains its energy balance in part by absorption of the outgoing longwave radiation in the atmosphere, which causes warming.

On this basis, it has been estimated that the current level of warming is on the order of 33 degrees C [1]. That is to say, in the absence of so-called greenhouse gases, the Earth would be 33 degrees cooler than it is today, or about 255 K (-0.4° F) [2]. Of these greenhouse gases, water is by far the most important. Although estimates of the contribution from water vapor vary widely, most sources place it between 90 and 95% of the warming effect, or about 30-31 of the 33 degrees. Carbon dioxide, although present in much lower concentrations than water, absorbs more infrared radiation than water on a per-molecule basis and contributes about 84% of the total non-water greenhouse gas equivalents [3], or about 4.2-8.4% of the total greenhouse gas effect.

Of course, this 33 degree increase in temperature is not caused simply by absorption of radiation by the gases themselves. Much of the 33 degree effect is caused by the Earth's adaptation to higher temperatures, which includes secondary effects such as increased water vapor, cloud formation, and changes in albedo or surface reflectivity caused by melting and aging of snow and ice. Accurately calculating the relative contribution of each of these components presents major difficulties.


Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Traditionally, greenhouse gas levels are presented as dimensionless numbers representing parts per billion (ppb) multiplied by a scaling factor (global warming potential or GWP) that allows their relative efficiency of producing global temperature increases to be compared. For carbon dioxide, this scaling factor is 1.0. The factors for methane and nitrous oxide are 21 and 310, respectively, while sulfur hexafluoride is 23,900 times more effective than carbon dioxide [4]. The GWP from carbon dioxide is primarily due to the position of its absorption bands in the critical longwave infrared region at 2, 3, 5, and 13-17 micrometers.

Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, CFCs and other miscellaneous gases absorb radiation even more efficiently than carbon dioxide, but are also present at much lower concentrations. Their high GWP results from their molecular structure which makes them absorb strongly and at different wavelengths from water vapor and carbon dioxide. For example, although ozone is usually thought of as an absorber of ultraviolet radiation, it also absorbs longwave infrared at 9.6 micrometers. These gases account for another 1.3% of the natural greenhouse gas effect. The increase in the global energy balance caused by greenhouse gases is called "radiative forcing".

The GWP of a greenhouse gas is the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from 1 kg of the gas in question compared to 1 kg of carbon dioxide. These GWP values are calculated over a 100 year time horizon and take into consideration not only the absorption of radiation at different wavelengths, but also the different atmospheric lifetimes of each gas and secondary effects such as effects on water vapor. For example, methane contributes indirectly to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. For some gases, the GWP is too complex to calculate because the gas participates in complex chemical reactions. Most researchers use the GWPs compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

Even though most of the so-called greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, about 1-2 degrees of our current empirically-measured temperature of roughly 288 K (59° F) can be attributed to carbon dioxide. Water vapor at least 99.99% of 'natural' origin, which is to say that no amount of deindustrialization could ever significantly change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Thus, climatologists have concentrated mostly on carbon dioxide and methane.


Carbon Dioxide Levels
Figures from the U.S. Department of Energy show that the pre-industrial baseline of carbon dioxide is 288,000 ppb. The total current carbon dioxide is 368,400 parts per billion, or 0.0368% of the atmosphere.

The ocean and biosphere possess a large buffering capacity, mainly because of carbon dioxide's large solubility in water. Because of this, it is safe to conclude that the anthropogenic component of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will continue to remain roughly proportional to the rate of carbon dioxide emissions. In other words, the carbon dioxide buffers are in dynamic equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide and are not in any danger of being saturated, which would allow all the emitted carbon dioxide to go into the atmosphere. This means:

The percentage of emitted carbon dioxide that ends up in the atmosphere can be treated as approximately constant. This percentage is about 50% [5].
The effects of carbon dioxide emissions are not cumulative. That is, lowering carbon dioxide would produce an almost instantaneous reduction (on a climatological scale) in any warming effect that it was producing.
If fossil fuel use increases or decreases, atmospheric carbon dioxide will also increase or decrease proportionately.

Amplification and Dampening
Of course, climate, like weather, is complex, nonlinear, and perhaps even chaotic. Increased solar irradiation can lower the albedo, which would amplify any effect caused by changes in solar flux, making the relation between radiation and temperature greater than linear. Increased temperatures also cause increased evaporation of sea water, which can cause warming because of water's greenhouse effect, and also can affect the radiation flux by creating additional clouds. On the other hand, increased plant growth, especially in the oceans, would tend to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, making the fraction of emitted carbon dioxide that stays in the atmosphere lower. Thus, higher emissions would probably cause a slightly smaller proportion of carbon dioxide to remain in the atmosphere than is currently the case, tending to make the relation less than linear.


Absorption of Infrared Radiation
The arithmetic of absorption of infrared radiation also works to decrease the linearity. Absorption of light follows a logarithmic curve (Figure 1) as the amount of absorbing substance increases. It is generally accepted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already high enough to absorb almost all the infrared radiation in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands over a distance of only a few km. Thus, even if the atmosphere were heavily laden with carbon dioxide, it would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current levels. This means that a situation like Venus could not happen here. The atmosphere of Venus is 90 times thicker than Earth's and is 96% carbon dioxide, making the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration on Venus 300,000 times higher than on Earth. Even so, the high temperatures on Venus are only partially caused by carbon dioxide; a major contributor is the thick bank of clouds containing sulfuric acid [6]. Although these clouds give Venus a high reflectivity in the visible region, the Galileo probe showed that the clouds appear black at infrared wavelengths of 2.3 microns due to strong infrared absorption [7]. The infrared absorption lines by carbon dioxide are also broadened by the high pressure on Venus [8].

Fig.1. Transmitted light is a logarithmic function of concentration. This curve is the familiar Beer's Law.


Very little of the radiation from the sun at the wavelengths at which carbon dioxide absorbs reaches the surface of the Earth directly (see Figure 2). Similarly, very little of the radiation at these wavelengths that originates at the surface makes it all the way to space. Most of the infrared at these wavelengths is produced by black body radiation from objects that have been heated up by absorbing radiation at shorter wavelengths. This means that even if the carbon dioxide levels increase, it will have little effect on the total amount of infrared radiation that is absorbed from the sun. The main effect would be to trap radiation originating at the surface at lower levels in the atmosphere than before, where it would be slightly more difficult for the heat to be re-radiated back into space. This is the principle on which most of the global warming predictions are based.

[note added 6/10/2006:]
Many people do not understand this important concept. To put it more simply, shortwave radiation (such as light and short-wavelength infrared) is not absorbed by CO2 and therefore reaches the earth's surface. At the surface, it is absorbed and then re-radiated at longer wavelengths (as "heat"). Some of this heat radiation is in the carbon dioxide absorption bands. This portion does not make it back to space, but is absorbed by water vapor, CO2 and other gases on its way up. More CO2 or water vapor will cause it to be absorbed at a slightly lower altitude than before. This absorbed energy will be re-emitted by the carbon dioxide molecules at even longer wavelengths (for example, around 30-40 microns). Even though the total amount of absorption is still nearly 100%, the whole process is dynamic. This means it takes a certain amount of time, while other things, such as transitions from night to day, are also happening. Therefore, it is theoretically possible for increases in CO2 to cause increases in surface temperature. The question is, is the amount of warming enough to be significant?

CO2 is more evenly distributed than water, so if CO2 caused warming it would have a proportionately greater effect in areas where there is little water vapor (such as deserts and in very cold regions), while in areas with a lot of water, the effect of CO2 may be insignificant compared to the effect of water vapor. This is one of many factors that mitigate against the idea of a "climate catastrophe."

Fig.2. Absorption of ultraviolet, visible, and infrared radiation by various gases in the atmosphere. Most of the ultraviolet light (below 0.3 microns) is absorbed by ozone (O3) and oxygen (O2). Carbon dioxide has three large absorption bands in the infrared region at about 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns. Water has several absorption bands in the infrared, and even has some absorption well into the microwave region. There is already sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the radiation from the sun or from the surface of the earth in the principal CO2 absorption bands. (Data from ref. [1], page 93).
The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is less than the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day -- it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can't make it any darker.

