Page 3 of 118 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 3524

Thread: General AGW discussion thread

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    Quote Originally Posted by lomiller1 View Post
    What you aren’t mentioning is that for this paper to be correct climate sensitivity need to be much higher meaning we will get far more CO2 warming then anyone is currently predicting. Essentially they are saying small forcing create enormous warming but that it takes so long we’ve felt very little of the CO2 induced warming and are still working on the 0.1% increases in solar intensity from 80 years ago.
    Could you clarify where you are getting this from? Climate sensitivity is discussed in paragraph 17 of the paper, but not as you're describing. What they pointed out in that paragraph is that the Lean 2005 TSI reconstruction would suggest an almost 3x greater climate sensitivity to solar changes than the earlier reconstructions.


    By that they mean it increase in the early part of the 20th century then stayed about the same for the last 60 years.
    No, actually that is not quite the case. The sun spiked up in activity between 1900 and 1940 as can be seen in figure 2. Usoskin et al describe this as "unique" during the last 1150 years. However if you look at the remainder of the 20th century solar activity in figure 2 you can see that there was a drop in solar activity between ~1940 and ~1975. This drop in solar activity corresponds with a cooling trend in the temperature records that is well established and not disputed. This cooling trend of course happened even as CO2 continued to increase. Then after 1970 toward the present you can see the solar activity begin to spike back up again -- and temperatures have begun to increase since the 1970's.

    The 1940-1970 cooling that corresponds with decreasing solar activity is support for an important solar influence on climate even on smaller time scales. Why was the climate cooling between 1940 and 1970 as CO2 increased, if CO2 is such an important climate forcer?


    The bulk of the research shoes 80% - 90% of 20th century warming is manmade, the IPCC is simply quoting the current research. Scaffette is generally rejected by climate scientists because it implies much higher levels of greenhouse warming.
    80-90% - No. That significantly underestimates studies on the solar influence.


    Incorrect. The correlation on that scale is almost entirely orbital effects that redistribute but don’t significantly change the amount of solar energy the earth receives.
    There are additional solar effects beyond TSI variations. See for example Sharma's work and here too . He finds that variations in solar activity may be responsible for the glacial/interglacial cycles. In order for that to occur the solar influence has to be more than just direct TSI variations. There are also indirect solar effects hypothesized to be associated with the solar wind moderating cosmic ray flux in the upper atmosphere.

    Christl et al (2004) also found evidence for a relationship between cosmic ray flux and the Earth's climate on the same timescale as Sharma.

    On those large scales we're talking about solar influence related to internal variations in the solar activity level, not orbital variations of the Earth about the Sun, which I would agree are not likely to be significant in the Earth's climate.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    Quote Originally Posted by lomiller1 View Post
    Just a few more notes on solar vs greenhouse warming

    Solar induced warming warms the upper atmosphere, greenhouse warming cools it. The upper atmosphere is cooling.

    Solar induced warming causes a stronger daytime signal, greenhouse warming is stronger at night. Nighttime temperatures are currently warming more then daytime temperatures

    Solar warming is more prominent at lower latitudes, greenhouse warming more prominent at higher latitudes. Current warming is more pronounced at higher latitudes.

    Solar warming creates more summertime highs, greenhouse warming creates fewer wintertime lows. We are experiencing a marked decrease in wintertime los worldwide, but no increase in summertime highs.
    References providing these predictions please.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by princemyheart View Post
    "Just a few more notes on solar vs greenhouse warming"

    I need some help here. Surely the source of both is solar? Isn't the 'greenhouse' effect radiated heat from the Earth's surface trapped by the atmosphere?

    Looks like I've got some learning to do.
    The energy is almost all solar but temperature change is a function of both incoming and outgoing energy. This means the planet can warm for two possible reasons, more energy comes into the atmosphere or less energy gets out. The greenhouse effect of course acts to reduce the amount of energy that escapes the atmosphere (at any given planetary temperature.)

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    If you read that paper you would see that Scafetta and West attribute 25-35% of the warming from 1980-2004 to the sun, so there is no disagreement. But even that conclusion is not supported by direct measurements of solar activity which indicate no trend in solar activity over that period.
    Scafetta and West say the following (JGR, November 3,2007):

    Quote Originally Posted by Scafetta and West
    Figure 6 shows the comparison between the two NH temperature reconstructions shown in Figure 1 and the phenomenological solar temperature signatures obtained with the TSI proxy reconstructions corrected with the ACRIM TSI satellite composite since 1980, as shown in Figure 3. By assuming ACRIM, the solar activity has an increasing trend during the second half of the 20th century. ... By assuming MOBERG05, the Sun is responsible for ~0.45K (or 56%) with LEAN2000 and ~0.55K (or 69%) with WANG2005 of the warming that occurred from 1900 to 2005, and ~ 0.15K (or 20%) with Lean2000 nad DeltaT=0.25K (or 42%) with WANG2005 of the warming that occurred since 1950. (The estimates might present an error of 20%).
    In this article Scafetta and West point out that between 2002 and 2007 the planet showed a cooling trend as the Sun went from the 2001 solar max to the 2007 solar min. And isn't 2008 on pace to be the coolest year of this decade? And isn't the onset of increased solar activity delayed with this cycle?

    In addition Scafetta and west argue that the IPCC has significantly underestimated the solar influence and therefore significantly overestimated the anthropogenic influence on climate.

    My point in all this is that contrary to what some were saying at the beginning of this thread, there is evidence for a significant solar influence on climate - and that evidence has been uncovered on all timescales studied.

    Thank You!

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    Quote Originally Posted by mugaliens View Post
    I see a lot of debate concerning direct radiation, but little to nothing about secondary effects, which may be more of a multiplier of radiation than having any direct effects.
    Yes, this is a common misunderstanding. It is well established that variations in the amount of energy the Sun puts out alone, cannot explain climate change past or present. However, indirect solar effects such as moderating the cosmic ray flux, may have an even larger impact on climate than the variations in solar energy.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by dgruss23 View Post
    In this article Scafetta and West point out that between 2002 and 2007 the planet showed a cooling trend as the Sun went from the 2001 solar max to the 2007 solar min.
    The issue of cherry picking a short time period to show a “trend” aside, how can they assume it takes 70 years for a warming of the sun to show up, but less then 5 for a solar minimum to show up?

    Quote Originally Posted by dgruss23 View Post
    And isn't 2008 on pace to be the coolest year of this decade? And isn't the onset of increased solar activity delayed with this cycle?
    No one has ever found a direct, statistically valid correlation between the solar cycle and global temperate, primarily because the energy variation across the solar cycle is miniscule in comparison to what it takes to heat/cool the planet.

    BTW "coolest year of this decade" is still warmer then any year prior to 2000 save 1998.

    Quote Originally Posted by dgruss23
    However, indirect solar effects such as moderating the cosmic ray flux, may have an even larger impact on climate than the variations in solar energy.
    that's a topic for ATM

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,410
    My understanding is that an overabundance of CO2 can, through the greenhouse effect, increase whatever natural heat retention ability of the earth there is past a tipping point, where other processes start to come into play and that some of these processes can also enhance the natural heat retention ability of the earth.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,303
    One example is the basic scientific fact that gases, unlike solids, dissolve less readily in warm water then cool water. What this means is that dissolved CO2 in the worlds oceans, will start to be released as the temperatures increase from man released CO2. While I doubt we could say, create another Venus from our actions, it would certainly change the world as we know it. Another thing is that the polar ice reflects significant amounts of sunlight away from the earth because of it's high albedo. With that gone, and from the melt of permafrosts, starting the decay of long dead biomass, it is more then just the CO2 from fossil fuels alone.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,531
    Lean & Rind (2008) report only 10 % for the solar forcing contribution of the warming in the last 100 years.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by lomiller1 View Post
    Just a few more notes on solar vs greenhouse warming.....Solar warming is more prominent at lower latitudes, greenhouse warming more prominent at higher latitudes. Current warming is more pronounced at higher latitudes.....

    Drivel.

    Both satellite and land based temperature measures indicate that the Antarctica has not warmed at all.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gPVBk-7hxL...SS_october.gif

    and

    http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/20...464/index.html


    Unless you think Antarctica is not a "higher latitude".

    Please feel free to provide evidence for the rest of your assertions.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,774
    Quote Originally Posted by mugaliens View Post
    This is a government website, not a woo-woo site. It's the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.
    Does not impress me at all.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,410
    Quote Originally Posted by ArgoNavis View Post
    Drivel.

    Both satellite and land based temperature measures indicate that the Antarctica has not warmed at all.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gPVBk-7hxL...SS_october.gif

    and

    http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/20...464/index.html


    Unless you think Antarctica is not a "higher latitude".

    Please feel free to provide evidence for the rest of your assertions.
    What happened to all that ice in the WAIS?
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by dgruss23 View Post
    Could you clarify where you are getting this from? Climate sensitivity is discussed in paragraph 17 of the paper, but not as you're describing. What they pointed out in that paragraph is that the Lean 2005 TSI reconstruction would suggest an almost 3x greater climate sensitivity to solar changes than the earlier reconstructions.
    The short version is that climate sensitivity is the same whether you increase the amount of energy entering the atmosphere of decrease the amount that can exit the atmosphere. This means that if you assume a higher climate sensitivity for solar activity you are also assuming a higher sensitivity to greenhouse gasses.

    Longer version is that there is no such thing as “sensitivity to solar activity”, climate sensitivity is to the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, whatever it’s cause.

    Forcing like changes in greenhouse gasses or solar activity change are rate of change of energy. As long as more energy flows into the system it will continue to warm. Clearly an increase in solar activity would not cause the earth to warm indefinitely. As surface temperature rises so does the amount of blackbody radiation the earth is generating. At some point this outgoing blackbody radiation matches the increased solar activity and the warming stops. Climate sensitivity is a measure of the amount of temperature rise it takes for BB radiation to offset the other change.

    This process occurs reacts to energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere so it doesn’t matter whether that energy imbalance comes from greenhouse gasses reducing the energy that escapes or increased solar activity increasing the amount of energy the earth receives.

    Quote Originally Posted by dgruss23 View Post


    No, actually that is not quite the case. The sun spiked up in activity between 1900 and 1940 as can be seen in figure 2.

    It’s now 2009, meaning there has been no increase in solar activity for 70 years, and we are 110 years out from when solar activity began to pick up. Again you can’t have it take 70-100 years for an increase in solar activity to show and still expect a decrease in solar activity to show up in 2 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by dgruss23 View Post
    However if you look at the remainder of the 20th century solar activity in figure 2 you can see that there was a drop in solar activity between ~1940 and ~1975. This drop in solar activity corresponds with a cooling trend in the temperature records that is well established and not disputed.

    There is no “1940 – 1975 cooling trend” Global temperatures spiked in the late 30’s then decreased rapidly during WWII. They then stayed about the same for the next 2 decades. Changes in aerosol production due to human economic activity nicely explains this.

    Temperature response to aerosols are faster then CO2 but because they don’t stay around as long CO2 has a greater long term effect. If you build a new coal plant it takes ~20 years before the warming effect of CO2 overcomes the cooling effects of aerosols when a near. During the 30’s when industrial production was shutting down and aerosol output dropped temperature spiked rapidly, during WWII when industrial production spiked global temperatures dropped.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by ArgoNavis View Post
    Drivel.

    Both satellite and land based temperature measures indicate that the Antarctica has not warmed at all.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gPVBk-7hxL...SS_october.gif

    and

    http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/20...464/index.html


    Unless you think Antarctica is not a "higher latitude".

    Please feel free to provide evidence for the rest of your assertions.
    You are correct, I should have specified the Artic and western Antarctica as central Antarctica is driven by a whole different set of forces. Other then that you post is utter nonsense and a clear attempt to divert attention from the real questions.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by lomiller1 View Post
    You are correct, I should have specified the Artic and western Antarctica as central Antarctica is driven by a whole different set of forces. Other then that you post is utter nonsense and a clear attempt to divert attention from the real questions.
    Not at all.

    Here is a better graphic. Please explain how the higher lattitudes are experiencing warming.

    The rest of yout post is drivel too. You clearly have no real evidence or data to support these assertions.

    I should know better than to argue than to try and argue with a religious fanatic who believes in the biggest scientific fraud in history.

  16. 2008-Dec-18, 09:57 PM

  17. #76
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by ArgoNavis View Post
    Not at all.

    Here is a better graphic. Please explain how the higher lattitudes are experiencing warming.
    What exactly is temperature for Dec 17 2008 supposed to tell us about the long term temperature trend? It’s not even anomaly for gods sake, but the current temp in deg K, so of course the poles are cooler…

  18. #77
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesarra View Post
    Any economists around? I've always been curious about the whole "it'll destroy the economy" argument against governments taking action on global warming.
    Japan, the UK, France and Germany already produce less then ½ the CO2 per capita as the US, Canada or Australia. Clearly there are some significant CO2 reductions that can be made with little or no economic impact.

  19. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    30,007
    Quote Originally Posted by ArgoNavis View Post
    I should know better than to argue than to try and argue with a religious fanatic who believes in the biggest scientific fraud in history.
    To quote Rule 2 of this forum, "Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks." This is out of line.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  20. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    Any economists around? I've always been curious about the whole "it'll destroy the economy" argument against governments taking action on global warming.
    Taking action on global warming will not destroy the economy. Cutting Australian CO2 emissions by 80% over the next 42 years will cost an estimated total of 2.7% of GDP. That's about one years growth out of 42 years. This is something that we can certainly afford to do. And it's not even that we will be 2.7% poorer as we will benefit from suffering less economic damage resulting from climate change. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a sensible way to protect our economy.

  21. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesarra View Post
    Isn't macro-economics a zero-sum game?
    No. Good leadership can create wealth, bad leadership can destroy it. An exchange need no be win-lose, it can be win-win.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  22. 2008-Dec-19, 06:48 AM

  23. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon
    Posts
    6,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Argos View Post
    Does not impress me at all.
    Me neither, given that the page is actually a blog controlled by one member of the committee. It doesn't represent the views of the Senate committee as a whole. Not even close.

  24. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesarra View Post
    So, a poorly formulated plan to reduce CO2 emissions could end up sapping at least a portion of GDP off to some never never land of government waste and/or corruption.
    But a poorly formulated plan to do just about anything could do that.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  25. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by geonuc View Post
    I'm inclined to urge the next US administration to install Swift as EPA administrator. What he says makes sense.

    There are some things we - the US in particular - could be doing to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses that are sensible even if the models are not entirely accurate. Doing more to reduce gasoline consumption would help, for example.
    Yeah, we could mismanage the money supply by keeping interest rates artificially low, fix the tax structure to encourage people to stay perpetually in hoc on their houses, and thus cause a housing bubble. Then when the American housing bubble bursts, it will induce a worldwide depression that will dramatically reduce global fossil fuel consumption, and thereby reduce global CO2 emissions everywhere!

  26. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    Yeah, we could mismanage the money supply by keeping interest rates artificially low, fix the tax structure to encourage people to stay perpetually in hoc on their houses, and thus cause a housing bubble. Then when the American housing bubble bursts, it will induce a worldwide depression that will dramatically reduce global fossil fuel consumption, and thereby reduce global CO2 emissions everywhere!
    That plan's so crazy... it. might. just. work.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  27. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,303
    Or we could bomb ourselves back to the Stone Ages, and never use fire again.
    That would do it too.

  28. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,594
    What do we think of the recent update at Global Warming Petition Project then? I would have assumed it had been discussed here before, but I couldn't find any references to it using the forum search.

  29. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,923
    If you google search the site (top of the page) for "oism" ("oregon institute of science and medicine"), you'll find old discussion on it.

  30. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by speedfreek View Post
    What do we think of the recent update at Global Warming Petition Project then? I would have assumed it had been discussed here before, but I couldn't find any references to it using the forum search.
    That seems roughly as irrelevant as the list quoted in the top of this article. Have the people who signed that "petition" published in the relevant journals? This is all an attempt at a response to Naomi Oreske's Science article on consensus. Unfortunately, petitions and lists are no replacement for actual research.

    See Gavin's reply to this comment on realclimate.org for more on Inhofe's list.

  31. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,073
    I remember reading that the average given for a particular years temp are actually a composite of several averages. Is this true?

  32. #90
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    14,315
    Quote Originally Posted by lomiller1 View Post
    No one has ever found a direct, statistically valid correlation between the solar cycle and global temperate, primarily because the energy variation across the solar cycle is miniscule in comparison to what it takes to heat/cool the planet.
    Perhaps not with the solar cycle, but certainly with sunspots. It's not perfect (what correlation is?), to be sure, but it's certainly there.

    I find it interesting that the more recent the time frame, the stronger the correlation. Indeed, priot to about 4,500 years ago, it apparently flips, with there being a distinct negative correlation.

    I wonder what's up with that?

    Still, this much closer examination of the last 400 years (C-14 indications of temps in this graph) is quite telling.

Similar Threads

  1. A general gardening thread
    By The Backroad Astronomer in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 1096
    Last Post: 2019-Aug-22, 11:20 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2010-Aug-07, 02:40 AM
  3. MOND - a general discussion
    By Nereid in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 242
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-18, 01:06 PM
  4. A General Discussion of the Alternative Approach
    By Tim Thompson in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 2005-Jul-27, 01:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •