Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

New American ^ | Thursday, 05 February 2009 | Ed Hiserodt

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

"You know, to think we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant."

Something that I have pointed out repeatedly.

The earth is very large and we are very small. We can change somethings locally but even there eventually nature will have her way.

[The Great RJ]

If elevated CO2 levels drive global warming shouldn’t we see a temperature spike immediately following WW-II when when tons of CO2 were pumped into the stratosphere by thousands of aircraft and whole cities were burning world wide? The “hockey stick hypothesis” also does not explain why much of the northern hemisphere of this planet was covered not once but several times by glaciers which then subsequently melted. Clearly this was the result of massive global cooling and global warming that could not have been caused by human activity. Doesn’t this suggest that some other powerful force of climate change exists over which humans have no influence?

[MosesKnows]

Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

Apparently Al "the boob" Gore defeated it. Good work Al. Now get going solving that pesky continental drift problem plaguing California.

[windsorknot]

What happened to Global Warming? The same thing that happened to the Social Security Lockbox.

[r-q-tek86]

ping

[Delacon]

True and its a fact that we are in an interglacial warm period that has lasted over 11k years. Interglacial periods average 10k years and are followed by glacial(iceage) periods that average 100k years. We are overdue for an iceage. It is ironic and entirely possible that when we start to enter the coming iceage we will respond to it by PUMPING as much CO2 into the atomosphere as we can.

[BIGLOOK]

Great cast of characters in this debunking the GW scandal.....ping

[neverdem]

I liked this part:

In a July 18, 2008 widely circulated article entitled "No Smoking Hot Spot," Australian Greenhouse Office scientist David Evans came out of the global-warming skeptics' closet. Although having written the carbon accounting model used to measure Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, Evans was wrestling with a problem: the greenhouse-gas signature is missing. If CO2 is the cause of global warming, then it must be absorbing solar energy and warming the air, which in turn warms the surface. Both alarmists and skeptics agree that all models predict a "hot spot" at 10 kilometers above the tropics. But there is no such hot spot. Quoting Evans:

We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes — weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot, then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature, then I would be an alarmist again.

One thousand years prior to 1850, (CO2) levels remained steady at 280 ppm.

So the Medieval Warm Period starting about 950 A.D. and the Maunder Minimum, 1645 - 1715, enjoyed a stable CO2 conentration. It's currently 380 ppm.

Even if man was entirely responsible for all of the increase, ignoring volcano activity and degassing from the oceans as surface water warmed, the difference is equivalent to one part in ten thousand.

The latest crisis du jour - ocean acidification due to anthropogenic CO2 - is out of sync anthropogenic global warming, i.e. warmer water contains less CO2 than colder water.

There's something driving the argument, but it's not science. It's fear mongering, money, bogus climate models and power lust dressed up as the precautionary principle.

[syriacus]

ping

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Climate Research News

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

Worth a look...

[BIGLOOK]

Hi! I'm Algore!

As you know the biggest threat to humanity is Global Warming. For centuries now, we have been profligate in our use of coal and petroleum products to produce energy to heat our homes, cook our food and provide means of transportation. While these are desirable, they're also harmful to ourselves and our environment. It's time we all pitched in to do something about the monstrous problem we've created in our daily lives.

I'm here to give you all the latest program I proposed to President Obama to combat the nefarious effects of Global Warming.. I'm glad to say he's been thoughtful and gracious by receiving my program with heartfelt enthusiasm. He offered to do his part in this endeavor by signing an Executive Order saving the energy that would be spent if it were submitted to congress. This is a wise decision by one who appreciates the effects Warming has on his environment.

It's simple. All that each of us has to do (unless you are a government official, a member in good standing in the NEA, ILWU, UAW, Teamsters, DNC, ACLU, PETA, or ACORN) is pay a small fee on the estimated BTUs (British Thermal Units) that you've created by using petroleum products (i.e. heating oil, gasoline, aviation gas, propane) or charcoal and wood for stoves and BBQ grills. While these methods that have traditionally been used to obtain energy, they are soon to be out dated by more benign to the environment means like solar and wind power. Really, Folks. it's like a walk in the park to get to the next level.

Since we'll be using the British Thermal Unit to calculate energy consumption, we're calling this the Spirit of 1774 Fee on Energy. That has a nice ring to it, doesn't it. Our idea is to bring back the wonderful and vibrant spirit that existed in America before it became the polluting, consuming decadence that society has become today.

I've talked with my friend John Edwards about the blight that has taken place in our beloved south, of bar b cues from the neighbor across the road, a smoke house to cure a ham, lights burning till 9 pm. John agreed with me that this sort of thing was too much, So he sued the offender and picked up the property for 30 cents on the dollar value. This however is a far cry from the environmental and monetary damage done by that individual to the environment. All this action is avoidable under my plan to circumvent litigious confrontations by you the concerned citizen pitching in a few dollars a week to combat Global Warming.

The most recent pioneers of this effort to control energy expenditure and conserve our climate came from the Heartland of America! God Bless the residents of Kentucky, Arkansas and Missouri for showing us the way!


(Hope some will recognize satire.....but you never know.)

[palmer]

Over to the speed channel.Its my last hope.

Sorry, they are racing Toyota Priuses now.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

All thats left is pinks and passtime.

[cogitator]

Regarding Evans:

Tropical troposphere trends

Summary: a predilection is augmented when a preconceived bias is confirmed. Evans leaped before he looked.

So the Medieval Warm Period starting about 950 A.D. and the Maunder Minimum, 1645 - 1715, enjoyed a stable CO2 conentration. It's currently 380 ppm.

In the absence of anthropogenic forcing factors, there will still be an influence from natural forcing factors.

Even if man was entirely responsible for all of the increase, ignoring volcano activity and degassing from the oceans as surface water warmed, the difference is equivalent to one part in ten thousand.

Man is nearly entirely responsible for the increase. I like the coffee analogy. When you're pouring a cup of coffee, the stream of coffee looks fairly transparent. Look into the cup, though, and it's nearly opaque. The light-absorbing properties of the coffee are accentuated by the thickness of the absorbing layer; in this case, the depth of coffee in the cup. Even if you make the coffee only slightly stronger, in the cup it will look a lot darker, because that slight increase in concentration affects light absorption over the entire depth of the cup.

You can have fun with these:

Effect of Concentration (also do the next one, Beer's Law)

The latest crisis du jour - ocean acidification due to anthropogenic CO2 - is out of sync anthropogenic global warming, i.e. warmer water contains less CO2 than colder water.

That effect is insignificant compared to the amount of carbon being absorbed by oceanic waters, which is causing the acidification.

[aruanan]

Man is nearly entirely responsible for the increase.

There has been little increase since the 19th century. This interglacial is CO2-poor compared to the rest of geological history. We don't have nearly enough atmospheric CO2. We're only slightly above the amount needed to support plant growth. The largest effect on temperature is between 0 and about 100 ppm. We could triple atmospheric CO2 and have an effect on temperatures that would amount only to tenths of a degree Celsius.

[cogitator]

There has been little increase since the 19th century.

40%.

This interglacial is CO2-poor compared to the rest of geological history.

I really only think it's valid to compare to the Pleistocene. Previous epochs had different climate factors in play. The period prior to the Pleistocene was the Pliocene. From: The Climate of the Pliocene: Simulating Earth's Last Great Warm Period

"The Pliocene epoch covers the period from approximately 5 to 1.8 million years ago and, as such, spanned the period of time during which the Earth transitioned from relatively warm climates to the generally cooler climates of the Pleistocene. This transition included the emergence of the direct ancestors of humankind and contains the beginnings of cyclic Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

We could triple atmospheric CO2 and have an effect on temperatures that would amount only to tenths of a degree Celsius.

Don't know where you're getting your numbers. Most estimates put the direct warming effect of a doubling of CO2 at about 0.8 - 1.0 deg C, with increased atmospheric water vapor adding 2 - 4 deg C on top of that.

(Don't want to disappoint you but I'm calling it a night.)

[neverdem]

That effect is insignificant compared to the amount of carbon being absorbed by oceanic waters, which is causing the acidification.

How is it "being absorbed by oceanic waters," when the water is already saturated with it? It's going to supersaturate a trace gas at higher temperature and lower pressure?

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

[aruanan]

There has been little increase since the 19th century. 40%.

40% over a cherry-picked low number. As far as comparing today's climate to that of the Pleistocene goes, at least that would be comparing it to something that actually existed rather than using climate models that don't represent reality at all.

[cogitator]

40% over a cherry-picked low number.

To clarify, 40% higher than the peak values for the Pleistocene and the Holocene, prior to significant impact due to human activities. I.e., 40% higher than interglacial atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The reason I noted the 40% is that very few people would consider a 40% increase "little".

As far as comparing today's climate to that of the Pleistocene goes, at least that would be comparing it to something that actually existed rather than using climate models that don't represent reality at all.

Models were not mentioned.

[cogitator]

How is it "being absorbed by oceanic waters," when the water is already saturated with it? It's going to supersaturate a trace gas at higher temperature and lower pressure?

Cold ocean waters (particularly where the wind blows hard) absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Warm waters where the wind doesn't blow hard release it. The data below is based on hundreds of pCO2 measurements taken in the atmosphere and the surface ocean.

The net result is absorption. Glad you know chemistry; then you know what a buffer system is. The reason that oceanic pH is about 8.2 (at the surface) is due to the supersaturation -- with respect to CaCO3, not with respect to CO2 -- of ocean waters. Calcium ion is essentially constant. The three players in the oceanic carbonate system are carbonic acid (unstable), bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion. When CO2 gets absorbed by ocean waters, this happens:

CO2 + H2O <----> H2CO3 (carbonic acid) <----> H+ + HCO3-

The equilibrium shifts toward bicarbonate, and that releases H+. And that's acidification.

Another way to state it (more complexily) is this way, which I pilfered:

"Most of the carbon in seawater is in the form of HCO3-, while the concentrations of CO32- and dissolved CO2 are one and two orders of magnitude lower, respectively. The equilibrium reaction for CO2 chemistry in seawater that most cogently captures its behavior is

CO2 + CO32- + H2O == 2 HCO3-

where I am using double equal signs as double arrows, denoting chemical equilibrium. Since this is a chemical equilibrium, le Chatelier’s principle states that a perturbation, by say the addition of CO2, will cause the equilibrium to shift in such a way as to minimize the perturbation. In this case, it moves to the right. The concentration of CO2 goes up, while the concentration of CO32- goes down. The concentration of HCO3- goes up a bit, but there is so much HCO3- that the relative change in HCO3- is smaller than the changes are for CO2 and CO32-. It works out in the end that CO2 and CO32- are very nearly inversely related to each other, as if CO2 times CO32- equaled a constant.

Coral reefs are built from limestone by the reaction Ca2+ + CO32- == CaCO3, where Ca is calcium. Acidifying the ocean decreases the concentration of CO32- ions, which by le Chatelier’s principle shifts the equilibrium toward the left, tending to dissolve CaCO3. Note that this is a sort of counter-intuitive result, that adding CO2 should make reefs dissolve rather than pushing carbon into making more reefs. It’s all because of those H+ ions."

OK, back to my comments: if you really want to get into ocean chemistry, you actually have to consider how the TCO2 and the total alkalinity shift when CO2 is absorbed. But the basics of the process only involve the carbonate system.

BTW, I'm not sure what your quote has to do with this. But if you really want to get into this, the following is a pretty good paper to start with:

The oceanic sink for carbon dioxide