APOD: Global Warming Predictions (2009 April 21)

[aristarchusinexile]

Is the above post some kind of joke?

http://www.hydrofoundation.org/

The author, owner of Hydro Research, might benefit financially if he were to get on the side of global warming .. convince the governments to switch those coal burners to hydro .. but as there are so few rivers with no dams now, the growth potential is not large .. and, I forgot, the governement is powerless against unbridled profit goals.

Also, the sun is involved in global warming, so astronomy is involved.

[BMAONE23]

Please stop the false and irresponsible reporting of the climate change issue. Climate alarmist are causing a frenzy of bad science to be reported as facts. The post today is just one example. Perhaps APOD should stick to astronomy and not delve into other scientific disciplines. As a practicing climatologist for over 30 years I would suggest that you at least consider looking at some real science being done in the field of climatology at c02science.org.

Thanks for having a great site,

Richard Ziriax
Climatologist
Hydro Research

Question?
How much north polar ice cap meltoff will need to occur before you are willing to admit global warming?

[aristarchusinexile]

Question?
How much north polar ice cap meltoff will need to occur before you are willing to admit global warming?

And the glaciers, what about the disappearing glaciers? From Richard's website, I would say he's a whitewater enthusiast, so it would be hard to see the long term detrimental effects of glacial melting.

[The Code]

Paint every man-made surface White,,, reflect the sun... Paths, roofs, car parks, huge white floats in the sea, deserts,, the list is endless...Paint the world white.

Mark

[hydroresearch]

The joke is on all the people who fail to have a full understanding of the science of climatology. I believe in global warming, but I also believe in global cooling. When you begin to remove the impact of the urban heat island effect from the global temperature data you will find that the global temperature is closely correlated with solar activity which is currently at some of the lowest levels in decades. Temperature trends at locations outside the the urban heat impacts are falling in response to the reduction in the solar flux.

We are living in an interglacial period and glaciers and ice should be receding. If solar activity continues to decline the evidence suggests that we may be entering into another cool episode in global climate.

I welcome all comments and discussion but receive absolutely no funding on climate change research. I make my living as a hydrologist with a strong background in climatology.

Thanks to all for taking the time to discuss this subject.

Richard

[nhyer]

I would like to know what this has to do with astronomy! It seems to me, somebody has an agenda to push. I have an interest in astronomy, but I don't come here to listen to "BS" about global warming. Count me as an "ex" EPOD visitor.

[hydroresearch]

It's amazing how paradigms can pause blind spots...

Compared to the past 100 million years, the Earth is currently enduring a relative cold spell, possibly about four degrees Celsius below average.

Over the past 100 years, however, data indicate the average global temperature of the Earth has increased by nearly one degree Celsius.

The choice of baseline is arbitrary, and doesn't impact the quality of the output. The model does include data from 1990 to 2008;

A rational person wouldn't be surprised by a trend returning towards average, but yet somehow Global Warming advocates extrapolate that this must indicate the hand of mankind on the climate. Basic statistics suggest that you can't extrapolate a meaningful trend based on a select 1/1,000,000th sample of the data. Why do people believe that a warming trend over the last 100 years is statistically meaningful???

For example, if you look at temperature over millions of years, you see this...


The variation appears to be increasing, but the current and predicted range of temperatures is certainly within the normal range.

If you change the scale to 5 million years, you see this... (Temperature is the scale on the right)


Now the world is definitely cooling, but still the variation appears to be increasing, and this trend definitely exceeds the period of the industrial age.

Now if CO2 really is the cause of man-made global warming, we would expect to see it on a graph such as this one.

(from this site: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbo ... imate.html )

Certainly in the past when CO2 levels were far higher then they are now, and the world was a warmer place, you would have expected to see some sort of coorelation between CO2 levels and temperature. For example CO2 levels have dropped by something on the order of 90%, while the temperature changes have not shown anything near as consistent of a change. So why are we now expected to believe that because (man made) CO2 has gone up by a relatively minor rate that it's suddenly going to have a drastic impact on the climate? That defies reason.

They're talking about quanties of CO2 of less then 400 PPM, or .04% (0.0004) of the entire atmosphere. The atmosphere on Venus for example is 97% CO2. The composition of the earth's atmosphere is 79% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, and 1% other gases. So the premise is that a change of about 0.0002 is going to have the affect that we're talking about right now, dwarfing other factors. Mars's atmosphere is 95.3% CO2, and raises it's surface temperature by about 5 degrees K, in spite of the fact that it has almost no ice cover, and no oceans. The chart above shows that the Earth's temperature varies by about 8 degrees.

