Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Norway Data Shows Earth’s Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,015 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:09 PM

Norway Data Shows Earth’s Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared

Jan 27, 2013

New estimates from a Norwegian research project show meeting targets for minimizing global warming may be more achievable than previously thought.

After the planet’s average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized, the Research Council of Norway said in a statement on its website. After applying data from the past decade, the results showed temperatures may rise 1.9 degrees Celsius if Co2 levels double by 2050, below the 3 degrees predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s,” said Terje Berntsen, a professor at the University of Oslo who worked on the study. “This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”

The findings also show the effect of reduced airborne particulates from burning coal, which may decrease the cloud cover that cools the earth, probably has less of an impact on climate through indirect cooling than originally projected.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-27/norway-data-shows-earth-s-global-warming-less-severe-than-feared.html




Study resets climate debate



A DECADE-LONG pause in global warming may have radically lowered the longer-term outlook for climate change, researchers have found.

A Norwegian team, using observations and powerful computer models, said the most likely outcome from a doubling of human carbon dioxide emissions was a 1.9C rise by 2100.

This compares with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most likely scenario of a 3C temperature increase and is below the target that has been set to limit global temperature rise to 2C.
The lower temperature estimate follows research last week that said the Arctic ice may be much less sensitive to rising global temperatures than had previously been thought, and the acknowledgement this month by NASA climate scientist James Hansen that the five-year mean global temperature had been flat for a decade.








Dr Hansen said the temperature rise pause had been due to a combination of natural variability and "a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing". He said the 10 warmest years on record had all occurred since 1998 and global temperatures were expected to "rise significantly in the next few years" and in coming decades.

The Norwegian research does not reject the theory of climate change or downplay the need for action to reduce human carbon dioxide emissions, but it shows keeping the global temperature rise below 2C may not be as difficult as previously thought.

It is the inclusion of the pause in global temperature rises since 2000 that sets the Norwegian research apart.

Project manager Terje Berntsen said the sharp rise in global temperatures during the 1990s "may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity".

"We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system," Professor Berntsen said. "Changes that can occur over several decades and which are coming on top of a long-term warming.
"The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/study-resets-climate-debate/story-e6frg8y6-1226563034147


  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

Dr. Rand Paul 2016!

INFJ


#2 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,348 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:19 PM

So we're still doomed, but not within our lifetime?

Thank goodness! I can finally burn these tires I've been trying to get rid of.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3 Kumquats

Kumquats

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,451 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 08

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:21 PM

China says, "challenge accepted."

Posted Image
  • 1

#4 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,901 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:41 PM

I basically feel the same as the posters above me. This is good news if true, but it doesn't mean that we don't still have a big problem on our hands.
  • 1
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#5 NuckNuckNucks

NuckNuckNucks

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 12

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:42 PM

More truth and facts are starting to surface.

Understandable that the back-peddling will begin.
  • 0
You have to be a true bandwagoneer if you buy Mike's line about looking for the right deal to trade Luongo.

True fans and hockey diehards know, that is double talk for, "Luongo is a high ticket commodity now or next year, we'll keep him around just in case Schneider turns out to be a lemon and chokes games."

And choke he will.

I know this. I'm never wrong.

#6 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,103 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:45 PM

'Truth' 'Facts' LOL.

We're so stupid.
  • 0

#7 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,471 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:46 PM

China says, "challenge accepted."

Posted Image


Just watched the Vice program on Linfen, the world's most polluted city:

http://www.vice.com/...ic-linfen-china

Pretty wild what's going on there. It's a city of 4 million, that people are forced to live in due to job shortages and government policy. It'd be like living in an oil sands mine.
  • 0

#8 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,065 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:50 PM

/inb4 "methodology"/"Koch brothers"

Well I'll be.. you mean we should be sceptical of the anthropogenic climate doomsday predictions? That might throw a wrench in a few gimmicks. :(
  • 0

#9 NuckNuckNucks

NuckNuckNucks

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 12

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:50 PM

'Truth' 'Facts' LOL.

