Seen any good films lately? [2]

No, you are drawing incorrect inferences from what I wrote. Just because I said more ozone = more warming doesn't mean I'm implying there's ozone in hairspray. I'm just making the point that while more ozone provides protection against UV it's also a greenhouse gas. But the effect is small, so the protective influence of ozone far outweighs the greenhouse gas component. Hence using hairspray that aids in decomposing ozone is not a good thing, even if it ever so slightly cools the earth.

hairspray DOES have something to do with the amount of greenhouse warming we get (a negative effect is NOT the same as no effect, which is what you are saying), but the effect is small and not worth focussing attention on.

Its all cumulative, hairspray, fridges, cars , big industry, it all adds up over years to unbalance the delicate systems I suppose. Thats why aerosols are not used anymore in a lot of cosmetic products.

oh, ok, good i was starting to think i knew something u didn't. but u responded to my post in a way that made me think that. because i was responding to figg saying hairspray had nothing to do with global warming, and this just now, was clarifying it (many people actually go around and not knowing the difference). and then u came a long and said that ozon is a greenhouse gas (which it is) but you point just made me trying to say that the anti-ozon isn't global warming, much more confusing.

I dont think its easy to seperate it all, hairspray is part of the problem whether it directly causes global warming or not.

NOOOOO! at least not in the 80s..

today perhaps.

They took all the CFC's out, so spray away. But it's a problem because you can't run fingers through the hair afterwards. Kinda gross, really.

By the way, I met the guy who made the connection between CFC and ozone depletion. Very nice man.

Well, actually hairspray now has very little to do with global warming, it's more of those CFC's that they used to stuff inside- a nasty little agent found in all early aerosol cans. It's not a greenhouse gas but it does destroy the the ozone in the upper atmosphere. The quantity now used commercially has ZERO effect on the atmosphere.

Also, it's worth noting that global warming is global-average temperature rising over an extended length of time, 100 or 150 years say. Any change in a decade or three should not be considered climate change. Aerosols' really has nothing to do with it. That is not what’s been causing rising temperatures for the past 150 years.

Damn, if I hadn't gone through all of my spelling mistakes I would have beaten halfwise to that!

thank you ally  that's what i've been saying all along  (CFC or KFK as i said, is not a greenhouse gas.)


cool that you've met the guy halfy.

my sister got a black liquid eyeliner stain out of her white silk blouse with hairspray

#####ccsfridayfact

Right, Ozone IS a greenhouse gas (but not an important one), CFC's are NOT greenhouse gasses but they've been taken out of circulation.

30 years is considered a standard metric for judging climate change, and there has been a definite change in the last 3 decades.



Note the spike in 1998. This has allowed naysayers to say between 1998 and about 2010 that the earth has been cooling, but it was just a spike caused by a strong el Nino. As Ally says, you have to look at long term averages, and that signal is pretty clear.

Yes but if you had a chart showing even longer time scales- would the current up and down be anything exceptional or would you find similar patterns?

I'll just post some data and let you draw your own conclusions.



The above data is from ice cores: CO2 from trapped bubbles, Temperatures from the Oxygen isotope ratio (evaporation rate off the ocean)



In the late 1950's CO2 measurements started to be taken at Mona Loa, far away from sources so that the gas sampled was well mixed and represented the  average aground the globe.  Careful accounting has shown that this recent rise can be almost completely attributed to Human action.

From that alone I cant tell if its evidence of global warming since the industrial revolution or jut a pure coincidence coinciding with a typical long term trend.
It doesnt look unusual on the top one which is long term, maybe a bit to long term- do we have details for periods that far back?
Could you tell the patterns say 20,000-21,000 years ago- or do we have only broad trends? It looks quite cyclical.

The exact nature of past cycles is not completely understood, but the association with CO2 is telling, as is the fact that we are causing the recent rise in CO2.  

Carbon dioxide is not the most important greenhouse gas by the way, that honor goes to water.  But if C02 causes a small rise in temperature, we get more evaporation, so water vapor has a multiplier effect.  All climate models reproduce this recent rise, though to be fair they must add cloud effects in almost by hand, which is a big wild card.  But if all models do the same thing with clouds the CO2 still seems to account for the global warming we have seen so far.

After each of those CO2 spikes (the most recent 125,000 years ago), there appears to have been some sort of mechanism that kicks in at about 320 ppm to reduce CO2 levels over the next 100,000 years. Is there any consensus on what that mechanism is?

We seem to be approaching that tipping point, and I'm wondering if the machine will still start or if we've f***ed it up.

Is it true that a single event like Krakatoa puts up more Co2 than the human race ever has combined?

yes.

wow that top graph looks like the Earths heartbeat. from one of those heart monitoring thingies in hospitals.

So even if we stopped all our emission right now and for say the next 200 years- one major volcanic event in that time period would more than offset anything we could do?

Krakatoa cancelled it out with dust, and had a net cooling effect.

There is no firm consensus on exactly how previous warming or cooling phases have happened. Right now the math works out pretty well to associate our present warming with our human induced output of CO2.

Past rapid releases of CO2 may be due to overturning in the oceans, followed by a slow drawdown as either land based biomass increases (trapping carbon) or as plankton in the ocean die and sink, waiting at the ocean bottom to be dredged up again and start a new warming.

if anything happens we're gonna hit a wall, if there is no ice on the northpole the golf stream will slowly go slower and yeah, if the ice on greenland melts.. raised sea level, the gulf stream might dissapear all along... we (at least up here) will have another ice age..

though we must not forget that climate changes have happened throughout the planets history, with the whole planet as a snowball and no snow and etc. etc. the only difference now is that humans are increasing the speed of things and nature can't keep up. i mean, new zealand was covered in ice because i think the whole land was pushed upwards or something, but the animals still survived (they have a mountain parrot and a fat-parrot and so on). it is too fast now so animals (and humans) can't keep up.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:So even if we stopped all our emission right now and for say the next 200 years- one major volcanic event in that time period would more than offset anything we could do?

It's worse than that.  For the amount of CO2 we've released, we won't reach the equilibrium temperature until about 2050 or so.  If we stop emissions it will take decades for the CO2 to draw down, while we still warm up until the earth is emitting enough thermal IR to balance things out.

Or other mechanisms kick in such as more clouds to reflect more sunlight, but that's still a climate change.  Clouds are so unruly that even with 30 years of satellite data and a project dedicated to measure cloud impacts, we still don't know how they will react to such a change.  Cloud statistics are incredibly noisy.  I'm drinking buddies with the guy who has amassed this one such data set, and despite the fact that he could become a household name by making a definite statement on the relationship between clouds a global warming, he refuses to do any such thing.  It's just too complicated.