Angela's Blog

Very nice Blog, Angela.
Looks a little Dismal, and really no end in sight....

Keep up the Fight.

Quoting angelafritz:


It's climate in that we're recording these extreme weather events over time. Climate is the sum of weather events over a month or more. How these events change over time is climate change.

One of the simplest, most rational posts I've seen on climate change (a simple fact, describing it).

Good luck Angela :)

co2now.org

What the world needs to watch

Global warming is mainly the result of CO2 levels rising in the Earth's atmosphere. Both atmospheric CO2 and climate change are accelerating. Climate scientists say we have years, not decades, to stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

To help the world succeed, CO2Now.org makes it easy to see the most current CO2 level and what it means. So, use this site and keep an eye on CO2. Invite others to do the same. Then we can do more to send CO2 in the right direction.

393.69ppm







Atmospheric CO2 for June 2011

Preliminary data released July 5, 2011 (Mauna Loa Observatory: NOAA-ESRL)

Thanks, Angela. I--we--look forward to your very knowledgeable insight.

BTW: are you working on a PhD? When do we get to call you "Dr. Fritz"? ;-)

www.climatepolicy.org

Good stuff from Dr. Rood,,as I missed this out in plain view on his links.

Quoting angelafritz:


It's climate in that we're recording these extreme weather events over time. Climate is the sum of weather events over a month or more. How these events change over time is climate change.

I have to disagree with you here, Angela.

Looking at the precipitation records over a long period of time, one can find that the Texas droughts are simply an anomaly.

The long term trend for Texas, is a slight increase in precipitation by 10% since the 1950s.

If the long term trends in Texas were less precipitation, then I would agree with you. But this is not the case.

Quoting angelafritz:
Although we know that an increase in extreme events, like the drought we're seeing in Texas, is a potential result of anthropogenic global warming, we won't know for a while if this year's drought is part of a new trend.

I agree that we won't know definitevely for a while. But things certainly seem to be pointing that way, if you ask me:

Stanford climate scientists forecast permanently hotter summers

The tropics and much of the Northern Hemisphere are likely to experience an irreversible rise in summer temperatures within the next 20 to 60 years if atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, according to a new climate study by Stanford University scientists. The results will be published later this month in the journal Climatic Change.

In the study, the Stanford team concluded that many tropical regions in Africa, Asia and South America could see "the permanent emergence of unprecedented summer heat" in the next two decades. Middle latitudes of Europe, China and North America -- including the United States -- are likely to undergo extreme summer temperature shifts within 60 years, the researchers found.

"According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years," said the study's lead author, Noah Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science and fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford. The study is co-authored by Stanford research assistant Martin Scherer.

- - - - - - - - - -

"When scientists talk about global warming causing more heat waves, people often ask if that means that the hottest temperatures will become 'the new normal,'" Diffenbaugh said. "That got us thinking -- at what point can we expect the coolest seasonal temperatures to always be hotter than the historically highest temperatures for that season?"


To determine the seasonal impact of global warming in coming decades, Diffenbaugh and Scherer analyzed more than 50 climate model experiments -- including computer simulations of the 21st century when global greenhouse gas concentrations are expected to increase, and simulations of the 20th century that accurately "predicted" the Earth's climate during the last 50 years. The analysis revealed that many parts of the planet could experience a permanent spike in seasonal temperatures within 60 years.

"We also analyzed historical data from weather stations around the world to see if the projected emergence of unprecedented heat had already begun," Diffenbaugh said. "It turns out that when we look back in time using temperature records, we find that this extreme heat emergence is occurring now, and that climate models represent the historical patterns remarkably well."

According to both the climate model analysis and the historical weather data, the tropics are heating up the fastest. "We find that the most immediate increase in extreme seasonal heat occurs in the tropics, with up to 70 percent of seasons in the early 21st century (2010-2039) exceeding the late-20th century maximum," the authors wrote.

Tropical regions may see the most dramatic changes first, but wide swaths of North America, China and Mediterranean Europe are also likely to enter into a new heat regime by 2070, according to the study.

- - - - - - - - - -

This dramatic shift in seasonal temperatures could have severe consequences for human health, agricultural production and ecosystem productivity, Diffenbaugh said. As an example, he pointed to record heat waves in Europe in 2003 that killed 40,000 people. He also cited studies showing that projected increases in summer temperatures in the Midwestern United States could reduce the harvest of staples, such as corn and soybeans, by more than 30 percent.

Diffenbaugh was surprised to see how quickly the new, potentially destructive heat regimes are likely to emerge, given that the study was based on a relatively moderate forecast of greenhouse gas emissions in the 21st century.

"The fact that we're already seeing these changes in historical weather observations, and that they match climate model simulations so closely, increases our confidence that our projections of permanent escalations in seasonal temperatures within the next few decades are well founded," Diffenbaugh said.

Eurekalert Article...

Quoting Snowlover123:


I have to disagree with you here, Angela.

Looking at the precipitation records over a long period of time, one can find that the Texas droughts are simply an anomaly.

The long term trend for Texas, is a slight increase in precipitation by 10% since the 1950s.

If the long term trends in Texas were less precipitation, then I would agree with you. But this is not the case.

An anomaly, yes. But some anomalies are more anomalous than others. In fact, they're so anomalous that they're also called "extremes". For instance, Texas just had its most "anomalously" hot June since records started being kept there in 1895, and that state just finished its most "anomalously" dry nine-month period (October-June) since 1895.

People can certainly claim that each of the extreme weather events recently are "just an anomaly"--but even they would be forced to admit there have been an awful lot of those anomalies. And to paraphrase the Stanford scientist I cited in comment #28: at what point do those anomalies become the norm?

Quoting cat5hurricane:

Actually, the vast majority of climatologists are forecasting a period very similar to what the U.S. experienced in the late 1970's and 1980's.

Which would be a period of rapid warming. Unfortunately, they're probably correct.

Quoting cat5hurricane:
Only this time, I think they will refrain from the knee-jerk impulsive reactions and thus rename Climate Change to Global Cooling, like they thought we were heading into the next ice age years ago.

Btw...you don't always have to disagree or play games with the new blogger, especially coming into her blog.

Oh, I'm sorry. Can you please point out where I "played games", or where I even disagreed with the very educated and knowledgeable Ms Fritz? I'd appreciate you doing so; as elsewhere on the the internet, I strive to maintain a level of honesty and civility here, so if you have evidence I've failed in that goal, by all means please share it with us. So far as I know, I made a statement, and backed up that statement by posting text from an article talking about an open-access, peer-reviewed piece discussing the rapid increase in warmth-inducing GHGs, and the effects that will likely cause. Was that wrong?

Oh, wait a sec. Looking back, I see that my comment began with the words "I agree that we won't know..."; did you somehow misread that as "I disagree that we won't know..."? Or did you perhaps mistake my comment for Snowlover23's in which he began, "I have to disagree with you here, Angela."? If so, please re-read my comment, then feel free to edit yours appropriately. Thanks!

Quoting angelafritz:


We don't disagree! This wasn't a climate change post, just the climate summary for June 2011.

Although we know that an increase in extreme events, like the drought we're seeing in Texas, is a potential result of anthropogenic global warming, we won't know for a while if this year's drought is part of a new trend.

I agree. :)

Quoting cat5hurricane:
@ 33:

Nice try. Trying to butter up to her after your rude and pretentious comments toward her in Master's Blog a few weeks back. Yes, because she is not a climatologist, that does not make her a climate expert. That's silly to think that. Furthermore, that does not give you the right to belittle her credentials and thus dismiss anything she says regarding climate just because she lacks that degree.

And though Jeff Master is also not a climatologist, I respect his view and perspective on weather and climate, regardless of a simple classification. Though we may not always see eye to eye on certain issues, I at least have enough dignity to hold my head high and still retaining values and etiquette.

Don't worry, It'll only be a matter of time before she sees right through your character, just like other's have already.

Sad.

You are not fooling anyone, anymore.

If you care to discuss this or any other non-climate/non-weather matters further, I politely suggest you send me a WU Mail; as it is, your repetition of these and other similar false accusations in any of the fora is probably a violation of Rule of the Road #1: "Please do not carry on personal disputes in the blogs.". At any rate, I'd like to keep my banless record intact, so I'm going to ignore any such future comments you. I think the site will be better off for it.

Thanks!

Quoting cat5hurricane:
@ 36:

Glad you are beginning to come around.

You realize though that a simple reply to my WU email would of sufficed instead of a comment about that on here? :-}

But yes, I do agree with you, and apologize to you and others here for carrying that on.

Regards,

I've found--and was reminded again last evening--that you're one of those who are prone to posting the contents of private WU-Mails in the public fora. IOW, whatever I WU-mailed you would just appear here anyway, so I thought, hey, why not just cut out the intermediate step? ;-)

The TYPE Carbon in Co2 matters Greatly



Fossil Fuel and Atmospheric Levels of Carbon Dioxide
1/9/2011 8:33:59 AM
By Richard Hilderman, Ph.D.


The atmosphere can handle about 700 billion tons of carbon. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been increasing since the industrial revolution. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which acts like a blanket in the atmosphere to trap heat (see my posting entitled Solar Activity, Greenhouse Gas Levels and Climate Change on Our Earth). Today the atmosphere contains about 800 billion tons of carbon and it continues to rise. How do we know that the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas contribute to the atmospheric carbon overload?

Carbon has a unique footprint which allows scientists to determine whether the burning of fossil fuel contributes to the atmospheric carbon overload. Carbon is composed of three isotopes which are carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14. Carbon consists mainly of the carbon-12 and carbon-13. A small amount of the carbon atom is the radioactive isotope carbon-14. In the upper atmosphere cosmic rays from the Sun react with nitrogen to create carbon-14. Carbon-14 is unstable and over time is converted back to nitrogen. After 60,000 years there is no carbon-14 remaining in the original sample because it has been completely converted to nitrogen.

Fossil fuel reservoirs are composed of coal, oil or natural gas and over time these reservoirs are buried deep in the ocean floor or underground. The carbon atoms found in both the atmosphere and initially in fossil fuel contain all three carbon isotopes (carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14). After 60,000 years fossil fuel contains only carbon-12 (all of the carbon-14 has been converted to nitrogen) but the atmosphere still maintains a healthy mixture of the three isotopes. Since it takes millions of years to create fossil fuel, the carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuel would no carbon-14. If the burning of carbon-based fossil releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the amount of carbon-14 isotope found in atmospheric carbon dioxide should decrease over time. Measurements of the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon dioxide do indeed demonstrate a steady decline of carbon-14. Furthermore, fossil fuel also contains a much lower amount of carbon-13 than does the atmosphere. Over time the amount of carbon-13 found in atmospheric carbon dioxide has decreased.

Clearly, the atmosphere’s carbon isotopic composition is changing and this change matches the isotope fingerprint of coal, oil and natural gas. This demonstrates that the burning of fossil fuel is partly responsible for the current atmospheric carbon overload.

There are three broad types of human activities that contribute to the amount of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) in the atmosphere: carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels; carbon dioxide emissions from cutting and burning of forest; and, the emission of methane (from livestock and rice cultivation) and nitrous oxide (from fertilizer use). Burning of fossil fuel accounts for 52-65 percent of the human-induced emissions while deforestation accounts for 12-25 percent and 23 percent comes from methane and nitrous oxide.

It is easy to understand that we can reduce the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide by converting to non-carbon renewable energy sources. Stopping deforestation will also reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, the creation of new forest by planting trees will also help reduce the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide because trees extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for photosynthetic activity. However, continued population growth will make the task of reducing methane and nitrous oxide emissions and deforestation more difficult because the expanding population will require more resources. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the world population needs to stabilize.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.

To get an overview, start with Summary: the Story in a Nutshell and then come back here.

Quoting cat5hurricane:

But remember, volcanoes have produced exponentially greater C02 at much faster rates than anything man has ever been responsible for. Food for thought with that gumbo.

If that's food for thought, you must be starving. ;-) That is, you may have been mislead somewhere along the way; there's no truth in what you wrote about volcanic vs. anthropogenic CO2. Here:

"Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world's degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

"The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year."

From Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview (USGS)

That same page notes that it would take the equivalent of 700 Mount Pinatubo-size eruptions, 3,500 Mount St. Helens-size eruptions, or 11,200 around-the-clock Kilauea eruptions to emit the amount of CO2 man releases annually.

There. Now you may eat. ;-)