Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[CapelDodger]

Of course I am talking about the recent past, which mankind used to become a vast civilization (questionable), in which the climate has not changed much. If the sun varied it's output, we would see global changes from this. In some sort of cycle, matching the sun.

We have not, so logic says the sun is not variable. it's logic.

Crossed post, but I'll repeat : logic and evidence are needed.

 

[r-j]

Of course global temperature isn't actually climate, so it's possible the sun does influence the climate. If so, we should be able to find evidence for this.

What do sunspots and the Paraná river in South America have in common? The answer, say physicists in Argentina, is that when the number of sunspots goes up, so does the river's level. Indeed, the correlation between the two is so strong that the physicists believe that solar activity could be used to predict when the Rio Paraná will flood.

Rising in southern Brazil and flowing through Paraguay and Argentina before reaching the Atlantic Ocean near Buenos Aires, the Paraná is the world’s fourth largest river in terms of water flow. Because much of the river is navigable and flows through heavily populated regions, its rate of flow has been recorded continuously since 1904.

Meanwhile, 149 million km away on the surface of the Sun, sunspots are dark areas that form at regions of intense magnetic activity. The number of sunspots rises and falls in an 11-year cycle and physicists know that the amount of radiation given off by the Sun (solar irradiance) is greatest when there are lots of sunspots.

Climate researchers have already found evidence that solar irradiance can affect Earth’s climate — boosting rainfall in the Asian monsoon, for example.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/oct/29/solar-activity-could-dictate-river-flow

That certainly looks like evidence the sun varies, and the variations effect the climate.

 

[DC]

Of course global temperature isn't actually climate, so it's possible the sun does influence the climate. If so, we should be able to find evidence for this.


http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/oct/29/solar-activity-could-dictate-river-flow

That certainly looks like evidence the sun varies, and the variations effect the climate.

yeah everyone knows correlation means causation. pure logic

 

[r-j]

Jan. 8, 2013: In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
NASA

Once again, real science differs from the JREF experts. What a shock.

 

[r-j]

Even Wikipedia has scientific evidence that the sun varies. And effects the planet earth.

Changes in ultraviolet irradiance
Ultraviolet irradiance (EUV) varies by approximately 1.5 percent from solar maxima to minima, for 200 to 300 nm UV.[43]
Energy changes in the UV wavelengths involved in production and loss of ozone have atmospheric effects.
The 30 hPa atmospheric pressure level has changed height in phase with solar activity during the last 4 solar cycles.
UV irradiance increase causes higher ozone production, leading to stratospheric heating and to poleward displacements in the stratospheric and tropospheric wind systems.[44]
A proxy study estimates that UV has increased by 3.0% since the Maunder Minimum.[45]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Changes_in_ultraviolet_irradiance

 

[aleCcowaN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK4a7kWb6Ro

 

[CapelDodger]

Once again, real science differs from the JREF experts. What a shock.

Solar cycles have nothing to do with current global warming, and to even find a solar cycle signal in the climate it's necessary to make all sorts of estimated adjustments for other, much greater, influences - including taking out the trend, which is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.

"Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality. They relied on multi-step interactions between multiple layers of atmosphere and ocean, some relying on chemistry to get their work done, others leaning on thermodynamics or fluid physics. But just because something is complicated doesn't mean it's not real."

Mechanisms proposed, you'll have noticed. Fairly tentative stuff, it seems. But

"Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, "there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific," correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.
The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. "One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system ... is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific." Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only "top-down" but also "bottom-up" mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific"

Doesn't the use of supercomputer models of climate make this suspect in your book?

What I wonder is why a correlation between solar cycles and ENSO hasn't been noticed before. El Nino is not a new discovery, after all, nor are attempts to predict it a new pursuit. But I'll defer to NASA's judgement of how persuasive it is and let it go, since it has nothing to do with current global warming (which is caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect).

 

[r-j]

Why do you keep repeating that ? The sun's power output is not constant but it is not a variable star.

Even Wikipedia has scientific evidence that the sun varies. And effects the planet earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Changes_in_ultraviolet_irradiance

Ay which point it is probably semantics, what is a variable star? Does our sun count as one?

But were you aware that the Sun is a variable star?

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/cosmicguide/sun.html

 

[r-j]

It's hard to know what to believe sometimes. Insulting anonymous self proclaimed experts on internet? Or actual experts and NASA scientists?

Some people seem to be incapable of grasping the simplest facts, no matter how many times they are explained to them.

I know, but it is because they don't want the facts to be true. It's not that they can't understand them.

If the sun can change the climate, the CO2 impact is muted, and it's possible that some of the warming attributed to CO2 might have been the sun. It also means the sun could be influencing the global climate, something some people don't want to be true.

 

[macdoc]

r-j doesn't quite get that while solar variation does leave it's imprint, particularly in the Pacific, it is a magnitude below that AGW/GHG.

It's like radiation, just because it's detectable has little bearing on the magnitude of the impact.

In reality we have a quiet sun during a decade of the warmest temperatures on record.

Back to the point.

The sun is not a variable star....it's markedly consistent within a narrow range.

What is driving climate change is our use of fossil fuels.

 

[macdoc]

A bit of negative feedback is good news

Nature can, selectively, buffer human-caused global warming, say scientistsDate:
February 2, 2014
Source:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Summary:
Can naturally occurring processes selectively buffer the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities? Yes, says a group of researchers in a new study.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140202111055.htm

 

[aleCcowaN]

The paper cited there.

 

[macdoc]

I'm finding it very ironic that Exxon is presenting ads about emission reductions at the Super Bowl..

http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7fYB/exxon-mobil-natural-gas

..end of times - must be.

 

[Belz...]

Ay which point it is probably semantics, what is a variable star? Does our sun count as one?

Are you asking this question honestly ? Because if you actually read that article you would see that no, our sun is not one of them. Why do you no make more of an effort to learn on this topic ? Is it because doing so carries the risk of you changing your mind ?

It's hard to know what to believe sometimes.

Not if you made up your mind to begin with, it seems.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm finding it very ironic that Exxon is presenting ads about emission reductions at the Super Bowl..

http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7fYB/exxon-mobil-natural-gas

..end of times - must be.

During the period 1988-1999 the natural gas proven reserves in the United States dropped below 1.8 x 10¹⁴ cubic feet, just about 8 to 10 years of consumption.

Now that fracking has come to stay, proven reserves have climbed way above 3.5 x 10¹⁴ cubic feet and continue to raise.

Why wouldn't Exxon ride this wave? It's a capital intensive business, a necessity, as the matrix of fossil fluid fuels reserves has moved from a mix to "little oil, gas a plenty", and it all can be marketed as a reconciliation kiss with the environmentally concerned.

I know, you meant it to be ironic, not illogical, but it's not a surprise. Since the tobacco stunts it's known the famous 15-year period: the wicked owners of damaging commercial activities will pay for advocacies denying the damage just for 15 years and no more, because in that period they get not only the benefits -not necessarily a lot of money- but the bulk of depreciation and in business like fluid fossil fuels they get back the original capital, so they can do new blameless commercial activities.

After those 15 years the said advocacies start to be left orphaned and mostly aficionados continue to be involved with them .... oh, wait!

 

[greybeard]

I find arguing with climate change "sceptics" very much the same as arguing with conspiracy theorists. They both seem to have their own version of reality. Every peer reviewed paper last year except for one that touched on climate change supported the hypothesis that AGW is happening.

Here is a list of the scientific organisations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action. The disinformation that is being bandied about is much the same as we seen in the debate about whether smoking caused cancer or not. I'm just surprised that so many people fall for it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Here is a list of the scientific organisations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action. The disinformation that is being bandied about is much the same as we seen in the debate about whether smoking caused cancer or not. I'm just surprised that so many people fall for it.

Apart from the well-honed (and well-compensated) PR skills being brought to bear there's also the attractiveness of the denier case - at least as compared to the scientific case, which is, lets face it, a tad unsettling. Having watched the same process at work on smoking, acid rain, environmental lead and the ozone hole (to name but a few) I'm afraid I'm not surprised in the slightest.

You know what the fundamental problem is? People, that's what.

 

[lomiller]

Even Wikipedia has scientific evidence that the sun varies. And effects the planet earth.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Changes_in_ultraviolet_irradiance

The fact remains that solar cycles have no statistically significant change on global temperature. Even of someone can identify some weather pattern with a small correlation to the solar cycle, so what. Changes in greenhouse gasses are 10 – 100 times stronger in their impact on the earth’s energy balance.

The thing that is really funny is that the same people who complain about a small amount of positive feedback that exists with greenhouse forcing also insist there must be some much more massive amplification at play wrt variation in solar activity. The believe this despite the multiple lines of evidence supporting the scientists on the former and the complete absence of data or even a plausible mechanism supporting the latter.

 

[r-j]

the same people who complain about a small amount of positive feedback that exists with greenhouse forcing also insist there must be some much more massive amplification at play wrt variation in solar activity.

I don't know who those people are, but that made me think of something.

If a super El Nino (which nobody really knows the cause of still) causes massive warming of the pacific, and then the entire world, and that leads to a jump in CO2 levels (it did), and CO2 causes more warming of the oceans, and that causes CO2 to rise faster, would that make the oceans a feedback? Or is CO2 causing a feedback?

 

[r-j]

Or is CO2 a feedback at that point?

Warming oceans lead to more CO2 released, causing more warming of oceans, causing more CO2 to be released.