74Views22Replies

Author Options:

Cosmic rays amplify sun's effect of warming and cooling. Answered


Interesting article I read today.

B.C Mud cores

Doesn't fit with the current orthodoxy of climate science in the media, but it's very interesting.

Discussions

0
None
CameronSS

12 years ago

The idea that the sun's cycle could be causing global warming even made it into some respected scientific journals. However, much of the "evidence" was that other planets were warming too. Unfortunately, no mention was made of the other half that were cooling. Bit of a scientific oopsie.

0
None
royalestelCameronSS

Reply 11 years ago

Well, that part would depend on orbits and atmospheres, wouldn't it?

0
None
Kiteman

12 years ago

Quite by coincidence, I spent yesterday at the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA in Norwich, in the company of three of the top experts in GW in the world. As far as they are concerned, about the only concensus stronger than "humanity's CO2 emissions drive GW" is held over Newton's laws of motion. Those scientists who are still of the opinion that GW is not driven by CO2 are by far in the minority.

0
None
KitemanKiteman

Reply 12 years ago

(Forgot to say - not trying to argue, just passing on what I was told yesterday)

0
None
royalestelKiteman

Reply 12 years ago

Really? Did they happen to say what they think of CO2 levels trailing temp over the historical record?

0
None
Kitemanroyalestel

Reply 12 years ago

Yes. They said it didn't. Apparently the trailing opinion is down to a creative intepretation of error bars (like always looking at one end of the bar).

0
None
KitemanKiteman

Reply 12 years ago

I should have taken notes (we were actually looking at VR applications for modelling landscape changes due to energy use). Historically, the highest recorded CO2 level pre-industrial age was around 280ppm, we are now at around 320pp+ and rising at an accelerating rate of 1.5-2ppm/py. The point of no return (when the temp rise cannot be mitigated by human activity) is put at between 425-475ppm, and all model agree that, with no action, we will reachg that point in one generation. One recent model said that point will be reached in only 8 years, but their calculations are being checked. Apart from American politicians, "nobody" (in the usual sense of "nobody with a valid opinion") doubts GW is occuring, nor do they doubt that a large part of it is anthropomorphic (statistical links to historical solar and orbital cycles are weak). The changes are happening, and accelerating (ice-loss is self-accelerating due to libido differences, drying of the Amazonian rainforests is self-accelerating because dead trees cannot generate more rain, so more trees die). People are dying, not just in dramatic, visible disasters like hurricanes and floods, but quietly, gently at home (thirty thousand extra heat-ralated deaths in mainland Europe last summer). The only genuine questions are: "Do we adapt to the coming changes or do we act to mitigate them?" "What is the best way to mitigate the changes?" "How do we persuade (or force )people/governments/businesses to enact the changes?" "Who pays for it?" "Can we (humanity) survive it if we just try and adapt?"

0
None
royalestelKiteman

Reply 12 years ago

I just don't want us to come up with a "cure" that ends up being worse than the "disease". Assuming we know everything about Global Warming and the problems it would cause, often the cure to a problem takes considerably more research to discover--not just in medical issues, but massive malnutrition, socio-economic balances, etc. And I'm not convinced that we even have symptoms of a disease. It really distrubs me that the enviro-crowd denigrates enviro-agnostics. To me, the people to listen the closest to, are the ones that don't make absolute statements until they know all the facts. Frankly, I'm suspiscious that the "top three" GW experts are on top only because that's what more people are interested in hearing. Me, I want to hear the minority report. I also like reading the relatively few negative reviews on goods and services.

0
None
Kitemanroyalestel

Reply 12 years ago

I didn't mean the top, I don't think there's a league table, but "top" in this case is defined by qualification & experience - they run the largest School in the UEA campus, which is also one of the most prestigious ES departments in the world. They have been studying GW since before it was called GW, and publish research papers on it regularly. They have personally collected much of the raw data that shows past climate changes.

They take CRed seriously, and turn down invitations to international conferences so that they can avoid air-travel.



As for GW, I don't believe there is any actual cure, we can just ease the symptoms, mainly by lifestyle changes. Many of the changes are easy - walk short trips, put a jumper on instead of turning up the heating, take it off instead of turning up the air-con, some are easily enforceable without lifestyle impacts. All the new-build at UEA has been designed to emit almost 70% (it's 69-point-something) less CO2 than traditional buildings (that's cradle-to-grave emissions). They don't have heating or air-con, yet maintain a steady 18-21C all year round, thanks to thrmal bulk, heat exchangers and careful ventilation. Use of PV means each building produces an average of half it's own electricity (over the dull UK year).

Isn't that annoying? Governments are arguing over whether they can make a 10, 20 30% cut in emissions, when a simple change in building regulations would achieve most of any target they set.

Regulate for better insulation, give grants for home PV, invest in all viable renewables (not just wind, but wave, biogas and ethanol) and the problem would be dramatically eased (as near as "cure" as we'd get) without any major impact on our day-to-day lives.

Actually, there is one thing that would impact - China is building so many coal-fired power stations because they need the electricity to run the factories to supply the cheap goods we buy. If we stopped buying cheap Chinese imports ...

0
None
royalestelKiteman

Reply 12 years ago

Can't forget the cost of the building codes. When the tech is really better and cost-effective then people will use it en masse because of selfish desires to save money.

0
None
NachoMahmaroyalestel

Reply 12 years ago

> When the tech is really better and cost-effective then people will use it en masse because of selfish desires to save money.
. This applies to all human endeavors, but too many people (the warm-fuzzy ppl) don't seem to get it. The best solutions will fail unless the people are onboard and the people ain't gonna pay for the ticket if they don't think they have to.

0
None
NachoMahmaKiteman

Reply 12 years ago

> ... and accelerating (ice-loss is self-accelerating due to libido differences ... . Shouldn't that be albedo, instead of libido? If I'm right, it's a pretty good Freudian Slip. :)

0
None
totally_screwedNachoMahma

Reply 11 years ago

NachoMahma
As far as I'm aware, there are no scientific studies that have found any correlation between libido and global warming.
Might be fun investigating!

0
None
KitemanNachoMahma

Reply 12 years ago

>blush< I have an excuse: I spent an hour today going over reproduction with a revision class.

0
None
NachoMahmaKiteman

Reply 12 years ago

. No problem. At 50+ yo, I do it all the time. :) . At least you know I'm paying attention to what you're saying. LOL I'm still waiting for the bozos to show up and tell you and/or RE just how stupid/crazy/ignorant/etc you really are. ;)

0
None
totally_screwedKiteman

Reply 11 years ago

Kiteman
You stated
The point of no return (when the temp rise cannot be mitigated by human activity) is put at between 425-475ppm, and all model agree that, with no action, we will reachg that point in one generation. One recent model said that point will be reached in only 8 years, but their calculations are being checked.

It all rather depends whether you are referring to CO2 or CO2 equivalent.
I believe the current level of CO2 alone is 389 ppm, but the current level of GHGs (CO2 equivalent) is 459 ppm (IPCC).

The figures the IPCC uses in Table SPM 1 suggest that the other greenhouse gases account for 21% of the climate change due to carbon dioxide alone. This is a high estimate - other authors (eg Sir Nicholas Stern, the UK Department for Environment), suggest 10 or 15%.

0
None
totally_screwedroyalestel

Reply 11 years ago

Why do CO2 levels lag behind temperature? Some answers

A warming phase takes around 5000 years to complete. Rising temperatures (say from orbital forcing or any other reason) cause the oceans temperatures to rise and this liberates CO2 because solubility decreases with temperature, this in turn causes more warming which liberates more CO2. The ~800 year lag means that the initial 1/6 of the warming is not CO2 related, but 5/6 is CO2 related.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

CO2 is both a feedback AND a forcing

By increasing atmospheric CO2, we have embarked upon a ~4200 warming phase! i.e. the 5/6 CO2 related part!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

There is a suggestion that the lag could be ~200 years.
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/3/435/2007/cpd-3-435-2007.pdf

0
None
NachoMahma

12 years ago

. I don't think we know enough about the natural cycles to say with any certainty that humans are driving GW, but it seems clear that we are not making things better.
. I'm not at all sure that the "alarmists" aren't right, but neither am I convinced that what humans are doing isn't just a drop in the bucket.
. The way I see it, even if we are having zero effect on GW, most of the "solutions" proposed by the "alarmists" are things we need to do anyway. If it's not doing it now, CO2, et al, will catch up to us eventually.

0
None
totally_screwedNachoMahma

Reply 11 years ago

NachoMahma
While it is true that uncertainties remain, it is also true that we have overwhelming evidence of what is happening.
Over the past 200 years the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from our collective industrial and agricultural activities has resulted in atmospheric CO2 concentrations that have increased by about 100 parts per million (ppm). The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is now higher than experienced on Earth for at least the last 800,000 years, and is expected to continue to rise, leading to significant temperature increases in the atmosphere and oceans by the end of this century.
Quotation from:
'Written Testimony of Richard A. Feely, Ph.D. Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration' to 'U.S Department of Commerce Hearing on Effects of Climate Change and Ocean Acidification on Living Marine Resources '
http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/feely051007.pdf

Human activity is driving the process. No natural cycles have been identified that could account for the warming. For example: if the warming was caused by the sun (it isn't), then since we can't affect the sun's output, it would be even more pressing for humans to reduce CO2 emissions to avoid the CO2 related positive feedback!

We know we are dumping ~7Gt of carbon into the atmosphere each year,
We know that the increasing atmospheric CO2 is man-made,
We know that the earth is warming,
It is not the sun,
It is not an orbital effect,
The warming correlates with the rises in GHGs,
We have a mechanism for the warming,
Climate models confirm the observations,
Climate models also can model paleoclimatic perturbations,

There are no peer-reviewed scientific articles in the top scientific journals that undermine GW science. The GW deniers publish in the Wall Street Journal or Energy and Environment. TH contrarian science is aimed at the confusing the public and not the scientific community!

The vast majority of climatologists believe the earth is warming because of the evidence.

The only people who are denying man-made GW all seem (well almost all) to be receiving money from the fossil-fuel industry or other polluting industries. There are some for whom the evidence is hard to find, but absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence.

It is also known that that the fossil-fuel industry have conspired to undermine GW science, Kyoto, the IPCC and the public understanding of GW science. They have also spent a great deal of money in the process.