masterrig 1 #26 December 1, 2012 This is probably a silly question but all this climate change and global warming that's happening, I've been curious about this. Could in any way, all the atomic bomb testing in past years have anything to do with what's going on now? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #27 December 1, 2012 Hi Chuck, Can you elaborate on your theory please?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #28 December 1, 2012 QuoteThis is probably a silly question but all this climate change and global warming that's happening, I've been curious about this. Could in any way, all the atomic bomb testing in past years have anything to do with what's going on now? Chuck I'm sure there were some albedo effects from the dust from atmospheric tests, but the Test Ban Treaty was 49 years ago now.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #29 December 1, 2012 Hey,Skyrad! I was just thinking about the atomic weapons testing back in the '50's and later. Do we know what long-term effects that may have had on our atmosphere? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #30 December 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteThis is probably a silly question but all this climate change and global warming that's happening, I've been curious about this. Could in any way, all the atomic bomb testing in past years have anything to do with what's going on now? Chuck I'm sure there were some albedo effects from the dust from atmospheric tests, but the Test Ban Treaty was 49 years ago now. Yessir, I am aware of the Test Ban Treaty but I was curious about long term effects. Does anyone know the life length of that atomic dust? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #31 December 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis is probably a silly question but all this climate change and global warming that's happening, I've been curious about this. Could in any way, all the atomic bomb testing in past years have anything to do with what's going on now? Chuck I'm sure there were some albedo effects from the dust from atmospheric tests, but the Test Ban Treaty was 49 years ago now. Yessir, I am aware of the Test Ban Treaty but I was curious about long term effects. Does anyone know the life length of that atomic dust? Chuck Kallend's got it right, I think. Most arosols from volcanic eruptions (big ones, even) are precipitated out within a couple of years. Some aerosols (like SO2). It's why volcanoes are so notable - they present shocks to the climate. But with nukes, probably not much. Indeed, their biggest effect is likely stratospheric ozone depletion. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #32 December 2, 2012 Isn't that what the global warming folks are saying, that we have holes in the O-zone? Rather than carbon dioxide causing the problem, could it be the nuke testing actually caused it? I don't want to get into some 'conspiracy theory' thing here but going by what you said, kinda opens the door. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #33 December 2, 2012 It's pretty well established that chlorofluorocarbon aerosols are the culprit for anthropogenic causes for the ozone hole, those degrading into chlorine ions that catalyze the O3. I'm not aware of radiation itself being a substrate that can denature ozone. I'll look into it. But I've got my doubts considering what is known about the depletion of ozone. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #34 December 2, 2012 I'm just curious as to the possibility of previous atomic testing may have gotten the ball rolling. I'm wondering too if we may not have been informed of any lasting effects. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #35 December 2, 2012 QuoteI'm just curious as to the possibility of ptrvious atomic testing may have gotten the ball rolling. I'm wondering too if we may not have been informed of any lasting effects. Chuck "Not have been informed"? The US government downright lied to the people about the effects of nuclear testing and manufacturing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #36 December 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteI'm just curious as to the possibility of ptrvious atomic testing may have gotten the ball rolling. I'm wondering too if we may not have been informed of any lasting effects. Chuck "Not have been informed"? The US government downright lied to the people about the effects of nuclear testing and manufacturing. That's what I've thought for years. I'm wondering if the government hasn't spun the truth and set things up saying it was really flourocarbons and avoiding the truth that it was really atomic testing. Can you imagine the furor if they told us the truth? Put the blame on the people. The government isn't going to take responsibility for their screw-ups! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #37 December 3, 2012 Quote Most arosols from volcanic eruptions (big ones, even) are precipitated out within a couple of years. Some aerosols (like SO2). It's why volcanoes are so notable - they present shocks to the climate. But with nukes, probably not much. Indeed, their biggest effect is likely stratospheric ozone depletion. I'm confused. You argue that a volcanic eruption represents a shock to the climate system, but that human influence on climate is small. The forcing associated with doubling CO2 is calculated as 3.7 W/M^2, and this effect will persist for centuries. The attached figure shows the volcanic forcings in the historical record, and very few reach a forcing of -3 W/M^2, and persists for only a few years. How do you reconcile a low climate sensitivity with a fast response to volcanoes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #38 December 3, 2012 >Isn't that what the global warming folks are saying, that we have holes in the O-zone? Not really. We do have larger holes in the ozone layer now but they are getting smaller, so we're headed in the right direction there. (BTW losing ozone actually _cools_ the planet a tiny bit.