Bloomberg: What's really warming the world?

[Theo520]

Yes, if I can take my pick: the orbital changes of the earth around the sun. They beautifully explain the last ten ice ages.

But excluded from the models for some reason

You’ve not shown the models take into account variations from the sun affecting climate, my post stands as accurate.

 

[sps49]

The role of the sun is very well understood.

Not really. Even the TSI measurements, the ACRIM and PMOD, don’t agree well. Natural internal and external variations are not well understood, have large uncertainties, and the effects of solar radiation is among them

 

[Hans_W]

Not really. Even the TSI measurements, the ACRIM and PMOD, don’t agree well. Natural internal and external variations are not well understood, have large uncertainties, and the effects of solar radiation is among them

The sun’s role is not well understood??

The sun’s output can, obviously, be measured very precisely. If the earth warms over a decade and the sun’s output hasn’t gone up, then we need to blame something else.

The 11-year cycle is not always reliable, but so what? We can measure the sun’s output anytime without fully understanding what’s causing the variations. The fluctuations are tiny anyway, around 0.2%.

Concerning orbital forcing on the climate - we are talking about very long term effects. Eccentricity (around 100,000 years), axial shift (41,000 years) and precession (26,000 years). If you are very fussy you need to take the shifting land distribution between northern and southern hemispheres into account as well (tens of millions of years).

The Milankovic cycles are well understood and you will agree that we don’t need to worry about them when we make climate prediction for the next 50-100 years.

 

[Thorolfr]

Global warming is a fraud. The globe has been cooling for about 20 years.

That must be why they’ve been having a drought in California for the last four years and it hasn’t been this dry in at least 500 years.

Researchers knew California’s drought was already a record breaker when they set out to find its exact place in history, but they were surprised by what they discovered: It has been 500 years since what is now the Golden State has been this dry.

California is in the fourth year of a severe drought with temperatures so high and precipitation so low that rain and snow evaporate almost as soon as they hit the ground. A research paper released Monday said an analysis of blue oak tree rings in the state’s Central Valley showed that the amount of mountain snow California relies on for moisture hasn’t been so low since the 1500s. That was around the time when European explorers landed in what became San Diego, when Columbus set off on a final voyage to the Caribbean, when King Henry VIII was alive.

A team of researchers embarked on the study in April when state officials announced they had found “no snow whatsoever” in the Sierra Nevada mountains for the first time in 75 years of measuring. The research showed the level of snowpack is actually the lowest it has been in five centuries. Mountain snowpack provides 30 percent of California’s annual water supply when it melts and flows to rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs. Across the state, the levels of water in those bodies are nearing historic lows.

washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/14/scientists-say-its-been-500-years-since-california-was-this-dry/

 

[Theo520]

Hans, did you bother to read my NASA article?
And the climate models discount any impact from the sun when making future predictions.

Here’s an article from NASA about the sun’s influence on climate not being well understood
science.nasa.gov/science-news…an_sunclimate/

The sun’s role is not well understood??

The sun’s output can, obviously, be measured very precisely. If the earth warms over a decade and the sun’s output hasn’t gone up, then we need to blame something else.

The 11-year cycle is not always reliable, but so what? We can measure the sun’s output anytime without fully understanding what’s causing the variations. The fluctuations are tiny anyway, around 0.2%.

Concerning orbital forcing on the climate - we are talking about very long term effects. Eccentricity (around 100,000 years), axial shift (41,000 years) and precession (26,000 years). If you are very fussy you need to take the shifting land distribution between northern and southern hemispheres into account as well (tens of millions of years).

The Milankovic cycles are well understood and you will agree that we don’t need to worry about them when we make climate prediction for the next 50-100 years.

 

[sps49]

The sun’s role is not well understood??

The sun’s output can, obviously, be measured very precisely. If the earth warms over a decade and the sun’s output hasn’t gone up, then we need to blame something else.

The 11-year cycle is not always reliable, but so what? We can measure the sun’s output anytime without fully understanding what’s causing the variations. The fluctuations are tiny anyway, around 0.2%.

PMOD and ACRIM can’t agree whether TSI is going up or down, so yes I’d say there is uncertainty in the measurement. What’s worse is the magnitude of the error between the two sets is about the same as the model uncertainties. About that 0.2%, with a TOA flux of 1360W/m2, it would represent a 2.7W/m2 uncertainty, which is a bit larger than the suggested radiative imbalance. There are a lot of things going on here, absolute accuracy of the sensors, cross calibration problems, satellite pointing, and what the earth system does with the radiation, so yes, there are many things not particularly well understood. Claiming a certainty higher than what is prudent does not really do justice to the problem. It’s a tough issue, but with time it may be better understood.

 

[Theo520]

This graph really highlights the growing alarmism

It shows the ever increasing gap between projected and measured temps, yet with each new IPCC report, they ignore the gap and increased their confidence level that the models are valid.

Smells like they are raising their voice to compensate for what isn’t shown in the data.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That must be why they’ve been having a drought in California for the last four years and it hasn’t been this dry in at least 500 years.

Quote:

Researchers knew California’s drought was already a record breaker when they set out to find its exact place in history, but they were surprised by what they discovered: It has been 500 years since what is now the Golden State has been this dry.

The point is that California has a drought cycle going back ions. Even if the current drought equals the one in 1580…it is nothing new.

For example: "…a dry Sonoma was declared entirely unsuitable for agriculture in 1841. The Sacramento Valley was written off as “a barren wasteland.” Then much of the Central Valley became a great “inland sea” during the torrential floods of 1861-1862, then drought-stricken two years later in 1864.

We had “Dust Bowl” droughts in 1928-1935. Later, the multi-year droughts of 1947-1950 and 1959-1960 (as well as some extreme floods in the intervening years). Then came the 1976-1977 drought. At the end of the ‘wet’ season in 1976, rainfall levels were at 65 percent of the norm, reservoirs were depleted, and there was little to no Sierra snowpack.

Jerry Brown was serving his first term as governor from 1974 to 1982. He did not support any water storage projects. He was told that by 2000 the population of California would double…but Brown (or Governor Moonbeam) was under pressure from environmental groups to save rivers and build no dams.

Had water storage been increased based on projected population growth and drought history (as it should have been) This current drought would not be as severe.

Environmentalism…has many unintended consequences.

 

[fnr]

This graph really highlights the growing alarmism

It shows the ever increasing gap between projected and measured temps, yet with each new IPCC report, they ignore the gap and increased their confidence level that the models are valid.

Smells like they are raising their voice to compensate for what isn’t shown in the data.

http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg

Theo, the evidence of the so-called discrepancies in climate models and “observations” presented by Dr. Spenser (which his blog credits to Dr. John Christy) have been pretty thoroughly explained.

Here’s one web site that does it pretty well, referring to a February 2014 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Drs. John Christy and Richard McNider (who presented the same type of data present in the graph you posted):

But Christy and McNider assert that we should be ignoring these indicators, and instead hinge everything only on mid-tropospheric warming, “the fundamental sign” of climate change. They don’t explain why mid-tropospheric warming is fundamental, and in fact there is much less evidence for the significance of mid-tropospheric temperatures than there is for other indicators. This is part of the reason why mid-tropospheric temperatures aren’t part of the top-line findings of the 2012 State of the Climate report. As for the tropospheric temperature record:

• Compared to the surface temperature record, the mid-troposphere record is almost a century shorter, and subject to disruption by changes in measurement technology and methods. Past studies have repeatedly found issues with the techniques used to calibrate temperatures between measuring systems.
• Studies have also found that the increased cooling of the stratosphere has masked tropospheric warming in some satellite channels. When the effect of the stratospheric cooling is removed, tropospheric warming appears close to model predictions.
• Another 2011 study on tropospheric warming concluded, “the magnitude of the trend significantly depends on the data sources… In general, greater consistency is needed between the various data sets before a climate trend can be established” in a trustworthy way.
• A 2012 study found the discrepancy Christy and McNider mention, but was unable to establish whether it was due to biases in the models, datasets, or both.

Contrary to Christy and McNider’s implication in the WSJ, scientists aren’t suppressing discussion about the mid-troposphere. In fact, they’re actively participating. But they are not suggesting that the question of what’s happening at 18,000 feet upends the body of climate knowledge they’ve been building on for a century. The IPCC is fully aware of the questions about the troposphere, yet still places its estimate of climate sensitivity within a range of 1.5-4.5ºC. Three degrees of sensitivity would be enough to cause catastrophic impacts by the end of the century. The lowest end of the range just means a few more years of delay before the same impacts take place. And the high end remains an equally likely possibility, which is why the world’s scientists remain quite concerned about the climate

 

[lynnvinc]

Theo, the evidence of the so-called discrepancies in climate models and “observations” presented by Dr. Spenser (which his blog credits to Dr. John Christy) have been pretty thoroughly explained.

Here’s one web site that does it pretty well, referring to a February 2014 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Drs. John Christy and Richard McNider (who presented the same type of data present in the graph you posted):
…

…Studies have also found that the increased cooling of the stratosphere has masked tropospheric warming in some satellite channels. When the effect of the stratospheric cooling is removed, tropospheric warming appears close to model predictions…

Actually the stratospheric cooling is also a sign of the greenhouse effect, since less heat is escaping into the stratosphere (which is above the GHG area). That actually strengthens the evidence of the greenhouse effect GW.

 

[Theo520]

Actually the stratospheric cooling is also a sign of the greenhouse effect, since less heat is escaping into the stratosphere (which is above the GHG area). That actually strengthens the evidence of the greenhouse effect GW.

If the stratosphere was cooling and we saw hot spots in the troposhere, that would be confirming the climate models. Unfortunately, evidence is not supporting these projections.

 

[Theo520]

If the stratosphere was cooling and we saw hot spots in the troposhere, that would be confirming the climate models. Unfortunately, evidence is not supporting these projections.

Here is some research on the Stratosphere and Troposphere.

It confirms both the influence of man and that the models over predict warming

Vertical Human Fingerprint Found in Stratospheric Cooling, Tropospheric Warming