News   Jul 03, 2024
 370     0 
News   Jul 03, 2024
 277     0 
News   Jul 02, 2024
 1.3K     0 

Harper makes us proud once again

Hydrogen, have you heard of the concept of Global Dimming? For those who haven't, Global dimming is the reduction in sunlight reaching the planet's surface due to high concentrations of particulate matter in the air from the burning of pretty much everything. Scientists in the field are concerned because one would expect a decrease in global temperatures with dimming, but for some reason, the temperatures were still increasing. Stringent air pollution laws were put in effect in Europe, and with every decrease in particulate matter concentrations, there was a relative increase in temperature. The fear now, as more countries are moving to improving air quality, that global warming will only increase as CO2 continues to pool and the full radiant energy of the sun reaches the earth again and warms it more... and that climate models are actually skewed lower than they should be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
 
Hydrogen - as you know, we have jousted over this issue about global warming back on the 'Al Gore Wins Nobel Prize' thread. And it must be frustrating to see it popping up all over the UT in different forms. Much to my surprise (but in all honesty, to my delight) polls among Canadians are showing a shift in the direction of supporting the global-warming argument of late, and I will attempt to place that on this thread rather than assume that everyone knows that.

This government is not particularly interested in these issues, neither is President Bush in the US, and a number of the like-minded politicians who believe this is all a sham by people they don't trust in the first place. Mertonian "negative reference" as it were.

Perhaps you can gather enough support for your position, after all it is your background, but I think that the scientific community has been more supportive of these global-warming views, overall, than you are obviously willing to accept. You have argued that their broad views are biased, and generated on the head of a pin in measuring small differentials over relatively short time spans, and quickly declaring a trend. On that you may be correct, but I think they could counter that this is not an attempt to create evidence, but rather to observe it in great detail to test the theory. I hasten to add, as I did before, that the people that share this global-warming view in the scientific community are indeed worldwide, not just the preserve of the oddball and the overly politicised groups that you have rightly pointed out. You might want to acknowledge still further, that some of that resistance to global-warming is also politicised. Once you have removed both politicised groups, you should be left with the legitimate divide, and I too am only concerned with that part of the discussion.

We only dealt with NASA before, but you are certainly aware that they are not the only ones. You might say they are just the tip of the 'iceberg' in support of the global-warming theory - but this is not really a contest based on votes now is it?

Again, I am not suggesting that there is only one way to think on this matter - my way or those that support the global-warming theory until proven otherwise. I just wish you would respect this difference of opinion on this topic where it is legitimate, rather than rapidly dismissing it for all venues, even those where clearly the issue is not political, but philosophical and evidentiary. I have been observing your defences to-date: they are consistent, passionate and worth listening to within the confines that this forum presents. But accepting a legitimate counter-argument is not an admission of being wrong. I for one, after already declaring my acceptance of the global-warming theory, still actively listen to both sides critically. I'd like to believe you will do the same.
 
The research has been published in numerous books and journals, including Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, Quarternary Science Reviews, Environmental Geology, Journal of Geophysical Research, Geology, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Energy and Environment, Journal of Climate, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Plant, Cell and Environment, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Space Science Reviews, Physics Letters, Journal of Atmospheric Science and many others. There is also the research of NASA, NOAA and the International Arctic Research Centre, among many others. You just have to look for it.

Can you give me some examples of articles that support your claims? Why have the organizations that you mention all come to different conclusions from yours?

The fact that research is ongoing should indicate that everything is not finished. One would think that this is obvious.

Of course it's not finished. One can't conclusively prove something like this until it's happened. Unfortunately, since it's our planet that we're talking about, that's rather too late.

As for the IPCC, it does not do original scientific research. The panel collects research that supports its views. It selects and edits, and does not present complete papers. And contrary to popular belief, it does not all consist of climatologists; most members of the IPCC are representatives of national governments and are not scientists. Have you read any of the IPCC reports? Seen one? Most of what gets reported in newspapers comes from the releases derived from the section outlining recommendations to policy makers. The science chapters have plenty of tentative language and passive phrasings. If this happens, this may be the result. The IPCC provides an immense range of what could happen based on climate models that have been selected because they support a view that C02 will warm the atmosphere. Based on a projected doubling of atmospheric C02, their scenario presents an average temperature increase of 1 to 4.5 degrees celsius. That's a big spread, and that alone suggest uncertainty with respect to the climate models selected to derive future predictions. Press stories typically report the high end projections.

I'm well aware of the nature of the IPCC and I have read several of their reports in detail. It is an organization that is made up of a huge number of scientists and others in the field and it synthesizes data from many others. I'd say that makes it pretty reputable.

Again, if you tax carbon dioxide emissions, you don't reduce carbon dioxide emissions. You are not going to be managing the tax systems of other countries, are you? To do reduce carbon dioxide emissions, you must change things at the source of the emission. If your goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions effectively, then you must look to direct means and invest in them.

You may know a lot about climate science, but you're not really displaying too much understanding of economics here. If you increase the cost of something elastic, consumption goes down. Therefore, you can set a tax at whatever level is needed to bring about a desired reduction. That is a change at the source of the emissions. You're taxing the source of the emissions. If I put a 5 cent tax on 5 cent pieces of bubble gum so that they now cost 10 cents, people would buy fewer pieces of bubble gum. You'd have to study the elasticity to determine how much less, but you can be sure that people would buy less. What happens in other countries is also irrelevant. We're talking about Canada here, and they can achieve their reductions by whatever means they choose.
 
Hydrogen, have you heard of the concept of Global Dimming? For those who haven't, Global dimming is the reduction in sunlight reaching the planet's surface due to high concentrations of particulate matter in the air from the burning of pretty much everything. Scientists in the field are concerned because one would expect a decrease in global temperatures with dimming, but for some reason, the temperatures were still increasing. Stringent air pollution laws were put in effect in Europe, and with every decrease in particulate matter concentrations, there was a relative increase in temperature. The fear now, as more countries are moving to improving air quality, that global warming will only increase as CO2 continues to pool and the full radiant energy of the sun reaches the earth again and warms it more... and that climate models are actually skewed lower than they should be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Sounds like we're doomed no matter what we do. Now, where's my tin foil beany?
 
Sounds like we're doomed no matter what we do. Now, where's my tin foil beany?

It does on the surface.. but just shows how complex the issue is, and why constant political bickering on this is getting us nowhere... governments on one hand are having no problem dealing with air pollution (particulates) while on the other hand, are dragging on dealing with climate change... you can't do that. Both problems have to be solved concurrently.
 
An interesting commentary on the latest NASA report that shows that 2007 Will be the 2nd Warmest on Record from Climateprogress.org

NASA: 2007 Second Warmest Year Ever, with Record Warmth Likely by 2010
According to NASA scientists:

Through the first 11 months, 2007 is the second warmest year in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean has entered the cool phase of its natural El Niño — La Niña cycle.

barring the unlikely event of a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2-3 years.


Even an “unusually cold” December, would only drop 2007 to the third warmest year ever. NASA points out:

The six warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 15 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1988.
Anyone notice a trend? And the most warming is far from the urban heat islands of major cities:

… the greatest warming has been in the Arctic. Polar amplification is an expected characteristic of global warming, as the loss of ice and snow engenders a positive feedback via increased absorption of sunlight. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low Arctic sea ice cover in September this year.

But couldn’t this all be the sun going through a phase of high solar radiation, a favorite explanation of those who deny that human-generated greenhouse gases are the primary cause of warming? No. As NASA explains:

The sun is another source of natural global temperature variability. Figure 3, based on an analysis of satellite measurements by Richard Willson, shows that 2007 is at the minimum of the current 10-11 year solar cycle. Another analysis of the satellite data (not illustrated here), by Judith Lean, has the 2007 solar irradiance minimum slightly lower than the two prior minima in the satellite era.

This cyclic solar variability yields a climate forcing change of about 0.3 W/m2 between solar maxima and solar minima…. Several analyses have extracted empirical global temperature variations of amplitude about 0.1°C associated with the 10-11 year solar cycle, a magnitude consistent with climate model simulations….

The solar minimum forcing is thus about 0.15 W/m2 relative to the mean solar forcing. For comparison, the human-made greenhouse gas climate forcing is now increasingly at a rate of about 0.3 W/m2 per decade. If the sun should remain ’stuck’ in its present minimum for several decades, as has been suggested in analogy to the solar Maunder Minimum of the seventeenth century, that negative forcing would be balanced by a 5-year increase of greenhouse gases. Thus such solar variations cannot have a substantial impact on long-term global warming trends.

Not only are we in a solar minimum, we are also in a cool phase for the Pacific Ocean:

The cooler than normal equatorial region to the west of South America reflects the building La Niña phase of the Southern Oscillation. In the La Niña phase of the El Niño-La Niña cycle the equatorial winds in the Pacific Ocean blow with stronger than average force from the east, driving warm surface waters toward the Western Pacific. This induces an upwelling of cold deep water near Peru, which then spreads westward along the equator.

What does this all mean?

The natural variations of the Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle thus have minor but not entirely insignificant effects on year-to-year temperature change. Given that both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, it makes the unusual warmth this year all the more notable. It also suggests that, barring the unlikely event of a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2-3 years.

As you may recall, a Science magazine article from August predicted “at least half of the years after 2009 [will] exceed the warmest year currently on record.”

Perhaps these record-breaking temperatures will finally move this country to action.
 
I hate to point this out, but I have quoted some of this same NASA information already to Hydrogen, see post above, which led to a long series of exchanges on that other thread.
 
As promised, I shall start with this:

Environment trumps economy, poll suggests

BILL CURRY
From Monday's Globe and Mail
January 29, 2007 at 7:46 AM EST

OTTAWA — Promising jobs and growth has been a central theme of political platforms ever since American strategist James Carville coined the phrase "It's the economy, stupid," to explain Bill Clinton's rise to the U.S. presidency.

But Canadians appear to be turning that conventional wisdom on its head as they grapple with the country's response to climate change and global warming.

A Strategic Counsel survey for The Globe and Mail and CTV found 62 per cent of those polled said Canadians would be willing to have the economy grow at a "significantly slower rate" to reduce global warming. …

SOURCE
 
Huh??????

I do not understand your point Hydrogen.

If you recall, you cited a recent change in the NASA report, and I noted that they were for US Temperatures not World Temperatures. Then I cited the man who created them - Hansen. Then I finally stated that both he and another NASA person, the latter compiling World Statistics, both agreed the US data had no impact on World Temperatures, which were still rising even with these figures included. Does this change any of that discussion - I don't think so.

Fortunately the thread will confirm what I am saying now: even if the US Temps have changed again, the primary point remains the same. From where I stand, you have done nothing more than re-confirm what I stated before.
 
Hydrogen, have you heard of the concept of Global Dimming? For those who haven't, Global dimming is the reduction in sunlight reaching the planet's surface due to high concentrations of particulate matter in the air from the burning of pretty much everything. Scientists in the field are concerned because one would expect a decrease in global temperatures with dimming, but for some reason, the temperatures were still increasing. Stringent air pollution laws were put in effect in Europe, and with every decrease in particulate matter concentrations, there was a relative increase in temperature. The fear now, as more countries are moving to improving air quality, that global warming will only increase as CO2 continues to pool and the full radiant energy of the sun reaches the earth again and warms it more... and that climate models are actually skewed lower than they should be.

You are talking about aerosols and sulfates. These are dealt with in the IPCC reports. While sulfates and aerosols have been reduced in Western industrialized nations, sulfate production has, overall, not fallen that much - due to the ever increasing and significant contributions from China, India and other developing nations.

It has been noted in the fourth IPCC report (2007) that sulfate production may not have decreased at all from its peak. In other words, sulfate levels have not fallen much below where they were in the late 1960’s, at the height of the global cooling phenomena, and are higher today than most of the period from 1940 to 1979 where their production is used to explain the lack of warming.

Sulfate and aerosol dimming effects only can be expected to operate mostly over land - which would limit their effect on global temperatures - since these effects would be having an impact on only a small portion of the globe.

Furthermore, it has been shown that this dimming is three times greater in urban areas close to where the sulfates are being produced. Ironically, urban areas show the greatest amount of warming, which in turn bias temperature records because too many meteorological surface stations are located in these urban areas and pick up that excess warming (the urban heat-island effect).
 
Hydrogen - yes, the dimming is significantly higher in urban areas due to increased particulate matter, but the urban heat island is not dependent on heat from the sun The urban heat island is retained heat in buildings. You should know that.... the latency in heat retained in concrete and other building materials far exceeds any cooling effect caused by dimming. Hence why Green Roofs are so necessary in our cities. I'm disappointed in you, because you seem to have a very advanced understanding and I can concede that there is much to be learned and agree with your counterpoints to an extent, but to nitpick a factoid like that and say that it's a contradiction is purely tripe.
 

Back
Top