How do you think humanity will be affected by climate in the future?

[The_Global_Warmer]

I have to agree with Frivolous as to the impact of arctic sea ice albedo reduction. The local environment is strongly impacted, if not the globe as a whole. I believe about one half of the sea ice loss over the past several decades has been the direct result of previous sea ice loss. This means a tipping point has been crossed and the situation is self perpetuating. The ice will continue it's decline, albeit more slowly if "natural cycles" tend to favor stabilization.

I think we are seeing how as this progresses the affects are being felt further and further south. Causing more of a chain reaction. So far we havent seen much in the way negative feedbacks.

If we get an el niño during the incoming solar max we willikely see new surface temp record globallly probably a large one.

[skierinvermont]

The temperature (expressed as Kelvins) of the water is inversely proportional to the 4th power of extra energy absorbed. Stephan-Boltzmann. Me thinks.

The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body per unit time (also known as the black-body irradiance or emissive power), j^*, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T (also called absolute temperature):

That's for the LW energy radiated.. I was talking about the change in the SW radiation absorbed. The more SW radiation absorbed, the higher the temperature and thus the more LW radiation emitted. In the long run since energy absorbed will = energy emitted (nearly - probably less true regionally than it is globally), the energy absorbed will be directly proportional to the fourth power of the temperature.

[skierinvermont]

I have to agree with Frivolous as to the impact of arctic sea ice albedo reduction. The local environment is strongly impacted, if not the globe as a whole. I believe about one half of the sea ice loss over the past several decades has been the direct result of previous sea ice loss. This means a tipping point has been crossed and the situation is self perpetuating. The ice will continue it's decline, albeit more slowly if "natural cycles" tend to favor stabilization.

Yes I said the regional effects could be greater.. but the global RF is very small and won't cause much warming. Change in ice albedo isn't even mentioned as a RF in the IPCC report.

Also while I agree with the idea that the surface albedo feedback has contributed greatly to regional melt, that doesn't necessarily mean that we are committed to further ice loss if global temperatures stabilized. There is also the strong negative feedback of the greater LW radiation emitted by water which is quite powerful especially in the months when the arctic is receiving little or no sunlight... eventually the arctic would reestablish an equilibrium.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yes I said the regional effects could be greater.. but the global RF is very small and won't cause much warming. Change in ice albedo isn't even mentioned as a RF in the IPCC report.

Also while I agree with the idea that the surface albedo feedback has contributed greatly to regional melt, that doesn't necessarily mean that we are committed to further ice loss if global temperatures stabilized. There is also the strong negative feedback of the greater LW radiation emitted by water which is quite powerful especially in the months when the arctic is receiving little or no sunlight... eventually the arctic would reestablish an equilibrium.

Can you elababorate? If that is at winter, how is that any different than right now. Just asking so I am not so confused on that point.

[WeatherRusty]

Yes I said the regional effects could be greater.. but the global RF is very small and won't cause much warming. Change in ice albedo isn't even mentioned as a RF in the IPCC report.

Also while I agree with the idea that the surface albedo feedback has contributed greatly to regional melt, that doesn't necessarily mean that we are committed to further ice loss if global temperatures stabilized. There is also the strong negative feedback of the greater LW radiation emitted by water which is quite powerful especially in the months when the arctic is receiving little or no sunlight... eventually the arctic would reestablish an equilibrium.

So, the loss of arctic sea ice doesn't impact the overall global radiative forcing very much at all. Yet locally the difference between open water albedo and ice cover albedo is large. Open water absorbs and retains a huge amount of energy as opposed to ice covered water. This slows and delays the refreeze keeping the arctic warmer later into the calendar year. This in turn reduces the length of the freeze season thus tending to reduce the thickness of the MY ice over time. This thinning ice becomes more vulnerable to summer melt out.

The LW radiation emitted by open water even 1C warmer results in a large disproportional energy gain...the relationship is not linear, but as mentioned equals the 4th power of the temperature change. The disproportional energy thus contained within the water warms the atmosphere which slows the melt once the net flow is out....and the arctic is warming twice as fast as the global average.

[skierinvermont]

So, the loss of arctic sea ice doesn't impact the overall global radiative forcing very much at all. Yet locally the difference between open water albedo and ice cover albedo is large. Open water absorbs and retains a huge amount of energy as opposed to ice covered water. This slows and delays the refreeze keeping the arctic warmer later into the calendar year. This in turn reduces the length of the freeze season thus tending to reduce the thickness of the MY ice over time. This thinning ice becomes more vulnerable to summer melt out.

The LW radiation emitted by open water even 1C warmer results in a large disproportional energy gain...the relationship is not linear, but as mentioned equals the 4th power of the temperature change. The disproportional energy thus contained within the water warms the atmosphere which slows the melt once the net flow is out....and the arctic is warming twice as fast as the global average.

The reason the arctic warms faster than the global average has very little to do with the ice albedo feedback and much more to do with the fact that arctic and antarctic temperatures are highly dependent on the GHE. The arctic is forecasted to warm very little in summer despite this ice albedo feedback. Almost all of the forecast arctic warming is fall, winter and spring, especially winter. Why? Because in these seasons arctic temperatures are highly dependent on the GHE since there is no incoming solar radiation. The arctic is forecasted to warm less than the globe in summer, only 2.5C, but 8C in December when it is frozen anyways. The reason the arctic is supposed to warm faster is the same reason nighttime temps are supposed to warm faster.. it's not due to surface albedo. You see a lot of newspaper reporting, blogging, and magazine type reporting make this mistake of claiming the arctic warms faster because of the ice loss. It has almost nothing to do with that.. the reason the arctic warm faster is that arctic temperatures are highly dependent on the GH effect, similar to nighttime temps.

Again, there is no doubt that the effects of the albedo feedback are large regionally.. but the area effected is only a % of the arctic which itself is a small % of the globe. All I'm saying is changes in surface albedo due to ice loss have little effect on global temperatures. Even for the arctic it is not a dominant factor, although it is significant. The dominant factor in arctic temps over the next century will be the strength of the GHE, not changes in regional surface albedo.

Take a look at the right portion of the graph (temperature change by month):

[WeatherRusty]

The reason the arctic warms faster than the global average has very little to do with the ice albedo feedback and much more to do with the fact that arctic and antarctic temperatures are highly dependent on the GHE. The arctic is forecasted to warm very little in summer despite this ice albedo feedback. Almost all of the forecast arctic warming is fall, winter and spring, especially winter. Why? Because in these seasons arctic temperatures are highly dependent on the GHE since there is no incoming solar radiation. The arctic is forecasted to warm less than the globe in summer, only 2.5C, but 8C in December when it is frozen anyways. The reason the arctic is supposed to warm faster is the same reason nighttime temps are supposed to warm faster.. it's not due to surface albedo. You see a lot of newspaper reporting, blogging, and magazine type reporting make this mistake of claiming the arctic warms faster because of the ice loss. It has almost nothing to do with that.. the reason the arctic warm faster is that arctic temperatures are highly dependent on the GH effect, similar to nighttime temps.

Again, there is no doubt that the effects of the albedo feedback are large regionally.. but the area effected is only a % of the arctic which itself is a small % of the globe. All I'm saying is changes in surface albedo due to ice loss have little effect on global temperatures. Even for the arctic it is not a dominant factor, although it is significant. The dominant factor in arctic temps over the next century will be the strength of the GHE, not changes in regional surface albedo.

Take a look at the right portion of the graph (temperature change by month):

Would you entertain the idea that we are both correct? I will concede that at this point the greenhouse effect of the arctic has attained prominence as the strongest factor. However the agreement is nuanced, the growing greenhouse effect up there is due to increasing water vapor made possible by evaporation from exposed waters which are accumulating additional energy..

Example: HERE

We can learn a thing or two when not having to fighting off the skeptics!

[skierinvermont]

Would you entertain the idea that we are both correct? I will concede that at this point the greenhouse effect of the arctic has attained prominence as the strongest factor. However the agreement is nuanced, the growing greenhouse effect up there is due to increasing water vapor made possible by evaporation from exposed waters which are accumulating additional energy..

Example: HERE

We can learn a thing or two when not having to fighting off the skeptics!

Well I certainly did not mean to imply it has no effect.. as I said locally in summer the RF is 130W/m2!! But I cannot agree that the effect is very large. For example, the recently released Tietsche study that showed that even if you eliminated all arctic sea ice it would regenerate to current levels within a few years. There is no runaway feedback.. and the positive feedback must be quite weak to allow complete regeneration within 4 years of its complete elimination. If surface albedo changes represented a strong positive feedback this would not be possible.

See how each time the ice is artificial reduced to zero it bounces right back to the CO2 forced trend?

And we can see that even thus far changes in summer albedo has had little effect on arctic temperatures... July arctic temps have warmed less than the globe over the last 50 years. Meanwhile winter arctic temps have warmed nearly 4X as much ... when this ice albedo feedback doesn't even exist because the arctic is completely frozen in winter.

If this ice albedo feedback was significant you would expect arctic July temps to warm more than the globe.. they haven't.

The main areas of contention I have is that 1. half the ice loss is due to this feedback 2. we are locked into further ice losses due to this feedback and 3. the arctic warms more than the globe because of the ice loss.

[Sunny and Warm]

We can learn a thing or two when not having to fighting off the skeptics!

LOL, what a sad statement. Without skeptics, you really aren't learning anything Rusty. You're just standing around a circle singing kumbaya with the rest of your AGW tribe. How do you learn that way? Answer is you don't since your mind is closed to progress.

[skierinvermont]

LOL, what a sad statement. Without skeptics, you really aren't learning anything Rusty. You're just standing around a circle singing kumbaya with the rest of your AGW tribe. How do you learn that way? Answer is you don't since your mind is closed to progress.

Except the skeptics bring nothing new or interesting to the table except the same tired old disproved talking points they ripped off WUWT or some even worse blog. Rusty and I have seen the same incorrect arguments over and over and over again. And by skeptics I mean those who reject a climate sensitivity of 1.8-5.5C per CO2 doubling.

[WeatherRusty]

LOL, what a sad statement. Without skeptics, you really aren't learning anything Rusty. You're just standing around a circle singing kumbaya with the rest of your AGW tribe. How do you learn that way? Answer is you don't since your mind is closed to progress.

I learn absolutely nothing from you other than how biased you believe me to be, how lacking our scientific knowledge is and a whole bunch of other negative, regressive and politically motivated, ideological crap. You guys bring nothing to the table with regard to advancing the science. You guys are nothing but a big drag on progress.

You teach me nothing. Your side does no science. I learn from established scientific outlets, the same places I learn about any other scientific subjects. If my mind were closed I wouldn't possess the knowledge I have obtained. I would have accepted without question the religious doctrine my parents rammed down my throat as a kid. Take your politics and shove it.

I will be the first to tell you I don't know it all, or that science does not know it all. I learned something tonight from Skier...He has learned a few things from me. I have learned nothing of scientific value by interacting with you.

[Sunny and Warm]

I learn absolutely nothing from you other than how biased you believe me to be, how lacking our scientific knowledge is and a whole bunch of other negative, regressive and politically motivated, ideological crap. You guys bring nothing to the table with regard to advancing the science. You guys are nothing but a big drag on progress.

You teach me nothing. Your side does no science. I learn from established scientific outlets, the same places I learn about any other scientific subjects. If my mind were closed I wouldn't possess the knowledge I have obtained. I would have accepted without question the religious doctrine my parents rammed down my throat as a kid. Take your politics and shove it.

you have learned a mistake riddled science, and yet blame skeptics for the mistake? Why do you blame us for wasting your time on a pseudo science that has reached its dead end. Your dream will never be implemented because of the failings from your side, yet you rail that we point it out too much. Learn to enjoy the life you're living, and quit being so negative about an issue that is not only NOT settled, it likely leans against you.

Have a nice evening.

[WeatherRusty]

you have learned a mistake riddled science, and yet blame skeptics for the mistake? Why do you blame us for wasting your time on a pseudo science that has reached its dead end. Your dream will never be implemented because of the failings from your side, yet you rail that we point it out too much. Learn to enjoy the life you're living, and quit being so negative about an issue that is not only NOT settled, it likely leans against you.

Have a nice evening.

I don't know about you but I am here for the fun of it. I am enjoying my life just fine thank you and I will determine when and if it is a waist of my time.

I will await the National Academies of Science and other such academic bodies to proclaim AGW to be a mistake riddled science or a dead end. I expect that from you and your political ideology but the science states otherwise.

[Sunny and Warm]

I don't know about you but I am here for the fun of it. I am enjoying my life just fine thank you and I will determine when and if it is a waist of my time.

I will await the National Academies of Science and other such academic bodies to proclaim AGW to be a mistake riddled science or a dead end. I expect that from you and your political ideology but the science states otherwise.

I'm not quite sure why you proclaim any of my views to be political. I judge AGW on a scientific basis, and find it wanting. So do many other people. Why the name calling? You listen to institutions (NAS, etc) that are every bit as invested in this issue money-wise as "big oil", yet refuse to see it. That comes across as a river in Egypt.

[WeatherRusty]

I'm not quite sure why you proclaim any of my views to be political. I judge AGW on a scientific basis, and find it wanting. So do many other people. Why the name calling? You listen to institutions (NAS, etc) that are every bit as invested in this issue money-wise as "big oil", yet refuse to see it. That comes across as a river in Egypt.

Statements like this:

Your dream will never be implemented because of the failings from your side

Indicate your political/ideological motivation. What dream? Mitigation? I don't even think if we act immediately we would do so effectively. The cat is out of the bag.

My side is that of science. You are free to find fault with the science...but why should I value your opinion over that of the NAS? Show me direct proof of a science conspiracy. I can show you direct proof of industry activities designed to obfuscate the science. They do this all the time to protect their turf, perfectly understandable if unethical. Think DDT, Clorinatedflurocarbons, tobacco smoke and acid rain. Industry has faught the science on all of them.

[Sunny and Warm]

Statements like this:

Indicate your political/ideological motivation. What dream? Mitigation? I don't even think if we act immediately we would do so effectively. The cat is out of the bag.

My side is that of science. You are free to find fault with the science...but why should I value your opinion over that of the NAS? Show me direct proof of a science conspiracy. I can show you direct proof of industry activities designed to obfuscate the science. They do this all the time to protect their turf, perfectly understandable if unethical. Think DDT, Clorinatedflurocarbons, tobacco smoke and acid rain. Industry has faught the science on all of them.

"Failings" was to have Gore and Hansen speak on the behalf of science for many years now. Was there no one from science capable of speaking on their own behalf? Can I ask who from science told Al Gore his movie was full of chit? Those are serious failings for allowing a couple of nutjobs with monetary and political undertones and overtones to take over the AGW message. That's the failing I refer to Rusty. The AGW cause is in its current diminished state because of it.

None of what I just said is political. It's a clear review of why the AGW marketing campaign failed. Consider it a professional opinion of a marketing faux pas.

[WeatherRusty]

"Failings" was to have Gore and Hansen speak on the behalf of science for many years now. Was there no one from science capable of speaking on their own behalf? Can I ask who from science told Al Gore his movie was full of chit? Those are serious failings for allowing a couple of nutjobs with monetary and political undertones and overtones to take over the AGW message. That's the failing I refer to Rusty. The AGW cause is in its current diminished state because of it.

None of what I just said is political. It's a clear review of why the AGW marketing campaign failed. Consider it a professional opinion of a marketing faux pas.

Well, if there is one thing we agree on, it's Al Gore becoming the popularizer of the science was a terrible mistake. He did that on his own. No one asked him to become the face of AGW.

As for the scientists not speaking up, most scientists are reticent on issues of public policy. They feel their role is to inform the decision makers so as to avoid the appearance of political bias. Al Gore made the mistake of turning that policy on its head. He made the issue political simply by being....Al Gore.

I really don't know that anyone "allowed" Al Gore to take charge of the issue. He is a very smart man, but that was just plain dumb.

[Alpha5]

Catastrophe, we need to pass every regulation possible to stop people from hurting the earth.

Chains need to be applied for the greater good, personal liberty and freedom dont mean anything. The IPCC said have to take action....sorry constitution.

[skierinvermont]

Catastrophe, we need to pass every regulation possible to stop people from hurting the earth.

Chains need to be applied for the greater good, personal liberty and freedom dont mean anything. The IPCC said have to take action....sorry constitution.

cutting carbon requires shredding the constitution? really?

[OHSnow]

Obviously, we won't be able to reign in carbon emissions in time to avert AGW. But I wonder if we will come up with any geoengineering solutions to avert the most catastrophic effects.

[WeatherRusty]

Catastrophe, we need to pass every regulation possible to stop people from hurting the earth.

Chains need to be applied for the greater good, personal liberty and freedom dont mean anything. The IPCC said have to take action....sorry constitution.

Another politically motivated poster....science be damned.....No doubt a conspiracy theorist too.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Catastrophe, we need to pass every regulation possible to stop people from hurting the earth.

Chains need to be applied for the greater good, personal liberty and freedom dont mean anything. The IPCC said have to take action....sorry constitution.

Why don't you show us with science why you think the established science is wrong ?

[Alpha5]

Why don't you show us with science why you think the established science is wrong ?

First off, tread carefully with the word 'established' you may be giving off the wrong message.

Secondly, I will confess, I dont read all of your posts, they're very long and tedious and I just don't have to time to filter to the same rehashing of what you said 2 pages ago day in and day out. The point is, it seems that you spend an inordinate amount of time posting (and hopefully versing yourself) on the subject. If by now you dont understand what people who dont believe in cataclysmic global warming, and how they're arguing it, I suggest you look for a new hobby.

There are plenty of facts out there that I've delved into over the past 2 years when I formed my opinion on this matter. Not too long ago, I was in your boat, I was afraid of what was supposedly happening. Then I did some research, read a few papers, and realized...oh wait, somethings wrong here. Unlike you, I don't have the time or energy to link countless websites of the same thing to justify my position. It's out there, go find it.

Finally, to answer a previous poster about "conspiracy theories". Let me start by saying that I dont think any politician, without a decent science background (no Al Gore, a single college class does not count) should be in the issue of Climate Change. The problem is that we have an opportunistic congress who's willing to jump on an issue (Don't waist a good crisis) to expand their influence and regulatory powers of the rest of the country. Don't believe me? Look no further to the lightbulb banning, or Cap and Trade. The battle over such regulations is why I support Ron Paul for president, but that is not for this thread.

[The_Global_Warmer]

First off, tread carefully with the word 'established' you may be giving off the wrong message.

Secondly, I will confess, I dont read all of your posts, they're very long and tedious and I just don't have to time to filter to the same rehashing of what you said 2 pages ago day in and day out. The point is, it seems that you spend an inordinate amount of time posting (and hopefully versing yourself) on the subject. If by now you dont understand what people who dont believe in cataclysmic global warming, and how they're arguing it, I suggest you look for a new hobby.

There are plenty of facts out there that I've delved into over the past 2 years when I formed my opinion on this matter. Not too long ago, I was in your boat, I was afraid of what was supposedly happening. Then I did some research, read a few papers, and realized...oh wait, somethings wrong here. Unlike you, I don't have the time or energy to link countless websites of the same thing to justify my position. It's out there, go find it.

Finally, to answer a previous poster about "conspiracy theories". Let me start by saying that I dont think any politician, without a decent science background (no Al Gore, a single college class does not count) should be in the issue of Climate Change. The problem is that we have an opportunistic congress who's willing to jump on an issue (Don't waist a good crisis) to expand their influence and regulatory powers of the rest of the country. Don't believe me? Look no further to the lightbulb banning, or Cap and Trade. The battle over such regulations is why I support Ron Paul for president, but that is not for this thread.

this means you don't have anything and your basis in all of this is political?

If you just read all of this, you could link it in 5 or 10 min. but do not have the energy? Come on. Your not arguing anything. Your telling me it's wrong and telling me to go find it myself.

[NEOH]

This is truly an interesting thread. My question is -- do posters that support the AGW theory do anything to take action? Hopefully they are making a living from this or what a collosal waste of time and effort. Why would anyone who believes in something so deeply spend countless hours in the Climate Change forum on EasternUSWx trying to support their theories? Wouldn't taking action for something you believe in be more fulfilling? Simply regurgitating the same AGW sales pitch is useless, frankly. The climate is changing... it as it has since the beginning of time. Congrats to the so-called pioneers of AGW for catching on to this. Humanity will adapt to the changing climate as it has always done.

[Strongbad]

This is truly an interesting thread. My question is -- do posters that support the AGW theory do anything to take action? Hopefully they are making a living from this or what a collosal waste of time and effort. Why would anyone who believes in something so deeply spend countless hours in the Climate Change forum on EasternUSWx trying to support their theories? Wouldn't taking action for something you believe in be more fulfilling? Simply regurgitating the same AGW sales pitch is useless, frankly. The climate is changing... it as it has since the beginning of time. Congrats to the so-called pioneers of AGW for catching on to this. Humanity will adapt to the changing climate as it has always done.

Let alone the hypocrisy of using or purchasing anything that was made by releasing CO2 into our atmosphere. Maybe the AGW'ers can get a head start on thinking about the ridiculous title of this thread, and then go and build a carbon-free bunker to hide out in.

But seriously, I have asked the same question and never once get a compelling answer.

[NEOH]

Let alone the hypocrisy of using or purchasing anything that was made by releasing CO2 into our atmosphere. Maybe the AGW'ers can get a head start on thinking about the ridiculous title of this thread, and then go and build a carbon-free bunker to hide out in.

But seriously, I have asked the same question and never once get a compelling answer.

Exactly. If this type of energy was put into something useful, like a career, or whatever endeavor it may be, who know how successful they could be. It's almost like a select few are trying to be "thought leaders" on this subject. When the reality is that they are way late to the party.

[WeatherRusty]

Exactly. If this type of energy was put into something useful, like a career, or whatever endeavor it may be, who know how successful they could be. It's almost like a select few are trying to be "thought leaders" on this subject. When the reality is that they are way late to the party.

Hi NEOH,

If the science is generally correct and approximately 3C of warming can be expected from our for certain doubling of atmospheric CO2, then AGW is not just any other issue, it will become the most trying problem modern societies have ever faced. That makes it worth talking about in my opinion.

The action required to address the issue can only come from the entire global community. Nothing less will suffice, and the only realistic way for that to happen must begin at the grass roots level. So far it has not worked, and sadly I believe it never will. But we keep trying.

[NEOH]

Hi NEOH,

If the science is generally correct and approximately 3C of warming can be expected from our for certain doubling of atmospheric CO2, then AGW is not just any other issue, it will become the most trying problem modern societies have ever faced. That makes it worth talking about in my opinion.

The action required to address the issue can only come from the entire global community. Nothing less will suffice, and the only realistic way for that to happen must begin at the grass roots level. So far it has not worked, and sadly I believe it never will. But we keep trying.

Hi Rusty - Thanks for the response. As you said, "IF THE SCIENCE IS GENERALLY CORRECT"... would you venture to guess it is? The most sophisticated weather models in the world cannot accurately predict weather conditions no more than 3-5 days in advance, at best. Do you honestly believe that whatever methods are being used to gauge supposed AGW can be accurate looking 25, 50 or even 100 years from now. Not possible.

This thread in itself implies that AGW is a valid problem... which is ridiculous as the poster above alluded to.

Really, this thread, and most posts from certain members in the Climate change forum show clear signs of psychological problems. Whether that be the person suffers from OCD disorder and uses AGW as a distraction from personal problems etc. To obsess about something that "could or maybe" happen to the point of spending countless hours debating it is simply irrational. You seem much brighter than that Rusty.

[Sunny and Warm]

Hi Rusty - Thanks for the response. As you said, "IF THE SCIENCE IS GENERALLY CORRECT"... would you venture to guess it is? The most sophisticated weather models in the world cannot accurately predict weather conditions no more than 3-5 days in advance, at best. Do you honestly believe that whatever methods are being used to gauge supposed AGW can be accurate looking 25, 50 or even 100 years from now. Not possible.

This thread in itself implies that AGW is a valid problem... which is ridiculous as the poster above alluded to.

Really, this thread, and most posts from certain members in the Climate change forum show clear signs of psychological problems. Whether that be the person suffers from OCD disorder and uses AGW as a distraction from personal problems etc. To obsess about something that "could or maybe" happen to the point of spending countless hours debating it is simply irrational. You seem much brighter than that Rusty.

Agreed. Rusty is the only one from that side that I could see discussing AGW with over a beer.