Nature's sharp corrections: Global Warming

[OldWiseGuy]

Not true, my lightbulbs used to be 240 watts now they need as little as 5 watts. Coal fired powerstations have disappeared or have catalytic converters here in Europe. reforestation has been occurring for a century in Europe and the USA. There are now environmental regulations and there is a considerable conversion to renewables already occurring.

I think what SkyWriting means is that we're losing the battle on the global scale regardless of some successes.

I package my garbage for a non-existent program that would have turned it into biofuel. I do it just to be a smart---, and to prove to myself that I'm better than others. Unless there is cooperative and effective programs we won't reach our goals.

I live in a very liberal, well educated, politically engaged city...and no one here seems to care about this stuff.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.—Colossians 1:17

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.—Hebrews 1:3

In other words, He got tha whole wo-orld in His hands. (He got tha itty bitty baby too!)

This is why I (after being saved) have never worried about Global Warming/Climate Change.

 

[Ophiolite]

That depends on how much of the present climate change is caused by man made factors.
Natural causes may be the main driver assisted by the CO2 factor, some scientists think this is the case.

Almost no scientists think this is the case. The overwhleming consensus of those scientists who are experts in the appropriate fields have no doubt that human activity is the primary driver by a country mile.
Ignoring this is the equivalent of denying the value of social distancing and wearing masks in combatting covid-19. I urge you to reconsider what is a socially dangerous position.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Almost no scientists think this is the case. The overwhleming consensus of those scientists who are experts in the appropriate fields have no doubt that human activity is the primary driver by a country mile.
Ignoring this is the equivalent of denying the value of social distancing and wearing masks in combatting covid-19. I urge you to reconsider what is a socially dangerous position.

Enjoy this, it's going to get much worse.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Enjoy this, it's going to get much worse.

Yes I note how opinions are being sited as 'socially dangerous' as freedom of speech is being challenged.
There used to be robust debate - now we close down who dares to disagree...

 

[Carl Emerson]

Almost no scientists think this is the case. The overwhleming consensus of those scientists who are experts in the appropriate fields have no doubt that human activity is the primary driver by a country mile.
Ignoring this is the equivalent of denying the value of social distancing and wearing masks in combatting covid-19. I urge you to reconsider what is a socially dangerous position.

Have you read the paper by Prof Duncan Steel on the earths tilt, axis and orbit and how these are effecting climate change?

 

[Carl Emerson]

.

 

[sjastro]

Have you read the paper by Prof Duncan Steel on the earths tilt, axis and orbit and how these are effecting climate change?

I can't believe the good Prof. is unware of the famous 1967 paper that lower stratospheric cooling paradoxically was predicted as a the signature for human involvement in climate warming; a factor that cannot be explained by the tilting the earth's axis, orbital variations or even solar activity changes when both troposphere and lower stratosphere temperatures are out of phase.

Manabae and Wetherald's predictions were found to be true when satellites began taking temperature measurements from 1979 onwards.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Yes I note how opinions are being sited as 'socially dangerous' as freedom of speech is being challenged.
There used to be robust debate - now we close down who dares to disagree...

We're rapidly coming back around to Reality:

"12Indeed, all who desire to live godly lives in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil men and imposters go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."

 

[Ophiolite]

Have you read the paper by Prof Duncan Steel on the earths tilt, axis and orbit and how these are effecting climate change?

No, but I have read multiple papers on the Milankovitch cycles over the years. The knowledge acquired thererby underpinned my comments in my original post in the thread. The potential for cycles of ice ages has existed for eons. The initiating of the current suite of cycles was a response to the chance positioning of the continents through plate tectonics and the related alterations of ocean currents. IIRC the connection of the Americas in the vicinity of Panama may have been the final trigger.

I would love to read the paper, but I have to say that I tend to suspect a paper published seven or eight years ago that has only garnered three citations. I would urge the same caution on you. Since you have, seemingly, read it can you direct me to a link. All I can find is the abstract in ADS.

I do recommend giving more weight to the conclusions of hundreds of experts rather than questionable papers published in journals with a questionable reputation in regard to peer review. If you have a degree in climatology or related discipline, then by all means tell we what you find so suggestive and solid about Steel's work. Otherwise, well . . . . I'll listen, but it will need to be good.

 

[sjastro]

An informal poll among IPCC scientists rate the 1967 paper on climate warming as the most influential climate change paper of all time.

Winner: Manabe & Wetherald (1967)
With eight nominations, a seminal paper by Syukuro Manabe and Richard. T. Wetherald published in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences in 1967 tops the Carbon Brief poll as the IPCC scientists' top choice for the most influential climate change paper of all time.

Entitled, "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity", the work was the first to represent the fundamental elements of the Earth's climate in a computer model, and to explore what doubling carbon dioxide (CO2) would do to global temperature.

Manabe & Wetherald (1967), Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

The Manabe & Wetherald paper is considered by many as a pioneering effort in the field of climate modelling, one that effectively opened the door to projecting future climate change. And the value of climate sensitivity is something climate scientists are still grappling with today.

Prof Piers Forster, a physical climate scientist at Leeds University and lead author of the chapter on clouds and aerosols in working group one of the last IPCC report, tells Carbon Brief:

"This was really the first physically sound climate model allowing accurate predictions of climate change."

The paper's findings have stood the test of time amazingly well, Forster says.

"Its results are still valid today. Often when I've think I've done a new bit of work, I found that it had already been included in this paper."

Prof Steve Sherwood, expert in atmospheric climate dynamics at the University of New South Wales and another lead author on the clouds and aerosols chapter, says it's a tough choice, but Manabe & Wetherald (1967) gets his vote, too. Sherwood tells Carbon Brief:

"[The paper was] the first proper computation of global warming and stratospheric cooling from enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, including atmospheric emission and water-vapour feedback."

Prof Danny Harvey, professor of climate modelling at the University of Toronto and lead author on the buildings chapter in the IPCC's working group three report on mitigation, emphasises the Manabe & Wetherald paper's impact on future generations of scientists. He says:

"[The paper was] the first to assess the magnitude of the water vapour feedback, and was frequently cited for a good 20 years after it was published."

Carbon Brief will be publishing an interview with Syukuro Manabe, alongside a special summary by Prof John Mitchell, the Met Office Hadley Centre's chief scientist from 2002 to 2008 and director of climate science from 2008 to 2010, on why the paper still holds such significance today.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I can't believe the good Prof. is unware of the famous 1967 paper that lower stratospheric cooling paradoxically was predicted as a the signature for human involvement in climate warming; a factor that cannot be explained by the tilting the earth's axis, orbital variations or even solar activity changes when both troposphere and lower stratosphere temperatures are out of phase.

Manabae and Wetherald's predictions were found to be true when satellites began taking temperature measurements from 1979 onwards.

The good Prof. is well aware such effects exist but has a compelling thesis to suggest that these accelerate warming but are not the main driver.

I take it you have not studied his paper...

I can share the link...

 

[sjastro]

The good Prof. is well aware such effects exist but has a compelling thesis to suggest that these accelerate warming but are not the main driver.

I take it you have not studied his paper...

I can share the link...

I suggest you stop making assumptions on what I have studied.
This is what I have been reading.
Does the Professor explain why the troposphere is getting hotter while lower stratosphere is getting cooler?
How does he explain this when both the troposphere and stratosphere should be increasing or decreasing in temperature if the effects are due to solar, orbital or axis effects.

In fact there is no reference of lower stratospheric data or anything pertaining to the stratosphere at all which means one of two things.
(1) What I'm reading is not the same as your link.
(2) The Prof. is not aware of such effects as you claim.

Climate change is not only what happens on the surface or in the troposphere but also in the stratosphere.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Here is a sane comment from a prominent astrophysicist.

"Global warming is good for you..."

Duncan Steel: Global warming is good for you


And for those really wanting to understand the deeper scientific aspects...

Duncan Steel: Climate Change And Natural Variations In The Solar Influx - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Duncan Steel considers a much broader range of variables such as earth's axis, spin and tilt along with solar flux and suggests that these effects are having a more significant effect on changing climate than rising CO2.

Duncan I. Steel FRAS (born 11 June 1955) is a British scientist born in Midsomer Norton, Somerset. Currently he lives in Wellington, New Zealand, but holds visiting positions as a Professor of astrobiology at the University of Buckingham in England; as a space scientist at NASA-Ames Research Center in California; and as an astronomer at Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland. Duncan is a space science authority who has worked with NASA to assess the threat of comet and asteroid collisions and investigate technologies to avert such impacts. He is also the author of four popular-level science books on space, and regularly writes for The Guardian and various other newspapers and magazines. He is a discoverer of minor planets including the main-belt asteroid 9767 Midsomer Norton.[2]

 

[sjastro]

The link I supplied is a more "technical" account of Duncan's paper than yours.
In both cases there is no reference to anything pertaining to the stratosphere which makes your claim of Duncan being aware of stratospheric cooling as pure bogus.

Duncan is not even a climate scientist as your post indicates which explains a lot.

 

[klutedavid]

Yes I note how opinions are being sited as 'socially dangerous' as freedom of speech is being challenged.
There used to be robust debate - now we close down who dares to disagree...

The real problem is that outright abuse of freedom of speech, by the far left and far right.

Freedom of speech has to be limited to protect society.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes I note how opinions are being sited as 'socially dangerous' as freedom of speech is being challenged.
There used to be robust debate - now we close down who dares to disagree...

There is a political agenda attached to the climate debate. Saving the planet will necessarily involve changing the behaviors of all of mankind.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The link I supplied is a more "technical" account of Duncan's paper than yours.
In both cases there is no reference to anything pertaining to the stratosphere which makes your claim of Duncan being aware of stratospheric cooling as pure bogus.

Duncan is not even a climate scientist as your post indicates which explains a lot.

Sorry but to suggest Duncan Steel is not aware of stratospheric cooling is absurd - you clearly don't know him.

'Not even a climate scientist' suggest some irrelevant intellectual class - this is also absurd and irrelevant to the discussion. Climate scientists are not astrophysicists and vice versa. Climate scientists need to listen to scientists in disciplines that touch on their traditional intellectual landscape and not have tunnel vision. It is not a matter of protecting your intellectual patch but rather to be widely aware of what the whole scientific community has to offer.

Not one scientist has been able to formally flaw his maths and his arguments since he made the findings public.

But hey it is not about personalities, it is about science.

By all means critique his work if you can - otherwise it is little else than a misinformed put down.

 

[klutedavid]

Most studies of climate history show a planetary history of cyclical rises and falls of temperature. There have been some very rapid falls in temperature after sharp rises. Given that industrialisation has clearly made a contribution to the present global warming and rise in CO2 levels can we expect a sharp natural correction to this and the advent of an ice age?

Or has the growth of mankind's dominance reached a point where natural correctives have been neutralised or rendered ineffective e.g. reduction in forests, acidity in oceans, concrete instead of plants. Of course a nuclear winter, asteroid strike or major volcanic eruption could massively reduce global temperatures overnight. We always assume that things will carry on pretty much as they have but catastrophies pock mark the planets history so I wonder where this certainty about global warming being an inevitable trend comes from.

Can the planet or extra terrestrial sources still correct global warming with a new ice age or has that possibility already passed, so it is entirely up to us to make that correction?

The bulk of the heat generated from the rising CO2 content in the atmosphere. Is absorbed by the oceans that cover 70% of our planet. As the oceans warm the polar caps melt.

With warmer oceans you can forget the idea of some future ice age occurring.

As the oceans warm they expand and sea level rises.

The oceans are the beating heart of our planet's temperature and weather.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The bulk of the heat generated from the rising CO2 content in the atmosphere. Is absorbed by the oceans that cover 70% of our planet. As the oceans warm the polar caps melt.

With warmer oceans you can forget the idea of some future ice age occurring.

As the oceans warm they expand and sea level rises.

The oceans are the beating heart of our planet's temperature and weather.

We treat the ocean and most of our fresh waterways as open sewers.