There are two different opinions regarding the current global warming and accompanied climate change. IPCC has seen direct human hand behind this unprecedented crisis of fossil fuel based/carbon civilization. Other side sees such warming and climate change as passing natural phase like the previous ones encountered in earth's history and nothing to be worried about.
What do you think? Justify your stand with convincing logic and scientific literature.
I am ecologist and not a Member of IPCC. However, fully agree with IPCC that human hand is behind of this unprecedented crisis of fossil fuel based/carbon civilization”.
Global warming and climate change is well established and quite visible world wide.Lots of published paper and several books available in this regard. on line references may be useful.
Dear Towe sir,
You please have a look at last two IPCC reports.
Biological and physical fingerprints are the evidences of global warming and consequent climatic change. Biodiversity extinction crisis, coral bleaching, phenological changes of plants and animals, changing biology of vector and vector-borne diseases fall under biological signatures while global surface temperature increase, sea level rise, accelerated melting of permafrost, glaciers, extreme weather events are its physical signs. The immediate cause is the rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and greenhouse effect caused by those gases but the ultimate agent are the humans and the anthropogenic activities. To explain a bit, for example, it's hardly possible to determine the actual contribution of climatic change to biodiversity extinction as it is the result of the interplay of a multitude of factors but there's no denial that CC has aggravated the situation and amplified the rate many many fold!
Best regards,
Jayanta
I am ecologist and not a Member of IPCC. However, fully agree with IPCC that human hand is behind of this unprecedented crisis of fossil fuel based/carbon civilization”.
Christ is risen! and Hello!
Dear Jayanta,
Most of ideas are correct! As Dr. Kenneth said, in the urban areas, the human hand influences the heat!
But at global level, my opinion is slightly different.
I think that, as you mention yet, "climate change as passing natural phase like the previous ones" and these oscillations with higher values of the mean air temperature are also consequences of the complex factors. We can include the solar cycles heating, general movement of the Earth in the galaxy, and also the o-zone stratum which is less protective under the volcanic, anthropic, increases of CO2 etc influences.
Hope that my answer is useful for you and others!
Best regards, Margarit!
Global warming and climate change refer to different physical phenomena. Global warming refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature. Climate change refers not only to global changes in temperature but also to changes in wind, precipitation, the length of seasons as well as the strength and frequency of extreme weather events like droughts and floods. Another difference between the 2 terms is that global warming is a worldwide phenomenon while climate change can be seen at global, regional or even more local scales.
The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 nations, as well as those of China, India and Brazil.
Despite the international scientific community's consensus, a small number of critics continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. These "skeptics" or "deniers" are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly. They focus their attention on the media, the general public and policy-makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change. After 15 years of scientific studies attesting to the reality and significance of global climate change, the deniers' tactics have shifted. Many deniers no longer deny that climate change is happening, but instead argue that the cost of taking action is too high—or even worse, that it is too late to take action.
Some may deny but it's a a reality! Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that man-made climate change is a reality. We know it’s happening, and we know why: carbon pollution and green house effect are warming our planet and offering extreme weather conditions like recurrent extreme droughts, floods, wildfires, superstorms, cyclone, tornado, tsunami. Rising sea level is causing inudation of land, salization of freshwater resources and affecting productivity, economy and livelihood. Flood, droughts and rising temperature and carbon dioxide levels are adverse affecting agricultural productivity and livelihood of people. Human health is experiencing taste of new diseases or diseases at areas which haven't had that disease earlier. Intensity of vector borne diseases is on the rise. Mortality and morbidity out of these events and episodes are innumerable. And we’re all paying the price for it in lives, livelihoods, food and water scarcity, and in every way imaginable. This is not crisis humanity is facing?!!
“So we are left with a stark choice: allow climate disruption to change everything about our world, or change pretty much everything about our economy to avoid that fate. But we need to be very clear: because of our decades of collective denial, no gradual, incremental options are now available to us.” –– Naomi Klein
Kraj
You have an opinion in an area that you have no idea about. Read before you write
dr Kraj
Every discipline has its own boundaries. Real experts in the field (see e.g. the review in the encyclopedia of climate/climate-change IPCC-reports of WG1) has been made very clear that the solar cycle has no influence on the present-day change in global temperatures. If you have another "opinion" that is OK for whatever blog for amateurs but not here in this scientific site of ResearchGate where one should present scientific references for ideas
dr Kraj
I also like to recommend the site of Clive Best, a skepticist, on the warming of CO2
http://clivebest.com/blog/?page_id=6048
And lastly
I notice that you are an expert in glazing; I would not dare to make any comment in your area
Dear Dr. Towe,
I fully agree with Dr. Brink sir.
Of the hottest years on record, 16 out of 18have come since 2000. Every new year is almost setting new record! By contrast, more than a century has gone by since the planet had a record cold year (1911). In addition, this marks 39 years in a row with above average global temperatures and 372 months in a row with global temperatures above average.Still a section of scientists (although a minority) are denying!
Regards,
Jayanta
Last month was the second warmest April in 137 years of modern record-keeping of average global temperatures, according to NASA.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/last-month-was-second-hottest-april-on-record-nasa/parched/slideshow/58701587.cms
The position statement of the American Geophysical Union regarding climate change leaves no doubt that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide resulting from human activity is the dominant source of climate change during the last several decades.
Ken
What does your latest clipping mean?
as always you do not provide any context and present it as a riddle to solve by us
And the references: all in the by now famous ENCYCLOPEDIA of climate/climate change the report of WG1 of IPCC (SAR, TAR, AR4 and AR5) which you refuse to study or even to scan. That is not even my opinion it is a mere fact judging your continuous asking for references
Chapter 8 Section 8.4.1 IPCC AR5 Report
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"Is climate change real, and is the world actually getting warmer?
The basic science behind climate change is actually quite simple.
The story began nearly 150 years ago when Irish physicist John Tyndall discovered ‘carbonic acid’ – today known as carbon dioxide – was one of a number of “perfectly colourless and invisible gases and vapours” to absorb radiant heat.
He also realised just how important this was to life on Earth as without such gases it would be “held fast in the iron grip of frost”.
About 40 years later, the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first suggested that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause the global temperature to go up, particularly in the Arctic. But the idea remained mostly an academic question until, as he predicted, the mercury started to rise.
This is one of the certainties in climate science – the world has got warmer.
How do we know that the world has really warmed up?
Last year, the hottest on record for the third year in a row, was about 1.1 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level, according to Nasa and the Met Office, boosted slightly by the natural El Nino effect. Svalbard in the Arctic has seen average winter temperatures rise by up to a staggering 11C compared to the average between 1961 and 1990.
In addition to thermometer records going back to the 1880s, there is a large amount of natural evidence in the form of glaciers retreating and sea ice melting to record lows, sea levels rising by 20cm, islands disappearing, animals and plants shifting their ranges and spring coming several weeks earlier.
Ironically, the famously impassable Northwest Passage – which claimed the lives of numerous explorers trying to find a new trade route to China – is now so free of ice that people can take a cruise through it on a ship powered by the fossil fuels that help cause global warming.
It is also certain that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased and that human activity is responsible for this. Helpfully, atmospheric carbon dioxide resulting from fossil fuels has a different isotope signature to the gas produced naturally.
As Nasa puts it: “There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.”".....
Please, goto the link to read the rest of the article....
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-explained-real-hoax-fake-truth-global-warming-conspiracy-debunker-a7704166.html
Jayanta,
This is an interesting question with a simple answer: if you are a US Republican politician such as President Trump, then global warming is a hoax. If you are a respected scientist, such as the past presidents of the Royal Society, then it is a reality. Who do you believe - politicians or scientists?
Dr. Towe Sir,
Temperature change by one degree C may seem to you insignificant but it can be critical beyond certain boundary/limit for some biological systems, species, populations. Corals are bearing the burnt of such thermal shock!
As coral reefs operate very near to their upper limit of heat tolerance, bleaching en masse happens when the surface waters get too warm above their normal summer temperature, and are sustained at this warmer level for too long.
When water temperatures rise too high the protective mechanisms to prevent heat damage, employed by the coral and the algae, are overwhelmed. The zooxanthellae algae produce high levels of oxygen waste which begin to poison the coral polyp. In acts of self-preservation the coral kick out the algae, and in doing so become susceptible to starvation, opportunistic diseases, competitive seaweeds and macroalgae (slime to you and me) .
On a world scale coral reefs are in decline, and it makes for rather depressing reading for an avid diver like myself. Over the last 30-40 years 80% of coral in the Caribbean have been destroyed (Gardner 2003) and 50% in Indonesia and the Pacific (Bruno & Selig 2007). Bleaching associated with the 1982 -1983 El-Nino killed over 95% of coral in the Galapagos Islands (Glynn 1990), and the 1997-1998 El-Nino alone wiped out 16% of all coral on the planet. Globally about 1% of coral is dying out each year. Not all of this continual decline is solely down to bleaching of course, pollution and other human activities are also contributing, but bleaching is speeding up the loss of coral.
This difference in warming is very likely to be decisive for the survival of tropical coral reefs and nearly 100% of tropical coral reefs are at risk of annual bleaching events.
We all know coral reef ecosystems are the marine equivalent of tropical rain forests - the heaven of biodiversity. Hence, loss of coral reefs' biodiversity will cause a cascade effect naturally, by courtesy of humans!!
Jayanta
Ken
It is the rapid rise in temperature in the last 60 years that all climatologists are considering/worried about. You keep on mentioning a period of 200 years.
And I agree with the previous replier that 1 C is a tremendous difference as a global means. And then one has to consider that temperatures in the Arctic are more rapidly increasing
Source IPCC-report of WG1 also know as the Climate Change the Scientific Basis
.
me Tahir
I like to remind you that the Independent is a newspaper and not a scientific journal. Therefore it has absolutely no status in a scientific discussion.
Dear friends, this question might have some meaning, some years ago.....
Almost all scientists agree today that Climate Change is REAL and most of it MAN INDUCED....im attaching an article about it, make sure to check it out
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/global-warming-climate-change-man-made-scientific-consensus-study-a6982401.html
Ken wrote, "The concerns are primarily based on model predictions, not on the past history of the climate."
That is totally untrue! The concerns are primarily based on the past history of climate change, none of which the models are able to simulate.
See http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016EGUGA..18.2567M where they write " Climate models offer a critical tool for assessing trends, but they cannot as yet predict ACC [abrupt climate change] events, as evidenced by the inability of these models to predict the rapid onset of Arctic warming and resulting changes in atmospheric circulation; and in the model vs past analog differences in projections for the state of atmospheric circulation in the Southern Hemisphere that will result as a consequence of greenhouse gas rise and "healing" of the Antarctic ozone hole (Mayewski et al., 2015)
Ken
You continue to call a change in temperature of almost ONE degree over the last century as MINIMAL:
what kind of climatologist are you? This is huge and unprecedented over such a short period.
And why are you asking how it will go from here? You do not believe in extrapolations or in models. You have your own truth
Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important. Although there has been progressing in monitoring and understanding climate change, there remain many scientific, technical, and institutional impediments to precisely planning for, adapting to, and mitigating the effects of climate change. There is still considerable uncertainty about the rates of change that can be expected, but it is clear that these changes will be increasingly manifested in important and tangible ways, such as changes in extremes of temperature and precipitation, decreases in seasonal and perennial snow and ice extent, and sea level rise. Anthropogenic climate change is now likely to continue for many centuries. We are venturing into the unknown with climate, and its associated impacts could be quite disruptive. (Thomas R. Karl).
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719
Maybe researchers from Smithsonian Institution fears Donald T***'s Twitter-account.
At least Kenneth does...
Some important facts and figures about the climate change on the NASA website: https://climate.nasa.gov/
Kindly see this..
http://warmheartworldwide.org/climate-change/?gclid=CKe497LIl9QCFUwfaAodQWsJJw
Plz explore here..
http://www.climatefinancelandscape.org/?gclid=CMmxwL_Il9QCFdKKaAodbzwOqQ
Interesting discussion . Dont we realise this fact by observing the conspicuous change in behavior of of crop phenology around us compared to when we were in childhood days..?
Ken
Apparently you are not trained or aware of climatology and just search for a clipping in decade-old newspapers that suits you best
1. ONE degree increase in global temperature is a huge number for a 40% increase in CO2: this would mean 2 degrees C for a doubling. This is for the simplest logarithmic extrapolation.
2a. CO2 increase is only important in the last 60 years; before that the CO2 levels were not significantly increased above the pre-industrial level.
2b What doe your 200 years mean?
Please reply once to my remarks point-by-point
Ken
As a non-climatologist you have to stop asking for the absolute global temperature because this figure does not exist, else I dare you to define it.
As I have told you a dozen times there are only temperature data at a limited number of stations
The change in the temperature at those stations over the years is a measurable quantity from which the average change can be approached. That is a meaningful and significant figure for real climatologists and already hard enough because it concerns tenths of a degree per decade
Whatever we try, Kenneth will never leave his filter bubble... maybe he is paid for not to understand - he would not be the first.
Andreas,
I reckon Ken is paid for each message he posts. So replying him only gives him an excuse to post again and earn so more dosh!
Ken,
As already explained to you by Harry, there is not a generally accepted global temperature although it is usually assumed to be 15C, 57F. But since different base periods are used with each database then, although the year on year anomalies are similar, the global temperatures based on 15C will be (very) different.
See item 7 here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php where NOAA use 1901-2000 as a base.
See https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html where NASA (GISS) use 1951 -1980 as a base.
See section headed "How is the global average temperature calculated?" here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature where the Met Office (CRU) use 1961-1990 as a base.
BTW These were found using Google with a search string of "global temperature anomaly".
Ales
You get personal so what is wrong with my credentials
And "your opinion" about ground stations: based on what credentials you have?
Ken
You are just scientifically wrong to write: "Harry also knows there must be absolute temperatures to have sense of anomalies"
NO I have told you a dozen times that differences in a value, temperature can be much more accurately be determined than an absolute value. Therefore an anomaly is much more reliable and thus used as the criterion in climate CHANGE
BTW did you ever try to calibrate a thermometer or other instrument yourself? then you would know that differences are much more reliable
Ales,
You wrote "[Weather] yes, but climate needs reliable measurements over hundreds of years and are simply unavailable." That is untrue; reliable measurements are available! The scientists are using:
Although each on its own is unreliable, by correlating them with each other and thermometer readings an accurate picture emerges.
Similar techniques can be used to estimate past levels of carbon dioxide and the two records tend to confirm that global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are related.
Ales,
If you had read the links where I wrote to Ken, you would know why Demetris is wrong. Here it is again,
As I have already explained, there is not a generally accepted global temperature although it is usually assumed to be 15C, 57F. But since different base periods are used with each database then, although the year on year anomalies are similar, the global temperatures based on 15C will be (very) different.
See item 7 here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php where NOAA use 1901-2000 as a base.
See https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html where NASA (GISS) use 1951 -1980 as a base.
See section headed "How is the global average temperature calculated?" here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature where the Met Office (CRU) use 1961-1990 as a base.
Demetris seems to believe that we are measuring temperature differences. That is wrong. We measure and record temperatures, but for comparison purposes anomalies are more useful as explained above.
Ales,
You wrote "This is a mess and categorical statements, either way, are disputable, to say the least (and we are witnessing this dispute over here :-)"
It is not a mess; it is complicated. CO2 is not the only driver of climate. The Sun is the main driver, and it is not surprising that the glaciers began to retreat at the end of the Maunder Minimum. Moreover, coal burning did not start with the invention of Watt's steam engine. It was invented to help mine the coal that was already in use for house fires following the felling of most of the trees in England for that purpose. CO2 in the atmosphere was already rising in 1750. See Fig 1 here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dominique_Raynaud2/publication/229787339_CO2_evolution_during_the_last_millennium_as_recorded_by_Antarctic_and_Greenland_ice/links/00463534d05a88fc98000000/CO2-evolution-during-the-last-millennium-as-recorded-by-Antarctic-and-Greenland-ice.pdf
But it seems to me that you are intent on denying that that the science has any value. In that case it is pointless me discussing the science with you :-(
Article CO2 evolution during the last millennium as recorded by Anta...
Ken
you continue to give absolute data. Every meteorologists knows that over an area of temperatures differ because of altitude. Did you never wonder how this absolute average was obtained? By a very rough interpolation and extrapolation of temperatures measured at a limited number of stations at a given altitude. I strongly urge you to study this item before you ever jot down any remarks on an average ABSOLUTE temperature for an area let alone for the globe
Guidance as to the approximate is what is provided for the laic interessees
Ales
You make a mistake with respect to relocating stations and ABSOLUTE temperatures: even if there would be a difference in absolute reading the difference in T over time would be still reliable. But what do you think, when stations are relocated all variables are measured with a set of instruments at both sites for a longer period so that a possible difference will show and can and is corrected for. This is the procedure in the Netherlands and can be fully followed back in history
Ales
I come back to your remark: let's leave credentials out: not possible in science as you prove with your idea of temperature measurements
Ken
We discuss climate CHANGE in this topic and that concerns differences within one degree Celsius so you need precision at a scale of less than one tenth. To get an accuracy of that order is much more difficult. Whether it is 15 or 16 C is not the question at all for climate CHANGE
You get more and more populistic; for what reason here in a scientific forum?
Interesting discussion. However, it seems opinions frequently are more important than facts and figures from scientific literature. Regarding attribution of temperature changes in the past 60 years to different causes, for instance please have a look in chapter 10 of WG1-FAR.
Obviously, past and (even more) future climate changes are uncertain. It remains very important to quantify these uncertainties through systematic uncertainty analyses and propagate/ incorporate these uncertainties in climate impact assessments.
Ales
I would not bet, but... the people involved in the Netherlands are excellent very critical scientists. The instrumentalists are also highly skilled so that I fully trust them in obtaining the best possible data. I can say that from decades of co-operation in the area of data-acquisition.
As said before it is much easier to assess a change in a meteo-parameter than measuring its absolute value. Furthermore climate change means a difference in an average value for periods of 30 years so also in this case a few missing or bad data are not significant.
NOAA now use a base of 13.9 C 57F which is their estimate for the average temperature for the twentieth century. Obviously they could not use that in May 1998. In other words they have reduced their global temperatures by 2F. Does this solve your problem? Moreover, that value is for Jan to May 1998, not the full year.
Ken
You mention :" The average annual temperature of the globe is ABOUT 59 deg. F (15 deg. C"
Exactly that is how it is: define for us what the average global temperature is
Rather I urge you to read the scientific literature how a CALCULATED global average temperature is obtained
1. IPCC-report AR5/AR4/TAR
2. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature
How is the global average temperature calculated?
The data are first converted into 'anomalies'. Anomalies are the difference in temperature from the 'normal' level. For HadCRUT4 the 'normal' level is the long term average for each area over 1961 to 1990.
Anomalies are used because:
They are relatively constant over large areas, even if the actual temperature at different locations is quite different. In other words, the anomalies can tell us something about the temperature over a much larger area than the temperature that is actually measured.
NASA GISS assumes that temperature anomalies remain coherent out to distances of 1200km from a station. In this way they can estimate temperatures through much of the Arctic and Antarctic using only a small number of well separated stations. Because the Arctic has warmed faster than the rest of the planet, the NASA GISS analysis runs a little warmer than HadCRUT4 in recent years.
Ken
Last time
What are real people in the realm of climate change?
Climate change is about anomalies: differences as measured with a thermometer and extrapolated/interpolated/calculated in a global grid: where are the real people in this subject
I spent the morning catching up with your conversation.
MMN (page 1): I think that, as you mention yet, "climate change as passing natural phase like the previous ones"
In other words?: humanity and the human contributions of greenhouse gasses are just a passing phase?
MMN (page 1): We can include the solar cycles heating, general movement of the Earth in the galaxy, and also the o-zone stratum which is less protective under the volcanic, anthropic, increases of CO2 etc influences.
Of course. Many things contribute to the overall average heat input. And it is reasonable to take these things into account. But when one does so, they should make a reasonable estimate of the magnitude of such effects, and the durations of the cycles.
FG (page 1): The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities
So while other phenomena do contribute, the magnitude of the change due to human activities is the greatest.
KMT (page 1): ...the addition of 120 ppm of CO2. All of this has increased the global temperature less than one degree C in over 200 years. Sea level has risen less than a foot.
A one degree celsius change is nothing to sneeze at... or wait, maybe it is! If the human body gained 1 degree Celsius, it would be running a Fahrenheit temperature of 100.4; certainly enough for a few sneezes.
KMT (Page 3): What is their evidence for this "unprecedented" crisis?
pH balance of seawater has gone from 8.2 to 8.1 during the industrial era. Similar shifts have taken place in 5000 to 10,000 years. We have done it in 50-80 years. Emissions could reduce surface pH by another 0.4 units in this century alone. About 89 percent of the carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater takes the form of bicarbonate ion, about 10 percent as carbonate ion, and 1 percent as dissolved gas.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/
Coral Reef Extinction: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5960
JKB (Page 3): Temperature change by one degree C may seem to you insignificant but it can be critical beyond certain boundary/limit for some biological systems, species, populations. Corals are bearing the burnt of such thermal shock!
KMT: It is the clear sky UV radiation that is important, not our added CO2. You have been misled?
I had heard the phenomena killing the coral reefs was the increased acidity, rather than the temperature. But it could be a combination of the two. I would be surprised if anything has caused any increase in Ultra Violet Radiation in the region of the coral reefs. The ozone hole caused increases in UV radiation at the poles.
HtB: ... 1 C is a tremendous difference as a global mean. And then one has to consider that temperatures in the Arctic are more rapidly increasing. (Source IPCC-report of WG1 also know as the Climate Change the Scientific Basis )
AK(Page 2): However, details suggest that CO2's effect in a humid atmosphere is small because if water vapour spectral screening.
Carbon dioxide is significant because it closes a “window” that would otherwise allow certain infrared wavelengths to escape the Earth’s water vapor blanket.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/
AK: First, there is no science-based climate model that could be used to predict future climate.
I think there is a science-based climate model, but unfortunately, it never comes up in the debate on climate change.
The basic premise, as far as I've been able to put together on my own, is that when the amount of heat received by the troposphere and hydrosphere is equal to the amount of heat lost by same regions, you have an average equilibrium temperature. Adding Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere essentially adds a bandwidth-dependent insulation, which causes the floor of the troposphere to be hotter, while the outer atmosphere continues to emit radiation energy at the same rate that it did before.
AK: it is premature to say that Sun is either constant or that its variability is negligible.
It's a red herring in the debate. What climate scientists should focus on is educating people what they already know; that Carbon Dioxide is the culprit in global warming... And that can only be done by familiarizing people with the thermodynamics of radiation and insulation.
Al gore's "Inconvenient Truth" cartoon was a good start,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqVyRa1iuMc
but it is objectively incorrect or misleading in some ways.
(1) it implies that the sunbeam is reflected, rather than absorbed as heat, and re-emitted as an infrared photon.
(2) it implies that the issue has to do with whether or not the outgoing light is captured (e.g. Beer's Law), rather than an insulation thickness and thermal conductivity question.
The question is not whether the outgoing light is captured, because the CO2 absorption coefficient in the relevant bandwidths is pretty close to 100%. All of it is captured, heating the atmosphere. The question is, how does increasing the concentration (and possibly depth) of the carbon-dioxide layer add to the insulative capability.
JKB: Of the hottest years on record, 16 out of 18have come since 2000. Every new year is almost setting new record!
Yikes! I wonder if the methane released in fracking has helped, too.
AK: Statement that the Sun has no influence is most blatant breach of science that I have ever seen.
Do you have some source or reference that argues that the solar cycle has no influence over the temperature of earth? I googled a little bit, but didn't immediately see anything on the topic.
HHT: John Tyndall discovered ... carbon dioxide – was one of a number of “perfectly colourless and invisible gases and vapours” to absorb radiant heat. He also realised just how important this was to life on Earth as without such gases it would be “held fast in the iron grip of frost”. ... the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first suggested that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause the global temperature to go up, particularly in the Arctic.
Are there any easily accessible papers about John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius's discoveries, and reasoning, which led them to be certain of such notions? While I have often been told that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming happens, it would be nice to find a single paper that those 97% could simultaneously endorse, regarding the exact details of how Carbon Dioxide increases contribute to the capture of eat in our troposphere.
KMT (Page 4): "Climate models offer a critical tool for assessing trends, but they cannot as yet predict ACC [abrupt climate change] events" Yet, i spite of that fact we are now on a path to try to abruptly reverse what cannot be predicted with confidence??
Um... What? We're on a path to continue pumping Carbon Dioxide and Methane into our atmosphere at increasing levels. What we'd like to reverse is this trend. What is abrupt is this sudden increase in greenhouse gas emissions. If we "abruptly reversed" that sudden increase, then we could make predictions about the future with much greater confidence.
HtB: Ken Apparently you are not trained or aware of climatology and just search for a clipping in decade-old newspapers that suits you best
Yeah, what was up with that? Ken cited a newspaper clipping from 1991 that described temperature increases. I wasn't sure what his point was.
AK (Page 5): These developing nations have now smartphones where they found out that life is better elsewhere.
I'm not sure what this has to do with climate change, but it makes sense for the oppressed to flee to regions where they can hope or expect to be safe, until they can regroup, and return home with knowledge of how to create a better life.
HtB (page 7): what is wrong with my credentials
Credentials may add (or subtract) weight to whether a person chooses to devote time to listening to an expert/non-expert's claims, but the clarity and validity of such claims have to stand up on their own merit--not the rank or experience of the individual making them. Quite the contrary, even when correct, the claims of experts may suffer from a lack of clarity due to jargon, and may be often misinterpreted, or misrepresented, even by those who had intended to support the experts, but misunderstand the facts.
HtB: As a non-climatologist you have to stop asking for the absolute global temperature because this figure does not exist,
It was "global mean temperature" Ken asked for. I Berkeley university has a project aimed towards that end at http://berkeleyearth.org/methodology/
ABM: I reckon Ken is paid for each message he posts. So replying him only gives him an excuse to post again and earn so more dosh!
I think the trouble is, there is, at least the appearance of the possibility of financial incentive to tow the line, regardless of which side you're on. Whether you're a climate scientist paid by the government, a university, or a corporation, there may be incentives both social and financial, to narrow your focus and and agree with your colleagues and friends and political party, and perhaps not test alternative hypotheses.
AK: Demetris has measured in a scientific way that most of the "temperature" increase in the last 60y is likely due to the (re-)positioning of the measuring stations.
Can you give a source to that information? I've never heard this before.
HtB: differences in a value, temperature can be much more accurately be determined than an absolute value.
How far off the absolute value are thermometers likely to be?
HtB (page 7): Every meteorologists knows that over an area of temperatures differ because of altitude.
Ah, okay.
HtB (page 7): By a very rough interpolation and extrapolation of temperatures measured at a limited number of stations at a given altitude.
That's interesting, because I think the Berkeley study attempted to use all available historical data, regardless of the source.
Jonathan
You should read (your link) Berkeleyearth yourself:
nothing different from the analyses of the existing US/UK data
see for yourself
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/decadal-comparison.pdf
Jonathan,
Tyndall's paper can be read by downloading the PDF from this page http://www.jstor.org/stable/108724?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents See especially page 28 and 32. Note carbonic oxide is carbon monoxide, carbonic acid is carbon dioxide, and olefiant gas is ethylene, at the time of writing.
He credits De Saussure, also an Alpinist, and I have translated his book chapter here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/108724?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contentshe
It is not widely known that the original idea for the greenhouse effect was actually originated by Pierre Bouguer, with the relevant section of his book, Travels to Peru, extracted by de Saussure.
Arrhenius's paper and various translations of Fourier's paper can be found using Google.
Ken
Arrhenius made a first crudest of all estimate of what the effect would be of doubling CO2 in a RELATIVE sense. That is anomaly in other words. You should read his text
Ken
Again you clip what suits you best: without any context:
how the average global temperature is CALCULATED in reality
Dear Colleagues,
Good Day,
"Climate change: How do we know?
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.".....
Please, goto the attached website and read the rest of the interesting article....
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Hazim,
It is the next two sentences which are key:
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia. (1)
1. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers
B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
Dr Saha,
I agree all that the fact that global warming is happening does not prove that it is the greenhouse gases which are causing it. You have to look elsewhere for that proof.
It has been shown by de Saussure as long ago as the 1780s that it is the absorption of terrestrial radiation which warms the air. Tyndall showed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which absorbs terrestrial radiation, and we know that the burning of fossil fuels produces CO2. Moreover, measurements at Mauna Loa have shown that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing. So, according to Occam's Razor, global warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2.
Ken,
CO2 has most effect where there is little water vapour because of the low temperature. It is melting the sea ice, which acts to keep the planet cool by reflecting sunlight for six months each year. At present the sea ice extent has not reduced by much, but its thickness has. When the sea ice finally disappears it will do so abruptly because of the positive feedback from the ice-albedo effect.
Agreed, we have not seen much warming as a result of the rising atmospheric CO2, but when the CO2 level passes a tipping point, then the sea ice will vanish and temperatures in the NH will soar, severely disrupting global agriculture and leading to famines.
Ales,
There is no evidence that any other drivers are active. If there was then the scientists would be shouting about it. Therefore, CO2, with its feedbacks, is the main driver of climate change at present.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology