Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

mighty crucliandia does not deign to answer questions posed by the lowly snowboy..

Based on the quote you cut and pasted in crucliandia, Dr. Lindzen has obviously been asleep, and missed the advances in the science and the global warming that has occurred since 1998.

Temps have now risen by 0.74 degrees (not the 0.6 degrees claimed by Lindzen). And 11 of the 12 warmest years since 1850 occurred in the last 12 years (1995 through 2006).

Try a more credible source next time.

Try also to understand (and maybe even help Dr. Lindzen understand) the concept of lag time. When a forcing is applied to a system, the larger and more complex the system the longer the lag time between when the forcing occurs and when the full response to the forcing manifests itself. We have yet to see the full effects of the CO2 we've put into the atmosphere to date.

LOL desertdisaster, it's amazing how crucilandia is a jack-of-all-trades:
- global authority on data manipulation that has evaded scientists from 120 countries;
- global authority on climate change whose word carries more weight than the world's atmospheric science community;
- supreme maker of bold pronouncements, never to be backed up or questioned..

When a forcing is applied to a system, the larger and more complex the system the longer the lag time between when the forcing occurs and when the full response to the forcing manifests itself

Can you give me a citation for that.
Do you have proof for your statement? The geological record since 650Ka shows that CO2 lags behind temp increases and decreases.

snowboy
What is dynamic equilibrium?

The amount of money being poured into climate research is a great thing, however, since most of it goes into funding CO2 research there are many other more important drivers of climate that are being overlooked and need to be better understood. This will not happen until CO2 hysteria calms and everyone takes a deep breath and realize that there are many other factors that determine global climate. The sun's role in climate is little understood, clouds effect on climate also little understood. As well as the oceans role in climate and what changes in ocean currents would mean to global climate. These are much more important drivers of climate that are yet to be fully understood and money keeps flowing into CO2 research, a trivial component of climate when taking other factors into consideration

I aggree with sullivan in this one

crucilandia, regarding dynamic equilibrium I made the following statement:

"the carbon cycle is in a state of dynamic equilibrium. If you add CO2 to one part of the system (eg. the atmosphere) then the equilibrium shifts to spread that CO2 around, with a goodly portion being taken up by the oceans.."

*****

Seems you're having trouble with this simple description, so I'll try again. There is a constant cycling back and forth of carbon in our planet's system, with uptake and release going back and forth between the atmosphere and oceans and biota and solid matter (soils and bedrock). If you suddenly add carbon to one part of this system (eg. the atmosphere, as we are doing now), then that carbon doesn't all stay there. Some is absorbed into the ocean, some taken up by the biota (eg. trees), some by the soil, and some deposited in sediments at the ocean bottom. Likewise, if you suddenly remove carbon from the system (say we could scrub the atmosphere and reduce CO2 concentrations by 50%), then again the equilibrium of the system would shift with more carbon going into the atmosphere to partially balance that loss.

Here to help you further is wikipedia's entry on the subject:

Carbon cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged between the biosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere of the Earth (other astronomical objects may have similar carbon cycles, but nothing is yet known about them).

The cycle is usually thought of as four major reservoirs of carbon interconnected by pathways of exchange. The reservoirs are the atmosphere, the terrestrial biosphere (which usually includes freshwater systems and non-living organic material, such as soil carbon), the oceans (which includes dissolved inorganic carbon and living and non-living marine biota), and the sediments (which includes fossil fuels).

The annual movements of carbon, the carbon exchanges between reservoirs, occur because of various chemical, physical, geological, and biological processes. The ocean contains the largest active pool of carbon near the surface of the Earth, but the deep ocean part of this pool does not rapidly exchange with the atmosphere.

The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere - biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide.

Now that we've had our science lesson, maybe crucilandia you could deign to respond to the question in my earlier post:

Posted By: snowboy
at 2:23 PM GMT on April 10, 2007.

"crucilandia, please elaborate on your views of the carbon cycle, on why you think it is not in a state of dynamic equilibrium, and what mysterious upper limits you are positing to the ability of the atmosphere and oceans to absorb CO2?"

wickipedia is not peer-reviewed source.

I think they are "The Great Global Warming Swindle" People! read what scientists say about what they pretend :Link

crucliandia, who cares if wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed source? It is a valuable public on-line in formation source. I simply used it to help make a point you seemed to be having trouble with. You're not a peer-reviewed source either, so I wouldn't be throwing stones at people in glass houses..

Meanwhile, crucilandia we're waiting for you to disclose the huge international conspiracy of climate scientists that led to the IPCC using manipulated data..

Moreover crucliandia, we're waiting for you to respond to the question in my earlier post (relating to other questionable comments of yours):

Posted By: snowboy
at 2:23 PM GMT on April 10, 2007.
"crucilandia, please elaborate on your views of the carbon cycle, on why you think it is not in a state of dynamic equilibrium, and what mysterious upper limits you are positing to the ability of the atmosphere and oceans to absorb CO2?"

..

snowboy
start familiarizing yourself with C cycle and ocean dynamics.

read
Sarmiento et al. (1998) Nature 393:245-249

who cares if wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed source?

Everyone that does not base their knowledge in unscientific sources

snowboy

Since you alredy "know" that Earth's C cycle is in dynamic equilibrium, why dont you give us some proof of that?

Hint: dynamic equilibrium is the condition in which two opposing processes are occurring simultaneouly at equal rates.

So as we see the co2 warming the planet this can happen? What about rising oceans causing Landslides,Earthquakes, Volcano's etc etc.??


Link

snowboy

but thank you for reminding me.

"what mysterious upper limits you are positing to the ability of the atmosphere and oceans to absorb CO2?"

Here is a list of constraints on Earth's ability to UPTAKE CO2
1. Capacity constraints-
Reactions between CO2 and carbonate ions determine how much the oceans can uptake CO2. But oceans have limited ability to buffer dy dissolved carbonate and to buffer by sediment CaCO3. Land has limitation to buffer by weathering.

2.Kinetics constraints
Only a small fraction of the ocean has equilibrated with anthropogenic emission rates in the last 200y. so there is a rate limitation on the processes tha control oceanic uptake of CO2. For example, air-sea gas exchange dependent on piston velocity and downward rate in which CO2 is transported to the deep ocean. Biotic limitation due to limited rate in which phytoplankton uptakes C from seawater globally.

Now, you explain it to me that all processes in the C cycle have equal rates, and I will believe that we are in dynamic equilibrium.

blah blah blah, you must be a literal-minded chemist. I'm using the term "dynamic equilibrium" to explain processes that are complex, interwoven, proceeding at different rates, under different conditions.

But seen over geologic time, the earth's carbon cycle is akin to a system in dynamic equilibrium - add a surplus of carbon in once place, and it will eventually be distributed across the system. If it weren't, atmospheric CO2 levels would be MUCH higher as a result of anthropogenic emissions..

dynamic equilibrium" to explain processes that are complex, interwoven, proceeding at different rates, under different conditions.


Sorry but you are using terms that you don't understand to explain things you don't know.

From desertdisaster: Crucilandia, were do you get the idea that the IPCC is using manipulated data?
Give me some solid proof, so we can start an investigation.
I'll reiterate desertdisaster's question: where is your evidence that the IPCC scientist "manipulated" data crucilandia?
This is the first time I've heard of such a claim. I used to be a global warming skeptic until I started reading the data from IPCC's 2001 Climate Change The Scientific Basis.

atom

I believe in global warming but not that it is solely due to humans

right on michelSTL

Here is the most annoying aspect of debating a global warming alarmist - the rude comments if you don't agree with their twisted views.

Eventhough I do agree that increases in CO2 will account for warming, just not to the extent that the IPCC report states (yes, i did read the entire thing). Now my tounge is forked and I'm the devil. Good one...especially when having a scientific debate the alarmists still find wiggle room to insult.

The reason I even use the term 'alarmist' is because unlike most people that do believe that CO2 is causing a rise in temperatures (which I am included), the magnitude of the said warming is being grossly exaggerated to get world governments to comply to doomsday predictions.

Regarding Venus...

Venus is completely unlike earth in almost every way. First of all, contrary to popular belief, Venus receives almost half of it's warmth due to absorbtion of UV rays, which Venus does very efficiently. Furthermore, even though Venus has a atmosphere which is 96% CO2, its atmospheric pressure is 100 times greater than Earth's. There's 100 times more air on Venus than Earth.

Earth's CO2ppm= 385
Venus CO2ppm= 960,000

That's almost 2,500 times more CO2 per unit of 1,000,000. When factoring in the atmospheric pressure (x100) there's 250,000 times more CO2 by volume. Venus will NEVER be a suitable comparison.

Oh, it is also much closer to the sun...you know, a minor contributing factor...

Actually the fact the Venus is slightly closer (about 20 million miles) is indeed slight (astronomically speaking). You are correct about CURRENT conditions of Venus. But it is hypothesized that Venus started off very much like Earth however runaway green house lead to it being the solar system's hot spot. Furthermore, Earth and Venus are almost identical in diameter and mass.
Earth would be about -30 degrees C cooler than it is currently thanks to green house gases(yes CO2 can be beneficial).
To repond to comments above the 2001 Scientific Basis it is a scientific document, i.e. written and peer reviewed by climatalogists. The policy version and mitigation version are written by government enviromental officials and are biased e.g. according to the recent Scientific American - officials from China and the US wanted models that showed more extreme climate change eliminated from the report.
Finally, you are correct crucilandia according to James Hansen, PhD about 50% of current global warming is due to the brightening of the Sun. The remainder - anthroprogenic sources.
My concern is that by all indications anthropogenic sources of green house gases are contributing to global warming and...we don't know all the effects some will be beneficial many will be catastrophic but...let's not experiment with the only home we have. Let's decrease CO2 concentrations that are emitted with all do haste.
Crucilandia please answer my question above...thanks.

crucilandia, have we been arguing to no purpose?! I would certainly never suggest that the currently observed global warming is solely due to humans.

There are several factors which are potentially contributing to global warming:
1) human greenhouse gas emissions;
2) solar inputs and cycles;
3) human land use changes, and other atmospheric changes (eg. aerosols);
4) other natural greenhouse gas emissions.

Of these, the science currently suggests on the order of 80% due to human greenhouse gas emissions, and up to 20% solar variations, with 3 and 4 taking up the rest. We can argue about the percentages, but can't agree on this big picture?

good morning snowboy

I aggree with the big picture. Combating CO2 will help to decrease pollution of other compounds and byproducts of industry that goes to rivers and oceans,etc.

But I still believe that CO2 does not contribute with 80% of the warming trend we see in the past 200ys

I don't like using temperature as a measure of heat increase. I prefer the true measure of heat content (Watts) and the rate each component of the system contributes absorbing or emitting (W/m2)

the total infrared tapping increased 1.5W/m2 in the last 200ys. Troposphere ozone added 0.35W/m2 (23%), soot 0.2W/m2 (13%) change in solar forcing 0.3W/m2 (20%) water vapor based on CH4 breakdown - therefore underestimation- 0.02W/m2 (1.3%). Just here we have 57% duet to other sources than co2.

Pre-industrial CO2 forcing was 50W/m2 today it increased by 1.46W/m2 thus a 3% increase of the natural CO2 forcing.

1.46W/m2 gives you an increase of 2.4C but we only measured an increase of 0.4C. Therefore just adding CO2 does not mean the temperature will increase proportionally.

atomoexp

Could you remind me of your question?

“Global Warming theorists with the IPCC have grossly manipulated the data to arrive at their pre-determined conclusions,” said David R. Legates, NCPA Adjunct Scholar and associate professor and director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. For example:

The historical climate reconstruction in the IPCC report primarily used tree ring records to infer air temperature trends for past centuries.
Then, the surface temperature record of the 20th century was attached to the end of the proxy record—although instrumental air temperature readings are not directly comparable to proxy records.
Putting the two different sets of data together created a “hockey stick” appearing to show a dramatic rise in temperatures during the 1990s.
“IPCC authors compare apples to oranges in order to arrive at their pre-determined destination,” said Legates. “Policy makers should know about this faulty science before they support policies to reduce global warming that are unnecessary, costly and ineffective.”

The question is whether or not the data has been "manipulated"? I guess it depends on what volume of information that the IPCC produces. Apparently there are three main publication 1. Climate Change 2005: Adaptation and Vulnerability; 2. Climate Change 2005: Mitigation (apparantly written by policy wonks); 3. Climate Change 2005: The Scientific Basis. Lastly, they generate a document called Climate Change 2005: Synthesis Report (why the IPCC doesn't refer to this as their fourth publication? Who knows!)
Apparently, the Synthesis Report (called the "summary report" in the Scientific American article that I read - pg 16 and 19 April 2007 issue) is where politicans from participating countries could edit results that they didn't like. {Erratum - I named the US the nation that wanted the ommission it was really Saudia Arabia a close ally to America.} Usually these edits removed model interepation, for example, that a nation(s) didn't like e.g. Piers Forster found that 0.12 watt/m2 of positive forcing energy whereas green house gases contributed 1.6 watt/m2. The offended nations wanted the green house gas contribution lowered to 0.6 watt/m2. The end result according to Scientific American was a more "conservative" document vs a document that stated the full range of postulated climate conditions e.g. melting of the Greenland ice sheet - also nixed.
So my point - if anything documents produced by the IPCC appear to be relatively restrained.

Sullivan,
Sorry about the forked tong thing! Should not have said that!

I am a bit Alarmist because I am afraid that the children of our children will suffer a great deal if we do not start to adapt and try to reduce the impacts of global warming. Lots of species (vegetal & animal) are already disappearing forever and the rate is accelerating. I think we will go trough some very serious change. (Sorry for thinking that) I live in the woods on top of a mountain & I am already witnessing the changes! and this is only the beginning! My situation is not that bad compare to the hundreds of millions of people that will be affected.

I don’t think we should ignore the warnings from the scientific community. As it always happened in human history. When things turned for the worst, the voices screaming out & loud that there was nothing to worry about, simply vanished!

I just don’t like seeing history repeating itself.

desert

You can't fight nature in a global scale. Extinctions happened throughout the las 4 billion years. We need to stop destructing natural habitats, unecessary killing for sport and collectiing exotic animals. Global warming is a drop of water in the ocean.

so much natural forests are cut and replaced by optimum harvest species, millions of km2 are cleaned for monoculture-wheat conrn soy sugar cane-, cleaning of forest land for planting grass for cattle world wide. Millions of animals dye in this process, those that survive are shot by farmes because they don't have what to eat and pray on farm animals, birds eat seeds and are poisoned, etc. no more belts for land migration, rivers a damed and fish can't reproduce. overfishing in ocean and rivers worldwide, on and on and on...... endless. I see kids with BB guns everyday on the streets killing birds up on the wires just for fun. If you say something the parent comes with a real gun and threatens you.

You should worry about human society in the future more than what the weather will throw at your grandsons.

Desertdisaster,

Don't worry 'bout it.

While changes in climate could very well spell doom for species, a bigger problem they face are human invasion and introduction of foreign species.

We slash and burn huge ecosystems, dam rivers and the like. Look at the invasive mollusks in the Great Lakes that are decimating the native population, the cane toad in Austrailia, Africanized bees, the list goes on. No natrual predators, no competition. You see examples of this in the natrual world and in reality that's what humans are to all species in this world. I'm not saying we should vanquish ourselves from this planet, what I'm saying is that if a certain species is already weak, we'll kill them off way before climate does just by our invasivness.

The reason why more and more people are going to be at risk from hunger and water scarcity is by sheer over-population. The population of the under-developed world is expected to triple by 2080. One would only expect that these areas would see a three fold increase in malnourishment. All one has to do is extrapolate.

Just look at what happened to the Mayan civilization, which collapsed after a decimating mega-drought. This was only 1,000 years ago and within the relative 'stability' of our recent climate. Even some of the modern day Sahara enjoyed much wetter times in the last 10,000 years.

What this should teach us is that trying to guage whether the global climate is stable or not by global temperature is simply foolish. Climate changes within periods of temperature stability.

So there is nothing very positive about the future, if I hear you well? But should we just sit and watch it go to hell until it's our turn?

no desert

Parents and schools should teach children of how humans can affect and change the environment in very very short terms. Way faster than any other climatological change.

If the new generations still maintain the lifestile and disregard with nature, nothing will change. I will only get worse. Our generation is unchangeable.

