Natural global warming

[swansont]

Are you contending that black carbon is a natural source of warming?

[cypress]

I quoted this phrase to describe black carbon warming.

 

"Black carbon is not a GHG. Black carbon warms the earth by directly absorbing reflected solar radiation and also by darkening the surface of snow and ice when it is deposited there (and enhances melting)."

 

I don't know of any serious skeptic that advocates black carbon pollution should not be minimized and ideally eliminated. However warming from carbon soot is not attributable to anthropogenic GHG. I conceded previously that I should be more careful with my words so that they accurately reflect my viewpoint and claims. Serious skeptics take issue with anthropogenic sources of primarily CO2 and the impact CO2 has on global climate. I share their viewpoint.

 

Since carbon black is not a greenhouse gas, the warming attributed to it goes into the category of apparent warming attributed to causes other than anthropogenic GHG's.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The research by Solomon et al, address the methane component. The comments by Solomon and the other authors plus the other researchers (see post 48) all consistently rule out changes in stratospheric water vapor by transport other than changes due to temperature drivers between the critical layer addressed by the research and changes in sea surface temperature in the tropical regions. Observed changes in sea temperature in the tropical region is almost entirely driven by ENSO. Furthermore the effect correlates well with the ENSO index.

 

I would be inclined to accept your argument if you were able to attribute ENSO to anthropogenic causes, but this does not seem to be the case.

Whoa, there. The ScienceNews article you quote in post 48 refers to the sudden drop in vapor since 2000, not the overall increase since 1980. The drop in vapor doesn't account for any warming of the planet -- a drop in vapor would decrease warming, not increase it. The quotes you give indicate that the sudden drop cannot be accounted for by GHG feedbacks, but says nothing about whether GHGs could have caused the overall increase in vapor since 1980.

 

Solomon does not dispute in the paper that methane can be a cause of increases in stratospheric vapor:

 

The water vapor content of the stratosphere is controlled by transport through the tropopause region (21) and the oxidation of methane within the stratosphere.

(Of course, it's not the sole cause; ENSO is a factor as well, as indicated by Solomon. But you can't fairly attribute all of vapor changes to ENSO, just as you can't attribute them all to methane.)

 

Since carbon black is not a greenhouse gas, the warming attributed to it goes into the category of apparent warming attributed to causes other than anthropogenic GHG's.

I thought your goal here was to identify "natural causes for all but 0.2-0.4 degrees of warming." If black carbon is anthropogenic -- and what I have read indicates it is -- then you have merely identified another anthropogenic source of warming. This is not a natural cause for warming.

[cypress]

Whoa, there. The ScienceNews article you quote in post 48 refers to the sudden drop in vapor since 2000, not the overall increase since 1980. The drop in vapor doesn't account for any warming of the planet -- a drop in vapor would decrease warming, not increase it. The quotes you give indicate that the sudden drop cannot be accounted for by GHG feedbacks, but says nothing about whether GHGs could have caused the overall increase in vapor since 1980.

 

Solomon does not dispute in the paper that methane can be a cause of increases in stratospheric vapor:

 

 

(Of course, it's not the sole cause; ENSO is a factor as well, as indicated by Solomon. But you can't fairly attribute all of vapor changes to ENSO, just as you can't attribute them all to methane.)

 

The papers and discussions that were largely precipitated by the Solomon et al study (some of which I linked but there are several others as well) refer to the sudden changes in water vapor and note that GHG's can't account these changes. Methane concentrations in the upper atmosphere have not displayed a pattern that could account for the upswings or downswings. It is the changes that I am interested in attributing. Those who have commented on the Solomon findings to date seem to be of the same opinion that the cause is related to sea temperature variations in the tropical area oceans. The driver for variability in these areas is ENSO.

 

Now the staff at World Climate Report noted Chip Knappenberger's article but found he did not go far enough in attributing recent warming to sources other than CO2 GHG.

 

The first additional adjustment is to the temperature record du to urbanization around the historical surface temperature measurement points.

 

"But some of the remaining warming is caused by changes to the temperature observing network from things such as local land-use changes, urbanization influences, changes in thermometers, degradation of station quality, etc."

