It's all over but for the sweating?

[TheEnemy]

If I take the calculations back to values in 1600 CO2 @ 275, temp -0.4c (observed dT of approx 1.04C)

With my adjusted numbers it calculates a dT of 1.10C which is pretty close except solar variablility has definetly played at least a small role since then. (1600-2005)

[gone-ot]

...more 'fly-shjt' for the pepper: as air temps go UP, so does the atmosphere's ability to "hold" more water vapor (humidity)...roughly doubling with each 20ºF temp increase.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

That wasn't what I asked, in the comming decades what do you think the atmosphere will stabilize at by the time we shift our energy sources over? 500, 600, 700ppm?

I don't think it's a matter of "we" shifting energy sources, because "we" won't. Current fossil-fuel burning will continue until it triggers feedbacks such as release of methane clathrates, sending atmospheric CO2 levels into the 2000 ppm range. At which point most vertebrate life (including all humans who haven't moved to orbital habitats or Mars colonies) will become extinct.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

Taking the equations from

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dF=5.35*Ln(C/Co)

dT = 0.8*dF

dF = change in forcing

C = current concentration CO2 (I'm using 2005) 315ppm

Co = orriginal concentration CO2 (I'm using 1958) 380ppm

dT = change in temperature (using 1958 to 2005) 0.64C



I am hoping they made an actual physical measurement and didn't just run that through a model and call it good. This shows that for a doubling of CO2 we get a change of forcing of 3.39w/m^2, which is different from the IPCC value of 3.7w/m^2.

Using the "measured" value changes the equation to

dF = 4.89 * Ln(C/Co)

Filling in for CO2

dF = 4.89*LN(380/315) = .91w/m^2 for the measured 1958-2005 change in CO2.

That should give us a change in temperature of

dT = .8*0.91 = 0.73C which is 0.09C higher than observed.

Correcting for observed gives us a climate sensitivity of 0.696

Now we can calculate for future warming.

Forcasting a rise to 600pmm.

dF = 4.89*Ln(600/315) = 3.15w/m^2

dT = .696*3.15 = 2.19C


That is assuming all warming is due to CO2 with no influence from the sun.

Wiki suggests the size of the sun's effect has not been determined - figures vary between 7% and 16-36% of warming depending on the period.

Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[radioranger]

I gotta say love all the responses, for anyone who believes in global warming probably the biggest change you could make is put white roofing shingles on your house!!, the difference between a white and black roof in terms of heat gain is considerable, and you dont have to take any ones freedom away to do it, yet you dont really hear about it, wouldnt cost anything , just all new roofs installed are a light color, the question is if they are worried about warming , why dont they do it, answer, nobody makes money on it .

[suspectnumber961]

Julian Assange: Two Years of Cablegate as Bradley Manning Testifies for the First Time

Global Powers Work to Break Environmental Solidarity, and to Exploit "Opportunities" of Climate Change

On environmental issues, cables show that the U.S. routinely makes symbolic gestures rather than initiating substantial practices to combat climate change, and works aggressively to tailor international agreements to its own commercial interests.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked embassies to gather intelligence on the preparations for the Copenhagen UN Convention on Climate Change Meeting in December 2009, asking for biographical details of representatives from China, France, Japan, Mexico, Russia and the European Union. Cables show that in Copenhagen the U.S. manipulated the accord talks by offering "gifts" to poorer countries to derail opposition to the accord proposed by first world powers. Another cable from the Secretary of State revealed that in 2010, a Maldives ambassador designate had stressed the importance of "tangible assistance" from larger economies to smaller ones. As a consequence of this meeting, the accord offered financial compensation to poor countries suffering from the effects of global warming.

In a visit to Canada in 2009 David Goldwyn, the State Department's Coordinator for International Energy Affairs discussed public relations assistance to be offered to the oil sands industry. Goldwyn proposed consulting experts, scholars and think tanks to "increase visibility and accessibility of more positive news stories." The cable was later used by environmentalists in their battle against the Keystone XL pipeline, which ships crude oil across the U.S.-Canada border. In early 2012, President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline proposal, but recently publicly announced support for another proposal. It also turns out that Goldwyn eventually went on to work for Sutherland, a lobbying group in favor of Keystone XL.

The cables also reveal that the U.S. is carefully positioning itself to take advantage of new opportunities for harvesting hydrocarbons and minerals from the Arctic as climate change melts polar ice. U.S. diplomats were hoping to offer Greenland support for its independence from Denmark in exchange for access by American gas and oil companies to exploit the country's resources. The U.S. has been closely watching Russia, America's main competitor for Arctic resources, but American officials also showed concern over Canada's potential territorial claim to the Arctic's Northwest passage.

...

It's all about a country that is over it's head in debt due to freebies for the rich, reactions from the exploited (9-11?), and unfunded oil wars (G. "dumbya" Bush ?) and wanting even more energy to try to grow out of that debt...meanwhile the COSTS of global warming and military intervention will increase as a function of fossil fuel use.

The US is between a rock and a hard place. Desperation results in a fascist state as cooperation is coerced....both domestically and abroad.

[suspectnumber961]

Better yet...paint them white and then put solar panels on them as in Germany?

German Solar Power Capacity Hits All-Time High...Again - CleanTechnica

Initial reports say that Germans installed roughly 320-megawatts peak (MWp) of additional solar power capacity in August.

That takes total installed solar power capacity to more than 30-gigawatts peak (GWp), making Germany the first country in the world to generate so much electricity from sunshine.

There’s now more solar power installed in Germany than the rest of Europe combined, note industry watchers from Germany Trade & Invest, the national foreign trade and inward investment promotion agency.

Originally Posted by radioranger

I gotta say love all the responses, for anyone who believes in global warming probably the biggest change you could make is put white roofing shingles on your house!!, the difference between a white and black roof in terms of heat gain is considerable, and you dont have to take any ones freedom away to do it, yet you dont really hear about it, wouldnt cost anything , just all new roofs installed are a light color, the question is if they are worried about warming , why dont they do it, answer, nobody makes money on it .

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

So what concentration of CO2 do you think we will achieve before we stabilize?

The figure often used is 450ppm - you have to real the small print though as some of these refer to CO2 "equivalents" which can include positive and negative factors (PDF) :

Originally Posted by IPCC

• Atmospheric carbon dioxide reached 379 ppm in 2005 and was increasing by around 2 ppm per year.

• Including the effect of all long-lived greenhouse gases such as methane, the total concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases was around 455 ppm carbon dioxide equivalents in 2005 (range 433-477 ppm).

• However, the cooling effects of aerosols and landuse changes reduce radiative forcing so that the net forcing of human activities was about 375 ppm carbon dioxide equivalents for 2005 (range 311-435 ppm).

How to do this is tricky.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

Better yet...paint them white and then put solar panels on them as in Germany?

German Solar Power Capacity Hits All-Time High...Again - CleanTechnica

Initial reports say that Germans installed roughly 320-megawatts peak (MWp) of additional solar power capacity in August.

That takes total installed solar power capacity to more than 30-gigawatts peak (GWp), making Germany the first country in the world to generate so much electricity from sunshine.

There’s now more solar power installed in Germany than the rest of Europe combined, note industry watchers from Germany Trade & Invest, the national foreign trade and inward investment promotion agency.

That will be the same Germany where their own solar panel maker went bust due to cheap chinese imports (so much for Green jobs), and where they are building new coal power stations (required to back up the renewables) and have restarted some of their Nuclear stations too because all that solar and wind just doesn't cut it.

All of this makes their power very expensive and unreliable too. Oh and the wind system needs to be heated to stay reliable - heated by burning Diesel which last time I checked makes more CO2.

Germany's wind power chaos should be a warning to the UK - Telegraph

On Friday, September 14, just before 10am, Britain’s 3,500 wind turbines broke all records by briefly supplying just over four gigawatts (GW) of electricity to the national grid. Three hours later, in Germany, that country’s 23,000 wind turbines and millions of solar panels similarly achieved an unprecedented output of 31GW. But the responses to these events in the two countries could not have been in starker contrast.

In Britain, the wind industry proclaimed a triumph. Maria McCaffery, the CEO of RenewableUK, crowed that “this record high shows that wind energy is providing a reliable, secure supply of electricity to an ever-growing number of British homes and businesses” and that “this bountiful free resource will help drive down energy bills”. But in Germany, the news was greeted with dismay, for reasons which merit serious attention here in Britain...

[NeilBlanchard]

I have no blessed idea - the sooner the better - or the sooner the less terrible for us and the rest of life on the planet.

There is a lot of "momentum" in this; through feedback/amplifying effects, etc. If we completely stop all carbon output right now, we'd get another 0.5-1C rise (on top of the ~0.8C we have already had).

We probably have 5-8 years to turn things around - 10 years on the outside, if we want to avoid 3-4C rise; let alone 2-3C. If we go another 20-30 years without major carbon cuts, then we'll likely see 4-5C. If we hit ~6C then we get hydrogen sulphide; a deadly poisonous gas, coming out of the ocean. Go here to read about what sorts of things happen at increasing temperatures.

If we speed past 450ppm, then all bets are off.