The analogy with a greenhouse would be that the glass in the roof becomes slightly thicker. The effect of warming also depends on the conditions inside the greenhouse. If the greenhouse were full of ice at exactly -0.01 degrees Celsius, making the glass slightly thicker just might be enough to melt all the ice and flood the greenhouse. But if the greenhouse had some regions that were hot and some that were very cold (as the planet Earth does), it would have a very small overall effect.

As an aside, the term "greenhouse effect" is actually a misnomer. In greenhouses, most of the warming that is observed is not caused by carbon dioxide, or by absorption of infrared radiation by the glass as many people think, but by reduction in convection [9].


Linear Climate Projections
From the above numbers, it is easy to calculate, assuming a linear dependence of temperature on greenhouse gas concentrations, that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would produce an additional warming of (0.042 to 0.084) x 33 = 1.38 to 2.77 degrees centigrade. This is probably an upper limit, because sulfate aerosols, which are typically emitted along with carbon dioxide, tend to counteract the warming effect.

It is important to realize that the original factor of 0.042 to 0.084 represented the incremental fraction of the total global warming, taken as a holistic phenomenon, initiated by carbon dioxide. In other words, in the absence of carbon dioxide, the present average temperature of the Earth after adaptation to the loss would be 1.4-2.7 degrees cooler. This means that the calculation automatically includes the secondary and amplification effects caused by increased water vapor, changes in albedo, and so forth, caused by including the Earth's adaptation to the increment of carbon dioxide.

The linear projection shown here, while obviously simplistic, is a more straightforward argument than those used in climate models, because it does not treat the radiative forcing caused by carbon dioxide separately from the planet's adaptation to it. In other words, we did not just build a model and add carbon dioxide, but instead took numbers that are based on empirical measurements and extended them by a small percentage. If, on the other hand, we had postulated an increase in solar radiation, or if we wished to do an ab initio calculation like those attempted by some climate researchers, it would not be so simple. In this case it would have been necessary to calculate secondary effects like changes in albedo and water vapor. This would require an enormously complex computer model, similar to the models many climatologists have created.

Fig.3. Estimated greenhouse gas-induced global warming plotted against greenhouse gas concentrations expressed as a percentage of current-day values. The black curve is a linear extrapolation calculated from the DOE estimates of total current greenhouse gases. The sharp jump at the right is the data point from one computer model that predicts a nine degree increase from doubling current levels of carbon dioxide. Marked, unphysical deviations from linearity resulting in thermal runaway (red curve) are required to fit this data point with the two known points. Such a strong nonlinear effect is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of climate.
Our calculation also assumes that the increase in temperature is linearly proportional to the greenhouse gas levels. However, as indicated above, the relationship is not linear, but logarithmic. A plot of temperature vs. gas concentration (expressed as a percentage of current-day levels) would be a convex curve, something like the blue curve in Figure 3. Thus, 1.4-2.7 degrees is an upper bound, and depending on the exact shape of the blue curve, could be an overestimate of the warming effect.

This estimate of 1.4-2.7 degrees is comparable to the estimate of 1.4 degrees associated with the "empiricist" school of the University of Delaware, University of Virginia, and Arizona State University. An increase of 1.4 degrees was also predicted by P.J. Michaels and R.C. Balling using the NCAR Community Climate Model 3 model, after the large increases in projected carbon dioxide in the original paper in which the model was described were replaced with more realistic ones.


Comparison with IPCC projections
These modest increases are quite different from the results of climate models endorsed by the IPCC. Their climate models predict temperature increases from a doubling of carbon dioxide ranging from 3 to as much as 9 degrees! Which is correct?

It goes without saying that the results shown here depend on the accuracy of the original 33 degree estimate and the validity of extrapolating of the existing curve by an additional increment. However, we can check the plausibility of the IPCC's result by asking the following question: Instead of 33 degrees, what number would result if we calculated backwards from the IPCC estimates?

