Is the Public Perception of Global Warming Reaching a Tipping Point?

[Andre]

Because the physical truth is not identical to the opinion of anybody, be it evil or good, be the majority or the minority. If you are right, you're right and if you're wrong, you're wrong. Science progresses by finding out why we are wrong all the time. That time has now come for the "anthropogenic" (human caused) part of the global warming

 

[chroot]

Futhermore, anyone who derives their opinions from the Science Channel doesn't deserve to have opinions in the first place.

- Warren

 

[Origen]

Futhermore, anyone who derives their opinions from the Science Channel doesn't deserve to have opinions in the first place.

- Warren

The Science Channel is actually not too bad (except for the evolutionary bias, though that's way I watch it). I do like DR.Kaku and believe that he is a very true physicist with the motive of discovering something truthful that goes beyond biasness. He is an evolutionist, be if he continues the research he's been doing he'll soon discover the Creator! I do truly admire his passion to seek the answers...that is very rare.

 

[chroot]

Origen:

Let me make something clear. Your introduction of religion to this discussion is unwelcome. Any further posts you make that involve religion will be deleted, and you will be warned.

- Warren

 

[Origen]

Origen:

Let me make something clear. Your introduction of religion to this discussion is unwelcome. Any further posts you make that involve religion will be deleted, and you will be warned.

- Warren

Ok, let me get this right.

edit:by Evo Origen, you have been warned repeatedly, religious posts are forbidden on this forum. If you want to make religious posts, you are free to find another forum that allows them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I wasn't aware that there was any consensus among climate scientists that global warming is both real, and anthropogenic. It fact, I thought it was only recently that it became a consesus among climate scientists that global warming was happening at all, without regard to whether or not it's anthropogenic.

I am only repeating what scientists who hold significant research positions are saying when interviewed.

You know I'm not going to take your word for it.

I really don't care.

You've already made it rather clear that you're an alarmist on the issue, yet you're not a climate researcher, and presumably have a very weak intellectual grasp of the enormouse body of (often-conflicting) climate data. I don't mean to be offensive, but really, why should anyone believe you? Or Al Gore?

First of all, you completely misrepresent my position on this. I am not an alarmist. I am evaluating the odds based on what leading scientists are reporting. I don't proclaim expertise where I have none, as you frequently do. I repeat what I hear and read from reputable sources who usually are leaders in the field - such as the head of NOAA etc, who for one was recently on Charley Rose.

Now you may see it as reasonable to take your lead from internet sources, and draw conclusions from your own expetise in climatology as an electrical engineer, and rely on papers taken in isolation and probably out of context, but I choose to put my trust in the experts who report to the public the consensus opinion from their point of view. I did not set out to prove anything here.

If you have evidence -- not anecdote, not argument to authority, not bandwagon consensus, not models, not simple-minded study replete with dozens of systematic errors -- then sure, bring it on. To my knowledge, no such empirical evidence exists, and, in my scientific opinion, indicates that the entire phenomenon of global warming is being perceived where it does not exist.

- Warren

I am not about to try to prove anything to you or anyone else. I don't claim to be qualifed, as apparently you believe yourself to be.

 

[Cyrus]

Tell me the name of the person, Ivan, and I can give you the transcripts.

 

[Origen]

You have been warned repeatedly, religious posts are forbidden on this forum. If you want to make religious posts, you are free to find another forum that allows them.

This post has been attributed to me...I didn't write it!
I came to this forum with a peaceful heart and good intentions. But like Rambo, you've really pushed me the wrong way. You deleted my post and falsified it out of fear. You have just proven evolution is a lie, because everyone wants to cover up a lie by deleting the opposing view.

I'm open to discussion because I have nothing to hide!

 

[Cyrus]

Exnay on the religionsay.

 

[Evo]

This post has been attributed to me...I didn't write it!
I came to this forum with a peaceful heart and good intentions. But like Rambo, you've really pushed me the wrong way. You deleted my post and falsified it out of fear. You have just proven evolution is a lie, because everyone wants to cover up a lie by deleting the opposing view.

I'm open to discussion because I have nothing to hide!

If you had looked at the top it showed I had edited out your off topic religious rant. I have added a note at the bottom to make it clearer.

Since you refuse to accept our guidelines, you have lost your privileges to post here. We gave you quite a few chances to stop.

 

[Pengwuino]

Don't you just hate when you miss out on a deletion!

 

[Tsu]

What kind of retarded "argument" is that? Do you actually have a point?

Futhermore, anyone who derives their opinions from the Science Channel doesn't deserve to have opinions in the first place.

- Warren

WHAT??!

Warren, what the hell is the matter with you? What kind of a forum 'administrator' makes cheap shot, lowly comments like this? Too sad...

 

[chroot]

WHAT??!

Warren, what the hell is the matter with you? What kind of a forum 'administrator' makes cheap shot, lowly comments like this? Too sad...

Heh, you have a point.

- Warren

 

[Tsu]

Yes. I do.

 

[chroot]

Yes. I do.

Yes. You do.

- Warren

 

[Pengwuino]

Sick that puppy on him Tsu!

 

[chroot]

Sick that puppy on him Tsu!

Well, hey, the second comment that Tsu quoted was a joke anyway... I don't think I deserve a canine attack!

- Warren

 

[Tsu]

Hey! I'm the 'decider' on this one! Thinking... thinking... hmmm...wonder how chroots ankles taste? Bet I could turn 'em into HAMBURGER!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Uh oh, Tsu's here...

 

[Tsu]

 

[ShawnD]

Apparently we have to go for the radiation to heat the oceans and then we have the visible light radiation and the infra-red. The latter is supposed to have increased due to greenhouse gas, whereas the solar radiation is thought to have been much more constant.

You have this backwards. Greenhouse gas is supposed to absorb radiation, meaning less of it would reach the ocean and be able to heat it. The greenhouse effect would heat up the Earth's atmosphere which would then heat up the oceans by convection and conduction. That is of course assuming greenhouse gas is to blame. It could be a bunch of underwater nuclear bomb tests for all I know.

 

[Andre]

then we have the visible light radiation and the infra-red. The latter is supposed to have increased due to greenhouse gas,...

You have this backwards. Greenhouse gas is supposed to absorb radiation,

Of course it does, but I think I expressed myself badly by not explaining what happens next.

So how does greenhouse effect work? incoming solar visible light radiation passes the atmosphere unaltered, then it is absorbed in the surface and retransmitted on a broad spectrum, mostly as infra red. Now if this infra red radiation could escape again unaffected in the atmosphere, then where would not be greenhouse effect. However most frequencies of this infrared are adsorbed as you say by greenhouse gas molecules but by law of thermal radiation[/url] the absorbed IR is retransmitted again in random directions. Some of it is directed downwards again and reach the surface, which would not have happened without greenhouse gas effect. This means that the surface actually encounters more infra red radiation, retransmitted, sort of reflected from the atmosphere.

So what happens to the mix of radiation that hits the ocean surfaces? For the visible light it’s rather obvious by observation, Some light is reflected but most enters the water and gets absorbed after certain distance, the optical depth, the red light goes first, after only a few meters, the blue light penetrates deepest to some 100 meter before it gets adsorbed. But in the end we see that most visible light gets absorbed, meaning that it transfers into heat. Consequently, visible light can penetrate and warm the oceans to a certain depth.

How about infra-red? We know that water vapour is the most potent natural greenhouse gas because of it’s molecular structure. The same mechanism also works for fluid water and infrared light is absorbed by the first molecule layers in the water surface. Here it retransmits in all directions but much of that energy is transferred to heat at the water surface directly. Heat is no more than molecular velocity and faster molecules tend to escape from the water surface, taking the energy away from the water and hence not heating it up.

Consequently, it appears that the net effect of infrared on water is stimulating evaporation but not heating it. Of course this can be tested by very simple means. And when the parameterization is correct, this can also be simulated in climate models. No need for a couple of atom bombs.

So concluding from my scattered posts here, the only effective way to heat oceans is by visible light, infrared cannot heat oceans, consequently, the variation in oceanic heat content is most likely variation in visible light not variation in greenhouse gas concentration.

So if oceans are warmer, it’s because of more light and there was more light, because there were less clouds:

[URL][PLAIN]http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/albedo-temp.GIF

Consequently, it’s the sun that causes global warming, not increased greenhouse effect.

 

[Andre]

BTW an update on the hockeystick graph which has been discussed earlier in this thread here.

Meanwhile, could we find more evidence for what the main cause is of the recent warming trend? Perhaps the warming trends of land, ocean and lower atmosphere (lower trophosphere). If there is difference, it could confirm or refute any of the two warming mechanisms, more sunlight or more greenhouse effect.

So, if it was greenhouse effect, we would expect the increased infrared adsorbtion cause more warming in the lower atmosphere, causing the highest trend, the radiation backwards to the surface would cause a secondary warming trend. Since the sea surface sort of reflects the IR, the air very close above it, would also show the increased warming trend. So in case of greenhouse effect, you would expect the highest warming trend in the lower trophosphere and lower, about comparable warming trends, over land and over sea.

With more visible sunlight it's abit different. The effect sunlight starts at the surface, increasing land temeratures the most. Sea surface temperatures would rise less because most of the radiation continuous down to deeper levels. The lower trophosphere gets heated from the surface and would show a lower trend. So with more sunlight: highest land temperatures trend, slightly lower sea tempeartures trend and lowest trophosphere trend.

So, what do we know about all those trends?

Here they are, against the 1988 prediction of Hansen in fainter color for best-worst scenarios and the reality in red for land stations, black for all, including oceans and dark blue (MSU2LT), giving the satellite readings for the lower trophosphere. So what's the verdict?

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/predict.GIF

 

[Mickey]

The reality of "stopping the global warming" will be that the western world will go and attempt to stop car ownership and energy consumption in the developing world.

I don't know about the rest of the west, but America would like nothing more than to sell billions of cheaply made crap cars to all those new middle class Asians.

The irony is that it's illegal to sell American cars in China because they don't meet the People's strict emission standards.

I know it would be very cynical and ironic but it will be justified as some other "manifest destiny".

Perhaps sad but true IMHO.

Whoa... you need to cheer up!

Before something like that would ever happen, we'd much rather try to make a couple billion off them by exporting nanosolar panels or something.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Well if global warming becomes a big issue, they could set off a few hydrogen bombs in the oceans to create a mini nuclear winter.

It's not the bombs that bring about a nuclear winter, its the smoke and soot from the things that are set aflame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

Go for the smaller cities.

 

[Mattara]

Just think of Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day and it will all go away.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Just think of Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day and it will all go away.

thanks thinking of Margeret Thatcher clothed on any day makes me shudder, speaking as an ex conservative, she did my political direction no end of good.

Something I found whilst playing around in the other parts of the WWW. Counterarguments, anyone think this is a good anti global warming argument

We are all seeing rather less of the Sun, according to scientists who have been looking at five decades of sunlight measurements.

They have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling.

Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.

The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel.

Cloud changes

Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Dr Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation.

"There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me." Intrigued, he searched records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked.

Sunlight was falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles.

Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to one to two per cent globally every decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Dr Stanhill called it "global dimming", but his research, published in 2001, met a sceptical response from other scientists.

It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.

Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution.

Burning coal, oil and wood, whether in cars, power stations or cooking fires, produces not only invisible carbon dioxide - the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global warming - but also tiny airborne particles of soot, ash, sulphur compounds and other pollutants.

This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds.

Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds.

Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's rays back into space.

Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be disrupting the pattern of the world's rainfall.

There are suggestions that dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 80s.

There are disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia, home to half the world's population.

"My main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoon," says Professor Veerhabhadran Ramanathan, professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at the University of California, San Diego. "We are talking about billions of people."

Alarming energy

But perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming is that it may have led scientists to underestimate the true power of the greenhouse effect.

They know how much extra energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere by the extra carbon dioxide we have placed there.

What has been surprising is that this extra energy has so far resulted in a temperature rise of just 0.6 degree Celsius.

This has led many scientists to conclude that the present-day climate is less sensitive to the effects of carbon dioxide than it was, say, during the ice age, when a similar rise in CO2 led to a temperature rise of six degrees Celsius.

But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out.

This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than previously thought.

If so, then this is bad news, according to Dr Peter Cox, one of the world's leading climate modellers.

As things stand, CO2 levels are projected to rise strongly over coming decades, whereas there are encouraging signs that particle pollution is at last being brought under control.

"We're going to be in a situation unless we act where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up.

"That means we'll get reducing cooling and increased heating at the same time and that's a problem for us," says Dr Cox.

Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards.

BTW I think I stand on the action side of the issue as a Brit

 

[Andre]

Concerning this.

We are all seeing rather less of the Sun, according to scientists who have been looking at five decades of sunlight measurements.

They have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling.

Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.

I'm sorry to say but it's really a little refuted. We have discussed the problems with that point of view here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=37706
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18883

Nice to stand on the action side but so did Don Quixhote, forgive me the comparison but fighting climate is fighting windmills. Better put the action where it makes the difference.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Concerning this.



I'm sorry to say but it's really a little refuted. We have discussed the problems with that point of view here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=37706
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18883

Nice to stand on the action side but so did Don Quixhote, forgive me the comparison but fighting climate is fighting windmills. Better put the action where it makes the difference.

Not at all I appreciate the description, by fighting I of course mean a good defense, ie recycling, reducing CO2 emmisions, using less energy.


Andre your European I would guess, not sure? I worked out my bio footprint the other day and was delighted to find out that it was half the national average. around 2.2, uk is 5.4 the US average was 8, but many big city residents, had around 20+ in the US. Which is because in no small part because of the large distances and over reliance on cars, lack of recycling and high energy needs in general. You guys are bad at that sort of stuff, very bad

 

[Andre]

Yes I'm very European, being Dutch and living in Germany, My sisters live in France and my daughter is going to work in London this month and I just reduced my bio footprint by exchanging my old 1 liter / 12 km gaz car for a new 1 liter / 23 km diesel (55 mpg US) and looking mildly interested at the feasibility of home brewed bio diesel. But that has more to do with economizing, anticipating sky high fuel prizes, than climate.

There are many very good reasons for minimizing energy dependability and reduction of fossil fuel 'addiction' but climate is not one of them. Hence all kind of crash actions to reduce emission tomorrow and save the world, may backfire severely. Windturbines may work fine at the lonely Pondarosa ranch but these produce just about negative energy in high populated areas for instance.

Better to convert gradually and thoughtfully towards really efficient sources, which would include un-scaremongering of nuclear means.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Good for you.

London, nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live their. Too much polution( London gave me spots) Or their was before they introduced a charge for driving in London.

Why isn't climate change a good reason to reduce energy consumption? Could you clarify what you mean there?

 

[Andre]

Because there is no connection. The contribution of CO2 to greenhouse effect is very limited and due to the saturation effect, even a significant increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have an almost negliglible effect on the global temperatures.

Unexplained that here.

 

[Mk]

There are suggestions that dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 80s.

How would this happen? The sunlight isn't being put in different places—wouldn't there just be a tiny bit less?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Because there is no connection. The contribution of CO2 to greenhouse effect is very limited and due to the saturation effect, even a significant increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have an almost negliglible effect on the global temperatures.

Unexplained that here.

it the only effect we can directly control though and from graphs I've seen it does have a significant effect. In a business as usual scenario CO2 could raise Global Mean Temperatures between 1-5 degrees in the next 50 years, that's pretty significant no?

How would this happen? The sunlight isn't being put in different places—wouldn't there just be a tiny bit less?

Believe me I don't understand that assertion either, perhaps an ecology boffin could explain, their are all sorts of problems with the assertions in the article, which is why I put it up, someone was using it as an excuse to advocate that global warming wasn't real, or was having a negligable effect. I think this article is a strawman.

 

[Andre]

it the only effect we can directly control though and from graphs I've seen it does have a significant effect. In a business as usual scenario CO2 could raise Global Mean Temperatures between 1-5 degrees in the next 50 years, that's pretty significant no?

Dunno. It's all about the warming value for double CO2. Pure mathematically, substituting total radiation numers of the MODTRAN IV calculation into Stefan Boltzman's law for black bodies, you'd get 0,7 degrees C per doubling CO2 instantaneously and after resettling of thermal equilibrium it would be 1,2 degrees. But this would take a few centuries.

So if we hack now at 375 ppmv and we have an increase of 1,2 ppmv per year it would be around 300 years before we double, wouldn't it? and a few more centuries before thermal equilibrium.

So, why those high numbers? 1.5 to 4.5 for this century, I think, the last time I looked. Because the simple numbers 0.7 and 1.2 for the clean physics are not seen in the wild. If we assume that the numbers of the last century, some 0,6 degrees temp increase is purely depending on the increase of CO2 from 280 to 370 ppmv then empirically it seems much worse. It's explained by a positive feedback from all kind of factors, which would boost up the clean numbers.

This is where the hockeystick comes in. When this was to be true:

compared with the CO2 hockeystick:

http://www.ens-lyon.fr/Planet-Terre/Infosciences/Climats/Rechauffement/Images/imageTCO2/CO2-1000ans.gif

...then you got the no-brainer, which has convinced the world that climate disaster was imminent; suggesting that climate is hyper-sensitive to CO2 changes

But the hockeystick is false, death, fake (updated with an interesting article). The Medieval Warm Period is back; making a big spike in the start of the temperature hockeystick, but not in the CO2 hockeystick. this shows that climate variability is much more independent from CO2. Considering further the long term history of CO2, as in five times the current level 50 millions years ago when the climate cooled at middle eocene, then the hypersensitivity cannot be true.

There is much more to this but the post is long enough for the time being, I guess.