Marc G

I have seen this raised more than once by some sources that many find to be sketchy. I ask, not because I want to support them, but because it seems to be a logical question.

Can we actually do what it is said we are going to do (double CO2 concentrations by 2100 via fossil fuel usage)?

If there is a divergence between proxy and instrument temperature data, what conclusions am I to draw?

If the proxies are not accurate in the current decades (compared to instruments), then how can I be assured that the historical proxies are accurate?

If the instruments are not accurate in current decades (compared to proxies), then how can I be assured that instrumental data is accurate?

It appears that there is a lot of work being done to eliminate this divergence, but it appears to be mathematical in nature. Is anyone working on refining the experimental parameters in the determination of temperature via proxy analysis?

http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0717/2006JD008318...

Hopefully this link works.....

Given that CO2 is projected to double from 280 ppm to 560 ppm sometime in the next 100 years,

Given that CO2 doubling with NO FEEDBACKS is estimated to be 1.2 deg C,

Given that the nature of increasing CO2 is neither linear nor exponential, but rather is a diminshing (more like a logrithmic curve),

Given that most climate science reports that the warming with doubling CO2 is between 3 and 6 deg C, due to positive feedbacks.

What are the postivie feedbacks that are proposed to account for this additional warming?

What mechanisms exist to halt the warming at 3 to 6 deg C, rather than a runaway warming?

Is there historical precedence in the geologic record that would suggest that these positive feedbacks exist?

If there is not historical evidence of such feedbacks, why are they assumed to exist now?

I have the Lockwood paper, and I have some trouble with Figure 4. It shows T increasing for the last 100 years. It also shows 10Be decreasing for the last 100 years. This tells me that temperatures should have been increasing over the last 100 years. As for the increase of 10Be beginning in about 1985 or so, concurrent with continued temperature increases (opposite of what we would think) tells me that maybe land-use could be a factor in this continued upward temperature trend.

Am I missing something?

Generally, the temperature increase due to a doubling of CO2 (280 ppm to 560 ppm) should result in a global average temperature increase of about 1.5 degrees C.

Most of the predictions for future warming lie in the 3 to 11 degree C range, although a few people predict that we could have uncontrolled warming.

Given this difference between CO2 forcing and predicted temperature increases, there is an implication that there is some sort of positive feedback mechanism.

Is it reasonable to assume that there is a positive feedback mechanism at work? Especially in light of the fact that almost all natural systems exhibit negative feedback mechanisms (broad generalization) that tend to dampen the effects of perturbations to a system.

I realize that H2O is often cited as the mechanism, but there is a high degree of uncertainty due to the fact that water vapor can be a driver of cooling AND warming.

Is there historical precedence for assuming that these positive feedbacks exist?

Heads up to everyone, there is a group at UW-Madison that has done some modeling and found that they can explain the warming AND cooling that we have seen the last 100 years.

Here is the reference:

Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov (2007), A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.

It is quite the paper. It uses four oceanic oscillation systems and investigates the synchronization and coupling between the systems and the ramifications of coupling.

http://magturbine.com/index.html

Magnetic levitation, power equal to 1000 standard wind turbines confined to a much smaller area.

This is some cool technology, I wonder if it will be financially sucessful?

7 of the 9 radiative forcing factors are rated at a level of low scientific understanding, shouldn't we be concerned that they are not accurately modeling the climate?

Shouldn't we be waiting on policy prescriptions until we actually have a firm grasp on what each RF factor and its implications for cliimate cahnge?

It appears that the rush to "do something" is a bastardization of the Precautionary Principle that will run right into the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Why am I wrong in thinking that we need more time and patience when it comes to making policy regarding climate change?

Equation can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Before anyone gets after me for using Wiki, this comes directly from:

Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 25, No. 14, pp 2715-2718, 1998

I ask because I am interested in knowing what they are trying to account for by the use of this coefficient in the equation.

Does this co-efficient account for the less than 100% absortion efficiency of CO2? Does it account for non-radiative relaxation processes, such as collisional relaxation? etc.

CO2 here:

http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&U...

H2O here:

http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&...

Notice that CO2 has a relatively small absorbance in two regions of the spectra (4.2 um and ~14 - 16 um). Whereas, water absorbs across a broad portion of the IR spectrum with a particularly large spike at about 3.1 um.

Wouldn't this dictate that most IR would be absorbed by H2O, except that at 4.2 um? Especially given the fact that the atmosphere has far more H2O than CO2.

Based on this simple data, it looks like CO2 should not be much of a concern given its relative scarcity and its relatively weak absorption profile in comparison to H2O.

What is the IR emission profile of the earth? Is it evenly distributed through all wavelengths, or are there regions of greater emission that coincide with CO2 absorption lines?

What am I missing? Why CO2?

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/... (Thanks Trevor)

I take interest in the fact that many of the forcings are in the low to very low level of knowledge. I also find it interesting that the one forcing with a high level of knowledge is CO2 forcing.

This leads me to conclude that we really are not certain that CO2 is the main culprit in the warming since 1960ish. Given the pace that knowledge expands in todays world, we may see significant changes in the forcings at the next IPCC report in 4 years, and even further changes in 8 years.

Am I wrong in thinking that we should be waiting for improvments in the science? Or are we in full on precautionary principle mode?

Is doing something, that may be wrong, better than doing nothing? Have we really reached that point?

Having established that the anthropogenic signal swamped out the natural signal in about 1960, lets move on to the next question that I have.

The signal post 1960 is considered to be anthropogenic, am I to take it that this means strictly CO2 produced by human activities? Or, is anthropogenic to be used in a broader sense that includes farming, ranching, urban growth, deforestation, etc?

It is this one:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate...

I have been bothered by this graph for a while now, for a number of reasons. So I began doing some research on the attribution of global warming due to a variety of forcings.

In the paper below, an 11 year smoothing shows that solar forcings are the major contibutor to warming of the last 100 years. A 9 year smoothing of the same data shows that greenhouse gases are the major contributor to warming. The paper then moves on to discuss how other small changes in parameters significantly changes the attribution results.

The wiki graph in question resembles the 9 year smoothing work shown in this paper.

Could it be that this graph is not as illustrative as it initially seems to be? Could it be that the models are not yet as refined as suggested, thus attribution is still unknowable?

REF:

Space Science Reviews (2006) 125: 199–211

DOI: 10.1007/s11214-006-9057-2

There are four good faith payments, do the credit cards go into default while making these payments?