Global Warming - Page 4

Mid April in London 2007, 24 degrees and sunny, this is the sort of weather we get in July, winter has been mild but thankfully wet. This time last year I had to wear a coat until early May, this year I did not need it from February onwards. I cannot really tell if there is a massive change in the weather over a decade though as I can remember this sort of thing happening before and snow in June back in the 70's. But for sure it does seem to go from one extreme to the other. I am not an expert and look at this whole debate not feeling any the wiser but could I ask you what are we churning out in comparison to two or three big Volcanic eruptions? I once saw a documentary that said a large crack in the Earth's mantle near Siberia kicked up so much dust and gas it caused a long nucear winter, it wiped life out however it took 10,000 years for the process of extinction to complete itself. Oh well might as well take a walk in the park and enjoy the Sun. God only knows what Summer will be like.

I’ll bet de Laat and Maurellis is not on the global warmers list of recommended reading material, but take a moment.

Evidence for influence of anthropogenic surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface temperature trends2006
by A.T.J. de Laat (KNMI), A.N. Maurellis (),
Abstract
In de Laat and Maurellis [2004] a new framework was introduced in the form of a spatial-thresholding trend technique for analysing the correlation between anthropogenic surface processes (e.g. changes in land use, albedo, soil moisture, ground water levels, solar absorption by soot or energy consumption) and lower tropospheric and surface temperature trends for the period 1979-2001. In situ-measured surface and satellite-measured lower tropospheric temperature trends were shown to be higher in the vicinity of industrialized regions while such higher trends were not found in enhanced greenhouse gas (GHG) climate model simulations of temperature. It was suggested that surface and lower tropospheric temperature trends appeared to be influenced by anthropogenic non-GHG processes at earth’s surface . In this paper we verify the robustness of the thresholding technique and confirm our earlier conclusions based on an extended analyses and two additional datasets. We confirm the presence of a temperature change – industrialization correlation by analyzing the data with an additional statistical method and further confirm the absence of the above correlation in climate model simulations of enhanced GHG-warming. Our findings thus provide an important test of climate model performance on regional scales. These findings suggest that over the last two decades non-GHG anthropogenic processes also have contributed significantly to surface temperature changes. We identify one process that potentially could contribute to the observed temperature patterns, although there certainly may be other processes
Int J of Climatology 26:2006

KPM,

Weather fluctuates on a number of cycles. Let's not confuse weather and climate. We're talking about long-term effects here, although with current trends, not as long as 10,000 years.

dx,

I'm as wary of door to door Bible peddlers as you are. That's one debate that I'm not going to enter, but I'm proud to be a Bright. As such, I'm wary of all positions of faith including scientism. We can define scientism as the faith in any scientific position without actually understanding the issues.

I understand the issues, but I'm not asking you to have faith in what I say. The most that I can hope to achieve out of this discussion, is that more people will do their own research and educate themselves about the facts. You might get methane from the stomachs of cattle, but this is far from being a visceral issue. Despite all you see and hear on the popular media, this is not actually a debate.

Nowadays, we have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions.

There is an avalanche of scientific articles. There are United Nations treaties and commissions, there are G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions for Global Warming.

I see in an interesting development that the USEPA has finally been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. It's like an ostrich that has had its head buried in the sand for so long that it's now looking around confused, trying to understand its new surroundings.

ArizonaSt,

I don't think it should come as a revelation that land-clearing and changes in land-use contribute to Global Warming. To say that this is not related to GHG emissions is technically correct, but it's nevertheless part of the overall GHG picture.

If we clear forests, then a fair proportion of the carbon locked up in trees ends up back in the atmosphere (most of it over a long period of time). At the same time, it's removing a carbon sink. Remember that 1.6Gt per annum of the carbon balance is factored in due to changes in land use.

Although it's basically sound, the emphasis of that paper is interesting. The source of the funding is even more interesting.

Actually my last reply was superficial, and somewhat off the mark. That paper deserves a fuller comment. I'll provide one in the course of the weekend when I get time.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the fact that Mars is experiencing Global Warming too. (although the reasons are not the same)

I think the fairest comment I could make is to say that enhanced greenhouse effect does not account for all the temperature rise. Nobody has ever claimed that.

The research by De Laat and Maurellis is important in attempting to quantify other sources of regional global warming in order to further define and quantify the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It also raises the question of the location of monitoring equipment. Industrialised, Northern hemisphere sites will show exaggerated results.

This chart has already been posted here, but it illustrates the other contributors to global warming. I think it was posted without the explanatory text the last time.

Link

I don't deny that there are other anthropogenic sources, but given the rapidly rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 which have been confirmed by Antarctic ice core sampling and monitoring at Mauna Loa and the (as yet) unquantified risks of the "Clathrate Gun" and "Chemocline breakdown" scenarios, it would be foolhardy to propose a business as usual attitude. The consequences of both are about as severe as it is possible to get for mankind.

"The source of funding is even more interesting" ouch....I sense a comming industrial stooges or similar comment about the authors. Unfortunately that is a common thought when someone dare not dare hold the GHG party line. I think the important issue of the referenced paper is that the curent climate models which are the basis for much of the dire predictions don't seem to calibrate well with current global observations. Perhaps too much emphasis on the CO2 driving T relationsip in these models. I'm not familiar with climate modeling so that comment is about as far as I go.

agree - a business as usual attitude is not suggested

"ouch....I sense a comming industrial stooges or similar comment about the authors."

That's why I said that my reply was superficial etc. It wasn't a useful comment, even if it was true.

If I had the ability to edit my posts, I would have removed the comment.

[link]

for you and all of us!

yt
dx

Has anyone calculated the effect caused by deforestation of the Amazon rain forest?

Gentelman,

The earth is 70% water. It gets warm the ice melts. Cold fresh water is deposited in the oceans. It gets cold. The ice bilds up at the poles and on the land. The oceans warm up. It gets warm.

Darwin

Ben and dx,

The IPCC recognises the special significance of tropical rainforest. The annual carbon flux for Change of Tropical Land Use is about 1.6Gt.

For what its worth, I live in the tropics.

Hi Darwin,

Just as a matter of interest, how old are you?

Aldebaran,

I am 54 years old.

Sometimes I give real simple answers I know. Thats because in the weather bussiness there are so many variables you can you can get lost in the little stuff.

I think my age helps a little. For example. those are a lot of pretty graphs and stats you guys throw around about suface temps.
The problem is they aint worth a whole lot'

In the 70,s Greensboro NC was one of the cooler locations in NC, About 3 to 5 degrees colder than Charlotte. Now Its about the same, sometimes warmer. I am refering to the official reporting stations, GSO and CLT.
They plug that information into the computer and say, "hey look boys the temperature has gone up." This is happening everywhere.

Now back in the 70 the only thing around the airport was tress, Now its concreete and asphalt. The heat island effect. Now how do you compare those temps? It makes a pretty graph, but it not reality. So you got to throw that data out. How do I know this? Because i still live out in the country and my temps are about 3-5 degrees cooler than the airport.

The truth is the Earth has warm periods and cold periods and we dont know exactly why. But i can tell you that in my opinion there is a whole lot of water out there. I seen a lot of it in the navy.

I dont like polution. In the high country of NC the trees are dieing. Thats real. We are changing the acid levels in the rain. Thats the earth sending all that crap we send up back down.

There is no such thing as normal weather. The weather is what it is.

Darwin

I hope there is some young stud that wants to take on this old weatherman on this issue.

No disrespect intended. I just love a challange.

We never stop learning.

Darwin

Aldebaran : Why is tropical Asia going up and the US down ??

please clarifiy.

DARWIN

Ben,

Changes in land-use in Tropical Asia are quite dominant in terms of Carbon flux. The devastation of Indonesian rainforests and the burning of the tropic peatbogs account for a major part of the CTLU flux. I don't know the answer to the US, but it's low on the horizon with respect to the effects of land clearing impacts, but high for Greenhouse gas emissions.

I don't know why the units are expressed as Teragrams 1000 Teragrams = 1 Gigtonne.

Darwin,

I like simple responses too. The idea of increasing atmospheric CO2 is quite simple. We've had a 35% rise in CO2 content since the beginning of industrialisation. That's a mere 200 years. 200 years is nothing in terms of Geological time.

Prior to that, the atmospheric CO2 slowly varied between 180 ppm and 280 ppm over a period of 650,000 years.

The atmospheric CO2 is at the highest concentration since the Eocene period some 40 million years ago.

Something's got to give.

I agree but call it what it is. Poloution
Dont call it global warming. Thats Mickey Mouse.

PS: I cant spell

Darwin