Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Goddard is a climate crank and there was a risk of significant global cooling in the 70s. The phenomena is called global dimming caused by S02.
If you search on dimming in this thread you will see the explanation.
SO2 injection into the stratosphere is considered a last ditch measure to combat AGW.
 
Except as been shown before innumerable times the solar swings and roundabouts are a magnitude below GHG influence so at best the sun has a 10% or so influence that is cyclical and is certainly not responsible for either the pause in atmospheric warming ( the ocean has not paused - in reality it has sped up in warming ).

Nor is slightly weak sun responsible for GW. You are just grasping at straws with this thesis of solar dominance of climate change.

IN fact they are moving in opposite directions...

As the sun enters a weaker phase so does the magnetic field of the earth, a 10% reduction so far, and the atmosphere shrinks thro' lack of solar flares. These changes weaken our protection as this video explains. No apologies for posting it again as it shows how the WHOLE solar system has been changing.

Try and answer the questions raised in it and check the source links listed below it.

Energy from Space
1) The climate change is real, and there is more to it than CO2 and 'global warming' - it is all extremes.
2) The entire solar system appears to be changing simultaneously.
3) The magnetic changes on earth began hundreds of years ago, and need to be tracked more effectively.
4) Weather modification appears to be implemented, and IMHO it is a zero-sum game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yy3YJBOw_o
 
(ETA: I opened the Royal Society link you provided earlier, will read through during lunch tomorrow unless I get bored and have time to read it earlier.)
One think you will find in that article, is that a sure prediction for CO2 forced global warming is that warming is predicted to be greatest over NH land masses in winter. This has been a critical point ignored, denied and twisted around for almost a year in this topic. to the point that some actually are claiming global warming predicted colder winters.
Crank or not, the contradiction presented is a valid point.
Of course it is, it's an obvious and impossible to miss point. It won't matter, global warming can justify anything, explain anything, and nothing can disprove it. If you believe the madness that passes for climate science here.

Not really. In fact it varies only in the slightest detail from AGW.
No, it is a completely different sort of forcing, turning forests into grasslands for grazing, or for crops, especially irrigated crops is a different beast than CO2 increase.. Land use change has immediate and undeniable effects on both local climate - temperature/rainfall, as well as unexpected effects from albedo changes, especially in winter. Paving and building structures has even more dramatic effects on temperature and rainfall, as does draining wetlands or damning rivers.

Most people ignore or forget about land use changes, but they are no small factor.

NASA reports that between one-third and one-half of our planet’s land surfaces have
been transformed by human development.

Experiments by Feddema et al. using the USDOE Parallel Climate Model (DOEPCM)
showed how land use changes altered the climate change simulations, and should be
considered a first order climate forcing factor.

Man alters the planet surfaces in diverse ways trough urbanization, suburbanization,
deforestation, foresting former grasslands, irrigating desert land for crops, damming
rivers to create man-made lakes and reservoirs, land-filling swamps and marshlands, etc.
These factors affect the climate on scales ranging from the macroscale to the microscale.
 
Last edited:
As the sun enters a weaker phase so does the magnetic field of the earth, a 10% reduction so far, and the atmosphere shrinks thro' lack of solar flares. These changes weaken our protection as this video explains. No apologies for posting it again as it shows how the WHOLE solar system has been changing.

Try and answer the questions raised in it and check the source links listed below it.

Energy from Space

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yy3YJBOw_o

Argumentum ad Youtubum. Got science?
 
Nearly right :rolleyes:
[qimg]http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/screenhunter_1307-jan-07-11-27.gif?w=640[/qimg]

Why take an image of it instead of just linking to it?

Could it be because the headline fit your narrative far more closely than the actual content that included such things as:
These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.

Models produce a range of possible dates for stuff like this, the fact that a single run from one model gave such an early date is still interesting but it’s a far cry from what you are calming this article contained.
 
Ok, r-j. I'll assume you realised your mistake, and would rather not talk about it.

On the other hand, your lack of correcting my presumed misunderstanding has led me to conclude that it was actually dead-on.
 
Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
Goddard is a climate crank
Crank or not, the contradiction presented is a valid point.
no


Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
and there was a risk of significant global cooling in the 70s.
Do you mean "was thought to be a risk"? Because if there actually was a risk, it makes me wonder how and why global warming is so strong that overcame said risk so quickly and easily.

There was a significant risk IF S02 was not contained and the growth in emissions not curtailed and then rolled back as it was....Clean Air Act ( and equivalent in Europe )

Global dimming is a known phenomena and is a climate driver.

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - BBC.com
www.bbc.co.uk › ... › TV & Radio Follow-up › Programmes › Horizon‎
Programme transcript - Horizon: Global Dimming. ... The trail that would lead to the discovery of Global Dimming began 40 years ago, in Israel with the work of a young English ... His task was to measure how strongly the sun shone over Israel.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

It is how volcanoes cool the atmosphere for a couple of years.
Injecting S02 into the stratisphere is a potential geo-engineering idea but very damaging.

The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in climate engineering projects[1] to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.[2] Delivery of precursor sulfide gases such as sulfuric acid,[3] hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2) by artillery, aircraft[4] and balloons has been proposed.[5]
Tom Wigley calculated the impact of injecting sulfate particles, or aerosols, every one to four years into the stratosphere in amounts equal to those lofted by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991,[6] but did not address the many technical and political challenges involved in potential climate engineering efforts.[7] If found to be economically, environmentally and technologically viable, such injections could provide a "grace period" of up to 20 years before major cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions would be required, he concludes.
Direct delivery of precursors is proposed by Paul Crutzen.[4] This would typically be achieved using sulfide gases such as dimethyl sulfide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbonyl sulfide, or hydrogen sulfide (H2S).[5] These compounds would be delivered using artillery, aircraft (such as the high-flying F-15C)[4] or balloons, and result in the formation of compounds with the sulfate anion SO42-.[5]
According to estimates by the Council on Foreign Relations, "one kilogram of well placed sulfur in the stratosphere would roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide."[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

Aersols from developing nations, mainly the Asian Brown cloud....again discussed earlier in this thread is certainly a factor and all climate scientists wrestle with that type of pollution as carbon black and SO2 can have varying impacts on everything from albedo to dimming to absorption.
It is the toughest part of the equation but in effect is still an Anthro induced factor.
 
Crank or not, the contradiction presented is a valid point.

Do you mean "was thought to be a risk"? Because if there actually was a risk, it makes me wonder how and why global warming is so strong that overcame said risk so quickly and easily.

In the 1970’s scientists already knew about the cooling impact of human aerosols and the warming impact of human greenhouse gasses but lacked the computing tools to accurately quantify how large each would be. Most papers (90% by the mid 70’s) took the side that greenhouse gasses would win out and that the earth would warm. More readily available computing power in the 80’s confirmed these conclusions, and there has been little or no question of cooling since.
 
Most people ignore or forget about land use changes, but they are no small factor.

As previously pouted out, the IPCC doesn't. Land use changes are significant issues, this doesn't mean it's in the same category as burning fossil carbon.
 
The usual generalization from r-j - nearly all of my comments on AGW include a land-use component but it is magnitudes below GHG as it's nature as a climate "driver" which I am certainly confident you have no understanding of.....is complex.

Land use includes the biome which is generally within the carbon cycle and that is not an issue. It's the introduction of fossil carbon that is the problem....period.

Land use can mitigate that somewhat...it is one of the steps like methane control of livestock ( eat more kangaroo ),

stuff like this

Phys.org) —A new study undertaken by a diverse group of scientists in Sweden has found that contrary to popular belief, most of the carbon that is sequestered in northern boreal forests comes about due to fungi that live on and in tree roots, rather than via dead needles, moss and leaf matter. In their paper published in the journal Science, the team describes their findings after taking soil samples from 30 islands in two lakes in northern Sweden.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-fungi-responsible-carbon-sequestration-northern.html#jCp

could lead to some form of gene engineering.
But bottom line we have to move to a carbon neutral society and the FIRST step is to admit to the problem and it's cause which Exxon has and you have not. :rolleyes:
 
As the sun enters a weaker phase so does the magnetic field of the earth, a 10% reduction so far, and the atmosphere shrinks thro' lack of solar flares. These changes weaken our protection as this video explains. No apologies for posting it again as it shows how the WHOLE solar system has been changing.

Weakens our protection against what? The mass of the atmosphere doesn’t change, all that changes is where the top of the atmosphere is located. How does any of this change the earth’s climate? And please, no more WooTube.
 
He won't like this .....

An increase in CO2 could be one reason why a layer of Earth's upper atmosphere went through its biggest contraction in 43 years.

THE GIST
Earth's thermosphere went through its biggest contraction in 43 years.

Researchers expected to see a contraction due to a solar minimum, but not this significant.

One explanation may be an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Scientists are mulling over why part of the Earth's atmosphere recently suffered its biggest collapse since records began, and is only now starting to rebound.

The collapse occurred in a region known as the thermosphere, a rarefied layer of the planet's upper atmosphere between 90 and 600 kilometers (56 to 373 miles) above the surface, which shields us from the sun's far and extreme ultra violet (EUV) radiation.

A report in Geophysical Research Letters by a team led by John Emmert from the United States Naval Research Laboratory has found that the thermosphere went through its biggest contraction in 43 years.

The thermosphere usually expands and contracts in line with the sun's 11-year solar cycle. During solar maximum when solar activity increases, it causes the thermosphere to heat up -- reaching temperatures of 1100°C -- and expand like a marshmallow in a camp fire. The opposite happens during solar minimum.

Currently, the sun is experiencing its longest solar minimum on record, with little sunspot activity and few solar flares or coronal mass ejections.

To see what effect solar minimum is having on the thermosphere, Emmert and colleagues monitored the impact of atmospheric drag on satellites in low-Earth orbit (LEO). These satellites fly through the thermosphere, so the thicker the thermosphere the more drag it puts on spacecraft.

The researchers expected to see a contraction in line with solar minimum, but the level of collapse was up to three times greater than solar activity alone can explain.

They believe an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may explain the contraction. CO2 has a cooling effect in the thermosphere, which would then amplify the impact of the extended solar minimum.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/earth-atmosphere-shrinking.htm

Funny Haig left out the CO2 bit.....or perhaps purposeful obfuscation. :rolleyes:
 
Crank or not, the contradiction presented is a valid point.

What, to your considerations, makes Goddard's presentation "valid?"

Do you mean "was thought to be a risk"? Because if there actually was a risk, it makes me wonder how and why global warming is so strong that overcame said risk so quickly and easily.

Milankovich cycle cooling is a very long (on human scale) phenomena, in which the inclination and wobble of our planet's axis and overall shape of our planet's orbit changes over time due to a variety of processes and interactions. These changes result in gradual variances in the manner and amount of solar radiation from the sun that our planet intercepts (insolation). The cycles of these changes are different for each process. When the net effect of the cycles result in increased insolation our planet gradually warms to the a new equilibrium point, when the net effect is reduced insolation our planet gradually cools to a new equilibrium point. These slow changes are among the gentlest nudges that guide our planet's climate. Both heating and cooling episodes are step-wise rather than simple general curves due to the amplifying effects feedbacks in the earth's biosphere. As climates warm, ghgs (carbon, CH4 and water vapor) held in the oceans and shallow surface sinks/reservoirs is released which amplifies the warming causing the release of more ghgs until the combined equilibrium point is reached. As climates cool, ghgs are more easily absorbed in shallow surface sinks and oceans, also, the ice caps (polar and mountainous) expand reflecting more sunlight amplifying the cooling effects until equilibrium is reached. In the middle of last century scientists studying these orbital issues actually measured these factors and determined that the cycles were currently aligned such that our planet was actually near the start of a 40-50 thousand year gradual cooling episode which might bring on an expanding glaciation period on our planet in another ~30 thousand years. But even these scientists were aware of, and talked about in their papers regarding cooling Milankovitch trends, that human CO2 was changing the natural cycle impacts and warming our climate with several magnitudes more energy than was resulting from the loss of insolation by the slowly altering orbital cycles. A few bad winters and some news and pop-science writers discovered the papers and sensationalized the "coming ice-age" story a bit, most without including the information about AGW because that didn't fit the story they were trying to sell at the time. It isn't that legitimate climate science of that time didn't have any idea what was going on, it is that the legitimate science position wasn't the story that the popular media writers wanted to tell at that time.
 
Think you are wrong on that T.
Global cooling aka Global Dimming leading to a potential severe climate crisis was SO2 based not orbital ( tho orbital had a small contribution ).

Originally Posted by Yerushalmi View Post
Do you mean "was thought to be a risk"? Because if there actually was a risk, it makes me wonder how and why global warming is so strong that overcame said risk so quickly and easily.

So quickly....
S02 cools the planet and quickly as it prevent solar radiation from getting to the surface so prevent IR levels from being so high.

C02 traps IR.

So dial down S02 dramatically
Keep long lived C02 climbing

= rapid warming.
 
Think you are wrong on that T.
Global cooling aka Global Dimming leading to a potential severe climate crisis was SO2 based not orbital ( tho orbital had a small contribution ).



So quickly....
S02 cools the planet and quickly as it prevent solar radiation from getting to the surface so prevent IR levels from being so high.

C02 traps IR.

So dial down S02 dramatically
Keep long lived C02 climbing

= rapid warming.

True enough, and that was actually determined to be the cause of the cooling that brought about a period of more intense winters in the same time frame (due to rapid post war rebuilding and the economic and industrialization expansions). However, the "coming ice age" comments and discussions in the '60s-'70s in the US revolved mostly around articles written about the cooling Milankovitch cycle calculations and the popular media writers who promoted them in relation to the series of bad winters that had caught people's attention.

The SO2 source was not well supported to be the actual source of the bad winters until the eighties, by which time clean air acts in most western nations had removed most of the problem. I'm sure there are several perspectives on this issue, but this is my experience from living through it and researching the subject as we were going through it.
 
Weakens our protection against what? The mass of the atmosphere doesn’t change, all that changes is where the top of the atmosphere is located. How does any of this change the earth’s climate? And please, no more WooTube.
Solar wind, Proton storm, UV, X-rays, Cosmic Rays etc ... you should look at the science links in the "see more" drop down below the video

lomiller haven't you heard a picture is worth a ... you don't seem to have understood the video, suggest you have another look.

This is what a weak sun and a weakened protection around earth means. SC25 is predicted to allow that to happen, not too long to go, better prepare for LIA conditions. Why take the risk?


The Next Ice Age - An Introduction to a Possible Shift Soon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuYTcnN7TQk
 
What a crock.
What possible mechanism can you postulate to have any affect on the climate?..the affected area is extremely tenuous tho very hot.

What don't you get about a magnitude below GHG.?

••••
Trak
However, the "coming ice age" comments and discussions in the '60s-'70s in the US revolved mostly around articles written about the cooling Milankovitch cycle calculations and the popular media writers who promoted them in relation to the series of bad winters that had caught people's attention.

fair enough .
 
What a crock.
What possible mechanism can you postulate to have any affect on the climate?..
At times of a weaker sun, such as now, the coronal holes migrate from the poles to the mid-latitudes where they are more effective at transmitting energy to the planets.

Alfvén waves emitted from coronal holes at lower latitudes would have a better chance of connecting with Earth's magnetosphere and causing geomagnetic effects, while mid-latitude holes would be less effective.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/558961main2_alfven-waves-670.jpg

The magnetic fields from the center of coronal holes in the sun's atmosphere have large fluctuations known as Alfvén waves, while those from the sides have smaller fluctuations. The side fields do not transfer energy as well from the sun to Earth's magnetosphere. Credit: NASA/Park
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solar-minima.html

Edited by LashL: 
Changed hotlinked image to regular link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom