Carbon Catastrophe: The Impact of Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming

Carbon Catastrophe...

Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space. Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming was probably due to greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space. Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming was probably due to greenhouse gases.

The climatologists forecast continued temperature rises that will disrupt the climate, cause seas to rise and lead to other unpredictable consequences -- unpredictable in part because of uncertainties in computer modeling of future climate.

Before the industrial age and extensive use of fossil fuels, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stood at about 280 parts per million, scientists have determined.

Average readings at the 11,141-foot Mauna Loa Observatory, where carbon dioxide density peaks each northern winter, hovered around 379 parts per million on Friday, compared with about 376 a year ago.

That year-to-year increase of about 3 parts per million is considerably higher than the average annual increase of 1.8 parts per million over the past decade, and markedly more accelerated than the 1-part-per-million annual increase recorded a half-century ago, when observations were first made here.

Reference:
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/mar/03212004/nation_w/149814.asp

Great

Now finally we can have the famous AGW discussion. I say that temperature and carbon dioxide have limited direct causality. see:
http://hanserren.cwhoutwijk.nl/co2/howmuch.htm

You could claim equally simple that temperature rise is inducing a rise in carbon dioxide.

So, for explaining the current "global" warming we should also take in account, natural solar cycles, other atmospheric effects, especially soot, and changes in ocean circulation. For instance the warm summers in Europe may be caused by abnormally low Sea Surface Temperatures in the mid Atlantic.

Orion1 said:

Average readings at the 11,141-foot Mauna Loa Observatory, where carbon dioxide density peaks each northern winter, hovered around 379 parts per million on Friday, compared with about 376 a year ago.

Carbon dioxide content of the air swings by more than 3ppm from one minute to the next, much less one year to he next. To get an accurate picture of content level flux requires much longer term analysis.

Empire Exhaust...

In 1996, carbon dioxide world emissions increased by 2.8%. The U.S. reported a 3.3% increase in CO2
concentrations. The U.S. continues to emit more than any other country in the world, accounting for 25% of all emissions. The European Union had an increase of 2.2%, much larger than a small increase of 1.1% in 1995. Eastern Europe had a decreasing rate of -2.4%. China's increase in 1996 was 4.7%.
http://infoweb.magi.com/~dwalsh/wfsesr.html

The World Energy Council reported that global carbon dioxide emissions from buring fossil fuels rose 12% between 1990 and 1995. (www.eb.com:180[/URL]) The increase from developing countries was three times that from developed countries. Middle East carbon dioxide emissions from burning of fossil fuels increased 35%, Africa increased 12%, and Eastern Europe increased rates by 75% from 1990-1995.
[color=blue]
One of the greatest derivative correlations in the data is the result of burning fossil fuels, more specifically, oil production and consumption.
[/color]
Reference:
[PLAIN]http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

Yes and?

Oh of course

Over the past century, the Earth has increased in temperature by about .5 degrees Celsius and many scientists believe this is because of an increase in concentration of the main greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorocarbons.

I'm happy that your link states "many scientist believe", so we are not to late applying the self correcting of science and we can discuss this in an orderly manner. Suppose that those three words were not in that sencentce:

Over the past century, the Earth has increased in temperature by about .5 degrees Celsius and ..this is because of an increase in concentration of the main greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorocarbons.

then we would have war. Such a statement can only be true or false. However invariably the media present the AGW like this, in order to "offer scary scenarios" and thus creating the worst hype of the century because the newspaper needs to increase it's numbers.

Anyway let's look at plain physics:

The effect of CO2 on temperature is the Arrhenius law.
dE=[alpha]ln([CO2]/[CO2}orig), where alpha is 5.35 (Myhre et al.)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm

E is change in forcing
using the derivative of Stefan-Boltzmann:
dT/dE = 1/(4[sigma] T^3)
gets:
dT=[alpha]ln([CO2]/[CO2}orig)/(4[sigma] T^3)

This is the equation without all feedbacks.

Substituting a doubling CO2 level (unrealistic, according to Lomborg)
and substituting T= 15 degreesC = 288.16K
dT=5.35ln2/(4*5.6705E-08*(288.16^3))
or
dT=0.6833 centigrade for a doubling of CO2 !

That's physics. All the rest is models and hype.

http://hanserren.cwhoutwijk.nl/co2/howmuch.htm

A fiend of mine said:

If we remember that these people predicted in 1969 that the US was going to suffer mass starvation and its population reduced to 100 million by 1990 (Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb"), and the world would have run of oil by 2000; and if we see that these people have learned nothing about predicting anything, we can keep doing our business - as usual. Don't lose you sleep over global warming

Just some thoughts...

Andre - What do you make of the similarity/difference between observed increases in CO2/temperature (Orion cites a 0.6 C increase with a 34% increase in CO2 levels) and the physics you present (0.7 C increase for a 100% increase without considering feedback effects)?

Aside: That's a global average change in temperature...regional changes would vary.

You could claim equally simple that temperature rise is inducing a rise in carbon dioxide.

How do we distinguish which is Cause and which is Effect? (or the relative mix, I suppose)

To be sure, human output of greenhouse gases has increased and greenhouse gases do trap heat. (I assume that is not the debate...the debate is whether humans are significantly increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and what the effects of that will be.)

If we remember that these people predicted in 1969 that the US was going to suffer mass starvation and its population reduced to 100 million by 1990 (Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb"), and the world would have run of oil by 2000; and if we see that these people have learned nothing about predicting anything, we can keep doing our business - as usual. Don't lose you sleep over global warming

Better to stick with the technical arguments, IMO. Rejecting all predictions by "these people" based on the failure of past ones is no way to go. I'm sure the Global Warming issue has received more research than conducted by the Population Bomb folks

I don't think we need to lose sleep, but I think there is enough evidence to suggest proceeding-with-caution.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing more from both sides of the debate.

You're right about that last quote, but then again it is only a quote.

I agree with Hans Erren who makes a pure clean approach and his basic message is that greenhouse effect definitely exist but it is greatly exagarated. Perhaps note that the IPCC figures are getting down about every year.

But why the chicken little effect? Because of the perceived palea climate history as the ice cores seem to be indicating apparently a much more sensitive relationship between GHG and temperature. But I see a lot of indications that paleao climatology was way to fast with their conclusions. Incidentely I posted http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Laurentian%20ice%20sheet%20on%20greenland.htm , unaware of this post in an attempt to start all over with the explanation of the Pleistocene and the ice age and its meaning for Global warming.

But what causes the current global warming? Candidates are natural cycles, thermohaline current changes, El Nino behavior, delta Solar irridiance, sun spots, soot and industrial haze(my choice).

Entropic Engine...



In an attempt to develop a more comprehensive planetary thermodynamic engine...

Orion1 Planetary Dynamics Hypothesis:

Spherical Planetary Temperature: (Terra)
[tex]T_o = \sqrt[4]{ \frac{S_o}{4 \sigma e_o}}[/tex]
T_o = 288.76 K - Planet Temperature
S_o = 1372 W*m^-2 - Solar Constant (NIMBUS-7)
e_o = 0.870 - Planet Emissivity
[tex]\sigma[/tex] - Stefan Constant

Note that the Solar Constant is not a static constant but is a fluxuating stellar dynamic of the Terra star (Sol). The Solar Cycle activity is an additive or reducive function of this 'constant'.

The Planetary Emissivity is a measurement of the total thermodynamic of any entropic planetary engine.

Increasing planetary temperature is a result of decreasing planetary emissivity.

[tex]>T_o \leftarrow <e[/tex]

Decreasing planetary temperature is a result of increasing planetary emissivity.

[tex]<T_o \rightarrow >e[/tex]

The change in Terra emissivity is the result of a change in the planetary emissivity dynamics of the thermodynamic Terran engine.

[tex]dTi = (dT_1 + dT_2 + dT_3 + dT_4)[/tex]
dT_i = .6 C - planetary temperature increase (Terra)
dT₁ - Continental emissivity temperature
dT₂ - Entropic polar icecaps emissivity temperature
dT₃ - Oceanic salinity emissivity temperature
dT₄ - Greenhouse atmosphere emissivity temperature

For example, processes that produce changes in dynamic emissivity temperature:

Continental emissivity temperature:
Soot and industrial haze, decreasing or evaporating continental lakes, dry riverbeds, melting mountain snow, deforestation, continental forest firestorms, continental rainfall, continental snowfall, etc.

Entropic polar icecaps emissivity temperature:
Melting polar icecaps, retreating polar glaciers, polar surface area reduction, polar continental surface exposure, etc.

Oceanic salinity emissivity temperature:
Melting polar icecaps, evaporation, decreased salinity, increased ocean surface area and volume, etc.

Greenhouse atmosphere emissivity temperature:
Increase in greenhouse gases, meterological effects, total planetary cloud surface area and volume, total planetary precipitation, planetary hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

C is CO2 in ppm - 379 ppm
M is CH4 in ppb - 1843 ppb
N is N2O in ppb - 318 ppb
X is CFC in ppb - 979 ppb

[tex]dT_4 = \alpha \frac{ln([CO2]/[CO2]orig)}{4 \sigma T_o^3}[/tex]
[tex]dT_4 = \frac{5.35 ln(1.34)}{4 \sigma (288.16^3)}[/tex]
dT₄ = 0.288 C

First Dynamic Solution:
[tex]dTi = (dT_1 + dT_2 + dT_3 + 0.288 C) = .6 C[/tex]

All other dynamics:
[tex](dT_1 + dT_2 + dT_3) = .312 C[/tex]



Reference:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm#tab62
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irrad.html
http://www.math.duke.edu/education/prep02/teams/prep-15/

Entropic polar icecaps emissivity temperature:
Melting polar icecaps, retreating polar glaciers, polar surface area reduction, polar continental surface exposure, etc.

However:

The pole ice sheets are not melting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1766064.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3587251.stm (last sentence):

He added that there had been a steady increase in ice in parts of Baffin Bay over the last 50 years.

The glaciers are not (all) retreating:
http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.html

"Norway's glaciers growing at record pace"
SEPP ... the behavior of Norway's glaciers is in keeping with the World Glacier Monitoring Service 1989 report in Science magazine, which showed 55 percent of mountain glaciers in Europe and the United States advancing after 1980.
...The face of the Briksdal glacier, an off-shoot of the largest glacier in Norway and mainland Europe, Jostedalsbreen, is growing by an average 18 centimeters (7.2 inches) per day.

From 1992 to 1997, the Briksdal grew by 322 meters (1,062 feet). At its current pace, the ice-cap is expected to extend three kilometers (1.86 miles) from its current position within 50 to 60 years

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2851309a7693,00.html

Glaciers advance
21 March 2004
By DEIDRE HENZELL

Fox and Franz Josef glaciers are advancing for the first time in five years ...

Glacier guides at the popular West Coast destinations confirmed Fox lengthened about 10m over summer while Franz Josef grew several metres in places along its terminal face. ...
Franz Josef glacier guide Blair Campbell said the glacier had advanced a few metres in places at the terminal face in the past four months.

http://www.andesadventures.com/patagoniabh.htm

"Patagonia!" By Bruce Hoff.
...
the largest glacier seen on the trip , it is also unusual in that it is continually growing, rather than receding.

.6C? .312C? Where is the carbon catastrophe?

André:

But I see a lot of indications that paleao climatology was way to fast with their conclusions. Incidentely I posted this minutes ago in the feedback thread (including fig 1) , unaware of this post in an attempt to start all over with the explanation of the Pleistocene and the ice age and its meaning for Global warming.

Reading about the evaporation of the L.I.S. and reforming to make the G.I.S. makes me wonder why Greenland is yet today an ice sheet when land at the same latitude is not covered in an ice sheet...

Planetary Photosphere...

Scientists studying Earth'shine -- the amount of light reflected by the Earth -- say the planet appeared to dim from 1984 to 2001 and then reversed its trend and brightened from 2001 to 2003.

The shift appears to have resulted from changes in the amount of clouds covering the planet. More clouds reflect more light back into space, potentially cooling the planet, while a dimmer planet with fewer clouds would be warmed by the arriving sunlight. That means the changes in brightness could signal climate change, though it's too early to tell.

The researchers used two sets of records. They include measurements of cloud cover taken by satellites and an analysis of Earth'shine, which was determined by studying how much it illuminates the dark portion of the moon.

Reference:
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/may/05282004/nation_w/170499.asp