Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
mybrainhurts said:
KareemK said:
Why are so concerned at my e-mail status? 
I'm not concerned, I was trying to help you to avoid making a fool of yourself, without broadcasting it to all and sundry.Thanks but I've got 5 of those already.
KareemK said:
mybrainhurts said:
KareemK said:
Why are so concerned at my e-mail status?
I'm not concerned, I was trying to help you to avoid making a fool of yourself, without broadcasting it to all and sundry.Thanks but I've got 5 of those already.
dickymint said:
mybrainhurts said:
KareemK said:
Why are so concerned at my e-mail status?
I'm not concerned, I was trying to help you to avoid making a fool of yourself, without broadcasting it to all and sundry.
h-slapped. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2824...
should someone tell them ? after all,there is a child involved.
should someone tell them ? after all,there is a child involved.
plunker said:
Blib said:
Which of the models accurately predicted the lack of temperature increase that has been recorded for a decade or more?
Models project not predict so you'd need to feed the real world conditions (eg ENSO cycles) into a model to properly assess how they perform against the obs. There are papers that have attempted to do this (or perhaps I should say 'a paper' cos I only know of one).plunker said:
and then another one came along (sort of): http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-con...
no need any more ,it really is all over. who would have thought increasing the amount of radiative gases in the atmosphere would result in more energy being radiated to space eh ? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL0...wc98 said:
...increasing the amount of radiative gases in the atmosphere would result in more energy being radiated to space http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL0...
I could be wrong but I don't think that's what the paper is saying. It refers to an increase in the radiative 'imbalance' which is what you'd expect with increasing GHGs I think - at least until the earth has warmed to a new equilibrium.plunker said:
I could be wrong but I don't think that's what the paper is saying. It refers to an increase in the radiative 'imbalance' which is what you'd expect with increasing GHGs I think - at least until the earth has warmed to a new equilibrium.
He's pasting from climate depot or similar without including the argument that they think that paper supports. They have somehow decided that this paper disagrees with mainstream climate science but fits with Michael Hammers 'analysis' of the pre 2000 satellite data where he claims a upward trend in outgoing.hairykrishna said:
plunker said:
I could be wrong but I don't think that's what the paper is saying. It refers to an increase in the radiative 'imbalance' which is what you'd expect with increasing GHGs I think - at least until the earth has warmed to a new equilibrium.
He's pasting from climate depot or similar without including the argument that they think that paper supports. They have somehow decided that this paper disagrees with mainstream climate science but fits with Michael Hammers 'analysis' of the pre 2000 satellite data where he claims a upward trend in outgoing.
) supporting paper.plunker said:
I could be wrong but I don't think that's what the paper is saying. It refers to an increase in the radiative 'imbalance' which is what you'd expect with increasing GHGs I think - at least until the earth has warmed to a new equilibrium.
that requires waiting to see if the earth settles at a state of higher equilibrium ,whilst increased outgoing energy would suggest that may be unlikely . current measurements of temperature on land,in oceans and at the poles would also suggest that is unlikely .how we get more from less without crazy amplification factors i do not know,but i am sure the climate science people will find a way. hopefully in the future they can extend this knowledge to either double horsepower in cars,or decrease fuel consumption by a factor of 2,that would be really handy.
IainT said:
Certainly seemed to be a consensus () supporting paper.
another interesting paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL0...) supporting paper.Since the 1980s anthropogenic aerosols have been considerably reduced in Europe and the Mediterranean area. This decrease is often considered as the likely cause of the brightening effect observed over the same period. This phenomenon is however hardly reproduced by global and regional climate models. Here we use an original approach based on reanalysis-driven coupled regional climate system modelling, to show that aerosol changes explain 81 ± 16 per cent of the brightening and 23 ± 5 per cent of the surface warming simulated for the period 1980–2012 over Europe. The direct aerosol effect is found to dominate in the magnitude of the simulated brightening. The comparison between regional simulations and homogenized ground-based observations reveals that observed surface solar radiation, as well as land and sea surface temperature spatio-temporal variations over the Euro-Mediterranean region are only reproduced when simulations include the realistic aerosol variations.
TransverseTight said:
Why do you guys bother?
..... realising that unless I spent 20 years getting a BA, BSC, PHD, another decade of professional experience I'm not really qualified to comments on the science.
I don't think it requires such in depth knowledge to realise that Al Gore, pro-green and government policies around the theory of Man-Made-Global-Warming were not set up based on science, but rather fear implementation for a tax grab and to further investment in green business interests...... realising that unless I spent 20 years getting a BA, BSC, PHD, another decade of professional experience I'm not really qualified to comments on the science.
CO2 input from humans still has not been demonstrated to lead any observed global temp rise. Even after all these years.
A simple 'flow chart' being : Human CO2 emissions --> into very complex chaotic global system ----> gives no detectable rise to global temp change
The first and last part being the MMGW theory..... which has 'till now been shown to be false.
The middle part of that 'flow chart' is where the knowledge comes in....but outside that its 'simple' so to speak.
wc98 said:
another interesting paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL0...
Since the 1980s anthropogenic aerosols have been considerably reduced in Europe and the Mediterranean area. This decrease is often considered as the likely cause of the brightening effect observed over the same period. This phenomenon is however hardly reproduced by global and regional climate models. Here we use an original approach based on reanalysis-driven coupled regional climate system modelling, to show that aerosol changes explain 81?±?16 per cent of the brightening and 23?±?5 per cent of the surface warming simulated for the period 1980–2012 over Europe. The direct aerosol effect is found to dominate in the magnitude of the simulated brightening. The comparison between regional simulations and homogenized ground-based observations reveals that observed surface solar radiation, as well as land and sea surface temperature spatio-temporal variations over the Euro-Mediterranean region are only reproduced when simulations include the realistic aerosol variations.
Would I be reading that abstract correctly to assume that the lack of warming over the recent period may well have been cooling if we hadn't reduced aerosol emissions?Since the 1980s anthropogenic aerosols have been considerably reduced in Europe and the Mediterranean area. This decrease is often considered as the likely cause of the brightening effect observed over the same period. This phenomenon is however hardly reproduced by global and regional climate models. Here we use an original approach based on reanalysis-driven coupled regional climate system modelling, to show that aerosol changes explain 81?±?16 per cent of the brightening and 23?±?5 per cent of the surface warming simulated for the period 1980–2012 over Europe. The direct aerosol effect is found to dominate in the magnitude of the simulated brightening. The comparison between regional simulations and homogenized ground-based observations reveals that observed surface solar radiation, as well as land and sea surface temperature spatio-temporal variations over the Euro-Mediterranean region are only reproduced when simulations include the realistic aerosol variations.
What they showed that was that the model underestimates the European warming trends from 1980-2012 if the aerosols are excluded. They point out that this may have implications when looking at models for the whole world given that large parts of the world (China, India) have increased aerosol production.
hairykrishna said:
Higher than it would be without the returned energy, yes. The radiative equilibrium point for the system is changed by the properties of the atmosphere.
"equilibrium point"? the system is never in equilibrium. It has a Tmax and Tmin at certain points during the day/night but where is this equilibrium you refer to?plunker said:
and then another one came along (sort of): http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-con...
And it's cherry picked model outputs (in 15 year segments) WUWTJinx said:
plunker said:
and then another one came along (sort of): http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-con...
And it's cherry picked model outputs (in 15 year segments) WUWTPeople don't want to wait, far too impatient, not when it's light entertainment nowadays for a lot of folk rather than the tele !
hairykrishna said:
What they showed that was that the model underestimates the European warming trends from 1980-2012 if the aerosols are excluded. They point out that this may have implications when looking at models for the whole world given that large parts of the world (China, India) have increased aerosol production.
Interesting, my reading was that the reduction (i.e. reversion back to naturally occurring levels due to emissions controls) of aerosols caused 'brightening' and greater heat energy to reach the surface - i.e. there's extra warming from that effect in the temp records that outweighs and modelled raise due to GHGs.Guess I read it wrong.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff