Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by FoxGator, Sep 4, 2013.
what effect does decreasing polar ice have?
what effect does increased ocean surface area have?
what effect does rising water levels around the world have on land area exposed to sun?
Good questions! Do you have answers to them? Or are they just rhetorical?
Volcanoes affect climate, oceans affect climate, the sun affects climate. Did not the scientists know this before their acclaimed models were published? These are reasons they now give for warming not acting as predicted.None of these are man made.
Ice in antartica and the artic are now showing great increases. Water levels are increasin nowhere near projections and oceans have ebbed and flowed since existence.
It looks like their models are using incomplete data from which to hypothesize.
This thing is all wrong.
Man is obviously the driver of climate...row said so!
If the next El Nino (and/or Atlantic oscillation) ends up pushing temperatures back up to (or over) the predicted temperatures in the climate models, does it really matter if the models didn't specifically predict these "stepped" increases?
Before the screaming over Global Warming, there was a lot of conjecture by the scientists that the advent of previous Ice Ages began initially from melting icecaps. The idea was that the major temperature regulator is a current that circumnavigates the world (I believe they call it the global conveyor belt) and it moves cold and warm waters to both the poles and equatorial regions. When the icecaps melt, the theory is that the sudden slug of fresh water that pours into the system effectively shuts down the conveyor. When that happens the warm water can't get to the poles and then the icecaps come roaring back. And then the white ice reflects more energy out into space than what the darker water/land does and it continually builds.
And then, in theory, we stay frozen until something else happens, such as volcanoes, that raise the greenhouse gases. Perhaps we are both melting the ice caps and making sure that when the new Ice Age comes along we are helping Mother Nature out. But that sounds too much like an Industrialist's rationalization. I prefer to just say that the world is big and complex and we are nowhere near where we know for sure what makes things tick.
Not sure, but does it mean that these same scientists are right about anything concerning the global climate 'rhythms?' No.
Indeed, I think there is some misunderstanding regarding the proposed influence of the oceans as places that store heat vs. places that generate heat.
That is a big IF. And will the cause of the rise be El Nino or carbon forcing?
It is a big IF, certainly.
But if that does occur then we'd have to conclude that the models based on carbon forcing are probably accurate in the big picture... they just didn't account for these major marine cycles.
Looking at it another way, if solar forcing is truly negligible at this time as the IPCC suggests, then these marine oscillations would just be varying temperatures up and down over some baseline temperature where things are in balance.
IF something else is adding more energy to the system, then you'd get a "stepped" wave of temperature increases. From IPCC perspective, CO2 forcing explains those increases. And it makes sense that CO2 forcing would have some impact.
I still have my questions on the role of solar activity, and whether decreasing solar activity will offset CO2 forcing and to what extent. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of decades. That could be enough time to give us a pretty good picture of where things are going.
Well said. I think we should save this post for use in many upcoming threads regarding the influence of oceans.
Recent paper published in PNAS on the subject:
The paper only talks about Solar radiation and does not discuss Solar magnetic field fluctuations that result in more/less sunspots and more/less cosmic radiation (that is, radiation originating from outside the solar system) and its affects on cloud production. Climate scientist have had very little success of modeling cloud formations and their effects on surface temperature. It is in fact a very difficult problem to solve. It is also a very important missing piece in our understanding of climate that most everyone wants to ignore. New studies suggest that more cosmic radiation seeds more cloud formation. And that is a result of a quieter magnetic field from the sun.
I understand your point. But it is still IF. And right now, temperatures are decreasing, not increasing.
Like you, I still do not understand how anyone can conclude that solar forcing has no impact. And that solar forcing is a single variable. As others have pointed out, solar impacts are not just radiation, there is also the question of magnetic fluctuations.
We DO know this. Something different than CO2 forcing has caused previous climate changes. Sometime dramatic and sudden. So even if temperatures started rising again, until we know what has caused climate change in the past, I am not sure one can conclude CO2 forcing is the cause.
My argument years ago was that it's the oceans send off more C02 than anything else and the global warming fans should build HUGE parachutes or domes over all of the oceans, rivers and lakes to stop it.
They don't model cloud formation or cloud cover because how do you measure it? What data from the past can you use to model it? CO2 is easy to model and measure and it has decent proxies. What's the proxy for cloud cover? Does it differentiate among clouds at different levels in the atmosphere?
Same thing with modeling ocean circulation/thermal storage. Hell we cannot predict El Nino/La Nina with any accuracy, How are we going to model the ocean/atmosphere coupling with any accuracy?
Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory of clouds and global warming looks to be confirmed
This is good satire!