Runaway Global Warming

[Quantum Quack]

Thanks Billy T!
Just to expand a little I did a couple of graphs indicating two global temperature change models - check my reasoning please...
Model A:

Model B

The two scenarios indicate two very different causation.
Model B is typical of green house effects where heat is trapped in the atmosphere.
Model A could be more associated with heat escaping the atmosphere (less green house effect) but experiencing over heating regardless due to possibly planetary mass warming and not atmospheric warming.
There are "other" evidences to support the hypothesis that are more of a circumstantial nature (since the early 80's) but it appears to me that the ice melt we are seeing and loss of "Permafrost" is due to ground temperatures increasing.

This model could also extend to aid in explaining, amongst many things, the puzzling and distressing "mass marine animal die off" phenomena the world has been experiencing lately, as deep cold hypoxic ocean water could be warming and rising to the surface, killing large groups of animals due to deficiencies in oxygen and alternatively food supply due to earlier die off. (and over 400 oceanic dead spots - most due to environmental factors some due to human affluent)
There is also evidence that land animals here in Australia and other places are possibly over heating suffering extended heat exhaustion which indicates the close relationship "internal" body temperature control has with "internal" environmental factors.

When watching a documentary on the dead zone off Northern New Zealand a while ago one can not help but notice that the horrible sludge that is starting to appear on the ocean floor, appears to be oozing out, under pressure, from below it. Seismic pressure, localized, appears to be forcing this highly toxic black sludge into the normally pristine Northern NZ environment. Increased seismic activity globally appears to confirm this possibility.

 

[Billy T]

Thanks Billy T!
Just to expand a little I did a couple of graphs indicating two global temperature change models - check my reasoning please...
Model B is typical of green house effects where heat is trapped in the atmosphere.
Model A could be more associated with heat escaping the atmosphere (less green house effect) but experiencing over heating regardless due to possibly planetary mass warming and not atmospheric warming. ...

hard to comment as you models are vague. Mode B compares an average to the one day peak, etc. Model A has no time scale. I doubt the separate points are a particular day, like 15 June each year, but if the peak of four summer months averaged was slightly less than one unusually hot day in a month which on averages was cooler than all those other four, I have no idea what you would plot.

What I do want to say a few words about is part I made bold. "heat trapped in the atmosphere" is just a strange way to refer to the atmospheric temperature. That is not what GHG do. They are a very very tiny fraction of the heat trapped in the atmosphere. Instead they make easy escape to space of some IR wave lengths radiated from the surface more difficult - only 400 ppm of CO2 has a big effect on that, but is only ~ 0.000,4 of the "heat trapped in the air."

The earth needs to send back to space as much energy as it absorbs in a long term equilibrium state. It does this via IR radiation. If a GHG is making that harder, the "zero altitude earth" must sent upward more radiant energy to get the same rate of energy going back to space. That is the green house effect, not much to do with "heat trapped in the air."

 

[Quantum Quack]

hard to comment as you models are vague. Mode B compares an average to the one day peak, etc. Model A has no time scale. I doubt the separate points are a particular day, like 15 June each year, but if the peak of four summer months averaged was slightly less than one unusually hot day in a month which on averages was cooler than all those other four, I have no idea what you would plot.

What I do want to say a few words about is part I made bold. "heat trapped in the atmosphere" is just a strange way to refer to the atmospheric temperature. That is not what GHG do. They are a very very tiny fraction of the heat trapped in the atmosphere. Instead they make easy escape to space of some IR wave lengths radiated from the surface more difficult - only 400 ppm of CO2 has a big effect on that, but is only ~ 0.000,4 of the "heat trapped in the air."

The earth needs to send back to space as much energy as it absorbs in a long term equilibrium state. It does this via IR radiation. If a GHG is making that harder, the "zero altitude earth" must sent upward more radiant energy to get the same rate of energy going back to space. That is the green house effect, not much to do with "heat trapped in the air."

Thanks for the clarification.. apologies for my naivety.

The graph Model A is based on the premise that the difference between extremes in temperature [averaged] is growing, and at the same time as the mean temperature is slowly rising.
The graph Model B is based on the premise that the difference between extremes is staying stable whilst the mean temperature is slowly rising.

If I remember correctly I "casually" plotted the vertical lines to represent years.
The graphs were only to aid in exploring the hypothesis.

 

[Trippy]

Thanks for the clarification.. apologies for my naivety.

The graph Model A is based on the premise that the difference between extremes in temperature [averaged] is growing, and at the same time as the mean temperature is slowly rising.
The graph Model B is based on the premise that the difference between extremes is staying stable whilst the mean temperature is slowly rising.

If I remember correctly I "casually" plotted the vertical lines to represent years.
The graphs were only to aid in exploring the hypothesis.

Model A is one of the fundamental points that many deniers fail to understand - all of the models point to an increase in variance as well as an increase in average, which is precisely what your 'model A' depicts,

 

[river]

On reading Tims' book a couple of things stand out

1) information or the data used to make this or that conclusion about our climate is woefully inadequate

2) much of the variables , such as soil moisture , atmosphere circulation data ( the Hadley Cell ) , are not included in any model (computer)

3) computer power is nowhere near enough ( even the Cray , Gaea computer , which has a 1.1 petaflop capacity )

4) NONE of the models include thunderstorms , which there are tens of millions each year


One more thing , be careful of the quality data , or on what basis is the data gathered

 

[Billy T]

Model A is one of the fundamental points that many deniers fail to understand - all of the models point to an increase in variance as well as an increase in average, which is precisely what your 'model A' depicts,

Very true if his data is all from one place, like Atlanta,GA. The greater amplitude of the "polar vortex" latitude excersions now makes ice storms that shut the city down now.

 

[iceaura]

On reading Tims' book a couple of things stand out

You have been adequately informed, with links and references, about the nature of "Tim's book". This is a collection of science forums. References to politically or religiously based works of ignorance, deception, and error, are spam, here, except in their special ghettos. The earth science forum is not one of those ghettos.

 

[Trippy]

Very true if his data is all from one place, like Atlanta,GA. The greater amplitude of the "polar vortex" latitude excersions now makes ice storms that shut the city down now.

I'm fairly sure that they're illustrative examples, rather than actual data...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Model A is one of the fundamental points that many deniers fail to understand - all of the models point to an increase in variance as well as an increase in average, which is precisely what your 'model A' depicts,

Yet still, I believe a strong case could be made that indicates climate change causation is primarily due to non-anthropogenic planetary mass heating changes.
I do not believe that CO2 is in itself responsible just as I do not believe anthropogenic CFC's were and are mainly responsible for ozone depletion. (Ozone Hole)

The above beliefs and others stem from researching global events of 1985/86 in particular.
...and

• How certain data was removed from public view years ago. ( especially dramatic solar luminosity graphs )
  
• How currently comprehensive and accurate climate change data is simply unavailable making a proper assessment impossible. (conspiracy theory)
• How obvious seismic/tectonic trends since 1985/86 have been largely ignored especially when debating climate change.

 

[Billy T]

Yet still, I believe a strong case could be made that indicates climate change causation is primarily due to non-anthropogenic planetary mass heating changes.

Please try. It should b interesting to see how you cope with fact all the four sources of "planetary heating" I listed for you, are declining now.

... I do not believe anthropogenic CFC's were and are mainly responsible for ozone depletion. (Ozone Hole)

Also interesting to hear you reason why "Ozone Hole" increased with CFC's production volume and then contracted ("healed" to large extent) after most CFC production ceased.

If you want to read all about their relationship, read:
Paul Crutzen's 1995 Noble Prize Lecture at: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/crutzen-lecture.pdf

Here is a brief quote from it but start reading on page 207 or 208:
"Cicerone et al. (56) published a paper in which they predicted that by
1985-1990, continued use of CFCs at early 1970’s levels could lead to ClOx
catalyzed ozone destruction of a similar magnitude as the natural sinks of
ozone. Following Molina’s and Rowland’s proposal, research on stratospheric
chemistry further intensified, now with the emphasis on chlorine
compounds.

Note that damage to the ozone layer by CFCs was PREDICTED, and then later confirmed.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Please try. It should b interesting to see how you cope with fact all the four sources of "planetary heating" I listed for you, are declining now.
Also interesting to hear you reason why "Ozone Hole" increased with CFC's production volume and then contracted ("healed" to large extent) after most CFC production ceased.

If you want to read all about their relationship, read:
Paul Crutzen's 1995 Noble Prize Lecture at: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/crutzen-lecture.pdf

Thanks Billy T!
There were reports recently of how the ozone is currently just as degraded as it was in the early 80's and that they are currently looking for other reasons other than CFC contamination for it.
I note the date of the Crutzen's lecture is 1995. Over 19 years old... but shall have a squiz all the same.
Has there been anything more recent say >2012?
Perhaps the link between ozone and oxygen (Chapman cycle?*) is important in this case as indicated by oceanic dead spots and possibly global oxygen depletion generally as well.

"The ozone-oxygen cycle: the ozone molecules formed by the reaction above absorb radiation having an appropriate wavelength between UV-B and the very top end of UV-A. The triatomic ozone molecule becomes diatomic molecular oxygen plus a free oxygen atom "
re: wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-oxygen_cycle

So the issue may possibly be more correctly defined as Oxygen Depletion rather than CO2 production regards Global environmental health.

 

[milkweed]

On reading Tims' book a couple of things stand out

1) information or the data used to make this or that conclusion about our climate is woefully inadequate
2) much of the variables , such as soil moisture , atmosphere circulation data ( the Hadley Cell ) , are not included in any model (computer)

3) computer power is nowhere near enough ( even the Cray , Gaea computer , which has a 1.1 petaflop capacity )

4) NONE of the models include thunderstorms , which there are tens of millions each year

One more thing , be careful of the quality data , or on what basis is the data gathered

With 1 and 2 being the state of affairs, #3 is irrelevant.

Addition:

You may be interested in this post at Watts Up With That. Pay attention to the comments as it appears Santer has commented on the article.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/...ists-have-egg-on-their-faces/#comment-1754698

 

[Quantum Quack]

With 1 and 2 being the state of affairs, #3 is irrelevant.

Given the significance of climate change one would normally expect to be inundated with full and comprehensive data sets. Especially given the modern use of internet data collection facilities.
But we see no central, tested and public data set even after so many years of needing it... I ask Why? (conspiracy theory)
A global resource for all university and research institutes to make use of is non-extent.

Years ago I wanted to build a web trawler just for the collection of climate data, historical and daily but could find no one interested in joining the project. So I abandoned the project thinking surely some organization would do it instead. But alas none appear to have done so. ( I haven't checked lately so I may be mistaken)

 

[milkweed]

Given the significance of climate change one would normally expect to be inundated with full and comprehensive data sets. Especially given the modern use of internet data collection facilities.
But we see no central, tested and public data set even after so many years of needing it... I ask Why?
A global resource for all university and research institutes to make use of is non-extent.

The datasets are out there. What is harder/next to impossible to find is the Raw/unadjusted data. Oh... and getting the code used seems to be an issue.

http://climateaudit.org/gridded-data/

Links at bottom of this page give you downloadable data:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-climate/

I think this one is basically the same as above but dont know for sure:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/

 

[Quantum Quack]

The datasets are out there. What is harder/next to impossible to find is the Raw/unadjusted data. Oh... and getting the code used seems to be an issue.

http://climateaudit.org/gridded-data/

Links at bottom of this page give you downloadable data:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-climate/

I think this one is basically the same as above but dont know for sure:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/

well this is better than what was happening a while ago... thanks for that..
I notice that most of the graphs point to the 1980's as being pivotal... hmmm

 

[sculptor]

1980s seems to have been a time of more rapid magnetic pole shift process
coincidence?

 

[Quantum Quack]

found this:
"Oxygen levels are decreasing globally due to fossil-fuel burning. The changes are too small to have an impact on human health, but are of interest to the study of climate change and carbon dioxide. These plots show the atmospheric O2 concentration relative to the level around 1985. The observed downward trend amounts to 19 'per meg' per year. This corresponds to losing 19 O2 molecules out of every 1 million O2 molecules in the atmosphere each year." - c/o http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

I am not convinced that the data (9 sampling locations only) and it's interpretation is comprehensive enough.
Also ozone depletion and oxygen level relationship is not being considered.
I also "believe" humans are more sensitive to oxygen levels than currently considered.

 

[Quantum Quack]

1980s seems to have been a time of more rapid magnetic pole shift process
coincidence?

have you got exact dates etc... link?

 

[Quantum Quack]

"In the United States, asthma cases have increased by more than 60 percent since the early 1980s, and asthma-related deaths have doubled to 5,000 a year. What is causing the asthma epidemic and what can we do to stem the tide? A recent series of articles in the Journal of the American Chiropractic Association (JACA) delves into this question and offers advice from doctors of chiropractic and allergists who have helped control asthma symptoms in many patients."
c/o http://www.acatoday.org/content_css.cfm?CID=63
(undated article - presumed relatively current)

 

[river]

found this:
"Oxygen levels are decreasing globally due to fossil-fuel burning. The changes are too small to have an impact on human health, but are of interest to the study of climate change and carbon dioxide. These plots show the atmospheric O2 concentration relative to the level around 1985. The observed downward trend amounts to 19 'per meg' per year. This corresponds to losing 19 O2 molecules out of every 1 million O2 molecules in the atmosphere each year." - c/o http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

I am not convinced that the data (9 sampling locations only) and it's interpretation is comprehensive enough.
Also ozone depletion and oxygen level relationship is not being considered.
I also "believe" humans are more sensitive to oxygen levels than currently considered.

9 sampling locations or stations is ridiculously small sample of global oxygen levels