The environmental debate thread

[swansont]

Swansont said :

 

"But if volcanic activity is responsible for 0.2 ºC and CO2 for 0.1 ºC, then solar is responsible for, at most, 0.1 ºC (assuming no other factors of this order of magnitude)"

 

We could end up arguing this one also. The vulcanism effect should have its biggest impact at the beginning of the 30 year period. Since there is not further change in vulcanism for 30 years, it is not likely to have a continuing effect. Thus, to suggest it is a big part of the 0.4 C rise over 30 years appears unlikely. Sunspot activity, on the other hand, rise quite substantially throughout the period.

 

And does appear to have its biggest impact then, with a large rise in temperature starting after 1911 and lasting several years. Which is about 0.2 ºC. TSI does not start to increase substantially until 1930 (from Solanki's graph), so to say it rises throughout the period is incorrect.

 

 

The thing that still puzzles me, and which no-one here seems to have addressed, is the cooling of 1940 to 1950. How can that have happened?

 

It appears to me that either :

1. There is a novel factor of substantial power at work (but which one?).

2. or someone got the data wrong.

 

As JohnB said, temperature is not necessarily indicative of the energy input; you aren't in thermal equilibrium most of the time (on average you might be, but you have to determine this — you can't just assume it). Also, looking at any short-term changes you will get into problems of noise processes, i.e. random fluctuations, being more noticable.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont

 

We are talking about a substantial cooling. I doubt that random fluctuations or any similar explanation will wash.

[JohnB]

gcol, I'm not sure. Please bear in mind that the following is only half thought through speculations.

 

If we look at any graph of the 20th century the downspikes due to volcanoes are obvious and short. Pinatubo dropped temps by .5 K (SAT) and then the temp went up again very quickly to "normal" levels.

 

So we get ash in the air blocking the sunlight and temps drop the equivelent of the entire 100 year rise in 2 years. With the removal of the ash, the temp rises just as suddenly.

 

This tells us that the atmosphere has little ability to actually "hold" heat, reduce the sunlight a bit (around 5% at the surface) and vast amounts of energy radiate out very quickly. How much energy do you radiate to drop the temp of the lower troposphere (2,500 trillion tonnes mass) by .5 K? Once the ash was gone the same amount (roughly) was absorbed very quickly to raise the temp again.

 

Since the rise took the temp back to "normal" levels and then stopped increasing (dramatically) it would appear that "surface temperature" can fluctuate wildly from small changes independently of the total energy budget of the planet as a whole. To be clear, it's not the fall and rise of temp that is interesting me, it's the way it shoots up and suddenly levels off.

 

So I'm wondering if "temperature" is too volatile to be used as an accurate measure of the energy in the climate system. I'm not sure what to use instead, but since we're talking energy balance, joules maybe? More reading required.

[gcol]

JohnB: Thanks. honest.

 

I follow this thread with much interest, though unable to make any scientific contribution.

 

I declare myself a bit sceptical, especially where so much corporate profit, political advantage, and tax revenue is involved. keep on digging.

[Chris C]

Temperature is most certainly a valuable way to look at the Earth's radiative budget, especially as the mean budget is characterized as being proportional to the fourth power of the temperature (i.e. the simplest model you can find is something like S + G = sigma T^4) where S is incoming solar radiation after albedo, and G is the greenhouse effect, both in units W/m^2). These simple models (Stefan-Boltzmann) are a valuable way of explaining the basic physics of radiation balance, and serve as a bridge between grey-gas models and more realistic models. It is also fairly standard practice to use the observed temperature record to put some constraints on both climate sensitivity and the magnitude of unknown forcing.

 

The oceans are the main reason for "thermal lag" in the climate system, and I think everyone knows basics like land heats quicker than ocean. The response time has to do mostly with the thermal intertia of the ocean mixed layer, and mixing time of the deep ocean. If you could keep Pinatubo going for a century, then the cooling would continue to a new equilibrium and that would be a greater response than the 'immediate cooling' for the real world Pinatubo. That is also why the 11-year sunspot cycle is not very influential on temperatures, but you have to look at secular trends (long-term) to attribute a change in global temperature to the sun (even though the radiative forcing is greater than that of CO2 on the short term). But since the climate system is out of equilibrium now, even if we could halt CO2 concentrations to 380 ppmv, the temperature would still rise a bit (see Hansen et al. 2005 for further discussion).

[JohnB]

:doh: :doh:

 

gcol, ChrisC, my apologies.

 

My train of thought was leading me to conclude that annual variations are superimposed onto (and to a degree independent of) the underlying trend. Well, that's a ground breaking revelation, isn't it?

 

I was just working the logic from a different angle and didn't recognise what I was doing because I was phrasing the thought in an unusual way.

[jryan]

I wonder about this NASA report:

 

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

 

If AGW is real, is it a curse of a blessing? It would appear that we are in for a bit of a reprieve.

[iNow]

I wonder about this NASA report:

 

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

 

If AGW is real, is it a curse of a blessing? It would appear that we are in for a bit of a reprieve.

 

How does your post even begin to be relevant? Can you explain how your post or the link within it pertains to this thread?

[jryan]

Sorry, I figured that a discussion that has revolved around the contribution of solar cycles as a GW forcing on several pages may have room for an article about a predicted extreme decline in that forcing. Especially when all the models should probably start account for this occurrance since it is fairly certain to happen.

 

But you are right.... anything that is both fairly predictable, and is used in most AGW models, couldn't be all that important. And we can just assume it will have no effect on the environment.. so why discuss it in the "Environmental Debate" thread, right?

 

Sheesh.

[SkepticLance]

jryan's post is very relevent. It is basically making a prediction that cycle 25 of sunspot activity, by the year 2022, will be weak, meaning lower solar forcings, and either less warming, or possibly a cooling globally. I think this has a very real bearing on any discussion of global warming.

[swansont]

The link is about sunspot activity. The connection between that and warming is not discussed anywhere in the article, and it is certainly not "an article about a predicted extreme decline in that forcing" The forcing isn't discussed at all. How about establishing that connection?

[jryan]

The link is about sunspot activity. The connection between that and warming is not discussed anywhere in the article, and it is certainly not "an article about a predicted extreme decline in that forcing" The forcing isn't discussed at all. How about establishing that connection?

 

 

This is where discussions fall apart. It isn't enough that we have established in several discussion here that sunspot activity does affect the suns radiative output. If that article doesn't specifically say that the lowest energy output of the sun in a few thousand years may also affect the Earth's temperature, it isn't a viable source for discussion.

 

As I said, the current models for global warming do not account for the dramatic drop in solar radiance in 14 years... so maybe they should start.

 

If it makes you all feel better though, I tracked this down:

 

http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/PressReleaseSSRC1-2008.doc

[swansont]

This is where discussions fall apart. It isn't enough that we have established in several discussion here that sunspot activity does affect the suns radiative output. If that article doesn't specifically say that the lowest energy output of the sun in a few thousand years may also affect the Earth's temperature, it isn't a viable source for discussion.

 

As I said, the current models for global warming do not account for the dramatic drop in solar radiance in 14 years... so maybe they should start.

 

We haven't established the extent of solar activity on temperature.

 

And the article says:

 

'"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries," says Hathaway.'

 

Hundreds of years, not thousands.

 

If it makes you all feel better though, I tracked this down:

 

http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/PressReleaseSSRC1-2008.doc

 

Not so much. You need to establish some credibility for the Space and Science Research Center. Publications supporting the "RC theory"? Evidence that this isn't some "think tank"

 

All I can find is that Mr. Casey has "He has a BS degree in Physics and Mathematics and an MA degree in Management." No evidence he has any experience in the field. Nothing about others on staff (if any) and no list of publications.

[iNow]

I could have been more clear, but my point remains.

 

We know the relative impact of solar forcing. We know that it doesn't begin to compare to the human contributions. See graphic below, solar is clearly a minimal contributing factor, shown toward the bottom of the chart.

 

Your article, while interesting and informative, didn't discuss climate or changes or anything related to the "environmental debate," hence my question... Why do you think this is relevant? I encourage you to establish that connection so we CAN discuss it once you have. Responding with sarcasm and strawmanning my point doesn't help matters.

 

 

[SkepticLance]

These arguments might just begin all over again. Sigh!

 

They began with me disputing the graph iNow just posted, in terms of solar contributions to global warming/cooling. As I said before, no-one understands the mechanism by which sunspot activity affects global climate. Without that understanding, any attempt to calculate its impact is peeing in the wind.

 

We do know that the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age correlate with changes in sunspot activity, along with lots of other global temperature changes in the past.

 

We can therefore predict, that IF 2022 represents a period in which sunspot activity is at a substantial low, this will be a cooling effect. Whether it causes an actual cooling, or merely a reduction in warming is something else. As I said, without understanding mechanisms, how can we calculate degree of impact?

[iNow]

As I said, without understanding mechanisms, how can we calculate degree of impact?

 

You should really follow your own logic then, as above only 3 or 4 posts ago you said this:

 

It is basically making a prediction that cycle 25 of sunspot activity, by the year 2022, will be weak, meaning lower solar forcings, and either less warming, or possibly a cooling globally. I think this has a very real bearing on any discussion of global warming.

 

 

But yeah... Relative impact of solar forcing is still very small, regardless of whatever games you choose to play with words and logic.

 

 

Bye Lance. You haven't made any ground in the last 240 posts, and I'm not about to start wasting more time with you as you continue on with your nonsense for another 240.

[jryan]

But yeah... Relative impact of solar forcing is still very small, regardless of whatever games you choose to play with words and logic.

 

You have completely misread that chart that you keep using. That "solar irradiance" is not the impact the sun has on global temperature. That chart is making a claim concerning the impact of solar variance over a given time.

 

Solar irradiance is the number one driver of global climate.... buut they are claiming that the variance was small over that time, or that the amount of variance in that period had little impact.

 

What NASA scientists are predicting for 2020 is well outside of the variance covered in that chart.

[Chris C]

You have completely misread that chart that you keep using. That "solar irradiance" is not the impact the sun has on global temperature. That chart is making a claim concerning the impact of solar variance over a given time.

 

Solar irradiance is the number one driver of global climate.... buut they are claiming that the variance was small over that time, or that the amount of variance in that period had little impact.

 

What NASA scientists are predicting for 2020 is well outside of the variance covered in that chart.

 

The time period in that chart is relative to 1750 (defined at pre-industrial values), and most of the increase in RF is from 1900-1950 (when papers like Solanski called a "historical high" and still the RF was minimal). Even working with a negative RF at the little ice age values, the impact of that would be outweighed by less than a decades worth of increased GHG's. No confident prediction can be made for solar irradiance in the future, and there is certainly no prediction out there that will offset the GHG forcing that is being taken seriously. I think anyone who is honestly proposing the secular trend of solar irradiance decrease that would be sufficient to offset 2x CO2 (or even less) is not even taking themselves seriously (or doesn't understand the topic) and is just working with preconceived notions. Lastly, because of the thermal inertia of the oceans, the 11-year sunspot cycle does not really show up in the surface temperature. This argument is just a smokescreen.

[iNow]

What NASA scientists are predicting for 2020 is well outside of the variance covered in that chart.

 

I think anyone who is honestly proposing the secular trend of solar irradiance decrease that would be sufficient to offset 2x CO2 (or even less) is not even taking themselves seriously (or doesn't understand the topic) and is just working with preconceived notions. Lastly, because of the thermal inertia of the oceans, the 11-year sunspot cycle does not really show up in the surface temperature. This argument is just a smokescreen.

 

Chris C really said it better than I could. I'll just offer the below link for those seeking to further understand this particular portion of the global climate change issue.

 

 

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

 

On timescales that vary from millions of years through to the more familiar 11-year sunspot cycles, variations in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth have a huge influence on our atmosphere and climate. But the Sun is far from being the only player.

 

How do we know? According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the sun’s heat.

[SkepticLance]

From iNow, who does not ever seem to read what others say very carefully.

 

"You should really follow your own logic then, as above only 3 or 4 posts ago you said this:

 

It is basically making a prediction that cycle 25 of sunspot activity, by the year 2022, will be weak, meaning lower solar forcings, and either less warming, or possibly a cooling globally. I think this has a very real bearing on any discussion of global warming.

 

But yeah... Relative impact of solar forcing is still very small, regardless of whatever games you choose to play with words and logic".

 

If you read more carefully, you will note that I said "has a very real bearing on any discussion", which it does. I do not know how true the prediction is. However, the fact that the prediction has been made is something that may affect our discussion, and it is appropriate to discuss it.

 

 

To ChrisC

 

About solar irradiance. This term is seriously misleading, and I have said before that I prefer it not to be used. The thing is that the sun has effects that are not based on electromagnetic radiation, which is what people mainly mean when they talk about solar irradiance. For example : the solar wind, and magnetic effects. These act as a kind of 'cosmic ray shield' at times of high sunspot activity, and that is not irradiance.

 

When sunspot activity is high, we also see magnetic effects increasing dramatically, solar wind increases, ultra violet output increases massively compared to output of other wavelengths, and overall non-UV electromagnetic output also increases, though to a minor extent compared to UV.

 

So how does all this mean global warming? Several hypotheses exist, and do not necessarily depend on irradiance. Thus, a measure of irradiance may have little meaning.

[Reaper]

Here's an update:

 

On April 18, 1977, Jimmy Carter delivered a televised speech carried by all major networks in the US. Heres a a couple of choice quotes from that speech.

 

"The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce."

 

and

 

"World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade."

 

I believe the oil consumption increased faster the 5 percent during the 70's and 80's. So why didn't the "entire world" run out?

 

This guy was the president of the US. Not just some vice-president like Al Gore. (They did both however win the nobel prize.) I guess we in the US need to find better people to provide intelligence to our leaders or before long we'll start looking bad.

 

Go ahead and the cry the "peak oil" wolf some more. Maybe someone will listen.

 

Now, while I know this is primarily about global warming, I think it is also appropriate to extend it to resource depletion too, as some people do have objections to that as well. If anyone, perhaps someone much more knowledgeable than myself on these issues, would like to post a rebuttal here they can, otherwise, you can review my latest comment (i.e. Post 14) in the other thread.

 

UPDATE: And here's another member's comment in response to the above:

 

Lol! "JUST" the vice president of the US? Hahahaha... sometimes credentials should have an impact on what the credentialed person is saying....

 

~Personal Comments Removed~

 

 

Do you think oil is infinite? If you do, then you're wrong.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Please keep peak oil in the other thread.

[Reaper]

Yeah, you know what SkepticLance?! I'll start calling you on your bullshit, if no one else is willing to.

 

 

========================================

 

 

From iNow, who does not ever seem to read what others say very carefully.

 

"You should really follow your own logic then, as above only 3 or 4 posts ago you said this:

 

It is basically making a prediction that cycle 25 of sunspot activity, by the year 2022, will be weak, meaning lower solar forcings, and either less warming, or possibly a cooling globally. I think this has a very real bearing on any discussion of global warming.

 

But yeah... Relative impact of solar forcing is still very small, regardless of whatever games you choose to play with words and logic".

 

If you read more carefully, you will note that I said "has a very real bearing on any discussion", which it does. I do not know how true the prediction is. However, the fact that the prediction has been made is something that may affect our discussion, and it is appropriate to discuss it.

 

oh, my, god! You know something, it would definitely help if you actually took the time to read and understand the damned graphs before you went off posting such brainless comments. Why don't we take a look at the data again:

 

 

Now take one good look at the radiative forcing due to solar irradiance (which, interestingly enough, is the only natural cause listed there, gee I wonder why that might be ). You see how tiny that is compared with other sources, especially compared to CO₂ emissions?

 

And, as others have pointed out, this will be weaker in the coming years as the sun completes it's solar cycle. As you can clearly see (provided you don't keep your eyes deliberately shut), solar irradiance is insignificant compared to other contributions. It wouldn't matter if was stronger or weaker, simply because the primary causes of global warming are overwhelmingly due to other (i.e. man made) factors.

 

To ChrisC

 

About solar irradiance. This term is seriously misleading, and I have said before that I prefer it not to be used.

 

We will use all the proper terms when discussing this, regardless of whether or not they are inconvenient

 

However, why is it that you want to omit certain things or points from this discussion though?

 

The thing is that the sun has effects that are not based on electromagnetic radiation, which is what people mainly mean when they talk about solar irradiance. For example : the solar wind, and magnetic effects. These act as a kind of 'cosmic ray shield' at times of high sunspot activity, and that is not irradiance.

 

Wrong dumbass. The very definition of solar irradiance means, specifically, the amount of solar radiation and solar energy that arrives at a given area at any one time. Chris C knows exactly what he is talking about.

 

When sunspot activity is high, we also see magnetic effects increasing dramatically, solar wind increases, ultra violet output increases massively compared to output of other wavelengths, and overall non-UV electromagnetic output also increases, though to a minor extent compared to UV.

 

So how does all this mean global warming? Several hypotheses exist, and do not necessarily depend on irradiance. Thus, a measure of irradiance may have little meaning.

 

How about start backing up your claims and conclusions, rather then trying to shit your way out of this. Or better yet, why don't you take a book on climate change and actually take the time to learn what it is all about, instead of spreading your erronous opinions around.

 

iNow said :

 

" That "opinion" is supported by the following:"

 

You totally overestimate my credulity. I am not (nor is jryan) that easily sucked in. So you cut and pasted the entire bibliography for a scientific paper. Wow! Am I expected to be impressed? I seriously doubt you obtained and read even one of the items you pasted.

 

 

Nobody gives a **** about what you think. Either put up or just concede the debate. Using your opinions to back yourself up hardly qualifies as a proper rebuttal.

[SkepticLance]

Reaper

 

Please tone down your language. I have no interest in debating with people who cannot moderate their emotional outbursts.

[iNow]

Reaper

 

Please tone down your language. I have no interest in debating with people who cannot moderate their emotional outbursts.

 

Regardless of his obviously frustrated tone, he makes several valid points which you've just brushed aside.

 

It would be just as easy for us to say we have no interest in debating with someone who does not support their claims and who doesn't adjust his position when his claims are shown false, someone who misrepresents the position of others then argues against that misrpresentation instead of their true position, but we don't.

 

We do provide you enough respect to respond and try to find middle ground, providing support for our positions and remaining open to evidence which proves those positions false. Will you not do the same?