Ellinwood Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Have a listen... http://www.wtop.com/?nid=&sid=2191223 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 Well that was a quick 4 minute interview... Crouch provided no useful arguments for climate change besides the standard repertoire of "that's what the data shows and it exists." Waiting to see what brilliantly-flawed arguments Bastardi will use in 20-25 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Well that was a quick 4 minute interview... Crouch provided no useful arguments for climate change besides the standard repertoire of "that's what the data shows and it exists." Waiting to see what brilliantly-flawed arguments Bastardi will use in 20-25 minutes. I don't think anyone here denies that Global Warming exists. Should be interesting to see what Joe Bastardi has to say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 I don't think anyone here denies that Global Warming exists. Should be interesting to see what Joe Bastardi has to say... Oh, they do... I think. I know Bastardi denies it, so I'll have a laugh while he tries to denounce AGW just like he tried to denounce the drought last month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I imagine JB's argument will go something like this..."interglacial period, record cold in Antarctica (where's the LMSMSMSMSMS reporting!?!?!?!?!?!!?11?!/!/11/1/1), watch out for Winter 2012-13 in the DC area, you'll forget all about globular worming!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Among JB's likely arguments are: 1. All of the warming was natural (due to the PDO and AMO) 2. The world is now cooling and is running slightly cooler than normal this year 3. CO2 is a trace gas and is not well mixed; therefore it has no real impact 4. Current U.S. heat and drought are the result of a pattern that resembles the 1950s (PDO flip-still warm AMO); the 1930s were hotter 5. The lack of a "heat trapping spot" disproves AGW That the global temperatures are diverging from the PDO-AMO relationship won't be mentioned. That the NCDC and GISS data show that the world is warmer than normal, even against the 1981-2010 baseline used by JB won't be mentioned. That the marginal increase in CO2 has led to the energy imbalance and that CO2 is, in fact, well mixed won't be mentioned. That rising temperatures increase the probability of extreme outcomes e.g., patterns that produced heat and drought in the past would have a higher probability of producing extremes, won't be mentioned. That the drought-stricken U.S. was largely an island of heat in a sea of cool global anomalies won't be mentioned. Recent scientific literature suggests that the atmosphere is warming less fast than the land, so the lack of such a "spot" would be consistent with the new literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 Same ol' "look at the 30s, look at the 50s" discussion from Bastardi. Pretty sure no one with a brain blamed global warming for Irene (he said people did). Scandinavia cooling, southeast Asia cooler, Antarctic ice growing... his usual CO2 argument, stuff about the ocean's heat capacity. Bastardi trying to talk over the host... how nice of him. Bottom line: Never give Bastardi a radio show or he'll talk you to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 JB: -PDO switch to cold phase recently -Coolest summer ever in Scandanavia -AMO going to switch in 10-15 years -Thermometers are "spooky" -CO2 has no impact on climate change. Only .0004% of atmosphere is CO2. Only 5% of CO2 is anthropogenic (!?!). -Another 6-7 years of warm conditions, then everyone screaming "Ice Age" in 20 years. Global satellite temperature record return to 1978 levels by 2030. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh, they do... I think. I know Bastardi denies it, so I'll have a laugh while he tries to denounce AGW just like he tried to denounce the drought last month. I am skeptical about the degree humans contribute VS natural causes, there is more evidence to support a dominant natural solar cause than a dominant anthropogenic greenhouse gas cause. Joe has made some good points with regard to past tropical cyclones and the media's possible reaction to those cyclones. Some of his other points were not the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Nice prediction, Don. You nailed it. The conference I attended last month had a chart comparing predicted temperatures based on PDO/AMO cycles and another based on CO2 increase. The PDO/AMO predicted temperature cycled above and below the observed curve. The CO2-predicted curve was EXACTLY on top of the observed temperature record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Same ol' "look at the 30s, look at the 50s" discussion from Bastardi. Pretty sure no one with a brain blamed global warming for Irene (he said people did). Oh there were most certainly people who were... http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/26/305265/how-global-warming-is-making-hurricane-irene-worse/?mobile=nc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 there is more evidence to support a dominant natural solar cause than a dominant anthropogenic greenhouse gas cause. What evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 What evidence? Where do you want me to start? There is simply an overwhelming amount of evidence. Do you agree that the level of solar activity we are at is at some of the most unusually high levels in the last 11500 years? I guess we can start off here with these ten papers: http://www.pensee-unique.fr/courtillot3.pdf http://ftp.utdallas.edu/physics/faculty/tinsley/EOS%202009.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682610004050 http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12433.full http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Flux.pdf http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/462/2068/1221.full http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/18/251/2011/npg-18-251-2011.pdf http://www.iafe.uba.ar/docs/reprint_parana.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh there were most certainly people who were... http://thinkprogress...orse/?mobile=nc Like I said, anyone with a brain. You can't attribute one specific event to global warming... we just don't have a good enough understanding of the linkage to make such claims with a high level of certainty. Rather, seasonal activity and yearly trends is where the statistics provide the best evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh there were most certainly people who were... http://thinkprogress...orse/?mobile=nc He said "people with a brain"......thus your response is a fail..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Like I said, anyone with a brain. You can't attribute one specific event to global warming... we just don't have a good enough understanding of the linkage to make such claims with a high level of certainty. Rather, seasonal activity and yearly trends is where the statistics provide the best evidence. Yep, multidecadal statistical trends are the best way of determining if something may be influenced by climate changes, agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 He said "people with a brain"......thus your response is a fail..... That is true, since we are talking about Joe Romm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 That is true, since we are talking about Joe Romm... S'all good. I'm not read up enough on climate change to get into specific arguments (more so just in a general sense)... just wanted to get what was said on the interview out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Where do you want me to start? There is simply an overwhelming amount of evidence. I'm glad you posted (mostly) peer-reviewed literature. But evidence of solar variability's impact of climate/weather does not mean that the solar variability is dominating the anthropogenic effects. Quite the contrary. This very comprehensive review paper summarizes the literature and finds that, while the IPCC report probably under-reported solar forcing (by a factor of 2) and the solar uncertainty, it still pales in comparison to the anthropogenic forcing. I think there's still plenty of room for study (the paper mentions that if recent SORCE measurements are correct, almost every issue needs to be revisited), but it's disingenuous and false to say the literature supports the idea that solar forcing dominates anthropogenic. http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/rg1004/2009RG000282/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I'm glad you posted (mostly) peer-reviewed literature. But evidence of solar variability's impact of climate/weather does not mean that the solar variability is dominating the anthropogenic effects. Quite the contrary. This very comprehensive review paper summarizes the literature and finds that, while the IPCC report probably under-reported solar forcing (by a factor of 2) and the solar uncertainty, it still pales in comparison to the anthropogenic forcing. I think there's still plenty of room for study (the paper mentions that if recent SORCE measurements are correct, almost every issue needs to be revisited), but it's disingenuous and false to say the literature supports the idea that solar forcing dominates anthropogenic. http://www.agu.org/j...4/2009RG000282/ So they find that TSI contributed to 0.24 w/m^2. Interesting. The only problem, is that observations have shown that over the course of a solar cycle, the total observed forcing was up to 7 times than what you would expect with a change in TSI. Shaviv 2008. This gives us an observational estimate, that solar irradiance alone is not enough to quantify the total solar radiative forcing over a solar cycle. It indicates that an amplifying mechanism (GCRs) is needed to explain this amplification. If GCRs amplify the signal of the TSI by up to a factor of 7, then the total solar contribution using the TSI forcing from Gray et. al paper is around 2 w/m^2. FWIW, this is more than the anthropogenic forcing. Also, the role of internal climatic variability needs to be considered, since it could have contributed as well to the warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 GCR's impact on the atmosphere and climate is still very much an open question. Until that process is understood, you can't make the claim that it is the primary force in climate change even if (one piece of) observational evidence supports the idea. If you don't understand the mechanism, you can't make a guilt verdict. Even if the Sun/GCRs were contributing 2 W/m^2 of forcing to the climate, that does not eliminate the anthropogenic forcing. The total anthropogenic forcing matches observations well. So, if the true forcing was 1.6 + 2 W/m^2, then something (completely unknown) is countering half of that positive forcing. Again, that is not seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 GCR's impact on the atmosphere and climate is still very much an open question. Until that process is understood, you can't make the claim that it is the primary force in climate change even if (one piece of) observational evidence supports the idea. If you don't understand the mechanism, you can't make a guilt verdict. Even if the Sun/GCRs were contributing 2 W/m^2 of forcing to the climate, that does not eliminate the anthropogenic forcing. The total anthropogenic forcing matches observations well. So, if the true forcing was 1.6 + 2 W/m^2, then something (completely unknown) is countering half of that positive forcing. Again, that is not seen. Well, there is much observational evidence that they do have a substantial impact, see Dragic et. al 2011 for an example, Kniveton and Todd 2001 for another, Svensmark et. al 2009 for another, etc. In your second paragraph, I assume you are talking about climate sensitivity. If climate sensitivity were around 6 w/m^2 (which is low sensitivity a value proposed by Lindzen, Spencer, Christy etc.) then the observations match fairly well with the theoretical radiative forcings. Sensitivity is another issue that remains to be FAR from settled in climate science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Well, there is much observational evidence that they do have a substantial impact, see Dragic et. al 2011 for an example, Kniveton and Todd 2001 for another, Svensmark et. al 2009 for another, etc. In your second paragraph, I assume you are talking about climate sensitivity. If climate sensitivity were around 6 w/m^2 (which is low sensitivity a value proposed by Lindzen, Spencer, Christy etc.) then the observations match fairly well with the theoretical radiative forcings. Sensitivity is another issue that remains to be FAR from settled in climate science. If there is observational evidence that they are causing an impact then as was pointed out above you should be able to point out the how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 If there is observational evidence that they are causing an impact then as was pointed out above you should be able to point out the how. Yes. The second paper discusses the impact of Cosmic Ray changes on precipitation, the first paper talks about the change in the DTR in response to the change in the GCR, and the third talks about the aerosol change in response to the change in the GCR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 JB: -PDO switch to cold phase recently -Coolest summer ever in Scandanavia -AMO going to switch in 10-15 years -Thermometers are "spooky" -CO2 has no impact on climate change. Only .0004% of atmosphere is CO2. Only 5% of CO2 is anthropogenic (!?!). -Another 6-7 years of warm conditions, then everyone screaming "Ice Age" in 20 years. Global satellite temperature record return to 1978 levels by 2030. JB is more right than he is wrong. I wouldn't say CO2 has no impact but it has very little impact. Also I don't know if the temp. record will return to 1978 levels by 2030...there are a lot of factors at play...but we will definitely cool by 2030 (although the manipulated/bastardized temp. record will not show very much if any cooling). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 So they find that TSI contributed to 0.24 w/m^2. Interesting. The only problem, is that observations have shown that over the course of a solar cycle, the total observed forcing was up to 7 times than what you would expect with a change in TSI. Shaviv 2008. This gives us an observational estimate, that solar irradiance alone is not enough to quantify the total solar radiative forcing over a solar cycle. It indicates that an amplifying mechanism (GCRs) is needed to explain this amplification. If GCRs amplify the signal of the TSI by up to a factor of 7, then the total solar contribution using the TSI forcing from Gray et. al paper is around 2 w/m^2. FWIW, this is more than the anthropogenic forcing. Also, the role of internal climatic variability needs to be considered, since it could have contributed as well to the warming. Let's assume a 0.24w/m^2 forcing since 1750 rather than 0.12w (IPCC likely range 0.06w to 0.30w). Planck response = 0.3C per watt Change in solar radiation since 1750 = 0.1% or 1.3 watts Radiative forcing = 1.3w/4(0.70) = 0.2275 watts or very close to 0.24w 0.3C/0.2275 = 0.13C Planck response due to solar variation (before feedback) ------------ If we 0.2275w * 7 = 1.59w/m^2 ( just about exactly the forcing given by the current ~40% increase in CO2 since 1750) If we 0.13C * 7 = 0.91C ( pretty close to the observed 0.8C global warming) What a coincidence is that number 7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Let's assume a 0.24w/m^2 forcing since 1750 rather than 0.12w (IPCC likely range 0.06w to 0.30w). Planck response = 0.3C per watt Change in solar radiation since 1750 = 0.1% or 1.3 watts Radiative forcing = 1.3w/4(0.70) = 0.2275 watts or very close to 0.24w 0.3C/0.2275 = 0.13C Planck response due to solar variation (before feedback) ------------ If we 0.2275w * 7 = 1.59w/m^2 ( just about exactly the forcing given by the current ~40% increase in CO2 since 1750) If we 0.13C * 7 = 0.91C ( pretty close to the observed 0.8C global warming) What a coincidence is that number 7? I am unsure what you are trying to argue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I am unsure what you are trying to argue here. Same. Sounds like numbers could be plugged in until something calculated out... I'm not sold on this watt sq2 calculation either, seems to me there would be TONS of variables built in that would prevent an accuracy down to the 1/10th watt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I wouldn't say CO2 has no impact but it has very little impact. If you honestly think this combined with some nonsensical conspiracy theorist rants, than please never post again. TIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Well, there is much observational evidence that they do have a substantial impact, see Dragic et. al 2011 for an example, Kniveton and Todd 2001 for another, Svensmark et. al 2009 for another, etc. In your second paragraph, I assume you are talking about climate sensitivity. If climate sensitivity were around 6 w/m^2 (which is low sensitivity a value proposed by Lindzen, Spencer, Christy etc.) then the observations match fairly well with the theoretical radiative forcings. Sensitivity is another issue that remains to be FAR from settled in climate science. Interesting work, but you're extrapolating some of these articles a little bit too far. Kniveton and Todd doesn't even mention temperature and long-term climate. Svensmark is similar. You can't make the leap to "GCRs are the primary climate driver", even if they observationally can be linked to changes in clouds/aerosols. I was assuming a a constant climate sensitivity, but yes, you have to assume a lower climate sensitivity if the forcing has been doubled above what most consensus estimates use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.