Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
fishseller said:
hairykrishna said:
Can we knock off the 'I've not fact checked this' propaganda images? It's not Facebook.
Oooo touchy just to appease the naysayersThe actual news stories themselves without the extra bulls
t would probably support the point the posters are wanting to make.We've now had another Brexit WW3 moment, relating to COP26 not Brexit.
"World conflict and chaos" could be the result of a summit failure.
So says a 'top climate official' (meant to be impressive) in The Guardian. Where else, apart from The Independent and the BBC of course.
Project fear rides again. Once more it's another 'could be' rather like space aliens visiting Glasgow for Halloween.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/2...
"World conflict and chaos" could be the result of a summit failure.
So says a 'top climate official' (meant to be impressive) in The Guardian. Where else, apart from The Independent and the BBC of course.
Project fear rides again. Once more it's another 'could be' rather like space aliens visiting Glasgow for Halloween.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/2...
Next up on the failed cooling predictions list - Heinrik Svensmark of the cosmic ray gun hypothesis
In 2009 Svensmark declared that global warming had stopped and cooling was underway, and, pre-judging the success of his prediction before it had come to pass, said that climate models predicting warming are therefore unreliable.
“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-g...
In 2009 Svensmark declared that global warming had stopped and cooling was underway, and, pre-judging the success of his prediction before it had come to pass, said that climate models predicting warming are therefore unreliable.
“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-g...
Kawasicki said:
dickymint said:
Daft question (sarcasm expected but not required thanks) are these "models" actually capable of predicting any cooling?
They can only predict cooling if they are adjusted to predict cooling. At present they are adjusted to predict warming. They predict warming.dickymint said:
Daft question (sarcasm expected but not required thanks) are these "models" actually capable of predicting any cooling?
Depends which models you're referring to. Extrapolating from previous 'cycles' is a model. Physics-based models don't tend to have an input for putative cycles, but I daresay you could input a drop in say solar irradiance (Abussamatov) to see what happens and possibly get cooling (I don't know)Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 24th October 15:49
dickymint said:
Daft question (sarcasm expected but not required thanks) are these "models" actually capable of predicting any cooling?
Do you mean GCMs? If so, the answer is yes of course. They just predict the response to various inputs. Turn down the radiation input terms or drop the various greenhouse gas concentrations low enough.hairykrishna said:
dickymint said:
Daft question (sarcasm expected but not required thanks) are these "models" actually capable of predicting any cooling?
Do you mean GCMs? If so, the answer is yes of course. They just predict the response to various inputs. Turn down the radiation input terms or drop the various greenhouse gas concentrations low enough.The models' treatment of energy escaping to space is inadequate, and having gone there it's pointless suffering further obfuscation if people really think that heat is trapped, it isn't. Back to the thought experiment: turn off the Sun, sit back and watch. Will the atmosphere stay at the same temperature for ever? Of course not. The heat would escape aka the planet would cool, so heat isn't trapped.
Alternatively, beyond carbon dioxide level increases, solar output may increase or decrease. Models deal with the irradiance element but are not programmed with solar eruptivity science. In fact they're not programmed with other science too, using instead dozens of 'tuned parameterisations' because the science is insufficiently understood or computing power is inadequate.
The solar eruptivity aspect involves particles rather than radiation as per the peer-reviewed science of Bucha, and of Svensmark, which show that cooling can occur from background high energy cosmic ray flux changes impacting on low level cloud cover and thus albedo, aka CRF-LLC-Albedo (Svensmark), and from changes to the direct auroral oval solar wind impacts (Bucha). It's not purely about counting sunspots - there are other key phenomena involved such as coronal holes.
As it happens, it's the variable solar wind that causes changes in high energy cosmic rays (Svensmark) but with the Bucha forcing mechanism the solar wind alone is implicated through processes near the magnetic poles. The two mechanisms are different.
Shaviv has shown using empirical data that small solar irradiance changes are amplified 5x to 7x in their impact. The work didn't set out to identify how. This is solar eruptivity, a far more important phenomenon than irradiance. Likewise the UV element of irradiance which alone can vary by tens of percent.
Kawasicki said:
dickymint said:
Daft question (sarcasm expected but not required thanks) are these "models" actually capable of predicting any cooling?
They can only predict cooling if they are adjusted to predict cooling. At present they are adjusted to predict warming. They predict warming.turbobloke said:
The models which drive our political policy assume - because the modellers assume - that with increased carbon dioxide levels, there will be greater CO2 radiative forcing and therefore warming.
Hardly, the increasing radiative forcing from increasing CO2 is an emergent property from the radiative physics in the models.turbobloke said:
Other factors are involved, however. In successive IPCC Reports, CO2 forcing got dialled down with feedback dialled up to compensate. Settled science, see.
More twaddle - that never happened.turbobloke said:
Processes that can cool the planet are either not understood anywhere near enough (clouds) or ignored (see Svensmark and Bucha, below).
The models' treatment of energy escaping to space is inadequate, and having gone there it's pointless suffering further obfuscation if people really think that heat is trapped, it isn't. Back to the thought experiment: turn off the Sun, sit back and watch. Will the atmosphere stay at the same temperature for ever? Of course not. The heat would escape aka the planet would cool, so heat isn't trapped.
Brilliant - woolly jumpers don't work because if you died your body would cool. What a killer argumentThe models' treatment of energy escaping to space is inadequate, and having gone there it's pointless suffering further obfuscation if people really think that heat is trapped, it isn't. Back to the thought experiment: turn off the Sun, sit back and watch. Will the atmosphere stay at the same temperature for ever? Of course not. The heat would escape aka the planet would cool, so heat isn't trapped.
turbobloke said:
Alternatively, beyond carbon dioxide level increases, solar output may increase or decrease. Models deal with the irradiance element but are not programmed with solar eruptivity science. In fact they're not programmed with other science too, using instead dozens of 'tuned parameterisations' because the science is insufficiently understood or computing power is inadequate.
The solar eruptivity aspect involves particles rather than radiation as per the peer-reviewed science of Bucha, and of Svensmark, which show that cooling can occur from background high energy cosmic ray flux changes impacting on low level cloud cover and thus albedo, aka CRF-LLC-Albedo (Svensmark), and from changes to the direct auroral oval solar wind impacts (Bucha). It's not purely about counting sunspots - there are other key phenomena involved such as coronal holes.
As it happens, it's the variable solar wind that causes changes in high energy cosmic rays (Svensmark) but with the Bucha forcing mechanism the solar wind alone is implicated through processes near the magnetic poles. The two mechanisms are different.
Shaviv has shown using empirical data that small solar irradiance changes are amplified 5x to 7x in their impact. The work didn't set out to identify how. This is solar eruptivity, a far more important phenomenon than irradiance. Likewise the UV element of irradiance which alone can vary by tens of percent.
Anthony Watts asked solar physicist Leif Svalgaard what he thought of Shaviv/Svensmark's claims.The solar eruptivity aspect involves particles rather than radiation as per the peer-reviewed science of Bucha, and of Svensmark, which show that cooling can occur from background high energy cosmic ray flux changes impacting on low level cloud cover and thus albedo, aka CRF-LLC-Albedo (Svensmark), and from changes to the direct auroral oval solar wind impacts (Bucha). It's not purely about counting sunspots - there are other key phenomena involved such as coronal holes.
As it happens, it's the variable solar wind that causes changes in high energy cosmic rays (Svensmark) but with the Bucha forcing mechanism the solar wind alone is implicated through processes near the magnetic poles. The two mechanisms are different.
Shaviv has shown using empirical data that small solar irradiance changes are amplified 5x to 7x in their impact. The work didn't set out to identify how. This is solar eruptivity, a far more important phenomenon than irradiance. Likewise the UV element of irradiance which alone can vary by tens of percent.
His reply was short and to the point:
"Think about this:
TSI over a solar cycle causes a variation of 0.05-0.10 degrees C. If GCRs as per Svensmark has 5-7 times the effect of TSI, that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle, which is simply not observed, hence the paper can be dismissed out of hand."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/19/new-svensma...
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
Alternatively, beyond carbon dioxide level increases, solar output may increase or decrease. Models deal with the irradiance element but are not programmed with solar eruptivity science. In fact they're not programmed with other science too, using instead dozens of 'tuned parameterisations' because the science is insufficiently understood or computing power is inadequate.
The solar eruptivity aspect involves particles rather than radiation as per the peer-reviewed science of Bucha, and of Svensmark, which show that cooling can occur from background high energy cosmic ray flux changes impacting on low level cloud cover and thus albedo, aka CRF-LLC-Albedo (Svensmark), and from changes to the direct auroral oval solar wind impacts (Bucha). It's not purely about counting sunspots - there are other key phenomena involved such as coronal holes.
