It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The point was that in the 70's they were screaming that the globe was going to be cooling, substantially at that and that we were metaphorically going to be living on an ice cube within decades.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bronco73
The point was that in the 70's they were screaming that the globe was going to be cooling, substantially at that and that we were metaphorically going to be living on an ice cube within decades.
Yes. As I said, a few scientists were and the media jumped all over it. But as I recall the timeframe went out to a couple of hundred years.
Also, as I said, there were far more scientists who were concerned about warming, even back then.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bronco73
Yes.
Got any evidence to that?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Suffice it to say that this hardly demonstrates a massive warning from scientists of a danger of global warming. That is not what happened in the seventies, the general script was warning of global cooling, not warming.
originally posted by: Nathan-D
Calculating the radiative forcing from CO2 (as it's generally done by the IPCC) isn't actually that hard. If anyone is interested I'll just give a quick run-down and you can use it in future debates.
The change in radiative forcing from changes in CO2 is often calculated with the following formula:
deltaRF = In(C1/CO)x5.35 (see the 'Radiative Forcing' Wikipedia page).
Where In is the natural logarithm of, C1 is the final CO2 concentration, CO is the initial CO2 concentration and RF is the change in radiative forcing.
A good online calculator to use in my opinion is the 'Web 2.0 Scientific Calculator' (Note: The natural logarithm or In in the formula on the Web 2.0 Scientific Calculator appears when you hover over the Log symbol. Don't just write In. You have to actually click on the ln symbol on the calculator).
So all you would need to do is this:
ln(400/280)x5.35
= 1.9 W/sq.m of radiative forcing (The / is divide by the way).
The study you mentioned said they found an increase of 0.20 W/sq.m in radiative forcing between 2000-2010 from CO2 which coincided with a 22ppmv increase. The CO2 level in 2000 was about 368ppmv and by 2010 it was about 390ppmv (i.e. a 22ppmv increase). So the formula above gives us:
ln(390/368)x5.35 = 0.17 W/sq.m which is close enough to their supposedly measured value of 0.20W/sq.m. In which case, the formula underestimates the radiative forcing from CO2 by a tiny bit.
To convert their value of 0.20W/sq.m into a temperature increase we can apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law re-arranged into the following formula:
deltaT = (T^4+deltaRF/0.000000056704)^0.25-T
Where deltaT is the temperature change, deltaRF is the increment of radiative forcing, T is the absolute temperature of the body in Kelvin to the 4th-power and 0.000000056704 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The average surface temperature of Earth is 288K (T) although the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) temperature of 255K is often used instead.
So we get:
(288^4+0.20/0.000000056704)^0.25-288
You can basically just copy-and-paste that into the Web 2.0 Calculator and you'll get 0.037K of warming. That would be the warming from CO2 at the surface without feedbacks from the 0.20 W/sq.m of radiative forcing. Using the TOA temperature instead gives us slightly more warming.
To find out the temperature increase from the feedbacks you just need to multiply the amount of radiative forcing from CO2 by 0.8 (see the 'Climate Sensitivity' page on Wikipedia). So 0.20x08 would give us the temperature increase from CO2 after all the feebacks (i.e. slow and fast feedbacks).
Hope you found that somewhat useful. If you're going to believe in something you may as well fact-check it independently for yourself.