A statistically representative climate change debate

[gwb-trading]

Buying Insurance Against Climate Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/upshot/buying-insurance-against-climate-change.html?_r=0

The third National Climate Assessment report — released on May 6 by the White House, and representing the work of more than 240 scientists — warns us about our hazardous future and offers many good ideas for dealing with it. But a most important point may be lost in the crowd.

After discussing how to mitigate the coming dangers, the report says, “Commercially available mechanisms such as insurance can also play a role in providing protection against losses due to climate change.” That sentence should have been in big, bold letters and underlined.

That’s because of the substantial risk that efforts to stop global warming will fail. The implications are staggering, and we must encourage private innovation and government support to insure against the devastating financial losses that will result.

(More at above url)

Summary: Article by Robert J. Shiller discusses using financial weather derivatives as a hedge against climate change.

 

[futurecurrents]

According to you the sun's irrelevant ("Solar output changes have NEVER had a large influence on the earth's climate cycles") but CO2 making up 1/2500th of the atmosphere "controls the earth's temperature" despite ALL other physical, chemical and biological processes that govern the planet and despite the fact that warming's paused for 16 years and "climate scientists" can't explain it. OK moron.

It's not me saying CO2 controls the earth's temps, it's the climate scientists.

Solar output variations have had relatively small influence on climate. Both volcanoes and orbital changes have had far greater effect. But were it not for the greenhouse effect from CO2 the temp changes would be minor. It is the level of CO2 that most controls the temps after initiation by solar changes. It is orbital variations, not solar output changes that initiate the major ice ages..

 

[futurecurrents]

What is most interesting for me is the current decline in solar activity. The "exceptional" low minimum in the 11-year solar cycle seen in 2008/9, and the subsequent weakness of the current solar cycle, are both part of a steady decline that has been going on since about 1985. This has returned the sun to conditions last seen around 1910.

If we compare this to records of solar activity derived from isotopes stored in tree trunks and ice sheets we find this decline is faster than any in the last 9,000 years, increasing the probability that the sun will return to Maunder minimum conditions within about 50 years.

So what do we think the effect of a return to Maunder minimum conditions on global mean temperatures would be? The answer is very little.

In a paper with scientists from the Met Office's Hadley Centre, we used an energy balance model to show the slowing in anthropogenic global warming associated with decline in solar irradiance to Maunder minimum levels.

We found the likely reduction in warming by 2100 would be between 0.06 and 0.1 degrees Celsius, a very small fraction of the warming we're due to experience as a result of human activity. Other scientists such as Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf from Potsdam, Germany had reached very similar conclusions.

I've also used observations from the last 50 years to investigate the effect of solar activity on global temperatures - and like several other authors, I find only a very minor effect.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/11/solar-activity-and-the-so-called-“little-ice-age”/

 

[Trader666]

It's not me saying CO2 controls the earth's temps, it's the climate scientists... It is the level of CO2 that most controls the temps after initiation by solar changes.

And you ignorantly and incessantly parrot it.

Explain how a gas that's only 1/2500th of the atmosphere, which leads and lags temperatures and has been uncoupled from temperatures for centuries at a time, trumps ALL other physical, chemical and biological processes that govern the planet and "controls the temps." You can't and neither can "climate scientists, " not even the ones at the AMA.

 

[Trader666]

So what do we think the effect of a return to Maunder minimum conditions on global mean temperatures would be? The answer is very little.

What part of this admission from your Muslim outreaching/AGW zealot gods at NASA don't you understand?
Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny [solar] variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

 

[futurecurrents]

And you ignorantly and incessantly parrot it.

Explain how a gas that's only 1/2500th of the atmosphere, which leads and lags temperatures and has been uncoupled from temperatures for centuries at a time, trumps ALL other physical, chemical and biological processes that govern the planet and "controls the temps." You can't and neither can "climate scientists, " not even the ones at the AMA.

You're trying to convince me that you know more than the climatologists. That won't work. You couldn't convince me that you know more than my dog.

 

[futurecurrents]

What part of this admission from your Muslim outreaching/AGW zealot gods at NASA don't you understand?
Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny [solar] variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

I did not say that they have no effect. Just very little. This what climate scientists say....


We found the likely reduction in warming by 2100 would be between 0.06 and 0.1 degrees Celsius, a very small fraction of the warming we're due to experience as a result of human activity. Other scientists such as Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf from Potsdam, Germany had reached very similar conclusions.

 

[Trader666]

You're trying to convince me that you know more than the climatologists.

Nope. You're a delusional, fanatical dimwit who wouldn't recognize reality if it hit you in the face. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of what you swallow hook, line and sinker like the unquestioning useful idiot you are.

I did not say that they have no effect. Just very little. This what climate scientists say....

And your Muslim outreaching/AGW zealot gods at NASA say otherwise.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny [solar] variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

 

[futurecurrents]

The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. The rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to human industrial activity is therefore setting the course for continued global warming. Because of the large heat capacity of the climate system, the global surface temperature does not respond instantaneously to the sharp upturn of the carbon dioxide thermostat, which at this moment stands at 386.80 ppm compared to the normal interglacial maximum level of 280 ppm. Since humans are responsible for changing the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they then also have control over the global temperature of the Earth. Humans are at a difficult crossroad. Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of civilization as we know it. It is also the direct cause fueling an impending climate disaster. There is no viable alternative to counteract global warming except through direct human effort to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

 

[jem]

That is correct CO2 acts as a thermostat in out atmosphere. When a warming events hits... it cools.

NASA shows the cooling part very clearly below...

Science.nasa released a few studies about the true nature of CO2 also being a coolant after the real scientists at NASA signed the now famous letter... thereby forcing NASA to out Hansen from the propaganda arm of climate.nasa.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.