Sea levels may drop with global warming - press clips

[billvon 3,132]

>Read this website and see what you think. It made a lot of sense to me.

The page was created by Monte Hieb, a coal power advocate who works for the West Virginia Office of Miners. He's not a scientist. This is significant because coal power is the biggest source of CO2 in the US, and any CO2 reduction effort would hit the coal industry hardest. So he has a vested interest in 'proving' that human CO2 has nothing to do with climate change.

That being said, what he says is essentially correct. Water is a bigger influence than CO2 because there is so much of it, and we only generate a small fraction of the CO2 that gets into the atmosphere. But that's not the end of the story.

Saying water is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is a little misleading. Nitrogen is an even stronger greenhouse gas, not because it's a particularly good greenhouse gas, but because ~80% of our atmosphere _is_ nitrogen. Without nitrogen we'd see temperature swings of 100F from daytime to nighttime, because most of our atmosphere would be missing. That doesn't mean much, because we're not messing with the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere, so it's not changing significantly.

Same thing with water. There's a lot of it in the atmosphere, but the mechanisms for regulating it (rain, cloud formation, evaporation, snow and ice formation) have been regulating the amount for centuries, and we're not adding a significant amount to it.

Up until recently, it's been the same for CO2. There are massive amounts of CO2 both released and absorbed by the ecosystem. Sources are forest fires, animal respiration, volcanoes, decomposition, and 'sinks' (places it's absorbed) include the ocean, plant growth in forests etc. Up until about 1850 these remained in balance.

Then we started emitting massive amounts of CO2. Even though it's a small amount compared to the amount that gets cycled through the atmosphere, it's an amount the ecosystem can't get rid of. At the same time, we're eliminating some of the 'pumps' that take CO2 out of the atmosphere by cutting down forests.

All this means that we are gradually increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Since 1850 we've increased it by about 30%. From ice core studies, there is almost no doubt that CO2 concentration is strongly linked to increasing temperatures - and indeed when you graph recent temperatures and CO2 concentrations on the same graph, the trends are very closely linked. (See attached.)

The next question becomes - what happens when the planet gets warmer? Answers range from "not much" to "catastrophe." Personally I don't think it will be a catastrophe; all it will mean are stronger storms, droughts in some places, floods in others. But that's an awfully large gamble to take with our future (and our children's.) We don't know what warming the planet will do - and if it does cause a disaster, it will be too late to fix it once it does happen.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

1. There is a natural and very rapid cycling of water vapor in the atmosphere. Once you put CO2 in the atmosphere it's there for decades; the sequestration mechanisms (i.e. things that suck it out of the air) are a lot smaller and slower to adapt than with water vapor.

2. Water vapor is self-regulating in terms of temperature; CO2 isn't. If it gets hot over an ocean, that water vapor forms clouds, and those clouds _reflect_, rather than trap, heat. If it gets hot over a desert, the CO2 stays right there, increasing the heat load.

So, bill, are you saying that the global warming will be a localized phenomenon to areas that are already arid? Thinking about what you've written indicates that areas in the oceans will not be warmer, but may have more clouds.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[madscape 0]

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!*












*No matter WTF we do to the planet...

[billvon 3,132]

>So, bill, are you saying that the global warming will be a localized
>phenomenon to areas that are already arid?

Not at all. The desert example was just an example used to eliminate the effects of water evaporation. CO2 increases happen everywhere at about the same time due to diffusion in the atmosphere.

>Thinking about what you've written indicates that areas in the oceans
>will not be warmer, but may have more clouds.

Since CO2 concentrations over the oceans are increasing, they will be subject to the same sorts of heat forcing that deserts are. Several factors may cause oceans to warm more slowly than land areas:

1. Thermal mass. There's an incredible amount of water in the oceans, and it takes a long time to change the average temperature even a fraction of a degree.

2. Inherent compensatory mechanisms. The one you mentioned (clouds) has the effect of keeping the ocean surface warmer at night and cooler during the day. It is part of the way water vapor regulates itself. If you're optimistic you could imagine that this mechanism will take care of increases in CO2 as well.

Some factors may cause local areas of oceans to heat _faster_:

1. If rising temperatures melt ice, then the exposed water will absorb more heat.

2. If that melting ice changes the salinity of an area enough, currents may be altered, resulting in a change in local temperatures.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

A pound of CO2 captures much more heat as a greenhouse gas than a pound of water vapor.

Is this based on heat capacity?

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,132]

>Is this based on heat capacity?

Based on relative transparency to long wavelength IR radiation.

[lawrocket 3]

Bill:

I've redone one of those graphs (attached) showing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere with a baseline zero concentration. It indeed shows a rise in the C02 concentration beginning in about 1600.

Note that the data (from 1000 AD) is inclusive of the dates of the "Little Ice Age" that last from roughly 1350 to about 1850. This brought an end to the Medieval Climate Optimum period that started at about 1000. At about 1000, the ocean temperature was about 1 degree Celsius higher than now. 400 years ago the ocean was 1 degree C cooler.

During the warm period, La Nina conditions prevailed throughout the world. The graph shows relatively constant CO2 levels of about 270-275 ppm.

Then the Little Ice Age started and it had three maxima beginning about 1650, 1770 and 1850.

What do these two events have in common? Not an increase in the level of CO2, nor any increase or decrease in methane. Scientists seem to blame the sun and volcanoes for the cooling, and increased solar activity and lack of volcanic activity for warming periods.

Many theorize that we are still coing out of the "Little Ice Age." It was, after all, only 150 years ago that it ended.

So, considering the global patterns of warming and cooling over the last thousand years, there does not seem to be too strong of a correlation between CO2 and temperature or climate.

Take a look at my secon graph - 2000 year temperature variation for even more data. This was prepared by scientists attempting to reconstruct the temperatures over the last 2000 years (each line is a different study). What is interesting is that the past 2000 years are characterized as below-normal temperature with the exception of some periods in the Warming Period and the last 50 years. Admittedly, the temperature growth in extreme in the last 100 years. In fact, only 1 ndicator (the black line, constructed by Hadley Center in England) shows the mid to late 1900s at above normal.

The third attachment is the temperature variation for the last 12k years as reconstructed from ice and sediment cores. With the exception of the orange line, it shows not only that we are far cooler than we were even two thousand years ago, but that global temperatures have dropped over the last 6-10 thousand years.

Does human activity have something to do with the present day warming? I'd say it's pretty convincing that it does. But is it the end of civilization? I doubt it, considering that the start of civilization appeared to be during periods of time tat were far warmer than now.

So much of this is open to interpretation. But, methane levels have stabilized and water vapor apparently staibilizes itself. CO2? That's the issue.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Since CO2 concentrations over the oceans are increasing, they will be subject to the same sorts of heat forcing that deserts are.

That seems counter to what you said previously, bill. It seems to me that if the oceans heat up due to CO2, they'll release more water vapor, which will turn into clouds, block the sun, and lower the temperature until the clouds disappear, at which point it will heat up, make more water vapor, etc...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>It seems to me that if the oceans heat up due to CO2, they'll
> release more water vapor, which will turn into clouds, block the sun,
> and lower the temperature until the clouds disappear, at which point
> it will heat up, make more water vapor, etc...

Agreed. Nevertheless, it is subject to the same forcing that is occurring throughout the world due to rising CO2 concentrations. CO2 exists over the oceans in the same concentrations as over land, so the additional heat load is there.

It's like a car engine that gets floored. A lot more heat is generated, and is removed by the cooling system. If the cooling system is working well, the coolant temperature may not increase by much, but there is still a lot more heat being produced.

The question is - does the hydrological cycle of evaporation/cloud work well enough to regulate itself even with the additional heat input caused by increasing CO2 concentrations? We can't answer that today. To extend the car analogy, even if the car's working properly, there's a point (say, towing a trailer up a hill) where the heat generated exceeds the cooling ability of the cooling system.

[billvon 3,132]

I agree that there are climactic cycles that are linked to many events, including changes in insolation, cataclysmic changes (vulcanism, meteor impacts) and even changes in the biosphere (like plankton extinctions.) But the idea that the climate can slowly change on its own does not mean it's a good idea to force more rapid changes through the CO2 mechanism. Most abrupt climate changes are linked to mass extinctions; it would be bad if we caused such an extinction ourselves. We rely on some of those plants and animals.

