Moderated: Global Warming Discussion

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by bobwtfomg

Oh and Alec, no offence meant, but your English, though very good, isn't as perfect as you may think it is. Sometimes your sentence constuction leaves your meaning somewhat ambiguous. For example "And no ESL was the cause of it" as it stands is meaningless. On it's own I would interpret it as "And no, ESL was the cause of it" where you're saying "ESL was the cause" and prefixing this with "And no" to contradict a previous statement and add emphasis. From context though I'm guessing you meant "And ESL wasn't the cause of it" or possibly "And no, ESL wasn't the cause of it"

No possible offence as that's rigorously true; I never said that my English level were better than intermediate. What I can't see is why some find so difficult to understand half-tongue in the presence of a half-tongue public. There are just the people who want to communicate and those who give a darn, and the matter of language only has been used here as part of argumentations. In other fora, with even more primitive and chauvinist public, I have had worst discussions and never the problem of language has emerged as part of the argumentation.

Now I reckon that most participants here barely read the messages; they just scanned them like a person in a train station does, barely listening the messages given through the loudspeakers just to learn if there was some change of plans. In that poor context is obvious that every word have to be placed precisely or the chap would be forced to read carefully the posts indeed to understand it. Shame on who does this and complain.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by macdoc

Alec

Stop including me in your diatribes. I asked Trakar a question not you. Where did he get 0.2 degree to equilibrium on a stopping cold scenario.?

Stop playing the fool and using smoke screens. You haven't answered what I asked you on this very subject so I presume confirmed you mixed two scenarios in one.

Originally Posted by macdoc

+1 to 1.2 ...from where Alec -??? you think you are being clear - you are not.
With no baseline it's meaningless....is this base period: 1951-1980? That's what NASA uses and we are .76C over so above that at 396 ppm.


Alec wrote


So you are not using the NASA baseline at all but one that already includes the .76 observed to date above their baseline. !!!!!
C'mon Alec that's awfully confusing.

So, bickering with you is essential to get you reading else's posts. At last you read my posts and it's not confusing at all. As you quoted, it always was over 2013 conditions. It never could have been otherwise, but your confusion exceeds scenarios and extends to baselines.

Originally Posted by macdoc

How do you square your +1 to 1.2C in 250 years with this from Real Climate



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ng-be-avoided/

and

this from another realclimate article on a stop cold scenario - here is the graph

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...commitment.jpg



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...e-commitments/

unless you were implying a drop from 2.0 degrees over base period anticipated in the 400 ppm article above, to 1.0 to 1.2C over that same baseline 250 years out.

In other words the global temperature declines with no additional anthro C02.??

At all times under all scenarios with anthro C02, due to the lag, there will be a certain amount of warming to come until equilibrium is reached....when is that point?
From the graph above it's not hitting equlibrium even 300 years out.

I'll take a look to those links tomorrow morning. You are saying a lot of thing at the same time, some of them contradictory. I'll help you out of your confusion, but be patient.

[DC]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Stop playing the fool and using smoke screens. You haven't answered what I asked you on this very subject so I presume confirmed you mixed two scenarios in one.



So, bickering with you is essential to get you reading else's posts. At last you read my posts and it's not confusing at all. As you quoted, it always was over 2013 conditions. It never could have been otherwise, but your confusion exceeds scenarios and extends to baselines.




I'll take a look to those links tomorrow morning. You are saying a lot of thing at the same time, some of them contradictory. I'll help you out of your confusion, but be patient.

why do you not simply link to the study you took your numbers from? it would make everything very easy.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by bobwtfomg

If there's been any recent reseach that suggests the ocean is close to stopping being a carbon sink, I'm afraid I missed it.

The net absorption of CO2 by the oceans depends on imbalances. How much "CO2" can contain ocean water depends on temperature and pressure. The actual average content of inorganic carbon in the oceans is 0.032 g/dm3. Fresh water at normal pressure can hold 0.17g of CO2/dm3 (that's 0.05g of carbon) at 20°C, so basically you would need to heat up the oceans an average of 14°C and throw into them some 50,000 GT of CO2 to saturate them. And I'm still keeping an ace in the sleeve: under high pressure sea water can hold even more carbon -that doesn't mean it actually does, and that's the difference between real risks and hysterical fantasies-.

So, it'd look like there's no problem at all. But the problem is that waters close to the surface can be warm enough to become "reluctant" to absorb more CO2 and that hinders the process that links the atmosphere with the oceans, so it's expected that the ocean system is going to absorb in the future a declining percentage of human emissions and some areas in the ocean are or may become "emitters". But you won't find any risk in the next several decades.

Coupled atmosphere-ocean models include modules dealing with this. You can download some of them or run them on-line. I've had a headache making gmake for Windows work in Windows 7 64bits together with my PERL installation -Active Perl- to compile and run on low resolution GISS GCM ModelE and get by myself the same graphics I was shown in one of the research centers I visit, for instance, that of what happens in a stop cold emissions scenario.

[macdoc]

Alec - you make mistakes due to language and haste and you are too arrogant to admit it.
And piss off with the patronizing - if I want help from you I'll ask.
I tend to ask Gavin et al instead.
All I'm trying to do is clarify what you won't.
See the preceding post to this.
The confusion you are dishing up as over reaching knowledge isn't.

Providing temperatures as working out of a 2013 baseline is simply ludicrous.

Quote:

One way to illustrate changes in global atmospheric temperatures is by looking at how far temperatures stray from “normal”, or a baseline. For the following map, NASA picked a baseline period using temperatures between 1951 and 1980, and compared temperature global temperature readings from 2012.


Temperature anomalies are displayed for 2012 (top), and over time (bottom) in this NASA graphic. The warming trend is apparent from the 1880s onward.

NASA’s Earth Observatory blog explains:

The average temperature in 2012 was about 14.6 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), which is 0.55°C (1.0°F) warmer than the mid-20th century base period. The average global temperature has increased 0.8°C (1.4°F) since 1880, and most of that change has occurred in the past four decades.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...is-continuing/

When I am talking about 4C increase it's from the baseline not from now, it's never been from now for my posts so you can do your own math as to what it means in your non-standard terminology.

Quote:

Global

The global (land and ocean) average temperature increase between 1850 and 2010 was 0.81 0C using combined UK Met Office Hadley centre and University of East Anglia - Climate Research Unit HadCRUT3 dataset compared to the 1850 - 1899 period average temperature and 0.89 0C using Goddard Institute for Space Studies - GISS dataset compared to the 1880 - 1899 period average temperature. All used temperature records show the 2000s decade (2001 - 2010) was the warmest decade.
For the HadCRUT3 and GISS datasets the rate of the global average has increased from around 0.06 0C per decade over last 100 years, to 0.18 - 0.22 0C in last decade.
The best estimates for projected global warming in this century are a further rise in the global average temperature from 1.8 to 4.0 0C for different scenarios that assume no further/additional action to limit emissions. The EU global temperature target is projected to be exceeded between 2040 and 2060, taking into account all six IPCC scenarios.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-ma...e-assessment-4

[DC]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

The net absorption of CO2 by the oceans depends on imbalances. How much "CO2" can contain ocean water depends on temperature and pressure. The actual average content of inorganic carbon in the oceans is 0.032 g/dm3. Fresh water at normal pressure can hold 0.17g of CO2/dm3 (that's 0.05g of carbon) at 20°C, so basically you would need to heat up the oceans an average of 14°C and throw into them some 50,000 GT of CO2 to saturate them. And I'm still keeping an ace in the sleeve: under high pressure sea water can hold even more carbon -that doesn't mean it actually does, and that's the difference between real risks and hysterical fantasies-.

