Global warming and glaciers melting

[CobblyWorlds]

Your 'ad hominen' link wasn't coming up on my machine, it's doing so fully now.

I apologise to Nile Queen, but what I was doing was not a 'straw man' it was 'not paying attention' mixed with 'assumption'. This being the 7th reference I've seen to their report, the previous 6 implying that they did not accept that the Global Average Temp is increasing.

 

[NileQueen]

Cocktails of confusion

Dear Cobblyworlds,

I apologise to Nile Queen, but what I was doing was not a 'straw man' it was 'not paying attention' mixed with 'assumption'. This being the 7th reference I've seen to their report, the previous 6 implying that they did not accept that the Global Average Temp is increasing.

Apology accepted. But please do try to pay attention and please try not to make assumptions in the future. It will make communication much easier.

NQ

 

[CobblyWorlds]

Consider my knuckles rapped!

 

[SOS2008]

So...here in Arizona we've had a heat wave for about a month, with 18 people dead--I think at least 13 in one day. And apparently the heat wave was felt everywhere in the world. I might say oh it's just a 100 year cycle, except for the days of record temperatures--that makes me wonder.

Odd that the very next evening I saw this on the news:

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT
Deadly Heat Wave; Interview With NASA Administrator
Aired July 25, 2005 - 18:00 ET

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's sizzling from coast to coast. In Arizona, the heat left 18 dead. This weekend, Denver had the fifth day in a row of 100 degree heat. In Las Vegas, no fun at 117 degrees. Chicago, over 100 degrees. The governor asked for federal disaster help, with half the normal rainfall in the state in the past four months.

PETER FRUMHOFF, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS: The scientific consensus is that we are beginning to see a trend in global warming, not because of the most recent heat waves, but because of the changes we're seeing over time. The last decade, best estimate is, is it's the warmest decade for the past 1,000 years.

PILGRIM: Waters in the Atlantic hurricane region are two to four degrees warmer than normal. Never before have so many storms formed so early in the season. And this spring brought the worst red tide season to New England in decades. Concentrations were ten to hundreds of times higher than normal, changing the balance of marine life.

The climate change is not about discomfort, it's deadly. In Europe, the summer of 2003 was the hottest in nearly 300 years. Thirty-five thousand heat-related deaths. And the worry is that those kind of extremes will become more frequent.

MATT KELSCH, METEOROLOGIST: What we look for is, is there a pattern where there's more heat waves than there are cold waves over a number of years? And also things like what's happening to the glaciers and the different mountain regions or the polar ice caps or ocean temperatures. Those are all better measures of what the Earth's temperature is. And because of what's happening to those things, there is a general consensus that the Earth is warming.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/25/ldt.01.html

 

[Andre]

I think that there is little dispute about the climate changes having a warming tendency in general. The question is, what is causing it and do we have to worry about catastrophic climate changes and if so, can we do anything about it?

Perhaps it's interesting to see what IPCC had to say about it in 1990:

We conclude that despite great limitations in the quantity and quality of the available historical temperature data, the evidence points consistently to a real but irregular warming over the last century. A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.

The period referred to is likely to be early Holocene 11,000 years ago, after that however, the real extend of the Hypsithermal (Holocene thermal optimum) was discovered, about 9000-4000 years ago when the trees of the taiga (birch, pine, alnus) were growning at the Arctic coasts of North Siberia, the current area of high arctic tundra and permafrost.

So, why do we think that we can do that now; Linking increase in greenhouse gas to warming? Because of the Hockey stick, the flawed brain paralyser. Without that infamous hockeystick and with the hypsithermal, we have no more clues than the statement of IPCC in 1990.

 

[CobblyWorlds]

Hi Andre,

"I think that there is little dispute about the climate changes having a warming tendency in general."

Would that not mean that the Earth's temperature is continually increasing?

"Perhaps it's interesting to see what IPCC had to say about it in 1990"

Surely it would be more interesting to see what the IPCC had to say in 2001, after all 1990 was the Second Assesment Report, 2001 was the Third Assesment Report(TAR). From the TAR Summary for Policy Makers; "Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century." and "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." These are headings to sections that contain more detail. Further detail on top of that is available in the relevant chapters.

That aside it's not the hockey stick that causes people to link the increasing CO2 with increasing temperature, it's the physics. The Hockey Stick actually has very little to say about CO2 and temperature. After all it only suggests a correlation, and as we all know correlations in themselves are interesting but of little meaning. What is needed is mechanism.

CO2 is able to increase radiative forcing as it's concentration increases, IPCC TAR Chapter 6 gives some simplified expressions for calculating the increased forcing http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm#635. CO2 increases forcing because of it's ability to 'trap' more Infra Red radiation, the logarithmic term in the equations stated by the IPCC is there to account for spectral saturation. This increased forcing is, in and of itself, small. But it is then amplified by the response of atmospheric water vapour. An increase in absorption of IR by CO2 and subsequently amplification by water vapour will lead to an increase in the Global Energy Balance, thus increasing Global Average Temperature. Indeed even without the amplification by water the CO2 would cause a warming. The issue is one of magnitude.

 

[Andre]

There we go again. My answer is this thread.

and http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/howmuch.htm and http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/arrhrev.htm

 

[CobblyWorlds]

The thread you link to this thread. I have only given it a cursory inspection but I have already addressed at least on point in my post 19/7/05, 8:20AM which I quote below

"You quote "I expect to read about a rise of global temperatures." I understand that you are stating that this post was one of yours that was rejected. I can understand why and fully agree with RealClimate's decision to do so. Sorry but 'one swallow does not a summer make'. WMO press release 718 starts "The global mean surface temperature in 2004 is expected to be +0.440 C above the 1961-1990 annual average (14.0C) ". This does not show that the trend as displayed in the above mentioned graphs has been broken. For this trend to be broken you'd have to have at least as long as has been a rising trend displaying a falling trend. So to bias the issue in your favour let's say that the trend started to be positive in 1995, the point at which the tropo graph I linked to displays a constantly positive anomaly. We are no in 2005 which, I will bet will maintain the trend. So we'll say that to reasonably expect a break in the trend the anomalies should continue to fall until 2015. When the anomalies have displayed a negative trend from now until 2005 then you may have a point."

Was there another point you were making?


With regards and this and this. I am not going to indulge speculation by self-appointed experts. The IPCC themselves state in my ref TAR6 that the equations given are simple. But they are adequate for the types of 'back of the envelope' calculations people may wish to play with. I don't have a GCM so 'back of envelope' is all I can do. And the science clearly shows that CO2 does cause a forcing, that IS the accepted position of modern science. Don't believe me? Check any climate physics textbook. The magnitude may have a margin of error, the fundamentals do not. Do you have peer-reviewed research that shows that CO2 will not cause a warming (and for the purposes of this we can neglect water vapour amplification - so I'm making it easier for you :) ).

 

[reasonmclucus]

I recently recalled a theory that suggests that an accumulation of black soot in the Arctic may be causing increased melting. Black soot absorbs sunlight and converts it into heat. Black soot accumulations in snow would absorb rather than reflect sunlight and increase melting according to the theory. Other studies have indicated that south Asia cooking fires are putting significant amounts of black soot in the atmosphere.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050328_arctic_soot.html

 

[Andre]

Black soot absorbs sunlight and converts it into heat.

Exactly. Seems very plausible.

Soot, directly in the lowest atmosphere layers, would also explain the difference between the warmer surface temperature (lowest air, polluted with soot) and the lower temperatures of the lower troposphere, which is still too high for the soot to reach. With the greenhouse gas effect you would expect a higher temperature in the lower troposphere. So soot explains that better than greenhouse gas. Moreover, given the local warming patterns, this soot heating effect may be very well provable.

I believe that the IPCC acknowledges this effect albeit played down a lot, together with the Urban Heat Island effect in order not to interfere with the CO2 warming myth.

Needless to say that soot can be easily dealt with and it would also help in countering air pollution. Furthermore, it's hard to see that soot can lead to catastrophic climate change.

I have only given it a cursory inspection

Yes, we definitely have to go over the scientific method again. The first step being observe a phenomenon, you know, “observe”. Hasty cursory inspection are not likely to lead to a superior situational awareness. Without you are bound to go astray. Perhaps recall that I wrote “thread”, and the thread was about “unexplaining global warming”, not the opening anecdote

But now you did adress it, your battle against that little diversion is priceless. A very nice demonstration of how passion can distort sense of logic.

I can understand why and fully agree with RealClimate's decision to do so.

Very nice to acknowledge the censorship of Mann et al. That’s part of their demagogical campaign. You cannot allow for sound logic of course. That would spoil the http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html

Was there another point you were making?

Almost embarrassing, omitting step one of the scientific method.

I am not going to indulge speculation by self-appointed experts.

Excellent. Never before in the field of human (global warming) conflict have so many fallacies been put in words, so few. (Free after http://www.quotecha.com/quotes/quotation_16568.html )

First of all, the person in question has not appointed himself as expert (others have). So it’s a straw man to start of with. Next the self appointed thinghy suggest that there is something wrong with the person. Trying to discredit him is an "ad hominem" in the version of "poisoning the well", a pre-emptive strike before even arguments have been exchanged. Next the use of the words “indulge speculations” attempts to generate an emotion of disapproval adding the red herring of emotional appeal. A most excellent example. Very well done.

And the science clearly shows that CO2 does cause a forcing, that IS the accepted position of modern science. Don't believe me?…

The "restricted choice" fallacy. "Yes" would mean that we would agree that CO2 is the main culprit, "No" would mean that I chose for a physical wrong answer. The correct answer could have been found in the “this and this”. The magnitude of greenhouse gas effect due to increase of CO2 is marginal and if you would have browsed a bit in my threads you would have seen that the correlation of warming with CO2 concentration is poor.

Do you have peer-reviewed research that shows that CO2 will not cause a warming?

"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam"; an informal fallacy. If there is no peer reviewed research that disproves CO2 causing warming, then it must cause warming.

You can find all those fallacies here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
Maybe we should try again; reading the thread and a lot more and also “this and this” could help in a fallacy free discussion.

Edited to add this priceless quote

http://www.biology.uAlberta.ca/old_site/palmer.hp//thh/c1.htm

And science is simply common sense at its best; that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic

Now shall we go over the fallacies in http://www.realclimate.org ?