Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's absolutely true that there have been great strides made is reducing some pollutants. Our vehicles are vastly more efficient than they were decades ago, and many local water and air ways are cleaner now than they were in the 1970s/80s. Of course this just means we now buy more cars, have bigger houses, and more stuff. It's the Jevons paradox in action.

However, I was not referring to local pollution levels, but in overall resource usage. We in the rich developed world use a lot, and it continual increases. There was a brief reversal during the 2008 crash, but that quickly reversed itself. The trend continues upward.

My point in raising this is that you often read that the problem is overpopulation, and luckily that's not our problem. "It's those folks, over there who are having too many babies. They're to blame!" The real issue is unsustainable use of planetary resources. Population numbers drive this, but so does simple intensity of use. Population is expected to peak by mid to late 21st century, but our use of resources/capita keeps going up. And as countries like China and India transition into the "developed" club, they are following the same path.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...per_Capita.png

Total energy use per capita is certainly a useful measurement, but a measure of energy use compared to productivity might help tell the rest of the story, especially when considering the positive influence of technological advancement on some of the problems you've identified. That gets us back to Ken's now notorious article in Post #1.

[The Garbone]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The does provide most of the energy for earth, bit solar variability, about 0.1%, is insignificant in climate change.





From the Stanford Solar Center:

Wow, so the big furnace in the sky does nothing. Who would have guessed. Of course they are talking specifically about sun spots and not stellar output.

Reminds me of the famous 97% of scientists. Which when researched is 97% of 76 "climate change" scientist asked said it was an important subject. This gets warped to "all scientists" and then someone throws on 2% to get it to 99% so they can sound authoritative. All the while blowing smoke up everyone's buttocks.

Just like during the hearings in DC. Alarmists decrying sea level rises in Miami beach and the Big Easy. Both of which have had flooding issues since there founding. Why is not the Battery in New York under water?


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[SV THIRD DAY]

You know....some days I just have to ask myself how I'm so blessed to be one of the few that sees the humor in this story. No doubt the MMGWC will call this a heresy akin to drawing a cartoon of the prophet Mohamed, but friends trust me...the MMGW scam is just starting to get fun!

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels COOLS planet, says NASA | UK | News | Daily Express

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels COOLS planet, says NASA | UK | News | Daily Express

What part of aerosols did you miss? The cooling effect of aerosols, be they volcanic or industrial, has been known for quite some time.

Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author, said the results showed the "complexity" of estimating future global temperatures.

She said: “Take <b>sulfate aerosols</b>, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling.

Those aerosols also contribute to smog.

Alliteracy can be overcome. Work on it. You have go beyond the big print.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by The Garbone

Wow, so the big furnace in the sky does nothing. Who would have guessed. Of course they are talking specifically about sun spots and not stellar output.

Some science for you

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.

Some more

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.

New York is not underwater because that forecast was predicated on a doubling of CO2 which has not happened - yet.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by chadc

It's entertaining, and sad, when people start blaming a political party for what naturally happens from time to time on the planet, It's a natural occurrence not the result of a political party.


The Earth warms up glacier ice melts currents change the Earth cools down glaciers reform, repeat.

All was well and natural cycles did their part of keeping CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppm for over 800,000 years. During that time human beings evolved and domesticated plants suitable to that environment. During that time natural cycles like the Milankovitch cycles, would trigger warming releasing CO2 resulting in a positive feedback. There was a stable system in equilibrium.

Then in the mid 18th century we increased anthropogenic carbon emissions from 3 million tonnes per annum to almost 10 billion tonnes per annum. We were the trigger that added CO2. That increased CO2 levels by about 40% to over 400 ppm, a level not seen for for 3 - 5 million years. That meesed up the equilibrium and system is now unstable.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Didn't miss any of it....
I just won $5 because you responded closer to my bet than the other CF member that is playing along with me....you are way too easy.

Lets keep playing....
This should make you happy....
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ge-predictions

Predictions are like Bets....some you win and some you lose.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Alliteracy can be overcome. Work on it. You have go beyond the big print.

See what I mean....

[The Garbone]

87% of statistics quoted on the internet have no basis in compiled data.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by The Garbone

87% of statistics quoted on the internet have no basis in compiled data.

and 97% of the people Engaging in Chat Room Activism actually believe what they post...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

You know....some days I just have to ask myself how I'm so blessed to be one of the few that sees the humor in this story. No doubt the MMGWC will call this a heresy akin to drawing a cartoon of the prophet Mohamed, but friends trust me...the MMGW scam is just starting to get fun!

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels COOLS planet, says NASA | UK | News | Daily Express

Ten-HUT! Troll on Deck. Where ya been?

The Daily Express: Come for the science, stay for the (.)(.)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

See what I mean....

autocorrect added an "l"

aliteracy

noun alit·er·a·cy \ˌā-ˈli-tər-ə-ˌsē, ə-ˈ\

Definition of aliteracy

Popularity: Bottom 20% of words

: the quality or state of being able to read but uninterested in doing so

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aliteracy

[SV THIRD DAY]

Another....this is SOOOO Easy

One More.....did you find it yet?

You don't think anyone besides you takes the thread seriously with any credibility?

ha ha ha.....Bob's Your Uncle...

[conachair]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

and 97% of the people Engaging in Chat Room Activism actually believe what they post...

Careful with beliefs, you're probably wrong.


But then there's peer reviewed science....

[jwing]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

You know....some days I just have to ask myself how I'm so blessed to be one of the few that sees the humor in this story. No doubt the MMGWC will call this a heresy akin to drawing a cartoon of the prophet Mohamed, but friends trust me...the MMGW scam is just starting to get fun!

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels COOLS planet, says NASA | UK | News | Daily Express

Well, that was an entirely misleading title. The article was poorly written and the atrociously un-cited. The conclusion at the end leads me to guess that the Daily Express headline writer didn't read the whole article.

I visited Kate Marvel's blog. Ms. Marvel was one of the NASA scientists that the Daily Express wants you to believe says the earth is cooling. She doesn't. She does make many interesting points in her blog. I copied a few and paste them here without her permission:

The first Kate Marvel's quote is wistful, but powerful:
"It strikes me, though, that there are deeper things at work here. Denying science is fundamentally polarizing: if you lead people to a fantasy world through magical thinking, those of us left behind are less able to understand anything you say. This is a powerful way to elevate the subjective tastes and ideologies that divide us above the realities, however imperfectly grasped, that unite us. By rejecting the scientific method or the results that emerge from it, politicians can create useful cliques: impenetrable to outsiders, and bound together by a powerful shared untruth. It's not surprising that many of them use such an effective tool, but it makes me sad that they do."

The second quote pertains to the subject of the bogus article (notice that she has a link to the mysterious paper):

"In our new paper, we test the assumption that the recent history of the Earth's climate is statistically equivalent to its response to each individual external forcing: the whole is not greater or less than the sum of its parts. This boils down to the assumption that these forcing agents do not interact significantly with each other. Different forcings act in different ways and at different times: aerosols lead to a cooler, drier climate on average, while greenhouse gases warm the planet and increase precipitation.


Let’s look at the output of two models, both developed at NASA GISS2. The “simple” model (which is still quite complex) is designed to read in concentrations of aerosols, ozone, and greenhouse gases and calculate the climate response. Given the amount of ozone in the atmosphere, for example, it tells us what temperature and precipitation changes to expect.

The “complex” model recognizes that we don’t change the climate by directly specifying concentrations of greenhouse gases or ozone, but by emitting things as byproducts of industrial processes or energy generation. In particular, we don’t directly change ozone on purpose (I mean, I don’t). Instead, we emit things like methane that increase ozone concentrations down low and chlorofluorocarbons that deplete ozone concentrations high up in the stratosphere. The more complex model is designed to simulate the atmospheric chemistry that translates these emissions into concentrations, and only then calculates the climate response.


In the simple model, the recent history of the climate looks a lot like the sum of its parts. Temperature and rainfall trends, on average, are equal to the sum of the effects of aerosols, greenhouse gases, ozone changes, land use changes, and natural factors like solar fluctuations and volcanoes. In the more complex model, this isn’t true anymore, especially for precipitation, because different kinds of emissions are interacting with each other. This complicates the whole business of attribution. It may be possible to attribute observed climate changes to specific phenomena: ozone depletion, for example, or increased aerosol concentrations. But when we go one step further and try to attribute these changes to the emissions that caused them, things get a bit harder.

So does this mean that one model is “better” than the other? No, and shame on you for passing judgment on them. You don’t know their lives. It does mean, though, that we have to be careful in selecting the models we use, and to ensure that they’re fit for purpose. Climate models are not perfect representations of reality, nor are they intended to be. They are not perfect or disturbing, and they, despite my repeated pleading, do not star Keanu Reeves. They are simplifications, and useful ones at that. The trick is deciding what to leave behind."