Climate change / global warming

[shapenaji]

Crux, I think you're strongly misrepresenting that NASA report... How about presenting the rest of it, you know, the part where they said that the Antarctic gains are dwarfed by arctic losses and that it's likely due to changes in atmospheric circulation?

Well, I posted the link, and I'm doing so in the hope that people read them. If you wish to quibble about such things I could also point out that Arctic ice loss in 2012 wasn't solely driven by temperature but also by a mere weather event: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-seaicemin.html.

EDIT: let me also point out again that historically, variations in Arctic temperature and sea ice are not a new phenomenon. In addition to the two newspaper links I posted earlier, here are a few more:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/42667524
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23668813
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/40934044
and going back furthest I could find so far, http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

I'll quote some of that report, from 1922: "[...] it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigtsen, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says that he first noted wanner conditions in 1915, that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1865 to 1917. Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared." But please do go and read the whole thing, then compare to the reports we are currently worrying about.

Your first article does quote a weather event,

However, You're not applying reading comprehension. The article states that the ice has been weakening over the past 3 decades, and that the reason why the weather event succeeded so brilliantly in allowing the arctic to achieve the minimum was that the ice was weakened.

The other articles are pre-satellite data, they're incomparables.

[Ortho]

...This book called Reinventing Fire is really worth reading.

$32 Kindle edition!

[SmoothOper]

Our planet is not an adiabatic system.

I was thinking more of the ideal gas laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

Specifically the relationship between the volume of the system the amount of molecules in the system and the temperature, since hypothetically pressure would be essentially constant do to expansion.

What is a low pressure system anyway, and why is it warmer?

[shapenaji]

Our planet is not an adiabatic system.

I was thinking more of the ideal gas laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

Specifically the relationship between the volume of the system the amount of molecules in the system and the temperature, since hypothetically pressure would be essentially constant do to expansion.

What is a low pressure system anyway, and why is it warmer?

This may be useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_height

Gravity is a conservative force, it does no work, and thus can't generate heat on its own (though it can transfer energy). Hence, gravity does not support our atmosphere.

In absence of the sun, the atmosphere would gradually radiate all its energy, and end up considerably smaller. (Not totally flat, since the earth does exude some of its internal heat)

EDIT: It is better to say that warm conditions generate lower pressure, the air expands. Hence the lower pressure system will be warmer because if it were colder, it would be denser.

[Bill Spight]

What I object to is the overselling of global warming, this desperate need that some people feel to make the case and grasping at everything that could be used to scare people and attributing it to global warming. That is what turns people like me into skeptics once they catch on.

Let me remind you that I said what first made me think that global warming was a serious problem was the political backlash against it. That started some years before any fear mongering.

Where we differ, I think, is that you think that the scientists are the fear mongers.

there was apparently even an IPCC report saying that no connection between extreme events and climate change has been convincingly demonstrated. Again, however, the media tell a different story, and the public believe in the heat wave = global warming or Sandy = global warming meme. Does this systematic disinformation not bother you?

Well, I do not see such systematic disinformation. However, extreme weather (which does not just mean a heat wave or Sandy) is a prediction that follows from global climate change, and is therefore evidence of it. If people overreact, that is too bad, but that is no reason to ignore evidence.

You may think I am sheeplike in taking Al Gore's flood footage at face value, but the drivel pouring out on the denier side of this is unbelievable.

And Al Gore's flood footage is not drivel? Is this not a layman with an agenda trying to manipulate the masses? (Bill, your comments?)

I did not watch Gore's movie, nor do I have any desire to. You can't conclude anything about the science from the politics.

[SmoothOper]

Our planet is not an adiabatic system.

I was thinking more of the ideal gas laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

Specifically the relationship between the volume of the system the amount of molecules in the system and the temperature, since hypothetically pressure would be essentially constant do to expansion.

What is a low pressure system anyway, and why is it warmer?

This may be useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_height

Gravity is a conservative force, it does no work, and thus can't generate heat on its own (though it can transfer energy). Hence, gravity does not support our atmosphere.

In absence of the sun, the atmosphere would gradually radiate all its energy, and end up considerably smaller. (Not totally flat, since the earth does exude some of its internal heat)

EDIT: It is better to say that warm conditions generate lower pressure, the air expands. Hence the lower pressure system will be warmer because if it were colder, it would be denser.

That is close, but what I described seems more like the basic assumption in an atmospheric model based on ideal gasses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_models

[shapenaji]

That is close, but what I described seems more like the basic assumption in an atmospheric model based on ideal gasses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_models

Well, Pressure is not constant throughout our atmosphere...

Pressure varies based on height and temperature, according to the equations laid out in that piece on the scale height.

Edit: More specifically,

Temperature is determined experimentally, at that point, they can get the relationship between pressure and height (related to volume, since you can think of this as applying to a column of air)

So the heat content of the atmosphere is one of the assumptions of the model, the model won't perform very well to determine the temperature change.

[SmoothOper]

That is close, but what I described seems more like the basic assumption in an atmospheric model based on ideal gasses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_models

Well, Pressure is not constant throughout our atmosphere...

Pressure varies based on height and temperature, according to the equations laid out in that piece on the scale height.

I assume that can be integrated out so that the important relationship becomes the relationship between Mass and Temperature with Mean Mass being the most affected by increased levels of CO2 due to its relatively high mass.

EDIT: it isn't an inverse relation ship.

[shapenaji]

I assume that can be integrated out so that the important relationship becomes the relationship between Mass and Temperature with Mean Mass being the most affected by increased levels of CO2 due to its relatively high mass.

EDIT: it isn't an inverse relation ship.

The mass change of the atmosphere due to increased carbon is minimal. You'll see basically no change in the scale height based on that. The important part is the change in the "opaqueness" of the atmosphere.

[jts]

I assume that can be integrated out so that the important relationship becomes the relationship between Mass and Temperature with Mean Mass being the most affected by increased levels of CO2 due to its relatively high mass.

EDIT: it isn't an inverse relation ship.

The mass change of the atmosphere due to increased carbon is minimal. You'll see basically no change in the scale height based on that. The important part is the change in the "opaqueness" of the atmosphere.

pssst.... let him go back under the bridge

[HermanHiddema]

@shapenaji: don't feed the trolls.

[SmoothOper]

I assume that can be integrated out so that the important relationship becomes the relationship between Mass and Temperature with Mean Mass being the most affected by increased levels of CO2 due to its relatively high mass.

EDIT: it isn't an inverse relation ship.

The mass change of the atmosphere due to increased carbon is minimal. You'll see basically no change in the scale height based on that. The important part is the change in the "opaqueness" of the atmosphere.

But the atmosphere can just undergo free expansion, so the perceived temperature is still about the same, even if it traps energy, except for the minimal effect due to the change in mass.

[aokun]

Unusual weather and storms have been occurring forever, and only selective perception makes people think that recent instances are unusual. It should be easy to find more links like these two I googled just now:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/10-biggest-snowstorms.htm
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/the-10-biggest-storms-in-recorded-history.htm
What I object to is the overselling of global warming, this desperate need that some people feel to make the case and grasping at everything that could be used to scare people and attributing it to global warming. That is what turns people like me into skeptics once they catch on.

From what I've seen I'll agree with you, the scientists do seem to say that, and there was apparently even an IPCC report saying that no connection between extreme events and climate change has been convincingly demonstrated. Again, however, the media tell a different story, and the public believe in the heat wave = global warming or Sandy = global warming meme. Does this systematic disinformation not bother you?

Ok, just so we're clear. Scientists and the IPCC have been good on this and it's the shallow, alarmist, ill-informed media that have been stoking things. Well, then I'm going to be alarmed because careful, cautious, thorough scientists who don't make outrageous claims and aren't in the media all the time seem to be rather alarmed as well. Yesterday the scientists were secretive and manipulative, so that's a change, but it's a big field, so ok. And while the noise factor and the difficulty of defining or measuring "extreme" weather make attribution of causation hard, I've heard nobody reputable except the weather channel hurricane guy saying they can conclude the extreme events that were predicted and have happened are _not_ due to climate change.

The hurricane guy ... and now you. I can see perhaps why you don't want us to use google. You used it and seem to suggest we form a conclusion about the time distribution of extreme weather from two media-style top ten lists, including one of no relevance. Snowstorm severity, and I'm not googling so I could be a bit wrong, is not driven by cold air but by warm water. Yes, more cold wind other things equal may produce more snow, but blizzards that wind up on top 10 lists come from warmer than usual water. A few years back when we had some very heavy snow in the States, Sen. Inhofe went out and built an igloo or snowman or something in DC to mock Al Gore and to have a media event decrying media manipulation that was twisting the climate discussion. Look at all this global warming, he said, pointing to the snow. That winter was not drastically colder than other winters, but the Atlantic was warmer (and Canada and much of Russia drastically warmer btw), causing there to be plenty of moisture for the lake effect to dump masses of snow. Of course, we can't attribute that to global warming, but the water, as predicted decades ago, was warmer, and the winter winds, by a mechanism known for a long time, dumped it up and down the East Coast as snow. So the Oklahoma oaf is perfectly likely to have been right. All that snow mounded around him _was_ global warming. We'll just have to wait 20 years to form a conclusion.

You seem to have formed the opinion that between this uncertainty and all the others, we owe it to our children not to try to modify our economy.

[SmoothOper]

Unusual weather and storms have been occurring forever, and only selective perception makes people think that recent instances are unusual. It should be easy to find more links like these two I googled just now:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/10-biggest-snowstorms.htm
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/the-10-biggest-storms-in-recorded-history.htm
What I object to is the overselling of global warming, this desperate need that some people feel to make the case and grasping at everything that could be used to scare people and attributing it to global warming. That is what turns people like me into skeptics once they catch on.

From what I've seen I'll agree with you, the scientists do seem to say that, and there was apparently even an IPCC report saying that no connection between extreme events and climate change has been convincingly demonstrated. Again, however, the media tell a different story, and the public believe in the heat wave = global warming or Sandy = global warming meme. Does this systematic disinformation not bother you?

Ok, just so we're clear. Scientists and the IPCC have been good on this and it's the shallow, alarmist, ill-informed media that have been stoking things. Well, then I'm going to be alarmed because careful, cautious, thorough scientists who don't make outrageous claims and aren't in the media all the time seem to be rather alarmed as well. Yesterday the scientists were secretive and manipulative, so that's a change, but it's a big field, so ok. And while the noise factor and the difficulty of defining or measuring "extreme" weather make attribution of causation hard, I've heard nobody reputable except the weather channel hurricane guy saying they can conclude the extreme events that were predicted and have happened are _not_ due to climate change.

The hurricane guy ... and now you. I can see perhaps why you don't want us to use google. You used it and seem to suggest we form a conclusion about the time distribution of extreme weather from two media-style top ten lists, including one of no relevance. Snowstorm severity, and I'm not googling so I could be a bit wrong, is not driven by cold air but by warm water. Yes, more cold wind other things equal may produce more snow, but blizzards that wind up on top 10 lists come from warmer than usual water. A few years back when we had some very heavy snow in the States, Sen. Inhofe went out and built an igloo or snowman or something in DC to mock Al Gore and to have a media event decrying media manipulation that was twisting the climate discussion. Look at all this global warming, he said, pointing to the snow. That winter was not drastically colder than other winters, but the Atlantic was warmer (and Canada and much of Russia drastically warmer btw), causing there to be plenty of moisture for the lake effect to dump masses of snow. Of course, we can't attribute that to global warming, but the water, as predicted decades ago, was warmer, and the winter winds, by a mechanism known for a long time, dumped it up and down the East Coast as snow. So the Oklahoma oaf is perfectly likely to have been right. All that snow mounded around him _was_ global warming. We'll just have to wait 20 years to form a conclusion.

You seem to have formed the opinion that between this uncertainty and all the others, we owe it to our children not to try to modify our economy.

I personally am hesitant to question global warming, because I feel reducing reliance on fossil fuels is a good idea anyway, many scientists may also feel this way.

[aokun]

And Al Gore's flood footage is not drivel? Is this not a layman with an agenda trying to manipulate the masses? (Bill, your comments?) The problem is that judging by the responses here, he actually has an influence on public opinion - people, even highly intelligent people, believe his stuff even when there's no evidence for it. The various crackpot ideas you quoted are just held by a few. I think it is dangerous to accept the spreading of obvious untruths for the sake of a good cause.

Al Gore's work is pretty good. It is alarmist but he is right to be alarmed and he is a politician, not a scientist, so, yes, he has an agenda. I would way, way rather people got their information from scientists and dispassionate policy analysts and not from Al getting weepy and showing pictures of polar bears. Trouble is, people ignored scientists and analysts. For years. You want dry, careful guys with pocket protectors? We've got legions. For a long time, scientists and analysts went up against media guys from the other side and, in America anyway, lost. Politically, nothing worked and nobody paid attention until Al shaved, worked out a bit and hit the road. So successful was it that the other side (and it is a side) tooled up and got busy, continuing to belittle Gore and all the scientists you seem to say you'd rather pay attention to.

And his work is not drivel. It is been gone over frame by frame, not only by interested hobbyists but by paid lobbyists, parliamentary committees, courts and who knows else, and none of the flubs they found were substantive, not even CO2 lag. But if you feel it is drivel, then please pay attention to those quiet scientists. If you want to know how much reliance I think we should place on Al Gore's conclusions in deciding what policies if any to implement, I say zero. If in the meantime, he wins some arguments that no one else could, fine.

Al Gore's mistakes, by the way, bear no comparison to the crackpot stuff from the other side, Ian Plimer or Joanna Nova or Sen. Inhofe or Lord Wosname of Wherzifrom or James Delingpole or most of them.