The mean temperature of the earth today is about 15 degrees C, 288 K according to some sources, although others say 12 to 14 degrees C. The measured change in the last 100 years or so is about 1 C or 1K. Projections for increase include a range that can increase 5C.
Global Warming as something happening is distinct from whether CO2 is driving it, although these are related.
Global warming and mass extinction of species are also distinct. Mass extinction is underway already. Human population itself can cause mass extinction even if temperature doesn’t rise further.
Temp rise based on recorded instruments including graphs:
Global average air temperature near Earth’s surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit) in the last century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,” which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have had smaller but non-negligible effects on global mean temperature since 1950. While this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science, a few scientists disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming.
Models referenced by the IPCC predict that global temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The range of values reflects the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as uncertainties regarding climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if no further greenhouse gases are released after this date. This reflects the long average atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide (CO2).
== Ice Ages, CO2, Temp, last 450 thousand years.
CO2 now is going to new high levels compared to the range during this time period.
The last 2000 years have seen temp fluctuations of under 1 degree C until the recent period:
Estimates of CO2 levels over the last 500 million years graph:
== Hundreds of Millions of Years Ago CO2 much higher,
but Solar activity much lower. Sun is putting out more radiation now.
Prof: CO2 levels have been higher
Carbon dioxide not the only thing responsible for global warming
By: Chris Bone
Back then, Amy Frappier said, “the sun was 30 percent as bright – 70 percent dimmer.” The absence of complex life “to stabilize climate” also contributed to “rapid flips” when carbon dioxide levels would “lag between” temperature shifts.
As far as carbon dioxide itself is concerned, “at some point the heat-trapping capacity of [the gas] and its effect get saturated,” said Frappier, “and you don’t have increased heating.” In other words, the gas can’t trap heat indefinitely since its capacity to do so eventually plateaus.
== Saturation Issue
For he understood that even if the CO2 in the atmosphere did already absorb all the heat radiation passing through, adding more gas would change the height in the atmosphere where the absorption took place. That, he calculated, would make for warming.
Also what about Venus? CO2 is considered to cause its high temp together with other factors, so one can’t just claim saturation.
search “global warming” saturation
See point 15 of above for a good discussion of this issue.
== Establishment has to address saturation issue better
The critics bring up saturation in discussions in papers. The establishment acknowledges these as historical issues, but does not give quantitative discussions in white papers outside the model of the saturation issue and how they get around it. They say its the shoulder of the distribution that does the CO2 green house effect or upper atmosphere or a combination.
Since this is the whole green house effect from CO2 they need to have a quantitative discussion outside the model. Its not good enough to say its in the computer. For this to be the whole crux of the issue they need to have a quantitative discussion of the shoulder or whatever they claim is the mechanism in white papers. They need to link to the critics who have quantitative discussion with equations and show why the shoulders argument works.
This is not a time for the establishment to just say they are too arrogant to respond to critics on the internet. There are well written quantitative discussions of the saturation issue by critics and skeptics. The establishment needs to respond with white papers on the same level of readability that can be understood by someone with a basic calculus education, and that others can still get the gist of.
It can be expected that someone in the staff in Congress or the White House can follow an argument that uses a little calculus and can verify that the establishment claims make sense. If the establishment can’t explain how they get around the saturation issue at this level, then it has to be considered a major short coming. In that case, the government needs to put other people in charge who will deign to explain at this level the most critical element in the model.
Why doesn’t IPCC have entire computer codes on its webpage with detailed annotation? Why doesn’t it have a simplified spreadsheet?
Computer models have to be checked by little computer programs, spreadsheets, calculations on white papers, etc. Why are these not on the internet and documented? This is what the people maintaining the system think shows it works. Why is that not on the internet and pointed to by the IPCC or Gore or other advocates?
Saying its in the computer model full stop is not acceptable. Nor is it how such models are actually developed, checked or maintained. They don’t just take the output as given without trying to check it.
== IPCC the Establishment pro-warming position
Note that their documents are poorly written compared to the skeptics like Gerald E. Marsh. They have a big committee that came up with documents that do a poor job explaining. They have an attitude of talking down, i.e. they don’t have the burden to explain. Their attitude is that anyone who doesn’t understand what they wrote is stupid and could never understand it. This is not the attitude of good writers even of technical books. The Feynman Lectures or even Halliday and Resnick have a much higher standard of writing than this committee.
4. Atmospheric Chemistry and Greenhouse Gases
This is where the saturation issue should be discussed.
4.1.2 Atmospheric Chemistry and Feedbacks
==excerpt AIP on saturation as key issue in history of
climate science and global warming:
Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius’s calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid.(6) A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, Knut Ångström sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. He put in as much of the gas in total as would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas in half or doubled it. The reason was that CO2 absorbed radiation only in specific bands of the spectrum, and it took only a trace of the gas to produce bands that were “saturated” — so thoroughly opaque that more gas could make little difference.(7*)
Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely.(8) After these conclusions were published in the early 1900s, even scientists who had been enthusiastic about Arrhenius’s work, like Chamberlin, now considered it plainly in error. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.(9)
AIP, the American Insitute of Physics, identifies the saturation issue as key to the history of global warming. Yet IPCC ignores it. Why? This is the issue of mechanism.
== Continuation of AIP discussion
These measurements inspired the theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan to grind through some extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere the saturation of CO2 lines should be weak. Thus adding more of the gas would make a difference in the high layers, changing the overall balance of the atmosphere. Meanwhile, precise laboratory measurements found that the most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through.(25)
This is the whole issue of global warming by CO2. Yet IPCC ignores it in their report on the “science”.
AIP Footnote on saturation:
7. Ångström (1900); a leading expert dismissing CO2 because of saturation was Humphreys (1913), pp. 134-35; but while denying that doubling the amount in the atmosphere would “appreciably affect the total amount of radiation actually absorbed,” he did note that it would “affect the vertical distribution or location of the absorption,” Humphreys (1920), p. 58; on CO2 saturation, Schaefer (1905), p. 104. BACK
== IPCC ignores saturation issue?
IPCC ignores saturation issue? Saturation issue is that effect of CO2 diminishes because of water vapor or because a little CO2 achieves the same absorption as a lot. This has been a basic issue for decades in this field. See AIP history link.
search saturation site:ipcc.ch
“Your search – “gerald e marsh” global warming primer site:ipcc.ch – did not match any documents. ” March 22, 2007. So IPCC doesn’t respond to even well written papers skeptical of global warming.
Shouldn’t they respond to the critics before they ask us to make changes in our lives? They don’t respond to any critic or skeptic at all on their website?
search skeptics site:ipcc.ch
“Results 1 – 1 of 1 from ipcc.ch for skeptics. (“
“Additionally, we pay attention to criticism directly and as a reaction on articles published (popular and scientific) by
But where is it?
==IPCC Global Warming claim is <b> Undocumented </b>
Without documenting the saturation mechanism and how they get around it, the IPCC’s claim of global warming from CO2 is an undocumented claim, at least on their website.
The computer programmers for the global warming systems, if they are professionals, may have a calculus type level of knowledge of math. Someone had to explain to them what to program. Even if Ph.D.’s did the programming, the system should be documentable to system programmers who have only a knowledge of calculus.
This system documentation needs to be provided. They also have to provide a white paper on the saturation issue and the mechanism of global warming by CO2. Until the IPCC does this, their claim of global warming should be considered insufficiently documented.
==IPCC needs to say what global mean temperature is and prove it.
One sees numbers from 12 to 15 degrees C. Which is right? Most charts use change in temperature. Why? Because they don’t know what the temperature is. If they used 15 and then its 14, the chart is wrong. By using change in temperature they avoid the problem that they don’t know the temperature to within an error of less than one degree. But that is the claimed change. This is a major problem. Also by using change in temperature to hide that they don’t know temperature they damage their credibility once this is exposed as the reason. They should footnote every chart using change in temperature that the reason is they don’t know the temperature of the earth to an accuracy less than the claimed change, i.e the error in the global mean temperature is bigger than the claimed change.
Saturation may be addressed under radiative transfer. We consider that here.
–More Skeptics from this search
==Richard Linzen MIT Prof
The surface of the Earth is cooled in large measure by air currents (in various forms including deep clouds) that carry heat upward and poleward. One consequence of this picture is that it is the greenhouse gases well above the Earth’s surface that are of primary importance in determining the temperature of the Earth.
IPCC and other proponents of global warming thus need to document their calculations in the upper atmosphere. Gore said in his testimony on March 21, 2007 that it was undisputed that increased CO2 in the lower atmosphere causes global warming. Lindzen disputes that.
In September 2003 Lindzen wrote an open letter to the mayor of Newton, Massachusetts (Lindzen’s home), his views on global warming and the Kyoto Accord. He says “… [T]he impact of CO2 on the Earth’s heat budget is nonlinear. What this means is that although CO2 has only increased about 30% over its pre-industrial level, the impact on the heat budget of the Earth due to the increases in CO2 and other man influenced greenhouse substances has already reached about 75% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2, and that the temperature rise seen so far is much less (by a factor of 2-3) than models predict (assuming that all of the very irregular change in temperature over the past 120 years or so—about 1 degree F—is due to added greenhouse gases—a very implausible assumption).”.
Of the Kyoto Accord, he claims there is no “controversy over the fact that the Kyoto Protocol, itself, will do almost nothing to stabilize CO2. Capping CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generated will have a negligible impact on CO2 levels”
search Richard S. Lindzen
–Fair and balanced? attack on Lindzen
–Lindzen: WSJ Editorial 2006
“But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.
Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming–not whether it would actually happen.
==Climate Sensitivity Parameter Dispute
Lindzen also says there is little cause for concern in the future. The key to his optimism is a parameter called “climate sensitivity.” This variable represents the increase in global temperature expected if the amount of carbon dioxide in the air doubles over preindustrial levels–a level the earth is already one third of the way toward reaching. Whereas the IPCC and the NAS calculate climate sensitivity to be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees C, Lindzen insists that it is in the neighborhood of 0.4 degree.
The IPCC and the NAS derived the higher range after incorporating positive feedback mechanisms. For instance, warmer temperatures will most likely shrink the earth’s snow and ice cover, making the planet less reflective and thus hastening warming, and will also probably increase evaporation of water. Water vapor, in fact, is the main absorber of heat in the atmosphere.
But such positive feedbacks “have neither empirical nor theoretical foundations,” Lindzen told the U.S. Senate commerce committee this past May. The scientist says negative, not positive, feedback rules the day.
==Positive v. Negative Feedback Issue
The environment to be stable has to have primarily negative feedback. Thus negative feedback dominates. If positive dominated, then we would die quickly. 500 million years of stability tells us negative feedback is dominant. We live in a negative feedback system.
Can there be small positive feedbacks? This is the claim of the IPCC. They are saying that there are some small positive feedbacks, but then dominate feedbacks take over.
The claim of positive feedbacks that dominate has to be considered a claim that has to prove itself. In a system dominated by negative feedbacks, we don’t expect to see positive ones. In effect, the environment has searched for positive feedbacks and then evolved some mechanism to control them with dominant negative feedbacks. The species alive today have evolved to control positive feedbacks in the environment and make them negative instead.
==How to forecast on Wall Street.
The market will go down a little and then up a lot. This is the basic forecast to use. Then if it goes up, you say you were right on the main thing. If it goes down, you say you were right that it would go down. Then you issue your new forecast, up a little then down and then back up a lot.
Its strange that when we do searches on technical terms related to CO2 as a cause of global warming that get down to the real physics, what we find are skeptics. The skeptics get down to the real physics and the search engines find them. But we don’t find them repudiated by the main sites.
When we get an establishment site like AIP, American Institute of Physics, they tell us why people thought CO2 couldn’t cause global warming in words we can understand. Then at the end, they say but that was wrong and its in the model. At that point, intuitive explanations end and we are just told its in the computer. Well, if the programmers can check the computer, tell us what they were told to program and how they checked that it is in there.
search Hendrik Tennekes
==Science of atmosphere in more depth
http://www.john-daly.com/links.htm (skeptic links as well)
==Skepticism on Models
101 hits. The proponents of global warming don’t respond to even well done criticism and skepticism such that of Marsh it appears. The same applies to searches on Heinz Hug.
Regardless, climate models are made interesting by the inclusion of “positive feedbacks” (multiplier effects) so that a small temperature increment expected from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide invokes large increases in water vapor, which seem to produce exponential rather than logarithmic temperature response in the models. It appears to have become something of a game to see who can add in the most creative feedback mechanisms to produce the scariest warming scenarios from their models but there remains no evidence the planet includes any such effects or behaves in a similar manner.
==Heinz Hug Skeptic
==T J Nelson Skeptic “Cold Facts on Global Warming”
==List of scientists said to be skeptics, Leipzig Declaration
Debunking the list?
A set of graphs at following. Very informative.
Biodiversity is very high now compared to the last 500 million years. Its at an all time high. This may stabilize climiate itself. Mass extinction of species apart from climate change could erode this temp stability.
Atmospheric CO2 has been estimated in the remote past at many times current levels. But temp was only 6 to 8 deg C higher according to some estimates. Current CO2 has risen from 310 to 380 from 1960 to 2007. But in the past C02 has been many mutliples of 310.
==10C Temp Rise and Dead Ocean Scenario
One hypothesis is that if the bottom of the oceans rise by 5C this could release methane from there that would raise temperature another 5C. This 10C rise could be enough to take the oxygen out of the oceans. This happened in the past and resulted in an almost 90 percent extinction of species. This could happen in 100 years?
Siberia also has methane that could be released by a rise in temperature, and is already being released. This would not be as much as the oceans? This could be enough to get the 5C rise that might then trigger the 5C rise from releasing methane at the bottom of the oceans. However, it might be that even a 10C rise in temperature on the surface would not automatically trigger a melting of the methance at the sea bottom.
==Graph CO2 Tracks Temp Rise 1850 to 2007 but sunspots
The CO2 line is what is measured at those locations not what they emit at those locations.
== Solar Variation
The IPCC TAR view is that forcing from solar variations is considerably smaller than forcing from greenhouse gases. Measured as a difference from 1750, GHG forcing is estimated as 2.4 W/m2 compared to 0.3 W/m2 from solar 
The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this might increase the global temperature by an additional 5° in itself, as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Geologist Gerry Dickens suggested that the increased carbon-12 could have been rapidly released by upswellings of frozen methane hydrate from the seabeds. Experiments to assess how large a rise in deep sea temperature would be required to sublimate solid methane hydrate suggested that a rise of 5°C (10 F) would be sufficient.
The Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) extinction event, sometimes informally called the Great Dying, was an extinction event that occurred approximately 251 million years ago (mya), forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods. It was the Earth’s most severe extinction event, with about 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.
Oceanic anoxic events occur when the Earth‘s oceans become completely depleted of oxygen (O2) below the surface levels. Although anoxic events have not happened for millions of years, the geological record shows that they happened many times in the past, and may have caused mass extinctions.
The sequence of events leading to the anoxic oceans would have been:
- Global warming reduced the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles.
- The reduction in the temperature gradient slowed or perhaps stopped the thermohaline circulation.
- The slow-down or stoppage of the thermohaline circulation prevented the dispersal of nutrients washed from the land to the sea, causing eutrophication (excessive growth of algae), which reduced the oxygen level in the sea.
- The slow-down or stoppage of the thermohaline circulation also caused oceanic overturn – surface water sank (it has more salinity than deep water because of evaporation caused by the sun) and was replaced by anoxic deep water.
A rapid increase in “glacial earthquakes” – caused by sudden large movements of glaciers – over the past few years indicates that warmer temperatures will destroy the Greenland ice sheet faster than expected, a new study warns.
Ekström reports that quakes ranged from six to 15 per year from 1993 to 2002, then jumped to 20 in 2003, 23 in 2004, and 32 in the first 10 months of 2005 – matching an increase in Greenland temperatures.
search earthquakes Greenland ice
search mass extinction species
Gore Urges Congress to Act on Global Warming
By Debbi Wilgoren, Shailagh Murray and Bill Brubaker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 21, 2007; 6:02 PM
” CO2 ‘highest for 650,000 years’”
== Discussion/Debate on CO2 and Temp
Gore at hearings discussion:
== Issues and Answers
Lag or lead? or CO2 increases the effect once triggered, however triggered? One answer is that changes in earth’s orbit, tilt, triggered changes in albedo that then were reinforced by CO2 releases to cause warming episodes.
Humans could substitute for the trigger. So if we start it going, and then methane in Siberia or the oceans is released, it could pick up. Note that for the last 600,000 years or more, temperature has never been as high as now?
Why does America’s global warming emissions produce huge condemnation, while China’s is ignored, often from the global warming community?
“Scientists condemn US as emissions of greenhouse gases hit record level”
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 19 April 2006
== James Inhofe
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 13, 2007
Kling global warming model dependent (but is it robust?)
Arnold Kling, thinks warming masked by smoke.
That’s no mystery. CO2 is a linear molecule with a small number of absorption lines in the infrared, and they are all saturated already. This means that adding more CO2 increases absorption only among molecules at the extreme edges of the velocity distribution, and that absorption increases as the log of CO2 abundance. This is exactly what is required to convert an exponential driving force to a linear response.
In any case it’s not obvious that the CO2 abundance will grow exponentially.
Posted June 4, 2006 02:43 PM”
==Quote on Saturation Issue:
- A persistent argument used by proponents of solar climate forcing is supported by the
physics of CO2 infrared opacity (band saturation) at wavelengths of the electromagnetic
spectrum where CO2 atmospheric heating occurs.David Archer has written in “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, 2005″
geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/PS134/ Chapter 3 that wavelengths, wings on either
side of the 600 to 800 cycles/cm absorption band are modeled to be sufficient to
continue trapping from 2ºC to 5ºC of heat.A counterpoint to this argument is exemplified by Gerald Marsh in his “Global
Warming Primer” (www.nationalcenter.org/NPA420.pdf) where he claims…”additional
carbon dioxide does have an influence at the edges of the 14.99 micron band. Because
of this marginal effect, the change in forcing due to a change in carbon dioxide
concentration is proportional to the natural logarithm of the fractional change in
concentration of this gas.”
“Specifically, the IPCC gives (change in forcing) dF = 6.3 ln (C/C0) W/m2 where dF
is the change in forcing, and C0 and C are the initial and final carbon dioxide
concentrations. [...] The Earth’s temperature is therefore relatively insensitive to
changes in carbon dioxide concentrations, a doubling leading to a dF of only
4.4 W/m2.”Archer writes:
“If the edges of the absorption bands were completely abrupt, as if CO2 absorbed 600
cycles/cm light completely and 599 cycles/cm light not at all, then once an absorption
band from a gas was saturated, that would it. Further increases in the concentration of the
gas would have no impact on the radiation energy budget for the earth. CO2, the most
saturated of the greenhouse gases, would stop changing climate after it exceeded some
concentration. It turns out that this is not how it works. Even though the core of the CO2
band is saturated, the edges of the band are not saturated. When we increase the CO2
concentration, the bite that CO2 takes out of the spectrum doesn’t get deeper, but it gets a
“The bottom line is that the energy intensity Iout in units of W/m2 goes up
proportionally to the log of the CO2 concentration, rather than proportionally to the CO2
concentration itself (we say linear in CO2 concentration). The logarithmic dependence
means that you get the same Iout change in W/m2 from any doubling of the CO2
concentration. The radiative effect of going from 10 to 20 µatm pCO2 is the same as
going from 100 to 200 µatm, or 1000 to 2000 µatm. “They both seem to be saying the same thing. For Marsh “the Earth’s temperature is
therefore relatively insensitive to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations.” For
Archer the models predict a rise in temperature of 2ºC to 5ºC.
Which is it?
[Response: They are both saying the same thing. The only possible confusion would be in what Marsh is comparing the CO2 sensitivity with. From the context, it's clear that he is comparing it to a gas with less (or no) saturation, and therefore the Earth is 'relatively' insensitive to CO2. i.e. for the other gas the absorption would go linearly or something with concentration. It is despite this 'relative' insensitivity that CO2 still gives a forcing of around 4W/m2 if it doubles. -gavin]
=end of quote