Will the Earth Start Warming Again in 2015: In Just Eight Years?
Posted by jennifer, September 1st, 2008 - under Uncategorized.
Tags: Uncategorized
“Who has noticed that the period 2014-2015 keeps on turning up in the debate on greenhouse science?
“That is when greenhouse proponents say the long-delayed global warming apocalypse will start happening. In addition, that general date has turned up in forecasts made by an arch sceptic, and two researchers in the US have forecast that sunspot activity will cease entirely by 2014…”
Mark Lawson, a journalist with the Australian Financial Review, discusses the significance of the year 2015 to both ‘warmaholics’ and ’skeptics’ in a piece published today in On Line Opinion entitled ‘Activity is Quiet on the Sunspot Front’, read more here.
Cohenite, if you already knew the answers you wanted, why did you ask?
I’m not being obtuse I am wondering how you balance you bank account… ;)
Where is the CO2 produced by humans going?
Why is the atmospheric CO2 level going up?
Are you appealing to some unknown source?
Again, plenty of scientists have made compelling cases for the source of the extra CO2 and the base figure for historic levels, you have simply chosen to disagree. You have decided that they are wrong and decided that Steve, Gavin and Barry are correct. Not sure why…
“It’s beyond me how such a rare density of anthropogenic CO2 can make a significant dent in the warming of that process.” It clearly is, but not for a lack of trying on our part.
Yeah, NT, I was being ironic in a rhetorical fashion; anyway, here is a source of CO2;
http://www.biokurs.de/teibhaus/180CO2/bayreath/CO2-cycle-e2.pdf
The oceanic source confirmed historically;
http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/183
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Rea_etal_90.pdf
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/199/1/231
Steve Short has noted a marked differential between Cape Grim and Mauna Loa CO2 tracking.
Barry Moore and Gordon Robertson have done critiques of FIG 7.3 from AR4 to show that the IPCC has no idea where the CO2 is coming from or going to, and there are a number of sources indicating the isotopic differential between C12 and C13 is not a true marker of fossil-fuel sourced CO2.
Cohenite,
Well done you have shown there are other sources of CO2…
But where is all the CO2 humans are producing? Where is that going?
Again I ask for your accounting skills. Someone is putting money in your account, why would you think that the money in the account isn’t from them?
“Steve Short has noted a marked differential between Cape Grim and Mauna Loa CO2 tracking.”
I am sure the people running the stations know this too. It’s not like Steve Short has actually measured the data. Did you find out what the people who do the analysis of that data think?
“Barry Moore and Gordon Robertson have done critiques of FIG 7.3 from AR4 to show that the IPCC has no idea where the CO2 is coming from or going to, and there are a number of sources indicating the isotopic differential between C12 and C13 is not a true marker of fossil-fuel sourced CO2.”
Well good on them, I hope they published the critique. Otherwise it is largely pointless. It’s like claiming to be a great AFL star without actually playing AFL.
However, again this is largely irrelevant. We know we are producing huge amounts of CO2 – where do you think it is going?
The hilarious thing about all those papers you cite as ‘evidence’ of the natural sources of CO2 is that they all appeal to the greenhouse effect and that increasing CO2 leads to an increase in global temps. Does this mean you have finally accepted the greenhouse effect and the enhanced greenhouse effect as real? Doesn’t this contradict the earlier debate we had? You need to keep your story straight.
Anyway these are all proposing geological sources. So, what is your geological source? Remember there is a vast difference in timescale here. You may have made an error bringing geology into the debate, as I am a geologist. No one doubts that CO2 levels have fluctuated a lot over geological time, but we aren’t talking about a geological time frame. We are talking about an increase of 100ppm in just over 100 years, that’s not a geological time frame.
Also volcanoes don’t solely vent CO2 they vent other gases, especially SO2. If volcanoes are responsible for this CO2 spike, then where is all the SO2?
That Beck thing looks like a powerpoint… And he seems to be saying that the excess CO2 is from the polar oceans. True arm-waving.
I thought you were a skeptic. Where are these powers of skepticism? It seems you are only skeptical of AGW science and nothing else.
Cohenite
I checked http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/
and there is almost no difference between Mauna Loa and Cape Grim.
Gordon, you don’t have to worry about cohenite, he’s a greenhouse connvert now.
See:
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Rea_etal_90.pdf
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/199/1/231
I find you presumption that a composition of 0.038% of something means it’s unimportant a little bewildering. On what grounds do you base this?
Much hilarity; all the papers “appeal to the greenhouse effect and that increasing CO2 leads to an increase in global temps.” From the Zanhnle and Sleep paper;
“Hence surface temperatures can become very low if CO2 is the only greenhouse gas apart from water.”
Hilarious, and you want me to keep my story straight; not to worry; apparently Professor Mann has discovered some new archived evidence to revitalise the Hockey Stick. Good night all.
Cohenite, you are being deliberately stupid, yes?
Seriously they call CO2 a greenhouse gas!!! They are appealing to the greenhouse effect. do you understand English?
No one is suggesting that there aren’t other greenhouse gases, it seems that it is only you and your friends here who are attempting to:
1. Remove CO2 from the list of greenhouse gases
2. Make sure that we don’t know what the source of all the extra CO2 is (don’t know why you would though, as due to 1 you wouldn’t need to)
It’s nuts.
By the way, where’s all the CO2 we produced going??
How’s your bank balance?
NT
There are no things as greenhouse gases.
All the CO2 we produce goes into the oceans at the measured rate of 1:50.
The time lag between an upturn in oceanic insolation and global consequence has been estimated at 4-10 years by researchers.
As solar max of cycle 24 must now be put off to 2013, I’d say 2015 is like drawing to an inside straight.
Good luck with that, swampies.
I am curious. If methane levels started climbing steeper from their already steady climb, do warming sceptics have any answer as to why that should not be a problem? We don’t have the ocean (or its phytoplankton) as a potential sink for that, in the way Steve Short argues for CO2, do we?
Actually steven parts of the ocean floor are thick with methane hydrates and they have been looked at as a potential source of methane recovery for many years. As a side issue one of the explanations for the mysterious disappearances in the Bermuda triangle is that sudden massive releases of methane from the ocean floor decrease the density of the water as the bubbles rise and the ships sink, I saw a TV special where this phenomenon was demonstrated on a fairly large scale model and the ship did sink.
Steven, temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the MWP were similar to now (even Mann now shows this in his new paper).
No tipping point was reached in that scenario so one must wonder why not.
Barry: yes, I am aware of methane hydrates in the seabed, but the question is what would happen if the trapped methane got into the atmosphere (in significant quantities.)
Joel: I also note that atmospheric CO2 was considerable less then. If all the theorising here about CO2 not being a greenhouse gas is wrong (yeah, big call I know [sarcasm]) then higher temperatures than MWP are potentially on the way with a methane release to follow. My question is: do sceptics also deny methane is a greenhouse gas, or do they have some other suggested mechanism as to why its release in large quantities would not cause accelerated greenhouse warming.
NT said…”I find you presumption that a composition of 0.038% of something means it’s unimportant a little bewildering. On what grounds do you base this”?
It’s my opinion based on what Spencer (and Lindzen, Christy, Michaels et al) said about the complexity of the greenhouse effect. Spencer feels the modelers have over-simplified it and overlooked the complex role water vapour plays in the warming. The AGW theory seems to assume it’s simply a matter of black-body radiation from the land and ocean warming the atmosphere, but it’s far more complex than that.
Spencer also says about radiative imbalance, “How do we know there is such a radiative imbalance? In reality, we don’t. The Earth-orbiting instruments for measuring the Earth’s radiative components are not quite accurate to measure the small radiative imbalance that is presumed to exist. That imbalance is, instead, a theoretical calculation”.
Spencer also puts weight in the numbers. 38 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molecules of air is very rare. He claims we are adding 1 molecule of CO2 to 100,000 of air every 5 years and asks, “do we really believe that such a small influence will have catastrophic effects”?.
His partner John Christy claims the added CO2 ’should’ warm the atmosphere, but his satellite instruments are not indicating the kind of warming that ’should’ be expected. We are beginning to learn the role played in the warming by the oceans.
As far as my personal feelings are concerned, my claim is based on nothing more than intuition. I’m not a climate scientist and I don’t think anyone in this blog is one. In fact, I don’t think anyone at RC is a legitimate climate scientist either. So, we’re all speculating based on the research of others.
Steven, I don’t think we’re on the same page. The direct effect of CO2 warming is supposed to be small. No one denies this. Its the feedbacks that cause runaway warming.
If the climate system did get hot in the MWP, this should have been enough to trigger these positive feedbacks such as methane. Especially since the MWP was pretty long in duration compared to the present warmth.
You’re saying we have more CO2 now, but the direct radiative effect is what? 0.2C? It shouldn’t matter if the warming was from the sun or CO2, it should have the same effect on the positive feedbacks. It didn’t.
cohenite….re the whole AGW theory, here’s a good paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v3
They agree with what you and Alan seem to be saying that heat cannot flow from a colder body (the atmosphere) to a warmer body (the surface) without external work being done.
I liked the paper right off because it exposed Rahmstorf of realclimate as follows:
***The renowned German climatologist Rahmstorf has claimed that greenhouse effect does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics:
“Some `sceptics’ state that the greenhouse effect cannot work since (according to the second law of thermodynamics) no radiative energy can be transferred from a colder body (the atmosphere) to a warmer one (the surface). However, the second law is not violated by the greenhouse effect, of course, since, during the radiative exchange, in both directions the net energy flows from the warmth to the cold.”
Rahmstorf’s reference to the second law of thermodynamics is plainly wrong. The second law is a statement about heat, not about energy. Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of “net energy flow”. The relevant quantity is the “net heat flow”, which, of course, is the sum of the upward and the downward heat flow within a fixed system, here the atmospheric system. It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately redefining the thermodynamic system on the fly.***
Rahmstorf seems confused on a lot of things, as was exposed by Lindzen as well.
Here’s something from the paper questioning radiative heating of the atmosphere from the surface:
***the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped. Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.***
They do two interesting analyses of a greenhouse, using a car and a box painted black with a glass roof. With the box, they use two types of glass, one which radiates IR and one that blocks it. The temperatures reached in the box are the same. Their conclusion is that heating in a real greenhouse is due to the lack of air flow.
We know what thats about. Thats the minimum amount of time these vandal-communist filth need to lock in the socialist measures against our hydrocarbons. In fact it will be very cold by then. With a maximum of two years, I would say, bucking the general downward trend.
It will probably be quite wet. And the wet conditions giving us a false sense of warmth even as they are robbing the oceans of accumulated energy.
Put a black pool cover over the diving pool during the day. Albedo-overated is not just a cool name for a rock band. Because this will cool and not warm the diving pool. Since warming is about strata, overturning, and penetration.
“The current phase is not different to the historical, measured record of AGW. It warms and warms, then it cools, then it warms and warms, then it cools. The net effect is it gets warmer. That’s the historical record.”
No thats just you lying all the time SJT. Any of the laity ought to get used to the idea that these people just lie all the time and the science means nothing to them.
“The current phase is not different to the historical, measured record of AGW. It warms and warms, then it cools, then it warms and warms, then it cools. The net effect is it gets warmer. That’s the historical record.”
No thats just you lying all the time SJT. Any of the laity ought to get used to the idea that these people just lie all the time and the science means nothing to them.
“Steven, I don’t think we’re on the same page. The direct effect of CO2 warming is supposed to be small. No one denies this. Its the feedbacks that cause runaway warming.”
Thats utterly impossible. It quite literally CANNOT happen. Since the water vapour feedback is proof of refrigeration of the oceans.
The mistake comes from only thinking about the tail of tropospheric temperature and not the dog of cumulative oceanic energy.
Graeme I think the point that is totally missed when poeple start talking about runaway warming is that as soon as a molecule or aerosol radiates any energy its temperature goes down then the recipient of that energy registers an increase in proportion so they average out. All that takes place is an exchange with zero loss or gain so how can you have an increase in temperature from zero energy gain. To have a runaway you would have to stop the energy from escaping into space which is impossible. As the temperature increases the energy loss escalates in proportion to the 4th. power.
Steven: “but the question is what would happen if the trapped methane got into the atmosphere (in significant quantities.)”
There is still the causation issue the sea bed has to warm significantly for that to happen. Mean time we can keep on looking for means to harvest it.
That all sounds right to me barry. But we can look at the implausibility of the whole racket from a number of angles. And I concentrate on the angles I’m absolutely dead certain of. And since the oceans can lose at least 100 times more thermal energy than the troposphere ever held it makes sense to isolate imbedded oceanic energy as the only source of CUMULATIVE WARMING…….
……The only source of CUMULATIVE WARMING that could outlast a single weak solar cycle.
Hence when these dummies think about cumulative warming via water vapour feedback they are talking about something that quite literally CANNOT HAPPEN.
Hence daydreams about catastrophic warming must rely on notions of primary greenhouse effect alone…… Which itself appears to be 95%bullshit, or alternatively at least 1 and probably 2 orders of magnitude overated…. but thats most likely an angle of implausibility best left to others to explain at the moment.
I’m not a leftwinger and so I prefer to make strident claims where I have the understanding sufficient to do so.
And I can tell everyone with absolute certainty that cumulative warming due to water-vapour feedback, on the basis of a primary change in greenhouse, is just impossible and something that CANNOT happen. Not something that won’t happen but something that CANNOT happen.
To even think it might happen is proof that they aren’t taking an ocean-centric approach. Its a logical error beyond the reaches of any further empirical experience to alter the verdict upon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“……..but the question is what would happen if the trapped methane got into the atmosphere (in significant quantities.)…..”
Nothing bad could POSSIBLY come out of such a scenario. See above. What you worried about? Little Yukos sees his first butterfly?
That what keeps you awake at nights?
Have some human feeling man.