quote:

Originally posted by suricat:

I've only ever seen 'evidence' of a CO2 increase lagging a temperature increase, or conversely, a CO2 reduction lagging a temperature reduction.

The fact that in the past temperature changes came first and the change in CO2 levels lagged behind does not mean that changes in CO2 do not cause changes in temperature.

A rise in temperature causes a rise in CO2 and a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature. Positive feedback. In previous timess climate changes were often caused by shifts if the Earth's orbit - Malenkovitch cycles - so the change in temperature was the initial trigger. Now it is our burning of carbon and the consequent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that is the initial trigger. As temperatures rise yet more CO2 will go into the atmosphere / the ability of the land and oceans to act as carbon sinks will diminish.

More detail here:

New Scientist

Real Climate

legjoints.

quote:

The fact that in the past temperature changes came first and the change in CO2 levels lagged behind does not mean that changes in CO2 do not cause changes in temperature.

This forum has 'been there' before! It also 'does not mean that they do cause changes in temperature'! In fact the record shows otherwise.

Have you noticed the elevated level of O3 in the troposphere? O3 produces far more 'warming' to its surroundings than CO2 does! CO2 'blocks' a narrow spectrum in the infrared and slows thermal cooling. O3 'generates' heat in the infrared 'from' ultraviolet! Ultraviolet is also a far more 'energetic' form of radiation than infrared.

I must concur that these events are 'unprecedented', thus, it is difficult - to say the least - to pinpoint the actual 'catalyst' that is causing the current warming. However, I find CO2 has only a 'weak' case for consideration.

BTW, guess I'll be censored for these remarks.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:

I must concur that these events are 'unprecedented', thus, it is difficult - to say the least - to pinpoint the actual 'catalyst' that is causing the current warming. However, I find CO2 has only a 'weak' case for consideration.

A catalyst would be something that speeds up warming already taking place, whereas what we're looking for is a cause for the warming. The possibilities are:

1. More radiation is reaching the Earth --- monitoring of the sun shows that this is not the case.

2. More heat is coming from within the Earth - geothermal energy. But there's no evidence as far as I know of this being the case.

3. Less heat is leaving the Earth. This could be caused by an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, one of the most important of which is CO2. The level of CO2 has risen dramatically since the start of industrialization. Predictions were made, going as far back as 1896, that if industry continued to spew out CO2 and other greenhouse gases then the temperature of the planet would rise, and this is exactly what is happening.

quote:

I am saddened by the responses to "Engineer"'s question - which I find fundamantal to the issue. From what I have seen the linkage between CO2 and climate change is unproven; and the issue I feel needs to be addressed is what are (we) scientists who do not accept the IPCC findings going to do about it?

Hello CTSQ, pleased to meet you.

Why are you saddened by the response. The process of science is to generate a theory, make predictions based on the theory and observe. The theory that CO2 increases will warm the earth is over 100 years old. Predictions were made then and refined more recently with the help of computer models. The earth has indeed warmed and until someone comes up with a better explanation as to why, CO2 is, reasonably, considered the most likely candidate.

Claiming that there is no proof of a link in the past is not disproving the link any more than claiming that the lack of discovery of evolutionary "missing links" disproves evolution. As it happens though, the amount of change required to cycle between the lows and highs of the ice age cycles is large enough to suggest that it could not have happened without a contribution from rising CO2, possibly released as the oceans warmed and the ice cover retreated.

The March "Jamboree" is being organised by the Heartland Institute which is an industry funded lobby group promoting among other things, according to their website "personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection," which basically means you have to pay all your own healthcare costs and you can pollute as much as you like if it saves you money and makes you bigger profits.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:

Have you noticed the elevated level of O3 in the troposphere? O3 produces far more 'warming' to its surroundings than CO2 does! CO2 'blocks' a narrow spectrum in the infrared and slows thermal cooling. O3 'generates' heat in the infrared 'from' ultraviolet! Ultraviolet is also a far more 'energetic' form of radiation than infrared.

I hadn't noticed the elevated level of O3, but next time I visit the troposphere I'll keep my eyes open.

Here's a page from the NOAA on the radiative forcing of non-CO2 greenhouse gases:

"Radiatively speaking, the most important non-CO2 GHGs are CH4, N2O, CFCs, and ozone (O3). The non-CO2 GHGs have added 1.17 watts per square meter (44.5% of total from all GHGs) of climate forcing from 1750 to 2000."

NOAA

quote:

Have you noticed the elevated level of O3 in the troposphere? O3 produces far more 'warming' to its surroundings than CO2 does!

legjoints beat me to it - while ozone is a strong greenhouse gas, its levels are much much lower than CO2 and the rises are much much smaller. Having said that, it is predicted that by the late 21st century crops across large parts of the world will be significantly impacted by surface levels of ozone (reductions in crop productivity of more than 50 percent in vast areas).

legjoints.

No! A catalyst is something that causes an action, non action, or interaction, that would not occur without its presence! That just makes it more difficult to find.

quote:

1. More radiation is reaching the Earth --- monitoring of the sun shows that this is not the case.

O3 is a catalyst that can increase the thermal insolation without any changes in solar insolation.

quote:

2. More heat is coming from within the Earth - geothermal energy. But there's no evidence as far as I know of this being the case.

I concur.

quote:

3. Less heat is leaving the Earth. This could be caused by an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, one of the most important of which is CO2. The level of CO2 has risen dramatically since the start of industrialization. Predictions were made, going as far back as 1896, that if industry continued to spew out CO2 and other greenhouse gases then the temperature of the planet would rise, and this is exactly what is happening.

The length of this passage suggests that you are trying to justify its content!? What about its value?

BTW, I said this subject would prevoke a negative response. Didn't I?

Best regards, suricat.

No one is denying that inceased CO2 levels will not raise temperatures. The issue is the degree to which they do raise temperatures.

It is clear from temperature records and sunspot reconstructions, that the electromagnetic activity of the Sun can cause vast changes to our climate.

A vast majority of the increases in temperatures during the last 150 years can be attributed to the massive increase in the sun's magnetic activity during that time. The whole reason that there was a little ice age is beacuse the sun was so dormant at this time.

When you remove the probable increases in temperature from solar activity, from the total temperature increase, this leaves very little increase caused by CO2.

Isn't that a bit like removing the flour and sugar when baking a cake to see what effect the baking powder is having?

quote:

No one is denying that inceased CO2 levels will not raise temperatures. The issue is the degree to which they do raise temperatures.

Unfortunately many people are.

quote:

It is clear from temperature records and sunspot reconstructions, that the electromagnetic activity of the Sun can cause vast changes to our climate.

Agreed - depending on the definition of "vast". There is precious little evidence that the sun's variations were the direct cause of the ice age cycles. Rather the cycles seem more likely due to subtle changes in the distribution of the sun's energy due to wobbles in the earth.

quote:

A vast majority of the increases in temperatures during the last 150 years can be attributed to the massive increase in the sun's magnetic activity during that time.

The sun has been stable for a long time - well before the recent warming - its rise in activity stopped in the middle of the century. Therefore this hypothesis fails on both correlation as well as on a reasonable theory of how the relatively minor variations in its activity cause bigger than expected changes.

Why are you so convinced by a theory with no, or little evidence for it and so unconvinced by a perfectly good theory with a good physical basis? If you accept that CO2 can cause some warming why can't you accept that it is reasonable for other people who have studied it deeply to conclude that it could cause much of the recent observed warming?

Steve_M

I would suggest you visit the Danish national space centre website and download the papers by Svenmark.

Correction - it's more like not switching the oven on to see what effect baking powder has in the baking of a cake.

quote:

Originally posted by engineerer:
No one is denying that inceased CO2 levels will not raise temperatures. The issue is the degree to which they do raise temperatures.

Do you mean that no one is denying that increased CO2 will raise temperatures?

quote:

Originally posted by engineerer:
Steve_M

I would suggest you visit the Danish national space centre website and download the papers by Svenmark.

It's Svensmark and he's been brought up here many times. Why do you prefer to believe the highly speculative, controversial, and unproven theories of one person in preference to those accepted by the vast majority of experts in the field?

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:

quote:

3. Less heat is leaving the Earth. This could be caused by an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, one of the most important of which is CO2. The level of CO2 has risen dramatically since the start of industrialization. Predictions were made, going as far back as 1896, that if industry continued to spew out CO2 and other greenhouse gases then the temperature of the planet would rise, and this is exactly what is happening.

The length of this passage suggests that you are trying to justify its content!? What about its value?

If neither 1 nor 2 are happening then we're left with 3. If you want to suggest that 3 is not the case either then what could possibly be causing temperatures to rise?

The reason the Earth is warmer than the moon is because of its atmosphere and its greenhouse gases. We know the levels of certain important greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have risen significantly since the start of industrialization. You appeared to suggest that you thought the radiative forcing of ozone might be greater than that of CO2. The IPCC and other scientific bodies such as the NOAA disagree.

quote:

Steve_M

I would suggest you visit the Danish national space centre website and download the papers by Svenmark.

Been there done that. Cosmic ray fluxes cycle with the solar cycle, but temperatures do not. The theory, that cosmic rays can influence cloud formation does not have sufficient empirical evidence yet, and the upcoming experiment will not deliver it. The explanation as to why the original correlation related to total cloud amount, but was later changed to low cloud amount has never been forthcoming. The explanation as to how low cloud amount could be influenced without influencing total cloud amount is not there. The explanation as to how the correlation between low cloud amount and his cosmic ray measures can be so unbelievably good when low cloud amount is measured by satellites (whose view is therefore obscured) is not there.

Are those sufficient reasons for not yet accepting Svensmark's theories?

Fingers crossed, the next solar peak will be low so we can put the theory to the test.

legjoints.

quote:

If neither 1 nor 2 are happening then we're left with 3. If you want to suggest that 3 is not the case either then what could possibly be causing temperatures to rise?

Sorry for the delay, personal probs.

It seems so hard to get people to understand issues that don't include the 'greenhouse gas' factor of keeping the Earth warm! Yes, CO2 keeps heat in. Yes, water vapour keeps even more heat in than CO2 could hope to. Yes, O3 is also a better 'blanket' than CO2. Yes, CO2 has a long half life. Yes, water vapour has a short half life. Yes, O3 has an even shorter half life than water vapour (in the troposphere at any rate). This isn't about the 'greenhouse' factor. It's about 'heat generation' within the troposphere!

When the stratospheric ozone layer is cooling, why is it that the troposphere is warming?

I hope to get back soon.

Best regards, suricat.

Steve_M.

Steve, according to NASA's sunspot prediction the coming cycle will be greater in amplitude than the last. Though you are looking for cosmic radiation on clouds, no? You shouldn't hold your breath (not that I think you would for one minute).

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Steve_M.

Steve, according to NASA's sunspot prediction the coming cycle will be greater in amplitude than the last. Though you are looking for cosmic radiation on clouds, no? You shouldn't hold your breath (not that I think you would for one minute).

The last peak was weak so the next one only has to be average to be greater than the last one.

quote:

Steve, according to NASA's sunspot prediction the coming cycle will be greater in amplitude than the last. Though you are looking for cosmic radiation on clouds, no? You shouldn't hold your breath (not that I think you would for one minute).

I can hold my breath for two minutes.

A "consensus" prediction made last March had two camps in it for the cycle 24 prediction.

One camp predicted a peak of 140 sunspots in October 2011, another a peak of 90 in August 2012. The average peak is, they said 114, with Cycle 23 being average, Cycles 22 and 21 being over 150.

They predicted the change-over at about March this year. And if it's later it's likely to be weak. Earlier and it's likely to be strong. The first signs of Cycle 24 appeared in December, and I understand the changeover is when Cycle 24 is stronger than Cycle 23 (whatever that means exactly).

But both predictions are for a weaker cycle than 21 and 22. I don't know which camp NASA were in.

legjoints.

I've had The Stratospheric Ozone Textbook referred to me as probably the most explanatory reference on the 'net' when it comes to ozone. You just need to, some how, take this a bit further into the troposphere.


You'll notice how UVa 'cracks' (breaks the molecular bond of) O2, with all the other actions with O3 in section 3. Well, if there isn't an effective shield of O3 in the stratosphere where does the UVa get its interaction? Also, the aerosols that Son of Mulder keeps describing don't exactly 'help' our stratospheric ozone screen (especially the NOx emissions from internal combustion engines which seem unregulated). It makes me ask what Montreal was all about.

This isn't about 'keeping the Earth warm', it's about an 'electric under-blanket' replacing an 'electric over-blanket' that cooled easily.

I'll leave it at that for now and hope the gods allow the link.

Best regards, suricat.

Steve_M.

quote:

I can hold my breath for two minutes.

Didn't mean it literally.

Thanks for the update. I've not looked at this since November 1, but at that time NASA predicted a peak of 150 so I don't know if there is a third camp anywhere. The Belgian lab (SIDC) - to which they refer - claim the start date of cycle 24 as December 13, 2007. Well we're in it now anyhow! Looks like an early start and the prospect of a strong cycle then?

quote:

(whatever that means exactly)

I think this is a diplomatic way of saying 'when the spot count increases', without getting involved in the different graph smoothing procedures. I never was good at diplomacy. That's why I became a grumpy old man at an early age.

quote:

But both predictions are for a weaker cycle than 21 and 22.

Was that for a smoothed average, or peak values? Not that sunspots per se are a 'good' marker of solar wind, or irradiation, but they are an indicator of sorts. The meagre three cycles of satellite data are much more informative. What do you make of the low solar flare level in the third cycle (cycle 23)?

Best regards, suricat.