Australian Politics Forum - Global warming, the science and the consequences

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21541
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #60 - May 2^nd, 2017 at 11:49am

Jovial Monk wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 10:37pm:

Instead, observations show the pattern expected from greenhouse gas effects: Earth’s surface and troposphere have warmed, but the stratosphere has cooled.

Except for the trpospheric hotspot, which is a pillar that supports AGW theory.

According to the theory the tropospheric hotspot should rise at 2-3 times that of the surface. Instead, using new and imaginative techniques, they have found some warming.

"Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)"

" An attempt to reconstruct tropical warming profiles indirectly from changes in wind also found a maximum in the tropical upper troposphere since the 1970s (Allen and Sherwood 2008). Thus the picture from radiosondes remains somewhat unclear, although there are signs that improved records are showing warming close to expectations."

"These data have been interpreted as indicating too little warming trend in the upper compared to the lower troposphere (Fu et al 2011, Po-Chedley and Fu 2012) and one satellite product shows less warming in the atmosphere than at the surface (Christy et al 2010). Caution is warranted however because the satellites suffer from uncertain changes over time in calibration and other inhomogeneities, exacerbated by the manipulations of the data necessary to extract the signals of concern here (CCSP 2006)."

"Recent findings suggest that overall global warming rates in the troposphere have been too weak in some previous studies due to characterization of the diurnal cycle and imprecise corrections for calibration errors (Po-Chedley et al 2015). "

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=...

All that uncertainty about inhomogeneities, but they they can homogenise it all out? Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #61 - May 5^th, 2017 at 6:54pm Greenland melt May 2017: Very early indications then of a record melt. https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/ Seems the South and East are melting first.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21541 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #62 - May 5^th, 2017 at 9:12pm Wow. hat looks like it is in the interdecile range. I wonder why it varies from DMI so much? https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budge... Still above the 1981 - 2010 mean.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21541 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #63 - May 5^th, 2017 at 9:16pm https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/ That sure looks scary. NOT.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #64 - May 7^th, 2017 at 8:32pm

There has been talk and 400+ stupid videos that we are in a long interglacial with an ice age due any day (millennium.) That may not be so.

Quote:

A medley of forces influences the glacial-interglacial cycle, including the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth, which is controlled mainly by Earth’s orbital shape and axial tilt, the composition of gasses and aerosols and extent of cloud cover in the atmosphere, and the reflectivity of Earth’s surface (for example, the extent of ice and vegetation cover at high latitudes). A reduction in incoming summer solar radiation would be the primary trigger for glaciation, but atmospheric CO2 concentrations—the primary driver of climate change—must be relatively low, too.

How low is “relatively low”? Tzedakis and colleagues compared ice and marine records from previous interglacials and found that, given the current small decrease in summer solar radiation, CO2 concentrations would have to fall to around 240 ppm for the next glacial period to take place.

Sunspots not mentioned Grin

Quote:

A medley of forces influences the glacial-interglacial cycle, including the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth, which is controlled mainly by Earth’s orbital shape and axial tilt, the composition of gasses and aerosols and extent of cloud cover in the atmosphere, and the reflectivity of Earth’s surface (for example, the extent of ice and vegetation cover at high latitudes). A reduction in incoming summer solar radiation would be the primary trigger for glaciation, but atmospheric CO2 concentrations—the primary driver of climate change—must be relatively low, too.

How low is “relatively low”? Tzedakis and colleagues compared ice and marine records from previous interglacials and found that, given the current small decrease in summer solar radiation, CO2 concentrations would have to fall to around 240 ppm for the next glacial period to take place.

CO2 concentrations are now at 410ppm (depending on season—the carbon cycle.) FAR above 240ppm:

Quote:

Since the Industrial Revolution, however, atmospheric CO2 levels have been trending higher and higher. They reached an estimated 395.09 ppm globally in January 2013. So, if business proceeds as usual, with carbon release being driven primarily by fossil-fuel burning, we likely have a long thaw ahead of us. Modeling work by geophysical scientist David Archer has shown, for instance, that burning all potential fossil carbon on Earth—5,000 gigatons—would be enough to delay the next glaciation by 500,000 years.

Hopefully we, mankind, do not end up burning all the fossil fuels! Interesting that they mention 240ppm when what is assumed to be “preindustrial” levels (1800–1830 or so) are 280ppm. Could be just due to increasing human population before the industrial age?

Quote:

The real question, then, might have more to do with the next “age,” generally, that we face, rather than the next ice age. Some scientists consider the current era to be defined by human influence, what Dutch chemist Paul J. Crutzen dubbed the Anthropocene Epoch, which has its origins in the Industrial Age.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/will-there-be-another-ice-age/

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 7^th, 2017 at 9:23pm by Jovial Monk »

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21541
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #65 - May 7^th, 2017 at 9:20pm

Jovial Monk wrote on May 7^th, 2017 at 8:32pm:

Quote:
The real question, then, might have more to do with the next “age,” generally, that we face, rather than the next ice age. Some scientists consider the current era to be defined by human influence, what Dutch chemist Paul J. Crutzen dubbed the Anthropocene Epochrl][/u, which has its origins in the Industrial Age.

And he is supposed to be right?

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #66 - May 7^th, 2017 at 9:34pm This interglacial will be last for 20–30,000 years yet.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21541 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #67 - May 7^th, 2017 at 10:15pm Jovial Monk wrote on May 7^th, 2017 at 9:34pm: This interglacial will be last for 20–30,000 years yet. Got a peer-reviewed paper for that? or is it one of your beliefs.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #68 - May 7^th, 2017 at 10:27pm Google is your friend.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21541 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #69 - May 7^th, 2017 at 10:34pm Jovial Monk wrote on May 7^th, 2017 at 10:27pm: Google is your friend. Your famous quote for when you make sch!itt up.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #70 - May 7^th, 2017 at 10:43pm See, you are hopeless when thrown on your own resources. Clueless.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #71 - May 8^th, 2017 at 4:46pm

As I have pointed out many times, AGW means warmer temperatures which means more evaporation which means, eventually more precipitation. Here is one example:

Quote:

Devastating storms still roiling much of the American Midwest have dumped record levels of rain over the past week and caused flash flooding that has killed at least 10 people, inundated towns and highways, and forced hundreds of people to evacuate their homes. Parts of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Arkansas and Louisiana received 10 to 15 inches of rain in the past seven days, according to the National Weather Service, resulting in record crests of numerous rivers across the central United States.

Extreme storms like these have become more common as global temperatures have risen and the oceans have warmed. Some have the clear fingerprints of man-made climate change.

"Of course there is a climate change connection, because the oceans and sea surface temperatures are higher now because of climate change, and in general that adds 5 to 10 percent to the precipitation," Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said. "There have been many so-called 500-year floods along the Mississippi about every five to 10 years since 1993."

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03052017/flooding-storms-climate-change-extre...

Adds 5 to 10% to precipitation. Hmmm.

Of course, you can believe it is “cosmic gamma rays” but this has been long discredited.

The article goes on:
Quote:

Scientists won't know the extent to which climate change played a role in these storms unless they do an attribution study. Such analyses determine how much the rise in trapped greenhouse gases increased the odds of a single event happening. Increasingly, scientists have tried to do these studies far more quickly to spread accurate information about how climate change is affecting us today and improve longer-term forecasts and warnings.

An attribution study of last August's deadly Louisiana's storms—classified as a 1,000-year storm in the worst-hit areas and a 500-year storm in others—found that human-caused climate warming increased the chances of the torrential rains by at least 40 percent.

That figure corresponds to the overall increase in extreme storms in the region.

"Across the board, the United States has seen an increase in the heaviest rainfall events, and the Midwest specifically has seen an increase [in these events] of almost 40 percent," said Heidi Cullen, chief scientist at Climate Central and a member of World Weather Attribution (WWA), a group that is developing methods to quickly determine climate change's role in extreme weather events.

Like last summer's downpours in Louisiana, however, the ongoing storms across much of the central U.S. are moving slowly, a characteristic that has not been directly attributed to climate change and has likely exacerbated current flooding.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 8^th, 2017 at 4:58pm by Jovial Monk »

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21541
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #72 - May 8^th, 2017 at 5:14pm

Jovial Monk wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

"Of course there is a climate change connection, because the oceans and sea surface temperatures are higher now because of climate change, and in general that adds 5 to 10 percent to the precipitation," Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said. "There have been many so-called 500-year floods along the Mississippi about every five to 10 years since 1993."

Oh. Kevin Trenberth? Grin

"On average, total annual precipitation has increased over land areas in the United States and worldwide (see Figures 1 and 2). Since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.08 inches per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.17 inches per decade."

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-p...

So .17 of an inch in a decade? 4.2mm a decade? Wow.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences
Reply #73 - May 8^th, 2017 at 7:36pm

A consequence of a warming world, more bush/wild fires and a longer wild/bushfire season: the BoM confirmed this in their State of the Climate report. Here is one case, in spring in the US:

Quote:

A wildfire that has burned more than 100,000 acres (40,469 hectares) at the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in southern Georgia could take until November before it is put out, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said on Monday.

The fire has burned about one-fourth of the wildlife refuge, and the blaze is considered only eight-percent contained, said Mark Davis, spokesman for the service.

"November is the worst-case scenario," said Davis. "The firefighters' plan is to contain the fire as best they can, hoping that nature will cooperate with some rainfall."

. . .

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-georgia-fire-idUSKBN17X2H2

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 8^th, 2017 at 8:25pm by Jovial Monk »

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Global warming, the science and the consequences Reply #74 - May 8^th, 2017 at 8:24pm Sea level rise threatening historic sites, even telephone poles in Tasmania: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/climate/tasmania-global-warming-shoreline-ero... Need I point out that if we were in a real ice age, not the BIIA, sea levels would be dropping not rising?
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged