I haven't done too much research in the field myself so forgive my ignorance. I think it would help if you outlined the major contributors to global temperature average. I have heard a lot about water vapor dwarfing CO2 as a mitigating factor in global average temperature. My question is why is CO2 touted as the major catalyst in climate change science? Is it because it's the thing we have the most control over? Or is it measurably the thing that has changed the most (so scientists assume it's the major catalyst?). Are there other factors that haven't been researched as much as CO2 that could possibly play into the global average temperature or is CO2 definitely it?
very cool question, were deep in the science now.
water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, much stronger in overall effect than co2 because there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere then co2. co2 is much more efficient in the sense of warming / concentration, though.
but the main argument is again the equilibrium: lets go for a thought experiment:
imagine earth at a certain equilibriumg with a given water vapor and co2 concentration. increase co2 a little bit, it gets a little bit warmer. warmer means more water vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation , real physics, yeah °), means a strengthening of the original co2 signal to a new equilibrium.
it is supposed that for a medium emission social scenario we would have perhaps 1 degrees of warming ONLY due to co2 increase. water vapor would add another 1 degree on that just in reaction (we can control water vapor ONLY via temperature). the rest of the uncertainty comes from the reaction of clouds.
hope that helps, if not, please ask again
The thing with the water is more complicated as far as i know, as it even depends on the daytime if Watervapor is cooling or heating. Cloudy night -> warmer Cloudy day -> colder, so that it would even depend on the daytime when the cloud is formed which effect it has finally -> nonlinear... Isnt it really hard to factor all this in..? i dont like the one way approach of only warming water vapour.
Uh, as perhaps a small point, my chem/bio not being my strongest suit (I'm an EE), but adding more CO2 without taking into consideration the other factors (light and water) does not inherently increase the rate of reaction.
Sorry that it's german, but the answer to your question is in the third graph anyway.
All you should need to know to figure out the other parameters is that Geschwindigkeit der Photosynthese=speed of photosynthesis and Starklicht=strong light, Schwachlicht=weak light.
Knalldis link is a good source, but not a very economic answer.
On December 13 2011 08:16 Nizaris wrote: Ya a law on co2 wouldn't stop global warming that's a given but at least that's a start. we aren't gonna do anything about it if we can't even take the first step.
On December 13 2011 08:10 Abraxas514 wrote:
On December 13 2011 08:10 Nizaris wrote:
On December 13 2011 08:07 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Deniers were those who sprung up when Global Warming started making claims that it would lead to world-wide catastrophes if not curtailed. Global warming has since soften it's position and is now climate change. The deniers label is a hold-over from this period. I doubt many people would consider themselves deniers now. No shit, climate changes. Now that the fervor is over, maybe we can have honest discussions on whether rising temps is actually a good/bad thing. Should we do anything at all/is it worth doing?
Can you name one good thing about global warming? or climate change as you call it.
Did you read page one? I named 3-4 things.
they are so ludicrous that they aren't even worth mentioning. I mean come on, less ppl will die of cold ?
afaik global warming would mean harsher winters. not to mention all the extra tournadoes in the summer.
AFAIK you're just one more person sent from foxnews to deliver your opinionTM that is completely without proof/sources. I provided a source for my deaths position, and also the correlation between carbon content and plant growth is plain when viewed from the photosynthetic process:
it takes 6 CO2 to produce sugar. If you've ever done chemistry in your life you would realize more CO2 would increase the rate of this reaction.
Uh, as perhaps a small point, my chem/bio not being my strongest suit (I'm an EE), but adding more CO2 without taking into consideration the other factors (light and water) does not inherently increase the rate of reaction.
"All these factors suggest that photosynthesis is likely to be enhanced by ambient CO2 enrichment to a greater extent in C3 than in C4 plants."
Thanks, I wasn't aware of this difference. Also, this article supports my position.
The biggest problem with climate change discussion is the level of misinformation that exists. Kind of like the complete mess that was Call of Juarez. So much is based on unfounded, and often out-of-date opinions.
So please, before you post your opinionTM, google the subject and present some information for us to discuss. I will gladly support your position if you can back it up.
On December 13 2011 08:16 Nizaris wrote: Ya a law on co2 wouldn't stop global warming that's a given but at least that's a start. we aren't gonna do anything about it if we can't even take the first step.
On December 13 2011 08:10 Abraxas514 wrote:
On December 13 2011 08:10 Nizaris wrote:
On December 13 2011 08:07 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Deniers were those who sprung up when Global Warming started making claims that it would lead to world-wide catastrophes if not curtailed. Global warming has since soften it's position and is now climate change. The deniers label is a hold-over from this period. I doubt many people would consider themselves deniers now. No shit, climate changes. Now that the fervor is over, maybe we can have honest discussions on whether rising temps is actually a good/bad thing. Should we do anything at all/is it worth doing?
Can you name one good thing about global warming? or climate change as you call it.
Did you read page one? I named 3-4 things.
they are so ludicrous that they aren't even worth mentioning. I mean come on, less ppl will die of cold ?
afaik global warming would mean harsher winters. not to mention all the extra tournadoes in the summer.
AFAIK you're just one more person sent from foxnews to deliver your opinionTM that is completely without proof/sources. I provided a source for my deaths position, and also the correlation between carbon content and plant growth is plain when viewed from the photosynthetic process:
it takes 6 CO2 to produce sugar. If you've ever done chemistry in your life you would realize more CO2 would increase the rate of this reaction.
Uh, as perhaps a small point, my chem/bio not being my strongest suit (I'm an EE), but adding more CO2 without taking into consideration the other factors (light and water) does not inherently increase the rate of reaction.
Thank you, I'm trying to read through this. It's quite beyond me though (Again, EE), so I'll gather what I can from it.
My initial statements are: The cotton showed great increase in leaf area, while the maize didn't (60% vs 10% ) - this is an issue to be considered. Plant dominance under increased CO2 conditions is important. Also, the CO2 conditions they show are twice the normal CO2 conditions in the experiment. How does double the CO2 concentration (unless CO2 pressure means something else) affect other things? I doubt it's a linear affect in between normal and double, but it'd be nice to know if it's curved up or curved down.
I'll read more of it when I get home. Thanks again.
Uh, as perhaps a small point, my chem/bio not being my strongest suit (I'm an EE), but adding more CO2 without taking into consideration the other factors (light and water) does not inherently increase the rate of reaction.
Sorry that it's german, but the answer to your question is in the third graph anyway.
All you should need to know to figure out the other parameters is that Geschwindigkeit der Photosynthese=speed of photosynthesis and Starklicht=strong light, Schwachlicht=weak light.
Knalldis link is a good source, but not a very economic answer.
Thanks, it's a curved down relationship that seems to flatline (HUZZAH, I FORGOT ALL MY CALC TERMS) at 20% atmospheric concentration.
I haven't done too much research in the field myself so forgive my ignorance. I think it would help if you outlined the major contributors to global temperature average. I have heard a lot about water vapor dwarfing CO2 as a mitigating factor in global average temperature. My question is why is CO2 touted as the major catalyst in climate change science? Is it because it's the thing we have the most control over? Or is it measurably the thing that has changed the most (so scientists assume it's the major catalyst?). Are there other factors that haven't been researched as much as CO2 that could possibly play into the global average temperature or is CO2 definitely it?
very cool question, were deep in the science now.
water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, much stronger in overall effect than co2 because there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere then co2. co2 is much more efficient in the sense of warming / concentration, though.
but the main argument is again the equilibrium: lets go for a thought experiment:
imagine earth at a certain equilibriumg with a given water vapor and co2 concentration. increase co2 a little bit, it gets a little bit warmer. warmer means more water vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation , real physics, yeah °), means a strengthening of the original co2 signal to a new equilibrium.
it is supposed that for a medium emission social scenario we would have perhaps 1 degrees of warming ONLY due to co2 increase. water vapor would add another 1 degree on that just in reaction (we can control water vapor ONLY via temperature). the rest of the uncertainty comes from the reaction of clouds.
