Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Global Warming


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

Permanides

The ONLY evidence is that as temps have gone up so have CO2 levels. From 1940 to 1970 temps fell even though CO2 was climbing fast...and I don't buy that temp increases aren't linear as that is just trying to fit the view in against clear adverse evidence to that chain of thought. Empirical evidence has shown that in a previous ice age, from vostok icecores, that even when CO2 levels were 14 times what they are now the planet plunged into an iceage. CO2 does indeed have some greenhouse capacity as do others otherwise we would be 'perma-frost' but that statistic somewhat concerns me...to me it suggests another influence is of far greater importance? You mention about scientists who do not concur with the AGW theory and that they have been proven wrong or have alteria motives...well as yet they haven't been proven wrong and of course AGW scientists are also funded. Anyway we shall see, not long to wait :D

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
Here is the recent history of solar output. If anyone can see a solar warming trend perhaps they could point it out?

Devonian

"Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of

quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according

to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause

significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth

Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in

Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing

since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study,

persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant

component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is

not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if

maintained for a century or more.

Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record

(over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained

over many decades, could have significant climate effects."

Devonian

A good point made. Note the point made in last but two paragraph that 0.1% is not enough to cause a notable climate change. Have we really reached notable climate change, maybe an opinion but 0.6C increase is what we have over one century and that to me is not in the notable category. For sure there are notable events but there always have been?

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
Permanides

The ONLY evidence is that as temps have gone up so have CO2 levels. From 1940 to 1970 temps fell even though CO2 was climbing fast...

Which we believe was, at least in part, due to sulphur emissions. Once we stopped these (because of acid rain) so the temp shot up again ....

Empirical evidence has shown that in a previous ice age, from vostok icecores, that even when CO2 levels were 14 times what they are now the planet plunged into an iceage.
Not exactly, CO2 levels have never been that high during the modern Ice Age. Glacials are not likely to be caused (IMO) by CO2 and I persoanlly believe that previous CO2 changes have followed rather than led temp changes.

Only in the christmas pudding has CO2 started to take the lead.

You mention about scientists who do not concur with the AGW theory and that they have been proven wrong or have alteria motives...well as yet they haven't been proven wrong and of course AGW scientists are also funded.

There has sadly been much mud slinging from both camps.

Something folk might like to consider: is Global warming a bit of a misnomer? Are we in fact seeing a sequence of Regional Climate Change caused by a number of different factors, some of them undoubtably anthropogenic, others possible natural? In other words: are milder nighttime temps in London and reduced rainfall in the Amazon both caused by the same thing? Or do they have different causes? Is it all even more complicated than we dare think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Devonian

"Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of

quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according

to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause

significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth

Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in

Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing

since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study,

persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant

component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is

not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if

maintained for a century or more.

Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record

(over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained

over many decades, could have significant climate effects."

Devonian

A good point made. Note the point made in last but two paragraph that 0.1% is not enough to cause a notable climate change. Have we really reached notable climate change, maybe an opinion but 0.6C increase is what we have over one century and that to me is not in the notable category. For sure there are notable events but there always have been?

BFTP

Ah, I seem to remember the Wilson paper. I think it's about interpretation. A wider view of solar output measurement here

Something folk might like to consider: is Global warming a bit of a misnomer? Are we in fact seeing a sequence of Regional Climate Change caused by a number of different factors, some of them undoubtably anthropogenic, others possible natural? In other words: are milder nighttime temps in London and reduced rainfall in the Amazon both caused by the same thing? Or do they have different causes? Is it all even more complicated than we dare think?

I'm not beyond thinking this way Andy. It does seem to be the case that while the NH is warming (I think the July figure will be interesting) the SH is clearly not warming so fast. OK, we're probably mainly talking water V land, maybe ENSO stuff, but I do wonder if other local factors might be at play 'up here', and I just keep in the back of my minds (and no more) what's happening to Arctic ice extent and the effect of that on NH weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Nice to see some lively debate kicking off; sorry about slow responses; family staying this w/end. :doh:

Viking: I think we are broadly in agreement that it is plausible to suggest that we are entering a Heinrich event phase, but I don't quite get your timings. Until it can be established that D-O events do occur in interglacial periods, I prefer to sit back on this one. My feeling is that it is unlikely as an explanation for GW, for the reasons I gave earlier; at the moment, the hypothesis and the facts don't match sufficently well to have any confidence in this as a conclusion so, applying Ockham's razor, I choose to reject this idea.

Essan & Devonian; thanks for the input. You probably have already, but if not, you might enjoy Pielke's site; http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/ .

I promise to give more feedback when the in-laws have gone. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Viking141
Nice to see some lively debate kicking off; sorry about slow responses; family staying this w/end. :doh:

Viking: I think we are broadly in agreement that it is plausible to suggest that we are entering a Heinrich event phase, but I don't quite get your timings. Until it can be established that D-O events do occur in interglacial periods, I prefer to sit back on this one. My feeling is that it is unlikely as an explanation for GW, for the reasons I gave earlier; at the moment, the hypothesis and the facts don't match sufficently well to have any confidence in this as a conclusion so, applying Ockham's razor, I choose to reject this idea.

Essan & Devonian; thanks for the input. You probably have already, but if not, you might enjoy Pielke's site; http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/ .

I promise to give more feedback when the in-laws have gone. :D

Surely they must occur in interglacial periods if they follow a cycle of circa 1470 years? To quote Stefan Rahmstorf (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) in his 2003 paper "Timing of abrupt climate change: a precise clock" he states:

"Abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1470 year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent." He further states that: "It is rare that such a stringent quantative measure can be determined at such a high confidence level in palaeoclimatic data." He goes on to illustrate the D-O cycles linkage to a Heinrich event (a change in the thermohaline circulation) and points out that the reason we havent seen one during the current (Holocene) period is because we have not had the right circumstances, a combination of the oscillation AND a Heinrich event: "There is some evidence that this cycle may also be present in the Holocene but does not trigger D-O event (Bond et al 1997) possibly because the Atlantic Ocean circulation is not close to a threshold in a warm climate "(Ganapolski and Rahmstorf 2001).

As regards my timings my earlier post was about 30 years out! By my reckoning the next cold phase of the D-O cycle should begin approx 2120. This is taken from when the last D-O cold phase began (according to Rahmstorf) during the "Little Ice Age" circa 1650. 1650+1470=2120. However, as Rahmstorf points out, the beginning of one cycle is not dependant on the ending of the previous one and it can be affected (either forwards or backwards) due to what he calls "climatic noise" (for example the human contribution - my words not his) with a trigger error of +/- 8% (or 117.6 yrs either side).

So how about this for a hypothesis:

We are currently in the rapid warming stage of a Dansgaard-Oeschker cycle. We have evidence that the NAD has weakened by at least 30% in the recent past and that 10 of the 12 downward columns of cold water which form the return leg of the NAD have shut down with the remaining 2 very weak (see previous post by BFTP I think!) so it could be argued that we are not far away from a potential shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (as already stated a prerequisite for the cold phase of the oscillation to kick in) and furthermore, the additional human contribution to the natural cycle of warming could bring forward the cold phase of the D-O cycle by several decades then this cold phase could not be far off (given that we are almost within the 8% margin of error for the trigger).

Discuss!

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Viking: Question; if there is a 1470 year pattern, then there is a 1470 year pattern; at the moment, there is no 'strong evidence' that the pattern continues into the Holocene and, believe me, they've been looking! If there is no record of this pattern in the Holocene era, does this not suggest that this is specifically a phenomenon of glacial periods, i.e. ice ages?

Question; what is 1650+1470?

Comment. One of the reasons why there is concern about AGW is that the record from the ice cores shows no example, ever, of a rate of warming as rapid as the one we are currently going through. One of the central points of the AGW evidence is the difference between the calculated rates of warming and the current rate; one reason why we are having this debate is that the scientists who observed this asked the question 'what is causing the difference?' The answer they came up with was 'us'.

This is not a personal comment about BFTP in any way, but you will have noticed that I am dubious about the reliability of some of his sources (see previous posts). The statement that '10 of the 12 columns...very weak' is false. There is concern about the thermohaline circulation because we don't yet know what the consequences of, for example, Arctic melting, will be; the concept of a shutdown is currently being studied, but no conclusive paper has yet been published.

Essan: there are historical reasons why we refer to Global climate change, rather than concurrent regional changes. In the early years of the GW debate, the pattern which was picked up started from observations of local changes which, when taken together, suggested a more powerful force than those at play on a local level was a causal agent of all of them. After much research and analysis, it was concluded that the planet as a whole was warming, hence the term we now use.Of course, as HADCM3 and other models show, there are a complex range of responses around the world to warming, which probably relate to local variables such as land texture, soil moisture, albedo, salinity and other feedback mechanisms; this is to be expected. Are all these changes caused by the same thing? Locally, no; Globally, yes.

I think it is important to distinguish between the two ideas of climate change and global warming; they are not the same and the terms, though they both refer to our climate, do not refer to the same phenomenon. We know that the climate changes; we know some of the reasons why the climate changes; we can identify patterns and cycles of change and relate them to a range of circumstances. What we could not do, until the GW hypothesis came along, was account for the way in which the climate has been changing in recent years, even taking into consideration all of the climate change factors we know about. When we add to all of the known variables the greenhouse effect of emissions, the difference between the changes in climate which should have been happening and the changes which are happening disappears. The conclusion, therefore, is that these emissions are the principal cause of the difference; that is Global Warming.

Finally, in response to your last question. How climate works (i.e. a 'perfect' model), probably is more complicated than we are currently aware of, and some very interesting research is being done on improving our understanding of the mechanisms which are sources of uncertainty, such as cloud formation and feedbacks. The main reasons that the climate models do not incorporate these mechanisms is that, without any degree of certainty of their influence it is not possible to create either a formula or a set of parameters which can be relied upon; in other words, they don't add to our understanding, but effectively muddy the waters. furthermore, the introduction of 'wild' variables into a model cannot produce meaningful results.

But if the question is meant to mean 'is GW more complicated than we dare to think?', then I fear the answer is no, probably not.

Devonian: there is a growing body of evidence from the Palaeographic record that SH warming has previously followed NH warming and is connected to it. The reasons why probably relate to the differences in landmass and albedo between the two hemispheres, but research is still in the early stages. Like you, I follow the Arctic situation with considerable interest. If I was going to be a doom-monger about anything, it would be that we have underestimated the speed at which change will occur in the next few years, and that both the Arctic itself, and the global systems which are influenced by it, are being stuffed much more quickly than current estimates suggest.

I'm off to bed. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Viking141
Question; what is 1650+1470?

LOL! In my defence I was sleepy as I was on nights the night before and didnt get much sleep during the day!

:)

Also in my defence Rahmstorf makes it clear that D-O events are "paced" by a 1470 year cycle, they are not in themselves a cycle. Furthermore he also makes it abundantly clear that the start of a D-O event is not dependant on when the last one started or finished and that the cycle can be either prolonged or shortened by a significant amount of time due to what he terms "climate noise" or some random factor such as the human element affecting the cycle.

He also explains the lack of these events during the Holocene period by noting that D-O events are not self-inducing and require one other element to trigger their cold phase, namely a Heinrich event and since there hasnt been one in modern times hence no trigger for the cold phase in which case the cycle goes into "stochastic resonance" where the signal from the thermohaline circulation is insufficient to overcome the "background noise" of what is essentially a bistable system and therefore does not trigger the cold phase. Furthermore, Bond et al, in their 1997 paper "A pervasive millennial scale cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and glacial climates" surely established the cycles continuing existence?

I agree that if a D-O event is on the cards it would not fit the 1470 year cycle (see above explanation for how this is still possible) but surely if we accept that humans are having as much impact on the global climate as has been suggested, then surely it is conceivable that what we could be triggering is not AGW but the early onset of a D-O cycle and its associated cold phase, given that there is ample evidence for this happening in the past (ie Greenland Ice Cores etc) - this is not just the product of a computer model whose reliability is open to question.

:)

Edited by Viking141
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Hi, Viking,

but surely if we accept that humans are having as much impact on the global climate as has been suggested, then surely it is conceivable that what we could be triggering is not AGW but the early onset of a D-O cycle and its associated cold phase, given that there is ample evidence for this happening in the past (ie Greenland Ice Cores etc) - this is not just the product of a computer model whose reliability is open to question.

I know what you are getting at, but I sense that this is slightly confusing. The way I would phrase it (please contradict if you disagree), is: What we are triggering with AGW, especially in relation to the Arctic, is an accelerated Heinrich event, which should, if the previous patterns are repeated, lead in time to a Dansgaard-Oeschger type event, in other words, some kind of ice age or increased long term glaciation.

This outcome is not beyond the bounds of possibilty, but as the GCM models only go out to c 100 years (too much variability beyond this), it will not figure in their prognoses. Please note though, that even in this scenario, the base causal agent is AGW.

Time scale is an issue here, and it is difficult to marry palaeographic scales with our own, puny, human scale. Even if the above hypothesis were proven to be true, it seems most likely that in our own lifetime, the warming will continue. There would have to be a radical shift in the current situation - possibly triggered, again, by AGW - for me to imagine that the climate cycle will revert to cooling within 200 years or more. So; no ice age for the time being.

Comments?

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Viking141
Hi, Viking,

I know what you are getting at, but I sense that this is slightly confusing. The way I would phrase it (please contradict if you disagree), is: What we are triggering with AGW, especially in relation to the Arctic, is an accelerated Heinrich event, which should, if the previous patterns are repeated, lead in time to a Dansgaard-Oeschger type event, in other words, some kind of ice age or increased long term glaciation.

This outcome is not beyond the bounds of possibilty, but as the GCM models only go out to c 100 years (too much variability beyond this), it will not figure in their prognoses. Please note though, that even in this scenario, the base causal agent is AGW.

Time scale is an issue here, and it is difficult to marry palaeographic scales with our own, puny, human scale. Even if the above hypothesis were proven to be true, it seems most likely that in our own lifetime, the warming will continue. There would have to be a radical shift in the current situation - possibly triggered, again, by AGW - for me to imagine that the climate cycle will revert to cooling within 200 years or more. So; no ice age for the time being.

Comments?

:)

I think we agree on certain aspects, namely that the human influence on GW/climate change is a bigger factor than is currently realised and that the speed of events has also been underestimated. Where we diverge is what that could lead to in the future and since neither you nor I have a crystal ball we could just continue going round and round repeating the same points over and over. As many have said on here time will tell.

Whilst I absolutely agree with you that things may be happening faster than is currently recognised I do not agree that this will only have an impact on the warming side. If things could be speeded up warming-wise then equally things could be speeding up cooling wise as well. The main problem as I see it is although we have palaeoclimatic evidence which shows that rapid warming has been followed by rapid and lengthy cooling, we do not know where the "tipping point" is and will only recognise it when it actually happens. This, of course will be rather too late, although it is my firm belief that what we do as humans can only delay or hasten what is inevitably going to happen anyway through a natural cyclical process that we barely understand and will never master. Thats the problem with human beings in general and scientists in particular, we like to think we understand how everything works and are lord and master of all we survey, which at the very least is outrageous arrogance.

Dont get me wrong, I am not suggesting for one moment that we are about to go through another major glaciation or something a la "The Day After Tomorrow" Im not. Im not saying that couldnt happen either, merely pointing out that just because we are warming at present it does not necessarily follow and it is not QED that this will continue ad infinitum. The Palaeoclimatic evidence (evidence - not models) shows otherwise on a regular, cyclical basis. I dont like models, all they amount to is a synthetic representation of something real, not the real thing itself and since current climate models do not have a complete set of data to work from, how can they accuartely model how our climate will/can behave? A 1/72 scale Airfix model of a Spitfire is good, but it is not perfect. It lacks certain fine detail critical to the real thing likewise climate models.

I would like to also add that I am thoroughly enjoying this debate and have learned an immense amount from it.

:)

Woohoo Ive just broken the 500 posts barrier

Edited by Viking141
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Woohoo Ive just broken the 500 posts barrier
:) Well done.

I agree that we don't have a crystal ball, but here we enter a new area of discussion a la Global Warming, one of great significance. We are more aware than ever of the ways in which our societies change over time, and seem to have returned to a state where many of us are concerned with the longer-than-lifetime-term, in other words, what we leave behind us.

If the UN, UNESCO, WHO, etc. etc. are to be believed, our population is likely to reach 9 billion by 2050, give or take. A very large proportion of population growth is likely to be in climatically threatened parts of the world, Afirca, India, the Philippines, Indonesia. Likewise, a large proportion of the population will live in or around 'mega-cities' with populations from 10-40 million. The implications of this for agriculture, health, infrastructure, and many other issues, are huge. And the future climate is going to play a very substantial part in the wealth, safety and survival of as many as two billion people. So, being able to predict (in broad terms) what the climate will be like in the next hundred years is absolutely central to all the planning and preparation work of much of the planet. Millions are employed in cities where the infrastructure is threatened directly by 'negative' climate changes, and millions more in cities or regions where the indirect effects of a warming climate will have a substantial knock-on effect.

Add to this the need for the large 'global' corporations to be able to anticipate and respond to changes in demand and supply for every sort of product and service, for example, power, and it becomes clear why GCMs are, in fact, very important. For this reason, I would contest with you the suggestion that it is arrogant of us to try to predict the future; in fact, it is necessary. It would be arrogant if we claimed to know the answers, but I don't believe there are many climate scientists, or scientists in general, who believe they know the answers, though I will concede that often the way in which the media reports on such matters might give us this impression.

I don't follow your logic when you say that if we can alter the climate to create rapid warming, then equally we can change it so as to create rapid cooling; it doesn't follow. Even if we stopped producing every greenhouse gas in the world tomorrow, the feedback effects already in operation would mean a continuation in the increase of CO2 and hence warming, for decades at least. The very idea of pumping Sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere to delay warming is a recipe for disaster; if you add s**t to a recipe for a s**t sandwich, you don't end up with a good sandwich, just more s**t.

I am absolutely certain that the current warming phase will not continue ad infinitum, but the questions of how, why and when changes will take place is critically important, and worthy of serious and considered research and discussion. Modelling is known to be imperfect, but the progress which has been made in only thirty or forty years (which follows almost immediately from developments in computer technology & science), and the progress we can anticipate in coming years (models are constantly being revised/improved, whenever the means/opportunity arises), should give us hope that we will be able to predict with considerable confidence the most likely patterns of large scale change with a considerable degree of accuracy. One area of dispute in the GW debate is the extent to which this is already possible.

In sum, then, I would say that we should be encouraging governments to increase investment and funding of climate research, encouraging scientists to go out on a limb and research esoteric, difficult and unlikely ideas, if nothing else, to eliminate them from their list of possible variables, and encourage the public to learn and understand as much as possible about the climate, the world and, not least, the weather.

Finally, one of the most worrying (serious) reports I researched recently named London as one of the cities most likely to be effected negatively by the currently predicted changes, not because of its location as such, but because of the inertia (their word) which appears to prevent anyone in this country doing anything about it. If you want a political bone to chew, it might be this one; many of us could be seriously stuffed, in our lifetimes, because the government won't take preventive action.

Likewise, I am enjoying the strand a great deal. :)

So, where does the discussion go from here? Suggestions welcomed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Viking141

I don't follow your logic when you say that if we can alter the climate to create rapid warming, then equally we can change it so as to create rapid cooling; it doesn't follow. Even if we stopped producing every greenhouse gas in the world tomorrow, the feedback effects already in operation would mean a continuation in the increase of CO2 and hence warming, for decades at least. The very idea of pumping Sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere to delay warming is a recipe for disaster; if you add s**t to a recipe for a s**t sandwich, you don't end up with a good sandwich, just more s**t.

What I mean by this is that it does not automatically follow that the current phase of rapid warming wil result in further rapid warming. In fact the palaeoclimatic evidence points to quite the reverse. A period of rapid warming is followed by a cool-down, not more warming. Just because the human race is adding to the process, it does not follow that we will screw that process up and radically change its course from that which has pertained previously. Thats where the arrogance comes in. Our assumption that we are so powerful that we imagine we can even b*gger up something so huge and complex as the climate on a planetary scale. I dont believe we can. I certainly believe that we can hurry along existing natural cycles and if we are hurrying along the warming phase then it follows that we are also hastening the inevitable cool-down as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Canada
  • Location: Canada

Does any one understand the theory of c02 saturation that causes a rapid cool down. Also has any looked into the amount of water vapour thats now present in our atmosphere . Blocking out the sun light either causing a cooldown or heat trap.

Link below.

Here

Edited by kippure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Viking141
Does any one understand the theory of c02 saturation that causes a rapid cool down. Also has any looked into the amount of water vapour thats now present in our atmosphere . Blocking out the sun light either causing a cooldown or heat trap.

Link below.

Here

Hi Kippure

Interesting reading but where does it say about the saturation effect and rapid cool-down? More info please!

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Canada
  • Location: Canada
Hi Kippure

Interesting reading but where does it say about the saturation effect and rapid cool-down? More info please!

:)

Trying to find out more myself about the C02 saturation theory , that paper only talks about water vapour and its effects.

I heard about the saturation theory from a meteorologist when i had a few beers in me and it went way way over my head. Something to do with a combination of other chemical reactions in the atmosphere and methane levels ie, releases from the oceans and C02 been one of its main by-products.

I don,t have the full story on it yet ,more research needed.

More information below.

Edited by kippure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Here is the recent history of solar output. If anyone can see a solar warming trend perhaps they could point it out?
Entirely unfair comparison.

All charts that visibly show global warming, show it as a deviation from the mean, and not as absolute values. This chart show's solar activity as absolute values. Perhaps you'd like to re-express that data so it is in the same semantic format?

(What would you say if the difference from the solar mean is the same order of magnitude as the difference of Earth surface temperature from the mean? Would you therefore be forced to conclude there is a correlation? - Just for fun . . . . :) )

Cheers.

Edited by Wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Good post, Kippure.

On the subject of water vapour and GCMs, which is the main subject of the article you directed us to, I found this:

I think what you were getting with the saturation effect question is to do with the rate at which atmospheric methane is converted to CO2 by OH. If there is not enough OH in the atmosphere to operate on all of the chemicals floating around, the methane conversion stops, temporarily. Trouble is, methane hangs around for ~8-9 years, so as soon as the OH levels is sufficient once more, the process of conversion starts again, so although the methane conversion is delayed because of saturation of the OH, other processes of conversion continue until such time as the methane system cuts back in. The probable consequence is no net slowing of the process of CO2 production in the atmosphere, so no effective slowing of the greenhouse effect in the short or the longer term. I'll try and find a paper which explains it clearly (obviously, I've already read one or two, otherwise I wouldn't have known).

Wilson: I don't think you can do this, but you'll have to ask a scientist. If the difference from the solar mean- the flux- is not statistically a deviation from the normal range, you can't express it as such in a graph. But tell me I'm wrong; I don't know.

Viking: the problem with business-funded research is that there is no obligation to publish, so even if something interesting comes up, large businesses are likely to want to keep it to themselves in order to maintain a competitive edge. What we can do is look at their policies and published R&D programmes and hazard a guess about what they are anticipating. If the results were publically available, then the scientific community is well placed to evaluate the merits (or limitations) of the findings.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Canada
  • Location: Canada

Indeed , Did you see that programme about contrails over america. This very clever chap was investigating the effects of contrails on the weather. ie blocking out the sun light over areas covered by the contrails.

When 9/11 took place and all planes were ground for 3 days he measued tempeture and strenght of sun light.

With no planes = no contrails the tempeture shot up by half a degree nearly.

Can you see that on such an emense short time scale of one day how if one factor is removed the change is so rapid.

That proves to me that our climate can flip like a light switch.

So im trying to draw a similarity to water vapour and cloud formation etc. That if one varible is removed it has a staggering effect on Climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Indeed , Did you see that programme about contrails over america. This very clever chap was investigating the effects of contrails on the weather. ie blocking out the sun light over areas covered by the contrails.

When 9/11 took place and all planes were ground for 3 days he measued tempeture and strenght of sun light.

With no planes = no contrails the tempeture shot up by half a degree nearly.

Can you see that on such an emense short time scale of one day how if one factor is removed the change is so rapid.

That proves to me that our climate can flip like a light switch.

So im trying to draw a similarity to water vapour and cloud formation etc. That if one varible is removed it has a staggering effect on Climate.

A bit dodgy, this one Kippure. B) Is there any evidence that the difference in observed temperature was forced rather than natural? Can you find the article/paper & post it?

I'll look for some stuff on the aircraft/contrail science. I'm pretty certain that the effect of jet flight is warming rather than cooling, though.

There's some hard but interesting research from Australia on cloud formation and water vapour, but we'll have to look for it, as I didn't flag the site.

Here's a question for you: what would happen if, over some particular part of the world, say, the Arctic, there was no effective cloud cover at all for, say a month?

One last comment; I think we have to be careful to distinguish between short-term and long-term effects and trends, and between regional-scale and global-scale events. What is clear is that the climate (sic) is a hugely complex and chaotic system (if it can be said to be a single system at all) which we only partially understand, and that there are many things which could effect it (but not some of the things which are claimed - see previous posts). The water vapour line sounds like a good area to do some research, but remember to be careful of your sources, & check the provenance of anything you publish. There's a lot of rubbish out there... B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Canada
  • Location: Canada

Havent time to go into that question just to say any energy would be reflected back into space. More detail later.

Heres a very interesting article and ties in with what i have been saying, how one factor can trigger a change.

Read the programme transcript.

Global Dimming!!!Link Here

Edited by kippure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

I saw the program on contrails, and although the evidence presented was convincing, it was also mostly cirumstancial, and didn't seem to be subject to vagueries of rigour normally associated with the scientific evidence - it was, I thought, at the stage where a phenomenon measured was worth investigating further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Canada
  • Location: Canada
I saw the program on contrails, and although the evidence presented was convincing, it was also mostly cirumstancial, and didn't seem to be subject to vagueries of rigour normally associated with the scientific evidence - it was, I thought, at the stage where a phenomenon measured was worth investigating further.

Dont you think his experiment raised a few questions? Is global dimming holding back a bigger climate shift?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mike W

It was , but we don't have Global Dimming anymore not since the late 1980's as has been mentioned alot by scientist that have noticed that as the Clean Air Acts of the world have taken hold more and more the Sun has appeard to be getting brighter while in actual fact it means certain pollutants mainly sulphates have been massively reduced thus making the skies clearer letting in more radiation, thus speeding up the warming and making worse, as their are currently no restrictions on the amount of CO2 and other warming emmisons, something I hope changes, and it might as their is mention o0f this perhaps happening, which IMO is essential to add warming pollutants to the Clean Air Act and be treated more strictly than sulphates as they are more potent.

Edited by Mike W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Dont you think his experiment raised a few questions? Is global dimming holding back a bigger climate shift?

Try this one: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...odels/#more-292

The principal point is that, since dimming has been recognised as a measured phenomenon relating to our climate, it has been incorporated in most or all of the GCMs. By the way, there is an interesting comment right near the end of the article about the revised increase in temperature in the next 100 years in the IPCC AR4, due out in January, but it would spoil your fun if I just told you what it says. :lol:

The article also refers to the Australian material I mentioned earlier in the thread.

Changes in one feedback mechanism will always have an impact on other feedback mechanisms. The trouble is, the maths involved in calculating all of the alterations (which also have a knock-on effect) is unimaginably vast. That is why we have GCMs, and why we didn't used to have them; you need a supercomputer to do the interactive calculations and feed the reactions back into the entire loop on a continuous basis. There is existing work on the impact of a reduction in the darkening agents and aerosols in relation to the continuing increase in CO2, and this, too, is being incorporated into the models.

Yes, you are right. Because the surface albedo of ice and snow is high (but higher for ice than snow), in this case 87% of the energy would bounce right out again. But the albedo of the Arctic is changing because of the decrease in levels of ice cover, particularly in Spring and Winter. And, of course, there is cloud cover. So, a lowered albedo means more energy is absorbed, cloud cover means both less energy getting through, but some of the reflected energy is held down in the troposphere. Result?

Now look at the record of sea surface temperature anomalies around the Arctic since 1979. Worried? You bet!

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

This is not a personal comment about BFTP in any way, but you will have noticed that I am dubious about the reliability of some of his sources (see previous posts). The statement that '10 of the 12 columns...very weak' is false. There is concern about the thermohaline circulation because we don't yet know what the consequences of, for example, Arctic melting, will be; the concept of a shutdown is currently being studied, but no conclusive paper has yet been published.

I'm off to bed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...