APOD: Global Warming Predictions (2009 April 21)

[aristarchusinexile]

From the height of beaver dams I've seen this spring I suspect the beavers know a dry, hot summer is coming.

[BMAONE23]

BMAONE23 wrote:

"But, what has previously been pointed out in this and other discussions concerning global climate, a few years downturn is not reflective in "Climate" changes. It is only indicative of weather trends. According to your chart, the period between 2002 and 2007 saw a net increase in temperature of .11c. The downturn in temperature has only been since 2007. The year of 2007 saw a temperature drop of .7c but from 2008 to 2009 the temperature has rebounded by .18c If you look back at the 50 year trend (more climate pattern trend than weather induced fluctuation) you will see a different story than that shown by your limiting graph"

You present data from the U.S. National Surface Temperature data set. If you will examine the presentation at http://www.surfacestations.org/, you will see that the quality of the data is not as good as would be desired. A majority of the recording stations do not meet the published requirements and are seriously influenced by things such as blacktop parking lots, air conditioning compressors, shingled rooftops, etc. I would urge you to use that dataset with caution. The graphic I used was from satellite data which does not suffer such problems and also provides a more uniform distribution of sampling of the earth, not just the US and land surfaces.

Please also note from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot that there has been a trend of increasing solar activity during the 20th century. The hypothesis of solar influence on terrestrial climate is not disproven.

Let us try to determine what things we agree upon. Do you assert that solar activity has no influence on terrestrial climate? I do not assert that CO2 does not produce a warming effect. I simply disagree as to the magnitude compared to other influences. I disagree that the human contribution of CO2 has any significant influence compared to other things such as solar activity. Simply asserting that temperatures have risen as human contributions of CO2 have risen and that the correlation proves the link is insufficient. I could similarly assert that the increasing number of cell phone towers are causing warming.

The point I failed to make in my earlier effort, concerns the trend. If you plot the trend for the Hadley data which goes back to 1850,



the overall trend is 0.7°C in almost 160 years. That's less than 0.5°C per century. That's the trend for the instrument record. Betting the farm in this case is draconian regulation of our primary source of energy, and you want to bet the farm because it might be almost 0.5°C warmer by 2100. I think that's foolish.

What's foolish is believing the IPCC projections see figure 10.20 from the IPCC AR4 which show trends anywhere from 2° to over 5.5°C by 2100. That's anywhere from 4 to over 20 times the observed rate of increase these past 160 years. Any reasonable person should see the folly in that. And as I keep pointing out, a mere 8 years into those projections, they are wrong!

So are you going to be happy when they pass the regulations telling you when where and how far you can drive your car? Where to set your thermostat? What you can eat?

gp,
The graph you posted of satellite readings covers a period of 7 years, 2002 to 2009. the trend it shows is increasing temperatures from 2002 to 2007 then a sharp decrease over a two year period. You and others are asserting that this 2 year decrease equates to a potential 20 to 30 year cooling period ahead. I don't see, given the past significant increase, how it could be postulated that a 20 to 30 year cooling trend is ahead by using data from 7 or 8 years.

On the other hand, if you look at the graph that Mr StACase supplied, It clearly shows a relatively stable up/down/up/down trend through 1950 but from that point something happened to trip the balance and there has been a relatively steady climb with very little tempering. You could also look at the graph and infer that: Since 1910, and the widening acceptance of the automobile, temperatures have increased around 1d C with only 1 temperting event of .2d C in 1940 (during all the fires of WWII)

The current downturn from 2007 to 2009 only mirrors that of 1940 or 1950

[gpobserver]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html

[gpobserver]

BMAONE23 wrote:

"You and others are asserting that this 2 year decrease equates to a potential 20 to 30 year cooling period ahead. I don't see, given the past significant increase, how it could be postulated that a 20 to 30 year cooling trend is ahead by using data from 7 or 8 years."

This stuff isn't really difficult to chase down. Here is a single Google hit:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/l ... h-by-2015/

It is interesting that the Be-10 data still shows the 11-year solar cycle even during the Maunder Minimum. It suggests that the sun's magnetic activity continued but weakened so that sunspots were no longer visible.

[The Code]

500 years of deforestation N/S Americas, Europe, Asia, The hole world went farming mad. photosynthesis controls a stable planets natural production of Co2. Carbon cycle In and out over millions of years. Stable Till we came along and cut all the trees down. but just cutting the trees down was not enough. we are digging hundreds of millions of years worth of trees out of the ground and burning it at a unbelievable rate as well. Can Any body see that as a stable carbon cycle? There is not enough photosynthesis to stop the build up. of co2 ...Double whammy. Growth rate should tell you that they grow at a rate that suited them for millions of years. Now you can all get your charts out and argue till the cows come home. but the facts are if you take away the carbon filters and then burn 200 hundred million years worth of carbon capture and think everything will be ok you are very very wrong....

