I need to read the original research article, but this sounds fairly ludicrous. Of course, the fact that James Hansen is involved helps to inspire skepticism.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't feel like registering for the LA Times, can someone post the main parts of the article?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry about that, I didn't realize that a subscription was required. I don't know if it's okay to do, but I'll paste the text here and someone can delete it if it's inappropriate (I looked and couldn't find anything to indicate it was).
Scientists Find Climate Change 'Smoking Gun' By Miguel Bustillo, Times Staff Writer
The Earth is now absorbing so much heat from the sun that the soot and greenhouse gases that humans are putting in the air appear to be the only reasonable explanation for the warming trend, according to research released Thursday by a team of prominent climate scientists.
The scientists from NASA, Columbia University and the U.S. Department of Energy determined that precise, deep-ocean measurements showed a rise in temperature that matched their computer model predictions of what would happen in an increasingly polluted world.
The scientists wrote that the findings confirmed the planet's "energy imbalance," a long-held theory on global warming.
"This energy imbalance is the 'smoking gun' that we have been looking for," said James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies at the Columbia University Earth Institute, and lead author of the study, published online Thursday by Science magazine.
"There can no longer be substantial doubt that human-made gases are the cause of most observed warming," added Hansen, who has long advanced the idea that human beings have been contributing to global warming, and in recent years has criticized the Bush administration for failing to take aggressive action on the issue.
Although the planet is now soaking up more energy from sunlight than it is reflecting back to space in the form of heat radiation, much of the excess energy remains effectively hidden in the oceans, the study found.
Just as the sands on a beach warm faster than the waters offshore, oceans respond more slowly to temperature changes than land masses.
But the heat trapped in the oceans will eventually manifest itself, with significant consequences for the world's climate, the scientists wrote.
As a result, the average global temperature, which has increased by about one degree Fahrenheit over the last century, will do so again over the next century, simply based on the heat stowed away in the oceans.
"The Hansen paper is important," said F. Sherwood Rowland, a UC Irvine professor who received the 1995 Nobel Prize for chemistry for finding that pollution from aerosol sprays and coolants was eroding the ozone layer.
"If you have that much [heat] stored up in the oceans, that is about another degree Fahrenheit that is lagging there, and we just haven't felt it yet."
Michael Prather, another UC Irvine professor, said that though Hansen and others had stated for years that the oceans could be a repository for much of the heat generated by the greenhouse effect, the latest paper represented the most convincing evidence yet that it was happening.
"I always believed Jim [Hansen] was right in the first place, but now I think he has proved it," said Prather, the former editor of the Geophysical Research Letters journal.
"You now see the heat building up in the ocean and you have a limited range of options to explain it."
In addition to increasing global temperatures, the warming could lead to an acceleration of the ice sheet disintegration taking place in parts of the polar regions, and even a rapid rise in sea levels, the authors concluded.
Sea levels have risen about 1 1/4 inches in the last decade, twice the rate of the preceding century, partly because the heat content of the oceans has caused the water to expand.
Based on major climate shifts in the planet's history, Hansen estimates that if temperatures increased beyond 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over current levels, large-scale sea level increases could take place.
He argued that represents the threshold that human beings should strive not to exceed. Under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, countries around the world agreed in principle to avoid "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate, though they never defined what that was.
Natural variables such as ocean circulation patterns could theoretically account for the high rate of heat storage in deep waters, the authors conceded. But they said that in such a scenario, cooler water would have been pushed to the surface of the oceans, and the measurements over the last decade showed surface temperatures warming.
By contrast, the researchers noted that the additional heat in the oceans corresponds closely with what their computer model predicted would take place due to increased emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and black carbon, making that the more likely cause.
Hansen estimated that if humans could slash the current amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in half, or eliminate potent methane emissions, the planet's heat would fall back into equilibrium. But such reductions, he said, are unrealistic, and thus the world probably will become warmer.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
CO2 makes up about 3% of the atmosphere, or roughly 1.2449*10^9 cubic miles. This would equate (assuming STP) to 1.12*10^16 tons. If we do as the article suggests, we would need to remove 5.62*10^16 tons - or the equivalent of 57,900,000,000 Nimitz class aircraft carriers.
Also, if the "study" was correct and that a rise of 1.8 degrees F would dramatically raise the sea level, how do they explain away the Medieval climate optimum, where the average temperature was 2-3 degrees C (3.6-5.4 deg F) warmer than it is today?
Jesse
/Hates junk science with a passion.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I tend to agree with global warming predictions, Eisen has a point. I periodically hear dire warnings about some catastrophe if the global average temperature rises only a couple of degrees--lake turnover releasing suffocating gases, for instance. But we know that the temperature has been still higher in the past. So why a disaster now and not then?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmm.. I wonder if Detroit and Chicago are in danger from ocean flooding.
We could always just block off the straight that connects the Great Lakes to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to keep the ocean out.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eisenoxyde and BrianP, welcome to the forum! Brian, why the skepticsim towards Hansen? Jesse, generally I don't slam newbies, but...You're off by several orders of magnitude, dude.
CO2 is only about 0.036 percent of the atmosphere by volume, or 0.054%=0.00054 by weight. Or, as the quoted section has calculated, 2.8 x 10^12 tonnes of CO2 is stored in the atmosphere, not 10^16 tons as you said. I hate junk science too.
quote: In the atmosphere, CO2 at present constitutes about 360 parts per million (0.036%) by volume, which amounts to 540 parts per million (0.054%) by weight.
The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5.2 x 10^15 tonne, meaning that 2.8 x 10^12 tonne of CO2 is stored in the atmosphere.
In the oceans, CO2 is mostly present as bicarbonate ion HCO3-. If we assume that it was all turned into CO2 by decreasing the pH of the oceans, it would amount to about 110 parts per million (0.011%) by weight.
The total mass of water in the oceans, which is over 99% of all water on the planet, is about 1.7 x 10^18 tonne, meaning that 1.8 x 10^14 tonne of CO2 is stored in the hydrosphere.
Also, even more is stored in the oceans, roughly 60 times more. Hmm, I thought even more was in the oceans.
And finally, Hansen is quoted in the article as saying that it's unrealistic to drastically cut CO2 from the atmosphere, so what's your point?
As for your second point, do you have any linkage that might support your claim that Medieval average temperatures were 2-3 degrees C higher than today? This is the first I've heard of that and I'm skeptical...Until I found this web page It makes a good case that solar variabilty is the major driver for climate change, not anthropogenic (manmade ) changes to the atmosphere. I need to read it and it's references more to evaluate them.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Greenland and Antarctica melt, the ocean rises between 66to72metres/220to240feet: the minimum-to-maximum rise based on the volume of water contained in above-sealevel ice supported by land.
However, the icecaps' weight presses Antarctica downward into the Earth -- much like loading a boat will cause the boat to float lower in the water -- about 1kilometre/0.62mile. And just as a boat will float higher when its cargo is removed, the Antarctic continent will rise due to isostatic rebound as its icecap melts. Even taking into account the higher sealevel from icecap melting, land currently ~760metres/0.47miles under the ocean will rise above the new sealevel. So ice under the current sealevel which is currently grounded on the ocean floor will also raise the height of the new sealevel after the melting. Similarly Greenland; though to a lesser extent because its icecap isn't as thick, and a smaller percentage is being supported by the ocean floor.
Which means that a rise of 72metre/240feet is a more realistic minimum in the long run -- continental isostatic rebound occurs slowly after removal of the load -- when added to the heat-expansion of seawater's volume expectable with the rise in ocean temperatures which would accompany a total meltdown of the icecap.
Since LakeSt.Clair's surface is 175metres/570feet above sealevel, Detroit will remain above the ocean, as will everything along LakeErie's shoreline of 173metres above sealevel. Chicago's elevation is higher.
However, everyone living at LakeOntario's elevation of 73metres/243feet, or lower, might need houseboats. My bet would be that LakeOntario would become part of the AtlanticOcean in a total icecap meltdown.
posted
I really don't think we need to worry about Greenland and Antarctica melting away, especially since most of Antarctica is cooling.
Morbo, thanks for the welcome. As to your question about Hansen, I got a poor opinion him after reading Crichton's State of Fear. But maybe some stuff was taken out of context.
I think the Medieval Climate Optimum is a fairly well known climate period. It should be fairly easy to find some references, though I don't have time to link to any right now. They actually had vineyards in Northern England at the time!
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo - thanks for the correction. I posted while half asleep and the numbers looked wrong, but I couldn't figure why. (I was also too lazy to properly integrate the density of the atmosphere too.)
Anyways, using the correct numbers, we would still need to remove 14,432,990 Nimitz class aircraft carriers worth of CO2.
About the medieval climate optimum, I got that from my notes in my geology class (at the Colorado School of Mines, so I trust the numbers). I'll see if I can find anything online to give you.
posted
State of Fear was a good book. Not one of Crichton's best in terms of "techno-thriller" kind of stuff, but, as Card said in his review, easily his most important book.
I found it interesting because he went into his research on global warming the same as I did - assuming it was real but wanting to understand it better. He did much more research than I, but we both walked away from it with the opinion that the concept as a whole is a sham. It was an extremely fascinating read.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, Global Climate Change, not Global Warming.
Second, damn, I wanted Detroit to be flooded, I'd have beach front property =)
Third, if the temperature rises a degree this century and keeps rising more and more every century, it will still eventually have detrimental effects on the weather. And mainly that means disrupting agriculture, something the world really can't live without. It will lead, eventually, to massive famine, and drought in some areas that are now perfect farmland.
But don't worry, we'll all be dead by the time that happens. You don't really care about your future grandkids that much do you?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a pretty crass and stupid insult. Don't think it's as big a problem as I do? You don't care about your grandkids, you jerk!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Third, if the temperature rises a degree this century and keeps rising more and more every century, it will still eventually have detrimental effects on the weather. And mainly that means disrupting agriculture, something the world really can't live without. It will lead, eventually, to massive famine, and drought in some areas that are now perfect farmland.
Obviously, if the temp rose a degree every century forever, it would be devastating. But I don't think that is likely to occur, so what are you referring to? It certainly is not a fact that a moderate rise in temperature will have a disrupting effect on agriculture. It seems equally possible that it could extend the growing season and prove a benefit.
My biggest problem with global warming theorists is that they automatically assume any change is bad. But where's the evidence for this? We know the Earth has been warmer than today without everyone dying or any sort of global catastrophe, yet any change from what we perceive to be the norm, especially if caused by humans, is horrible. It is a ridiculous notion, with very little hard evidence to support it.
And beyond this century, I don't think there is much to worry about. Twenty years from now, we will have begun to phase out combustion engine vehicles. We are not going to be using oil and coal forever, because we can't. And as their use curtails so will the emissions that everyone is worried about. Frankly, I'm much more concerned about whether we will have alternative energy in place soon enough to counteract the inevitable drought of fossil fuels.
quote: I need to read the original research article, but this sounds fairly ludicrous. Of course, the fact that James Hansen is involved helps to inspire skepticism.
Of course, BryanP knows more about global climate than the entire scientific community.
A friend of mine once said that since his father and grandfather were both alcoholics, he should continue drinking because there was a chance that he was not an alcoholic. BryanP's arguments against global cliamte change are about as logical.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly think there are things to worry about concerning the environment. I just tend not to trust extremes-and I regard both corporate lobbyists and environmental group lobbyists as generally both belonging to that category.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, BryanP knows more about global climate than the entire scientific community.
A friend of mine once said that since his father and grandfather were both alcoholics, he should continue drinking because there was a chance that he was not an alcoholic. BryanP's arguments against global cliamte change are about as logical.
Um, well, no I don't know more about global climate change than the entire scientific community. Nor did I claim to. Interestingly, though, not all of the scientific community agrees with the dominant theories of global climate change. My current leanings tend toward those of scientists who think that far more research needs to be done before many of the statements being made about global climate change can really be said to be accurate.
quote:"Twenty years from now, we will have begun to phase out combustion engine vehicles."
What is that based on?
Lyrhawn, I've heard that from a few places, but I've linked for you the US Fuel Cell Council, who state that:
"About 60 million new cars are sold worldwide each year. Automotive industry leaders have speculated that fuel cell vehicles could account for 20 to 25 percent of new car sales within the next 20 to 25 years, a potential market of 12 million to 15 million vehicles each year."
posted
Alright, Lyrhawn. Even though it sure appeared specific...it's a crass and stupid rhetorical point.
It is just quite possible that instead of being villainous polluters who care only for their bottom line and to hell with the children-or brainwashed by such-the people who do not share your beliefs may just be unconvinced.
Your rhetorical point is the same one evangelical conservatives make about those who do not share their beliefs. They must not care about the children or about protecting the innocent!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BryanP, considering the many problems that have thus far kept fuel-cell-powered cars from being commercially viable, that strikes me as wild optimism -- not even reasonable "speculation."
Rakeesh, maybe this is a hot-button issue ( ) for you, but I think you're overreacting to Lyrhawn's comment.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose it's a hot-button issue, but I don't think I entirely overreacted. On further consideration, I don't think Lyrhawn meant what I implied she meant-so I apologize, Lyrhawn.
But I think that is what is implied by the rhetorical question, "Don't you care about future generations?" when discussing environmental issues. It implies one of two things: either the person doesn't care, and is such an morally unevolved human being so as to care only about their own life (in other words, a jerk), or they are stupid because they do not recognize the threat to future generations.
Those are the only two implications possible, I believe, from a careful consideration of that line of thinking. The person is either ignorant, or uncaring.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your rhetorical point is the same one evangelical conservatives make about those who do not share their beliefs. They must not care about the children or about protecting the innocent!
That is an extremely valid point, and you're right. What I said is probably a lot more extreme than I meant to say it. As offended as I get by what those evangelical conservatives say, I should know better when it comes to choosing my own words.
Second, Lyrhawn is a he, not a she (Now I know how Dag must have felt). Hi, my name is Adam by the way ::holds out hand to shake::
Lastly, to be honest, I DO think that some people are either that stupid or that uncaring. Hell, some of them are both, and are in my family. I know people that don't care, and who don't think anything bad will come of it. It doesn't make them very bad people, but it does make them part of the problem.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I read the Fuel Cell Council article, and it looks promising!
I do have concerns though.
1. Americans aren't going to drive stumpy little cars like what most of fuel cell cars are. I wonder how much efficiency is lost by, say, converting a Chevy Cobalt into a fuel cell car but keeping the frame. Americans like their cool rides.
2. Producing the hydrogen. The factories that would create the hydrogen for the cars, from what I've read, would emit fossil fuel emissions in the process of creating the hydrogen for consumption. This has to be fixed. I've read that new nuclear plant designs could create hydrogen as well as energy, that's something that could be looked into.
Other than that, if American car sales actually do account for even 15% of total car sales, I'll be ecstatic, especially if they are all American made. It'll be nice to dominate a part of the car market again.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh! Sorry, Adam...looking back I think it's because Lyrhawn and Myrddin sound the same to me. Really, it's just the 'yr', I know. My bad. Name's Jeff. *shakes*
I didn't say that many people on the side of unconcern about the issue aren't stupid or lazy, just that they may honestly disagree with you, or may agree with you but be trapped into a similar set of circumstances as you are.
It's difficult to worry about the environment when you're struggling to put food on the table, after all-and by far the cheapest energy options are among the dirtiest. Same thing with cheap / sweat-shop labor abroad and at home. People may shop at Wal-Mart because they have to, not because they're lazy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I really don't think we need to worry about Greenland and Antarctica melting away..."
What do you think we have been doing in the TopSecret HighlyRestrictedAccess LastPost thread? Writing fluff???
"...especially since most of Antarctica is cooling."
I'm interested where you got that: more of Crichton's fiction? Admittedly, air temperature is rising in some parts of Antarctica, and air temperature is decreasing in some parts of Antarctica. But the average air temperature isn't a sufficient measure of warming or cooling of the continent. Ozone is a greenhouse gas. So depletion of the ozone layer would cause less reflection of heat back down to the Earth, decreasing reheating of the air beneath, leading to some areas having a lower air temperature.
However, depletion of the ozone layers also allows the normally blocked ultraviolet to directly evaporate ice and dissociate water. Again leading to the cooling of the air itself while warming the ice. It is also known that the mass of the Antarctic icecap is decreasing and that the Antarctic glaciers are shrinking when considered as a whole. As well, grasses are colonizing portions of Antarctica, which hasn't happened in paleontological eras. All leading to the high probability that the continent itself is warming.
Which is why the Republican-majority in Congress is attempting to cut back NASA's EarthSciences program after marginalizing the NationalWeatherService's climate-modeling by attritional funding; so that computer time becomes available only for the mandatory weather forecasting, and unavailable for "optional" climate forecasting. When the facts contradict neo"conservative" arguments to continue polluting as if there were no tomorrow, neo"conservative"s suppress the fact-finders.
posted
"It's difficult to worry about the environment when you're struggling to put food on the table...People may shop at Wal-Mart because they have to..."
If Wal*Mart hadda rely on people so poor that they couldn't afford to shop elsewhere, Walmart would go broke very very quickly. Wal*Mart survives on the fact that most Americans live as far beyond their means as their credit will carry them. Even the absurd amount most Americans pay for food is primarily to pay for the luxury of allowing themselves to be too lazy to eat healthy. The same "credit card" mentality of "let the future take care of paying the bill" is what allows folks to pretend that damaging the environment is without cost to themselves.
[Reposted cuz the new forum program doesn't recognize old forum addresses in links]
"I really don't think we need to worry about Greenland and Antarctica melting away..."
What do you think we have been doing in the TopSecret HighlyRestrictedAccess LastPost thread? Writing fluff???
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are you talking about? People who shop at Wal-Mart for food do it because it's cheaper, and because they need to save money. Those two things don't add up to flagrant waste and unnecessary spending.
I wasn't talking about what kept Wal-Mart in business, anyway-I was pointing out that all the high-minded environmental concern expressed here and elsewhere isn't always cheap.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and another thing concerning Crichton's fiction: anyone who has read the entire book would have noted that Crichton main purpose was to ask questions about climate change that are-as they are here-met with contempt and shouted down, and to point out that things are not necessarily as clean-cut as the people who do the shouting down claim. He stated so very specifically in the end, when he listed his own beliefs concerning climate change.
Basically, it's that he thinks the science isn't as ironclad as many believe, and that while he thinks man is definitely playing a role in climate change, we aren't sure what it is, and haven't been studying the issue long enough to know with any real certainty.
In a field that routinely makes very confident statements about what will happen five-hundred years from now, while having less than fifty years of truly accurate data on a vast amount of important items, I find I can't disagree with him.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
) for you, but I think you're overreacting to Lyrhawn's comment.
