Man Made Climate Change - Evidence Based Discussion

[BornFromTheVoid]

Models are all well and good and they will come ourt with predictions based on any given number of variables, but, if the weighting given to some of the variables is wrong you still may get the answer you expect becauseother factors have also played a role giving the false right. using BFTV example perhaps mercedes isn't the most powerful car but has a driver that is so far ahead of his rivals that he wins anyway and in fact Red Bull is the more powerful. 

 

I for one believe that the influence of CO2 is overplayed by most models and excuses such that natural drivers are overpowering CO2 influences as the reason why temperatures are not reaching model forecasts for given CO2 levels is at best poor.

 

As Geoffwood eludes solar variations in my opinion is what drives our ever changing climate cycles but in the mean time we prepare only for a warmer world when we should be preparing for the next 50/60 years of a significantly cooler world if not out right cold.

 

Like I said, it was a simplified comparison. I didn't even mention qualifying positions!

 

The models have pretty much the same CO2 influence, the particular runs that match the recent warming trend don't have CO2 as being weaker than the ones that show more warming. The only difference is that they match recent natural climate drivers better. Without the additional greenhouse effect, we'd have seen cooling from the extra aerosols, solar minimum and the run of La Ninas. We've had an unusual combination of natural cooling effects in recent years.

 

Well no Science etc etc How about Lean 1991 Sloanki and Unruh 1998 Haigh 1996 all showing how teh variations in UV and shorter wavelengths affect and control stratosphric ozone and such variations are significant drivers of terresrial climate.

 

poo poo solar influences at your peril!!!

 

UV certainly has it's effects, but even Dr Haigh agrees that it's regional.

 

Another thing to add to earlier post Devonian is actually something that knocker posted in the research thread which is -

 

Global mean surface warming over the past 15 years or so has been less than in earlier decades and than simulated by most climate models¹

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2228.html?utm_content=bufferdcac2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Most, but not all models!

 

"We conclude that there is little evidence for a systematic overestimation of the temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the CMIP5 ensemble."

[Nights King]

Like I said, it was a simplified comparison. I didn't even mention qualifying positions!

 

The models have pretty much the same CO2 influence, the particular runs that match the recent warming trend don't have CO2 as being weaker than the ones that show more warming. The only difference is that they match recent natural climate drivers better. Without the additional greenhouse effect, we'd have seen cooling from the extra aerosols, solar minimum and the run of La Ninas. We've had an unusual combination of natural cooling effects in recent years.

 

 

UV certainly has it's effects, but even Dr Haigh agrees that it's regional.

 

 

Most, but not all models!

 

"We conclude that there is little evidence for a systematic overestimation of the temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the CMIP5 ensemble."

 

 I wasn't trying to argue the reasons for lack of warming etc I just think it is a little hard to completely trust these long term climate models when most (not all)  of them have already overestimated the warming that has occurred thus far in the short term. My opinion might well change in the next 5/10 years if the warming trend accelerates and artic melts out in summer but it hasn't happened yet.

[knocker]

 I wasn't trying to argue the reasons for lack of warming etc I just think it is a little hard to completely trust these long term climate models when most (not all)  of them have already overestimated the warming that has occurred thus far in the short term. My opinion might well change in the next 5/10 years if the warming trend accelerates and artic melts out in summer but it hasn't happened yet.

 

An article relevant to this.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-accurate-when-reflecting-natural-cycles.html

[BornFromTheVoid]

 I wasn't trying to argue the reasons for lack of warming etc I just think it is a little hard to completely trust these long term climate models when most (not all)  of them have already overestimated the warming that has occurred thus far in the short term. My opinion might well change in the next 5/10 years if the warming trend accelerates and artic melts out in summer but it hasn't happened yet.

 

I just added that quote for a bit of context!

 

Anyway, the point of the models isn't to predict short term variations like ENSO and such, which dominate global temperature variability over short time periods. The models are used to help predict the climate. Over long time scales, El Ninos and La Ninas, for example, cancel each other out, and you can then see what is driving trends in the climate more clearly. As the paper posed by knocker concludes, there is little evidence to suggest that the warming effect of CO2 is being over-estimated by the models.

[Devonian]

Well no Science etc etc How about Lean 1991 Sloanki and Unruh 1998 Haigh 1996 all showing how teh variations in UV and shorter wavelengths affect and control stratosphric ozone and such variations are significant drivers of terresrial climate.

 

poo poo solar influences at your peril!!!

 

I don't 'poo poo' the solar influence (you said solar variation is  'what drives our ever changing climate' - I don't think that it alone does) and I'm well aware of the expertise of Joanna Haigh and Judith Lean. I don't wave away any of the influence on climate...

Edited August 18, 2014 by Devonian

[Devonian]

There is a lot of recent research on the solar impact on climate - past and present. I'll re-post this link in case you didn't see it earlier.

 

http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html

 

I think my reply to Jonboy pretty much answers you. Don't dispute the sun has influence, do dispute that it alone controls climate.

[Methuselah]

There is a lot of recent research on the solar impact on climate - past and present. I'll re-post this link in case you didn't see it earlier.

 

http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html

Tbh, I think that the impact of solar cycles etc. is  forgone conclusion; one would have to be playing a strange game indeed, not to countenance it.

 

Having said that, manmade CO₂ is a wholly new phenomenon; it's nowhere to be found in the pre-human climatic record...So, I ask: What is the point - other than that of rhetoric - in attempting to use the aforementioned record in order to claim that manmade CO₂ has no effect on climate?

 

Is there, anywhere in the record, an increase in GHGs broadly in line with what's going on, today?

[Geoffwood]

Devonian,

'Belief isn't evidence - except to a believer, neither is assertion. You're simply saying what you assert/believe is correct. Don't buy it I'm afraid.

Afaik, there isn't any evidence (data, observation, science) that what you assert and believe is in fact correct. If there is lets see it.'

The whole of AGW is an unproven assertion. As is 'greenhouse gas theory'. What is evident and supported by data is the lack of correlation between temperature and rising GHG levels.

[Geoffwood]

mullender83,

So you have noticed that the climate is not following the models!

So when I present a simple alternative, that gravity sets the gradients, supported by maths and physical logic, you still believe that a substance by its own properties can produce and sustain a thermal gradient!

Edited August 18, 2014 by Geoffwood

[Devonian]

Devonian,'Belief isn't evidence - except to a believer, neither is assertion. You're simply saying what you assert/believe is correct. Don't buy it I'm afraid.Afaik, there isn't any evidence (data, observation, science) that what you assert and believe is in fact correct. If there is lets see it.'The whole of AGW is an unproven assertion. As is 'greenhouse gas theory'. What is evident and supported by data is the lack of correlation between temperature and rising GHG levels.

 

Prove it......

Edited August 18, 2014 by Devonian

[Geoffwood]

Gray-Wolf,

If ocean heat is subducted, some bleat about the ocean heat uptake, if NIÑO spits it out it temporarily heats the atmosphere then is radiated to space. It's all part of the variable solar flux and the supported available Earth system resonances. Either way the Earth will equilibrate with the portion of solar flux thermalised.

[Gael_Force]

Pertinent to recent discussion:-

 

 

“The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change. It shows both that changes in solar activity are nothing new and that solar activity influences the climate, especially on a regional level. Understanding these processes helps us to better forecast the climate in certain regionsâ€, said Raimund Muscheler, Lecturer in Quaternary Geology at Lund University and co-author of the study.

The sun’s impact on the climate is a matter of current debate, especially as regards the less-than-expected global warming of the past 15 years. There is still a lot of uncertainty as to how the sun affects the climate, but the study suggests that direct solar energy is not the most important factor, but rather indirect effects on atmospheric circulation.

“Reduced solar activity could lead to colder winters in Northern Europe. This is because the sun’s UV radiation affects the atmospheric circulation. Interestingly, the same processes lead to warmer winters in Greenland, with greater snowfall and more storms. The study also shows that the various solar processes need to be included in climate models in order to better predict future global and regional climate changeâ€, said Dr Muscheler.

 

http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=24890&news_item=6165

[Devonian]

Pertinent to recent discussion:-

 

 

http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=24890&news_item=6165

 

Interesting.

 

Says two things to me.

 

1, that if small changes to the Sun can have bigger effects than we think then the climate is likely to be more vulnerable to man made changes as well.

 

2, that discovering things is good so why do people want to undiscover what we know about a certain greenhouse gas (let alone all the other anthro effects)?

Edited August 19, 2014 by Devonian

[mikeworst]

Devonian, There is no such thing as small changes to the sun if put in context. The sun provides all the energy that the earth receives. Without it we all freeze and any perturbation in its output will obviously have an effect. We humans on the other hand are more like fleas on a camels butt-hole. Irritating perhaps but otherwise of little consequence.

[drgl]

 

 

1, that if small changes to the Sun can have bigger effects than we think then the climate is likely to be more vulnerable to man made changes as well.

 

 

Odd assumption. Turning the gas up on a hob with a pan of water on it makes it boil quicker. Spitting in the pan does nothing.

[knocker]

But if you substitute CFCs for spitting then the little things we humans do can have major consequences. Such a tiny thing the CO₂ molecule but................

 

Odd but this paper attracted no attention when I posted it in the New Research thread yesterday.

Edited August 19, 2014 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Devonian, There is no such thing as small changes to the sun if put in context. The sun provides all the energy that the earth receives. Without it we all freeze and any perturbation in its output will obviously have an effect. We humans on the other hand are more like fleas on a camels butt-hole. Irritating perhaps but otherwise of little consequence.

 

Actually, even with the sun, if it wasn't for GhGs, we'd still freeze.

 

What the small solar changes, large climate changes link suggests is climate sensitive to small perturbations. That's what many "climate sceptics" argue against. 

 

 

Odd assumption. Turning the gas up on a hob with a pan of water on it makes it boil quicker. Spitting in the pan does nothing.

 

Putting a lid of the pan helps too!

[Devonian]

Devonian, There is no such thing as small changes to the sun if put in context. The sun provides all the energy that the earth receives. Without it we all freeze and any perturbation in its output will obviously have an effect. We humans on the other hand are more like fleas on a camels butt-hole. Irritating perhaps but otherwise of little consequence.

 

But, reality is different...

 

Rather than undiscover how the atmosphere is you'd do well to read something like 'Climate change - a multidisciplinay approach' by WJ Burroughs which is a good introduction to the subject (so it suits me!) and explains that while the sun does indeed provide the energy several tens of degrees C are added to the temperature of the atmosphere by the GH effect. Your need to undiscover that is rather sad - but your conviction and your dismissal of well understood science, obvious from your approach and words.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Devonian

[Devonian]

Odd assumption. Turning the gas up on a hob with a pan of water on it makes it boil quicker. Spitting in the pan does nothing.

 

Born is right, the GH effect is not about that kind of addition but about how the movement of energy in the atmosphere is impeaded, and by how much. The GH effect hinders outgoing LW radiation from Earth - simply put the atmosphere thus contains more energy, it is warmer - change the GH effect and you change that. It's all explained in several book I could name other than the one I did - silly assumptions about spit aren't part of it....

[drgl]

At a guess nor are "silly assumptions" as you put about F1 teams either? It's pointless wasting time in these threads so I'll let you lot chase your tails for the rest of your lives.

[jonboy]

Interesting.

 

Says two things to me.

 

1, that if small changes to the Sun can have bigger effects than we think then the climate is likely to be more vulnerable to man made changes as well.

 

2, that discovering things is good so why do people want to undiscover what we know about a certain greenhouse gas (let alone all the other anthro effects)?

 

If you talk total TSI with a variance of 0.1% and equate that then you are wrong simply because the components that affect climate ie the F10 and EUV wavelengths can vary between 10 /30% or more between high and low cycles these are not small changes as you assert and therefore your statement is false.

 

Equally I could argue that given that ozone production / reduction is greatly influenced by EUV that perhaps the greater portion of the ozone hole over the southern hemisphere and subsequent reduction was in fact down to solar influences and not man's but that would only set the hares running!!!

[Devonian]

If you talk total TSI with a variance of 0.1% and equate that then you are wrong simply because the components that affect climate ie the F10 and EUV wavelengths can vary between 10 /30% or more between high and low cycles these are not small changes as you assert and therefore your statement is false.

 

Equally I could argue that given that ozone production / reduction is greatly influenced by EUV that perhaps the greater portion of the ozone hole over the southern hemisphere and subsequent reduction was in fact down to solar influences and not man's but that would only set the hares running!!!

 

So, the climate is controlled by f10.7 and EUV? How big (if you accept it) is the GH effect on this planet?

[Nights King]

I would like to see a thread under climate change to discuss how we actually stop global warming (assuming the planet is warming up) due to mans co2 and would co2 reductions even be enough to slow the proposed warming down without ruining our way of life? or is geo engineering the cheaper but riskier option?.

 

Part of the problem I have myself with the whole debate is that I'd like to be cleaner and think it is a good thing for planet but is it worth damaging my way of life for a few degrees of temperature change?  What happens in 20 years if we all agree? do we all sit round this forum and measure sea level rise and have a global temperature competition?

[Devonian]

I would like to see a thread under climate change to discuss how we actually stop global warming (assuming the planet is warming up) due to mans co2 and would co2 reductions even be enough to slow the proposed warming down without ruining our way of life? or is geo engineering the cheaper but riskier option?.

 

Part of the problem I have myself with the whole debate is that I'd like to be cleaner and think it is a good thing for planet but is it worth damaging my way of life for a few degrees of temperature change?  What happens in 20 years if we all agree? do we all sit round this forum and measure sea level rise and have a global temperature competition?

 

 

The simplest answer to your questions is to read the IPCC reports.

[knocker]

I would like to see a thread under climate change to discuss how we actually stop global warming (assuming the planet is warming up) due to mans co2 and would co2 reductions even be enough to slow the proposed warming down without ruining our way of life? or is geo engineering the cheaper but riskier option?.

 

Part of the problem I have myself with the whole debate is that I'd like to be cleaner and think it is a good thing for planet but is it worth damaging my way of life for a few degrees of temperature change?  What happens in 20 years if we all agree? do we all sit round this forum and measure sea level rise and have a global temperature competition?

 

Why do people always assume that alternative policies to a world run by the fossil fuel conglomerates are going to ruin their way of life? Perhaps one aught to ask the thousands who die from the affects of pollution each year. Germany now gets 31 percent of it's electricity from renewables, mainly.solar. The latter is after all a free nuclear fusion power station.

Edited August 20, 2014 by knocker