Global warming and environmental catastrophe: science or myth?

[Gothmog]

Maybe they are, since Mann et al keep using ground based temperature records, since the the satellite ones don't show what they want.

They do show the same warming trend when corrected for stratospheric cooling (check the difference between the TMT and TLT data products from the MLS satellites).

I have already prove that Moberg disagree with Mann. You have to prove that Moberg would desagree with me.

Hmm, when did you do that. When you showed a misunderstanding of what a standard deviation meant? When you selectively quoted the Moberg paper (which again, I brought up in the first place)?

Moberg and Mann are both reputable scientists, their disagreements never reach the level of 'cheat'. Congress is not my gold standard for science.

The relevant questions wrt methane and CO2 are: where do they absorb, what is the cross section, what's the collumn loading, and what other gasses already absorb in those regions. It's a pretty simple calculation, but I can't be arsed to do it for you here.

For a second order calculation you need to know the vertical profile of the gas, at first principles a full radiative transfur treatement is necessary (that's what climate scientists do).

Anyone who doesn't believe that CO2 and CH4 can affect IR absorption has not crunched the numbers.

H2O is not saturated everywhere, but does saturate in some places. As does CO2. In part it depends on how you define saturation. If 90% is already being absorbed in a region is that saturated? It certainly will effect how significant increases in a gas that also absorbs in that region can be.

My spectra are not saturated, as they are references for quantitative spectroscopy, I was saying that they are not, but that the atmosphere is in places. Check my post.

I am only trying to discuss this based on science, that means a mechanism of action. Like changing IR opacity, not waving ones hands about and claiming mysterious solar connections.

It does upset me that you play so fast and loose with the facts, and then insult people who do not. I mean, what were you trying to say with this

...and CH4 falls into the H2O bands... around 2900 cm-1

???

 

[carlosMM]

Methane and CO2 concentrations on air are so minute compared to H2O that they don't have any effect. It is like dropping a mL of hot water into a frozen lake. There are no gasses with superpowers, H2O is far more abundant that CO2 and CH4 and that is why H2O is the ONLY gas to be taken into account.

ah, there we go - you simply deny that the CO2 level has ANY influence on temperature... same for methane... so all scientists are dumb idiots or cheats....

funny, but this disagrees with your previous posts some... go check them.... you cheat!

 

[Dominus Romae]

Imagine, if the world ends tomorrow, then we are not going to play Civ3 anymore .

 

[Urederra]

Maybe they are, since Mann et al keep using ground based temperature records, since the the satellite ones don't show what they want.

They do show the same warming trend when corrected for stratospheric cooling (check the difference between the TMT and TLT data products from the MLS satellites).

They don’t:

(graph on the right, red is ground magenta is satellite)

I have already prove that Moberg disagree with Mann. You have to prove that Moberg would desagree with me

.
Hmm, when did you do that. When you showed a misunderstanding of what a standard deviation meant? When you selectively quoted the Moberg paper (which again, I brought up in the first place)?

I know what a standard deviation mean. I also know what t-student, chi-square, f-sneider mean. Why do you say that I don’t understand every time I don’t agree with you? For zillionth time, Moberg’s and Mann’s don’t agree. Moberg says so, as I quoted the Moberg paper. Selectively, of course. What do you expect me to do? Print out the whole paper? I quoted four sentences where Moberg et al says that their graph and Mann’s are different (notable differences, substancially larger temperatures, those adjectives don’t mean that they agree, you know, they mean that they are different). Previously I show that the two graphs are different, Mann’s one is flat with a slight negative slope. (Man, he even draws a line to remark that Edit: (I am talking about the years 1000 to 1900, as usual)) The other has maxima and minima, as Moberg said. Do you need a chi-square analysis to prove that? Go and make it. Good luck with the data fishing, some people tried to access the data but Nature does not provide all of it.

Moberg and Mann are both reputable scientists, their disagreements never reach the level of 'cheat'. Congress is not my gold standard for science.

