Global Warming is really starting to run out of gas

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 27 2007, 03:22 AM) [snapback]531094[/snapback]</div>

Timbikes,

Excellent post. I agree with your statement above that there are a myriad of factors and many of them are poorly understood. Global climate is a complex issue without a doubt, and it is not likely that we will ever be able to fully understand it or predict it.

Under such circumstances we should expect there to be "dissent" and "controversy" in the scientific community. Not everyone can agree on something that is not fully understood. So, how do I as a layman decide what to believe? In the case of AGW I read both sides of the argument, but try to keep my "head above the fray" and get the larger perspective view of what science and the scientific debate tells us.

Taking our recent exchange as an example, I posted a link to a NASA website that contains the "hockey stick". You posted a link (from 2004) that "debunks" the hockey stick. By way of example (I am not trying to "settle" the hockey stick controversy, just demonstrate how I reach my temporary conclusions about something like this) I have the following observations:
1. Your "debunk" article was published in 2004.
2. Your article seems balanced in it view (many articles do not if you approach them with an open mind). It does not say that the hockey stick graph is wrong per say, it says that the data analysis is flawed and that the "conclusions" of the hockey stick cannot be drawn from the data. It does not, however, draw a different conclusion.
The article contains this statement:
It (discovery of a data analysis error) certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick (the "debunkers" are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections.
3. The author of your "debunk" article states:
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)...
So despite writing this article, he generally believes the same thing I believe.
4. You should also read this about the debunking of the debunking.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
5. The hockey stick graph is still on the NASA website. This tells me it hasn't been rejected by the scientific community or replaced by a better set of data or anaysis.
6. I also consider these thermometer based temperature trend graphs from NOAA.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarmi...strumental.html
7. This page from NOAA should also be considered. It contains the following statement:
When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed significantly over the last 140 years. Global warming has occurred. Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s, and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of at least the last 1000 years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html

What do I conclude from this? I conclude that while there is certainly scientific debate there also appears to be a general concensus supported by very reputable sources such as NASA and NOAA that global warming is happening, its cause is anthropogenic (at least to some degree), and the hockey stick is still likely a reasonably valid depiction of the earths historic temperature trend. I am not smart enough to conclude anything else because these people know a lot more about this than I do.

However, I respect your viewpoint because you obviously take the time to read and think about the issues, and maybe you too are smarter than I. viking31 is another story....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 27 2007, 12:38 PM) [snapback]531206[/snapback]</div>

You may doubt it would be hardly measurable, but that is because you are uninformed. It is measurable, it has been measured, and the results are in.

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03145.htm

Next invalid point please...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 27 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]531206[/snapback]</div>

Generalizations like this are not scientific. There are many other factors to take into consideration. Salinity swings (over very short periods of time) will cause biological stresses and effect osmoregulation and hinder metabolic reactions. More... You also failed to detail the effects of all of that land-based runoff that will include soils and other geologic content which nearly always contains NaCl or other ions that could increase salinity. The increase precipitation on lands formerly covered by snowpack will lead to inscreased rock weathering which is a known factor in salinization. Hotter ocean temps could mean more evaporation which futher increase salinity in areas of high local evaporation. So while some areas will see lower salinity levels others will see greatly increased salinity. So as you can see, neat blanket statements such as the one you made above do not fit well into science.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 27 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]531206[/snapback]</div>

viking:

your post is so idiotic and unimformed, that a response on your level is not possible

 

Yes, Global Warming is running out of gas. And oil. And natural gas. And fresh water.

We're running out and deniers still have their taps on full blast with their fingers in their ears going LA LA LA LA LA.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Oct 27 2007, 11:57 AM) [snapback]531211[/snapback]</div>

Salinity is an issue, particularly its potential effect on the mid-Atlantic conveyor belt, but for general marine life the change in pH balance from absorbed CO2 is a much larger issue. O/w I agree with your posts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Oct 27 2007, 10:31 AM) [snapback]531230[/snapback]</div>

Ohh I agree completely. In fact my term paper this semester is focused on this exact issue. Ocean acidification and it's effects on calcifying organisms. Depending on the grade I get I may post it up for you guys to read. lol

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 27 2007, 12:22 AM) [snapback]531094[/snapback]</div>

Old news from 2004. An excellent and balanced report was commissioned by the National Research Council and completed in 2006, partly in response to the hockey stick controversy:

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

I recommend reading it. You can read it for free online. I liked it so much, I bought a copy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 27 2007, 02:22 AM) [snapback]531094[/snapback]</div>

Yes, they moved a couple recent years down a post or two on the scale of hottest years, but it didn't change that most of the hottest years on record are in the last decade. The next cluster happened during the dust bowl, but we're surpassing that. Interesting reading, but it didn't turn anything upside down in the climate world.

I'll have to read that. Never heard that claim before.

I remember covering that in a previous thread where you posted the exact same picture. (Keep in mind that many official guages for cities have moved increasingly out into the suburbs as cities expand, so for examples like yours, there are counter-examples).

The reason your charts look so different is because the time scale is different by a factor of ten!! Compare apples to apples! (BTW, most of your fellow AGW-skeptics have accepted that the earth is warming and moved on to other defenses by now.)

Yes, I agree. Melting glaciers and polar ice increases the albedo and produces a positive feedback. Methane is a more potent GHG than CO2, but wait, that's increased due to human activity as well. CFC's are some of the most potent GHG ever, and those are entirely manmade. Water vapor is a mild GHG, but because of its quantity has an effect greater than CO2. However, it looks like those levels are rising as well (that one is harder to track because humidity changes so much from day to day, region to region, and we don't have widespread records going back very far). So that leaves solar activity and the lack of volcanic activity. Solar activity is looking less and less likely lately as a means of recent increase in global temperatures, and I'm certainly not holding my breath waiting for a spate of volcanos to tame this warming.
Let me finish with a graph of my own:
[attachmentid=12227]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ is an interesting site. Woods Hole Research, British Antarctic Survey other interesting places. But this graph comes from the Wikipedia entry on CO2 and has the clearest image of Co2 levels over the last 650 thousand years. Blue line is Co2 levels, red/orange line is temperature. Note today's CO2 level, and prove to me that's not a cause for concern.

 

"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. "

"Climate model simulations indicate that solar and volcanic forcings together could have produced periods of relative warmth and cold during the preindustrial portion of the last 1,000 years. However, anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases are needed to simulate late 20th century warmth."

"Finally, because some of the most important potential consequences of climate change are linked to changes in regional circulation patterns, hurricane activity, and the frequency and intensity of droughts and floods, regional and large-scale reconstructions of changes in other climatic variables, such as precipitation, over the last 2,000 years would provide a valuable complement to those made for temperature."

 

i heard a NPR Science Friday radio show interviewing a guy who wrote a book on how life will be in 25 years when GW is in full swing. does ANYONE know what book i am talking about.

i as always, wrote it down, forgot about it, lost it and now cant find it again.


also, anyone checking out the weather in the southeast lately as far as drought conditions?. mind you, have not read this anywhere, but could GW create another desert?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Oct 27 2007, 01:57 PM) [snapback]531255[/snapback]</div>

Was it Chris Mooney's Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics and the Battle Over Global Warming? He appeared with Ira Flatow on August 24, 2007.

Transcript

Science Friday

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Oct 27 2007, 12:15 PM) [snapback]531258[/snapback]</div>

wow that would be just about the right time. thanks Go!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 24 2007, 12:12 PM) [snapback]529759[/snapback]</div>

Science is far, far too controversial for my tastes.

All I can say is, it's been downright CHILLY in my hometown for the last few weeks!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Oct 27 2007, 09:29 AM) [snapback]531203[/snapback]</div>

Hey King - good post as well.

First - I should not have used a loaded word like "debunk" in reference to the "Hockey Stick". However, there are some serious reservations about the methodology used in Mann's work which frankly, I'm not smart enough to sort out. <_< However, here's what the National Research Council said in it's report (points for both sides of the argument here), quoted from Wikipedia:
# It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
# Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
# Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

The Wegman report, conducted by a number of statisticians and led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences, seems more critical (also from Wikipedia):
* MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be "somewhat obscure and incomplete" and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be "valid and compelling".
* It is noted that there is no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
* A social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction of at least 43 authors having direct ties to Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him is described. The findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
* It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to interact with the statistical community. Additionally, the Wegman team judged that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done.
* Overall, the committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

As for your other comments I think that you will find we are in agreement that indeed, the globally averaged temperature has risen over the past 140 years. However, even Mann's chart indicates that much of the rise occurred prior to widespread industrialization. But I do agree that CO2 is a likely causal factor to some degree for at least a portion of the rise, particularly in the more recent, industrial period. Probably our point of difference is in how much weight we place on CO2 as a significant factor in that temperature rise.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Oct 27 2007, 11:29 AM) [snapback]531249[/snapback]</div>

Hi Nerfer -

The movement of official temperature stations introduces its own set of problems to the temperature record, wouldn't you agree? There is plenty of discussion of this on www.surfacestations.org as well as here.

As far as the time scale on the charts, your point is valid - but it also misses the larger point I was trying to make - that there has been little if any discernible upward temperature trend on the global temperature chart over the past 5-6 years despite a sharp drop in the ocean's CO2 uptake in recent years and a continued, rapid increase in anthropogenic CO2 output. This would seem to run opposite to the expected result.

As for the chart with the historic temperature & CO2 - not withstanding my comments / concerns regarding temperature proxies - the chart does not provide the supporting evidence suggested because of the fact that CO2 increases have lagged - not led - temperature increases in this record. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this disproves a CO2 temperature link. In fact, I very much believe one exists. But this chart does not provide any evidence that CO2 triggered these past warming events.

One last thought with regard to temperatures - I am not much a fan of terrestrial temperature measures as an indicator of "global warming", for a variety of reasons. A much better measure is ocean heat content, as discussed here.

Also - since you mentioned the issue of "scale" on the charts, I'm wondering if for my edification you could explain the left and middle vertical scales on the chart you posted. I'm not clear and was hoping you knew.

Cheers!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 28 2007, 01:18 AM) [snapback]531516[/snapback]</div>

The links for the papers on that page are broken. The whole blog has been shut down, and there are no maintainers of the page. In any case, I found that you can replace the "blue.atmos.colostate.edu" in the links with "climatesci.colorado.edu" to get the PDF papers, for those that would like to read them.

 

Timbikes,

We can agree to disagree on the significance of the role of CO2. I feel it is highly significant for 2 reasons:
1. It is my perception that most of the scientists that study this for a living think it is.
2. I don't see much evidence that "natural causes" have ever produced anything like what is currently happening, rate wise.

Finally, from a policy perspective, I believe our differences are irrelevant. We should be making a significant effort to curb greenhouse gas emmisions NOW. Even if CO2 played no role in GW at all. The non-warming related rasons are completely compelling on their own.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 24 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]529759[/snapback]</div>

Remember People VOTE REPUBLICAN ! This is the essence of viking 31's (see ramblings above) message. And in order to avoid any obvious pangs of conscience for say 'Starting an Un-Necessary War', shredding the U.S. Constitution, etc. Viking 31 wants you all to reap his wisdom that despite massive support among people who actually know something about Global Climate changes, he has decided that he knows more than they do. The polar Ice cap vanishing over last summer, and the massive and sudden disappearance of ice shelves that've endured for thousands of years, just IGNORE all that so you can VOTE Republican this time around. Whatever you do, never engage your brain, as you did in choosing a Prius. Viking 31 wants you to vote REPUBLICAN, and to do that you'll need to ignore your BRAIN !

The earth having billions and billions of little two legged creatures releasing hydrocarbon emissions by burning fossil fuels, forests, and each other as in Iraq, couldn't possibly have any effect whatsoever ! Why, You Ask ? Well because Viking 31 is WAY SMARTER than all those scientists who spent their lives studying, doing reseach and not making (profits) money from their opinions. You just naturally wouldn't want to trust people who're that smart ! Stupid is Smart, Down is now Up, and Viking 31 knows more than anyone, so Vote Republican and get another Incompetent-In-Chief. Next Topic: Trading in that wasteful PRIUS on a Chevy Escalade because YOU . . . . are a GREAT & PATRIOTIC AMERICAN !