A Note: Global Warming Threads

[arfa brane]

No, I'm saying based on the IPCC projections it is not going to get THAT much warmer or longer in Siberia.

But what are the IPCC projections based on?
Why are there IPCC scientists saying that the 4th report underestimated the warming in the Arctic? Why is the permafrost releasing more methane every year, why isn't it fairly constant like the IPCC estimate says?

Could it be because the 4th report simply got it wrong, or they were obliged to ignore research findings because they weren't "well established"--the unfortunate statistic is that to see a trend you need decades of data collection. Then seeing a trend is easier, but planning what to do is harder because it's already later than you think, because you had to wait and see.

 

[adoucette]

But what are the IPCC projections based on?

Global Circulation models using various "senarios" of future economic development/rates of fossil fuel usage, population etc as input.

Chapter 8 IPCC AR4::

There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation).

Why are there IPCC scientists saying that the 4th report underestimated the warming in the Arctic?

There are a LOT of IPCC scientists, so this means nothing, but how about source, amount of underestimate and timing?

Why is the permafrost releasing more methane every year, why isn't it fairly constant like the IPCC estimate says?

Is it?
Please compare amount being released to amount of IPCC estimate to make this intelligible.

Could it be because the 4th report simply got it wrong, or they were obliged to ignore research findings because they weren't "well established"--the unfortunate statistic is that to see a trend you need decades of data collection. Then seeing a trend is easier, but planning what to do is harder because it's already later than you think, because you had to wait and see.

Not really, that's what models are all about, so you don't have to wait for the trends to develop, the IPCC is all about predicting the future climate based on incomplete data.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

You aren't doing that, however.

Actually, YES I did.

So why are you stating it, and attempting to conclude that everything is OK because it is so small? Trying to fool people into thinking these fractions of atmosphere are too small to matter much?

Total BS ice,

Indeed I had to correct BillyT who claimed it wasn't included in the IPCC analysis because he thought that since there were extremely low levels of CH4 that the effect wasn't any more important than reflected moonlight.

If CH4 is included in the IPCC studies, then I am wrong to state it is not but given the extremely low levels, now and for 40 years, there is no need to have included it as the errors on more important aspects are much larger than its total effects* - I.e. I assumed that they knew that and would not bother to include it any more than the heating by reflected moon light needs to be included. ”

WTF Billy?

CH4 is the second largest forcing in the IPCC reports after CO2 at ~+.48 w/m^2, representing ~30% of the total climate forcing.

IPCC AR4 WG1 Tech Summary - TS.2.5 Net Global Radiative Forcing

And as you can see, I gave the forcing in w/m^2, and since we had already discussed the amount of CH4 in ppm, one can easily go from an increase in ppm to an increase in forcing.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Loss of permafrost and methane release is not just about modest increases in average arctic temperatures. There are other positive feedback mechanisms at work increasing the rate of these losses, which in turn increase the rate of average temperature increase:

“… A thermokarst is uneven terrain produced by thawing permafrost, and recent studies have revealed many more thermokarst features than anyone expected. On flat ground, that may mean bumps and hollows. But on sloping ground, it can create huge slumps in which tons of soil move downhill. Such thermokarst failures can lead to high carbon dioxide and methane emissions from newly exposed and thawing soils, thus contributing to atmospheric warming. … The key is that the soil is warming. It really doesn’t matter whether that happens gradually or dramatically, through fire.” As the warming of the soil increases, it favors the shrubs because they can more easily take root and then grow substantially faster in milder conditions, eventually “shading out” and outcompeting mosses and lichens. {Billy T notes: that with shrubs as fire fuel, instead of mosses and lichens, the next fires are larger. – a positive feedback system leading to more rapid permafrost melting.}

"burned an area about 40 miles long by 10 miles wide, or more than 250,000 acres."
Adrian Rocha of The Ecosystems Center in Woods Hole, Mass., found that a year after the fire, severely burned tundra released nearly twice as much carbon into the air as unburned tundra absorbed. Two years later, the burned tundra continues to release carbon.

Anything that warms tundra and thaws permafrost — from fires to milder annual temperatures and increased rainfall, particularly in winter — can contribute to thermokarst failures. Because climate change models predict a warmer and wetter Arctic with increased summer thunderstorms and lightning, thermokarsts are likely to occur on an ever-larger scale. Already, Bowden says, thermokarst failures similar to those in Alaska — and in some cases much larger — have been reported in Siberia and Canada: “It’s a pan-Arctic phenomenon, with the exception of a few areas that haven’t warmed,” says Bowden. ..."

From: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/arctic_tundra_is_being_lost_as_far_north_quickly_warms_/2229/

 

[Billy T]

... Indeed I had to correct BillyT who claimed it wasn't included in the IPCC analysis because he thought that since there were extremely low levels of CH4 that the effect wasn't any more important than reflected moonlight.

Your text misquoting me, now bold, is not what I said. I said:

"If CH4 is included in the IPCC studies, then I am wrong to state it is not but given the extremely low levels, now and for 40 years, there is no need to have included it as the errors on more important aspects are much larger than its total effects* - I.e. I assumed that they knew that and would not bother to include it any more than the heating by reflected moon light needs to be included. ”

My error was to think that because CH4 has only a tiny concentration, its contribution was small compared to errors in other factors., I did NOT say or think is was no more important than moon light! That was just to show one should neglect very tiny effects.

If we are to point out other's already admitted mistakes, I guess I should mention your telling me that methane released (More than 50 billion tons from Siberian lakes alone melting) would be less than a 1% of the annual release from other sources, when in fact, it would be 143 times greater! (if calculated by YOUR numbers)

 

[arfa brane]

Please compare amount being released to amount of IPCC estimate to make this intelligible.

Please donate several tens of billions of dollars to a research program that can deploy several modern satellites to collect data for several years, and hire more scientists to visit the Arctic to monitor methane release more closely.

Please also provide the IPCC estimate and the data it was based on, along with an estimate of how "complete" the survey was at the time, given the modest amount of technology that was available, presumably because the IPCC and climate scientists at the time believed the permafrost was somehow immune to warming, as you seem to also think-- to paraphrase: you believe "the summers aren't going to get warmer or longer in the Arctic".

Are you saying the 4th report, although it's now out of date, is still relevant? Despite methane release from the Arctic having increased since the report was published, which contradicts the IPCC's conclusions about methane in permafrost?
It also contradicts the conclusion that atmospheric methane "remains fairly flat", or will stay "constant" over the coming decades.

 

[adoucette]

Your text misquoting me, now bold, is not what I said. I said:

"If CH4 is included in the IPCC studies, then I am wrong to state it is not but given the extremely low levels, now and for 40 years, there is no need to have included it as the errors on more important aspects are much larger than its total effects* - I.e. I assumed that they knew that and would not bother to include it any more than the heating by reflected moon light needs to be included. ”

My error was to think that because CH4 has only a tiny concentration, its contribution was small compared to errors in other factors., I did NOT say or think is was no more important than moon light! That was just to show one should neglect very tiny effects.

Billy, Protest all you want but you DID lump CH4 in with reflected moonlight as something one could ignore, meaning you thought it had a very TINY effect.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Please donate several tens of billions of dollars to a research program that can deploy several modern satellites to collect data for several years, and hire more scientists to visit the Arctic to monitor methane release more closely.

You are acting more and more like a TROLL with every post.

 

[Keln]

Hi Keln and welcome to Sciforums.BTW, although CO2 has slowly climbed to be at least twice the current atmospheric concentration, that is far from "saturation." As you should know from opening a carbonated drink (or better yet from chemistry), CO2 is exceptionally soluble in H2O. That is because it forms a chemical compound with the water (carbolic acid as I recall) so 100s of times more will dissolve than say O2.

The above links (and less well post 286) explain why Human's very rapid increase of CO2, may make the Earth completely sterile, with a hot, high-pressure atmosphere until the oceans boil off into space even if the CO2 does not rise to the higher prior levels.

Er...the "saturation" I was referring to was the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere required to absorb all wavelengths of solar energy that CO2 can absorb. Which isn't a whole lot, honestly. That amount of CO2 has been pretty close to that saturation point for a long long time, even before man came about.

I see this argument all of the time. The problem is that you could increase the atmosphere to 100% CO2 and it would still only absorb a maximum amount of heat from the sun...unless the sun starts putting out more. In fact, a 100% CO2 atmosphere would actually absorb less overall, since the majority of solar energy bouncing back off of the ground would keep going into space instead of being absorbed by other gasses that are in our atmosphere (especially H2O vapor).

The question isn't "is there more CO2". The question is "how does more CO2 make any difference, when the pre-industrial level was already absorbing most of the solar energy within it's absorption spectrum?"

 

[arfa brane]

You are acting more and more like a TROLL with every post.

But you continue to act as if there is "no problemo"; you appear to have every confidence in the IPCC.

But there is a problem: the IPCC underestimated methane release from melting permafrost. How could this have happened?
What does it say about your confidence in the IPCC forecast?

Is it even remotely possible that the IPCC bases its forecasts and predictions on less data than it would prefer to have? Why then, isn't more money being spent on research?

Are you saying the problem isn't all that serious, which is why no government sees a need to improve funding schemes, or deploy more technology like satellites? There are just too many other problems which are more important, like military budgets, holding on to power, and so on, to deal with?

 

[arfa brane]

Er...the "saturation" I was referring to was the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere required to absorb all wavelengths of solar energy that CO2 can absorb. Which isn't a whole lot, honestly. That amount of CO2 has been pretty close to that saturation point for a long long time, even before man came about.

If there was enough CO2 to absorb all wavelengths of solar energy, the surface would be dark, it would only be warmed by the atmosphere or volcanic activity.
The atmosphere isn't, and has never been saturated with CO2. If it was, the oceans would be acidic and lifeless.

Oops, I reread your post, and I see you mean "energy that CO2 can absorb".
CO2 absorbs infrared and transports heat around, therefore it warms the atmosphere by absorbing solar energy; some of the energy is transported to the oceans where it takes thousands of years to move with ocean currents.
The extra heat in the oceans which are warming today will persist in ocean currents for that long, and will contribute to melting of polar regions for that long.

 

[adoucette]

you appear to have every confidence in the IPCC.

A lot more confidence than an anonymous poster on the internet who has yet to provide scientific support for one of their assertions.

Yawn

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Billy, Protest all you want but you DID lump CH4 in with reflected moonlight as something one could ignore, meaning you thought it had a very TINY effect. Arthur

Yes, I erroneously thought it would be less than uncertanities in other things, like the effective size of the ocean/air interface.

That does not mean that it is the same contribution as the moonlight. You put those words in my mouth, and I don't like that. Instead of trying to justify yourself, you should say you are sorry you misquoted me.

 

[arfa brane]

So Arthur, here you are handing out accusations of trolling, but you continue to ignore questions about what the IPCC based their estimate of permafrost melting on.

And you continue to push what looks like an agenda: global warming is real, but it isn't a problem because the IPCC said so. How long have you been a believer?
I suppose it must be nice for someone like you to think they have "all" the answers--global warming is "under control"; we know "all" about it, etc.

But that isn't true, we know a lot less about it than we should. You seem to think they should all pack up and go home, now that they've "solved" the problem. . .

'yawn'

 

[Billy T]

Er...the "saturation" I was referring to was the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere required to absorb all wavelengths of solar energy that CO2 can absorb. Which isn't a whole lot, honestly. That amount of CO2 has been pretty close to that saturation point for a long long time, even before man came about. ... The question isn't "is there more CO2". The question is "how does more CO2 make any difference, when the pre-industrial level was already absorbing most of the solar energy within it's absorption spectrum?"

You are completely correct here and many fail to understand this (That only 100% of the radiation that is in the absorption band can be blocked from escaping.)

For example, I had to correct RenaissanceMan for that error here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2662090&postcount=289
Please take a quick look at the nonsense he posted that I had to shoot down.

You probably were not yet active here, when I made post 289 and are sane, so don't read back thru all earlier posts.

 

[chimpkin]

Just from skimming...I don't think Earth could get Venus-y...
I would, however, think we could go back, worst-case scenario, to the sort of atmosphere we had in the Permian, which was a lot lower in Oxy content.

But to just slightly swerve the topic a bit...

The thing I really worry about, as a big fan of electricity and flush plumbing, is that our civilization looks to be about to get a massed series of blows, all at once. I'd like to see more done to prevent what we can and prepare for what we can't.

Those blows being:

-Topsoil depletion
-Climate change (and the relating shifts in precipitation possibly making many major cities untenable)
-Ocean acidification
-Collapse of fish stocks due to factory fishing
-Peak oil
(and please don't bring up abiotic oil...if oil is abiotic, then why does mudlogging work for finding oil deposits? Even if I'm wrong about oil not being abiotic, that doesn't mean it doesn't take millions of years to accrue. Look up discovery curves. Saudi-size deposits are a thing of the past, folks.)

My wife pointed out something Really Bad about peak oil and the U.S....we hit our production peak in 1970 btw.
We sure do have lots of coal.

She thinks we'll burn that coal if it comes down to it, and to heck with the planetary consequences, or the air-pollution consequences.

Carbon capture *might* help, but then, that takes 1/3 more coal to produce the same amount of electricity. It will also take a lot more to build a carbon-capture plant...has anybody noticed our country's kinda looking vaguely bankrupt these days?
It's very possible there will be cries of "too expensive", and the carbon will all go up the stack.

I'm asthmatic and grew up near old coal power plants...got a lot better when I moved, so coal isn't my friend.
And the coal will add to ocean acidification, which may impact on oceanic oxy production quite a bit.
I actually thing at this point we ought to look for ways to manage the biosphere...I was hoping there would be someone looking into engineering plantlife that could artificially boost oxy production and suck carbon out of the water...I was thinking something like a dicot adapted to a marine environs.

Also, did you hear about the guy who found that we could significantly raise reflectivity and lower temperature if we painted every paved and roofed surface white? It's kind of stunning to think we've paved and roofed that much of the planet...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/16/white-paint-carbon-emissions-climate

 

[billvon]

The question isn't "is there more CO2". The question is "how does more CO2 make any difference, when the pre-industrial level was already absorbing most of the solar energy within it's absorption spectrum?"

Not much; as you pointed out, the CO2 absorption spectrum is _almost_ saturated. As you increase CO2 concentration the absorption band widens a bit but not by much.

Which is why the forcing from the additional CO2 is only about a watt per square meter (out of about 350 watts average per meter) even though we've increased its concentration by 50%. Which is a good thing; we wouldn't want more sensitivity to CO2!

 

[adoucette]

Yes, I erroneously thought it would be less than uncertanities in other things, like the effective size of the ocean/air interface.

That does not mean that it is the same contribution as the moonlight. You put those words in my mouth, and I don't like that. Instead of trying to justify yourself, you should say you are sorry you misquoted me.

And I didn't say you said it was the SAME contribution as moonlight Billy.

I said that you said that the effect wasn't any more important than reflected moonlight.

I also posted your comment so anyone could see for themselves exactly what you meant.

If CH4 is included in the IPCC studies, then I am wrong to state it is not but given the extremely low levels, now and for 40 years, there is no need to have included it as the errors on more important aspects are much larger than its total effects* - I.e. I assumed that they knew that and would not bother to include it any more than the heating by reflected moon light needs to be included. ”

Your words Billy.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

So Arthur, here you are handing out accusations of trolling, but you continue to ignore questions about what the IPCC based their estimate of permafrost melting on.

And you continue to push what looks like an agenda: global warming is real, but it isn't a problem because the IPCC said so. How long have you been a believer?
I suppose it must be nice for someone like you to think they have "all" the answers--global warming is "under control"; we know "all" about it, etc.

But that isn't true, we know a lot less about it than we should. You seem to think they should all pack up and go home, now that they've "solved" the problem. . .

'yawn'

Total BS from someone who has obviously never read an IPCC report.

Go away TROLL.

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

I see this argument all of the time. The problem is that you could increase the atmosphere to 100% CO2 and it would still only absorb a maximum amount of heat from the sun

That over-simplified assessment was the reason for rejecting CO2 fluctuation as a major driver of ice age cycles, or cause of warming phases, back before WWII.

In the 1950s, a researcher with improved skills revisited the issue, and noticed that the decreasing absolute density in the thinning upper atmosphere was not accounted for in that description. A short history: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm .

- - The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. - - -

Since then, the fact that -all else being equal - increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause significant amounts of heat energy to be trapped, above what was trapped before, has been well understood.

And the various subsidiary effects (subsidiary however large), including the maintenance of an increase atmospheric capacity for water vapor, add their contributions.