Global warming

[Confused]

This is a spin off from Homeschooling children where Otseng says that Global warming shouldn't be taught as to their is no proof of this:
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/2DB6DAB0- ... D47119D08/

This is a slide show of some of the now obvious effects of the global warming:

In the Canadian high Arctic, a polar bear negotiates what was once solid ice. Bears are drowning as warmer waters widen the distance from floe to floe

An Indian woman walks on the dried up Osman Sagar lake on the outskirts of the capital of the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. The amount of the earth's surface afflicted by drought has more than doubled since the 1970s.

Banana-leaf rafts save Indian villagers washed out of their homes. Creeping seas and increasingly savage monsoons make for deadlier floods.

Residents of New Orleans fight their way to the Superdome as Hurricane Katrina hammers down on the Gulf Coast. Studies show that in the past 35 years the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has doubled, while the wind speed and duration of all hurricanes has jumped 50%.

Once cool and wet, forests like this in Alaska are falling victim first to drought, then to fire.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp
2. What kinds of changes are taking place in the Arctic now?

Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces.

The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century.


3. How does this dramatic ice melt affect the Arctic?

The melting of once-permanent ice is already affecting native people, wildlife and plants. When the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf splintered, the rare freshwater lake it enclosed, along with its unique ecosystem, drained into the ocean. Polar bears, whales, walrus and seals are changing their feeding and migration patterns, making it harder for native people to hunt them. And along Arctic coastlines, entire villages will be uprooted because they're in danger of being swamped. The native people of the Arctic view global warming as a threat to their cultural identity and their very survival.


4. Will Arctic ice melt have any effects beyond the polar region?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA HEATS UP
The effects of global warming on the north are not limited to the Arctic -- higher temperatures are already affecting people, wildlife and landscapes across Alaska. Click on the numbers on this map to see what's happening on the front lines of global warming.
1. Barrow 2. Shismaref 3. Yukon River 4. Wasilla 5. Kenai Peninsula 6. McCall Glacier 7. Fairbanks


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See more Google Earth maps.)
Yes -- the contraction of the Arctic ice cap is accelerating global warming. Snow and ice usually form a protective, cooling layer over the Arctic. When that covering melts, the earth absorbs more sunlight and gets hotter. And the latest scientific data confirm the far-reaching effects of climbing global temperatures.

Rising temperatures are already affecting Alaska, where the spruce bark beetle is breeding faster in the warmer weather. These pests now sneak in an extra generation each year. From 1993 to 2003, they chewed up 3.4 million acres of Alaskan forest.

Melting glaciers and land-based ice sheets also contribute to rising sea levels, threatening low-lying areas around the globe with beach erosion, coastal flooding, and contamination of freshwater supplies. (Sea level is not affected when floating sea ice melts.) At particular risk are island nations like the Maldives; over half of that nation's populated islands lie less than 6 feet above sea level. Even major cities like Shanghai and Lagos would face similar problems, as they also lie just six feet above present water levels.

Rising seas would severely impact the United States as well. Scientists project as much as a 3-foot sea-level rise by 2100. According to a 2001 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study, this increase would inundate some 22,400 square miles of land along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, primarily in Louisiana, Texas, Florida and North Carolina.

A warmer Arctic will also affect weather patterns and thus food production around the world. Wheat farming in Kansas, for example, would be profoundly affected by the loss of ice cover in the Arctic. According to a NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies computer model, Kansas would be 4 degrees warmer in the winter without Arctic ice, which normally creates cold air masses that frequently slide southward into the United States. Warmer winters are bad news for wheat farmers, who need freezing temperatures to grow winter wheat. And in summer, warmer days would rob Kansas soil of 10 percent of its moisture, drying out valuable cropland.



Since we are already seeing the effect of Global warming, hence proving the theory, the questions for debate:

1) How can anyone still refute the existence and effects of global warming?

2) We can't stop what has already begun, but can we reduce the damage?

3) Is this a part of intelligent design? or just a natural occurence?

[otseng]

One interesting fact about global warming is that there's no clear indication of an upward trend in atmospheric temperatures.


"The figure above shows the monthly temperature deviations from a seasonally adjusted average for the lower stratosphere - Earth's atmosphere from 14 to 22 km (9 to 14 miles). The large increase in 1982 was caused by the volcanic eruption of El Chichon, and the increase in 1991 was caused by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines."


"This chart shows the monthly temperature changes for the lower troposphere - Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 8 km, or 5 miles up."

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

One would think that if global warming is true, it would mean the atmosphere's temperature would increase as fast as surface temperature. But the data does not support this.

So, again, I'm not convinced that global warming is that big of a deal. I think we have other more pressing issues in regards to the environment, like how to control pollution.

[Goat]

One interesting fact about global warming is that there's no clear indication of an upward trend in atmospheric temperatures.


"The figure above shows the monthly temperature deviations from a seasonally adjusted average for the lower stratosphere - Earth's atmosphere from 14 to 22 km (9 to 14 miles). The large increase in 1982 was caused by the volcanic eruption of El Chichon, and the increase in 1991 was caused by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines."


"This chart shows the monthly temperature changes for the lower troposphere - Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 8 km, or 5 miles up."

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

One would think that if global warming is true, it would mean the atmosphere's temperature would increase as fast as surface temperature. But the data does not support this.

So, again, I'm not convinced that global warming is that big of a deal. I think we have other more pressing issues in regards to the environment, like how to control pollution.

Have you compared the last 50 years data??

Do you have the proper training to be able to read those charts?

This chart is saying that is 'anomolies'.. is it actually a measurement of average atmospheric tempatures., or is it something else??

[Jose]

Having nosed around a bit, it's pretty clear that the graphs otseng provided are just what they say they are. They are wildly different from the lower atmosphere, which shows an upward trend over the same period. No special training needed.

I agree that it would seem that the upper atmosphere should show the same trends as the lower atmosphere. The fact is: they don't match. They don't match regardless of the model you use to explain the lower atmospheric warming. Apparently, our logical, common-sense reasoning doesn't fit the data, so there must be more afoot.

The critical question, I think, is what could prevent heat in the lower atmosphere from moving into the upper atmosphere?

Might this be the same thing that prevents the heat from radiating out into space? I won't answer this question just yet, but let it percolate through the discussion a bit. Whaddyathink, otseng?

Now, asking this begs the question of what the heck separates the atmosphere into these identifiable layers. I don't understand that. I figger the atmospheric scientists know the answer...I should ask Sarah, my atmospheric scientist friend, but she'd probably laugh at my not knowing freshman-level atmospherology.

[otseng]

The critical question, I think, is what could prevent heat in the lower atmosphere from moving into the upper atmosphere?

I have no explanation for it. But, if global warming is supposedly caused by gases in the atmosphere that traps heat, it should be the atmosphere that should be heating up. Though I have no training whatsoever in the atmospheric sciences, it seems logical to me.

And looking at the data from 79 to 97 for the lower atmosphere, there's no upward warming trend. Then in 97, it's almost all positive temperature change. Did somehow global warming kick in starting in 97?

Also, a major part of global warming data is from computer modeling. And one possibility is that it is the global warming models that is incorrect.

Some scientists now believe that this apparent "disagreement" between the predictions by computer models and the measurements may be due to a less-than-accurate modeling of the role of water-vapor in the atmosphere of the GCM's

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_temp_dry.html

I figger the atmospheric scientists know the answer...I should ask Sarah, my atmospheric scientist friend, but she'd probably laugh at my not knowing freshman-level atmospherology.

I think we should consult her. You can tell her that "a friend" was just wondering.

[Goat]

The critical question, I think, is what could prevent heat in the lower atmosphere from moving into the upper atmosphere?

I have no explanation for it. But, if global warming is supposedly caused by gases in the atmosphere that traps heat, it should be the atmosphere that should be heating up. Though I have no training whatsoever in the atmospheric sciences, it seems logical to me.

And looking at the data from 79 to 97 for the lower atmosphere, there's no upward warming trend. Then in 97, it's almost all positive temperature change. Did somehow global warming kick in starting in 97?

Also, a major part of global warming data is from computer modeling. And one possibility is that it is the global warming models that is incorrect.

Some scientists now believe that this apparent "disagreement" between the predictions by computer models and the measurements may be due to a less-than-accurate modeling of the role of water-vapor in the atmosphere of the GCM's

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_temp_dry.html

I figger the atmospheric scientists know the answer...I should ask Sarah, my atmospheric scientist friend, but she'd probably laugh at my not knowing freshman-level atmospherology.

I think we should consult her. You can tell her that "a friend" was just wondering.

There are several layers to the atmosphere. Is this layer above or below the layer where the green house gases hold in the heat?'

[Jose]

The critical question, I think, is what could prevent heat in the lower atmosphere from moving into the upper atmosphere?

I have no explanation for it. But, if global warming is supposedly caused by gases in the atmosphere that traps heat, it should be the atmosphere that should be heating up. Though I have no training whatsoever in the atmospheric sciences, it seems logical to me.

It does seem logical. But what if something in the lower atmosphere reflects the heat back toward earth, so it can't reach the upper atmosphere? Then, the lower atmosphere would heat up, and the upper atmosphere would not.

The San Francisco Exploratorium gives us this graph:

It's just like your second graph, but over a slightly longer timeframe. The "anomaly" is the departure from the average...and is generally negative on the left side and positive on the right side. Your graph is a part of this graph, but extends a bit farther to the right. And, this graph matches pretty well with the land and ocean graphs over the last century:

There is definitely an upward trend, despite quite a bit of wiggling. But in the stratosphere, as your graph shows, things behave differently. Whatever additional heat there is down here is not being transferred up there. Something is trapping the heat down here, so it can't get to the upper layers.

What traps heat? What reflects it back toward earth? A greenhouse is easy--the glass reflects infrared radiation. The atmosphere is trickier...it doesn't have any handy panes of glass. We have to look for gases that reflect infrared. There are several: CO2 and methane seem to be the most prominent.

Looked at in the context of this entire suite of information, it makes sense that CO2 could easily reflect heat back to earth, preventing it from escaping to the upper layers of the atmosphere and from there to space.

Of course, this would make sense only if we had a correlation between rising temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2. We do. The Big Question is whether the increase is caused by humans burning things like coal and oil, or whether there is some other, non-human explanation.

As I understand the arguments, we have scientists looking at vast data sets and concluding that it's pretty darned likely that it's human-generated CO2 that's the problem. On the other side we have people with an economic interest in continuing to burn coal and oil--or people with political ties to those with said economic interest. As a consequence, what should be straightforward science has become highly politicized, with the apparent goal of blocking any attempts to change the way we do business. Somehow, the religious conservatives have gotten into it, though it's not a religious matter. It must be through their political ties to the politicians who have financial ties to the economic interests aforementioned.

Also, a major part of global warming data is from computer modeling. And one possibility is that it is the global warming models that is incorrect.

As I understand it, the models are used to predict what might occur in the future if we do this, or do that. The models are tested by asking if they can accurately predict the current situation using data from earlier timepoints. I think that everyone would agree that the models are imperfect. But as they get better (ie, predict the current situation more accurately), they continue to predict serious temperature rises in the future.

I think you're right about one key point, of course: the way to distinguish human activity from non-human causes is to remove the human-contributed CO2 from the models--something we can estimate roughly on the basis of known (or imperfectly known) quantities of coal and oil that have been burned. When this is done, the models predict far less temperature increase. By the last IPCC report, I'd guess that the models put "human cause" into the "statistically significant at the 90% certainty level." So, the models are critical for assessing cause. [But they don't create the data...(which I think is me quibbling with your phrasing, rather than your message.)] Needless to say, the scientists who have no economic interest in it go with the 90% figure. The oil and coal folks who have a big economic interest in it go with the uncertainty--90% ain't no 100%.

As for those layers...

They seem to be defined by temperatures. Oddly, the stratosphere is really hot from absorbing UV like crazy--except that it's so thin that it seems really cold. [huh? I guess its absolute temperature (hot) is defined by the speed of the molecules in it; its apparent temperature to us is determined by the efficiency of heat transfer to us, which is really poor due to the small number of molecules. How's that for an ad hoc suggestion?] I haven't found a graph that shows air pressure vs height; I'd expect it to be a relatively smooth gradient.

The layers may be formed in much the same way as the layers of a lake. The upper layer is warm, the lower layer is cold. There, it's just a matter of density: sun-heated water floats on top of colder, denser water.

I'd better get in touch with Sarah....

[QED]

I'm not entirely sure that I'm happy with the conclusions about man's contribution to global warming. Sure we're in a warming phase but there's a considerable political dimension to the conclusions about its cause. I think we have an interesting test case for science in general here.

Last week Channel 4 (UK TV) broadcast a programme titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". As is apparent from the title it was totally biased but some of the issues raised were, in my view, valid problems for the current theory.

For example, one observation is that ice-core records show increases in atmospheric CO2 following increases in global temperature. What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

Am I the only one that finds this less than reassuring? The contributors to the RC website address a number of other issues raised by the program in equally unreassuring ways. I appreciate their indignation at a clear attack on their research but that's an occupational hazard.

I still can't help thinking that the byproducts of our technological life-styles could be no more than a drop in the ocean compared to the vagaries in the output from our variable star. The link between solar storms and global weather are firmly established and appear to be universally accepted as the prime determinant of global temperature. So with all the chaotic ups and downs faithfully recorded in thousands of years of data what is so outstanding about the recent trends?

[Confused]

I would have to agree with a lot of what you say. I think nature has a way of maintaining equilibrium to a certain degree. I know man adds polutants to the air, etc...... But how much of that is contributed to global warming and how much can we attribute to things like volcanic eruptions, forest fires, and other natural disasters? Can we say that man is directly responsible for the warming trend? Now, I can't dispute that it is happening. That much is obvious. But can anyone actually determine how much of it is nature vs manmade?

[Greatest I Am]

I would have to agree with a lot of what you say. I think nature has a way of maintaining equilibrium to a certain degree. I know man adds pollutants to the air, etc...... But how much of that is contributed to global warming and how much can we attribute to things like volcanic eruptions, forest fires, and other natural disasters? Can we say that man is directly responsible for the warming trend? Now, I can't dispute that it is happening. That much is obvious. But can anyone actually determine how much of it is nature vs man-made?

The % of added heat that man gives to our systems cannot be known at this point in time.
We have to view the system in total.
The inclusion of man in the heat equation is OK. By himself, man has a small impact on global warming. It is when we add man's habits that the additional heat becomes a problem. We cook our food at high temperatures. When we travel by modern convenience we produce high temperatures. When we live in cold places we produce a lot of heat maintain life.
If we could somehow reduce the heat that we produce to survive, then we could have a positive impact to the heat equation.
We are not ready for communal cooking, communal travel, communal living. We are too independent and want our own "space". Unfortunately it is a worm space.

A high % should be admitted to even if it is wrong. Only a feeling of guilt will move us to do what needs to be done to reverse this situation.


Regards
DL

[FinalEnigma]

I have just spent half an hour researching, and according to a comparison on the UN's report of fuel comsumption to the amount of CO2 produced by volcanos(reported by a geological institute in Hawaii), It turns out that humans are producing ~150 times the CO2 that volcanoes are on a yearly basis.