Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-28-2018, 02:41 PM
Silver lining is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 738

What else causes global warming?


Is there Correlation of global temperature with solar activity?

Does the weakening of the Earth's Magnetic shield which prevents sun rays mean we are getting more heat?

I found this chart on solar activity, and there seems to be a correlation.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...mo/solact.html

I expect this to be a heated debate, pun intended

-SL
  #2  
Old 02-28-2018, 02:47 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
Does the weakening of the Earth's Magnetic shield which prevents sun rays mean we are getting more heat?
The earth's magnetic field does not "prevent sun rays" from reaching earth. It deflects charged particles and high energy "cosmic rays", but the latter do not originate in the sun.

But when you ask "what else", you need to specify "what else besides x, y, and z". We don't know what you already think x, y and z are.

Last edited by John Mace; 02-28-2018 at 02:48 PM.
  #3  
Old 02-28-2018, 02:51 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,115
Quote:
Is there Correlation of global temperature with solar activity?
Of course. IIRC, the temperature goes up about 10% per billion years due to the sun getting hotter. The orbit and precession of the planet also affect the temperature, which is why we go from glaciation to inter-glacial periods such as the one we are in.

The thing is, they don't account for how rapidly it's risen in the last hundred or so years though.

Quote:
Does the weakening of the Earth's Magnetic shield which prevents sun rays mean we are getting more heat?
No...that would simply allow in other harmful radiation.

Quote:
I expect this to be a heated debate, pun intended
I don't really think it will be, but we shall see.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #4  
Old 02-28-2018, 03:04 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
The canonical list of climate change denial and myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Please present some novel argument rather than a vague, “It could be ‘something else’,” attempt at diversion without any evidential basis.

Stranger
  #5  
Old 02-28-2018, 03:10 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
I found this chart on solar activity, and there seems to be a correlation.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...mo/solact.html
Did you actually look at the plots there? If you have to throw away some of the data (namely everything after 1980 or so) to show a correlation, it's not really a correlation, is it?
  #6  
Old 02-28-2018, 03:57 PM
WillReadmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Seattle
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
Is there Correlation of global temperature with solar activity?

Does the weakening of the Earth's Magnetic shield which prevents sun rays mean we are getting more heat?

I found this chart on solar activity, and there seems to be a correlation.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...mo/solact.html

I expect this to be a heated debate, pun intended

-SL
You managed one more argument of the form, "Scientists just don't know about <X>, thus they are all wrong."

Of course, someone came up with that chart of yours.

Was that a high school art project?
  #7  
Old 02-28-2018, 04:05 PM
watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,499
Deforestation is a BIG one here ... from SciAm "Deforestation and Its Extreme Effect on Global Warming"

Quote:
By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation.
That's leaves 71% of carbon emissions for electrical generation by first world countries ... we'd all die without A/C ... right? ...
  #8  
Old 02-28-2018, 04:11 PM
watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,499
Concerning the OP ... yes, sun spot activity is known to effect weather ... this is one of the reasons climatologists use 50 year averages ... this include two complete cycles and hopefully the effect is averaged out ... better to use 100 year averages and four cycles just to make sure ... noteworthy that the recent "plateau" in global warming occurred during a particularly underwhelming solar maxima ... these seventeen years just is far too short a time period to make any conclusions about global warming as a whole ...

Last edited by watchwolf49; 02-28-2018 at 04:16 PM.
  #9  
Old 02-28-2018, 04:27 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,683
The other respondents have pretty much given you your answer. I would particularly suggest you read Stranger's link to all the common myths, of which you've managed to regurgitate one of the old classics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
Is there Correlation of global temperature with solar activity?

I found this chart on solar activity, and there seems to be a correlation.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...mo/solact.html
Short answer: no.

Over sufficiently long timescales, of course, there will be a correlation, but over the timescales we talk about when we consider anthropogenic global warming there is not. Furthermore, the Friis-Christensen study you cited is old and has long since been discredited. Solar variability and its effects on climate have been studied very intensively over recent decades and have been discussed here a few times before in some considerable depth.

The warming caused by the radiative transfer effects of CO2 and other GHGs and their feedbacks are well quantified and observations match the CO2 concentrations that have accumulated since industrialization. Moreover, satellites can measure incoming and outgoing solar radiation and help us build an accurate picture of the forcings and energy imbalance caused by GHGs in the atmosphere. Yes, there are other things that cause global warming and cooling, but no other direct forcing comes even close to the effects of GHGs, particularly the highly elevated levels of CO2 we have at present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
Does the weakening of the Earth's Magnetic shield which prevents sun rays mean we are getting more heat?
The earth's magnetic field has nothing to do with the level of solar insolation hitting the surface of the earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
I expect this to be a heated debate, pun intended
There's nothing to debate here.
  #10  
Old 02-28-2018, 04:31 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,987

What else causes global warming?


Hitler?
  #11  
Old 02-28-2018, 04:32 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
Is there Correlation of global temperature with solar activity?
Correlation is not causation!
  #12  
Old 02-28-2018, 05:19 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
Did you actually look at the plots there? If you have to throw away some of the data (namely everything after 1980 or so) to show a correlation, it's not really a correlation, is it?
And indeed, what we see there from the OP is a dependency on the same old misleading sources.

Here is a more up to date plot over here:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/sol...al-warming.htm

That shows that yes, there is almost no correlation.

There is indeed some, but that is because indeed natural forces are still in the background warming the earth, and if it was just like that then the temperatures would be closer to the ones observed in the 1930-50's. The problem is that the current warming being observed is increasing thanks to human action.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-28-2018 at 05:21 PM.
  #13  
Old 02-28-2018, 05:43 PM
watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
[snip] ... The warming caused by the radiative transfer effects of CO2 and other GHGs and their feedbacks are well quantified and observations match the CO2 concentrations that have accumulated since industrialization ... [snap]
Cite?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Correlation is not causation!
When the sun emits more energy, the Earth receives more energy ... thus increasing temperatures ... but for all the reasons wolfpup laid out, this amont is inconsequential ... it's just teeny tiny amounts ... even weather forecasters safely ignore it ... but there's a clear cut cause and effect ...

Last edited by watchwolf49; 02-28-2018 at 05:45 PM.
  #14  
Old 02-28-2018, 05:55 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Cite?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sol...al-warming.htm
Quote:
The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.
That was in 2010

More confirmation of that from here (2015):

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
Quote:
Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5,6,7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
Link to paper:

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/jou...eldman_CO2.pdf

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-28-2018 at 05:56 PM.
  #15  
Old 02-28-2018, 06:04 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
When the sun emits more energy, the Earth receives more energy ... thus increasing temperatures ... but for all the reasons wolfpup laid out, this amont is inconsequential ... it's just teeny tiny amounts ... even weather forecasters safely ignore it ... but there's a clear cut cause and effect ...
Up to the 1940s, after that, nature remains in the background and humans are driving the warming now.

What remains notorious is that even in the 1950's people like Plass noted that human influence was, well, beginning to influence the thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=sdALFnlwV_o
Quote:
As this recently uncovered recording from 1956 shows, the outlines of climate change science have been clear for many decades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY
Quote:
The famous Bell Telephone Hour clip, with the all knowing Dr Frank Baxter explaining a very modern understanding of climate science in 1958.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-28-2018 at 06:06 PM.
  #16  
Old 02-28-2018, 06:39 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Cite?
I'm not sure why you're trying to challenge either the assertion that the theoretical climate forcings arising from CO2 are well quantified or that they match observations. None of this is controversial. What is controversial is how forcings relate to changes in key climate parameters, particularly temperature, but even those arguments have well-bounded limits for climate sensitivity.

But just to run through a sort of quick sanity check, the first-order approximation for the CO2 radiative transfer code is given here. This is a simplification of the effects of the CO2 spectral absorption lines. If you work through the math using 290 as the pre-industrial reference value for CO2 and 400 as the present value, you get an approximate predicted forcing of 1.72 W/m2.

If you look at the latest IPCC AR5 estimate of actual CO2 forcing, given here on published page 697 and PDF page 39/82, the estimated value based on observations and modeling is around 1.8 W/m2, with an uncertainty range between about 1.4 and 2.2. So the post-industrialization CO2 differential is creating the predicted amount of forcing.
  #17  
Old 02-28-2018, 07:21 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,115
Now, I'm just asking questions here so don't yell at me (Gigo), but are you guys open to the possibility...just the possibility mind...that Trump could be a major cause of Global Warming? I know that it's accepted by all those scientist types that CO2 is a major contributor, but Trump sure puts out a lot of hot air, so is it possible he is having a measurable effect?

JAQ and all...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #18  
Old 02-28-2018, 07:31 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Now, I'm just asking questions here so don't yell at me (Gigo), but are you guys open to the possibility...just the possibility mind...that Trump could be a major cause of Global Warming? I know that it's accepted by all those scientist types that CO2 is a major contributor, but Trump sure puts out a lot of hot air, so is it possible he is having a measurable effect?

JAQ and all...
https://longislandweekly.com/matt-bo...march-23-2016/

Matt Bodkin Cartoon.

(Two Republican elephants sweating at the sight of Trump signalling to fascists and ignorants.)

"Maybe the climate really is changing!"
  #19  
Old 02-28-2018, 07:32 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,473
One of the IPCC reports has a good chart that correlates the average temperature to a few key variables. CO2 (additive), solar irradiation (additive), and sulfur dioxide (subtractive) were the top three, I think. There may have been a fourth, but I can't recall it offhand.
  #20  
Old 02-28-2018, 10:20 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Now, I'm just asking questions here so don't yell at me (Gigo), but are you guys open to the possibility...just the possibility mind...that Trump could be a major cause of Global Warming?
You may be on to something here! I just tried plotting Trump's age vs. global temperature, and there is a remarkably strong correlation. Temperature data taken from here.

Last edited by scr4; 02-28-2018 at 10:21 PM.
  #21  
Old 03-01-2018, 08:25 AM
watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
[snip] ... More confirmation of that from here (2015):
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
Link to paper:
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/jou...eldman_CO2.pdf
Thank you GIGO ... that Nature article is spot-on what I was looking for ... I'll be digesting the Feldman et al letter over the weekend ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Up to the 1940s, after that, nature remains in the background and humans are driving the warming now.

What remains notorious is that even in the 1950's people like Plass noted that human influence was, well, beginning to influence the thing ... [snap]
I was answering Quartz' comment about "correlation is not causation!" ... of course ther's a correlation between solar flux and global temperatures, we know the cause of this in very clear terms ...

Also noteworthy is that the premise of the movie Soylent Green (1973) is climate change and global warming ... these ideas have been around the better part of 50 years ... the main difference is computers are fast enough today to run numerical models ... and getting faster by the day ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I'm not sure why you're trying to challenge either the assertion that the theoretical climate forcings arising from CO2 are well quantified or that they match observations. None of this is controversial. What is controversial is how forcings relate to changes in key climate parameters, particularly temperature, but even those arguments have well-bounded limits for climate sensitivity.

But just to run through a sort of quick sanity check, the first-order approximation for the CO2 radiative transfer code is given here. This is a simplification of the effects of the CO2 spectral absorption lines. If you work through the math using 290 as the pre-industrial reference value for CO2 and 400 as the present value, you get an approximate predicted forcing of 1.72 W/m2 ... [snip]
You haven't connected climate forcing to temperature in a quantitative way ... because when you do you'll find the logarithmic function the least of the Alarmists' problems ...

I am genuinely surprised ... I had thought the 1.72 W/m2 number had been already confirmed ... is this really that hard to measure? ... anyway, that's the clear sky value and of course perfect atmospherics will give the theoretical value, but rarely are the atmospherics perfect and so actual forcing is substantially lower ...

The good news is that dealing with CO2 pollution will be easier than dealing with deforestation ...

Last edited by watchwolf49; 03-01-2018 at 08:26 AM.
  #22  
Old 03-01-2018, 12:31 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
You haven't connected climate forcing to temperature in a quantitative way
You're right, I mentioned temperature but quantified CO2 concentrations relative to forcing rather than temperature. My original statement was "The warming caused by the radiative transfer effects of CO2 and other GHGs and their feedbacks are well quantified and observations match the CO2 concentrations that have accumulated since industrialization", but what I showed was that the forcing due to CO2 etc. was well quantified. I did, however, say that "What is controversial is how forcings relate to changes in key climate parameters, particularly temperature, but even those arguments have well-bounded limits for climate sensitivity". This is also quantifiable, but the exact quantitative relationship of CO2 forcing to temperature change under present conditions is much more complex and still the subject of some controversy. However, what is important for policy purposes is that there is a definite lower limit and the magnitude of the change and the speed with which it will happen are both significant.

The most often cited metric describing this relationship is equilibrium climate sensitivity -- defined as how much temperature will increase at equilibrium when CO2 doubles. There's broad agreement that it's between 1.5°C to 4.5°C, a range that's been cited more or less the same way for over 20 years. The IPCC no longer cites a "most likely" value within that range. Compounding the argument is that the probability density function of ECS estimates from many sources tends to be a skewed distribution with an early peak and a long tail at the high end. A reasonable estimate of most likely ECS is to take the median (not the mode) of the distribution, so that half the probabilities are above and half below the selected point. In most analyses the median yields a most likely value for ECS of around 3°C, meaning that, when CO2 doubles, and all feedbacks are taken into account, the temperature will stabilize around 3°C warmer than the reference temperature and CO2 concentration.
  #23  
Old 03-01-2018, 12:44 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
The canonical list of climate change denial and myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Please present some novel argument rather than a vague, “It could be ‘something else’,” attempt at diversion without any evidential basis.
Well, of course Global Warming is also caused by a number of factors- the biggest warming gas is actually water vapor.

The thing is - the recent rapid increase is certainly most caused by humans with CO2, etc.

Tht doesnt mena humans are 100% responsible for all the C02 or all the water vapor or all the other greenhouse gases- they have been around since just about the start. It doesnt mean there are not other factors that coming in- long term slow cycles do certainly occur.

But there is no doubt that most of the recent rapid increase is human caused.
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #24  
Old 03-01-2018, 01:18 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, of course Global Warming is also caused by a number of factors- the biggest warming gas is actually water vapor.
I realize you're not trying to argue against AGW, but I have to point out that this example is a typical irrelevancy that one sometimes hears from climate deniers. The absolute amount of water vapor in the atmosphere globally, on average, is directly related to temperature. As temperatures rise, absolute humidity increases because the air's capacity for water vapor increases. Generally speaking, tropospheric water vapor is not an independent climate forcing but a direct feedback that amplifies other forcings, particularly that of CO2, approximately doubling its impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Tht doesnt mena humans are 100% responsible for all the C02 or all the water vapor or all the other greenhouse gases- they have been around since just about the start. It doesnt mean there are not other factors that coming in- long term slow cycles do certainly occur.
A good illustration of how big the human influence has been is the historic CO2 level. If you drew a chart of CO2 levels over the past million years, it would vary between a consistent low of about 180 ppm at the depth of ice ages to a consistent high of about 290-300 ppm at the peak of interglacials. If you then wanted to add modern-era CO2 to the chart, it would be completely off the chart. You'd have to expand the scale, because it's now over 400 ppm and probably can't be stopped before it's well over 600 and probably 800. And those changes are occurring, not over thousands of years, but within decades.
  #25  
Old 03-02-2018, 08:35 AM
Silver lining is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
Did you actually look at the plots there? If you have to throw away some of the data (namely everything after 1980 or so) to show a correlation, it's not really a correlation, is it?
But if the temperature decreased in a global sense from 2018, with 2017 and 2016 being much hotter, the short-term coloration isn't trending upward either.

That chart I listed was over decades.
  #26  
Old 03-02-2018, 08:42 AM
Silver lining is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
Did you actually look at the plots there? If you have to throw away some of the data (namely everything after 1980 or so) to show a correlation, it's not really a correlation, is it?
I would not dismiss the weakening of the magnetic field being one of the causes for a very slight increase in Global warning.

Quote:
Earth's magnetic field is important for climate change at high altitudes. Scientists found that changes in the Earth's magnetic field are more relevant for climatic changes
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-...t-climate.html
  #27  
Old 03-02-2018, 10:01 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
But if the temperature decreased in a global sense from 2018, with 2017 and 2016 being much hotter, the short-term coloration isn't trending upward either.
Two or three years is far too short a timescale to detect any "trend" in global temperature, as annual temperature fluctuations outweigh small amounts of global temperature rise.

Anyway, what do you mean by "if the temperature decreased in a global sense from 2018"? There isn't any global temperature change from 2018 yet, because it still is 2018. Early in 2018, for that matter.
  #28  
Old 03-02-2018, 10:46 AM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
because it's now over 400 ppm and probably can't be stopped before it's well over 600 and probably 800. And those changes are occurring, not over thousands of years, but within decades.
This - 800ppm especially - seems more like pessimism that anything grounded in scientific objectivity. The IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways are still illustrative. Only the worst one of these takes us over 800ppm by end-of-century, and the second worst takes us over 600. The third worse to ~600. There is nothing that has changed since the RCPs were developed to lock us out of any of those pathways.

For what it's worth, if I were a betting man (hey, I am, but this is too long-term of a bet to be meaningful..), I'd bet we'll peak between 500 and 600 ppm.
  #29  
Old 03-02-2018, 12:16 PM
watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
[snip] ... This is also quantifiable, but the exact quantitative relationship of CO2 forcing to temperature change under present conditions is much more complex and still the subject of some controversy. However, what is important for policy purposes is that there is a definite lower limit and the magnitude of the change and the speed with which it will happen are both significant ... [snap]
That explains why I can't find those numbers on the internet ... temperature is easy to calculate with S-B if we know the emissivity values ... how hard could it be to find? ... just shine a light on a gas and measure the temperature ... Surely, someone is working on this ...
  #30  
Old 03-02-2018, 12:22 PM
watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
But if the temperature decreased in a global sense from 2018, with 2017 and 2016 being much hotter, the short-term coloration isn't trending upward either.

That chart I listed was over decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
I would not dismiss the weakening of the magnetic field being one of the causes for a very slight increase in Global warning.

https://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-...t-climate.html
All very interesting but very difficult to study while we're using our atmosphere as a sewer ... best if we stop and let nature take it's course ...
  #31  
Old 03-02-2018, 02:19 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
I would not dismiss the weakening of the magnetic field being one of the causes for a very slight increase in Global warning.



https://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-...t-climate.html
You're misunderstanding what "climate" means in this context. The paper is talking about parts of the ionosphere at altitudes of the order of ~300 km, which for all practical purposes is outer space. What little atmosphere exists here is comprised of ionized plasma, which is naturally affected by magnetic field changes. The paper discusses changes in maximum electron density and ion temperature at these altitudes. Where do you see any linkage whatsoever to climate on earth?
  #32  
Old 03-02-2018, 03:40 PM
Silver lining is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Two or three years is far too short a timescale to detect any "trend" in global temperature, as annual temperature fluctuations outweigh small amounts of global temperature rise.

Anyway, what do you mean by "if the temperature decreased in a global sense from 2018"? There isn't any global temperature change from 2018 yet, because it still is 2018. Early in 2018, for that matter.

2017 was cooler than 2016 and 2015.
  #33  
Old 03-02-2018, 04:05 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
2017 was cooler than 2016 and 2015.
What does that indicate to you? Do you think this represents the start of a downward trend? Obviously you think this has some importance, so spell it out for us.
  #34  
Old 03-02-2018, 04:07 PM
watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
2017 was cooler than 2016 and 2015.
And February will be cooler than July ... tomorrow morning will be cooler than this afternoon ... that's all the subject of dynamic meteorology ...

Global warming is based on the average temperature between 1968 and 2017 being higher than the average from 1918 to 1967 ... and the temperature average will be even higher from 2018 to 2067 ... that's the subject of climatology ...

See the difference? ... in the first case we use dt as our time interval ... in the second we use 50 years ...

Last edited by watchwolf49; 03-02-2018 at 04:09 PM.
  #35  
Old 03-02-2018, 04:11 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
2017 was cooler than 2016 and 2015.
Where I live, today was cooler than yesterday and the day before, but I'm pretty sure that spring and summer are coming!

2016 was the hottest year on record in NOAA's 138-year history. 2015 was the second hottest on record, and 2017 the third hottest. Temperature trends are not uniform or linear year-to-year, but the long-term trend is unequivocal, and so are the reasons for it. I have no idea what you're trying to prove with that statement.
  #36  
Old 03-02-2018, 04:15 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
2017 was cooler than 2016 and 2015.
So the new 1998 is 2016, that figures, it is the same old flawed and discredited argument that skeptical scientists (the few that remain) warned their followers not to use:

"You've all seen articles say that global warming stopped in 1998. Well, with all due respect, that's being a little bit unfair to the data...it was a huge El Niño year, and the sun was very active in 1998...make an argument that you can get killed on, and you will kill us [skeptics] all..if you lose credibility on this issue, you lose the issue."
Patrick Michaels
6 September 2009

Why it is flawed is explained here:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
  #37  
Old 03-02-2018, 04:24 PM
watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,499
The hottest year we know of was 250,000,000 BC ... although it's fair to assume 4,700,000,000 BC was even hotter ... but let's not nitpick among friends eh? ...
  #38  
Old 03-02-2018, 04:57 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
So the new 1998 is 2016, that figures, it is the same old flawed and discredited argument that skeptical scientists (the few that remain) warned their followers not to use:

"You've all seen articles say that global warming stopped in 1998. Well, with all due respect, that's being a little bit unfair to the data...it was a huge El Niño year, and the sun was very active in 1998...make an argument that you can get killed on, and you will kill us [skeptics] all..if you lose credibility on this issue, you lose the issue."
Patrick Michaels
6 September 2009

Why it is flawed is explained here:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
As an aside, Patrick Michaels is a funny guy, though not intentionally. He's a typical climate change denier: a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry, and works as an advisor to the right-wing Cato Institute that was founded by Charles Koch to disseminate right-wing and libertarian propaganda. Michaels has managed to distinguish himself by being wrong about practically everything.
  #39  
Old 03-02-2018, 07:04 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
The hottest year we know of was 250,000,000 BC ... although it's fair to assume 4,700,000,000 BC was even hotter ... but let's not nitpick among friends eh? ...
And before anyone else gets the wrong idea, there are good natural explanations of why was that... the same warming gases were present then, what climate scientists are warning about nowadays. For the environment it makes no difference that there were released by nature before (in a long period of time, but eventually at deadly levels), it is the same stuff and the environment reacts to the accumulation of global warming gases (that acidify the oceans too) just like in the past.

https://skepticalscience.com/Lee-com...an-Dating.html
Quote:
Burgess et al’s paper brings the Permian into line with many other global-warming extinction events, like the Triassic, the Toarcian, the Cretaceous Ocean Anoxic Events, The PETM, and the Columbia River Basalts, whose time frames have been progressively reduced as more sophisticated dating has been applied to them. They all produced the same symptoms as today’s climate change – rapid global warming, ocean acidification, and sea level rises, together with oxygen-less ocean dead zones and extinctions. They were all (possibly excluding the PETM - see below) triggered by rare volcanic outpourings called “Large Igneous Provinces,” (LIPs) that emitted massive volumes of CO2 and methane at rates comparable to today’s emissions. The PETM may also have been triggered by a LIP, although that is still debated.

Can we seriously expect Earth’s climate to behave differently today than it did at all those times in the past?

Some have pointed out that since we began our modern climate change in an “icehouse” era with ice sheets to melt and low starting CO2 levels, we might not generate a Permian-like hothouse. In addition, since the Permian, calcareous algae have changed the way deep oceans process carbonate, providing more of a buffer. But that buffer only comes into play if the deep oceans come into play, which most estimates consider won’t happen for a few more centuries.

All in all, the parallels between the many mass extinction events in the geological record and today’s climate change offer no comfort about the legacy we’re leaving for our children and our grandchildren. Rather they stand as signposts for an increasingly scary future.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-02-2018 at 07:05 PM.
  #40  
Old 03-02-2018, 07:18 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
That explains why I can't find those numbers on the internet ... temperature is easy to calculate with S-B if we know the emissivity values ... how hard could it be to find? ... just shine a light on a gas and measure the temperature ... Surely, someone is working on this ...
There's a lot wrong in this one statement/question of yours.

(1) First of all, it misses the point: The point being made is that the radiative effect of CO2 (while way more complicated than you have imagined here) is pretty well-understood. What is not as well understood is the feedbacks in the climate system: For example, as the Earth warms, some land and sea ice melts in the polar regions and that decreases the reflectivity of the Earth, so this tends to cause more warming. This is called "a positive feedback" ("positive" because it amplifies the original effect). Similarly, as the Earth warms, more water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere and its concentration thus increases and, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, that causes more warming, another positive feedback. Finally, there are clouds, i.e., water vapor condensed into droplets...which are complicated because clouds can cause both cooling (by reflecting solar radiation) and warming (by increasing the greenhouse effect). And, furthermore, how cloudiness will change as the Earth warms is not easy to predict. So, it turns out that the cloud feedback is the biggest source of uncertainty in determining the climate sensitivity, i.e., how much the Earth will warm in response to, say, a doubling of CO2 levels. [And, there are feedbacks to other parts of the process too since, for example, a warming Earth can cause changes in the uptake of CO2 by plants and oceans or can cause the release of methane from melting permafrost and so forth.]

(2) Second of all, the radiative effects of CO2 are more complicated than Stefan-Boltzmann. That applies to radiating surfaces of opaque objects. Here, we are talking about a gas that radiation passing through can be absorbed and radiation can also be emitted. Also, for gases like CO2, the emissivity / absorptivity tend to occur in sharp lines and bands, which are quite complex. Nonetheless, as I (and I believe wolfpup) noted, the radiative transfer codes that compute the radiative forcing due to increases in CO2 are quite well-advanced and the uncertainties in this radiative forcing is considerably better determined than the next step of figuring out how that radiative forcing translates into a change in temperature (where the feedbacks come in).
  #41  
Old 03-03-2018, 12:22 PM
watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore View Post
There's a lot wrong in this one statement/question of yours.

(1) First of all, it misses the point: The point being made is that the radiative effect of CO2 (while way more complicated than you have imagined here) is pretty well-understood. What is not as well understood is the feedbacks in the climate system: For example, as the Earth warms, some land and sea ice melts in the polar regions and that decreases the reflectivity of the Earth, so this tends to cause more warming. This is called "a positive feedback" ("positive" because it amplifies the original effect). Similarly, as the Earth warms, more water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere and its concentration thus increases and, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, that causes more warming, another positive feedback. Finally, there are clouds, i.e., water vapor condensed into droplets...which are complicated because clouds can cause both cooling (by reflecting solar radiation) and warming (by increasing the greenhouse effect). And, furthermore, how cloudiness will change as the Earth warms is not easy to predict. So, it turns out that the cloud feedback is the biggest source of uncertainty in determining the climate sensitivity, i.e., how much the Earth will warm in response to, say, a doubling of CO2 levels. [And, there are feedbacks to other parts of the process too since, for example, a warming Earth can cause changes in the uptake of CO2 by plants and oceans or can cause the release of methane from melting permafrost and so forth.]

(2) Second of all, the radiative effects of CO2 are more complicated than Stefan-Boltzmann. That applies to radiating surfaces of opaque objects. Here, we are talking about a gas that radiation passing through can be absorbed and radiation can also be emitted. Also, for gases like CO2, the emissivity / absorptivity tend to occur in sharp lines and bands, which are quite complex. Nonetheless, as I (and I believe wolfpup) noted, the radiative transfer codes that compute the radiative forcing due to increases in CO2 are quite well-advanced and the uncertainties in this radiative forcing is considerably better determined than the next step of figuring out how that radiative forcing translates into a change in temperature (where the feedbacks come in).
That's exactly my point ... we know everything effects everything else, but we don't know to what degree ... and I would add to your list of feedbacks the ones yet to be discovered ... taken as a whole, the hysteria has no basis, these projections of catastrophe so common in the news are unwarranted seeing how little we actual know ... it's fake news and because we like hearing it doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it ...

Absolute humidity has come up a few times here in this thread, so if you'll excuse a slight hijack ... how this increases cloudiness is a simple application of the conservation of mass, and this wold be a negative feedback ... most of the extra water vapor at the surface will become ice crystals at altitude, with it's 0.9 albedo ... I'm curious why anyone would think this wouldn't happen ... the only thing I can think of is much much higher temperature aloft and I don't think I've ever seen that as a proposed effect of global warming ...

Back to the subject at hand ... it's interesting to discuss the other causes of global warming and how one factor effects another ... but at the end of the day we can only control the CO2 we emit ... and fixing that problem fixes a bunch more ... there's some really great reasons to cut back our burning of fossil fuels, the atmosphere isn't the only thing we're using as a sewer ...

There is a non-zero probability the solar constant will change ... then all our calculations are out the window anyway ... just saying ...
  #42  
Old 03-03-2018, 12:31 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
There is a non-zero probability the solar constant will change ... then all our calculations are out the window anyway ... just saying ...
Just saying here that claiming that the "hysteria has no basis" is wrong anyhow. (nor it is hysteria, in reality you are showing that you are relying here on the deniers talking points by implying that sensible warnings that the scientists are telling us are the same as misguided alarmist popular press articles)

When we consider that you yourself mentioned how warm in the deep past the earth was warmer, the overweening reason behind why it was warmer was the accumulation of global warming gases that also caused ocean acidification. (causing global extinctions, but never mind that huh?)

Point being that while we can discuss about how in the current time feedbacks can affect the rate of warming, the sad reality is that paleoclimate already showed what is the end result of increasing CO2 and other warming gases into the atmosphere. So drop that "no basis" silly point.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-03-2018 at 12:35 PM.
  #43  
Old 03-03-2018, 02:54 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
That's exactly my point ... we know everything effects everything else, but we don't know to what degree ... and I would add to your list of feedbacks the ones yet to be discovered ... taken as a whole, the hysteria has no basis, these projections of catastrophe so common in the news are unwarranted seeing how little we actual know ... it's fake news and because we like hearing it doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it ...
What may be "common in the news" is not relevant here. What is relevant is scientific evidence and consensus. Many of your comments suggest you are poorly informed about such evidence with regard to the major issues of climate change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Absolute humidity has come up a few times here in this thread, so if you'll excuse a slight hijack ... how this increases cloudiness is a simple application of the conservation of mass, and this wold be a negative feedback ... most of the extra water vapor at the surface will become ice crystals at altitude,
You need to stop making these nonsensical "simple" conclusions that are just flat-out wrong. This is the second time you've done that in this thread, the first being when you declared the relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature to be "simple", whereas in fact it's probably the single most complex and important problem in all of climate science.

As the IPCC concludes in the AR5 WG1 report (bolding mine): "Different climate models produce different projections of how clouds will change in a warmer climate. Based on all available evidence, it seems likely that the net cloud–climate feedback amplifies global warming. If so, the strength of this amplification remains uncertain.".

There is no a priori reason to believe that global warming will result in increased cloud formation. Indeed, the climate skeptic Richard Lindzen once proposed a theory he called the "iris effect" whereby warming sea surface temperatures would reduce cirrus cloud formation in the tropics, and thereby reduce warming because high-altitude cold clouds (ice clouds) are actually a positive climate feedback (the iris theory was later discredited). So even if increased absolute humidity led to more ice clouds as you claim, it would lead to an increase in warming because it's a positive and not a negative feedback as you claim. Such clouds have minimal effect on solar insolation but larger effects on blocking outgoing LW radiation.

There is some evidence that GHG-induced global warming will actually decrease, not increase, low and mid-level clouds which produce negative feedback, and there is also strong evidence that global warming is driving up the altitude of thin cirrus ice clouds, which would tend to create positive feedbacks.

So basically (a) the effect of GHG warming on cloud formation is very complex and not even remotely "simple", and (b) the claims you've made are exactly backwards.
  #44  
Old 03-03-2018, 06:26 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,396
We're in the process of switching over to natural gas because of an abundance of it and price. We're also close to switching over to electric cars because they're close to replacing ice cars. If by some miracle the electrical grid keeps pace with things we are going to reduce co2 without any outside interference.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #45  
Old 03-03-2018, 09:25 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Absolute humidity has come up a few times here in this thread, so if you'll excuse a slight hijack ... how this increases cloudiness is a simple application of the conservation of mass, and this wold be a negative feedback ... most of the extra water vapor at the surface will become ice crystals at altitude, with it's 0.9 albedo ... I'm curious why anyone would think this wouldn't happen ... the only thing I can think of is much much higher temperature aloft and I don't think I've ever seen that as a proposed effect of global warming ...
wolfpup has already said very eloquently much of what I was thinking of saying. I'll only add a few points:
(1) Just to amplify what he said about Lindzen: Lindzen is not only an AGW skeptic, but probably the most notable and accomplished atmospheric scientist in the skeptic camp. And, the fact is that not only did he not think what you described wouldn't happen, he thought exactly the opposite would happen (for high-altitude clouds in the tropics).
(2) Yes, it is expected that there will be warming aloft (at least through the troposphere; there is expected to be cooling in the stratosphere). In fact, studies (such as this one) have found that the prediction of climate models is that in the upper troposphere the increase in absolute humidity and temperature would be such that RELATIVE humidity would, in the global average, remain approximately constant (although it's not predicted to remain constant everywhere, with some places of increase and some of decrease).
  #46  
Old 03-04-2018, 06:50 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,804
We know with absolute, 100% certainty that climate change is sufficient to cause calamity, because it already has. Millions of deaths have already been caused by climate change, and more will be in the future. What we do now will determine how many more it will be, and so we have a responsibility to make good choices now.
  #47  
Old 03-04-2018, 10:14 AM
watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore View Post
[snip] ... (2) Yes, it is expected that there will be warming aloft (at least through the troposphere; there is expected to be cooling in the stratosphere). In fact, studies (such as this one) have found that the prediction of climate models is that in the upper troposphere the increase in absolute humidity and temperature would be such that RELATIVE humidity would, in the global average, remain approximately constant (although it's not predicted to remain constant everywhere, with some places of increase and some of decrease).
Thank you for this answer ... your cite only claims a doubling of water vapor aloft, that not very much mass compared to a 20% increase at the surface ... but then again we won't see 3ºC temperature increase at the surface since so much of the average increase will be aloft ...

If you'll excuse another silly question ... for the same amount of cloudiness, wouldn't we see the same amount of precipitation? ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
We know with absolute, 100% certainty that climate change is sufficient to cause calamity, because it already has. Millions of deaths have already been caused by climate change, and more will be in the future. What we do now will determine how many more it will be, and so we have a responsibility to make good choices now.
The Sahel ... cut down the trees and the rains stop ... replant the trees and the rains return ... my citation in post #7 only addressed the carbon load added to the atmosphere from deforestation ... there's also transpiration that adds water vapor load which condenses back into more rain ...
  #48  
Old 03-04-2018, 10:19 AM
LAZombie is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 259
The Earth's core.

It is estimated to be 10,800 F which is hotter than the surface of the Sun, and scientists are not exactly sure why. They believe it is combination of heat from when the Earth first formed, frictional heat, and the decay of radioactive material. Temperatures in the Earth's crust can be as high as 1800 F. The deepest anyone has ever drilled into the Earth is 7.5 miles while the distance to the core is 4000.

How much does it affect Earth's climate? I don't know, but I think it should be considered.
  #49  
Old 03-04-2018, 10:21 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,717

The Moderator Clears His Throat


Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
You need to stop making these nonsensical "simple" conclusions that are just flat-out wrong.
It'd be really nice if you didn't tell other posters what they can and cannot post. Refute the post, certainly. But the other gets to a line I don't think we want to cross.
  #50  
Old 03-04-2018, 10:36 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
The Earth's core.

It is estimated to be 10,800 F which is hotter than the surface of the Sun, and scientists are not exactly sure why. They believe it is combination of heat from when the Earth first formed, frictional heat, and the decay of radioactive material. Temperatures in the Earth's crust can be as high as 1800 F. The deepest anyone has ever drilled into the Earth is 7.5 miles while the distance to the core is 4000.

How much does it affect Earth's climate? I don't know, but I think it should be considered.
Did this temperature raise or lower in recent years? If not, why would it be considered?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017