In science, you have to provide the data and how you obtained it, so other scientists can reproduce it. Mann refrains to do that. Why? Because he cheated. McIntyre, McKrikit, (McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick, (Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance, Geophys. Res. Let., 32, L03710, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750. McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications, Energy and Environment 16, 69-99.) and Moberg already proved that. That’s why he is being audited by the US congress, which is the one who provides Mann the money. The congressmen don’t analyze the data; they just hire other scientists to do that. (Although there is not much to analyze, since Mann refrain to give them the data that the congressmen requested. Does he have something to hide?). Giving the data to other so they can reproduce your results, that is the gold standard in science.

The relevant questions wrt methane and CO2 are: where do they absorb, what is the cross section, what's the collumn loading, and what other gasses already absorb in those regions. It's a pretty simple calculation, but I can't be arsed to do it for you here.

For a second order calculation you need to know the vertical profile of the gas, at first principles a full radiative transfur treatement is necessary (that's what climate scientists do).

Anyone who doesn't believe that CO2 and CH4 can affect IR absorption has not crunched the numbers.

H2O is not saturated everywhere, but does saturate in some places. As does CO2. In part it depends on how you define saturation. If 90% is already being absorbed in a region is that saturated? It certainly will effect how significant increases in a gas that also absorbs in that region can be.

My spectra are not saturated, as they are references for quantitative spectroscopy, I was saying that they are not, but that the atmosphere is in places. Check my post.

I am only trying to discuss this based on science, that means a mechanism of action. Like changing IR opacity, not waving ones hands about and claiming mysterious solar connections.

Well, Are you trying to say that the sun does not heat the Earth? Or you don’t know how the radiation produced by the sun reaches and heats the Earth. Why is that so mysterious to you?

`It does upset me that you play so fast and loose with the facts, and then insult people who do not. I mean, what were you trying to say with this
Quote:
...and CH4 falls into the H2O bands... around 2900 cm-1

???

My fault, I knew that CH4 absorbs around 2900 cm-1 but I didn’t check the H20 one. I should have checked for comparison’s sake, but my point remains valid since water is way more abundant on atmosphere than CH4, around 2000 ppb (parts per billion!!!! http://www.aari.nw.ru/projects/methane/docs/methane_sites.pdf ) is nothing compared to the concentration of H2O in air. When compared to H2O levels, CH4 is irrelevant, no mater where absorbs, that is why I didn’t bother to check. How can anybody claim that a tiny amount of CH4 (around 2000 ppb) can affect temperatures more than H2O?

The mechanism of action for H2O is the same than for CH4, then, the important thing is the concentration, and concentration-wise, CH4 is not important when you compared to H20 concentrations in air.

Edit: Afraid of talking about the Holocene optimum? Up to 4 C warmer than 2003 but lower CO2 levels than nowadays. (Unless you want to believe that a bunch of cavemen barbequing produced higher CO2 levels than nowadays )

 

[Urederra]

Methane and CO2 concentrations on air are so minute compared to H2O that they don't have any effect. It is like dropping a mL of hot water into a frozen lake. There are no gasses with superpowers, H2O is far more abundant that CO2 and CH4 and that is why H2O is the ONLY gas to be taken into account.

ah, there we go - you simply deny that the CO2 level has ANY influence on temperature... same for methane... so all scientists are dumb idiots or cheats....

First of all… I said that, compared to H2O, CO2 and methane levels are so tiny that only H2O has to be taken into account. And not only there are scientists that think that way, but also, the graphs also demonstrated what I state. E.g. the Moberg graph, where temperature and CO2 levels does not correlate. If you find 40 years where they seem to correlate, that does not mean anything, because during the rest 1500 years does not correlate. So don’t tell me again that they do correlate because you see a warming in the last 20 years (not last year, though) while CO2 levels rise, they should correlate for the whole period and they don’t. (Or 300 ppm doesn’t do anything to control temperatures but 370 ppm is the leading factor that controls Earth temperatures? 70 ppm of CO2 with superpowers? No, thanks)

And, If we go further to the Holocene, 10000 years ago, they don’t correlate either.

Afraid of talking about the Holocene optimum? Up to 4 C warmer than 2003 but lower CO2 levels than nowadays. (Unless you want to believe that a bunch of cavemen barbequing produced higher CO2 levels than nowadays )

funny, but this disagrees with your previous posts some... go check them.... you cheat!

Where does it disagree?

You still have to demonstrate this statement you made:

sum up: Ured says there is no recent massive warming, Mann's curve is false. Also, he says the new curve posted by gothmog is not showing a recent warming

Have you demonstrated that I said that Moberg graph is not showing a recent warming? No, you haven’t because I have never said that. I challenged you to prove that and you couldn’t. That is defamation and calumny you committed against me.

Same goes for your previous ‘go check them’… You couldn’t find any prove of your previous slander, so you tell me to check myself. Second time you tried to tell others that I said something that I didn’t. Nice trick, but it didn’t work.

 

[carlosMM]

Urederra, I simply tired of your twisting facts and lying now. You have so far only shown that you are unwilling to accept that

a) there is more than one cause to warming of the athmosphere
b) CO2 and methane can heat the athmosphere (qutie suddenly, at first you never said anything about this, but on the last page you suddenly call them 'insignificant').

This is mentally ******** and I can't be arsed to waste any more typing on you.
goodbye.

 

[BasketCase]

Heheh. You'll come back, just like always.

I see nothing in Urederra's posts to support accusations of him twisting facts or lying--such accusations are almost impossible to prove when the subject being argued is short on proven facts to begin with.

Here's a completely new theory about global warming, which I guarantee nobody in here has ever heard: what if global warming is being caused by a flip-flop in the Earth's magnetic field....?

When North Becomes South

Next time Earth's magnetic field flips, compass needles will point South instead of North. But scientists can't say when it will occur, and until now they've disagreed on how long the transitions take.

A new study pins down how long it took for the last four reversals to play out. It also finds that the dramatic turnarounds occur more quickly nearer the equator than at higher latitudes closer to the poles.

That means folks living during the next reversal -- which some scientists speculate might be underway -- will see compasses change and behave differently in different locations, study leader Brad Clement, of Florida International University, told SPACE.com.

Giant magnet

Earth's magnetic field is thought to be generated deep inside the planet. An inner core of solid iron is surrounded by an outer core of molten iron. They rotate at different rates, and the interaction between the regions creates what scientists call a "hydromagnetic dynamo." It's something like an electric motor, and it generates a magnetic field akin to a giant bar magnet.

The process is not completely understood. In fact, one study suggests the planet's mantle, which surrounds the core, also plays a role.

However it works, the setup has been in place for at least 3 billion of Earth's 4.6 billion years, scientists figure. But the field is shifty, periodically growing stronger and weaker, moving around, and even flipping its polarity entirely.

In the past 15 million years, there have been four reversals every 1 million years, or about one shift each 250,000 years, Clement explained. The last one, however, was 790,000 years ago. That might suggest we're overdue for a big change. Not necessarily so, Clement says. The flips are not periodic, meaning they don't adhere to a schedule of even intervals.

Yet the intensity of the magnetic field has been dropping for the last 2,000 years, and "it has dropped significantly" during the past two decades, Clement said. One recent study shows the decline in strength amounts to 10 percent over the last 150 years.

Flip in progress?

Some scientists speculate a reversal is underway. Clement said that's like forecasting that the bottom will drop out of the stock market because it's gone down the past few days. "We just don't know," he said.

Researchers also have not known how long it takes for the magnetic field to make a transition. Studies have suggested anywhere from 1,000 to 28,000 years are required to initiate and complete a reversal.

"It is generally accepted that during a reversal, the geomagnetic field decreases to about 10 percent of its full polarity value," Clement said. "After the field has weakened, the directions undergo a nearly 180 degree change, and then the field strengthens in the opposite polarity direction. A major uncertainty, however, has remained regarding how long this process takes."

Clement examined sediment cores gathered from deep-ocean sites in a National Science Foundation (NSF) program. The cores provided readings at multiple sites for the past four flips. He found that each took about 7,000 years.

Interestingly, however, there is significant variation depending on latitude.

Which way is up?

It takes less time -- around 5,000 years -- for the reversal to occur at lower latitudes. And it takes longer -- about 10,000 years, for the flip to play out nearer the poles. So not only would compasses gradually do a somersault in readings, but Arctic dwellers would see changes that wouldn't match what tropical observers would note across the generations.