So, it'd look like there's no problem at all. But the problem is that waters close to the surface can be warm enough to become "reluctant" to absorb more CO2 and that hinders the process that links the atmosphere with the oceans, so it's expected that the ocean system is going to absorb in the future a declining percentage of human emissions and some areas in the ocean are or may become "emitters". But you won't find any risk in the next several decades.

Coupled atmosphere-ocean models include modules dealing with this. You can download some of them or run them on-line. I've had a headache making gmake for Windows work in Windows 7 64bits together with my PERL installation -Active Perl- to compile and run on low resolution GISS GCM ModelE and get by myself the same graphics I was shown in one of the research centers I visit, for instance, that of what happens in a stop cold emissions scenario.

that sounds very simplified. and this part of the science is not at all as clear as some might think. as far as i know there still is a huge lack of data especialy from coastal areas. things like the "continental shelf pump" etc and alot of uncertainties. and some simple model runs will not get you a good answer yet.
i would argue this question cannot be answered yet.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by bobwtfomg

It is my, admittedly limited, understanding of the science that almost half of current anthropogenic CO2 emissions are being absorbed by the oceans/biosphere, whilst I've read that there are concerns that these carbon sinks are becoming less effective as temp and ocean CO2 concentration continue to rise, I've not come across the idea that they might suddenly turn into emitters of CO2.
Is this backed by any science? Got a link?

In the statement you quote me as referring to "natural sources," I am not talking just about the ocean sink. In fact, the surface sinks (major watershed forests, prarielands, and permafrost) are more immediate threats and concern. The northern permafrosts contain at least a doubling of current atmospheric ratios in carbon in the top 3 meters of surface. Much of that will likely be warmed and released within the next century.

"Suddenly," is inaccurate in most common senses of usage. From a geological standpoint, however, anything that happens over a timeframe of less than a millenia is usually considered extraordinarily fast. More to your question, many regions of the planet's oceans are already net emitters of CO2, most especially the surface waters in regions of the equitorial band. This is in tune with statements made by Pixel42. There are many other factors in this general area of consideration, such as upwellings and stratification issues for instance.

In some of areas the deeper colder waters are actually more heavily saturated with CO2 than the warmer surface waters, in areas where upwellings occur this more heavily saturated cold water will not absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere and as it warms on the surface it cannot hold onto all the CO2 that it already has and thus emits some of its load.

What is occurring in other areas of the higher latitude oceans is that we are getting warmer fresher waters overlaying much of the cooler saltier waters that normally drag the CO2 from the surface to the ocean depths in the normal course of the conveyor currents. This stratification reduces the absorption of atmospheric CO2 and causes a stagnation of circulation. I don't see anything that looks like major currents will shutdown but even a slowing of the thermohaline circulations will cause a lot of problems with one of the major heat flow engines of our environment as well as the impact upon CO2 absorption.

The entirety of the oceans do not need to become a saturated CO2 emission source for net oceanic emissions to change dramatically. Until the industrial revolution, it is generally accepted that the oceans were a net source of atmospheric CO2 rather than being a sink, it is only after we started pumping more carbon into the atmosphere that the oceans started trying to play catch-up striving for equilibrium.

References:

"Policy Implications of Warming Permafrost" - http://www.unep.org/pdf/permafrost.pdf

"Amount and timing of permafrost carbon release in response to climate warming" - http://www.researchgate.net/publicat...limate_warming

"Soils emitting more carbon dioxide: Trend could exacerbate global warming." - http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1003....2010.147.html

(following is a term-paper not a journal paper, but is well stocked with supporting references - mainly included for Fig. 1, but the information looks good with a quick look-through)

"The Coastal Ocean:A Source or a Sink of Atmospheric CO2?"
http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term...paper_hs07.pdf

"Wind-Driven Upwelling in the Southern Ocean and the Deglacial Rise in Atmospheric CO2" - https://edit.ethz.ch/umweltphysik/ed...son_sci_09.pdf

"Impact of the Ocean’s Overturning Circulation on Atmospheric CO2"
http://mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~and...ttner07agu.pdf

This is just a quickly gathered sampling of references retrieved with a quick search, I don't have access to my databases right now but will try to put together a better set of references for you when I return home next weekend, if you'd like.