We're so stupid.


Not at all. You just have to be open to both.

I'm for keeping the environment clean and healthy. I happily do my part in the effort.

I just don't believe the hype and propaganda behind the next "Capitalist Money Maker'
  • 2
You have to be a true bandwagoneer if you buy Mike's line about looking for the right deal to trade Luongo.

True fans and hockey diehards know, that is double talk for, "Luongo is a high ticket commodity now or next year, we'll keep him around just in case Schneider turns out to be a lemon and chokes games."

And choke he will.

I know this. I'm never wrong.

#10 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,103 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:51 PM

Not at all. You just have to be open to both.

I'm for keeping the environment clean and healthy. I happily do my part in the effort.

I just don't believe the hype and propaganda behind the next "Capitalist Money Maker'


Open to both what?
  • 0

#11 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,015 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 03:18 PM

China says, "challenge accepted."


Ahh... the world's #1 air polluting nation

Open to both what?


I think he/she's referring to both sides of the climate debate

Edited by key2thecup, 28 January 2013 - 03:19 PM.

  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

Dr. Rand Paul 2016!

INFJ


#12 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,103 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 03:35 PM

Ahh... the world's #1 air polluting nation



I think he/she's referring to both sides of the climate debate


Yeah, I think that's bs. At what point do we treat these idiots the same way we treat those who still deny evolution? You can't pretend it's an honest debate when you've got overwhelming evidence that states one of the sides is correct.
  • 1

#13 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,047 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 28 January 2013 - 03:58 PM

Yeah, I think that's bs. At what point do we treat these idiots the same way we treat those who still deny evolution? You can't pretend it's an honest debate when you've got overwhelming evidence that states one of the sides is correct.


Jebus will save me from our pollution caused extreme weather!
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#14 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,120 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:04 PM

'Levelling off' and 'not as severe' are very different from 'not occurring' and 'not a problem.'
  • 2

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#15 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:06 PM

What has gotten lost in this media frenzy is that the paper is under review and has not been published. All the new articles are based off a press release. It is rather interesting to see how some are quick to embrace this even though no one has even seen the results, or the data that goes into the study.

What is also lost in the media frenzy is that this is one study, whereas the body of knowledge is really the sum of a broad range of evidences.
  • 3

#16 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 28 January 2013 - 05:22 PM

Here's a bit of context for the study.

One main measure of the effect of CO2 is called the climate sensitivity, which is how much will the earth warm if we double CO2. The current best estimate is 2.0-4.5 degrees, with the most likely value of 3 degrees, with is from all lines of evidence.

Suppose that the conclusion of the paper holds, a sensitivity of 1.9 degrees will certainly be on the low end, which is good news. However a huge caveat that is left out from most new report is that if the same method is applied to data only up to 1999, the sensitivity is 3.7 degrees.

The authors explained that the difference is likely due to the inflated warming up to 1999 due to natural variability, leading to an overestimation of the sensitivity. However as natural variability lowered warming over the past decade, it is possible that the estimation is biased low.

Another thing that should be stressed is the following excerpt from the press release, which is missing from news reports

Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project's findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought. Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.


Note that the general target is to keep the warming to below 2 degrees. Even with a sensitivity of 1.9 degrees, we are set to double the CO2 at 2050, certainly getting over 2 degrees.


As a final note, the paper appears to be an extension of a previously published paper. If that were the case, those who are highly critical of the role of climate models should disregard this finding completely, because there is a very simple climate model at the heart of this analysis.
  • 4

#17 Newsflash

Newsflash

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 08

Posted 28 January 2013 - 05:37 PM

*crickets*
  • 0

Buddy I called this EXACT situtation on here two years ago and was flamed, so I guess I have a bit of hockey knowledge, not to mention the 4 years I played in the OHL idiot.


The conspiracy theories that used to be against Lateralus:
Puberty, life, movie theaters, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out during a children's movie, Toy Story 3, Pixar, who ever decided to make Woody so damn attractive, a job, his mothers basement, being 40, being 40 five years ago, dogs who can out run him, all dogs, the Olympic committee, Truth, Fact, Honesty, Logic, Newsflash, a father figure who was there to see him learn to ride his first bike, bikes,

#18 canucks_for_cup27

canucks_for_cup27

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 06

Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:56 PM

China says, "challenge accepted."

Posted Image


Just so ya know, this is steam, not pollution
  • 1

#19 thedestroyerofworlds

thedestroyerofworlds

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,804 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:50 PM

Love how people like to jump all over the results of one study. Kinda like the nutjobs who gobbled up the "vaccines cause autism" study that was .... oops... full of crap and fake.

Man there are a lot of sheep, on BOTH SIDES.
  • 0

#20 canucks#01fan

canucks#01fan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:57 PM

Climate change is happening in the whole solar system not just earth, humans arent helping but are not the cause of it nor can we do anythig about it
  • 1
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck- for avatar

#21 The Ghost of Tom Joad

The Ghost of Tom Joad

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 04

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:05 PM

Hmmm, I wonder why... /sarcasm

http://en.wikipedia....e_Arctic#Norway

Norway ratified the UNCLOS in late 1996 http://en.wikipedia....e_Arctic#Norway on November 27, 2006, Norway made an official into the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (article 76, paragraph 8). There are provided arguments to extend the Norwegian seabed claim beyond the 200 nmi (370 km; 230 mi) EEZ in three areas of the northeastern Atlantic and the Arctic: the "Loop Hole" in the Barents Sea, the http://en.wikipedia....e_Arctic#Norway Nansen Basin in the Arctic Ocean, and the "Banana Hole" in the Norwegian Sea. The submission also states that an additional submission for continental shelf limits in other areas may be posted.[19]


http://www.scandoil....y-to-pole.shtml


Norway appears a step closer to claiming more of the 90 billion barrels of oil and gas said to be locked in the Arctic, after the New York based Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf agreed the country controlled the seabed right up to — but not including —the North Pole.
The extra 235,000 square kilometres extends Norway’s potential oil and gas harvest well beyond the 200 nautical mile commercial jurisdiction others with shallow-water continental shelves enjoy.


Follow the paper trail, folks.
  • 0

#22 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:20 PM

Climate change is happening in the whole solar system not just earth


I've explained the issue with this claim here.
  • 0

#23 canucks#01fan

canucks#01fan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:35 PM

I've explained the issue with this claim here.

yes but does our solar system not also travel in an orbit? So how do we know that "climate change" isnt just that
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck- for avatar

#24 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:20 PM

yes but does our solar system not also travel in an orbit? So how do we know that "climate change" isnt just that


Ultimately what matters is how much sunlight the earth is receiving. This can either happen by the sun changing its brightness, or the earth becoming closer/further away from the sun due to orbital changes.

We have been monitoring the amount of sunlight received via satellites, and there has been no systematic change since 1978 beyond the 11 year cycle (see for example this). If anything it decreased slight which should've led to cooling.

In addition, based on warming pattern we can actually deduce the source of the warming. One example is that observation suggests that the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) is cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming, which is consistent with what happens as you increase greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The same is not expected if the warming were due to increase in solar energy. Another important "finger print" is that the nights are warming faster than the days, which again expected from an increase in GHG.
  • 2

#25 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,315 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:03 AM

What has gotten lost in this media frenzy is that the paper is under review and has not been published. All the new articles are based off a press release. It is rather interesting to see how some are quick to embrace this even though no one has even seen the results, or the data that goes into the study.

What is also lost in the media frenzy is that this is one study, whereas the body of knowledge is really the sum of a broad range of evidences.


Posted Image
Posted Image
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#26 silverpig

silverpig

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,462 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 03

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:33 AM

Ultimately what matters is how much sunlight the earth is receiving. This can either happen by the sun changing its brightness, or the earth becoming closer/further away from the sun due to orbital changes.

We have been monitoring the amount of sunlight received via satellites, and there has been no systematic change since 1978 beyond the 11 year cycle (see for example this). If anything it decreased slight which should've led to cooling.

In addition, based on warming pattern we can actually deduce the source of the warming. One example is that observation suggests that the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) is cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming, which is consistent with what happens as you increase greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The same is not expected if the warming were due to increase in solar energy. Another important "finger print" is that the nights are warming faster than the days, which again expected from an increase in GHG.


There are other things beyond just the visual band that affect climate. Solar activity has risen steadily over the long term. Sunspot numbers have increased (we are in a period called the modern maximum right now). There may not have been a systematic change since 1978 besides the 11 and 22 year cycles, but longer term cycles haven't been measured by us yet.

We have only been measuring the sun's output directly for a relatively short period of time. Due to the thermal inertia of the oceans, climate changes are much more sensitive to the longer term variations we haven't been able to measure yet, and most high frequency signals are dampened out.
  • 1
Moo

#27 Bob.Loblaw

Bob.Loblaw

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,540 posts
  • Joined: 24-November 09

Posted 29 January 2013 - 10:51 AM

Love how people like to jump all over the results of one study. Kinda like the nutjobs who gobbled up the "vaccines cause autism" study that was .... oops... full of crap and fake.

Man there are a lot of sheep, on BOTH SIDES.


This study needs to be reproduced again and again, from different sources. I'm skeptical as to whether that'll happen.

But yes, the people here are jumping to conclusions.
  • 0
Posted Image

Hockey_Crazy is a god. But I still got dibs on Yuna.

#28 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,205 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:41 PM

I don't believe it.

We're doomed 100 years it's all over. Ask Al gore.
  • 0

#29 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,831 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:18 PM

Love how people like to jump all over the results of one study. Kinda like the nutjobs who gobbled up the "vaccines cause autism" study that was .... oops... full of crap and fake.

Man there are a lot of sheep, on BOTH SIDES.


I would say it is one side doing a lot more "gobbling" than the other.

Nutjobs? Original!

The British Medical Journal was prominent in their attack on Dr. Wakefield and his paper regarding the MMR vaccine and autism was published in The Lancet journal.

Here is what former BMJ editor and Chief Executive Dr. Richard Smith said (he worked for BMJ for 25 years):


"Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies."

Here is what former Lancet editor; Dr. Richard Horton said:

“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140949/

BMJ has close ties with Merck, the producers of the MMR vaccine. If you look at the "correction" the BMJ added to this specific article on their own website for example:

The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines. For further information see the rapid response from Godlee (www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335.full/reply#bmj_el_251470). The same omission also affected two related Editor’s Choice articles (BMJ 2011;342:d22 and BMJ 2011;342:d378).
http://www.bmj.com/c...t/342/bmj.d1678


So really what they are saying is that what they should have said was that "Dr. Wakefield's study was fake and fraudulent but we should also make it known that the very producers of the vaccines in Dr. Wakefield's report pay us millions and millions of $ on a very profitable buddy-system we have agreed upon"

Seems like a gaping conflict of interest is the mildest scenario here.



We should also mention that Merck, in 2010, was sued by whistleblowers regarding the claims made in their vaccines (specifically MMR vaccines) and how they defrauded governments, specifically the US government.
(Even the most biased publications have a hard time spinning it, but they still try):
http://www.forbes.co...ce-of-vaccines/

Seems like a pattern of fraud to me.

And why is it that courts are paying out millions of $ in compensatory damages to families after their children were vaccinated? In fact, one family was just recently awarded millions in damages for this:

http://www.uscfc.usc....12.13.2012.pdf

And Italian court also ruled in a favour of a family that the MMR vaccine caused autism in their child after the Italian Health Ministry conceded that the vaccine caused the autism.

http://www.independe...sm-7858596.html

A Wake Forest study actually proved Dr. Wakefield's findings to be correct:



New American research shows that there could be a link between the controversial MMR triple vaccine and autism and bowel disease in children.

The study appears to confirm the findings of British doctor Andrew Wakefield, who caused a storm in 1998 by suggesting a possible link.

Now a team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel disease - and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the measles virus.

Last night the team's leader, Dr Stephen Walker, said: 'Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none are wild measles.

'This research proves that in the gastrointestinal tract of a number of children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism, there is evidence of measles virus. What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct.'


This is the second independent study to back up Dr Wakefield. In 2001 John O'Leary, Professor of Pathology at St James's Hospital and Trinity College, Dublin, replicated his findings.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html


I also personally know someone in California whose child became autistic right after getting the MMR vaccine.

This is not necessarily to re-open the vaccine debate within this thread but is meant to specifically address the claims regarding the link between MMR and autism as being "fraudulent".

Dr. Wakefield's partner, Dr. Walker-Smith also fought a very expensive battle in court and was exonerated last year by the high court against the General Medical Council of the UK and had his 'strike-off' related to this issue quashed.
  • 1

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#30 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 29 January 2013 - 11:07 PM


There are other things beyond just the visual band that affect climate. Solar activity has risen steadily over the long term. Sunspot numbers have increased (we are in a period called the modern maximum right now). There may not have been a systematic change since 1978 besides the 11 and 22 year cycles, but longer term cycles haven't been measured by us yet.

We have only been measuring the sun's output directly for a relatively short period of time. Due to the thermal inertia of the oceans, climate changes are much more sensitive to the longer term variations we haven't been able to measure yet, and most high frequency signals are dampened out.



Yes, and indeed the increase in solar activity results in part of the warming seen prior to 1940. However if suppose we take sunspot numbers as the proxy for solar activity, then it has levelled off since 1950.

Posted Image

Now people suggests things like comic ray, but overall there is no evidence that it has a significant effect on climate.

Whether a longer cycle exists is largely irrelevant when it comes to the attribution of recent warming. Warming is a result of imbalance between energy coming in and energy going out. We are quite certain that energy coming in remained constant (likely since 1950, quite certain from 1978).

Your second objection is that perhaps the warming is simply due to thermal inertia. The most frequent usage of this argument is that even though solar increased up to 1950 and levelled off, the earth is still warming due to thermal inertia as it catches up to the change in solar.

(1) Perhaps the strongest reason why this is unlikely, is because even-though the ocean as a whole has a huge thermal inertia, the surface mixed layer doesn't (it is typically 70m for climate studies). You can demonstrate that if you include a step change (e.g a sudden jump in solar or volcano): the global surface temperature quickly equilibrates over a 3-5 year time scale ( Held et al. 2010 ). This is not just a modelling result: data from pinatubo for example show this as well.

An example from the paper is that if you instantly double CO2, it warmed 1.5 degrees in 20 years; over the next 80, 0.25 degrees. It is an extreme case, but the point is that surface temperature responds quickly to a change in forcing.

(2) If the warming is simply equilibrating to an earlier warming, the radiative imbalance at the top will be decreasing not increasing as observed. Furthermore the rate of change in heat content in the ocean will decrease in time, which is not observed either

climate changes are much more sensitive to the longer term variations we haven't been able to measure yet, and most high frequency signals are dampened out.



Climate is sensitive to both long and short term variations, simply because of the shallow mixed layer: as I pointed out earlier, surface temperature responds over a timescale of 3-5 years. Deep ocean on the other hand, largely responds to longer term variations as your said.

However variations do not appear magically. When the ocean warm up, it must be due to radiative imbalances at the top of the atmosphere at present; a lack of long term measurement does not matter as much.

Edited by MadMonk, 29 January 2013 - 11:09 PM.

  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.