muso wrote on Aug 7^th, 2010 at 3:57pm:


I know...but considering that, as I said, I didn't study physics and chemistry..., my elective in High School was Biology...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2010 at 4:28pm:


We'll come to that in good time, but the increased greenhouse effect is only part of the problem. We also have ocean acidification to contend with. What it boils down to is a human problem. Forget about Polar Bears and whales. We've got to the stage where we have more people on Earth than is sustainable, and throughout our history we've had it pretty good without too many droughts or floods.

Now we're getting to the stage that we're endangering our staple food supplies. Rice and Wheat in particular are problematic. An increase of 2 degrees will reduce crop yields dramatically, which means that famines will be more widespread. To make matters worse, we're going to run out of easily accessible phosphates within the next 30 years or so.

Non polar ice associated with mountain ranges, such as the Rockies and the Himalayas have been a reliable source of melt water for seasonal crops. These water supplies will become less and less reliable as time goes on. When it comes to the Himalayas, that water supply is supporting countries like India and China which have enormous populations.

It doesn't take much to understand that there will be widespread problems if global temperatures increase even another 2 degrees.

In Australia, we're reasonably lucky in that we already have extensive irrigation schemes, but if the climate is even hotter and drier, it will be more and more difficult to sustain agriculture. This is nothing new to us, but it will be worse.

Anyway, we'll get back to the basics and explain why temperatures will continue to increase if we continue to emit greenhouse gases to the extent that we are, but I have a lot more explanation before we come to that conclusion.

Are the UNFCCC negotiations trying to establish a ‘World Government’?
No. Some commentators claim that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiating text in the lead up to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009 proposed a World Government, but that the proposal was dropped due to adverse publicity. This is incorrect.

The UNFCCC negotiations are highly transparent. All negotiating text is available on the UNFCCC website 

One country (Tuvalu) refers to ‘government’ in their proposal for a financial mechanism (the word appears twice in paragraph 38). The term is used to refer to a governing body for the proposed mechanism. This has not been agreed by other Parties and is unable to proceed without agreement.

There are no proposals under the UNFCCC to create a World Government.

Being a Party to the UNFCCC does not undermine Australia’s national sovereignty. The UNFCCC has no international authority to ‘govern’ Australia. The text of the UNFCCC reaffirms ‘the principle of sovereignty of States in international cooperation to address climate change’.

Is it true that there is a draft climate change treaty?
No. There are currently a number of negotiating texts but these are not a 'draft treaty'. The texts contain proposals put forward by countries, even if a proposal is only supported by one country and opposed by others. They are a compilation of different views and are not agreed.

A number of countries have submitted ideas about what a draft treaty might look like, but none of these are currently under negotiation.

All negotiating texts are available on the UNFCCC website

Is the Copenhagen Accord a weak outcome?
The Copenhagen Accord is a welcome step forward on climate change action. The Accord, strongly supported by both developed and developing countries, is the first time there has been agreement to keep global temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius, and to take responsibility for action to realise this target.  A transparent system to track progress was also agreed, which is key to getting the environmental outcome we all need.

Tackling climate change requires sustained ambition over the long-term—the Accord is one important step in the right direction. Australia formally registered its support for the Accord at Copenhagen and is encouraging its fast and full implementation.

Countries have been invited to submit information on their emission reduction targets and mitigation actions pursuant to the Copenhagen Accord by 31 January 2010. Australia made its submission to the UNFCCC secretariat on 27 January 2010. It is expected that target setting under the Accord is likely to be an iterative process and Australia will continue to work with others to maximise the level of global ambition.

More needs to be done to take international cooperation further. Australia supports continued negotiations in the UNFCCC to deliver further climate change actions.  Australia looks to the negotiations on future action to produce a legally-binding agreement.

The text of the Accord can be found on the UNFCCC website

Is climate change real?
There is clear evidence that our climate is changing, largely due to greenhouse gases caused by human activities. When scientists talk about climate change they mean warming of the climate system as a whole, which includes the atmosphere, the oceans, and the cryosphere (ice, snow and frozen ground). The observational evidence clearly indicates that the climate system is continuing to warm, including warming oceans and melting snow and ice, both of which contribute to rising sea levels.

The Fourth Assessment Report, produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, states that global warming is ‘unequivocal’ and that ‘most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations’.

In other words, there is overwhelming evidence for human-made global warming.

Climate change is not just about global warming. The science indicates that the climate will be altered in many other ways. For example, there will be changes in rainfall patterns and ocean currents, changes to the intensity and frequency of extreme events such as storms, droughts and floods, rising global sea level and ocean acidification.

Has there been a decade and a half with no ‘statistically significant’ global warming?
Statistically significant trends cannot be determined from 15 years of data. The IPCC specifies that 25 years is the minimum period required to determine a statistically significant trend. Even so, the linear trend for the last 15 years has been one of warming.

The current observed global temperature changes are consistent with the climatic warming trend of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade predicted by the IPCC. Using NASA data, even the 11-year period (cited by some commentators as evidence against warming) starting with the warm 1998 and ending with the cooler 2008, still shows a warming trend of 0.11 degrees Celsius per decade.

The World Meteorological Organization has found that 2000-2009 was the world’s warmest decade on record, warmer than the 1990s which in turn was warmer than the 1980s. In Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology has found each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the preceding decade. The Earth has warmed by around 0.74 degr

OK, Let's take a CO2 molecule in the upper atmosphere. Longwave infrared radiation from the Earth hits that molecule, it absorbs the radiation and the electrons in the C=O double bonds get excited. At certain frequencies, you get something like a symmetrical stretching, at other frequencies you get an asymmetrical stretching, and you can also get bending of the molecule for other IR wavelengths.

The energy is then given off in all directions. A bit like a dandelion seed head. The stem represents the original photon of IR radiation and the seeds represent the possible directions that the IR can be re-emitted. What that means is that some of the energy ends up going back down to Earth while some of it still heads out into space.

If you had no CO2 molecules (or other GHG's) then all the longwave radiation would head out to space. The presence of Greenhouse gases means that a portion of that heat energy stays in the Earth's lower atmosphere, causing the temperature to be warmer than it would otherwise.

If we look at the atmosphere as a large series of layers, we can express this effect mathematically starting from the ground and working your way up through progressively thinner and thinner atmosphere. Above a certain level, the water vapour component becomes negligible because the colder the atmosphere, the lower its water dewpoint.  I have a feeling that you wouldn't benefit from the maths, but I'll go through it if you like.

People have this preconception about anthropogenic global warming being somehow different from the natural  greenhouse effect. It isn't. Basically if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, you'll get an increased warming effect.

OK, so far so good. The equation that expresses the effect that greenhouse gases have on heat transfer is called the Radiative Forcing equation.

∆F =      5.35 ln(C/Co) in Watts per square metre.

Notice that the relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic (ln is the natural log) so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.
That's why we generally talk in terms of warming effect for a doubling of CO2.

There are similar Radiative forcing equations for the other greenhouse gases.

Of course that's not everything yet. If it was just for CO2, you'd get a warming of around 1 degree for a doubling of CO2 concentration.

Anyway, that's enough for now.  

The Science of Climate Change

August 2010
Questions and Answers

Summary

The Earth’s climate has changed. The global average surface temperature has increased over the last century and many other associated changes have been observed. The available evidence implies that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause.

It is expected that, if greenhouse gas emissions continue at business-as-usual rates, global temperatures will further increase significantly over the coming century and beyond.

This document aims to summarise and clarify the current understanding of the science of climate change for non-specialist
readers. The document is structured around seven questions.

1 What is climate change?
2 How has Earth’s climate changed in the distant past?
3 How has climate changed during the recent past?
4 Are human activities causing climate change?
5 How do we expect climate to evolve in the future?
6 What are the consequences of climate change?
7 How do we deal with the uncertainty in the science?

Evidence from the past shows that global climate is sensitive to small influences During the past million years, the average temperature of the Earth’s surface has risen and fallen by about 5°C, through 10 major ice age cycles.

Link -
http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf
=============
There is a severe amount of dis-information regarding the issues surrounding Climate Change & Peak Oil and whilst some of the dis-information comes from from well intentioned people, much of it comes from vested interests, who have connections in both arena's.

I recommend this article, which is quite lengthy, as it provides relevant background & information, from a reputeable source!

muso wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 8:06am:


1) I agree!

2) I agree, but there will always be people that will confuse the issues, for various reasons, one of which will be the "self interest" being funnelled from the fossil fuel industry!

Earth 'facing mass extinction'

• Major marine extinction in process - study
• Organisms not coping with environment
• Humans to blame

THE world is facing a mass extinction event that could be greater than that of the dinosaurs, new Australian research shows. Macquarie University palaeobiologist Dr John Alroy used fossils to track the fate of major groups of marine animals throughout the Earth's history.

He compiled data from nearly 100,000 fossil collections worldwide, tracking the fate of marine animals during extreme extinction events some 250 million years ago.

The findings, published this week in the international journal Science, showed a major extinction event was currently underway that had the potential to be more severe than any others in history.

"Organisms that might have adapted in the past may not be able to this time," Dr Alroy said.

"You may end up with a dramatically altered sea floor because of changes in the dominance of major groups. That is, the extinction occurring now will overturn the balance of the marine groups."

The research shows a combination of human behaviour and climate change could have devastating affects on species across the planet.

"When there's mass extinction all bets are off and anything could happen," Dr Alroy said.

"So what we're basically doing as the human species collectively is we're running this gigantic experiment with nature."

There have been three major mass extinction events throughout history and biologists widely agree the world is currently suffering from another.

The last mass extinction was an estimated 65 million years ago when an asteroid smashed into Mexico and wiped out the dinosaurs, making room for mammals to thrive.

Dr Alroy said a new mass extinction wouldn't be the result of a single horrific event such as an asteroid hitting Earth.

Instead, it would be the result of a factors from introduced foreign species, run-offs from fertilisers and pesticides, pollution and deforestation, he said.

Climate change and an accelerated growth in the worldwide population were also playing a part.

But Dr Alroy said the current situation was not yet as bad as the worst mass extinction 250 million years ago, known as Permian-Triassic extinction or The Great Dying.

"It's safe to say that we have not yet lost nearly as much as what was lost during that event but it's also reasonable to say that we could end up losing as much as was lost in that event," he said.

"We're currently playing games with evolution on a epic scale.

"Really, really big mass extinctions happen very, very rarely and they have very important long-term consequences."
Link -
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/the-other-side/world-facing-mass-extinction/story-e6frfhk6-1225913659680
=============
Suffice to say, we are in the midst of some "game changing" events!