hope that helps, if not, please ask again
The thing with the water is more complicated as far as i know, as it even depends on the daytime if Watervapor is cooling or heating. Cloudy night -> warmer Cloudy day -> colder. Isnt it really hard to factor all this in..? i dont like the one way approach of only warming water vapour.
it is a simplification in the following sense:
a model with increased co2 and fixed water vapor will warm x degrees. a model with increased co2 and variable water vapor that changes with warming will warm x+ y degrees. this means that the overall effect of water vapor is y degrees, even if local / temporal effects are more complicated . and they are also represented in the models all the time! btw: clouds != water vapor feedback.
On December 13 2011 07:37 TanGeng wrote: This is a terrible idea. First of all Climate Change Policy is one part science (largely applied thermodynamics), one part economics, and one part politics. Even if you have competence in the science, you can hardly begin to comment about the economics (whether or not it is worthwhile to do anything about it) or the politics (whether or not we can construct social institutions to effectively do something about it).
I have fought many a battle in a variety of internet fora concerning classical Climate Change Denialist arguments, always in the defensive. I would like to propose a new , more offensive approach. I have also encountered many non-experts who are challenged by the denialists propaganda that is propelled by professional PR institutions, backed up with a lot of money. While I cannot counter that, here is my proposition:
Bias much? There's plenty of PR bullshit on both sides of the "science" if you can even call it science when so many political interests get involved. There is also plenty of sub-par science and inflated self-promotion in the entire arena. If you want to engage Denialists, go engage them. You aren't going to find many of them, here. It's not going to be a pleasant or productive experience. It'd be as good as engaging an eco-fanatic from the other end of the spectrum.
This is precisely right. It only gets more complicated when you consider how the politics and economics of Climate Change influence the Science of Climate Change- instead of having a sterile and level-headed discussion on the topic, what most people see instead is bullshit propaganda from either side of the discussion, and all kinds of nasty accusations about how politicians are influencing the conclusions of Climate Change studies by controlling the flow of research funds, and counter-accusations that all "denialist" climatologists are in the payroll of Exxon Mobil.
You can't have a serious discussion about Global Warming here on TL if you're only going to discuss the science behind it, and not the politics nor the economics of it.
Finally, knowing your audience is important. When most of the people who have an opinion about Global Warming have been polarized into opposing viewpoints, where one side thinks the other is a bunch of alarmists who were mortally afraid of global cooling only 4 decades ago and the other side thinks anyone who disagrees with them is a fool who blindly believes everything they see in Fox News, you need to make reasonable concessions to both sides. Yes, Al Gore is an alarmist and you shouldn't take his apocalyptic predictions at face value; and yes, denying global warming completely can only be done out of ignorance or willful deception, as pretty much ALL scientists agree that increasing greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere will warm the planet (where they differ is on how much a given increase in CO2 would warm the planet- see Positive Feedback vs. Negative Feedback).
Is it true that manymanymany years ago, when there was a LOT more CO2 in the air, Africa was a green continent? I saw a german documentary once about this, and there they said the temperature was higher, but Africa was green.
On December 13 2011 08:23 Fruscainte wrote: Citing Fox News on -anything-, especially Climate Change, is just like citing the Bible for a Theoretical Physics discussion. Just don't do it dude.
Fine, I'm not arguing that at all. What I'm saying is if he's going to be objective about it say "I'm not going to argue based on a news clip", and not be biased against any particular organization
On December 13 2011 07:48 Fruscainte wrote:
I fail to see how the displacement of 2 billion people being (usually) bad is an emotional position or a plea to fear.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Nonetheless, you're kind of missing my entire point of my original post, but nonetheless, keep arguing semantics.
How was what my last post stated hyperbolic. The above is literally what you said and backed up with zero data. Your argument was based entirely on a misunderstanding that went on an extreme tangent, yet you kept arguing. I really don't get how you don't see this.
On December 13 2011 08:45 mAgixWTF wrote: Is it true that manymanymany years ago, when there was a LOT more CO2 in the air, Africa was a green continent? I saw a german documentary once about this, and there they said the temperature was higher, but Africa was green.
its called the green sahara hypothesis for about 9k-6k before present for a earth with different orbital configuration that lead to different climate in different parts. its a different perturbation than the well-mixed co2 gas.
however, even this hypothesis is nowadays under attack. the simulations and paleo records that lead to this hypothesis were simple / spares. more modern data and more complex models show that likely the change of precipiation events was higher, which lead to the records of plants in the sahara. it is unlikely that the full sahara was green, as sweet as this hypothesis was anyway
It is times like this I wish TheBomb was still around...
I had a massive argument with him about this very topic. Would have been great to actually have someone like the OP around. I don't really have a question but would just like to say thanks to the OP. This will be a great resource for future discussions.
I always get the feeling when reading deniers comments that they are looking for a reason for this not to be true. Which is not necesarily a bad thing, but when something small that can be explained (Co2 helps plants grow for example) they refuse to accept that they are missing the bigger picture. Yes Co2 helps plants grow, but as you pointed out there are other factors (geograpy, rain fall, light intensity, soil composition, the list goes on).
I like dabbeljuh. His posts don't wreak of bias or sensationalism like a lot of others. He's also correct based on my own general understanding. Keep on fighting the good fight.
just a personal remark: I will not answer to Fox News level of information or queries °
This is why you are failing at the task you set out to accomplish. I am not stating that I agree or disagree with what is in the video because I haven't watched it. But if you can't even look at a segment from Fox News, or any source for that matter, and discern what is meaningful or not, or explain what is true and false about what was presented, how can you be trusted to provide an accurate scientific picture of the state of Climate science research. A scientific analysis would not care if the information supporting or opposed to climate science was from Fox News, BBC, MSNBC, or wherever. If you can't even watch a Fox News clip, your bias is too great for me to fully trust your analysis.
A little common sense would answer your question. If you knew anything about Monkton or Fox you know how willing they are to spin or outright lie for the sake of agenda. Hell, in one video, Beck casually cited (without reference) that the earth was now in a cooling trend which is entirely untrue (NASA temps). There are hours of video on YouTube debunking Monkton as utterly and shamelessly fraudulent.
Scientists shouldn't have to defend their position ad nausea against unsubstantiated non-scientific attacks. Biologists shouldn't have give the time of day to I.D. apologists nor physicists to the Catholic Church.
My common sense tells me that pretty much every news organization has to answer to ratings, and that fact alone can have substantial affect on the information that comes out of them. If a scientist is to be "above" information because of its source, then so be it, but it should be a certain category of source "cable news" rather than a certain individual source (i.e. Fox News). And for the record, I am not defending Fox News, I am advocating for an objective discussion.
I haven't done too much research in the field myself so forgive my ignorance. I think it would help if you outlined the major contributors to global temperature average. I have heard a lot about water vapor dwarfing CO2 as a mitigating factor in global average temperature. My question is why is CO2 touted as the major catalyst in climate change science? Is it because it's the thing we have the most control over? Or is it measurably the thing that has changed the most (so scientists assume it's the major catalyst?). Are there other factors that haven't been researched as much as CO2 that could possibly play into the global average temperature or is CO2 definitely it?
very cool question, were deep in the science now.
water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, much stronger in overall effect than co2 because there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere then co2. co2 is much more efficient in the sense of warming / concentration, though.
but the main argument is again the equilibrium: lets go for a thought experiment:
imagine earth at a certain equilibriumg with a given water vapor and co2 concentration. increase co2 a little bit, it gets a little bit warmer. warmer means more water vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation , real physics, yeah °), means a strengthening of the original co2 signal to a new equilibrium.
it is supposed that for a medium emission social scenario we would have perhaps 1 degrees of warming ONLY due to co2 increase. water vapor would add another 1 degree on that just in reaction (we can control water vapor ONLY via temperature). the rest of the uncertainty comes from the reaction of clouds.
hope that helps, if not, please ask again
The thing with the water is more complicated as far as i know, as it even depends on the daytime if Watervapor is cooling or heating. Cloudy night -> warmer Cloudy day -> colder. Isnt it really hard to factor all this in..? i dont like the one way approach of only warming water vapour.
it is a simplification in the following sense:
a model with increased co2 and fixed water vapor will warm x degrees. a model with increased co2 and variable water vapor that changes with warming will warm x+ y degrees. this means that the overall effect of water vapor is y degrees, even if local / temporal effects are more complicated . and they are also represented in the models all the time! btw: clouds != water vapor feedback.
Ye i know the difference between actual IR-activity and albedo, just simplified my post . I just see quite some flaws in the accounting of Cclouds as complicated systems (temperature, humindity, and aerosol and whatever dependend) in the forming of this climate models. I just dont like taking the mean of something complicated as clouds in these models.
@dabbeljuh I hope this hasnt come up already, but do you think that we are currently seeing the effects of climate change at present? I heard an example story in the news about how it is possible that a herder in Africa may have to take his herd to a further away watering pool because the closer one has dried up, this new watering hole is also in an enemy tribes territory and if he is murdered it could be argued that it is the result climate change.
I've also read that the US military is already preparing for the results of climate change, while what seems like the whole of the Republican party is still in denial. Do you feel like the leaders simply do not care about what might be the result of global warming, or do you think they are ignorant enough to not believe the evidence.
just a personal remark: I will not answer to Fox News level of information or queries °
This is why you are failing at the task you set out to accomplish. I am not stating that I agree or disagree with what is in the video because I haven't watched it. But if you can't even look at a segment from Fox News, or any source for that matter, and discern what is meaningful or not, or explain what is true and false about what was presented, how can you be trusted to provide an accurate scientific picture of the state of Climate science research. A scientific analysis would not care if the information supporting or opposed to climate science was from Fox News, BBC, MSNBC, or wherever. If you can't even watch a Fox News clip, your bias is too great for me to fully trust your analysis.
A little common sense would answer your question. If you knew anything about Monkton or Fox you know how willing they are to spin or outright lie for the sake of agenda. Hell, in one video, Beck casually cited (without reference) that the earth was now in a cooling trend which is entirely untrue (NASA temps). There are hours of video on YouTube debunking Monkton as utterly and shamelessly fraudulent.
Scientists shouldn't have to defend their position ad nausea against unsubstantiated non-scientific attacks. Biologists shouldn't have give the time of day to I.D. apologists nor physicists to the Catholic Church.
My common sense tells me that pretty much every news organization has to answer to ratings, and that fact alone can have substantial affect on the information that comes out of them. If a scientist is to be "above" information because of its source, then so be it, but it should be a certain category of source "cable news" rather than a certain individual source (i.e. Fox News). And for the record, I am not defending Fox News, I am advocating for an objective discussion.
etherwar, as I said earlier in a response to your original, fair point:
[quote] I will answer to any question that you formulate based on it. I will just not comment randomly inserted fox news clips because - from my experience - people who start a discussion with the points of other people, do not have a serious interest in the answers in the first place. so please, if you care for an answer, that is as objective as I can manage to deliver (certainly not 100%), then please formulate a point or question yourself. [\quote]
I meant any news clips, not only fox, so sorry for that. I hope this can finish this sub-discussion on my scientific ethics. I will answer questions that seem to be from the person writing, not somebody else. I am not 'above' any information, I just try - here in this context - to help people understand the complexity of the problem and not fight any given news organisation and their campaign goals. Sorry if I was unclear in that.
