September 22, 2010
Climate Engineering Delivers Uneven Costs And Benefits

Your position on climate engineering might be driven by how it will change rains and temperatures where you live.

Reflecting sunlight from the Earth by geoengineering would undoubtedly cool the climate, but would different countries agree on how much to reflect? Research by climate scientists at the University of Bristol shows that the impact of geoengineering would be felt in very different ways across the world.

Previous studies of geoengineering approaches, aimed at averting dangerous climate change, have shown that although the average global temperature could be restored to 'normal' levels, some regions would remain too warm, whereas others would 'overshoot' and cool to much. In addition, average rainfall would be reduced.

People in coastal and low land regions are most likely to look at human-caused global warming from the vantage point of ice melts and ocean level rises. They've got more to lose from rising ocean levels than they have to lose or gain from changes in local temperatures or rains. But in other areas impacts on crops or on average comfort will weigh more heavily.

Doing engineering to climate to cool the planet introduces other effects on precipitation and the temperature changes are not uniform.

Their analysis revealed that with increasing geoengineering strength, most regions become drier while others buck the trend and become increasingly wet. For example, the USA became drier with increasing geoengineering, and returned to normal conditions under half-strength geoengineering, whereas Australia became wetter, returning to normal conditions only for full strength geoengineering

Even within a single country there's no consistent net benefit or cost to climate engineering. If your daily experience is the weather of Fairbanks Alaska then warming will likely deliver a big net benefit. But Phoenix Arizona is already hot enough without any additional warming.

In a very wet region a decrease in rain intensity might be welcome. But in US Western states or Australia more rain would deliver a net benefit given already limited water supplies. Cooling would also enable more snow pack to survive into summer to supply more water for crops in dry months.

I expect climate engineering will be done eventually. But it will be highly divisive among nations because it will create winners and losers within and between nations.

Share |      Randall Parker, 2010 September 22 10:19 PM  Climate Engineering


Comments
Biobob said at September 22, 2010 11:29 PM:

LOL

These modelers are just so funny - they apparently actually believe the output of models which have already demonstrated their inability to predict anything even approximating accuracy.

If, as you predict, climate engineering will be done eventually using current data & models, my prediction is that the engineering's goals will not be met and are more likely to result in EPIC FAIL.

Randall, you should know better; since when have local weather forecasts been consistently accurate past 3 or 4 days in the future? These models predictions are just about as accurate as those used by the local weatherman; = not at all past some small finite period.

As far as the data is concerned, take a gander at this and weep: http://notrickszone.com/A Light In Siberia

Bruce said at September 23, 2010 9:41 AM:

GISTEMP, NASA's temperature index, gets most of its current data from airports. Airports covered in concrete and asphault that absorb heat during the day and radiate it at night causing evening temperatures to stay higher than they should be which has caused a slight upward change in the average temperatures ... of airports!

And it still isn't any warmer than 1998.

And, if they really accounted properly for UHI, it would still be cooler than the 1930s.

Climate Disruption (nee Climate Change ... nee Global Warming) is a scam.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/15/giss-worlds-airports-continue-to-run-warmer-than-row/

"Once again, the bulk of temperatures comprising the present-day worldwide GISS average come from airports in this case 554 airports, according to the NOAA metadata from the V2 station inventory. In the US, the ratio of airports to total stations continues to run very high, with 121 out of the 134 reporting stations being located at airports."

Engineer-Poet said at September 23, 2010 8:21 PM:

If temperatures aren't rising, why is global permafrost area shrinking and the Ross ice shelf looking like it's going to break up?

taylor45 said at September 24, 2010 12:56 AM:

These people were just making things difficult. They're just contributing to make it more complicated. Let's just be contented with what the nature is giving us. After all, this is the result of human interventions to our nature to suit our needs.

Biobob said at September 24, 2010 12:58 AM:

"why is global permafrost area shrinking and the Ross ice shelf looking like it's going to break up?"

I don't think any rational person would say that weather does not change from year to year, decade to decade, place to place, etc.

Cyclical recurring climactic behavior (eg. Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO), North Atlantic oscillation (NAO))are likely what all the AGW fuss is mostly about, rather than entirely CO2 based greenhouse effect, or some watery tart throwing swords. THAT is why warming has been observed in some places BUT I caution you that evidence for GLOBAL warming is likely erroneous. Some places get warmer while other get colder - that's just how it is in chaotic global heat engines.

So, northern latitude warming is correlated with the NAO as shown in http://notrickszone.com/ A Light In Siberia. BUT correlation is NOT causation. The problem is that we (humans) do NOT KNOW what the climate variability is actually caused by; we only guess at this point. The important point is that we KNOW that warming has repeatedly occurred in the recent past - melting exposed recently ice covered Viking farming communities, graves, etc. when CO2 was not at current concentrations. Greenland ice cores ALL show repeating warm periods in the last 10k years WELL BEFORE any atmospheric CO2 increases.

Antarctic ice volume and extent has actually been INCREASING for decades. Floating ice shelves always break due to sea action, wind, etc. Temperature reporting from the Antarctic is suspect - too few stations and bad data - even cooked data, sad but true.

Mostly, I think we are suffering from a human point of view rather than a geologic point of view. Climate is NOT 30 years - it is thousands of years. We will just have to be patient and see what happens since we understand so little. We are small and ignorant and the solar system / universe is large and complex. Keep saying that to yourself.

Engineer-Poet said at September 24, 2010 7:43 AM:

We're in a large, complex system... and our activities have sent one of the forcing functions (CO2 concentration) up to levels it hasn't seen in 30 million years. If anyone proposed doing what we're doing when we were at the 285 ppm baseline, he would have been accused of insane recklessness. Just because we're already at 390 ppm doesn't change the recklessness of doing it.

Biobob said at September 24, 2010 9:08 AM:

"forcing functions (CO2 concentration) up to levels it hasn't seen in 30 million years"

1) historical CO2 concentrations are speculation at best - we have bad proxies, worse proxies and bullshit. What we DO know is that all this CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere CAME FROM THE ATMOSPHERE in the past. We also KNOW that climactic conditions were much the same as today for EONS with greater than 1,200 - 2,400 ppm vs ~390 ppm CO2 today. I am not worried.

2) Absolutely NO ONE has conclusively demonstrated that changing CO2 concentrations from 280 to 390 or 2400 ppm has had ANY discernible effect on climate or temperatures. This AGW meme is based on speculation, correlation and modeling PERIOD. IMO, since we KNOW that 'greenhouse effects' are also caused by water vapor concentration and those concentrations are MUCH MUCH larger than CO2 concentrations, water vapor is MUCH more likely to affect climate. But at it's base, the SUN and our interactions with the SUN is the driver of our global heat engine and climate.

3) your being alive is reckless - lol - everything is reckless from some point of view - please quantify the amount of recklessness. jeeze. keep in mind the mantra "we are insignificant, small and the universe is large and complex". you will live your four score and pass from this mortal coil without the earth or universe caring or noticing one iota. Earth and the fecund life it spawns will abide for a while longer no doubt.

Engineer-Poet said at September 25, 2010 12:01 PM:

Biobob is the epitome of the denialist.

1) historical CO2 concentrations are speculation at best
The last 800,000 years are known directly from measurements of the Vostok ice core and other data.
What we DO know is that all this CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere CAME FROM THE ATMOSPHERE in the past.
Yes... some hundreds of millions of years ago.  Note that the Sun brightens at a rate of about 1% per 100 million years, so the greenhouse effect must decrease over time to keep the climate relatively constant; the removal of that CO2 was essential.
We also KNOW that climactic conditions were much the same as today for EONS
Falsehood.  We know that the entire world was ice-free over much of the past.
Absolutely NO ONE has conclusively demonstrated that changing CO2 concentrations from 280 to 390 or 2400 ppm has had ANY discernible effect on climate or temperatures.
We have reason to suspect that the Cryogenian era was ended by increases in atmospheric CO2 during a period when a "snowball Earth" prevented water vapor from contributing significantly to the greenhouse effect.  That's just the geological evidence; we also have what we know from the behavior of IR radiation in air.  Or are you going to deny that too?
your being alive is reckless - lol - everything is reckless from some point of view
Fallacious argument.  Among other things, it begs the questions of what's acceptably risky, and who gets to decide?  Otherwise you have no answer when I say it should be just fine to conduct above-ground nuclear tests upwind of you, because there are riskier things and you have an eventual 100% chance of death anyway.

On the other hand, if we could just persuade you and your fellow denialists to sit on bleachers over the bomb, we'd resolve a bunch of the social issues by default.  If you asked why you'd want to be there, we'd just give you your own answer back:  "your being alive is reckless, so shut up and smile while you wait for the flash."

Biobob said at September 25, 2010 7:04 PM:

LOL

You are a typical warmist - full of religious zeal, faith, and irrationality

measurement of "captured" atmosphere in ice cores is based on so many assumptions, that any RATIONAL person has plenty of basis for skepticism of the accuracy of the reported results. like all other proxies, the assumptions are large and the accuracy of conclusions are suspect. certainly, current proxies are useless for determining ACTUAL CO2 concentrations, while they may perhaps be useful for internally relative measures, with many caveats.

wow hundreds of million of years - big deal, a geologic heartbeat if so, and likely wrong in any case - you 'believe' the sun brightens 1% per 100 million years - i say likely bullshit just like all of AGW 'science' except nobody has any data to manipulate re in the changing "brightness" of the sun as opposed to the fraudulent manipulations of such scientists as Robert Mann or the HADCrue - these are not scientists, they are crooked priests. "Hide the decline" in their morals. they deserve to be fired from their positions for FRAUD, and serve jail time for misappropriating public funds and that's just what may happen. Be afraid when the prosecutor appears dood - he is after YOU.

"We know that the entire world was ice-free over much of the past."

I don't know which planet YOU are from but earth has repeatedly had its polar latitudes covered by ice sheets. We call them ice-ages dood. We know about them from plenty of physical evidence we can see today, unlike the mythical global warming you espouse which can only be seen by minions of the church of AGW, and nobody else. In any case, that has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the point that AGW types have absolutely no proof or demonstrated scientific basis to conclude increasing CO2 has any effect on climate.

Even your heavily manipulated inappropriately summarized land temp history demonstrates trivial temperature change only in certain places. Probably more the result of your manipulations than of reality.

suspect anything you like, i don't mind but don't expect anyone else to join you. you guys are sick. perfectly willing to incinerate anybody who disagrees with your religion - sounds like AUTO-DA-FE to me and you sound like an inquisitor. I feel sorry for you dood, you are not only irrational, stupid, but also a miserable excuse for a human. I sure as hell would not want YOU to decide anything whatever.


anonyq said at September 26, 2010 7:57 AM:

Ice core measurements look to me to be based on very rational and logical assumptions who are very unlikely to be proven wrong. As far as i understand it they measure gas bubbles in ice that was formed by compacting snow so i would love to hear what their assumptions are
and which you find suspect.


Hundreds of millions of years isn't a geologic heartbeat. Solar system only exists for 5 billion years and earth in it present state, planet with atmospheric oxygen and multicellular life, which has a big geological influence, is a billion.
There is a whole field of science that is occupied by stars and they do have the answers to solar evolution. Measurement are not even difficult because of clusters and other groups of star of the same age.

Rio de Janeiro is most of the time snow free but that doesn't mean it never snows

Bruce said at September 26, 2010 8:30 AM:

EP: "The last 800,000 years are known directly from measurements of the Vostok ice core and other data"

And that data shows CO2 LAGS temperature, not the other way around.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/

If you look at the bottom graph - the 420,000yr record - you can see 5 major peaks in temperature. The current peak is still lower than the the other 4.

The pattern of peaks -- interglacials -- totally demolishes the warmenizers. Its a natural cycle. We have nothing to do with it.

Randall Parker said at September 26, 2010 11:43 AM:

Bruce,

I do not see the lags as meaning that CO2 isn't the long term cause. If a short term cause makes a bit of warming happen then more CO2 is freed up which drives the next warming step which drives more CO2 release which drives the next step. Take away the CO2 release as a positive feedback and then those initial kicks that start the climate in a direction would not have long term effects.

Guys,

Insults do not make your arguments more persuasive. In fact, they have the opposite effect.

Bruce said at September 26, 2010 2:18 PM:

There is no evidence CO2 is a positive feedback. Remember, it still isn't warmer than the 1930s in terms of statistical significance.

It is entirely possible than the 1930s peak was it. Its all downhill from there to the next ice age. Any perceived warming recently is just UHI artifacts caused by moving most of the thermometers to UHI contaminated airports.

The natural state of affairs is a negative feedback loop where everything eventually results in an ice age. The relatively short warming peaks are the anomaly. Maybe Co2 is in fact a negative feedback. It certainly looks like that on the Vostock graphs.

Randall Parker said at September 26, 2010 2:49 PM:

Bruce,

The evidence that CO2 is a positive feedback:

- Warming releases CO2 from water.
- CO2 continues to rise along with long warming periods (which we'd expect from the first point).
- CO2 absorbs IR.
- Absorption of IR causes warming.
- It is possible to calculate how much that IR absorption will cause in terms of warming and that is in line with the size of temperature swings out of a glacial period.
- There's not an obvious alternative candidate for the long warming periods coming out of glacials.

Bruce said at September 26, 2010 4:55 PM:

Randall, Ice Ages tend to last for 100,000 years and interglacials for about 10,000 years. Our interglacial is about 11,400 years long. Times up.

The natural cycle when an interglacial occurs is abrupt warming ... until it stops. Then gradual cooling until the next ice age occurs.

We are gradually cooling. The Holocene Optimum was warmer than the Roman Optimum and the MWP was cooler than the Roman Optimum. Our recent run of warmth is cooler than the MWP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

CO2 has never caused runaway warming. Therefore it is not a positive feedback. Its just a symptom of the warming.

Engineer-Poet said at September 26, 2010 8:08 PM:

All the claims that GHGs have no effect on climate are belied by the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). [Brittanica Real Climate Bowen paper Wikipedia]

Quoting the last:

The event is linked to a prominent negative excursion in carbon stable isotope (δ13C) records from across the globe, and dissolution of carbonate deposited on the seafloor of all ocean basins. The latter observations strongly suggest that a massive input of 13C-depleted carbon entered the ocean or atmosphere at the start of the PETM. The event has become a focal point of geoscience investigations because it is perhaps the best past analog in which to understand the fate and consequences of current fossil fuel emissions on an intermediate time-scale (>1000 years).

Randall Parker said at September 26, 2010 9:46 PM:

Bruce,

See figure 6 for the CO2 absorption spectrum. Why wouldn't it cause warming with that absorption spectrum? It prevents a fraction of IR from radiating into space that would otherwise radiate into space. So it acts like an insulator.

CO2 does not have to cause runaway warming to cause a positive feedback. Lots of feedback effects operate over limited ranges. No insulating material works that well.

Natural cycle: It has to have a cause I understand the mainstream explanation of climatologists: orbital changes in long cycles cause small forcing changes. Those small changes get positive feedback from CO2 that pushes the total warming or cooling much further than the orbital changes alone would do by themselves.

So if you do not think CO2 is the positive feedback that amplifies the forcing changes caused by orbital changes of Earth then what's your feedback mechanism?

Bruce said at September 27, 2010 10:51 AM:

From comments at the Air Vent:

"The CO2 absorption is already saturated for most of its IR lines, i.e., all IR generated by the heated surface is absorbed and thermalized by the atmosphere within less than 1 km of the surface, mostly within 30m. Adding extra CO2 only pushes the level at which the heating occurs closer to the surface, e.g., doubling CO2 drives 30m down to 15m. It does not add any more energy into the atmosphere. Extra CO2 causes extra heating if there are unsaturated lines left that allow IR to escape to space.

The real question is whether it matters that the heating from CO2 takes place within 30 m of the surface or 15m of the surface."

If you disagree with the above comment, please point me to any literature that disagrees.


Randall, as far as I can see, no significant warming has occurred since the peak in the 1930s. Yet, from 1910 to the peak in the 1930s, the warming that occurred was about the same as that which occurred from the late 1970s Ice Age Scare trough to 1998.

The warming cycles are natrual and occur with or without rise in CO2.

And temperatures stop rising and even fall when CO2 is rising ... even when they move all the thermometers in GIS to airports which are hoplessly contaminated by UHI.

CO2 rise occurs about 800 years after temperature rise. CO2 makes no difference other than being good for plants.

Engineer-Poet said at September 27, 2010 11:22 AM:
as far as I can see, no significant warming has occurred since the peak in the 1930s.
Given that measurements of the polar regions were spotty to non-existent over those periods, and proxy measures such as dates of rivers and lakes thawing indicate warming, one wonders what you're looking at to see this.

There's a couple of questions I think are good to determine certainty and open-mindedness:

  1. How much would you bet that your conclusion is correct?
  2. What processes or bodies would you trust to test your conclusion?
If the answer to #2 is something like "nobody else can tell me what to believe", you're outside the realm of reason and evidence and into blind faith.  Blind faith is notoriously unreliable in scientific matters; just ask any follower of Mary Baker Eddy who's had appendicitis or cancer (if you can find survivors).

Bruce said at September 27, 2010 1:43 PM:

Proxies? How about: 25 of the 50 US State Temperature records were set in the 1930s.

When the warmer's measure temperature, they graph the mean (the average). In fact, almost all of the claimed warming takes place in the Minimums, not the maximums. It isn't getting any hotter, it just isn't getting as cold as night or in winter.

That signature is one of UHI. Thermometers in airports. Lots of concrete and tarmac to absorb solar radiation in the day gets reradiated at night slightly warming the night temperatures.

As for Blind Faith ... take at look at the Vostok Ice core. A nice 100,000 year cycle of short periods of warming following by 90,000 years long ice ages. We aren't going to escape it!!! It will happen, and our civilization will disappear. Billions will starve as the crops fail. Solar power won't save us.

If there is a slight chance that man is actually warming the planet by .6C (which has happened 100s of times in the last 10,000 years without us) and it saves us from the next ice age, then hurrah!!!! But it won't. Co2 is a symptom. No the cause of the warming.

For 400,000 the cycle has come and gone but you crazies now claim that this cycle is caused by man, and all the others weren't!!!!

But you nutbars want to shoot SO2 into the atmosphere to hasten the end of the interglacial and start the next iceage!!!!!

Talk and Blind Stupidity!

Turboblocke said at September 27, 2010 1:45 PM:

Spot the logic error in Biobob's remarks:
"1) historical CO2 concentrations are speculation at best - we have bad proxies, worse proxies and bullshit. What we DO know is that all this CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere CAME FROM THE ATMOSPHERE in the past. We also KNOW that climactic conditions were much the same as today for EONS with greater than 1,200 - 2,400 ppm vs ~390 ppm CO2 today. I am not worried."

He claims historical CO2 concentrations are speculation at best - we have bad proxies, worse proxies and bullshit. And then he claims,"We also KNOW that climactic conditions were much the same as today for EONS with greater than 1,200 - 2,400 ppm vs ~390 ppm CO2 today."

Remind me again how do we know what climatic conditions were before? That wouldn't be by using proxies would it? Typical denier: doesn't know enough to know he's not making sense. Try looking up the Dunning Kruger effect.

Turboblocke said at September 27, 2010 2:04 PM:

Sorry Bruce another logic failure: "When the warmer's measure temperature, they graph the mean (the average). In fact, almost all of the claimed warming takes place in the Minimums, not the maximums. It isn't getting any hotter, it just isn't getting as cold as night or in winter.

That signature is one of UHI. Thermometers in airports. Lots of concrete and tarmac to absorb solar radiation in the day gets reradiated at night slightly warming the night temperatures. "

If you're getting more heat radiated at night, it means that the tarmac must be hotter during the day too.

You might also like to ponder:
a)why ocean temperatures are rising too?
b)why the satellite record agrees with the surfacr record?
c)why none of the scientists involved in measuring temperature haven't thought of the effect of tarmac? (Actually they have but it's interesting that you believe that they haven't)

Bruce said at September 27, 2010 4:53 PM:

"why ocean temperatures are rising too?"

At the moment they are plunging:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/still-cooling-sea-surface-temperatures-thru-august-18-2010/

"why the satellite record agrees with the surfacr record?'

Satellite measuring only started in the late 1970s. Which happen to be the coldest period in 70 years. We have zero idea what the 1930s or the MWP look like on satellite. But still lower than 1998. And in 2008 they pretty much matched the temps from 1980.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/02/august-global-temperature-still-in-a-holding-pattern/

"why none of the scientists involved in measuring temperature haven't thought of the effect of tarmac?"

Their grant money depends on alarmism. The more airports the better it is for scaring people.


Remember, the next ice age is coming. We'd be awfully lucky if a trace gas like CO2 would put it off. But it won't.

Engineer-Poet said at September 27, 2010 8:48 PM:
Proxies? How about: 25 of the 50 US State Temperature records were set in the 1930s.
The trend in temperature records doesn't support your thesis.  Incidentally, 37 states set nighttime high records this past summer.

I have to hand it to Anthony Watts, when he goes for dishonesty he relies on the gullibility of his readers instead of slanting the data.  His graph shows roughly equal numbers of record highs and lows in the 1930's, but in the last 2 decades it's all been record highs.

In fact, almost all of the claimed warming takes place in the Minimums, not the maximums. It isn't getting any hotter, it just isn't getting as cold as night or in winter.
Which is what the models predict (they also predict the strongest warming at the poles, which is also observed).  I fail to see how this is supposed to refute the models.

The polar warming predicted by the models will thaw permafrost and free methane currently trapped as clathrates.  Thawing permafrost and increased methane emissions are also being observed, and methane is a strong greenhouse gas (implicated in the PETM).  Why are we supposed to be complacent about this?

As for Blind Faith ... take at look at the Vostok Ice core. A nice 100,000 year cycle of short periods of warming following by 90,000 years long ice ages.
Look at the CO2 concentrations.  The highest value reached in cycles on record is a bit over 300 ppm.  We are currently at 390 ppm and going up at about 2 ppm/yr; we are creating conditions unprecedented in roughly the last 30 million years, and no land species on earth is evolved for the situation now unfolding.
For 400,000 the cycle has come and gone but you crazies now claim that this cycle is caused by man, and all the others weren't!!!!
Would you argue that the unprecedented CO2 levels are caused by faeries?  I'm all ears.
But you nutbars want to shoot SO2 into the atmosphere to hasten the end of the interglacial and start the next iceage!!!!!
No, we want to prevent another PETM and its dieoffs... or worse.
Talk and Blind Stupidity!
Irony.

Bruce said at September 28, 2010 9:25 AM:

EP: Thanks you!!!! The nighttime high records! Perfect UHI signature!!!!!!! I knew you would come around!

"Which is what the models predict"

What? Which models only predict nighttime warming? I thought the apocalyptic doom and gloomers claim we are all going to die in heatwaves during the days AND nights.


The ice is coming. CO2 can't stop it.


As I've noted, all an increase in CO2 does is cause all the warming to occur a few meters closer to the surface instead of 30 meters.

"and no land species on earth is evolved for the situation now unfolding"

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I live in a coastal climate. The temperature range goes from -19C to 35C and sometimes 40C (rarer). We and the animals can deal with a 60C swing each year. Why can't we/they deal with a 1 or 2C rise in evening temperatures?

Engineer-Poet said at September 29, 2010 8:52 PM:
EP: Thanks you!!!! The nighttime high records! Perfect UHI signature!!!!!!! I knew you would come around!
And you can't be bothered to note earlier thaws, ice-sheet losses, and everything else.

Nighttime temperature increases are not trivial.  They increase evaporation of water and respiration of plants, decreasing Net Primary Productivity.

What? Which models only predict nighttime warming?
"Only"?  Nice try.  The answer AFAIK is "none of them", but decreased heat losses will boost lows to a greater degree than highs (and warm places with little sun more than those with lots, because the same heat-transfer from elsewhere will maintain a higher temperature).
The ice is coming. CO2 can't stop it.
Man, that is so 70's panic-mongering.
As I've noted, all an increase in CO2 does is cause all the warming to occur a few meters closer to the surface instead of 30 meters.
You claimed it, but you're wrong.  Even an IR-opaque atmosphere will move heat by convection, and the convective layer goes to the top of the troposphere.  If you double the concentration of a GHG, its absorption bands remain a blocked "window" until the air density falls by another factor of 2 (roughly 17,000 feet) over the reference case.
and no land species on earth is evolved for the situation now unfolding
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I live in a coastal climate. The temperature range goes from -19C to 35C and sometimes 40C (rarer). We and the animals can deal with a 60C swing each year. Why can't we/they deal with a 1 or 2C rise in evening temperatures?
If the coast is relatively cool and moist and other species occupy the warmer, drier areas inland, 2°C could easily make their ecological niche disappear completely.

Areas in the western USA have similar problems.  Zones which currently grow pine are expected to become sufficiently hotter and drier that they will no longer grow any trees at all; the habitable area for forests and all their species will disappear.  This isn't as shrug-worthy as running your air conditioner on more nights; it means economic as well as ecological devastation.

Bruce said at September 30, 2010 3:31 PM:

"but decreased heat losses will boost lows to a greater degree than highs "

I see your typing but it makes no sense and doesn't answer my question.

" Even an IR-opaque atmosphere will move heat by convection..."

Irrelevant. The solar energy hits the ocean or land and changes to heat which is radiated out as IR. If the CO2 captures that IR within the first 15m or the first 30m, it will cause the same amount of warming. IR bands of CO2 are saturated. No more warming.

The CO2 change will not slow down the coming ice age for one extra day (ok maybe a day or a week or a month or a year).

Ice ages come every 100,000 years and have done so for at least 400,000 years and it is not "70's panic-mongering" to say so.

To use an analogy, you are a newly born chicken little running around in July screaming that by next month we will all be dead from the heat because you have extrapolated the rise in temperature from the end of winter into the infinite future. But summer will always come to an end and become fall then winter.

This interglacial will come to an end relatively soon. It would be a miracle if it CO2 stopped the next ice age. And it would be a good miracle. But it isn't going to happen.

It is up to your kind to offer PROOF that a small amount of a trace gas will stop 400,000+ years of history from repeating itself.

Engineer-Poet said at September 30, 2010 8:27 PM:
The solar energy hits the ocean or land and changes to heat which is radiated out as IR. If the CO2 captures that IR within the first 15m or the first 30m, it will cause the same amount of warming. IR bands of CO2 are saturated. No more warming.
Someone needs to explain details like specific heat and convective flow to you.  You have obviously gotten into some repository of sciency-sounding talking points that you parrot back, but they mean nothing in the real world.

As for me, I refuse to have a battle of intellect with an unarmed man.

Bruce said at October 1, 2010 8:17 AM:

Thank you for conceding.

Biobob said at October 5, 2010 4:19 AM:

Haha

There are 2 facts: 1) atmospheric CO2 IS currently rising, and we don't know why, 2) climate changes all the time, and we don't know why. That's it.

ALL THE REST is speculation, and most incredibly imbecilic speculation. Hansen says much of NYC should be under water by now, Hathaway (2006) says Solar Cycle 24 will peak in 2010-1 and be one of the most intense in 400 years (it hasn't even appeared), an ice free arctic real soon by 2013, erm .... could come in 50 years, this winter in Europe will be the worst in 1,000 years, etc etc. Proxies say this or that ? NO, people interpreting the proxies say .... Every bit of the rest of the warmist agenda is pseudo-science. You must realize that scientist's conclusions are quite often WRONG, and pseudoscience, as is most climate science, is predominantly wrong. The assumptions are generally left unsaid or minimized and the conclusions too often overstated. How many of these bullcrap predictions, associations, distortions, fabrications, conclusions will it take before you get wise and realize that you have been snookered? CO2 continues to rise but the all important temperature correlation FAILS. Should make you go hmmmm. We suffer way too much from impatience and fear of the unknown. What is the big hurry ? Wait and we will see.

BTW Turboblocke, you need me to label my sarcasm ? Clueless.

Engineer-Poet said at October 5, 2010 9:12 AM:

The stupid, it burns.

There are 2 facts:
When you cannot distinguish fact from blatant falsehood, you should pack it up and go home.
1) atmospheric CO2 IS currently rising, and we don't know why,
You mean you won't admit we know why (because the answer is inconvenient for your politics).  We know that the increase is from fossil fuels both because the rise tracks fuel use and carbon isotope ratios are changing as fossil plant-derived C12 dilutes atmospheric inorganic C13.
2) climate changes all the time, and we don't know why.
Somebody didn't get the memo on Milankovic cycles, and other things like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Northern Atlantic Oscillation, etc.
ALL THE REST is speculation, and most incredibly imbecilic speculation.
I'm not sure if this is irony, hypocrisy or both.  Amusing in a sad way, regardless.

Randall Parker said at October 5, 2010 7:24 PM:

Biobob,

While some people deny a link between rising CO2 and global warming you are the first I've come across to deny a link between fossil fuels burning and rising CO2. How do you manage that?

Hansen says much of NYC should be under water by now? Why do you believe this?

Ed said at December 17, 2010 1:16 PM:

"GISTEMP, NASA's temperature index, gets most of its current data from airports. Airports covered in concrete and asphault that absorb heat during the day and radiate it at night causing evening temperatures to stay higher than they should be which has caused a slight upward change in the average temperatures ... of airports!"

Glad to see this old chestnut out in force again. Fortunately it, the urban heat island effect (UHIE), is pretty well known and easy to correct for. The UHIE is strongest in calm weather and easily disipated by the wind as the artificially warmed air is simply blown away. Therefore, if the increased temperatures were simply UHIE they would be detected on calm days but not windy ones. This is not the case: the warming can be detected on windy as well as calm ones.

Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

                       
Go Read More Posts On FuturePundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright