Climate Science

[Keepitsimple]

THE idea that changes in the sun's activity can influence the climate is making a comeback, after years of scientific vilification, thanks to major advances in our understanding of the atmosphere.

The findings do not suggest - as climate sceptics frequently do - that we can blame the rise of global temperatures since the early 20th century on the sun. "There are extravagant claims for the effects of the sun on global climate," says Giles Harrison, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Reading, UK. "They are not supported."

Over the famous 11-year solar cycle, the sun's brightness varies by just 0.1 per cent. This was seen as too small a change to impinge on the global climate system, so solar effects have generally been left out of climate models. However, the latest research has changed this view, and the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due in 2013, will include solar effects in its models.

So far, three mechanisms have come to light (see diagram). The best understood is what is known as the top-down effect, described by Mike Lockwood, also at the University of Reading, and Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London. Although the sun's brightness does not change much during solar maxima and minima, the type of radiation it emits does. During maxima the sun emits more ultraviolet radiation, which is absorbed by the stratosphere.This warms up, generating high-altitude winds. Although the exact mechanism is unclear, this appears to have knock-on effects on regional weather: strong stratospheric winds lead to a strong jet stream.

Well...at least it's finally being discussed. Funny how the Sun's effects were originally dismissed because brightness "varies by just 0.1 percent". Yet CO2 in our atmosphere is just 380 parts per million - a mere 0.038 percent! As for the IPCC including these effects in their next report, I'm not sure how the author can jump to that conclusion. I've bolded a few words to dampen the optimism - an optimism that presumes that this part of Climate Science, previously villified, will simply bare its secrets to an IPCC schedule.

Link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727793.100-the-sun-joins-the-climate-club.html

Edited September 26, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

I was suspicious of this, but the article does seem to check out.

Except for this sentence: "and the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due in 2013, will include solar effects in its models." Models have included solar radiation up until now, so I'm not sure.

Let's see what happens when this gets published...

[RNG]

I'm very new to this board but have been a member of a board for 3 years that has discussed climate change often. So you guys may have covered this. But they are mostly American and very ideological. The question I still have, and my formal education was in chemisty, is that of CO2, methane and water vapour, water vapour is way more efficient in absorbing infrared radiation, but to the best of my knowledge none of the models being used to calculate these things includes water vapour. With all the irrigation being done in the world today, and with the huge numbers of people breathing out water vapour and peeing, and the number of domesticated animals breathing and peeing, the steady state concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere must be much higher than it was 50 years ago. I'm not saying that limiting CO2 output is bad. But should we risk seriously harming our economy on what may not be the real evil here?

[Michael Hardner]

I'm very new to this board but have been a member of a board for 3 years that has discussed climate change often. So you guys may have covered this. But they are mostly American and very ideological. The question I still have, and my formal education was in chemisty, is that of CO2, methane and water vapour, water vapour is way more efficient in absorbing infrared radiation, but to the best of my knowledge none of the models being used to calculate these things includes water vapour. With all the irrigation being done in the world today, and with the huge numbers of people breathing out water vapour and peeing, and the number of domesticated animals breathing and peeing, the steady state concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere must be much higher than it was 50 years ago. I'm not saying that limiting CO2 output is bad. But should we risk seriously harming our economy on what may not be the real evil here?

When people bring up details of the science, as you have, I usually point out - as I'm doing now - that we don't have the knowledge of the science here to debate it on that level. There is an entire body of science that debates these things, and I feel that something like this would have been brought up by skeptics.

In any case, we're not risking harming the economy yet, because the debate hasn't really seriously talked about approaches to GW yet, since the world isn't overwhelmingly convinced enough to move world governments to act.

[RNG]

When people bring up details of the science, as you have, I usually point out - as I'm doing now - that we don't have the knowledge of the science here to debate it on that level. There is an entire body of science that debates these things, and I feel that something like this would have been brought up by skeptics.

In any case, we're not risking harming the economy yet, because the debate hasn't really seriously talked about approaches to GW yet, since the world isn't overwhelmingly convinced enough to move world governments to act.

I live in BC. We have a carbon tax, and even heavier in the Greater Vancouver area. That hurts the BC economy relative to, for example, Alberta. Al Gore is making millions on cap and trade. It is happening now. You have reason to fear.

[Michael Hardner]

I live in BC. We have a carbon tax, and even heavier in the Greater Vancouver area. That hurts the BC economy relative to, for example, Alberta. Al Gore is making millions on cap and trade. It is happening now. You have reason to fear.

Good point. There are taxes and economic changes have indeed begun.

How is Al Gore making millions ?

If we're talking conspiracy theories, then I'll likely check out of this conversation.

[RNG]

Good point. There are taxes and economic changes have indeed begun.

How is Al Gore making millions ?

If we're talking conspiracy theories, then I'll likely check out of this conversation.

This is not conspiracy theory. He has, through his bullshit movie, established himself as a broker for carbon credit trading. Thus far it is mostly Europe involved. But he gets a cut of the carbon credit buying and trading. And there is way more buying than trading.

I googled Al Gore carbon credits and this is one of a bunch of hits.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

[dre]

When people bring up details of the science, as you have, I usually point out - as I'm doing now - that we don't have the knowledge of the science here to debate it on that level. There is an entire body of science that debates these things, and I feel that something like this would have been brought up by skeptics.

In any case, we're not risking harming the economy yet, because the debate hasn't really seriously talked about approaches to GW yet, since the world isn't overwhelmingly convinced enough to move world governments to act.

In any case, we're not risking harming the economy yet, because the debate hasn't really seriously talked about approaches to GW yet, since the world isn't overwhelmingly convinced enough to move world governments to act.

I would dispute that there hasnt been action. Since the late 1990's there has been a massive increase in energy research directly resulting from the global warming debate. Many countries have introduced a lot of new regulations on pollution, fuel economy etc, and many more have implemented various taxes, etc.

[dre]

In any case, we're not risking harming the economy yet

Interestly enough everyone has this backwards. The real risk to the economy is INACTION. Most of the approaches talked about to tackle AGW are related to phasing out many fossil fuels. This makes good economic sense because FF energy prices are extremely volatile, and are ALREADY an impediment to global economic growth.

The real economic nuclear scenario is if fossil fuels become cost prohibitive and we arent ready to replace them. Youre talking about an economic catastrophy that would make the great depression and the recent economic meltdown look like BOOMS.

So really our economic interests and the interests of those that would like to curb CO2 emissions are actually VERY well aligned... theyre just driven by different concerns.

[wyly]

my formal education was in chemisty, is that of CO2, methane and water vapour, water vapour is way more efficient in absorbing infrared radiation, but to the best of my knowledge none of the models being used to calculate these things includes water vapour. With all the irrigation being done in the world today, and with the huge numbers of people breathing out water vapour and peeing, and the number of domesticated animals breathing and peeing, the steady state concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere must be much higher than it was 50 years ago. I'm not saying that limiting CO2 output is bad. But should we risk seriously harming our economy on what may not be the real evil here?

I don't claim to be a chemistry whizz like you but it seems you're lacking...

if you're a chem whizz tell me if this is true...

- a mixture of gases has it's own unique properties according to the percentage of each gas in the makeup of the mixture??? true or false

-if you change the ratio of the gases in the mixture you change it's properties???true or false

water vapor cycles out of the atmosphere in about two weeks so water vapor in the atmosphere is effectively stable...CO2 can take a hundred years or more to cycle out of the atmosphere and much of that does goes into the ocean, so it's effective will be cumulative in the atmosphere and the oceans as man releases CO2 faster than the atmosphere/oceans can deal with it...

since water vapor is relatively constant if you increase the percentage of CO2 in atmospheric mixture it must retain more heat...it can do nothing else

so what's more important the economy or life as we know it on earth?

[TimG]

Interestly enough everyone has this backwards. The real risk to the economy is INACTION.

An assertion which has no credible evidence to support it.

Most of the approaches talked about to tackle AGW are related to phasing out many fossil fuels. This makes good economic sense because FF energy prices are extremely volatile, and are ALREADY an impediment to global economic growth.

What impedes growth are high energy prices, excessive regulation and taxation. All of the "solutions" to CO2 will mostly likely do much more harm to the economy than any fossil fuel.

The real economic nuclear scenario is if fossil fuels become cost prohibitive and we arent ready to replace them.

If you want focus on the improbable risks then you must also remember that GHG regulation has to the potential to push the economy into another great depression.

So really our economic interests and the interests of those that would like to curb CO2 emissions are actually VERY well aligned.

Sorry they are completely at odds. If this was really a matter of reducing dependency on oil (the only fossil fuel which is actually in short supply) then we would want ensure a plentiful, reliable and cheap supply of electricity by building coal and nuclear plants. Instead, CO2 phobes want to increase our dependence on oil by making electricity much more expensive and less reliable.

[dre]

An assertion which has no credible evidence to support it.

What impedes growth are high energy prices, excessive regulation and taxation. All of the "solutions" to CO2 will mostly likely do much more harm to the economy than any fossil fuel.

If you want focus on the improbable risks then you must also remember that GHG regulation has to the potential to push the economy into another great depression.

Sorry they are completely at odds. If this was really a matter of reducing dependency on oil (the only fossil fuel which is actually in short supply) then we would want ensure a plentiful, reliable and cheap supply of electricity by building coal and nuclear plants. Instead, CO2 phobes want to increase our dependence on oil by making electricity much more expensive and less reliable.

If you want focus on the improbable risks then you must also remember that GHG regulation has to the potential to push the economy into another great depression.

The risk I mentioned is not improbable its INEVITABLE.

Sorry they are completely at odds.

No theyre not at odds they are almost perfectly aligned, just driven by different concerns. Expediting our move into the next energy age is actually one of the most important things we can do to promote a strong economy in the future. Our reliance on FF is an economic disaster waiting to happen, and was one of the major causes the latest economic meltdown.

If this was really a matter of reducing dependency on oil (the only fossil fuel which is actually in short supply) then we would want ensure a plentiful, reliable and cheap supply of electricity by building coal and nuclear plants. Instead, CO2 phobes want to increase our dependence on oil by making electricity much more expensive and less reliable.

Youre caracaturing people based on hard core environmentalists. Im not against nuclear energy. Theres clearly some obstacles to overcome but I think it will play an important part. And as a result of the huge increase in energy funding that has been spawned in large part by AGW concerns we have developed nearly zero emissions coal plants that will start coming on line in the 1020's.

BTW... AGW will probably go down in history as what SAVED the nuclear industry. It hadnt sold a plant in NA for almost thirty years, but its low post-construction C02 output has become a major selling feature, and now nuclear energy is back in the game again.

Edited September 27, 2010 by dre

[RNG]

Response to wyly: You are a statics type while the world deals with kinetics. Your estimate that the water all goes back down as rain is correct in the long run, but in the short term, the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere stays high, and absorbs all kinds of IR. That is the way of the world. Deal with it. I'm not saying I'm right, but I am saying that the CO2 crybabies are a long way from proving a fact. We do need to cut down on CO2. The oceans are becoming acidified to an alarming extent. No question there. But there is no way I believe CO2 is causing the warming. I really believe it is water vapour.

Coda: Why, if this is a Canadian message board, does the spell checker reject vapour and accept vapor?

[dre]

Cutting CO2 is just one of the usefull phenomenon driving energy investment, and a move towards a sustainable and predictable energy paradigm. Our dependence on people that dont like us is another powerfull one. Economics, and the glaring fact we need a less volatile energy supply for a rapidly growing world is another.

The beauty of it is, that technologically this is pretty easy stuff. We can make electricity with a combination of wind, nuclear, solar, hydroelectric, etc. With brushless electric motors and modern battery technology we can power our cars with this electricity. Im not talking about science fiction here, but what we can do with TODAYS technology NOW. We can build nuclear plants that produce energy with very low post-construction emissions. We can build low emissions coal gassification plants. We can build solar parabolic arrays.

We need to ditch the ideologs and the folks on the right and left that say nuclear energy can never be safe, coal energy can never be clean, or solar and wind energy can never work. These people are the modern day equivalent of luddites. Theyre the reason we are 30 years behind where we should be. We should summarily DISMISS them.

This is EASY stuff folks. The biggest problem isnt technology its getting us to take it seriously and not have such a short term outlook.

[Michael Hardner]

I would dispute that there hasnt been action. Since the late 1990's there has been a massive increase in energy research directly resulting from the global warming debate. Many countries have introduced a lot of new regulations on pollution, fuel economy etc, and many more have implemented various taxes, etc.

There has been action, but nothing substantial beyond studies, discussion and maybe a tax or two. Let's put it this way: nothing like what has been proposed - global taxes and carbon trading systems imposed on the US and Canada, and so on.

[TimG]

The risk I mentioned is not improbable its INEVITABLE.

Not at all. The price of oil will rise over time following the boom-bust pattern that it has in the past. After each boom the price will settle in at a higher level and society will gradually adjust accordingly. The chances of 'peak oil shock' are extremely small - certainly no larger than another great depression triggered by excessive CO2 regulation.

No theyre not at odds they are almost perfectly aligned, just driven by different concerns.

The only fossil that is really under supply concerns in the next 50 years is oil. This means your economic argument ONLY applies to oil. More importantly, if we want to reduce oil consumption we must provide an alternative that is as cheap. Electricity is the only real choice which means attempting to restrict the supply of electricity because of this CO2 obession will make it harder to switch from oil. IOW, trying to restrict CO2 and economic development are mutally exclusive.

Youre caracaturing people based on hard core environmentalists.

So what? The fact is no nukes are getting built because of those "hard core" and nothing will change as long as they insist on blocking it (change is always much harder than keeping the status quo).

BTW... AGW will probably go down in history as what SAVED the nuclear industry.

AGW hysteria was a cause manufactured by Thatcher in 80s in order to undermine the coal miners union and promote nuclear power. It has since exploded into a monster that she probably regrets today. Edited September 27, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

Our dependence on people that dont like us is another powerfull one. Economics, and the glaring fact we need a less volatile energy supply for a rapidly growing world is another.

Did you hear the news about how China stopped shipping 'rare earths' to Japan because of a border dispute? The "rare earths" are metals that are required to build the high tech gadgets for alternate energy sources. 90% of the supply is in China. I would rather depend on fossil fuels because the supply is more widely distributed.

The beauty of it is, that technologically this is pretty easy stuff. We can make electricity with a combination of wind, nuclear, solar, hydroelectric, etc.

Clearly you know nothing of the economics of electricity generation. Renewables will never be more than bit players (<10%) unless there is a major techinological advance. There is no reason to believe that will happen anytime soon.

We need to ditch the ideologs and the folks on the right and left that say nuclear energy can never be safe, coal energy can never be clean, or solar and wind energy can never work.

Modern coal plants are extremely clean - the problem are the CO2 obsessives that call CO2 'dirty'.

In any case, there is one tried and true way to determine which technologies work and which do not: the free market. If a technology can compete without government subsidies then it "works". If it needs subsidies to be viable it definately does not "work".

Edited September 27, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

Response to wyly: You are a statics type while the world deals with kinetics. Your estimate that the water all goes back down as rain is correct in the long run, but in the short term, the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere stays high, and absorbs all kinds of IR. That is the way of the world. Deal with it. I'm not saying I'm right, but I am saying that the CO2 crybabies are a long way from proving a fact. We do need to cut down on CO2. The oceans are becoming acidified to an alarming extent. No question there. But there is no way I believe CO2 is causing the warming. I really believe it is water vapour.

Coda: Why, if this is a Canadian message board, does the spell checker reject vapour and accept vapor?

from your failure to answer the simple questions verifies I'm correct, percentage of CO2 increase must increase IR absorption in atmosphere, more heat more results in more water vapor it can do nothing else FACT...

you're a chem expert who won't answer basic chem questions and now want to deflect to spelling? here's a couple more for you... colour, color, neighbour, neighbor...still doesn't help answer the questions does it...

[wyly]

AGW hysteria was a cause manufactured by Thatcher in 80s in order to undermine the coal miners union and promote nuclear power. It has since exploded into a monster that she probably regrets today.

another conspiracy gem you've just made yourself irrelevant...the greenhouse effect has been know for 100-150 years...I first heard of AGW in the 70s before Thatcher was PM...

[TimG]

I'm correct, percentage of CO2 increase must increase IR absorption in atmosphere, more heat more results in more water vapor it can do nothing else FACT

It is a "fact" like the velocity of a block moving on frictionless surface is constant. In the real world there are no "frictionless surfaces" so the block always slows down.

In the real world water vapour turns into clouds which can turn a positive feedback into a negative feedback. The "consensus" claims that the net feedback is positive - but that is an opinion not a fact.

The "non-consensus" opinion can be found here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/

Edited September 27, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

the greenhouse effect has been know for 100-150 years.

I said "AGW *hysteria* was a cause...". The term AGW was used as an adjective modifying the noun "hysteria". The term "AGW hysteria" refers to a political movement rather than a scientific claim.

[wyly]

I said "AGW *hysteria* was a cause...". The term AGW was used as an adjective modifying the noun "hysteria". The term "AGW hysteria" refers to a political movement rather than a scientific claim.

okay my mistake there, but it doesn't change anything, it's still conspiracy in your view...

[Michael Hardner]

AGW hysteria was a cause manufactured by Thatcher in 80s in order to undermine the coal miners union and promote nuclear power. It has since exploded into a monster that she probably regrets today.

That's a first: "Margaret Thatcher invented Global Warming" !

[wyly]

It is a "fact" like the velocity of a block moving on frictionless surface is constant. In the real world there are no "frictionless surfaces" so the block always slows down.

In the real world water vapour turns into clouds which can turn a positive feedback into a negative feedback. The "consensus" claims that the net feedback is positive - but that is an opinion not a fact.

The "non-consensus" opinion can be found here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/

1st the your link's author gives extremely weak support for his own ideas...2nd it's irrelevant, the entire point of debate is CO2 the trigger for increased temperatures,yes it can do nothing else...

[TimG]

the entire point of debate is CO2 the trigger for increased temperatures,yes it can do nothing else...

No the real debate is about whether we care about any CO2 induced temperature changes. As for evidence: there is no conclusive physical evidence to support the "consensus" view of water feedback. The consensus view depends entirely on the assumption that their climate models are reasonable approximations of the climate system.