CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

MiNdGaM3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

A new study shows that CFCs are likely to be responsible for at least 0.8 °C of Arctic warming and half the Arctic ice loss in the period 1955-2005.

http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/polvani+etal-NATURECC-2020.pdf

Certainly interesting. Entirely based on climate model assessments too. Hopefully it can be verified through further studies. If so, it will be good to have a means of slowing both Arctic and therefore global climate warming, provided we can get all countries to continue reducing their ODC production - which isn't certain: Increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern China based on atmospheric observations

It will also highlight the importance of the Montreal Protocol and the scientific consensus that contributed to it.

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Certainly interesting. Entirely based on climate model assessments too. Hopefully it can be verified through further studies. If so, it will be good to have a means of slowing both Arctic and therefore global climate warming, provided we can get all countries to continue reducing their ODC production - which isn't certain: Increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern China based on atmospheric observations

It will also highlight the importance of the Montreal Protocol and the scientific consensus that contributed to it.

Yep, but it casts yet more doubt on the claim that all the warming and melting is 100% ghg-related.

MiNdGaM3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yep, but it casts yet more doubt on the claim that all the warming and melting is 100% ghg-related.

CFCs are a GhG.

Casts much more doubt on non-radiative forcing based ideas of climate change, such as that which started this thread.

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

CFCs are a GhG.

Casts much more doubt on non-radiative forcing based ideas of climate change, such as that which started this thread.

I meant CO2.

MiNdGaM3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I meant CO2.

Ok. Well, the combined radiative forcing from CFCs and methane is estimated to be close to 70% of that from CO2. So it was never a CO2 only scenario.
The study mentioned suggests those proportions may need to shift, but we'll need more studies with similar results first.

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Ok. Well, the combined radiative forcing from CFCs and methane is estimated to be close to 70% of that from CO2. So it was never a CO2 only scenario.
The study mentioned suggests those proportions may need to shift, but we'll need more studies with similar results first.

But climate sensitivity is based on a doubling of CO2.

MiNdGaM3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

But climate sensitivity is based on a doubling of CO2.

Doubling of CO2 is just one way of describing climate sensitivity, but it is the most popular.

Climate sensitivity all comes down to radiative forcing, and subsequent feedbacks mechanisms. This is true regardless of the source of radiative forcing, be it from solar input, aerosols, CFCs or whatever.

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Doubling of CO2 is just one way of describing climate sensitivity, but it is the most popular.

Climate sensitivity all comes down to radiative forcing, and subsequent feedbacks mechanisms. This is true regardless of the source of radiative forcing, be it from solar input, aerosols, CFCs or whatever.

There's now a hit of goalpost-shifting going on here The IPCC define it based on CO2. It is different to the total radiative forcing. Different gases have very different "greenhouse" efficacies, so what you say is not true at all.

This paper casts further doubt on the higher end of the climate sensitivity range, closer to the 1.0 °C end. Then again, another 2020 paper has it up closer to the 5.5 - 6.5 degree end. Settled science indeed...

scamalert

finally thread where OP isn't some loonie bin. there is def weather trend change in recent 20 years, specially can be felt more in northern Europe.


That said i totally hate all the bull$hit that media government pushes each ****ing day about raising taxes - which get blown into few pockets as a way to combat climate change, as for fck sake Ireland is only just over 3mill population, thats not even single major city in UK, never mind Asia or other continents that have no issues pumping coal and oil, yet some smart a$$es in government think taxing people is the solution, when in fact more like OP outlined it could be period thats happens every thousand or so years and no one can really back that up as theres not enough records, since going by 10-20-50 year data over millions of years is total BS.


Id say it would be fine if governments and EU tune would be plant more trees not cut down entire hills and forests like its happening here and in many countries, not BS that we need to switch to electric and watch cow farts as issue.

Oneiric 3

""Before the 2008 crash, investors and the government failed to address growing risks in our financial system. We're making the same mistake with climate change today—we know it's coming, but we're not doing enough to stop it."
—Elizabeth Warren, September 2018

https://twitter.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/1224790971126308865

Gaoth Laidir

scamalert wrote: »

finally thread where OP isn't some loonie bin. there is def weather trend change in recent 20 years, specially can be felt more in northern Europe.


That said i totally hate all the bull$hit that media government pushes each ****ing day about raising taxes - which get blown into few pockets as a way to combat climate change, as for fck sake Ireland is only just over 3mill population, thats not even single major city in UK, never mind Asia or other continents that have no issues pumping coal and oil, yet some smart a$$es in government think taxing people is the solution, when in fact more like OP outlined it could be period thats happens every thousand or so years and no one can really back that up as theres not enough records, since going by 10-20-50 year data over millions of years is total BS.


Id say it would be fine if governments and EU tune would be plant more trees not cut down entire hills and forests like its happening here and in many countries, not BS that we need to switch to electric and watch cow farts as issue.

