A Note: Global Warming Threads

[Billy T]

Also the deeper oceans are warming faster than the surface as they radiate (or evaporate) away relatively less of what they absorb:

Not good news for methane hydrate stability.
Graph from article here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-23/mystery-of-the-missing-global-warming.html

Also GW very likely played a role in why Australia's now ending summer - the hottest ever recorded - more than 200 homes lost to fires and area larger than sprawling LA burned.
Heat was so intense that in some places that cars with aluminum wheels melted the Al into now ribbons of aluminum on the road.

 

[Trippy]

Not good news for methane hydrate stability.

I shall reserve my judgment on that for the time being I think.

Also GW very likely played a role in why Australia's now ending summer

Their summer hasn't even started yet. Their summer is Dec 1 through to the end of february. They're still in Spring.

The hotest ever recorded

The hottest temp ever recorded in Sydney in October is 38.2 C. (100.8 F).
The Daily highs in Sydney for the last week have been between 20 and 33 C (68-91 F).

They haven't (to the best of my recollection) even had to move the fire risk to Catastrophic in the last 7 days. Yesterday was the worst day so far (Temp in the low 30's, 15% humidity, and winds gusting in the 50-70 kph range) and the fire risk was still only tagged as 'Extreme'.

Heat was so intense that in some places that cars with aluminum wheels melted the Al into now ribbons of aluminum on the road.

On the one hand you're the first person I have seen report this and I would like to see a citation to evidence this. On the other hand. Meh. It wouldn't be the first time, Aluminium. Only hhas a melting point of 660 C.

All temps are written without the degree sign because I have no ide where to find it on my mobile device

 

[Billy T]

Their summer hasn't even started yet. Their summer is Dec 1 through to the end of february. They're still in Spring.

Yes. thanks. I heard "the hottest ever"* on CNN and "summer" just came out even though I as resident of S. Hemisphere Brazil, I know better. That was where I also saw the ribbons of metal, which CNN identified as melted AL car wheels. I agree that the hottest winter may not have the hottest day in it, or the hottest October day in it - only reported what CNN, international said. It occurred to me that the car's gas tank might have ruptured so fires may not have been melting the Al wheel, but melted it was.

* probably followed by "season" or "winter" but some hours later, when back at computer - that was forgotten. It was clear from context (they were explaining why fires were so bad) that they were not referring to one hot day, but the season prior to the fires. They said the fire season was starting early and might get worse, still. As I recall, CNN did mention that the temperature in central Australia had set a record of 54C! but were not specific as to where or when.

 

[arauca]

We here in USA illinois are getting an early cold weather, today we have hit 31 F

 

[Trippy]

Yes. thanks. I heard "the hottest ever" on CNN and "summer" just came out even though I as resident of S. Hemisphere Brazil, I know better. That was where I also saw the ribbons of metal, which CNN identified as melted AL car wheels. I agree that the hottest winter may not have the hottest day in it, or the hottest October day in it - only reported what CNN, international said. It occurred to me that the car's gas tank might have ruptured so fires may not have been melting the Al wheel, but melted it was.

It sounds like CNN are exaggerating the heat or getting their wires crossed.

 

[Trippy]

Oh! They may have been referring to the fact that yesterday had the highest temperatures recorded since the crisis began.

 

[Billy T]

I tried to find the CNN story I watched, but first hit by Google was a link to video that has as its static "click to start" screen a mail box with obvious melted metal. See it at: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/22/world/asia/australia-bushfire-climate-change/

 

[wellwisher]

This has been the calmest hurricane season in the atlantic basin since the global warming koolaide was drank. There are excuses/reasons for this, which only shows the currents models have left out variables which are only now are needed. I have been talking about the two sides of the brain, and how science does not require calibration of consciousness to do global warming science. Global warming is a right brain phenomena, common to atheist and liberals, who have a right brain without a regulatory system such as conventional religion.

I propose going back to the time when global warming became mainstream (Al Gore's sales pitch which was not challenged by the science consensus) and look at the predictions which motived the herd. When it was said it appeared true to many. Time has past so we can test this hypothesis and compare all its conclusions/predictions. If they are wrong the theory is not sound. A good theory should get an A not an F after experimental verification.

