Global Temperatures Skyrocketing (Again)

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks


Now this actually goes to the core of the global warming issue. If the MWP occurred due to natural sources (ocean circulation) and was a global event, then that puts the current theory that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are the ONLY forcing that could have caused rising global temperatures.

Tired of Control Freaks

You miss the observed facts that increased greenhouse effect is directly observed by satellites.

Stratosphere is cooling (as predicted), and poles are warming more than equatorial regions, and night time is warming more than daytime, and winter more than summer. Along with the known physics of greenhouse gases, these are particular signatures of increased warming from greenhouse gases.

If we had detailed instrumentation globally a few hundred or thousand years ago we'd also find the mechanism of their respective warming periods. It's possible there was either natural greenhouse gas increases, or solar luminosity increases, or something else.

a reply to: mbkennel

No, satelittes are observing the effects of the warming! There is no evidence from satellites that confirms that CO2 is the cause. The same effects probably happened during the MWP.

And satellites and the AGW theory do not explain that the EFFECT (Warming) is occuring in lockstep with the proposed CAUSE (rise in CO2). Logically, there must be CAUSE, then EFFECT.

Let us not forget that the study I provided also shows that the warming of the MWP exceeded today's warming.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Again that's not what I'm seeing in the same article.

The lengthy paper consists of two main threads: consideration of sea level changes during the previous interglacial period around 120,000 years ago and some model simulations of the effects melting ice could have on ocean circulation. A few scenarios examined in the paper added glacial meltwater to the oceans—enough to raise sea levels by several meters over varying timescales. To be clear about this: sea level rise was an input controlled by the researchers, not a prediction from the model (or some other analysis).

During the last interglacial period, a different configuration of the orbital cycles that govern natural, longer-term changes in Earth’s climate yielded conditions up to a degree Celsius or so warmer than the present day (for a time). As a result, sea level was notably higher, by perhaps 5 meters to 9 meters. The manuscript spends some time reviewing the evidence for sea level changes during that period, including some deposits in the Bahamas that might indicate substantially stronger storms in the region (not everyone agrees). Part of that story, the researchers say, could be a relatively rapid loss of ice from Antarctica, enough to raise sea level several meters.

Given that temperatures are increasing much more rapidly today than they did during that interglacial, the researchers explore the climate impacts of some rapid sea level rise scenarios of their choosing. These scenarios are predicated on glacial melt rates accelerating over time—one in which the melt rate doubles every five years, one every 10 years, and one every 20 years. Each scenario stops at 5 meters of sea level rise. A 5-year doubling time reaches 5 meters around the year 2060, while a 20-year doubling time hits 5 meters around 2160.

The way I understand it is the whole purpose of the paper is to compare the sea level rise of the last interglacial to the observed sea level rise of now by proposing that if the global temperature rises to 2C like it was in the last interglacial that resulted in a much higher sea level rise rate than current models use now which is based on observation.

As you said yourself:

His exploratory scenario

Also Hansen's interview on CNN is presented as a hypothesis.

Partial transcript of where the video linked in the article left off.

ZAKARIA: But your hypothesis, you look back - you know, you look at a period that's really 120,000 years ago. And some of your critics are saying, well, who knows if that's applicable now? Why did you choose that point?

HANSEN: Well, we did several things. That was one of the things we did, is to look at the last time it was warmer than today. And it was less than one degree Celsius warmer than today and sea level reached heights of six to eight meters higher than today. So if we allow the temperature to go two degrees higher, we're guaranteeing that that sea level rise will occur; we just aren't sure how fast it will occur. And what our study shows, it's a lot faster than the glaciologists had imagined.

ZAKARIA: You saw The Washington Post asked some other scientists - there have been people on Twitter, like Ruth Mottram, who have responded. And some of them are skeptical. Do you - do you understand the skepticism?

HANSEN: Oh, sure. That's the nature of science. That's the lifeblood of science. You always are skeptical of any new conclusion. And so that's not surprising at all. But compare it to the 1980s, when I testified to Congress. There was an overwhelming skepticism and criticism, and then, over a few years, the story changed. Here, there were a lot of people becoming very suspicious that the IPCC was underestimating the sea level problem.

a reply to: Kali74

The doubling rate of melting was chosen arbitrarily, while 10 years matches the observed data from today's conditions. In the CNN interview the scenario is presented as if it were factually based on the modern c02 forcing.

During the last interglacial period, a different configuration of the orbital cycles that govern natural, longer-term changes in Earth’s climate yielded conditions up to a degree Celsius or so warmer than the present day (for a time).

He explains that here that the entire system was different and had a greater sea level rise with less of a temperature increase. It was not linked to C02, apples and orangutans.

This does absolutely nothing to link a modern 2 degree warming to a 5 year doubling (unsupported by any observed data) which he then says he believes is what will happen.

-FBB

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

No, satelittes are observing the effects of the warming! There is no evidence from satellites that confirms that CO2 is the cause.

No, mbkennel's correct – satellite (and ground based) data have directly recorded heat trapping due to rising GHG emissions. I did an entire thread on it before, which was linked back in the OP of this one:
Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

That's what it all comes down to. It's the *mic drop* in this whole debate. But no skeptic ever addresses it. They just ignore, ignore, deny, deny…lalala…pretend they’re not obfuscating but merely “asking questions”, until the science provides answers they don't want to hear.

And now you're just dismissing it offhand claiming this data doesn't exist. ^It's right there, read the thread.

But that's really the crux of the whole issue: a skeptic would actually ask questions – they would take a claim like that and say “you know I've never heard of that before, can you provide a source so I can take a look?”. But a denier just goes “nope, no comprende, does not compute”, and blindly rejects anything that doesn't fit their confirmation bias.

So which one do you want to be?

a reply to: mc_squared

Hey, I read your thread and it is pretty decent. However just saying the radiation at some spectrum means nothing to most folks.

So for those curious, the wavelength of the EM (electromagnetic) wave determines the intensity of what will pass through and be reflected by the atmosphere and the earth's surface. Calculations for this are still being refined by those like Dr. Abraham and his laminar (thin layers) method which is usually a novel extrapolation of flux (the amount of something passing through an imaginary border over a period of time).

The energy in the wave is transferred to the molecules it comes in contact with, and C02 can hold more energy than much of what is naturally there, and then how that is transferred to the molecules surround the C02.

Parts where people start getting confused in when energy is transferred to land or sea as the the thermodynamics are measured differently in a gas versus a solid and so conversions must take place for things like expansion (heat, but not necessarily temperature).

Then comes in the modelling of how the heat and temperature is transferred in the system (isolated moving parts) and how is transferred to other systems.

And so you are trying to combine linear processes into a dynamic set of systems and force all of them to have the common variable of C02.

It is really simple to see when you dig in to this how people question the single factor of C02 as being the sole culprit. Furthermore, when the solution starts factoring in 'social justice' and other highly political desires, it is plain to see why people would then outright reject any of the science. That is because the science has been muddied with systems that do not operate on functions but highly emotionally dependent systems.

Anyways I think you thread was a good attempt to explain the matter.

-FBB

//edit
Also no one uses degrees F or C for science, they use the Kelvin system.

a reply to: mc_squared

Heat trapping is exactly that - heat trapping. No one says temperature isn't rising! How does that prove that CO2 CAUSED the heat trapping.

The study I provided proved the MWP was global, that oceans were warmer and the atmosphere was warmer. Nary an SUV in sight. What caused that? How do you know that whatever caused that happening again? CO2 was higher in the past. Maybe that is what CO2 is supposed to do!

Look we are currently in a badass El Nino year. It is predicted that this will be the strongest El Nino ever. We know that during this El Nino, heat will be discharged from the ocean. We know that CO2 in the atmosphere is plant food and for sure the earth has greened during the last century.

I have read studies from Russia indicating that the tree line was 350 m higher than it is now.

And you still haven't addressed the issue of Cause and Effect.

If you wish to speak to me - please feel free to do so but I am getting tired of the name calling. Do you know how to be civil.
Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
So you are telling us your do not understand radiative forcing?

One would think that someone like you who posts in these climate threads often, would have a grasp of radiative forcing.

Willful ignorance?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
So you are telling us your do not understand radiative forcing?

One would think that someone like you who posts in these climate threads often, would have a grasp of radiative forcing.

Willful ignorance?

Then why don't you explain heat transfer into the [snip whoops] gas C02 to them and help them if you are so well informed and competent in thermodynamics and climate change? Maybe link them to the formulas and explain it a little?

-FBB

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The entire premise of AGW is that we are facing an unprecedented situation because. The fact is that this situation is not unprecedented at all. It happened during the MSP.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
There was a species dumping tons and tons of CO2 in the atmosphere during the MSP?

Reality check, the levels of CO2 we are pumping in the atmosphere is NOT precedented.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
There was a species dumping tons and tons of CO2 in the atmosphere during the MSP?

Reality check, the levels of CO2 we are pumping in the atmosphere is NOT precedented.

Yes actually there was, every living creature engaging in respiration was dumping C02 into the atmosphere during that period. This is a fact you can easily verify by reviewing the evidence from glacial core samples. The amount you find there was largely the result of species dumping c02 into the atmosphere and its total amount is in the tons.

-FBB

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mc_squared
And you still haven't addressed the issue of Cause and Effect.

Did you even look at the thread I linked?

Clearly you didn't because that's exactly what it addresses. The observations filter heat trapping right down to CO2 (and other GHGs) because these molecules intercept and re-radiate infrared at explicit bandwidths that can be easily identified in the spectrum.





Here, let me quote some of the peer-reviewed papers on this for you:

This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the ‘‘theory’’ of greenhouse warming with direct observations.

Radiative forcing - measured at Earth’s surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect

a reply to: mc_squared

For anyone who wants to get a look at the maths involved in calculations based in wavenumber (k = 2pi / wavelength) can be found here;

Units of Wavenumbers
www.spectralcalc.com...

-FBB

a reply to: mc_squared

no - that is showing that temperature and CO2 are rising together. History shows that those two events are separated by hundreds or thousands of years. First you have Cause - then you have Effect.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Wow.

Ok I see what the problem is - you don't even understand what you're looking at.

The question is whether it's an issue of not understanding what you're looking at, or not wanting to understand what you're looking at. So far I haven't seen much of anything to suggest it's the former and not the latter unfortunately.

There is absolutely no "temperature and CO2 rising together" in those graphs I just posted.

a reply to: mc_squared

Technically those graphs are showing the amount of energy at what wavelengths are being reflected back and through the property of transitivity are implying that those molecules are in large quantities in the atmosphere. That is then linked back to the temperature increases as the evidence that they do in fact hold more energy which they radiate to their surroundings.

Energy is not temperature, but further in the study the correlation is made.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Yes actually there was, every living creature engaging in respiration was dumping C02 into the atmosphere during that period.

Yes. And where did that CO2 come from in the first place? Did it come from burning carbon which has been buried deep underground for millions of years?

There is something called the carbon cycle. Plants use sunlight and CO2 and turn it into food. Animals eat food and send that CO2 back into the atmosphere, through respiration and decomposition. Plants use that CO2 and along with sunlight, turn it into food...again.

The burning of fossil fuels has disrupted that cycle. That's why CO2 levels are higher than they have been for hundreds of thousand of years. That is what the ice cores tell us. How do we know where the CO2 is coming from? Funny you should ask:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
The entire premise of AGW is that we are facing an unprecedented situation because. The fact is that this situation is not unprecedented at all. It happened during the MSP.

Uh, nope.

MWP was cooler than today.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

They're showing that less infrared radiation is escaping at the top of the atmosphere, and more is radiating back to the surface. The bumps and dips correlate to the specific bandwidths that the labelled GHGs are already mathematically and experimentally proven to trap IR at. There's no implying how much of these gases are in our atmosphere because we can already measure that separately. They are not "holding" the energy, they're simply slowing it down really. Ultimately it still gets out, but the system (the Earth) now effectively has to radiate at a hotter temperature to restore that equilibrium.

To say that "more energy does not translate to temperature increase" is pretty obtuse reasoning - what else would it translate to?