------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Going back to solar influence.

Since 1976, greenhouse gas increase has correlated better with temperature increase than anything else. However, before that time, solar activity, as shown by the number and activity of sunspots, correlated better than GHGs.

http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrest.../welcome.shtml

There are problems when trying to translate solar activity into calculated solar forcings. We still do not know exactly how sunspot activity actually drives warming or cooling. Theories exist, but tend to be controversial. Thus, organisations such as the IPCC who offer calculated solar forcings need to mention that such are extremely uncertain.

I mention this because the IPCC calculated solar forcings do not seem to correlate as well. However, sunspot activity correlation is extremely good, as shown in my reference.

Oh dear! There's a giant hole in warming trends between 1940 and 1975 where it got colder. And all that right in the middle as mankind continued belching co2 at record levels. If co2 is a substantial ghg - then how is that possible?

[Industry Insider]

Cbacba,

The response I always see from the pro-anthropogenic global warming crowd on this issue is that the cooling trend was absolutely caused by aerosols. I am always amused when I see this one, because almost everywhere else (e.g., the WG 1 IPCC Summary for Policymakers), the same people say that we only have a low understanding of the aerosol forcing. So my question is, if we don’t understand the aerosol forcing, how can they be so sure this cooling trend was related to aerosols at all?

To take this argument to one logical conclusion, if aerosols are a more important climate forcing than CO2 (as would be implied by the cooling trend in question if you subscribe to the aerosols explanation), one quick fix for global warming might be to remove all the baghouses, ESPs, and SCRs from the power plants, thereby creating more aerosols to control the warming. (Increasing NOX and particulates could give you more aerosols without the sulfuric acid rain effects you would get by turning off the SO2 scrubbers. One concern would be increased ozone, but most ozone problems seem to be caused by automobiles and natural VOCs.) Of course, I am not advocating any of this. My real answer to your question would be that we still don’t have a solid understanding of why the climate does what it does.

[Paradox]

Really, really hot

Sandstorms And Hailstones Hit Kingdom

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Industry Insider

Cbacba,

The response I always see from the pro-anthropogenic global warming crowd on this issue is that the cooling trend was absolutely caused by aerosols. I am always amused when I see this one, because almost everywhere else (e.g., the WG 1 IPCC Summary for Policymakers), the same people say that we only have a low understanding of the aerosol forcing. So my question is, if we don’t understand the aerosol forcing, how can they be so sure this cooling trend was related to aerosols at all?

To take this argument to one logical conclusion, if aerosols are a more important climate forcing than CO2 (as would be implied by the cooling trend in question if you subscribe to the aerosols explanation), one quick fix for global warming might be to remove all the baghouses, ESPs, and SCRs from the power plants, thereby creating more aerosols to control the warming. (Increasing NOX and particulates could give you more aerosols without the sulfuric acid rain effects you would get by turning off the SO2 scrubbers. One concern would be increased ozone, but most ozone problems seem to be caused by automobiles and natural VOCs.) Of course, I am not advocating any of this. My real answer to your question would be that we still don’t have a solid understanding of why the climate does what it does.

Tnx - it was a rather rhetorical question there though. I did succeed in leaving out some sort of "oh the humanity" bit. My own favorite solutions are 1) cut down the rainforests or 2) nuke the world and eliminate man as a civilized critter with technology.

Personally, I subscribe more along the lines of powerful forces affecting large systems rather than insignificant factors having significant effects. That's more along the notions of cosmoclimatology and and the impact of cloud formation by external forces - cosmic rays/solar magnetic field flux. Unlike co2 vs temperature, the temperature vs solar magnetic activity graph doesn't doesn't diverge in opposition to the basic concept. I also do not ascribe to the notion the co2 has anything but a logrithmic (fairly minor) effect from around 50 ppm to something over 10% concentrations nor do I think man is necessarily the predominant cause of the observed increase in co2.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Paradox

Really, really hot

Sandstorms And Hailstones Hit Kingdom

Amazing how last year it was colder in russia and this year it's warmer there and colder in cannuckland.

Wow, golly gee. It's WEATHER!

I'll make this prediction. IF the sunspot cycle starts off with a bang in the next couple of months, we'll have a really hot summer. IF the sunspot cycle wheezes along like now until december before launching it's promised bigtime killer extravaganza - not seen since the 1950s, it's just gonna be another typical long hot summer. Long hot summers pretty much happen every year. July 4th is usually a rather sweltering holiday with relief oftimes being sought at the nearest beach or swimming pool - at least on this side of the pond. I guess the brits don't have a whole lot to celebrate then but we do.

[Simple]

Is it possible for new posters to read this thread and do some research before they post cos it is getting tedious having these same old points that have been thoroughly argued again and again.

CPU models have been validated against world weather changes, get over it and have predict where we are now very well and this has nothing to do predicting the weather computers and putting that arguement shows a clear lack of even the most basic concepts of modelling.

The world is warming and rapidily, it is clear, the only debate is if CO2 from man is to blame. All the evidence is that it CO2 has disturbed the balance to a strong and accelerated warming, the mechanism is clear, proven in laboratory settings, is amplified by water vapour, amplified by positive feedback loops, primitive models from 1989 are proving extremely accurate and rate of rise of temp is rising rapidly, ice is melting, weather extrenes more common, droughts spreading, spings earier, etc,etc,etc and all we get is old arguements propigated by oil company funded research which don't hold up against any close examination at all.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Simple

Is it possible for new posters to read this thread and do some research before they post cos it is getting tedious having these same old points that have been thoroughly argued again and again.

CPU models have been validated against world weather changes, get over it and have predict where we are now very well and this has nothing to do predicting the weather computers and putting that arguement shows a clear lack of even the most basic concepts of modelling.

The world is warming and rapidily, it is clear, the only debate is if CO2 from man is to blame. All the evidence is that it CO2 has disturbed the balance to a strong and accelerated warming, the mechanism is clear, proven in laboratory settings, is amplified by water vapour, amplified by positive feedback loops, primitive models from 1989 are proving extremely accurate and rate of rise of temp is rising rapidly, ice is melting, weather extrenes more common, droughts spreading, spings earier, etc,etc,etc and all we get is old arguements propigated by oil company funded research which don't hold up against any close examination at all.

water vapor amplifying co2?? If that is what the model is designed around, GIGO. That's like saying that little flea's weight is amplified because it's on an elephant's butt.

As for arguments, it isn't their age or their source, it's their accuracy that count.

As for our spring, it's a bit late - guess that means time for the coming ice age to be in vogue again.

[Simple]

Read the thread cbacba.

Well informed arguments have been posted previously.

Water vapour amplifies CO2 warming by a factor of 2 due to fact that air holds more water as it warms, it is simple physics. Like the fact oceans hold less CO2 as they warm one of those pesky positive feedbacks, it is also important to remember that the oceans have absorbed 40-50% mans CO2 emissions, and at present the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are still in the steep part of the log curve and that >50% of the CO2 put into the atmosphere has only occured since 1970, makes explaining that cool spell from 1950-70 easier then and there is a lag of about 5-10years for warming and Pinotube volcano cooled us in 1991, and we were shielded from ~30-50% of the warming by SO2 until 1990, the arctic is melting (latest estimate link on last page) and the decrease in albedo that will bring about is a scarey scarey positive forcing.


Look up trends for spring dates across the globe you'll find there are getting earlier everywhere, or look in this weeks Nature or Science, or PNAS, look up forest fires, the effect of black and grey particulates in the atmosphere, ice melt, the balancing of forcings, albedo consequences, the panama isthmus, cloud forcing low cooler, high hotter, the effects of water vapour are documented in this thread, climate change models have been validated, read the IPCC report technical, look at desertification, look at the increasing drought incidences across the world, why insurance companies are paying more and more money out due to weather events, look at the rising sea levels, the rapid increase in Greenland melt, the polarward movements of species, look up Peru, etc,etc,etc. Autumn is getting later also.

[Paradox]

Greetings,

At the end of the day, observation will decide the debate. This takes time. Cbacba makes valid points, as does Simple. I think what Cbacba fails to admit (or understand) is that we are bearing witness to an event that is throwing our entire globe into a state of civil unrest. Drought, famine, floods, super-storms and overall climate chaos is resulting in a constriction of global carrying capacity. This is happening now and I am quite certain will only become more and more intense in the coming years.

Simple and I have remained gridlocked in a disagreement about the cause of current trends but underneath the surface we (and I can only really speak for myself) understand that the science is not conclusive either way and future observation will be the only conslusive means of knowing for sure. At this point, climate is evicting millions of people and with what lies clearly on the horizon, this number could reach into the hundreds of millions and billions before too long. We could wake up tomorrow to an ice-dam break in Antarctica causing sea-level rise (which feedbacks causing more glacial collapse), disruption of the ocean currents would certainly follow (maybe shutting down the Gulf-Stream), the sun may decide to bake us into a fiery hell of forest fires and mega-storms in the next few months reducing our food output through drought and further starve our neighbors. Mexico is already having food-riots due to the increased price of corn.

This is one of those things that is happening already but most people are too ignorant to realize. The smoke is running out and the mirrors are all broken. Every official report we are hearing that professes doom and gloom is conservative. We are facing a crisis now and if it hasn't already, it will infiltrate your region in one manner or another in the weeks, months and years to come.

Global warmers may be right but it is too late anyway. We must put our resourses to preparation and hope mother nature manages to reach a balance conducive to our survival. First we must witness what this solar cycle has in store for us and hope the Mayan prophesy of 2012 (the long-count calendar) is a bunch of rubbish. I am afraid it is not...and something extraordinary is about to invade the sanctity of our existence. And I don't mean this metaphysically. How do we prepare? That is the question. If you are in the crosshairs of this beast we call climate-change...move, if you can.

~Paradox

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Simple

Read the thread cbacba.

Well informed arguments have been posted previously.

Water vapour amplifies CO2 warming by a factor of 2 due to fact that air holds more water as it warms, it is simple physics. Like the fact oceans hold less CO2 as they warm one of those pesky positive feedbacks, it is also important to remember that the oceans have absorbed 40-50% mans CO2 emissions, and at present the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are still in the steep part of the log curve and that >50% of the CO2 put into the atmosphere has only occured since 1970, makes explaining that cool spell from 1950-70 easier then and there is a lag of about 5-10years for warming and

Perhaps you should look at it from a slightly different perspective. Such as the h2o vapor has caused warming which has released more co2. Last time I looked, relatively high humidity holds in far more heat that relatively low. That's the difference between the Arizona desert at night and the Florida swamp at night. Losing 25-30 deg C over night with 15% relative humidity versus perhaps 4 - 5 deg C at 90% relative humidity - both with the same amount of co2 or perhaps with slightly less amounts in Florida.

Obviously, one can use h2o vapor as the reference, being forced by various amounts of co2 released/absorbed due to the temperature variations as well. After all, you've pointed out that co2 levels vary depending on temperature just like h2o vapor, even if to a lesser extent. As for a major cause of variations, one can look to cloud formation and blocking of incoming solar across the spectrum.

I'm not sure what you mean by steep part of the curve for co2 blocking of IR. This is clearly in the logrithmic area and is much less than a linear relationship. As you stated, as temperature rises, so does co2 levels and so does h2o vapor concentrations (and potentially, so does cloud formation).

It's just a fact of nature that systems dominated by positive feedback are totally unstable and 'go off in the weeds' at the earliest opportunity.

The IPCC has yet to prove that the 0.7 deg C rise during the last supposed doubling of co2 has a functional mechanism rather than an overblown number with no justification. They could well be off by over a factor of 10 and the rise in temperature could be the cause of the additional co2 levels rather than the other way around. That's referred to as causality.

Perhaps if the desert didn't cool down at night anymore than the florida swamp, you might have a case.

As for your models, when primary and secondary effects are excluded or unknown, the consequences of tertiary effects aren't really relevent.