>Does human activity have something to do with the present day
>arming? I'd say it's pretty convincing that it does. But is it the end of
>civilization? I doubt it, considering that the start of civilization
>appeared to be during periods of time tat were far warmer than now.

I agree with that. We will be able to adapt to most conceivable climactic changes. But it may make more sense to spend billions to prevent or slow the change, rather than spend trillions to deal with the change.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The question is - does the hydrological cycle of evaporation/cloud work well enough to regulate itself even with the additional heat input caused by increasing CO2 concentrations?

My personal opinion is that it will. However, all that energy has got to go somewhere, meaning more storms and/or more powerful storms.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>My personal opinion is that it will.

Personally I think we will see _some_ rise, but the inherent regulatory mechanism will keep it minor. i.e. instead of a 3C rise you'll see a .5C rise. As you mention, one of those regulatory mechanisms are storms, so I'd expect to see an increase in number and violence of storms. Indeed, the windspeeds of hurricanes, a good predictor of their violence, has been increasing steadily since around 1850.

[StreetScooby 5]

Hurricanes are driven by water surface temperature, not air temperature. The ratio of Energy/Temperature is the mass * heat capacity. For an equivalent mass, the heat capacity ratio is of interest. The increasing energy is coming from the ocean, not the air. Water, especially liquid water, has a much higher heat capacity than CO2. So, what's heating the liquid water on the planet? I doubt it's warm CO2 in the air.

My recollection is the emissions "thingy" got big over concerns about the ozone layer, which had to do with skin cancer and cataracts.

Hurricanes and skin cancer are not connected.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!*

...hope it doesn't hurt

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,132]

>Hurricanes are driven by water surface temperature, not air
>temperature.

Right, but CO2 prevents reradiation of heat (in this case, from warm water) back into space. Hence after one day/night cycle, the surface water is slightly warmer if CO2 concentration is higher, all other factors being equal.

>Water, especially liquid water, has a much higher heat capacity than
>CO2. So, what's heating the liquid water on the planet?

The sun! CO2 just prevents it from cooling as rapidly at night, since it can no longer send as much longwave IR radiation (i.e. heat) back into space. The heat capacity of CO2 isn't really an issue, it's the effects of CO2 on the transparency of the atmosphere.

[StreetScooby 5]

I believe the issue here is the _change_ in ocean energy. The sun has always been around, and while I don't know, haven't heard anthing about a change in its energy output. CO2 doesn't make up enough of the atmosphere to dramatically affect energy content of ocean through radiative heat transfer. Likewise, radiative heat transfer doesn't become significant until high temperatures.

Underwater volcanic activity sounds like the most likely culprit to me, and there is nothing we can do about that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't clean up after ourselves, e.g. emissions, but gases are not going to have a dramatic affect on liquid energy content.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,132]

>The sun has always been around, and while I don't know, haven't
>heard anthing about a change in its energy output.

Agreed there.

>CO2 doesn't make up enough of the atmosphere to dramatically
> affect energy content of ocean through radiative heat transfer.

If this were true, then there would be no issue whatsoever with climate change due to increases in CO2 concentrations. Unfortunately, it is a significant factor in the greenhouse effect, which is an effect that blocks radiative transfer.

Every watt of heat we get from the sun has to be re-emitted from the planet in some form, usually longwave IR radiation. If this didn't happen, the planet would get hotter and hotter until we were all incinerated. That radiation comes to an average of about 342 watts per square meter. That's the amount we need to radiate to stay in balance.

Now, increases in carbon dioxide have reduced the reradiation of that energy by about 1 watt per square meter. That number is getting larger as we pump more CO2 into the atmosphere. The system will balance itself eventually; it has to. How will this happen? The surface of the planet (including the ocean) will warm up until the increase in longwave IR radiation balances the heat input from the sun again.

>Likewise, radiative heat transfer doesn't become significant until
>high temperatures.

It is the _only_ way the planet can cool itself.

>Underwater volcanic activity sounds like the most likely culprit to me,
>and there is nothing we can do about that.

That's nothing compared to the sun's radiation and the reradiation of heat by water.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It is the _only_ way the planet can cool itself.

funny thing about an isolated system in a vacuum - conduction and convection aren't that efficient

nerd humor

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

It is the _only_ way the planet can cool itself.

Good point, ...had never looked at it in those terms. I'm definitely going to ponder that one. Where are you getting the information that says IR is the primary radiative heat transfer mechanism?

To continue the debate here, let's make sure we're focused on the same point: Is CO2 dramatically impacting the surface temperature of our planet?

Many people, including the folks at Exxon, don't think it's the first order driving force in the change we're observing. What are the folks at Exxon missing? Not their money...

Off to ponder... (not in public, I promise)

We are all engines of karma

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

primary radiative heat transfer mechanism

ooooh - look at the big words. Think about how a thermos is designed (airtight, insulated, and reflective). You don't need a source, just a good picture and understanding of thermal stuff.

I think there is some oddball 4th heat transfer mech out there, something to do with potential changes etc, but It's been awhile.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

It is the _only_ way the planet can cool itself.

Good point, ...had never looked at it in those terms. I'm definitely going to ponder that one. Where are you getting the information that says IR is the primary radiative heat transfer mechanism?

)

What else would it be?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StreetScooby 5]

So, I've been pondering...

If CO2 blocks the IR going out, why doesn't it block the IR coming in? Net/net, that would be zero, correct?

We are all engines of karma

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If CO2 blocks the IR going out, why doesn't it block the IR coming in? Net/net, that would be zero, correct?

Same way a greenhouse works.

Coming in, the energy is in the form of sunlight. Going out, it is heat.

[StreetScooby 5]

Now you're going to make me google "Greenhouse Thermodynamics"

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,132]

>Where are you getting the information that says IR is the primary
>radiative heat transfer mechanism?

We cannot shed heat through conduction or convection since the earth isn't touching anything (other than the solar wind, which is quite hot.) That leaves radiation.

So how do bodies rid themselves of heat through radiation? They do it by emitting photons. The wavelength and energy of the photons they emit are determined by the temperature of the body. This is classic black-body radiation. You can see this in action by looking at any incandescent bulb; what you see there is a tungsten 'black body' radiating at 3000 degrees Kelvin. That's hot enough that the photons are really energetic i.e. they're short wavelength, short enough for us to see them as light.

To see it in action another way, start heating up a piece of metal. At some point you will feel the heat radiating off it; that's infrared radation. If you took a picture of it with an infrared camera it would be glowing brightly, but we can't see wavelengths that long. As it gets hotter the wavelength gets shorter (shorter=more energy) until you can actually see it start to glow red (red being the shortest wavelength we can see.)

Now, the average temperature of the earth is around 50F, or 280 kelvin or so. At those temperatures the only photons it can emit are longwave IR radiation, around 10mm or so. You can actually feel this at night walking around in the desert on a clear night; the surface (and you!) radiate IR radiation into space and it doesn't get reflected back, so you get cold very quickly. In many places this reduces the surface temperature of the planet at night and water vapor condenses on the cold surfaces; we call this dew.

This only works if the sky is clear. If it's cloudy, clouds reflect IR radiation, and you don't get dew. CO2 has much the same effect as clouds, except it works all the time, even when the sky is clear.

http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/astronomy/blackbody/bbody.html

>To continue the debate here, let's make sure we're focused on the
> same point: Is CO2 dramatically impacting the surface temperature
> of our planet?

Well, there is not much question that the (originally small) amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is one of the things that regulates the temperature of our planet. Without CO2, nighttime temperatures in clear locations would be much lower.

>If CO2 blocks the IR going out, why doesn't it block the IR coming
>in? Net/net, that would be zero, correct?

It does. But think about it. If it absorbs the longwave IR coming in, that IR is still heating the atmosphere, right? So you have two effects. One, the longwave IR is being absorbed by the atmosphere instead of the ground. Net result zero, because it's still being absorbed. Two, it's not allowing reradiation of that heat. That's what drives an increase in temperature overall.