Factors of Climate Change

[blizzard1024]

Extraordinary claims, like a trace gas driving a very very complex climate system, require extraordinary evidence. The science you are talking about falls far short of this. 

There are way too many holes in the CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect theory. Too many uncertainties. I can go on and on. But common sense has left 

the field of climate science long ago IMO.  In climate science the tail wags the dog...  The conclusion since the 1980s is CO2 is leading to warming of the planet so

basically researchers find any evidence to support this. They heavily using computer models, proxy data and the fact that we are entering a natural warm period.  Anything that doesn't

support this conclusion, gets ignored, trashed or even worse destroys people's careers over. I have seen it happen. This is not the way science is supposed to work.  Hopefully Trump

will get people into USGS, NSF, NOAA, EPA and NASA to restore integrity to this field. Just my opinion.  

 

[Msalgado]

Frankly, your opinion is pretty worthless.  You constantly mess up fundamental atmospheric science principles such as humidity and basic radiative physics.  Still waiting on your thermodynamic explanation in the temperature thread, for instance.  And you act as though you can discount the climate forcing related to CO2 even though it has mountains of evidence backing it.  You know, because that's just like your opinion, man.

 

Who cares bout your opinion?  Not me.  Not science.  Prove something to the extent scientists have proven CO2 is big factor in our system and then maybe your opinion will carry weight.  It gets so tired to hear people deny scientific evidence and then play the victim as if their scientifically unsound "opinion" deserves the same weight as theories that have loads of evidence built up over a century (last time I checked, Arrhenius wasn't doing work in 1980).  Its utter hogwash and it works with the uneducated masses who can't tell when your FOS (especially when you have a red tag) but to those who are just as educated and have similar backgrounds it comes off as inane BS.

[Msalgado]

I mean honestly, where does one even start when someone who has been on this board for so long is still asking how we don't know this if this is natural?  You know why.  You don't accept it because its not convenient to your world view.  There's no other source.  The radiative physics of CO2.  It's tired.

[blizzard1024]

8 hours ago, Msalgado said:

I mean honestly, where does one even start when someone who has been on this board for so long is still asking how we don't know this if this is natural?  You know why.  You don't accept it because its not convenient to your world view.  There's no other source.  The radiative physics of CO2.  It's tired.

 

8 hours ago, Msalgado said:

Frankly, your opinion is pretty worthless.  You constantly mess up fundamental atmospheric science principles such as humidity and basic radiative physics.  Still waiting on your thermodynamic explanation in the temperature thread, for instance.  And you act as though you can discount the climate forcing related to CO2 even though it has mountains of evidence backing it.  You know, because that's just like your opinion, man.

 

Who cares bout your opinion?  Not me.  Not science.  Prove something to the extent scientists have proven CO2 is big factor in our system and then maybe your opinion will carry weight.  It gets so tired to hear people deny scientific evidence and then play the victim as if their scientifically unsound "opinion" deserves the same weight as theories that have loads of evidence built up over a century (last time I checked, Arrhenius wasn't doing work in 1980).  Its utter hogwash and it works with the uneducated masses who can't tell when your FOS (especially when you have a red tag) but to those who are just as educated and have similar backgrounds it comes off as inane BS.

First of all, it is basic atmosphere science and radiative transfer that makes me come to my conclusions!!! Basic radiative transfer states that doubling CO2 leads to 3.7 w/m2 of extra downwelling radiation. Fine, everyone agrees on this. If you don't then you truly are in the pseudoscience world. The total greenhouse effect based on Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 shows that the total greenhouse effect is  333 w/m2, although I have seen it vary as low as 324 w/m2 in similar diagrams. So adding 3.7 w/m2 to this, or about 1%, is enough to swing the climate by several degrees C?? If you use Power (w/m²) = 5.35 ln C/Co from Myhre et al, 1998 you get a little over 1C from a doubling of CO2. Tell me where I am going wrong sir?  This is if you assume no feedbacks. Well, we know there are feedbacks. The one that everyone touts is the water vapor feedback. Basic physics, Clausius-Clapeyron equations does show that if it is warmer the atmosphere can become more humid. But it doesn't mean it does become more humid. If you look at Paltridge et al 2009 you will see that yes, indeed it becomes more humid in the lower troposphere. That is where the atmopsheric mixed layer is and more evaporation off oceans indeed leads to more vater vapor down low. However as you get above the mixed layer the trend disappears. That is not a coincidence. Atmospheric precipitation processes are removing this extra water vapor and in fact the upper troposphere where it really counts for the greenhouse effect based on this paper is drying. Now I do understand that this result is uncertain due to the difficulties measuring water vapor high up with radiosondes and the long term changes in equipment etc. However, other satellite studies are not as clear either or have short datasets. Plus the response of cloud cover to an increase in low level water vapor?? That is never discuss because it likely is a negative feedback. Every cloud dataset that I have seen shows the same thing over and over, when there are more(less) low clouds, it is colder(warmer) globally. 

And yes we are in a warm period globally, but it was like that 1000 years ago. So mankind in 1017 AD noticed that it is getting warmer, has more of a growing season and less harsh winters. The Vikings colonized Greenland, the ice pack around iceland receded way back. This warming slowly continued for at least 200 more years!! We could easily be in the same situation now and its all natural warming. The basic glacial-interglacial cycles aren't fully understood which is core to the climate system. There is so much we don't know. So to say there is no other source of warming shows your ignorance of the climate system. And why the condescending attitude? There are new people to this forum that get blasted pretty bad. It shows that many of you are very defensive.  Tell me where I don't invoke solid basic science in the above....   

 

 

[chubbs]

Blizz - The CO2 is a trace gas mantra is really a silly conceit since scientists have known the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since the 1800s and it has been factored into literally millions of calculations.  It is also a conceit to think that you can reason your way through the radiative balance and its impact on the climate system.  To make any progress requires equations, calculations and models. As with CO2 all of the basic numbers are well understood and included in simple and complex models. Any major flaws would have been discovered decades ago.

Science is all about prediction. Going back to the 1970s, climate science predictions of the future have been reasonably successful. What are your predictions for the future? Give us a testable outcome for the next 5 to 10 years. 

[blizzard1024]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

Blizz - The CO2 is a trace gas mantra is really a silly conceit since scientists have known the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since the 1800s and it has been factored into literally millions of calculations.  It is also a conceit to think that you can reason your way through the radiative balance and its impact on the climate system.  To make any progress requires equations, calculations and models. As with CO2 all of the basic numbers are well understood and included in simple and complex models. Any major flaws would have been discovered decades ago.

Science is all about prediction. Going back to the 1970s, climate science predictions of the future have been reasonably successful. What are your predictions for the future? Give us a testable outcome for the next 5 to 10 years. 

Please consider this. There is some warming effect from increased CO2. Its how much that is the question. Climate sensitivity is the key, not whether CO2 causes warming. It causes some warming. No one is certain about climate sensitivity. Dr Judith Curry who I know personally from years ago suggests its small between 1.3-1.9C. Dr Lindzen suggests its less, Dr Spencer suggests its even less. These are well accomplished PhDs in atmospheric science and I agree with their viewpoint of lower sensitivity. So by folks on this forum saying I am ignorant, a pseudoscientist,  "You constantly mess up fundamental atmospheric science principles such as humidity and basic radiative physics." is stating that these folks are doing the same.  My prediction for the next 5-10 years is this, another plateau in warming from the last strong El Nino. It looks like global temperatures are stabilizing around +.4C. The previous plateau off the last El NIno  (1998) stopped at around +.3C. So here is your warming...+.1C. If the AMO goes negative, then I think global temperatures will fall to below 0C anomaly in the satellite record. The GISS/NOAA/HADCRUT will find a way to make sure this doesn't happen by adjusting data as much as they can. 

One thing that really changed my mind that CO2 can't control the climate system is the vostok ice core record below...

Even if there were NO lag between the two datasets, why would the CO2 and temperature be so much in lockstep?? Why would CO2 vary and move temperature in these rhythms that are so closed correlated?? The answer here is that CO2 is more soluble in colder oceans than warmer oceans. This strongly suggests that CO2 passively follows the temperatures since the solubility of gases in liquid based on temperature is rock solid science. Plus, it is something ELSE that starts the process of climate change in these glacial cycles, THEN CO2 takes over? That makes no sense. If CO2 was dominate it would always be dominate NOT just at certain times. This is such a weak argument. I have discussed this with other scientists, engineers etc and they know of no physical system where a component dominates and then stops. Its all common sense. This graph proves CO2 doesn't have much impact in our climate. You can run all the climate models you want, run all the statistics you want and prove whatever you want. If funding depends on it, then you will find what you want. That is the sad state of affairs in many sciences, especially climate science. 

 

[Blizzard92]

I don't understand this personal vendetta against climate scientists. It is incredibly upsetting and certainly does not make others want to post here. My colleagues and superiors are genuinely trying to understand the Earth system. They follow and support the scientific method and are constantly trying to find (and answer) new questions about the climate system.

 

We spend most of our time focusing on the contributions between natural and forced climate change. There is no agenda. Climate science engages interdisciplinary work of many scientific, economic, and sociological fields. We want to better understand and communicate Earth's climate in the past, present, and future. 

[Jenkins]

18 minutes ago, Blizzard92 said:

We spend most of our time focusing on the contributions between natural and forced climate change. There is no agenda. Climate science engages interdisciplinary work of many scientific, economic, and sociological fields. We want to better understand and communicate Earth's climate in the past, present, and future. 

I went to a lecture from Dr. Oreskes while a Geosciences undergrad and she said she describes the interdisciplinary nature of climate science to non-scientists as standing on the shoulders of giants. In other words, the science is built on well known physical, chemical and biological concepts going back from hundreds of years worth of research. This isn't something that we are just learning about. With that said, there is still plenty more to understand.

[pazzo83]

21 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

And the Little Ice Age ended in the 1800s...so what is to say that the 1900s and early 2000s is not a natural rebound?? 

 

I want sources.

[FloridaJohn]

6 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Please consider this. There is some warming effect from increased CO2. Its how much that is the question. Climate sensitivity is the key, not whether CO2 causes warming. It causes some warming. No one is certain about climate sensitivity. Dr Judith Curry who I know personally from years ago suggests its small between 1.3-1.9C. Dr Lindzen suggests its less, Dr Spencer suggests its even less. These are well accomplished PhDs in atmospheric science and I agree with their viewpoint of lower sensitivity.

That's all we'll and good, but you should be evaluating all the available science, not just the parts you agree with. Yes, there are some published research on lower climate sensitivities, but most of the research points to a higher number. Here is a summary chart from the IPCC:

If you look at all these studies, you will see the low sensitivity ones you like, but you will see most of the research (using a variety of different methods) comes up with a higher number. The IPCC uses the greyed in range above of 1.5 to 4.5 as "most likely," but you can't rule out an even higher sensitivity because there are more studies showing that the ECS could be greater than 4.5 than there are showing less than 1.5. 

From a strictly risk-management perspective we should be preparing for a higher sensitivity and then feel good if it turns out to be lower. Even at the low end, there will be major disruptions to our way of life, so none of this is good news, even in your optimistic viewpoint. 

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, FloridaJohn said:

That's all we'll and good, but you should be evaluating all the available science, not just the parts you agree with. Yes, there are some published research on lower climate sensitivities, but most of the research points to a higher number. Here is a summary chart from the IPCC:

If you look at all these studies, you will see the low sensitivity ones you like, but you will see most of the research (using a variety of different methods) comes up with a higher number. The IPCC uses the greyed in range above of 1.5 to 4.5 as "most likely," but you can't rule out an even higher sensitivity because there are more studies showing that the ECS could be greater than 4.5 than there are showing less than 1.5. 

From a strictly risk-management perspective we should be preparing for a higher sensitivity and then feel good if it turns out to be lower. Even at the low end, there will be major disruptions to our way of life, so none of this is good news, even in your optimistic viewpoint. 

I have no problem with countries developing renewable clean energy sources. Believe me I would LOVE to have all solar panels on my house and not pay for the energy. Even though folks disagree with me I do have common ground with many of you in that I support developing renewables (except for wind power). But so far, it is not as profitable yet although its rapidly becoming so especially with solar. I am TOTALLY against an oil company or big energy company impeding progress in going to renewables. But I am against carbon taxes for the rich nations while letting the third world nations pollute. That is a net transfer of wealth and jobs away from the US. That's bad for our country. I also am not sold than even +2-3C of warming over a couple centuries would be that bad either. Sea level issues aside, it could benefit humans if it happens slow enough which so far looks to be the case with the present temperature trends.  This all assumes the feedbacks are quite positive which from what I have read and studied believe are low. This really is where the vigorous debate should be. Anyway hope you have a happy new year. 

 

[blizzard1024]

4 hours ago, pazzo83 said:

I want sources.

This is the Berkeley BEST temperature record with error bars, GISS, HADCRUT4, and NOAA. These are the sources. ????? 

[chubbs]

21 hours ago, Blizzard92 said:

I don't understand this personal vendetta against climate scientists. It is incredibly upsetting and certainly does not make others want to post here. My colleagues and superiors are genuinely trying to understand the Earth system. They follow and support the scientific method and are constantly trying to find (and answer) new questions about the climate system.

 

We spend most of our time focusing on the contributions between natural and forced climate change. There is no agenda. Climate science engages interdisciplinary work of many scientific, economic, and sociological fields. We want to better understand and communicate Earth's climate in the past, present, and future. 

Many of us appreciate what you and your colleagues are accomplishing. The increasing ability to explain current and past climates is truly impressive. Unfortunately  the most recent findings generally point to increasing climate system sensitivity as we learn more about ice sheet, sea ice, permafrost, ocean and vegetation responses to increasing warmth. There is no point in sugar coating - many Americans are completely mis-informed on climate change and our forum discussions are typical of the some of the ones I have with friends and relatives. Conservative media is partially to blame, but no or minimal impact on climate is something many people want to believe.  It is easier to believe in the bad faith  of someone else, as silly and as harmful to our future well being as that seems, than take responsibility for ones own actions.

[pazzo83]

19 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

This is the Berkeley BEST temperature record with error bars, GISS, HADCRUT4, and NOAA. These are the sources. ????? 

You cherry picked one source for pre-20th Century temps that validates your hypothesis.  That's not good science.

[chubbs]

The pre-1850 data is very noisy and uncertain due to the limited number of measurements. Smoothing the data by averaging over 10 years gives a better visual picture of the long-term trend. Also note that the chart ends in 2013 so doesn't include the recent temperature spike. Temperatures have been rising ever since GHG began to increase in the late 1700s slowly at first but with a pick-up in the 20th century, following the net rate of man-made climate forcing closely.

[Brewbeer]

On December 31, 2016 at 7:49 PM, blizzard1024 said:

I also am not sold than even +2-3C of warming over a couple centuries would be that bad either. Sea level issues aside, it could benefit humans if it happens slow enough which so far looks to be the case with the present temperature trends. 

 

"Sea level issues aside".  Yeah.

[pazzo83]

1 hour ago, Brewbeer said:

"Sea level issues aside".  Yeah.

Sorry 40% of the world's population who is now underwater, let me just cast that aside for a moment to make some disjointed, scientifically-unsound point.

[BillT]

31 minutes ago, pazzo83 said:

Sorry 40% of the world's population who is now underwater, let me just cast that aside for a moment to make some disjointed, scientifically-unsound point.

where precisely is this almost 3 BILLION people living UNDERWATER please?

[pazzo83]

32 minutes ago, BillT said:

where precisely is this almost 3 BILLION people living UNDERWATER please?

The adults are talking, Bill.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

Ocean Pollution.

The un-monitored aspect of thousands of tons of new ocean pollution added yearly.  

[BillT]

On 1/5/2017 at 3:42 PM, pazzo83 said:

The adults are talking, Bill.

YOU made the claim that 40% of the population is NOW "underwater" i asked an adult question where exactly are these people, and you gave a childish response.....

[vortmax]

Actually, climate change is likely due to the increasing amount of anger and stress in the world. Studies show that anger and stress increase the human body temperature. With 7 billion mini heaters in the world, we can safely state that humans really are affecting global temperatures.

The solution? Chill out a little people...especially in this forum!

[blizzard1024]

The NCEP reanalysis data for specific humidity at 300 mb shows an overall long term decline as has been supposedly debunked that

it is not accurate. I can see that point in the 50s, 60s and even 70s, but look at this since 1990 when there has been better assimilation

schemes and radiosonde data. It still shows a slight drying in the upper troposphere since this time...that's 27 years. This data suggests

a negative water vapor feedback in the higher levels of the troposphere where it really counts for the greenhouse effect. You can see

short term trends where there is warming and the specific humidity goes up, so the recent AIRS study showing moistening over the last 4 

years might be valid. But in the long term, the data is showing drying and hence the earth could be maintaining a constant greenhouse effect... 

see: 

 

[Jack Frost]

General Request:

When posting graphs, charts or anything really that is not purely original material, please cite the source.  Providing a link to that source if possible would also be greatly appreciated. This would be quite helpful to those who would like to better understand context and credibility.  Thanks in advance!

Let's make the American Wx Climate Forum the best that it can be and a real resource to all. 

Blizz, the above is a general comment / request not directed at you as I realize the graphs above that you have posted are sourced.

[Jack Frost]

On December 30, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Msalgado said:

Frankly, your opinion is pretty worthless.  You constantly mess up fundamental atmospheric science principles such as humidity and basic radiative physics.  Still waiting on your thermodynamic explanation in the temperature thread, for instance.  And you act as though you can discount the climate forcing related to CO2 even though it has mountains of evidence backing it.  You know, because that's just like your opinion, man.

 

Who cares bout your opinion?  Not me.  Not science.  Prove something to the extent scientists have proven CO2 is big factor in our system and then maybe your opinion will carry weight.  It gets so tired to hear people deny scientific evidence and then play the victim as if their scientifically unsound "opinion" deserves the same weight as theories that have loads of evidence built up over a century (last time I checked, Arrhenius wasn't doing work in 1980).  Its utter hogwash and it works with the uneducated masses who can't tell when your FOS (especially when you have a red tag) but to those who are just as educated and have similar backgrounds it comes off as inane BS.

 

Msalgado, please let us know your credentials.  Are you "just as educated and have similar backgrounds"?

The credibility of your posts are suspect without your providing the background and experience from which they spring.

I'm not saying that you are not credible, just stating I haven't seen your credentials.  Apologies if you have posted them elsewhere.

Regardless of your credentials, I AM saying that your posts come across as rude and bullying.  I trust that you are more respectful to your fellow Aggies....

   

[donsutherland1]

On December 31, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Blizzard92 said:

I don't understand this personal vendetta against climate scientists. It is incredibly upsetting and certainly does not make others want to post here. My colleagues and superiors are genuinely trying to understand the Earth system. They follow and support the scientific method and are constantly trying to find (and answer) new questions about the climate system.

 

We spend most of our time focusing on the contributions between natural and forced climate change. There is no agenda. Climate science engages interdisciplinary work of many scientific, economic, and sociological fields. We want to better understand and communicate Earth's climate in the past, present, and future. 

Many of us have enormous respect for those pursuing climate research. Please don't get discouraged.

[Jack Frost]

54 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Many of us have enormous respect for those pursuing climate research.

Agree Don.

By the way, there is a response to your most recent post and linked paper on Dr. Berry's site.  Curious as to what you think.

Blizz, if you want to see a civilized discussion on one aspect of this topic, please take a look at the comments to Dr. Berry's article: http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

I think you will appreciate the high level of discourse and may even want to weigh in....  

 

[donsutherland1]

12 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

Agree Don.

By the way, there is a response to your most recent post and linked paper on Dr. Berry's site.  Curious as to what you think.

Blizz, if you want to see a civilized discussion on one aspect of this topic, please take a look at the comments to Dr. Berry's article: http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

I think you will appreciate the high level of discourse and may even want to weigh in....  

 

I've responded.

[Jack Frost]

12 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I've responded.

 

Thanks Don.  Your engagement in the discussion on such a high and civil manner is greatly appreciated - by me at least and for whatever that means.

As an aside, a serious question - do you think that Dr. Berry and those that argue for his finding that the anthropogenic contribution to total GHG is approximately 4% are "nut jobs"?