Maybe we should stop wringing our hands about how to control the changes in climate and starting thinking about how to live within the climate variations that we have. I have yet to see anything that suggest that we'll be any more successful at definitively managing the world's climate than a child's sand-castle is at holding back the tide -- or New Orleans is at holding back the sea.

Finally some science being reported. Whew!

[HalWmVaughan]

It is bad enough when APOD shows us “artist’s conceptions” of astronomical phenomenon, I can almost stand the touching up of real photos to make a point (sometimes), but this global warming map is going too far.

Good news, the arctic ice is back, so you can go pet as many polar bears as you have arms to loose.

[BMAONE23]

The joke is on all the people who fail to have a full understanding of the science of climatology. I believe in global warming, but I also believe in global cooling. When you begin to remove the impact of the urban heat island effect from the global temperature data you will find that the global temperature is closely correlated with solar activity which is currently at some of the lowest levels in decades. Temperature trends at locations outside the the urban heat impacts are falling in response to the reduction in the solar flux.

We are living in an interglacial period and glaciers and ice should be receding. If solar activity continues to decline the evidence suggests that we may be entering into another cool episode in global climate.

I welcome all comments and discussion but receive absolutely no funding on climate change research. I make my living as a hydrologist with a strong background in climatology.

Thanks to all for taking the time to discuss this subject.

Richard

Don't forget though, we are at solar minimum right now but the cycle will swing back in the other direction very soon.

[jluetjen]

Finally some science being reported. Whew!

Thanks. I'm just a salesman, but I do often stay at Holiday Inn Express when I travel.

[sid113]

So, how do we test the models? Well, we could run them backwards and see if they predict the past (they all fail).

Where do you get this. In fact, the models all do a reasonable job of predicting the past over the ranges they are designed around (that is, there are long range models- thousands of years or more, and short range models, centuries).

Well, okay, I have not looked at the exact, fully functional model outputs, and run the models through my own systems to completely validate all of the data. However, for the dozen or so models I have looked at, they show climate variations that more or less meet the variations that we see in the data. However, the error bars in the models are as big as or bigger than the error bars in the data. And the error bars in the data, when we get more than 200 years in the past, are approaching or exceeding the level of temperature change we are looking in the future.

For example, the medieval warming period in the 1300-1500 time frame was warmer than the temperatures now. Unfortunately, we do not know exactly how much the world-wide temperature average was above today, with estimates the I have seen in the 0.2-0.9 degree range. So, models going back to that time show temperatures back then with error bars in the 1-2 degree range. So, while the model can say they "agree" with observation, their errors dwarf the observations so how can the model be said to work back then.

We could test to see if the predictions on data from 1900-1999 entered into the model will predict accurately the results of 2000-2009 (especially 2008-2009 timeframe). As far as I know, they all fail with this test as well.

Again, I'd ask where you get this. On the whole, it makes little sense as the time frames are associated with weather, not climate. No model can be used to test if a particular year or two fits. Even a single decade is barely within measurable trends.
[/quote]
I agree with you - a few years, or even a few decades does not a climate model make. However, politicians and many scientists would argue that the 2-decade warming trend of the 1980's and 1990's do so a trend - a trend so strong they are predicting a 2-78 degree temperature increase in climate over the next 80 years. A pretty bold prediction when the 4 previous decades had shown a bit of a cooling trend culminating in the 1970's cooling such that many scientists of the time predicted a new ice age.

Yes, the last two years were quite a bit warmer than the midline of the models suggests. But those sorts of fluctuations are completely normal, and meaningless within the context of climatic change.

I am not sure where you get this data. It turns out that the original data posted by NASA for 2006-2008 was stilted due to local changes for many of the measuring sites. When sites where moved, and the data were corrected, 2007 and 2008 showed a temperature drop greater than anything expected in any model. However, the drop was consistent with the fact that the solar output (as indicated by sunspot activity) was the lowest in 90 years.

All of the major models include the Earth's dynamics- orbital variations, precession, etc. All of the major models include solar cycles.

While they may take these various processes into account, the question is do they weigh them enough or do they apply a greater weight to CO2 then it deserves. Considering that in the past CO2 levels were up to 20 times greater than today, yet the temperatures are on the order of the predicted temperatures from many models (5-7 degree increases) and the models are looking at a doubling of CO2 levels, it makes one wonder about the models.

They do not include volcanic activity because it is unpredictable, and for short term climate- a few centuries- almost certainly unimportant.

Interesting. So, a process where a single event may affect weather over many years to the tune of a few degrees is not worth considering, yet models that are predicting changes over the next decade must be heeded, even though the error bars grow for each decade the model extends. Consider when Krakatau exploded, it sent so much aerosol into the atmosphere it reduced global temperatures by an estimated 1.2 degrees for at least 5 years, and maybe longer. Granted, a Krakatau or Pinatubo are relatively rare, but there are a number of smaller volcanoes that put both significant CO2 and aerosols into the atmosphere - all of which greatly increase the error bars of the models.

Naturally the models do not include effects that are not yet understood. A big part of climate research involves trying to better understand geophysical processes so they can be included or improved in models. That's the "good science" bit again.

There is nothing wrong with continuing the study to make the models better and better. However, considering not only are the geophysical processes not fully understood, but the biological processes are also not well understood. For example, I was reading an article (I wish I could find it again) that indicated as CO2 levels increased, plant growth and thus plant absorption of CO2 also increased, resulting in a much less increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Also, considering that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have not grown as fast as the models (and actually decreased over the last few years, even though humans are still using fossil fuels), maybe the models need to adjust their biological assumptions as well.

I would add that we're mostly concerned with short term climate change.

And now we come to the true problem with all of the models. The long-range actions seem to dwarf the CO2-based elements in the real climate by a significant amount. So, trying to change affect the climate with CO2 legislation when CO2 concentrations may have a relatively negligible affect is a waste of time and money. Yet it is this very outcome that the UN wants - and it wants the effort to kick in to the tune of several trillion dollars over the next 10-20 years.

This is an example of science that is continuing to evolve being used to effect policy when there is little or no basis in the science to support the requested policy changes.

I wonder what Galileo would say to public policy being made based on incomplete scientific study and analysis.

[sid113]

Question?
How much north polar ice cap meltoff will need to occur before you are willing to admit global warming?

The question is not so much whether global warming exists (considering that the earth goes through extensive warming and cooling cycles, anyone who says there is no such thing has never looked at an ice age description). No, the question is whether the relatively small amounts (compared to all other sources) of CO2 produced by humans is the cause of, or at least making "worse" any global warming trend that may exists.

First off, is it really "worse" to have a climate that is 2-4 degrees warmer than today? I don't know, but life was better in the 1400's when it was about .5 degrees warmer, and it was worse in the 1700's when it was about 1 degree colder.

Second, does increases in CO2 concentration really change anything - that has never been proved. The only thing that has been proved is that at times when the temperature was significantly higher (8-10 degrees) CO2 levels were also significantly higher (10 to 40 times higher). The data is too rough to provide a true cause and effect corrolation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature (and there is some evidence to suggest that increasing temperature causes an increase in CO2 levels, not the other way around).

Third, if there is a global warming trend, and at the same time a global CO2 concentration trend, can any change in human behavoir make a big difference.

And finally - is there better ways to spend out global resources than to try to tweak the climate. For example, maybe better farming systems to get the most out of poor soils, or maybe space colonization - push polluting factories out into space. Heck, for the many trillions of dollars being pushed for global warming, the world could come up with a lot more and better uses for these resources than to try to affect something that may not be a problem, or even if it is, may not have a manmade solution.

Skip

[Chris Peterson]

The question is not so much whether global warming exists (considering that the earth goes through extensive warming and cooling cycles, anyone who says there is no such thing has never looked at an ice age description). No, the question is whether the relatively small amounts (compared to all other sources) of CO2 produced by humans is the cause of, or at least making "worse" any global warming trend that may exists.

The amounts of greenhouse gases produced are not small. These have been measured and are known to have increased by 50%-150% over less than three hundred years, and most rapidly in the last hundred years. We know how much carbon we release (and other gases as well), and the amount seen in the atmosphere is in good agreement with the expected amount. And it is enough to have a profound impact on the Earth's heat balance.

First off, is it really "worse" to have a climate that is 2-4 degrees warmer than today?

If you're talking about absolute temperature, very likely not. But if you're talking about this change over a century, then yes, this would be a disaster. We are not economically equipped to deal with the consequences of such a rapid shift.

Second, does increases in CO2 concentration really change anything - that has never been proved.

That's your weakest question. This is certain almost beyond doubt. The physical properties of greenhouse gases are very well known, it is understood on a strong theoretical basis how they trap heat, it is observed experimentally, and the actual temperature increases are close to the predictions based on understanding the gases. To the extent that anything can be "proven", you don't get much closer than this.

Third, if there is a global warming trend, and at the same time a global CO2 concentration trend, can any change in human behavoir make a big difference.

I don't think there's much doubt about this, if we act correctly.

And finally - is there better ways to spend out global resources than to try to tweak the climate.

Actively tweaking the environment is an interesting point of discussion, but very few people advocate it, and it isn't really what is under serious consideration. The action being considered is adjusting our behavior so as to minimize its impact on climate. That does not have to cost anything; handled properly, the changes can create wealth and improve the global standard of living.

[jluetjen]

The amounts of greenhouse gases produced are not small. These have been measured and are known to have increased by 50%-150% over less than three hundred years, and most rapidly in the last hundred years.

Chris, I guess you didn't read the data. In the past CO2 has been 100X higher then today (compared to .5X to 1.5X as greater as you describe) and the temperature was 10 degrees hotter -- and this is in spite of there being a number of other factors which also contributed to the warmer temperatures during those earlier times. Draw a line between the two, if 100X is to 10 degrees as 1.5X is to ??? degrees -- do the math now. Not to mention in spite of those hugely elevated CO2 levels in the past, the world didn't suffer from a runaway greenhouse affect and turn into Venus, but in fact cooled off to the ice ages.

Something doesn't seem to be connecting here.

[neufer]

The variation includes a half dozen or more MAJOR ice ages over the last million years;
we really need to figure out how to STOP the next ice age
by having a better grasp on climate and how to modify it in productive ways.

Allowing unlimited greenhouse gas emission is NOT the way to do that!

Huh??? I thought you were arguing to stop global warming, now you're advocating that we stop global cooling???

Another Ice Age would be a disaster.

If we could be absolutely sure that global warming would avert an upcoming imminent Ice Age I would be for it.

However, an imminent Ice Age is unlikely.

(from this site: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbo ... imate.html )

Now if CO2 really is the cause of man-made global warming, we would expect to see it on a graph such as this one.

One DOES see the correlation in this graph!

Physics says that the correlation would be even better if CO2 amounts were done on a logarithmic scale... and it would.

This is actually quite surprising considering that there are many other factors modifying the climate over hundreds of millions of years.

It's been a few years since I took stats, but I think that you're confusing Physics with Statistics and graphs with correlation. Correlation is a mathematical evaluation which is not dependent on scale. Using Excel I did the followinig:

1) I eyeballed the data and came up this table:
MYA CO2 Avg Temp
550 4750 22
500 4750 22
450 4500 12
400 3500 22
350 1200 20
300 400 12
250 1900 22
200 1300 22
150 2300 16
100 1500 22
0 200 12

2) I ran the correlation function against this data and came up with a correlation coefficient of ~0.303. This would suggest a weak correlation between CO2 and average Temperature. If I remember correctly, this means that about 1/3 of the variation in the temperature is related to the change in the CO2. Changing the scale will not change this. While a strong correlation between CO2 and Temperature would not prove causality, a weak correlation pretty much eliminates the possibility of changes in CO2 causing significant temperature changes within the context of the data.

Considering the noise involved ~0.303 is a respectable correlation coefficient.

Correlation is a mathematical evaluation which is very much dependent on scale!

See what you get if you use the logarithm of CO2(; which makes more physical sense).

[BMAONE23]

The amounts of greenhouse gases produced are not small. These have been measured and are known to have increased by 50%-150% over less than three hundred years, and most rapidly in the last hundred years.

Chris, I guess you didn't read the data. In the past CO2 has been 100X higher then today (compared to .5X to 1.5X as greater as you describe) and the temperature was 10 degrees hotter -- and this is in spite of there being a number of other factors which also contributed to the warmer temperatures during those earlier times. Draw a line between the two, if 100X is to 10 degrees as 1.5X is to ??? degrees -- do the math now. Not to mention in spite of those hugely elevated CO2 levels in the past, the world didn't suffer from a runaway greenhouse affect and turn into Venus, but in fact cooled off to the ice ages.

Something doesn't seem to be connecting here.

What you aren't seeing is the cause of the increased levels in the past. 500my ago, when the levels were as you're utilizing in your arguement, the continents were 1 large continent with a absurdly long, highly active volcanic ridge running down its center. (this became the mid atlantic ridge as the continents divided). This Highly active volcanic mountain chain dumped CO2 into the atmosphere in unprecidented levels but they also dumped particulate matter in equal ammounts (areomatic ash and other areosols) that blocked sunlight effectively blancing one effect by the other. Increasing CO2 levels today will act to reflect heat radiance back to the earth but not to block its enterance to the cycle. What we are doing is creating an imbalence in the system by increasing CO2 but decreasing particulate matter.

[Victor]

Global warming is not caused by people. It is caused by the sun. When there was lots of sun spots there was warmer temps. Now that there are no sun spots the temp. is cooler. The ice caps on Mars were melting during the many sun spots season. Now the ice caps on Mars are growing. For sun spot info check out spaceweather.com

[Chris Peterson]

Chris, I guess you didn't read the data. In the past CO2 has been 100X higher then today (compared to .5X to 1.5X as greater as you describe) and the temperature was 10 degrees hotter -- and this is in spite of there being a number of other factors which also contributed to the warmer temperatures during those earlier times.

Which data would that be? Actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 are only reliable for a few tens of thousands of years. Out to a few tens of millions of years there are proxies that are considered reasonably accurate. Beyond that, the uncertainties are huge. In fact, the data such as that posted above only shows atmospheric CO2 levels at about 10 times current levels, not 100. And the funny thing? Those numbers are the product of the same climate models that many here are complaining about!

The correlation between CO2 and temperature isn't a simple thing. You also have to consider all the other greenhouse gases (water being the most significant). Trying to figure out what's going on today by looking at estimates from hundreds of millions of years ago is folly. All we need to do is look at the change in greenhouse gases over a few centuries, which can be directly measured, the change in temperature over a few centuries, which is well documented, and we have most of what we need to know.

[Chris Peterson]

Global warming is not caused by people. It is caused by the sun. When there was lots of sun spots there was warmer temps. Now that there are no sun spots the temp. is cooler. The ice caps on Mars were melting during the many sun spots season. Now the ice caps on Mars are growing. For sun spot info check out spaceweather.com

The effect of sunspot cycles on global temperatures is insignificant over the last century. We aren't seeing cooling now, and sunspot activity isn't particularly low, either. We've had a few months of extended solar minimum- so far, that's all. Nowhere near enough to affect even weather significantly, let alone climate. It would require decades of low activity to have a significant impact.

[StACase]

... sunspot activity isn't particularly low ...

Sunspotless Days (SIDC) Since 1901

[Chris Peterson]

... sunspot activity isn't particularly low ...

Sunspotless Days (SIDC) Since 1901

Yes, we're at solar minimum. And it has gone a few weeks longer than normal. But in the big picture, that's pretty insignificant. In terms of solar irradiance, it is very insignificant.

We went much longer without sunspot activity in 1901, and there was no global cooling going on then. And we're not going to approach the low activity of 1901- there is a sunspot group developing right now.

[BMAONE23]

Global warming is not caused by people. It is caused by the sun. When there was lots of sun spots there was warmer temps. Now that there are no sun spots the temp. is cooler. The ice caps on Mars were melting during the many sun spots season. Now the ice caps on Mars are growing. For sun spot info check out spaceweather.com

You are correct in that it is the Solar input that is the source of heat on earth. Without the Sun, there would be no heat source and no warming. The increase in greenhouse gasses like CO2, CH3 and H2O (water vapor) however causes the solar radiance to remain in the bioshpere thereby gradually increasing relative temperatures. It is the increase in these atmospheric gasses that has caused the increase in warming that has occured over the last hundres years or so.
It does have to come from the sun but the atmospheric gasses trap it here causing the net increase.

[Catman]

Question the model: Use the Credibility Assessment Scale found in the NASA STD 7009 Standard for Models and Simulations .

According to the standard, you need to evaluate the model's verification and validation (process and history), the source of the input data, the results uncertainty, the results robustness, the use history, the management of the model, and the qualifications of the people running the model.

The you can assess the credibility of the results. Until then everyone's arguing over power point.

[StACase]

We went much longer without sunspot activity in 1901, and there was no global cooling going on then.

[swiftouch]

This picture is obviously created by a moron. There is NO WAY any of this is going to happen. Every time anyone utters global warming and greenhouse gases and humans are causing it, i consider them the biggest !@#$ing morons on earth. All you have to do is look to the press who agree and sustain and uphold it.

People just love a doomsday senario. I hope, in 50 years, I and others who dispute this junk science, can wag our fingers at you and say, "Golly people are gullible and stupid". This is the first time I've ever been offended by an APOD posting. Stick to the cosmos and not disputed gossip trumped up by humanity haters...the real reason behind the global warming myth. If you hate people and mass population and carbon emissions...find someplace to live your life and sing kumbaya with your animal friends.