Global Warming Cause: People or Planetary Mechanics?

[Michaelangelica]

Sure thing; ask & you shall receive.

 

Found this nice table at Wicky from IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). All the green-house gasses, their levels in 1998 & 1750 & related data.

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

:

Thanks Turtle

I think they are worth quoting here

does anyone know where the alphabet soup named gasses come from?

and

What is there relative contribution Vis-a-vis CO2?

 

 

IPCC list of greenhouse gases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

 

This is a list of greenhouse gases as used by the IPCC TAR.

[edit]

 

Gases relevant to radiative forcing only (per IPCC documentation)

Gas Alternate Name Formula 1998 Level Increase since 1750 Radiative forcing (Wm2)

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 365ppm 87 ppm 1.46

Methane (CH4) 1,745ppb 1,045ppb 0.48

Nitrous oxide (N2O) 314ppb 44ppb 0.15

Tetrafluoromethane Carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) 80ppt 40ppt 0.003

Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 3 ppt 3ppt 0.001

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 4.2ppt 4.2ppt 0.002

HFC-23* Trifluoromethane (CHF3) 14ppt 14ppt 0.002

HFC-134a* 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (C2H2F4) 7.5ppt 7.5ppt 0.001

HFC-152a* 1,1-Difluoroethane (C2H4F2) 0.5ppt 0.5ppt 0.000

[edit]

 

Gases relevant to radiative forcing and ozone depletion (per IPCC documentation)

Gas Alternate Name Formula 1998 Level Increase since 1750 Radiative forcing (Wm2)

CFC-11 Trichlorofluoromethane (CFCl3) 268ppt 268ppt 0.07

CFC-12 Dichlorodifluoromethane (CF2Cl2) 533ppt 533ppt 0.17

CFC-13 Chlorotrifluoromethane (CClF3) 4ppt 4ppt 0.001

CFC-113 1,1,1-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (C2F3Cl3) 84ppt 84ppt 0.03

CFC-114 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (C2F4Cl2) 15ppt 15ppt 0.005

CFC-115 Chloropentafluoroethane (C2F5Cl) 7ppt 7ppt 0.001

Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloromethane (CCl4) 102ppt 102ppt 0.01

1,1,1-Trichloroethane Methyl chloroform (CH3CCl3) 69ppt 69ppt 0.004

HCFC-141b 1,1-Dichloro-1-Fluoroethane (C2H3FCl2) 10ppt 10ppt 0.001

HCFC-142b 1-Chloro-1,1-Difluoroethane (C2H3F2Cl) 11ppt 11ppt 0.002

Halon-1211 Bromochlorodifluoromethane (CClF2Br) 3.8ppt 3.8ppt 0.001

Halon-1301 Bromotrifluoromethane (CF3Br) 2.5ppt 2.5ppt 0.001

 

(Source: IPCC radiative forcing report 1994 updated (to 1998) by IPCC TAR table 6.1 [1]. See also [2].

[Michaelangelica]

This graph goes to my point that we have no idea what the "norm" is & trying to "fix" things under that constrait is logically fallacious>

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figts-9.htm

It's not a very clear graph.

I find it diffuicult to extract anything meaningful from it.

I guess it's a start on my question (above)

[Turtle]

It's not a very clear graph.

I find it diffuicult to extract anything meaningful from it.

I guess it's a start on my question (above)

 

It is helpful to read all the explanatory material below the graph. Difficulty is something to overcome.

 

Lurking in the who's-on-line booth, I stumbled on pertinent data right here on Hypog from Tormod. To whit:

 

In a paper due to be published in an upcoming volume of the Annals of Glaciology, Paul Mayewski, director of UMaine's Climate Change Institute, and 11 colleagues from China, Australia and UMaine describe evidence from ice cores pointing to an association between the waxing and waning of zonal wind strength around Antarctica and a chemical signal of changes in the sun's output.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/1047-link-found-between-solar-activity-global.html

[Michaelangelica]

Does anyone know where they all come from??

Wikepedia:

Gases relevant to radiative forcing only (per IPCC documentation)

Gas Alternate Name Formula 1998 Level Increase since 1750 Radiative forcing (Wm2)

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 365ppm 87 ppm 1.46

Methane (CH4) 1,745ppb 1,045ppb 0.48

Nitrous oxide (N2O) 314ppb 44ppb 0.15

Tetrafluoromethane Carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) 80ppt 40ppt 0.003

Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 3 ppt 3ppt 0.001

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 4.2ppt 4.2ppt 0.002

HFC-23* Trifluoromethane (CHF3) 14ppt 14ppt 0.002

HFC-134a* 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (C2H2F4) 7.5ppt 7.5ppt 0.001

HFC-152a* 1,1-Difluoroethane (C2H4F2) 0.5ppt 0.5ppt 0.000

[edit]

 

Gases relevant to radiative forcing and ozone depletion (per IPCC documentation)

Gas Alternate Name Formula 1998 Level Increase since 1750 Radiative forcing (Wm2)

CFC-11 Trichlorofluoromethane (CFCl3) 268ppt 268ppt 0.07

CFC-12 Dichlorodifluoromethane (CF2Cl2) 533ppt 533ppt 0.17

CFC-13 Chlorotrifluoromethane (CClF3) 4ppt 4ppt 0.001

CFC-113 1,1,1-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (C2F3Cl3) 84ppt 84ppt 0.03

CFC-114 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (C2F4Cl2) 15ppt 15ppt 0.005

CFC-115 ChloropentafluoroetDoes any one know where they all come from?

hane (C2F5Cl) 7ppt 7ppt 0.001

Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloromethane (CCl4) 102ppt 102ppt 0.01

1,1,1-Trichloroethane Methyl chloroform (CH3CCl3) 69ppt 69ppt 0.004

HCFC-141b 1,1-Dichloro-1-Fluoroethane (C2H3FCl2) 10ppt 10ppt 0.001

HCFC-142b 1-Chloro-1,1-Difluoroethane (C2H3F2Cl) 11ppt 11ppt 0.002

Halon-1211 Bromochlorodifluoromethane (CClF2Br) 3.8ppt 3.8ppt 0.001

Halon-1301 Bromotrifluoromethane (CF3Br) 2.5ppt 2.5ppt 0.001

 

(Source: IPCC radiative forcing report 1994 updated (to 1998) by IPCC TAR table 6.1 [1]. See also [2]

.

[Turtle]

Quite the erratic pendulum we're all clinging to, eh? :shrug:

 

In this month's Geology, scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research present new evidence that ocean surface temperatures varied as much as 6 degrees Celsius (about 11 degrees Fahrenheit) during the Aptian Epoch of the Cretaceous Period 120 million years ago.

 

The finding is relevant to the ongoing climate change discussion, IUB geologist Simon Brassell says, because it portrays an ancient Earth whose temperatures shifted erratically due to changes in carbon cycling and did so without human input.

 

Read entire article here:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/iu-dcs092006.php

 

:)

[Turtle]

Then we have the news that apparently the atmosphere is warming little, but the Earth's surface is!?

 

Why Isn't the Atmosphere Warming Like the Earth's Surface?

(10/12/2006)

 

Then we have the discrepancies between the surface thermometers and the high-altitude balloons and satellites. Seven out of eight datasets on upper air temperatures in the tropics show much less warming in the atmosphere than on the Earth’s surface, according to Christy’s July 20, 2006 testimony before Congress. Christy points out that the tropics make up one-third of the planet’s surface. He warns that seven datasets are very unlikely to differ from the eighth in the same way by random chance, he warns....

http://americandaily.com/article/16013

 

:cocktail: :friday:

[Michaelangelica]

What do you make of this article turtle?

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/782

How 20 million people on the world's largest island and driest liveable continent cope with changes to their environment could well be a harbinger for what is to come elsewhere.

It will either be a success story for the rest of the world to emulate, or a cautionary tale to warn others.

"We're in the hottest decades in history," Thomas Swetnam declares. "It's gonna get warmer, it's gonna burn better and we're gonna see more fires."

[Turtle]

What do you make of this article turtle?

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/782

 

Sounds similar to the condition in the US, right down to the speculation about the influence of Native Americans setting fires intentionally before the Europeans arrived. We have an accumulation of fuel as a result of a century or more of fire suppression and plenty of lightning, arsonists, and careless campers to set it alight.:shrug: Unfortunately because of legal challenges by environmentalists we aren't being allowed to harvest the burns or otherwise remediate the problem. Instead, we get Smoky the Bear cartoon adverts!:eek2:

[steve daniels]

Global warming is both natural and human induced. The latter has accelerated it beyond the point where we can cope with it. Earth will survive but will we?

[Michaelangelica]

Global warming is both natural and human induced. The latter has accelerated it beyond the point where we can cope with it. Earth will survive but will we?

I don't know

What do you think?

Does it matter?

[Michaelangelica]

We have an accumulation of fuel as a result of a century or more of fire suppression and plenty of lightning, arsonists, and careless campers to set it alight.:esmoking: Unfortunately because of legal challenges by environmentalists we aren't being allowed to harvest the burns or otherwise remediate the problem. Instead, we get Smoky the Bear cartoon adverts!:doh:

We are starting to burn in a controlled manner. But it is not always easy.

Usually when the fire service wants to burn (Winter) it rains.

(Australia is is now in its worst drought in European history; at least in the southern 50% of the Continent)

Most Australian natives will not germinate without fire;

after 40,000 to 80,000 (?) years of Aboriginal horticulture have trained them to germinate after fire.

Also the soils are very deficient of P which fires help

Michael

[HydrogenBond]

I believe that global warming is a natural phenomena. The data that supports this is connected to previous earth trends that show the earth heating and cooling. We came off an ice age not too long ago, before humans could have played any significant role. This alone shows that human intervention is not neccesary for global warming.

 

Modern humans may be contributing to the current warming cycle, but the currect data that supports the earth being dominant is associated with the average ocean temperatures falling slightly, inspite of all the human greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This would suggest less mantle heat is currently flowing into the oceans since the humanistis parameters should have result in the oceans getting warmer.

 

Many scientists attribut the cooling ocenas to the melting of the polar caps. But if you think of it, what cools your drink better, ice cubes or cold water? Simple heat transfer consideration would say that ice at 20F will cool things more than water at 32F.

[CraigD]

I believe that global warming is a natural phenomena. …

To clarify, HB, your opinion is that the Earth is actually undergoing a period of “global cooling” related natural cycles of cooling (and resulting glaciation) and warming strongly supported by such evidence as ice core and varve analysis?

 

And that human activity is having little or no significant impact on this process?

 

While a widely held and credible opinion, it’s not one included in this polls 2 question. If it were, the option would read something like: “Planetary mechanics have caused global cooling”.

[Zythryn]

Modern humans may be contributing to the current warming cycle, but the currect data that supports the earth being dominant is associated with the average ocean temperatures falling slightly, inspite of all the human greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This would suggest less mantle heat is currently flowing into the oceans since the humanistis parameters should have result in the oceans getting warmer.

 

The studies I have seen have measured surface sea temperature. These would not be directly affected by heat from the mantle. Just with the climate of the atmosphere, the affect on the ocean is not a steady static increase or decrease. Each year different reinforcing or mitigating 'loops' affect the temperature in different ways. Your next point is an excellent example of how warming forces can cause cooling.

 

Many scientists attribut the cooling ocenas to the melting of the polar caps. But if you think of it, what cools your drink better, ice cubes or cold water? Simple heat transfer consideration would say that ice at 20F will cool things more than water at 32F.

 

This is an excellent point. However I don't agree with your conclusion.

 

Take a glass of water and add three ice cubes. Let's say the water is 70 degrees. The energy needed to warm the ice to 32, then melt it, comes from the water and the atmosphere. The process of warming and melting the ice does lower the temperature of the water.

 

Now, I haven't done the math. I am not sure how many cubic miles of ice melted last year, or the last few years. However, it does seem more reasonable to me that the large amount of ice lost would explain the cooler oceans.

 

Now, if CO2 does warm the climate, it would seem to support that man is contributing to the warming climate. I don't see any indication that it is otherwise. Still looking though:)

[CraigD]

Based on my read of the data and literature, I believe human environmental influences, such as increased CO2 output, has caused a significant increase in average temperature, while, at the same time, non-human influences are tending to reduce average temperature.

 

My opinion is the starting point for a third major position of the global warming question:

1. Certain human activity is a significant cause of dangerous global warming, and should reduced to avoid severe damaging consequences;
2. No human activity is a significantly cause of global warming (and global warming may or may not actually be occurring);
3. Certain human activity is a significant deterrent to global cooling, so should not be reduced, or should be increased, in order to prevent or postpone an this dangerous global cooling.
   

I believe this third position has been around for some time. A fairly large audience was exposed to in by Niven, Pournelle, and Flynn’s 1991 Prometheus Award winning novel, ”Fallen Angels” (available free at the Baen Free Library :wave: ).

 

As a whole, I find the taking and defending of these strong positions on the global warming to be unwise and less than ideally scientific. While I have a tentative opinion concerning global warming, my most strongly held opinion is that improving the scientific understanding of climate, including past, present, and potential human influences, should be the most important goal of leaders, voters, and researchers. The committed and inflexible defense of any conclusive opinion on the subject tends to harm this pursuit, and should be discouraged.

[IMAMONKEY!]

Planetary Mechanics cause Global Warming. We merely accelerate it. A lot...:hihi:

[HydrogenBond]

One has to separate science from politics. The human factor in global warming is as much a political position as a science position, with experts supporting this political position. For example, the chloro-fluro carbons, such as freon, carbon tetrachloride, percloroehtylene, etc., were widely believed to be responsible for the hole in the ozone layer. All kinds of sciences supported this claim. This was big science/politics several years ago. The social result was the drastic reduction of these products because of the political-science. The result of this change should have been the sealing of the ozone hole, but it didn't pan out that way. It turns out other factors were involved, which were ignorred at the time due to politics. I believe global warming is oversimplified due to politics and the future will point this out. Maybe we need accountablity. If it turns out to be only a fraction of the affect, those scientist, who claimed to be experts, should volunteer for an old fashion tar and feathering.