Forums  > Off-Topic  > global warming poll  
     
Page 4 of 5Goto to page: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5 Prev Next
Display using:  

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 5163
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-05 20:29
Hmmm. The solar activity is intuitive to me, which I think has been shown to be very small compared to greenhouse, and getting smaller, while the cosmic part is not intuitive. I would think that the cross section from cosmic would contribute less than an epsilon to climate or weather.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

nikol


Total Posts: 1126
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-05 21:11
@Magette

"we are talking about physical (simulation) models, not statistical/ML black box models."

This is what we should be talking about.

Just take it: Sun is modeled to such extend that the discrepancy between the model and observation of neutrinos led physicists to seriously think about the possibility of oscillations back in 70-80s. Later people got a Nobel Prize for the experimental confirmation. The same model explains the decline of the solar energy flux hitting the Earth. Point.

This same effect we observe in the ice data taken from Vostok. 3 million years ago there was no Ice Age.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle/images/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.png/image_large

Energy flux declines and puts the climate into glacial oscillatory mode.

ADDED:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%B6rer_Minimum?fbclid=IwAR133PjJVcNbIvjAufOoIhHvKRjaA7xX3qTNdfbKRKzPxzCt1sBIqf-yi1Q#/media/File%3ACarbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2020-01-06 02:26
@chiral3, behold (recombination of) ionization from cosmic rays :D yes, there's a lot of it. admittedly, though, this doesn't show the required modulation of the ionization via sunspot activity. for that you need to do some work.


NeroTulip


Total Posts: 1074
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-06 07:01
BTW, I like checking this out from time to time:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Does anyone want to share some of the data or websites they look at?

"Earth: some bacteria and basic life forms, no sign of intelligent life" (Message from a type III civilization probe sent to the solar system circa 2016)

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 5163
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-06 11:25
Angry

ok, it's language; I typically differentiate cosmic and solar (our sun) when talking, although they are arguably the same.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 5163
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-06 18:37
@Nero: I have been reading Shaun Lovejoy’s work lately.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

nikol


Total Posts: 1126
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-06 20:50
These guys collect opportunistic papers and articles.

https://notrickszone.com/

In particular
https://notrickszone.com/2017/01/12/scientists-find-climates-cause-of-causes-highest-solar-activity-in-4000-years-just-ended-cooling-begins-in-2025/

The graph of solar activity coincides with temp rise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

nikol


Total Posts: 1126
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-06 20:52
[duplicate]

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 5163
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-06 21:21
I am still not following the solar argument completely. Apart from looking at timeseries and correlations, is their a physical model (bottoms up) that explains not just the mechanism of action but also the magnitude of observed warming? Anthropogenic or not, doesn't greenhouse models explain the warming more bottom's up than hockey stick graphs?

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2020-01-06 22:02
@chiral3, in fact most of the "cosmic rays" giving rise to the aurora ARE from the sun. you're right about that. but those are a few kev, typically, whereas the cosmic rays that cause atmospheric ionization are apparently ~ 10 gev. interestingly, a little googling shows that the flux of 10 gev radiation is at least 50% of non-solar origin and totals around 100 particles per second per square meter. a 1 square meter column of air that's 7km high contains around 7e24 * 7e3 ~ 5e28 molecules, i.e. 200 millibarn per molecule which is ~500 gev^-2. so a flux of 100 10 gev particles per second ~ 1e26 * gev^2 should have many ionizing scattering events.

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2020-01-06 22:12
i'm not an expert, but i've read and it makes sense to me that the greenhouse effect is hard to calculate accurately from first principles because the feedback effects are large and offsetting.

on the one hand, increasing [c02] causes temp to go up, which causes outgassing of ocean, which causes [c02] to go up more, which causes temp to go up more, etc. i.e. a positive feedback loop that would run away (and would have run away many times in the past) if it weren't damped or offset by negative feedback.

on the other hand, increasing temp causes evaporation and increased humidity, which promotes cloud formation, which causes temp to go down.

etc.

it's not plausible to model the feedbacks realistically and in detail (apparently), so the best you can do is infer the pseudo-equilibrium historical relationships rather than understanding the dynamics that have those equilibria.

nikol


Total Posts: 1126
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-06 22:54
@chiral3

"doesn't greenhouse models explain the warming more bottom's up than hockey stick graphs"

Simply, no.

Some example articles are at the top of this page
https://notrickszone.com/

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 5163
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-06 23:43
thanks ahd, that makes sense. It's embarrassing, I've co-authored some papers on these subjects (plasmas and coronal magnetic confinement) and can't remember some of the simple observational stats. While that's all intuitive for me re aurora I still haven't linked that up to warming in a substantive way.

nikol, that website struck me as particularly unscientific when I first checked it out. Snopes has the following the following to say https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/ I'll try and take another look to appreciate your perspective better.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

nikol


Total Posts: 1126
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-06 23:46
Agree, by making all those emphases they destroy part of the message. Don't read that.
Referenced articles are real and scientific.
.
UPD: this alternative is always available ))
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbbrandon/2020/01/06/why-greta-thunberg-is-totally-correct-in-her-latest-climate-change-tweet/amp/

jslade


Total Posts: 1210
Joined: Feb 2007
 
Posted: 2020-01-07 15:49
>but at some point I think you have to trust the scientific consensus when it is backed up by more and more events outside historical norms , most obvious of which recently is the wildfires in Australia

This is the kind of statement which causes me to chimp out. The wildfires in Australia have absolutely nothing to do with the climate. The wildfires in California had nothing to do with climate either (in fact, it was a change in forestry management practices). Nor the wildfires in Siberia or Brazil, which happen every damn year. Yet, they're all trotted out as evidence for "climate change." This is a simple psychological trick used in marketing, by stage magicians and by goofball astrologers and pink sheet salesmen: confirmation bias.

I don't care if it's "scientific consensus" that carbon dioxide causes forest fires; it's a moronic statement which should be laughed to scorn.

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."

Maggette


Total Posts: 1233
Joined: Jun 2007
 
Posted: 2020-01-07 17:15
That's exactly what I meant when I said, that "my camp" has close to zero honesty when it comes to this.

Everybody get's laughed out of the building, when they go "it's snowing outside, where is the climate change"...and so they should.

But the connection between extreme weather events, floods and droughts (which might increase the proability of wildfires) and global warming is very sketchy at best.

Attribution Science does make a case for a couple of things like distribution and expected frequency of extreme weather events, but directly linking a wildfire to climate change is embarassing

Ich kam hierher und sah dich und deine Leute lächeln, und sagte mir: Maggette, scheiss auf den small talk, lass lieber deine Fäuste sprechen...

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2020-01-07 19:57
whether or not our current warmer-than-usual period is part of a 'global warming that will continue' (my quotes - not quoting anyone), and whether or not any assumed climate change is anthropogenic from greenhouse gas emissions, i still find it reasonable that if you pump energy into a turbulent system then the local extremes are likely to become even more extreme. it would be interesting to get see how some reasonable but tractable turbulent toy system behaves in simulation as small changes in forcing are made. not sure how to get any intuition otherwise... it could be that bigger than usual storms, droughts, temp extremes, etc. are just coincidences or it could be that they're to be expected given the slight increase of energy being pumped into the system.

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2020-01-07 19:58
by the way, @slade, i love 'chimp out'. i'll be using that phrase myself, thank you kindly :D

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 5163
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-07 20:22
The opposite argument could also be made - we have theory models that have been implemented experimentally that employ heating / pumping energy to reduce turbulence and stabilize turbulent systems (e.g., plasmas)

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2020-01-07 21:10
@chiral3, that's very interesting. i had no idea. can you give a straightforward explanation or, probably easier, some accessible (i.e. understandable to physicist from different area) reference?

nikol


Total Posts: 1126
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-07 21:30
@chiral3

Purely intuitively, this idea should work for limited systems, i.e. with boundaries. Earthly atmosphere has soft limits, i.e. constrained by gravity and can expand to infinity (following Maxwell distribution). Though, my intuition might be wrong :)

goldorak


Total Posts: 1091
Joined: Nov 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-09 05:32
Rapid glance through my local reputable newspaper. Three papers in a day on the evident link between extreme weather events and climate change / global warming.

More locally, spoilt teenagers who recently damaged a Credit Suisse agency during a climate protest seem to be pretty fine because their "cause" needs radical acts, so testimonied the local senile nobel prize and the local ipcc monk.

I feel all savvy.


If you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much space.

ahd


Total Posts: 30
Joined: May 2017
 
Posted: 2020-01-10 12:29
if anyone cares, the poll on "do you believe in the forecasts of climate models?" has 10 nos, 3 maybes and 1 yes. if you haven't voted and care to, i remind you that it's here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pQQNrIZk_tGH8YCWQjnlgsqtsyVuQbhHovPj6s1ieUc

Energetic
Forum Captain

Total Posts: 1518
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-14 19:15
The original question is ill-posed. There are dozens of climate models. Each is numerically solving the same set of equations but yields different results. (That alone should raise at least a yellow flag from anyone working in a quantitative field.) So the real question should be - which of the models you choose to believe (and why)?

As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C"

What should also interest an unbiased observer is that 40 years ago, without any sophisticated models and supercomputers, climate sensitivity was also estimated to be 3°C +/- 1.5°C. In other words, the net contribution of numerical climate models to climate prediction is pretty much zero.

Another point is that from the validation point of view, it'd be nice if the models could predict something non-trivial. A good example would be a pause in warming observed between 1995 and 2014. Do you know how many models predicted it? You guessed it right.

None of the above is meant to deny the fact that the greenhouse effect is real, the GW is real and to some, possibly large, extent anthropogenic, nor that a large warming with potentially very negative outcomes is possible. I claim however that the probability distribution is unknown and, quite likely, unknowable.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong. - H. L. Mencken

nikol


Total Posts: 1126
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-14 21:30
Looking at graph I do not see "pause in warming observed between 1995 and 2014"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus


"Solar activity" hypothesis is enough.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

Here especially last paragraph.
https://www.weather.gov/fsd/sunspots

It rhythms with recent zerohedge warning about "Rise of vulcanos" with his "Why Are Volcanoes All Over The Globe Suddenly Shooting Giant Clouds Of Ash Miles Into The Air?" (very Satanic).

@Energetic - Agree with your statement about "ill posed" initial question.
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 4 of 5Goto to page: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5 Prev Next