Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Questions I have

So I'm reading through one of the documents that was suggested to me (at http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf) and I want to document some of my reactions.

- In paragraph 21 it says that the warming has been concentrated in two periods: 1910-1940 and 1975-2000. What is the explanation for the 35-year halt in the interim type period? Is it the same as or similar to the sun-cycle explanation for the current pause? If so, is the current pause expected to last 35 years as well? If so, should this information not be preemptively distributed so deniers don't get to use it to discredit global warming for the entire time span?

- Paragraph 24 has an aside about the Antarctic ice cover increasing. This is very much appreciated, as I've found that most AGW advocates I spoke to in the past denied that either ice cover is increasing.

- Paragraph 26 indicates that "about half" of the CO2 released by humans has remained in the atmosphere. How does this jive with paragraph 31, which says that even if all human CO2 emissions ceased it would take "several millennia" for CO2 levels in the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial levels? Wouldn't it simply take the same amount of time it took for the first half to get reabsorbed into the world, with some additional time to take into account decreasing efficiency of carbon sinks over time? Can said "some additional time" really amount to thousands of years? Paragraph 48 seems to contradict this!

- Does the information in paragraph 27 come from the same source (Greenland and Antarctica ice) as that of paragraph 25? I found the repeated date range curious.

- Paragraph 35: "Calculations, coupled to a variety of atmospheric observations, indicate that particles have caused a negative climate forcing of around 0.5 Wm-2 with an uncertainty of ±0.2 Wm-2." Since that is quite low compared to global warming, why were we actually in danger of global cooling back in the 70s? Is SO2 really two orders of magnitude higher in its cooling effects than all other particles put together?

- In paragraph 39 it says that satellite measurements do not necessarily support the climate models' predictions of "increased warming with height in the tropical regions". Where can I find details on this?

- Paragraph 40 puts one in mind of nuclear power, which is not fossil fuel-burning. Why aren't climatologists pushing for more widespread use of nuclear power to deal with carbon emissions?


All in all, this was a very informative document. I'm not thoroughly convinced yet that a warming of one or two degrees centigrade is something to be concerned about, but I am more persuaded of the A in AGW.

I'd appreciate if responses to this, for now at least, are limited to the questions and comments I brought up; reading new "generalized" material on AGW is something I don't have time for at the moment. I have work, you know :)
 
What is the explanation for the 35-year halt in the interim type period?
Click to expand...

mainly Global dimming (Aerosols)

while something similar might be the case today, China for example, we do not expect it to be as strong as it was in the mid 20th century. aerosols are not very well monitored. wich makes quantifications pretty hard.

btw, back then, it was not a plateau or pause, it was real global cooling. we don't have that now. we still hav the imbalance of incoming vs outgoing radiation, and rising OHC. we are still warming despite SAT (Surface air temps) being flat for a while now.

only short answer, might expand later. at work atm :D
 
Last edited:
- Paragraph 24 has an aside about the Antarctic ice cover increasing. This is very much appreciated, as I've found that most AGW advocates I spoke to in the past denied that either ice cover is increasing
Click to expand...

can it be confusion about ice cover and ice MASS? we are loosing ice mass also in the Antarctic.
 
Paragraph 40 puts one in mind of nuclear power, which is not fossil fuel-burning. Why aren't climatologists pushing for more widespread use of nuclear power to deal with carbon emissions?
Click to expand...

controversial topic and for most of them its outside of their expertise.

some do indeed. others share the irrational fear the public has.

and contrary to what many deniers claim,. climate scientists are not pushing solutions or policies, they are doing research.
 
Last edited:
DC said:
:D many of them are greenies that are scared to death from Fukushima
Click to expand...

It's amazing how every possible solution to the problem of providing power is objected to by somebody.

I swear, if one day we actually invent warp drives, we'll have people picketing about the pollution of subspace.

Oh wait. :D
 
Yerushalmi said:
- Paragraph 26 indicates that "about half" of the CO2 released by humans has remained in the atmosphere. How does this jive with paragraph 31, which says that even if all human CO2 emissions ceased it would take "several millennia" for CO2 levels in the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial levels? Wouldn't it simply take the same amount of time it took for the first half to get reabsorbed into the world, with some additional time to take into account decreasing efficiency of carbon sinks over time? Can said "some additional time" really amount to thousands of years? Paragraph 48 seems to contradict this!
Click to expand...
You would think that except the current biomes that sequester carbon are in MUCH worse shape than when the industrial age began. You'll have to ask someone else about the ocean, but on land they hardly function at all anymore. So while at the beginning of the industrial age many biomes still functioned somewhat, now the primary carbon cycle back into the soil hardly functions at all.
 
Yerushalmi said:
It's amazing how every possible solution to the problem of providing power is objected to by somebody.

I swear, if one day we actually invent warp drives, we'll have people picketing about the pollution of subspace.

Oh wait. :D
Click to expand...

warp drives.... that nonsense is for speedfreaks......
fly slow, fly save......

;)
 
Yerushalmi said:
- In paragraph 21 it says that the warming has been concentrated in two periods: 1910-1940 and 1975-2000. What is the explanation for the 35-year halt in the interim type period? Is it the same as or similar to the sun-cycle explanation for the current pause? If so, is the current pause expected to last 35 years as well? If so, should this information not be preemptively distributed so deniers don't get to use it to discredit global warming for the entire time span?
Click to expand...
The first bump is caused by the Tractor (pulling a plow) and the second bump by the "Green Revolution" (industrial agriculture)

The detrimental environmental impacts of agricultural practices are costs that are typically unmeasured and often do not influence farmer or societal choices about production methods Such costs raise questions about the sustainability of current practices. We define sustainable agriculture as practices that meet current and future societal needs for food and fibre, for ecosystem services, and for healthy lives, and that do so by maximizing the net benefit to society when all costs and benefits of the practices are considered. If society is to maximize the net benefits of agriculture, there must be a fuller accounting of both the costs and the benefits of alternative agricultural practices, and such an accounting must become the basis of policy, ethics and action. Additionally, the development of sustainable agriculture must accompany advances in the sustainability of energy use, manufacturing, transportation and other economic sectors that also have significant environmental impacts.Agricultural sustainability
and intensive production practices
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Seems the IPCC need to re-think the Sun and it's effect on climate during the coming deep solar grand minima.
Drop in Sun's Activity Expected
preview.php

As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all.
Click to expand...
An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots during 1645-1715.
Click to expand...
“If we are right,” Hill concluded, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”
Click to expand...
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/4032/drop-in-suns-activity-expected

Global Cooling During Solar Grand Minimum
The team believe one strong mechanism causing the solar/climate link is UV light which fluctuates at much higher levels over the solar cycle compared with TSI output (heat) that is often promoted by IPCC friendly scientists that only varies 0.1% (there is some doubt over this figure). Nature Geoscience (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1460 The Homeric Minimum is a solar grand minimum that occurred around 2800 years ago according to both solar proxy records (14C & 10Be) over the Holocene. The Homeric Minimum is comparable with the Sporer Minimum that centered around the middle of the Little Ice Age (LIA) at about 1450AD. Both minima were deep and prolonged.
Click to expand...
Another area of interest that has surfaced from this study which confirms the Homeric Minimum, is the further evidence of the very strong correlations of Major Angular Momentum Perturbation (AMP) events and deep solar grand minima. AMP events occur in groups that centre roughly every 172 years and are shown clearly on Carl's Graph. AMP events are never quite alike and can vary in strength by large amounts. Every so often the Sun experiences large disruption from groups of strong AMP events as witnessed through the LIA and is also evident during the Homeric Minimum. The strength of each AMP event is controlled by the planet positions that vary every 172 years, ie Jupiter and Saturn are in different positions each time Uranus and Neptune come together.
Click to expand...
amp.png

http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/315
 
Haig said:
Seems the IPCC need to re-think the Sun and it's effect on climate during the coming deep solar grand minima.
Drop in Sun's Activity Expected
[qimg]http://www.astrobio.net/includes/preview.php?gen=../images/banneralbum_images/Banneralbum_732.jpg&widthVal=450[/qimg]



http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/4032/drop-in-suns-activity-expected

Global Cooling During Solar Grand Minimum


[qimg]http://landscheidt.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/amp.png[/qimg]
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/315
Click to expand...

will you address my posts? how come the papers I pointed out contradict what you claimed about them?
 
Just curious...so i can go back to eating my popcorn during this show, lol.....but why does it have to be its EITHER the sun OR AGW? (Like that funny car commercial on tv right now, where they say it`s like asking if it is nuts OR bolts....as the swimming pool bursts open at the seams)
What if both events are happening at the same time? We cant control the sun, but we CAN try to control AGW.
 
Yerushalmi said:
So I'm reading through one of the documents that was suggested to me (at http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf) and I want to document some of my reactions.

- In paragraph 21 it says that the warming has been concentrated in two periods: 1910-1940 and 1975-2000. What is the explanation for the 35-year halt in the interim type period? Is it the same as or similar to the sun-cycle explanation for the current pause? If so, is the current pause expected to last 35 years as well? If so, should this information not be preemptively distributed so deniers don't get to use it to discredit global warming for the entire time span?
Click to expand...
My understanding is this is related to particulates in the atmosphere followed by the introduction of clean-air legislation.
Yerushalmi said:
- Paragraph 24 has an aside about the Antarctic ice cover increasing. This is very much appreciated, as I've found that most AGW advocates I spoke to in the past denied that either ice cover is increasing.
Click to expand...
Antarctic sea-ice has been increasing, and there is evidence of increased snow accumulation in one region of Antartica. The increase in Antarctic sea-ice is about a fifth of that lost in the Arctic, therefore there is a net loss in sea ice. This influences albedo, but not sea level (since frozen ice and the meltwater displace the same volume. There has also been a net loss of land ice volume in the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland, and this does have potentially serious implications in terms of sea level rise.
Yerushalmi said:
- Paragraph 26 indicates that "about half" of the CO2 released by humans has remained in the atmosphere. How does this jive with paragraph 31, which says that even if all human CO2 emissions ceased it would take "several millennia" for CO2 levels in the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial levels? Wouldn't it simply take the same amount of time it took for the first half to get reabsorbed into the world, with some additional time to take into account decreasing efficiency of carbon sinks over time? Can said "some additional time" really amount to thousands of years? Paragraph 48 seems to contradict this!
Click to expand...
The problem is 'residence time'. At the moment we are emitting a huge mass of CO2 each year. at the same time CO2 if flowing into the oceans and biosphere and being emitted by them too, whilst these volumes swamp the amount due to man-made emissions they are finely balanced, so only human emissions show as the change in concentration. The equilibrium is disturbed slightly by human emissions so that approximately half of what we emit is absorbed (the airborne fraction). this was covered in a paper - Knorr 2009. If all CO2 emmissions were to be mysteriously interrupted there would still be the normal interaction between the oceans / biosphere / atmosphere, some increases due to inherent lags in the system response, and changes to the equilibrium back to a stable level. This would still leave the excess CO2 in the atmosphere where it will indeed remain for a very, very long time until natural processes reduced it.
Yerushalmi said:
- Does the information in paragraph 27 come from the same source (Greenland and Antarctica ice) as that of paragraph 25? I found the repeated date range curious.

- Paragraph 35: "Calculations, coupled to a variety of atmospheric observations, indicate that particles have caused a negative climate forcing of around 0.5 Wm-2 with an uncertainty of ±0.2 Wm-2." Since that is quite low compared to global warming, why were we actually in danger of global cooling back in the 70s? Is SO2 really two orders of magnitude higher in its cooling effects than all other particles put together?

- In paragraph 39 it says that satellite measurements do not necessarily support the climate models' predictions of "increased warming with height in the tropical regions". Where can I find details on this?

- Paragraph 40 puts one in mind of nuclear power, which is not fossil fuel-burning. Why aren't climatologists pushing for more widespread use of nuclear power to deal with carbon emissions?


All in all, this was a very informative document. I'm not thoroughly convinced yet that a warming of one or two degrees centigrade is something to be concerned about, but I am more persuaded of the A in AGW.

I'd appreciate if responses to this, for now at least, are limited to the questions and comments I brought up; reading new "generalized" material on AGW is something I don't have time for at the moment. I have work, you know :)
Click to expand...
Even with 0.8 deg C warming we are seeing ice loss, sea level rise, more extreme weather events, higher insurance losses due to climatic events (look up the recent Munich Re report), the spread of pests leading to forestry and agricultural problems, water management problems, etc
 
DC said:
will you address my posts? how come the papers I pointed out contradict what you claimed about them?
Click to expand...
DC there are NO words of mine in that post. The "If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause..." was pinched from the banner on the THS site. Catchy isn't it? but I liked the point it makes, can you answer it?

The 71 papers you take issue with ... take it up with the site that actually made that claim THS and NO I haven't read ALL the papers. My point in quoting it is in showing the uptick in the sun-earth connection and where the real focus should be. BTW do you really believe the 97% consensus on climate scientists for AGW is true? It was not.

DC said:
I don't fear a maunder minimum. I would welcome it.
Click to expand...
You should fear it. Crops don't grow so well in the snow, ice, wind, rain and hail. Look up the history of what it was like living in the LIA times.

DC said:
however volcanoes, I fear those.

about the cause of the LIA
Click to expand...
How about volcanoes, earthquakes, and LIA conditions ALL together over the globe, driven by the sun in the solar minimum? It's that big picture again.

Belz... said:
That the sun has a great impact on climate seems irrelevant to the question of whether human activity has an impact as well, wouldn't you say ?
Click to expand...
Well ... it's all a matter of scale. A flea on the back of an elephant is like that trace gas effect on the climate when compared to the suns effect on climate. Who are you gona take more notice of, the flea or the elephant?

Iamme said:
Just curious...so i can go back to eating my popcorn during this show, lol.....but why does it have to be its EITHER the sun OR AGW? (Like that funny car commercial on tv right now, where they say it`s like asking if it is nuts OR bolts....as the swimming pool bursts open at the seams)
What if both events are happening at the same time? We cant control the sun, but we CAN try to control AGW.
Click to expand...
Same answer to Belz We are not to blame for climate change. It's a natural cycle and we can't control it.

Reducing pollution and improving the environment is great but we shouldn't kid ourselves we can change the climate.
 
IPCC's Gold-Standard HadCRUT Confirms: CO2's Impact On Global Temps Statistically Immaterial & Insignificant
The extreme anti-CO2 jihadists, and the green-fundamentalists at the UN's IPCC, claim that modern warming has been historically unusual, unique and statistically "significant" due to human CO2 emissions - yet, when the UK's HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset is examined, it is readily apparent that modern temperature change is primarily a repeat of the past natural climate patterns
Click to expand...
http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/06/...emps-statistically-immaterial-insignific.html
 
Haig said:
Well ... it's all a matter of scale. A flea on the back of an elephant is like that trace gas effect on the climate when compared to the suns effect on climate.
Click to expand...

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. A few things:

1) Could you demonstrate that human activity indeed only produces a trace effect on climate compared to the sun ? Remember in your answer that we are 150 million kilometers from it.

2) Even given your demonstration of 1), are we even talking about the same type of influence on climate ? The sun inputs energy and so on, but our activity, presumably, affects how the Earth absorbs or flushes out that energy. In other words, greenhouse gases can trap heat, etc. So I'd like you to clarify how the sun even factors into the equation as far as scale is concerned.

3) Since you will obviously be able to demonstrate 1) and 2), could you estimate how much more carbon emissions we'd need to put out before there is an effect on climate ? I assume that you agree that there is a threshold at which point our presence here has an impact on the environment.
 
Haig said:
DC there are NO words of mine in that post. The "If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause..." was pinched from the banner on the THS site. Catchy isn't it? but I liked the point it makes, can you answer it?

The 71 papers you take issue with ... take it up with the site that actually made that claim THS and NO I haven't read ALL the papers. My point in quoting it is in showing the uptick in the sun-earth connection and where the real focus should be. BTW do you really believe the 97% consensus on climate scientists for AGW is true? It was not.

You should fear it. Crops don't grow so well in the snow, ice, wind, rain and hail. Look up the history of what it was like living in the LIA times.


How about volcanoes, earthquakes, and LIA conditions ALL together over the globe, driven by the sun in the solar minimum? It's that big picture again.

Well ... it's all a matter of scale. A flea on the back of an elephant is like that trace gas effect on the climate when compared to the suns effect on climate. Who are you gona take more notice of, the flea or the elephant?

Same answer to Belz We are not to blame for climate change. It's a natural cycle and we can't control it.

Reducing pollution and improving the environment is great but we shouldn't kid ourselves we can change the climate.
Click to expand...

aaah yeah, the usual denier tactics of "take it up with them, they claimed......"

very very telling. how would you know there is a "uptick in the sun-earth connection" you don't read the papers, and as i have shown, atleast the papers i looked into do not support the claim........

and yes i know the 97% concencus is real, several studies and polls among experts have shown this. And i don't read Monckton anymore, he is a charlatan, liar and one of the most debunked science deniers on this planet.... he was exposed several times as the liar he is.

we are indeed responsible for the current climate change. there is no doubt about that. would you actually read scientific papers instead of simply parotting denier bloggs, you would know that.....

we are 7 billion fleas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom