Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Dust storms fuel global warming on Mars! Same as on Earth except our dust storms are mostly particulates from the fossil fuels!!
Link

crucilandia and NewtownPA, we have to deal with this "insignificant contribution" issue. So far you just don't seem to get it.

Prior to human intervention, the global carbon cycle was in a state of dynamic equilibrium, with inputs and outputs roughly in balance. Humankind is now destabilizing the equilibrium, with an ongoing one-sided forcing. Every year we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. At any one moment in time, the amount we add is relatively insignificant - but over time, the fact that the inputs keep going relentlessly means that cumulatively we start to see the excess CO2 we are putting into the air causing increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Now as we put ever more CO2 up there, the system responds and some of the CO2 is removed by plants and some is taken up by the oceans which become more acidic. But it doesn't help, because humanity's CO2 inputs keeep going (in fact increasing!) relentlessly.

The result is a steady and measurable increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, which in turn is causing global warming because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The fact that the input from humanity is small relative to the overall magnitude of fluxes in the carbon cycle is not nearly as significant as the fact that ours is a one-sided and thus forcing input.

If this still doesn't help, maybe let's ask Ricky to cover it..

What about SOX and NOX Ricky what are the ratios for them building up in the atmosphere?

So why would it be different on Mars?

Ricky, thanks so much - very helpful. Love the figure, which is worth more than many many words posted here.

Rickyrood,

How much heat will be lost out of the Arctic Ocean basin if year round ice cover is lost? It would take a long time for an area of water that large to refreeze during the winter due to wave action and such. Since it's dark up there much of the winter just about how much extra heat stored in the ocean would be lost due to the insulating layer ice being gone? Also just how much more snow would be expected for northern regions of Alaska, Canada, and Siberia due to increased moisture availability?

Canadians stop killing baby seals.

crucilandia,
You seem like a very nice lady!!
In a few years there will be no more baby seals anyway�
The ice is getting to thin for the hunters and it will not last long enough for the babies to survive�
Who's killing the baby seals now?

Sullivanweather, I think you've got it backwards with respect to the Arctic Ocean. It will take great amounts of cold to get the sea ice to reform at the start of each winter, and until the ice reforms the Northern Hemisphere climate will be warmer than otherwise (because there won't be "surplus" cold air available to move south).

You are correct that there is likely to be more precip'n, and I'd like to hear Ricky's thoughts on that.

Thank you Rick for your comment. However, fluxes are not well quantified yet. Therefore, we can not presume that ATM CO2 accumulation is solely because of human emmissions. One example is the lack of data for oceanic CO2 exchage across the sea-air interface. This exchange in the coastal zone is practially unknown.
ATM CO2 growth rate (/yr) has been very variable in the past century and these variations were not caused by human emmissions because they are constant and small. Total CO2 variability comes from variable fluxes between the ATM and the biosphere, the tropical ocean, and the extratropical oceans.
Therefore, without quantifying fluxes between all sources and sinks of CO2, we can not state that human emmissions are the sole cause of global warming.

Snowboy

Just because the geological data shows (newtonPA graph) that oscillations had a constant range, it does not mean that what we are seen now is not well within the "normal" The geological data has a resolution of 2000 yrs. Therefore, lots of aliasing if you want to use it to support variations in the past 200 yrs. We have no clue how climate varied between data points they get from the ice cores.

If you could just read the first page! Link

About the ice:Link

Cruc

you confuse two issues in your post. there is no doubt that human emissions are increasing the concentration of CO2. it's absurd to think that we could emit billions of tons of CO2 without increasing the concentration. it's also absurd to think that some natural exchange is driving such a dramatic increase in concentration that has been observed.

now, your second point about human emissions (one 'm', by the way) causing global warming is more valid. we know for a fact we are increasing the concentration of CO2, but the overall effects are less certain.

CO2 link:

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Global_Carbon_Budgeting_Requires_Proper_Accounting_Of_Inland_Wate rs_999.html

Rwdobson

Could you give us some proof the the rise of CO2 is solely from human eMissions. If it is human it must not be all the other sources.

Yes we can emit CO2 without much increase because yearly additions are 1% of the CO2 pool in the ATM

so you propose that all natural sources and sinks are in perfect steady state and anthropogenic emissions are the cause of global warming

Snowboy, the heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere works much better without a layer of ice there to block that transfer. Since it's dark during the boreal winter all the time at those latitudes much heat would be lost out of the oceans and radiated directly into space.

Does anyone know how this would effect climate?!

sullivanweather, to the extent that what you're saying is correct, this would be a classic negative feedback. In your scenario a lack of ice promotes more effective cooling of the ocean, but then a cooler ocean would see more rapid ice formation (undermining the effect)..

What I see happening is that that lack of ice results in much warmer atmospheric conditions in the Arctic, with any available cold going into ice formation until the ice pack has been regrown. This sort of effect was on display this fall and early winter - the weather wrold-wide was incredibly warm until into January, when the ice pack had regrown. After that, we had a pretty normal winter.

What I see happening is that that lack of ice results in much warmer atmospheric conditions in the Arctic

This is absurd. So the Arctic is like a cooler, you add ice to keep it cold?

Open water releases heat 100 times more heat to atm than ice covered waters. sea ice releases heat as it forms.

the weather wrold-wide was incredibly warm until into January, when the ice pack had regrown

Amazing! This was never the reason for cold or warm events. One of the most strong factors controlling warm and cold in the Northern hemisphere is the strength of the Arctic Oscillation. This winter until january we were under positive phase, when atmospheric circulation in the artic "tightens" and allows warm air masses to move polewards. Thus we get warmer at high latitudes. Meandering of the jet stream also plays a role.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html

no crucilandia, the Arctic is like a cooler - you NEED ice to keep it cold..

Since water is > 450 times more dense than then air you can begin to see how massive of an effect is has on the air and the heat exchange between the two!

Snowboy, ice isn't needed to keep it cold. The lack of sunlight does its job just fine.

a lack of sunlight with a wide open Arctic Ocean will do very little - it is radiative cooling off the ocean ice surface that makes our winters what they are..

If x equals amount of heat in the ocean and y equals the amount of heat lost, if you increase y then x will decrease.

If that were the tropics it would be true, but the sun in the arctic summer has already lost much of it's energy to the atmosphere due to its oblique angle.

sullivanweather, I am really having trouble understanding your point so maybe you can help me out - in your opinion, is the world going to have warmer winters or colder winters once the arctic sea ice melts and the Arctic Ocean is ice free in summers?

What I'm trying to convey here is that if perennial ice cover is lost the ocean will begin to lose vast amounts of stored heat after the autumnal equinox.

So initially there would be a warming effect in and around the polar regions due to moderation from proximity to open water. However, as heat content in the ocean, as a whole, goes down so will temperatures.

sullivanweather, ok I at least get where you're coming from - let me ponder this..

Poles are coolers!!!

The reason there is ice in the poles is because temperature falls below freezing point. It is not the ice that keeps the pole cold.

crucilandia - c'mon, I'm not suggesting that it is ice that keeps the poles cold. But what I am saying is that an Arctic with no summer sea ice will be warmer than an Arctic with it. The ice keeps the pole colder than it would be in its absence. I can't imagine why you would argue that point.

granted

Crucilandia - the strongest evidence for the human contribution to the (extremely well documented) increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the change in the ratios of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. Radioactive C14 is formed in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation, and decays with a half life of about 6000 years. Fossil fuels that were formed millions of years ago are "C14 depleted". As this fossil fuel is burned and released to the atmosphere, the ratio of of C14 in the atmosphere has been decreasing measurably.

This is also extremely well documented (forgive me for not giving citations, I can find it if you really want). If you want to learn about climate change science, read the summary for policy makers of the new IPCC working group I report (the rest will be on line shortly). If you don't believe the IPCC report, there is nothing that will convince you.

Pg

14C is a tool for dating, reliable to 40,000 yrs. This is not the best approach especially after bomb testings in the 40's. The 13/12C ratio gives one a better way to look into your proposition. Despite fossil carbon light signal, it is very difficult to isolate it from the natural emissions of CO2 with contain light CO2. Therefore, radioactive and stable isotope analysis are dubious.

The IPCC report contains mostly manipulated data to serve as a tool for politicians agenda.

actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle�Al Gore's supposed mentor�is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Here's a somewhat old but nonetheless interesting logical analysis of contribution scenarios by Gary Harding
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html

Cheers