Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Global Warming is Not a Crisis


  • Please log in to reply
286 replies to this topic

#261 D H

D H

    Physics Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 3,631 posts
  • LocationHouston, Texas

Posted 20 February 2012 - 10:30 PM

I'm unsure if this is your stance or not FX, but this reminds me of those who regularly say that climate change has happened in the past naturally for millions of years, so anthropogenic climate change must be untrue. It's as if they're arguing that because forest fires have happened naturally in the past humans couldn't possibly start one.

That is indeed the argument some make, and it is downright naive or downright dishonest (or both; every movement has its useful idiots).

Nature causes some pretty nasty forest fires, and yet we know that people do start forest forests and we do worry about those forest fires caused by people. Nature causes some downright massive erosion (just take a trip to the Grand Canyon), and yet we do know that some farming practices foster erosion and we do worry about that erosion caused by mankind. So why is it that just because natural climate variations (perhaps even some extinction level events) are much more severe than what we are seeing now mean that we are not the cause of this particular warming episode, or that we should do nothing about it?

Edited by D H, 20 February 2012 - 10:32 PM.

  • 2

This is modern software; there's no useful manual. After all, changing how everything works every six months or so is more important than helping people use the features you have.


#262 Essay

Essay

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 368 posts
  • LocationColorado State University

Posted 21 February 2012 - 06:07 AM

Yes, but it's not just CO2 that causes changes.

New paper on radiative forcings and such. Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008, Kaufmann et al, PNAS (2011).


Thanks!

This paper, which includes Michael Mann as an author, only backs up the suggestion that short-term fluctuations in transient forcers will lead to deviations from the long-term projections. These do not change the impact of long-term, relatively permanent forcers such as CO2.

Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets [the effect of] rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.


—a rapid rise in anthropogenic sulfur emissions driven by large increases in coal consumption in Asia in general, and China in particular. Chinese coal consumption more than doubles in the 4 y from 2003 to 2007 (the previous doubling takes 22 y, 1980–2002). In this four year period, Chinese coal consumption accounts for 77% of the 26% rise in global coal consumption.


Yikes! Over 5x the rate ...and still increasing, I imagine....
This may become more than a transient forcer. I wonder if they are having acid rain problems... or if Japan is, or if Alaska or the Arctic are having acid snow problems....

~ Posted Image

Edited by Essay, 21 February 2012 - 07:13 AM.

  • 0
Fire oxidizes carbon; Pyrolysis reduces carbon.
It's time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire
--in order to manage our domain everlastingly.

#263 Edtharan

Edtharan

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,639 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:06 PM

Interesting questions. The first attacks the credibility of climate models for not including the effects solar cycles. The second attacks the credibility of climate models for not considering the negative feedback of melting polar ice.

Why would anyone consider fundamentally changing our economy and culture based on computer models that do not include such well known climate forcings? I appreciate that these well known forcings are perhaps not well understood, but perhaps if warmthers were not intentionally avoiding negative forcings, because negative forcings detract from their funding and politically driven narrative,

Many of the climate models do account for the solar cycles, so this argument that they don't take them into account is false.

But, solar cycles are actually a fairly short term effect compared to the effect of greenhouse gasses. The Sun has an 11 year solar cycle (5.5 years from peak to minimum), where as the effects of greenhouse gasses are taken over 50 to 100 years. Also, the variation in energy over that is not much compared to the amount of energy retained though greenhouse gasses. And, the variation is both positive (peak) and negative (minimum) which over the short period it occurs tends to cancel itself out.

So, there are models that include the solar cycles, but other leave it out because it has been shown not to have a significant effect on the results.

they just might find out that CO2 is climate benign.

Well, it is a known fact that CO2 blocks and then re-emits infra-red light (effectively scattering it). The experiment to do this is not hard and can typically be done in most collage science labs (I have done it myself).

It is also a know fact that the only way the Earth can loose energy is to radiate this energy out as radiation.

Measurements have shown that this energy is mainly in the infra-red spectrum, just the same spectrum that CO2 scatters.

Now, as I have shown earlier, if you reduce the rate of loss in a system, then the amount of stuff retained by the system increases (bank accounts are a perfect example of this in action).

If the Earth retains energy in the form of infra-red radiation, then this will act as a warming effect (among other things).

From this we can conclude that CO2 is not "climate benign", so your argument that it could be, must be false. More so, it shows that there will be increases in temperatures due to an increase in CO2, but also, as this IR radiation can deliver energy into the system (usually through local warming rather than global warming), this increase in energy within the Earth's climate systems can lead to disruptions of those systems.

If recent temperatures don't match the models because of longer solar minimums and unexpected polar ice melting, why would it not be reasonable to assume that the slight warming of the past 150 years was not caused by other neglected factors instead of CO2?

Actually the "unexpected" polar ice melting was unexpected in climate change denier circles. For a long time they have been saying that there won't be any increase in polar melting. Interestingly, now that it has occurred, and occurred slightly faster and in greater amounts than the lowest predictions of climate scientists, they are claiming that because deniers cherry picked models that didn't predict this amount of melting got it wrong, then climate change must be wrong.

Think about this. An effect predicted by climate scientists and denied by the deniers actually occurs, but because it didn't fit exactly every single model out there, the deniers are now using this effect as proof against climate change.

It is like me predicting that if I flip a coin a number of times, and that the number of heads will be roughly 50%, but when I do it, I got 55% heads, and then you using that to prove that coins with tails on them don't exist.

I hope you didn't think your questions were in defense of climate models. All they do is point out that we simply don't know enough to make decisions. Particularly decisions which will divert funds from known actual problems.

I agree, we don't know enough to make certain decisions, but we do know enough to know that if we continue as we are then we will cause (and have caused) climate change. What we don't know is that the measures we plan to take will be enough to reverse what we have already done.

It is like seeing a car rolling down a hill, it might not be going fast now, but it will pick up speed if nobody stops it, and we can't tell exactly how much force will be needed to stop it. But, we know that if no body stops it, then it will hit something at the bottom (but not necessarily what it will hit and how bad it will be - but it looks like it will cause pretty bad damage to whatever it hits).

Many deniers are really saying: Well the car hasn't hit anything yet, so that means it won't actually do any damage.
  • 1
This sentance you are now reading is false...

#264 waitforufo

waitforufo

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 785 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 09:03 PM

What an excellent, well-reasoned article.

http://online.wsj.co...Opinion_LEADTop

My favorite aspect is this graph.

Posted Image

Doesn't look like a crisis to me.
  • 0

#265 JohnB

JohnB

    Hello? Is this thing on?

  • Senior Members
  • 2,811 posts
  • LocationBrisbane. Oz.

Posted 24 February 2012 - 03:52 AM

Sorry for the delay, but RL got in the way.

First up. swansont you had questions about the provenence of this graph.
Posted Image

The graph is drawn from Dr Scafettas paper "Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models" the original of which can be found here. The full paper is behind a paywall but if you scroll down, the figure is "Figure 5a" in the paper. A more accessable version is in the SPPI pdf. The SPPI is an updated version of the paper to add in the more recent temperature readings.

I have to admit to some concerns here as I have no way to verify that the "update" is the same as the original peer reviewed version. The original peer reviewed article is behind the paywall and the "update" is freely available but not peer reviewed. I can only assume that if Dr Scafetta tried to pull some sort of a swifty "bait and switch" it would be jumped on rather quickly. But anyway, that is where the graph draws its data from.

Once you had pointed out the .2 degree offset and questioned it, I was concerned. I hadn't noticed the point and agree it was odd. The answer is in the SPPI document in Figure 9. The graph above stats at 2000, whereas Figure 9 goes back to 1995. A common practice in climate science when using temperatures is to use a 5 year running mean. Given the 1998 El Nino and the large drop from that in 1999, I'm willing to bet that the 5 year mean runs through the .4 mark and aligns with the projection stating points. This isn't explicitly stated in the paper (which I think is a small flaw, I like to see everything laid out including the "obvious") but I think is a reasonable assumption. If the intent of a paper is to compare projections with reality then it makes no sense not to have things starting at the same point. Also using a 60 month running mean gets away from the "Starting year" problem.

What graph in the report is being used here? It's a big report, and the projection I find (fig 3.2 in the synthesis report, p. 46) shows multiple individual scenarios that all start at a temperature anomaly of about 0.25 ºC, which is the value for the year 2000. So it's curious that the anomaly graphed here starts at about 0.45 ºC. Why would you start your projections two tenths of a degree above the actual temperature? In the IPCC projection graph, the high temperature anomaly is at or below about 0.8 ºC in 2020, whereas here it's literally off the charts. In 2010 the high value is about 0.6 ºC, but this graph shows it as 0.8 ºC. In other words it looks to me like the projection graph has been shifted up 0.2 ºC in this graph, relative to the one I find in the IPCC AR4 report.


Now I'm getting confused. Looking at the IPCC AR4 WG1 Figure 3.1 (It is a bloody big report, isn't it? :D ) the temp anomalies are definitely in the .4 range and not the .2 around the year 2000.
Posted Image

Where is the problem? Using the running mean there is no "offset" of .2 degrees and the IPCC report itself shows that a starting point of a .4 degree anomaly is quite reasonable.

Now as to A1B scenarios.

The A1B scenario was originally defined in the TAR and can be found here. It's the BAU scenario that assumes an increasing world population up to about 2050 and then a slow decline as birthrates drop in developing nations that become developed. It also assumes a "balanced" mix of power sources with a gradual move over to wind, solar etc. If you were a betting man, then this would be called the "most likely" scenario. No magical changes in human behaviour and economics and no new magical energy devices.

What a lot of people don't realise is that the inputs for the climate models are actually outputs from economic models. The economic models model the world economiy for the next 100 years and from this is derived the CO2 output etc and these values are the ones the climate modellers have to use as inputs. I can't speak for others, but using the output of economic models as the input for the climate ones does not give me "high confidence" in the result. While I have some doubts about climate models 100 years out, I have very grave doubts about economic ones 100 years out.

So there is nothing "agressive" in the A1B scenario, it's just the BAU with humans pretty much being humans. The other thing is that the A1B is the one that people have been quoting as "what will happen" so that's the one that needs to be examined against reality. Both inputs and outputs. Put bluntly, if reality is pretty much matching the inputs, but the outputs aren't matching reality, then we should be able to agree that there is something wrong with the model and how it is handling the inputs. There is no point looking at the B2 curves and saying "Oh looky, the temps match quite well!" because the input factors don't. (Unless there has been a very large scale change to renewables and I missed it)

This is why the A1B scenario is the correct one to compare to reality to see if the models are getting it right. As the data shows, they aren't. If anything they are running closest to the "Commitment" curve Essay gave in post #150, but we can't compare to that curve because it assumes no increase in CO2 since 2000. Also that diagram in Dr Dennings presentation needs revision. The comparison of projections to actual temps is only for 2000-2005, it's 2012 now and another 6 years of data are available.

Essay.

For the sun, this "assumption" of nearly constant activity (within the limits of sunspot cycles) is detailed in the IPCC reports. Please note that models such as this are to indicate long-term trends, which is why the recent hiccup in the sunspot cycle shouldn't affect the long-term results (but may affect short term observations).


We did discuss this before. The IPCC assumes a change of only .5W/m-2 between a "Maunder Minimum" and the "Solar Maximum" of the 20th century. I have previously pointed out that this conclusion is based on one paper and is in opposition to all previous papers and works on this. I have also pointed out that the person responsible for choosing the paper which the IPCC relies on for its values is a co-author of the paper. (I know, that means nothing because climate scientists are of a higher moral standard than everybody else and things like "Conflict of Interest" don't apply to them) However if the worst predictions for the next cycle are bourne out and it turns into a full blown "Minima" we will be able to see which proxy values were correct. If the TSI drops by .5W/m-2 then the IPCC values are correct, if it drops by 2 w/m-2 then the IPCC values are crap and their attribution values similarly useless and the entire Northern Hemisphere is in for a shedload of trouble.

It won't bother us much Downunder, but you blokes will be back to 20 foot snowfalls and "Ice Fairs" on the Thames, long winters and crop failures.

Edtharan;
If the Earth retains energy in the form of infra-red radiation, then this will act as a warming effect (among other things).

From this we can conclude that CO2 is not "climate benign", so your argument that it could be, must be false. More so, it shows that there will be increases in temperatures due to an increase in CO2, but also, as this IR radiation can deliver energy into the system (usually through local warming rather than global warming), this increase in energy within the Earth's climate systems can lead to disruptions of those systems.


Even if we granted that all warming since 1850 was due to CO2, how can you not call it benign? The Little Ice Age was a more "benign" climate than todays? Really?

Actually the "unexpected" polar ice melting was unexpected in climate change denier circles. For a long time they have been saying that there won't be any increase in polar melting. Interestingly, now that it has occurred, and occurred slightly faster and in greater amounts than the lowest predictions of climate scientists, they are claiming that because deniers cherry picked models that didn't predict this amount of melting got it wrong, then climate change must be wrong.


Actually we expected it. We "deniers" have very funny ideas like "If the planet warms, ice will melt". And don't go the "lowest prediction" path. It was your side that was predicting an "ice free" north pole next year. It hasn't gone as fast as the predictions said it would. The biggest problem with using Arctic ice is the lack of long term data. The best we have are the satellites and they only go back to 1979 or so. Not a really good baseline for extrapolation. We don't know with any accuracy how fast the floating ice has melted in previous warmings. Heck, all you have to do is keep a close eye on ice extent and watch hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of ice appear and disappear overnight.

It's a warming world. Ice melts. Glaciers recede. These things happen in a warming world regardless of the cause. Glaciers have been receding since the 1700s in the Alps. Archaeology shows us that they have done so at least 7 times in the last 2,500 years.

The real difference is that we deniers don't start our temperature graph at the coldest point in 8,000 years and go screaming "Oh God! It's warming! We're all going to die!" Are people expected to panic every year when winter turns into spring?
  • 1
There are two rules for being successful in life.
1. Never tell everything you know.

#266 Essay

Essay

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 368 posts
  • LocationColorado State University

Posted 24 February 2012 - 10:39 AM

re: "...which is why the recent hiccup in the sunspot cycle shouldn't affect the long-term results...." ~SA

Essay.
We did discuss this before. The IPCC assumes a change of only .5W/m-2 between a "Maunder Minimum" and the "Solar Maximum" of the 20th century. I have previously pointed out that this conclusion is based on one paper and is in opposition to all previous papers and works on this. I have also pointed out that the person responsible for choosing the paper which the IPCC relies on for its values is a co-author of the paper. (I know, that means nothing because climate scientists are of a higher moral standard than everybody else and things like "Conflict of Interest" don't apply to them) However if the worst predictions for the next cycle are bourne out and it turns into a full blown "Minima" we will be able to see which proxy values were correct. If the TSI drops by .5W/m-2 then the IPCC values are correct, if it drops by 2 w/m-2 then the IPCC values are crap and their attribution values similarly useless and the entire Northern Hemisphere is in for a shedload of trouble.

"...if it drops by 2 w/m-2 then...." ~JohnB, 2Watts! John, where are you getting numbers like that from?!?


JohnB,
We talked about how a small forcing, of long duration, changes climate noticeably.

I recall pointing out how a change (in the solar constant) of about 0.5 W/m^2 in solar forcing, over several hundred years, was calculated to have occurred between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little IceAge; and how it was associated with that change in climate.

I may have cited one paper to show that point, which iirc you pointed out, but that paper was based on numerous other studies (a meta analysis of records & proxies) of solar activity during that period; wasn't it? Maybe I'm recalling something else....
Well whatever, certainly the IPCC assessment of solar insolation and variability is based on more than one paper; isn't it?
===

Notice also (below) the first two points:
Compared with the solar changes, greenhouse forcing has over an order of magnitude greater effect.

....from the: Summary for Policymakers, Fourth IPCC Report (2007)

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

* The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m–2, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM.1 and SPM.2). The carbon dioxide radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200 years. {2.3, 6.4}
....

* Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m–2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {2.7}
===

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...en/ch9s9-2.html

This section briefly summarises the understanding of radiative forcing based on the assessment in Chapter 2, and of the climate response to forcing. Uncertainties in the forcing and estimates of climate response, and their implications for understanding and attributing climate change are also discussed. The discussion of radiative forcing focuses primarily on the period since 1750, with a brief reference to periods in the more distant past that are also assessed in the chapter, such as the last millennium, the Last Glacial Maximum and the mid-Holocene.

...and so, re: Chapter 2
http://www.ipcc.ch/p...s2-7.html#2-7-1

2.7.1 Solar Variability
The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002).


It looks as if they use more than one paper; and fairly current stuff too.

How many papers is this "Harmonic Component" suggestion based upon?
1. Scafetta, N.
2. ? (...i'm sure there are more, but could you point me to a link or review; thanks)

But whatever you say about solar influences, at least they vary; they come and go, and wax and wane over the decades and centuries. CO2 will always be "on" --Watt after extra Watt-- from pole to pole, 24/7/365, for many centuries to come. So we need to reduce CO2.

And y'know John, even if they are wrong, and if you doubled the solar changes, then the drift in the solar constant would still be dwarfed by the CO2 forcing. Greenhouse gas forcing is 10 to 20 times stronger than forcing from the long-term solar influence .

~ :)
  • 0
Fire oxidizes carbon; Pyrolysis reduces carbon.
It's time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire
--in order to manage our domain everlastingly.

#267 swansont

swansont

    Shaken, not stirred

  • Moderators
  • 27,275 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 24 February 2012 - 02:04 PM

Sorry for the delay, but RL got in the way.

First up. swansont you had questions about the provenence of this graph.
Posted Image

The graph is drawn from Dr Scafettas paper "Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models" the original of which can be found here. The full paper is behind a paywall but if you scroll down, the figure is "Figure 5a" in the paper. A more accessable version is in the SPPI pdf. The SPPI is an updated version of the paper to add in the more recent temperature readings.

I have to admit to some concerns here as I have no way to verify that the "update" is the same as the original peer reviewed version. The original peer reviewed article is behind the paywall and the "update" is freely available but not peer reviewed. I can only assume that if Dr Scafetta tried to pull some sort of a swifty "bait and switch" it would be jumped on rather quickly. But anyway, that is where the graph draws its data from.

Once you had pointed out the .2 degree offset and questioned it, I was concerned. I hadn't noticed the point and agree it was odd. The answer is in the SPPI document in Figure 9. The graph above stats at 2000, whereas Figure 9 goes back to 1995. A common practice in climate science when using temperatures is to use a 5 year running mean. Given the 1998 El Nino and the large drop from that in 1999, I'm willing to bet that the 5 year mean runs through the .4 mark and aligns with the projection stating points. This isn't explicitly stated in the paper (which I think is a small flaw, I like to see everything laid out including the "obvious") but I think is a reasonable assumption. If the intent of a paper is to compare projections with reality then it makes no sense not to have things starting at the same point. Also using a 60 month running mean gets away from the "Starting year" problem.

Now I'm getting confused. Looking at the IPCC AR4 WG1 Figure 3.1 (It is a bloody big report, isn't it? :D ) the temp anomalies are definitely in the .4 range and not the .2 around the year 2000.
Posted Image

Where is the problem? Using the running mean there is no "offset" of .2 degrees and the IPCC report itself shows that a starting point of a .4 degree anomaly is quite reasonable.


The graph is quite like fig 8 in the linked pdf, and the legend says it's the surface temperature, so it's not averaged. (There is also a "4-year smooth" curve, which is not reproduced in the graphs that are posted in the thread)

If you scroll up to fig 7, you see the IPCC graph, and the year-2000 value is slightly below 0.2 ºC — there's even a line on the graph extending to the right axis to show this. That's where the projections start. (Other graphs may use a different baseline value for 0º; since these are relative values, you can't mix-and-match without normalizing to the same baseline.)

In fig 9, the "average" is his model.

So as far as I can tell we still have an issue of Scafetta's graphs not matching up at year 2000, giving an illusion of a (larger) difference for the projections as compared to actual.


Now as to A1B scenarios.

The A1B scenario was originally defined in the TAR and can be found here. It's the BAU scenario that assumes an increasing world population up to about 2050 and then a slow decline as birthrates drop in developing nations that become developed. It also assumes a "balanced" mix of power sources with a gradual move over to wind, solar etc. If you were a betting man, then this would be called the "most likely" scenario. No magical changes in human behaviour and economics and no new magical energy devices.

What a lot of people don't realise is that the inputs for the climate models are actually outputs from economic models. The economic models model the world economiy for the next 100 years and from this is derived the CO2 output etc and these values are the ones the climate modellers have to use as inputs. I can't speak for others, but using the output of economic models as the input for the climate ones does not give me "high confidence" in the result. While I have some doubts about climate models 100 years out, I have very grave doubts about economic ones 100 years out.

So there is nothing "agressive" in the A1B scenario, it's just the BAU with humans pretty much being humans. The other thing is that the A1B is the one that people have been quoting as "what will happen" so that's the one that needs to be examined against reality. Both inputs and outputs. Put bluntly, if reality is pretty much matching the inputs, but the outputs aren't matching reality, then we should be able to agree that there is something wrong with the model and how it is handling the inputs. There is no point looking at the B2 curves and saying "Oh looky, the temps match quite well!" because the input factors don't. (Unless there has been a very large scale change to renewables and I missed it)

This is why the A1B scenario is the correct one to compare to reality to see if the models are getting it right. As the data shows, they aren't. If anything they are running closest to the "Commitment" curve Essay gave in post #150, but we can't compare to that curve because it assumes no increase in CO2 since 2000. Also that diagram in Dr Dennings presentation needs revision. The comparison of projections to actual temps is only for 2000-2005, it's 2012 now and another 6 years of data are available.


This is all (or mostly) moot if the projection offset is not corrected.
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum                                   To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#268 waitforufo

waitforufo

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 785 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 09:49 PM

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest. --Professor Richard Lindzen MIT, Atmospheric Physicists, Before the House of Commons Feb 22, 2012


Doesn't sound like a crisis to me.

Read more about it at..

http://blogs.indepen...-bug-a-mistake/
  • 0

#269 swansont

swansont

    Shaken, not stirred

  • Moderators
  • 27,275 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 24 February 2012 - 10:08 PM

Doesn't sound like a crisis to me.

Read more about it at..

http://blogs.indepen...-bug-a-mistake/


No, it's clear from the writing that it's meant not to. But there's a problem with the link — the site has no actual science presented.

If Lindzen is right


The issue is whether you can remove the "if" from in front of that sentence.

Also, the tie-in with the millennium bug is curious. You can't say it wasn't a potential problem because we actually expended effort fixing it. This was a one-off event. It's not like e.g. vaccines, where we can actually see that spending money on them has an effect because of the recent antiscience effort resulting in fewer people getting them, and the resultant increase in diseases.
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum                                   To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#270 JohnB

JohnB

    Hello? Is this thing on?

  • Senior Members
  • 2,811 posts
  • LocationBrisbane. Oz.

Posted 27 February 2012 - 03:26 AM

swansont.

The graph is quite like fig 8 in the linked pdf, and the legend says it's the surface temperature, so it's not averaged.


The temperature data is the HADCRUT3 dataset and is a global average. http://www.cru.uea.a.../hadcrut3gl.txt

(There is also a "4-year smooth" curve, which is not reproduced in the graphs that are posted in the thread)


I went for 5 year, but that is why the temps don't appear to line up with the .4 degree mark. The raw don't, but the average does.

If you scroll up to fig 7, you see the IPCC graph, and the year-2000 value is slightly below 0.2 ºC — there's even a line on the graph extending to the right axis to show this. That's where the projections start. (Other graphs may use a different baseline value for 0º; since these are relative values, you can't mix-and-match without normalizing to the same baseline.)


I agree about Figure 7 but think it's a pretty crappy figure from the IPCC, not very detailed at all. Consider Figure 6 which is IPCC’s figures 9.5a and 9.5b that show the global anomaly in 2000 to be around .4 degrees. In figure 2 we see exactly the same thing with the HADCRUT data showing the anomaly in 2000 to be .4 degrees.

So there is no "offset". The temperature series show the anomaly in 2000 to be .4 degrees. The starting point for all the model runs is .4 degrees in 2000. All the models and temperature series are normalised to the same point, a .4 degree anomaly in the year 2000. Right now the model projections aren't doing very well and it's going to take about a .4 degree increase in average temps between now and 2020 to match the projections and that is looking less and less likely every day.

Essay,

"...if it drops by 2 w/m-2 then...." ~JohnB, 2Watts! John, where are you getting numbers like that from?!?


Gee, I don't know, maybe all the papers that put the difference between the Maunder Minimum and now at between 3 and 10 W/m-2.

I recall pointing out how a change (in the solar constant) of about 0.5 W/m^2 in solar forcing, over several hundred years, was calculated to have occurred between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little IceAge; and how it was associated with that change in climate.

I may have cited one paper to show that point, which iirc you pointed out, but that paper was based on numerous other studies (a meta analysis of records & proxies) of solar activity during that period; wasn't it? Maybe I'm recalling something else....
Well whatever, certainly the IPCC assessment of solar insolation and variability is based on more than one paper; isn't it?


Yes, on only one paper. The paper being WAng et al 2005 coauthored by Judith Lean, who also just happened to be the only Solar person in the IPCC author group who was conversant on solar forcings. People choosing their own papers to quote is why out in the real world we have things called "Conflict of Interest" policies. The IPCC has them, they are just ignored as being too hard. Tough.

If you go down the page to the thread "Who here is a Global Warming Sceptic" http://www.sciencefo...ic/page__st__40

Go to page 3 and you'll find where I dug out all the papers referenced by the IPCC for solar forcings and showed that the majority put the change in TSI between the Maunder Minimum and the late 20th Century at between 3 and 10 W/M-2. Only one paper put the figure at .5 W/m-2 and that was the one chosen as representative. On page 2 of that thread you can see the values for these papers as quoted by the IPCC in the graph you supplied. Take some time and compare what the IPCC says the values were in the referenced papers and what the values really were.

One thing I do find interesting is that most people don't have a real problem with the "Faint Sun Paradox" and are quite happy to accept that the Suns output long ago was possibly 200W/m-2 less than it is today but at the same time find it impossible to think that the Sun could vary by 3 W/m-2 between a Grand Minima and a Grand Maxima.
  • 0
There are two rules for being successful in life.
1. Never tell everything you know.

#271 Essay

Essay

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 368 posts
  • LocationColorado State University

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:59 PM

One thing I do find interesting is that most people don't have a real problem with the "Faint Sun Paradox" and are quite happy to accept that the Suns output long ago was possibly 200W/m-2 less than it is today but at the same time find it impossible to think that the Sun could vary by 3 W/m-2 between a Grand Minima and a Grand Maxima.

...Are you talking about the "faint sun" from billions of years ago, and suggesting that should compare with variation over some recent centuries?!? [Maybe that is just "most people" whom you know.]
===


...[re: the 0.5 Watt/m^2 claim....]

Essay,
Gee, I don't know, maybe all the papers that put the difference between the Maunder Minimum and now at between 3 and 10 W/m-2.

...John, is that "total forcing" or forcing only from "solar insolation" between then and now? [see below also*] ...Can you share (or at least cite) all those papers?
===


...[re: the IPCC graph on solar forcing...]

Yes, on only one paper. The paper being WAng et al 2005 coauthored by Judith Lean, who also just happened to be the only Solar person in the IPCC author group who was conversant on solar forcings. People choosing their own papers to quote is why out in the real world we have things called "Conflict of Interest" policies. The IPCC has them, they are just ignored as being too hard. Tough.

If you go down the page to the thread "Who here is a Global Warming Sceptic" http://www.sciencefo...ic/page__st__40

Go to page 3 and you'll find where I dug out all the papers referenced by the IPCC for solar forcings and showed that the majority put the change in TSI between the Maunder Minimum and the late 20th Century at between 3 and 10 W/M-2. Only one paper put the figure at .5 W/m-2 and that was the one chosen as representative. On page 2 of that thread you can see the values for these papers as quoted by the IPCC in the graph you supplied. Take some time and compare what the IPCC says the values were in the referenced papers and what the values really were.

...so are you saying the graph doesn't portray "what the values really were?" That is an extraordinary claim! But....


*John, you're right! We had this conversation before.

JohnB, on 24 June 2011 - 08:37 AM, said:
Essay, how do you arrive at that figure? The difference between the LIA and today is listed by the IPCC as 2.4 w/sq.metre. Assuming the MWP was of similar temp ranges as today one would expect the forcing value to be similar. *Again, is that total forcing or just the solar component?

...from:

http://www.sciencefo...post__p__613805

The graph (as I recalled) is a compilation of many studies, not data from one author as you have suggested twice now. I'm just going by the graph, but am I not reading it right--about it being a meta analysis or at least a compilation of many other studies?

Solar Insol.LIA-MWP.png


full graph at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/p...igure-6-13.html

Also, speaking of not reading the graph correctly: Do you agree that--whether it is wrong or not--this graph shows about a half Watt of change between the MWP & LIA (or 1150 v. 1450)?
In that post from June, 2011 (and the posts above), I keep saying "between the LIA & MWP," whereas you keep saying "between the Maunder Minimum & Today;" but either way the graph backs up my numbers--if I'm reading it right--of about a half Watt change in average forcing from drifting solar activity (minimum difference) ...though (to be fair, it is) slightly over 1.0 Watt/m^2 if you look at the maximum difference (GRT 2005 -or- AJS 2006). However, the "average" [black line] of the various studies is still at about a half Watt difference; isn't it?
===


Back then, I recall you picked numbers from two solar cycles that were centuries apart and subtracted them to get those answers of from 3 to 10 Watts/m^2....

on June 26, 2011, JohnB said: I have trouble matching that with Figure 1A which clearly shows the SI at 1368 W/M-2 up from a baseline of 1365 W/M-2. Similarly in 1700 the Solar figure goes down to 1362 W/M-2. This is a range of 6 W/M-2, not .6 W/M-2.

...but I still don't think that is a valid way to compare solar activity between any different periods or between then and now. Do you?


~Posted Image

Edited by Essay, 27 February 2012 - 08:06 PM.

  • 0
Fire oxidizes carbon; Pyrolysis reduces carbon.
It's time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire
--in order to manage our domain everlastingly.

#272 swansont

swansont

    Shaken, not stirred

  • Moderators
  • 27,275 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 28 February 2012 - 01:41 AM

swansont.


The temperature data is the HADCRUT3 dataset and is a global average. http://www.cru.uea.a.../hadcrut3gl.txt


The issue was whether it was a temporal average, and it isn't.


I went for 5 year, but that is why the temps don't appear to line up with the .4 degree mark. The raw don't, but the average does.


I agree about Figure 7 but think it's a pretty crappy figure from the IPCC, not very detailed at all. Consider Figure 6 which is IPCC’s figures 9.5a and 9.5b that show the global anomaly in 2000 to be around .4 degrees. In figure 2 we see exactly the same thing with the HADCRUT data showing the anomaly in 2000 to be .4 degrees.


One graph I saw earlier uses 1960-1980 as the zero temperature. Figure 7 is relative to 1980–1999, which gives it a smaller year 2000 offset. Fig 6 is relative to the period 1901 to 1950 (you can see this if you click through in the pdf to the IPCC report and read the text). You CAN'T just mix-and-match these without adjusting for the different baselines.
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum                                   To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#273 JohnB

JohnB

    Hello? Is this thing on?

  • Senior Members
  • 2,811 posts
  • LocationBrisbane. Oz.

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:18 AM

...Are you talking about the "faint sun" from billions of years ago, and suggesting that should compare with variation over some recent centuries?!? [Maybe that is just "most people" whom you know.]


Well you have a problem with it for a start.

...John, is that "total forcing" or forcing only from "solar insolation" between then and now? [see below also*] ...Can you share (or at least cite) all those papers?


I did last time but they obviously weren't read. That's why I pointed to the previous thread, to try and save myself from doing the same work over again.

...so are you saying the graph doesn't portray "what the values really were?" That is an extraordinary claim! But....

Also, speaking of not reading the graph correctly: Do you agree that--whether it is wrong or not--this graph shows about a half Watt of change between the MWP & LIA (or 1150 v. 1450)?
In that post from June, 2011 (and the posts above), I keep saying "between the LIA & MWP," whereas you keep saying "between the Maunder Minimum & Today;" but either way the graph backs up my numbers--if I'm reading it right--of about a half Watt change in average forcing from drifting solar activity (minimum difference) ...though (to be fair, it is) slightly over 1.0 Watt/m^2 if you look at the maximum difference (GRT 2005 -or- AJS 2006). However, the "average" [black line] of the various studies is still at about a half Watt difference; isn't it?


I'll take these and the graph in the one hit. And for the record, yes the graph does indeed show about a .5W/m-2 change in solar insolation between the LIA and now. That is exactly why I say it misrepresents the papers. I said it last time and linked directly to the damn papers so that anybody could actually go and look for themselves.

But here it all is again. The papers used to create the IPCC graph linked to as Figure 6.13 can be found as a list in Table 6.2.

González-Rouco et al., 2003 http://w3k.gkss.de/s...l.2003.soil.pdf
Osborn et al., 2006 http://coast.gkss.de...-echog.2006.pdf
Tett et al., 2007 http://www.springerl...6116h0t30g26g2/
Mann et al., 2005b http://journals.amet...1175/JCLI3564.1
Bertrand et al., 2002b http://onlinelibrary...002.00287.x/pdf
Crowley et al., 2003 http://www.sages.ac....003GL017801.pdf
Goosse et al., 2005b http://coast.hzg.de/...etalGRL2005.pdf
Gerber et al., 2003 http://www.meteo.psu...erClimDyn03.pdf
Bauer et al., 2003 http://www.mpimet.mp...1000_grl_03.pdf
González-Rouco et al., 2006 http://esrc.stfx.ca/...005GL024693.pdf
Stendel et al., 2006 http://www.gps.calte...del-etal-06.pdf

11 papers.
González-Rouco et al., 2003 is a temp reconstruction using borehole data. No great help regarding TSI.
Osbourne et al 2006 is a comparison of model runs and inspects why Erik in the ECHO-G models is an outlier.
Tett et al 2007 is another climate model run and is behind a paywall, making it hard to check the values.
Mann et al 2005b is on the reliability of dendrothermometry in paleoclimate reconstructions. Nothing there on TSI.

Bertrand et al 2002b Finally something on TSI. Bertrand is a series of model rund using a variety of forcings. I direct you to Figure 1. While the Be10 series from Crowley is quite stable and closely matches the IPCC preferred .5W/m-2, the Reid reconstruction shows a variance of nearly 20 W/m-2 between 1450 and today. Of the three values used in Bertrand, only the one that bolsters the IPCC opinion is used in their graph. I believe this is called "Cherry picking".

Crowley et al 2003 is concerned with modelling ocean heat content over the last 1,000 years.
Goosse et al 2005b looks at the differences between accepted forcings used in climate model that have hindcast the last 1,000 years or so. Please note Figure 1a "Time variations of solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere" from a series of reconstructions. While not closely agreeing all the reconstructions place the TSI change between circa 1500 and 2000 in a range from 2W/m-2 to 6W/m-2. Maybe if you squint really hard you can squash it down to .5W/m-2.

Gerber et al 2003. Sorry, but this is just a piss poor paper. Reids 20 W/m-2 has been "smoothed" to a 1 W/m-2 change, but there is a story to tell I suppose. I especially like this part;

For example, the role of solar variability for climate change has been discussed controversially (Ramaswamy et al. 2001).

Ramaswamy et al 2001 is IPCC TAR WG1. How pathetically sloppy, it's like listing "Encyclopedia Brittanica Volume 6" as a reference.

Bauer et al 2003 Two TSI reconstructions are shown in figure 1. One is for a change of around 4W/m-2 and the other is a change of about 6W/m-2.

González-Rouco et al., 2006 is another bore hole temperature series.

Stendel et al., 2006 A more interesting paper with Figure 1 putting the change at around 4W/m-2 between 1500 and 2000.

Gee, are you starting to see where I got the 2W/m-2 guesstimate from yet? But I'm not finished.

Hoyt and Schattern 1993 http://www.leif.org/EOS/93JA01944.pdf Figure 9 is the one you want here. A composite of model simulations showing the TSI going from 1367W/m-2 in 1700 to about 1372 today, a change of 5 W/m-2.

Lean et al 1995 http://www.geo.umass...ey/lean1995.pdf Unfortunately the correlation technique bottoms out when sunspots reduce to zero and so this reconstruction only shows a change of 3-4 W/m-2 from the LIA to today. However it is far more likely that the TSI dropped below the 1364 W/m-2 figure during the hundred year minima.

Bard et al 2000 ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/bard_irradiance.txt Just scroll down the figures and you'll see variations of more than 4 W/m-2.

The paper used by the IPCC to decide that the change was only .5W/m-2 and not the higher figures was this one, M. Wang et al., 2005. I'm sure that the fact that the only qualified solar person doing this bit of AR4 just happened to be a coauthor of the paper had nothing to do with it. The thing is of course that Wang could be right and the others wrong, but it takes more ethical behaviour than "Trust me, I'm a scientist" to prove it. The selection process for the choosing the paper stinks of "Conflict of Interest".

The bottom line here is that .5W/m-2 fits the narrative and higher values don't. If you want people to buy your story then you have to make sure they only hear some of the facts. Remember that the IPCC is an Intergovernmental panel and not a scientific one. Its purpose is to provide reports consistent with desired policy outcomes and not reality. This is not to disparage the many fine people who are involved, byt they can write whatever they want, the summaries are written by the political animals and they are the bits that count.

A quick proceedural question. Do you write a summary to reflect the facts of a report or do you write the summary and then edit the main report to match the summary? Which does the IPCC do?
  • 0
There are two rules for being successful in life.
1. Never tell everything you know.

#274 JohnB

JohnB

    Hello? Is this thing on?

  • Senior Members
  • 2,811 posts
  • LocationBrisbane. Oz.

Posted 28 February 2012 - 11:29 PM

Essay, I have to also ask a logical question. You are quite happy with the idea that TSI changes by about 1.4 W/m-2 during the 11 year cycle. You've used that figure in previous posts and I don't have a problem with it.

However, if we look at the actual cycles;
Posted Image

We can reasonably say that 3 of the last 5 cycles peaked out at 150. This gives a median figure of 75 for the cycles and a logical problem with the whole .5W/m-2 from the LIA to now. If the TSI varies by 1.4 W/m-2 over a cycle then it can be fairly said to vary by .7W/m-2 either side of the median. So the drop from median to minima in a given cycle, a drop from 75 spots to zero gives a reduction of .7W/m-2.

If this is true, then how can the claim be made that to drop the median from 75 to zero, as we see in a prolonged minima, only result in a .5W/m-2 drop in forcing?

75 to zero in 5.5 years, a half cycle, results in a .7W/m-2 drop in TSI but a 75 to zero drop and staying at zero for 100 years only gives a .5W/m-2 drop in TSI? You are arguing that a short drop to a lower level of sunspot activity gives a greater reduction in TSI than a prolonged drop to the same level.

This makes no sense.
  • 0
There are two rules for being successful in life.
1. Never tell everything you know.

#275 swansont

swansont

    Shaken, not stirred

  • Moderators
  • 27,275 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 29 February 2012 - 03:32 PM

Interesting article relevant to the topic.


http://online.wsj.co...1838421366.html

A detailed rebuttal

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong
http://www.nybooks.c...tics-are-wrong/
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum                                   To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#276 JohnB

JohnB

    Hello? Is this thing on?

  • Senior Members
  • 2,811 posts
  • LocationBrisbane. Oz.

Posted 1 March 2012 - 03:16 PM

swansont, a bit more on that graph. It looks to me like the various projections are initialised at a level slightly above the .4 degree anomaly level. In the pdf below the updated paper is the original "In Press" version. Scrolling down to Figure 5 we see a grey band running through the graph, this is the 4 year running smoothing. It appears to me that the top of this grey band is at the .4 degree mark and this means that there is indeed an offset. It's quite small, something less than .05 degrees but it is there. It strikes me that good practice would have been for all the temperature projections to align with the median of the grey band in 2000 and start on a level playing field.

The problem here is that the thick black line is actually a projection the begins prior to 2000. Either way, the IPCC model runs should be initialised on the average smoothed temp of slightly below a .4 degree anomaly in 2000. (At least to my way of thinking.)

I have emailed Dr Scafetta detailing this offset and seeking clarification. I'll let you know what happens.

Essay, that "actuals" graph from post 250?

It only compares up to the year 2005, how does it look when we add in temps up to 2011?
Posted Image

We aren't even at the "Commitment" temps, so unless everybody stopped CO2 emissions in 2006 and I've missed it, it doesn't look good for the models, does it?
  • 0
There are two rules for being successful in life.
1. Never tell everything you know.

#277 Essay

Essay

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 368 posts
  • LocationColorado State University

Posted 2 March 2012 - 08:55 AM

Essay, I have to also ask a logical question. You are quite happy with the idea that TSI changes by about 1.4 W/m-2 during the 11 year cycle. You've used that figure in previous posts and I don't have a problem with it.

However, if we look at the actual cycles;
....
We can reasonably say that....
If the TSI varies....
So the drop....

If this is true, then how can....

You are arguing that....

This makes no sense.



You're right, "this makes no sense," but I don't know enough to explain all that is wrong with the scenario in your post. I do know you are wrong about saying how I'm "arguing that a short drop... gives a greater reduction in TSI than a prolonged drop." That is your post (#274)--filled with your assumptions and "if" phrases--supposedly analyzing the solar cycles, which then creates your "logical question;" so don't claim they are my words or logic. If you'd like to quote from my posts, and ask questions or make points about those, feel free.
===


But to the post (#273), which I can make sense of....

In general, I find it hard to believe the science is really as bad as you suggest. I know the estimates of solar activity, over centuries and millennia, are some of the least robust in climate science, and one of the bigger uncertainties in climate science; but they are not just making this stuff up, or doing bad science, to fit some agenda. If you want to pick a particular point, which you see as problematic, we could try to drill down to a better understanding; but to paint a whole discipline as invalid seems to be a stretch.
===

And specifically: Your numbers come from either subtracting measurements from particular solar cycles that are centuries apart, or from within the same cycle (post #274) and then extrapolating that number out for some hundred years.

Can you think of good reasons why the authors of those papers used a different way to analyze their data? From that graph of solar irradiance forcing:

Figure 6.13.... (b) solar irradiance variation

All forcings and temperatures are expressed as anomalies from their 1500 to 1899 means and then smoothed with a Gaussian-weighted filter to remove fluctuations on time scales less than 30 years....


It is not that the graph doesn't match the data (as you claim: "it misrepresents"), but that the graph correctly displays the "smoothed" data. How could you evaluate all those papers, and yet not see that?

But y'know, even if the sun suddenly becomes a lot more variable, its effects would still be outweighed by CO2 over the long term (unless you have some new "faint sun" ideas).
===

And what was that faint sun comment about anyway.... Whatever it was, I doubt "most people" even know how 3 billion years ago that the sun seems to have been some 30% dimmer. But even if they do, what does that have to do with climate over the past (or next) few centuries or millennia or million years? I didn't bring that up, so why would your comment, "Well you have a problem with it for a start," make any sense?

But you're wrong; I don't now, nor never had a problem with it, since it never seemed to be significant. Once you learned about it, and wondered about its significance, why wouldn't you have a problem with it?

You're talking about change on the order of 0.1 Watt for every million years (with the faint sun idea). Are you suggesting how "the Sun could vary by 3 W/m-2 between a Grand Minima and a Grand Maxima" is explained by the faint sun hypothesis?
===

And re: post #276:

But regardless of your opinion on the quality of the science being done to characterize solar effects, you are jumping the gun by graphing that downward trend. As the denialists admonished the alarmists to do back in the 80's & 90's, you need to wait a few more years before claiming any "new" trends.

However, this is a good opportunity to check the models with more recent observations:

January 2012 - NASA [RE: solar forcing 2005-2010]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Institute for Space Studies;
Goddard Space Flight Center, Sciences and Exploration Directorate, Earth Sciences Division

Science Briefs: Earth's Energy Imbalance— January 2012
http://www.giss.nasa...iefs/hansen_16/

The role of the Sun. The measured positive imbalance in 2005-2010 is particularly important because it occurred during the deepest solar minimum in the period of accurate solar monitoring (Fig. 2). If the Sun were the only climate forcing or the dominant climate forcing, then the planet would gain energy during the solar maxima, but lose energy during solar minima.

The fact that Earth gained energy at a rate 0.58 W/m2 during a deep prolonged solar minimum reveals that there is a strong positive forcing overwhelming the negative forcing by below-average solar irradiance. That result is not a surprise, given knowledge of other forcings, but it provides unequivocal refutation of assertions that the Sun is the dominant climate forcing.

The fact that Earth gained energy at a rate 0.58 W/m2 during a deep prolonged solar minimum reveals that there is a strong positive forcing overwhelming the negative forcing by below-average solar irradiance. That result is not a surprise, given knowledge of other forcings, but it provides unequivocal refutation of assertions that the Sun is the dominant climate forcing.

....{UPDATE}
Measured Earth energy imbalance, +0.58 W/m2 during 2005-2010, implies that the aerosol forcing is about -1.6 W/m2, a greater negative forcing than employed in most IPCC models.

...my emphases

And there are those extra (not predicted or modeled in 2007) aerosols from China over that same period. But those are temporary, transient forcings. What happens when the cycle moves to solar maximum? CO2 will still be there, but maybe China will increase aerosol production (...guess we won't need to do geoengineering with those giant sulfate-aerosol projectors anymore, eh?) or maybe a volcano will erupt during the next solar max to help keep the forcings lower.

But this does seem to show that the models are still tracking well, once new or changing (relative to the original predictions) forcers are accounted for.
===


Even if the extra warming from CO2 is offset for a few year by some combination of other forcings, or even of some cooling is forced, over the long term the planet cannot escape the continuous and relentless extra forcing, from pole to pole, by CO2. As well as acidifying the oceans, it will always offset cooling forcers or it will accentuate warming forcers, which over time creates a ratchet effect of increasing heat retention.

~istm Posted Image

Edited by Essay, 2 March 2012 - 10:29 AM.

  • 0
Fire oxidizes carbon; Pyrolysis reduces carbon.
It's time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire
--in order to manage our domain everlastingly.

#278 Edtharan

Edtharan

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,639 posts

Posted 5 March 2012 - 05:36 PM

Sorry for the delay, but RL got in the way.

Me too. Sorry for the delay.

Edtharan;
If the Earth retains energy in the form of infra-red radiation, then this will act as a warming effect (among other things).

Yes, we should get changes in ocean circulation, wind patterns and other things too, not just heat.

Even if we granted that all warming since 1850 was due to CO2, how can you not call it benign? The Little Ice Age was a more "benign" climate than todays? Really?

the thing is, the warming won't stop at this temperature. If we keep adding CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, then this will keep retaining more and more energy and thus increasing climate change.

Think of riding a runway car down a hill. The first few meters or so you aren't going fast and you could jump off or even apply the breaks easily enough. At this point the ride is benign. But, if the car isn't slowed down or stopped, then it will get faster and fast and you won't be able to jump off, and putting the breaks on won't stop you quickly (and maybe too late). At that point it is most definitely not benign.

Actually we expected it. We "deniers" have very funny ideas like "If the planet warms, ice will melt".

But the deniers were saying that it won't happen because the planet is not warming. They wern't deniing that IF the Earth warmed the ice would or wouldn't melt, but that the Earth wouldn't warm enough to melt it.

And don't go the "lowest prediction" path. It was your side that was predicting an "ice free" north pole next year.

But you are going "highest prediction" path in an attempt to say disprove (human induced) climate change. I will agree that there were predictions that did state that climate change would be greater than it is, but there were more that stated it would be less than what it is.

But regardless, there was still warming.

It hasn't gone as fast as the predictions said it would.

If you misjudged a car's speed, by say 10% greater, and you thought was travelling at 100 km/h, would it still kill you if it hit you?

Yes, it would. Although the rate of warming might have been misjudged (and less than 10% by the way) does not mean it is not warming.

Actually, as I have said before (and you seem to agree) that not all the energy retained by the climate systems will go into thermal heating of the Earth. What this situation tells us (the lower than expected temperature increase) is that the other effects are getting more energy than first assumed. This is actually worse than pure warming as these other effects have more harmful consequences.

More so, they are tipping point effects. that is there won't be any major changes until a certain amount of energy is in that system, and then it will drastically change its behaviour. As an example: The North Atlantic Conveyor current draws warm water up from the equator towards Europe. This causes England to be warmer than it should be at the latitude it is. The Conveyor current is driven by the extra salty water caused by the Arctic winter freeze (as it is more dense). Water is then pulled in from near the equator as the salty water sinks.

Now, if the Arctic doesn't freeze as much in winter, then the water is not as salty and won't sink as fast (or at all) and this will stop the NAC and England will get much colder.

Yes, this is a case where Global Warming can cause a cooling. But the cooling is a local effect, not a global effect).

The biggest problem with using Arctic ice is the lack of long term data. The best we have are the satellites and they only go back to 1979 or so. Not a really good baseline for extrapolation. We don't know with any accuracy how fast the floating ice has melted in previous warmings.

Actually there are lots of ways of determining the ice coverage in pre-recoded times (as an example: large icebergs can scrape along ocean floors and this leaves tell-tail signs that can be seen). Even the way tectonic plates are influenced by the amount of ice coverage.

Another way is ocean circulation. Certain chemicals precipitate out in salt or fresh water. By looking at the extents of these it can be used to determine the extents of ice coverage (and even melting rates too). Ice is fresh water and when it melts it causes the ocean around it to become more fresh. When it freezes, it causes the ocean to become more salty.

So it is perfectly possible to determine ice coverage before human recodes began. this means that this line of argument doesn't support your claims.

Heck, all you have to do is keep a close eye on ice extent and watch hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of ice appear and disappear overnight.

Seasonal change is not what we are talking about with polar melting. What we are talking about is the average coverage taken over many years and through all seasons.

There has been a noticeable and increasing reduction in average ice cover in the Arctic, even in the last 100 years. When compared to pre-recorded evidence, this is even more obvious.

It's a warming world. Ice melts. Glaciers recede. These things happen in a warming world regardless of the cause. Glaciers have been receding since the 1700s in the Alps. Archaeology shows us that they have done so at least 7 times in the last 2,500 years.

But not as fast, not as much and not globally.

In the past 2,500 years, when glaciers have melted in one area, in other areas they were growing.

Sure, there are a few glaciers growing (or are static), but the vast majority of them are receding. This is unheard of except during the end of the last glacial period when the Earth experienced the last dramatic warming (and there was a lot of extinctions at this time too).

And, at this time (end of the last glacial period), Humans nearly went extinct, the numbers could have been as low as 1,000 individuals (so we are by no means immune to climate change).

The real difference is that we deniers don't start our temperature graph at the coldest point in 8,000 years and go screaming "Oh God! It's warming! We're all going to die!" Are people expected to panic every year when winter turns into spring?

Actually, most "accepters" don't go around screaming "Oh God! It's warming! We're all going to die!".

What "we" go around saying is: The records show that the Earth is warming, and the scientific evidence shows that we are the ones responsible for it. We are not indestructible, and the changes the warming will bring could be disruptive."

True, in the past, climate change nearly did wipe us out, but no reputable scientist is acting like you are claiming they are.

You seem to have a massivly distorted view of climate change accepters, and of what climate change means, and from that you are basing your denial on that you think people who act in that (distorted) way can not be taken seriously.

If climate scientists were acting that way, I couldn't take them seriously either (but it wouldn't change the fact that the climate is warming and that humans CO2 production is the main driver of it).

As I have shown previously, if you change the rate at which energy leaves the Earth, this must (according to all known laws of physics and all mathematics) increase the amount of energy in the Earth's climate systems.

To deny that means you deny that changing the amount of money you take out of the bank won't effect the amount of money in your bank account.

We know that CO2 blocks the emission of infra-red light (the experiment is actually quite easy to do). So if we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then we will reduce the amount of infra-red light radiating away form Earth.

Human industry emits a lot of CO2

From these three facts alone we can prove that humans are causing climate change. The effects of this are up for debate, but this is hard proof that we are driving climate change.
  • 0
This sentance you are now reading is false...

#279 JohnB

JohnB

    Hello? Is this thing on?

  • Senior Members
  • 2,811 posts
  • LocationBrisbane. Oz.

Posted 7 March 2012 - 12:25 PM

Sorry guys but a reply will have to wait.

I'm spending the next 4 days in the New South Wales gem fields. A lovely town called "Glen Innes" in the Celtic Country. I've driven through many a time but this is the first chance to stay for their "Minerama" festival. Some of the finest blue sapphires come out of this region and I hope to get me some. :D
  • 0
There are two rules for being successful in life.
1. Never tell everything you know.

#280 Iggy

Iggy

    Meson

  • Senior Members
  • 1,605 posts

Posted 7 March 2012 - 01:36 PM

These do not change the impact of long-term, relatively permanent forcers such as CO2.

Does anyone know what the elimination half-life is for anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide? In other words, if we suddenly stopped adding CO2 to the atmosphere, how quickly would the levels drop toward pre-industrial levels?

I would think somebody has published that and it would be interesting to know.

If not, does anyone know what percent of anthropogenic CO2 is sequestered? That would give enough information to estimate in the same way that a drug's terminal elimination half-life can be estimated from knowing how much the kidneys eliminate.
  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users