http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global鈥?/a>
Whereas, total Co2 emissions have steadily, and rapidly increased, the thermostat has utterly failed to keep up. You people lead me on to believe it is some sort of direct cause and effect.
Total emissions went off like a rocket shortly after the close of WWII. Yet after the peak around 1940, the temperature nosedived, then meandered upwards till the mid seventies. From 75' to 98' we enjoyed a sharp rise. And as emissions continue to increase, why has the temperature record more or less plateaued since 98?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs鈥?/a>
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c鈥?/a> Anthony Watts, yada yada yada, it was the only short term graph I could find. Get over it. It was compiled at UAH.
So the question: If Co2 radiative forcing is the primary driver of our climate, these days, then why the timeouts? Shouldn't the temperature increase linearly, with the Co2?|||You are correct, the AGW crowd keeps on having to do the shuffle to explain things away. I love how the cooling period from the mid 1940's to the mid 1970's was caused not only by sulfur but also other aerosols. The funny thing is that at first it was only the US that put in limits on aerosols and most of Asia still doesn't regulate sulfur. So that kind of destroys that theory. I could go on, but the average AGW supporter here doesn't want to be objective and really doesn't want to believe that man is only adding to a natural cycle.
Got to love how Dana's website is now considered a good source of information and how the schools are teaching that ALL CO2 is caused by man along with most other green house gases.|||"it was only the US that put in limits on aerosols and most of Asia still doesn't regulate sulfur"
As expected no real answer was sort and guess what no real answer was picked
Car ownership in Asia is tiny compared to the U.S. China has just 128 cars per 1000 people, the U.S. has 765.
Report Abuse
|||consider Earth as balloon .
what would happen inside a ballon due to gases ?
pressure four sides , on the balls of the balloon
earth is not a ballon
but what the concenteration co2 increases , it does create the same affect
as it stops infra-red raditions of sun ( heat energy ) to be released to the outer space
as a result , teh heat just revolves inside the ballon ( earth )
and couses heat ( global warming )
thus , co2 is directly proportional to the global warming ...!|||This is because there is an inherent lag in the climate between an increase in forcing and reaching the new equilibrium temperature defined by the new energy imbalance. Temperatures do not rise instantaneously and directly along with CO2 because it takes time for the energy imbalance to correct itself. Hansen 2005 covers this and estimates the temperature lag to CO2 might be around 20-50 years.
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/Han鈥?/a>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-鈥?/a>
In regards to the cooling of the 40s-70s period, we've already gone over several times the effects of aerosol pollution during that time period. Dana recently finished a good skepticalscience article in which he gives ballpark figures for quantifying the amount of forcing due to aerosols during that time period (mainly SO2) and greenhouse gases.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-much鈥?/a>
As to the "plateauing" since 1998, it's dubious to choose a single decade as a reference point. It's even more dubious to choose one that starts with the second highest temperature on record:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomali鈥?/a>
(running averages are better to use than cherry-picking start dates)
and even more dubious still to not correct for ENSO:
http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/82
It will also be interesting to see how 2010 shifts the curve. From UAH we can see it's already a record-breaker so far.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/e鈥?/a>
Edit: Hm, the UAH one should work. Here:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
It doesn't give an exact link to the graphs - you have to click the buttons yourself. There's a "draw graph" button down below, and after the graph is made you can add or subtract years from 1998 on.|||The amount of CO2 is only one factor. There's plenty of others, methane, etc. There's also a lot of particulate matter in the atmosphere, released by burning coal etc.; this causes the Earth's temp to drop. It's insanely complex, and unless one is an expert in climatology (which I'm not), then they are in no position to evaluate the evidence.|||http://www.skepticalscience.com/Quantify鈥?/a>
is much more complicated that what I was looking for, but it includes links to refutations of several common denier arguments.
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
has more of an"FAQ" format, but still gets a bit complicated.
The first graph in
http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc/lectures/cli鈥?/a>
is about what I was looking for. In particular, the "downgoing" v. "upgoing" radiation for earth, and the notch caused by CO2.|||it causes greenhouse effect|||The causal, or forcing, effect is that increased CO2 traps more heat.
Increased heat can melt more ice, raise the temperature of water a little, increase the rate of evaporation, raise the temperature of air more than it does water.
Because air temperature can swing much more widely than water temperature, the average atmospheric temperature on a yearly basis will be much more influenced by the heat balance between atmosphere, atmospheric moisture, ice, and ocean than it will by the bias of a slight increase in heat retention. That bias, continued and intensified for 50 years, will have a profound influence on the planet.
Planetary physicists more and more are getting the instrumentation to allow them to look at and understand where the heat goes. It is essential to the physics-based modelling that is done today. Atmospheric temperatures, no matter how densely taken, are a poor and noisy proxy for the heat signal.|||%26gt;%26gt;Whereas, total Co2 emissions have steadily, and rapidly increased, the thermostat has utterly failed to keep up. You people lead me on to believe it is some sort of direct cause and effect.%26lt;%26lt;
%26gt;%26gt;So the question: If Co2 radiative forcing is the primary driver of our climate, these days, then why the timeouts? Shouldn't the temperature increase linearly, with the Co2?%26lt;%26lt;
-DentArthurDent All deniers lie
-There are other drivers in the climate, CO2 isn't the only one. "Should The Earth Be Cooling?" in Skeptical Science....
http://www.skepticalscience.com/should_e鈥?/a>
......see Michael Searcy's Figure 1. In spite of Solar Irradiance, ENSO(El Nino Southern Oscillation), and PDO(Pacific Decadal Oscillation) working as negative or neutral forcings on climate, CO2 has driven temps up (-despite what you are asserting). Are you again stating 1998 was the warmest year on record?(-i guess that's what Tony Watts' article was about, but yeah, the links didn't work)
This has been shown to be wrong. Even ignoring the upward TREND in temperatures over the past 30 years, 2005 was the hottest year globally, and 2009 the second hottest with 2010 shaping up to be hotter still.....
"Consistent with widespread media reports of extreme heat and adverse impacts in various places, the latest results from ERA-Interim indicate that the average temperature over land areas of the extratropical northern hemisphere reached a new high in July 2010. May and June 2010 were also unusually warm. "
http://www.ecmwf.int/publications/cms/ge鈥?/a>
No lies, just factual data
--------------------------------
antarcti...
%26gt;%26gt;David Walters: That 98/97 is linked to the strongest El Nino event of the last century is yet another thing these guys are in denial about, it's also the reason 97 has hung on (tied with 08) in the list of top ten warmest years, but 97 is almost certainly gone at the end of this year.%26lt;%26lt;
-2005, 2009, and 2010(possibly) are all warmer than the El Nino forced '97 record. That actually is a bit scary. Think about what the warming would have been like with a strong El Nino, and strong solar activity.....|||The natural climate cycles (ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc.) should periodically overwhelm the CO2 "signal"... (If there is a CO2 signal).
Here's HadCRUT3...
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcru鈥?/a>
Here's the residual HadCRUT3 after removing the linear trend (the supposed CO2 signal)...
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/d鈥?/a>
This is overly simplified. The Warmista CO2 signal would be more exponential... But it gets the point across. There could be an underlying linear trend that manifests as step-shifts in the normal climate oscillation.
There underlying trend could also be a lower frequency oscillation. The "red" curve is HadCRUT3 with the first harmonic filtered out (similar to the previous residual plot). The "green" curve is the first harmonic (lowest frequency component) of HadCRUT3...
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcru鈥?/a>
One reasons that Moberg's and Esper's reconstructions were better able to capture the low frequency component of the temperature signal was the fact that they employed signal processing methods.|||I'm surprised you've chosen to ask a reasonable question. While CO2 does have a direct cause and effect relationship in trapping heat, and hopefully you aren't calling into question the greenhouse effect, there are many other internal feedbacks and forcings that can affect the rise in temperatures being felt. The rise in temperatures attributable to an increased greenhouse effect over the past century is 0.7C. The noise outside of the increasing greenhouse effect is much more variable and provides a much greater range of temperatures. Climate change deals with trends, not short term temperature variations. If you look at a graph of atmospheric CO2 you'll see it isn't linear either but the trend is upward (See link 1). The cooling after the 1940s was due to both the PDO, which as David pointed out in a previous question is most likely directly related to the ENSO, and an increase in atmospheric aerosols. All you need to do to realize this is look at solar input for that time period both at the top of the atmosphere and at the surface. Unfortunately there were no satellites at that time to measure top-of-atmosphere solar irradiance however you can see from image 2 below the 1940s and afterwards was actually a time of increasing solar activity and increasing sunspots. You can also clearly see the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum in the graph. The 1940s was actually after the beginning of the Modern Maximum. And I can't find a graph that shows downward shortwave solar radiation measurements for the time period either. I'm sure if they were taken one of the other posters in here would know where to find them. If you want to discredit what people are saying when it comes to sulfates don't just say "It's silly" actually look into it yourself. If you find that solar output has increased for the time period, which it has, and downward shortwave radiation has decreased then that's pretty much the only explanation.
Added details: You can see the effects a greater abundance of aerosols has in the atmosphere after large volcanic eruptions (See link 3 and for greater detail 4). Note that this does not occur 25-50 years after the initial eruption. Note also the speed of return to normal. Not 25-50 years. Most of the aerosols we are talking about here have an atmospheric residency of about 5 years or less.|||I think there is now little doubt that you actually have little interest in genuine answers, add to that - none of your four links actually work doesn't leave much to comment on.
The drop in temperature in 1940 (actually more like 1943/44) has been explained to you and other deniers many times there is a solid link to the decline in global temperature and the start of an extended cool phase PDO event which, with only a brief break, extended right through to the late 70s, the brief break in the PDO in the late 50s also corresponds with a global temperature rise seen in the global record in the late 50s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pdoind鈥?/a>
No scientist has ever said natural events can't override climate change (although deniers may claim otherwise) across the time scale of the temperature record even the PDO is short term and the effect passes, the total trend of temperature over that 130 year period is pretty plain.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/in鈥?/a>
P.S. also note the drop in temp ~1914/15 which also corresponds to one of the first recorded PDO cool phase events.
O.K you can put your head back in the sand now.
And whatever you do don't ask yourself why the two most recent (but short) 1999 %26amp; 2008 PDO events had very little effect on global temperature, because your egg shell world of denial may fall apart. It seems as things stand now the PDO is now only capable of causes a small dip in global temp in periods when La Nina is also in force i.e. 2008 far less than the effects it was able to cause in the 40s what that means for global temperature when the current PDO passes is not that hard to figure out, If I were a denier I would worry about that as the end of the current PDO cooling event is also the very likely end of the denier movement as well.
David Walters: That 98/97 is linked to the strongest El Nino event of the last century is yet another thing these guys are in denial about, it's also the reason 97 has hung on (tied with 08) in the list of top ten warmest years, but 97 is almost certainly gone at the end of this year.
Arthurdent: "climate websites suck. My NOAA link is broken"
The links are broken because of an artifact of the Answers site and the way the editing process works, your links are cut off, this has nothing to do with NOAA or UAH or any of the link you posted. the ending in "..." is an abbreviation to save showing full links, that Answers uses to save space and make a neater question but in most cases it should link to a full address to make the link work, yours don't the text of the links is the same as that displayed in the question.
Interesting I'm not sure I see that my answer is at odds with MP's, I mentioned one aspect of a complex atmospheric system (albeit a quite strong one) he mentioned another, I thought it was a denier claim that the atmosphere was a very complex thing, on that at least they are correct. I made mention of the PDO I could also have thrown in the IOD or NAO.
You asked about a specific time period (the 40s and why temps dropped) I provided a specific answer which you are now going to ignore, situation normal. If I tried to mention all the forcing's in any single comment it would 20 times longer.
No comments:
Post a Comment