This is where Global Warming is headed

[astrodon]

I have been debating for some time as to whether to add to this thread since there have been so many angry comments made. Being an astrophysicist who specializes in the study of the "atmospheres" (i.e., the outer layers) of cool stars, and who has done some research in planetary atmospheres, let me make a few points.

1. Over the past century, there has been a "one-to-one" correlation between the increase of atmospheric CO2 and average atmospheric temperature rise averaged on a seasonal cycle. One need only examine a textbook on meteorology or freshman astronomy to see this data. Coincidentally, the industrial revolution started around the same epoch of this correlation. Both data were relatively flat over time prior to this.

2. Occasional large volcanic epsidoes have had some impact on the average atmospheric temperature, but these episodes have not had a lasting (i.e., more than a year or few) impact on the atmosphere.

3. The Sun's luminosity has remained relatively constant over the past 400 years (since mankind started measuring it). There are minor (less than 0.01 percent) changes due to the solar activity (sunspot/facula) cycle. The Sun is not causing this temperature increase. (And if it was, this would be far worse than manmade greenhouse gases causing this temperature increase -- we would be toast within a single generation.) The Sun's luminosity is negligibly increasing over time (fortunately) -- the Earth still has about a billion years in the habital zone (the region around a star where temperatures allow liquid water to form and exist for long periods of time).

4. From what we understand about the formation of the solar system (and this understanding is quite good now-a-days), the original Earth atmosphere had a similar percentage of molecular abundances as the current abundances of Venus and Mars, about 95-98% CO2, 2-5% N2, and trace amounts of argon and water vapor. Unlike Venus and Mars, the distance that the Earth is from the Sun allows water to exist primarily in a liquid state (however see the note below). Fortunately, liquid H2O chemically interacts with gaseous CO2 and the oceans acted as a filter reducing the CO2 abundance over time. As a matter of fact, much of this original CO2 atmosphere is now locked up in limestone rock and various clays. Fortunately back when the Earth had a substantial CO2 atmosphere, the Sun's luminosity was about 90% of its current value (we know this from a detailed understanding of stellar evolution and studying other one-solar mass stars that have formed within the past billion years), otherwise the Earth may had experienced a runaway greenhouse effect like it's neighbor Venus experienced (which is a whole other talk). Mars was too far away from the Sun for such a runaway greenhouse effect to take place. Also, without the greenhouse effect from this original Earth atmosphere, the Earth's surface would have been too cold to support liquid water during the Sun's early days on the main sequence (the era of a star when it fuses hydrogen into helium in its core) -- by the way, the Sun's main sequence lifetime is about 10 billion years. Since the solar system is about 5 billion years old, the Sun is mid-aged.

The bottom line is that the evidence is overwhelming that mankind is the cause of the current increasing atmospheric temperature.

This global warming problem is perhaps something that should concern us. Carl Sagan pointed out back in the 70s that if the atmospheric temperature increases too much (about 5 K or 10 F), the original atmospheric CO2 that is currently locked in the Earth's surface could start to sublimate (solid to gas phase change) out which could send Earth's surface into a runaway greenhouse event similar to what happened on Venus early in the history of the solar system. And once this sublimation starts, there is no stopping it. This would boil and fry the Earth's surface in a very short period of time (likely less than 100 years). So it's not just flooded coastlines that we might have to worry about.

The moral of this story: Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? Especially if your unable to fix the problem once it gets going?

Finally to clarify some misunderstandings. Global long-term climate changes are easier to model than short-term weather. The physics of weather is very non-linear and one needs to employ methods of chaos theory to model it (which results in answers described as probabilities). The physics of long-term climate evolution is not as complicated as short-term weather variation and has much smaller uncertainties (or standard deviations for those of you who are math-minded) as compared to weather uncertainties.

I hope this doesn't generate too much wrath in my direction.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have been debating for some time as to whether to add to this thread since there have been so many angry comments made. Being an astrophysicist who specializes in the study of the "atmospheres" (i.e., the outer layers) of cool stars, and who has done some research in planetary atmospheres, let me make a few points.

1. Over the past century, there has been a "one-to-one" correlation between the increase of atmospheric CO2 and average atmospheric temperature rise averaged on a seasonal cycle. One need only examine a textbook on meteorology or freshman astronomy to see this data. Coincidentally, the industrial revolution started around the same epoch of this correlation. Both data were relatively flat over time prior to this.

2. Occasional large volcanic epsidoes have had some impact on the average atmospheric temperature, but these episodes have not had a lasting (i.e., more than a year or few) impact on the atmosphere.

3. The Sun's luminosity has remained relatively constant over the past 400 years (since mankind started measuring it). There are minor (less than 0.01 percent) changes due to the solar activity (sunspot/facula) cycle. The Sun is not causing this temperature increase. (And if it was, this would be far worse than manmade greenhouse gases causing this temperature increase -- we would be toast within a single generation.) The Sun's luminosity is negligibly increasing over time (fortunately) -- the Earth still has about a billion years in the habital zone (the region around a star where temperatures allow liquid water to form and exist for long periods of time).

4. From what we understand about the formation of the solar system (and this understanding is quite good now-a-days), the original Earth atmosphere had a similar percentage of molecular abundances as the current abundances of Venus and Mars, about 95-98% CO2, 2-5% N2, and trace amounts of argon and water vapor. Unlike Venus and Mars, the distance that the Earth is from the Sun allows water to exist primarily in a liquid state (however see the note below). Fortunately, liquid H2O chemically interacts with gaseous CO2 and the oceans acted as a filter reducing the CO2 abundance over time. As a matter of fact, much of this original CO2 atmosphere is now locked up in limestone rock and various clays. Fortunately back when the Earth had a substantial CO2 atmosphere, the Sun's luminosity was about 90% of its current value (we know this from a detailed understanding of stellar evolution and studying other one-solar mass stars that have formed within the past billion years), otherwise the Earth may had experienced a runaway greenhouse effect like it's neighbor Venus experienced (which is a whole other talk). Mars was too far away from the Sun for such a runaway greenhouse effect to take place. Also, without the greenhouse effect from this original Earth atmosphere, the Earth's surface would have been too cold to support liquid water during the Sun's early days on the main sequence (the era of a star when it fuses hydrogen into helium in its core) -- by the way, the Sun's main sequence lifetime is about 10 billion years. Since the solar system is about 5 billion years old, the Sun is mid-aged.

The bottom line is that the evidence is overwhelming that mankind is the cause of the current increasing atmospheric temperature.

This global warming problem is perhaps something that should concern us. Carl Sagan pointed out back in the 70s that if the atmospheric temperature increases too much (about 5 K or 10 F), the original atmospheric CO2 that is currently locked in the Earth's surface could start to sublimate (solid to gas phase change) out which could send Earth's surface into a runaway greenhouse event similar to what happened on Venus early in the history of the solar system. And once this sublimation starts, there is no stopping it. This would boil and fry the Earth's surface in a very short period of time (likely less than 100 years). So it's not just flooded coastlines that we might have to worry about.

The moral of this story: Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? Especially if your unable to fix the problem once it gets going?

Finally to clarify some misunderstandings. Global long-term climate changes are easier to model than short-term weather. The physics of weather is very non-linear and one needs to employ methods of chaos theory to model it (which results in answers described as probabilities). The physics of long-term climate evolution is not as complicated as short-term weather variation and has much smaller uncertainties (or standard deviations for those of you who are math-minded) as compared to weather uncertainties.

I hope this doesn't generate too much wrath in my direction.

Thanks very much for your post. You should not have been hiding, unless you like to watch a circus or fish out of water discussing this topic

Some latch unto some ideas that feel good to them, for whatever reason, human nature, and evidence is not going to convince otherwise. Even some otherwise good scientists can succumb to it, like my example of a microbiologist and HIV, just cannot be convinced with the overwhelming evidence at hand. And, that is dangerous to the less informed public because you have a scientist supporting a false premise, and reality.

I just hope that others here will find your post and read it whether it is enough for them or not.

 

[Johnd]

The bottom line is that the evidence is overwhelming that mankind is the cause of the current increasing atmospheric temperature.

Thank you for posting the facts in such a dispassionate manner. Perhaps some of the "better-educated" non-believers will now be prompted to:

1) listen
2) seek more truth
3) become better informed through their search of the truth and facts
4) act on this (and all) newfound information

I was challenged a few pages back to produce scientific reports evidencing our role in climatic change and the ozone layer. I refuse to waste my time for those too lazy to seek information out for themselves (because they've made up their mind, and are adamant about not changing it despite any proof to the contrary). This information is readily available, especially with the internet (as you wrote: "One need only examine a textbook on meteorology or freshman astronomy to see this data.") )

I used to love listening to Carl Sagan. I think your proposition that "This global warming problem is perhaps something that should concern us." is far too gentle. I am notorious for being direct, acute and bold with my propositions. We are, after all, discussing our environment (and we have only one of them). Perhaps your version with the unadulterated facts will sway those that I have so easily angered. Kudos.

I hope this doesn't generate too much wrath in my direction.

Don't worry. I remain vigilant with my stick. Cheers.

 

[Sheep]

It sounds strange because you're saying that people shouldn't be allowed to have sports cars, yet that's what you drive. Are you saying you're going to give up your riced-out civic? So you say your car's fast, if it's fast, it can't get good gas mileage. And what are your emissions like? If you're going to tell people to give up their sports cars, start with yourself.

Wow, I forgot about this thread. Most of the replies have been answered already.

Yes, I don't own an Ariel Atom (Oh how I wish I did), but you can't deny that it is a practical, fuel efficient, way to go fast and have a blast. You argue about weather. What sports car is driven in less then sunny weather? If you have a bike or Ferrari, you should have another car for DD.

I never said people shouldn't have sports cars, I said if you WANT a sports car, buy an Ariel Atom. It will smoke ANYTHING out there at it's price, turn heads, and still be environmentally friendly. There is a 220BHP version, and a 300BHP version (supercharged Type R motor).

My civic isn't breaking any emission laws, I wouldn't be able to get insurance if it was. My car is being rebuilt right now, hoping that it will run better (cleaner, more fuel efficient) and have a bit more kick (~140WHP). Not much, but the car is just over 2000Lbs, good enough for me. And everything I'm doing is still legal, and within the guidelines for a properly running motor. My car still runs a cat, an O2 sensor, PCV system, everything. I just have an Intake, Header, and cat-back exhaust. The new power is coming from a head transplant. And don't call it riced-out, It's a plain white car with silver rims.. how is that rice?

If you still doubt the Ariel Atom, here is a great video you need to see.

SheepStar

 

[astrodon]

Thanks for the kind comments on my post. After rereading it, I realized one mistake I had written, I accidentally hit a "4" instead of a "2" -- we have been measuring the Sun's light output for nearly 200 not 400 years. Though there are indirect ways to get a handle on the Sun's brightness in the distant past, they have rather large uncertainties. However, by studying stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, current computer technology, and humanity's current knowledge of nuclear physics, astronomers can state with confidence that the Sun's luminosity has been constant with minor activity cycle variations throughout the time that civilization has existed.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I never cease to be amazed at the human capacity for ignorance and denying evidence. For example, there are actually still alledgedly "educated" adults who believe that the Earth is only 4,000 years old!
Not believing in the reality of global warming is almost that bad.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... For example, there are actually still alledgedly "educated" adults who believe that the Earth is only 4,000 years old!
(

I think you are somewhat mistaken here They believe a bit older, about 6000-10,000 years.
I would like you to be a bit closer on their beliefs

 

[mtrycrafts]

Perhaps some of the "better-educated" non-believers will now be prompted to:

1) listen
2) seek more truth
3) become better informed through their search of the truth and facts
4) act on this (and all) newfound information

... Cheers.

Perhaps, but don't hold your breath. Why would a microbiologist scientist still claim that HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS? An AIDS denier?
Why do well educated people reject Evolution? The list is endless, so, I doubt much will happen.
For some reason some just hang on to a belief no matter what evidence is presented, be it an educated person who should know better or joe public.

 

[Johnd]

For some reason some just hang on to a belief no matter what evidence is presented, be it an educated person who should know better or joe public.

Oh, so now you want to take issue with something I wrote. Well, get in line.

Well, mtry, you are correct (sir! ) that anyone can be stuck in their beliefs despite all proof to the contrary. What I meant by "better-educated" was "wisdom." I was not limiting my use of the term education to those ivory towers, although that type of higher education does help many. I guess I was attempting to be not so haughty or ethereal with my choice of words (sometimes people think one is writing about themselves when they use the word wisdom). But this discussion seems to be productive and civil once again. So thank you for the extrapolation and clarification!

It does amaze me how such an important topic can be sidetracked so easily into arguments of political shenanigans and denial of human involvement. This is our environment. It is important to understand warming and the ozone layer so as to understand our role in it, how to slow down the processes, and perhaps even stop the warming (we cannot close the hole).

Conservation of our resources and energy is key. If we first act that way (recycle and be energy cognizant) personally, we would then be prompted to vote that way because it is part of our life, and then we could make big business more responsible in doing their part as well.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I am afraid my attitude is rather defeatist. Even in the unlikely event that the US were to become exemplary in our handling of the environment, it would do little or no good while much more heavily populated countries (especially China) continue to have no regulations whatsoever.

 

[Audioholics]

If you still doubt the Ariel Atom, here is a great video you need to see.

Wow. I'm a believer. That is a cool car.

 

[tbewick]

I thought it might be worthwhile to put forward some other opinions on the issues raised.

Solar luminosity:

'There are observed changes in solar luminosity which account for something like 0.12[-0.4 to 00.0] watts per meter squared which is small compared to the 2.3 watts per meter squared estimated for Greenhouse gases. These changes are related to changes in sunspot activity, solar diameter, umbral penumbral ratio.

Nonetheless there are many statistical studies which suggest a correlation with temperature and other weather parameters that is far stronger than the measured changes in luminosity imply. Is this just statistics fooling us or is there some unknown amplifier?

Some studies find that these parameters correlate with cloud cover which would provide such an amplifier. But convincing physical arguments have not been made.'[1]

Weather versus climate:

'[Roger Pielke Sr]...I often hear scientists say “weather is unpredictable, but climate you can predict because it is the average weather”. How can they prove such a statement?

They claim it’s a boundary force problem since they look at it from an atmospheric perspective. They are assuming that the land surface doesn’t change much, the ocean doesn’t change much and that the atmosphere will come in some kind of statistical equilibrium. But the problem is the ocean is not static, the land surface is not static.

In fact I recently posted a blog on a paper by Filippo Giorgi... What he is doing is a transition in thinking. He concludes there are components of a boundary problem and components of an initial value problem with respect to 30 year predictions. If it’s a combination of the two, it therefore is an initial value problem and therefore has to be treated just like weather prediction!

[interviewer] What’s the difference between a boundary value and initial value problem?

[Roger Pielke Sr] Initial value means it matters what you start your model with, what your temperature is in the atmosphere, temperature in ocean, how vegetation is distributed, etc. They say it doesn’t matter what this initial distribution is; the results will equilibrate after some time, the averages will become the same.

The problem is that the boundaries also change with time. These are not real boundaries; these are interfaces between the atmosphere and ocean, atmosphere and land, and land and ocean. These are all interactive and coupled.

There are two definitions of climate: 1) long term weather statistics or 2) climate is made up of the ocean, land ice sheets and the atmosphere. The latter definition is adopted by a 2005 NRC report on radiative climate forcings (see). This second definition indicates that it depends what you start your model with, e.g. if you start in the year 1950 with a different ocean distribution, you will get different weather statistics 50 years from then.

The question is why should we expect the climate system to behave in such a linear well behaved fashion when we know weather doesn’t? In the Rial et al. paper (see), we show from the observations that, on a variety of time scales, climate has these jumps, these transitions, and these are not predicted by models. These are clearly non-linear and are clearly related to what you start your climate system with.

Most climate scientists, if you present this information to them, agree that climate is an initial value problem. There are some that still argue it’s a boundary problem. That makes it easier for them to say “if we put in CO2 from anthropogenic activities you get this very well behaved response for the next 100 years”. However, this perspective is not supported at all by the observational record. What that means is that when we perturb the climate system we could be pushing ourselves towards or away from threshold changes we don’t understand. There is a risk in perturbing the climate system, certainly, but I don’t think we can predict it.'[2]

The precautionary principle:

'Q272 Lord Lawson of Blaby: ...Another thing in the [UK Government] White Paper which the government subscribed to was the precautionary principle. All of us in our daily lives take precautions but how do you interpret this in practical terms? How useful is it in terms of deciding which of the number of policy options to take?

Dr Helm: It is like sustainability and sustainable development. They sound very good in practice but one has to work out what exactly people mean when they are applied in particular circumstances. What do you want to be precautionary about? Do you want to be precautionary about the costs and changing current behaviour, reducing people's current standard of living in order to achieve a possible outcome, or do you want to be precautionary about how much climate change you get, even if that means higher costs to individuals? That is not normally specified. You can make just as good an argument about being precautionary on the cost side as you can about being precautionary on the climate change side. Normally, what people mean by this is some form of risk aversion. You can only be risk averse about things over which you have probabilities about. If you are genuinely uncertain, you do not have a probability as to what the outcomes are going to be. It does not mandate any particular action whatsoever. The final thing to say on the precautionary principle is there tends to be an important sub-part of this which relates to the question of things that are irreversible. This is important in the climate change debate and in the environment debate more generally. If, for example, a policy is quite likely to lead to the extinction of species, this is in any reasonable time irreversible. Therefore, we should put special weight and concern to things that are going to have that kind of effect. In the climate change area, in one sense, it is pretty obvious that the process of climate warming is irreversible in any reasonable human time span. Whether the consequences are irreversible is less obvious. I do not claim to understand the science, long distance, of how these effects play out, but that point illustrates the general one that one should be very precautionary about how one uses the precautionary principle. One should not think that it mandates a particular outcome which says we must do a great deal about this problem now.'[3]

[1] 'Global Climate Change: A Skeptic’s Perspective', Prof. William R. Cotton of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/cotton-climate.pdf

[2] Roger A. Pielke Sr, Emeritus Professor of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University. Interview by Marcel Crok, January 2007.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/04/30/interview-by-marcel-crok-of-roger-a-pielke-sr-jan-2007/

[3] Prof. Dieter Helm, Official Fellow in Economics, New College, Oxford. Evidence to the UK House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/5022206.htm

 

[mtrycrafts]

... it would do little or no good while much more heavily populated countries (especially China) continue to have no regulations whatsoever.

Sad but true. However, perhaps India and China will come to their senses before it is totally too late? Perhaps, if the UN would included them in the treaty to reduce? But, do you not recycle even if others don't? I do. I can do my share regardless.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

The dopes who are worried about climate change must completely ignore our planets geologic history.


I'm sure those same people will teach their grandkids to be scared to death when the earth begins it's next natural cooling trend. I'll probably still be alive when future liberal generations are guaranteed to frantically warn of an approaching "MAN-MADE" ice age.... for the 2nd time during my lifetime.

The unfortunate reality is they are well aware of our geologic history, but they choose to ignore it.....because the history it reveals doesn't jive with liberal environmentalist "Big Goverment Control" agenda.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

liberal environmentalist "Big Goverment Control" agenda.

Better that than the conservative "let's do whatever we want because the environment doesn't matter at all" agenda.

 

[jonnythan]

The unfortunate reality is they are well aware of our geologic history, but they choose to ignore it.....because the history it reveals doesn't jive with liberal environmentalist "Big Goverment Control" agenda.

So what do you make of a Libertarian who is concerned about climate change and excessive resource usage?

How does that fit into your "me and THEM" mentality?

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

So what do you make of a Libertarian who is concerned about climate change and excessive resource usage?

How does that fit into your "me and THEM" mentality?

I would suggest that person arguing for global warming government legislation isn't a very good libertarian. That person, who ever it may be....obviously is clueless, or he would understand what it means to be libertarian and he would stop lying to him/herself.

Hell.... most liberals refuse to admit they're liberal, so it doesn't surprise me in the least. In fact....if you watch the evening news, there are no liberal politicians. (only centrists)...HeHeHe Nor is their such thing as liberal government legislation in their eyes!!!

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Better that than the conservative "let's do whatever we want because the environment doesn't matter at all" agenda.

Naw... we never said that. It's just that we conservatives choose not to ignore the earths geologic & climate history, and that global climate change is a natural occurring phenomenon out of mans control.

To suggest such legislation is.....well, it's stupid.

One thing is certain.....and that is the Earth will grow warmer and colder many more times in the future..

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Hell.... most liberals refuse to admit they're liberal, so it doesn't surprise me in the least.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone refuse to admit to being liberal when being liberal is a good thing, and something to be proud of?
(This country needs a lot more liberals and a lot fewer right-wingers.)

 

[davidtwotrees]

pigeonholing

I don't like pigeonholing people, or arguments........BUT... I generally find that truly conservative far rights, and truly liberal far lefts, are very closed minded.
They hear what they want to hear, and rarely do they peruse their opponent's arguments, or read or watch the other side's commentaries.
My sister, the far left liberal, would never watch Fox news or read the Wall Street Jouranl. If she did she would recoil in horror at views that were so far from her's..........same goes for my far right uber conservative brother. You couldn't pay him enough to watch a Michael Moore movie......

I straddle the middle.......straying to the left if anything. I can watch Fox news and CNN. Read Wall Street Journal and catch a Michael Moore flick. I have a built in bulls*#t meter that goes off when either side starts talking from the side of it's mouth.....
I like Bill O'reily's take on Global Warming........stop making it a he said she said issue of left against right. It is really a pollution issue. Who cares about what temperature the earth is. How are the rivers doing? The Ocean? How are the Forests? Wildlife? How is the Air quality? That is what matters to me. Stop arguing about pointless things and get down to the meat of the matter.

We need to have industry and make things but that pollutes. Can we find a way to make a widget without turning our freshwater supply into a sewer? How about hydrogen powered cars? This country has bought Detroit's ad campaign for so long that half the population thinks the car they drive defines who they are in society! How about nuclear power?! The far left hates the nukes........but it is the only way to stop burning coal. Can't anybody figure a way to dispose of the spent nuclear rods?!

These are the questions and arguments we should be having. Not this silly little i'm right your wrong game that is going on............