It was all an illusions, since it did not pan out as prescribed. It was kool-aide that some were eager to drink. The atheists say if science cannot prove it, it is pseudo science or religion. That kool-aide wa sussed to stimulate the right brain out of calibration.

 

[Billy T]

{GW is} all an illusions, since it did not pan out as prescribed. It was kool-aide that some were eager to drink. ...

Not all of every one's predictions will be confirmed as months, even years, have shown wide variations but longer term trend of data are very well confirming that
"this time is different" (from the period following all prior ice age endings of the last 650,000 years) and that worries me:

It is the large fast rise of CH4 (vertical last section of the blue curve, more than 15 decades long now with no known limit to the rise) THAT IS DIFFERENT

Especially as the main mechanism for destruction of CH4 in the atmosphere, also destroys the agent doing the destruction (the -OH radiacal) so that the expected "half life" of a CH4 molecule released from the surface is increasing - actually measured to have slightly increased as well as theory. (all published values more than a decade ago give it as less than 10 years, but modern values are all more than 10 years. - See wiki quoted text at end of this post.) I. e. the CH4 now seen for first time ever bubbling up in Arctic Ocean is increasing the atmosphere life time of the CH4 that will bubble up next year by measurably lowering the concentrations of the destroying -OH radicals. We know these bubbles were not seen a few decades ago as they now blind submarine sonars (The bubbles are like dense fog that scatters the signals too much) in location where in WWII subs ALWAYS could use their sonars with no problems.

Shorter term measurements (many decades still) clearly and irrefutably confirm the continuing with slight more recently observabled acceleration, increase in the CH4 concentrations:

Graph does not show that CH4 is now often off the chart's top.
And graph posted in post 901, confirms the ocean surface temperature is rising and significantly increasing evaporation, which falls out as flooding rains. See the photo of neighborhoods flooded in Colorado with deaths - not ever experienced AFAIK there on that scale before.

Also note that IF the increased humidity associated with GW should make wet bulb temperatures reach 35C, then all humans where that occurs will die if they cannot take shelter (in air condition rooms or special "dry centers" that could more cheaply be established) as they must continuely give about 100W to the environment from their 37C skins by evaporative cooling and / or exhaled breath. Moving around or doing even "light work" in those conditions is fatal in less than an hour. The potential store of CH4 in methane hydrates that conceptually could be released with continuation of the deeper water heating shown in graph of post 901, is greater than ALL the carbon in CO2 man has released by burning coal and oil! Perhaps, even greater than all the carbon that ever existed or still exists in coal!

Here is the summary of post 869 where first two curve were originally given:

SUMMARY: Man need to switch away from fossil fuels ASAP. All the world's cars needing liquid fuel could run on alcohol derived from sugar cane 10 years from now. (It will take ~10 years to convert them all, but that is very cheap compared to new EVs and requires only trivial changes at car factories as alcohol fueled cars are still basically the same IC engine.) Nuclear energy, safely made as the French do with all control rooms identical, should be the base load power with solar (PV cells and wind) with super flywheel storage making the rest. Note flywheels can charge up and discharge at least 10 times faster than any battery and as running in a vacuum with magnetic bearings have essentially unlimited number of charge/discharge cycles possible. - Not only at best a few hundred cycles as most batteries do, before serious loss of capacity occurs.

PS if you doubt that it is possible for only a tiny percent (~2 or 3%) of the world's arable land to grow all the sugar cane, needed to fuel all the world's cars needing liquid fuel a decade from now then find some fault with the analysis showing that here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....=1#post3079459 (Post # 1436 of "Apocalypse Soon" thread.)
Also at least look at the graphics in post 1439. Note that the improvements possible in food and fiber production possible just by ending very inefficient "slash and burn" agricultural practices used in many parts of the world can get a sustainable yield per acre increase of at least 20%.

Note also that the "Pennsylvania Dutch" have been farming the same land for more than 150 years without the use of pesticides or artificial fertilizer and now get premium prices for their produce and have top soil a foot thick. It would be thicker, but that is as deep as their horse drawn plows can go. That "its possible" analysis assumes that cellulosic alcohol is NOT economically viable. If it is and the crushed cane is also converted into alcohol, perhaps only 1% of the earth's arable land needs to be growing cane. Crushed cane is the most economical source of cellulosic alcohol as it is already at the alcohol producing plant with no cost to collect it from the fields, like switch grass, etc. has.

In addition to link in 2nd paragraph above: Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUBZi3t4ZTo (Nine consequences to expect from ice free arctic a few years from now.)

The most effective sink of atmospheric methane is the hydroxyl radical in the troposphere, or the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere. As methane rises into the air, it reacts with the hydroxyl radical to create water vapor and carbon dioxide. The lifespan of methane in the atmosphere was estimated at 9.6 years as of 2001; however, increasing emissions of methane over time reduce the concentration of the hydroxyl radical in the atmosphere. With less OH˚ to react with, the lifespan of methane could also increase*, resulting in greater concentrations of atmospheric methane. Even if it is not destroyed in the troposphere, methane can usually only last 12 years before it is eventually destroyed in Earth’s next atmospheric layer: the stratosphere. Destruction in the stratosphere occurs the same way that it does in the troposphere: methane is oxidized to produce carbon dioxide and water vapor.

* Estimates of the half-life of CH4, now tend to range between 10 and 12 years. (12 being from February 2013 Ref. at: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html) There also the CH4 concentration is stated to be between 1.758 to 1.874 ppm "off the above chart" or an average of 1.816. Note the above chart only goes up to 1850. (Now at times the CH4 is above the chart.) 400 / 1.816 = 220 times less than the current CO2 concentration. CO2 blocking IR is now like an increase of solar flux of 1.85W/m^2 but CH4 is like 0.51 W/m^2 despite having 220 time lower concentration. Also CH4 is far from blocking all the IR it can. Still in a linear range function of concentration. If the CH4 concentration were to increase by a factor of 1.85/0.51 =3.627 or to an average concentration of 6.59 ppm then it would be as important a CO2 is now and still in the linear function range.

With global warming there is a positive feed back and an increasing source of CH4 - decomposing methane hydrates. The rate of oxidation removal of CH4 is dropping as more CH4 reduces the concentration of OH- radicals in the air. Read again the text I made bold in the quote above.

 

[Andre]

Also GW very likely played a role in why Australia's now ending summer - the hottest ever recorded - more than 200 homes lost to fires and area larger than sprawling LA burned.
Heat was so intense that in some places that cars with aluminum wheels melted the Al into now ribbons of aluminum on the road.

But then again in July 2007 Peru declared a national emergency due to extreme cold and again this year September and then there was this october blizzard in South Dakota.

Ever wondered why no one never hears of this kind of news?

 

[iceaura]

Ever wondered why no one never hears of this kind of news?

Out here in the real world we hear that kind of news all the time.

And every time we hear it we hear a pack of denialists from the Koch zone try to claim it's some kind of evidence that the warming trend is a myth, or a mistake, or isn't happening - that the warming itself is not happening.

That alternates with the other kind of news, where some warming event happens, and these same people claim that the obvious warming trend is a "natural cycle" of some unspecified kind.

Cuckoo clocks chiming the hours and half hours got nothin' on these people. At least a regular clock has a memory function, so that its past behavior is part of the record.

Global warming is a right brain phenomena, common to atheist and liberals, who have a right brain without a regulatory system such as conventional religion.

You've got your childish pop psychology backwards - you wanted to say "left brain".

I propose going back to the time when global warming became mainstream (Al Gore's sales pitch which was not challenged by the science consensus) and look at the predictions which motived the herd.

If you do, you'll find that the current rates of change, ice melt, ocean warming, and so forth, are in the high ends of the prediction ranges.

Gore's pitch was the "science consensus", btw. Still is, as the facts keep rolling in year by year. What were you expecting by way of "challenge"?

 

[Billy T]

But then again in July 2007 Peru declared a national emergency due to extreme cold and again this year September and then there was this october blizzard in South Dakota....

Hi Andre & welcome back. Glad to have one as well informed as you active here again. Yes I got a little carried away with my comments about Australia's fires and Colorado's floods being supporting evidence of Global warming as you note with counter examples of "GC" (global cooling).

I do however think my post 909 is on solid scientific grounds - that this time is definitely different from prior ice age ends wrt the CH4 release rate and the risk that may exist even to human life if it continues at that rate as it is increasing its own life-time in the atmosphere by removing the OH- radical that is its main destruction mechanism, at least until CH4 gets high enough for UV to take over that role. What do you think of post 909?

 

[wellwisher]

I propose going back to the time when global warming became mainstream (Al Gore's sales pitch which was not challenged by the science consensus) and look at the predictions which motived the herd.

One prediction made by AL Gore in 2007 and accepted by the consensus was all the Arctic summer ice gone by 2014. I also remember the sea level was supposed to be higher as a result of melt down. I live near the coast and the beach is still there. Also, weren't the number and intensity of hurricanes supposed to be higher and worse. What happen this year? Didn't the propaganda video imply polar bears were going extinct due to the cascade effect of the ice melt> These all could have been avoided by raising taxes.

I was on record as saying this was all bull. What I predicted not to happen came true. Shouldn't there be accountability for bad predictions and then trying to discredit those, who in the end, got it right. Denial turned out to be correct.

The illusion that that appears to fool many people is connected to modern communication. Before TV's, satellites, phone cameras, etc., 99% of the weather went undocumented by science, since there was no scientists there to confirm all locations and no means to do it remotely due to lack of tech and personnel. What we see is more data being collected, due to technology, creating the illusion of more events, from which we then can cherry pick the top hits of the day.

As an analogous experiment, a scientist will stand in a town square. We are looking for a count of people picking their nose as well as the stye they use. We will count these to determine a daily average of occurrences. This is 1930.

For the next experiment, we will make use of technology, like cameras, satellites, internet and will place camera and more scientists in many town squares, with all the live data feeds going to a control room where other can see them all. Now we do the count. One might conclude that since we put in all the cameras, the number of people picking their nose is increasing. We have so much data we start to notice nuance in terms of nose picking style from which we infer new trends. Maybe we can have a year where we only report the data they could have been reported in 1930, today, to see if this makes it appear like less is going on.

 

[Andre]

Hi Andre & welcome back. Glad to have one as well informed as you active here again. Yes I got a little carried away with my comments about Australia's fires and Colorado's floods being supporting evidence of Global warming as you note with counter examples of "GC" (global cooling).

I do however think my post 909 is on solid scientific grounds - that this time is definitely different from prior ice age ends wrt the CH4 release rate and the risk that may exist even to human life if it continues at that rate as it is increasing its own life-time in the atmosphere by removing the OH- radical that is its main destruction mechanism, at least until CH4 gets high enough for UV to take over that role. What do you think of post 909?

Hi Billy, thanks for the welcome. I'm a bit short on time -so references have to wait- now but maybe CH4 is worth an own thread. And obviously I don't agree. CH4 is heavily overrated and that is demonstrated in the combination of the Arctic and Antarctic ice cores. In the Arctic (GRIP, NGRIP, GISPII) we have the oxygen isotope oscilations and CH4 concentration in near perfect pace during the Bolling Allerod, Younger Dryas and Preboreal. However the global temperatures did not change that much, when compared to the Antarctic Ice Cores (Vostok, EPICA Dome C) where those oscilations are not visible. So we have the odd situation that CO2 followed the Antarctic isotopes and the CH4 followed the Arctic isotopes. And both are totally different. So what is local and what is global and which hard conclusions would that bring on global temperature.

Things get even more complicated when a shipload of studies and counting concede that the Northern Hemisphere did warm about 2-3000 years prior to the Bolling oscilation at 14,500 years ago, dubbed by Denton et al 2006 as the "Mystery Interval" but otherwise known as Oldest Dryas.

okay one ref:
Denton, G.H., Broecker, W.S., and Alley, R. B., 2006, The Mystery Interval 17.5 to 14.5 kyrs ago. Pages News 14, 14-16.

 

[Billy T]

Hi Billy, thanks for the welcome. I'm a bit short on time -so references have to wait- now but maybe CH4 is worth an own thread. And obviously I don't agree. CH4 is heavily overrated and that is demonstrated in the combination of the Arctic and Antarctic ice cores. ...

