Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Text of another climate "debate" on facebook in which I participated. (College credit may be available)
Below I've provided the facebook comments thread relating to a discussion that occurred in response to the posting of an article about Rick Perry's expressed disbelief in climate science. I invested quite a bit of time researching sources and writing my comments with the intent that those involved in the discussion, and other readers, walk away from it with a higher level of understanding of climate science and the so-called climate debate. There are instances where my impatience seeps into my language.
A couple sections of my comments (particularly on water vapor and CO2 lag) are taken from sources such as skepticalscience.com and Dave Roberts' column in Grist. Attribution was not diligently given to all cited or borrowed text; I was posting to facebook after all, not writing an academic paper.
http://www.facebook.com/markedandsam/posts/237733142935595?notif_t=share_reply
A couple sections of my comments (particularly on water vapor and CO2 lag) are taken from sources such as skepticalscience.com and Dave Roberts' column in Grist. Attribution was not diligently given to all cited or borrowed text; I was posting to facebook after all, not writing an academic paper.
http://www.facebook.com/markedandsam/posts/237733142935595?notif_t=share_reply
--David Smith---
I mean, we could just look at what's actually happening, according to NASA:
http://sanfrancisco.ibtime
http://sanfrancisco.ibtime
---Robert Hachtel---
Well it must be a hoax. Sent that article to my friend with an advance degree in the scientific mucky muck and he just posted something about where this article orginated from. This is what he says:
"The only thing bad I see about that article is the title. The balance of the article discusses the limitations on conclusions that can be drawn from Spencer’s paper. If someone is using that International Business Times article as proof climate change isn’t occurring as modeled, then he’s not read nor understood the article, and presumably he hasn’t read and understood the conclusion of Spencer’s paper. I have.
Spencer’s paper concludes
"While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."
The final conclusion of the paper is that there are unresolved uncertainties about radiative forcings and radiative feedback. Climate scientists will be reviewing and analyzing Spencer’s research to determine the strength of the data and the appropriateness of his conclusions. And real scientists don’t fear or shy away from this. The data Spencer collected and analyzed will be factored into climate models if the data are good. Real scientists are concerned with getting the models right and as accurate as possible based on data and our ever-increasing understanding of Earth’s climate system. Refinement of existing assumptions and conclusions is part of the scientific process."
Spencer’s paper concludes
"While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."
The final conclusion of the paper is that there are unresolved uncertainties about radiative forcings and radiative feedback. Climate scientists will be reviewing and analyzing Spencer’s research to determine the strength of the data and the appropriateness of his conclusions. And real scientists don’t fear or shy away from this. The data Spencer collected and analyzed will be factored into climate models if the data are good. Real scientists are concerned with getting the models right and as accurate as possible based on data and our ever-increasing understanding of Earth’s climate system. Refinement of existing assumptions and conclusions is part of the scientific process."
---Robert Hachtel---
Ughhh. Should have never set the alarm for a sleeping giant. This is his expertise not mine. It's above my pay grade.
---David Smith---
Well "3/4 of the world's experts" sounds like a bullshit #, so I'll give your friend about as much credibility as I give Gore, and all the scientists whose funding and jobs rely on there being a man made problem.
Why don't you ask him what the energy transfer coefficient of Co2 is in comparison to Water Vapor? Or Aluminum, used in alloys for distributing power through computers and power lines.
Why don't you ask him what the energy transfer coefficient of Co2 is in comparison to Water Vapor? Or Aluminum, used in alloys for distributing power through computers and power lines.
---Me---
You may ask me yourself.
First, what one chooses to believe of the truths of nature as revealed by science, and whether and how much credit you give me, or Gore for that matter, is irrelevant. My credibility is established by my command of the science at issue acquired through dozens of hundreds of hours of study, analysis, and writing in the areas of environmental science, public health and law over 17 years. And to paraphrase astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, the truths of the natural world as revealed by science do not depend for their existence on whether humans believe them. On an historical note, the political aspect to the “debate” about the science of anthropogenic climate change is nothing new. In 1920, Albert Einstein wrote, “Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on party affiliation.” Where does science stand today on acceptance of Einstein's theory of general relativity?
Second, Bob’s second-to-last comment is the text of an email I wrote to him. In it I refer to the paper by Spencer and Braswell (http://bit.ly/pX9Wo2) mentioned in the International Business Times (IBT) piece that has given rise to premature declarations by anthropogenic climate change deniers/skeptics that current models overestimate climate sensitivity to forcing by atmospheric CO2 concentration (denoted [CO2]). As I note, the IBT piece describes concerns with the robustness of Spencer’s statistical analysis and the reliability of his conclusions. As other scientists evaluate Spencer’s research methodology and conclusions, we will gain a better sense of the strengths and weaknesses of his paper and its underlying data. That, in a nutshell, is the scientific method. Global Circulation Models (GCMs) undergo constant revisions and updates as data is collected and research advances our understanding of Earth’s climate system. Interestingly, in his paper Spencer himself offers his conclusion with a degree of caution not exhibited by those who are jumping on the bandwagon that his paper is some conclusive stake in the heart of predictions of current models and observations: “we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem.”
Third, to your question about “energy transfer coefficients.” Energy transfer coefficient is a formula in thermodynamics to calculate heat transfer by convection or phase change between a fluid and a solid. It looks like this
h = q / {(A)(ΔT)}
where
q = heat flow in input or lost heat flow, J/s = W
h = heat transfer coefficient, W/(m^2K)
A = heat transfer surface area, m^2
ΔT = difference in temperature between the solid surface and surrounding fluid area, K
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean something other than heat transfer coefficient, because in terms of the physical and atmospheric chemical processes involved in climate measurements and models, heat transfer coefficients of H2O and CO2 are meaningless.
Fourth, the “3/4 of the world’s experts” number is indeed bullshit. It is, in fact, higher. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009: http://bit.ly/qmF26b). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. (http://bit.ly/ffhAdL). Further, the National Academies of Science of 19 countries and more than 27 scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities."
Finally, the article at the top of this discussion indicates that Rick Perry “believes” anthropogenic climate change is an unproven theory. That anyone would put any stock in a belief or opinion by Rick Perry about science is laughable. I wrote yesterday: “Of course a man who earned nothing higher than a C in college science classes at Texas A&M, and who believes prayers, rather than meteorological processes, cause rain doesn't believe in scientists. By the same token, it seems probable that, having earned a D in economics and run up a $28 billion deficit while governor, he doesn't believe in economists either.”
First, what one chooses to believe of the truths of nature as revealed by science, and whether and how much credit you give me, or Gore for that matter, is irrelevant. My credibility is established by my command of the science at issue acquired through dozens of hundreds of hours of study, analysis, and writing in the areas of environmental science, public health and law over 17 years. And to paraphrase astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, the truths of the natural world as revealed by science do not depend for their existence on whether humans believe them. On an historical note, the political aspect to the “debate” about the science of anthropogenic climate change is nothing new. In 1920, Albert Einstein wrote, “Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on party affiliation.” Where does science stand today on acceptance of Einstein's theory of general relativity?
Second, Bob’s second-to-last comment is the text of an email I wrote to him. In it I refer to the paper by Spencer and Braswell (http://bit.ly/pX9Wo2) mentioned in the International Business Times (IBT) piece that has given rise to premature declarations by anthropogenic climate change deniers/skeptics that current models overestimate climate sensitivity to forcing by atmospheric CO2 concentration (denoted [CO2]). As I note, the IBT piece describes concerns with the robustness of Spencer’s statistical analysis and the reliability of his conclusions. As other scientists evaluate Spencer’s research methodology and conclusions, we will gain a better sense of the strengths and weaknesses of his paper and its underlying data. That, in a nutshell, is the scientific method. Global Circulation Models (GCMs) undergo constant revisions and updates as data is collected and research advances our understanding of Earth’s climate system. Interestingly, in his paper Spencer himself offers his conclusion with a degree of caution not exhibited by those who are jumping on the bandwagon that his paper is some conclusive stake in the heart of predictions of current models and observations: “we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem.”
Third, to your question about “energy transfer coefficients.” Energy transfer coefficient is a formula in thermodynamics to calculate heat transfer by convection or phase change between a fluid and a solid. It looks like this
h = q / {(A)(ΔT)}
where
q = heat flow in input or lost heat flow, J/s = W
h = heat transfer coefficient, W/(m^2K)
A = heat transfer surface area, m^2
ΔT = difference in temperature between the solid surface and surrounding fluid area, K
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean something other than heat transfer coefficient, because in terms of the physical and atmospheric chemical processes involved in climate measurements and models, heat transfer coefficients of H2O and CO2 are meaningless.
Fourth, the “3/4 of the world’s experts” number is indeed bullshit. It is, in fact, higher. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009: http://bit.ly/qmF26b). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. (http://bit.ly/ffhAdL). Further, the National Academies of Science of 19 countries and more than 27 scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities."
Finally, the article at the top of this discussion indicates that Rick Perry “believes” anthropogenic climate change is an unproven theory. That anyone would put any stock in a belief or opinion by Rick Perry about science is laughable. I wrote yesterday: “Of course a man who earned nothing higher than a C in college science classes at Texas A&M, and who believes prayers, rather than meteorological processes, cause rain doesn't believe in scientists. By the same token, it seems probable that, having earned a D in economics and run up a $28 billion deficit while governor, he doesn't believe in economists either.”
---Robert Hachtel---
Let this be a lesson kids. Don't poke the bear at the Zoo.
---Erikka Youngstrom---
I wonder what Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia "thinks"... where do you think his vote landed?
---Erikka Youngstrom---
http://www.washingtontimes
---Me---
Consider that there have now been six inquiries into the "climategate" matter. Penn State established an independent inquiry into the accusations against scientist Michael Mann and found "no credible evidence" (http://bit.ly/rnUHRU) of improper research conduct. A British government investigation run by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee found that while the CRU scientists could have been more transparent and responsive to freedom-of-information requests, there was no evidence of scientific misconduct (http://bit.ly/nAVeEI). The U.K.'s Royal Society (its equivalent of the United States' National Academies) ran an investigation (http://nyti.ms/nL5sBE) that found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice." The University of East Anglia appointed (http://bit.ly/oCGx5c) respected civil servant Sir Muir Russell to run an exhaustive, six-month independent inquiry; he concluded (http://bit.ly/pI1RHV) that "the honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt ... We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."
All those results are suggestive, but let's face it, they're mostly British. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) wanted an American investigation of all the American scientists involved in these purported dirty deeds. So he asked the Department of Commerce's inspector general to get to the bottom of it. On Feb. 18, the results of that investigation were released. "In our review of the CRU emails," the IG's office said in its letter to Inhofe (http://bit.ly/oRzlga), "we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data ... or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures." Senator Inhofe’s statement about the report indicates that he accepted its findings. Having been denied an opportunity to use the CRU emails to claim that scientists have manipulated data or squelched scientific debate, the senator limited his remarks to issues of foot dragging on FOIA requests.
Whatever legitimate issues there may be about the responsiveness or transparency of this particular group of scientists, there was nothing in this controversy -- nothing -- that cast even the slightest doubt on the basic findings of climate science.
(Excerpted from the following article by Dave Roberts http://bit.ly/nhlnPh, and from http://bit.ly/oRzlga)
All those results are suggestive, but let's face it, they're mostly British. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) wanted an American investigation of all the American scientists involved in these purported dirty deeds. So he asked the Department of Commerce's inspector general to get to the bottom of it. On Feb. 18, the results of that investigation were released. "In our review of the CRU emails," the IG's office said in its letter to Inhofe (http://bit.ly/oRzlga), "we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data ... or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures." Senator Inhofe’s statement about the report indicates that he accepted its findings. Having been denied an opportunity to use the CRU emails to claim that scientists have manipulated data or squelched scientific debate, the senator limited his remarks to issues of foot dragging on FOIA requests.
Whatever legitimate issues there may be about the responsiveness or transparency of this particular group of scientists, there was nothing in this controversy -- nothing -- that cast even the slightest doubt on the basic findings of climate science.
(Excerpted from the following article by Dave Roberts http://bit.ly/nhlnPh, and from http://bit.ly/oRzlga)
---David Smith---
Rob, You're a tourist at the Zoo at best, not the bear. Bears don't need to call in backup.
Eric - Wouldn't the rate at which an element retains/transfer infrared waves play a roll in it's ability to trap heat within the atmosphere? And you wouldn't argue that water vapor is a lessor or even equal "greenhouse" gas, trapping far more infrared than CO2. Odd then that the green movement would have pushed so hard in the early days for replacing Co2 emissions with....water vapor, isn't it?
Plus, CO2 only absorbs Infrared of a very specific range of micro-wavelength if I remember correctly, a range of infrared that hardly any of is reflected by the surface back into the atmosphere to be trapped. Perhaps that's why CO2 level course changes in the atmosphere have never preceded temperature change, they always follow them.
"A survey of 3146 earth scientists"
What's an "Earth scientist?" I've never seen that Ph.D program. How many geologists and oceanographers did they have to find to bulk up the numbers on a Climate theory?
Is 3146 of people included in this made up catagory a majority? How many are there total? Is this like that IPCC report where objecting scientists were included anyway as supporters, and many weren't actually "Scientists" at all?
For a scientist, you seem to lack a nose for bullshit. Your sources can be bought, just like Exxon is supposedly paying off the lead author of the IPCC report and the co-founder of Greenpeace. I've even seen a peer reviewed experiment where a thermal camera caught more heat radiating from a jar of air with higher concentrations of Co2, claiming to be evidence that higher concentrations of CO2 TRAP more heat.
I guess my BS flag went up when all the kooks and big wigs with billions of dollars on the line said the debate was over, when nothing was proven, and te historical record trended toward the counter argument.
Eric - Wouldn't the rate at which an element retains/transfer infrared waves play a roll in it's ability to trap heat within the atmosphere? And you wouldn't argue that water vapor is a lessor or even equal "greenhouse" gas, trapping far more infrared than CO2. Odd then that the green movement would have pushed so hard in the early days for replacing Co2 emissions with....water vapor, isn't it?
Plus, CO2 only absorbs Infrared of a very specific range of micro-wavelength if I remember correctly, a range of infrared that hardly any of is reflected by the surface back into the atmosphere to be trapped. Perhaps that's why CO2 level course changes in the atmosphere have never preceded temperature change, they always follow them.
"A survey of 3146 earth scientists"
What's an "Earth scientist?" I've never seen that Ph.D program. How many geologists and oceanographers did they have to find to bulk up the numbers on a Climate theory?
Is 3146 of people included in this made up catagory a majority? How many are there total? Is this like that IPCC report where objecting scientists were included anyway as supporters, and many weren't actually "Scientists" at all?
For a scientist, you seem to lack a nose for bullshit. Your sources can be bought, just like Exxon is supposedly paying off the lead author of the IPCC report and the co-founder of Greenpeace. I've even seen a peer reviewed experiment where a thermal camera caught more heat radiating from a jar of air with higher concentrations of Co2, claiming to be evidence that higher concentrations of CO2 TRAP more heat.
I guess my BS flag went up when all the kooks and big wigs with billions of dollars on the line said the debate was over, when nothing was proven, and te historical record trended toward the counter argument.
---David Smith---
I guess what I meant was "heat coefficients" (J/g*deg K)
Or, the rate at which an element absorbs/releases heat energy.
Such as is for these atmospheric elements and others:
Water--4.1813
Methane--2.34
Nitrogen gas--1.040
Oxygen gas--.918
Aluminum--.897
CO2--.839
Carbon--.644
Copper--.385
Mercury--.1395
All of which anybody can look up.
Now we can apply a simple formula:
Amount of Heat Energy (Q) = cm(T1 - T2).
c = the specific heat coefficient, m = mass, T1 - T2 = change in temperature.
And determine what effect adding more of one element opposed to others would have. So is it really smart to be adding more water vapor to the air than CO2, if the goal is hampering the Greenhouse effect?
Even if CO2 slowed the heat dispersal through the atmosphere, potentially allowing the H2O to absorb more, the H2o would obviously already BE hotter than the CO2, meaning this theory violates the second law of Thermodynamics: Heat flows to where it's cooler. Doesn't it?
Or, the rate at which an element absorbs/releases heat energy.
Such as is for these atmospheric elements and others:
Water--4.1813
Methane--2.34
Nitrogen gas--1.040
Oxygen gas--.918
Aluminum--.897
CO2--.839
Carbon--.644
Copper--.385
Mercury--.1395
All of which anybody can look up.
Now we can apply a simple formula:
Amount of Heat Energy (Q) = cm(T1 - T2).
c = the specific heat coefficient, m = mass, T1 - T2 = change in temperature.
And determine what effect adding more of one element opposed to others would have. So is it really smart to be adding more water vapor to the air than CO2, if the goal is hampering the Greenhouse effect?
Even if CO2 slowed the heat dispersal through the atmosphere, potentially allowing the H2O to absorb more, the H2o would obviously already BE hotter than the CO2, meaning this theory violates the second law of Thermodynamics: Heat flows to where it's cooler. Doesn't it?
---Erikka Youngstrom---
Eric - "Whatever legitimate issues there may be about the responsiveness or transparency of this particular group of scientists, there was nothing in this controversy -- nothing -- that cast even the slightest doubt on the basic findings of climate science." On the contrary, this event has shaken the confidence of many. Thus, this debate.
---Me---
Respectfully, Erikka, this isn’t a “debate.” A debate would entail two equally qualified and credentialed parties presenting their arguments point and counter-point based on competing bodies of empirical evidence and verifiable data. That is not what’s occurring here. And I intend no disrespect to either you or Dave. But on one hand there is Dave, who studied communications at Texas State. Despite having no apparent background and no demonstrable expertise in any Earth science discipline, Dave takes a position contrary to the consensus view endorsed by 27 international science organizations and the National Academies of Science of 19 countries because he *chooses* to believe--as his evident partisan predispositions impel him to--in the conspiratorial notion that climate scientists the world over have conspired for decades to produce a climate change “hoax” in order to ensure continued funding of their research and livelihood, rather than to explain and understand the phenomenon of anthropogenic global climate change and its potentially dire consequences for the biosphere. Though he proffers no evidence of the supposed conspiracy, to his credit, Dave, despite an initial terminological misstep, appears to have learned some science to at least ask a germane question about H2O vapor, which I’ll address while I attempt to refrain from 1) describing the acuity of my nose to detect barely scientifically literate bullshit when I encounter it and 2) citing the analogy of the teen who watches a martial arts matinée, then under the delusion that he knows kung fu, gets his ass kicked when he picks a fight with a real black belt. On the other hand, there is I, who studied environmental science & engineering and decision analytics for six years at UNC, Harvard and M.I.T. before earning my law degree. In response to Dave’s disbelief about the percentage of scientists who endorse the consensus view, I offered a published study of a survey of respondents, 90% of whom hold a Ph.D., that showed the percentages of Earth scientists generally, and climatologists specifically, who agree with the consensus view. In response to that, Dave questions what an Earth scientist is, as if to suggest that there is no such thing, or that the numbers are padded, or that the work of atmospheric chemists, oceanographers, paleogeologists, terrestrial ecologists, glaciologists, aquatic and marine chemists, physicists and any number of other Earth scientists is not inherently interdisciplinary and broadly interconnected in myriad ways to aspects of climate science. And in response to your outdated Washington Times piece, which indeed caused a stir and shook lay peoples’ confidence, as you say, I’ve offered reports and authorities showing that no fewer than 6 separate investigations into “climategate” fully exonerated Phil Jones, CRU, Michael Mann and all involved, and left solidly intact the basic findings of climate science. Were you aware of those investigations or their outcomes? With the same rabid vigor that they sought to alarm people, did the Washington Times or Fox News or the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board endeavor in earnest to inform their readers and viewers that the story they all had pushed to scare you into questioning the validity of climate research turned out to be, to borrow Dave’s favorite scientific buzzword, bullshit? Do you, Dave, have evidence to support your theory that any single member of Britain’s House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee, or the U.K.’s Royal Society, or Sir Muir Russell, or the Department of Commerce’s inspector general, or Senator Inhofe, were “bought?” Of course you don’t. That is precisely why it’s called a conspiracy theory, and it is of no moment.
You see, sadly, many of you like to believe there is some “green” “movement” “pushing” fake science toward some nefarious but undefined and undefinable end; and that those of us who recite facts and evidence somehow have been duped and misled in what we believe BECAUSE OF that evidence. Although by and large none of you possesses much background, if any at all, let alone actual demonstrable expertise, in the relevant scientific disciplines, you sit in judgment, smugly confident in what your partisan predispositions impel you to “believe” IN SPITE OF that evidence. The joke is that it is you who have been duped. If only it were the case that that joke is solely on you. It is not. It is on all of us. The “debate,” as it were, is not between one group of scientists with their data supporting the consensus view, and another group with its data contradicting it. It is between empiricists with a mountain of data collected and analyzed over about 70 years supporting the consensus view, and partisans with no data who want not to believe it. And the longer this fictitious “debate” between scientific empiricists and partisan and religious believers persists, the longer it will take to dedicate ourselves to a course of pragmatic, coordinated public policy and private sector actions to ensure we avert causing long-term harm to ourselves and the global ecosystem.
You see, sadly, many of you like to believe there is some “green” “movement” “pushing” fake science toward some nefarious but undefined and undefinable end; and that those of us who recite facts and evidence somehow have been duped and misled in what we believe BECAUSE OF that evidence. Although by and large none of you possesses much background, if any at all, let alone actual demonstrable expertise, in the relevant scientific disciplines, you sit in judgment, smugly confident in what your partisan predispositions impel you to “believe” IN SPITE OF that evidence. The joke is that it is you who have been duped. If only it were the case that that joke is solely on you. It is not. It is on all of us. The “debate,” as it were, is not between one group of scientists with their data supporting the consensus view, and another group with its data contradicting it. It is between empiricists with a mountain of data collected and analyzed over about 70 years supporting the consensus view, and partisans with no data who want not to believe it. And the longer this fictitious “debate” between scientific empiricists and partisan and religious believers persists, the longer it will take to dedicate ourselves to a course of pragmatic, coordinated public policy and private sector actions to ensure we avert causing long-term harm to ourselves and the global ecosystem.
---Me---
On the water vapour question:
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m^2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m^2 (Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Kiehl & Trenberth 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate, Evans 2006, http://bit.ly/qlhIwO). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.
Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation (http://bit.ly/oWoWSM). If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it eventually condenses and falls as rain or snow. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal’ in short time.
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect.
How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (e.g., loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming, Held 2000, http://bit.ly/qlnzrv).
The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Soden 2001, http://bit.ly/p4NBmN). The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies (http://bit.ly/r1Y5RF) examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past (Knutti & Hegerl 2008, http://bit.ly/pZNPDL).
Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m^2 per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007, http://bit.ly/r5ZJgi). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is NOT due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m^2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m^2 (Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Kiehl & Trenberth 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate, Evans 2006, http://bit.ly/qlhIwO). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.
Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation (http://bit.ly/oWoWSM). If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it eventually condenses and falls as rain or snow. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal’ in short time.
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect.
How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (e.g., loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming, Held 2000, http://bit.ly/qlnzrv).
The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Soden 2001, http://bit.ly/p4NBmN). The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies (http://bit.ly/r1Y5RF) examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past (Knutti & Hegerl 2008, http://bit.ly/pZNPDL).
Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m^2 per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007, http://bit.ly/r5ZJgi). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is NOT due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
---Me---
On the issue of CO2 lagging temperature:
Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterized by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming. This statement does not tell the whole story, however. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.
The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming.
Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterized by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming. This statement does not tell the whole story, however. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.
The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming.
---Erikka Youngstrom---
Eric- What I am trying to illustrate is that this is a debate because as Americans we each get one vote, and I think this matters to you or you wouldn't spend so much time on this. You are defending the work of a large group of people, I am saying that even if 3147 scientists believe in global warming, I will still question it. The matter is, when there are emails that elude to deceptive practices and manipulating data, trust is broken. No matter what a judge and jury days, I still get to form my own judgement and vote accordingly. You can clearly talk scientific circles around anyone in this conversation- that is still not the debate I am referring to. The debate is whether you and your 3146 friends are trustworthy or not and here is why I don't give you my blind faith... I can find scientists who will tell us that saccharine is safe, and so is aspartame. It really depends on who they are working for. . Hydrogenated oils are considered "safe" as well, and although they are banned in Europe, and are in the majority of our food. All of these toxic substances are allowed into our grocery stores because "science" has proven them "safe." And now obesity and cancer problems have skyrocketed in our country and no one knows why. I can tell you why (in my very humble and logic-based opinion)- modified food. Created by scientists. And please, don't start saying something like I don't believe science is a good thing... That would be ridiculous. I believe there are many incredibly noble scientists out there. One was at my house tonight. But, the reality is that we have moved past an age where we believe something just because an "expert" (or scientist or doctor) says so. We have been fooled too many times in the past. Remember, doctors endorsed smoking in the 20s...
---David Smith---
So in otherwords, our minimal release of CO2 is merely adding to the minimal effect C02 has on Solar Cycles driving our climate. Great. Excuse me if I don't vote to cripple our industry and the develooping world for that.
BTW the point of proving that the accurate historical record shows CO2 lagging climate shifts, is that the exact opposite is what the AGW nuts and Al Gore's movie claimed was happening. Anytime somebody keeps having to change their theories to fit the new evidence instead of coming up with new ones, the BS flag should go up.
BTW the point of proving that the accurate historical record shows CO2 lagging climate shifts, is that the exact opposite is what the AGW nuts and Al Gore's movie claimed was happening. Anytime somebody keeps having to change their theories to fit the new evidence instead of coming up with new ones, the BS flag should go up.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Another attempt to educate a non-scientist climate science disbeliever
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News
A friend's friend posted the above article on facebook. His intent, I expect, was to use the article as evidence that climate change is not occurring as the mountainous body of climate scientists' research and analyses shows. The following is the discussion that ensued.
--- Me ---
That article is quite comical. Every reference to climate computer models is preceded by "alarmist." Then I scrolled to the end, recognized the author, and it made sense. James Taylor is a lawyer, not a scientist (http://bit.ly/oA2KW2). He's the editor of Environment & Climate News at the Heartland Institute, a libertarian organization well-known in climate science circles for pushing a denialist agenda using pseudo-science, no science whatsoever, or misinterpretations of actual data. They've got Taylor, who admits to having no scientific background or training, listed as an "expert." (http://bit.ly/nNSjbo). As a lawyer with multiple degrees in environmental science and whose practice used to focus exclusively on issues of medical causation and expert testimony in toxic tort cases, I found that rather amusing. Here's what Nature, among the most reputable journals of real peer-reviewed science, has to say about the Heartland Institute (http://bit.ly/qzyLWX). As for the article Taylor cites as "proof" that global warming isn't occurring as the multiple lines of peer-reviewed data "peddled" by thousands of "alarmist" scientists around the world show, his lack of scientific training and credentials damns him to read it incorrectly. Here's the article's conclusion:
"While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."
Beware learning science, or offering an article that purports to interpret science, from individuals not trained in science and organizations staffed by such individuals.
--- Response of Bill Talley, my friend's friend ---
"Other data that NASA has collected comes from the research being done on the sun and it's effect on our planet. The correlations do not conclude that our earth's temp is rising due to man's effect. Basically the sun is far more powerful a device than our carbon output. (see bullshit tax)
I can respect the credentials and run down on the article writer but it's still a topic that most climatologists and astronomers will continue to disagree on. The data being gathered from the sun has conflicting data when compared to climate models.
I'm all for clean fuels but IMHO, we are not warming because of us and we don't have enough data to conclude that we are. The new solar data trends trump our climate data. Period. "
--- My response to Mr. Talley ---
Respectfully, Bill, each of your points is refuted by the data.
1) A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. (http://bit.ly/ffhAdL)
Look at the charts in the "Natural Cycle Departure" section here: http://bit.ly/jWonoK. "The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle." Observed decadal increases in mean surface and ocean temperatures are the result of anthropogenic causes, not natural variability. Natural variability is understood, factored into climate analyses, and statistically controlled for.
2) Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and STILL THE CONTRIBUTION OF DIRECT SOLAR IRRADIANCE FORCING IS SMALL COMPARED TO THE GREENHOUSE GAS COMPONENT. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.
In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters. However, for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. (http://1.usa.gov/lSSw3y)
With satellite measurements, scientists have been able to confirm that the total solar energy varies 0.1% over one 11-year sunspot cycle. This variation of 0.1% means a global tropospheric temperature difference of 0.5oC to 1.0oC. So there does seem to be a connection between the solar cycle and climate - the very small change in solar energy that changes over the solar cycle seems to have a very small impact on Earth's climate (see IPCC report). MODERN CLIMATE MODELS TAKE THESE RELATIONSHIPS INTO ACCOUNT. The changes in solar energy are not big enough, however, to cause the large global temperature changes we've seen in the last 100 years. Indeed, the only way that climate models can match the recent observed warming of the atmosphere is with the addition of greenhouse gases. (http://bit.ly/mt87VL)
I know skeptics and outright deniers want not to believe that climate change is occurring and that humans are causing it. But you know who wishes it weren't true even more than the skeptics and deniers? We in the community of climate and other scientists who understand the human health and ecological consequences of raising average global temperatures over such a short geologic time scale.
A friend's friend posted the above article on facebook. His intent, I expect, was to use the article as evidence that climate change is not occurring as the mountainous body of climate scientists' research and analyses shows. The following is the discussion that ensued.
--- Me ---
That article is quite comical. Every reference to climate computer models is preceded by "alarmist." Then I scrolled to the end, recognized the author, and it made sense. James Taylor is a lawyer, not a scientist (http://bit.ly/oA2KW2). He's the editor of Environment & Climate News at the Heartland Institute, a libertarian organization well-known in climate science circles for pushing a denialist agenda using pseudo-science, no science whatsoever, or misinterpretations of actual data. They've got Taylor, who admits to having no scientific background or training, listed as an "expert." (http://bit.ly/nNSjbo). As a lawyer with multiple degrees in environmental science and whose practice used to focus exclusively on issues of medical causation and expert testimony in toxic tort cases, I found that rather amusing. Here's what Nature, among the most reputable journals of real peer-reviewed science, has to say about the Heartland Institute (http://bit.ly/qzyLWX). As for the article Taylor cites as "proof" that global warming isn't occurring as the multiple lines of peer-reviewed data "peddled" by thousands of "alarmist" scientists around the world show, his lack of scientific training and credentials damns him to read it incorrectly. Here's the article's conclusion:
"While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."
Beware learning science, or offering an article that purports to interpret science, from individuals not trained in science and organizations staffed by such individuals.
--- Response of Bill Talley, my friend's friend ---
"Other data that NASA has collected comes from the research being done on the sun and it's effect on our planet. The correlations do not conclude that our earth's temp is rising due to man's effect. Basically the sun is far more powerful a device than our carbon output. (see bullshit tax)
I can respect the credentials and run down on the article writer but it's still a topic that most climatologists and astronomers will continue to disagree on. The data being gathered from the sun has conflicting data when compared to climate models.
I'm all for clean fuels but IMHO, we are not warming because of us and we don't have enough data to conclude that we are. The new solar data trends trump our climate data. Period. "
--- My response to Mr. Talley ---
Respectfully, Bill, each of your points is refuted by the data.
1) A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. (http://bit.ly/ffhAdL)
Look at the charts in the "Natural Cycle Departure" section here: http://bit.ly/jWonoK. "The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle." Observed decadal increases in mean surface and ocean temperatures are the result of anthropogenic causes, not natural variability. Natural variability is understood, factored into climate analyses, and statistically controlled for.
2) Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and STILL THE CONTRIBUTION OF DIRECT SOLAR IRRADIANCE FORCING IS SMALL COMPARED TO THE GREENHOUSE GAS COMPONENT. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.
In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters. However, for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. (http://1.usa.gov/lSSw3y)
With satellite measurements, scientists have been able to confirm that the total solar energy varies 0.1% over one 11-year sunspot cycle. This variation of 0.1% means a global tropospheric temperature difference of 0.5oC to 1.0oC. So there does seem to be a connection between the solar cycle and climate - the very small change in solar energy that changes over the solar cycle seems to have a very small impact on Earth's climate (see IPCC report). MODERN CLIMATE MODELS TAKE THESE RELATIONSHIPS INTO ACCOUNT. The changes in solar energy are not big enough, however, to cause the large global temperature changes we've seen in the last 100 years. Indeed, the only way that climate models can match the recent observed warming of the atmosphere is with the addition of greenhouse gases. (http://bit.ly/mt87VL)
I know skeptics and outright deniers want not to believe that climate change is occurring and that humans are causing it. But you know who wishes it weren't true even more than the skeptics and deniers? We in the community of climate and other scientists who understand the human health and ecological consequences of raising average global temperatures over such a short geologic time scale.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)