UN panel: Global warming human-caused, dangerous (Update)

Aug 26, 2014 by Seth Borenstein
This Aug. 19, 2014 file photo shows flash flood waters from the overrun Skunk Creek flood I-10 in northwestern Phoenix. Global warming is here, human-caused and can already be considered dangerous, a draft of a new international science report says, warning that it is increasingly likely that climate change could be irreversible. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday sent governments a final draft of its synthesis report, which combines three earlier, gigantic documents by the Nobel Prize-winning group. There is little in the report, that wasn't in the other more-detailed versions, but the language is more stark and the report attempts to paint a bigger picture of the problem caused by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas. (AP Photo/Matt York, File)

Global warming is here, human-caused and probably already dangerous—and it's increasingly likely that the heating trend could be irreversible, a draft of a new international science report says.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday sent governments a final draft of its synthesis report, which combines three earlier, gigantic documents by the Nobel Prize-winning group. There is little in the report that wasn't in the other more-detailed versions, but the language is more stark and the report attempts to connect the different scientific disciplines studying problems caused by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas.

The 127-page draft, obtained by The Associated Press, paints a harsh warning of what's causing global warming and what it will do to humans and the environment. It also describes what can be done about it.

"Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems," the report says. The final report will be issued after governments and scientists go over the draft line by line in an October conference in Copenhagen.

Depending on circumstances and values, "currently observed impacts might already be considered dangerous," the report says. It mentions extreme weather and rising sea levels, such as heat waves, flooding and droughts. It even raises, as an earlier report did, the idea that climate change will worsen violent conflicts and refugee problems and could hinder efforts to grow more food. And ocean acidification, which comes from the added carbon absorbed by oceans, will harm marine life, it says.

Without changes in greenhouse gas emissions, "climate change risks are likely to be high or very high by the end of the 21st century," the report says.

In 2009, countries across the globe set a goal of limiting global warming to about another 2 degrees Fahrenheit (-16.67 Celsius) above current levels. But the report says that it is looking more likely that the world will shoot past that point. Limiting warming to that much is possible but would require dramatic and immediate cuts in carbon dioxide pollution.

The report says if the world continues to spew greenhouse gases at its accelerating rate, it's likely that by mid-century temperatures will increase by about another 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) compared to temperatures from 1986 to 2005. And by the end of the century, that scenario will bring temperatures that are about 6.7 degrees warmer (3.7 degrees Celsius).

Explore further: Final US climate report will present dire picture (Update)

More information: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: www.ipcc.ch/

3.4 /5 (34 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN document warning of grave climate future completed

Mar 30, 2014

Leading scientists and officials completed a fresh climate report Sunday expected to lay bare the grim impact of climate change, with warnings that global food shortages could spark violence in vulnerable ...

Major climate change report draft leaked online: IPCC

Dec 14, 2012

A major report on climate change being compiled by the United Nation's climate science panel was on Friday leaked online in what appeared to be an attempt by a climate sceptic to discredit the panel.

Recommended for you

Unforeseen dioxin formation in waste incineration

9 hours ago

Dioxins forms faster, at lower temperatures and under other conditions than previously thought. This may affect how we in the future construct sampling equipment, flue gas filtering systems for waste incineration ...

User comments : 103

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Aug 26, 2014
1, 2, 3, go......
Oh, have to wait while our US friends finish work.
Shootist
2 / 5 (21) Aug 26, 2014
The UN, the terminally corrupt UN? That UN?

"the polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson
supamark23
4.2 / 5 (21) Aug 26, 2014
The UN, the terminally corrupt UN? That UN?

"the polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson


Freeman Dyson is wrong about the Polar Bears. He's wrong about other things, but not about AGW - which he has already said he agrees that humans are causing the warming... which makes it hilarious that you're so stupid that you didn't check that before quoting him.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (24) Aug 26, 2014
Hmm... no mention of the plagues of locusts and frogs, I guess that will be in their next act of desperation. So, while we wait for decades for the AGW Cult's incessant prophesies of apocalypses the real world reveals their deceit.
Solon
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 26, 2014
From this morning:
Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming

Criminals should be charged, put on trial, and incarcerated if necessary.
enviro414
1.7 / 5 (17) Aug 26, 2014
I wonder how much longer some people will continue to be deceived by the IPCC shouting 'wolf'.

A simple analysis leading to an equation, having only two naturally occurring, publicly available drivers, calculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with R^2 greater than 0.9.

http://agwunveile...spot.com
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (20) Aug 26, 2014
I expect all these AGW criminals to be punished for their deceit.
One suggestion, they should each be placed in a canoe at the North Pole and wherever they can paddle to, they can stay if accepted. Let's see if they truly believe the poles will melt and all the Polar bears will die.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (18) Aug 26, 2014
Soon, the AGW Cult will mix that final batch of "special" Kool-Aid, then let's see who amongst them, truly believe the lies of doom and gloom and will take the first drink.
supamark23
4.5 / 5 (16) Aug 26, 2014
1, 2, 3, go......
Oh, have to wait while our US friends finish work.


You know most deniers aren't smart enough to get and hold a job... we just have to wait for them to get up and eat breakfast (that their mommies made for them) before they commence to lying.
slycat
4.5 / 5 (15) Aug 26, 2014
Let's who's first... Solon, the Prime Minister of Australia falsely believes that Climate change does not exist. Since any three year old can explain the concept of GW, that makes Tony Abbott a total loser. Oh and your headline is a flat out lie just like everything that comes out of deniers mouths. Next! Enviro414....the link contains many outright falsehoods about basic science.. so that would be a huge FAIL. The rest of the denier comments are really a denial of intelligences... I see no such proof any intelligent thought... Ok, you guys can now go back to your delusional circle jerk.
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2014
I expect all these AGW criminals to be punished for their deceit.
One suggestion, they should each be placed in a canoe at the North Pole and wherever they can paddle to, they can stay if accepted. Let's see if they truly believe the poles will melt and all the Polar bears will die.


HAHA! That is rich! Your are really funny @goracle.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 26, 2014
I wonder how much longer some people will continue to be deceived by the IPCC shouting 'wolf'.

A simple analysis leading to an equation, having only two naturally occurring, publicly available drivers, calculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with R^2 greater than 0.9.

http://agwunveile...spot.com


This is interesting. Enviro seems to think this answers the question of how the climate is changing.

However, we all know that Alche/WaterDud thinks his bowl of water with ice and a candle underneath it answers all of the questions about climate change.

So, which of these mental giants is right? Or, could it be possible that both are wrong? No, I can't let myself believe that both of them are wrong. Could it be that real climate scientists are right and both of these idiots are beyond nuts? Yes, I am being sarcastic about these two mental midgets.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 26, 2014
Obama said AGW is real.
Obama has never lied has he?
AGWites need to find someone that can be trusted.
Obama lies to sell socialized health care, IRS corruption, selling guns to Mexican drug dealers, ....Mann lies in his lawsuit, ....Gore does nothing about his carbon footprint....
What a tangled web.....
IPCC is becoming more shrill. Must be really worried no one paying them any attention.
howhot2
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 26, 2014
Obama said AGW is real.

He is correct. Man-made global warming is real.
Obama has never lied has he?

Not really. He has tried to keep his promises as circumstance will allow. Others are decisions that have to be made. He has made better decisions than Bush, Bush Sr. or Regan on nearly all issues.
AGWites need to find someone that can be trusted.

We do??? We already have it in the worlds scientific consensus!

Obama lies to sell socialized health care, IRS corruption, selling guns to Mexican drug dealers,
To much FOX news
....Mann lies in his lawsuit, ....Gore does nothing about his carbon footprint....
According to FOX news and the right wing blog-o-sphere.
What a tangled web.....
No web. It's "Oh what a tangle pile of shit is in your brain."
IPCC is becoming more shrill. Must be really worried no one paying them any attention.
In the alternate universe called REALITY, the whole world is concerned. To bad you.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (17) Aug 26, 2014
Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming
https://www.googl...fn4oHwCA
howhot2
4 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2014
Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming

Yeah, well Galileo was also accused of heresy by the church for saying the earth travels around the sun. It wasn't until a year ago or so that the church apologized for that mistake! So if you want to know what a crime is, or injustice, Look at BP for example... fined millions for criminal activities. Etc. etc. Real criminals go free, but environmentalist are fined?

Accused doesn't mean guilty fool.

Your so fooliish it boogles the mind @goracle.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2014
Hey howhot, learn the difference/usage of your and you're, before calling others foolish. Dumbass.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 26, 2014
Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming
https://www.googl...fn4oHwCA


An accusation by a self-admitted libertarian without any climate science expertise.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 26, 2014
Oh, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!

https://www.googl...ate+data

howhot2
4 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2014
Hay @antigoracle at least I didn't call you a dumbass though one wonders what you are. Your probably one of those pinko types. Regardless, your obviously as stupid as a stick in a turd, but lets not go route.

Your URL is all over the right-wing blog-o-sphere like flies to honey. The rightwing blog-o-sphere are notorious for exaggerating stories that suit their talking points. For example;
Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi... where is that BS now? Huh?

You repuglicantoads are all the same. You talk bull-shit and you don't think. What happens when your wrong @goracle? Do you fess-up or do you deny?
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 26, 2014
Hey howhot, I must apologize, calling you a dumbass was an insult to dumbasses.
Seriously, please learn the usage of your and you're. Moron.
howhot2
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2014
@goracle must be mad at me. Oh my arm pit just sweated, it must have been your mother calling. Did I get *Your* right? Let see; Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi... moron and Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi... moron. Everyone knows what a pinko type rightwinger you are turd. Live with it, Benghazi! POS.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 27, 2014
Hey howhot, I'm trying to stop you from making a jackass of yourself, but instead, true to what you are, you bray.
Grallen
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2014
I withdrew my comment. I felt bad for saying it, as deserved as it might have been. I don't want to ever set such a negative tone here.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 27, 2014
" The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress."
http://www.nytime...aty.html
The 'progressive' way, illegal.
verkle
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2014
The photo at the top of the article is confusing and missplaced. This is what AWGers have done for years: show someone a weather happening, and then claim that it is proof of "global warming". Al Gore has done it repeatedly. But it is not scientific.

A photo showing a freek unseasonal snowstorm could just as easily be used to point to global cooling, but that would be just as bad use of weather to try to justify someone's claims.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 27, 2014
More data manipulation (deceit) from the AGW Cult
http://wattsupwit...warmest/
Eddy Courant
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2014
Not them again! The UN-scientific group shrieking more dire-ness. LOL
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2014
" The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress."
http://www.nytime...aty.html
The 'progressive' way, illegal.


