What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
Which is why you're so enthused with the idea of GW debating....it's all quaint science to you.
If there were NO political/social/economic issues with the topic no-one would have an incentive to flap their gums about it...outside of the climate-science community.
No-one would care outside of academia.
Commerce is the sole driving force behind any argument [either way] on the subject.
You're happy to ascribe man's input to the driving of CO2 levels leading to temp increases.....
You should also be happy to ascribe the pressures of commerce to the reluctance to accept and/or do anything about it...other than to debate its very existence.
Damn. Got me.
Can't slip anything past you, Geo.
But guess it couldn't be helped, what with the models bein' all hunky dory if you just throw some shit in 'em that wasn't there before. Surprise, Surprise.
What data lead you to believe the ice core data is 'very likely' not representational? If nothing else, it's very repetitive, over a long period of time.
That's gonna be tricky enough that I feel pretty safe in saying that need will go unmet.
Ah.....the case that...assuming there's no recording-by-ice anomaly/discrepancy between temperature recording 'speed' vs CO2 recording 'speed' that guarantees the time-line is truly representational over time...in an icecore that will only demonstrate what was happening over a small proportion of the planet....namely those bits that had/have ice.
Who knows [from them] what was the case elsewhere...eg the majority of the planet that has no such ice.
It really is the same thing as those 3 scientists on a train trip from England to Scotland. They cross the border...and see one solitary sheep in a field and it's black.
The first declares "All sheep in Scotland are black."
The second says..."No, all we can deduce is that at least one sheep in Scotland is black".
Sounds good ...pure scientific observation....until the third says...
"No, allwe can actually deduce is that at least one sheep in Scotland is black...on at least one of its sides." ...
Are there significant differences between CO2 concentration over the poles and CO2 concentration over the rest of the planet currently?
If that is the case, one could at least argue that the ice cores may not be representational, but it's the 'very likely' bit... considering that we've only had one orgy of fossil fuel burning in our history (that we know of) and that current geographic variations, if they exist and are significant, may not be representational of pre-industrial geographic variations. (I think NASA has a satellite studying geographic variations, either active or planned.)
Probably....just as the hole/s in the ozone layer are holes aka localized. Anyone assuming an ice core record is definitely representational is just that....assuming...
Crikey, I know you're way ahead of me - it's already tomorrow there. But 'probably'?
More about the present... I've found a nicer example about the role of the ocean to the overall global warming. You can see how the total heat increase of the complete climate system (ocean + land + atmosphere) is unstoppable. The "stabilization" in heat content that we see in land temperatures (during the last 15 years) are fairly insignificant in the broader picture, and is offset by the much larger increase in heat content of the (deeper) oceans.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960112010389
or this one with an additional discussion:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html
And this is the influence of CO2:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran//
Check the documentation, the paper describing the 2012 edition, figure 4.
it is easier to understand the CO2 absorption process from a laboratory, then from the Antarctic. Because in the lab you actually observe a single physical process.
People who claim that CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas, go against such lab measurements...
I found this interesting (ongoing) laboratory experiment which investigates how clouds affect climate.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/jasper_kirkby_cern_creates_cloud_in_lab_to_understand_climat_change/2601/
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/11/4827762/cern-cloud-experiment-sheds-doubt-on-climate-skeptic-theory
(and the original site:)
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/cloud
http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/10/cerns-cloud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change
No I don't think there is much difference... but you ignore the other side of the coin: is the temperature record at the Antarctic representative of that of the rest of the world ?
Oh wait, I've found this image:
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~robi2448/CO2_distro_map.html
And it shows a lot of CO2 variability on the earth.
But I don't think it matters much, because what's of interest is the change in CO2 with time at any one spot on the earth, not the actual CO2 value.
I've found this: another single-point measurement (from a large impact crater no less), but this time from the Arctic.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-free-arctic-in-pliocene-last-time-co2-levels-above-400ppm
Unfortunately the description of the results is qualitative, there is no time line, such a shame ! This is a little bit more elaborate with some nice pictures of the impact crater:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2016
This elaborates a bit more on "exceptional warm periods".
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=124565
This is also about a warm period but this time in Greenland. It draws an analogy with the 2012 summer melting across the Greenland ice sheet.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html
And this is about the ocean circulation (maybe it was referenced before but I'll just do it again):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142020.htm
It's a nice theory about how levels of CO2 are controlled by the ocean (and not by temperature...).
A little more on the Antarctic and ice cores. This article shows a graph of CO2 with error margins:
http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html
The following is a more in-depth by Shakun (the one who did a more globalized study on the ice ages). It starts with a few irrelevant but very instructive examples of data sets where one can measure a temperature fluctuation at 1 point that goes against common sense, if one would interpret the result without taking local effects into account. It shows how the examples make more sense when more data are used from different locations, to give an average where local effects are less important.
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/FAQ.html
An article like this is great stuff.
Compare that to journalistic bullshit like this (I picked it at random - it's just one of dozens of nonsense articles that I come across whenever I search for articles on the internet):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/
The writer just assumes the sun is all-important and he thinks that a solar minimum is some incredible event, associated with a little ice age no less! Of course he ignores a lot of other evidence. Also I doubt the journalist ever checked on the numbers and the contribution of the sun cycle on global temperatures, which are at most 0.7 degrees between the maximum and minimum (associated with a 0.4% change in intensity).
I think that even if the sun would "cool down" it wouldn't be anything dramatic. It would imply the sun becomes calmer and that there will be fewer maxima. This would only amount to a cooling of about 0.2% (or about 0.4 degrees on a global average ; probably some more on high latitudes).
Now if we were are a tipping point between an ice-age or not, then it would've been important. But that isn't the case, according to most scientists we are facing a long term warming of 2 to 6 degrees in the next century due to the build-up of CO2. Whether the sun get a little bit cooler or not, makes little difference.
What scares me a little about such articles is, that a journalist with good writing skills manages to write a convincing story... which is just based on the assumption that a solar cool-down is something that will dwarf everything else... but he acts like he knows that it is the case and that it's not an assumption, but a fact.
The heat capture by CO2 (and H2O) has been quantified by laboratory experiments and can be used in models by laws of physics.
There can be no doubt about this, really: you cannot get better evidence than that.
When the laws of physics is applied to an artificial earth where only CO2 and vertical air transport would play a role, the earth would become a lot warmer when CO2 levels are doubled or quadrupled.
The only uncertainties come from other physical processes such as oceanic currents, cloud systems, desertification, and how much water vapor will be present in the air. And then there's the occasional natural variation of volcanism. And there are the mitigating factors such as the slow heating of the ocean, melting of the ice sheets, which are also not so easy to model. And there's also the mitigating effect of desertification by humans, and the massive amounts of aerosols that are put into the atmosphere by humans (like artificial volcanic eruptions).
But those are "details". The first-order effect, namely a warming by CO2 and H2O, is impossible to deny. It's as solid as a rock.
I'm still unsure why you deny it, and solely based only the Antarctic data set.
I've tried to explain you in several ways that you cannot really make such a conclusion on that single data set, and that you'll go against a lot of other evidence.
I don't understand where your obsession with that data set comes from. Why is the Antarctic ice core data "evidence" for you and why is the rest bullshit to you?
I'm sure he'll speak for himself, but not really fair to say he considers 'the rest bullshit' since he never said that. He's just pointing out that there is credible data that on its face contradicts AGW theory. You want to explain away, discount or ignore the ice core data; he doesn't.
You are missing a digit. 4000 ppm would be 0.4%. 400 ppm is 0.04%.
There is more going on than just CO2. China also emits massive amounts of aerosols, which mitigate the CO2 effect. Also, the ocean absorbs a lot of energy, it slows down the heating of the atmosphere.
If you only look at the atmosphere and ignore the ocean, then indeed the data would make no sense. But you are restricting yourself artificially by ignoring the oceans: they are also mobile and the also interact with the atmosphere, after all 2 thirds of the world consists of ocean, and they absorb/radiate out 2 thirds of the energy that's being captured by the atmosphere. If the ocean transports part of that captured energy down into the deep ocean and brings colder water up, then naturally the atmosphere will warm up slower than you would expect if there were no ocean.
It's not a simple "magnification", it's a "heat trap".
And if the heat traps becomes stronger, it will trap more heat and temperatures will rise.
Of course you're right that if the sun would become cooler, or some other process would cool down the earth, then there would be less heat to trap.
But I don't see how that's relevant, because those other processes will occur anyway and those won't change the earth's temperature by any significant amount - the sun after all, is a very stable star. That's an observation too.
500 million years ago, the sun was a little bit cooler and there were only tiny organisms living on the earth. Those could survive excessive temperatures.
Nowadays we're dealing with a sun that is a little bit hotter and we're dealing with higher organisms that cannot tolerate high temperatures like in those days.
If we'd only be interested in the survival of algae, then this discussion is not really needed. They will like it in a hotter climate because there will be no fish to feed on them.
I've shown several links, including the heating of the oceans.
Also there's a related cooling of the stratosphere which is consistent with a heat trapping mechanism.
Now if you don't call those measurements, then what do you call measurements ???
What kind of data would satisfy you ???
Oh I know... a time line which shows how CO2 precedes T. Well I've shown the evidence. And there are laboratory measurements which measure exactly how much heat CO2 absorbs... I really don't know what's wrong with that kind of evidence. Are you ignoring that on purpose? Or don't you think it's real evidence? But why...
This is not the correct way to look at it.
The sun is very nearly a constant.
When the levels of CO2 are changed significantly under a constant solar input, then you will experience quite strong changes in temperature.
Temperature does not do that. Ocean currents regulate that, and those are not easily related to temperature.
And on top of that, there's volcanism and the effect of sea level (on exposed peat deposits for example).
Where do you get that evidence from? As far as I know, those were regional effects, not global ones.
Well we've reached paged 70. Time to celebrate .
Ok that's true, he never said that. Apologies.
I just skip the essays. All that crock has been beaten to death. Luckily that's seeping through to the policymakers who are slowly trying to back out without too much loss of face. Germany, erstwhile AGW believer, who touts their 6 new coal powerplants as 'the cleanest' for example. England withdrawing from the 'alternative energy' and going for fracking. France which isn't withdrawing from nuclear an inch. USA where oil/gas is so plentiful they can become a net exporter. Israel which is going for huge gas reserves. China, well they just laugh at our idiotic self flagellation but happily sells solarpanels build using coalpower to any taker.
What a selfdelusional bunch, AGW cultists.
Must be good to be you. Oh so superior....
Your illusion of this world and the things happening in it is frightening and worrying at the same time, like you are not living on this planet, and are intentionally blind.
And you are happy to see this happening? Congratulations, you reached a new level.
Attempting to shame people doesn't constitute an argument. Just sayin'.
Ok so from what i grasped in college. Global Warming is an Astronomy concept. Due to us making leaps and bounds in the last 40 years we learned a lot about our atmosphere. A lot of people think were all doomed to becoming an environment like Venus.To be honest, geologists say that the earth goes through cycles. Right now were coming down from a tropical cycle and slowly moving to a cold cycle. Which i believe has more merit. Furthermore, sunspots etc. can also cause erratic cold weather whenever ruining your pool.
I think deadman's got the idea.
Not really, he knows a few things but he is blissfully unaware of many aspects of the climate.
I'm doubting if I should reply to this, but hell why not. So here I go one more time
Only the onset of glacial periods could be linked to the (astronomical) Milankovitch cycles. Those cycles create no warming or heating by themselves, they just rebalance the warmth of the sun more northward or southward. But they could've been the trigger for glaciation of the northern continents and a subequent runaway cooling effect.
But that tipping point happened when the atmosphere had low CO2 levels, and the climate was cooler than today. The cause for the lower CO2 levels could've been due to a host of factors: weathering (e.g. Tibet), life (algae), cooler ocean waters, changes is ocean currents, or a drop in CO2 production (less volcanism).
You exaggerate, people are worried about a 2 to 6 degree celcius temperature rise and a sea level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter for the coming century.
Personally, I'm worried about what happens beyond that: what happens if current (and worse) CO2 emission would go on for several centuries? I'm worried about a temperature rise of 10 degrees and a sea level rise of 100 meters in 200 to 300 years from now. This will be devastating for life as we know it on the planet.
A situation like on Venus is not possible on Earth, there were studies that showed that the sun is not yet strong enough to accomplish that.
Geologists observed that the current atmospheric composition resembles that of a transition era when the earth changed from a warm climate into the prolonged ice age that we are (or were) in. Except that we're experiencing the transition the other way around.
They've also seen evidence of terrible extinction events in the rocks. It is believed that we are mimicking the onset of such extinction events and that in fact, we're outpacing anything that the planet has thrown at "life" in the past.
Do you know how geologists separate different geological eras? They do that by noticing large disruptions in lifeforms in the sediments: below a certain interface, there are many small foraminiferes, above the interface there are fewer or sometimes none. For minor eras, such interfaces are defined by the presence of certain families of foraminifera below the interface, and their absence above the interface (minor extincions).
If you would care to read into the influence of the sun, you'll see that the influence of the sunspots is about 0.7 degrees celcius. The greenhouse effect that we are talking about is much larger. So if you are impressed by the influence of the sun, then you should be really impressed by the influence of men.
Poor Greenpeace activists still trapped in the Antarctic. And all that to 'prove' how bad it was with the ice on the Antarctic. I really had to laugh when one of the nutcases came with the following expanation: The excessive ice increase is caused by the melting of ice which refreezes.
Hilarious. As the temperatures overall continue to drop we can expect even more insane 'explanations' why the world won't stick to the plan. Getting enormously hot with the increased co2. Or water vapor, or methane or you name it which is horrible and manmade.
That guy on the mountain made more sense.
Huh?
I wonder if you find this hilarious too:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1279&p=2
This article also adds a short note about the mitigating effect of ice sheet melt on global temperature rise. Although I'm not sure if it's possible to compare those heat contents 1:1 because the atmosphere has an efficient heat loss mechanism and leaks energy all the time, while energy for melt is a one-time thing.
You seem to forget the Arctic and the Antarctic regions are totally different, ocean surrounded by continents or a continent (more like archipelago if you remove the ice) surrounded by the Southern ocean.
I recommend you read these before making invalid statements based on your own thoughts without scientifical background.
http://theconversation.com/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-growing-19605
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm (I dont know about you but I think this skepticalscience stuff is not an AGW site lol and it still supports the "nutcases".)
I've previously known about that the land ice is melting and this very cold water freezes when it reaches the waters of the Southern ocean, but these wind theories are likely as well, if you think about it a little..
Oh, so you already know about the refreezing thing, tell me, why do you find it to be ridiculous? Cannot you imagine the increasing melting releases water, that freezes when it reaches the ocean? Or do you think the warming of the Antarctic is a "lie" just like global warming?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica#Climate_change
I am sorry to use Wikipedia as a source but I don't really have hours to locate more scientifical sources.
Again, short term VS long term. But, ah nvm.
Man I hope we wont freeze soon..
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
This cooling of about 0.000001 °C over a decade or two.. I am really scared we will reach the next ice age next year.
http://www.thegwpf.org/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-breaks-all-time-record/
This shows that the Antarctic sea ice has increased in area (on average) from 18.5 mln square km to about 19.1 mln square km. Gosh, a 0.6 mln square km increase.
Although that's a different value then you can get here:
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/preid/seaice/sea_ice_table_area_monthly.html
where the sea ice area in recent years is about 15 mln square km, up from about 14.3 mln square km in the 1980s. Wow that's a whopping 0.7 mln km increase in sea ice extent.
And note, that is only the winter-time ice extent, you know, when the sun doesn't shine? And do you realize that its increased albedo effect makes zero difference in the winter?
The summer time ice extent has gone up from about 1.9 mln square km to about 2 mln square km. That's not much.
So I think that all of this is very interesting, but I don't think that such an increase is going to cause the next ice age, and it's not going to affect global temperatures much.
I'll start worrying when the summertime sea ice area in the Antarctic increases by several million square km, large enough to offset the sea ice area reduction of the Arctic.
That's a good link.
Considering that the increase is of sea ice area is fairly small, I think it's entirely possible that it's caused by such factors.
Although... I wonder if a decreased ocean surface temperature is really the culprit, because that ocean water is responsible for most of the melting of the western Antarctic...
Last I saw it was a Russian breaker commemorating an expedition from a 100 years ago. It's in ice up to 10' thick which is beyond both it and the Chinese breaker that tried a rescue.
Currently an Aussie breaker is moving in.....one that likely will handle the ice thickness.
Rather than troll...try looking into the details.
In this end of the woods it makes prime news...because Oz manages the majority of the Antarctic region.
************************
Federal authorities say a rescue mission by an Australian icebreaker remains on track as it closes in on a ship wedged in sea ice near Antarctica.
A group of scientists, explorers and tourists has been stuck on the Russian research ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy about 1500 nautical miles south of Hobart for the past five days.
Although the expedition's leader says spirits among those on the ship remain high, a retired Brisbane teacher aboard as a tourist says frustration is building.
Two icebreakers have given up on efforts to push through the thick and dangerous ice floes near Antarctica to try to free the trapped research vessel.
A third icebreaker, Australia's Aurora Australis, is on its way to the stranded ship and is due to arrive about 11pm (AEDT) on Sunday.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/icebreaker-on-track-to-reach-stuck-ship-20131229-301ay.html
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
