Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Do you agree with the author that:

I repeat, once again, that I believe that the balance of the evidence suggests that man-made global warming could become a significant problem for humanity as this century unfolds.

Yes? No?

The author's statement puts the actions by Mann, Trenberth, et al, in making this video in context...it's a BS propaganda effort and is antithetical to what real scientists do.

Whether I agree with his statement, or not, is immaterial.

If climate science is real science, why is there a legal defense fund for climate scientists to fund their efforts to block FOIA requests for their work using public monies?

Climate Science Legal Defense Fund

If public viewing of publicly funded science work is such a big problem, why is there not a physical science defense fund, or a natural science defense fund, or a medical science defense fund, or an aeronautical science defense fund, or a nuclear science defense fund, or a...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Meanwhile the 70% of the globe' surface called the oceans is warming.

Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2915.html

Published today.

Can you upload a bootleg copy of that paper so we can critique it?

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Meanwhile the 70% of the globe' surface called the oceans is warming.

Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2915.html

Published today.

With a highly active 30 year phase of the solar cycles just behind us, are you REALLY prepared to ignore that?

I tell you this much Jack, what REALLY worries me, is the prospect that we may well be on the verge of a Sun cycle that terrified our ancestors so much, that every civilisation around the World devoted massive resources and energy towards keeping a very close eye on its moods, and would even go so far as sacrificing human beings in their attempts to appease it.

In the last 5,000 years, there have been at least 3 extreme, long term droughts, that have wreaked havoc. One being the 100 year drought that ended Egypt's Old Kingdom, and it was so bad, that in attempts to keep a breeding population going, they were killing and eating their children.

We do not have a stable star at the centre of our solar system, and we do not live on a stable planet.

I just hope I don't have to live long enough to see such a natural extreme rear its very ugly head.

It's bloody ridiculous attempting to blame human beings for that reality.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Ribbit

PS. All the evidence is now seriously stacking up behind "It's the Sun, stupid".

Really

You had better take your Cult of Ra beliefs up with the solar scientists.

The sun provides most of the energy for the earth, but its role in climate change is not significant.

From the Stanford Solar Center:

During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth's climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf



++++++++++++++++++++++

Some science for you

Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium
Andrew P. Schurer, Simon F. B. Tett & Gabriele C. Hegerl

Nature Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo2040

Received 02 August 2013 Accepted 14 November 2013 Published online 22 December 2013

The climate of the past millennium was marked by substantial decadal and centennial scale variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Low solar activity has been linked to cooling during the Little Ice Age (AD 1450–1850; ref. 1) and there may have been solar forcing of regional warmth during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (AD 950–1250; ref. 1). The amplitude of the associated changes is, however, poorly constrained with estimates of solar forcing spanning almost an order of magnitude. Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions. Here we compare the climatic fingerprints of high and low solar forcing derived from model simulations with an ensemble of surface air temperature reconstructions for the past millennium. Our methodology also accounts for internal climate variability and other external drivers such as volcanic eruptions, as well as uncertainties in the proxy reconstructions and model output. We find that neither a high magnitude of solar forcing nor a strong climate effect of that forcing agree with the temperature reconstructions. We instead conclude that solar forcing probably had a minor effect on Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, while, volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations seem to be the most important influence over this period.

++++++++++++++++++

Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

OPEN ACCESS FOCUS ON HIGH ENERGY PARTICLES AND ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES

T Sloan and A W Wolfendale 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045022
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022

Abstract

Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by Ribbit

We do not have a stable star at the centre of our solar system and we do not live on a stable planet. It's bloody ridiculous attempting to blame human beings for that reality.

yep .. bloody ridiculous it is

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Ribbit

With a highly active 30 year phase of the solar cycles just behind us, are you REALLY prepared to ignore that?

I tell you this much Jack, what REALLY worries me, is the prospect that we may well be on the verge of a Sun cycle that terrified our ancestors so much, that every civilisation around the World devoted massive resources and energy towards keeping a very close eye on its moods, and would even go so far as sacrificing human beings in their attempts to appease it.

The sun's activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don't expect a little ice age. "Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment," Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. "We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years."

Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first "grand solar minimum" for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn't happen.

But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age.Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. "

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some peer - reviewed science might calm your fears.

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood

Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7535 doi:10.1038/ncomms8535
Received 23 May 2014 Accepted 14 May 2015 Published 23 June 2015Article tools

Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Can you upload a bootleg copy of that paper so we can critique it?

I have only seen the abstract,

A Forbes report (Forbes Welcome)

and a news release (Ocean warming doubles in recent decades)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Mann, Trenberth and Santer?
The unholy trinity of the alarmist cult.

I'm not sure whether that video reminds me more of the techniques of SS or of answersingenesis

Carl Mears gets more air time in the video than those three put together. He is the RSS guy who does not like his data cherry picked and believes that surface data is more reliable.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have only seen the abstract,

A Forbes report (Forbes Welcome)

and a news release (Ocean warming doubles in recent decades)

I'd like to sea (sic) some figures involving thermal coefficients of expansion.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale:
Check the up arrows.

Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well, well, well. Not surprised to see this in the fine print of your link...

Quote:
The mean sea level (MSL) trends measured by tide gauges that are presented on this web site are local relative MSL trends as opposed to the global sea level trend. Tide gauge measurements are made with respect to a local fixed reference level on land; therefore, if there is some long-term vertical land motion occurring at that location, the relative MSL trend measured there is a combination of the global sea level rate and the local vertical land motion.

Sometimes it's important to read the fine print, no? Thanks for highlighting this, Reef.

Given all the variables, trying to uncover evidence of MMGW by sea level rise seems even more uncertain than using surface & satellite temperature readings. At the risk of asking a dumb question, but if the surrounding land areas are subject to rising & falling for the several reasons described, then why not the sea floor? Isn't that height also variable due to the same volcanoes, earthquakes, fissures, sink holes, subsidence due to offshore oil extraction, etc. (but not weight of ice, obviously) that afflicts the dry land bordering the oceans? If so, then why wouldn't these varying sea floor depths also affect the height of seawater along our coasts?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Do you agree with the author that:

I repeat, once again, that I believe that the balance of the evidence suggests that man-made global warming could become a significant problem for humanity as this century unfolds.

Yes? No?

or Maybe

IMNSHO, the key questions arising from that statement should be (and my response to them)

How much global warming can we actually expect and what proportion of any MMGW would be caused by CO2 from fossil fuel emissions compared to other man made changes to the environment? (Not much and not much)

What is the likelihood of that "could" ? (Not very)

How large is that "significant"? (Not very)

What sort of problem? (How do any problems compare to the benefits of a warmer world? Should we anticipate a net detriment or a net benefit)

What are the best solutions to possible future significant problems? (A mixture of mitigation and adaptation with the emphasis on the latter where the cost of mitigation is excessive)

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

Originally Posted by jackdale:
Check the up arrows.

Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents



Quote:
The mean sea level (MSL) trends measured by tide gauges that are presented on this web site are local relative MSL trends as opposed to the global sea level trend. Tide gauge measurements are made with respect to a local fixed reference level on land; therefore, if there is some long-term vertical land motion occurring at that location, the relative MSL trend measured there is a combination of the global sea level rate and the local vertical land motion.

Sometimes it's important to read the fine print, no? Thanks for highlighting this, Reef.

Given all the variables, trying to uncover evidence of MMGW by sea level rise seems even more uncertain than using surface & satellite temperature readings. At the risk of asking a dumb question, but if the surrounding land areas are subject to rising & falling for the several reasons described, then why not the sea floor? Isn't that height also variable due to the same volcanoes, earthquakes, fissures, sink holes, subsidence due to offshore oil extraction, etc. (but not weight of ice, obviously) that afflicts the dry land bordering the oceans? If so, then why wouldn't these varying sea floor depths also affect the height of seawater along our coasts?

The sea floor is subject to subduction. It's a process so active that no part of the deep sea bed is more than around 200 million years old.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction

I suspect - but could very well be wrong - this probably keeps the floor of the ocean relatively flat and stable for the most part. The land masses, bobbing around as they do, on the other hand...

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The truth about satellite measurements and global warming (Hint: Ted Cruz has it wrong) | Grist

Another marginally useful propaganda piece (guess which side? ) which includes a video featuring Michael Mann and a couple of other establishment climate guys. The article conveniently fails to mention that Admiral Titley -- an avid pro-MMGW guy -- also testified at length at the Ted Cruz congressional hearing, and the head of the Sierra Club was invited but declined to attend. The video was produced by "Yale Climate Connections." A quick look at their home page demonstrates their obvious bias as well: Yale Climate Connections - Listen. Watch. Read..

Anyway, the gist -- or is it "grist" -- of the video is that Christy & Spencer failed to account for "atmospheric friction" which caused their satellites to lose speed & thus altitude, and slowly drift closer to Earth, supposedly up to a km/year. It appears undisputed that the resulting loss of altitude created data which overestimated cooling. Mann & Co. do acknowledge the series of adjustments C & K subsequently made to account for this issue, but the video never shows Mann & Co. remarking whether those adjustments fixed this previously unaccounted for variable or not. Creative editing? While the article was published this month, I have a feeling this particular scenario involving the UAH satellites is pretty old news. It's long been known, for e.g., that the UAH data started off showing a cooling trend, then no change, and then finally a warming trend that is significantly cooler and thus at odds with the adjusted surface data.

Speaking of previously unaccounted for variables, why has Jack been so trusting about the legitimacy of the adjustments made to the surface data, but posts a blatantly biased link which tries to debunk adjustments to the UAH sat data? Besides, I thought Jack had "no issues" with this data? Probably the most useful part of the video was towards the end when the scientist who developed the RSS data implored Ted Cruz not to cherry pick one set of data, but to consider all the evidence, incl. surface temps. Isn't that exactly what several of us were trying to get Jack to do a little while back?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

When "climate scientists" do crap like this, they damage their credibility and don't deserve to be believed by non-experts (other than L-E, because...you know...consensus...):

Global Temperature Trend Propaganda Video: Who Needs Peer Review? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Woops! Should have read this link before posting, but it sounds like it agrees. What also got answered that I was curious about was whether the RSS data is in line with UAH, and this author anyway says that it is. If correct, then it means the adjusted surface data is the outlier.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Speaking of previously unaccounted for variables, why has Jack been so trusting about the legitimacy of the adjustments made to the surface data, but posts a blatantly biased link which tries to debunk adjustments to the UAH sat data? Besides, I thought Jack had "no issues" with this data? Probably the most useful part of the video was towards the end when the scientist who developed the RSS data implored Ted Cruz not to cherry pick one set of data, but to consider all the evidence, incl. surface temps. Isn't that exactly what several of us were trying to get Jack to do a little while back?

I thought UAH had corrected for those necessary adjustments.

OK surface data





And recognizing that HADcrut4 underestimates Arctic temperatures. (Cowtan and Way)