I haven't done too much research in the field myself so forgive my ignorance. I think it would help if you outlined the major contributors to global temperature average. I have heard a lot about water vapor dwarfing CO2 as a mitigating factor in global average temperature. My question is why is CO2 touted as the major catalyst in climate change science? Is it because it's the thing we have the most control over? Or is it measurably the thing that has changed the most (so scientists assume it's the major catalyst?). Are there other factors that haven't been researched as much as CO2 that could possibly play into the global average temperature or is CO2 definitely it?
very cool question, were deep in the science now.
water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, much stronger in overall effect than co2 because there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere then co2. co2 is much more efficient in the sense of warming / concentration, though.
but the main argument is again the equilibrium: lets go for a thought experiment:
imagine earth at a certain equilibriumg with a given water vapor and co2 concentration. increase co2 a little bit, it gets a little bit warmer. warmer means more water vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation , real physics, yeah °), means a strengthening of the original co2 signal to a new equilibrium.
it is supposed that for a medium emission social scenario we would have perhaps 1 degrees of warming ONLY due to co2 increase. water vapor would add another 1 degree on that just in reaction (we can control water vapor ONLY via temperature). the rest of the uncertainty comes from the reaction of clouds.
hope that helps, if not, please ask again
The thing with the water is more complicated as far as i know, as it even depends on the daytime if Watervapor is cooling or heating. Cloudy night -> warmer Cloudy day -> colder. Isnt it really hard to factor all this in..? i dont like the one way approach of only warming water vapour.
it is a simplification in the following sense:
a model with increased co2 and fixed water vapor will warm x degrees. a model with increased co2 and variable water vapor that changes with warming will warm x+ y degrees. this means that the overall effect of water vapor is y degrees, even if local / temporal effects are more complicated . and they are also represented in the models all the time! btw: clouds != water vapor feedback.
Ye i know the difference between actual IR-activity and albedo, just simplified my post . I just see quite some flaws in the accounting of Cclouds as complicated systems (temperature, humindity, and aerosol and whatever dependend) in the forming of this climate models. I just dont like taking the mean of something complicated as clouds in these models.
I also advocate stochastic cloud modelling since I started my scientific career! Only a few more years ...
On December 13 2011 08:56 besteady wrote: @dabbeljuh I hope this hasnt come up already, but do you think that we are currently seeing the effects of climate change at present? I heard an example story in the news about how it is possible that a herder in Africa may have to take his herd to a further away watering pool because the closer one has dried up, this new watering hole is also in an enemy tribes territory and if he is murdered it could be argued that it is the result climate change.
I've also read that the US military is already preparing for the results of climate change, while what seems like the whole of the Republican party is still in denial. Do you feel like the leaders simply do not care about what might be the result of global warming, or do you think they are ignorant enough to not believe the evidence.
a) I heard the argument that Darfur was the first war. This has been proposed by sociologists with close connections to physical climate science, I will not contradict their findings. I am not 100% convinced, though, that you can do a strict "Detection & Attribution" (D&A) method for this type of problems. D&A is one scientific way to look at a problem, see if it is unsual (detection) and try to rule out all possible explanations but one (attribution). I think this is reasonably hard for war situations.
It is clear, however, that many conflicts in todays world depend heavily on ecosystems and water as a climate related product. These problems might increase in the future
b) The German military also has such preparation reports. Mostly this concerns the defense against climate fugitives ... a scary thought, building a wall across the European / African Border
On December 13 2011 08:48 Abraxas514 wrote: @dabbeljuh:
Do you have information about the increase of surface water versus the increase of planetary albido?
I think this may be a very important factor if surface water is increasing.
can you rephrase the question? what do you mean with surface water? do you mean sea level?
Here is the line of reasoning:
"Although the reflectivity of water is very low at low and medium angles of incident light, it increases tremendously at high angles of incident light"
Wiki- Albedo (my bad with the sic)
IF the increase of water over land happens mostly closer to the poles, this region of Earth's surface will have a differential albedo of
Deciduous trees have an albedo value of about 0.15 to 0.18 while coniferous trees have a value of about 0.09 to 0.15.[4]
.7 or .8?
Seeing as most of the Earth's surface heat (almost all of it) comes from the Sun, increase in albedo means a decrease in surface temperature.
Does this mean that rising water levels will be decreasing global temperature?
EPT
