here comes the next ice age

[Fenring]

The second is like you who respond to any argument or data with comments that equate to systems of non-linear differential equations are chaotic and weather/climate is complex and we don't know enough to say anything.

I will just point out, perhaps tangentially, that this is probably the singular sticking point in the current academic climate. There was a trend back at the 'turn of the century' to hypothesize that science was coming to an end; that all the major discoveries were behind us and that there was little more to do in new work. Naturally we can look back at this with a smile and a wink, knowing they they were just silly gooses, obviously ignorant in their pre-relativity and pre-internet little world. However this trend is, in a way, back in style in some quarters, in one case in the social values area of study where the "we know everything, dead people knew nothing" is coming on strong again, and in another case where some experts are decidedly sure that we are finally advanced enough to knowing anything we set ourselves to. But the fact is that many areas of inquiry are really beyond us, or at minimum so far in their infancy that they're the equivalent of naked eye astronomy done in the middle ages.

You will not find scientists, and especially not social scientists, ever willing to offer a statement such as "sorry but we've got to say that this is just not going to be understandable right now." That doesn't exactly look good on a grant application, and certainly isn't going to make your university increase your funding. Rather, you will get all kinds of improper claims of certainty about anything under the sun. I'm more familiar with stupid economic theories in the 20th century than I am with some other areas like climate science, but if you're aware enough of just how dunderheaded some of these 'experts' are, or how fake their claims are to prove they are earning their paychecks, then you should really not be surprised at any backlash against overstating claims of knowledge.

Now as I said this point is tangential because I'm not really weighing in the validity of the present points being made. But I am saying that the objection of "this stuff is too complex for the current claims to be believed" really is a valid position to take in various fields right now. And this is doubly so anything there is a climate of "everyone knowing" something when it's hard to believe anyone knows it. Maybe the climate scientists really are right. But I don't agree with classifying the "it's too complicated" defense as being a merely kneejerk position. That said, it is equally likely that plenty of kneejerk people will hide behind a reasonable sounding objection even though they would have objected no matter what. So there's that.

[Wayward Son]

Except, Fenring, the basis of global warming IS simple and established science.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Greenhouse gases keep the Earth at a temperate temperature (unlike, say, the Moon).  CO2 levels are increasing.  Increased concentrations of a greenhouse gas trap more heat in the atmosphere.  Therefore, increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere should increase global temperatures.

The only complexities are whether there is some other mechanism (or mechanisms) that counteract this.

Do higher temperatures cause more clouds to form?  Do the clouds reflect into space more radiation than they reflect back to Earth?  How much heat does the oceans absorb?  How much does that slow down atmospheric heating?  How much heat can the oceans absorb?  How does particulates in the atmosphere affect global temperatures?  Etc.  These all make the models complex and difficult to perfect.  Not to mention the chaotic nature of climate.

But notice, none of those factors disprove global warming.  They only make it harder to determine if there are other factors counteracting CO2 rise or not.  But CO2 is trapping more heat, regardless of any other factor.  It is a forcing of the climate, not some oddity that may happen because of some weird interaction of the various heat transfers.  It is like a pot on a burner and turning up the heat.  Exactly how and how quickly the pot will warm up is complex, but it will warm up unless there is something to counteract it.

So saying "this stuff is too complex to the current claims to be believed" is inaccurate.  The stuff is too complex for the current claims to be disbelieved.  It is too complex for anyone to say with any authority that something is counteracting global warming.  Everything we looked at so far hasn't done the trick.  And any alternative explanations for why we see warming is just additional heat to the increase from CO2.

It's just an excuse.  The basics of the science is solid.  The inability to have a good model that shows that it isn't happening is the problem for the deniers, not the science.

[rightleft22]

As greenhouse gas traps more heat one can expect a change in the jet stream with airflow moving slower.
A observable sign of warming are slow moving weather events that linger over a area resulting in greater damage.

[DonaldD]

So saying "this stuff is too complex to the current claims to be believed" is inaccurate.

<snip>

It's just an excuse.  The basics of the science is solid. 

As well, the largest forcings of temperature are well studied and understood, including their expected effects and amplitudes.  For the observed warming to be attributed to a forcing that is NOT increased anthropogenic CO2 requires that some as yet unknown and significant forcing or forcings exist, but that would require that all scientists studying climate for the better part of a century to have missed a huge physical system with large effects, just as those scientists were actively looking for exactly that.  Sure, it's possible, but every decade, it's getting less and less likely this is the case.  It also requires that mysterious but really big forcing to also be almost exactly equal to the inaccuracy in how CO2 forcings are being miscalculated (assuming that CO2 forcings have been misunderstood, of course).

[TheDeamon]

As well, the largest forcings of temperature are well studied and understood, including their expected effects and amplitudes.  For the observed warming to be attributed to a forcing that is NOT increased anthropogenic CO2 requires that some as yet unknown and significant forcing or forcings exist, but that would require that all scientists studying climate for the better part of a century to have missed a huge physical system with large effects, just as those scientists were actively looking for exactly that.  Sure, it's possible, but every decade, it's getting less and less likely this is the case.  It also requires that mysterious but really big forcing to also be almost exactly equal to the inaccuracy in how CO2 forcings are being miscalculated (assuming that CO2 forcings have been misunderstood, of course).

Clouds.

[DonaldD]

Sun.

No - wait.

Chocolate.

[wmLambert]

Sun.

No - wait.

Chocolate.

You do think you are God's gift to the world, don't you?

The sunspots have been missing for over a decade - and are now just entering a new solar cycle. During the long absence of sunspots, the formation of clouds was greatly affected, which was one of the greatest datapoints of climatology.

[TheDeamon]

Sun.

No - wait.

Chocolate.

So you're saying the climate scientists now claim to be able to effectively model for clouds(rather than water vapor, while related, they're not the same thing) rather than plugging in a static constant variable that they're calling "good enough" for now? This would be huge news.

[DonaldD]

So you're saying the climate scientists now claim to be able to effectively model for clouds(rather than water vapor, while related, they're not the same thing) rather than plugging in a static constant variable that they're calling "good enough" for now? This would be huge news.

I think you mean old news.  While water vapour does have a greater effect than clouds, and is purely a positive feedback, clouds, depending on how they are generated (high atmosphere, lower atmosphere, day-time, night time, winter summer) are more complex in their effects and lead to greater uncertainty - clouds effects are some of the largest uncertainties in climate models.  But the range of those effects are from being a weak negative feedback to a moderate positive feedback - and unlikely to be strongly negative - nothing even close to being on the order of the effects of increased CO2.

You'll find a bunch of studies from 10-15 years ago on this very topic, looking specifically at how climate sensitivity is affected by changes in cloud cover.

As well, water vapour is not a forcing - it is a feedback.

[DonaldD]

UN warns that world risks becoming 'uninhabitable hell' for millions unless leaders take climate action.

(CNN)There has been a "staggering" rise in natural disasters over the past 20 years and the climate crisis is to blame, the United Nations said Monday.

Researchers pointed to a failure of political and business leaders to take meaningful action to mitigate the impact of climatic change and stop the planet from turning into "an uninhabitable hell for millions of people."

...

Between 2000 and 2019, there were 7,348 major natural disasters -- including earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes -- that claimed 1.23 million lives, affected 4.2 billion people and resulted in $2.97 trillion in global economic losses, according to the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR).
That's almost double the 4,212 disasters recorded from 1980-1999, the UN said in its new report The Human Cost of Disasters 2000-2019.

...

The vast majority of those disasters were climate-related, with researchers reporting more flooding, storms, droughts, heatwaves, hurricanes and wildfires in the past 20 years.

[Wayward Son]

The sunspots have been missing for over a decade - and are now just entering a new solar cycle. During the long absence of sunspots, the formation of clouds was greatly affected, which was one of the greatest datapoints of climatology.

So what makes you believe clouds will compensate for increased heat trapped by CO2?  Where is your data?  Where are your models?

Or is it just a WAG?

[wmLambert]

...So what makes you believe clouds will compensate for increased heat trapped by CO2?  Where is your data?  Where are your models?

Or is it just a WAG?

In 2008, Scientists noted the absence of sun spots: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080609124551.htm

Now it is 2020 and the sun spots have been gone all this time.

You may want to check this post: http://ai-jane.org/thread-15075-post-281659.html#pid281659

[DonaldD]

That doesn't actually respond to WS' post, you do realize..?

How were clouds greatly affected, how do you think cloud formation will change, and how would that change in cloud formation affect temperatures?

[yossarian22c]

That doesn't actually respond to WS' post, you do realize..?

How were clouds greatly affected, how do you think cloud formation will change, and how would that change in cloud formation affect temperatures?

Solar activity or lack there of can have an impact on cloud formation.
 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160825113235.htm

The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth's atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. The eruptions cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere.

2 percent change in cloud cover. I won't dig further into the report to see if a 2% change is actually statistically significant from their data, for now assume that it is. 2% change in cloud cover is unlikely to have a strong impact on climate. Clouds kind of wash out in the climate warming/cooling scheme. They reflect heat during the day and trap it at night. So a 2% change in cloud cover is unlikely to have a strong impact on global climate.

Which is what scientists have concluded as well.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/

Changes in solar activity, sunspots and cosmic rays, and their effects on clouds have contributed no more than 10 percent to global warming, according to two British scientists.

[Wayward Son]

...So what makes you believe clouds will compensate for increased heat trapped by CO2?  Where is your data?  Where are your models?

Or is it just a WAG?

In 2008, Scientists noted the absence of sun spots: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080609124551.htm

Now it is 2020 and the sun spots have been gone all this time.

OK.  How much did the lack of sun spots affect our global climate.  How much did their lack add to the heating from CO2, or conversely, how much did it temporarily alleviate the temperature increase from CO2?  What do your models indicate?

And what about the 12 years before the reduction of sunspots?  Was there no effect then?  How about the 12 years before that?  And the 12 years before that?  And the 12 years before that? Etc.

Global temperatures have been climbing for quite a while now.  Far longer than this reduction in sunspots.

You may want to check this post: http://ai-jane.org/thread-15075-post-281659.html#pid281659

I take it that that chart which indicates a general cooling trend in the past 8000 years means that we're not seeing as much warning from CO2 and other greenhouse gases increase as we should.  So what should we expect if this trend turns around?  How much worse is it going to be?  What do the models indicate?

[TheDeamon]

...So what makes you believe clouds will compensate for increased heat trapped by CO2?  Where is your data?  Where are your models?

Or is it just a WAG?

In 2008, Scientists noted the absence of sun spots: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080609124551.htm

Now it is 2020 and the sun spots have been gone all this time.

You may want to check this post: http://ai-jane.org/thread-15075-post-281659.html#pid281659

Uh what?

2008 was during a transition between sunspot cycles. There was plenty of sunspot activity between 2008 and 2019. It was still one of the more active cycles seen since the start of the 20th century which were in and of themselves more active than anything recorded previously.

Now what's been seen since 2019 is a bit unusual, but to try to claim there were no sunspots, or unusually low sunspot activity between 2008 and now is so far the reality of things you really need to look at where you're getting information from.

[TheDeamon]

2 percent change in cloud cover. I won't dig further into the report to see if a 2% change is actually statistically significant from their data, for now assume that it is. 2% change in cloud cover is unlikely to have a strong impact on climate. Clouds kind of wash out in the climate warming/cooling scheme. They reflect heat during the day and trap it at night. So a 2% change in cloud cover is unlikely to have a strong impact on global climate.

Depends on the clouds?

Where there are clouds, there are precipitation events. Where there are precipitation events you have water from the colder upper atmosphere moving down to the planets surface. You also additional convection going on moving heat from the lower atmosphere into higher levels of it before once again returning that now cooler moisture back to the surface.

Or are you forgetting that summer thunderstorms, especially the strong ones, are known to cool the area they're in by upwards of 30 degrees(F) when they move through? Yes you can see that with coldfronts too, but a supercell thunderstorm doesn't necessarily need a cold front.

Even the more generic thunderstorms still typically produce 10 degrees(F) worth of cooling when they pass through. And the number of those events is going to be a function of how much cloud cover there is and the mechanism behind their formation.

[TheDeamon]

OK.  How much did the lack of sun spots affect our global climate.  How much did their lack add to the heating from CO2, or conversely, how much did it temporarily alleviate the temperature increase from CO2?  What do your models indicate?

And what about the 12 years before the reduction of sunspots?  Was there no effect then?  How about the 12 years before that?  And the 12 years before that?  And the 12 years before that? Etc.

Global temperatures have been climbing for quite a while now.  Far longer than this reduction in sunspots.

The Solar Cycles we've been seeing since the 1970's have been among some of the most active ones since records started being made roughly 300 years ago. IIRC, the most recently concluded one was still slightly "above average" against the historical record(but some of that could be from our enhanced ability to detect sunspots/solar flares, including being able to see "behind the sun" relative to Earth).

If the theory about the very active solar cycles we've just gone through holds valid, we're likely still bleeding off "excess heat" accumulated from those cycles and it could take awhile for any real cooling effect to be detected. Depending on how active solar cycle 25 is against the historical sunspot cycles, we'll see if we continue to warm or start to cool. If SC is appreciably below the historical average and we're still warming in 10 years time, the Solar Cycle theory is effectively busted. But if it is merely "average" or more active than that, then it continues to be disputed until we're on the tail end of a below-average solar cycle.

Remember, the energy requirements for maintaining a temperature are lower than the requirements for changing a temperature assuming all other variables remain the same.

[Wayward Son]

If the theory about the very active solar cycles we've just gone through holds valid, we're likely still bleeding off "excess heat" accumulated from those cycles and it could take awhile for any real cooling effect to be detected. Depending on how active solar cycle 25 is against the historical sunspot cycles, we'll see if we continue to warm or start to cool. If SC is appreciably below the historical average and we're still warming in 10 years time, the Solar Cycle theory is effectively busted. But if it is merely "average" or more active than that, then it continues to be disputed until we're on the tail end of a below-average solar cycle.

But if increasing temperatures are tied to sunspot cycles, that should be evident from the historical record, right?  We should see temperatures decreasing during sunspot activity, then rising when they are reduced, even if there is a time delay.  Is there a detectable correlation?

But it still doesn't answer the question of how much cloud-induced sunspots adds or subtracts from the increased temperatures from increased CO2 in the atmosphere.  Or the problem that sunspots come and go, but CO2 remains in the atmosphere for up to 1000 years or more. It's nice we get a break from higher temperatures for 12 years or so, but then it will come roaring back, won't it?

[DonaldD]

From the peak of the 12-year sunspot cycle to the trough, total solar irradiance varies by less than 0.1%.  That's from peak to trough.  The variance between cycles is far less than 0.1%.  The effects of changes in solar irradiance are completely dwarfed by other variables.

[TheDeamon]

From the peak of the 12-year sunspot cycle to the trough, total solar irradiance varies by less than 0.1%.  That's from peak to trough.  The variance between cycles is far less than 0.1%.  The effects of changes in solar irradiance are completely dwarfed by other variables.

It isn't just irradiance though, it is the intensity of the solar wind, cosmic rays(strong sunspot cycles shield us from Cosmic Rays), and the weird link between the solar cycle/solar wind and the depth of our atmosphere. high sunspot activity means thicker(deeper) atmosphere and more stable jet stream, low sunspot activity thinner(more shallow) atmosphere and a jet stream which wanders more, and that's something that is more immediately noticeable.

[DonaldD]

These are well studied phenomena - the solar wind is thought to have a negligible effect on climate; the posited mechanisms by which galactic cosmic rays (GCR) affect climate is that changes in cosmic rays intensity (reductions) have led to a reduction in Earth's albedo by reducing low-level cloud formation as a result of fewer aerosols created by galactic cosmic rays - and said lower albedo is the cause of some amount of the recently observed warming.

In summary:
Reduction in solar wind -> More GCRs -> more aerosols induced -> more aerosols condense and seed clouds - more low level clouds -> higher albedo -> more energy reflected away from planet -> cooling
Increase in solar wind -> fewer GCRs -> fewer aerosols induced -> fewer aerosols condense and seed clouds - fewer low level clouds -> lower albedo -> less energy reflected away from planet -> warming

However, there are a couple of problems with this - from a theoretical perspective, cloud generation must be a function of the aerosols generated by the interaction of cosmic rays with the atmosphere - but the aerosols produced are too small, by orders of magnitude, to have the required effect.

But more empirically, GCRs have increased over the past 50-odd years, not decreased - which is consistent with the reduced sunspot activity over the past 4 solar cycles.  So we should have seen increased albedo and a cooling of the planet.  This does not explain recent warming - quite the opposite.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/10/28/tongass-national-forest-alaska-exempt-roadless-rule-usda/6065610002/

The federal government announced plans Wednesday to lift restrictions on logging and building roads in the country's largest national forest, a pristine rainforest in Alaska that provides habitat for wolves, bears and salmon.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said it has decided to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the so-called roadless rule, which bans road construction and timber harvests with limited exceptions. It applies to nearly one-quarter of all U.S. Forest Service lands.

Nothing like cutting down old growth temperate rain forests to accelerate climate change.

[yossarian22c]

Cat 5 storms in mid November.

The National Hurricane Center said Iota, a Category 5 hurricane, will make landfall Monday night in Nicaragua, bringing with it catastrophic winds and torrential rainfall. As of 1 p.m. ET, Iota has maximum sustained winds near 160 mph and higher gusts.

The life-threatening storm was made more likely by climate change, research shows. Hurricanes are more likely to be larger and more powerful when they form over hotter oceans, because they draw their energy from the water. Climate change is causing sea surface temperatures to rise around the world, and in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, the water is consistently about 2 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than it was a century ago.

[DonaldD]

160 mph is... a lot of mph.

[DonaldD]

Just to distract from the rest of 2020: The Guardian: Climate crisis: 2020 was joint hottest year ever recorded.

The temperature data released by the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) showed that the past six years have been the hottest six on record. They also showed that Europe saw its hottest year on record, 1.6C above the long-term average, with a searing heatwave hitting western Europe in late July and early August.

Only 2016 matched the heat in 2020, but that year saw a natural El Niño climate event which boosts temperatures. Without that it is likely 2020 would have been the outright hottest year. Scientists have warned that without urgent action the future for many millions of people “looks black”.

[DonaldD]

Well, at least there were only 4 years lost to the imbeciles in the Trump administration: As NASA and NOAA warn of climate emergency, they weather last-minute denial by Trump appointees

The numbers are in. The hottest seven years in recorded history are: 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014.

Notice a trend? As 2020 smashed hurricane and wildfire records, doing $90 billion worth of damage in the United States alone, new data shows last year neck-and-neck with 2016 as the hottest year in recorded history.
But at this point, says NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel, rankings are worthless. It's all about that horrifying trend towards a level of global overheating impossible to control.

"What really matters, and what I think is really significant and really concerning, is that the seven hottest years on record were the past seven years,"

[DonaldD]

Sigh.

The Guardian: Global ice loss accelerating at record rate, study finds.

Rate of loss now in line with worst-case scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The melting of ice across the planet is accelerating at a record rate, with the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets speeding up the fastest, research has found.

The rate of loss is now in line with the worst-case scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s leading authority on the climate, according to a paper published on Monday in the journal The Cryosphere.

[TheDeamon]

And there also is geothermal activity identified as taking place underneath both glaciers in the regions identified as seeing significant melting coincidentally enough. (Antarctica and Greenland)

So manmade global warming causes volcanism which causes warning signs of manmade global warming? Neat!

[TheDeamon]

Also, meanwhile in the Alps...

https://www.srf.ch/news/panorama/aus-dem-gletschereis-wie-uraltes-holz-geschichten-erzaehlt
(Google Translate is likely to be needed, unless you can read German.)

Trunk of a tree that died at the tender age of 337 years old found in the moraine of a receding Swiss Glacier.
The tree is estimated to have died about 10,700 years ago.

So much for it being there, today, than it has been at any time since the previous ice age. That dead tree belongs to our current inter-glacial period.

[oldbrian]

So much for it being there, today, than it has been at any time since the previous ice age

What?


10,000 years ago, an alpine valley in Switzerland was ice free for at least 300 years.  Got it.
What was your next point?

[DonaldD]

And there also is geothermal activity identified as taking place underneath both glaciers in the regions identified as seeing significant melting coincidentally enough. (Antarctica and Greenland)

So manmade global warming causes volcanism which causes warning signs of manmade global warming? Neat!

Are you suggesting that geothermal activity has significantly increased in both Greenland and Antarctica in the past 100-150 years?  Given that geothermal heat sources remain effectively steady for periods of tens of millions of years, that would be a pretty huge coincidence... To put it another way, those glaciers grew/were created in the presence of the same level of geothermal activity as is being experienced today.  If the glaciers originally grew in the presence of the same level of vulcanism, then something else must be causing the glacial retreat being observed today.