|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 23, 2009 1:38:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 23, 2009 2:18:14 GMT
I would say the temperature pattern is consistant with a warming trend of 0.15C/decade with declining ENSO since 2003 and solar minimum in last 2 years. We'll find out when ENSO goes neutral and solar minimum is over because temperature should then be higher. Only problem with that analysis is you end up with Don Easterbrook's estimate of CO2 forcing that came out about a third of the IPCC models. Easterbrook didn't figure in anything for a solar grand maximum/minimum. With that much error the physics are likely the problem and the depth of that knows no bounds. I don't know how anybody can say with a straight face that this normal variation we are seeing can even start to explain the situation. It pure fraud if they intentionally excluded it and if they thought they had it modeled, since Easterbrook's model is based upon the patterns seen in the past. . . .the underlying CO2 physics has to be the problem. Here it is so dramatic its probably both. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 23, 2009 10:05:55 GMT
I guess "Natural variation" is a kind of catch-all phrase for complex interrelated things that have always happened but that we can't accurately observe, characterise or describe. Another question is if you take the current temperatures and tilt it slightly to the right (to remove a CO2 warming trend) does the temperature variation look unusual as compared with a period when CO2 was not changing much? Really we wouldn't expect variability now to be that different from variability in many past times. To answer the question, perhaps the cooler temperatures being recorded *could* be a combination of, in no particular order, the following variations: - ocean currents bringing more cooler water to the surface than average; - a variation in convection that changes cloud cover (perhaps related to the ocean changes) that reflects away more sunlight or that holds in less heat at night, and changes in mid-troposphere water vapour levels that reduces the greenhouse effect; - a change in the amount, type and location of aerosols. Many things can affect this: forest fires, volcanic activity, plant/planckton emissions (eg. dimethyl sulphide (DMS)), amount of rainfall that removes the aerosols, change in winds that move the aerosols around. These aerosols have various effects on cloud formation and solar radiation which could cause relative cooling for a period; - low solar activity, with secondary effects on the upper atmosphere (perhaps including upper atmosphere chemistry changes). I could think of lots of other reasons (none of which I am advocating as an important influence at the moment), and clearly a lot of the effects are interrelated. Eg. lots of rain over a continent might increase river outflow which might affect planckton growth which might affect DMS production which might affect cloud creation. None of those possible reasons you list qualify as strong enough to overcome CO2 over a decadal time scale, or at least they are not very likely to, according to IPCC forcing estimates. It can't happen - at least it's unlikely!? That's a broad qualification. It has and does happen. The variability is perfectly normal even if you subtract a trend for CO2. And the uncertainty that the IPCC puts on aerosol forcing suggests you are wrong about what the IPCC says. Increase in forcing over 10 years from CO2 is 0.22 Watts. If you believe what you say you should be able to cite the variability in each of the things I listed. Note, I am not a climate scientist, so the above is only a partial list. And I missed out sampling uncertainty. |
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 23, 2009 18:30:55 GMT
None of those possible reasons you list qualify as strong enough to overcome CO2 over a decadal time scale, or at least they are not very likely to, according to IPCC forcing estimates. It can't happen - at least it's unlikely!? That's a broad qualification. It has and does happen. The variability is perfectly normal even if you subtract a trend for CO2. And the uncertainty that the IPCC puts on aerosol forcing suggests you are wrong about what the IPCC says. Increase in forcing over 10 years from CO2 is 0.22 Watts. If you believe what you say you should be able to cite the variability in each of the things I listed. Note, I am not a climate scientist, so the above is only a partial list. And I missed out sampling uncertainty. See for yourself.  The IPCC believes that CO2 has a forcing nearly 14x that of solar. GHG are clearly supposed to be much more powerful than anything else, so none of the other forcings (especially solar) should be able to negate rising CO2 for very long. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 23, 2009 19:30:08 GMT
It can't happen - at least it's unlikely!? That's a broad qualification. It has and does happen. The variability is perfectly normal even if you subtract a trend for CO2. And the uncertainty that the IPCC puts on aerosol forcing suggests you are wrong about what the IPCC says. Increase in forcing over 10 years from CO2 is 0.22 Watts. If you believe what you say you should be able to cite the variability in each of the things I listed. Note, I am not a climate scientist, so the above is only a partial list. And I missed out sampling uncertainty. See for yourself. <<<SNIP IMAGE>>> The IPCC believes that CO2 has a forcing nearly 14x that of solar. GHG are clearly supposed to be much more powerful than anything else, so none of the other forcings (especially solar) should be able to negate rising CO2 for very long. You will also note that the only 'natural forcing' is claimed to be TSI. There is no 'natural CO 2' shown which is far more than anthropogenic CO 2 and there is a total lack of water vapor from the diagram probably because it would dwarf every other forcing. Remember there is a huge amount of anthropogenic water vapor from all fossil fuels and all irrigation. This diagram is slanted to make politicians make decisions |
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Apr 23, 2009 20:55:49 GMT
See for yourself. <<<SNIP IMAGE>>> The IPCC believes that CO2 has a forcing nearly 14x that of solar. GHG are clearly supposed to be much more powerful than anything else, so none of the other forcings (especially solar) should be able to negate rising CO2 for very long. You will also note that the only 'natural forcing' is claimed to be TSI. There is no 'natural CO 2' shown which is far more than anthropogenic CO 2 and there is a total lack of water vapor from the diagram probably because it would dwarf every other forcing. Remember there is a huge amount of anthropogenic water vapor from all fossil fuels and all irrigation. This diagram is slanted to make politicians make decisions The solar forcing includes all components, TSI, UV, cosmic rays. The fact is that in spite of decades of looking for a solar effect on climate that differs from the very long term orbital cycles (1,000s of years) and the shorter term (9 to 13 years) variations in TSI, there hasn't been one discovered yet. The solar forcing assumes a baseline TSI of 1360 watts/meter squared so the forcing on the climate is from the small increase in TSI from the grand maximum of the past few decades. As we can see from the current (very long for most observed cycles) solar minimum, the TSI doesn't vary much, and so far, there hasn't been a huge increase in cloudiness (and cooling) predicted by the various cosmic ray hypothesis. The slightly cooler temperatures experienced in 2007 and 2008 were warmer than every year in the 20th century except for 1998. The CO2 forcing is for the increse in CO2 concentration over the pre-industrial (1850) measurement. In effect, it is assumed that the "natural CO2" concentration is 280 ppm, and the anthropogenic is the extra 100 ppm that we've put in the atmosphere since 1850. And keep in mind that even if we take drastic actions to curtail emissions, the concentration will increase by another 100 ppm within 50 years. Water vapor isn't included in the diagram, because it isn't a forcing. The diagram is only showing forcings. Water vapor will be (and has already been measured to be) a postive feedback, because as the temperature increases, the atmosphere will hold more water, which will increase the greenhouse effect. There are other positive feedbacks (melting ice reduces albedo, which means more sunlight is absorbed than reflected), however, no large negative feedbacks have been identified that could prevent the warming from the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. While a large volcanic eruption could have a negative forcing for a few years, there really isn't another negative feedback that is going to save us from the coming warming. There is much paleoclimate evidence that when the atmosphere held more carbon dioxide, temperatures were warmer and sea levels were higher. There is no evidence of a negative feedback that stabilizes the global temperature. |
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Apr 23, 2009 21:04:45 GMT
Actually, it's not worth your time to listen. Basically, Plimer ignores all scientific evidence in support of the AGW theory and repeats a bunch of denialist myths that have been thoroughly debunked. This is explained clearly here: scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php#moreThe piece goes on, but you can safely put Plimer in the camp with George Will, Viscount Monckton and other people who don't understand science and aren't willing to learn. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 24, 2009 0:32:21 GMT
Actually, it's not worth your time to listen. Basically, Plimer ignores all scientific evidence in support of the AGW theory and repeats a bunch of denialist myths that have been thoroughly debunked. This is explained clearly here: scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php#moreThe piece goes on, but you can safely put Plimer in the camp with George Will, Viscount Monckton and other people who don't understand science and aren't willing to learn. Speaking of learning, you did read the book before indicting it, right, Ken? |
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 24, 2009 3:32:21 GMT
You will also note that the only 'natural forcing' is claimed to be TSI. There is no 'natural CO 2' shown which is far more than anthropogenic CO 2 and there is a total lack of water vapor from the diagram probably because it would dwarf every other forcing. Remember there is a huge amount of anthropogenic water vapor from all fossil fuels and all irrigation. This diagram is slanted to make politicians make decisions The solar forcing includes all components, TSI, UV, cosmic rays. The fact is that in spite of decades of looking for a solar effect on climate that differs from the very long term orbital cycles (1,000s of years) and the shorter term (9 to 13 years) variations in TSI, there hasn't been one discovered yet. The solar forcing assumes a baseline TSI of 1360 watts/meter squared so the forcing on the climate is from the small increase in TSI from the grand maximum of the past few decades. As we can see from the current (very long for most observed cycles) solar minimum, the TSI doesn't vary much, and so far, there hasn't been a huge increase in cloudiness (and cooling) predicted by the various cosmic ray hypothesis. The slightly cooler temperatures experienced in 2007 and 2008 were warmer than every year in the 20th century except for 1998. The CO2 forcing is for the increse in CO2 concentration over the pre-industrial (1850) measurement. In effect, it is assumed that the "natural CO2" concentration is 280 ppm, and the anthropogenic is the extra 100 ppm that we've put in the atmosphere since 1850. And keep in mind that even if we take drastic actions to curtail emissions, the concentration will increase by another 100 ppm within 50 years. Water vapor isn't included in the diagram, because it isn't a forcing. The diagram is only showing forcings. Water vapor will be (and has already been measured to be) a postive feedback, because as the temperature increases, the atmosphere will hold more water, which will increase the greenhouse effect. There are other positive feedbacks (melting ice reduces albedo, which means more sunlight is absorbed than reflected), however, no large negative feedbacks have been identified that could prevent the warming from the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. While a large volcanic eruption could have a negative forcing for a few years, there really isn't another negative feedback that is going to save us from the coming warming. There is much paleoclimate evidence that when the atmosphere held more carbon dioxide, temperatures were warmer and sea levels were higher. There is no evidence of a negative feedback that stabilizes the global temperature. So you would agree with and be in the same camp as the IPCC: no significant forcing from solar. And yet, several members on here have proposed that weak solar activity could stop or slow, at least for awhile, AGW. As I pointed out, the IPCC and popular AGW theory does not agree and see solar forcing as very small compared to CO2 and other things. So I have to ask...why are we still waiting for this major, CO2-induced warming? If solar activity hasn't stopped it the past 10 years, what has? |
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 24, 2009 3:34:12 GMT
Actually, it's not worth your time to listen. Basically, Plimer ignores all scientific evidence in support of the AGW theory and repeats a bunch of denialist myths that have been thoroughly debunked. This is explained clearly here: scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php#moreThe piece goes on, but you can safely put Plimer in the camp with George Will, Viscount Monckton and other people who don't understand science and aren't willing to learn. You are the one unwilling and unable to learn. I challenge ou to explain why the warming over the past 30 years has been no greater than warming from the previous +PDO phase, the 1915-1945? CO2 forcing has increased significantly since then, so why aren't we warming more? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 24, 2009 4:27:22 GMT
So I have to ask...why are we still waiting for this major, CO2-induced warming? If solar activity hasn't stopped it the past 10 years, what has? This is the classic moment when you don't get a response from the other side. But you will notice two schools of thought on this from the AGW side. First there is the Hansen Theory. . . .this one goes. . . .the observations are wrong the heat is there you just can't see it. The problem with this one is he has impugned the ability of mankind to accurately model climate. If you can't properly measure it you sure has he11 can't model it. Second one seems to be a homegrown Theory espoused by our own GLC (or at least I am not sure where else it is coming from). . . .this one goes. . . .All the natural variations have entered into a negative forcing conspiracy to temporarily cloak the individually much stronger CO2 forcing. The problem with this one is what happens when they all the natural variations conspire to enter into a positive forcing conspiracy? |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 24, 2009 6:38:05 GMT
So I have to ask...why are we still waiting for this major, CO2-induced warming? If solar activity hasn't stopped it the past 10 years, what has? This is the classic moment when you don't get a response from the other side. But you will notice two schools of thought on this from the AGW side. First there is the Hansen Theory. . . .this one goes. . . .the observations are wrong the heat is there you just can't see it. The problem with this one is he has impugned the ability of mankind to accurately model climate. If you can't properly measure it you sure has he11 can't model it. Second one seems to be a homegrown Theory espoused by our own GLC (or at least I am not sure where else it is coming from). . . .this one goes. . . .All the natural variations have entered into a negative forcing conspiracy to temporarily cloak the individually much stronger CO2 forcing. The problem with this one is what happens when they all the natural variations conspire to enter into a positive forcing conspiracy? Not unlike the whistling and looking to the floor or ceiling when arctic ice starts crossing into "normal" levels. LOL, and congrats GLC, you've apparently been promoted to one of the rebel leaders of the AGW movement. Have you ever seen The Life of Brian? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 24, 2009 10:06:13 GMT
It can't happen - at least it's unlikely!? That's a broad qualification. It has and does happen. The variability is perfectly normal even if you subtract a trend for CO2. And the uncertainty that the IPCC puts on aerosol forcing suggests you are wrong about what the IPCC says. Increase in forcing over 10 years from CO2 is 0.22 Watts. If you believe what you say you should be able to cite the variability in each of the things I listed. Note, I am not a climate scientist, so the above is only a partial list. And I missed out sampling uncertainty. See for yourself. <image snipped> The IPCC believes that CO2 has a forcing nearly 14x that of solar. GHG are clearly supposed to be much more powerful than anything else, so none of the other forcings (especially solar) should be able to negate rising CO2 for very long. The additional forcing from the last decade from CO2 is 0.2 Watts/m^2. The uncertainty in forcing, largely from aerosols, amounts to +/-0.4 Watts/m^2 - twice that of the change in CO2 forcing. But this plot is about estimates of forcing as compared with 1750. It doesn't show variability in the forcings, and it doesn't show many of the other processes I've talked about such as changes in ocean currents. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 24, 2009 10:14:09 GMT
So I have to ask...why are we still waiting for this major, CO2-induced warming? If solar activity hasn't stopped it the past 10 years, what has? This is the classic moment when you don't get a response from the other side. Well I have to sleep and work and do my chores. But a partial answer has been proposed by me on the preceding page which I do not believe has been satisfactorally debunked by reference to the IPCC net forcing data, or appeal to an unscientifically-justifiable numerological Pacific Decadal oscillation correllation. |
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Apr 24, 2009 11:22:12 GMT
Per kenfeldman, "While a large volcanic eruption could have a negative forcing for a few years, there really isn't another negative feedback that is going to save us from the coming warming. There is much paleoclimate evidence that when the atmosphere held more carbon dioxide, temperatures were warmer and sea levels were higher. There is no evidence of a negative feedback that stabilizes the global temperature. "
Nice, neat theory, so why does it so poorly explain earth's climatic history? (BTW, there is also evidence that when the atmosphere held more carbon dioxide, temperatures were colder, sea levels lower, and earth was locked in an ice age. I guess any theory is easily provable when you can simply ignore all data that doesn't support it).
|
|
