Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

Esceptico said:

Kawasicki said:

Great news! Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology now believe that one third of the global warming over the past century is due to the Sun’s activity.

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 5th November 21:29

Just to get this right: you don’t believe climate scientists except when you think it supports your position, then you believe them?

And to point out the obvious the report says that two thirds of warming was due to human influence.

That’s very funny coming from you. You don’t believe any scientist that doesn’t belong in the 97%.

Back on topic...Haven’t the IPCC recently stated that 100% is due to humans?

The Max Planck scientists believe it’s more like 67%.

The sun seems to be a very significant factor after all. Wow. Odd that. Of course you could have read that right here on PH NPE forums years ago. I wonder when they will figure out that cloud cover is also massively important. My dog knows it’s cooler in the shade.

Rather than guess when not look to what the IPCC did say in the last published synthesis report from 2014:

“Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmo- spheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic driv- ers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}“

Note that they say “dominant” not “only” cause. So no, the IPCC doesn’t appear to have said warming is all due to human activity. Perhaps you can find something more recent from the IPCC (have you even bothered looking at any of the IPCC reports)?

And the Max Plank institute most definitely belong to the 97%

[Kawasicki]

From the latest IPCC report. No digging required, it’s one of the first things policymakers read.

“Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C“

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

[stew-STR160]

Esceptico said:

Kawasicki said:

Esceptico said:

Kawasicki said:

Great news! Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology now believe that one third of the global warming over the past century is due to the Sun’s activity.

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 5th November 21:29

Just to get this right: you don’t believe climate scientists except when you think it supports your position, then you believe them?

And to point out the obvious the report says that two thirds of warming was due to human influence.

That’s very funny coming from you. You don’t believe any scientist that doesn’t belong in the 97%.

Back on topic...Haven’t the IPCC recently stated that 100% is due to humans?

The Max Planck scientists believe it’s more like 67%.

The sun seems to be a very significant factor after all. Wow. Odd that. Of course you could have read that right here on PH NPE forums years ago. I wonder when they will figure out that cloud cover is also massively important. My dog knows it’s cooler in the shade.

Rather than guess when not look to what the IPCC did say in the last published synthesis report from 2014:

“Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmo- spheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic driv- ers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}“

Note that they say “dominant” not “only” cause. So no, the IPCC doesn’t appear to have said warming is all due to human activity. Perhaps you can find something more recent from the IPCC (have you even bothered looking at any of the IPCC reports)?

And the Max Plank institute most definitely belong to the 97%

I thought the 97% was based on individual scientists? I didn't realise an institute/organisation/such thing could be included in a poll on survey of individual scientists or specific papers.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

Great news! Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology now believe that one third of the global warming over the past century is due to the Sun’s activity.

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 5th November 21:29

Great 'news' he shouts ...but how old is the article?

Annoyingly it's un-dated so which period "the last 100 years" refers to is left to guesswork.

The article says "the current effect of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, caused by human emissions of CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide, is estimated at 2.5W/m2" - that value would place it in the early 2000's so my guess is it's pretty old and the last 100 years is the 20th century.

So that would be two decades worth of data missing - a period when solar acitivity has declined and temps are still on the up.

A recalculation may be required.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Great news! Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology now believe that one third of the global warming over the past century is due to the Sun’s activity.

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 5th November 21:29

Great 'news' he shouts ...but how old is the article?

Annoyingly it's un-dated so which period "the last 100 years" refers to is left to guesswork.

The article says "the current effect of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, caused by human emissions of CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide, is estimated at 2.5W/m2" - that value would place it in the early 2000's so my guess is it's pretty old and the last 100 years is the 20th century.

So that would be two decades worth of data missing - a period when solar acitivity has declined and temps are still on the up.

A recalculation may be required.

The article is from 24th March 2017.

[Esceptico]

As Kawasiki has quoted the Max Plank Institute here is another link:

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate...

I think this addresses the “chaos” issue quite nicely. Yes the atmosphere is a chaotic system so small changes in initial condition can over time lead to big changes in weather. Hence why weather forecasts are notoriously unreliable even a few days into the future. But climate models are not predicting what the weather is going to be like on a particular day - they are looking at averages and at the system as a whole. Hence chaos theory is not relevant.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Great news! Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology now believe that one third of the global warming over the past century is due to the Sun’s activity.

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 5th November 21:29

Great 'news' he shouts ...but how old is the article?

Annoyingly it's un-dated so which period "the last 100 years" refers to is left to guesswork.

The article says "the current effect of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, caused by human emissions of CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide, is estimated at 2.5W/m2" - that value would place it in the early 2000's so my guess is it's pretty old and the last 100 years is the 20th century.

So that would be two decades worth of data missing - a period when solar acitivity has declined and temps are still on the up.

A recalculation may be required.

The article is from 24th March 2017.

What's that?

I notice the FAQ on tropical cyclones references the 2001 IPCC report

[robinessex]

Esceptico said:

As Kawasiki has quoted the Max Plank Institute here is another link:

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate...

I think this addresses the “chaos” issue quite nicely. Yes the atmosphere is a chaotic system so small changes in initial condition can over time lead to big changes in weather. Hence why weather forecasts are notoriously unreliable even a few days into the future. But climate models are not predicting what the weather is going to be like on a particular day - they are looking at averages and at the system as a whole. Hence chaos theory is not relevant.

Wrong! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory. Averages are usless anyway, don't tell you anything.

[Esceptico]

robinessex said:

Wrong! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory. Averages are usless anyway, don't tell you anything.

Writing “wrong” and referencing wiki is not really an argument.

As explained on the MPI website under another FAQ, climate models are tested by feeding them with data about the past to see whether they can “predict” what actually happened. Given that most
climate models do achieve that then chaos theory clearly doesn’t affect the ability to model global temperatures.

[kerplunk]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Great news! Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology now believe that one third of the global warming over the past century is due to the Sun’s activity.

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 5th November 21:29

Great 'news' he shouts ...but how old is the article?

Annoyingly it's un-dated so which period "the last 100 years" refers to is left to guesswork.

The article says "the current effect of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, caused by human emissions of CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide, is estimated at 2.5W/m2" - that value would place it in the early 2000's so my guess is it's pretty old and the last 100 years is the 20th century.

So that would be two decades worth of data missing - a period when solar acitivity has declined and temps are still on the up.

A recalculation may be required.

The article is from 24th March 2017.

What's that?

I notice the FAQ on tropical cyclones references the 2001 IPCC report

Now I notice that solar page can't be navigated to on the website - it's not there in the list of Climate FAQs. Looks like it was removed.

Man their FAQs are a mess. At the bottom of the page of faq "Could global warming halt the Gulf Stream? Could it bring about a new ice age?" there's a link to a report called "Abrupt Climate Change Inevitable Surprises" ...but the link is broken.

I found the pdf by googling it though - it's from 2004. https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/files/NRCa...

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 6th November 19:22

[robinessex]

Esceptico said:

robinessex said:

Wrong! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory. Averages are useless anyway, don't tell you anything.

Writing “wrong” and referencing wiki is not really an argument.

As explained on the MPI website under another FAQ, climate models are tested by feeding them with data about the past to see whether they can “predict” what actually happened. Given that most
climate models do achieve that then chaos theory clearly doesn’t affect the ability to model global temperatures.

Wrong again

You didn't read the link:-

"Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future."

The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Great news! Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology now believe that one third of the global warming over the past century is due to the Sun’s activity.

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 5th November 21:29

Great 'news' he shouts ...but how old is the article?

Annoyingly it's un-dated so which period "the last 100 years" refers to is left to guesswork.

The article says "the current effect of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, caused by human emissions of CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide, is estimated at 2.5W/m2" - that value would place it in the early 2000's so my guess is it's pretty old and the last 100 years is the 20th century.

So that would be two decades worth of data missing - a period when solar acitivity has declined and temps are still on the up.

A recalculation may be required.

The article is from 24th March 2017.

What's that?

I notice the FAQ on tropical cyclones references the 2001 IPCC report

That’s the German language version of the same article. Posted in 2017.

[Kawasicki]

Esceptico said:

But climate models are not predicting what the weather is going to be like on a particular day - they are looking at averages and at the system as a whole. Hence chaos theory is not relevant.

30 or 100 years is still a very short timeframe...why would chaos theory not apply

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Great news! Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology now believe that one third of the global warming over the past century is due to the Sun’s activity.

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 5th November 21:29

Great 'news' he shouts ...but how old is the article?

Annoyingly it's un-dated so which period "the last 100 years" refers to is left to guesswork.

The article says "the current effect of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, caused by human emissions of CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide, is estimated at 2.5W/m2" - that value would place it in the early 2000's so my guess is it's pretty old and the last 100 years is the 20th century.

So that would be two decades worth of data missing - a period when solar acitivity has declined and temps are still on the up.

A recalculation may be required.

The article is from 24th March 2017.

What's that?

I notice the FAQ on tropical cyclones references the 2001 IPCC report

That’s the German language version of the same article. Posted in 2017.

Oh ye of little scepticism.

I notice the faq on German river flooding contains four references at the bottom of the page - all pre-2002.

There's not a single damn date later than 2004 in the whole faq

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Oh ye of little scepticism.

I notice the faq on German river flooding contains four references at the bottom of the page - all pre-2002.

There's not a single damn date later than 2004 in the whole faq

So let’s say scientists believed 1/3 of the earths warming was due to the sun 12 or 15 years ago.

Are you telling me that now it is thought to have no effect?

[Toltec]

OK, what is your take on the validity of an average global temperature value for measuring the scale of global warming?

Mine is that other than an easy sound bite for mass consumption it means very little. It is about as useful as giving an average surface temperature for a kitchen as a measure of how safe it is to touch things in there.

From what I understand the oceans are acting as a heat sink absorbing most of any increased energy due to retention of heat by GHGs. Why then isn't the change in energy used as a measure of warming?

Edited by Toltec on Friday 8th November 20:59

[robinessex]

Toltec said:

OP, what is your take on the validity of an average global temperature value for measuring the scale of global warming?

Mine is that other than an easy sound bite for mass consumption it means very little. It is about as useful as giving an average surface temperature for a kitchen as a measure of how safe it is to touch things in there.

From what I understand the oceans are acting as a heat sink absorbing most of any increased energy due to retention of heat by GHGs. Why then isn't the change in energy used as a measure of warming?

It's crap. Tells you nothing. Just a mathmatical derivation.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Oh ye of little scepticism.

I notice the faq on German river flooding contains four references at the bottom of the page - all pre-2002.

There's not a single damn date later than 2004 in the whole faq

So let’s say scientists believed 1/3 of the earths warming was due to the sun 12 or 15 years ago.

I decline to say that - small sample.

Kawasicki said:

Are you telling me that now it is thought to have no effect?

That's a rather large leap from me saying a 20yr old result may need updating.

There are many solar-climate hobby-horses galloping around. Not many are firmly established though.

In terms of the direct effect of solar output (TSI) - that doesn't appear to have changed much to be a significant factor in the recent warming since the 70s and this the period with the best obs (satellite era). The contribution may even be negative. If the relationship between sunspots and TSI is as thought it's reasonable to think el sol contributed to the early 20th century warming though, and you can find a few scientists saying that.

[Gandahar]

[Gandahar]

Toltec said:

OK, what is your take on the validity of an average global temperature value for measuring the scale of global warming?

Mine is that other than an easy sound bite for mass consumption it means very little. It is about as useful as giving an average surface temperature for a kitchen as a measure of how safe it is to touch things in there.

From what I understand the oceans are acting as a heat sink absorbing most of any increased energy due to retention of heat by GHGs. Why then isn't the change in energy used as a measure of warming?

Edited by Toltec on Friday 8th November 20:59

This is a typical "I know nothing post on a sci post thread"

Poor.

Post some science at least for Christ's sake.....