Climate Change

[Wiccan_Child]

To the climate scientists here (or anyone who knows about this stuff sufficiently well):

Can you give a summary of the major findings, the causes (CO[sub]2[/sub], CFCs, etc), their effects (more cloud cover, retained heat, etc), the problems (melting ice caps, rising temperatures, etc), and the solutions (giant space umbrella, etc), of climate change?

It's for a... uh.. friend...

 

[RickG]

To the climate scientists here (or anyone who knows about this stuff sufficiently well):

Can you give a summary of the major findings, the causes (CO[sub]2[/sub], CFCs, etc), their effects (more cloud cover, retained heat, etc), the problems (melting ice caps, rising temperatures, etc), and the solutions (giant space umbrella, etc), of climate change?

It's for a... uh.. friend...

Probably the best thing to do is to direct you to some reliable sites run by climate scientists who have this information readily available.

RealClimate: Start here

and

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

 

[Gracchus]

A giant space umbrella? Well it might keep the temperature down but plants need a certain amount of sunlight to grow. That includes the phytoplankton that is already overstressed by pollution and the increasing acidity of the oceans, and the rain forests that are vanishing at an ever increasing rate.

And then of course our food crops are sensitive to light levels and photoperiod. And the vanishing phytoplankton means that even if we stopped overfishing, the oceanic food chain will be cut at the root. The human population will eventually drop, but probably not until we have permanently damaged the environment. If the predators kill all the prey there is no recovery, for either. Oh! Did I mention that topsoil is washing away, and dying from pesticides and chemical fertilizers? That is, where it isn't being covered by suburbs and asphalt.

And fossil fuels will become increasingly hard to recover. At some point it will take more energy to extract fossil fuels than they can produce. Think: Two barrels of oil to pump out one barrel.

The next few generations are going to be living in interesting times. After that, there may be no one to take an interest.

We bought into the opiumated snake-oil of unlimited growth. We've had our fun, but now it is time to pay. It will not be cheap, and may already be beyond our means.

 

[SkyWriting]

A giant space umbrella? Well it might keep the temperature down but plants need a certain amount of sunlight to grow. That includes the phytoplankton that is already overstressed by pollution and the increasing acidity of the oceans, and the rain forests that are vanishing at an ever increasing rate.And then of course our food crops are sensitive to light levels and photoperiod. And the vanishing phytoplankton means that even if we stopped overfishing, the oceanic food chain will be cut at the root. The human population will eventually drop, but probably not until we have permanently damaged the environment. If the predators kill all the prey there is no recovery, for either. Oh! Did I mention that topsoil is washing away, and dying from pesticides and chemical fertilizers? That is, where it isn't being covered by suburbs and asphalt. And fossil fuels will become increasingly hard to recover. At some point it will take more energy to extract fossil fuels than they can produce. Think: Two barrels of oil to pump out one barrel.The next few generations are going to be living in interesting times. After that, there may be no one to take an interest.We bought into the opiumated snake-oil of unlimited growth. We've had our fun, but now it is time to pay. It will not be cheap, and may already be beyond our means.

Another droll rant, completely off the OP topic.
It's like pulling the string.

Here are some scope details:
http://on-climate.com/our-focus/scope-concerns

 

[RickG]

Here are some scope details:
Scope & Concerns [bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse] Our Focus [bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse] Climate Change

Not even the first detail was presented. It was more like an under the radar rant suggesting climate has changed in the past and we can adapt. Do you think you could ever bring yourself to look at the actual science presented by actual practicing climatologists? Give it try.

RealClimate: Start here

 

[SkyWriting]

Not even the first detail was presented. It was more like an under the radar rant suggesting climate has changed in the past and we can adapt. Do you think you could ever bring yourself to look at the actual science presented by actual practicing climatologists? Give it try.

RealClimate: Start here

You've made many unbacked claims. I can check history.
You readily detail how they are clueless as to what is happening.
I think you described how they are incompetent in 4 different
ways in your last post.

What's to try? You've documented that they don't understand
what is happening. And then you claim it looks like they are
even less accurate than everyone thinks.

I didn't say we can adapt. I said people are fraudulently claiming we have a choice.

I read your link. What a total farce! And you are falling for it head first!
Climate models are as useless as you have pointed out. Very similar to
earthquake predictions, and end of the world predictions.

The climate-bunny practically says "Chance of drastic climate change is low this afternoon."
Referring to the ice core records, Sherlock says " This has led to the notion of an unstable past climate that underwent phases of abrupt change." Notion? Maybe he gets his data while standing at the water cooler. We've posted the historical graphs. Here is a new one. There is no NOTION about it.

None of this matters. No person or group shall be effective at shutting down the global economy.
The only way to reduce additional carbon loading of the atmosphere is to destroy the world's economy.
Production of all goods and services must be halted. I take that back. All heating fires must be put out as well.
What's interesting is that the monthly articles on the Institute for Creation Research website have even more
in text citations than this site does. Here is a nice picture (for just for the newbies I guess.)

And there is no evidence to show that putting out all the heating fires and breathing less would work anyway.
Yes, the site lists CO2 from your breath, from burning wood, burning any fossil fuel, all as part of the problem.
Though I have no objection to saving all greenspace. That's a worthy goal both sides can agree on.
But we have a lot of people to move. We need to ramp up the world economy as quickly as possible.
Not make every kind of effort to shut it down.

 

[Loudmouth]

And there is no evidence to show that putting out all the heating fires and breathing less would work anyway.
Yes, the site lists CO2 from your breath, from burning wood, burning any fossil fuel, all as part of the problem.
Though I have no objection to saving all greenspace. That's a worthy goal both sides can agree on.
But we have a lot of people to move. We need to ramp up the world economy as quickly as possible.
Not make every kind of effort to shut it down.

There is ample evidence that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, and that the more CO2 there is the more heat you trap. It is simple physics. Without fossil fuels we would be recycling the CO2 that was already in the atmosphere. However, by burning fossil fuels we are burning millions of years of stored carbon that otherwise would not be in the atmosphere. This is, in turn, releasing other sources of stored carbon such as the melting of permafrost.

Again, this is simple physics. The burning of fossil fuels is trapping more heat in the atmosphere than would otherwise occur.

 

[RickG]

You've made many unbacked claims. I can check history.
You readily detail how they are clueless as to what is happening.
I think you described how they are incompetent in 4 different
ways in your last post.

I would like for EVERYONE to read my previous post (#5) and please tell me where I said they were incompetent in 4 different ways. In your link you said here's the detail. Were no details about anything to that specific link. That is the page you want us to read, right?

What's to try? You've documented that they don't understand
what is happening. And then you claim it looks like they are
even less accurate than everyone thinks.

Again, the link directly to the page you posted had no specific information.

I didn't say we can adapt. I said people are fraudulently claiming we have a choice.

I never said you said that. I said "they" seemed to suggest that we can adapt to climate change.

I read your link. What a total farce! And you are falling for it head first!

Oh really? Real Climate is hosted and run by the top practicing climate scientists on the planet. And where did you study climatology?

Climate models are as useless as you have pointed out. Very similar to earthquake predictions, and end of the world predictions.

LIAR, I said no such thing. Climate models are quite robust.

The climate-bunny practically says "Chance of drastic climate change is low this afternoon."

Referring to the ice core records, Sherlock says " This has led to the notion of an unstable past climate that underwent phases of abrupt change." Notion? Maybe he gets his data while standing at the water cooler. We've posted the historical graphs. Here is a new one. There is no NOTION about it.

What are you ranting about?

I note that their graph has no scale other than a timeline and what I gather is probably indications of temperature changes appear to be greatly exaggerated. The statement that major global cooling took place between 2007 and 2009 is a huge misrepresentation. Climate is determined on the scale of 30 year trends or more, not year to year anomaly's. I also note that they use Fahrenheit instead of Celsius that added bit of exaggerated deception. The scientific community uses Celsius or Kelvin almost exclusively.

None of this matters. No person or group shall be effective at shutting down the global economy.

Really? The World Bank seems to think differently.
World Bank warns of ‘4-degree’ threshold - The Washington Post

The only way to reduce additional carbon loading of the atmosphere is to destroy the world's economy.

You seem to be the one indicating "doomsday" scenarios now....hmmmm?

Production of all goods and services must be halted. I take that back. All heating fires must be put out as well.
What's interesting is that the monthly articles on the Institute for Creation Research website have even more
in text citations than this site does. Here is a nice picture (for just for the newbies I guess.)

Institute for Creation Research. WOW! Just WOW!

The above depiction is another misrepresentation. If you notice that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation. That is completely false. Let's look at the real one with all the data behind it.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh really? Real Climate is hosted and run by the top practicing climate scientists on the planet. And where did you study climatology?

Climate models are quite robust.

The above depiction is another misrepresentation. If you notice that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation. That is completely false. ]

That illustration is from REALCLIMATE.ORG
So the climate models you admire are both "quite robust" and "completely false".
And where did you study climatology? From this site?
How weird. First you describe how the climate experts are wrong with all their predictions. Now your slamming your own buddies.
After all that those nice things said about "Real Climate'.

1. Go to the link you provided:
DigitalCrowd.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Step 2. Let your eyes drift down to the link below and click it.
For complete beginners:
NCAR: Weather and climate basics Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: Global Warming basics Wikipedia: Global Warming NASA: Global Warming update National Academy of Science: America’s Climate Choices (2011) Encyclopedia of Earth: Climate Change Collection Global Warming FAQ (Tom Rees) Global Warming: Man or Myth? (Scott Mandia, SUNY Suffolk) There is a new booklet on Climate Literacy from multiple agencies (NOAA, NSF, AAAS) available here (pdf). The UK Govt. has a good site on The Science of Climate Change (added Sep 2010). The portal for climate and climate change of the ZAMG (Zentralaanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik, Vienna, Austria). (In German) (added Jan 2011)
Those with some knowledge: The IPCC AR4 Frequently Asked Questions (here (pdf)) are an excellent start. These cover:
What Factors Determine Earth’s Climate?
What is the Relationship between Climate Change and Weather?
What is the Greenhouse Effect?
How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?

There you will find the illustration you just slammed as junk.
https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-1.1.html

Yes, The Institute for Creation Research does far better documentation than RealClimate does.

Instead of citing scholarly sources, RealClimate has an open comments section on the bottom of every page!
It's like a "My Space" chat forum for climate-bunnies.

RealClimate: Calculating the greenhouse effect

 

[RickG]

That illustration is from REALCLIMATE.ORG
So the climate models you admire are both "quite robust" and "completely false".
And where did you study climatology? From this site?
How weird. First you describe how the climate experts are wrong with all their predictions. Now your slamming your own buddies.
After all that those nice things said about "Real Climate'.

1. Go to the link you provided:
DigitalCrowd.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Step 2. Let your eyes drift down to the link below and click it.
For complete beginners:
NCAR: Weather and climate basics Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: Global Warming basics Wikipedia: Global Warming NASA: Global Warming update National Academy of Science: America’s Climate Choices (2011) Encyclopedia of Earth: Climate Change Collection Global Warming FAQ (Tom Rees) Global Warming: Man or Myth? (Scott Mandia, SUNY Suffolk) There is a new booklet on Climate Literacy from multiple agencies (NOAA, NSF, AAAS) available here (pdf). The UK Govt. has a good site on The Science of Climate Change (added Sep 2010). The portal for climate and climate change of the ZAMG (Zentralaanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik, Vienna, Austria). (In German) (added Jan 2011)
Those with some knowledge: The IPCC AR4 Frequently Asked Questions (here (pdf)) are an excellent start. These cover:
What Factors Determine Earth’s Climate?
What is the Relationship between Climate Change and Weather?
What is the Greenhouse Effect?
How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?

Oh really Sky! "Watt's up with that", the Number one climate change denial site on the internet. Anthony Watts is to climate denial as Kent Hovind is to Old Earth denial.

Yes everyone, the "Earth's Energy Balance" depiction shown in post's 6 and 9 are from Wattsupwiththat. You even include it quote me as if I posted the image. Then you go on to say that the image came from the link I provided, realclimagte.org.

Let's look at the reality.

1. Post 6, you show the chart which is from Anthony Watts climate denial site, via wordpress.

2. You piece together quotes from my post #8 suggesting I posted them in the order you quoted me and even include the graphs I did not post. Folks look at my post #8 and then Sky's post 9 and compare.

3. The link I posted in post #6 (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenbert...TFK_bams09.pdf) was to a paper by Trenberth, Fasull and Keihl 2009) Titled Earth's Global Energy Budget. The figure I directed you to was on page 314. I could not post that figure directly because it is part of a PDF document. Source the link and page. Note that it shows in whole number the energy budget for the period described in the paper. Those numbers show an equal energy flow. Now notice the numbers at the top directly to the right of each whole number in the flow area. They are not whole numbers and do not show a balanced energy balance. There is more radiation coming in Earth's atmosphere than leaving.

4. Now, I will give you partial credit for properly describing the source of that you posted. Though it was from "WUWT" it was indeed the same image which didn't really come from real climate, but from a link to real climate to the IPCC Work Group I, frequently asked questions. That depiction does only show whole numbers and numbers that balance. However, if you read that page they are talking about greenhouse gases and how they affect the balance of heat coming in and going out. BTW, it's not the same exact image. That image is from an earlier study by Trenberth et al., 1997.

Bottom line: You misrepresented the link I posted and then threw in a red herring showing a different illustration from a different link.

There you will find the illustration you just slammed as junk.
https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-1.1.html

Yes, a different illustration constructed 12 years earlier than the one I linked to and describing something completely different from my link.

Yes, The Institute for Creation Research does far better documentation than RealClimate does.

Yeah right, you claim the Institute for Creation Research has more credibility for in climatology, who has no climatologists btw, than a site that is hosted by the top practicing climatologists from around the world.

Instead of citing scholarly sources, RealClimate has an open comments section on the bottom of every page!
It's like a "My Space" chat forum for climate-bunnies.

RealClimate: Calculating the greenhouse effect

Okay folks. You can see just how totally off the wall SkyWriting really is by following the real climate line posted above. It's is a 2006 post by Gavin Schmidt. Hmmm, just who is Gavin Schmidt?

Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He has worked on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, including solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases. He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He is a co-chair of the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection Panel and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 90 peer-reviewed publications and is the co-author with Josh Wolfe of “Climate Change: Picturing the Science” (W. W. Norton, 2009), a collaboration between climate scientists and photographers. He was awarded the inaugural AGU Climate Communications Prize in 2011.

More information about his research and publication record can be found here.

Sure Sky, one of the top climate scientists on the planet and you call him a "My Space" chat forum for climate-bunnies.

And what about the other contributors?

• Gavin Schmidt
• Michael Mann
• Caspar Ammann
• Rasmus Benestad
• Ray Bradley
• Stefan Rahmstorf
• Eric Steig
• David Archer
• Ray Pierrehumbert
• Thibault de Garidel
• Jim Bouldin

And BTW, many of the posters on realclimate are actual climatologists as well. Perhaps you need to pay attention to the climate bunnies, hmmmm?

 

[Loudmouth]

The above depiction is another misrepresentation. If you notice that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation. That is completely false. Let's look at the real one with all the data behind it.

If I am reading that picture right, shouldn't the back radiation from greenhouse gases be counted as an input, which would serious tip the balance towards heat being trapped.

 

[SkyWriting]

If I am reading that picture right, shouldn't the back radiation from greenhouse gases be counted as an input, which would serious tip the balance towards heat being trapped.

.2 degrees increase in 10 years is not going to show on an illustration. The sun puts out a lot.