Climate Change... its the sun... again.

jem said:
your 11 year average is the cherry picked to mislead. temperature over land has gone down since 2001. Your 11 year average hides the decline.
More...
Considering the nearly continuous "this month/year is the hottest on record" reports we hear almost every month, I'd sure hate to see what happens if we start warming.
 
and many studies... some more recent... show that water vapor and clouds may lead to cooling.
in fact the nasa site also says they are not sure what impact clouds have.

you can find studies saying that lower clouds reflect the suns warming rays back up vs... high clouds trapping some heat.

here is a review of a study which show that clouds provide a negative feedback... not a positive one.


http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Clouds_Climate.pdf



in short we don't yet really know if co2 warms or cools because we don't know enough about clouds and temps. .


---

in short science has no idea if co2 is causing more warming or more cooling because the models have no idea what clouds are actually doing... at the moment.




futurecurrents said:
I don't expect you to understand but....

Yes, Malinkovitch cycles (solar intensity) initiate changes in the earth's temps, but the feedback effect of the resulting changes in CO2 levels from these initial small temp changes due to solar change is responsible for most of the extreme swings in temps seen over the ice age cycles.

Without the CO2 feedback effect the large swings seen here would not be seen. So ultimately CO2 has greater control of the temps than solar does.

Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif



"Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.


A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html
More...
 
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf
Bold mine.
If yes, then we note that Section 3.4.2.1 of the AR5 WG1 report states:

The overall uncertainty of the annually averaged global ocean mean [heat flux] for each term is expected to be in the range 10–20%. In the case of the latent heat flux term, this corresponds to an uncertainty of up to 20 W m–2. In comparison, changes in global mean values of individual heat flux components expected as a result of anthropogenic climate change since 1900 are at the level of <2 W m–2.

• With uncertainty in ocean data being ten times larger than the total magnitude of the warming attributed to anthropogenic sources, and combined with the IPCC’s conclusion than it has less than 10% confidence that it can separate long-term trends from regular variability, why is it reasonable to conclude that increases in GMST are attributable to radiative forcing rather than to ocean variability?
More...

"10% confidence" blahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
 
yeah... who knows maybe we would have more food for the hungry.
right now long term we have been warming out of an ice... if we had to choose warming or cooling back to and ice age... we should pick warming.

would you pick cooling?

Ricter said:
Considering the nearly continuous "this month/year is the hottest on record" reports we hear almost every month, I'd sure hate to see what happens if we start warming.
More...
 
WeToddDid2 said:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf
Bold mine.


"10% confidence" blahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
More...


Yes, it's funny, that you don't even know what you are reading. It's hysterical. In a sad kind of way.

95% confidence....

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely(at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
  • Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
  • Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects intemperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]
  • The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]
  • The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding,drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
 
futurecurrents said:
Yes, it's funny, that you don't even know what you are reading. It's hysterical. In a sad kind of way.

95% confidence....

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely(at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
  • Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
  • Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects intemperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]
  • The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]
  • The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding,drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
More...

apsdoc_zpsa7de8d2e.png


"A factor-of-three uncertainty in the global surface temperature response to increased atmospheric CO2 as expressed by ECS has persisted through the last three decades of research despite the significant intellectual effort that has been devoted to climate science."

y2Zwk.gif
 
futurecurrents said:
Yes, it's funny, that you don't even know what you are reading. It's hysterical. In a sad kind of way.

95% confidence....

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely(at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
  • Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
  • Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects intemperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]
  • The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]
  • The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding,drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
More...
Really, don't worry about it. I am sure that Dr. Christy and Dr. Curry sufficiently answered all of the American Physical Society's questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top