Ok, I look forward to discussion with you (and hope you can show me that my fears are not well founded). But please note that I am not concerned with a higher level of CO2 or even a higher level of CH4, if the reason for that was less OH radical (or other means) for its destruction.

Both if slowly released and more slowly (than now) destroyed are not much of a threat, AFAIK. What concerns me is never before seen RATE of their release and the mutual interaction that increases the rate of release of each. Two strong positive feed back loops both acting to increase the rate of ocean evaporations, - making more rain fall and flooding etc. and to the extent the average atmospheric water vapor increases, still a third positive feed back loop helping to increase the loop gain of the other two as well.

BTW when giving reference if you can, give "clink-on" links. I don't have easy access to much published in English, here in Brazil, if not on the internet too.

 

[Andre]

Ok, I look forward to discussion with you (and hope you can show me that my fears are not well founded)...

As soon as possible, I hope. I'm on a field trip currently though, hunting for the 'Usselo horizon' (highly googleable). But there is plenty plenty plenty to demonstrate that AGW is not the reason why this planet is getting in real trouble.

 

[iceaura]

Ok, I look forward to discussion with you (and hope you can show me that my fears are not well founded)

I find reason to estimate, more than mere hope, that your worst fears re methane lack foundation, because they depend on as yet unobserved and very unlikely rates of heat transfer into quite deep ocean water among other factors, but Andre will not deliver on any promise of "discussion". Instead, you will get more of this:

In the Arctic (GRIP, NGRIP, GISPII) we have the oxygen isotope oscilations and CH4 concentration in near perfect pace during the Bolling Allerod, Younger Dryas and Preboreal. However the global temperatures did not change that much, when compared to the Antarctic Ice Cores (Vostok, EPICA Dome C) where those oscilations are not visible. So we have the odd situation that CO2 followed the Antarctic isotopes and the CH4 followed the Arctic isotopes. And both are totally different. So what is local and what is global and which hard conclusions would that bring on global temperature.

Which is chaff. He finds mysterious a difference between methane release over large areas of seasonally warmed permafrost and methane release over large areas of glacial ice thousands of feet thick, and he phrases it in such a way that exactly what he is claiming based on this supposed mystery is hard to follow. Nothing scans - "which hard conclusions would that bring on global temperature". Is he really trying to say that we have no way of deciding whether the Younger Dryas was a merely local event or more global? I can't tell, and unless you can you'll find no discussion possible.

One prediction made by AL Gore in 2007 and accepted by the consensus was all the Arctic summer ice gone by 2014.

Oh bullshit. Where are you getting this crackpot stuff?

 

[Andre]

...One prediction made by AL Gore in 2007 and accepted by the consensus was all the Arctic summer ice gone by 2014. ...

Oh bullshit. Where are you getting this crackpot stuff?

As various sources have predicted a summer ice free Arctic in the early 2000s, it's not an unreasonable assumption:

Murphy: "by the close of the 2000th century"
Bernt Balchen: - 2000
Maslowski: 2013:

"In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

(Done December 15, 2009)

Meanwhile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

and then we compare the computation results with nature...compare it directly with observation to see if it works....
if it disagrees with experiment....it's wrong.. and that simple statement is the key to science...
It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make a difference how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is...
If it disagrees with experiment..wrong..that's all there is to it.

It's peanuts.

More later on the isotope - greenhouse gas contradiction during the last glacial transition.

 

[exchemist]

So what Gore ACTUALLY said was SOME MODELS predicted a 75% CHANCE of the Arctic being ice-free in the summer ,within 5-7 years, i.e. some time between 2014 and 2016.

So:

a) it was not Gore who made the prediction.

b) only SOME models predicted it.

c) what even they predicted was with only 75% confidence.

d) 2014 was the earliest point in a 2 year range.

Apart from that, what you said was perfectly accurate.

Do you believe you think clearly enough to understand science?

Perhaps you'd make a good journalist, though, for, say, the National Enquirer.

 

[Andre]

So what Gore ACTUALLY said was SOME ...2014...

Excellent attempt to move the goal posts and two ad hominems, I wonder how many more to follow.

2014, not really: