Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

1. You are totally ignoring the carbon cycle....

So no, just knowing how much we are producing doesn't tell us how much ends in the atmosphere.

You are ignoring how the carbon-cycle works.

Human use of fossil fuels is a rapid, huge, unnatural release of carbon that's been gathered and sequestered over millions of years. Expecting that the natural carbon cycle will suddenly step up its game to mop up all of this huge addition is wishful thinking, and pretty much disproven by the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.

We can and have measured this takeup. The process is still being studied but there's evidence that the recapture won't be able to keep up with our current emission levels, which suggests that the atmospheric CO2 levels will spike when that limit is reached.

About 25% of the current uptake is done by the oceans, in the form of acidification. (CO2 + H2O ⇌ H2CO3). Not something we really want to continue indefinitely.

All this is factored into the predictions and limit-setting, btw.

2. "Do you really believe that we know "how much of each fuel is being burnt?"

We may have a figure for how much oil is produced, but how much of that is used for manufacture of petrochemical based products?

[ 13%, Stu... ]

Do you really believe the China, India, Russia for instance are accurately reporting all of their energy consumption? How many third world countries provide accurate energy statistics? Those IEA etc figures are little more than guesswork.

We measure and track the extraction, processing, sale, transport and consumption of fossil fuels pretty well. Publicly-traded companies are involved in most of these activities; investors insist on knowing this stuff. The CIA is quite interested. If a country imports coal, oil or gas, we pretty much know they're gonna burn most of it.

There's quite a bit more than guesswork.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

And I hate to break this to you, but **'s paper was refuted here: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...to_**_etal.pdf. Lindzen, so your "prediction" is not so much a successful prediction as a portrayal of one side of a scientific debate.

Spencer and Christy admitted their mistake.

The ** et al paper referenced is from 2004.

How did Lindzen refute it in 2002 before it was published?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

From that link:

We found a rich array of changes in ice seasonality of two inland waters from geographically distant regions: namely a shift towards later ice formation for Suwa and earlier spring melt for Torne, increasing frequencies of years with warm extremes, changing inter-annual variability, waning of dominant inter-decadal quasi-periodic dynamics, and stronger correlations of ice seasonality with atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature after the start of the Industrial Revolution. Although local factors, including human population growth, land use change, and water management influence Suwa and Torne, the general patterns of ice seasonality are similar for both systems, suggesting that global processes including climate change and variability are driving the long-term changes in ice seasonality.

So... thanks.

Yes indeed. So it has been warming for centuries and long before human emissions of CO2 were a factor. So......thanks.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you don't know why and how the conclusion that increasing CO2 causes warming was arrived at... (and apparently you don't)... you probably shouldn't be commenting on it.

LE, if the climate were as simple as simple minds would like it to be then you would be an expert. Unfortunately, it is a bit more complex than that. It is quite true and no one disputes that increased atmospheric CO2 causes warming. So does lighting a fire in an apartment building. Which also, by the way, triggers a negative feedback in the form of fire sprinklers which puts out the fire and causes cooling. If the atmosphere were the simple system you seem to think it is, then there wouldn't be feedbacks resulting from carbon enrichment. But it isn't simple.

One example: Because the climate system is so freaking complex, all models the IPCC reports on include simplifying assumptions, the principle one of which is that relative humidity will remain unchanged where ever you are in the atmosphere.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...8s8-6-3-1.html (hint: when you see a statement, followed by an "if", followed by a qualifier, you are being told the first statement being true is subject to whatever follows the "if", a.k.a. a simplifying assumption.)

This is a critical simplifying assumption because water vapor, at least in the IPCC models doubles the forcing effect of CO2, but only if the effect of a given relative humidity is constant. The simple fact is that we don't know if rh can be treated as uniform although early conclusions from research being done by Spencer and Christy suggest it cannot be. If it were, then one of the consequences of this assumption being correct is that we should see a tropical hotspot develop as the planet warms. Problem is, there isn't one and the reason there isn't one is likely because the assumption of uniform action of rh is wrong. And if it is wrong, then you can kiss the entire IPCC modeling effort goodbye as hopelessly flawed. The failures of these models may be because at different altitudes and different wind patterns, water vapor isn't a positive feedback but a negative one. This goes a long way to explaining why the IPCC models all failed to predict the now 20 year long cessation in statistically significant warming not explained by the natural El Nino weather pattern, and why there is no tropical hotspot.

At this time, we don't have the computing power to model the climate with sufficient granularity to take into account the cooling effect of wind on water vapor at small enough cell sizes to avoid having to pretend that the main driver of warming - water vapor - behaves the same wherever you are and at whatever altitude.

As IPCC climate scientist Hans von Storch said in 2013 " So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year." So at least this climate expert certainly understands that the models have some basic problem, even if most warmists find that uncomfortable.

But if you would like to pretend, as warmists are wont to do, that the climate is just like a bell jar, then have at it. Your belief system won't change reality, and the reality is that the wheels are falling off the AGW bandwagon, just as they fell off space aether models a century ago.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

True, CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and temperatures are increasing, if at a slowing rate. It is also true that ambulances are always present when major car accidents occur. Concluding that CO2 is causative of increased temperatures is about as sound as concluding that ambulances cause car accidents. Hard scientific data will sort this out, and right now, that data suggests that arguing that human emissions of CO2 are responsible for warming is an increasingly asinine position to take.

Not understanding the mechanism of CO2 as a GHG is asinine.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Not understanding the mechanism of CO2 as a GHG is asinine.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Assuming that increasing CO2 automatically causes the climate system to warm without taking into account feedback mechanisms doesn't qualify as asinine. It is simple ignorance in action.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Assuming that increasing CO2 automatically causes the climate system to warm without taking into account feedback mechanisms doesn't qualify as asinine. It is simple ignorance in action.

Who denies feedback mechanisms? Not me.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

One example: Because the climate system is so freaking complex, all models the IPCC reports on include simplifying assumptions, the principle one of which is that relative humidity will remain unchanged where ever you are in the atmosphere.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...8s8-6-3-1.html (hint: when you see a statement, followed by an "if", followed by a qualifier, you are being told the first statement being true is subject to whatever follows the "if", a.k.a. a simplifying assumption.)

You links says no such thing.

The humidity distribution within the tropical free troposphere is determined by many factors, including the detrainment of vapour and condensed water from convective systems and the large-scale atmospheric circulation. The relatively dry regions of large-scale descent play a major role in tropical LW cooling, and changes in their area or humidity could potentially have a significant impact on water vapour feedback strength (Pierrehumbert, 1999; Lindzen et al., 2001; Peters and Bretherton, 2005). Given the complexity of processes controlling tropical humidity, however, simple convincing physical arguments about changes under global-scale warming are difficult to sustain, and a combination of modelling and observational studies are needed to assess the reliability of model water vapour feedback.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Spencer and Christy admitted their mistake.

The ** et al paper referenced is from 2004.

How did Lindzen refute it in 2002 before it was published?

The ** paper in 2004 dealt with the same topic as a 2001 ** paper that Lindzen was addressing. He summarized his position in a 2011 paper and scientists have been going back and forth on the effect of surface warming on cloud formation, and the effects of water vapor in different places in the atmosphere for years. You presented one side of an ongoing debate as if it were proof of a successful prediction. It isn't. It is a debate that will be resolved at some point.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You links says no such thing.

May I suggest an optometrist?

"Absorption of LW radiation increases approximately with the logarithm of water vapour concentration, while the Clausius-Clapeyron equation dictates a near-exponential increase in moisture-holding capacity with temperature. Since tropospheric and surface temperatures are closely coupled (see Section 3.4.1), these constraints predict a strongly positive water vapour feedback if relative humidity (RH) is close to unchanged. "

In other words, if the effect of rh in the atmosphere is not close to unchanged, then the strongly positive feedback is false.

So, would you like to provide us with evidence that this simplifying assumption is correct?

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

If the climate scare people of the 1970's had been right... we would have frozen to death by 2000.

If Al Gore had been right, Miami would only be able to be toured by glass bottom boat by now.

The climate scare people don't have a very good record for accuracy.

Can you show me stats on all this great information of yours?

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I wonder how many megatons of Jack's CO2 is produced by manufacturing all of the unnecessary plastic packaging we chuck in the trash every day?

Me thinks the Chinese are going to take America by causing millions of tiny (and some large) cuts caused by us attempting to remove items encased in the clear plastic. I just purchased a FoodSaver device earlier today, and boy was it a challenge to remove it from the packaging without cutting myself.

Maybe if we can reduce the plastic packaging, Jack will be able to enjoy living in an igloo?

Ken...You've got it all wrong my friend. The Chinese have been shipping us archless shoes for the past 35 years. We all have fallen arches and will not be able to run when they invade.

[SailOar]

Climate Models May Overstate Clouds’ Cooling Power, Research Says | New York Times

The computer models that predict climate change may be overestimating the cooling power of clouds, new research suggests. If the findings are borne out by further research, it suggests that making progress against global warming will be even harder.

The new paper, in the journal Science, focuses on what are known as mixed-phase clouds, which are found around the world and contain both cooled water and ice crystals.

The balance of water and ice in clouds affects the impact that carbon dioxide levels have on atmospheric temperatures, a factor known as equilibrium climate sensitivity. A higher sensitivity would mean that carbon dioxide levels would cause more warming than previously thought.

Water droplets reflect more solar radiation back into the sky than ice crystals do. As the atmosphere warms, clouds tend to have more water and less ice in them, and the more watery clouds prevent solar radiation from reaching the earth. Warming is slowed.

With less ice in the mix to start, however, there is less capacity for water to replace ice, said Ivy Tan, an author of the paper and a graduate student at the department of geology and geophysics at Yale University. The result, she said, is more warming.

Other recent studies have suggested that climate models may not be accurately assessing the balance of water and ice in clouds in some circumstances.

The new paper suggests the effects of a flaw in the model could be serious: Based on its analysis of one model of climate change, the cloud error could mean an additional 1.3 degrees Celsius of warming than expected.

Negotiators at last year’s climate talks in Paris approved a target of keeping temperatures from rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius over average temperatures in the preindustrial era. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that keeping global average temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) could prevent some of the disastrous effects of climate change from occurring.

The new paper, then, if proved correct, would narrow the range left for the climate panel’s goal to 0.7 degree, and the Paris target to just 0.2 degree Celsius.[...]

[newhaul]

Something just occurred to me. The more that MMGW is disproved by anti mmgw scientists, and pro mmgw predictions dont materalize. The more the pro mmgw scientists seem to find new data to explain why that it didnt happen and to keep the studies going and keep the funding flowing for another generation.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Something just occurred to me. The more that MMGW is disproved by anti mmgw scientists, and pro mmgw predictions dont materalize. The more the pro mmgw scientists seem to find new data to explain why that it didnt happen and to keep the studies going and keep the funding flowing for another generation.

Well, MMGW or AGW or whatever has not been disproved. In fact many deniers have retreated to the skeptic "well ok it's happening, but we just don't know how much" position.

Everybody and their dog knows that this is an ongoing field of study. Well, at least one group is studying...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, MMGW or AGW or whatever has not been disproved. In fact many deniers have retreated to the skeptic "well ok it's happening, but we just don't know how much".

Everybody and their dog knows that this is an ongoing field of study. Well, at least one group is studying...

Seems to me that the study is more about explaining why things aren't happening that they say will , when they say it will. Haven't seen any actual new scientific info released in many years. Just explanations as to why it isn't happening like they said it would.