Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

A completely substance free post.

Garbage in, garbage out.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Not sure you are able to tell the difference between a statement of fact by von Storch that the models have failed and his "gut" feeling.

You rely on your "gut" feelings for scientific conclusion Jack?

I trust von Stork's intuition more than I trust your unsubstantiated assertions.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I trust von Stork's intuition more than I trust your unsubstantiated assertions.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Well, actually, it was von Storch's empirical observation of the failure of IPCC models that was being compared to his gut feelings. You prefer gut feelings to data, so I understand why you would rather go with belief than with data.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

Sunspots / solar activity could explain the cycle of global cooling of the 70's and warming of the 80's/90s and the CO2 could be a symptom, not the cause.

Solar activity could, but it doesn't. Ask the solar scientists:

During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth's climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Solar activity could, but it doesn't. Ask the solar scientists:

Lets ask Nasa:

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny 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.

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

Edit: Drat 80 more comments to go before 4000 posts.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Solar activity could, but it doesn't. Ask the solar scientists:

""it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change."

And you don't see any problem with that?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

[...]Sunspots / solar activity could explain the cycle of global cooling of the 70's and warming of the 80's/90s and the CO2 could be a symptom, not the cause.

Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2015 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

simple explanation: Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

detailed explanation: Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Lets ask Nasa:

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny 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.

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

Edit: Drat 80 more comments to go before 4000 posts.

What part of "upper atmosphere" do you not understand?

Did you miss this?

"If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Well, actually, it was von Storch's empirical observation of the failure of IPCC models that was being compared to his gut feelings. You prefer gut feelings to data, so I understand why you would rather go with belief than with data.

Is your misrepresentation of other people's writing conscious or unconscious?

[Kenomac]

Jack,

Heading back to post #1 again:

Why do you feel that humans living hundreds of years from now will be unable to move a few miles inland if their coastline changes, and will starve to death as a result of increased greening?

If all your predictions come true, the change (8 inches sea rise over a 100 year period) will hardly be noticed... even by those living at waterfront properties.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Is your misrepresentation of other people's writing conscious or unconscious?

So, when von Storch states that climate models have failed to explain the statistical cessation of warming (a fact), then says nevertheless he thinks the earth will warm by 2 degrees (his instinct, not a fact) you find these two entities equivalent and find that I am misrepresenting the man by seeing a difference between fact and opinion?

No wonder you're a warmist.

And on the solar issue, once again you declare settled a topic because you can find a source of information (Stanford this time and not Barton Levenson so that's an improvement) that agrees with you. Jack, science doesn't work that way, and your blanket statement that "solar scientists" agree with you is false.

"The correlation of reconstructed solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere (NIl) surface temperature is 0.86 in the pre-industrial period from 1610 to 1800, implying a predominant solar influence. Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55"C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970." - Lean et al, Geophysical Research

https://works.bepress.com/raymond_bradley/52/

I could go on with about 50 papers reaching a similar conclusion that while solar activity isn't the only reason why climate changes, its cycles are a significant contributor to those changes. It will be interesting to see whether predictions of another Maunder Minimum based on solar activity will be realized. If so, you'll have to find another subject to pretend you know something about to post on.

Is a Mini Ice Age Coming? 'Maunder Minimum' Spurs Controversy

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack,

Heading back to post #1 again:

Why do you feel that humans living hundreds of years from now will be unable to move a few miles inland if their coastline changes, and will starve to death as a result of increased greening?

Because just like the Spotted Owl who will not fly to another tree to nest when the logger cuts down their favorite tree, humans will forget where the bus station is located when sea level rises.

But then again, Spotted Owls have been seen nesting in WalMart signs so perhaps humans will do something crazy - like spend $50 billion adjusting to a warmer more productive and pleasant climate rather than wasting trillions attempting to dial in the less productive colder climate warmists seem to prefer.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Delfin

So, when von Storch states that climate models have failed to explain the statistical cessation of warming (a fact), then says nevertheless he thinks the earth will warm by 2 degrees (his instinct, not a fact) you find these two entities equivalent and find that I am misrepresenting the man by seeing a difference between fact and opinion?

No wonder you're a warmist.

And on the solar issue, once again you declare settled a topic because you can find a source of information (Stanford this time and not Barton Levenson so that's an improvement) that agrees with you. Jack, science doesn't work that way, and your blanket statement that "solar scientists" agree with you is false.

"The correlation of reconstructed solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere (NIl) surface temperature is 0.86 in the pre-industrial period from 1610 to 1800, implying a predominant solar influence. Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55"C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970." - Lean et al, Geophysical Research

https://works.bepress.com/raymond_bradley/52/

I could go on with about 50 papers reaching a similar conclusion that while solar activity isn't the only reason why climate changes, its cycles are a significant contributor to those changes. It will be interesting to see whether predictions of another Maunder Minimum based on solar activity will be realized. If so, you'll have to find another subject to pretend you know something about to post on.

Is a Mini Ice Age Coming? 'Maunder Minimum' Spurs Controversy

Good article . I also noticed the last scentance that seems to have been put in out of context just to make some happy and keep money flowing .
Quote : Although solar activities can align with changes in temperatures, there are many processes that contribute to climatic variations, and human-induced climate change will likely prove too big a force for muted solar activity to influence.*end quote

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Good article . I also noticed the last scentance that seems to have been put in out of context just to make some happy and keep money flowing .
Quote : Although solar activities can align with changes in temperatures, there are many processes that contribute to climatic variations, and human-induced climate change will likely prove too big a force for muted solar activity to influence.*end quote

I see the same thing in dental research. A paper published a few years ago showed that around 50% of all dental care was inappropriate, meaning not needed. The authors at a state university wrapped themselves into pretzels to spin the data as much as possible to make the situation look better than it is while still reporting the data. Maybe they didn't want to have to deal with unhappy peers, maybe state dental association funding support might be threatened - who knows, but this happens everywhere. Note that in the qualifying statement stuck into the piece I referenced, following empirical evidence that undermines the AGW meme that provides an enormous amount of funding, the authors provide an opinion that human induced climate change will neutralize the data they report. So, just as Jack feels vindicated when Hans von Storch follows an empirical observation on the failure of climate models with his opinion they will still be correct, so in this case these authors don't want to pee in the money pool so throw pseudo-science a bone.

Bit depressing, really.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack,


If all your predictions come true, the change (8 inches sea rise over a 100 year period) will hardly be noticed... even by those living at waterfront properties.

It is already noticeable in Miami.

The Siege of Miami - The New Yorker