What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

Clearly climate skeptics are making blatantly false accusations again when they assert that there is no evidence for tropical tropospheric warming

For warming skeptics, the tropospheric data are the climate science World Series. They meet every challenge to the data with a furious diatribe, but the latest such challenge puts the skeptics in there place as charlatan's of disinformation again

The fundamental, misinformation work on the subject was done by a team at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, led by the Exxon funded climatologist John Christy and principal senior scientist Roy Spencer.
The UAH team studied satellite data and; when they failed to account for sensor drift, found the troposphere, which extends up to an altitude of about 7.5 miles -- and where most of the planet's weather occurs -- was not warming as fast as the surface, although it was still warming a fact that skeptics love to omit from there use of this work 



This Industry funded data conflicted with climate models, which predicted the two should be warming at more or less the same rate ( another claim the skeptics got wrong ). The discrepancy dealt a potentially serious blow to the contention that Earth's climate is experiencing a warming that is greater than historic variation.

The satellite data set has been reviewed three times by researchers outside UAH. The data, shows the troposphere is, in fact, warming at the rate predicted by the computer climate models.



In a paper to be published in the Dec. 15 issue of the Journal of Climate, Qiang Fu, a climate professor at the University of Washington in Seattle, has re-examined his own earlier work -- published last May in the British journal Nature, the results closely coincide with the climate models.

"We used three different data profiles, three different data sets," Fu told UPI's Climate. "You would expect that the exact results would depend on the detailed structure, but it's not sensitive to the structure. The difference is very small. That's the beautiful part.



Fu used data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and from Britain's Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research. The results he obtained got from the different processes he used almost exactly matched the work he did in the May Nature piece, providing essentially an independent confirmation of that work. 

"These results are consistent with the results that the Nature paper gets," Fu said. "It is an independent check of the problem because we used completely independent data sets. The independent observations agree with our conclusions, and that's quite powerful evidence." The tropical Troposphere is warming.

rewritten and based on information from
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/arti...articleID=6657
and
http://www.climateark.org/shared/rea...x?linkid=36988
in appreciation and respect of there open access considerations

Clearly climate skeptics are making blatantly false accusations again when they assert that water vapor accounts for 96% of greenhouse effects
the real numbers are more like ~80% by mass ~90% by volume and most importantly 36% to 66% by effect for an average effect of 51%
clouds ~25% and all other GHG ~25% of which co2 is the major contributor at ~16%
once again the skeptics are found out and exposed
( steps off soap box and takes a bow )

First some basics. Long-wave (or thermal) radiation is emitted from the surface of the planet and is largely absorbed in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the principle absorber of this radiation (and acknowledged as such by everybody). But exactly how important is it? In terms of mass, water vapour is much more prevalent (about 0.3% of atmospheric mass, compared to about 0.06% for CO2), and so is ~80% of all greenhouse gases by mass (~90% by volume). However, the radiative importance is less (since all molecules are not created equal). One way to quantify this is to take a radiation model and remove each long-wave absorber (principally the greenhouse gases, but also clouds and aerosols) and see what difference it makes to the amount of long-wave absorbed. This gives the minimum effect from each component. The complementary calculation, using only each particular absorber in turn, gives the maximum effect. Generally these will not be equal because of overlaps in the absorbing spectra (i.e. radiation at a particular frequency can either be absorbed by water vapour or CO2).

Removed absorbers Fraction LW Rad. Forcing
absorbed Tropo. (W/m2)
None 100% 0
H2O 64 (64, RC78) -56
Clouds 84 (86, RC78)
CO2 91 (88, RC78) -23
O3 97 (97, RC78)
Other GHG 98 -3
H2O+Clouds 34
H2O+CO2 47 -89
All except H2O+Clouds 85
All except H2O 66 (60-70, IPCC90)
All except CO2 26 (25, IPCC90)
All except O3 7
All except Other GHG 8
All 0%

The table shows the instantaneous change in long-wave aborption when each component or combination of components is removed using the radiation code from the GISS GCM. This is very similar to what was done by Ramanathan and Coakley (1978) using a single column model - their numbers are in the table for reference). Because of the overlaps, the combined changes are larger than the changes due to each individual component. Another calculation is the instantaneous radiative forcing at the tropopause, but that is complicated for clouds, O3 and Aerosols which have impacts on solar radiation as well as the long wave, so I only give that value for the 'pure' greenhouse gases.

The overlaps complicate things, but it's clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.

the truth will out my friends
the truth will out

wishing you all a tremendous holidays
best
B

ps
I have to wonder if these skeptics arent actually climate change proponents in disguise
way to go guys
keep bringing up all these skeptics falsehoods and Ill keep shooting em down k
all I ask is that you try to make it a little more challenging
cheers
B

[Boston]

how about another proverbial nail in the old skeptics coffin with the following from
the skeptics buster
(tips hat and tap dances off stage to rave applause )
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3Den%26sa%3DN

Measurements from a network of six Alpine surface budget stations indicate that the primary radiative forcing driving the increase in surface temperature is an increase of downward clear sky infrared from the atmosphere to the surface ( thats right kids, sunshine; waves a cigar ). The annual average increase in this term is nearly 4 Watts per square meter between 1995 and 2002. Net cloud effects are relatively less important. Moreover, the increase in downward clear sky infrared is correlated with an increase in atmospheric temperature, and also an increase in the water vapor content of the surface layer of the atmosphere. Using a simple radiation model, the authors conclude that about a third of the increase in downwelling infrared is due to the increase in atmospheric temperature,and the rest is due primarily to an increase in the water vapor content of the low level atmosphere. This happens because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so increasing the water vapor content makes air act more like a perfect blackbody emitter, if the air is not already opaque to infrared. In this case, increasing water vapor content will make the air a better absorber and emitter, even if its temperature doesn't change. From this result we learn that: (a) observations confirm the expected increase of low level water vapor content with temperature , and (b) the increase in water vapor accounts for the bulk of the increase in downward radiation heating the surface.

The authors then subtract off the part of the downward infrared radiation increase attributable to temperature and water vapor increase, and thus estimate the part due directly (as opposed to via feedbacks) to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as CO2. They estimate this to be about one third of a Watt per square meter. This is not in bad agreement with estimates from detailed radiation models run by the authors, which say that the change in surface radiation due to the 12ppm CO2 increase between 1995 and 2002 should be about one fourth of a Watt per square meter. It is striking that the changes in the Earth's surface radiation budget due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases are so profound that they can be directly observed on a regional scale, over such a short time period. So far, so good. Physics seems to be working as it should, and climate scientists seem to be basing their understanding of climate change on rock-solid physical principles. The authors do not fall into the trap of assuming that water vapor is the root cause of the observed warming. They understand fully well that water vapor acts as a feedback to amplify forcing due to CO2 increase, and make this clear in their paper. This paper does not, however, deal directly with the problem of whether European warming can be attributed to CO2 increase. It only shows that, whatever mechanism is causing the warming of the atmosphere in this region, the surface warming is being amplified by low level water vapor feedbacks.

clearly water vapor is a feedback not a forcing agent
cheers
B

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by masalai

- to increase the temperature of water requires minimal thermal but to melt ice demands significant and measurable levels of heat....

Ehmm. I like to point out the fact, that to heat;
1 kg of water 1 deg C, you'll need about 4100 Joules, to heat;
1 kg of Ice, you'll need only approx. half of that,

IF I recall correctly....

I Belive the heat tranfer between the molecules in a fixed solid (ice) is more consise than for a liquid (water), something like that.

So, still, in my opinion that anybody at all can argue that the climate is not heating, etc...? I'll still have my opinion.

Look at this one, I believe we had some mentioning about the extent of ice at the arctic, similar as before was the statement, a proof that ther's no global water. Heck, that water below that ice comes from the south, passing Norway. I beleive that I asked about thickness (or was that at another fora?): Ok, here it is:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre...pr_835_en.html

[Knut Sand]

Boston.....


Don't yell....

[Meanz Beanz]

Yes please...

[Guillermo]

Please, please, please......

[Pericles]

Take a look at this chart on right of page from Wikipedia . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous

It notes that during the Cretaceous period, atmospheric CO2 levels appear to have averaged about 1700ppm, or about 6 times the pre-industrial level of CO2 in the immediate pre-industrial period. It also notes that global temperatures appear to have averaged only about 4C higher than today.

Now, we have people telling us that if we double current CO2 to nearly 800ppm, we will end up with a rise of at least 3C in temperatures and possibly “greenhouse runaway” with temperatures continuing an unstoppable rise until we are all dead.

However, here we have evidence that CO2 was not only doubled from 385 ppm, but doubled again to 1700 ppm and it resulted in only 4C of temperature rise.

And by the way, the sky is falling! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...-to-a-new-low/

Perry

[Boston]

Hey Hey
nice to hear from the coal industry man

I would direct you to the following paper and note
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/...060918_16.html

The low thermal gradients and clement winters characterizing climates of the Cretaceous period reveal that the climate system has modes of behaviour quite different from the present. Recent proxy data analyses suggest that some aspects of climate change within the Cretaceous appear to be decoupled from CO2 evolution at the geological time scale. Here, we investigate the impact of paleogeography on the global climate with the climate model FOAM, using a Early, Mid and Late Cretaceous continental configuration. We find that changes in geography from the Early to Mid-to-Late Cretaceous cause a large decrease of the seasonal cycle. First order identified processes are the decreased continentality of the mid-to-high latitudes from the Mid Cretaceous and the increase of the latent heat transport into the winter hemisphere which induce a wetter and a cloudier atmosphere capable of diminishing the winter cooling of the continents. Owing to the modifications of the seasonal cycle in response to the tectonic forcing, the equator-to-pole thermal gradient is reduced from the Early to Mid-to-Late Cretaceous. We nevertheless still do not succeed in simulating warm enough polar temperatures and a definitive theory still waits for an integrated approach explicitly accounting for each factor influencing the thermal gradient (ocean dynamics, stratospheric clouds, and vegetation). Our study also suggests a mechanism that can weaken the correlation between CO2 and climate changes during the Cretaceous as evolving geography from the Early to Late Cretaceous, through the response of the water cycle and the changes in the thermal gradient, results in a 3.8 °C global warming at a constant atmospheric CO2 level. This demonstrates that the paleogeography may affect the relation between pCO2 and the climate history and consequently has to be accounted for when linking the atmospheric CO2 evolution and the climate record at geological time scales.

During the Mesozoic era, and especially the Cretaceous, global temperatures are thought to have been considerably warmer than the present. The global warmth of the Cretaceous has generally been attributed to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 [1] and [2]. In recent years, several studies using records of ?18O in foraminiferal calcite or in apatite tooth enamels have proposed a more nuanced description of the climate changes during the Cretaceous [3], [4] and [5], highlighting a progressive warming from the Aptian to the Cenomanian-Turonian as well as icehouse interludes during the lower Cretaceous at the million-year scale.

The warming trend observed from the Early to the Mid Cretaceous coupled to a reduction in atmospheric pCO2 as recorded by different proxies during the same period [6] has been used by Veizer et al. [7] to question the role of CO2 in regulating climates over Phanerozoic time scales. Going one step forward, a celestial mechanism has even been proposed to explain the relative uncorrelated atmospheric CO2 level record to the climate record during this particular time period [8]. However, Royer et al. [6] have shown that the use of a pH corrected proxy record of climate yields a much better match between CO2 variations and major climate shifts, undermining the arguments for cosmic ray fluxes as a significant driver of climate.
Another debate which surrounds the Cretaceous period concerns the concept of equability. Typically, the term "equable" means a reduced annual cycle of temperature and the absence of sub-freezing winters [9], [10] and [11]. Besides equability, another typical feature of Cretaceous climates is a weak pole to equator temperature gradient, as compared to the modern climate. It should be noted, however, that the concept of equability does not strictly apply to the Early Cretaceous [12], [13] and [14].

Several modelling studies have been devoted to the Cretaceous climate since the early 1980s and have demonstrated the importance of the oceanic circulation, the geographical distribution and the vegetation in explaining climate modes quite different from the present [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and [20]. Among these studies, Barron's pioneering work was designed to understand the factors controlling the generally warm Cretaceous climate. Barron identified a combination of three major variables, geography, CO2 content (four times present-day CO2) and oceanic heat flux to achieve the distribution of Mid-Cretaceous temperatures with the two latter being the most important [15]. Indeed, in 1993, Barron and colleagues published model experiments using the GENESIS model which suggested a negligible role of geography during the mid-Cretaceous [21] in contrast to early model studies with mean annual solar insolation and a simple energy balance ocean which predicted almost a 5 °C warming owing to the Cretaceous geography [16]. Rather than extending Barron's work and comparing the impact of present-day geography with a mean Cretaceous geography, we would like to undertake a systematic study of the climatic changes induced by three different contrasted continental configurations occurring during the Aptian, the Cenomanian and the Maastrichtian stages. To our knowledge, only Poulsen and colleagues have undertaken such comparable studies but their papers were mainly focused on the response of the global oceanic circulation to tectonic changes occurring from Aptian to Albian [19], [20] and [22]. In this study, paleoclimate simulations have been run for the Aptian, the Cenomanian and the Maastrichtian stages. Our aim is to determine the extent to which the major plate reorganization and sea level changes during the Cretaceous can have a large effect that might oppose CO2 forcing and contribute to the equability. This sensitivity study demonstrates that first-order features of the Cretaceous climate records can be generated by atmospheric feedbacks occurring in response to changes of the tectonic forcing.

this question is another standard industry quip
and the answer is simple
there are lot more factors than just co2 involved
but more importantly this new question fails to address the three basic questions raised earlier

how is it that all this ice is melting
if we are not actually warming up



why is it that all but one of the data sets represented show tropical tropospheric warming over ground temp when the skeptics clearly said there was absolutely no evidence of tropical tropospheric warming


are the skeptics being honest when they claim water vapor accounts for 96% of the greenhouse effect when it is clearly shown to only be 36% to 66% of the greenhouse effect depending on temp

and lastly why is it that once again rather than answer the questions raised;
specially the one about why is it we are melting if we are not also warming detractors distract us with another canned question

please folks
can we try and make this a little more challenging
thanks
B

and ok Ill try to quit with the large font size warnings if you guys quit with the phony industry info
cheers

[RHP]

São Paulo has had the COLDEST december so far in 20 years ! Its supposed to be summer (30+ C) and instead its an autumnal 18 degrees!

Due the financial crisis, global warming is postponed.

[Boston]

from the link old Knut provided

2008 again was a year with above-average temperatures all over Europe. A large geographical domain, including north-western Siberia and part of the Scandinavian region, recorded a remarkably mild winter. January and February were very mild over nearly all of Europe. Monthly mean temperature anomalies for these months exceeded +7°C in some places in Scandinavia. In most parts of Finland, Norway and Sweden, winter 2007/08 was the warmest recorded since the beginning of measurements. In contrast, the boreal winter was remarkably cold for a large part of Eurasia extending eastward from Turkey to China. Some places in Turkey had their coldest January nights in nearly 50 years. This extreme cold weather caused hundreds of casualties in Afghanistan and China.

February was a cold month across most of the USA Midwest, with average daily temperatures ranging from 4.0°C to 5.0°C below normal in some areas.

A very cold episode, due to an early Antarctic air mass outbreak, occurred in May in southern South America, particularly in central Argentina, where the minimum temperature dropped below –6°C in some locations, breaking annual absolute minimum temperature records. Conversely, mean July temperatures were more than +3°C above average in large parts of Argentina, Paraguay, southeast Bolivia and southern Brazil, making it the warmest July in the last 50 years for many locations. Also, November broke historical temperature records in association with an unusual heatwave. Central Argentina, including Buenos Aires city, had its warmest November in the last 50 years.

In March, southern Australia experienced a record heatwave that brought scorching temperatures across the region. Adelaide experienced its longest running heatwave on record, with 15 consecutive days of maximum temperatures above 35°C. Also, several heatwaves occurred in south-eastern Europe and the Middle East during April, associated with a very warm spring observed, not only in this region but also in a large part of the rest of Europe and Asia.

looks like those large temp anomalies predicted by the Climate Change theory are alive and well
lucky us

best B

[safewalrus]

It would appear the main reason for global warming is the constant meaderings by some fairly intelligent people who can't give up on this subject - truth is the weather and the world has been changing since it was invented that's what the world and Mother Nature is about Change that stays the same!! Every though about doing something useful? like shoot fish in a barrel......but no that would take all the fun away!

[Boston]

LMAO
that was great
levity appreciated

the general idea of the theory is best described by its full moniker
Rapid Global Climate Change

more rapid than normal
normal being the only albeit a poor argumentative point
and without any obvious drivers other than pollution for the rapid change we are seeing, then it only stands to reason to look to the reduction in pollution as a solution

the rapidity of the climate change is limited to feedback cycles intrinsic to the system therefor climate reactions may not fall outside of the historic parameters but instead lay on the upper end of the systems limiting factors given those factors are not themselves artificially altered
( that last may look like a target to a few folks but is actually precisely what has been said all along )

today in the BBC

Computer models have long predicted that decreasing sea ice should amplify temperature changes in the northern polar region.
Julienne Stroeve, from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, told a meeting of the American Geophysical Union that this process was under way.
Arctic ice cover in summer has seen rapid retreat in recent years.
The minimum extents reached in 2007 and 2008 were the smallest recorded in the satellite age.

"The sea ice is entering a new state where the ice cover has become so thin that no matter what happens during the summer in terms of temperature or circulation patterns, you're still going to have very low ice conditions," she told the meeting.
Autumn return
Theory predicts that as ice is lost in the Arctic, more of the ocean's surface will be exposed to solar radiation and will warm up.
When the autumn comes and the Sun goes down on the Arctic, that warmth should be released back into the atmosphere, delaying the fall in air temperatures.
Ultimately, this feedback process should result in Arctic temperatures rising faster than the global mean.
Dr Stroeve and colleagues have now analysed Arctic autumn (September, October, November) air temperatures for the period 2004-2008 and compared them to the long term average (1979 to 2008).
The results, they believe, are evidence of the predicted amplification effect.
"You see this large warming over the Arctic ocean of around 3C in these last four years compared to the long-term mean," explained Dr Stroeve.
"You see some smaller areas where you have temperature warming of maybe 5C; and this warming is directly located over those areas where we've lost all the ice."

best
B

its beer thirty
back in a few

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

and without any obvious drivers other than pollution for the rapid change we are seeing, then it only stands to reason to look to the reduction in pollution as a solution

This is the classic 'lassitude' response; preferred by ideologues and the intellectually lazy the world over

Jimbo

[Boston]

Readers take note
warning
The information presented in many of these posts has been proven to be no more than industry spin; published not in scientifically accredited publications, but in whats known as industry rags published by the oil and gas community. There is a direct comparison to what is happening on this thread and what the Tobacco industry did during its disinformation campaign


just wondering if you guys were planning on answering Masalai's question about ice melt

if the temp is not rising
why is all this ice melting

and Im curious if you were planning on admitting there is plenty of data supporting tropical tropospheric warming
when you had said categorically there was none

or maybe admitting that water vapor makes up only about 50% of the greenhouse effect and not the 96% you tried to pass off

any ideas on that
cause I think we should stick to the last three questions before we move on to lassitude
or
obfuscate for that matter
as someone pointed out earlier

love
B

An Overwhelming Consensus

The most important fact to note when discussing the issue of global climate change is that, for the professional scientific community, the debates about whether global climate change exists and whether human activity is contributing to that change are over. The scientific consensus is now so overwhelming that the only reasonable course of action is to treat human-created global climate change as a fact, and move the debate to what to do about it.

Of course there is still a very small group of scientists who remain skeptical about whether climate change exists and whether humans have caused it, but their number and the strength of their arguments are so insignificant that they should not be interpreted as representing the forefront of their field. The plain fact is that there always is, and always ought to be, scientific dissent about every theory that has been devised. That's how science works - through open questioning and testing of hypotheses.

We don't want to censor the tiny number of dissenting scientists, but we do think that it's very important to place their ideas in context. The immense majority of scientific experts have concluded that the claims of these skeptics are just plain incorrect, not fitting with the huge amount of data on global climate change that has been collected.

Scientific consensus is never a final determination of truth, and we must retain the freedom for scientists to disagree with the current consensus. However, when it comes to global climate change, the issue is what public policy-makers ought to do on a practical level. On a practical level, it's insane to wait for absolutely universal consensus before taking action. We need to work with the best information we've got, and the best information overwhelmingly points to serious, human-induced global climate change.

As much as science works through dissent, it also works through peer review. That means that when one scientist comes up with certain findings, they need to be replicated by other scientists. The process of peer review is what enabled the scientific community to quickly debunk the popular craze about cold fusion energy technology, and it's what prevents scientists in general from simply making outlandish statements about what they believe to be true. Consistent evidence that fits with a hypothesis is necessary before that hypothesis is treated as true.

For this reason, it is inappropriate to claim that one dissenting voice is capable of destroying a theory that has gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. There are still people who claim that the Earth is really flat, but they can't back up their claims in a peer-reviewed process, and that's why they're not taken seriously. Creation "scientists" too, make plenty of claims, but those claims are not capable of withstanding review by other scientists, and so they are dismissed. When it comes to global climate change, there are dissenters, but they have not been able to come up with significant information that meets the standards of their peers. So, as earnest as these individuals are, we do not have any reason to trust that their ideas are reliable.

[Guillermo]

Climate Change Reexamined
JOEL M. KAUFFMAN
Emeritus, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry,
University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf

As, depending on authors, water vapor is responsible for about 60-98% of the natural greenhouse effect worldwide, here some interesting thoughts from that paper we can relate with the use of new fuel cells (hydrogen) propulsion systems for ships:

"It is possible that any human contribution to the feel of surface warming is from water vapor resulting from irrigation and the combustion of hydrogen-containing fuels (hydrocarbons or alcohols), which simply raise the humidity or dew point. Thus, the use of pure hydrogen as a fuel on a large scale could be counter-productive, especially if this fuel is made from hydrocarbons with CO2 as a by-product, sending additional water vapor into the air as well."

Cheers.