Mark

[gpobserver]

Mark Swain wrote:

"500 years of deforestation N/S Americas, Europe, Asia, The hole world went farming mad. photosynthesis controls a stable planets natural production of Co2. Carbon cycle In and out over millions of years. Stable Till we came along and cut all the trees down. but just cutting the trees down was not enough. we are digging hundreds of millions of years worth of trees out of the ground and burning it at a unbelievable rate as well. Can Any body see that as a stable carbon cycle? There is not enough photosynthesis to stop the build up. of co2 ...Double whammy. Growth rate should tell you that they grow at a rate that suited them for millions of years. Now you can all get your charts out and argue till the cows come home. but the facts are if you take away the carbon filters and then burn 200 hundred million years worth of carbon capture and think everything will be ok you are very very wrong...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA

Do you have anything substantive to add or do you just want to tell us all how terrible human beings are and the world would be better off without us? If you want to propose that we reduce the human population of the earth, I invite you to go first.

[The Code]

" Do you have anything substantive to add or do you just want to tell us all how terrible human beings are and the world would be better off without us? If you want to propose that we reduce the human population of the earth, I invite you to go first".

substantive to add? The facts hurt, I don,t like the truth either. But we got to face up to them.

''If you want to propose that we reduce the human population of the earth, I invite you to go first''?

I can not coment on this statment cos it implies i could become a murderer. which is sick.

Mark

[BMAONE23]

Why is it that Everyone who believes that AGW is a lie tends to quote profusely and almost exclusively from information either directly gathered from or linked back to "Wattsupwiththat"? What is up with that?

[gpobserver]

BMAONE23 wrote:

"Why is it that Everyone who believes that AGW is a lie tends to quote profusely and almost exclusively from information either directly gathered from or linked back to "Wattsupwiththat"? What is up with that?"

I also get stuff from ICECAP, http://www.icecap.us/. In this particular instance, it's where the letter from Penn and Livingston was posted. Do you have a problem with a web site posting data and analysis direct from the source? Anthony Watts has also promoted an independent examination of the US Historical Climate Network and found many deviations from appropriate siting protocols. See http://www.surfacestations.org/.

[The Code]

gpobserver: please pick the bones to peaces of what i said please:

500 years of deforestation N/S Americas, Europe, Asia, The hole world went farming mad. photosynthesis controls a stable planets natural production of Co2. Carbon cycle In and out over millions of years. Stable Till we came along and cut all the trees down. but just cutting the trees down was not enough. we are digging hundreds of millions of years worth of trees out of the ground and burning it at a unbelievable rate as well. Can Any body see that as a stable carbon cycle? There is not enough photosynthesis to stop the build up. of co2 ...Double whammy. Growth rate should tell you that they grow at a rate that suited them for millions of years. Now you can all get your charts out and argue till the cows come home. but the facts are if you take away the carbon filters and then burn 200 hundred million years worth of carbon capture and think everything will be ok you are very very wrong.... if you can,t don,t worry The earth will have its say soon.

Mark

[gpobserver]

Hello Mark,

First of all, allow me to apologize for my rude comment, "If you want to propose that we reduce the human population of the earth, I invite you to go first." It was very ingracious of me. You're concerned about the health of the earth's environment and that is a good thing but your energies are callously misdirected by those who wish to take political and commercial advantage of your good intentions.

You asked for me to comment on your perception of the global warming controversy. Let me see what I can do.

You posted:

"500 years of deforestation N/S Americas, Europe, Asia, The hole world went farming mad. photosynthesis controls a stable planets natural production of Co2. Carbon cycle In and out over millions of years. Stable Till we came along and cut all the trees down. but just cutting the trees down was not enough. we are digging hundreds of millions of years worth of trees out of the ground and burning it at a unbelievable rate as well. Can Any body see that as a stable carbon cycle? There is not enough photosynthesis to stop the build up. of co2 ...Double whammy. Growth rate should tell you that they grow at a rate that suited them for millions of years. Now you can all get your charts out and argue till the cows come home. but the facts are if you take away the carbon filters and then burn 200 hundred million years worth of carbon capture and think everything will be ok you are very very wrong.... "

Deforestation is a valid matter of concern but not in North America. Land that had previously been cleared for agriculture earlier is now becoming forested again. I don't have the figures right in front of me but it has been alleged that there is as much forest now in North America as when Columbus landed. We now prevent forest fires which in times past used to rage without control. There are records from pre-Columbian times in Europe of the sky being darkened by the smoke from forest fires in the Americas. The promotion of ethanol and bio motor fuels is leading to deforestation of the rain forests of Brazil and Malaysia to produce sugar cane and palm oil. Wouldn't it be better to drill a hole in the ground to get fuel than to clear vast areas of land for fuel crops?

As far as burning coal goes, the CO2 actually promotes plant growth and will help the re-growth of forest and permit feeding the people of the world. The evidence that I have seen convinces me that CO2 has a much smaller effect on climate than solar activity. As to whether the growing seasons and latitudes of productive farming changes, humans are smart enough to know to plant different things in response to changing conditions. The CO2 that humans produce is small compared to the natural fluxes of the substance between the reservoirs of the atmosphere, ocean, land, lithosphere, and biosphere. The ocean is capable of sequestering CO2 in the form of carbonates. Precipitation of carbonate species to the ocean floor returns the carbon to the lithosphere. This process has led to the deposition of enormous thicknesses of limestone and dolomite.

I am also concerned about biodiversity and the preservation of the natural world but that won't be promoted by forcing people to exist by intensive agriculture and producing motor fuels from food.

Once again, Mark, I apologize for my earlier intemperate remark.

Best regards,
- Roy

[The Code]

gpobserver Wrote:

''As far as burning coal goes, the CO2 actually promotes plant growth and will help the re-growth of forest and permit feeding the people of the world''.

Explain coal growth to rain Forrest growth in ratio> Which means output meets input.

Mark

[Chris Peterson]

Chris Peterson wrote:

"Nobody doubts there is solar influence on the climate. But it doesn't do a good job of explaining the recent trend. And while activity has been high at times in the last century, there's no evidence at all that the average solar output has changed, and good evidence for the last 40 years that it has not."

That is not correct, Sir. As I have explained before, it is not the solar irradiance that is proposed to explain the influence but the modulation of the high-energy galactic cosmic ray flux and the resultant nucleation of low-level clouds that affects the earth's albedo.

Proposed. But very far from demonstrated with any confidence at all. Cloud effects are probably the most poorly understood fundamental component of climate. I find it peculiar that you doubt the impact of CO2 concentrations, which is one of the best understood components, and are so willing to accept that the Sun's impact on cosmic ray flux is what is driving the recent warming trend. Methinks you are guilty of very selectively choosing the data you accept (a nearly universal fault in those who doubt AGW).

You wrote:

"Well you see, that's where we differ on the policy issue. I see the actions: high carbon tax, development of renewable energy sources, elimination of petroleum-based energy, etc as things that are required for a strong economy. These things would be beneficial even without global warming."

You also display your ignorance of economics. Higher taxes and expensive energy will reduce economic activity and reduce our quality of life.

I could say the same about you. But I won't, because everyone is ignorant about economics, including economists. My view is that things like sending vast sums of money to other countries, and maintaining an oversized military and fighting wars for oil (and I don't doubt that is why we are fighting) are far more damaging. I also think that the longer we wait to change, the more expensive it's going to be. Finally, I think that converting our energy base will create hundreds of thousands or millions of jobs, including many high paying jobs in technology. Just look at what the Space Program did for the country in the 1960s and 1970s. A serious development effort could be very similar.

[StACase]

Why is it that Everyone who believes that AGW is a lie tends to quote profusely and almost exclusively from information either directly gathered from or linked back to "Wattsupwiththat"? What is up with that?

Because we can't find what we are looking for over at RealClimate.

I visit Wattsupwiththat, and a few other places. I may find things at Watts or IceCap or ClimateDepot, but when I do I like to link to the original source that they are reporting on. Mostly though I like to quote the actual data or the IPCC assessment reports.

[BMAONE23]

I post in 3 different discussion boards and have posted in 7 different Global Warming threads over the last 3 years. Looking back over those threads, I count 57 different posters (names) that are vocal against AGW and some that are simply anti GW. The threads contain over 6000 posts of which slightly more than 38% speak against the likelihood of AGW 10% are fairly neutral and 50+% Believe we have a definite affect.

Of the vocal 38% that speak against human induced GW, 20% of their responses cite various individual websites with apparent 1 time only links. 30% cite from some sources more than a couple of times and 50% cite from the same website (wattsupwiththat) but cite heavily on single sources within that site (multiple separate yet nearly identical individual arguments based on 1 single sources’ dataset)

Aren’t there other websites posting information regarding their viewpoints?

What’s up with that???

Many quote and post links to the same graphs that have been utilized to argue that the earth is entering a deep cooling phase that could last 20 to 30 years. They claim that a cooling since 2001 (or 2002) to present shows that the CLIMATE is cooling. The odd thing is, if you add 2 more years to the chart, their cooling line flattens out! If you add a third year (1999) the median line will indicate warming. The farther back you go in time, (more towards climate and farther away from weather induced fluctuations) the more the line indicating warming becomes evident.
Today, compared to 15 years ago…warming
Today, compared to 20 years ago…warming
Today, compared to 25 years ago…warming
Today, compared to 30 years ago…warming
Today, compared to 35 years ago…warming
Today, compared to 40 years ago…warming
Today, compared to 65 years ago…warming
Today, compared to 90 years ago…warming

The real cooling trend has only been since 2007 (2 comparatively cooler years) not since 2002. 2002 was only as far back as they could go and still claim to prove overall cooling.

What’s up with that???

I think it is more ludicrous to predict a 20 to 30 year cooling cycle based on what is a 2 year cooling trend that is being reported to read as a 7 year trend (considering that the “Cooling” flattens out and then turns to warming by adding just 3 more years to the dataset) than it is to believe that a 60 year warming cycle which contains several 2 to 3 year cooling phases over the 60 year course.

I also think it is ludicrous to believe that a 2 to 3 year cooling phase is more than just that when the long term warming trend displays this exact thing happening again and again and again.

[Chris Peterson]

As far as burning coal goes, the CO2 actually promotes plant growth and will help the re-growth of forest and permit feeding the people of the world.

You might want to take a closer look at the primary literature on that matter. Most studies show that increased CO2 has a neutral to slightly negative impact on the growth of most plants. Rapid growth during early development may stress the plant. Making matters worse, other changes associated with the current trend- shifts in soil chemistry, changes in temperature, changes in precipitation patterns are also implicated in poor plant response. We might be able to deal if we can genetically modify our food crops fast enough (and if people will accept that politically), but the current changes in climate don't look very promising for our current, primary food crops.

[Chris Peterson]

The real cooling trend has only been since 2007 (2 comparatively cooler years) not since 2002. 2002 was only as far back as they could go and still claim to prove overall cooling.

It is also worth keeping in mind that the latest complete global temperature data is from 2007. The data from 2008 is still being processed, and 2009, of course, is a work in progress. Charts showing 2008 data are using provisional information; it should not be taken too seriously.

[gpobserver]

Mark Swain wrote:

"Explain coal growth to rain Forrest growth in ratio> Which means output meets input."

Hello Mark,

Allow me to draw your attention to a typical representation of the terrestrial carbon cycle:

http://globecarboncycle.unh.edu/diagram.shtml

There are three terms to understand. A 'sink' is something that is capable of accepting or absorbing CO2, a 'source' produces CO2, and a 'reservoir' contains CO2 and can accept or produce CO2. In the diagram, the labels in blue represent reservoirs and the blue numbers indicate the volumes of CO2 contained. Labels and numbers in red represent sources and sinks and their fluxes, the amount per year. The burning of fossil fuels releases 6 gigatons of carbon per year into the atmosphere but look at the other numbers involved: +60 for soil respiration, +60 for plant respiration, -120 for photosynthesis, -60 for litterfall, +0.1 from volcanoes, +0.9 from deforestation and land use change, -0.8 for rivers, -92 for ocean uptake, and +90 from ocean loss.

The world ocean is a particularly important and dynamic part of the carbon cycle. Containing 38,000 gigatons of carbon in various forms, mostly carbonates, it acts as an enormous buffering system with the atmosphere, seeking an equilibrium. The atmosphere/ocean system is a subject of intense interest since the solubility of CO2 in water decreases as the water warms. If the climate warms and heat is transferred to the oceans, CO2 will be released to the atmosphere. A cooling climate will cause the oceans to dissolve more CO2 from the atmosphere. When looking at the terrestrial climate record, this phenomenon is often proposed as an explanation of why changes in temperature lead changes in atmospheric CO2 content. There is also in the ocean a complex interaction between dissolved CO2 and carbonates involving not only the partial pressure of CO2 but also the water temperature. I spent most of a semester in planetary sciences graduate school studying carbonates, carbonate ions, and dissolved CO2. Permit me to not get into it here for lack of space.

Six gigatons is a lot in human terms but the earth is a big planet. We're small potatoes compared to the numbers being moved around in nature. And then the evidence of the effect of CO2 on climate is not compelling. The abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere was greater at times in the past and we didn't burn up then. I'm going to need stronger evidence that CO2 is more important than solar activity.

[gpobserver]

BMAONE23 wrote:

"Today, compared to 90 years ago…warming"

Gee, if things are just getting warmer and warmer, we should be setting new records all the time, huh? Then why has there been no new record high temperature for any continent since 1974. You're gonna love my reference! (Hee hee) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/27/a ... #more-7385

It's really much warmer since the early 1800's. Ya suppose that might be because we've been recovering from the Little Ice Age? Or do you even accept the existence of the LIA?

[StACase]

As far as burning coal goes, the CO2 actually promotes plant growth and will help the re-growth of forest and permit feeding the people of the world.

You might want to take a closer look at the primary literature on that matter. Most studies show that increased CO2 has a neutral to slightly negative impact on the growth of most plants. Rapid growth during early development may stress the plant. Making matters worse, other changes associated with the current trend- shifts in soil chemistry, changes in temperature, changes in precipitation patterns are also implicated in poor plant response. We might be able to deal if we can genetically modify our food crops fast enough (and if people will accept that politically), but the current changes in climate don't look very promising for our current, primary food crops.

I'd be interested in just exactly what primary studies those are, and you might want to take a closer look at actual practice in the real world. You can do so by Googling " "CO2 generator greenhouse" Here's a sampling:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is one of the easiest ways to accelerate plant growth. Plants grown with supplemental CO2 can produce up to 40% more flowers or fruit. A propane or natural gas CO2 generator is the most cost effective way to add CO2 to your environment. Many greenhouses use CO2 generators to boost CO2 levels safely and economically.

http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/green ... from_a.htm

http://www.homeharvest.com/carbondioxid ... erator.htm

http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp

http://www.ehow.com/how_4710564_co-gene ... lants.html

[Dr. Skeptic]

BMAONE23 wrote:

"Today, compared to 90 years ago…warming"

Gee, if things are just getting warmer and warmer, we should be setting new records all the time, huh? Then why has there been no new record high temperature for any continent since 1974. You're gonna love my reference! (Hee hee) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/27/a ... #more-7385

It's really much warmer since the early 1800's. Ya suppose that might be because we've been recovering from the Little Ice Age? Or do you even accept the existence of the LIA?

Record temperatures is a weak indicator, it is increase in atmospheric dynamics (all energies) is what's important. Energy from temperature can be displaced or buffered in the forms of humidity, wind, ocean temps ...

The number and the intensity of hurricanes, cyclones and tornadoes are far better indicators.

PS. Minnesota had it's first 100 degree day ever recorded in May on 05/20/2009

[gpobserver]

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

"The number and the intensity of hurricanes, cyclones and tornadoes are far better indicators."

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5449

Gee, I guess the climate is cooling, huh?

[BMAONE23]

BMAONE23 wrote:

"Today, compared to 90 years ago…warming"

Gee, if things are just getting warmer and warmer, we should be setting new records all the time, huh? Then why has there been no new record high temperature for any continent since 1974. You're gonna love my reference! (Hee hee) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/27/a ... #more-7385

It's really much warmer since the early 1800's. Ya suppose that might be because we've been recovering from the Little Ice Age? Or do you even accept the existence of the LIA?

I cantestify to the FACT that my area has seen 3 record high periods in 3 of the last 5 months.

My point was that the dataset being used for the mentioned graph, utilized to indicate an impending 20 to 30 year cooling trend becomes useless if you add just 3 more yeard to the dataset. Convenient that years prior to 2002 were not included. (but then their arguenemt wouldn't have appeared valid)

[gpobserver]

BMEONE23 wrote:

"I can testify to the FACT that my area has seen 3 record high periods in 3 of the last 5 months."

You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills. The article I referenced indicated that there had been no record high temperature set for any continent since 1974. If you will actually look at the article, you will see a compilation of record high temperatures for each continent and when they were set. Have any of your local high tempeatures exceeded the 134F record set in 1913?

[BMAONE23]

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

"The number and the intensity of hurricanes, cyclones and tornadoes are far better indicators."

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5449

Gee, I guess the climate is cooling, huh?

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/03-0

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30460831/
(I hesitate to use this one because it names Al Bore)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512 ... ralscience


It is funny how so much ice is melting in a “cooling climate”