[Vision2020] Snow storms and global warming

[Ted Moffett]

We know from GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellites
using microwave interferometry that both Greenland and Antarctica are losing
ice mass in total, though there is increasing sea ice (not on the Antarctic
continent) around Antarctica, for complex reasons.

Greenland and Antarctica GRACE ice mass measurements reported at websites
below:

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003663/

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html
-------------------------------
Ted Moffett continues:

Of course the natural contributions to warming Earth's climate (in total,
not the increased warming added during the past century) are larger than the
current human contribution.  Consider that atmospheric CO2 levels were about
280 ppm immediately before industrial era, and are now approaching 400 ppm
due to human emissions.  Most of the CO2 in our atmosphere is currently not
due to human emissions.  And there are natural sources of methane, and water
vapor as global warming variables.  I suppose it is silly to point out that
our sun is the primary cause of the warmth in our climate... Which is not to
say the sun is forcing the current warming trend in climate.

The climate feedback effects from human impacts are what are particularly
alarming.  Both water vapor and methane, from natural sources, may increase
in our atmosphere due to climate forcing from human impacts, methane from
methane hydrate breakdown, especially, and water vapor from evaporation from
higher temperatures.  And albedo may decrease significantly as a climate
feedback from human impacts as ice sheets and sea ice are reduced.

The scientific uncertainty regarding the physics of atmospheric CO2 from
human emissions increasing global average temperature is very small.  The
primary scientific problems regarding this issue have been studied for over
a century (read AIP essay on this subject at the website below); and this is
why in part the IPCC gave a 90 percent or higher degree of certainty that
human impacts are the current primary driver of our warming climate.
Consider that current solar climate forcing, one of the main variables that
many skeptics have been repeating for years is causing current global
warming increases, is now at a "deep solar minimum," the lowest in nearly a
century, according to NASA.  So for now this natural explanation for the
continuing warm climate is highly suspect:

NASA website discusses "deep solar minimum:"
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
--------------
American Institute of Physics website addresses CO2 and global warming:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

--------------
At website below read a large sample of the scientific studies regarding
"climate sensitivity," the change in global average temperature (the
increase, given none of the studies predict a decrease) from doubling
atmospheric CO2.  These studies in total reveal a high degree of probability
that climate sensitivity is significant enough for a doubling of atmosphere
CO2, entirely possible due to human fossil fuel emissions by 2100 (280 ppm
to 560 ppm), with a business as usual scenario, that this will alter climate
to a radically different planet, with an approximate 3 degree Celsius
increase in global average temperature (this is of course not an exact
prediction, but the mean of the probable increases):

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html

------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:

>  If over a period of years the change in glacial ice mass would be
> markedly positive, then the probability of long term global warming would
> need to be re-evaluated.
>
> I'm am not nearly as up on this as Ted, but what I read weekly in *New
> Scientist* is there are not many scientists publishing in refereed
> journals that believe that human activity is the sole cause of global
> warming.  What is contested is how much human activity contributes, and what
> might be done to reduce this component.  There is evidence of past volcanic
> eruptions such as Krakatoa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa and other
> natural activities having a very short term effect on world climates because
> of the amount of ash, etc released into the atmosphere.
>
> The old theory when I took physical geography and geology (which really
> dates me) was that increased moisture would lead to lower temperatures,
> snow, and snow accumulation (bigger, better glaciers).  That was part of the
> explanation given for the four most recent ice ages.  The state of the ozone
> layer is currently used by some to explain that while there appears to be
> more moisture in the atmosphere, more solar radiation is reaching the
> earth's surface.
>
> I do not have global experience of the reported great loss of glacial ice
> mass, but I have witnessed over the last 50 years, and especially over the
> last 30 years the huge loss of glacial ice in the Canadian Rockies.
> Alaskans tell me the same story about many Alaskan locales.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the earth has plenty of resources but there are
> just too many people using them and using them unwisely which contributes in
> part to global warming.  I see no solution to this whole over-population,
> over-consumption problem in the near future, but only that it will get worse
> and with it, barring some unforeseen natural events, some very life changing
> changes.
>
> But all this is speculation based on currently asserted probabilities by a
> very large portion of the relevant scientific community.  Our knowledge and
> understanding in this area is far from comprehensive at this point, and as
> with any knowledge claims, subject to correction based on further
> observations.
>
> W.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *To:* vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 11, 2010 12:33 PM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Snow storms and global warming
>
> I've seen lots of articles on the web that describe how the current
> record-breaking weather on the East Coast does not disprove global warming.
> Here is a sampling:
>
> http://mediamatters.org/research/201002090032
>
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/no_the_snow_does_not_disprove.html
> http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/12/cold-snap-global-warming/
>
> I don't dispute this. I'm pretty sure that global warming is happening on
> larger timescales; I am just skeptical of the anthropogenic component being
> as powerful a forcing as climate scientists and political leaders would like
> us to believe.
>
> It does lead me to wonder about one thing, though.  What kind of a winter
> would it take to disprove global warming?
>
> A mild winter would likely be blamed on the overall temperature increase,
> where a stormy winter would likely be blamed on there being more moisture in
> the air and more energy in the system.  Would a winter that was average in
> all ways be enough?  Since winters vary so much over the years, what would a
> completely average winter look like?  Would it take a winter that lasted all
> year?  If it's likely that no winter that could reasonably be expected to
> occur would disprove it, then is it meaningful to say that the current
> weather was predicted by the AGW hypothesis?
>
> I've also been pondering the role of moisture in global temperature.  If
> the moisture content of the air is indeed increasing, wouldn't that mean
> more snowfall and more clouds?  Both of which change the albedo of the Earth
> a significant amount which would cause more sunlight to be reflected back
> into space.  Would this serve as a negative feedback process?  From what
> I've read, the affect on clouds on global warming is one of the biggest
> open-ended questions out there right now.
>
> Just curious what other people thought.
>
> Paul
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100211/fe28e6b5/attachment.html