More Evidence of Global Warming

[Soldier]

Without back-reading this whole thread, I suggest people read Michael Crichton's new State of Fear. A fictional novel, to be sure, but stuffed full of fact - kind of a thinly-veiled project of simply putting out his own views.

What got me the most were the endless footnotes - everything Crichton put in the book (both for and against global warming), was thoroughly backed up (sometimes three or four times) by credible sources - which he listed in the footnotes, and then in one incredibly long bibliography.

I didn't think the story was half-bad, either.

[Rogue]

Hey Jeff,

Here's more proof that refutes Global warming. Snow in Vegas

http://www.lasvegassun.com/drudged/010710518.html

[jeff]

That's okay - it'll keep the tourists inside the casino gambling! And here (for the counterpoint) we had about 50 degrees for New Years in NY/NJ, it's raining now, and we expect temps around 50 degrees next week. Since I prefer warm to cold, I figure I'll have to take the good parts of global warming along with the bad

[Rogue]

If it ever snows in Bermuda, will you agree that GW is a myth?

[jeff]

I was just there and it was 70 degrees F. And, it has snowed there - but not recently: see http://www.insiders.com/bermuda/main-explain2.htm Good thing the tourist trade wasn't really happening in 1784!

[lochinvar]

If it ever snows in Bermuda, will you agree that GW is a myth?

George Washington is a myth? When was somebody going to tell me? I never get the memos...

[Inquartata]

No, GW. All those Democrats, hating a clever simulacrum...

[Gav]

News just in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210629.stm

[Larrison]

I'm always suspicious of any atmospheric model that states in their results ... "it shows there is no such thing as a safe level of carbon dioxide. "

My ghod! Eliminate the green house effect! Kill all the animals! Stop all fires, volcanoes and combustion everywhere! Eliminate lightning as it might start fires!!! You can breathe in, but you cannot -- under any circumstances -- exhale!!!

Ahem.. I'll have to look at this in more depth, as this may just be more ham-handed reporting by the BBC... but come on!

[Larrison]

I found this in my files, as a response I had generated in a discussion of CO2 levels and global warming, and slightly modified it here.

Some comments on CO2 levels and Greenhouse effect/ global warming.

1) The primary driver to the greenhouse effect is the input energy from the sun. The insolation from the sun, or a measurement of the solar energy the Earth encounters each day (measured in Watts/ square meter), is not well known -- its been only effectively measured since about 1978, since you have to measure it in space above the atmosphere.

The total input energy from the sun is not constant, but varies due to the solar cycle (which is 22 years long), and can vary as much as +/- 2% over the total period. There are also shorter term variations, since the sun is a dynamic object, with daily changes of up solar flares and the like. And the distance of the Earth to the sun changes, since the Earth's orbit is not a perfect circle. So far we have only direct measurements (which have to made in space) for about 1 solar cycle. During that solar cycle, the solar energy reaching the earth has increased by about 0.2% or about 2 watts/meter^2.

However, people don't know what a longer term trend is over multiple solar cycles. People have tried to correlate recent more precise data with longer term secondary data, including the formation of different isotopes in the atmosphere by cosmic rays (of which it is assumed most come from the sun) and which then are captured in tree rings or ice layers in glaciers, or from correlating sunspot numbers to recent data to historical observations for several hundred years, etc. That's a bit more speculative in my opinion, but interesting.

Over the last 20-25 years, the global warming is claimed from terrestrial measurements to be about 0.5 deg C. Looking at the changes from the solar insolation measurements simple physics (Stephan-Boltzmann) says terrestrial temperaturs should have increased by around +0.2 degrees -- so about 40% of the increased temperature may be from solar radiation, before you start considering green house effects and C02 increases. There's a lot of uncertainties in these measurements, so you have to take that into consideration too.

There are lots of arguments about secondary effects of solar insolation, including some which claim that secondary effects from solar insolation boost the impact of the increased solar heating to about +.45 degrees over the past 25 years or so, which puts the temperature rise to just about what the heating trend is at. I'm not so convinced however of how well this corrolates, since they are secondary effects with more speculative mechanisms.

But it is interesting to note that without assuming significant manmade impacts on CO2 we have seen significant swings in average global temperatures and these are not easily explained by the CO2 warming models.

But changes in solar insolation on a longer term basis can explain some significant historical events, which man-made CO2 models can't. For example, around the 10th century Greenland was warm enough for significant farming and this condition lasted for several hundred years, allowing the Vikings to settle there. But the temperatures cooled and the colonists died out. In Elizabethan times, the River Thames froze over to the point they used to have festivals and parties on the frozen river. Yet the Thames has not frozen to that point in over 200 years -- and hasn't frozen over for over 100 years. Obviously these need to explained before you can start blaming man-made effects which didn't really exist 200 years ago.

2) After the sunlight gets to the earth, it is either reflected or absorbed at the Earth. Reflection from the earth can be done via clouds, ocean coverage, or ice coverage. To some extent the tilt of the earth has an effect on this, since more solar energy is absorbed in the northern hemisphere since that has more land coverage, compared to the southern hemisphere which tends to reflect more light. Even things like the amount of white caps in the ocean (correlated to weather changes) or cloud cover (hotter temperatures produce more water in the air, so more clouds and more reflection), or contrails from aircraft can measurably effect the reflection side of this equation.

Absorption is both directly to objects in the sky or on the surface, but the amount of water vapor and other green-house gases drive how much the re-radiation of IR is absorbed in the atmosphere. This is the "Greenhouse Effect" -- and water vapor in the air is around 95 % of what causes this absorption.

CO2 also absorbs IR, and is a better absorber per ton in the air than water vapor -- but is found at much lower concentrations. Around 3.6% of the total greenhouse effect is caused by CO2. Other gases in smaller amounts (but which are much better absorbers than either CO2 or water vapor) comprise the remaining 2.4% of the greenhouse effect. Things like methane in the air are several factors more effective in absorbing IR and trapping the sun's heat but are found in minute concentrations. Methane is also primarily caused by biological activity ("anaerobic" bacteria in decomposition processes primarly in wetlands and swamps, and from intestinal gas).

Now, out of all the CO2 sources, how much is caused by human activity? About 97% of CO2 comes from natural sources -- animals, geologic releases, etc. So only about 0.11 percent (3 % of 3.6%) of the Greenhouse Effect comes from human activities.

Any model that doesn't account for these differing factors in calculating atomspheric temperatures -- I have to think hard about what they have assumed in their calculations and how uncertain their results might be, if they haven't included all pertinent variables and potential changes.

I will note, that a slight increase in solar insolation, in that it is increasing the amount of incident sunlight on the earth, goes against the measurement of a decline in ozone levels, since ozone is primarily produced by photolithic reactions in the upper atmosphere.

I'm not going to argue *if* or *not* if global warming is happening. Data is data, for good or bad. But the question is what is causing it? And are the solutions being proposed, really going to have any significant effect?

[Gav]

I'm always suspicious of any atmospheric model that states in their results ... "it shows there is no such thing as a safe level of carbon dioxide. "

My ghod! Eliminate the green house effect! Kill all the animals! Stop all fires, volcanoes and combustion everywhere! Eliminate lightning as it might start fires!!! You can breathe in, but you cannot -- under any circumstances -- exhale!!!

Ahem.. I'll have to look at this in more depth, as this may just be more ham-handed reporting by the BBC... but come on!

I only posteed the link - fan the flames so to speak. You have to remember that this was written by a reported not a climatoligist. I suspect that if you read the published research by these guys you would find that there is a lot more to this than "there is no safe limit of C02".

[Larrison]

*laughing* I'm sorry Gav -- that was not intended to be directed at you in any way, but I was flaming about how the story was written.

I did go look at the underlying premise of the model, and didn't find a lot on the specifics of the model. What it appears to be from a preliminary look is a distributed monte carlo simulation based upon the *assumption* that the CO2 level doubles (from some unknown reason. The distributed copies used in the simulation vary other variables in the model (which are not well described) and looks at the output. There are a couple of papers they show on this, but none of them describe the model, the variables they manipulate, or the range and type of variation they put into the variables used in the simulation.

So I'm suspicious of the results -- led by that brain-dead comment from one of the authors of the model.

FYI - the BBC has revised the news article to NOW read that "Scientists behind the project, called climateprediction.net, say it shows that a "safe" upper limit for carbon dioxide is impossible to define."

[Soldier]

Since I am back in Alabama for the next few days, I have access to the book I was using before - and so should hopefully be able to get the citations from it.

[Gav]

More news just in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4319574.stm

[Inquartata]

That was all well and good, right up until the end, where the author ran afoul of Godwin's Law and thereby loses the argument.

[Gav]

His appeal to Hitler does not make the rest of his points invalid. It's interesting to note that it's an author who gets to lecture the select group [unopposed] rather than a group of scientists.

[Larrison]

I've got to throw in my $.02 worth on this..

Dude, its a novel.. a work of fiction. (And not well written too -- IMHO the plot is pretty horrid and the details are rather formulaic).

I'm sorry Gav, I just can't get excited about a mediocre (at best!) novel as saying substantive things about Global Warming.

[Gav]

I've got to throw in my $.02 worth on this..

Dude, its a novel.. a work of fiction. (And not well written too -- IMHO the plot is pretty horrid and the details are rather formulaic).

I'm sorry Gav, I just can't get excited about a mediocre (at best!) novel as saying substantive things about Global Warming.

Neither can I and that's my point. Others have ...

Did you even read the article?

[Bayou Bum]

I don't know if I agree with the concept of Global Warming, but whether you agree with it or not has nothing to do with the real issue ... we are destroying the planet. While we are all arguing over the weather and global warming, we are ignoring the one thing that I think we all would agree on, that we need to take better care of our environment.

I want to reduce emissions and air polution because I want clean air. I don't want chemicals, sewage and garbage in the rivers and oceans because I like clean water and healthy fish. I think all of us would prefer a cleaner planet to live on. There is a reason people go to national parks for vacation and not landfills.

It is not an issue of global warming, but of doing what is right.

[Larrison]

Neither can I and that's my point. Others have ...

Did you even read the article?

Yeah I did.... Also read the book, and I've read a bit on Global Warming from both sides.

I'm not convinced there is a conspiracy for or against global warming. There are people lining up on both sides of the argument -- and certainly there has been some bad science expoused by both sides. And I believe some of the bad science has been promoted for political reasons, not to add to the sum of knowledge to understand the underlying physical truth of the situation.

As for Crichton's political beliefs -- well that's fine he has some, but I don't know if putting them in a rather bad novel does anything to convince other people. Folks on both sides are putting out fiction related to global warming/ non warming. You read the fiction or not, depending if they are a good story. Because someone writes a novel which sort of supports one ideological position or another, I don't know if you can claim it is evidence of a conspiracy..

As for the book (blah) I've read better.