EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:40 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 5:47 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
This post will focus on the fact that we don't know enough to fully determine what caused the warming or not.

There are still large uncertainties in climate science that still need to be resolved. Cloud and Water Vapor feedbacks are one of these VERY high uncertainties, as well as temperature attribution over the last 100 or so years.

These honest climate scientists feel that there is so much uncertainty still left, that it is unclear how much of the recent (last 30 years) is natural.

Compo et. al 2009 finds that changes in the changes in the SSTs have led to temperature changes over land- not GHGs directly. The oceans themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic causes over the recent warming, they say, but it is unclear which has contributed more than the other.


The paper's focus is on the mechanism, not causation so they would not make any clear statements in support of any causation for the ocean warming as it is outside the scope of the work being discussed.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 5:57 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Duplissy et. al 2010

In its Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attributes more than
90% of the observed climate warming since 1900 to the rise
of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (IPCC,
2007). Aerosols and clouds are recognised as representing
the largest uncertainty in the current understanding of climate
change. The IPCC estimates that changes of solar irradiance
(direct solar forcing) have made only a small (7%)
contribution to the observed warming. However, large uncertainties
remain on other solar-related contributions, such
as the effects of changes of ultra-violet (UV) radiation or
galactic cosmic rays on aerosols and clouds




Yes, and this from the introduction of the paper on the CERN experiments which showed a minor influence on particle production compared to that required to account for the supposed effect. This was the experiment that contradicted the paper you quoted earlier.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 6:12 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:

Fang et. al 2011

In recent decades, there have been a number of debates on climate warming and its driving forces. Based on an extensive literature review, we suggest that (1) climate warming occurs with great uncertainty in the magnitude of the temperature increase; (2) both human activities and natural forces contribute to climate change, but their relative contributions are difficult to quantify; and (3) the dominant role of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (including CO2) in the global warming claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is questioned by the scientific communities because of large uncertainties in the mechanisms of natural factors and anthropogenic activities and in the sources of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. More efforts should be made in order to clarify these uncertainties.


This seems to be more political playing to uncertanties in the conclusions reached rather than actual science supporting anything new. He also does some reviews on the impact of controlling GHG emissions that seems to carry over into the "science" paper.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 7:22 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

There are some large uncertainties in areas where there is little known impact by the various sources and there is minor uncertainty in areas where the impact is known to be more significant. But, to reach your conclusion you must ignore most of the data available and seek out the most reported uncertainty possible.

The focus only on the perception of uncertainty is not scientific at all, but more like the the pseudo science of the blogosphere and lobby groups.


The Cloud and Water Vapor feedback, as well as attribution, still have major uncertainties, as these papers documented.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 7:25 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
No, there can always be straws to grasp to make such a claim, but the probability comparison is where the wheat is separated from the chaff.


The problem is that the "smoking gun" for Greenhouse Warming can also be attributed to other factors, and might not even be a product of Greenhouse Warming!

We have not observed ANY hotspot at 250 hPa from 20S-20N, and we have flatlined there, which is consistent with a solar influence, and not a Greenhouse Gas influence.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 7:35 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
This post will focus on the fact that we don't know enough to fully determine what caused the warming or not.

There are still large uncertainties in climate science that still need to be resolved. Cloud and Water Vapor feedbacks are one of these VERY high uncertainties, as well as temperature attribution over the last 100 or so years.

These honest climate scientists feel that there is so much uncertainty still left, that it is unclear how much of the recent (last 30 years) is natural.

Compo et. al 2009 finds that changes in the changes in the SSTs have led to temperature changes over land- not GHGs directly. The oceans themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic causes over the recent warming, they say, but it is unclear which has contributed more than the other.


The paper's focus is on the mechanism, not causation so they would not make any clear statements in support of any causation for the ocean warming as it is outside the scope of the work being discussed.


This is what is stated in the conclusions of the Compo paper:

"a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out."

With "at least" indicating an uncertainty, and the amount natural factors could have contributed could easily be higher than "some" of the recent oceanic warming.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Sun May 27, 2012 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 7:36 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Yes, and this from the introduction of the paper on the CERN experiments which showed a minor influence on particle production compared to that required to account for the supposed effect. This was the experiment that contradicted the paper you quoted earlier.


Yep, and regardless of whether it is in the abstract or introduction, a large uncertainty on GCRs and climate still remains.

It does not say that GCRs are not contributing to climate change, but conclusions about GCRs impacting particle formation can not be drawn from this work, since the first part of the GCR- Climate theory has been confirmed- GCRs impact particle formation.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:14 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
This post will focus on the fact that we don't know enough to fully determine what caused the warming or not.

There are still large uncertainties in climate science that still need to be resolved. Cloud and Water Vapor feedbacks are one of these VERY high uncertainties, as well as temperature attribution over the last 100 or so years.

These honest climate scientists feel that there is so much uncertainty still left, that it is unclear how much of the recent (last 30 years) is natural.

Compo et. al 2009 finds that changes in the changes in the SSTs have led to temperature changes over land- not GHGs directly. The oceans themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic causes over the recent warming, they say, but it is unclear which has contributed more than the other.


The paper's focus is on the mechanism, not causation so they would not make any clear statements in support of any causation for the ocean warming as it is outside the scope of the work being discussed.


This is what is stated in the conclusions of the Compo paper:

"a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out."

With "at least" indicating an uncertainty, and the amount natural factors could have contributed could easily be higher than "some" of the recent oceanic warming.


The "expansion" of what the paper actually said on a subject not covered by the focus of the paper does not support your views, but also indicates an ulterior motive.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:18 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Yes, and this from the introduction of the paper on the CERN experiments which showed a minor influence on particle production compared to that required to account for the supposed effect. This was the experiment that contradicted the paper you quoted earlier.


Yep, and regardless of whether it is in the abstract or introduction, a large uncertainty on GCRs and climate still remains.

It does not say that GCRs are not contributing to climate change, but conclusions about GCRs impacting particle formation can not be drawn from this work, since the first part of the GCR- Climate theory has been confirmed- GCRs impact particle formation.


It says it could not confirm the level of contribution of GCRs due to the results of this experiment, which leaves your expansion clearly unsupported by science. Your focus on uncertainty is oddly missing in the papers with which you wish to agree. The level of particle formation was weak at best, yet you ignore that fact and proceed as if it showed a high level of impact.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:23 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

There are some large uncertainties in areas where there is little known impact by the various sources and there is minor uncertainty in areas where the impact is known to be more significant. But, to reach your conclusion you must ignore most of the data available and seek out the most reported uncertainty possible.

The focus only on the perception of uncertainty is not scientific at all, but more like the the pseudo science of the blogosphere and lobby groups.


The Cloud and Water Vapor feedback, as well as attribution, still have major uncertainties, as these papers documented.


The drivers are a bit more important in the overall situation given the temperature increases documented.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:26 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
No, there can always be straws to grasp to make such a claim, but the probability comparison is where the wheat is separated from the chaff.


The problem is that the "smoking gun" for Greenhouse Warming can also be attributed to other factors, and might not even be a product of Greenhouse Warming!

We have not observed ANY hotspot at 250 hPa from 20S-20N, and we have flatlined there, which is consistent with a solar influence, and not a Greenhouse Gas influence.


Yet solar output is relatively steady and has not tracked the temperature increases.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:38 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2298.pdf

In conclusion, no corroboration of the claim of a causal connection between the changes
in ionization and cloud cover, made in [1, 2], could be found in this investigation. From the
distribution of the depth of the dip in solar cycle 22 with geomagnetic latitude (the VRCO)
we find that, averaged over the whole Earth, less than 23% of the dip comes from the solar
modulation of the cosmic ray intensity, at the 95% confidence level
. This implies that, if the dip represents a real correlation, more than 77% of it is caused by a source other than ionization and this source must be correlated with solar activity.

http://atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/ ... 3-2008.pdf

The overall conclusion, built on a series of independent
statistical tests, is that no clear cosmic ray signal associated
with Forbush decrease events is found in highly susceptible
marine low clouds over the southern hemisphere oceans.

Whether such a signal exists at all can not be ruled out on the
basis of the present study, due to the small number of cases
and because the strongest Forbush decrease events indicate
slightly higher correlations than the average events. Even
though those strong events are rare, with only 6 events over
5 years, the amplitude is similar to that occurring during the
solar cycle, so from a climate perspective these strong events
may deserve particular attention. Further investigations of
a larger number of such events are needed before final conclusions
can be drawn on the possible role of galactic cosmic
rays for clouds and climate


http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1885/ ... -2010.html

Here, we report unique observations on atmospheric aerosol formation based on measurements at the SMEAR II station, Finland, over a solar cycle (years 1996–2008) that shed new light on these presumed relationships. Our analysis shows that none of the quantities related to aerosol formation correlates with the cosmic ray-induced ionisation intensity (CRII). We also examined the contribution of ions to new particle formation on the basis of novel ground-based and airborne observations. A consistent result is that ion-induced formation contributes typically significantly less than 10% to the number of new particles, which would explain the missing correlation between CRII and aerosol formation. Our main conclusion is that galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:43 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The "expansion" of what the paper actually said on a subject not covered by the focus of the paper does not support your views, but also indicates an ulterior motive.


How does it not support my views that there are large uncertainties that still need to be resolved with attributing ocean warming?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:51 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
It says it could not confirm the level of contribution of GCRs due to the results of this experiment, which leaves your expansion clearly unsupported by science. Your focus on uncertainty is oddly missing in the papers with which you wish to agree. The level of particle formation was weak at best, yet you ignore that fact and proceed as if it showed a high level of impact.


No, it confirmed that GCRs produce particles which could lead to CCNs (though the authors say it's uncertain to what degree). The experimental results are too ambiguous though to quantify the degree of the GCR-influence on climate, making it a HIGH uncertainty, and leading the objective researcher to question the IPCC's conclusions that most of climate change after 1950 was due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, because of this high uncertainty.

"The present results, while suggestive, are insufficient to
unambiguously establish an effect of galactic cosmic rays on...climate, or to reach
reliable quantitative estimates of such effects (Kazil et al.,
2006; Yu et al., 2008; Pierce and Adams, 2009). The uncertainties
largely stem from poorly-known aerosol nucleation
and growth rates into cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)."

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:53 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

The drivers are a bit more important in the overall situation given the temperature increases documented.


Drivers are important, but how much warming and how sensitive the climate system is is a close second.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group