Act locally

If I may take off my scientist cap and put on my citizen's - no you should take action desertdisaster. I'm assuming that you are a US citizen like myself and unfortunately America is the biggest contributor of green house gases (ghgs) in the world. In addition, the US uses greater than a quarter of the worlds oil and other resources. The USA only possesses 5% of the population yet we use a quarter of everything - we are the biggest pigs on the planet. Obviously, we can take steps towards increased efficiency, decreased consumption (who needs all the useless junk from Wal-Mart el al. anyway), and a foreign/domestic policy that serves the needs of the majority of human beings and not the wealthiest (but most powerful) 1%.
Sullivanweather - you are in error no climatologist is just observing "global temperature" trends. Climatologists are examining trends in ghgs and their sources and sinks. Why? As I stated above the Earth's temperature should be about -30 degrees C (astronomers used established physics equations to determine this back in the nineteenth century!). The reason for this is due to these potentially dangerous ghgs. Yes they are at low concentrations but they cause disproporinate effects. Furthermore, one of the ghgs CO2 has not had concentrations as high as 380 ppm in 650,000 years. Finally, temperature has followed ghgs concentrations during the past 650,000 years and in all probabilty for much longer.
My point - it is unreasonable and immoral, knowing what we know, to continue this wreckless global experiment without restraint.
One final note - the growing human population is a huge concern for obvious reasons however a. the growth rate is slowing and b. the majority of the population of the Earth are not consuming most of the resources - the developed world is.
Two uncontrolled experiments with almost certainly grim consequences - however as a US citizens we can have a disproportionately affect on - anthropogenic ghg emissions.
NOTE: I apologize for not citing my references but I am at work and I don't have them at hand. I promise to list some of my sources later. Thanks for your patience.

thanks Atmexp. You are right. Hope this info will help people to start thinking coherently.

Thanks for removing your scientist cap for a moment Atmoexp. I already do what I can, but there is only so much one can do!

here is some reference to back you up

http://exploreourpla.net/global-warming/emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita-by-region-2003.html

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions

Andres, R.J., Marland, G., Fung, I. and Matthews, E.: 1996, ‘,A 1∘×1∘ distribution of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption and cement manufacture, 1950–1990’, Global Biogeochemical Cycles 10, 419–429.

this a cool one

http://images.wri.org/cait_usregions_big.gif

Huge concert to raise climate awareness.

Live Earth concerts will be held July 7 in cities around the world, including London, aimed at raising climate change awareness.

Madonna, the Beastie Boys and Black Eyed Peas will headline the concert at Wembley stadium in London. They will be joined by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Keane, Foo Fighters and others.

Headliners for the U.S. concert at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, include Bon Jovi, Dave Matthews Band, Kanye West, Rihanna, John Mayer, Smashing Pumpkins and Fall Out Boy, it was announced Tuesday.

Other shows will take place in Shanghai, China; Johannesburg, South Africa; Sydney, Australia; Tokyo; and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Organizers have also promised an event in Antarctica.

The concerts mark the start of a new campaign called Save Our Selves, The Campaign for a Climate in Crisis.

"This monster lineup will ensure Live Earth meets our goal of bringing together people from around the world to combat the climate crisis," Live Earth Founder and Executive Producer Kevin Wall said in a statement Tuesday. "Musicians who have answered our call span multiple genres and generations."

The concerts will be broadcast in the U.S. by General Electric Co.'s NBC network and on more than 120 networks around the world, and streamed live online.

Promoters hope the concerts will reach an audience of 2 billion people. Proceeds will create a foundation to combat climate change led by The Alliance for Climate Protection, which is chaired by former Vice President Al Gore.

Organizers have also promised an event in Antarctica

this is outrageous!

Antarctica is not suppose to be inhabited/colonized. It is a place solely for research. This is absurd. I was very disapointed with the scientific community when my roomate came from Palmer station and told me that they have small shopping mall type of comerce, movie theater, and pubs! What ever.
If PIs cannot do what it takes to work in antarctica withou their luxuries and avioding as much as possible not to disturbe the environment they have no business working there, send their gradstudents that are willing to leave under tought conditions for a few months.

these concerts are another wolf in sheeps closing to tap on Money on behalf of global warming propaganda. Another good example how people will use this to make money.

Here are my belated references:

information about Venus and effect of Earth's ghg - New Light on the Solar System, Special Edition; Scientifc American; Universe,by Roger A. Freedman and William J Kaufmann III, 6th edition;
James Hansen article - "Defusing The Global Warming Time Bomb", pg 68-77 Scientific American March 2004
Clarification: James Hansen states in this article that "since 1850" the atmospheric forcing effects has been "1.6 + or - 1.0 watt per square meter." Earlier in the article Hansen claims that..."evidence of a small solar brightening over the past 150 years implies a climate forcing of a few tenths of a watt per square meter"...at the surface. According to the IPCC in their Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis pg 45 - ..."forcing of the climate system due to solar irradiance change is estimated to be 0.3 + or - 0.2 Wm^2 for the period 1750 to present". 0.3/1.6=0.1875*100=18.75%. Where I got 50% is beyond me...not a good idea to rely on my faulty memory!
Thanks for the great references crucilandia.

atmoexp

Anytime.

Thank you for sharing yours too.