|
Post by nautonnier on May 17, 2010 2:03:28 GMT
I voted for 1-2 per doubling. Will CO2 even double from its present level? It would appear that unless nature does something drastic, (major volcanic eruption)......that co2 will not double. There is not enough carbon to do so in fossil fuels. Besides which as the vapor pressure rises so does CO 2 solubility - see Henry's law.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 17, 2010 6:23:06 GMT
And because CO2's quite obviously not going to more than double...all the higher ranges of IPCC predictions are wrong. There is literally nothing we can do to meet the predictions of those models. How is this sham even continuing?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 17, 2010 6:39:42 GMT
How is this sham even continuing? Stupidity of the general population. They don't know, don't want to know, so they live by the precautionary system. It is a safety thing for them. I got a taste of it once right after 9/11. Remember those anthrax letters that were sent to some Congressmen? Well I went to a convention in Cedar Rapids Iowa. I came out of my room one morning to find the maids all in a twitter over some white powder they found in the room next to mine. It was corn starch. The gal staying in that room was a big gal and used the corn starch to prevent chafing. Nobody in their right mind is going to think that terrorists are playing with anthrax in a Holiday Inn in Cedar Rapids Iowa for God's sake but those maids were scared shitless. Those same gals are going to want the government to do something about AGW. It won't matter how pointless or stupid, it will be demanded.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 17, 2010 8:45:51 GMT
I voted for 1-2C although that was a mistake I meant to click 2-4C but nevermind. If I had to widen the uncertainty I would say 1-5C. It's disappointing to see so many people selected "no detectable effects" but more disappointing that I cannot use a mouse.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 17, 2010 9:01:20 GMT
My sympathies. Would a 4C rise be a threat to humanity?
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 17, 2010 9:53:28 GMT
This is just a dumb factoid. This factoid also proves that CO2 must always remain constant because the ocean is such a vast reservoir. Unfortunately the ocean takes its time in swallowing up the CO2 which is why CO2 is rising. Henry's law also ignores temperature. Warmer water will dissolve less gas.
Putting that ludicrously unscientific diversion aside, an example of a scenario is that the A1T scenario (one of the "mid-range" scenarios) to 2100 projects an approximate doubling of CO2, and projects a 2.2C warming.
But scenarios also include increases in other greenhouse gases. For example, CO2 provides just a bit more than half of the radiative forcing of all anthropogenic gas emissions (CH4, N20, O3 and halocarbons). And other anthropogenic impacts can result in cooling. So while CO2 is the "headline" gas, other emissions count as well.
So the A1T scenario as above is warming of doubling of CO2 plus lots of other effects. It also implies continued warming beyond 2100 and (obviously) continued rises in sea level etc. etc.
Most of the studies based on past climate change point to a lower limit of climate sensitivity of 1.5C. The boundaries on the upper limit seem to be a lot fuzzier.
I've not answered the above poll. My poll is about Roy Spencers paper:
A) The paper will be a pale imitation of the blog-version and will say very little that can be criticised. B) The paper will be a hit until it is shredded by all climate scientists including possibly Judy Curry and Richard Lindzen.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 17, 2010 10:39:56 GMT
Steve
Think about clouds - I know that is against the AGW thought process as you believe clouds only exist because feedback to CO2 causes them....
But for a while think of clouds all those droplets of really cold pure water with a total surface area far in excess of the oceans and up there being kept up by atmospheric currents with the CO2 around them as these droplets form and eventually rain to the surface (and watch how those droplets distort and catch the air as they drop...), they are nature's own atmospheric scrubbers as they are cold and have zero CO2 when formed but it will rapidly dissolve into them. The life time of CO2 in the atmosphere is at most 5 years - when it reaches the surface dissolved in the cold rain - the temperature of the oceans - MAY - if its a tropical area be sufficient to outgas some CO2 according to Henry's law causing some rise in atmospheric CO2
Steve you appear to be mathematically trained and as such you are a straight line thinker, and really do not appear to appreciate some of the simpler workings of the complex atmospheric processes.
Perhaps you should add a brief meteorology 101 course to your studies.? You never know you may come to appreciate how 'factoids' can link together to describe how systems work? Well one can hope.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on May 17, 2010 10:45:22 GMT
steve writes "B) The paper will be a hit until it is shredded by all climate scientists including possibly Judy Curry and Richard Lindzen."
I cannot wait. I have not seen anything in the way of criticism on the usual warmaholic blogs, which seems to me to be unusual. Has anyone seen any such criticism, or are people like Gavin and sites like RealClimate waiting for the actual paper to be published?
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 17, 2010 14:13:08 GMT
steve writes "B) The paper will be a hit until it is shredded by all climate scientists including possibly Judy Curry and Richard Lindzen." I cannot wait. I have not seen anything in the way of criticism on the usual warmaholic blogs, which seems to me to be unusual. Has anyone seen any such criticism, or are people like Gavin and sites like RealClimate waiting for the actual paper to be published? The criticisms are at the level that they think Spencer is on another planet (with a swamp ocean perhaps?): www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/nautonnier I'm looking at a level even simpler than that. CO2 is rising very steadily despite the processes you describe and your reference to Henry's law. How come?
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on May 17, 2010 15:26:35 GMT
350-years long CET record shows, that natural climate variability is normal and present period is in no way extraordinary, even compared to LIA. For example, the decade around 1735 has been as warm as recent decade. There is not much correlation with CO2 except 1980-2005 period and if the GCM models can not explain the variations in the past, they can not predict the future. climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htmOf course, the recent rise might be a start of relentless rise by 3-7 deg C till 2100. But then it must be identifiable from the past natural variations. The most sensitive areas of the planet - polar caps - should experience most of the strengthening of the "greenhouse effect", since CO2 rise in low humidity air should increase the overall "greenhouse effect" much more than in mid-latitudes or tropics. South pole: no warming, even cooling during the satellite era. North pole: cyclical changes, induced by natural variations in Pacific and Atlantic ocean. 1940s were similar to 2000s. That IPCC mistaken the warm POD/AMO period for CO2-induced warming is not my fault. Result - I vote for not recognizable effect.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 17, 2010 15:48:17 GMT
steve writes "B) The paper will be a hit until it is shredded by all climate scientists including possibly Judy Curry and Richard Lindzen." I cannot wait. I have not seen anything in the way of criticism on the usual warmaholic blogs, which seems to me to be unusual. Has anyone seen any such criticism, or are people like Gavin and sites like RealClimate waiting for the actual paper to be published? The criticisms are at the level that they think Spencer is on another planet (with a swamp ocean perhaps?): www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/nautonnier I'm looking at a level even simpler than that. CO2 is rising very steadily despite the processes you describe and your reference to Henry's law. How come? I'm looking at a level even simpler than that. CO2 is rising very steadily despite the processes you describe and your reference to Henry's law. How come?The ocean temperatures have been increasing since the LIA and the CO 2 balance has not been reached. It is continually being washed from the atmosphere, but will outgas if the surface water is warm enough. If the SST's stop rising or even drop as the ARGO floats appear to be reporting - then I would expect after a lag the CO 2 increase will also level and then drop. The very steadiness of the rise should be a clue that it is not variable industrial processes that are causing the rise in CO 2. CO 2 levels are probably more a feedback than a cause of the warming.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 17, 2010 16:15:58 GMT
nautonnier, you have given away the game.
You've gone along with the story that CO2 levels can't reach 560ppm and cited Henry's law in support.
You forgot to point out that you are entirely happy with the idea that CO2 has risen significantly, purely due to a bit of (natural?) warming.
Since the earth has in the past been warmer than now then someone who really believed what you are saying would not bother with Henry's law and merely state that should temperatures warm another degree or so, CO2 will reach 560ppm, but CO2 has nothing to do with it, and probably it won't happen.
But you don't believe what you are saying, do you?
I expect that after a lag you will change your story.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on May 18, 2010 5:49:27 GMT
Assuming it might double, the raw logarithmic increase would be about 1.5 oC. However, Spencer and Lindzen and Choi agree that a net negative feedback exists (as observed by satellites). That would moderate the raw logarithmic increase. Lindzen says it is moderated to about 0.3 oC. Spencer says 0.5 oC. Therefore, I suspect "no detectable effects" is the answer, a combination of very minor changes measured by a wretched surface observation system. On the other hand, we might get some mileage out of increased crop yields with decreased water consumption. ;D
Lindzen, Richard S., and Yong-Sang Choi. “On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data.” Geophysical Research Letters 36, no. 16 (8, 2009). www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039628.shtmlClimate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs. Lindzen, Richard, PhD. “Lindzen on negative climate feedback (with updates).” Blog. Watts Up With That?, March 30, 2009. wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/Spencer, Ph.D., Roy W. “What About the Clouds, Andy?.” Blog. Global Warming (drroyspencer.com), February 21, 2009. www.drroyspencer.com/2009/02/what-about-the-clouds-andy/
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 18, 2010 8:23:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on May 18, 2010 17:19:26 GMT
I believe a doubling of CO2 will cause less than 1C warming because there is a negative feedback. "Increased weather activity" helps moderate the temperature increases (greenhouse effect) of CO2. The result will be a little more "weather" , a little warming from CO2 and a bit more warming from the very long term natural growth.
None of the choices fit this scenario so I haven't voted.
|
|