Reply With Quote
Global warming deniers tend to also be creationists for a reason...
Awwwwwww, shucks, where have the ignoramuses gone? I want to tear some more holes in their ignorance!
Global warming deniers tend to also be creationists for a reason...
Yeah, and the earth is flat and goes on forever so we'll never run out of land, natural resources are infinite and will never run out, ecosystem services are perfectly resilient to any perturbation, and pollution, regardless of volume, has no effect... or is that fairyland?
Awwwwwww, shucks, this 'ignoramus' just got schooled by the professor! Congratulations, you just pwned a freshman in college who is most definately NOT majoring in any sort of science. Isn't it so cute when someone with no friends (judging by the way you look in your avatar) has the opportunity to spit out all their knowledge outside the classroom?And what do you do for a living, place your foot in your mouth? Well done, idiot. Tied your horses up to the anic.
I actually know my and can't stand pig-ignorance, so going with the ignoramus probably wasn't the way to make yourself look good on this one, you cheer-leading little piece of .
Well shucks, since you've convinced me you know more about the environment, gosh darnit, the only question I have is HOW THE DOES THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE AFFECT ME?
Well why jump on the denier bandwagon then? A modi of research would tell you that the science is rock-solid (and you're in college for sake - expand your mind a little!), but instead you believe what the uninformed tell you?
And anyway, I wasn't schooling you, I was just giving to you for jumping on tlong's bandwagon - I was schooling tlong for his blatant ignorance. He spouts off on this topic every month or so yet shows absolutely no understanding of it. I tend to keep my mouth shut if I don't understand something, or I go away and learn about it until I do understand it, but he prefers to reveal his idiocy and spread lies and misconceptions about something he doesn't even understand, so I call him on it.
To answer your question, what do you think our societies are based on? They are based on a very stable set of conditions, change those conditions and societies become stressed and can collapse.
Let's look at climate change and global food supply for an example. Currently, the globe produces about enough food to support its 6.8bil people - that population will climb to between 9 and 10 billion by 2050, whilst agricultural productivity per hectare is steady or falling (depending on the part of the world), and there is no more of the earth left to crop. Also, our agricultural infrastructure is set up to farm where it is, so changes to rainfall and temperature which mean you can't farm certain regions are not easily adjusted for (especially when, as we are experiencing in SE Australia, 30% of your rainfall has moved offshore over the ocean! This is already happening across the planet).
So, global temperature changes --> climate change --> rainfall patterns and temperature regimes change --> ability grow crops declines --> social conditions change (ie. poverty, war, disease, famine, refugees, etc. etc. - all things that affect YOU!)
What we are seeing is places we used to grow food turning into deserts, and water resources used to supply massive areas of irrigated agriculture (eg. the Hamalayan glaciers, or closer to home for you, rainfall patterns in California) dry up. That means less food can be produced. That means higher prices, starving people and armed conflict, etc.
And that is just one example. Get it? This affects every single person and living thing on the planet. We live in a globalised world - what we do affects everyone else.
If you are in college you'd better start to actually think, or you ain't gonna be any good to anyone.
As for friends, son, I've got more stalwart friends than you'll probably ever know in your life. Oh, and I look like a dork in that photo because of hat-hair (I was wearing my cap for hours).
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 03-21-2009 at 03:01 AM.
Actually, I've read a lot about "deniers" and they are a common human social phenomonon - whenever people are confonted by a big, nasty idea that shocks them their first response is generally to deny it exists. It's a psychological protection mechanism typified by phrases like "no, that couldn't be!" which you hear in relation to all kinds of things all the time (basically, things that shock us).
Once we do accept that what we don't want to believe is actually true, we often become maudalin and defeatist - "if the world is screwed, it, I'm gonna go get drunk".
The next stage is generally to get angry about it and look to cast blame - "who did this?" and "how dare they!".
Finally, we ask ourselves what we can actually do about it.
Denial-self-pity-anger-acceptance, the typical cycle of grieving. It fits perfectly. Unfortunately, morons like tlong are still in the denial stage.
The fact that you used the word stalwart in a serious manor proves that you really don't have any friends who are in fact stalwart. It's ok though, you have plenty of friends on here.
I guess you'll need as many stalwart friends as possible to cure your obvious insecurity. And who the mentioned your hair? Sorry but I found humor in way more than just your hair.
I used a knife in the kitchen this morning without cutting myself. Therefore it's reasonable to conclude that knives can't cut people.
I took my dog for a walk a few days ago and we weren't hit by a car. Therefore traffic accidents don't exist.
I went swimming and didn't drown. Therefore drowning is a figment of the liberal media's imagination.
I turned on my 360 this morning and it fired right up. I can only conclude that the three red rings are also, a figment of the liberal media's imagination. Just made up to ruin microsoft. Why are those lib s so -bent on destroying capitaism?
Cuban Sucks, you ing suck. You're not master chief, you're master bater.
Two days ago, the temperature in Columbia MO was 2 degrees warmer than normal. Therefore Global Warming is unequivically real.
Well since you can't dispute the science I guess the natural progression would be to attack vocabulary. While misspelling "manner". Which online dictionary did you use to check your understanding of the world "stalwart" before making that post? You don't happen to go to UTSA do you?
The fact that you used the word stalwart in a serious manor proves that you really don't have any friends who are in fact stalwart. It's ok though, you have plenty of friends on here.
I guess you'll need as many stalwart friends as possible to cure your obvious insecurity. And who the mentioned your hair? Sorry but I found humor in way more than just your hair.
It's really easy to draw such incorrect conclusions when you ignore other relevant facts. Like black carbon (soot,) from the growing number of coal fired power plants in Asia. You know. The winds carry that soot right over the northern ice. Soot is a very effective way of accelerating the melting of ice. Isn't it funny how the ice has retreated far more between Russia and Alaska, where the jet stream carries the Asian soot...As for Arctic sea ice, why don't we look at what happened in 2005 and 2007:
As you can see, almost half of the median ice sheet was gone in 2007.
Source for the 96% please. I don't buy it. My understanding is that there is a complicated set of factors going on. Ice in general however is increasing rather than decreasing as a world wide average.
If you run a class on this stuff and preach this bull , then your part of the problem with propaganda in the country.
Do you teach at the University of Indoctrination?
You're right. It is simple physics and chemistry. Why is it so hard to understand? The warming due to CO2 is generally logarithmic. At 280 ppm, it is almost at nearly maximum of it warming potential.
Look at this:
If CO2 is such a driving force, then why has temperature remained within a +/- 2 C range over the last several thousand years as CO2 raised from 244 ppm to 284 ppm? With no average increase for that 40 ppm, why should we see an increase now?
How about that logarithmic relationship:
Al Gore's extreme incorrect example in "An Inconvenient Truth" plotted in Excel doesn't have any dangerous increase in temperature.
Convenient how you use a chart that ends at 2003 or 2004 without showing the continuing decline in temperature to date. The sun is the driving force for the heat we have. The sun has been weaker for a few years now.
I guess that's the new math they teach in Oregon.
Now think about this please. Why is it so hard to find data that extends to 2008 or 2009? Could those studying it be in the position to refuse to publish it due to their agenda?
There is no facts to your statement regarding isotopes. It is a known fact that some isotopes are chemically converted faster than others in various processes. There is not enough understanding in the system to claim any reasonable fact to your statement. What you claim is based on the fact that fossil fuels lack carbon 14. Carbon 12 and carbon 13 are relatively constant. This is complicated by the 60 year rolling average to measure C14, nuclear testing skewing readings, and the fact that natural conversion of N14 to C14 varies with solar activity.
Ever analyze the chart you provided, or do you just repeat propaganda text book material to indoctrinate your students? I like how you almost left out H2O, or at least failed to say that it is the primary cause of the greenhouse effect.GHGs are gases which absorb IR radiation, the mechanism by which the planet is kept warm by the atmosphere - the major components of the atmosphere, O2, N2 and Ar (which make up over 99% of the atmosphere), DO NOT absorb IR. Only trace gases (CO2, CH4, N20, halocarbons), and water vapour, absorb IR. Here's the absorbtion spectra for you:
"Only about 25% of total atmospheric warming is derived from incoming solar radiation"And here's a lovely diagram that will explain for you the mechanics of greenhouse warming:
Only about 25% of total atmospheric warming is derived from incoming solar radiation since it is largely in the UV/visible/near IR, which is not absorbed and re-readiated by atmospheric particles - thus the atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation. So, the other 75% of atmospheric heating comes from heat radiated by the planet: the earth absorbs the UV/visible/near-IR that makes up the bulk of solar radiation and re-radiates it as longwave IR. A large proportion of that IR is then trapped by GHGs like water vapour, CO2, methane and N2O. But then you wouldn't know that because you don't even understand that this statement:
Excuse me...
Nearly 100% of the atmospheric warming is due to the sun. The greenhouse effect is a feedback of solar and tidal energy. Any changes in the suns radiation have a proportional effect on the direct heat, and greenhouse effect. Normal variations in the suns energy have a minimum of a 0.4 C change using very conservative estimates. If you use the IPCC numbers on the increase of solar radiation since (I think they say) 1700, the simple mathematical relationship provides for more than a 0.5 C increase if memory serves. I'd have to look that up again.
How about this:
This is real GISS solar data. The 7.5 year lag represents accepted seasonal temperature lag effects. You guys like to talk about temperature increases from 1900 to now. The increased solar radiation increase accounts for at least 0.2 C of warming over this 100 years.
Now this:
Somewhere around a 75 year rolling average is more acceptable to account for the time lag of the heating of the oceans as well. The above example accounts for a 0.4 C (0.2% solar increase x 200 k) increase in temperature since 1700, using a conservative 200 K warming from the sun. If we base this on an global average 15 C, that is 288 kelvin. That means that tidal energy would have to account for 88 K, which is way too high. I don't know the exact value, but the best information I found has the tidal energy accounting for 5% of our heat. That would be 5 or 6 K leaving at least 282 K due to the sun. With that 0.2% solar intensity increase, that means the sun accounts for 0.56 C of warming since 1700.
Tell me. Do you expect the solar output not to fluctuate by 0.2%? Just how constant is the suns energy?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-16-2009 at 09:17 PM.
only on lonely nights
...pretty much
so whats the point of trainin flying sharks if you cant use them to deliver the goods?
No, I used the word "stalwart" because they are people I have known for 20+ years and who I have stood by through hard times as they have for me. As a freshman at college, you wouldn't have a ing clue what I'm talking about because you haven't lived long enough yet.
The fact that you used the word stalwart in a serious manor proves that you really don't have any friends who are in fact stalwart. It's ok though, you have plenty of friends on here.
I guess you'll need as many stalwart friends as possible to cure your obvious insecurity. And who the mentioned your hair? Sorry but I found humor in way more than just your hair.
As for insecurity, replying to your abuse is insecurity? I have a few issues, but insecurity is not one of them. As for the hair, you said "(judging by the way you look in your avatar)", and I assumed you were referring to the hair. If you were referring to the fact that I'm grinning like an idiot as I was meeting one of my heroes, well, I don't think that's anything to worry about.
You oughta stop picking fights you can't win, and concentrate on learning to think.
Responses to Wild Cobra.
1) soot. I didn't ignore soot at all, and its effect is far smaller than CO2.
And anyway, how do you then explain the warming observed last century before the Chinese economy underwent its growth spurt? You can't because soot on ice is a minor player in warming where CO2 is the featured artist, and aerosols (including soot) actually cool the earth more than soot on ice warms it (i.e global dimming).
Soot is also a major player in global dimming - the increased reflectivity of the atmosphere due to aerosols. So, the surge in soot coming out of Asia may well be masking the worst of enhanced global warming by increasing global dimming - when those industries clean up their particulate emissions and the sky becomes clearer again, we may well see a surge in heating due to less global dimming effect.
Also, the major acceleration of ice melting comes from albedo change - you melt ice and it turns to water, which doesn't reflect as much radiation, which thus heats further and melts more ice - a classic feedback loop. If Asian soot is the main culprit here, why are we seeing the same thing in Greenland, Antarctica, and in glaciers across the planet? Because the soot is not the story here, it's elevated CO2 levels causing warming.
2) Glaciers. I gave you the source: the World Glacier Monitoring Service i.e. the people who know most about glaciers in the world: http://www.geo.uzh.ch/wgms/ Take a read, you might learn something.
3) Indoctrination, ha! That's rich coming from a propogandist who ignores the science and instead spreads misconceptions and half-truths. I studied SCIENCE, so I teach SCIENCE.
What makes the mainstream scientific view - as supported by every major university and scientific ins ution on the planet, from transparent, peer-reviewed data - propaganda, and the purposely confusing, pop-junk psuedo-science you purport, truth?
4) CO2 absorbtion and saturation - basically, you are considering the atmosphere to be one unitary whole when it is in fact multi-layered. A lovely explanation of why you have swallowed the old orthodoxy without actually looking deeply enough to understand why you are wrong, in 2 parts:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...gassy-argument
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ument-part-ii/
In summary: "... the 'saturation' argument against global warming, all you need to say is: (a) You'd still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it's the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It's not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn't overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there's little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models." (that's from part 1)
I cite realclimate because it is staffed by professors in climatology from all over the world who explain these very complex concepts well, and they allow open, uncensored debate of every topic.
5) Why keep bringing up Gore? I don't give a about Gore or his movie, and yes, he made a number of slight factual errors. Please leave him and his movie out of this. Politicisation of this topic is the reason nothing is really being done about it.
6) As for global temperatures, they peaked during the severe 1998 El Nino event (hottest year on record) and have remained at about the same level for the past decade. 22 of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1980. However, 2008 was the coolest year recorded since 2000, and guess why - a La Nina event cooling the southern hemisphere. Temperatures are not declining, they have been trending relatively stable for a few years. This could very well be related to increased global dimming from all the extra soot due to the explosion of dirty industry in the developing world, as you mentioned.
The point remains that we are currently experiencing the hottest world we've known, and that we've pushed the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere far beyond limits it's known for over 1,000,000 years... but you think that won't have an effect because the atmosphere's ability to absorb IR is already 'saturated', something disproven in the 1950s...
7) Isotopes. No, wrong, real climate also does a nice, concise job of explaining why: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Also, have a read of Ghosh's 2007 paper: http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_ga...PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
8) Water vapour - I "almost left it out". Bull I did, it was the thing tlong thought he'd picked up on but got completely incorrect - around 75% of natural atmospheric warming is due to water vapour, the other 25% due to GHGs. I clearly stated that from the beginning. Don't accuse me of duplicity.
9) Solar warming. As I clearly explained, about 25% of atmospheric warming is due to INCOMING SOLAR RADIATION, because most incoming radiation is UV/visible/near-IR which are not absorbed by GHGs, and the other 75% is a result of incoming solar radiation WARMING THE EARTH which RE-RADIATES this absorbed energy as IR. I explained that very clearly, and if you don't even know that you don't know much about the subject. Of course 100% of atmospheric warming is due to radiation from the sun (where else would it come from?), but a large chunk of the warming is not directly from solar radiation but indirectly from its absorbtion and re-radiation by the earth.
10) Who said solar output doesn't fluctuate? I certainly didn't. But even if it does, it cannot be attributed to 0.7C over a century (as you admitted, it might be responsible for up to 0.2C), which is what has been observed.
Links to your GISS data please, as it is different from what I've seen.
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 03-21-2009 at 09:04 PM.
That chart you take from the IPCC has been revised. The IPCC has since raised their assessment of both soot and solar irradiance. There is also someplace that assigns confidence on each chart from the IPCC, and most of the various factors have a real low confidence. There are arguments in a thread in Politics, but I don't have the time to find the data or links right now. I'll try to remember to find it when I have time. I simply laugh every time I see that chart. It6 might be a link in the thread I post in the bottom of this posting. I stopped looking for now.Responses to Wild Cobra.
1) soot. I didn't ignore soot at all, and its effect is far smaller than CO2.
11 year average solar radiation is known to have increased from between just before 1900 to about 1950. There are other factors as well, but the sun is the source for about 95% of the earths heat.
Are you telling me that we should not see proportional change from the suns delta temperature?
As for the soot on ice, it has very little direct effect. What it does, is melt the ice by trapping about 90% + of the solar radiation rather than reflecting that much. Then, with the added melt of ice, exposing more ocean, the water then absorbs most the radiation a warmer ocean. This in fact cause warmer water and less CO2 retention, and can actually be a reason (rather probable) that this is why we see increased CO2. Normally, what we add to the atmosphere, is so small, it should be sinked. However, the warmer the water, the less CO2 it can maintain in equilibrium.
Soot has since been discovered to respond differently than other aerosols. Yes, it blocks direct solar radiation, but by absorbing it. Not reflecting it like other aerosols. Therefore it does not contribute to cooling. The heat is maintained in the lower troposphere rather than reflected back out to space.
Glaciers, as I said, are complicated. For one thing, they flow faster when there is more precipitation from past years, and slower with less. There is a time lag. Changes in flow rates change breakup rates. You cannot reasonable assume that glacier changes are due to warming or CO2. Besides, as many glaciers are retreating in both Greenland and Antarctica, the snow and ice thickness in the interior of both are actually increasing!
I don’t claim to know allot about glaciers, but I know enough to know that those arguments are too weak.
At least you agree with the lack of reflecting radiation!
Albedo is a natural factor.
Thanks, I'll look it over as I have time. I doubt it will change anything since ice densities in most places are increasing.
You know those pictures comparing timelines like 1920 to present day of glaciers? Funny how the majority of their melt occurred in the 30’s. Not recently.
Just look for “Before” glacier pictures in the late 30’s or 40’s…
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach.
Sorry, but the science consensus you are supporting is more and more being shown to be wrong. Besides, look at all the agendas you have at universities.What makes the mainstream scientific view - as supported by every major university and scientific ins ution on the planet, from transparent, peer-reviewed data - propaganda, and the purposely confusing, pop-junk psuedo-science you purport, truth?
I have read those articles and more in Real Science, and have disputed some rather well. The upper atmosphere CO2 does not matter. Look at your own radiation spectrum charts. The CO2 band that absorbs solar radiation is so tiny, then half is radiated up, half down. It's the blackbody radiation coming from the surface that matters. That's what the greenhouse gasses trap.
Real Science caters to the ignorant rather well. If you lean more about black body radiation and how cold the atmosphere gets past 10 km, you would realize any IR radiative forcing in the upper atmosphere is pitifully small.
Real Science is a propaganda site, cherry picking information. Even their CO2 tube example doesn't follow what the IPCC and Al Gore things is going on. If I reverse their chart:
This is the farthest the alarmists are willing to say, Al Gores chart. Compare 2x between the two:
Here is a more complete spectral assessment:
Spectrum:
Now broken down for detail:
Carefully look at what Real Science gives you, and tell me, just how much do any of them allow for 2x and 4x increases in radiative forcing? They all acknowledge little increase for doubling or quadrupling.
The chart Gore uses is IPCC approved. I didn't bring up any of the real corny stuff he said.
1998 was not the hottest year. Didn't you get the memo? the data was being tweaked at NASA by an employee with an agenda. The hottest year on record was in the 30's, after the records were properly updated.
Sorry, evidence says otherwise when you learn more of the geosciences than just meteorology.The point remains that we are currently experiencing the hottest world we've known, and that we've pushed the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere far beyond limits it's known for over 1,000,000 years... but you think that won't have an effect because the atmosphere's ability to absorb IR is already 'saturated', something disproven in the 1950s...
Yes, the good 'ol Suess Effect. Hypothisis, and plenty of data to look at, but too many unknown variables to consider. One big one is that with warming is more CO2 being expelled by the equatorial oceans. There is such a dynamic relationship, C13 is too hard to consider. C14 is a better indicator since fossil fuels have none, but content there varies as well with solar irradiation and nuclear testing.
I wonder how many samples of the worlds oil supply the propagandists at Real Science actually measured the isotopic ratios of? They will vary allot, I'm sure. They even acknowledge plants take up different amounts of C13/C12. What they don't do, is show the real relationships of the carbon cycle. They don't say what the percentage of C13 is in fossil fuels. Shouldn't they give us some information to verify rather than trust their assessment? Of course not. Propagandists don't do that.
You should do some math and see if their assessments can be justified. First of all, C13 is about 1.1% of carbon. Ever consider how much of a change it would have to be in fossil fuels to make such a change, considering the carbon cycle sources 211.6 Giga-tons of carbon (GtC) naturally and only 5.5 GtC from fossil fuels and cement production. Sinking is 213.8 GtC for a net annual increase of 3.3 GtC by the below Carbon Cycle chart. With less than 2.5% of the sourced CO2 being from fossil fuels, there would have to be a very big isotopic difference to make such a claim valid.
Again, Real Science is a propaganda site.
I was being a bit a about that. Just the way you structured that one sentence. It was as if it was an inconvenient fact you had to mention.
Look at the volume in your added chart of what CO2 and H2O cover. Notice that 25% can be a maximum under certain conditions. What condition? Remove all the water vapor out of the air. That just isn't going to happen. CO2 if actually accounts for 11% to 13% of the greenhouse effect. There is overlap with water, and the water will always dominate. CO2 percentage is highly dependent on the blackbody temperature.
Look at the spectral chart you supplied again. At the 210 K blackbody for severe Arctic conditions, if you go to spectral calc and determine the various powers at each band and temperature, you get 11.3% for CO2 vs. 88.7% for H2O. That is excluding all other greenhouse gasses, assuming the two are 100%. That makes CO2 under 11%. At 260 K they are 11.8% and 88.2%. At 310 K, hot desert, they are 13.1% and 86.9%. If we go outside any of the three curves listed, at 288 K (15 C, 59 F global average,) CO2 is now 13.2% and H2O is 86.8%.
Want to look this data up yourself? Go here:
Spectral Calc Black Body Calculator
Now...
If we agree with the assessment that the greenhouse effect is 33 degrees, then 13% of that is only 4.3 degrees from CO2. The IPCC claims between 6 to 7 degrees, but you have to discount the effect of H2O overlap to get that. Remember, the H2O effects are here to stay. It’s CO2 than man is changing the quan y of.
Really now. Since CO2 is logarithmic, even Real Science agrees, how much more can CO2 cause in warming?
Yes, the greenhouse effect. Just the same, there is little real change in the heat the gaseous blanket retains with changes in CO2. All solar changes are about 100% proportional.
First of all, I am claiming 0.2 C or more. Not as much as.
I am not assigning 0.7 C over a century. there are so many other variables that cause known changes over time. What is ridiculous is that alarmists like yourself want to attribute most of that 0.7 to CO2 changes. Again, how can you justify that when changes from the 260's to the 280's in ice core samples show no change attributed to that 20 ppm? However, natural variabilities have a 4 degree spread.
What I claim is that solar variations are a minimum of 0.2 degrees per 0.1%. I firmly believe the change is 0.3 degrees per 0.1%, but I would stake my life on the 0.2. Not the 0.3.
I made the charts myself in Excel, from their data. You might like this too:
Forcings in GISS Climate Model: Solar Irradiance
Now, back to black carbon. From a previous posting:
Black Carbon rather than CO2 I will claim to be the major anthropogenic warming on the Earth.
Black Carbon is simply soot. It is expelled into the atmosphere by the incomplete burning of fuels. In small quan ies, we see it in the USA from older cars tailpipes, and from diesel trucks when they accelerate hard. It’s the black smoke we see. Since the 70’s, here in the USA we have regulated pollution to the point that we generate very little of it in the global picture. The real culprit is Asia. They have been building and using coal power plants, without implementing the pollution controls we do. We are seeing the jet streams carry this soot to both the Arctic region, and causing occasional smog in the Pacific Northwest, which otherwise would have no smog. A few articles and some info contained within:
Wiki: Black Carbon:
OK, for those of you who error on the side of caution. The first paragraph says “reducing black carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term.” The second paragraph has the IPCC increasing it’s estimated impact from 0.3 to 0.55 watts of warming to 1 to 1.2 watts. Shouldn’t this most easily controlled measure be attempted first before regulation CO2 emission levels?Black carbon contribution to global warming
Black carbon is a potent climate forcing agent, estimated to be the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO2). Because black carbon remains in the atmosphere only for a few weeks, reducing black carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term.
Estimates of black carbon’s climate forcing (combining both direct and indirect forcings) vary from the IPCC’s conservative estimate of + 0.3 watts per square meter (W/m2) + 0.25, to the most recent estimate of 1.0-1.2 W/m2 (see Table 1), which is “as much as 55% of the CO2 forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other greenhouse gasses (GHGs) such as CH4, CFCs, N2O, or tropospheric ozone.”
In some regions, such as the Himalayas, the impact of black carbon on melting snowpack and glaciers may be equal to that of CO2. Black carbon emissions also significantly contribute to Arctic ice-melt, which is critical because “nothing in climate is more aptly described as a ‘tipping point’ than the 0°C boundary that separates frozen from liquid water—the bright, reflective snow and ice from the dark, heat-absorbing ocean.” Hence, reducing such emissions may be “the most efficient way to mitigate Arctic warming that we know of.”
If warming from soot increases, then what did they say before is decreasing… I’ll bet they don’t, but I’d say they are seeing CO2 isn’t the culprit they claim it is. Considering on the below graph, they gave CO2 something like a 1.5 to a 1.8 watt range, that would now be reduced to maybe 0.8 to 1.5 watts! However, the below graph must be older yet. It shows soot at 0 to 0.2 watts. Correcting to the higher soot figure drops CO2 to even more. Because of the way the range these, I won’t attempt to quantify a valid change. Just that it’s even farther. Along with the truth that solar irradiance changes should be higher than the approximate 0.1 to 0.3 watts the give, you can see that CO2 can easily be getting smaller. Solar irradiance by official NASA and other agencies than monitor the sun clearly increase by at least 0.3 watts.
Second article, by MSNBC; Soot may speed up melting of Arctic ice:
Funny thing is that CO2 doesn’t produce the right calculation to be the primary reason for warming that has been observed. Climate models have been made since the 80’s on the assumption greenhouse gasses were the primary cause of warming. What almost any article I see on the subject fails to do is acknowledge that if we are seeing other factors contributing to warming, then CO2 must not be warming the earth as much as first assumed. They refuse to see past the Flat Earth mentality.Using computer models and information from NASA satellites, scientists located significant ac ulations of black carbon soot in the Arctic region. This soot may contribute to the warming of a region that has already seen rapidly increasing temperatures in recent years.
"This research offers additional evidence black carbon, generated through the process of incomplete combustion, may have a significant warming impact on the Arctic," said Dorothy Koch of Columbia University and NASA’s Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies.
Is soot, not CO2, to blame for the loss of Arctic ice?:
From ABC News; Can We Save the Polar Bears?:The Arctic is especially vulnerable to pollution. In recent years the Arctic has significantly warmed, and sea-ice cover and glaciers have diminished. Likely causes for these trends include changing weather patterns and the effects of pollution. Airborne soot also warms the air and affects weather patterns and clouds.
Black carbon has already been implicated as playing a role in melting ice and snow. Basically, when soot falls on ice, it darkens the surface and accelerates melting by absorbing more sunlight than ice would, just as wearing a black shirt in the summertime makes you feel hotter than if you wore a lighter color. Dark colors absorb heat and light, and lighter colors reflect it keeping surfaces cooler.
A few more links:Scientists are discovering that what appears to be pristine, white snow may be more polluted than it seems. They're finding tiny particles of black carbon — too small for the naked eye to see — from forest fires and human pollution.
Under a microscope, scientists can see black carbon particles by the trillions. Those black carbon particles cause the snow to melt faster.
"Black carbon absorbs sunlight and it causes warming," said Stephen Warren, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington.
Scientists have traced soot blown into the Arctic region to industrial sources in North America, Europe and now Asia, but there's still hope.
"I think we can still save the Arctic," said NASA's James Hansen. "Our calculations are that we could keep the sea ice in the Arctic from melting much more than it has already."
That can only happen if emissions cuts include greatly decreasing black carbon from smokestacks and tailpipes, according to Hansen and other scientists. That's an effort everyone has to strive for, from China to the United States.
Soot Could Hasten Melting of Arctic Ice
IGSD/INECE Climate Briefing Note: 9 June 2008, A must read. Nice data. Has the most recent BC estimates of forcing at 1.0 to 1.2 watts.
Study: Black Carbon Pollution Major Factor in Global Warming, 23 March 2008
Global Warming Hoax:
Notice how out closest source of Black Carbon emissions at high levels is Mexico City? I know that from a better map of this I've seen. Somewhere, I have a few NASA links that cover the BC levels better. I think I covered enough here. Threads getting a bit big already.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-16-2009 at 09:09 PM.
What do you call this:
The earth has been warmer several times in history than recently. It was even warmer in known history, as proven by tax records during the Roman Empire. Grapes use to grow in England. Too cold today for grape crops. Buried Viking mines and farms are being discovered in Greenland as the glaciers retreat. Looks like the glaciers were gone before as well.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-16-2009 at 09:04 PM.
C'mon Ruff! Bring it!
It's not real science, its realclimate, and it's not a propaganda site, it's staffed by PhDs in climatology from across the world, and allows unmoderated debate of the topics. That is not propaganda, that is open debate.
I'm too busy to respond to you right now, and really, what's the point? I'm not going to convince you, and nor are you going to convince me. I question many of your arguments and figures, and could spend a few hours dissecting all the spurious and contradictory stuff you said in your last post, which you would disagree with, and vice versa ad nauseum - your answers do not satisfy me, and nor do mine satisfy you, so we are at an impasse... what a surprise.
One thing though - I think it is laughable that you think scientists have more of an agenda here than a multi-TRILLION dollar industry, namely fossil fuels. I also think it's laughable that you seem to believe that humans can significantly perturb the earth's carbon cycle from its natural equilibrium without consequences, and that you ignore observations in the physical, chemical and biological world which prove it.
I think he's going through his texts currently and constructing a rebuttal. Has to do the screen captures and save them as jpg's as well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