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #39 December 3, 2012 QuoteI'm confused. I have that effect on people. QuoteYou argue that a volcanic eruption represents a shock to the climate system Let me be a bit more specific. I’m talking about larger eruptions, i.e., Pinatubo and Hudson and the like. There are plenty of effects from volcanoes that are numerous and varied. Sure, the amount of CO2 released from a volcano can be large but anthropogenic CO2 is of a much greater volume than volcanic CO2 by one or two orders of magnitude. I agree with the climate scientists on this point – they aren’t always wrong. Volcanoes, however, are not associated with warming shocks. They typically result in cooling. These effects come somewhat from the increased albedo of volcanic ash (hence the term “aerosols”) but are more pronounced due to the emission of sulfur gases. This is why a volcano like El Chichon (smaller in terms of volume of ash than Mt. St. Helens) could have a far more pronounced global climate effect – its gases were damned rich in sulfur. Just in February, Mann published a study in Nature Geoscience wherein he states that tree rings may underestimate climate response to volcanic eruptions. It’s a pretty simple thing to understand: anthropogenic CO2 warms climate but volcanoes cool the temperature. The effects of volcanoes, though, last only a year or two. Quotebut that human influence on climate is small. In general, yes. In terms of incremental. It’s not a sudden sort of a thing. We’ve got a pot of water being slowly and steadily heated. A shock in the long term. Volcanoes are like tossing a cup of ice into it. A sudden temporary cooling but give it time and it will return. QuoteThe forcing associated with doubling CO2 is calculated as 3.7 W/M^2, and this effect will persist for centuries. Yeah. Where is anything I wrote inconsistent with that? QuoteThe attached figure shows the volcanic forcings in the historical record, and very few reach a forcing of -3 W/M^2, and persists for only a few years. How do you reconcile a low climate sensitivity with a fast response to volcanoes? I didn’t see the attachment. However, what I’m talking about is not new. It’s regarding the “pause” in warming – a general flattening of the warming curve over the last 15 years or so. The historical record could usually show a volcanic eruption that was correlated with the pause, giving a strong inference of causation. We haven’t had such an eruption – not even the unpronounceable Iceland volcano a couple of years ago would have much more than a marginal effect. As a scientist, you are no doubt aware of the strong effects of sulfur aerosols on albedo. The effect of a high-sulfur eruption, like El Chichon, can more than exceed the climate forcing of anthropogenic and natural CO2 while it’s in the stratosphere. You know that. Shall we discuss the climate sensitivity of CO2 levels with the possible effects of a hydrate gun scenario? If we were pumping the amount of methane into the atmosphere that we are pumping CO2 would you expect to see a difference? I would. So, I think, would most people with even a basic knowledge of the subject. Same with sulfur. Albedo is more sensitive to stratospheric sulfur than it is to CO2. Look at what I'm writing with a neutral mind. Edited to add: Allow me to add a bit to this… I compare the earth’s climate to be like a pot of water. Just sitting outside, it’s temperature gets warmer or cooler depending on the day, season, time of day, etc. I compare anthropogenic CO2 to be like putting a lid on the pot of water – the temperature of the water in the pot still fluctuates with time, day, season, etc. but the lid will have an effect on the upper and lower temperatures, whether surface ice will form, etc. Thus, an “effect” but in the grand scheme not too big. Sure, it’s noticeable and measurable but there is still not huge. Now, what if you surrounded the pot of water with a cardboard cylinder that kept the pot almost constantly shaded but open on top. The pot is still subject to convective, conductive and radiative heating but the radiative heating will be limited because the water is shaded. Over time the cardboard will break down and the pot of water will be exposed to more radiative heating from the sun. Consider the lid to be CO2. Consider the cardboard cylinder to be sulfur aerosols. Consider the volume in the pot occupied by water and air as the earth’s atmosphere. Those are the different sensitivities and forcings. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #40 December 3, 2012 Quote>Isn't that what the global warming folks are saying, that we have holes in the O-zone? Not really. We do have larger holes in the ozone layer now but they are getting smaller, so we're headed in the right direction there. (BTW losing ozone actually _cools_ the planet a tiny bit.) I apprciate that. I'm just trying to understand the situation. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #41 December 4, 2012 Quote[ Consider the lid to be CO2. Consider the cardboard cylinder to be sulfur aerosols. Consider the volume in the pot occupied by water and air as the earth’s atmosphere. Those are the different sensitivities and forcings. I understand how sulfate aerosols work. To use your analogy, you claim that the effects of the lid (CO2) are small, but the effects (forcings) of the cardboard (aerosols) are significant. The data show that the effects of the aerosols are transient, and generally smaller (in absolute magnitude, obviously it is a negative forcing) than the effect of CO2,and the effect of CO2 is sustained. Now if you want to argue that the climate sensitivity for cooling is different than the climate sensitivity for heating, or that the sensitivity to aerosols is different than the sensitivity to CO2, I'd like to see a peer reviewed reference. Samller version of figure from first post attached Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #42 December 4, 2012 Are you saying that volcanoes do not affect climate? And - I cited Mann from February, 2012. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #43 December 4, 2012 I'm arguing that, based on data, you can't think that volcanoes have a large effect on climate, but anthropogenic CO2 won't. The CO2 effect (for a doubling of CO2) is of larger magnitude, and it's sustained over a long period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #44 December 4, 2012 I wrote that volcanoes represent a shock that affects the climate for a couple of years. I wrote that Mann suggested in a paper back in February that our historical knowledge of the climate effects of volcanoes may be underestimated since tree rings themselves underestimate the effect. I thought I was clear - volcanoes have an effect, but the effect is transient compared to the long-term forcing of greenhouse gases. Shall I call it "weather" that volcanoes effect? What shall I call it? I called it "climate" since it's not meterologists studying volcanoes. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
