Atmospheric Science, the weather, and global warming

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

hate to break it to you, scaeagles ... but the uneducated masses are not the folks who are going to be exposed to An Inconvenient Truth.

But the posters with the hurricane....I'd bet they have seen the posters.

[innerSpaceman]

Even I haven't seen the posters.

[SacTown Chronic]

Leo tore them all down to protect the children.

[Frogberto]

It's a matter of being safe rather than sorry. We know that human activities release carbon. We also know that carbon is released in a natural cycle. What we CAN do, is to minimize the compound effects of both together, by doing at least the following:

1. Making industry more efficient; and
2. Exploring alternative non carbon energy and fuels.

What's wrong with either? Industries seek efficiency anyway, and nobody wants to be burning coal, or petroleum, in 100 years either.

Part of the problem could be human activity, but its a compound effect that worries scientists in the field. To quote one of 8 articles on the problem from this month's Scientific American:

"Retreating glaciers, stronger hurricanes, hotter summers, thinner polar bears: the ominous harbingers of global warming are driving companies and governments to work toward an unprecedented change in the historical pattern of fossil-fuel use. Faster and faster, year after year for two centuries, human beings have been transferring carbon to the atmosphere from below the surface of the earth. Today the world's coal, oil and natural gas industries dig up and pump out about seven billion tons of carbon a year, and society burns nearly all of it, releasing carbon dioxide (CO2). Ever more people are convinced that prudence dictates a reversal of the present course of rising CO2 emissions.

The boundary separating the truly dangerous consequences of emissions from the merely unwise is probably located near a doubling of the concentration of CO2 that was in the atmosphere in the 18th century, before the Industrial Revolution began. Every increase in concentration carries new risks, but avoiding that danger zone would reduce the likelihood of triggering major, irreversible climate changes, such as the disappearance of the Greenland ice cap."

[scaeagles]

Conservation is fine. Efficiency is fine. Alternative sources of energy are even preferable. It is not my point to say that these things are not. I am merely saying that climate change happens, and it has happened long before man pumped one spec of CO2 into the atmosphere (or any other gas). I think it is futile to think we have the capability to stop or affect this on a global scale.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I am merely saying that climate change happens, and it has happened long before man pumped one spec of CO2 into the atmosphere (or any other gas).

This is the contral point of An Inconvenient Truth. Global climate has always changed over time. And looking at those changes there is a strong correlation between average global temperature and levels of atmospheric CO2. Here's a chart showing how well they correlate for the last 400,000 years (the period over which temperature and CO2 information is readily available from ice cores).



So, the real question is what should we expect to happen with that big spike in the green line right at the end of the graph. There is no question that current levels of CO2 are much higher than at any time in the past 400,000 years. There is no question that this is mostly anthrogenic.

Where therre is a question is what will happen in response. Perhaps there is some holistic breaking system that will prevent temperature from snapping as far as CO2 levels otherwise indicate. Perhaps while CO2 and temperature are correlated there is not a causal relationship (though the theory on the causal relationship is pretty well grounded).

But if there is a causal relationship between CO2 levels and mean global temperature and there is not systemic breaking mechanism on temperature are we willing to experience the consequences?

That is the fundamental question of the anti-global warming crowd. The outcome is not certain, but are we really willing to risk it?

Considering that we've essentially deforested continents, we've killed off global fisheries, we've drained bodies of water almost as big as the Great Lakes, I have no problem with the idea that we've altered the global atmosphere. It really isn't all that big.

[sleepyjeff]

Any chance we could see that graph with Margins of Error included?

[Stan4dSteph]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Any chance we could see that graph with Margins of Error included?

It's based on data from NOAA. You might start there.

[Alex]

I'm sure it is, though I haven't the time to do it. All the raw data is available from NOAA. However, so long as the margin of error is consistent across the time period it wouldn't change the correlation.

[Drince88]

Does anyone mind (not LOTers, the general press) if we wait until AFTER hurricane season to say this is a 'below average' one!?

I'm not worried too much about Debby - It's "Tropical Depression 5" that I'm watching! (5 day cone pointed right between the Yucatan Peninsula and Cuba!)