As it happens, it's the variable solar wind that causes changes in high energy cosmic rays (Svensmark) but with the Bucha forcing mechanism the solar wind alone is implicated through processes near the magnetic poles. The two mechanisms are different.
Shaviv has shown using empirical data that small solar irradiance changes are amplified 5x to 7x in their impact. The work didn't set out to identify how. This is solar eruptivity, a far more important phenomenon than irradiance. Likewise the UV element of irradiance which alone can vary by tens of percent.
Anthony Watts asked solar physicist Leif Svalgaard what he thought of Shaviv/Svensmark's claims.The solar eruptivity aspect involves particles rather than radiation as per the peer-reviewed science of Bucha, and of Svensmark, which show that cooling can occur from background high energy cosmic ray flux changes impacting on low level cloud cover and thus albedo, aka CRF-LLC-Albedo (Svensmark), and from changes to the direct auroral oval solar wind impacts (Bucha). It's not purely about counting sunspots - there are other key phenomena involved such as coronal holes.
As it happens, it's the variable solar wind that causes changes in high energy cosmic rays (Svensmark) but with the Bucha forcing mechanism the solar wind alone is implicated through processes near the magnetic poles. The two mechanisms are different.
Shaviv has shown using empirical data that small solar irradiance changes are amplified 5x to 7x in their impact. The work didn't set out to identify how. This is solar eruptivity, a far more important phenomenon than irradiance. Likewise the UV element of irradiance which alone can vary by tens of percent.
His reply was short and to the point:
"Think about this:
TSI over a solar cycle causes a variation of 0.05-0.10 degrees C. If GCRs as per Svensmark has 5-7 times the effect of TSI, that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle, which is simply not observed, hence the paper can be dismissed out of hand."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/19/new-svensma...
Yes, that's been posted before. It's an opinion, the actual temperature change for any particular forcing is unknown, unlike theory based on insufficiently understood variables and thus Svalgaard's opinion. Outside the tropics, the sign of feedback is unknown, and it's negative for the tropics. In addition, Svensmark's mechanism isn't the only eruptivity mechanism operating. Svalgaard and you missed one, though Svalgaard has a basis as he wasn't asked, whereas there's a post today covering it, it's above in the post you replied to. which you must have read to take a Leif out of Anthony's book in response.
Putting blogs aside for now, if you were to consult the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 60, 2, 145-169 and Advances in Space Research 6, 10, 77-82 you'd gain useful information including this: 'downward winds following the geomagnetic storm onset are generated in the polar cap of the thermosphere and penetrate to the stratosphere and troposphere,, where the atmospheric response can be observed as a sudden increase of pressure and temperature'
Previously I've posted data showing this troposphere response (T, p) from other research (following the all-sky solar storm aurora of 13 March 1989). It exists, but not if you read pro-agw e.g. IPCC selective lit reviews. Think about this.
Hopefully other PHers saw the all-sky aurora of March 1989, assuming they were born and old enough, it was spectacular.
There's another problem with the temperature change claim, which is bad enough for CO2 levels never mind this example relating to TSI.
Irradiance cannot and should not be lumped together as TSI (total solar irradiance) in this context. The variation in the UV region of the spectrum is significant, and that particular frequency range is sufficiently energetic to cause chemical bond dissociation and molecular disruption including so-called greenhouse gas molecules. Even whopping NASA got there eventually.
NASA website: The Sun’s output (eUV) varies...by whopping factors of 10 or more
NASA website: This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the atmosphere
Even so...
NASA website: Typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance (TSI) exceed all other energy sources combined
A paper on UV and climate, namely Advances in Space Research 29, 10, 1427-1440 reminds us that the above significant solar variations are more important than models would indicate.
Even so, our wise politicians continue to base policy on models. Think of this too.
Irradiance cannot and should not be lumped together as TSI (total solar irradiance) in this context. The variation in the UV region of the spectrum is significant, and that particular frequency range is sufficiently energetic to cause chemical bond dissociation and molecular disruption including so-called greenhouse gas molecules. Even whopping NASA got there eventually.
NASA website: The Sun’s output (eUV) varies...by whopping factors of 10 or more
NASA website: This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the atmosphere
Even so...
NASA website: Typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance (TSI) exceed all other energy sources combined
A paper on UV and climate, namely Advances in Space Research 29, 10, 1427-1440 reminds us that the above significant solar variations are more important than models would indicate.
Even so, our wise politicians continue to base policy on models. Think of this too.
Edited by turbobloke on Monday 25th October 00:19
turbobloke said:
Quoting a WUWT blog entry, wonderful irony based on harsh comments around such things from other pro-agw threaders. Not that I object as I understand the difference between primary and secondary sources.
Well that's them isn't it and as a general rule I wouldn't diss it because there's an awful lot of chaff to wade through in 'blog science' to find the pearls.But I would heartily recommend reading WUWT whenever El Sol is the subject, *solely* because of the contributions from Leif Svalgaard there who is a genuiyne heavyweight in the solar physics world. I've watched him for many years now shredding the many pet theories about the effect of solar cycles on earth's climate which he views as pseudo science and a blemish on his field. You wouldn't stand a chance old boy.
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
Quoting a WUWT blog entry, wonderful irony based on harsh comments around such things from other pro-agw threaders. Not that I object as I understand the difference between primary and secondary sources.
Well that's them isn't it and as a general rule I wouldn't diss it because there's an awful lot of chaff to wade through in 'blog science' to find the pearls.But I would heartily recommend reading WUWT whenever El Sol is the subject, *solely* because of the contributions from Leif Svalgaard there who is a genuine heavyweight in the solar physics world. I've watched him for many years now shredding the many pet theories about the effect of solar cycles on earth's climate which he views as pseudo science and a blemish on his field. You wouldn't stand a chance old boy.
Meanwhile the holes in what you posted from the blog are evident regardless of how often you ignore the major inadequacies as indicated for you. Once again you have form - for a repeated mistake - in terms of climate modelling inadequacies in general, so it's no surprise.
Reading peer-reviewed science directly is recommended, then you'll realise that the assertions on solar forcing as per the WUWT material in your post content, are flawed as they rely on irradiance, and TSI moreover, while ignoring e.g. auroral oval eruptivity forcing (Bucha). Another reason for this flawed nature is the inadequate consideration of UV impacts - chemistry - as per the paper I cited yesterday.
That would be Advances in Space Research 29, 10, 1427-1440 which reminds us that the above significant solar variations (eUV up to 1000% and UV up to 100% with implications for atmospheric gas chemistry) are inconvenient truths. The authors criticise physics-based models as inadequate in this regard, which they are, and in other regards also at basic levels e.g. inadequate cell size, number of tuned parameterisations substituting for science, and so on.
Regarding the most recent fundamental flaw in agw i.e. the erroneous methodology dating back to 1999 involving flawed attribution studies linking mankind's emissions to weather events, the next question is whether that paper and the long list of 2000-2020 papers implicated by use of the same erroneous methodology will be withdrawn. Then we can look forward to retractions of all the erroneous newspaper scaremongering headlines, but nobody should hold their breath on that score.
It took long enough with the flawed Resplandy et al oceans paper, likewise used to fuel alarmist media headlines, when it was pointed out that the authors hadn't managed systematic errors properly, treating them as random errors. An A-level physics student might add 'ffs'. This low-grade material didn't stand a chance old boy.
Naturally our wonderful politicians carry on regardless, basing bunk policy on agw bunk.
Missing Leaders, Eyewatering Hotel Rates and a Resurgent Pandemic
It's COP26 with its last best hopes
https://time.com/6109499/cop26-climate-hopes-scotl...
It's COP26 with its last best hopes
https://time.com/6109499/cop26-climate-hopes-scotl...
turbobloke said:
It's not my science old boy, this is the same mistake you make with predictions, which aren't mine either.
I've already stated (more than once) that attrbuting predictions to you is giving you too much credit, and that you are a cheerleader for the solar-climate theories of others so who is the mistaken one?When I say you wouldn't stand a chance I mean you would come a cropper if you tried to 'sell' the solar-climate theories and papers (be they peer reviewed or not) that you promote here, to him.
I've read enough of him to know what he thinks about Landscheidt's 'science' for example and those purporting to be able to predict solar cycles several cycles ahead.
Thanks for the ongoing personal attention kerplunk, it's flattering and very encouraging.
I say I say I say...
The host of Cop26 needs to be a master of diplomacy. Unfortunately, it’s Boris Johnson
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct...
I say I say I say...
The host of Cop26 needs to be a master of diplomacy. Unfortunately, it’s Boris Johnson
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff