What Do We Think About Climate Change

[plebusmaximus]

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html

Thanks for the link, plebus. Interesting to see projections for the 21st century are around one foot (90% confidence) and not meters, as the GWA crowd once sustained. But even this humble projection may prove to be wrong if prediction of global temperatures falling till around 2030 come to be true, making sea level to come down. With the present "lack of knowledge" status , it is risky to asume sea levels will indefectible rise.

Cheers.

About 3 mm per year rise. About the beginning of 2011 there will be some better answers by Scientists.

[Guillermo]

Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to Quantify the Solar Radiative Forcing
Nir J. Shaviv
Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Giv’at Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel
J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989.

Abstract.
Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise
to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different
mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a
possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as
a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle.
This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux
into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records over
the 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records can
be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative
forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just
those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification
mechanism, though without pointing to which one.


From the paper:

In summary, we find clear evidence indicating that the
total flux entering the oceans in response to the solar cycle
is about an order of magnitude larger than the globally averaged
irradiance variations of 0.17 W/m2. The sheer size of
the heat flux, and the lack of any phase lag between the flux
and the driving force further implies that it cannot be part
of an atmospheric feedback and very unlikely to be part of a
coupled atmosphere-ocean oscillation mode. It must therefore
be the manifestation of real variations in the global
radiative forcing.
It should be stressed that the observed correlation between
the oceanic heat flux and solar activity does not provide
proof for any particular amplification mechanism, including
that of the CRF/climate link. It does however provide
very strong support for the notion that an amplification
mechanism exists. Given that the CRF/climate links predicts
the correct radiation imbalance observed in the cloud
cover variations, it is a favorable candidate.


Bolded are mine.
Note: CRF (Cosmic Rays Flux)
Cheers.

[Guillermo]

More interesting thoughts from Nir Shaviv:


The scientific report of the Intergovernmental panel for climate change (IPCC) attempts to summarize the effects of all the drivers. This is displayed in the famous forcing graph below. There are several interesting points one should note. First, there is a large uncertainty in an anthropogenic contribution called the indirect aerosol effect. This effect arises from the fact that increased amounts of small particles in the atmosphere will alter the characteristics of clouds. This is best seen downstream of chimney stacks or in marine clouds in the form of ship tracks. Since cloud formation, and in particular, the characteristics of clouds, is not well understood, the indirect aerosol effect is highly uncertain. The second point to note is that the solar forcing quoted by the IPCC is 0.3 W/m². This does not include the effect of the solar modulated cosmic ray flux, which has ample evidence to support it, and no real evidence to refute it. If one includes the effects of cosmic rays, an additional 1 W/m² should be added because of the increased solar activity (which reduced the flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as will be explained below).

Attached figure: Anthropogenic and Natural contributions to the net radiative forcing. Figure from the IPCC TAR. If one adds their numbers (which are supposed to capture the community's consensus, one finds an Anthropogenic forcing of: 0.8 ± 1.3 W/m² (where the errors were added in quadrature, assuming independence). In other words, the large uncertainty in the indirect aerosol effects, implies that the sign of the Anthropogenic contribution is unknown!


Evidently, we do not know the total Anthropogenic forcing. We don't know its sign. We also don't know its magnitude. All we can say is that it should be somewhere between -1 to +2 W/m². Sounds strange, but we may have actually been cooling Earth (though less likely than warming). It is for this reason that in the 1970's, concerns were raised that humanity is cooling the global temperature. The global temperature appeared to drop between the 1940's and 1970's, and some thought that anthropogenic aerosols could be the cause of the observed global cooling, and that we may be triggering a new ice-age

[Jimbo1490]

Guillermo,

Here's a re-post from my post of March 27, 2007:

the summary of the 2007 IPCC report has these (rather befuddling) figures to state on anthropogenic cooling.

Quote:
Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust)
together produce a cooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1] W m-2 and an
indirect cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W m-2. These forcings are now better understood than at the
time of the TAR due to improved in situ, satellite and ground-based measurements and more comprehensive
modelling, but remain the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing. Aerosols also influence cloud lifetime
and precipitation. {2.4, 2.9, 7.5}


I can't say I know how to interpret those numbers

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

These small numbers with a plus or minus sign refer to an estimated number of watts per M^2 either added (+) or subtracted (-) from the widely accepted estimated average of the sun's radiated heating of the earth's surface at 240 W /M^2.

The latest IPCC report goes on to estimate that the total anthropogenic forcing is somewhere between -1 and +2 W/M^2. Notice the uncertainty and the not too far-fetched possibility that we may have actually COOLED the earth rather than heated it(!), though admittedly this is a little less likely.


Everyone reading PLEASE take note of the UNCERTAINTY of the conclusions found in the IPCC report WRT anthropogenic climate forcing, a report referenced by climate alarmists when insisting that it is known with a high degree of certainty that humans are to blame for ALL recent climate change.


Jimbo

So here we are, going around in circles, again. Maybe we should just post old post numbers.

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Yes,
Perhaps it's time to put this thread to rest for a while and wait for new relevant information.

In the mean time, let's remember the words of the recently deceased Reid Bryson, considered the father of modern climatology and most cited climatologist in the world, according to British Institute of Geographers:

"All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

Salud!

Attached image:
Present Global Sea Ice Area: 850.000 sqkm above normal
Graphic from The Cryosphere Today (1979-present)

[bntii]

US's EPA declares CO2 a pollutant
Published: Saturday 18 April 2009 09:12 UTC
Last updated: Saturday 18 April 2009 14:48 UTC
In the United States, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has cleared the way for legislation that would make it possible to curb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The EPA has formally acknowledged, for the first time, that 'greenhouse gases' such as CO2 can constitute a danger to public health.

The decision is being viewed as a sign that President Barack Obama intends to honour his promise to improve the environment. During the 2000 - 2008 Bush administration, the EPA stated that CO2 could not be regulated because it was not a pollutant.

EPA declares greenhouse gases a health threat

11:36 PM CDT on Friday, April 17, 2009

By RANDY LEE LOFTIS and ELIZABETH SOUDER / The Dallas Morning News
rloftis@dallasnews.com; esouder@dallasnews.com

The Environmental Protection Agency's decision Friday to declare greenhouse gases a health threat – the first step toward possible federal regulation of carbon dioxide from power plants, refineries and vehicles – could speed up congressional action on global warming while thrusting Texas into a key role.

"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," Jackson said. "Fortunately, it follows President Obama's call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation."

[bntii]

EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare / Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling

Release date: 04/17/2009

Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn, 202-564-4355 / 7849 / milbourn.cathy@epa.gov; En español: Lina Younes, 202-564-4355 / younes.lina@epa.gov

(Washington, D.C. – April 17, 2009) After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.

The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.

“This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation,” said Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”

As the proposed endangerment finding states, “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.

The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways. Findings from a recent EPA study titled “Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone,” for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:

* increased drought;
* more heavy downpours and flooding;
* more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires;
* greater sea level rise;
* more intense storms; and
* harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.


In proposing the finding, Administrator Jackson also took into account the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of certain segments of the population, such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.

In addition to threatening human health, the analysis finds that climate change also has serious national security implications. Consistent with this proposed finding, in 2007, 11 retired U.S. generals and admirals signed a report from the Center for a New American Security stating that climate change “presents significant national security challenges for the United States.” Escalating violence in destabilized regions can be incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources – including water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world.

The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings. Today’s proposed finding does not include any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

[Jimbo1490]

I actually hope this stands because if it becomes part of the CFR, then it will be challenged and then the evidence presented in open court for the first time. Case law long ago settled the issue of regulations that do not reflect current scientific confidence. Pat Michaels summarizes 21 of the climate models used in the latest IPCC report, and a makes comparison thereof with observed temperature data. That summary gave the models a confidence level of less than .025, well below widely accepted standards for confidence in either the models or the AGW via CO2 hypothesis.

http://fora.tv/2009/03/12/Climate_of...mes#chapter_01

Jump ahead to 14:00 and you'll see what I'm referring to.


Barack Obama, being the smart fellow that he is, already knows this, and his plan is to implement a 'cap and trade' scheme before the AGW hypothesis can get its day in court, an outcome which would be a welcomed by the climate realists, rather than the alarmists.




Thomas, remeber how LONG ago in this thread I asserted that clouds and precipitation are the regulators of water vapor, NOT the minor greenhouses gases? Do you remember how long ago I said that the system is dominated by strong NEGATIVE feedback? I mean it seems so obvious, but now the science is in: yes, clouds and precipitation really are the regulators of water vapor, they are the strong negative feedback I said they were, ergo they are the regulators of global temperature.

Jimbo

[RHP]

Antarctic ice cover 'increasing due to hole in ozone layer'

Antarctic sea ice is growing rather than shrinking as a result of the hole in the ozone layer, scientists have said.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:37PM BST 22 Apr 2009

Scientists believe the growth is down to stronger surface winds over Antarctica Photo: GETTY
In stark contrast to the loss of sea ice in the Arctic over the last 30 years, the frozen seas surrounding the South Pole have increased at the rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade over the last 40 years.

Scientists believe the growth is down to stronger surface winds over Antarctica and more frequent storms in the Southern Ocean – both direct consequences of the ozone hole.

If ozone levels recover as expected over the next 100 years, thanks to the international ban on damaging CFCs, weather patterns will return to normal and Antarctic sea ice will shrink rapidly, they said.

Professor John Turner of BAS, lead author of the paper published in the Geophysical Research Letters journal, said the results underlined the complexity of climate change.

He said: "While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice.

"Although the ozone hole is in many ways holding back the effects of greenhouse gas increases on the Antarctic, this will not last, as we expect ozone levels to recover by the end of the 21st Century.

"By then there is likely to be around one third less Antarctic sea ice."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...one-layer.html

[Jimbo1490]

But there has ALWAYS been a 'hole' in the ozone layer over the antarctic. The existence of the hole was predicted decades before it was actually observed, also decades before the existence of the halon gases.


Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
(Received 7 August 2008; published 19 March 2009)
This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray
(CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone
loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CRdriven
electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone
hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably
another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.


(The Sun, always the Sun)
Cheers.

[Jimbo1490]

John Stossel, speaking at the 2008 Heartland Conference.

[Jimbo1490]

More interesting stuff for you "The ice is melting!! The ice is MELTING!!!" alarmists:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...al.html#seaice

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Tropical troposphere temps, 1980-2009, predicted vs observed:



The thick, smooth line is the prediction.

Jimbo

[plebusmaximus]

Does my bum look big in this?

"While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice," says Turner.

Sea ice around Antarctica has expanded at a rate of around 100,000 square kilometres per decade since the 1970s, and now covers an area of about 19 million square kilometres at its winter maximum, doubling the size of the continent.

By contrast, summer sea ice around the North Pole shrank in 2007 to the smallest since satellite records began in the 1970s.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...e&topic=enviro