Global warming - a few reasons you might want to be concerned

First of all the link you list cannot be opened.

Sorry - Had no idea this site's restrictions were so ...restrictive. Guess it's too much to ask that one copy and paste the URL?

Still can't figure out how an organization that " makes WEAPONS GRADE NUCLEAR FUEL for the DOD's U.S. Military's THERMONUCLEAR FORCES." adds any credibility to DOE's climate scientists/data. (What's with the CAPS????)

This data is used by the U.S. Military and is considered THE ONLY VIABLE AND UNBIASED SOURCE.

Says who?

I actully like the temperature chart at the CDIAC site that you provided - thanks. Did you happen to notice that the temperature increase from 1910 to 1940 (30 years) is almost exactly the same as the increase from 1970 to 2000 (30 years)? That first 30 year period was before man's burning of fossil fuels impacted global temperatures (according to the IPCC). That second 30 year period was almost certainly due to man's criminal behavior (according to that same IPCC). Whatever made that first rise must have been natural. Yet an equal rise over a similar time period is now said to be caused by man. What physics explanation addresses a natural 30 year rise followed by one entirely by man? With the natural process ceasing altogether? And when it comes to that, what caused the 30 year pause from 1940 to 1`970?

To the casual observer, it almost looks like some weird 30 year warm/cold/warm cycle going on there. Naw - can't be.

 

The period between 1910 to 1940 and subsequent rise in CO2 is not natural as this was the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

There is only one other way CO2 levels can rise besides such CO2 being generated by Man...and that is Volcanic Activity.

There has no been any major subsequent change in such activity.

AboveAlpha

 

. There is a huge amount of carbon dioxide locked up in rocks. As the rocks melt, they give up the gas, and this is expelled during the eruption. Often, the larger the eruption, the more carbon dioxide is released along with other gases, such as hydrogen sulfide.

At any given time, according to agencies such as the USGS, there are about 13-17 volcanoes erupting somewhere on Earth. This means that yearly, volcanoes spew out hundreds or even thousands of times more carbon dioxide than man is capable of producing, even if he tried. Man is actually an insignificant producer of CO2, though he is prideful enough to think he is a major player.

Next in line for emissions is the decomposition of plant life. This can be in the form of natural death and decay, forest fire, or even use and consumption. Plants contain a great deal of carbon dioxide and carbon. These are released as the plant dies and decomposes.

One major forest fire can release nearly as much carbon dioxide as a moderate volcanic eruption. That is enormous compared to other sources of emissions, excluding volcanic eruption.

The next biggest emitter of carbon dioxide is probably the ocean. It absorbs a great deal of the gas, however, the colder it is, the more it can hold. The bottom of the ocean contains water that is below the freezing point, but salinity and pressure prevent it from freezing. Contained CO2 tends to stay there for a long time.

However, in some places, like the Gulf of Mexico and in the Caribbean, surface waters get relatively hot, releasing carbon dioxide in the process. Colder polar waters offset this, because the gas is absorbed again, however this is still a major source of emissions.

http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/news-channels/global/the-major-sources-for-carbon-dioxide-emissions-40831.htm

So maybe volcanoes aren't THE ONLY natural source of CO2.

 

TRUE....but as you yourself stated....CO2 stored within Ocean Water is released when Ocean Water Temps. INCREASE.

And exactly WHY did they increase....because the amount of CO2 and CH4 increased....the man made CO2 increases were just enough...as Volcanic Activity has remained the same....to hold in enough atmospheric heat to increase the Water Vapor levels which made temps. increase even more thus releasing Ocean and Arctic CH4 which in turn increased temps. even more thus even more Water Vapor thus even more Temp. increases thus melting Polar and Glacier ice.

AboveAlpha

 

It appears that you postulate that atmospheric CO2 leads ocean water temperature increases, i.e., that air temperature increases precede ocean temperture increases. I don't believe that is a universally accepted sequence.

"An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2” The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures."

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

• Ole Humluma, b, , ,
• Kjell Stordahlc,
• Jan-Erik Solheimd
• a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
• b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway
• c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway
• d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway

Paper can be found at....

/URL]

The highlights of the paper are:
► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

There is also another paper along the same vein...

Second paper -
"Analysis of ice cores shows that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows the rise temperatures very closely and lagged warmings by 800±400 years. During the glacial/interglacial cycles the peaks of carbon dioxide concentration have never preceded the warmings. Therefore there is no evidence that carbon dioxide is a major factor in the warming of the Earth now. Considerable changes of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide always determined by corresponding temperature fluctuations of the World Ocean."

Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age

A new paper by solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov

Link to the report, in pdf format, can be found at

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/new-paper-predicts-another-little-ice.html

[emphasis added in both cites]

 

Here is the problem with such conclusions and this data I will discuss is detailed by the CDIAC.

We have 800,000 years of Ice Core Data.

This data shows us that CO2 exists in parts per million at the highest level in 800,000 years and is increasing at a rate never before seen in 800,000 years and this massive increase in rate of CO2 and CH4 per year in our atmosphere started at the beginning of the Industrial age.

As well the current level of Water Vapor thus Cloud Cover in our Atmosphere is at the highest level in recorded and recordable data HISTORY.

Water Vapor levels were consistently around 1% to 2% at the beginning of the 20th century and now exist consistently at 5% and higher and are increasing.

Both the biggest threat is Sea Ice and Glacier Melt as the current level of melt dictates within 7 to 15 years there will no longer be Arctic Sea Ice Year Round as there is now and this can lead to great instability in our Ocean Heat transfer exchange Current Conveyance System due to too much fresh water melted into the oceans will cause Ocean Salinity levels to fall so much it will stall such systems as the North Atlantic Current.

THE ONLY thing that matters is what can we do to slow this down or stop it because if we don't find a way we had better start building a great number of Ocean Water Barriers.

AboveAlpha

 

The CDIAC discussion does not address the two studies' findings. As I looked over the site, it doesn't address cause/effect at all and I don't recall seeing any studies on the issues we're discussing mentioned. So I'm a bit confused as to why my attention is continuingly being drawn to those "WEAPONS GRADE NUCLEAR FUEL for the DOD's U.S. Military's THERMONUCLEAR FORCES" folks.

You cite the beginning of the Industrial Age as important. What dates are you using? If you're using 1760, commonly accepted I think, then man must have had little influence on the climate. Afterall, we had the Little Ice Age during that time. In fact, one of the three cooling periods began around 1770 and another around 1860. Thus it appears that we did not produce very much CO2 until later.

The IPCC says that man really did not have much of an affect until "mid-century". IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007.


There appears to be significant disagreement between you and the IPCC on when one should start looking for man's influence on global temperatures via CO2.

I believe there is a growing consensus that water vapor (clouds) have a "negative forcing" affect on temperatures. Do you have a source for water vapor levels during the 20th century?

People have been prediciting the melting of the Arctic sea ice for many decades. And it happens periodically without any dire weather or climate effects. [You might wish to compare the dates for pictures of nuclear submarines surfacing in water at the North Pole and subsequent global temperatures.] Evidence suggests that Arctic sea ice states are cyclic. And being sea ice, the amount is much more determined by wind and water flows than atmospheric temperature. The low in 2012 was caused by an August cyclone that pushed the already sparse summer ice towards the warmer Atlantic. It has since recovered to levels not seen for several years.

Further, I don't believe the amount of ice in the Arctic Ocean has much to do with the Atlantic Ocean flows - no matter what you call them. This is sea ice, not ice locked up on land. Thus ocean salinity levels and affects on the North Atlantic Current are trivial. [And you can forget Greenland melting to such an extent to cause those effects as well. The Greenland ice cap is not doing any serious melting.]

If we aren't causing these effects, I doubt we can stop them.

 

EVERY TIME CO2 GOES UP, TOO FAST, A MASS EXTINCTION HAPPENS. TODAY'S RISE IN CO2 IS THE FASTEST, EVER, IN GEOLOGIC TIME.

I've asked for some reference source for these statements but ......silence. I know the second sentence is very, very wrong - I provided a nice color chart later in this thread to show that. So where's that MASS EXTINCTION data?

Let me help you out a bit.

The last mass extinction was at the end of the Cretaceous 65 million years ago. CO2 levels were in a decline at the time and did not start back up until some 10 million years later.

The biggest mass extinction of all time happened at the end of the Permian 240 million years ago. CO2 levels were low at the time and once again, did not start up for about 10 million more years.

What source do you have that contradicts the above?

 

Did I post this?

AboveAlpha

 

Nope. There are other folks on this thread, too.

 

Sorry...you did not specify and it was after one of my posts.

AboveAlpha...p.s....it didn't sound like me and that's why I asked.

 

Anyway's...Salinity Levels are NOT a trivial thing as the North Atlantic Current moves and exchanges warmer lighter water which it flows NORTH with heavier cold water which it flows SOUTH.

Now here is the problem.

Polar and Glacier Greenland Ice is fresh water when melted and Fresh Water is LIGHTER than Salt Water as Salt Water has a density of 1.025 and Fresh is 1.0.

When TOO MUCH Fresh Water due to Polar and Glacier Ice Melt is thrown into the North Atlantic Current Heat Exchange Conveyance System....IT STALLS.

What happens is the added Fresh Water mixes with the delicately balance upon THERMOCLINE incoming Warm Water and outgoing Cold Water and changes the Salinity thus the Water Density and because of this it stalls the current as it creates too great of a balance between warm and cold salt water by adding the less denser Fresh Water.

As a result of such a stall.....Ocean Temps. in the Northern Polar Region will get COLDER, AND COLDER AND COLDER....and this creates AN ICE AGE.

AboveAlpha

 

And I believe the IPCC, et al, have determined that the risk is somewhat less than nil for that to happen.

 

Take a bit of time and Google what happens when the North Atlantic current stalls.

AboveAlpha

 

I read about this around two years ago.

Why waste any additional time reading up on an event with almost zero probablility of occurring?

Did your reading tell you how much of the Greenland ice would have to melt for such a thing to even be conceivable? And did it tell you how long such a thing would take?

On the list of things I think I'll worry about, this falls in the neighborhood of number 15,436, 884.

 

I am not saying that this will occur just that it is a very distinct possibility if our Global Temps. continue to rise unabated as if all such Polar and Glacier ice was to melt...that is what would happen.

AboveAlpha

 

Are you saying this really concerns you?

Global tempertures are not now continuing "unabated".

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990

For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

I think it looks good for the North Atlantic current - don't you?

 

Look...I do NOT post anything that is driven by some Personal Political Ideology I simply post the realities.

LINK....http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

Look at the chart at the top of the page that changes about evey 20 seconds.

THIS....is the real data.

AboveAlpha

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=259015

Your unlinked, incompetent rant, about the Cretaceous or K/T is completely false.

CO2 had to go up, at the time of the bollide impact, which caused the Chixolub Crater.

At the same time, the Deccan Traps erupted, to continue, for many thousands of years. You don't have a clue, what comes out of volcanoes, besides lava and ash, do you!

I guess you also haven't figured out loads of plants also were destroyed or decimated, during the K/T.

 

EVERY TIME CO2 GOES UP, TOO FAST, A MASS EXTINCTION HAPPENS. TODAY'S RISE IN CO2 IS THE FASTEST, EVER, IN GEOLOGIC TIME.

Point #1. Your statement implies that CO2 goes up and extinction happens. This suggests that it was the CO2 that caused the extinctions. I believe you'll find that it was the equivalent of nuclear winter that caused the mass extinctions at the time of the K-T boundary. It was the ash cloud that blanketed the planet destroying plants and animals that resulted in the extinctions. If you have a source that attributes the extinction to the CO2 levels, I'd like to see it.

Point #2. The chart I provided clearly shows that CO2 levels are not rising faster today than in all of "GEOLOGIC TIME" (your caps).

Point #3. You make the point that the bollide impact, which caused the Chixolub Crater, and the Deccan Traps eruptions put lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet you also say that "TODAY'S RISE IN CO2 IS THE FASTEST, EVER, IN GEOLOGIC TIME" (your caps). So you maintain that today's CO2 rise is faster than those two events? One of those events happened in mere minutes and must have added great quantities of matter very quickly. And you think that was slower than today's CO2 increase? Does that sound reasonable? Or were you, perhaps, guilty of a bit of hyperbole, exaggeration, or gross inaccuracy?

 

I never suggested that your comments were driven by anything.

And continually pointing to data that is being updated every 20 seconds in unconnected to the issues being discussed. I think we are talking CLIMATE - this is a long term phenomenon - not a "every 20 seconds" one.

I've been meaning to ask you...I have asked you a few questions along the way that are still awaiting answers. I wonder if you might take some time and reply to them?

1. Right now there are numerous Pacific Island Nations that are only a few feet above current sea levels which will be completely submerged in less than 7 to 15 years...
there are HUNDREDS of Territories with MILLIONS OF AMERICAN'S LIVING ON ISLANDS that will be under sea water within a DECADE!!!

Data source? What sea level rise rate is predicted for such a thing to happen? And how does that rate compare to historical sea level rise rates?

2. This data is used by the U.S. Military and is considered THE ONLY VIABLE AND UNBIASED SOURCE.

Says who?

3. The period between 1910 to 1940 and subsequent rise in CO2 is not natural

Can you explain why you disagree with the IPCC on this point?

4. You cite the beginning of the Industrial Age as important. What dates are you using?

5. I believe there is a growing consensus that water vapor (clouds) have a "negative forcing" affect on temperatures. Do you have a source for water vapor levels during the 20th century?

 

A person who doesn't know that water vapour is a gas is seriously out of his depth in a discussion about climate change and not to be bothered with.

 

OK...let's take one thing at a time.

That link to the U.S. DOE's Office of Science CDIAC....look at the top of the page.

Every 20 seconds or so a different chart which details different data or issues as one chart is specific to CO2 rising and other is specific to Global Temps. rising and another to sea levels rising.

This site can be counted upon to be completely unbiased as well it has what is considered the ABSOLUTE BEST and tops in their fields Climatologist, Ice Core Sample Experts, Physicists, Chemists...etc....as you have to be the BEST to work for the U.S. Dept. of Enegy's Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

Now I am perfectly willing to discuss this rationally with you IN DEPTH and I am OPEN to any conflicting VIABLE evidence you might present.

AboveAlpha

 

You know....I BET you cannot even detail exactly WHAT Water Vapor is comprised of can you?

Either that or you will make some EXCUSE NOT TO detail the composition of Water Vapor as to do so would explain why I have been saying all along THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A VAPOR AND A GAS!!!

So.....let's see if you can take the 10 seconds to detail for the membership exactly WHAT comprises Water Vapor.

If you CAN'T or WON'T.....then the ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP WILL KNOW....you are full of B.S.

AboveAlpha....p.s...waiting.

 

The absolute best?...better than denier go to guys lord moncton, david rose, anthony watts and barry cooper? Surly you're joking....