A Bigger Threat Even Than The Debt Crisis?

[Si1]

Another 'believer' in reep_er views eh?

what?

[Olebrum]

what?

Well it's obvious, peer-reviewed studies are worthless, not when some sock puppet funded by

the oil companies says so at least. Same goes for the proofs for 'intelligent design'.

Not that I agree with the way we are going to get screwed over to fund a lot of useless

initiates to save the planet, ie handing over wads of cash to the feckers responsible for the

mess in the first place.

[LiveinHope]

Over the last 450,000 years, prior to the industrial revolution around 1860, atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuated between about 160 and 260 ppm, which reflected the glacial – interglacial periods; this evidence is from ice core data. Since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have increased to about 370 ppm as carbon has been added to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.

The earth receives about 340 W per square m from the sun every year. Of this 340 W, about 30% is reflected back to space, so that the energy absorbed by the Earth’s surface is about 240 W per square m, globally averaged. Knowing the energy received, and if you consider the earth to be a black body such that heat in = heat out, it is possible to calculate the Earth’s surface temperature by using the Stefan Boltzmann law; which gives a chilly surface temperature for the earth of about -18C. The Earth’s globally averaged temperature is, of course, a warm 15C. There are three gases in our atmosphere, CO2, nitrous oxide and methane, whose molecular structure causes them to trap some of the longwave radiation re-emitted from the earth giving rise to the greenhouse effect, which gives the Earth its current warm temperature of 15C.

If we apply the same reasoning to two other planets, Venus and Mercury, we find that Mercury without an atmosphere has a predicted and actual temperature that match, about 167C, in contrast the surface temperature of Venus at about 467C is about 400C hotter than predicted. The atmosphere of Venus is 96% CO2 (with surface clouds of sulphuric acid) giving the planet a runaway greenhouse effect.

Hundreds of millions of years ago the atmosphere on earth was rich in CO2 (perhaps up to 5000 ppm) like Venus. The evolution of photosynthetic prokaryotes (eg cyanobacteria) and eukaryotes (eg phytoplankton) in the sea slowly removed carbon from the atmosphere transferring it to a deep-sea carbon store in the sediments; this organic carbon became today’s oil and gas reserves. On land, higher plants transferred atmospheric carbon to coal deposits. Atmospheric carbon is also removed from the atmosphere by rock weathering. The weathered products are carried to the sea where they are precipitated biogenically by the plankton (by coccolithophores, foraminifera, diatoms and radiolarians) in calcium carbonate and silica. This process, rock weathering and biogenic sedimentation is known as the Ebelman-Urey reaction and it created geological features such as the White Cliffs of Dover. Naturally, inorganic carbon is replenished to the atmosphere through metamorphic degassing and volcanic activity on land and at mid-ocean ridges. Limestones can then be exposed and weathered or subducted and melted or metamorphosed, liberating CO2. Natural liberation or buried organic carbon is by geo-respiration, as oxidative weathering of organic matter in sedimentary rocks that are uplifted onto the continents or by thermal decomposition. Together, this is all known as the long-term carbon cycle.

The burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture are an anthropogenic acceleration of the long-term carbon cycle that is removing the geological carbon reservoir 100 x faster than would occur naturally, liberating the greenhouse gas CO2 to the atmosphere. The most recent natural change in atmospheric CO2 we know about was at the end of the last ice age, when CO2 rose by 80 ppm (from 190ppm to 270ppm) over about 10,000 years. The present change in atmospheric CO2 (from 270 ppm around the year 1860 to about 370 ppm today) is 100 times greater than at the end of the last ice age and over the next 20 years the global average temperature is predicted to rise by 0.2 °C per decade as a result. This change in temperature is superimposed on natural cycles of global warming and cooling, and it is also influenced by changes in surface albedo, cloud cover, the amount of black carbon on snow, atmospheric aerosols, atmospheric ozone and linear contrails etc. It is the fact that this anthropogenic increase in CO2 is in addition to ‘natural’ cycles that is important.

Changing temperatures may alter ocean currents, climate patterns (due to changes in patterns of heat distribution) and patterns of precipitation. As humans we also tend to forget that most organisms are poikilothermic, cold blooded, and so their metabolism is influenced directly by the temperature of the surrounding medium, whether it is air or water. The current pace of climate change is faster than eukaryotic organisms are likely to be able to adapt. If we return to the important plankton, as they live in the surface of the sea they are sensitive to changes in sea temperature. Already the plankton are changing their abundance and distributions over enormous spatial scales and we do not know how this may influence the marine food web or the drawdown of carbon over short-term or long-term time scales.

[Umaguma]

I'm bewildered what this topic has to do with house prices.

we blather on about all sorts, but the most educated and illuminating take on global warming is Serious Study On Global Warming

[bogbrush]

peer-reviewed reference please

You mean my ticket to be allowed to hold an opinion?

I can't be bothered providing references, but if you insist, read "Unstoppable Global Warming evert 1,500 years" by Singer & Avery. I can't be @rsed researching what peer review content there is but try it and you find endless references to such work. Then again, you could just believe what the extremely well rewarded administrators of the IPCC tell you.

[bogbrush]

I'm bewildered what this topic has to do with house prices.

Read my original post. This is a bigger and better way to crash a World economy than dodgy banking.

[bogbrush]

Well recited liveinhope. A couple of things;

1. " There are three gases in our atmosphere, CO2, nitrous oxide and methane". You forgot by far the biggest and most important Greenhouse gas, Water Vapour.

2. None of what you say proves anything; it's just a narrative. The changes in CO2 you describe have no proven effect. The idiot Gore's film attempted to suggest that CO2 led temperature when in fact the reverse is true; higher temperatures produce higher CO2.

Edited December 25, 2008 by bogbrush

[Kurt Barlow]

You mean my ticket to be allowed to hold an opinion?

I can't be bothered providing references, but if you insist, read "Unstoppable Global Warming evert 1,500 years" by Singer & Avery. I can't be @rsed researching what peer review content there is but try it and you find endless references to such work. Then again, you could just believe what the extremely well rewarded administrators of the IPCC tell you.

Would that be the same S Fred Singer who in the past has made various claims including:

Tobacco doesnt cause lung cancer

CFC's don't harm the ozone layer

Whats all the fuss about asbestos

Edited December 25, 2008 by Kurt Barlow

[bogbrush]

Would that be the same Fred S Singer who in the past has made various claims including:

Tobacco doesnt cause lung cancer

CFC's don't harm the ozone layer

Whats all the fuss about asbestos

Christ knows

Actually the best book on the subject I read was by Nigel Lawson; "Cool it". He'd been on the House of Lords committee and had started out assuming it was true (as anyone would listening to what the media pumps out on a daily basis), but came to a different conclusion.

The interesting thing about the book is that it is 90% not about whether it is or isn't, but about the nature of the response.

[bogbrush]

Would that be the same S Fred Singer who in the past has made various claims including:

Tobacco doesnt cause lung cancer

CFC's don't harm the ozone layer

Whats all the fuss about asbestos

Actually there's a good point of principle there though; one of the problems bedevilling the thing is that there are so many vested interests that you wonder what agenda anyone has (and the last organisation I'd trust is the UN).

Edited December 25, 2008 by bogbrush

[Kurt Barlow]

Actually there's a good point of principle there though; one of the problems bedevilling the thing is that there are so many vested interests that you wonder what agenda anyone has (and the last organisation I'd trust is the UN).

If I were a climate change denier I would not rely on Singer as a source of valid information. However getting Proffessor Singer up on TV is very convincing to the Sheeple - especially when he tells them what they want to hear

He will say anything for money - usually corporate sponsorship. Coincidentially much of his sponsorship in the past has come from Exxon and and Philip Morris

Edited December 25, 2008 by Kurt Barlow

[Kurt Barlow]

Christ knows

Actually the best book on the subject I read was by Nigel Lawson; "Cool it". He'd been on the House of Lords committee and had started out assuming it was true (as anyone would listening to what the media pumps out on a daily basis), but came to a different conclusion.

The interesting thing about the book is that it is 90% not about whether it is or isn't, but about the nature of the response.

Lawsons knowledge of science is comparable with his knowledge of macro economics

The original Mr. Boom-Bust for those of us old enough to remember!

[Guest theboltonfury]

It was Mr Bolton!

I have read that it was warm enough that the Vikings saw it as a viable farming area, and was settled.

Unfortunately the climate change of those times made sure it was frozen over in about 100 years and I believe they all died out.

My ancestors did a little better. They ended up in Yorkshire!

well, good sir. I shall take your word for it and research it myself.

[Guest theboltonfury]

Very interesting chart. It appears to show it is cooler today in the UK than it was 1000 years ago.

Climate change, global warming, global cooling - it all has to be taken in context. That is why charts showing temperature changes over the last 50 years are fairly pointless. Hence why the global warming community continually use them................

The Earth has been around for ~4.5 billion years. 50 years for the Earth is like 2 seconds for us. You can't define what is happening with the Earth's climate based on the last 50 years. You really need to look at 50,000 years or so to get a reasonable indication.

One other thing that people readily forget, or actually are not readily informed of:

We are currently in an interglacial period. These are far less regular and last less longer than glacial periods. Hence the UK, where it sits at present, is normally a lot cooler than it is today.

Any global warming will be short lived. We will be under ice, in geological timescales, before we know it.

PS - All the above is without the use of Wikipedia - This is one subject where I actually know what I am talking about

Ok, I'm listening now. That's probably because I'm a bit pissed. GReenland has done all that in a couple of 100 years. I'm staggered. Why??

[bear_or_bull]

OK then

Calculate

Ok. Fair challenge. It is indeed a bit difficult to do at Xmas without any computing power handy. A 1D model might work easily enough though, assuming Airy isostasy and ignoring viscosity as a secondary input.

Basically it's about the crust regaining equilibrium after a load (the ice, in this case) is removed. Prior to removal the load will have depressed the crust, displacing mantle material. Once the load is reversed the crust "rebounds" to equilibrium, with the recovery time driven by the viscosity of the mantle (varies with depth between 10 to the 19 and 10 to the 24 Pa s, i.e. significantly more viscous than glass at room temperature). Rebound of crust occurs on a scale largely beyond that of civilization. Palaeo shorelines in norway, as no doubt you know, are still rebounding from the last glaciation. Typical uplift rates are on the order of 1cm p.a. but that is a decayed rate as we are now relatively near equilibrium.

Assuming Airy isostasy, which is a simplification that generally works, you need to know the relative densities of the lithosphere, the mantle, and the lithosphere with ice cap. You can calculate how much of an iceberg is emergent from water in the same way. Today in Antarctica the ice sheet is a maximum 4,776 meters deep, averaging 2,160 meters thick. The density of ice (fresh) is 0.9167 g/cm3 (916.7 kg/m3). Remove 2160m of it and you will remove a load of 1, 980, 072 kg. Assuming standard lithospheric densities I end up with a rebound of a couple of hundred meters from a back of envelope calculation. With health warnings. It is xmas day after all. God knows why I'm actually doing this, although it's marginally more exciting than the TV.

But I guess you're right. To do it properly a 1D model is not enough. You'd need to take the sandwell gravity - bathymetry maps and load them with extra water column, maybe correcting for crustal age (thermal decay - Kuznir style - actually don't think you'd have to do this) and time-delay affects of viscosity. You do likewise for the crust/ice interface onshore. Then of course you'd also have to correct for elastic thickness of the crust etc. Actually it's getting quite interesting.

Er. I've lost track of what the argument was though - were you actually suggesting that melting ice wouldn't raise sea level? Even though it's demonstrable that equivalent glacial melts have (pre) historically increased sea level?...

[Kurt Barlow]

Ok, I'm listening now. That's probably because I'm a bit pissed. GReenland has done all that in a couple of 100 years. I'm staggered. Why??

In the case of Greenland I assume we are talking about the narrow habitable coastal strip?

Obviously this part of Greenland is heavily influenced by oceanic currents. I believe, but stand to be corrected is that the oceanic current carrying warm water northwards up the east and west coasts of Greenland in the Middle Ages weakened and thus the climate became much colder.

Edited December 25, 2008 by Kurt Barlow

[huw]

Lawsons knowledge of science is comparable with his knowledge of macro economics

The original Mr. Boom-Bust for those of us old enough to remember!

John the Baptist to Brown's Jesus

[nowthenagain]

Global warming is the ultimate manifestation of the arrogance of man.

It will cease to be an issue as people's external condition deteriorates, but the concept will be noted in times to come as the pinnacle of our blindness.

[LiveinHope]

Well recited liveinhope. A couple of things;

1. " There are three gases in our atmosphere, CO2, nitrous oxide and methane". You forgot by far the biggest and most important Greenhouse gas, Water Vapour.

I agree, omitted WV, well spotted, an additional variable in the atmosphere that is likely to involve both positive and negative feedback loops.

2. None of what you say proves anything; it's just a narrative. The changes in CO2 you describe have no proven effect. The idiot Gore's film attempted to suggest that CO2 led temperature when in fact the reverse is true; higher temperatures produce higher CO2.

Positive and negative feedback again, involving sea level changes, aeolian inputs, increased primary production in the oceans etc all influencing the progression of the natural glacial-interglacial cycles likely triggered by Milankovitch cycles.

We are increasing atmospheric CO2 at an unprecedented rate (compared to the last 450,000) years by returning carbon, that was sequestered from the atmosphere over millenia, over a very sort timescale. If you are happy with that, fine. With my first hand knowledge of how ecosystems are responding, I am rather concerned.

[Privateer]

I was going to say 'I'm surprised that intelligent people can actually think climate change is a myth', but then I remembered that this website is largely frequented by people whose primary goal in life is to make numbers on bits of paper get bigger, so it's hardly surprising at all, actually...

[nowthenagain]

I was going to say 'I'm surprised that intelligent people can actually think climate change is a myth', but then I remembered that this website is largely frequented by people whose primary goal in life is to make numbers on bits of paper get bigger, so it's hardly surprising at all, actually...

Climate change is not a myth but the belief that it is influenced to any great degree by us is.

I find it unbelievably arrogant of us that, after an ice age and a mini ice age only a few hundred years ago, that we believe that the earth possibly getting sightly warmer is 1. Anything to do with us 2. Something we can influence 3. Something we should influence.

Honestly, do we think we have developed over the past 60 years into god-like masters of the Universe?!!!

[Privateer]

No, but saying 'we aren't to blame, so let's pretend it isn't happing' is breath-takingly stupid to say the very least. It's utterly inconceivable that our activities in the last hundred years or so have had no effect. Denying it is simply trying to ignore the fact that we are ******ed and, for the most part, deservedly so.

[nowthenagain]

No, but saying 'we aren't to blame, so let's pretend it isn't happing' is breath-takingly stupid to say the very least. It's utterly inconceivable that our activities in the last hundred years or so have had no effect. Denying it is simply trying to ignore the fact that we are ******ed and, for the most part, deservedly so.

I expect the be on this earth for maybe another 50 years. Global warming will be the very last of our problems over that timescale. In the history of our planet global warming will be inconsequential.

It is only because we have just had an unprecedented period of prosperity that we have focussed on this as the requisite thing to worry about.

[Kurt Barlow]

Climate change is not a myth but the belief that it is influenced to any great degree by us is.

I find it unbelievably arrogant of us that, after an ice age and a mini ice age only a few hundred years ago, that we believe that the earth possibly getting sightly warmer is 1. Anything to do with us 2. Something we can influence 3. Something we should influence.Honestly, do we think we have developed over the past 60 years into god-like masters of the Universe?!!!

27bn tonnes of CO2 pumped annually into the atmosphere for starters.......

Edited December 25, 2008 by Kurt Barlow

[Privateer]

I expect the be on this earth for maybe another 50 years. Global warming will be the very last of our problems over that timescale. In the history of our planet global warming will be inconsequential.

It is only because we have just had an unprecedented period of prosperity that we have focussed on this as the requisite thing to worry about.

Garbage. Utter drivel.

Expect to see major upheaval resulting from climate change within 20 years.