Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[This is The End]

I believe this is the correct link to the study page:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract

And the study itself:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/pdf


Here's another article about that study:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/s...-to-climate-than-thought-study-says.html?_r=0

The tiny black particles released into the atmosphere by burning fuels are far more powerful agents of global warming than had previously been estimated, some of the world’s most prominent atmospheric scientists reported in a study issued on Tuesday.

These particles, which are known as black carbon and are the major component of soot, are the second most important contributor to global warming, behind only carbon dioxide, wrote the 31 authors of the study, published online by The Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.

 

[bit_pattern]

Speaking of coal and carbon black....



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21033078

Did you see this?

http://darksnowproject.org/

Could think of worse causes to direct a few dollars towards.

And, regarding the 2013 heatwave over Australia - an interesting graphic the marine heat tsunami that swept sacross the Indian Ocean and helped trigger the heatwave:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Heat-Came-Back-to-Haunt-Australia.html

 

[Trakar]

The carbon footprint is very minor compared to say a coal plant and given the amount of uranium and thorium about plus reuse is for all human intents inexhaustible.
There is enough power sitting in the holding tanks to power the planet for 400 years without mining another ounce of uranium.
And thorium is hugely abundant.

Right now - coal is the biggest target for replacement - all else pales in comparison.
Replacing coal with shale gas would be cost effective and straight forward if the will was there.

A revenue neutral carbon tax would be a solid push towards facillitating this transition as well as promoting the eventual shift away from NG to renewables and alternatives.

 

[JP EH]

Inability to reduce co2 emissions

CO2 emissions are the leading cause of human induced climate change, with no agreement on reducing emissions it appears by the tone of the conversation, and the inability to predict already accelerating climate change such as arctic melt, that within 3 to 5 years there will be full scale geo engineering taking place. I would like to see more work done on The Silver Lining Project – cloud whitening using saline seeding. Aerosols in the atmosphere are probably ready to go full scale but the down sides are much greater.... but no matter what, we must tackle emissions immediately.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Anyone familiar with Dr Nir Shaviv?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv

I stumpled upon a lecture with him talking about the suns role in GW and how the climate is effect by the earths movement in milky ways spiral arms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QtnueIJGjc&feature=player_embedded

This sounds very wacky maybe you guys know something about this?

 

[Trakar]

CO2 emissions are the leading cause of human induced climate change, with no agreement on reducing emissions it appears by the tone of the conversation, and the inability to predict already accelerating climate change such as arctic melt, that within 3 to 5 years there will be full scale geo engineering taking place. I would like to see more work done on The Silver Lining Project – cloud whitening using saline seeding. Aerosols in the atmosphere are probably ready to go full scale but the down sides are much greater.... but no matter what, we must tackle emissions immediately.

Unfortunately there are too many potential problems with atmospheric manipulation geo-engineering solutions (other than direct CO2 draw down and sequestration - which is very expensive and fraught with its own issues); additionally the shielding and albedo schemes do nothing about the problems caused by having high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (such as ocean acidification). The problem with most groeng. schemes is that they run a high risk of making the problem worse rather than better, by encouraging people to continue to burn fossil fuels and adding more carbon to the atmosphere and oceans.

Ultimately, we may indeed have to risk a few such schemes, to ameliorate some of the worst impacts for a few centuries, but I'm not sure we will ever be able to afford and sustain such efforts, these will only be effective in conjunction with systems to remove and re-sequester carbon, and a complete ban on all fossil fuel burning...no free lunches.

 

[macdoc]

First he has to explain why it's NOT a proven mechanism causing the warming ( GHG ).

Then explain what the new mechanism is in detail with experimental proof and observation.

THEN he is up for the Nobel.
Until then.....wacky covers it.

as does this

May 21 - 23, 2012

Nir Shaviv was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7).

DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations.
January 27, 2012

Shaviv signed a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed titled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming."

Other signatures include those of Claude Allègre, Jan Breslow, William Happer, William Kininmonth, Richard Lindzen, James McGrath, Rodney Nichols, Burt Rutan, Harrison H. Schmitt, Edward David, Michael Kelly, Henk Tennekes, and Antonino Zichichi.

Media transparency found that the article had misrepresented the position of Yale economist William Nordhaus. Skeptical Science also did a comprehensive examination of the signatories revealing that few have published anything in peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.

March 9, 2009

Spoke at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. Shaviv's speech was titled "New Solar-Climate Link and Implications for Our Understanding of Climate Change." [5]

2008

Appeared in the film, "The Cloud Mystery" which focuses on the studies of fellow skeptic Henrik Svensmark who, similar to Shaviv, believes that solar rays drive climate change.

March, 2007

Appeared on "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a documentary that claims to refute the theory of man-made global warming. Other climate change skeptics appearing on the program include Tim Ball, Nigel Lawson, Ian Clark, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, and Paul Driessen.

The film generated considerable controversy. The uproar was led by one of the scientists who appeared in the film, MIT's Carl Wunsch. Wunsch stated that he was swindled by the film producers. He explains that they "completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. If they had told me even the title of the program, I would have absolutely refused to be on it." [6]


Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1muP0)

climate crank.....

 

[Trakar]

First he has to explain why it's NOT a proven mechanism causing the warming ( GHG ).

Then explain what the new mechanism is in detail with experimental proof and observation.

THEN he is up for the Nobel.
Until then.....wacky covers it.

as does this

climate crank.....

a lot of problems with his paper, it did not pass the initial couple of rounds of editorial peer-review. I haven't really kept track of him over the last several years (original paper started making rounds ahead of publication back in early part of last decade) It was finally revised and published in GSA Today (the problems were in multiple fields - astrophysics and climate science primarily). I did hear that he became a darling of the Heartland group, but I've been so focused on actual climate science and public policy options lately that I really haven't paid too much attention to the deniosphere and its latest recycling of tropes. I do recall that post publication peer-review was not very kind to his work, I can look and see if I have any links to these reviews if anyone is interested.

(here is one of the most prominent publication refutations of Shaviv's GSA paper: "Cosmic rays, carbon dioxide, and climate" (Rahmstorf 2004))

((2nd response link - http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/in-short/archive/2004-2005/discussion.html))

 

[CapelDodger]

Anyone familiar with Dr Nir Shaviv?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv

I stumpled upon a lecture with him talking about the suns role in GW and how the climate is effect by the earths movement in milky ways spiral arms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QtnueIJGjc&feature=player_embedded

This sounds very wacky maybe you guys know something about this?

Indeed we do, this guy was all the rage in denier circles a few years ago. It turns out he has to adjust the previously accepted timings of Sol's movements to fit the climate record, thus completing the circle of logic. Of course the idea that current warming is caused by Sol suddenly veering into (or possibly out of, depending on requirements) a spiral arm like a driver hitting patchy fog in the morning. It got Shaviv his few moments of fame and an all-expenses-paid trip or two to Heatland comedy conferences, so mission accomplished I guess.

Meanwhile it's snowing here in Wales so we can expect another Daily Mail obituary for AGW in the morning and triumphant cackles from Delingpole in whatever rag will still publish him. It's all so terribly sad you'd need a heart of stone not to giggle.

 

[Trakar]

CO2 emissions are the leading cause of human induced climate change, with no agreement on reducing emissions it appears by the tone of the conversation, and the inability to predict already accelerating climate change such as arctic melt, that within 3 to 5 years there will be full scale geo engineering taking place. I would like to see more work done on The Silver Lining Project – cloud whitening using saline seeding. Aerosols in the atmosphere are probably ready to go full scale but the down sides are much greater.... but no matter what, we must tackle emissions immediately.

OH, By The Way,...

Welcome to JREF!!

I just saw that this was your very cherry post!

(didn't mean to put a damper on your enthusiasm, geo. eng. may some day be neccessary but it is more of very expensive and challenging band-aid than a cure for AGW.)

 

[CapelDodger]

First he has to explain why it's NOT a proven mechanism causing the warming ( GHG ).

Then explain what the new mechanism is in detail with experimental proof and observation.

THEN he is up for the Nobel.
Until then.....wacky covers it.

I think commonplace foolishness covers it where Shaviv is concerned. For deniers at the time this silliness emerged he had the great attraction of being both youngand un-WASPish, something vanishingly rare at Heatland events amongst speakers and audience alike.

 

[Kuko 4000]

This is pretty much the best short lecture (under 30 minutes) about the impacts of climate change that I've seen, recommended:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Rahmstorf

 

[Kuko 4000]

Does anyone have access to this article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v490/n7419/full/490146c.html

It starts interestingly, but it's behind a paywall:

The Great Barrier Reef (pictured) has lost about half its coral over the past 27 years, according to data from more than 2,000 surveys of 214 reefs. But addressing local threats could tip the balance towards an increase in coral cover in the short term, even in the face of continuing climate…

This article is related:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...reefs-will-bloom/story-e6frg8y6-1226533259306

And this one:

http://www.livescience.com/19678-coral-reefs-climate-change.html

I also remember reading recently that climate change has not been the main reason for coral reef problems, and is actually quite a marginal one (opposite to previous estimates), anyone here know more about this?

 

[DC]

Does anyone have access to this article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v490/n7419/full/490146c.html

It starts interestingly, but it's behind a paywall:



This article is related:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...reefs-will-bloom/story-e6frg8y6-1226533259306

And this one:

http://www.livescience.com/19678-coral-reefs-climate-change.html

I also remember reading recently that climate change has not been the main reason for coral reef problems, and is actually quite a marginal one (opposite to previous estimates), anyone here know more about this?

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/490146c

at the end of the page. its only short, but i think its the full version.

 

[Trakar]

Does anyone have access to this article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v490/n7419/full/490146c.html

It starts interestingly, but it's behind a paywall:



This article is related:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...reefs-will-bloom/story-e6frg8y6-1226533259306

And this one:

http://www.livescience.com/19678-coral-reefs-climate-change.html

I also remember reading recently that climate change has not been the main reason for coral reef problems, and is actually quite a marginal one (opposite to previous estimates), anyone here know more about this?

There are a lot reasons for reef decline and degradation, but "bleaching" is primarily due to warming waters and acidification. If you are aware of information that indicates otherwise, I'd be interested in looking through it.

http://www.globalcoral.org/why_are_coral_reefs_dying.htm

http://www.coral.org/resources/about_coral_reefs/threats_to_coral_reefs

http://www.reefresearch.org/ccmi_website/conservation/conservation_01_04.htm

 

[Trakar]

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/490146c

at the end of the page. its only short, but i think its the full version.

Here is a full copy of the published paper that the nature article is based upon:

"The 27–year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes"
- http://ateson.com/ws/r/www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full

 

[Kuko 4000]

There are a lot reasons for reef decline and degradation, but "bleaching" is primarily due to warming waters and acidification. If you are aware of information that indicates otherwise, I'd be interested in looking through it.[/url]

Thanks DC and Trakar, that's probably the one I remembered, according to that study coral bleaching due to climate change is responsible for only 10% of coral mortality:

Tropical cyclones, coral predation by crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS), and coral bleaching accounted for 48%, 42%, and 10% of the respective estimated losses, amounting to 3.38% y−1 mortality rate.

Thanks for the links everyone, will look into it more.

 

[Kuko 4000]

From Trakar's link:

http://ateson.com/ws/r/www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full

In the absence of COTS, coral cover would increase at 0.89% y−1, despite ongoing losses due to cyclones and bleaching. Thus, reducing COTS populations, by improving water quality and developing alternative control measures, could prevent further coral decline and improve the outlook for the Great Barrier Reef. Such strategies can, however, only be successful if climatic conditions are stabilized, as losses due to bleaching and cyclones will otherwise increase.

I find this encouraging, there seems to be some realistic ways to improve the current state of coral reefs even in the face of the current increase in ocean acidification.

Coral bleaching is still a problem though, and I think I originally remembered the news incorrectly, and was thinking that it was about climate change being responsible for only 10% of coral bleaching.

The Australian article I linked to previously is actually about a different study, and it says:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...reefs-will-bloom/story-e6frg8y6-1226533259306

"Rising sea temperatures, storm damage and ocean acidification have grabbed the headlines as looming threats to reef survival.

But as each concern is more thoroughly investigated, scientists are finding nature better equipped to cope than they had imagined.

The latest research, published in Nature: Climate Change today, blows away the theory that reefs were doomed due to rising ocean acidification caused by the higher take-up of carbon dioxide in the seas.

Researchers have found a common coralline algae that grows at the leading edge of coral reefs is not nearly as susceptible to changing ph levels as coral because it contains high levels of dolomite.

In fact, the dolomite-laden algae has a rate of dissolution six to 10 times lower than coral's.

The good news is that dolomite-rich coralline algae is common in shallow coral reefs across the world.

"Our research suggests it is likely they will continue to provide protection for coral reef frameworks as carbon dioxide rises," the paper says.

Lead author Merinda Nash, a PhD candidate with the Australian research school of physics and engineering, says the phenomenon has been overlooked because research to date has been on coral, not coralline algae.

"It is not very sexy so it has not got a lot of attention," she said.

"What the research demonstrates is there is a lot we have yet to understand about coral reefs.""

Would love to find a link to the full study.

 

[Trakar]

The link that DC posted is probably the one I remembered, in there it reads that climate change is responsible for 10% of the coral bleaching. Thanks for the links everyone, will look into it more.

From the actual paper that the article uses as the basis of its content.

...Regional policies cannot protect coral reefs from global-scale risks due to climate change-associated heat stress and intensifying tropical storms. Efforts are therefore shifting toward management of local and regional anthropogenic pressures to strengthen reef resilience (7⇓–9). However, assessment of the likely effectiveness of reductions of local anthropogenic pressures requires a sound understanding of the processes that determine the ecosystem trajectories...

...In conclusion, coral cover on the GBR is consistently declining, and without intervention, it will likely fall to 5–10% within the next 10 y. Mitigation of global warming and ocean acidification is essential for the future of the GBR. Given that such mitigation is unlikely in the short term, there is a strong case for direct action to reduce COTS populations and further loss of corals. Without intervention, the GBR may lose the biodiversity and ecological integrity for which it was listed as a World Heritage Area...

Not sure where the author of the nature news article derived that value from, I do not see it clearly spelled out in the research, but I've only given the paper a quick read so far. Of course, bleaching is but one impact of Climate Change, and the authors of the research paper attribute loss to hurricanes (cyclones), ag-runoff, sedimentation due to heavy rainfalls, warming waters and acidification. All of these (except human ag-runoffs) according to the researchers are symptoms of AGW.

Please do let us know if you find out anything else in relation to the great barrier reef or global coral reefs in general in relation to climate change issues. Thank you for sharing!

 

[Haig]

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

You go to the worst source, you don't read what it says.

So why does an eleven year cycle have a 150 year effect Haig? The paper clearly shows an eleven year cycle not a 150 year increase, look at the peaks and troughs same rough level since 1980s.



usual epic fail on your part.

Poor effort.

The 11 year sunspot cycle isn't the ONLY solar cycle , look them up DD

It's NOT just NASA re-thinking the Sun and how it affects planet Earth

Heard about SSW's? Wonder where the energy comes from? ..... hint it isn't a trace gas in the atmosphere

Sudden stratospheric warming to affect the US

Sudden stratospheric warming is also set to affect the US with a cold plunge expected across much of the continent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OJyOLrrCols




A Possible Transfer Mechanism for the 11-Year Solar Cycle to the Lower Stratosphere

ABSTRACT Observational evidence of the 11-year solar cycle (SC) modulation of stratosphere temperatures and winds from the ERA-40 dataset is reviewed, with emphasis on the Northern winter hemisphere. A frequency modulation of sudden warming events is noted, with warmings occurring earlier in solar minimum periods than in solar maximum periods. The observed interaction between the influence of the SC and the quasi biennial oscillation (QBO) on the frequency of sudden warmings is noted as a possible clue for understanding their mechanism of influence. A possible transfer route for the 11-year solar cycle from the equatorial stratopause region to the lowest part of the stratosphere is proposed, via an influence on sudden warming events and the associated induced meridional circulation. SC and QBO composites of zonal wind anomalies show anomalous wind distributions in the subtropical upper stratosphere in early winter. Mechanistic model experiments are reviewed that demonstrate a sensitivity of sudden warmings to small wind anomalies in this region. Various diagnostics from these experiments are shown, including EP fluxes and their divergence and also the synoptic evolution of the polar vortex, in order to understand the mechanism of the influence. Some recent GCM experiments to investigate the SC/QBO interaction are also described. They simulate reasonably well the observed SC/QBO interaction of sudden warming events and appear to support the hypothesis that tropical/subtropical upper stratospheric wind anomalies are an important influence on the timing of sudden warmings.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/a...hanism-11-year-solar-cycle-lower-stratosphere


Equatorial and Low Latitude Ionospheric Effects During Sudden Stratospheric Warming Events

ABSTRACT There are several external sources of ionospheric forcing, including these are solar wind-magnetospheric processes and lower atmospheric winds and waves. In this work we review the observed ion-neutral coupling effects at equatorial and low latitudes during large meteorological events called sudden stratospheric warming (SSW). Research in this direction has been accelerated in recent years mainly due to: (1) extensive observing campaigns, and (2) solar minimum conditions. The former has been instrumental to capture the events before, during, and after the peak SSW temperatures and wind perturbations. The latter has permitted a reduced forcing contribution from solar wind-magnetospheric processes. The main ionospheric effects are clearly observed in the zonal electric fields (or vertical E� B drifts), total electron content, and electron and neutral densities. We include results from different ground- and satellite-based observations, covering different longitudes and years. We also present and discuss the modeling efforts that support most of the observations. Given that SSW can be forecasted with a few days in advance, there is potential for using the connection with the ionosphere for forecasting the occurrence and evolution of electrodynamic perturbations at low latitudes, and sometimes also mid latitudes, during arctic winter warmings.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/a...ts-during-sudden-stratospheric-warming-events



Ask from where do SSWs come?

The intellectually challenged 'science' that holds a change of atmosperic CO2 concentration from ~0.03% to ~0.031% (the 0.001% being Man's contribution) could cause Hurricane Sandy to take a left turn and head for New York and trigger all manner of other extremes in 2011 and 2012 (many of which were in fact predicted using solar activity weeks and months ahead) is delusional enough. The idea that SSWs at 10-50km above the Earth are also driven by trivial changes in concentrations of a trace gas - CO2 [which MUST be the case if CO2 is the father of all these extreme] is stupid beyond imagination. And what of the Earth-facing extreme events on the sun when major SSWs happen? Are they put there by Peter Gibbs driving his car past some tipping point?


SSWs are driven by solar activity and we at WeatherAction are predicting the major ones, and their solar drivers, which cause NH winter important cold blasts; whereas standard Met has no such long range predictive skill on SSWs or anything. This shows two things:
(i) The fundamental tenet of standard meteorology that weather primarily drives weather and all external influences are minimal - which means SSWs are driven from below - is past its sell-by date.
(ii) SSWs are nothing to do with CO2.

http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=512&c=5



The mystery of recent stratospheric temperature trends

A new data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979–2005 that is strikingly different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances. Here we highlight the important issues raised by the new data and suggest how the climate science community can resolve them.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html



Doug L. Hoffman: Science Gets The Stratosphere Wrong

The global-mean cooling in the middle stratosphere, around 25–45 km in altitude, is nearly twice as large in the NOAA data set as it is in the Met Office data set (see the figure) The differences between the NOAA and Met Office global-mean time series do not occur in a single discrete period of time, but begin around 1985 to increase until the end of the record. According to the Nature article: “The differences between the NOAA and Met Office global-mean time series shown in Fig. 1 are so large they call into question our fundamental understanding of observed temperature trends in the middle and upper stratosphere.”

How did the Met Office get their data so wrong? Well there's the rub. You see, the methodology used to develop the Met Office SSU product was never published in the peer-reviewed literature, and certain aspects of the original processing “remain unknown.” Evidently the boffins at the Met didn't bother to write down exactly how they were massaging the raw data to get the results they reported. Indeed, those who did the data manipulation seem to have mostly retired.

“The methodology used to generate the original Met Office SSU data remains undocumented and so the climate community are unable to explain the large discrepancies between the original Met Office and NOAA SSU products highlighted here,” Thompson et al. summarize. And the damage doesn't stop there.

The data from the erroneous dataset has been used widely to help drive and define computer climate models, the same models used to prop-up alarmist claims of impending catastrophic climate change. According to the report: “Two classes of climate models commonly used in simulations of past climate are coupled chemistry–climate models (CCMs) and coupled atmosphere–ocean global climate models (AOGCMs). By definition, the CCMs explicitly simulate stratospheric chemical processes, whereas the AOGCMs explicitly simulate coupled atmosphere–ocean interactions… A key distinction between the model classes that is pertinent to this discussion is that in general the CCMs resolve the stratosphere more fully than do the AOGCMs.”

One of the predictions made by climate models is that as surface temperatures rise temperatures in the stratosphere should drop. Precisely why this should be so is complex and not important to the point being made here. Suffice it to say, the Met Office version of the SSU data suggests that the models overestimate the observed stratospheric cooling, whereas the NOAA SSU data suggest that the models underestimate it. As the authors put it:

If the new NOAA SSU data are correct, they suggest that the stratospheric mass circulation is accelerating at a rate considerably higher than that predicted by the CCMs, at least in the middle and upper stratosphere (that is, at the altitudes sampled by the SSU instrument). Again, it is possible that the models are correct and that the SSU data are in error. But the fact that the discrepancies between the magnitudes of the simulated and observed cooling in the tropical stratosphere extend to MSU channel 4, which samples the lower stratosphere and exhibits trends that are fairly reproducible from one data set to the next suggest that model uncertainties should not be discounted.

The bottom line here is that models based on this almost universally accepted data are wrong. “If the NOAA SSU data are correct, then both the CCMVal2 and CMIP5 models are presumably missing key changes in stratospheric composition,” the report plainly states. The article goes on to suggest corrective actions to prevent such a travesty being repeated in the future. Alas, the damage has already been done.

What is documented here is simply astounding. That which was thought to be understood is found to be misunderstood. Readings thought to be accurate are shown to be inaccurate. How the data were derived is found to be a secret now lost. The impact of the bogus data ripples through past results and, in particular, climate models, rendering old assumptions invalid. What was that line again about “settled science?”

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10958