What Do We Think About Climate Change

Guillermo, I think this may suggest the "warmers" are wrong? Science behind Garnaut Report flawed, inquiry told http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/15/2543797.htm?section=justin , I have not read it but the policy was a pro-warming stance....

 

I'm back again...

That report can be read both ways:

But an environmental geologist from James Cook University, Robert Carter, has told a Senate inquiry the basis for Professor Garnaut's report is wrong.
He says there is no evidence humans are causing changes in climate patterns.​

And:

"The Stern Report and the Garnaut Report in Australia are both reports by distinguished economists - they have no basis in scientific expertise," he said.​

And:

A group of scientists from the CSIRO have criticised the Government's emissions trading scheme because they believe the target is far too low.​

Soo, in my opinion a gelogist may have a way too long timeframe to consider (for my comfort, that is), while some economists have clearly shown themselves to have too short timeframe to consider... We've seen that?

The geologist may consider 100 of millions of years, while the economists probably have stacked their looted savings in some solar coorp...

Call me self sentered, but I prefer to consider the timeframe of the last thousand(s?) year.

The truth is somewhere in between... The ecologists however's probably closer to my life span in consideration, doesnt mean they're all wrong.

 

Oh well good intentions turn to **** again :sad:

 

Some thoughts on the Garnaud Report.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/1-2/contradictions-in-the-garnaut-support-ii

Cheers.

 

Guillermo,

This whole discussion has become so circular, with the latest posts simply reiterating what was said back in the first few pages of the thread. The latest re-statement is that the natural fluxes for CO2 are variable and interactive, meaning they increase uptake when more CO2 is available. The report mentions a goal of 10% of yr 2000 level emissions by 2050. This puts our emissions at about the 1945 level, just about the time atmospheric CO2 started to really increase. Again, atmospheric CO2 was already increasing when our emissions were 1/10 of current, so if you believe the upturn in the CO2 curve was caused by anthropogenic emissions, then what possible good could this accomplish? It's obvious to anyone with an open mind that the atmospheric CO2 increase seen from the 19th century onward is due to natural sources, NOT due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Jimbo

 

Can you say "Correlation Falsification"?

Jimbo

 

Huh?

Are we having a consensus that it's actually warming?

Some information here, related to Greenland ice melting:

"The average GrIS net loss contributes to a net sea level rise of 0.7±0.2 mm w.eq. y-1, indicating a cumulative net increase on 10 mm w.eq."

cut from this paper (Written by Sebastian Mernild):

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-...quest-id=dae075fb-78bc-400a-9880-74720d144ec4

That's something close to 25% of the annual sealevel rise, coming from Greenland alone.

 

Knut,

It's been warming for ~150 years. Slowly, nothing alarming, but warming nevertheless. The trouble is we've been emitting 'significant' CO2 for only ~60 years. And CO2 level have been rising for about ~150 years also, despite the fact that 'significant' anthropogenic CO2 has only a ~60 year history. Read the presentation by Syun-Ichi Akasofu that I posted earlier and see how well HIS hypothesis fits what we have observed over the last century.

Jimbo

 

Yes, Knut, the main discussion here is not about if it has been warming or not in the last decades (*), but the pace and the causes of that warming, how the tendency projects into the future, as well as the consequences of a warming or a cooling.

We should call this debate not a "warmers" vs "cooolers" one, but rather an "anthropics" vs "naturalists" or then an "alarmists" vs "realists" one

Cheers.


(*) For sure not in the very last one.

 

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

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

 

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.

 

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

 

Guillermo,

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

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

Jimbo

 

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)

 

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."