Using the same assumption of linearity, if a 9 degree increase resulted from the above-mentioned increase of greenhouse gas levels, the current greenhouse gas level (which is by definition 100%) would be equivalent to a greenhouse gas-induced temperature increase of at least 107 degrees C. This means the for the 9 degree figure to be correct, the current global temperature would have to be at least 255 + 107 - 273 = 89 degrees centigrade, or 192° Fahrenheit! A model that predicts a current-day temperature well above the highest-ever observed temperature is clearly in need of serious tweaking. Even a 5 degree projection predicts current-day temperatures of 41°C (106°F). These results clearly cannot be reconciled with observations.

In order for the 9 degree estimate to make sense from a physical standpoint, we are forced to draw an exponential curve through the graph above (shown in red) through the three points instead of a straight line. However, this curve creates an even worse result: it predicts a thermal runaway. A thermal runaway is a reaction that suddenly switches from a smooth curve and goes wildly out of control. For example, in an electronic circuit, if a transistor gets too hot, the chemical properties of the silicon can change and its resistance decreases, causing more and more current to flow, which causes it to burn up. Similarly, for the the nine-degree climate model to fit the observations, the curve that we must draw predicts that a 10 or 20% increase in greenhouse gases above their current levels would cause an infinite increase in temperature! Of course, some other factor (such as explosion of the Earth in a supernova-type explosion) would undoubtedly kick in to save us before an infinite temperature could be reached. But even so, it can be seen that an above-linear increase in temperature with increasing gas concentration is not only unphysical, but inconsistent with observations.

In order to prevent absurd conclusions from the IPCC projections, it is necessary to make some additional assumption -- for example, assuming that the dependence of radiative forcing on gas concentration depends critically on the exact percentage of each component of greenhouse gases as a function of altitude, or perhaps that the relationship between gas concentration and temperature is sigmoidal, and levels off at some point above the predicted increase. Yet no physical basis for such a sigmoidicity has been proposed. This means that these projections of extreme climate changes are unlikely to be accurate, or at the very least, worthy of great skepticism.

Although the estimates of global warming made by the IPCC and the predictions of "environmental catastrophe" made by environmental groups have gradually creeping back down as climate models gradually improve, environmentalists still worry that temperatures could increase by as much as 3 to 5 degrees over the next century.

However, as shown above, even a 5 degree increase in temperature would constitute a significant departure from the previous rates of increase. It is clear from Figure 3 that this too would be a marked deviation from the curve. Such strong nonlinear effects, especially when they are in the wrong direction from a physical standpoint, are difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of climate.


Conclusion
Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth's overall temperature, the IPCC's predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media. The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.


References
[1]. Peixoto, J.P. and Oort, A.H., Physics of Climate Springer, 1992, p. 118.
[2]. Thomas, G.E. and Stamnes, K Radiative Transfer in the Atmosphere and Ocean. Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 441.
[3]. U.S. Climate Action Report 2000, US Environmental Protection Agency, page 38. [4]. Houghton, J.T. et al, eds. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (IPCC report), 1996, Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sarsum1.htm
[5]. Peixoto, J.P. and Oort, A.H., Physics of Climate Springer, 1992, p. 436.
[6]. http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v33n3/dps2001/354.htm
[7]. http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/slides/slide3.html
[8]. Ma, Q., and R.H. Tipping, J. Chem. Phys., 96, 8655-8663, 1992.
[9]. Peixoto, J.P. and Oort, A.H., Physics of Climate Springer, 1992, p. 30.

---

On your recommendation, I read "Collapse". I wonder if you are reading the MUCH SHORTER non-"pc" articles I am sending to you.

I'm still seeking that report I read (or think I read) on recent atmospheric "cooling". I now understand that the data in that report demolishes the "Global Warming Theory". I hope to make you a sceptic once again.

Kampai!

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

That was a bit of a long post don't you think?

Anyway, the absolute truth is that water vapor indeed, does make up that vast, vast majority of the greenhouse gasses. And, Thank God, otherwise the earth would not be warm enough to support life as we know it.

If your tendency is to see the atmosphere as a glass which is 99.99% full, the impact of addinig or removing .001% appears to be irrelvant.

My tendency - which also more corresponds with the reality - is to visualize the atmosphere and the entire ecosphere as a balance. It happens to be a balance that has some self-correcting mechanisms, but if you add too much weight on one side too fast, you throw off the whole thing. The amount of weight may or may not be .001%. If humans are piling on more weight to what may already be some natural warming the possibility that we will throw off the whole thing for a very long time clearly exists.

Will have to read the remainder of the post later. Will also find you some links to back up what I just wrote.

By the way, I am definitely enjoying our exchanges.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Where did you get that article and when?

There was a huge controversy about weather balloons several years back because their data, in fact, showed the opposite of warming. Turns out the data was far off and yet another piece of the puzzle came into place.

Not sure if this is the same data.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its chemistry isfirmly established. Arguing the opposite is in the same league Intelligent Design.

Will have to spend some time actually working today - because I am on holiday next week, so my apologies for not posting links to back up my statements. It is bad form, but promise to make it up.

[Caipirabob]

Between this and "Man-bear-pig-dog" getting killed in Maine, it's like the end-o-times is here... ; )

[pfony1]

I am enjoying the exchange also. I think of the exchange as a good motivator to seek the "Truth" with respect to "global warming".

Since I am an amateur gardner, I am familiar with greenhouses and coldframes. These special structures are designed to capture solar heat reflected from the soil that would otherwise be lost. The undersurface of the glass panes reflect heat back into the air beneath them, thereby warming that air. That warm air then heats the soil. The unseasonally warm soil allows seeds to germinate earlier than "normal".

In a way, the "global warming theory" considers the Earth to be a giant "greenhouse" with the atmosphere serving to capture reflected solar heat, thereby allowing surface temperatures to be warm enough to support life as we know it. I am not aware of any scientific disagreement on this point.

But the "global warming theory" then postulates that measured increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (carbon dioxide) have lead to increased temperatures on the Earth -- and finally postulates that a continuation of this the warming will cause dangerous, if not catastrophic, effects.

I am an amateur scientist, so I was eager to test the first postulate: Is it true that, in a mannner similar to a real greenhouse, the measurable increase in CO2 in our atmosphere has produced a measurable increase in the temperature of the atmosphere.

If so, then the continuing build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere implies that the temperature of the earth will rise due to an increased "greenhouse effect".

If not, then the continuing build-up of CO2 is of no importance.

With that background, I found this study by Dr. Spencer of NASA to be very interesting:

---

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_measuretemp.htm

---

In this article, Dr. Spencer presents a table of temperature trends from 1979 to 1997, as measured by both weather balloons and weather satellites, which shows that atmosperic temperatures are DECLINING.

WOW! A DECLINE! NOT AN INCREASE!

Now, as an amateur chemist, I know that for every molecule of CO2 produced through the burning of carbohydrates (by nasty, selfish humans, of course), there are TWO molecules of water (H2O) produced, and I know that each molecule of water is ten times more "efficient" as a greenhouse gas than CO2. So...

DOUBLE WOW!! Even with the added "greenhouse effect" of all that added water, temperatures in the atmospere STILL decreased!

It follows that the "Global Warming Theory" has been disproved.

Q.E.D.


PS: I am aware of two CYA "studies" that blame the (politically incorrect) temperature observations on the instruments themselves.

A Yale "study" claims that higher temperatures recorded by weather balloons in the past were overstated due to "sunlight" falling on the temperature sensors. "Adjustments" to the data were made to "fix" that inconvenient problem. LOL

A very recent NASA "study" claims that the "old" software used in "old" satellites overstated temperatures recorded in the past. LOL

IMHO, the debate between global warming zealots and global warming sceptics is similar to the debate between Ptolmaic/Aristotelian astronomers, who based their conclusions on "politically correct" terracentric religious dogma, and Copernicus, whose observations led him to challenge that dogma.

Come to think of it, didn't Al Gore attend divinity school?