Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Antarctica shows no signs of warming up

Wolfman - you're confusing ground level ozone, particulates and general smog with carbon emissions. People are not be choking on CO2 at at 380 ppm and they will not be choking at 750 ppm.
I'd rather see money put into reducing the first three (which we know there is an impact from), rather than carbon emissions.

Hi Richard,



As I have no background in climate science, I cannot argue with you here. All I can say is that if you believe this to be the case, you should make your point in the scientific community (writing articles in scientific journals presenting work at scientific conferences).

The reason I believe that increasing CO_2 alone will lead to warming, is because it is a known greenhouse gas from its physical properties. Unlike what you see in geological data where CO_2 increase is always accompanied by other processes, we are increasing CO_2 concentrations so rapidly, that it amounts to changing just this variable while keeping the other variables constant, except a few like water vapor, clouds etc. E.g. there is no significant change in albedo due to change in ice cover in a few decades. If you look at the historical record you have to deal with all the variables, and then you can't distill the CO_2 signal in an unambiguous way anymore.

I agree that solar power does not work. It is very inefficient. A typical solar cell needs to work for about ten years to generate the same amount of energy that was used to produce it. I think the only way to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions is by using nuclear energy (fuel can be generated using fast breeder reactors), wind energy and by moe efficient energy use.

We should develop hydrogen fuel cells for cars. Hydrogen can be produced from clean nuclear and wind energy. Note that we need to have a large excess capacity, because you can't start up nuclear power plants as fast as coal fired power plants to deal with peak demand. That excess capacity can be used to generate hydrogen (e.g. during the night).

This is worth doing even if you forget about global warming. Making the air clean alone is enough reason. In Britain alone about 5000 people die each year from lung disease that is made worse by air pollution (inhaling fine dust will make an existing lung condition much worse). In the last few years many more people have died from conventional power plants in Britain than have died in total in Eastern Europe from the Chernobyl disaster.

Hi Richard,



As I have no background in climate science, I cannot argue with you here. All I can say is that if you believe this to be the case, you should make your point in the scientific community (writing articles in scientific journals presenting work at scientific conferences).

The reason I believe that increasing CO_2 alone will lead to warming, is because it is a known greenhouse gas from its physical properties. Unlike what you see in geological data where CO_2 increase is always accompanied by other processes, we are increasing CO_2 concentrations so rapidly, that it amounts to changing just this variable while keeping the other variables constant, except a few like water vapor, clouds etc. E.g. there is no significant change in albedo due to change in ice cover in a few decades. If you look at the historical record you have to deal with all the variables, and then you can't distill the CO_2 signal in an unambiguous way anymore.

I agree that solar power does not work. It is very inefficient. A typical solar cell needs to work for about ten years to generate the same amount of energy that was used to produce it. I think the only way to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions is by using nuclear energy (fuel can be generated using fast breeder reactors), wind energy and by moe efficient energy use.

We should develop hydrogen fuel cells for cars. Hydrogen can be produced from clean nuclear and wind energy. Note that we need to have a large excess capacity, because you can't start up nuclear power plants as fast as coal fired power plants to deal with peak demand. That excess capacity can be used to generate hydrogen (e.g. during the night).

This is worth doing even if you forget about global warming. Making the air clean alone is enough reason. In Britain alone about 5000 people die each year from lung disease that is made worse by air pollution (inhaling fine dust will make an existing lung condition much worse). In the last few years many more people have died from conventional power plants in Britain than have died in total in Eastern Europe from the Chernobyl disaster.

The references should be easy to find. One can theoretically calculate the warming from CO_2. Calculating the absorbtion spectrum of CO_2 is basic quantum mechanics, any physics student should be able to do this using some computational resources.

Increasing the CO_2 from the pre industrial 0.028% to the current 0.038% has a significant effect that is consistent with the observed warming. Numerous (many thousands) of peer reviewed articles show this. If climate on large time scales is less sensitive to CO_2, then that can only be because of feedback effects that you don't see on small time scales.

So, it's basicaly as certain as the fact that adding heat to a system will make it hotter.

Count Iblis wrote:
"As I have no background in climate science, I cannot argue with you here."

Neither does he so any argument you make will be equally valid.

I have spoken with a climatologist here at the UW and was told, wihtout equivocation, "So what does that have to do with our current situation? Let me answer that for you ... Absolutely nothing!"

In short ... there were no automobiles or factories then.

Morgan - please answer my question.

Thanks

Well, I've asked Morgan to provide such references (numerous times) and he's refused to respond every time. Either they aren't so easy to find, or Morgan is just being obstinate.

Count - I'm not saying CO2 doesn't have some role in the warming. I've never said it's not a GHG, or some other "it's plant food" tripe.

My initial question was how can one associate the majority of the current warming with increased CO2 levels, when the relationship one uses to prove that relationship is based on historical records that show CO2 lagging temperature (both on the rise and the fall).

It's critical to determine how much of the warming is caused by CO2 increases. Why? Because it determines our response.
99% caused by CO2? Slash carbon emissions
75% caused by CO2? Slash carbon emissions
50% caused by CO2? Lets reduce, but perhaps we should start thinking about other proirities.
25% caused by CO2? Carbon reduction obviously becomes less of a priority
1% caused by CO2? Is it worth putting anything towards carbon emission reduction?

The thresholds are obviously arbitrary - but the concept is valid. If the current 0.6 degree/century warming trend is comprised of .1 carbon warming, and .5 solar related, is it worthwhile to spend resources reducing carbon?

The argument that the lag doesn't matter because it doesn't describe today's situation is valid - but by the same token (and please quote the entire sentence Morgan), you can't use the historical record to infer the effect of CO2 on temperature today for the exact same reason. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You want references Canuck ... why? Doesn't google work on your browser?

Ok ... one last attempt before you get marked as a troll.

University of California at Irvine:
http://www.physics.uci.edu/~silverma/co2warming.html

Vanderbilt University:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0104/msg00341.html

University of Washington:
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=2216
http://depts.washington.edu/uwpcc/ourprog/Feely2007_lecture.html
http://depts.washington.edu/uwpcc/ourprog/newsletter.html

Los Alamos National Laboratory:
http://aerosols.lanl.gov/conf2006/

Harvard University:
http://www.seismology.harvard.edu/~ekstrom/
http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/topic.php?topic_id=98
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/02.08/09-polar.html

University of Arizona:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/

Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricanes.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/climate-speth.html

California Institute of Technology:
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~frank/BerkeleyGroks_Schneider.htm

Stanford University:
http://gcep.stanford.edu/
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

Cambridge University:
http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521528740
http://www.landecon.cam.ac.uk/staff/profiles/tbarker.htm

Oxford University:
http://www.ouce.ox.ac.uk/news/articles/050630.php
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/main/faq/climatechange.html

NOAA:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

NASA:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/altscenario/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Laboratory/PlanetEarthScience/GlobalWarming/GW.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/

CSCIRO:
http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/climatechange.html

University of Toronto:
http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/060413-2203.asp


You want a few thousand more ... find them yourself.

And if you think yourself better qualified than any of the above post your real name and your academic credentials. Otherwise, I see you as just another troll.

You've got to be running a few synapses short if you think the Bush administration would have used a petroleum industry insider to subvert serious science publications if the science had been on their side. You've got to be riding an elevator that doesn't make it to the top floor if you think Exxon is paying bribes to get someone with a PhD to publish something casting doubt on the reality.

Pointing to the fact that things in 2007 are not following the assumed model from the time of the dinosaurs is obfuscation. Irrelevant obfuscation.

Morgan - you really ARE as stupid as you sound aren't you?

I asked you for published references that looked at whether increases in CO2 were sufficient to cause the current increases in global temperature - without looking at historical data.

And what do you return with?

-Postings from other message boards
-newsletter advertising upcoming conferences
-announcements of upcoming conferences
-an article on the impact of global warming on small mammals
-a biography of a geology prof, whose main focus of research is on global earthquake seismology
-articles on hurricanes
-articles on threatened species and how global warming may affect them.

I'm sorry - I didn't go through all of them, after the first few, I quickly lost interest.

Frankly, I'm done with you. I have no interest in conversing with an idiot, who things typing 'global warming' into google, is the same as returning published research into quantifying the impact of CO2 related warming, without relying on historical data.
Perhaps you mis-read my question (which was repeated numerous times), but if your reading comprehension skills are so poor, I shudder to think what your students have to put up with.

But no, I have no PhD in anything, I have no formal training in climatology. What I do have is something called "critical thought processes". If you don't know what that is, look it up.
Anyways, label me a troll (apparently all those that disagree with you are trolls?) if you like - I've already labeled you as a science illiterate, closed-minded, fool. Have a good life - this is the last I will respond to you.



To anybody else that would like to continue a discussion on how we can quantify CO2's impact on global warming, I'd love to hear your ideas, as well as have a respectful discussion on the topic.
I think I've stated my questions adequately on this thread. But I'll recap my thought processes here.....

-I don't doubt there is current warming
-I don't doubt that some portion of the current warming is caused by CO2.
-Since one can't assume that historical relationships will work in the current situation (due to historic data showing CO2 lagging temperature, which is not seen today, or the fact that no cars or factories were around 600 000 years ago), how can we quantify the portion of the current warming that is caused by CO2?

Are you familiar with the internet abbreviation YOYO?

I wouldn't want you to waste your precious time trying teach things to anyone you think "as stupid as you sound."

I guess research universities these days just don't employ people as staggeringly brilliant as anonymous internet trolls.

You can't win an argument with someone who only hears what he wants to hear. Uh, I didn't say that, it was Mark Twain.

No Signs of Warming Up?

Well Daniel M has put out enough info thats states that it IS warming

Here is the latest info It came out today - Friday 23rd March 07
- That Warming is Speeding up

http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKSYD27511820070323

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.
.

Reuters eh. That bunch of anti-free-market anti-capitalist running dog paper tiger socialistic communistic pinko ecowhining bed-wetters. Why don't they go back where they came from? <g>

An excellent link.

Thanks.

Point taken, but Reuters have offices all over the world, with information feeds coming in from most of them.
They often release information quicker than most. Which is why I check them out occasionaly.

Incidentally, I have an unproven theory regarding the accelerating melting of ice and snows around the world.

That the amount of microwave and shortwave energy given out by Radar, Aircraft-radar, Mobile Phones, Radio Stations etc. around the world....
Vibrates the Water molecules on the surfaces of ice and snow, just enough, - to encourage melting...?

Radio energy has increased exponentialy since about the 1920's.
Plus Radar and HF and UHF has done the same, since about 1945.
We have encircled our Earth with a microwave oven.!

In no way was what I wrote intended as a criticism of Reuters. In fact exactly the opposite.

An interesting theory but I think the obvious will suffice.

Let me quote from the April 2007 edition of Scientific American (pg 16).

"... the sun currently contributes an extra 0.12 watt of energy for each square meter of the earth's surface, whereas man-made sources trap an additional 1.6 watts per square meter."

Anyone with more than a 6th grade math education ought to be able to figure out the percentages and extrapolate the impact. You can't do something and expect nothing to result.

Wolfman - Twain's quote is representative of many people these days.

I'll restate my feelings on global warming....

-I don't doubt there is current warming
-I don't doubt that some portion of the recent warming is caused by CO2.
-Since one can't assume that historical relationships will work in the current situation (due to historic data showing CO2 lagging temperature, which is not seen today, or the fact that no cars or factories were around 600 000 years ago), how can we quantify the portion of the current warming that is caused by CO2?


The third point is the critical one. So far this has been estimated this through GCM's - which only consider what we tell them. GCM's are only as good as our understanding of the climate system. Nobody will say that our knowledge of the climate is anywhere near complete.

All I'm asking is how can we quantify CO2 related warming without looking at historical relationships?

There are things other than Cars and Factories that pump out CO2. Mass destruction of forests for example. A cataclysmic event that causes forests to wither and die. The decomposition of the foliage would produce a spike in CO2 levels. Nothing like todays culprits, granted, but, in terms of Geological time, the effects would appear similar.
5 Million years from now, Archaeologists could dig up STone Axes, Dug-out Canoes and a Nuclear Reactor, and deduce that they were all manufacted at "around the same time". It depends on one's perspective.

Anyone interested in a dose of reality should pick up the April issue of Scientific American.

The conclusion ... the reports we read are understated ... not overstated.

For example because no one has produced a successful mathematical model of Greenland's melt-off it is not included in the predictions.

Wolfman - I realize there are several, significant, natural sources of CO2.

The "no cars or factories" comment was more in response to people who state that the fact CO2 lags temperature in historical records, is irrelevant(because there were no cars or factories then). Then in the same breath use the exact same historical CO2/temperature correlation to show how increased temperatures now, can be caused by CO2 emissions.

People are trying to cherry pick - take the aspects of the CO2/temperature correlation that supports their view, and ignore the other aspects (by calling it unrepresentative of the current situation).

G'day,

Just back to see if anyone at all posted a single skerick of proof that CO2 causes warming. Nothing. Sigh.

To quote Mr Morgan:

"Greenland is melting. Coincidence?
Arctic ice is melting. Coincidence?
Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up. Coincidence?
The Yang Tse is drying up. Coincidence?
Glaciers in South America are disappearing. Coincidence?
Glaciers in Africa are disappearing. Coincidence?
Glaciers in Southern Asia are disappearing. Coincidence?"

How about some proof for the major ones you've noted here.

Greenland. No proof at all that it is melting overall. The data does not show any significant reduction in the Greenland total locked water since satellites started covering it and the previous reference point is so bad as a data source that it shows absolutely nothing.

Arctic. This one is much easier. The sea ice has melted at a higher rate than previously but the land ice has thickened. According to the satellite data the net result has been an INCREASE in locked water. On top of that the very big melts of 1998 and to a lesser extent 2005 are now being replaced by much more "average" fluctuations. The references you have posted before Mr Morgan actually also verify the statements I've put in this paragraph.

Antarctic. Now that one is pathetic and you know it, Mr Morgan. EVERY study published in the past five years has indicated an substantial increase in total locked water in the Antarctic. Who cares if the Western ice sheets are breaking up. They have been doing that for centuries. Actually the size of icebergs breaking off is actually smaller than for the "average" decade of the last couple of hundred years according to anecdotal evidence and records from old ships logs.

The climate of the Western part of the Antarctic has warmed. The climate of the Eastern part and the interior has cooled. This is "normal". The climate of the Antarctic changes all the time. It would be very strange if the climate patterns for the Antarctic were actually stable. I'd actually worry about that.

So as "proof" of global warming, the Antarctic simply proves that Mr Gore, who actually knows this stuff, is willing to deceive his audiences in order to get his point across. Actually he was at least big enough to admit that recently when defending all the flaws in his lectures that some fairly decent scientists started pointing out. His excuse though was that it has to be simplified so it can be understood by the average person and that sometimes means that the very complicated systems involved have to be glossed over or in non political speak its OK to lie about some things if it is to present the bigger picture so it can be understood.

Since you too have actually presented links to research on the Antarctic, Mr Morgan, that says precisely what I have just written, and you have never argued that any of this is wrong, then you too are practicing selective truth telling. I noted that you didn't say the Antarctic was melting like the other two but rather that the ice sheets are breaking up. You just implied that the Antarctic was melting rather than actually saying it because I assume you know very well that the Antartic, on all current data, is not melting at all but actually increasing in trapped or locked water volume. It still isn't a good way to argue your point and really does not help your case.

You say you do not take extreme views yet you seem to be willing to distort the facts to support your view which, by your definition must be terribly moderate. But again, I challenge you. Show something, anything that actually shows a link between CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming. It surely must be so easy for you since it is so fundamental to the arguments that Global Warming is man made and we need to act now and in a very big way. Actually the suggestions of cutting "greenhouse emmisions" in the UK, meaning CO2 only and only that made by man, by 60% by 2050 could be said to be a very very extreme view, since it would mean the destruction of much of the Brit's way of life unless alternative energy sources that do not emit CO2 can be established in massive quantities.

Certainly CO2 offsetting doesn't do it. We just had an election. A politician got up and wants to lock up 30% of our farmland and forestry areas because this will "balance" some of the manmade CO2. I think a child in the US middle school would know because they study such things as water cycles and photosynthesis etc by then, that actually forests by themselves do not lock up ANY CO2 unless exceptional circumstances occur. You have a much better chance of locking up the CO2 by cutting down the trees and turning it into newspaper. It has a chance of ending up in landfill then and if buried deep enough may actually lock some of the CO2 up. But a forest just does stuff all to retain CO2. A tree grows and CO2 is locked into it. It dies and it decays and the CO2 is released. Total CO2 retained = nil. You have to bury the dead tree before decay. That is what happened in the very very different atmosphere of 100 million odd years ago so that we now have oil and coal but the circumstances were very much different then than it is now.

I just cannot understand how you think such things as passing into law the requirement to reduce a gas that pretty much is one of the most beneficial gases we have after oxygen and nitrogen, by massive amounts is a moderate view but anyone that questions the orthodoxy of global warming is, according to you, holding an extreme view. Actually, I can understand, because it would seem that you have no interest in the science of the subject, only the politics. If you were interested in the science, you would have at least have thought about the very simple fact that CO2 has never ever, on the current evidence, changed the climate of the earth in the past, so why is everyone so confident that it is doing so now. You would have spent ten minutes doing a Google search that you are so fond of doing to produce news article links to actually attempt to find some real evidence that links CO2 with warming, either historically or even through laboratory experiments. That sort of thing is what a "moderate" scientist would do when confronted with a view contrary to their own where the challenge has been made to prop up your view by any evidence at all. A good scientist would relish the challenge of showing there was good support for an argument they put forward and would even welcome finding out that they might actually have been wrong. But good science and global warming seems to have parted company about $10 billion dollars and 150,000 full time jobs ago.

Oh and as to the glaciers, we've covered that one (no pun intended) many many times. In number the total glaciers do not seem to be contracting although in volume they certainly do seem to be retreating somewhat. But there is also the rather inconvenient facts that the same glaciers so often quoted have retreated far more within this epoch. And of course there is the very sensible argument that we have enjoyed the benefits of an INTER-GLACIAL period for a bit over 11,000 years now. They are called inter-glacial periods because they are defined by the abscence of glaciers. Its pretty amazing that even after 11,000 years there are still glaciers around. But even for the ones that are now shrinking such as the tropical and sub-tropical, the major portion of the shrinking for most of these occurred over 150 years ago to 120 years ago, BEFORE man could possibly have caused any global warming.

And to Canuck, if you have managed to read all this, I do argue with the "fact" of global warming. The earth is currently in a slight warming trend and went through a bigger warming trend until the 1940s. But in the last 120 years it also went through three quite distinct cooling trends including one that lasted four decades until the mid to late 1970s. The earth has to be warmer than the "benchmark" of 1880 because 1880 was the end of a particularly cold period and just after the end of the third much larger cooling trends that collectively are called the Little Ice Age. But does that mean there is global warming.

The satellite data indicates that from 1979 until today there has been fractional warming. Take out the one in a century El-Nino of 1998 and you get a slight cooling over the period. Take out 2005 and you get a somewhat more pronounced cooling.

This is why I think the datasets for surface temperatures are so important to get right. Because those sets, unlike the balloon or satellite data, show this incredible exponential warming from 1980 on which makes all the pretty graphs look so disturbing. Even if you take the SAT data, you still end up with 80% of the earth's warming occurring before 1940, which doesn't make much sense if the argument is about CO2.

I was very much like you by the way. I had no problem assuming that there was global warming. I just never thought that CO2 was the culprit because the evidence did not seem to be there. But then I got to review the scientific methodologies of a great many research papers on behalf of a very pro-global warming entity in the US, and all I found was appallingly bad methods, conclusions written that didn't match the body of the reports, reports that didn't match the data, and assumptions that had no scientific basis to be used as a starting point for the research. And these were papers that included ones quoted over and over, and used to reinforce the "fact" of global warming.

It was then that I started having discussions with other Climate Scientists, several of whom were on the IPCC panels and found that they had written completely different scientific sections for the IPCC reports and it had been changed. They complained and some resigned. Their names remained as authors of the reports. They were often included in the "consensus" of those that agreed with the IPCC main points. It became quite amazing just how many scientists were in this group. Indeed, anecdotally, it would seem that these scientists may well be a majority of those that were scientists who are expert in the field of climate, for the IPCC sessions. So much for consensus.

I have just spent the last 18 months gathering daily max and min temperatures for almost 7,000 weather stations as far back as 150 years and my data shows quite different results to the three datasets currently used by most that research global warming. The reasons are not even all that complex. The three datasets are all monthly averages with no records kept of how the averages were calculated and completely reliant on the Country, region, state, minicipality etc for the accuracy of the data or the method used without ever asking or knowing what methods were used. An averaging variation has the potential to change the monthly average by more than 2 degrees celcius. The data is almost always incomplete. There are so few weather stations that have not been moved in the time of keeping records I could pretty much name them individually. The area around the weather stations has almost without exception changed dramatically.

Even the very small town stations have had effects such as the road near the station being paved. And overall, there is NO increase in average daytime temperatures of the earth, no matter what period you decide to use, whether it is the last decade, quarter century, half century, century or whatever. And for Continental US, what you get is a pronounced cooling period from the late 1960s or 1970s, something that just is not mentioned anywhere (oh, it is on the NASA site but with a comment that the US has cooled because of polution in the form of chlorides - and this has managed to cool the WHOLE US on average or even by median measurement over 50 years when polution has actually been improved).

Indeed, you now see a great many reports that include some comment in the very fine print such as global warming as evidenced by ocean air temperatures or ocean surface water temperatures in large print and in the fine print at the bottom "night time temperature rises". Because without exception the weather station data shows rises overall ONLY in the night time minimums. Since the average world temperature starts with at least the daily maximum and minimum temperatures for a locale, averaged, before averaging a bunch of locations and then averaging all that over a month, etc, if the maximum or any other daytime temperature has not increased but the minimum has done so then the world average will show a rise, just not what most people would expect. And if CO2 was responsible, all the models indicate the largest proportionate warming would be in the 4,000 feet to 30,000 feet altitude and during the hottest part of the day. Urban effect is the culprit for night time rises and has been shown in study after study after study. Seal a road and the night minimums even several metres away go up. Add a couple of stories to the building next to the weather station and the day time temperatures may or may not change in the weather station itself but the night time ones sure will.

And just to address everything that has been written here, what does polution in Tokyo have to do with global warming? All that indicates is how bad airborne particulates are for humans. And that is one thing that a great many mega cities have managed to decrease dramatically. What it does demonstrate is a real problem that needs real solutions. Drawing off billions to create ever faster super computers to run more complex global climate models doesn't exactly help a Tokyo school kid's asthma.

So what, Wolfman, do you suggest we do? Spend the billions on global warming studies or do something practical about the city polutions such as require much better filter on industry release of chemicals into the atmosphere and more efficient cars. How about not selling so many Hummers that get 12 gallons to the mile or have a nation that has managed to convince itself that a soccer Mum needs a 2.5 tonne 4WD to drive 800 metres to school to pick up their child because it is obviously way too dangerous for them to walk home. While Tokyo's problem is one of density of population and large industries in what is basically a huge inversion zone, and not one of gas guzzling cars, you cannot say the same for Los Angeles for instance.

So here's another challange, Wolfman, link in some way the need for oxygen stations in Tokyo to global warming. Out of everything the production of CO2 means more grass grows and trees grow faster so the oxygen levels in Tokyo should improve a bit. So it seems to me that CO2 increase in the atmosphere mitigates the problem a bit. I'd like to see a link to demonstrate that the opposite is true.



Regards



Richard