Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... The one constant in the universe is the speed of light. Everything else is inn constant flux. No reason to expect climate to be any different whether natural or anthropogenic.

In the interest of accuracy, there are quite a few more than one universal constant, including (but not limited to):
atomic mass constant
Avogadro constant
Boltzmann constant
conductance quantum
electric constant
electron mass
electron volt
elementary charge
Faraday constant
fine-structure constant
inverse fine-structure constant
magnetic constant
magnetic flux quantum
molar gas constant
Newtonian constant of gravitation
Planck constant
Planck constant over 2 pi
proton mass
proton-electron mass ratio
Rydberg constant
speed of light in vacuum
Stefan-Boltzmann constant

➥ Fundamental Physical Constants from NIST

Thanks for your expert input, adoxograph

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by GordMay

In the interest of accuracy, there are quite a few more than one universal constant, including (but not limited to):
atomic mass constant
Avogadro constant
Boltzmann constant
conductance quantum
electric constant
electron mass
electron volt
elementary charge
Faraday constant
fine-structure constant
inverse fine-structure constant
magnetic constant
magnetic flux quantum
molar gas constant
Newtonian constant of gravitation
Planck constant
Planck constant over 2 pi
proton mass
proton-electron mass ratio
Rydberg constant
speed of light in vacuum
Stefan-Boltzmann constant

➥ Fundamental Physical Constants from NIST

Thanks for your expert input, adoxograph

And taxes you forgot taxes

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

And taxes you forgot taxes

Taxes only increase unlike the earth's temperature.... whatever that is.

Meanwhile here on the boat, I'm having trouble keeping my gelato the right consistency. In the icemaker, it's too hard. Kept in the freezer, it's too soft.

Oh... the horror.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

In the interest of accuracy, there are quite a few more than one universal constant, including (but not limited to):
atomic mass constant
Avogadro constant
Boltzmann constant
conductance quantum
electric constant
electron mass
electron volt
elementary charge
Faraday constant
fine-structure constant
inverse fine-structure constant
magnetic constant
magnetic flux quantum
molar gas constant
Newtonian constant of gravitation
Planck constant
Planck constant over 2 pi
proton mass
proton-electron mass ratio
Rydberg constant
speed of light in vacuum
Stefan-Boltzmann constant

➥ Fundamental Physical Constants from NIST

Thanks for your expert input, adoxograph

Goddammit. Knew I shoulda googled first.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SailOar]

I trust your job isn't one of those being cut. You may be jeopardizing your career posting on this thread!

Australia Cuts 110 Climate Scientist Jobs

Because the science is settled there is no need for more basic research, the government says...

As many as 110 out of 140 positions at the atmosphere and oceans division at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) will be cut, Larry Marshall, the agency’s chief executive, told staff Friday. Another 120 positions will be cut from the land and water program. Across the agency, 350 climate staff will be moved into new roles unrelated to their specialty...

CSRIO is a federally funded research agency akin to NASA in the United States. Its climate change program is the largest in the nation and the most advanced in the Southern Hemisphere, a part of the world that is 80 percent ocean and is home to 12 percent of the world’s population. The bottom half of the planet has historically been understudied, a problem because gaps in monitoring the Southern Hemisphere mean gaps in understanding the global climate. CSIRO began filling in some gaps in the 1970s...

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Ok I received a couple of PM's and want to clarify some things:

1. Prof. Valentina Zharkova predicts in her paper a 60% reduction in solar activities, which I think she is spot on.

2. She does not predict a 60% reduction in solar output, which would be a catastrophic event. A 60% reduction of power output would mean that the Sun has reached nearly the end of the main sequence and has fused most of its H to He. As the sun is running out of conventional fusion fuel it is becoming a red giant and would swallow whatever is left of earth.

No worries all of that needs much more time than 25 years. It will (very roughly) start in about 3x10^9 years and last for ~2x10^9 years and I think by then the conditions will hardly allow for any life on Earth. In the end all the terrestrial planets will be gone and only whats left of the jovians will orbit a white dwarf.

3. What Zharkova means by writing that the suns activities will be reduced by 60% around 2030 is: less sunspots, solar flares and granulates on the surface of the sun. Also a slight reduction of solar wind. The energy output will be similar what you see right now but the difference is that this low surface activity of the sun will last the whole 11 year cycle #26.

Please see also my earlier posts in regards to this subject:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2120566

and

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2120413

I hope that clears it up

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Not at all. But for different reasons. Only big change in solar output would have a impact on temperature.

The reference you quoted is very accurate and a nice understandable sumary, except the last paragraph. I'll tell you why the last paragraph is making Valentina pulling her hair out.

I met Prof. Valentina Zharkova at a convention in Tenarife. At breakfast one of our group called her the "ice queen": because of the storm of misinformation her paper has caused. She was not amused.

Nowhere in her paper did she mention any form of cooling. Her paper was about a model for the sun’s magnetic field and sunspots, which predicts a 60% fall in sunspot numbers when extrapolated to the 2030s.

Btw. I work with Zharkova's model determining spots and magnetic activities on exoplanetary host stars.

The whole thing started when the PR guy of the Royal Society called her preparing a press release. As he did not understand "solar activities at a minimum" she said something along the line of "you know like the Maunder minimum" in the middle ages. The overly diligent PR guy made a mini-iceage out of that and released the whole thing without her knowledge.

She regrets having done this every time a Journalist calls asking for information about global cooling predicted by her.

Why does it not matter? Earth systems will always reach a state of radiative equilibrium that is

incoming radiative energy from the Sun = outgoing radiation of planet

That means that the planet is in energy balance. If a planet is not in radiative equilibrium the temperature of the planet will increase or decrease.

The amount of incoming radiation depends on the albedo of the planet or in other word the amount of incoming radiation which is not reflected back out in space. The amount of incoming radiation is determined by

P_in=(σT_⊙^4)(4πR_⊙^2)(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))

where (σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 ) represents the luminosity and a the albedo. Rp is the radius of the planet and D the distance to the star.

Considering the planet as a blackbody any radiation reaching the planet is radiated as heat (Stefan-Boltzman Law) as follows:

P=σAT^4

where T is temperature. A is the area (=4πR_p^2) as a planet most likely emits radiation spread over the whole surface which is close to a sphere. Therefore the outgoing radiation is

P_out=(σT_eq^4)(4πR_p^2)
where Teq is ((L_⊙ (1-a))/(16σπD^2 ))^(1/4)

Consequently the planet is in radiative equilibrium when

(σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 )(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))=(σT_eq^4 )(4πR_p^2 )

What does that mean for Earth? Assuming the surface of the earth without atmosphere would pretty barren I assume an albedo a=0.12 (similar to the Moon). R_⊙=6.96×108m, T_⊙=5778K, D=1.496×1011m. Rearanging the above equations we can determine T_eq by

T_eq=T_⊙ (1-a)^(1/4) (R_⊙/2D)^(1/2)=5778K(1- 0.12)^(1/4) ((6.96×10^8 m)/(2*1.496×10^11 m))^(1/2)=269.9K

If we consider Earth’s real albedo of a=0.3 we get an even lower T_eq of 254.9K. The difference to the real measured average temperature on the surface of the earth of ~287K is caused by greenhouse effect of earth’s relatively thick atmosphere. So first of all we should be grateful for the greenhouse gases, because without them Earth would be a frozen ball of ice and we would most likely not existat all.

You see solar activity plays a rather minor role. Most of the temperature control happens in the atmosphere. Maybe I'll show you how that works when I have time to prepare something.

Very much appreciated, and it is a luxury to have someone with actual knowledge of relevant subject matter on the thread. Thanks again!

[Lake-Effect]

As expected, Delfin's gone quiet again on CO2 and his magic molecules.

Because I'm lazy and impatient (unlike mr_f or Jackdale, thanks folks) I would have simply pointed out to him that the percentage of CO2 has gone up by 40% in the last 200 or so years, and it tracks the amount of CO2 that has been contributed by burning of fossil fuel, and as shown in one of the graphs that Delfin himself linked to, there's a corresponding warming. So, regardless of the magic in'em, there's more of the pesky molecules up there than there would be without fossil-fuels, we added them in 200 short years, and they will take many centuries to come back down. "3%" is not much of a fig leaf to hide behind. BTW, in this economy, if a western country offered a bond at 3% pa, people would line up for blocks.

Another thing that Delfin remains silent on is what will happen by 2100 if we do nothing. Apparently he has no understanding that the concentration is going to keep going up.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

So you still are confused about the human contribution to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration?

I made no claims that CO2 would be constant.

The ocean is currently absorbing CO2. It cannot explain the increase. Same with the terrestrial systems.

What do you think does explain the increase? We have put more CO2 into the atmospheric than the atmosphere has gained. Some was absorbed elsewhere.

Please explain to me the process by which you think atmospheric CO2 is increasing. Both the oceans and the land are absorbing more CO2 than they are emitting. They are both net carbon sinks and have been for the recent past. So it isn't oceans or land. Do you think it is aliens? Perhaps they are taking away our emissions and replacing it with CO2 from another source. What were you saying earlier about delusions?

Since the earth has cooled and warmed countless times in the past thermal equilibrium never seems to stick for long, so I would suggest you look to those processes for an explanation of why there is a current build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Or, you can pretend that the 12 molecules per million humans put out are the problem and vote to spend trillions to prevent that from increasing to 13 molecules per million with the delusion you are doing something positive rather than wasting resources that could actually accomplish something.

[SailOar]

Is there a right way to talk about climate change? | Christian Science Monitor

In three different tests, the authors of a study found that 'emphasizing collective responsibility for the causes of climate change' – rather than focusing on personal guilt – increased monetary donations to environmental causes.

Contrary to popular opinion, climate communication researchers say personal appeals are largely ineffective. Instead of focusing on individual guilt and fear to illicit environmental action, activists, organizations, and politicians will see better results by framing the issue of climate change as a collective effort already moving in the right direction.

“It is widely assumed that emphasizing personal responsibility for climate change is effective at increasing pro-climate behavior whereas collectively framing the causes of climate change diffuses responsibility and dampens the incentive for individual action,” authors Nick Obradovich and Scott Guenther explain in their paper. “We observe the opposite result.”

After three different tests, Obradovich and Guenther found that “emphasizing collective responsibility for the causes of climate change,” instead of shaming through personal guilt, increases monetary donations to environmental causes. On average, environmental group members increased their donations by seven percent when the issue was framed collectively, and the general public increased individual donations by 50 percent...

“Although shocking, catastrophic, and large-scale representations of the impacts of climate change may well act as an initial hook for people’s attention and concern, they clearly do not motivate a sense of personal engagement with the issue and indeed may act to trigger barriers to engagement such as denial,” explains a frequently cited paper from 2009 titled "Fear Won’t Do It."

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

This link is not based on the paper this is based on the press release of the Royal Astronomical Society the one which makes Valentina kind of angry.

To answer your question. That is what she told us. In regards to odd perspective? Not at all. She was working in a different field and did not even consider a potential impact on the radiative equilibrium of Earth. For astrophysicist like her (and me) Maunder is not equal to "Oh **** we are entering a mini ice age" it is equal to "wtf - no freaking solar activity? Let's find out why!"

And yes, she regrettably mentioned Maunder to the PR guy as an example, not knowing he would take it literally and publish it. He was overly excited as the PR-release also stated that "the drop in sunspots may resemble the Maunder minimum (remember this is not in the paper only in the press release!), a 17th century lull in solar activity", and even includes a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject. And then it notes that the Maunder minimum coincided with a mini ice age.

All it shows is a massive breakdown of the control systems of the Royal Astronomical Society. The press release should have never gone out without her approval! But honestly it is not the first failure of science communication. But I also blame the so called science reporter, a journalist who did not even bother to read her paper (most likely because he did not understand it) and published info sourced from Wikipedia without checking the facts.

I PM you her email, so you can ask herself.

Here is the link to the press release

And this here is for the Article

As I have access to all journals through my university account I would not know if the article is behind a paywall. PM me if it is.

Please bare in mind that science is not like religion. We admit when something is wrong and change it. Our knowledge grows every day and is not fixed in dogma.

Thanks again for the clarification. A misinterpretation of a published paper by a non scientist isn't unusual and I'm rather glad she and her colleagues are not anticipating the weather of 1750, when you could walk to Staten Island from Manhattan on the ice.

And I also agree that true science is constantly changing and being updated, which is why you only hear statements about climate science being settled from those either without an understanding of the process, or from scientists who place politics above knowledge. Ironically, those who continue to argue that the "science is settled" with regard to human impacts on climate are going to be responsible for losing access to research funding by politicians who find it convenient to take them at their word. Judith Curry has an interesting comment on this topic here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/04/n...ce-is-settled/

Pull quote: "Judith Curry message to climate scientists advocating for more funding at the same time they are claiming ‘settled science’ [e.g. Marcia McNutt]: you have been hoisted on your own petard. You are slaying climate science in the interests of promoting a false and meaningless consensus.".

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Since the earth has cooled and warmed countless times in the past thermal equilibrium never seems to stick for long, so I would suggest you look to those processes for an explanation of why there is a current build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Or, you can pretend that the 12 molecules per million humans put out are the problem and vote to spend trillions to prevent that from increasing to 13 molecules per million with the delusion you are doing something positive rather than wasting resources that could actually accomplish something.

Ok, first you're confusing thermal equilibrium with "temperature didn't change". Yes there have been temperature changes; you don't know when or whether thermal equilibrium was achieved at each point.

When we have a good idea of how much CO2 has been added from burning fossil fuels, and the atmospheric concentration has increased in lockstep with that, there's no need to chase "natural processes" for what is decidedly an unnaturally fast buildup. Maybe you can stop pretending that it's anything else but our own contribution.

"12 to 13" - haha. Once again - do you have any idea what the concentration could get to by 2100 if emissions are not reduced?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I trust your job isn't one of those being cut. You may be jeopardizing your career posting on this thread!

Australia Cuts 110 Climate Scientist Jobs

I read the article now it is proven that governments are just in it for the money
Here is a quote from the article
On Feb. 3, Marshall wrote in a memo that CSIRO would henceforth focus on commercially viable projects. The next day, during a staff meeting, he said all climate change programs would be cut.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Hah. I thought you'd go there.

Everyone and his dog knows that the climate has changed and will change. It's also pretty common usage to refer to this issue around AGW as "climate change"; only a pedant would misinterpret what's meant by "climate change denier". But since you're that one, please take as given that I meant AGW denier.

Good clarification. When you say someone is a climate change denier it is such a transparent lie that one presumes that whatever you say next is also likely a lie. So, since you are edging towards a truthful characterization of those who disagree with you, perhaps you can make the next step.

No one I know of is an AGW denier. A gnat fart causes an increase in the force of the hurricane as does the temperature of the ocean. The question is where on the scale of impacts do human contributions lie. I am skeptical that the 12 molecules have magical properties. I don't deny they must have some effect. I am skeptical that even if those 12 molecules have magical properties that is is worth spending trillions to reduce them by 1%.

See, I'm not an AGW denier, I'm an AGW skeptic. But even if the term 'denier' is clearly a lie, if you want to continue to brand yourself a liar whenever you use it, feel free. Helps us put into perspective whatever else you have to say.

[SV THIRD DAY]

The Alyinski left uses the term Climate Denier to form a comparison to holocaust denier, or a racist, or hater bla bla bla. It is part of the game they play in an attempt to silence those who haven't converted to their religion yet. Now the Tryanical AGs want to prosecute the evil deniers for hate speech.
It's what the left does...and what I do is call them out on it, which angers them when you say not just that "the emperor has no clothes" but "he is trying to take your clothes as well out of social justice".

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Ironically, those who continue to argue that the "science is settled" with regard to human impacts on climate are going to be responsible for losing access to research funding by politicians who find it convenient to take them at their word. Judith Curry has an interesting comment on this topic here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/04/n...ce-is-settled/

Pull quote: "Judith Curry message to climate scientists advocating for more funding at the same time they are claiming ‘settled science’ [e.g. Marcia McNutt]: you have been hoisted on your own petard. You are slaying climate science in the interests of promoting a false and meaningless consensus.".

That's a valid point.

Also consider:

• "AGW is a scam"
• "there's no consensus"
• scientists are fudging their results. Climategate!
• climate scientists are just going along for the grants
• NOAA, NASA, [insert any science organization/institution here] - they're all in on the scam
• any western government that backs IPCC is in on the scam

How do you imagine that is affecting climate science?

You ARE an AGW denier, based on your past posts. If that rankles you, it should. However if you'd like to clearly restate your stance regarding whether human activity is contributing significant additional amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere AND whether or not this additional CO2 is causing warming, I would be happy to reconsider.