GW and AGW?

Question

Let's simply assume I am a voting citizen, not a climate expert, nor do I intend to become one. When discussing climate change please do not confuse GW with AGW. Yes glaciers are melting. Yes global temperature increased an average of at least 0.5ºC over the last century. Yes computing with a suite of models, an average of about 5ºC increase for the next 50 years was found. Yes current temperatures seem to be slighty higher than what is computed NOT taking into account manmade GHGs. Yes there have been a few statistical oddities in weather in the last few years.

Are you happy, now?

Then please explain the evidence that jet exhaust tracks impact the climate, or that global warming triggers earthquakes. Explain what happened with the 1995 IPCC report summary and why Al Gore asked Ted Koppel to dig out dirt on expert skepticals. While you are at it, explain to the educated, how cloud cover is modeled exactly, given that GW will increase it, thereby making the planet retain more heat

Answer 1

Jet tracks - After 9/11, when jets were grounded there was a measurable temperature change.  This is a small thing, and doesn't affect global warming much one way or another.  It is suggestive that the problem may be worse than we think, no more.

Seismographs are registering many more small quakes in Greenland and Antarctica.  Once again, interesting, not a big deal.

In 1995 the evidence for global warming was much smaller, and exactly how the summary was stated was debatable.  Again, not very important now.

Note that, in the 2007 the statement "It is virtually certain that global warming is anthropogenic" was changed to "very likely" by political types in the US and China.  The IPCC report was edited DOWN from what the scientists said (but not very much, since the evidence is now much clearer).

Cloud cover is a mixed bag, depending on the exact nature of the clouds.  It can retain heat or it can reflect heat.  Most scientists think it will retain heat, Richard Lindzen disagrees.  It is unlikely to make a big difference in the long run, although it may have some impact on the rate of warming.

Bottom line:  All this, in 2007, is small stuff that doesn't change the main results.  Global warming is real, mostly caused by us, a serious problem, and capable of being solved by us.

"Skeptics" like to debate these small issues to cast doubts on the main results.  Quantitatively, that doesn't wash.

"Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, QUANTITATIVE arguments to make it go away."  (emphasis added)

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Personally I don't care much about Al Gore or Michael Shermer.  They're not at all central to the issue or the science or the scientific consensus.  Again "skeptical" smoke, not substantive material.

But if you want to bring up personalities, please explain to me how these people are America bashers or left wingers:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.  We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

Note that the political aspects of this are almost entirely the result of right wing deniers.  If you want to avoid the c**p, why not attend a scientific meeting on climate, or read the peer reviewed literature?  Here's a good place to start:

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

When Mitt Romney mentioned Hitler the other days, political commentators mentioned that that name was never a sign of a substantive argument, and that political candidates would do well to avoid it, for their credibilities sake.  I make the same suggestion to you.

Your earlier questions were much more substantive.  This question raises a lot of relatively trivial stuff, much of it very old and/or political.  Good debating tactic, bad science.

Answer 2

There is ample evidence for global warming, in quickly rising global temperature anomalies, worldwide glacial retreat, melting ice at both poles, and sea-level rise at increasing rates, etc…

FYI, the global temperature has increased by about 0.8°C since the early 1900, and 0.6° of that change came in the last 30-40 years. However, we are not just talking about 0.8°C here. Due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the average global temperature is expected to rise by another 1.1 to 6.4°C by 2100. The most likely increase will be between 1.7 and 4.4°C.

The evidence that jet contrails affect climate come from changes in the diurnal temperature variation that occurred after 9/11 when there were no relatively few jets flying over North America. I am also skeptical that anything can be deduced from a study of three random days.

I don’t know the details of the 1995 report, but our knowledge of climate increases each year that we research it.

I think that it is important that people know that the celebrity skeptics are bankrolled by oil and coal industries. It helps people to know whether climatologists or lobbyists are more credible.

Climate models still show some error. They are not perfect and never will be; the perfect climate model is an unrealistic expectation, and waiting for the perfect model is simply a delaying tactic. Climate modelers do try to account for clouds and the albedo effect.

Here[1], beginning on page 11 and again by continent on page 13 is a summary of our current knowledge on the impacts of climate change.

Answer 3

I am going to post a vigorously worded reply.  Bob answered the question, but I wanted to make a point.

And what point are you trying to make?

That all of mans' intervention in the world is no big deal, that we should just continue with business as usual?

There is an overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, not to mention the mass of hard science, that says it is a big deal.

Answer 4

here is an article on con-trails:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/contrai...

earthquakes will still occur regardless of whether or not global warming "triggers them", which seems a little unrealistic.

even if global warming triggers it - it would still occur anyway.

clouds have a net cooling effect - they do allow UV light through - but block visible and some IR light from reaching the ground - this is why you feel cool when when a cloud passes over, but you still get a sunburn even with cloud cover.

edit

rick - are you serious?  according to your logic we should be sitting in a pocket of 100%  O2 (or really 100% HFCs) - also CO weighs the same as the largest component of air: N2  

high altitude research balloons have confirmed the presence of haloalkanes high in the atmosphere also SF6 is not a hydrofluorocarbon (as it contains no carbon). Ozone is constantly created and destroyed in reactions that utilize UV photons - this is the process that blocks UV light - BTW O3 weighs more than air as well. Certain chemicals ie - haloalkenes form free radicals that inhibit the ozone reactions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...

Answer 5

Simple observation: If you removed the angry voices of right wing news pundits misinforming the country, there wouldn't be a discussion about GW vs AGW.

Answer 6

There's a specific reason why GW and AGW are confusing.  It was designed that way.  The UN made the statement that all global warming was caused by man, and this was not debatable.  Since then the believers dropped the 'A' and just called it 'global warming'.  Since the Earth was warming naturally, caused by the Sun, it was impossible to deny that the Earth was indeed warming.  We're about 0.2 degrees warmer than the subjective "normal".

When the believers talked about "global warming", they were referring to AGW.  If you said there wasn't any warming, implying AGW, they would bring up a chart showing that there has been a very slight increase over the decades.

If you agreed that there was GW, then they would say you agreed with them.

Basically it's lying by deception.

Answer 7

I doubt you will get anything but 'rationalizations' from AWG fans.

They 'DENY' that CO2 (being a heavier molecule) 'falls to the earth.

Jet exhausts will also fall towards earth and hold some heat near ground level - much like city's that have a brown 'smog pale' hanging over them when there is no wind.

This information is a disproof of the phony SCAM the Alarmists pulled off in the OZONE Fraud.  :

http://users.qld.chariot.net.au/~carls/e...

"Where's the science? CO2 is heavier than air so it can't rise up to form a greenhouse cover. So is CO, nitrous oxide and all the hydrofluorocarbons like SF6, and PFCs and HFCs that are locked up in refrigeration units and never become emissions. The only gas lighter than air is methane, which does float up, but being inflammable it gets burned up by lightning."

OZONE constantly regenerates when UV is present.

When there is no Sunlight = NO UV and NO danger of UV exposure.

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/...

"4.  Sunspot cycle: ozone is created by solar UV radiation. The amount of UV radiation produced by the sun is not constant but varies by several percent in a roughly 11year cycle."

Note:  OZONE is CREATED by SOLAR UV ! ! !

Edit:

Even the scientists 'hedge their bets' and proclaim there is all the components of CO2/pollution in higher atmospheres - but only say they "MAY"/"COULD" influence Ozone or GW.  

They have NEVER PROVEN there is enough CO2/pollutants present in higher atmospheres to do what they say "Could happen"!!!

Yes OZONE (O3) is "Highly Unstable" and is continually regenerated by UV in a self regulating manor - in spite of any pollutants present!!!  The 'OZONE HOLE' was a Total Scam!

Answer 8

global warming is a complete and total fake dont believe it for one second its an international scam!  click this link and read the information in it http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereis...

Answer 9

Hi Deep Blue,

I don't think that believing AGW is dogma. The thing is, if Science is looking at future effects on a global scale, it is very difficult to fulfill the Popperian falsifiability criterion and give the absolutely robust infallible model that the skeptics demand- how can you prove its right when the future hasn't happened yet?

There has been 'dirt digging' and intolerance on both sides of the highly politicised global warming debate.

The thing is, people who have chosen to believe that AGW is an issue (and that is a lot of people - I'm not sure if you are in the US, where a lot of science has been funded by fossil fuel interests, but outside of your borders debate has much less credibility) feel that something needs to be done, and that skepticism is simply an attempt to halt action by people with vested interests. You have to admit - the fossil fuel companies that fund a lot of climate-sceptical research have a much more obvious vested interest than some vague, non-proven 'liberal science conspiracy'.

People are passionate about this. They feel if we wait for the perfect, proven model - that takes into account every possible feedback, every forcing effect, every possible emissions trajectory - it will be too late for effective action.

The scientists do not claim to know everything. The IPCC report uses caveats. Al Gore is not as prominent in the GW debate as many Americans seem to think - it's like saying that the global drive for health and medicine is led by Michael Moore.

Comparing believing in AGW to Hitler confused me a little. While I'm sure the fact that many people believed the holocaust was a myth is a closer analogy, it is a clumsy one - as was yours - and I would not choose to use it.

Rick - I just read your answer. I don't have time to go into it now but I suggest you read any basic chemistry text on the creation and destruction of ozone. You seem to have the wrong end of the stick. It's probably on the wikipedia page or something, if you want to look there.