Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Recommended Posts

Well, when I said tenuous, I'm not one of those who just accepts it was responsible for all the warming and that the reason for the "pause" is because it started to decline in the mid 90s. Still, interesting none the less and maybe it is part of the puzzle somewhere.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what about solar influences on ozone depletion and production or is just solely man you blame? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jonboy said:

But what about solar influences on ozone depletion and production or is just solely man you blame? 

Quite right, ozone is impacted by cosmic rays as well and the depletion wasn't entirely down to man. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, knocker said:

I notice you use drivers plural so which are the others which will also be reduced?

 

I think you have answered your own question in your post above  

Edited by stewfox
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jonboy said:

But what about solar influences on ozone depletion and production or is just solely man you blame? 

Of course this has to taken into account as well as other influences on ozone and all of thi is quite a complicated area and I'm not totally sure once the complexities are sorted the significance (in quantifiable terms) of ozone vis the warming of the last 150 years but as always I'm receptive to any other points you wish to make

http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/climateO3/

http://www.ghgonline.org/otherstropozone.htm

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiRpOX57-HPAhXkDcAKHcSaAjs4ChAWCCMwAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipcc.ch%2Fipccreports%2F1992%20IPCC%20Supplement%2FIPCC_Suppl_Report_1992_wg_I%2Fipcc_wg_I_1992_suppl_report_section_a1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHfYFasZINFuUSTFzqDOscUTLKNFw&sig2=U_24gA7U0tt2khnsnrVTEQ

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/018.htm

Edited by knocker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting thing with CFCs is that it matches the temperature increases observed more closely than Co2. For me, it is interesting anyway. Who knows, could be partly related. However, it is generally accepted that man didn't influence Co2 in a meaningful level until 1950 or so. By meaningful, enough to cause warming. It just so happened this was the same period of CFC usage as well though. However, both Co2 and CFC don't explain the slight decline in the 60s/70s. Co2 also doesn't explain the warmup in 30s and 40s. Other things at play, obviously, but making sense of which did what and when is the difficult aspect of course. You also have ocean cycles at play, as well as sun spots, volcanos, land irrigation by man...

With pretty much any of these you can find some period in time where there was correlation. Getting to causation is the difficult part and then to determine how much it impacted and being sure there was nothing else at play is, at the moment, some time away.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're heading back down the road of circular argument here, and this is precisely what the new science based rules were brought in for - namely that items for discussion need to be based on scientific, peer reviewed papers / respected publications. Regardless of whether your posts are in line with the mainstream scientific view or not, the onus is on everyone to find and use acceptable evidence to back up any claims. There's more information here:

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 13:58, jvenge said:

The interesting thing with CFCs is that it matches the temperature increases observed more closely than Co2. For me, it is interesting anyway. Who knows, could be partly related. However, it is generally accepted that man didn't influence Co2 in a meaningful level until 1950 or so. By meaningful, enough to cause warming. It just so happened this was the same period of CFC usage as well though. However, both Co2 and CFC don't explain the slight decline in the 60s/70s. Co2 also doesn't explain the warmup in 30s and 40s. Other things at play, obviously, but making sense of which did what and when is the difficult aspect of course. You also have ocean cycles at play, as well as sun spots, volcanos, land irrigation by man...

With pretty much any of these you can find some period in time where there was correlation. Getting to causation is the difficult part and then to determine how much it impacted and being sure there was nothing else at play is, at the moment, some time away.

I agree: there are other forces at play.  But none of those forces does anything to exonerate mankind. 

Though what you say is quite true, it doesn't minimise the trouble we're in?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎17‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 13:58, jvenge said:

The interesting thing with CFCs is that it matches the temperature increases observed more closely than Co2. For me, it is interesting anyway. Who knows, could be partly related. However, it is generally accepted that man didn't influence Co2 in a meaningful level until 1950 or so. By meaningful, enough to cause warming. It just so happened this was the same period of CFC usage as well though. However, both Co2 and CFC don't explain the slight decline in the 60s/70s. Co2 also doesn't explain the warmup in 30s and 40s. Other things at play, obviously, but making sense of which did what and when is the difficult aspect of course. You also have ocean cycles at play, as well as sun spots, volcanos, land irrigation by man...

With pretty much any of these you can find some period in time where there was correlation. Getting to causation is the difficult part and then to determine how much it impacted and being sure there was nothing else at play is, at the moment, some time away.

There is an interesting new paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000185 which infers the cooling of the 60/70's is explained by the low solar cycle of that time!!

So if low solar cycles can produce cooling why can't high solar cycles produce warming!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jonboy said:

There is an interesting new paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000185 which infers the cooling of the 60/70's is explained by the low solar cycle of that time!!

So if low solar cycles can produce cooling why can't high solar cycles produce warming!!

That's from a book, not peer reviewed research.

And just to be clear on the standard of the book, 2 of the chapters are written by "Steven Goddard", and 1 is written by Monckton.

Edited by BornFromTheVoid
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

That's from a book, not peer reviewed research.

And just to be clear on the standard of the book, 2 of the chapters are written by "Steven Goddard", and 1 is written by Monckton.

But draws very heavily on this paper

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=36513&#reference

and this

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-014-0510-1

both of which are peer reviewed

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jonboy said:

The first paper is only focused on the effect of Neptune and Uranus on solar cycles, nothing related to global temperatures. The second paper looks at a similar relationship and also includes cosmic rays, but once again makes no mention of global temperatures.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

The first paper is only focused on the effect of Neptune and Uranus on solar cycles, nothing related to global temperatures. The second paper looks at a similar relationship and also includes cosmic rays, but once again makes no mention of global temperatures.

Does that mean that we are now blaming Uranus for global warming? Well, I guess that that lets humanity off the hook then?:wallbash:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, knocker said:

On the subject of climate sensitivity this might  be of interest

https://izenmeme.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/climate-sensitivity-and-visual-rhetoric/

"""Its a blog from a guy whos main interests are " how material reality impacts on human concepts of ethical behaviour"  ??

He states"""I use to post and blog about any stuff and nonsense that I feel like writing about ""

I cant find the peer review or their scientific credentials, although i may have missed it do you have the link ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, stewfox said:

"""Its a blog from a guy whos main interests are " how material reality impacts on human concepts of ethical behaviour"  ??

He states"""I use to post and blog about any stuff and nonsense that I feel like writing about ""

I cant find the peer review or their scientific credentials, although i may have missed it do you have the link ?

It's just an attempt to graphically represent climate sensitivity estimates and the methods used to determine them. It's not attempting to overturn established science while at the same time calling it biased, like the book previously linked to.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stewfox said:

"""Its a blog from a guy whos main interests are " how material reality impacts on human concepts of ethical behaviour"  ??

He states"""I use to post and blog about any stuff and nonsense that I feel like writing about ""

I cant find the peer review or their scientific credentials, although i may have missed it do you have the link ?

I didn't post the link because I thought it contained some new revolutionary scientific thinking just that it may be of interest to those who don't have a complete grasp of the climate sensitivity issues and perhaps even some who do.

Edited by knocker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory of relativity is still being challenged, more recently with a hypothesis that doesn't need the explanation of dark matter. If you really think climate science is even remotely close to being settled, it kind of shows the futility in engaging in conversation on the subject. However, other than your bolded comment, most people labeled deniers likely wouldn't disagree with what you said. Sure, there are some who deny the basics even, but equally you have people on the warming side also making outlandish claims.

 

As far as I'm aware, that's because many of the means by which we can test relativity (and as far as I know, all have confirmed it so far) have only come about recently. With climate science we have numerous means by which we can test to see if the current build up of GhGs are responsible for warming, and all tests so far confirm this to be the case. As I said, as close to being settled as you get scientifically. Still, the planet's space agencies plan their missions based on the best understanding of physics they have - with great success. Medical professionals treat people based on the latest and best medical theories they have and people are living longer and longer, with one disease after another being eradicated. Why can't we do the same with climate change?
It's a pity that the terms "sceptic" and "denier" got used in this debate. Climate sceptic certainly isn't an accurate one for those that describe themselves as such, and many called deniers only deny certain elements of the anthropogenic side of climate science, not climate science in general. Personally I use the term denier for those that push silly conspiracies about "warmist" scientists as a cop-out. I try not to use "denier" much though as it usually elicits emotional responses and means there's no hope of reasonable discussion, but I can't use the term "sceptic" without quotation marks because it's an insult to actual sceptics. Still, I'll make a better effort to avoid using "denier", it doesn't help things.

I agree there can be outlandish claims on both sides. People such as those in the Arctic methane emergency group (warming side) have as much credibility as those who think warming over the next century will be less than 1.5C or that warming will be beneficial to mankind. There are small bits of data to support both sides, but the vast majority goes against those ideas.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't find me disagreeing with most of what you say. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or however you want to label it. CO2 is increasing. Man is contributing to CO2 increasing. Therefore, man is causing the earth to warm. See? I agree. 

I just don't know for sure that man has contributed to most of the warming seen the past 40 years and how do we even define most?I just don't think there is evidence for assuming that the currently decadal rate will increase or that the strongly positive feedback impact of water vapour is proven. Also, until crop yields start to suffer and that can be linked to heat, I don't see why I should think the current warming has had a negative impact and therefore why future warming, assuming it doesn't have a runaway effect, would also not be beneficial. All the extreme scenarios only exist in a computer model and until people can start making near to medium term accurate forecasts, I don't see why I should blindly believe long term ones.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jvenge

Quote

t's subjective. You want me to show the scientific justification for saying something is not settled, but there isn't a scientific justification for saying something is settled. However, you get a little tetchy, which goes back to the point as to why people don't bother posting. It's settled in your view, so what on earth would be the point in entering into conversation on the subject? I don't learn my own lesson though, hence the below. Take comfort, I will get bored after a few replies, question my sanity for doing it yet again, but then I will be back again in a few weeks, having forgotten my previous correspondence and experience.

The only time science will be settled on climate change is when empirical evidence (observation, the only way you can test a hypothesis) shows it to be. That said, point me to something from 5 years or 10 years ago that predicted the present climate in its entirety. Not close to, as that wouldn't be settled. Feel free to post in the other thread though, as I wouldn't want to take this off topic, although I note none of people patting each other on the back about the ignorance of climate science deniers weren't called out on that.

Onto sea ice. I admit there were two wobbles the past few months that raised my eyebrows a bit, but December will likely finish on the second largest extent increase, maybe the first even. Now, I will then add the caveat that the only reason it had the opportunity to have the second or largest increase is because it performed so dismally in autumn months.

Next is opinion. Those who are trying to predict what shape the sea ice will be in summer, based on current conditions, are on a fool's errand. 

There is plenty of empirical evidence. The rise in air temperature, sea level rise, Arctic sea ice in the satellite period and one I find most compelling, most of the world's glaciers are melting. So if the human induced increase of GHGs (a science I take as settled) is not the driver of this then some other mechanism has to be the reason which as yet, as far as I'm aware, has not been scientifically presented as a viable alternative. And given the greenhouse gas theory is accepted as settled science then a reason has to found why it doesn't induce warming.

Where the science is not settled is the evolution in an ever warming world of feedback mechanisms and the impact on natural variability cycles upon which strategic policy decisions have to be based. Many people feel these decisions have been delayed long enough and I'm one of them And the reason these decisions have been continuously delayed is nowt to do with the science but the vested interests of powerful lobby groups who have spent millions in attempting to rubbish the science and in many respects they have succeeded

Edited by knocker
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jvenge said:

You won't find me disagreeing with most of what you say. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or however you want to label it. CO2 is increasing. Man is contributing to CO2 increasing. Therefore, man is causing the earth to warm. See? I agree. 

I just don't know for sure that man has contributed to most of the warming seen the past 40 years and how do we even define most?I just don't think there is evidence for assuming that the currently decadal rate will increase or that the strongly positive feedback impact of water vapour is proven. Also, until crop yields start to suffer and that can be linked to heat, I don't see why I should think the current warming has had a negative impact and therefore why future warming, assuming it doesn't have a runaway effect, would also not be beneficial. All the extreme scenarios only exist in a computer model and until people can start making near to medium term accurate forecasts, I don't see why I should blindly believe long term ones.

OK, but why then do you blindly disbelieve them? Or do you approve of us taking a precautionary approach to this planet's welfare and do the things needed to bring emissions under control? I bet you don't....

Edited by Devonian
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvenge said:

You won't find me disagreeing with most of what you say. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or however you want to label it. CO2 is increasing. Man is contributing to CO2 increasing. Therefore, man is causing the earth to warm. See? I agree. 

I just don't know for sure that man has contributed to most of the warming seen the past 40 years and how do we even define most?I just don't think there is evidence for assuming that the currently decadal rate will increase or that the strongly positive feedback impact of water vapour is proven. Also, until crop yields start to suffer and that can be linked to heat, I don't see why I should think the current warming has had a negative impact and therefore why future warming, assuming it doesn't have a runaway effect, would also not be beneficial. All the extreme scenarios only exist in a computer model and until people can start making near to medium term accurate forecasts, I don't see why I should blindly believe long term ones.

When the vast majority of research, from climate scientists themselves to insurance groups and economists anticipate that climate change will be detrimental to society, and increasingly so with additional warming, why do you disagree with the idea?
Do you think there are aspects of climate change that could harm crop yields?

As for extreme climate scenarios (ignoring your blind disbelief of climate models) what about periods in the recent geological past when the climate was much warmer and it's relationship to CO2 levels? What about the current planetary energy imbalance and the warming that must arise because of it? How about the fact that the planet has warmed about 1C despite a rise in CO2 levels of only about 43% and much more time required before reaching equilibrium?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One advantage of doing very little or nothing would be that we would know for certain if the theories about runaway global warming are right or wrong. If we do things, we won't really know whether the steady-state outcome that hopefully would follow was the result of what we did, or just random variability ignoring our efforts.

I am very leery about large-scale geo-engineering because of the possible problems of miscalculation followed by irreversible cooling. Proposals to cut back on incoming solar radiation (by screens or aerosols) strike me as particularly dangerous because if the runaway aspects of global warming are overestimated, we could easily end up introducing a fourth Milankovitch driver; the three we know about already are basically predicting a very very slow cooling trend over about fifty thousand years, luckily for us. That sounds about perfect to offset a very very slow warming trend of human population growth after what is inevitably going to be the end of fossil fuels in a few decades. 

Other forms of geo-engineering might be less dangerous but perhaps not worth the time and expense. For example, damming the Bering Strait to keep warmer Pacific water out of the Arctic basin would probably have some impact on polar ice, but if the Atlantic sector continued to warm the European and eastern Canadian, Greenland side of the subarctic, that additional ice north of Siberia and Alaska might have very little influence on global climate. What we can't foresee is whether the shift in balance between Pacific and Atlantic warming influences might create an entirely different circulation pattern with unknown consequences. 

Perhaps the best strategy, besides doing not very much and trying to adapt to any changes, would be larger scale desalination projects taking increasing amounts of water from the oceans and diverting them to large-scale irrigation of various dry regions. Just using some rough figures I would estimate that ten major diversion projects around the globe would be capable of removing 1 metre of sea level rise every 20 years for the next 100-200 years. If they were designed so that 10% capacity was providing a good outcome in terms of irrigation and drinking water (in other words, if no climate change meant that we didn't have to turn them off), then we would be set to handle any change in sea level from 2 to 20 metres over the next two centuries. That is approximately the range between what is almost certain to happen and what could happen if Greenland (8 metres worth of sea level rise) and some parts of the Antarctic (not likely all of that so quickly) were to melt. 

This would have the consequences of expanding farming capability, and protecting urban water supplies, in large portions of the subtropical dry regions around the world. The climate of those regions might then respond slightly in terms of more local evaporation in the hydrological cycle but we could assume those effects might not be very large. 

Then if we find that Greenland appears unlikely to lose more than 50% of its ice by about 2300 A.D., and that the Antarctic is not changing drastically, our projects would not require any further expansion or other measures taken. If we find that we have lost most of the northern ice and a southern meltdown is beginning, then we might need to consider other measures at that point because presumably the desalination option would be running out of expansion potential.

This is a good political solution too because both sides of the debate in North America and probably in other regions as well could see benefits from desalination and irrigation projects on a large scale, and could justify them to their voting bases so that these projects could be guaranteed to continue to develop once started, and we would have a strategy that would provide most of the protections we are looking to provide, without necessarily taking many risks with unintended consequences. Activity levels at the various projects could be scaled to measured changes in sea level so that the result should be a steady-state sea level so long as there is no very rapid melting in the southern hemisphere. 

I didn't just think of this today and in fact I am trying to pitch this idea in political circles in North America where I think it might be attractive to both sides, particularly in American politics. The southwestern U.S. is running very low on water, more because of expanded population and usage than drought, but whatever the balance of causes, the effects are not in dispute and the only apparent way to change the situation is desalination. Lake Mead behind the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River is so low in recent years that the outtake pipes are in danger of being above the water line. Even in good years of runoff from upstream, this lake is dropping away by 2-3 feet a year. This is a major source of water for southern Nevada and southern California. And if no water can be let go downstream that affects farming areas closer to the Mexican border. The Colorado River rarely even reaches the ocean nowadays. Probably this is 75% population growth and 25% climate change related, or something like that, so you can see that both sides of a political divide have a way of becoming comfortable with desalination as the answer. It will take at least ten years so hopefully this new government will get a start on this very soon. Other regions where the project might work well would include west Africa, southwest Africa, western Australia, the Persian Gulf region and northern Red Sea, and possibly China although the engineering there might be much more costly. Possibly also the Iberian peninsula could benefit from such a scheme. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roger J Smith said:

One advantage of ....

Roger, its not difficult, we don't need any of your schemes. We just change our mindset and stop treating the atmosphere as a dustbin (by doing so we're essentially playing god with its working) and instead leave the planets atmosphere alone, stop spewing our waste into it, to its own devices (stop playing god).

No need for geoengineering (which is also playing god) just stop meddling with the planets climate by our greenhouse gas spewing ways. Of course people like to blather on about how that can't be done - but (with a will) it can and we (even though some wont admit it) all know renewables work, that efficient use of fuel is sensible, that wasting energy is simply that. Ok, we can expect a four or even eight year delay while the US goes backwards, but that is the way the world will go at some point.

 

Edited by Devonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

When the vast majority of research, from climate scientists themselves to insurance groups and economists anticipate that climate change will be detrimental to society, and increasingly so with additional warming, why do you disagree with the idea?
Do you think there are aspects of climate change that could harm crop yields?

As for extreme climate scenarios (ignoring your blind disbelief of climate models) what about periods in the recent geological past when the climate was much warmer and it's relationship to CO2 levels? What about the current planetary energy imbalance and the warming that must arise because of it? How about the fact that the planet has warmed about 1C despite a rise in CO2 levels of only about 43% and much more time required before reaching equilibrium?

Ah the consensus. The ultimate retort for when someone disagrees "But there is a consensus!"

Okay, keep your consensus. Luckily Trump is in the White House now and all of these unproven green initiatives and wishy washy research is going to be defunded for at least the next 4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×