Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Malerin]

do you understand the term hysteresis.....??

apparently not from your trite answer....

The climate is composed of effects from massive systems that react slowly to a change in input - in this case a forcing from C02 that is mined and burned by H Sapien.

It's a simple bit of physics and you are in denial of the consequences -

which no matter what action we take now will impact the climate dramatically for the next millenium or more and effects will linger out 100k years, even if we stopped emissions totally right now
note "inertia" in the title below....

course it seems some would prefer to have their kids deal with the consequences

You didn't address my point: after a hundred years of pouring CO2 into the air, the Earth has warmed up less than a degree. If human activity is causing global warming, it's certainly not causing a lot of it. It hasn't stopped the population of the Earth from nearly quardupling in the last 100 years.

But this mitigates the alarmism that permeates the AGW cause. What to do about that? The answer's obvious! Peer into the AGW crystal ball and report, as fact, that the Earth will warm up 6-20 degrees in the next 100 years. Forget that this goes against both short-term and long-term warming trends (and the IPCC's own report of less than a meter of sea level rise in the next 100 years). Oceans will boil unless we do something NOW!

It's transparently obvious and most people see through it.

 

[Trakar]

How sure are you CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Not as sure as you were yesterday:


"The Earth’s incident solar radiation entropy flux estimated using the mean SIM-based TOA SSI observations and Planck expression exhibits 4 times larger in magnitude than 15 that estimated using the conventional expression based on the Sun’s brightness temperature under the assumption of a blackbody Sun. It is worth emphasizing that the difference (0.23Wm−2 K−1) between the two approaches represents about 77% of the typical entropy production rate associated with the atmospheric latent heat process"


http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/2/45/2011/esdd-2-45-2011.pdf

This has significant impact on the role CO2 and all greenhouse gases play in climate change.

I see nothing in this paper that questions or casts into question CO2's role as a greenhouse gas. Perhaps you could point out exactly what you find to be significant in this paper and its findings. Perhaps you can explain to us what they are talking about in your own words and explain why we should find their paper remarkable and noteworthy.

 

[Trakar]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110114155342.htm

Greg Kopp, Judith L. Lean. A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance. Geophysical Research Letters, 2011; 38 (1) DOI: 10.1029/2010GL045777

Abstract

The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m−2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use. Scattered light is a primary cause of the higher irradiance values measured by the earlier generation of solar radiometers in which the precision aperture defining the measured solar beam is located behind a larger, view‐limiting aperture. In the TIM, the opposite order of these apertures precludes this spurious signal by limiting the light entering the instrument. We assess the accuracy and stability of irradiance measurements made since 1978 and the implications of instrument uncertainties and instabilities for climate research in comparison with the new TIM data. TIM's lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun's output, whose variations it detects with stability comparable or superior to prior measurements; instead, its significance is in advancing the capability of monitoring solar irradiance variations on climate‐relevant time scales and in improving estimates of Earth energy balance, which the Sun initiates.

 

[Trakar]

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44869

Sun provides Earth with less energy than we thought

Researchers in the US claim to have the most reliable estimates yet of the amount of energy that the Sun provides to Earth – and it is less than previously thought. The findings will give scientists more robust solar data to feed into climate models, though much more work needs to be done to fully understand the relationship between the Sun and the Earth...

 

[Trakar]

explanation of the TIM TSI measurement equipment and function

TSI Radiometer Facility (TRF) Measures Irradiance
http://www.acrim.com/Reference Files/TRF Pages from Aspen Workshop_061610_GKopp.pdf

 

[Stray Cat]

If we stopped emitting CO2 temperatures would stabilize within a decade or two. They may not return to normal for a very long time but they would stop going up.

Which is why I keep pointing out that we should everything we can do that is going to work to reduce emissions. But as the action is going to take years and we don't actually know what effect those intervening years will have and that even the targets set at the moment don't lead to stopping CO2 but only reducing it (slightly in relation to the amount we've actually put out there already)... Returning to 'normal' isn't going to happen in a decade or two.

 

[Furcifer]

I see nothing in this paper that questions or casts into question CO2's role as a greenhouse gas. Perhaps you could point out exactly what you find to be significant in this paper and its findings. Perhaps you can explain to us what they are talking about in your own words and explain why we should find their paper remarkable and noteworthy.

You don't see how over estimating the total solar irradiance in every single climate model since 1990 changes things?

If this proves correct the current GCM predictions have absolutely no basis in reality.

It may also explain why we've observed so little warming over the last 100 years.

This is the most significant finding in climate science history since the roll of CO2 was first proposed. If it's correct of course.

 

[macdoc]

You didn't address my point: after a hundred years of pouring CO2 into the air, the Earth has warmed up less than a degree. If human activity is causing global warming, it's certainly not causing a lot of it. It hasn't stopped the population of the Earth from nearly quardupling in the last 100 years.

again what don't you understand about hysteresis??

you don't understand scale either.....

and scientists working in the field who actually understand the risk .....would beg to differ with you on your downplaying of the risk and the range

Climate Change Odds Much Worse Than Thought

ScienceDaily (May 20, 2009) — The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

continues
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

the only one dealing in puerile pejoratives like "boiling oceans" is you.

He's not - and he happens to understand the issues far better than you....with the credentials to back it up....

March 13, 2009, 11:33 am Scientist: Warming Could Cut Population to 1 Billion

By JAMES KANTER Lizette Kabré. Climate congress, Copenhagen 2009. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, spoke several times at the climate conference in Copenhagen.
[UPDATE, 1:45 p.m.: A roundup of economists' and scientists' views at the Copenhagen climate meeting and a reaction from Mike Hulme, a participating scientist.]
COPENHAGEN — A scientist known for his aggressive stance on climate policy made an apocalyptic prediction on Thursay.
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the buildup of greenhouse gases and its consequences pushed global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists project could occur from global warming — Earth’s population would be devastated.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/scientist-warming-could-cut-population-to-1-billion/

and you really clearly don't understand the persistance of carbon and it's cumulative impact

Fortunately others do

oh yeah..IPCC has proven conservative consistentally and sealevel change is a minor factor in the short term and unstoppable at this point in the longer term

 

[CapelDodger]

Really? OK, then I guess the warming has stopped.

"Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century."

Story here.

Perhaps climate science shouldn't be lead around on a leash by alarmists?

See ScienceDaily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110124162708.htm

"Bookhagen noted that glaciers in the Karakoram region of Northwestern Himalaya are mostly stagnating. However, glaciers in the Western, Central, and Eastern Himalaya are retreating, with the highest retreat rates -- approximately 8 meters per year -- in the Western Himalayan Mountains. The authors found that half of the studied glaciers in the Karakoram region are stable or advancing, whereas about two-thirds are in retreat elsewhere throughout High Asia. This is in contrast to the prevailing notion that all glaciers in the tropics are retreating."

You quote the Telegraph headliner, but the piece itself is better. For instance

"Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking."

is the first para (I realise you may not have read that far). Headliners are more subject to editorial policy, which, in the case of the Torygraph, is to make any case against AGW. (I think that hapless lier Delingpole still works for them, despite their having to print apologies for him more than once.) So "half ... in the Karakorum range" becomes "Himalayan Glaciers". Their readers have been already been made very aware of HimalayanGlaciarGate, but who knows where the Karakorum range is, in these post-Imperial days?

I really don't recommend getting your lead on climate from Telegraph headliners. They have an agenda. Shocking, I know, but there it is.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's transparently obvious and most people see through it.

Half of the CO₂ we've added to the atmosphere has been since 1970, so given the lag (AGW involves a gradual accumulation of energy, not a sudden injection : think of it as a pay-rise as contrasted with a bonus) it's not surprising we're only seeing unequivocal impacts of it now. Droughts and deluges, rising food prices and political instabilty, flag-waving in the Arctic, the fun has just begun. That quadrupled global population is looking like a bit of a liability. (Actually, it's always looked like a liability to me.)

There's an obvious solution to that, of course. Let lots of them die, off-stage, and blame it on the US American consumer.

 

[macdoc]

Forget that this goes against both short-term and long-term warming trends

What the climate science community says.....

Short term trend 2010 was the hottest or tied for the hottest year on record

Global Highlights
For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.

and ocean heat which is the biggest player in the long term

Deep Ocean Heat Is Melting Antarctic Ice
by Kevin Krajick | 12.14.2010 at 1:23pm | 5 Comments

Like dirt swept under the carpet, some of the human-made heat produced over the last century has been getting soaked up by the world’s oceans, and sinking into deep waters. Now, it is coming back to haunt the surface, in a very sensitive place: western Antarctica, where vast ice sheets meet the ocean. The result appears to be that ice is rapidly being eaten from the bottom, says Douglas Martinson, a polar scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, who presented the findings Monday at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/12/14/deep-ocean-heat-is-melting-antarctic-ice/

and the last decade the hottest on record

RELEASE : 10-017

NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years

WASHINGTON -- A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

and do you really want to try and downplay the incredible changes in the Arctic....overturn multi-national, multi-discipline assessments year after year showing warming far beyond that anticipated even a decade ago.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

Long term we have reversed the slow drift down from Holocene optimum of the Milankovich cycles and cancelled or delayed the next ice entirely....by up to 1/2 million years.

Next Ice Age delayed by rising CO2 levels
August 29, 2007
Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. That is the implication of recent work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.

http://www.physorg.com/news107609779.html

 

[CapelDodger]

I didn't summon it, the OP did, and I agreed.

The OP (of another thread since merged, most confusingly, but the mods have a tricky job to do, I don't envy them one bit) referred to an apparent paradox, as it would be presented by the usual denial mouthpieces and would appear to useful idiots. You, on the other hand, posted "Hence the paradox". You summoned it hence, I'm just asking you from whence.

 

[CapelDodger]

Now, the people who hold that position want to chalk that up to a leftist plot involving 90+% of the scientific community, but most of these same people would not accept any similar argument surrounding the events of 2001-9-11, and they appear to utterly lack the perspective to see the similarity or the irony.

People of religion can comfortably reject all other beliefs as superstitious rubbish without ever reflecting on what this implies for their own. It's part of the human condition. Conspiracy theorists can be just as specific about the conspiracies they believe in.

I'm sure there's a behavioural overlap. I regard religions and conspiracy theories as both being examples of cults.

And I wonder; Is it possible to reach these people with any argument based on facts and reality, or are they in a fact-proof space where any information that disproves the "vast left-wing conspiracy" is itself disinformation promulgated by those dastardly conspirators?

De-programming is difficult, and can have unforeseen results. For instance, there are ex-Scientologists who now see Scientology everywhere. Some people need a cult, they're just born that way.

 

[Furcifer]

Sun could cause 15-20% of Global Warming- July 18, 2008

Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming- May 12, 2009

Scientists have taken a major step toward accurately determining the amount of energy that the sun provides to Earth, and how variations in that energy may contribute to climate change-January 17, 2011.

Wait a second, I thought the science was settled. Didn't anyone notify the Sun about anthropogenic causes of Global Warming?

I don't understand how on a skeptical website you can see something as pivotal as total solar irradiance change from year to year and still have faith in AGW?

This report on solar radiation flux just scratches the surface. Reading it you should get an idea of how primitive our understanding of the climate really is.

 

[arthwollipot]

I've had to edit a few posts in this latest batch for civility. Please remember where you are, address the argument and not the arguer, and try to advance the discussion. Thanks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: arthwollipot

 

[DC]

Sun could cause 15-20% of Global Warming- July 18, 2008

Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming- May 12, 2009

Scientists have taken a major step toward accurately determining the amount of energy that the sun provides to Earth, and how variations in that energy may contribute to climate change-January 17, 2011.

Wait a second, I thought the science was settled. Didn't anyone notify the Sun about anthropogenic causes of Global Warming?

I don't understand how on a skeptical website you can see something as pivotal as total solar irradiance change from year to year and still have faith in AGW?

This report on solar radiation flux just scratches the surface. Reading it you should get an idea of how primitive our understanding of the climate really is.

Just a few days ago you said you know the world is warming up and we are the main cause. this is actually the scientific consensus.
and now you deny it? why?
You have not present anything in the meanwhike that would show AGW to be wrong or not happening etc.

 

[macdoc]

Wait a second, I thought the science was settled. Didn't anyone notify the Sun about anthropogenic causes of Global Warming?

I don't understand how on a skeptical website you can see something as pivotal as total solar irradiance change from year to year and still have faith in AGW?

No you don't as has been evident any number of times from your dependency on rhetorical statements without evidence.

and no, the links are not evidence of your assumption...

Lean's model, which is now adjusted to the new lower absolute TSI values, reproduces with high fidelity the TSI variations that TIM observes and indicates that solar irradiance levels during the recent prolonged solar minimum period were likely comparable to levels in past solar minima. Using this model, Lean estimates that solar variability produces about 0.1o Celsius (0.18o Fahrenheit) global warming during the 11-year solar cycle, but is likely not the main cause of global warming in the past three decades.

I notice you don't include the title of the piece

Improved Measurements of Sun to Advance Understanding of Climate Change

Science advances in incremental steps - you want to toss well founded, established and observed climate science out due to "well it's not perfected" nonsense

Nuclear theory is still being "understood and refined", aeronautics, evolution - there is a long list of works in progress - we still act on the information the theory and observations provide while "improving out understanding.

Not a single link there brings into question AGW - except perhaps in the ill-informed mind with another agenda.

 

[Furcifer]

What the climate science community says.....

Short term trend 2010 was the hottest or tied for the hottest year on record

This year will be hotter, and 2012 even hotter. It's part of the natural cycle of the sun. It's perfectly normal and expected, no cause for alarm.

 

[Furcifer]

I really don't recommend getting your lead on climate from Telegraph headliners. They have an agenda. Shocking, I know, but there it is.

It could be Playboy or Scientific American, either way the claims they could melt by 2030 have been shown to be yet another alarmist meme. It's a sad state of affairs when scientists are falling for memes.

 

[ThunderChunky]

I don't understand how on a skeptical website you can see something as pivotal as total solar irradiance change from year to year and still have faith in AGW?

Same argument every creationist makes when evolutionary relationships are reassigned.