If they changed global warming to climate change it must have happened back in the 1980's or before. Otherwise we'd have the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming instead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (formed in 1988). Actually I've seen reference to both terms in papers from the 1950's.
The CO2-warming relationship has been known for over 100 years. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius wrote:
if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Please go read up on the carbon cycle. In the carbon cycle a lot of CO2 is released each year but the same amount more or less of CO2 is absorbed each year. That's why the CO2 level in the atmosphere has hovered around 280 ppm for about 10,000 years, since the end of the last glaciation. Since 1830 CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 395 ppm in 2012, a 41% increase. Even 1% per year means you double it in 100 years (or less if you compound it).
tbannist is right, only about 43% of the CO2 emitted by humans each year serves to increase the atmospheric level. Most of the rest is absorbed by the oceans. What we're doing by digging up and burning fossil fuels that have been sequestered for 10's-100's of millions of years is increasing the total amount of carbon in the active carbon cycle but the relative distribution between the various sources and sinks remains about the same which leads to increased carbon in all of them.
1 degree over the next 100 years, 2 degrees over the next fifty years, 4 degrees over the next 25 years.
Quite the piece of hyperbole there. No one is predicting 4C over 25 years and you're being alarmist by saying it. I have seen some research lately that says 4C by 2100 (87 years) is possible if we continue business as usual.
With your current +2 Insightful mod it looks like you blew it by posting AC if you care that much about your karma.
Any individual weather event is like a roll of dice, difficult to predict (unless they're loaded). Climate is like the result of 10,000 rolls of the same dice, relatively easy to predict within known error margins. Climate is more complex but the same principle applies.
The GOP has always used bigotry and religion to get regular people to vote against their own best interests... (emphasis added)
You'd think that only if you're young. When I was growing up in the 1950's & 60's the GOP was not like that. A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that didn't start to change until Nixon decided to employ the Southern Strategy in the 1968 election. They also held the religious nutters at arms length back then. I think Roe vs. Wade had a good deal to do with that changing.
The Republicans were reasonably sane back then and I even voted for several of them, notably Mark Hatfield and Tom McCall. There are very few people like them left in today's GOP, especially at the national level, they've all been purged.
I think so far the sales curve of electric cars pretty well matches the sales curve of hybrids when they first came out a decade+ ago. It takes time to ramp things up.
Ok, do you want me to write a tl;dr reply? The fact is warming of the lower atmosphere and cooling of the upper atmosphere is not contradictory when it's caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. If the warming were caused by increases in solar radiation then both the lower and upper atmosphere would warm. All it takes is some physics to understand why.
Nothing to apologize for. It happens to me too from time to time.
What's amazing to me is that Montana has a Democrat Governor and 2 Democratic Senators. And the incoming Governor and Lt. Governor are D's too. I'm fairly impressed by Brian Schweitzer when I hear him. I wonder what he's going to to do after he leaves office.
You'll forgive me if I have more confidence in the people who are actively studying a subject than I do in someone like you. Over the years I've seen too many instances where a cursory examination of something leads to the wrong conclusions. Your conclusion that a rise at one measuring site for sea level means and equal rise all around the world ocean is demonstrably wrong as physical oceanographers would tell you.
Don't worry, it won't be more than a decade, two at the outside before the effects of climate change become undeniable. Obvious enough for anyone with the least connection with reality to realize it's a problem.
O2 and N2 are both basically transparent to IR radiation. CO2 is still the most abundant and likely molecule at those altitudes to possibly capture the IR radiation..
If you really knew anything about it you'd realize that the reason there is less drag on satellites is because the atmosphere by contracting has become less dense at the altitudes the satellites are orbiting. It has little or nothing to do with gravity. I guess the contraction could change the gravitational gradient slightly but I wonder if even the GRACE satellites could measure it.
Sorry to burst your bubble but none of those things you mentioned would change the total amount of carbon in the carbon cycle so they would have had no long term effects. It was all just getting circulated through various parts of the cycle. It's the carbon that has been buried for 100's of millions of years that we are digging up and putting back into active circulation that is the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
If they changed global warming to climate change it must have happened back in the 1980's or before. Otherwise we'd have the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming instead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (formed in 1988). Actually I've seen reference to both terms in papers from the 1950's.
The CO2-warming relationship has been known for over 100 years. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius wrote:
if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Of course many of the mass extinctions in the past were caused by drastic climate change and that's the way we're headed now.
We had the greatest biomass and biodiversity in the planets history when the entire planet was JUNGLE ASS SWEAT HOT.
Notice though that the driving economies of the world are usually found in the temperate zones.
Very illuminating.
Please go read up on the carbon cycle. In the carbon cycle a lot of CO2 is released each year but the same amount more or less of CO2 is absorbed each year. That's why the CO2 level in the atmosphere has hovered around 280 ppm for about 10,000 years, since the end of the last glaciation. Since 1830 CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 395 ppm in 2012, a 41% increase. Even 1% per year means you double it in 100 years (or less if you compound it).
tbannist is right, only about 43% of the CO2 emitted by humans each year serves to increase the atmospheric level. Most of the rest is absorbed by the oceans. What we're doing by digging up and burning fossil fuels that have been sequestered for 10's-100's of millions of years is increasing the total amount of carbon in the active carbon cycle but the relative distribution between the various sources and sinks remains about the same which leads to increased carbon in all of them.
Last I heard the estimate was that man-made causes are responsible for 80-120% of the observed warming.
1 degree over the next 100 years, 2 degrees over the next fifty years, 4 degrees over the next 25 years.
Quite the piece of hyperbole there. No one is predicting 4C over 25 years and you're being alarmist by saying it. I have seen some research lately that says 4C by 2100 (87 years) is possible if we continue business as usual.
With your current +2 Insightful mod it looks like you blew it by posting AC if you care that much about your karma.
Where are you going to get the water to cool the reactor?
Any individual weather event is like a roll of dice, difficult to predict (unless they're loaded). Climate is like the result of 10,000 rolls of the same dice, relatively easy to predict within known error margins. Climate is more complex but the same principle applies.
The 20-yr linear trend for the UAH LT is a statistically significant +0.20 +/- 0.04 C/decade (uncertainty is the 95% confidence level).
If you're paying 70-80% of your income in taxes you're doing it wrong.
The GOP has always used bigotry and religion to get regular people to vote against their own best interests... (emphasis added)
You'd think that only if you're young. When I was growing up in the 1950's & 60's the GOP was not like that. A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that didn't start to change until Nixon decided to employ the Southern Strategy in the 1968 election. They also held the religious nutters at arms length back then. I think Roe vs. Wade had a good deal to do with that changing.
The Republicans were reasonably sane back then and I even voted for several of them, notably Mark Hatfield and Tom McCall. There are very few people like them left in today's GOP, especially at the national level, they've all been purged.
I think so far the sales curve of electric cars pretty well matches the sales curve of hybrids when they first came out a decade+ ago. It takes time to ramp things up.
Ok, do you want me to write a tl;dr reply? The fact is warming of the lower atmosphere and cooling of the upper atmosphere is not contradictory when it's caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. If the warming were caused by increases in solar radiation then both the lower and upper atmosphere would warm. All it takes is some physics to understand why.
Nothing to apologize for. It happens to me too from time to time.
What's amazing to me is that Montana has a Democrat Governor and 2 Democratic Senators. And the incoming Governor and Lt. Governor are D's too. I'm fairly impressed by Brian Schweitzer when I hear him. I wonder what he's going to to do after he leaves office.
You'll forgive me if I have more confidence in the people who are actively studying a subject than I do in someone like you. Over the years I've seen too many instances where a cursory examination of something leads to the wrong conclusions. Your conclusion that a rise at one measuring site for sea level means and equal rise all around the world ocean is demonstrably wrong as physical oceanographers would tell you.
That's true of every state except Vermont I think. It's written into their Constitutions.
Don't worry, it won't be more than a decade, two at the outside before the effects of climate change become undeniable. Obvious enough for anyone with the least connection with reality to realize it's a problem.
I don't see how gerrymandering has any effect on why your Congressman is Republican since the whole state is one congressional district.
It should be "secession".
O2 and N2 are both basically transparent to IR radiation. CO2 is still the most abundant and likely molecule at those altitudes to possibly capture the IR radiation..
If you really knew anything about it you'd realize that the reason there is less drag on satellites is because the atmosphere by contracting has become less dense at the altitudes the satellites are orbiting. It has little or nothing to do with gravity. I guess the contraction could change the gravitational gradient slightly but I wonder if even the GRACE satellites could measure it.
Sorry to burst your bubble but none of those things you mentioned would change the total amount of carbon in the carbon cycle so they would have had no long term effects. It was all just getting circulated through various parts of the cycle. It's the carbon that has been buried for 100's of millions of years that we are digging up and putting back into active circulation that is the problem.
No, as the article states the result of this contraction is to reduce drag on the satellites extending their orbital life.
Ozone is very reactive so it doesn't last too long in the troposphere. The ozone layer in the stratosphere is there because that's where it was formed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer#Origin_of_ozone