 

"In work aimed at quantifying the non-climatic influence on the land-based temperature record, WCR’s Patrick Michaels and colleague Ross McKitrick found that as much as one-half of the warming observed over land areas since 1980 was caused by non-climatic factors. There is little reason to think that the situation was much different in the three decades prior. So, factoring out the non-climatic contamination of the land temperature data (remembering that 70% of the world is covered by oceans) as identified by McKitrick and Michaels, reduces the total warming from 1950 to 2009 to 0.468°C or 67% of the original “observed” warming."

 

 

Noting that the two reports took these attributions in a different order, I get a net reduction from urbanization of surface temperature sources of 0.084 C for a total of 0.420 attributed to non-CO2 GHG's and 0.282 unattributed of the total 0.702 apparent increase.

[swansont]

1. Given that Knappenberger is on the WCR staff, this hardly counts as an independent analysis.

 

2. Land use and urbanization are not natural influences. For that matter, instrumentation issues aren't, either.

[pioneer]

I read somewhere that the color of the ocean water effects its heating. Water that is greener and murkier can absorb heat better than clear water. With clear water the heat transfer goes deeper so the surface water is cooler. This means as algae grows, due to higher CO2, the water warms faster causing the thermal currents to move faster from equator to poles. Global warming due to CO2 may lower the thermal gradient between equator and poles, but the higher CO2 also means higher algae to increase the thermal gradient. The currents last longer since the two CO2 effects are moving the gradients in opposite directions.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The papers and discussions that were largely precipitated by the Solomon et al study (some of which I linked but there are several others as well) refer to the sudden changes in water vapor and note that GHG's can't account these changes. Methane concentrations in the upper atmosphere have not displayed a pattern that could account for the upswings or downswings. It is the changes that I am interested in attributing. Those who have commented on the Solomon findings to date seem to be of the same opinion that the cause is related to sea temperature variations in the tropical area oceans. The driver for variability in these areas is ENSO.

 

The sudden changes in water vapor that cannot be accounted for by GHGs are declines in stratospheric water vapor. A decline causes cooling. What Knappenberger looks at is the long-term net increase, which happened despite the sharp, unexplained drop after 2000. The long-term net increase has been accounted for by NASA GISS as caused by methane and other GHGs.

 

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_05/

 

In other words: Known anthropogenic factors caused a net increase in stratospheric water vapor since the 1980s, contributing to warming. Unknown factors caused a sudden drop in stratospheric water vapor after 2000, but this drop did not cancel out the net increase.

[cypress]

The sudden changes in water vapor that cannot be accounted for by GHGs are declines in stratospheric water vapor. A decline causes cooling. What Knappenberger looks at is the long-term net increase, which happened despite the sharp, unexplained drop after 2000. The long-term net increase has been accounted for by NASA GISS as caused by methane and other GHGs.

 

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_05/

 

In other words: Known anthropogenic factors caused a net increase in stratospheric water vapor since the 1980s, contributing to warming. Unknown factors caused a sudden drop in stratospheric water vapor after 2000, but this drop did not cancel out the net increase.

 

I don't see where NASA GISS has accounted for the long-term net increase. The article says this about it:

 

Though not fully understood, the increased transport of water vapor to the stratosphere seems to have been caused at least partially by human activities.

 

What percentage of the total net increase of water vapor from 1980 - 2000 is due to methane? I don't see that information in the article.

What specific human activities and what evidence other than models (a computer model is not evidence since they have a strong tendency for conformational bias as they output what they are programmed to generate) is available to demonstrate that these human activities cause transport of water vapor into the upper atmosphere? The articles and comments made more recently by Solomon and coauthors plus other atmospheric researchers indicate they don't see a connection between human causes and transport of water vapor into the stratosphere. Instead they indicate the trend follows tropical sea surface temperature.

[needimprovement]

I think it's a natural phenomenon. The Earth never has had the exact same temperature year after year, decade after decade, century after century. So with or without mankind, the Earth would still be experiencing either a warming trend or a cooling trend. Of course we enhanced it by producing tonnes of carbon dioxide every day, causing the greehouse effect strengthen and finally lead to global warming .

[swansont]

I think it's a natural phenomenon. The Earth never has had the exact same temperature year after year, decade after decade, century after century. So with or without mankind, the Earth would still be experiencing either a warming trend or a cooling trend. Of course we enhanced it by producing tonnes of carbon dioxide every day, causing the greehouse effect strengthen and finally lead to global warming .

 

Even if it was a natural phenomenon, we still should be able to account for where the energy goes and why temperatures are increasing. You can't simply dismiss it as natural and be done with it. It's still a science problem, demanding a scientific answer. But "it's natural" lacks one.

[needimprovement]

Even if it was a natural phenomenon, we still should be able to account for where the energy goes and why temperatures are increasing. You can't simply dismiss it as natural and be done with it. It's still a science problem, demanding a scientific answer. But "it's natural" lacks one.

Haven't you heard...it's "Bovine Flatulence"

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't see where NASA GISS has accounted for the long-term net increase. The article says this about it:

 

 

 

What percentage of the total net increase of water vapor from 1980 - 2000 is due to methane? I don't see that information in the article.

What specific human activities and what evidence other than models (a computer model is not evidence since they have a strong tendency for conformational bias as they output what they are programmed to generate) is available to demonstrate that these human activities cause transport of water vapor into the upper atmosphere? The articles and comments made more recently by Solomon and coauthors plus other atmospheric researchers indicate they don't see a connection between human causes and transport of water vapor into the stratosphere. Instead they indicate the trend follows tropical sea surface temperature.

The articles and comments made more recently by Solomon and coauthors indicate they don't see a connection between human causes and the recent sudden decline in stratospheric water vapor. This does not change what GISS stated years before about the slow, long-term increase, which is what we care about.

 

See the full paper for further details.

 

(The computer model they use was not custom-made for this experiment, but is a pre-existing model commonly accepted for climate calculations.)

[needimprovement]

Interesting information on Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

 

Of course that research has to be paid for. I guess this is done with grants money (although agencies like NOAA do have scientists on staff, I am sure).

If so, who decides where these grants go? Who decides which projects the scientists work on? Are there any independent researchers in the climate area? How can we tell which ones, if they exist?

 

If a bureaucrat can drum up enough fear over something within their area, they can get bigger budgets and more employees.

How does one judge the power of a given bureaucrat? Bigger budgets and more employees.

 

I'm just curious....

Edited September 24, 2010 by needimprovement

[cypress]

The articles and comments made more recently by Solomon and coauthors indicate they don't see a connection between human causes and the recent sudden decline in stratospheric water vapor. This does not change what GISS stated years before about the slow, long-term increase, which is what we care about.

 

See the full paper for further details.

 

(The computer model they use was not custom-made for this experiment, but is a pre-existing model commonly accepted for climate calculations.)

 

Computer models generate the output that the designer intends but they do not provide factual evidence. Statements by the GISS are easy to make, but the articles don't provide sufficient evidence to support it. I quoted the state of knowledge GISS has on this matter and will repeat it again:

 

"Though not fully understood, the increased transport of water vapor to the stratosphere seems to have been caused at least partially by human activities."

 

That is another way of admitting they lack evidence.

 

Your counter argument also lacks support.

 

the next adjustment to introduce is from solar effects over the time period. The articles says this about it.

 

"And let’s not leave out the non-GHG influence of variations in the output of the sun. If the solar output varies, so too will the earth’s temperature. Duke University’s Nicola Scafetta has been studying the potential influence of solar variability on the earth’s recent temperature trends for several years now. His most recent calculations were published last year in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. He concluded that it is impossible to precisely nail down the solar influence in recent decades because of uncertainties induced from trying to stitch together non-continuous measurements made from several different satellite-borne instruments. However, Scafetta did provide three plausible solar output histories since 1950 and calculated the potential impact of each. He found that solar variability since 1950 could have contributed anywhere from virtually no warming to upwards of 65% of the observed warming. In his middle scenario, Scafetta found that increases in the solar output since 1950 could have been responsible for about 33% of the observed warming since then. If we factor this non-GHG warming out, we are left with a total temperature rise of 0.204°C from 1950-2009—or just 29% of the original “observed” warming."

 

And so by this analysis we have 0.2°C warming unattributed. Less than 30% of the total apparent rise can be assigned to AGHG from 1950 to 2009.

Edited September 26, 2010 by cypress

[pioneer]

One of the problems has to do with research stacking. If we wanted to know the truth, we would give equal resources to both sides. What that would do is make sure we fully address both sides of the issue and not just stack the data on one side.

 

For example, say you have two competing theories, both empirical. The question is what is better apples or oranges. To one theory we give 95% of the resources and other gets 5%. Who will win? Say we gave both 50/50, now it is less clear who will win.

 

For example, if you look at stem cell research. The political climate limits resources. The limited resources limits the results which can support this POV. With the results limited, it becomes easier to say that this POV is of limited utility. If we flooded this POV with resources would its utility increase?

Edited September 26, 2010 by pioneer

[cypress]

Recently there have been a number of papers identifying and discussing the +/-60 year cyclic oscillations in ocean patterns and the relationship these oscillations have regional and global climate. This paper provides a good summary of the nature of these oscillations and the relationship they have to regional and global temperature.

 

Here is a example of the correlation these oscillations have to US temperature, courtesy of wattsupwiththat.com

 

 

Here is a publication that demonstrates the relationship these cycles have on the arctic climate.

 

This article provides empirical insight into a causal relationship between these oscillations and solar system influences and shows that at least 60% of warming during the most recent warming cycle (between 1970 and 2005) is due to the combined natural influences due to these oscillations. This matches very well with the results I presented previously. This paper also shows that these cycles have been occurring continuously into the past as far back as records and data is available. This paper represents independent confirmation that natural factors and measurement errors have dominated the 1950's -2009 warming as has been shown previously. Additionally, this article indicates that the cyclical temperature between 1850 and 2009 due to this natural oscillation is equal to the adjustment between 1970 and 2005 or about 0.3 C out of the 0.8 C agreed apparent total, leaving 0.5 unaccounted at this point. Recall that my goal was to show that less than 0.4 could not be accounted for by natural causes so at this point I have about 0.1 C left to account by natural cause.

[cypress]

In my previous post, half of the 0.8 C apparent warming since 1850 was attributed to natural oscillations in ocean patterns likely due to solar system influencers. This article estimates the range of natural warming due to sun influences from 1850-2000 between 0.20 and 0.58 degrees C. If we take the low value, I now have even the low end (most aggressive) of my claim covered. If I take the mid range I have all 0.8 in apparent warming since 1850 accounted for by natural causes.

 

Scafetta, N., 2009. Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 71, 1916-1923.

[JohnB]

If I take the mid range I have all 0.8 in apparent warming since 1850 accounted for by natural causes.

And therein you have a problem. Physics tells us that there must be warming from an increase in CO2, there is no way around that.

 

What this all might demonstrate is that the negative feedbacks are far stronger than we thought.

 

By this I mean that if we can add up the positive forcings and get a number higher than the actual increase in temps, then the only logical explanation is that negative feedbacks have cancelled some of the warming. Which would mean that the net effect of feedbacks is negative and not positive.

[cypress]

And therein you have a problem. Physics tells us that there must be warming from an increase in CO2, there is no way around that.

 

I see several ways this could arise. One is that temperature data contains measurement and compilation uncertainties, another is that as the researchers note, there is considerable uncertainty in the data used to estimate total sun energy flux reaching earth, a third is that there is coupling between the ocean oscillation effects and sun effects though the two data and results sets for the studies seem to indicate it is minimal since the two don't seem to have any strong correlation.

 

What this all might demonstrate is that the negative feedbacks are far stronger than we thought.

 

By this I mean that if we can add up the positive forcings and get a number higher than the actual increase in temps, then the only logical explanation is that negative feedbacks have cancelled some of the warming. Which would mean that the net effect of feedbacks is negative and not positive.

 

yes it could be negative feedbacks as well. There is active research going on in this area.

[steevey]

I see several ways this could arise.

 

There's actually yet another way for global warming and cooling to be the result of. When I was looking through my history book, it showed where all the continents positions were and what the climate was throughout all of Earth History. Whenever the continents were mainly only in the equatorial region of the Earth, the ice caps extended down, cooling the planet. Whenever the continents were more spread out, the temperature increased more. Even the book itself said "...global cooling due to continents focused around the equator...". If this is true, which it probably is since it's not in the news and the book publishers wouldn't have much incentive to get a bunch of scientists together and publish only that lie, then global warming is for the most part completely natural. And, in those time periods where the continents were in the equator, I noticed the the carbon dioxide levels were usually at least 2 times higher than they are today, yet average temperatures were below the freezing point of water. If this continents position thing is as big of a factor as it seems, we virtually have no control over what will happen to the climate.

 

On top of all that, there's the Moon too. What the moon does is keeps the axis as it is, which is why Mars, which is moonless, has an axis that changes year- round. It will be a long time before the moon is away from us to cause such effects, but the moon is moving away from the Earth right now at a centimeter per year. That may not seem like a lot, but the moon use to be much closer to the Earth. It's pedigree use to be 340,000 kilometers away from the surface of the Earth, now its 356,334 according to the internet.

Edited December 11, 2010 by steevey

[swansont]

And, in those time periods where the continents were in the equator, I noticed the the carbon dioxide levels were usually at least 2 times higher than they are today, yet average temperatures were below the freezing point of water.

 

I think I need a citation for that. The global temperature cooling anomaly in the past 500M years is less than 3 ºC

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

 

The mean surface temperature now (which is the baseline) is 13.9 ºC

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#mean

[JohnB]

cypress, I think that you misunderstood me. The direct warming effect of CO2 is one of the few primary forcings that we can put a definitive number to. This direct effect is currently at .63⁰ and it must be there. Therefore any explanation that explains all warming without CO2 must be wrong.

 

However that is only the starting point. From there we add TSI (a reasonably well known figure), aerosols (not as well known), clouds (not known at all. After those we add in the feedbacks.

 

I've said in a few places that the Climate "equation" would look very similar to the Drake equation with many of the variables being codependent. Unlike the Drake equation, we know that the answer has to equal .72⁰ or close to it and we know some of the variables. So to explain all warming by natural means necessarily results in the CO2 forcing being zeroed (which is an unreal situation) or massive changes in all other factors, especially feedbacks.

 

Frankly I think that we have severely underestimated the negative feedbacks of the climate system. The climate system is dominated by negative feedbacks, not positive ones. The proof of this is that after more than 4 billion years the planet has neither warmed to unlivable levels or dropped to a snowball which would have been the case if positive feedbacks ever dominated the system.

 

steevey, I would want some citation for that too. It goes against everything I have read.

[steevey]

I think I need a citation for that. The global temperature cooling anomaly in the past 500M years is less than 3 ºC

 

http://en.wikipedia....palaeotemps.png

 

The mean surface temperature now (which is the baseline) is 13.9 ºC

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa...alies.html#mean

 

During those time periods when continents were centered near the equator, it seemed like nearly half the Earth was covered in ice caps. 730-580 million years ago, there were several events where the Earth turned into basically a giant snowball. I think they are called "snowball events". The one I am referring to occurred in the Precambrian eon in the Proterozoic era about 840-900 million years ago.

 

Here's roughly what the Earth looked like then

 

 

The blue is ice.

Edited December 11, 2010 by steevey

[swansont]

Again, I will ask you for a citation.

[cypress]

cypress, I think that you misunderstood me. The direct warming effect of CO2 is one of the few primary forcings that we can put a definitive number to. This direct effect is currently at .63⁰ and it must be there. Therefore any explanation that explains all warming without CO2 must be wrong.

 

However that is only the starting point. From there we add TSI (a reasonably well known figure), aerosols (not as well known), clouds (not known at all. After those we add in the feedbacks.

 

I think we are more aligned than you indicate. After considering these other effects and addressing the possibility of negative feedbacks the net effect of CO2 could very well be near zero or even negative. while I agree the direct effects must be there the net effects may well not. Since my analysis is of the net effects, I see us as aligned.

 

I've said in a few places that the Climate "equation" would look very similar to the Drake equation with many of the variables being codependent. Unlike the Drake equation, we know that the answer has to equal .72⁰ or close to it and we know some of the variables. So to explain all warming by natural means necessarily results in the CO2 forcing being zeroed (which is an unreal situation) or massive changes in all other factors, especially feedbacks.

 

Well treating the factors as additive and thus independent when they are likely not independent seems like a bit of an issue, but I am just now forming my thoughts on your other post and may comment later, otherwise I generally agree with your argument but your argument does not result in a conclusion that net CO2 effect must necessarily be significant and positive. I suspect you would agree.

 

Frankly I think that we have severely underestimated the negative feedbacks of the climate system. The climate system is dominated by negative feedbacks, not positive ones. The proof of this is that after more than 4 billion years the planet has neither warmed to unlivable levels or dropped to a snowball which would have been the case if positive feedbacks ever dominated the system.

 

Completely agree, we are almost certainly aligned and the issue may well that I did not articulate my points with enough clarity.