Loan | Bad credit loans | Mortgages | Pacotes Reveillon Salvador | Flights
What Fraction of Global Warming is Due to ... Increased CO2? [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : What Fraction of Global Warming is Due to ... Increased CO2?


sunsettommy
04-28-2006, 09:32 PM
From CLIMATE SCIENCE,

April 27, 2006

What Fraction of Global Warming is Due to the Radiative Forcing of Increased Atmospheric Concentrations of CO2? (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/04/27/what-fraction-of-global-warming-is-due-to-the-radiative-forcing-of-increased-atmospheric-concentrations-of-co2/)

Filed under: Climate Change Forcings (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/category/climate-change-forcings/), Q & A on Climate Science (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/category/q-a-on-climate-science/) — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:32 am
This is a long weblog. The bottom line conclusions are written here to motivate reading the entire weblog.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The primary focus on carbon dioxide inappropriately deemphasizes the first order importance of the other climate system heat system forcings (both cooling and warming forcings), as well as does not address the spatially complex, and incompletely understood, actual pattern of global climate system heat changes.

2. Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.

A starting point for the assessment of the relative fraction of global warming that is attributable to the radiative forcing of CO2 is the Summary Figure from the 2002 IPCC report (see (http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309095069/html/3.html)). Clearly, according to their analysis, in comparing the change of radiative forcing since pre-industrial times until the present as estimated from the IPCC summary figure, the well-mixed greenhouse gases dominate the forcings which cause warming (about a 2.4 Watts per meter squared difference between these two time periods), of which about 1.4 Watts per meter squared is from CO2. Other warming forcings that they include, if the mean value plotted is used, are black carbon from burning fossil fuels (about 0.2 Watts per meter squared), tropospheric ozone (about 0.3 Watts per meter squared), and solar (about 0.25 Watts per meter squared).

Using these values about 58% of the radiative forcing of the well-mixed greenhouse gases results from CO2, and about 48% of the warming human-caused climate forcings result from the radiative forcing of CO2.

The following extracts from research studies reduce the relative contribution of the radiative forcing of CO2 as reported in the 2002 IPCC Report, as summarized above. These studies report the following,

“NASA scientists have found that a major form of global air pollution involved in summertime “smog” has also played a significant role in warming the Arctic……According to this new research, ozone was responsible for one-third to half of the observed warming trend in the Arctic during winter and spring. Ozone is transported from the industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere to the Arctic quite efficiently during these seasons. ”
(see). (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/03/14/another-major-non-co2-climate-forcing-of-global-warming/)

”Even within the well-mixed greenhouse gas forcings, there are new complications. Drew Shindell and colleagues, as reported in Pollution Online found that, ’According to new calculations, the impacts of methane on climate warming may be double the standard amount attributed to the gas. The new interpretations reveal methane emissions may account for a third of the climate warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases between the 1750s and today. The IPCC report, which calculates methane’s affects once it exists in the atmosphere, states that methane increases in our atmosphere account for only about one sixth of the total effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases on warming. ’” (see). (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/01/12/more-complications-on-quantifying-the-radiative-effects-of-well-mixed-greenhouse-gases/)

Moreover, from the 2006 Nature paper “Methane emissions from terrestrial plants under aerobic conditions (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7073/abs/nature04420.html)” by Keppler et al,

” If our measurements are typical for short-lived biomass and scaled on a global basis, we estimate a methane source strength of 62–236 Tg yr-1 for living plants and 1–7 Tg yr-1 for plant litter (1 Tg = 1012 g). We suggest that this newly identified source may have important implications for the global methane budget and may call for a reconsideration of the role of natural methane sources in past climate change.”

“A recent study by the CERES Science Team has added to the uncertainty associated with the contributions of climate forcings to global warming by finding that for the period 2000-2004, their assessment of the shortwave albedo decreased by 0.0015 which corresponds to an extra 0.5 Watts per meter squared of radiative imbalance according to their assessment. (see (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2005/08/29/response-to-andy-revkin%e2%80%99s-science-question-of-august-26-2005-2/))

“Deposition of BC aerosols over snow-covered areas can result in changes to the surface albedo (Chylek et al. 1983). Further reductions in albedo occur due to the enhanced melting that accompanies the heating of absorbing soot particles in snow. Chylek et al. (1983) estimate this enhancement to be up to a factor of ten in the rate of melting. Recent model results indicate radiative forcings of +0.3 W m−2 in the Northern Hemisphere associated with albedo effects of soot on snow and ice (Hansen and Nazarenko 2004).” (see (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2005/08/29/response-to-andy-revkin%e2%80%99s-science-question-of-august-26-2005-2/))

We can summarize these

(you can read the summary here)
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/04/27/what-fraction-of-global-warming-is-due-to-the-radiative-forcing-of-increased-atmospheric-concentrations-of-co2/

It appears that CO2 is an overrated greenhouse gas.I long have been claiming.

It also appears that the Suns role in the current global warming is getting a bigger share of the attention.

Ozone pollution is now a bigger fish to fry for the cold regions.

He he he......

sunsettommy
04-30-2006, 10:11 AM
I posted this because it shows how little we really know and understand the dynamics of global climate.

The CO2 fans from the 1980's have insisted it was the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere that is the driving force.This was during the time when little was known what causes warming or cooling.

They still insist today despite a lot of published papers showing that CO2 is not that involved in warming.There are many other factors being shown to promote warming BESIDES greenhouse CO2 gas.

The post above shows OTHER forces at play in the warming besides CO2 that have been more prominent than realized a few years ago.

I have all along been a skeptic that CO2 increases promotes most of the current warming.That is because it is STILL a TRACE GAS!!!

Then too the PROXY filled "Hockey Stick" paper is being allowed to trump the BOREHOLE paper that relies on much stronger data that shows the obvious existence of Medeival warming and the Little Ice age.

History records also shows demonstrably the existence of those two minor climatic periods.

It is a sad state the IPCC is in these days.

DeclinetoState
05-13-2006, 11:49 AM
Roger A. Pielke at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke):

Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes mistaken for skepticism, a label that the explicitly renounces. He has said:

<DL><DD>the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf (http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf)). [1] (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=186#comment-4426) </DD></DL>

sunsettommy
05-13-2006, 01:44 PM
Roger A. Pielke at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke):

<DL></DL>

Okaaaay,

So what about the thread starting post?

I respect Dr. Pielke because he is more interested in solving the mystery of global climate.He is also a moderate voice in the controversies surrounding Climate change.

How about addressing his position that CO2 is being given too much attention.When other climate forcings needs more consideration.

The point of the paper.Dr Pielke posted on his website.

What Fraction of Global Warming is Due to the Radiative Forcing of Increased Atmospheric Concentrations of CO2? (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/04/27/what-fraction-of-global-warming-is-due-to-the-radiative-forcing-of-increased-atmospheric-concentrations-of-co2/)

How about it?

DeclinetoState
05-13-2006, 03:12 PM
If the Wikipedia article is correct, many skeptics of the human effects on global warming would try to appeal to Pielke as an authority supporting their position. Doing so, according to Wikipedia, would be incorrect.

There's a lot of stuff in the original post that consists of scientific explanations and arguments that I can't begin to follow, though others here are welcome to do so. Therefore, other than briefly examining the comments on them, I really can't address the comments.

sunsettommy
05-17-2006, 04:11 PM
If the Wikipedia article is correct, many skeptics of the human effects on global warming would try to appeal to Pielke as an authority supporting their position. Doing so, according to Wikipedia, would be incorrect.

There's a lot of stuff in the original post that consists of scientific explanations and arguments that I can't begin to follow, though others here are welcome to do so. Therefore, other than briefly examining the comments on them, I really can't address the comments.

Wikipedia is also not up to date.

Pielke is a moderate on the debate and has actually questioned the claimed influence of CO2 on the current warming.He is one of the ones who is in the middle between full blown skeptics and those who would swear that the increased CO2 levels does most of the warming we see today.That makes him valuable.

If you look up his website you will see that he goes out of his way to post recent research that reduces the CO2 alleged warming power.

He has generally stated that he does not believe that the increased levels of CO2 has added that much warming to the climate.

He left the IPCC group under protest on what they were doing.

Maybe you need to surf his website more and less of Wikipedia?