The Republic of Ireland has 4.9 million people and the North has 1.9. But I get your point.

Meteorite58

Mod Note:

Thargor and Mr Bumble knock off the bickering and stay on topic, no more personal gibes.

posidonia no more personal attacks.

cards will be handed out if this continues.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

A new study shows that CFCs are likely to be responsible for at least 0.8 °C of Arctic warming and half the Arctic ice loss in the period 1955-2005.

http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/polvani+etal-NATURECC-2020.pdf

It’s a good thing we believed the scientists and cut back on ODS then isn’t it....

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

It’s a good thing we believed the scientists and cut back on ODS then isn’t it....

ODS are a different kettle of fish. Simple chemistry demonstrates the effect they have on ozone, so there was never any real uncertainty. It was settled science.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

There's now a hit of goalpost-shifting going on here The IPCC define it based on CO2. It is different to the total radiative forcing. Different gases have very different "greenhouse" efficacies, so what you say is not true at all.

This paper casts further doubt on the higher end of the climate sensitivity range, closer to the 1.0 °C end. Then again, another 2020 paper has it up closer to the 5.5 - 6.5 degree end. Settled science indeed...

IPCC define it as CO2 equivalent. So it’s a combination of the changes in GHG concentrations but it excludes other forcings like solar insolation

Akrasia

The greenhouse effect is also very basic physics

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

The greenhouse effect is also very basic physics

And that's why the IPCC don't know whether climate sensitivity is 1.5 or 6.5 degrees.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

""Before the 2008 crash, investors and the government failed to address growing risks in our financial system. We're making the same mistake with climate change today—we know it's coming, but we're not doing enough to stop it."
—Elizabeth Warren, September 2018

https://twitter.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/1224790971126308865

The ‘goodies’ in every war had to use violence to win

M.T. Cranium

With the research, I have worked up some data sets that seem to show significance of the theoretical energy peaks, have pretty much blended the model into my overall forecasting operation so hard to say how much of my forecasting is research-based, probably just some of the choices I make in mid-range to longer term.

Would not expect a fair hearing based on past (bad) experiences, there's a very strong bias against external energy sources in the science these days, I don't think 99% can make the move beyond thinking anything astronomical is actually astrological. I don't find that meteorologists know much about astronomy so it's hard for them to distinguish the two. And I've beat this subject to death, but I find the profession somewhat closed-minded and over-confident perhaps as a reaction to constant public criticism.

I'll wait for the tide to change, probably after I'm long gone, and perhaps somebody will re-discover what I discovered. It's happened before. I would put money on it being the only way this work would ever be accepted. Frustrating but things happen for a reason, perhaps this knowledge would become dangerous in the wrong hands. It's safe with me and my general lack of resources.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

And that's why the IPCC don't know whether climate sensitivity is 1.5 or 6.5 degrees.

The uncertainty is related to feedbacks not the greenhouse effect itself, and your characterisation that makes it appear that climate sensitivity is equally likely to be 1.5c or 3c or 6.5c is just an affront to science

Akrasia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

With the research, I have worked up some data sets that seem to show significance of the theoretical energy peaks, have pretty much blended the model into my overall forecasting operation so hard to say how much of my forecasting is research-based, probably just some of the choices I make in mid-range to longer term.

Would not expect a fair hearing based on past (bad) experiences, there's a very strong bias against external energy sources in the science these days, I don't think 99% can make the move beyond thinking anything astronomical is actually astrological. I don't find that meteorologists know much about astronomy so it's hard for them to distinguish the two. And I've beat this subject to death, but I find the profession somewhat closed-minded and over-confident perhaps as a reaction to constant public criticism.

I'll wait for the tide to change, probably after I'm long gone, and perhaps somebody will re-discover what I discovered. It's happened before. I would put money on it being the only way this work would ever be accepted. Frustrating but things happen for a reason, perhaps this knowledge would become dangerous in the wrong hands. It's safe with me and my general lack of resources.

Is that supposed to be an answer to my question on whether you have ever done any analysis on how your own long term forecasts matched the actual weather in hindsight?

Shouldn’t that be the very first thing you do if you want people to take your methods seriously?

And if your analysis shows that your long wangle forecasts are either too vague to be tested, or wrong most of the time, then shouldn’t that be an indicator that you have been fooling yourself all these years and that is actually the real reason proper scientists don’t want anything to do with your ‘research’

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

IPCC define it as CO2 equivalent. So it’s a combination of the changes in GHG concentrations but it excludes other forcings like solar insolation

There are lies, damn lies and Akrasia. The IPCC use CO2 and only CO2.

AR5

The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is [FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It][FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It]likely [/FONT][/FONT]in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C ([FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It][FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It]high confidence[/FONT][/FONT]), [FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It][FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It]extremely unlikely [/FONT][/FONT]less than 1°C ([FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It][FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It]high confidence[/FONT][/FONT]), and [FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It][FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It]very unlikely [/FONT][/FONT]greater than 6°C ([FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It][FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It]medium confidence[/FONT][/FONT])16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed [FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It][FONT=Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It,Frutiger LT Pro 58 Condensed It]likely [/FONT][/FONT]range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.

The transient climate response quantifies the response of the climate system to an increasing radiative forcing on a decadal to century timescale. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at the time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration has doubled in a scenario of concentration increasing at 1% per year. The transient climate response is likely in the range of 1.0°C to 2.5°C (high confidence) and extremely unlikely greater than 3°C.



16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

There are lies, damn lies and Akrasia. The IPCC use CO2 and only CO2.

AR5

Erm, well, tbh, I also thought those figures (ECS and the rest) included all anthro ghgs.



Now, I'm not liar, and as such was wrong and I've learnt something.



So, it must also mean that warming due to other anthro ghgs (CH4, CFCs, N2O) must be additional to that of CO2 alone. Right?

MiNdGaM3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yep, but it casts yet more doubt on the claim that all the warming and melting is 100% ghg-related.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I meant CO2.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

But climate sensitivity is based on a doubling of CO2.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

There's now a hit of goalpost-shifting going on here The IPCC define it based on CO2. It is different to the total radiative forcing. Different gases have very different "greenhouse" efficacies, so what you say is not true at all.

This paper casts further doubt on the higher end of the climate sensitivity range, closer to the 1.0 °C end. Then again, another 2020 paper has it up closer to the 5.5 - 6.5 degree end. Settled science indeed...

Goalpost shifting indeed. Well done!

There are other definitions of climate sensitivity, but as I said, doubling of CO2 is the most common one. For example from here

Many palaeoclimate studies have quantified pre-anthropogenic climate change to calculate climate sensitivity (equilibrium temperature change in response to radiative forcing change)

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Goalpost shifting indeed. Well done!

There are other definitions of climate sensitivity, but as I said, doubling of CO2 is the most common one. For example from here

Many palaeoclimate studies have quantified pre-anthropogenic climate change to calculate climate sensitivity (equilibrium temperature change in response to radiative forcing change)

What's your point? I made a mistake when I wrote GHG instead of CO2 and owned up to it. I've always spoken of climate sensitivity in terms of CO2 and so has the IPCC. Other GHGs are not included in their definition of it.

Nabber

Seems like they are hedging their bets.

More summer rain = AGW
Less summer rain = AGW
Colder winter = AGW
Warmer winter = AGW

There are so many conflicting predictions that it’s near impossible for AGW to not hit at least once or twice a year.
When the warming trend ends it’s because there is a lag that “we don’t understand”. Yet confidence in knowing enough to claim human GHG are the sole forcing factor never wanes.

posidonia

Nabber wrote: »

Seems like they are hedging their bets.

More summer rain = AGW
Less summer rain = AGW
Colder winter = AGW
Warmer winter = AGW

There are so many conflicting predictions that it’s near impossible for AGW to not hit at least once or twice a year.
When the warming trend ends it’s because there is a lag that “we don’t understand”. Yet confidence in knowing enough to claim human GHG are the sole forcing factor never wanes.

If you double the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas like CO2 from 280mm 560 ppm you will (that's will) see ~1C warming of the lowest atmosphere as a direct consequence of that change alone. That warming will melt some ice, where it does that absorption of radiation by the surface (rather than it be reflected by the ice) will occur and there will be additional feedback warming.


Ergo, yes, all weather and climate is being changed - though we've only got to 410ppm or so atm so the effects are not as great as with 560ppm. Additionally there is no reasonable doubt the extra CO2 is coming from human activities (mostly the burning of fossil fuels).



But, we would expect (and we see) more instances of warmer weather than colder and we see almost no areas of the planet that, over multi decades, are cooling.



Its as simple as that and, whether you like it or not, it's what is happening and will become more and more obvious over coming years and decades*.


For those of us who love this planet, and its animals and people, it's a sombre outlook.





* A very large volcanic eruption might pause the process for a while (the bigger, the longer the pause) and a huge meteoroid or marked change to solar output likewise.

Nabber

posidonia wrote: »

If you double the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas like CO2 from 280mm 560 ppm you will (that's will) see ~1C warming of the lowest atmosphere as a direct consequence of that change alone. That warming will melt some ice, where it does that absorption of radiation by the surface (rather than it be reflected by the ice) will occur and there will be additional feedback warming.

Nonsense.

one world order

If they stopped emitting high frequency radio beams into the stratosphere, thus pushing out the ionosphere, then they wouldn't be able to manipulate the jet stream and have all these weather extremes around the world.

Oneiric 3

The system will eat itself:

https://inthesetimes.com/article/22058/naomi-klein-climate-change-white-supremacy-green-new-deal-greta-thunberg

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/g5x5ny/why-i-quit-being-a-climate-activist

These people are a friggin' joke.