Nobody understands how the shift occurs. Perhaps, Clement says, the magnetic field shrinks to essentially nothing, leaving several "mini-poles" at the surface before the main poles rebuild on opposite sides of the world.

Scientists have plenty of reasons to seek a better understanding. For one, the magnetic field lines extend out beyond Earth's atmosphere and provide the first line of defense against strong solar storms. And Clement wonders how the reversals might affect navigation by migrating birds and other animals that key in on the magnetic field to find their way.

"But 7,000 years is probably enough for them to adapt," he said.


"Clement has demonstrated that magnetic field reversal events occur within certain time-frames, regardless of the polarity of the reversal," said Carolyn Ruppel, program director in NSF's division of ocean sciences.

The study is detailed in the April 8 issue of the journal Nature.

"The work is an important contribution to our understanding of magnetic field reversal on our planet," said Ronald Merrill, a professor of geophysics at the University of Washington, in an analysis written for the journal.

Weaker magnetic field = more radiation hitting Earth. More radiation = more heat. How much more? No idea. Some related reading, from CFC's favorite Doomsday web site:

Death by Magnetic Flip-Flop

Edit: this link doesn't want to go to the specific section on magnetic flip-flops--it's the "Flip!" article in the third section in the right-hand pane.

This is part of what makes the global warming problem so hard to pin down: it can be affected by a large number of factors, some of which are unknown, and many of which interact with each other in unexpected ways.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

@ Basketcase

The magnetic field does in fact not influence radiation per se but only charged high energy particles. It would be interesting if you could provide some data on their intensity. However the (slow) change in the magnetic field does imo not correlate well with the rapid increase of surface temperature.

Concerning Global warming:
1) Humans are emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gasses and have a huge impact on the ecosphere (I think that can not be denied)

2) We know very well the physical properties of greenhouse gasses (scientific facts)

3) We observe an increase of the surface temperature (rather rapidly)

Now to deny a significant human impact is foolish (not aimed at you), human caused emisisons of CO2 (fossile fuels), Methane and N2O (agriculture) is very strong, other greenhouse gasses like Freons are purely artificial.

We observe however a rapid climate change. There may be the SLIM chance that the end result is more favourable for us BUT what is sure is that during the intermediate period the whole ecosphere needs time to adapt to the new conditions and it will therefore run only on a suboptimal level - which is certainly not favourable.

 

[Urederra]

sum up: Ured says there is no recent massive warming, Mann's curve is false. Also, he says the new curve posted by gothmog is not showing a recent warming

Have you demonstrated that I said that Moberg graph is not showing a recent warming? No, you haven’t because I have never said that. I challenged you to prove that and you couldn’t. That is defamation and calumny you committed against me.

Same goes for your previous ‘go check them’… You couldn’t find any prove of your previous slander, so you tell me to check myself. Second time you tried to tell others that I said something that I didn’t. Nice trick, but it didn’t work.

And now you insult me. I don't need to go to the mods so you can be warned by your behaviour. I am tired of your defamations and calumnies. You are in my ignore list. I don't need to read you anymore.

 

[Urederra]

@ Basketcase

The magnetic field does in fact not influence radiation per se but only charged high energy particles. It would be interesting if you could provide some data on their intensity. However the (slow) change in the magnetic field does imo not correlate well with the rapid increase of surface temperature.

Concerning Global warming:
1) Humans are emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gasses and have a huge impact on the ecosphere (I think that can not be denied)

2) We know very well the physical properties of greenhouse gasses (scientific facts)

3) We observe an increase of the surface temperature (rather rapidly)

Now to deny a significant human impact is foolish (not aimed at you), human caused emisisons of CO2 (fossile fuels), Methane and N2O (agriculture) is very strong, other greenhouse gasses like Freons are purely artificial.

We observe however a rapid climate change. There may be the SLIM chance that the end result is more favourable for us BUT what is sure is that during the intermediate period the whole ecosphere needs time to adapt to the new conditions and it will therefore run only on a suboptimal level - which is certainly not favourable.

When the temperatures reached the ones during the Holocene optimum, up to 4 degrees higher than nowadays, then we can talk about link between CO2 levels and temperatures.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/ho/holocene_climatic_optimum.htm

1. Can you explain the temperatures of the holocene optimum? Can they be linked to antropogenic CO2? No,

2. Then, why the Earth climate was warmer 10.000 years ago than nowadays? Do you know it?

3. And how do you know that the cause of the holocene optimum is not the cause of the actual global warming?

Edit: and if nobody can answer those questions. How can anybody support the Kyoto protocol?

 

[Mr. Blonde]

@ Urederra:

We only need to explain the current influence of human beings on the climate change and this is concerning the quantity of human activity (as explained back and forth) accepted beyond doubt in the scientific field.

We are emitting greenhouse gases as well as massively changing the ecosphere. Explain to me how on Earth human activity can not be considered as a significant factor on the current climate change?

 

[Urederra]

@ Urederra:

We only need to explain the current influence of human beings on the climate change and this is concerning the quantity of human activity (as explained back and forth) accepted beyond doubt in the scientific field.

We are emitting greenhouse gases as well as massively changing the ecosphere. Explain to me how on Earth human activity can not be considered as a significant factor on the current climate change?

Because there are other factors that could be more important than those ones. Even atmospheric H2O surpases by far the cuantity of CH4 and CO2 increased antropogenically. And the level of absorption per molecule is similar. It is not that a molecule of CO2 absorbs 10000 times more than a molecule of H2O.


And why you only need to explain the current influence of human beings on the climate change? How can you prove that your explanations are correct if your theory can only be applied to the current trend? Can a theory be plausible if can only be used for the last 25 years? (I remind you that the 1950 1970 period was colder than the previous decades).

It is like you can only explain gravitation on Earth but not on the moon. For a theory to be plausible it should be useful in a wider range.

 

[Gothmog]

Urederra wrote:

I know what a standard deviation mean. I also know what t-student, chi-square, f-sneider mean. Why do you say that I don’t understand every time I don’t agree with you? For zillionth time, Moberg’s and Mann’s don’t agree.

OK, lets do a little test. We have a mean value and its standard deviation.

10 +- 3

Someone comes along and claims the number is 12.

Does the first representation agree with the second?

That's all I was trying to say, Moberg discusses the reasons for the differences and even plots Mann's results with his including Mann's uncertainties. He certainly never disparages Mann's results.

Both the Mann and the Moburg results show that the current heating is larger than anything experienced in the last 2000 years - including uncertainty.

But this is way OT and really irrelevant.

Well, Are you trying to say that the sun does not heat the Earth? Or you don’t know how the radiation produced by the sun reaches and heats the Earth. Why is that so mysterious to you?

???

Look, I've tried to be clear. Then I've tried to discuss details with you, but you are quite thick. I don't believe youre 'mistake' about H2O vs. CH4 was an honest one, you have a tendency to pre-assume conclusions. Just like when you say 'that is why I didn't bother to check', no body is that smart. Please check your assumptions.

The Holocene isn't really relevent either (I'm going to assume that you mean about 10000 years ago). Paleoclimatological studies are important for various reasons, but don't really impact a discussion on current climate.

I've alluded to this before, there are so many unconstrained variables that there are various hypotheses that one cannot distinguish between.

Any hypothesis that leads to a decreased global albedo would counteract the additional CO2 present.

Changes in oceanic circulation could do it too.

We just don't know enough about the earth system 10000 years ago to properly constrain the models.

Now lets get back to the current global warming problem.

I've said a number of times that H2O is the most important greenhouse gas. Thing is that we cannot change it's vapor phase mixing ratio (to first order) because it is in equilibrium with its liquid phase e.g. clouds.

This is not the case with CO2 or CH4.

CO2 and CH4 both absorb in areas of the infra-red where H2O has not already saturated the atmospheric collumn.

If you take the time to go through the calculations you will find that recent increases in greenhouse gasses have significantly increased the infra-red opacity of our troposphere.

One of the things that makes the greenhouse gas forcing so important is that if the troposphere heats up, then there will be a concomitant increase in H2O vapor (remember, in equilibrium with liquid). This is a positive feedback as I've mentioned in the context of the 'runnaway greenhouse effect'.