Nothing illegal about it. Controversial because of Republican deniers yes, but not illegal.
daqman
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2014
"2 degrees Fahrenheit (-16.67 Celsius)"

Does anyone proof read this stuff? A temperature of 2 F is indeed -16.67 C but a change of 2 F is equivalent to a change of 1.1 C.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2014
" The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress."
http://www.nytime...aty.html
The 'progressive' way, illegal.


Nothing illegal about it. Controversial because of Republican deniers yes, but not illegal.

And it will be just as ineffective as past political blackmail attempts.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2014
Why don't they drag out pictures of the Tucson flood in '83 that wiped out most bridges in the city?
"he Flood of 1983 killed 13 people and injured hundreds in a five-day period.

"Dozens of homes, businesses, roads and bridges were destroyed or heavily damaged in the Tucson Metropolitan Area alone. The towns of Clifton, Duncan, Winkelman, Hayden and Marana were almost entirely submerged by floodwaters.

"Over 10,000 people were driven from their homes. Over 1,300 homes were either destroyed or heavily damaged. Total damage across Arizona reached $500 million in 1983 dollars, which today translates to a little over $1 billion.""
http://tucson.com...c83.html
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2014
I have a question, and it's JUST a question, not an accusation.

If we accept the premise that global warming causes more natural disasters (flooding, storms, etc) like is shown here between 2001-2010

http://www.thegua...angerous

Then how do we explain this in light of the fact that surface temperatures haven't really been going anywhere during the same period of time?
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2014
.
Nothing illegal about it. Controversial because of Republican deniers yes, but not illegal.


Demonstrably false...

http://en.wikiped...y_Clause
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 27, 2014
I have a question, and it's JUST a question, not an accusation.
If we accept the premise that global warming causes more natural disasters... during the same period of time?
@MM
try reading here: http://qz.com/163...n-worse/

this shows how global warming can destabilize the jet stream causing patterns to fluctuate (HERE is a longer version of the video linked in the story: https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs )

I am addressing how global warming can affect the weather patterns and give us colder snaps/winters as well as wildly fluctuating weather, not any other assumptions made ...

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2014
wildly fluctuating weather

Weather has only recently been wildly fluctuating in many parts of the world?

Unfortunately too many structures and infrastructure are not designed for historic weather extremes.
In the 30s no one was stupid enough to build too near the beach in FL due to hurricane threats.
Now, insurance and unca sugar will pay for damages for those who build in hazard zones raising damage costs and making simple weather events appear more devastating than they were.
enviro414
1 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2014
Terrestrial radiation absorbed by CO2 is immediately thermalized, i.e. the radiant energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is immediately (about 0.1 nanosecond) transferred (in a process similar to thermal conduction) to other atmospheric molecules which outnumber CO2 molecules 2500 to 1. CO2 can only absorb terrestrial EMR that has wave length 14-16 microns out of the significant range (mostly within 5-50 microns) of terrestrial radiation.

The absorption/thermalization quickly reduces the 14-16 micron radiation flux (there is only enough CO2 to reduce 14-16 micron radiation by about half). The warmed air rises in some places (appreciated by soaring birds and sail planes) and cooler air falls in others (pilots and passengers call these air pockets). Approximately 98% of the air cannot participate radiatively at terrestrial wave lengths. The radiative participation of water vapor is not significantly affected.

(Why isn't thermalization (some spell it thermalisation) mentioned in the IPPC reports?)

See a simple equation, having two naturally occurring independent variables, that calculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with R^2 greater than 0.9 at http://agwunveile...pot.com.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2014
Enviro414 said:
(Why isn't thermalization (some spell it thermalisation) mentioned in the IPPC reports?)


Because it is part of the emission/absorption calculations and is present in every application of the Beer-Lambert law. Emission and absorption of specific wavelengths are a quantum mechanical phenomena. Specific rotational and vibrational modes are required when exchanging energy. Let me try to explain this on my lunch break (it may take more time so let me know if this is not explanatory enough and I will get back to it tonight).

Emission and absoprtion by any gas is specific to the species and temperature. Consequently and differential volume of gas at a specific temperature will be emitting at a specific set of wavelengths that are determined by the temperature. They will absorb at the same wavelengths. In the atmosphere the temperature of each differential layer is determined by the lapse rate. Continued
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2014
Continued: So, the idea that Enviro414 put forward that:
Terrestrial radiation absorbed by CO2 is immediately thermalized, i.e. the radiant energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is immediately (about 0.1 nanosecond) transferred (in a process similar to thermal conduction) to other atmospheric molecules which outnumber CO2 molecules 2500 to 1. CO2 can only absorb terrestrial EMR that has wave length 14-16 microns out of the significant range (mostly within 5-50 microns) of terrestrial radiation.

The absorption/thermalization quickly reduces the 14-16 micron radiation flux (there is only enough CO2 to reduce 14-16 micron radiation by about half).


Neglects the fact that the thermalization takes place in both directions where hotter gas molecules also slam into colder CO2 molecules. The result is a distribution of temperatures known as the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution:

http://en.wikiped...ribution

Continued
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2014
Continued: It is an experimental and theoretical fact that the molecules of CO2 that are at a specific temperature will radiate the specific wavelengths that they absorb (statistically speaking) and they temperature of the layer is what determines the intensity. The intensity is NOT diminished by collisions. The entire premise of Enviro's argument is based on a misunderstanding of what thermalization means and how statistics apply in gas emissions.

Please let me know if this is not clear enough and needs expansion on specific issues.
supamark23
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2014
The photo at the top of the article is confusing and missplaced. This is what AWGers have done for years: show someone a weather happening, and then claim that it is proof of "global warming". Al Gore has done it repeatedly. But it is not scientific.

A photo showing a freek unseasonal snowstorm could just as easily be used to point to global cooling, but that would be just as bad use of weather to try to justify someone's claims.


you deny AGW *and* evolution - you're one stupid away from a trifecta of simplemindedness. I'm sure your parents are proud that someone as obviously mentally crippled as yourself manages to use the internet.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2014
theoretical fact that the molecules of CO2 that are at a specific temperature will radiate the specific wavelengths that they absorb


What difference does the temperature of a CO2 molecule make whether it absorbs a photon?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2014
Hey howhot, learn the difference/usage of your and you're, before calling others foolish. Dumbass.


Classic Troll post. Resort to criticising grammatical errors. Makes em feel big.
supamark23
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2014
I have a question, and it's JUST a question, not an accusation.

If we accept the premise that global warming causes more natural disasters (flooding, storms, etc) like is shown here between 2001-2010

http://www.thegua...angerous

Then how do we explain this in light of the fact that surface temperatures haven't really been going anywhere during the same period of time?


Natural disasters are due to energy, and there is definitely more energy being retained now than 20 years ago. surface air temps are just one measure, the significantly warmer oceans are another...
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2014
theoretical fact that the molecules of CO2 that are at a specific temperature will radiate the specific wavelengths that they absorb


What difference does the temperature of a CO2 molecule make whether it absorbs a photon?


Rygg: That is, actually, a good question. I should have been more clear. It is the statistics of the emissions. I conjoined two issues into one sentence. All molecules emit and absorb the same wavelengths (transitions between electron states, vibrations, and/or rotations). The shape of the radiation envelop is determined by the temperature and is outlined by the black body curve for the temperature (which is what I put in the same sentence). It is lines, but the maxima are determined by the black body curve. You are correct to point out the fact that the emission and absorption lines are temperature independent (to a point). Thanks for catching it.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 27, 2014
Hey howhot, learn the difference/usage of your and you're, before calling others foolish. Dumbass.


Classic Troll post. Resort to criticising grammatical errors. Makes em feel big.

Classic Turd post. Ignoring their fellow gobshite's posts and seeing only what their narrow feeble mind wants to.
NOM
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2014
runrig, you made a gramma error. Now you've gone and invalidated every bit of climate science ever made. I hope you feel guilty.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2014
Natural disasters are due to energy, and there is definitely more energy being retained now than 20 years ago. surface air temps are just one measure, the significantly warmer oceans are another...

Yet, this year's hurricane season has fizzled.
http://en.wikiped...e_season
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2014
Natural disasters are due to energy, and there is definitely more energy being retained now than 20 years ago. surface air temps are just one measure, the significantly warmer oceans are another...

Yet, this year's hurricane season has fizzled.
http://en.wikiped...e_season


Maybe in the Atlantic but not the East Pacific.
http://en.wikiped...e_season
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2014
"Krauthammer explained why he viewed the pursuit as being based upon "adolescent idealism" and suggested that it wouldn't work.

"The idea of shaming the butchers of Tiananmen Square, or shaming a country that just a week ago buzzed a U.S. airplane at 20 feet, a country that is expanding into the east of the South China Sea is sort of the dumbest idea since the Russian reset. It is also based on the same assumptions that the Russians and the Chinese and others act the way Obama does – adolescent idealism when it comes to foreign policy. So it is an incredibly stupid idea." "
"There's a front page story today on Germany, which abandoning nuclear weapons and nuclear energy and fossil fuels and its economy is sinking as result. "
http://www.breitb...osterous
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2014
All molecules emit and absorb the same wavelengths

All molecules of....CO2?
With CO2 photon absorption, it is not the electrons but the molecule.
The shape of the radiation envelop is determined by the temperature

The temperature of what?
Photon absorption/emission is discrete. CO2 lasers emit at 10.6 um (and others) after being stimulated by nitrogen molecules.
Blackbodies have nothing to do with discrete photon absorption/emission.
Blackbodies have an emissivity approaching 1 across all wavelengths and have a peak output as a function of temperature. The sun is equivalent to a bb at ~5800K. Tungsten halogen lamps are an equivalent bb temp of 3200K. A bb at 300K has a peak emission ~10 um but emission that spans 0-infinity (theoretically).
A bb at 193K has a peak wavelength at 15um. That's right around the melting point of CO2, (interesting).
bluehigh
3 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2014
... and incarcerated if necessary.
- Solon

Seems confirmation bias works for me.

On first reading I got ...

and incinerated if necessary.

My bad.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2014
Ok, I must finally admit it - Global Warming is man-made.
https://www.googl...official
https://www.googl...official
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2014
Rygg2 said:
All molecules emit and absorb the same wavelengths

All molecules of....CO2?


All molecules have the same property. If they absorb a wavelength they can emit that same wavelength. It can also emit at different wavelengths that are always specific to the particular molecule.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2014
Rygg2 said:
The shape of the radiation envelop is determined by the temperature

The temperature of what?

Photon absorption/emission is discrete. CO2 lasers emit at 10.6 um (and others) after being stimulated by nitrogen molecules.

Blackbodies have nothing to do with discrete photon absorption/emission.


Lasers are a completely different situation from thermal emission. Lasers are stimulated emission.

As for the comment that "black bodies have nothing to do with discrete photon absorption/emission."

Did you ever wonder what the limits on emission at a specific line are? It turns out that no line can exceed the intensity of the same line coming from a black body at the same temperature. Think about that for a bit and you will realize that this is a quantum mechanical constraint on the ability of a molecule to emit. The lines can be less intense but they cannot be more intense. Because of this, the envelop of emission lines in a band resemble the shape of the black body
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2014
Natural disasters are due to energy, and there is definitely more energy being retained now than 20 years ago. surface air temps are just one measure, the significantly warmer oceans are another...

Yet, this year's hurricane season has fizzled.
http://en.wikiped...e_season


Oh, that's interesting, where does it say "fizzled"? - no Met organization would ever say that. How could they when we're only half way through the season.
Actually, Atlantic activity has been near normal...
http://www.nhc.no...AT.shtml
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2014
Ok, I must finally admit it - Global Warming is man-made.
https://www.googl...official


Oh look everybody, Anti's done a really clever thing here ... he's shown us how many selfish, deluded, right-wing leaning people there are who are prepared to use their money and influence to muddy the waters for the masses. Not one of those links will be to a climate science site/organisation that does not have data (irrefutable now - sorry and all that) to back it up. Not bollocks such as "the GH effect contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics - No Tricks Zone) FFS.
Just because it's on Google my friend, does not mean it's true. You need a critical faculty to figure that one out.
Now go away and grow one - and while you're at it, a selfless conscience too.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2014
what the limits on emission at a specific line are?

The number of emitters. Black bodies have nothing to do with this.
the envelop of emission lines in a band resemble the shape of the black body

No, they can't.
A blackbody is a perfect emitter and absorber across the spectrum.
All molecules have the same property.

What property?
H2O has many more emission lines than CO2due to its structure. CO2's structure is linear, unlike H2O.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2014
Here you go runrig.
http://www.noaane...ate.html

You would think with all the heat going into the ocean, as the AGW Cult claims, that their prophesies of monster hurricanes would come true.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2014
Here you go runrig.
http://www.noaane...ate.html

You would think with all the heat going into the ocean, as the AGW Cult claims, that their prophesies of monster hurricanes would come true.

Like I've said before and will no doubt have to again .... SST's are just one in a number of triggers of Tropical Storms. Also the Pacific has the same beasts - they are called Cyclones Typhoons there.
From your link....
"We are more confident that a below-normal season will occur because atmospheric and oceanic conditions that suppress cyclone formation have developed and will persist through the season,"
enviro414
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2014
Thermod – It is hardly a mystery that thermalization can take place in both directions. And this is significant in the energy exchange between water vapor (which has many absorption lines in the terrestrial radiation range whereas CO2 has only one) and the 98% of non-ghg in the atmosphere which don't have any.

However, in the case of CO2 molecules, in the unlikely event that a CO2 molecule gets bumped up to the energy level where it could emit a photon via the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution of molecules, it is far more likely that it will bump into another molecule (and be thermalized) before it emits the photon.

Thus thermalization does explain why CO2 change has no significant effect on average global temperature.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2014
Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution of molecules

This describes the velocity/temperature of the molecular system.
Photon absorption/emission from the relative motions between the atoms of the molecule.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2014
what the limits on emission at a specific line are?

"The number of emitters. Black bodies have nothing to do with this."

The temperature and the BB envelope for emission at that temp.

the envelop of emission lines in a band resemble the shape of the black body

"No, they can't. A blackbody is a perfect emitter and absorber across the spectrum."

Yes, you state the obvious re a BB - but a grey body can only absorb/radiate within that envelope - at specific wavelengths (emission lines)
All molecules have the same property.

"What property? H2O has many more emission lines than CO2due to its structure. CO2's structure is linear, unlike H2O".

Co2's structure is bi-atomic (a molecule) as is H20.

ryggy:
I keep telling you as kindly as possible, that you don't *do* science - so best to leave it to the big boys, and arguing thermodynamics with, err, well Thermodyamics puts you onto an immediate looser.

www.teachastronom...nd-Bands
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2014
Thermod – It is hardly a mystery that thermalization can take place in both directions. And this is significant in the energy exchange between water vapor (which has many absorption lines in the terrestrial radiation range whereas CO2 has only one) and the 98% of non-ghg in the atmosphere which don't have any.

However, in the case of CO2 molecules, in the unlikely event that a CO2 molecule gets bumped up to the energy level where it could emit a photon via the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution of molecules, it is far more likely that it will bump into another molecule (and be thermalized) before it emits the photon.

Thus thermalization does explain why CO2 change has no significant effect on average global temperature.


You deny empirical physics my friend. It is just NOT up for contention that CO2 retards terrestrial LWIR, via back radiation. Sorry and all that.
Do the world a favour and earn yourself a Nobel prize and PROVE it wrong will you, instead of making the Universe's laws fit your ideology.
May work in the Wonderland but not in the real one.
Neither is it for anyone here to prove said empirical physics to you. The answers are there to be found via Google.
I thank you.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2014
- but a grey body can only absorb/radiate within that envelope - at specific wavelengths (emission lines)


No. A grey body is the same as a blackbody with a lower, constant emissivity across all spectra.

Co2's structure is bi-atomic (a molecule) as is H20.

The shape is not the same, which makes all the difference.

"The H-O-H bond angle is 104.4°."
CO2 is linear.
supamark23
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2014
"Krauthammer explained why he viewed the pursuit as being based upon "adolescent idealism" and suggested that it wouldn't work.

"The idea of shaming the butchers of Tiananmen Square, or shaming a country that just a week ago buzzed a U.S. airplane at 20 feet, a country that is expanding into the east of the South China Sea is sort of the dumbest idea since the Russian reset. It is also based on the same assumptions that the Russians and the Chinese and others act the way Obama does – adolescent idealism when it comes to foreign policy. So it is an incredibly stupid idea." "
"There's a front page story today on Germany, which abandoning nuclear weapons and nuclear energy and fossil fuels and its economy is sinking as result. "
http://www.breitb...osterous


Krauthammer is a worthless piece of shit, and so are you rygge.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2014
- but a grey body can only absorb/radiate within that envelope - at specific wavelengths (emission lines)


No. A grey body is the same as a blackbody with a lower, constant emissivity across all spectra.

Co2's structure is bi-atomic (a molecule) as is H20.

The shape is not the same, which makes all the difference.

"The H-O-H bond angle is 104.4°."
CO2 is linear.

By "grey-body" I simply meant something that is not a BB,.... Ie everything as BB's don't exist in nature (that we know of).
No one is saying they are identical - so obviously there are differences in emmisivity. They are both GHG's however because they are bi-atomic.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2014
I simply meant something that is not a BB

Many natural materials are reasonable approximations to a blackbody; diffuse with emissivities >.9. Human skin is quite high from 2-14 um.

both GHG's however because they are bi-atomic.

That's not precise. N2 is bi-atomic and is not a GHG.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2014
runrig, you made a gramma error. Now you've gone and invalidated every bit of climate science ever made. I hope you feel guilty.

Yep, easy mistake. Though my gramma, if she were alive, would not make that error.
Imagine 5 of your cult's imbeciles ranked you 5 for that.
howhot2
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2014
I see the two wing nut deniers are out picking nit-picks for a living. So how many Quid do you get for that mate? The @goracle says something about gramma, and my great friend @R2 claims N2 is a bi-atomic gas (Duhhhh..) and not a GHG. The church-lady would say "Well.... could it be SATAN???"

That is about the extent that these deniers go to. Climate-change = SATAN. Good argument @R2. you loose again.

antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2014
Hey howstupid, I would have picked your brains, but then you don't have any.
Such a disappoint, first to your parents and now your cult.
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2014
Look @antiSatan; here are the monitoring sites taking real measurements, Where are yours butt head! http://www.esrl.n...lask.php
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2014
I simply meant something that is not a BB

Many natural materials are reasonable approximations to a blackbody; diffuse with emissivities >.9. Human skin is quite high from 2-14 um.

both GHG's however because they are bi-atomic.

I was not precise enough in definition for you - by bi-atomic I meant to different atoms (some of which of course exist in pairs).
2 different atoms but 3 in all in H20 and CO2 and Ozone has 3 atoms.
N2 only has 2 atoms and is therefore symmetrical.

What are you on about re emissivity, a BB and skin??
A BB has an emissivity of 1 and the range goes from 0 to 1.

http://en.wikiped...issivity
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2014
Trying again with that last post as the 3 mins beat me....

I simply meant something that is not a BB

Many natural materials are reasonable approximations to a blackbody; diffuse with emissivities >.9. Human skin is quite high from 2-14 um.

both GHG's however because they are bi-atomic.

That's not precise. N2 is bi-atomic and is not a GHG.

ryggy:
I was not clear enough for you - by bi-atomic I meant 2 DIFFERENT atoms (some of which of course exist in pairs).
2 different atoms but 3 in all in H20 and CO2 and Ozone has 3 atoms.
N2 only has 2 atoms and is therefore symetrical.

What are you on about re emissivity, a BB and skin??
A BB has an emissivity of 1 in all frequencies that it absorbs, and not just a narrow selection.

http://en.wikiped...ack_body
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2014
What are you on about re emissivity, a BB and skin??

It seems you don't have a very clear understanding of what a black body is.
In the IR thermography community, anything with emissivities >.95 are considered 'black' and since most IR imaging systems have a bandpass of 3-5 um or 8-12 um, if emissivity is flat in that spectral band and >.95 for a material, it is a good bb simulator. Human skin is a convenient reference in the field.
If rummy's inability to use or understand precise terminology of IR radiometry is any indication,
no wonder climate predictions are so off,
enviro414
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2014
Runrig - If you actually understood physics, the kinetic theory of gases and quantum mechanics you might be able to understand what happens when a CO2 molecule absorbs a 14-16 micron photon. Your statements reveal that you don't.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2014
What are you on about re emissivity, a BB and skin??

It seems you don't have a very clear understanding of what a black body is.
In the IR thermography community, anything with emissivities >.95 are considered 'black' and since most IR imaging systems have a bandpass of 3-5 um or 8-12 um, if emissivity is flat in that spectral band and >.95 for a material, it is a good bb simulator. Human skin is a convenient reference in the field.
If rummy's inability to use or understand precise terminology of IR radiometry is any indication,
no wonder climate predictions are so off,


As I said and repeated hear for the hard of comprehension (are you saying the Wiki entry is wrong?)
WTF has skin got to do with AGW??

"A BB has an emissivity of 1 in all frequencies that it absorbs, and not just a narrow selection."

http://en.wikiped...ack_body
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2014
WTF has skin got to do with AGW??

Nothing.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2014
Runrig - If you actually understood physics, the kinetic theory of gases and quantum mechanics you might be able to understand what happens when a CO2 molecule absorbs a 14-16 micron photon. Your statements reveal that you don't.


I have made no statements re "what happens when a CO2 molecule absorbs a 14-16 micron photon" in this thread or any other I recall. I don't need to. Empirical science does that for me. It's not up for debate. I hazard a guess that it's not what you think.

What I do know is that your comprehension skills evade you - as you accuse me of something I have not done and from that extrapolate ignorance. Mmmm interesting new Troll tactic (well on me anyway).
BTW: I would be pleased to know at what level your physics knowledge lies.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2014
Rummy is saying that a blackbody doesn't exist as there is nothing with an emissivity of 1. BTW, emissivity is defined using a blackbody.
NIST refers to bb all over their web-site. Why would they refer to something that can not exist?
http://www.nist.g...d=840979

So does NPL:
"The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) maintains a range of reference blackbody cavities of its own design with apertures from 3.0 to 100 mm in diameter for use over the temperature range 10-1064 degrees C"
http://iopscience.../5/1/003
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2014
WTF has skin got to do with AGW??

Nothing.

Thank you.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2014
Rummy is saying that a blackbody doesn't exist as there is nothing with an emissivity of 1. BTW, emissivity is defined using a blackbody.
NIST refers to bb all over their web-site. Why would they refer to something that can not exist?
http://www.nist.g...d=840979


I am saying a BB does not exist in nature (or anywhere else ) that we know of.

From the wiki link .....
"A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence"
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2014
Runrig - If you actually understood physics, the kinetic theory of gases and quantum mechanics you might be able to understand what happens when a CO2 molecule absorbs a 14-16 micron photon. Your statements reveal that you don't.

Why don't you explain to the physics people here what a 14-16 micron photon is and what it has to do with the greenhouse gas effect! Be as detailed as you can.
MandoZink
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2014
@MM
try reading here: http://qz.com/163...n-worse/ )

this shows how global warming can destabilize the jet stream causing patterns to fluctuate (HERE is a longer version of the video linked in the story: https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs )

I am addressing how global warming can affect the weather patterns and give us colder snaps/winters as well as wildly fluctuating weather, not any other assumptions made ...

@Captain Stumpy
I looked into this last winter when I first heard the term "polar vortex". The atmospheric pattern which was first identified and described by Carl-Gustaf Arvid Rossby in 1939, now know as Rossby waves, deepens the northern latitude jet-stream meanders, drawing unusual cold into the troughs. I would surmise that if he were alive today (d.1957) Rossby would be a bit disturbed about what may be escalating its frequent development.

The open waters surrounding the Antarctic mass sustain a formidable polar jet, making this effect less likely in the south.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
I looked into this last winter when I first heard the term "polar vortex". The atmospheric pattern which was first identified and described by Carl-Gustaf Arvid Rossby in 1939, now know as Rossby waves, deepens the northern latitude jet-stream meanders, drawing unusual cold into the troughs. I would surmise that if he were alive today (d.1957) Rossby would be a bit disturbed about what may be escalating its frequent development.

The open waters surrounding the Antarctic mass sustain a formidable polar jet, making this effect less likely in the south.
@MandoZink
Thanks for the input... I will be reading up more on Rossby later this week.

do you have any links handy that you can share?

If you have a profile on http://www.sciforums.com/ or on http://saposjoint.net/Forum/ you can PM me there with links or data... If you have something handy

THANKS IN ADVANCE

runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2014
@MM
try reading here: http://qz.com/163...n-worse/ )

I am addressing how global warming can affect the weather patterns and give us colder snaps/winters as well as wildly fluctuating weather, not any other assumptions made ...

@Captain Stumpy
I looked into this last winter when I first heard the term "polar vortex". The atmospheric pattern which was first identified and described by Carl-Gustaf Arvid Rossby in 1939, now know as Rossby waves, deepens the northern latitude jet-stream meanders, drawing unusual cold into the troughs. I would surmise that if he were alive today (d.1957) Rossby would be a bit disturbed about what may be escalating its frequent development.

The open waters surrounding the Antarctic mass sustain a formidable polar jet, making this effect less likely in the south.

Spot-on Mando.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2014
Capt;...
This is quite a good link on Jets/troughs/ridges and development and decay of LP within the sphere of jet-streams.

http://www.geolog...here.htm
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2014
Capt;...
This is quite a good link on Jets/troughs/ridges and development and decay of LP within the sphere of jet-streams.

http://www.geolog...here.htm

@Runrig

thank you very much
appreciate it
and all the hard work you do!
Semmster
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2014
Deniers are 'fortunate' that they live in places where the effects of Global Warming are so subtle as to be unidentifiable. This still won't allow them to avoid the ultimate bill for humanity's neglect and disregard for the environment and the creatures that share it with us.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2014
@Runrig

thank you very much
appreciate it
and all the hard work you do!


No prob capt.... people like you make it worthwhile being on here.
yukonheart
1.2 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2014
So I have a ? not being an expert on this...

My understanding is that many species thrive during periods of global warming is that true ?

Also, currently the two largest land masses of the world canada and siberia are frozen tundra - with global warming is it not possible that these will start to produce food?
howhot2
5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2014
So I have a ? not being an expert on this...
My understanding is that many species thrive during periods of global warming is that true ?
We don't know. Plant life in some areas may benefit from the extra CO2 others may be hurt. Certainly sea life will feel the impact of acidic oceans from the carbonic acid created by CO2 + H2O H2CO3. And a heavy ~80% portion global warming CO2 goes into the oceans and there it will dissolve calcium structures from coral to diatoms. It very probable that many ecosystems in the ocean will just go extinct from it.

Also, currently the two largest land masses of the world Canada and Siberia are frozen tundra - with global warming is it not possible that these will start to produce food?

Well we have 11 billion people to feed, let's hope we can get enough food production from the north. But no not really. The northern latitudes have shorter growing season and less light, so even though they are warmer, they are shorter. So it's less.
RealityCheck
4.3 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2014
Hi yukonheart. :)
My understanding is that many species thrive during periods of global warming is that true ?

Also, currently the two largest land masses of the world canada and siberia are frozen tundra - with global warming is it not possible that these will start to produce food?

Further to what howhot2 has pointed out, there is also the problem of closer polar weather pattern/extremes proximity; and hence greater vulnerability to sudden frosts and blizzards due to increasingly unstable atmospheric/oceanic currents/streams disrupting 'patterns' for planting/flowering/fruiting/harvesting stages and cultivation/transportation activity/timing etc.

And don't forget that as Arctic warms, the diseases/pests will migrate north, as already happening.

And then the losses incurred/caused by unprecedented unpredictable/extreme/frequent droughts, floods etc in the CURRENT arable lands will offset much of any 'gains' possible from the warming arctic lands.

Good luck. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2014
we have 11 billion people to feed,

Who is 'we'?
Is hottie responsible for feeding the planet?
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest" Adam Smith
howhot2
5 / 5 (8) Sep 01, 2014
we have 11 billion people to feed,

Who is 'we'?
Is hottie responsible for feeding the planet?
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest" Adam Smith

@R2, 'we' is the correct word in this context. I'm talking about the planet's capabilities to feed 11 million people. 'We' meaning planet Earth. This has nothing to do with that shyster Adam Smith.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2014
we have 11 billion people to feed,

Who is 'we'?
Is hottie responsible for feeding the planet?
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest" Adam Smith


Just more evidence of your selfishness and hatred of humankind..... along with more meaningless quote-mining from some supposed omniscient being.
FFS
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2014
'We' meaning planet Earth.

Earth is alive and sentient?

If you REALLY want to help feed 11 billion, take the advice of Bono. The rich guy from U2.

After many wasted years of throwing money down a rat hole in Africa, the light bulb popped on and he discovered capitalism is the ONLY way to feed the 11 billion.
Why are socialist so opposed to using what empirical data shows to work?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2014
I have a question, and it's JUST a question, not an accusation.

If we accept the premise that global warming causes more natural disasters (flooding, storms, etc) like is shown here between 2001-2010

http://www.thegua...angerous

Then how do we explain this in light of the fact that surface temperatures haven't really been going anywhere during the same period of time?


Natural disasters are due to energy, and there is definitely more energy being retained now than 20 years ago. surface air temps are just one measure, the significantly warmer oceans are another...


Untrue, or at least that wasn't the prediction made. The prediction made was that these effects were specifically going to be due to AIR/surface temperature rises.

Go fish.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2014
I'm talking about the planet's capabilities to feed 11 million people.


The planet has no "capabilities" in this regard. The planet (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean in this context) doesn't do industrial farming. The human beings on this planet apply technology to food production and THAT is the capability you're referring to, whether you have a clue about it or not. You couldn't support 11 billion people without industry and agriculture. You can support a lot more people with mature nanotechnology or any number of technologies applied to the "problem". In short we determine what the capabilities of "the planet" are when we apply our technology to it...period.

"The planet" as a concept in this context is a non-concept...exactly like Santa, the tooth fairy, or god...
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2014
Well @mystic, the planet's "capabilities" to produce enough food for 11 *billion* (not million) people is a calculation based on available land, farm-able land, crop production, global warming, weather, profitability and capitalistic motives. The key point that should concern everyone is the farm-able land that is to be put to use. It's only put to use if it profit's someone.

The key point is 11 billion is considered kind of considered mankind's tipping point where MAX food production < Human need.

After that food production becomes political (as @R2 despises) and civilization unwinds with global warming adding in 100% to the Global Misery Index, someone will shout "This Sucks!" and mankind will die.

I'm sorry for being pessimistic about this, but you deniers will make that future inevitable.


ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2014
It's only put to use if it profit's someone.

Of course.
If a farmer can't profit from his farm, why should he put in the work and risk his wealth?
Zimbabwe used to feed itself and export food. Now it is starving because of socialism.
There are sufficient resources to feed billions if the technology and free markets are applied.
Socialists like hottie would rather starve, and starve billions more than relinquish power.
howhot2
5 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2014
But @R2, are you not a Socialist too? You suck on the tit of government just like the rest of us. If you don't, please explain how you bypassed the system? Seriously! Me and many of your fans would like to know.

It's only put to use if it profit's someone.

Of course.
If a farmer can't profit from his farm, why should he put in the work and risk his wealth?
Zimbabwe used to feed itself and export food. Now it is starving because of socialism.
There are sufficient resources to feed billions if the technology and free markets are applied.
Socialists like hottie would rather starve, and starve billions more than relinquish power.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2014
Why won't you defend socialism hottie?
I know, you can't.