Climate change: Is it for real?

Quote Originally Posted by livefree

Hard to argue with religion. We are clearly a bunch of fringe level globalwarmaphobes.

 

Your denier cult myths about science are, once again, based only on your own ignorance about science and the absurd lies you have been fed.

Of course, solar irradiance is part of all of the climate models, and always has been.....but in the real world the magnitude of the solar variability is very small.....particularly compared to the effects of increasing atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas like CO2 by 43% (just so far) as mankind has done by burning vast quantities of carbon emitting fossil fuels, plus deforestation.

Solar variability has a small effect on climate change
ArsTechnica
by John Timmer
Dec 27, 2013
The Earth wouldn't have much of a climate if it weren't for the Sun. But it's a different thing entirely to conclude that because of its essential role the Sun contributes significantly to climate change. To alter the climate, the amount of energy sent our way by the Sun would have to vary significantly. And most studies have found that, while the Sun's output does vary, it hasn't seemed to have changed enough to have left a mark on the recent climate record.

But a few studies have suggested that the Sun's influence may be much larger. In fact, the range of estimates differ by an order of magnitude. One of the high-end estimates attempted to infer historic solar activity based on an examination of the details of the Sun that we can currently observe. And that, as its title suggests, "leads to large historical solar forcing."

A team from the University of Edinburgh decided to figure out if that actually made any sense. So, they compared a climate model's output with reconstructions of the Northern Hemisphere's temperatures for the last 1,200 years (Northern Hemisphere data is much more complete than Southern). Within the climate model, they set both large and small values for the influence of solar activity on the climate.

And the large values simply don't work very well. With a high value for solar influence, nearly three hundred of the 1,000 years of the comparison failed to line up - the model output failed to match the historical record. In contrast, with a low value of solar influence, the number of mismatched years was cut by more than half. There was also an extended period at the start of the last millennium where the Northern Hemisphere's temperatures were high (commonly called the Medieval Warm Period), yet the solar activity was relatively low.

Doing a fingerprint analysis, which identifies the climate influences that produce the climate changes we actually measure, researchers showed that volcanoes and greenhouse gasses were the largest influences on the climate over the last 1,000 years, with greenhouse gasses playing a role even before their recent rise due to industrialization. In addition, they find that volcanic eruptions have both a short-term impact on climate (which was known) as well as a longer-term cooling impact.

Clearly, this study is limited by being focused on the Northern Hemisphere, when what we generally care about is the global effect. If solar activity did have a strong global influence, however, there should be periods where at least some of that effect was apparent in the Northern Hemisphere. It's also limited by being focused on a single climate model. The authors confirmed that a second model produced similar results, and they note that the fingerprint analysis depends only on the timing of changes, and not their magnitude. As a result, they "conclude that large solar forcing is inconsistent with reconstructions of climate of the past millennium."

That doesn't mean that the Sun couldn't force changes if its activity shifted more significantly than it has over the last thousand years or so. But that period includes both the Maunder and Dalton minimums, which are periods of exceptionally low activity in the historical record. It also doesn't rule out solar activity driving regional changes that are swamped when averaging across the entire Northern Hemisphere.

Nevertheless, the study is another point against the idea that the Sun's variability has had a significant influence on the historic climate. And, in that, it's consistent with the majority of other results.

Nature Geoscience, 2013. DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2040 (About DOIs).

Further Reading:


VOLCANOES, RATHER THAN A QUIET SUN, MAY HAVE TRIGGERED THE LITTLE ICE AGE
A new study shows that volcanic eruptions, rather than a minimum in solar …

 

Thanks for showing your complete understanding of science with your limited vocabulary.

Must never have heard of the Maunder and Dalton minimum which has been written about extensively. The sun is very variable and it's variations are still not fully understood so one paper that, again uses models instead of real world measurements is not fact but hypothesis, not that you understand the difference.

From the paper you referenced:

 

are you for real?

I go away from this forum for a year or so and find you and assorted others still flogging the old denialist horse.

which is now nothing but skeletal remains.

Not only are you choosing to ignore the science, but you also seem to think that every government in the world is wrong.

not to mention the insurance industry.

Virtually every day I meet people who talk about the changes we are seeing ... if you think its not happening you must live in a very deep cave.

 

It is really difficult to have an intelligent discussion when some people insist upon using pejorative terms (such as "denialist"--or denier).

Many governments--actually, most--are either center-left or hard left.

And some (such as China) may give lip service to "climate change"; but their actions are quite another matter.

Yes, climate change is indeed happening--and has been for eons now. (Remember reading about the Ice Age?)

The real questions are twofold: (1) Is it anthropocentric in nature? And (2) overall, is it doing more harm or good for the Earth to warm slightly?

 

Of course it's real. Apparently global warming is the ONLY reason (according to the media & gov't) that those folks make people kneel on explosives and blow them up, cut peoples heads off, store people in underground pins to be used as sex slaves, put people in steel cages and dump them in the sea or burn them alive.

 

Here is the nonsense that the warmists worship. Doesn't matter that none of the alarmism comes true as long as they can scream the latest as if it were true and anyone that is not insane enough to believe it is a 'denier'.

"By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots... By 1996 The Platte River of Nebraska will be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers... The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands. - Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund - "Dead Heat" 1990

 

The word sceptic (skeptic in american) does not apply. Denialists demonstrate denial of evidence from reliable sources, and of known facts while deliberately promoting ignorance. It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with people who deliberately and knowingly promote misinformation.

climate change is NOT a political issue, despite the topics location in forums such as these, so whether a government is left or right should not be relevant. In addition, I have yet to see evidence that left/centrist govts are more likely to be wrong than conservative governments. I also find it interesting that over 190 countries on the planet have left/centrist govts.

China is doing a lot, however with a population more than 3x that of uthe US who are trying to attain a lifestyle closer to your own, this is no easy task. 97% of chinese understand climate change is an issue, compared to 54 % of americans.

the issue is not black and white. Yes climate change has been happening for billions of years. No climate scientist will tell you otherwise. But climate scientists (and many scientists in other fields who are studying the impacts of climate change on various species and ecosystems) will also tell you that the current warming is influenced by anthropogenic factors, and that the rate of change currently experienced is rapid in relative terms.

and if you value food supplies, human health, stable economies, livable cities, safe environments, stable weather patterns,, the survival of the majority of species on this planet, and most of what we think makes life worth living, then climate change, as we are already beginning to experience it, is doing more harm than good.

 

They can tell you whatever they want, they just cannot prove it. During a time when you have to pay homage to AGW or not get published, you will find a 'phrase' in almost every journal. Yes, it is very political starting back with the Kyoto Protocol. You should read this.

Remembering Madrid ’95: A Meeting that Changed the World

BTW, satellite records show no warming for over 18 years in the troposphere where it is supposed to show first so I don't know what you are experiencing other than weather, which has been around a long time. Most, if not all, of the alarmist predictions have failed. The climate models, what this is all based on, continue to deviate from observed science. The only thing that does not deviate is the politics.

 

I think your reference to those who disagree with you--they "deliberately and knowingly promote misinformation"--is highly tendentious; and question-begging.

Well, It should not be...

I suppose that is a matter of perspective.

To my way of thinking, being socialist (or even Marxist) is, just by definition, highly wrong. And a power play by those at the top.

Such as?

Then why do you insist upon using a dismissive term to describe those who disagree with your point of view?

What scientists? (Please be specific; I did not ask for mere numbers--or even percentages.)

Even more importantly, what is their evidence for this?

For those living in sub-freezing temperatures (as much of the world's population does), it probably does not seem that way.

But do you really care?

Or is it more important to you to arrest any temperature increase, in order to obviate an apocalypse hundreds of years from now, according to AGW theory?

 

Here is a prime example what happens if you buck an agenda.

Prof fired for debunking pollution myth

Same thing is happening in climate science. Isn't it interesting that many of the scientists that are being called deniers have 'emeritus' after their title?

 

We know climate change happens regardless of Man's input to the environment; why are we not researching more Perfect Knowledge (of Good and Evil) of the Art and Science of Structures, instead.

 

Your sources, as always, are unreliable hoosier.

 

Just like before you can say anything, you just can't prove it. That is the whole problem with alarmist AGW.

 

So why do you think global warming is the sole cause of terrorism?

You're the only one making that claim, so it's up to you to explain it. We're certainly not obligated to justify your strawmen. We're just going to point out how bizarre they are.

 

We know that's terrible logic. The fact that there's natural climate change in no way rules out human-caused climate change. It's like saying that since forest fires used to be all caused naturally, it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires.

And yet nearly every denier relies on that simple-minded mantra. All deniers have left is their bad logic and paranoid conspiracy theories.

 

You are missing the point; forest fires happen regardless of Man's input; why not acquire and possess more Perfect Knowledge of putting out forest fires.

 

I didn't dream that up myself. That was a beloved ad prominent member of the left. Here's a 26 second video and a news link.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UKfYq24eWGg
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/07/20/martin-omalley-climate-change-created-isis/
Ad here's Bernie http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/bernie_sanders_climate_change_is_directly_related_to_the_growth_of_terrorism.html#!

 

Running computer models and then choosing the average or consensus scenario (this is not data) is not science. Science does not operate on consensus. There is only one right answer and as we have seen the computer models do not match existing data much less agree with themselves. They over predict global temperature. How can we form policy based on computer simulations which cannot match existing data? The only sure outcome of implementation of CO2 reduction policies in the US is to reduce economic growth and consequently to reduce the improvement rate of the standard of living which affects those making low and middle incomes regressively. And implementation of these policies in the US will have no effect on global average temperatures in 100 years. China sees our commitment to these foolish policies as a means to catch up economically and militarily. China is doing nothing - they have committed to considering doing something in the next 20 years.

 

Not certain, but I think Zip's tongue is in his cheek.

 

Just using the words of the left. Bernie said "climate change directly related to the growth of terrorism." O'Malley said "climate change created ISIS."

 

corporate terrorism, maybe; depending on the silly rules instead of actual solutions.

 

Exactly - all those guys have been driven into murderous fundamental Islamic Jihadists by the excessive heat in the middle east. If we close Gitmo and all the fossil fuel fired ISIS will go home. Actually maybe they are concerned - by killing as many of us as possible we of course stop breathing and reduce our carbon footprint. Sorry for the attempt at terribly dark humor.

 

If only there were more penguins in Antarctica....

 

Do the climate predictions all disagree among themselves, or are they all wrong? If you're aware of the diversity of predictions, you should also know that they aren't all far of the mark. As for the diversity of predictions, a lot of that is based on things we admit we can't predict for certain, like how much CO2 we actually end up emitting (different scenarios predict different levels of emissions.) There are also natural phenomena like volcanic eruptions and la nina oscillations that the models are often not even trying to predict, because of the inherent difficulty. In general, the models that made the correct assumptions about these unpredictable factors are much closer.

So yes, there *will* be a diversity of projections. Even if our current understanding of carbon dioxide is absolutely spot on, other factors create a large margin of uncertainty all on their own.

China is investing big in low-carbon energy. Their renewable energy investments are expected to drive up global copper consumption by 2 percent over the next five years. Imagine that; Literally one in fifty pounds of copper consumed worldwide will be used for renewable energy in China. That tells you something about the scale. Just yesterday (Dec.16) , China also approved the construction of four more nuclear reactors, making a total of eight announced this year. They're serious about cutting carbon, and also about reducing air pollution- an often overlooked consequence of fossil fuels. The last thing we need is for similar infrastructure developments here in the U.S. to be stymied for political purposes.