What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

The question about the real cooling amount caused by aerosols remains as one of the greatest uncertainties to stablish how much of the warming can be attributed to CO2. The complex influence of atmospheric aerosols on the climate system and the influence of humans on aerosols are among the key uncertainties in the understanding recent climate change. But not only aerosols caused by humans have to be put into the equation, as there are several natural causes of aerosols in the atmosphere, as per example those created by airborne bacteria and the african dust, on top of the sea salt and the short lived volcanic activity ones.

The Gunnar Myhre paper cited previously reports that a careful study of satellite data show the assumed cooling effect of aerosols in the atmosphere to be significantly less than previously estimated. Unfortunately, the assumed greater cooling has been used in climate models for years. In such models, the global-mean warming is determined by the balance of the radiative forcings—warming by greenhouse gases balanced against cooling by aerosols. Since a greater cooling effect has been used in climate models, the result has been to credit CO2 with a larger warming effect than it really has.

The absorption frequencies of CO2 are already saturated, meaning that the atmosphere already captures close to 100% of the radiation at those frequencies. Consequently, as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the rise in temperature for a given increase in CO2 becomes smaller. This sorely limits the amount of warming further increases in CO2 can engender. Because CO2 on its own cannot account for the observed temperature rise in the past century, climate modelers assume that linkages exist between CO2 and other climate influences, mainly water vapor.

To compensate for the missing “forcing,” models are tuned to include a certain amount of extra warming linked to carbon dioxide levels—extra warming that comes from unestablished feedback mechanisms who's existence is simply assumed. Aerosol cooling and climate sensitivity in the models must balance each other in order to match historical conditions. Since the climate warmed slightly last century the amount of warming must have exceeded the amount of cooling.

A large aerosol cooling, therefore, implies a correspondingly large climate sensitivity. Conversely, reduced aerosol cooling implies lower GHG warming, which in turn implies lower model sensitivity. The upshot of this is that sensitivity values used in models for the past quarter of a century have been set too high. Using elevated sensitivity settings has significant implications for model predictions of future global temperature increases. The low-end value of model sensitivity used by the IPCC is 2°C. Using this value results, naturally, in the lowest predictions for future temperature increases. According to the Myhre paper previous values for aerosol cooling are too high—by as much as 40 percent—implying the IPCC's model sensitivity settings are too high also.

Discrepancies between recent satellite observations and the values needed to make climate models work right have vexed modelers. “A reliable quantification of the aerosol radiative forcing is essential to understand climate change,” states Johannes Quaas of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany. Writing in the same issue of Science at which Myhre's work was published, Dr. Quaas continued, “however, a large part of the discrepancy has remained unexplained.” With a systematic set of sensitivity studies, Myhre explains most of the remainder of the discrepancy. His paper shows that with a consistent data set of anthropogenic aerosol distributions and properties, the data-based and model-based approaches converge.

[Guillermo]

Here a couple of interesting images from the MACC project, showing the forecast of the optical depth at 550 nm of some of the anthropogenic and natural caused aerosols, as to date sept 05, 2010. We can realize the difficulty of the problem of dealing with aerosols, as their distribution is greatly irregular, not like CO2 which is a well mixed gas.

http://www.gmes-atmosphere.eu/

MACC takes as its input comprehensive sets of satellite data from many tens of instruments supplying information on atmospheric dynamics, thermodynamics and composition, made available by space agencies and institutions with which the agencies collaborate to produce retrieved data products. The satellite data are supplemented by in-situ data from meteorological networks and a limited amount of data from networks providing in-situ measurements of atmospheric composition. Data are processed to provide a range of products related to climate forcing, air quality, stratospheric ozone, UV radiation at the earth’s surface and resources for solar power generation. Additional in-situ data are used for validating the processing systems and the products they supply. MACC operates a value-adding chain which extracts information from as wide a range of observing systems as possible and combines the information in a set of data and graphical products that have more complete spatial and temporal coverage and are more readily applicable than the data provided directly by the observing systems.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

And now, what about the 1910-1940 vs 1970-2000 temps issue? Do not avoid that either!

Caught by the b....again!

once again you are prevaricating, the graph which was the heart of your argument earlier is all of a sudden not good enough now to find the data you claim does not exist, nice try but not fooling anyone G. Whats really kinda funny is your habit of asking the same question over and over hoping for a different answer, wrong again, the question has already been answered and just cause you are incapable of comprehending it doesn't mean its not accurate

the graph you presented contains the relevant data, the bit about aerosols is well established and like so many other aspects of climate studies seems to be escaping you

once again for the readers further edification

its tough to get an ape to where glasses isn't it
you gotta work on these questions a little G of the Jungle cause this bit about there being a similar amount of increase in temp between 1910~1940 and the 1970~200 period is got me questioning your visual acuity



if you look at the graph presented you will see that the first period you question has a rise in temp of about 0.4°C and the second of about 0,9°C yet your sayin they have a "similar amount of rising temps" when if fact according to the graph we are looking at these days they actually have no similarities in the increase in temp other than both increases were positive. So once again its difficult to properly field such a poorly constructed question.

if you would like to look at some other graphs you will notice a similar problem but this time based on a lack of knowledge surrounding the burning of high sulfur coals and the interactions of aerosols in the system



The real nail in the coffin for this kind of argument is the simple fact that the slight downward trend from about 45 to 75 is largely attributed to the increase in sulfate aerosols seen during this time because of the burning of high sulfur coal. Aerosols have a cooling effect as we have discussed before, if you consider that there are other factors like these aerosols that influence the system then it all becomes a bit more clear

likely this simple realization will also put a slight bruise on our banana of the day but hey

monkeys don't seem to care

love
B

[Boston]

Once again your posts are a simple game of find the flaw.

generally its a no brainer like this last were you are simply ignoring your own graph rather than admit that right in front of your eyes is the data which you claim does not exist

its also indicative of a small mind when you descend into a litany of petty abuse for anyone who disagrees with you, personally I find it humorously entertaining but obviously your behavior has driven several noted posters from the thread. Obviously your position cant tolerate debate and so you react rather than reason. Pity really as if you would take a moment and actually listen to what some of these folks are telling you you might just actually learn something. There is an axiom that fits well in this regard

a mind is like a parachute

[Guillermo]

I see.... It's totally useless to try to bring you to think and debate with a minimum of logic. You just insist in behaving like a perfect idiot, posting once and again information you do not understand at all and taking undue conclusions from it, just because of your sickly compulsion to apparent a cleverliness and understanding you do not have at all. Totally idiotic, as said.

Not surprising, though.

Here you have something for you to entertain yourself instead of coming here to post nonsense:

http://www.addictinggames.com/theidiottest.html

Even you being an idiot, don't worry because you can try as many times as you want.

[Questor]

Originally Posted by alanrockwood

That is only ONE of his attempts at deception.

It is very hard to achieve consensus on climate change when there is so much malice and misinformation to strive against. Those of us that are genuinely interested in addressing the issues of climate change need to work together more closely while strengthening our resolve to overcome the prevalent malice and deceit.

[hoytedow]

There is indeed a lot of malice and deception coming in fusillades from the Church of Warmnotology.

[wardd]

boston, it's way better to be a perfect idiot than just a so so idiot

be the best you can

[wardd]

the temp keeps rising and the ice keeps melting, hey but don't worry about it

we're terraforming the planet for our replacements


nature really doesn't give a rats ass about us, we're only special in our own minds

[Questor]

It's hard to win a debate upon global warming when you try to pit science against pure unbridled hatred. Hatred always wins because the conscientious opponents of global warming have no means of quelling the hatred that consumes the hearts and minds of their opponents.

[wardd]

they are also the ones against social programs untill they need one, then they're only for the ones they need

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by wardd

the temp keeps rising and the ice keeps melting, hey but don't worry about it

we're terraforming the planet for our replacements


nature really doesn't give a rats ass about us, we're only special in our own minds

Then why worship it?

[wardd]

i don't want to worship it, i just want to be able to live with it (the way it is)

if we change it, nature will happily get rid of us and go on to something else

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

I see.... It's totally useless to try to bring you to think and debate with a minimum of logic. You just insist in behaving like a perfect idiot, posting once and again information you do not understand at all and taking undue conclusions from it, just because of your sickly compulsion to apparent a cleverliness and understanding you do not have at all. Totally idiotic, as said.

Not surprising, though.

Here you have something for you to entertain yourself instead of coming here to post nonsense:

http://www.addictinggames.com/theidiottest.html

Even you being an idiot, don't worry because you can try as many times as you want.

well that was a meaningful dialog, yet you prefer to insist I'm the one not presenting the pertinent data, au contraire a mon ami it is you who still refuse to address the subject of the original conversation, namely the north american temp graph from which you based your previous assertions, I then also included a graph of world temps and was successfully able to show a relationship between aerosols and a glitch in the unprecedented rise in temps we see within the industrial age. A rise which on the one hand you admit but on the other deny is caused by CO2. Even though the odds of this being a simple coincidence are astronomically small.

not sure if this will paste but I'll give it a try

CO2 and Temperature: What is the Correlation?

(c) 2009 by Barton Paul Levenson



Some global warming deniers claim that the correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide is vague and coincidental. I'll check that here with what's called a "linear regression." This means essentially that I take two columns of numbers and graph them against each other (in mathematical space if not actually on a screen or paper), and then find the straight line that comes closest to all the points. I can then compute how "significant" the regression is, which means how likely the relationship was to come about by chance. In general statisticians look for a probability of 5% or less that the relationship is due to chance, or "p < 0.05". If you achieve that, chances are you have something real going on.

The raw data is in a table below. The columns are:

Year.
Anom is the mean global annual "temperature anomaly" measured by the NASA GISTEMP project ("NASA GISS" figures, GISS being the Goddard Institute for Space Sciences). The value are in hundredths of an absolute degree (centikelvins). The temperature anomaly is defined as the difference between the temperature for that year and the mean in some base period (this data uses the mean for 1961-1990 as the base figure).
ln CO2 is the natural logarithm of the CO2 level. Radiation physics says the radiative forcing from accumulated carbon dioxide should be related to the log of the level rather than the level itself, so this is what we actually use in the computation.
CO2 is the actual carbon dioxide level, since ln CO2 is a little hard to visualize. The values are in parts per million of the atmosphere by volume. The source is Law Dome ice core readings for 1880 to 1958 and Mauna Loa CO2 observatory readings for 1959-2007. The figure for 1964 was interpolated by yours truly.
Here's the actual data:

Year Anom lnCO2 CO2
1880 -12 5.6723 290.7
1881 -12 5.6740 291.2
1882 -1 5.6757 291.7
1883 -5 5.6771 292.1
1884 -43 5.6788 292.6
1885 -24 5.6802 293.0
1886 -26 5.6812 293.3
1887 -46 5.6822 293.6
1888 -24 5.6829 293.8
1889 6 5.6836 294.0
1890 -21 5.6843 294.2
1891 -55 5.6846 294.3
1892 -39 5.6853 294.5
1893 -40 5.6856 294.6
1894 -33 5.6860 294.7
1895 -33 5.6863 294.8
1896 -27 5.6866 294.9
1897 -16 5.6870 295.0
1898 -20 5.6877 295.2
1899 -25 5.6887 295.5
1900 -6 5.6897 295.8
1901 -5 5.6907 296.1
1902 -30 5.6920 296.5
1903 -36 5.6931 296.8
1904 -42 5.6944 297.2
1905 -26 5.6958 297.6
1906 -15 5.6974 298.1
1907 -40 5.6988 298.5
1908 -30 5.7001 298.9
1909 -31 5.7014 299.3
1910 -21 5.7028 299.7
1911 -25 5.7041 300.1
1912 -33 5.7051 300.4
1913 -29 5.7064 300.8
1914 -3 5.7074 301.1
1915 5 5.7084 301.4
1916 -20 5.7094 301.7
1917 -47 5.7108 302.1
1918 -35 5.7118 302.4
1919 -9 5.7127 302.7
1920 -17 5.7137 303.0
1921 -5 5.7151 303.4
1922 -10 5.7164 303.8
1923 -17 5.7174 304.1
1924 -12 5.7187 304.5
1925 -16 5.7203 305.0
1926 4 5.7216 305.4
1927 -6 5.7229 305.8
1928 -1 5.7246 306.3
1929 -23 5.7262 306.8
1930 -4 5.7275 307.2
1931 2 5.7291 307.7
1932 4 5.7307 308.2
1933 -11 5.7320 308.6
1934 5 5.7333 309.0
1935 -8 5.7346 309.4
1936 2 5.7359 309.8
1937 12 5.7366 310.0
1938 15 5.7372 310.2
1939 -2 5.7375 310.3
1940 14 5.7379 310.4
1941 11 5.7379 310.4
1942 10 5.7375 310.3
1943 6 5.7372 310.2
1944 10 5.7369 310.1
1945 -1 5.7369 310.1
1946 0 5.7369 310.1
1947 12 5.7372 310.2
1948 -3 5.7375 310.3
1949 -9 5.7382 310.5
1950 -17 5.7388 310.7
1951 -2 5.7401 311.1
1952 4 5.7414 311.5
1953 12 5.7427 311.9
1954 -9 5.7443 312.4
1955 -8 5.7462 313.0
1956 -18 5.7481 313.6
1957 8 5.7500 314.2
1958 9 5.7523 314.9
1959 5 5.7557 316.0
1960 -2 5.7586 316.9
1961 10 5.7609 317.6
1962 5 5.7635 318.5
1963 2 5.7652 319.0
1964 -25 5.7668 319.5
1965 -15 5.7684 320.0
1966 -8 5.7726 321.4
1967 -2 5.7750 322.2
1968 -9 5.7778 323.1
1969 0 5.7827 324.6
1970 4 5.7859 325.7
1971 -10 5.7879 326.3
1972 -5 5.7913 327.5
1973 18 5.7981 329.7
1974 -6 5.7998 330.3
1975 -2 5.8026 331.2
1976 -21 5.8056 332.2
1977 16 5.8108 333.9
1978 7 5.8156 335.5
1979 14 5.8196 336.9
1980 28 5.8251 338.7
1981 40 5.8287 339.9
1982 9 5.8323 341.1
1983 34 5.8371 342.8
1984 15 5.8419 344.4
1985 12 5.8462 345.9
1986 19 5.8498 347.2
1987 35 5.8549 348.9
1988 42 5.8622 351.5
1989 28 5.8662 352.9
1990 48 5.8698 354.2
1991 44 5.8738 355.6
1992 15 5.8760 356.4
1993 19 5.8778 357.0
1994 32 5.8830 358.9
1995 46 5.8885 360.9
1996 39 5.8934 362.6
1997 41 5.8965 363.8
1998 72 5.9044 366.6
1999 46 5.9089 368.3
2000 42 5.9121 369.5
2001 57 5.9163 371.0
2002 68 5.9218 373.1
2003 67 5.9286 375.6
2004 60 5.9333 377.4
2005 76 5.9393 379.7
2006 66 5.9450 381.8
2007 74 5.9495 383.6
Here's the data in a graph:


The units for temperature anomaly should be cK, of course, not K. Sorry about that. Excuse the fuzziness; it's a .gif file.

I used Microsoft Excel to run the regression. The data points covered the period from 1880 to 2007 inclusive, so there were N = 128 data points. The regression line I found was:

Anom = -1876.715416 + 325.8718284 ln CO2
(-20.19118332) (20.20270777)
The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%.

More than coincidence? You be the judge!

what makes it even more interesting is it looks like he is raising 4 to a power by a factor of 40
which places these odds within the bounds of near impossibility

and for those folks just reading along

means the chances of Guillermo being right are almost nil and the chances of him being wrong are almost infinite

I'd write it out but there's just to many zero's involved

with all my love and admiration
B

hmmmm

thats

one in 40000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance Guillermo is correct when he claims there is no correlation between CO2 and temp

so the real question is how many of the readers would take those odds in a card game

[hoytedow]

Yawn!