Now obviously, the ocean will heat up if the atmosphere heats up. This is one place where time scales are so important. Deep ocean water has a time scale of 1000's of years to circulate to the surface under current conditions. Changes in heat flux may change oceanic circulation.

We know as an empirical fact that we have significantly increased the ability of the troposphere to retain heat (and of the stratosphere to radiate it). This increase is about 3-4 W/m2. If one factors in anthropogenic changes to aerosol loading is seems to be about 2 W/m2.

We know as an empirical fact that the solar output has not had a change of this magnetude over the same timescale (more like 0.2 W/m2 increase). The heat island effect mentioned by FL2 is about 0.02 W/m2.

The first order, short time scale, effect of the anthropogenic perturbation to greenhouse gasses seems likely to be an increase in tropospheric temperatures. How the earth system responds to this perturbation is another question.

We can explain the cooling that occured 50 odd years ago, we have pretty good data for that time period. That's how we originally got onto the topic of SO2 which led us to your tortured understanding of CO2 and CH4. But even 50 years ago we have nothing like the data we have for the last 10-20 years. Satellites and other forms of remote sensing along with our new ability to put GB's of data on tiny harddrives have changed everything.

 

[marshal zhukov]

I thought about taking part in this thread but after reading this last page I realized the arguments are too hardcore for me.
23 pages of thread that is quite something.
My 2 cents: I think the world is warming up

 

[Civlord]

I thought about taking part in this thread but after reading this last page I realized the arguments are too hardcore for me.
23 pages of thread that is quite something.
My 2 cents: I think the world is warming up

I would say the same.

 

[BasketCase]

@ Basketcase

The magnetic field does in fact not influence radiation per se but only charged high energy particles. It would be interesting if you could provide some data on their intensity. However the (slow) change in the magnetic field does imo not correlate well with the rapid increase of surface temperature.

When those charged high-energy particles hit the planet, where does the energy go?? It can't just magically disappear. More particles = more energy hitting the planet = more heat.

Data on their intensity? Strong enough that most scientists believe life on this planet would be very difficult--or maybe impossible--if the magnetic field wasn't there. (Loss of the planet's magnetic field is also a popular Doomsday scenario, even though the most recent movie about it....SUCKED)

Slow change in the magnetic field? As stated by the article I posted on the subject, the Earth's magnetic field has already become 10% weaker in only 150 years or so.

 

[carlosMM]

When those charged high-energy particles hit the planet, where does the energy go?? It can't just magically disappear. More particles = more energy hitting the planet = more heat.

Data on their intensity? Strong enough that most scientists believe life on this planet would be very difficult--or maybe impossible--if the magnetic field wasn't there. (Loss of the planet's magnetic field is also a popular Doomsday scenario, even though the most recent movie about it....SUCKED)

Slow change in the magnetic field? As stated by the article I posted on the subject, the Earth's magnetic field has already become 10% weaker in only 150 years or so.

BC, the magnetic field reverses polarity (N becomes S, S becomes N) periodically. The 10% loss is a very strong indication it will 'flip' soon - but it will NOT disappear! Thus arguing that a TOTAL LACK would make life impossible is besides the point.

 

[BasketCase]

I don't know if a flip would make life impossible--but then I already said that.

most scientists believe life on this planet would be very difficult--or maybe impossible--if the magnetic field wasn't there

My main point with the magnetic field thingy is that I'm presenting another possible source of warming.

 

[carlosMM]

I don't know if a flip would make life impossible--but then I already said that.

My main point with the magnetic field thingy is that I'm presenting another possible source of warming.

A flip would not make impossible - I speedread your post and thought you were argueing that IN BETWEEN the field would go near zero, which indeed would be bad.

AFAIK, the heating effect is in fact minimal! This is due to the fact that only extremely high athmosphere layers would be significantly heated.

 

[brennan]

The magnetosphere doesn't actually prevent particles reaching the earth IIRC, it funnels them towards the poles (hence the aurora borealis). Given this there would probably be no net heating effect from loss of the field anyway. The protective effect it has is to reduce the flux of damaging high-energy rays on the world's genetic material.