Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Does this help?

More here:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrc...Report_Eng.pdf

Just read the synopsis.

The real fear of CC in Canada, is more likely (in my opinion) , the sad prospect of driving the national sport indoors. Of course, moves by busybodies across the frozen plain are already applying pressure of another kind...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...190814249.html

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Perhaps the world is more complex than your greenhouse. Just a thought.

(Also, the greenhouse effect is poorly named and has very little to do with actual greenhouses.)

Well, Ok. Let's ride with that concept. Oh wait. Us alleged "deniers" already do.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well, Ok. Let's ride with that concept. Oh wait. Us alleged "deniers" already do.

Wait.

You are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change because the physics of a greenhouse is not the same as the physics of the "greenhouse effect"?

Huh.

EDIT: I realized I didn't know to which of my two statements you referred. But I guess my statement is essentially the same: You are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change because the world is more complex than a greenhouse?

[StuM]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lindabarzini
I judge a person's intelligence political affiliation by his skepticism to AGW.

FTFY.

Do tell! What's my political affiliation?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by fryewe

For jack...who probably feels this way every day...

Dilbert Comic Strip on 2013-09-26 | Dilbert by Scott Adams

So which one is Jack?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Wait.

You are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change because the physics of a greenhouse is not the same as the physics of the "greenhouse effect"?

Huh.

What can I say? I must be living under a different rock. Perhaps you could explain it to me.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

What can I say? I must be living under a different rock. Perhaps you could explain it to me.

On Earth, solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface. The surface itself emits energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases also radiate energy, some of which is directed to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

The only "fact" that seems overwhelming and maybe most closely approaches 97% is that the Earth is experiencinged a long-term warming trend since the end of the LIA about 150 years ago , and that humans are likely influencinged it to some degree. The amount of warming and how much is man-made is what is so unsettled, and of course critical when it comes to our response.

There, fixed it for you. We don't know whether it is still warming

You forgot the the critical unsettled question:
What is likely to happen to climate in the next couple of hundred years?

And that's the one that is most unsettled - primarily as a result of the lack of research into drivers of natural climate change because of the over emphasis on CO2.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

I see, so like this?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I see, so like this?

NO. "Greenhouse" is a metaphor.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

And that's the one that is most unsettled - primarily as a result of the lack of research into drivers of natural climate change because of the over emphasis on CO2.

Solar Variability has been discounted.

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.

The CLOUD experiment at CERN was established to study the hypothesis of Hendrik Svensmark, that cosmic rays have an impact on climate change.

A review of the relevance of the 'CLOUD' results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate

Anatoly Erlykin, Terry Sloan, Arnold Wolfendale

(Submitted on 23 Aug 2013)

The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in 'sensitizing' atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there will be a small global cooling, not warming.

A review of the relevance of the 'CLOUD' results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate
Anatoly Erlykin, Terry Sloan, Arnold Wolfendale
(Submitted on 23 Aug 2013)
The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in 'sensitizing' atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there will be a small global cooling, not warming.


Comments:6 pages, 1 figureSubjects:Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)Journal reference:Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 2013, 121, 137-142DOI:10.1007/s00703-013-0260-xCite as:arXiv:1308.5067 [physics.ao-ph] (or arXiv:1308.5067v1 [physics.ao-ph] for this version)

The MSM does not cover much of this.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I see, so like this?

https://archive.org/stream/londonedi...e/319/mode/1up

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

NO. "Greenhouse" is a metaphor.

...which is quoted ad nauseam by alarmists.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

https://archive.org/stream/londonedi...e/319/mode/1up

I wouldn't focus too much on you Wikipedia link (oh wait, you didn't ;-) ). It's not entirely correct.

Moving on, what's the difference between "placebo" and "placebo effect"?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

...which is quoted ad nauseam by alarmists.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

The technically correct term is radiative forcing.