[Kuko 4000]

IPCC uses standard terms for different confidence levels:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-ma...dance-note.pdf








Has anyone compiled the most important bits of AGW info together with these IPCC confidence levels to one place?

[Kuko 4000]

What is the current understanding of the increase in extreme weather events? And what is the confidence / agreement level?

I'm reading the SREX at the moment: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-repo...ull_Report.pdf

...but I'd appreciate a quick summary and relevant quotes / sources to save time!

From the popular media I've received a clear picture that droughts, heat waves, floods, tornados, etc. are all becoming more intense and more numerous because of AGW. I'd like to present IPCC confidence levels with these claims.

EDIT:

Tim Palmer from Oxford on the increase of extreme weather events (1 min 33 sec):

Are extreme weather events going to increase?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Kuko 4000]

Here's a short video overview of the SREX report by IPCCGeneva YouTube channel:

Overview of the IPCC Report on Extreme Events (SREX)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Here's a bit more detailed SREX overview (6 min 16 sec):

SREX Presentation: Chris Field at COP18

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

EDIT: They have a SREX playlist with 7 different video clips: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11970AA1CB21A33C

[macdoc]

Good article with links on realclimate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...xtreme-events/

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

What is the current understanding of the increase in extreme weather events? And what is the confidence / agreement level?

I'm reading the SREX at the moment: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-repo...ull_Report.pdf

Ok, a little progress again, page 132, Table 3-1 gives projections and confidence levels:

[a_unique_person]

Only two years after record flooding in Queensland, more record flooding, plus a record number of tornadoes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-2...6?WT.svl=news0

Both are extreme events, once in a hundred years or decades. Looking like it's more than just a coincidence, and we aren't over this years cyclone season yet. The irony is that the 2011 floods caused major problems for the growing coal mining industry.

[Trakar]

"Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?"
Keynyn Brysse a,*, Naomi Oreskes b, Jessica O’Reilly c, Michael Oppenheimer d

http://www.wageningenur.nl/upload/f2...5fc_erring.pdf

Quote:

9. Conclusion Evidence from recent analyses suggests that scientists, particularly acting in the context of large assessments, may have underestimated the magnitude and rate of expected impacts of anthropogenic climate change. We suggest that this underestimation reflects a systematic bias, which we label ‘‘erring on the side of least drama (ESLD)’’. ESLD is consistent with a broad pattern in earth science, in play since the mid-19th century, of eschewing catastrophic accounts of natural phenomena. While physicists and chemists do not share this particular history, they do share a broader pattern in science of skepticism toward dramatic explanations of natural phenomena. This stance arises, we suggest, from the core scientific values of objectivity, rationality, and dispassion, which lead scientists to be skeptical of any claim that might evoke an emotional response.
Our hypothesis of ESLD is not meant as a criticism of scientists. The culture of science has in most respects served humanity very well. Rather, ESLD provides a context for interpreting scientists’ assessments of risk-laden situations, a challenge faced by the public and policy-makers. In attempting to avoid drama, the scientific community may be biasing its own work—a bias that needs to be appreciated because it could prevent the full recognition, articulation, and acknowledgment of dramatic natural phenomena that may, in fact, be occurring. After all, some phenomena in nature are dramatic. If the drama arises primarily from social, political, or economic impacts, then it is crucial that the associated risk be understood fully, and not discounted.

[Kumar]

A confusion:

When global warming is increasing, how it is too cold this year?

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Kumar

A confusion:

When global warming is increasing, how it is too cold this year?

Global warming has to do with long-term averages. So looking at one single, particular year doesn't really say much.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Kumar

A confusion:

When global warming is increasing, how it is too cold this year?

Cold for who?

[a_unique_person]

An interesting article on the value of climate research in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4484...WT.svl=theDrum

Quote:

Research into Australia's unique climate has proven invaluable in dealing with bushfires and other extreme weather threats, writes Fred Hilmer. Shouldn't we also listen to what it says about global warming?

The recent heatwaves and raging bushfires have been a stark reminder of Australia's particular vulnerability to extreme weather events. But amid the chaos and behind the tales of heroism and personal tragedy is a good news story - and it's about the value of science and scientific research.

There can be no doubt that our capacity to accurately predict weather extremes and track potential bushfires has saved lives and property.

That we now have access to remarkably sophisticated and accurate forecasts of impending heat waves and bushfire risk, and management plans in place to minimise their impact, is no accident. It's the result of decades of research and intensive data collection both here and overseas: because of course while weather is local, climate systems are regional and global.

Only continuous investment in serious, substantial research has enabled us to reach our current level of understanding of our dynamic and complex environment - and will enable us to respond and adapt to more extreme and frequent future climatic variations.

[a_unique_person]

dupe

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Kumar

A confusion:

When global warming is increasing, how it is too cold this year?

Who says it's too cold?

If by "this year" you mean 2013, it's far too early to say anything. If you mean 2012, it was the 10th warmest year since 1880 and 0.57 degrees above average.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by macdoc

Alec - you make mistakes due to language and haste and you are too arrogant to admit it.
And piss off with the patronizing - if I want help from you I'll ask.
I tend to ask Gavin et al instead.
All I'm trying to do is clarify what you won't.
See the preceding post to this.
The confusion you are dishing up as over reaching knowledge isn't.

Providing temperatures as working out of a 2013 baseline is simply ludicrous.

<I stopped reading here and I won't follow these texts and links that may have value in other context or not but they are not responsive to what was being discussed>

Knock it off with such ludicrous changes of subject and your general disorderly behaviour. You asked me and you were replied: both 1 to 1.2° in 250 years and peak of 0.2°C in some 30 years for two different scenarios were provided by me departing on today levels. I never needed to add "additional" because it's quite obvious: it comes naturally from the simple notion of "warming still in the pipes".

The rest of yours is just a smoke screen: as you don't like what I say you already tried a lot of paths: acting as I said a different thing; that you don't understand my use of language -yet you do as if you understood and had answers for it-; that my inferences should have departed for the off-topics you provide, and a lot of garbage that is called in my language "to 'strew' the field with holes" that is, to hinder the opposite team with "unsportmanly" actions because your own team is a failure.

From my incidental scanning of the filler texts you posted recently I deduct you have little idea about how climate models work and how they can be initiated each day departing from a current file containing a mix of values come from a running instance of the model together and tweaked with actual instrumental data. So, what's your problem with "warming still on the pipe" that you need to make bad inferences based on outdated incomplete material while you're asking others 'sworn statements' and hard proof?

I have now to go back and reply a few messages posted before yours.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by macdoc

How do you square your +1 to 1.2C in 250 years with this from Real Climate



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ng-be-avoided/

and

this from another realclimate article on a stop cold scenario - here is the graph

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...commitment.jpg



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...e-commitments/

unless you were implying a drop from 2.0 degrees over base period anticipated in the 400 ppm article above, to 1.0 to 1.2C over that same baseline 250 years out.

In other words the global temperature declines with no additional anthro C02.??

At all times under all scenarios with anthro C02, due to the lag, there will be a certain amount of warming to come until equilibrium is reached....when is that point?
From the graph above it's not hitting equlibrium even 300 years out.

Indeed both links manage values in line with those I used (one, some +0.8°C in +300 years under "hypothetical stabilization", the other one constant or slow drop for the other scenario) , so look elsewhere if you want to contradict me. In most models -which not include a coupled ocean circulation model- the heat storage in deep ocean is just a tiny set of parameters that you can change in different runs. These models were pretty poor -yet, the best we had until a few years ago, and strong enough to allow us to know where science was standing-, and by modifying those parameters you had much different inertias.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by DC

that sounds very simplified. and this part of the science is not at all as clear as some might think. as far as i know there still is a huge lack of data especialy from coastal areas. things like the "continental shelf pump" etc and alot of uncertainties. and some simple model runs will not get you a good answer yet.
i would argue this question cannot be answered yet.

That is not simplified. That is just an analysis, a common sense one, to see if there's something behind or not. It's called reality check. Do you think that I 'believe' that analysis or that this is the extent of my knowledge on that subject?

The question is, what analysis come from common sense and involving principles of natural sciences and figures do you and others do to check the soundness of all arguments? To my astonishment I am discovering these last few weeks that nobody or almost nobody does, so I have to conclude that the fact that some are denialist and others are warmer-like is purely coincidental/accidental.

So, summarizing: you take a snippet -my analysis- and reply that it's all too much complex and who knows. It boils down to "something is possible" (oceans vomiting 'a sea' of CO2) "just because it's very complex and I don't know". That's is just a trick to keep the wished possibility even in lack of evidence, because that is what is happening in this thread. Denialist shouldn't feel alone!

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Kumar

A confusion:

When global warming is increasing, how it is too cold this year?

I am burning now with 38°C (+100 ° Usian) and we are breaking records week after week; around Xmas we experienced the record dew point high: 27.9°C: opening the door and going out was more knocking than an uppercut. It was just like we were breathing soup.

Where's the "so much" cold? Will you invite me there?

[DC]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

That is not simplified. That is just an analysis, a common sense one, to see if there's something behind or not. It's called reality check. Do you think that I 'believe' that analysis or that this is the extent of my knowledge on that subject?

The question is, what analysis come from common sense and involving principles of natural sciences and figures do you and others do to check the soundness of all arguments? To my astonishment I am discovering these last few weeks that nobody or almost nobody does, so I have to conclude that the fact that some are denialist and others are warmer-like is purely coincidental/accidental.

So, summarizing: you take a snippet -my analysis- and reply that it's all too much complex and who knows. It boils down to "something is possible" (oceans vomiting 'a sea' of CO2) "just because it's very complex and I don't know". That's is just a trick to keep the wished possibility even in lack of evidence, because that is what is happening in this thread. Denialist shouldn't feel alone!

i don't believe there is any real chance atm that Oceans overall will switch from sink to source. but your oversimplified approach did not really approach this question properly. its far more complicated, and this is actually a topic i did read about in scientific literature. but from the question, are the oceans currently a net sink or not. and for example we do not have good data from coastal areas, and parts of coastal areas are already a net CO2 source. also the different oceans are acting differently in this regard. etc etc. we simply do not know much about that particular question. and oversimplification will not deliver a proper and usefull answer at all. and it doesn't matter in which direction.

2 of the papers i did read about this have been linked to by someone else just resently here. but i did read them a few months ago.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

I am burning now with 38°C (+100 ° Usian) and we are breaking records week after week; around Xmas we experienced the record dew point high: 27.9°C: opening the door and going out was more knocking than an uppercut. It was just like we were breathing soup.

Where's the "so much" cold? Will you invite me there?

China, India...

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Kumar

China, India...

Because local weather varies, Kumar. Global Warming does not mean that there will never be cold days where you live.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Kumar

China, India...

Here's the global temperature report for December:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/12

If you scroll down to the section headed Temperatures you'll see a map of global temperatures showing that it was colder than usual in central Asia, and warmer than usual almost everywhere else.

The report for January will be put up in mid February. I predict that some areas will again be showing lower than usual temperatures, but many more will be showing higher.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Here's the global temperature report for December:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/12

If you scroll down to the section headed Temperatures you'll see a map of global temperatures showing that it was colder than usual in central Asia, and warmer than usual almost everywhere else.

The report for January will be put up in mid February. I predict that some areas will again be showing lower than usual temperatures, but many more will be showing higher.

I thought it was kind of cold in Japan too and that map confirms my anecdotal feeling about this winter. The cold air mass in central Asia seems to be affecting us even here in Japan. Perhaps it is also affecting India in January although that map for December doesn't indicate it yet.

[Kuko 4000]

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

Fact check #1:

How much warming would still happen if we would stop all our ghg gas emissions right now, forever?

According to Real Climate:

Quote:

CO2 concentrations would start to fall immediately since the ocean and terrestrial biosphere would continue to absorb more carbon than they release as long as the CO2 level in the atmosphere is higher than pre-industrial levels (approximately). And subsequent temperatures (depending slightly on the model you are using) would either be flat or slightly decreasing. With this definition then, there is no climate change commitment because of climate inertia. Instead, the reason for the likely continuation of the warming is that we can’t get to zero emissions any time soon because of societal, economic or technological inertia.

If I understand correctly, this suggests that in a zero emission scenario we would get no warming / slight cooling immediately.

My other source confirmed this to be the case (and gave different scenarios), but with a caveat that because of the overall cooling effect of some small particles (in the zero GHG emission scenario) we would get a fast warming effect of something like 0.5°c but then the climate would start to cool off.

Other scenarios were:

a) Zero CO2 emissions = pretty much no change in temperature for hundreds of years.

b) Zero CO2 and zero methane, etc. emissions = very slight cooling in the first couple of decades, because of methane's fast response.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

According to Real Climate:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/cc_commitment.jpg




If I understand correctly, this suggests that in a zero emission scenario we would get no warming / slight cooling immediately.

My other source confirmed this to be the case (and gave different scenarios), but with a caveat that because of the overall cooling effect of some small particles (in the zero GHG emission scenario) we would get a fast warming effect of something like 0.5°c but then the climate would start to cool off.

Other scenarios were:

a) Zero CO2 emissions = pretty much no change in temperature for hundreds of years.

b) Zero CO2 and zero methane, etc. emissions = very slight cooling in the first couple of decades, because of methane's fast response.

well if we go to 0 tomorow, we would still have a long time of higher temperatures compared to pre industrial levels, until we actually reach the pre industrial CO2 levels. only then we would not have any increased temperatures anymore (ignoring the long lag oceans would have to get back to normal)

[Kuko 4000]

And this of course assumes that we have not passed any major "tipping points" yet.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

And this of course assumes that we have not passed any major "tipping points" yet.

"tipping points" come in many flavors:

"Climate Change and Economic Growth: Evidence from the Last Half Century"

Melissa Dell, Benjamin F. Jones, Benjamin A. Olken

NBER Working Paper No. 14132
Issued in June 2008
NBER Program(s): EEE EFG

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14132.pdf

Quote:

6. Conclusion

This paper presents new estimates for the effect of climatic changes on national economies. Our approach differs from standard “Integrated Assessment Models”, where authors postulate a set of climate-economy mechanisms and sum them up. In this paper, we estimate climate effects directly by examining the historical relationship between climate fluctuations and economic growth.

We find substantial effects of climatic changes, but only in poor countries. In poor countries, a 1◦C rise in temperature in a given year reduces economic growth by 1.1 percentage points on average. The estimates suggest that climate change may affect the rate of economic growth, rather than just the level of output. Moreover, estimates using the overall change in climate from 1970 to 2000 rather than annual variation produce even larger estimates, suggesting that adaptation may not undo these effects in the medium term.

While higher temperatures reduce agricultural output in poor countries, we also find that they lead to contractions in industrial output and aggregate investment and to increased political instability. These results underscore the breadth of mechanisms underlying the climate-economy relationship. The results also suggest that future climate change may substantially widen income gaps between rich and poor countries, with many poor countries driven toward greater poverty, other things equal. Further work is needed to identify precise causal mechanisms. This paper suggests such analysis is of first-order importance, as the economic effects in poor countries appear large.

Compared to the social/societal aspects, the technological/economical aspects seem like child's play.

When global markets collapse and the human population contracts and the environment becomes increasingly hostile, things get ugly quick. You really don't have to ratchet things up much higher than they've been over the last few decades to plausibly reach these points. We don't have to get to the point where the southwest deserts expand throughout much of the central plains states, and it's cheaper to grow food in factories than it is in the ever shrinking arable, open-air, land before the self-evident effects (and consequences) of a warming climate is going to put pressure on all other geopolitical considerations. There are still a lot of nasty weapons and technologies disseminated throughout the masses of our populations. At the least, we may be in a position to understand the drivers, even if we are without the strength of mind and character of social cohesion to meet these challenges,...simply one of many Fermi paradox considerations.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Kumar

China, India...

India? Tell me exactly where and how much cold.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by DC

i don't believe there is any real chance atm that Oceans overall will switch from sink to source. but your oversimplified approach did not really approach this question properly. its far more complicated, and this is actually a topic i did read about in scientific literature. but from the question, are the oceans currently a net sink or not. and for example we do not have good data from coastal areas, and parts of coastal areas are already a net CO2 source. also the different oceans are acting differently in this regard. etc etc. we simply do not know much about that particular question. and oversimplification will not deliver a proper and usefull answer at all. and it doesn't matter in which direction.

2 of the papers i did read about this have been linked to by someone else just resently here. but i did read them a few months ago.

You are still saying the same.

"The subject is complex" is not an argument. That's why you should start with common sense and revise (or learn) the physical processes involved; then you can perceive if there's something really behind: that's exactly what I did here. When I read such kind of articles and papers, I have to be critical from the very beginning. I've probably read a dozen papers about this specific subject in the last few months. Can you provide the links to those papers so I can return a critical analysis of them? The range of problems with those papers is extremely wide.

[DC]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

You are still saying the same.

"The subject is complex" is not an argument. That's why you should start with common sense and revise (or learn) the physical processes involved; then you can perceive if there's something really behind: that's exactly what I did here. When I read such kind of articles and papers, I have to be critical from the very beginning. I've probably read a dozen papers about this specific subject in the last few months. Can you provide the links to those papers so I can return a critical analysis of them? The range of problems with those papers is extremely wide.

http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/pa...ruber09gbc.pdf

http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term...paper_hs07.pdf

[DC]

Quote:

Most people who study global warming agree that it's reached a critical threashold and cannot be stopped.

would you agree with that statement?

[macdoc]

No - that's a ridiculous statement to make. There are any number of ways of stopping agw - none too pleasant and perhaps whoever is making it should attempt to back it up.
It may well have halted for the moment if the Asian brown cloud is overwhelming the warming.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by macdoc

No - that's a ridiculous statement to make. There are any number of ways of stopping agw - none too pleasant and perhaps whoever is making it should attempt to back it up.
It may well have halted for the moment if the Asian brown cloud is overwhelming the warming.

You make some good points.
There may be ways to "stop" climate change, but the issue is more whether or not we have reached the point that even if we took humanity and its future additional contributions completely out of the picture, have we already engaged enough natural feedbacks that the warming would continue to accelerate (albeit at a reduced rate)? As to the Asian emissions, there is a difference between a masking of some symptoms and a complete halting or removal of the underlying processes.

[DC]

Originally Posted by macdoc

No - that's a ridiculous statement to make. There are any number of ways of stopping agw - none too pleasant and perhaps whoever is making it should attempt to back it up.
It may well have halted for the moment if the Asian brown cloud is overwhelming the warming.

a shame the guy that made the claim dares not debate it here. most propably because he knows his claims are wrong and he knows he is not able to backup his claims with evidence.