Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nature | News
(read full article at title link)
Politics is biggest factor in climate uncertainty
Delaying action on emissions will increase costs and reduce chances of limiting temperature increase.
... results, published today in Nature1, contradict claims that governments should delay action on climate change until scientific certainty further improves. They also imply that speeding up action could lead to significant cost savings.
- Zoë Corbyn 02 January 2013
Joeri Rogelj, a climate-policy analyst at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, and his colleagues assessed the relative importance of four major sources of uncertainty in limiting the rise in global average temperatures. These were political uncertainty regarding when a coordinated global climate policy might be achieved; scientific uncertainty over how much the Earth will warm in response to emissions; social uncertainty about future energy demand; and technological uncertainty regarding the availability of emissions-reduction technologies...
...
NatureDOI:doi:10.1038/nature.2013.12138
References
The biggest factor in climate uncertainty is that we have barely scratched the surface of the true energy budget as evidenced by the continued use of trenberth's. We can't even say for sure what the albedo of the planet is. At this point, we really don't have a clue as to not only what drives the climate, but how many factors might drive it under different senarios. It is at present, mostly guesswork and guesswork is by defnintion uncertainty.
Yet people like you would have us to continue to pour GHGs into the atmosphere without regard to the fact that we do not know the sensitivity of the climate to those inputs. And in spite of the fact that the sensitivity appears to be far greater than previously estimated, current events providing evidence for that statement.
The fact is we don't know, but we know we are making the world hotter. The reality deals with planet sensitivity. How do you know that factor?
Since there is no greenhouse effect, what difference do you think it could make insofar as the cliamte is concerned?
The fact is we don't know, but we know we are making the world hotter. The reality deals with planet sensitivity. How do you know that factor?
From the Journal article -
"...The researchers compared emissions and costs in more than 500 scenarios, and revealed that the timing of global action will have the greatest effect on whether the world meets a given climate target, such as keeping global temperature rise to less than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. The second most important factor was scientific uncertainties, followed by social and technological ones..."
Climate sensitivity is constrained by paleoclimate records where we can look at previous eras that had similar forcings and derive the temperatures that resulted from those forcings as the planetary climate system equilibrated to the forcing factors. Short-term (Charney) climate sensitivity is in the range of 2º to 4.5º K. Long-term (multi-millenia) climate sensitivity is in the 3.5º-6º K range. IOW, doubling of atmospheric CO2 (under general modern surface conditions) will produce ~3º K of warming within a few decades, over a period of a few thousand years an additional ~1.5º K will accumulate as the system fullly equilibrates to the new forcing of the system.
There are also modern climate sensitivity analyses such as Bender 2010, "Response to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in relation to climate sensitivity in the CMIP3 models" - http://people.su.se/~fbend/benderetal10.pdf
General References:
"High Earth-System Climate Sensitivity determined from Pliocene CO2 Concentrations" - http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~mp364/data/2009%20Pagani%20et%20al.pdf
"What caused Earth's temperature variations during the last 800,000 years? Data-based evidence on radiative forcing and constraints on climate sensitivity" - http://www.awi.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Research/Research_Divisions/Climate_Sciences/Paleoclimate_Dynamics/NewManuscripts/WhatCausedEarth.pdf
"Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity" - http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark...Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity.pdf
The fact is we don't know, but we know we are making the world hotter. The reality deals with planet sensitivity. How do you know that factor?
From the Journal article -
"...The researchers compared emissions and costs in more than 500 scenarios, and revealed that the timing of global action will have the greatest effect on whether the world meets a given climate target, such as keeping global temperature rise to less than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. The second most important factor was scientific uncertainties, followed by social and technological ones..."
Climate sensitivity is constrained by paleoclimate records where we can look at previous eras that had similar forcings and derive the temperatures that resulted from those forcings as the planetary climate system equilibrated to the forcing factors. Short-term (Charney) climate sensitivity is in the range of 2º to 4.5º K. Long-term (multi-millenia) climate sensitivity is in the 3.5º-6º K range. IOW, doubling of atmospheric CO2 (under general modern surface conditions) will produce ~3º K of warming within a few decades, over a period of a few thousand years an additional ~1.5º K will accumulate as the system fullly equilibrates to the new forcing of the system.
There are also modern climate sensitivity analyses such as Bender 2010, "Response to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in relation to climate sensitivity in the CMIP3 models" - http://people.su.se/~fbend/benderetal10.pdf
General References:
"High Earth-System Climate Sensitivity determined from Pliocene CO2 Concentrations" - http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~mp364/data/2009%20Pagani%20et%20al.pdf
"What caused Earth's temperature variations during the last 800,000 years? Data-based evidence on radiative forcing and constraints on climate sensitivity" - http://www.awi.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Research/Research_Divisions/Climate_Sciences/Paleoclimate_Dynamics/NewManuscripts/WhatCausedEarth.pdf
"Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity" - http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark...Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity.pdf
I think it will be higher and sooner, but that's just a human brain calculating the results.
You post many good things on this forum and I thank you for doing it.
I think the shit is going to hit the fan sooner than the scientists realize, but it's just my scientific opinion. The problem with me and the future is, I'm almost always right. I'd give us 3 years before this Denialista's nonsense ends, if we have that long.
From the Journal article -
"...The researchers compared emissions and costs in more than 500 scenarios, and revealed that the timing of global action will have the greatest effect on whether the world meets a given climate target, such as keeping global temperature rise to less than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. The second most important factor was scientific uncertainties, followed by social and technological ones..."
Climate sensitivity is constrained by paleoclimate records where we can look at previous eras that had similar forcings and derive the temperatures that resulted from those forcings as the planetary climate system equilibrated to the forcing factors. Short-term (Charney) climate sensitivity is in the range of 2º to 4.5º K. Long-term (multi-millenia) climate sensitivity is in the 3.5º-6º K range. IOW, doubling of atmospheric CO2 (under general modern surface conditions) will produce ~3º K of warming within a few decades, over a period of a few thousand years an additional ~1.5º K will accumulate as the system fullly equilibrates to the new forcing of the system.
There are also modern climate sensitivity analyses such as Bender 2010, "Response to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in relation to climate sensitivity in the CMIP3 models" - http://people.su.se/~fbend/benderetal10.pdf
General References:
"High Earth-System Climate Sensitivity determined from Pliocene CO2 Concentrations" - http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~mp364/data/2009%20Pagani%20et%20al.pdf
"What caused Earth's temperature variations during the last 800,000 years? Data-based evidence on radiative forcing and constraints on climate sensitivity" - http://www.awi.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Research/Research_Divisions/Climate_Sciences/Paleoclimate_Dynamics/NewManuscripts/WhatCausedEarth.pdf
"Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity" - http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark...Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity.pdf
I think it will be higher and sooner, but that's just a human brain calculating the results.
You post many good things on this forum and I thank you for doing it.
I think the shit is going to hit the fan sooner than the scientists realize, but it's just my scientific opinion. The problem with me and the future is, I'm almost always right. I'd give us 3 years before this Denialista's nonsense ends, if we have that long.
I won't argue against a "sooner and more intense" perspective, but for the sake of all humanity, I hope I am mistaken.
Since there is no greenhouse effect, what difference do you think it could make insofar as the cliamte is concerned?
Ah, we see here exactly where mere doubt and uncertainty meet the politically sponsored cult of denial and arrogant ignorance.
Since there is no greenhouse effect, what difference do you think it could make insofar as the cliamte is concerned?
Ah, we see here exactly where mere doubt and uncertainty meet the politically sponsored cult of denial and arrogant ignorance.
There is nothing political, nor ignorant in my position.
Tell you what trakar, how about you show me an actual measurment of a greenhouse effect in an open atmosphere....or even a mathematical model of it. Contrary to your propagandist spew, it is you who is operating out of political motivation as there isn't the fist shred of actual evidence to support your claims.
You seem to go on endlessly about other people's unfounded claims when at the foundation, it is your claims that are entirely unfounded and unsupportable.
But I do look forward to seeing what you present as actual measurements of the claimed greenhouse effect or a mathematical model.
I've asked you what makes nights warm in summer and you ignored the point. That is the greenhouse effect. Some gases absorb infrared radiation and some don't. Water vapor does, but water likes to stay low in the atmosphere and has an affinity for itself, because the molecules are polar and attract each other. Gases like CO2 and HCFC will go much further into the atmosphere, where the sunlight passes through.
Put on your shorts, go to a desert and spend the night! Since deserts don't have much moisture in the air, they don't retain heat once the sun goes down. They are usually hot during the day and cold at night. Put your ass there and when you are shivering, maybe your brain will work and figure it out.
I've asked you what makes nights warm in summer and you ignored the point. That is the greenhouse effect. Some gases absorb infrared radiation and some don't. Water vapor does, but water likes to stay low in the atmosphere and has an affinity for itself, because the molecules are polar and attract each other. Gases like CO2 and HCFC will go much further into the atmosphere, where the sunlight passes through.
The primary reason the earth stays warm at night is radiation from the surface of the earth that was absorbed during the daylight hours... the secondary reason is water vapor...not a greenhouse effect.. Tell you what dubya, how about you show me a mathematical model of the greenhouse effect, or some measurable evidence of it. Suirely if it exists, it must have been modeled ir can be measured.
Put on your shorts, go to a desert and spend the night! Since deserts don't have much moisture in the air, they don't retain heat once the sun goes down. They are usually hot during the day and cold at night. Put your ass there and when you are shivering, maybe your brain will work and figure it out.
At least you are figuring out that it isn't CO2. Congratulations.
Delaying action on emissions will increase costs and reduce chances of limiting temperature increase.
Since there is no greenhouse effect, what difference do you think it could make insofar as the cliamte is concerned?
Ah, we see here exactly where mere doubt and uncertainty meet the politically sponsored cult of denial and arrogant ignorance.
There is nothing political, nor ignorant in my position.
Tell you what trakar, how about you show me an actual measurment of a greenhouse effect in an open atmosphere....or even a mathematical model of it. Contrary to your propagandist spew, it is you who is operating out of political motivation as there isn't the fist shred of actual evidence to support your claims.
You seem to go on endlessly about other people's unfounded claims when at the foundation, it is your claims that are entirely unfounded and unsupportable.
But I do look forward to seeing what you present as actual measurements of the claimed greenhouse effect or a mathematical model.
Land can't absorb that much heat. Get in your shorts and go to a desert! Deserts aren't easy to live in, because a 60 degree difference in temperature between night and day isn't uncommon. Deserts have low humidity and they will rapidly lose temperature, when the sun isn't warming them. The human body gets used to a certain temperature range and rapid changes bother it.
CO2 can get much higher in the atmosphere than water, so all that sunlight can warm it.
We can rather accurately measure our global energy budget, but we can't measure our planet's sensitivity to change.
I'd be happy to discuss the history of scientific discovery and understanding of atmospheric greenhouse effects and the substances and mechanisms involved.
...All CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses do is provide a window that hastens the escape of heat into space. There is a physicist named Garaff who is doing experiments that demonstrate that an atmosphere without radiative gasses is warmer than an atmosphere with radiative gasses. An atmosphere witout radiative gasses must depend entirely on convection and conduction to move heat to the upper atmosphere...
I'd be happy to discuss the history of scientific discovery and understanding of atmospheric greenhouse effects and the substances and mechanisms involved.
I see you would be happy to discuss it and perhaps discuss it ad nauseum. We both know why don't we? I asked for a mathematical model or actual measurement of the greenhouse effect. Not surprisingly, you provided neither....and we both know why you din't don't we?
Lots of hypothesis....assumption...results of computer simulations...but nothing real.
This is not just wrong (as demonstrated in all of the links previous provided and throughout the researches and studies conducted by a broad range of scientific fields of investigation), it is almost 180º opposite of the evidences.
You were told they can measure the light absorbed by a gas and determine the absorption spectrum. If it doesn't absorb IR it isn't a greenhouse gas. You were told they can measure the sunlight striking a planet too, the amount of light the planet gives off and it's temperature. Without the greenhouse effect, the planet doesn't warm much.
This is not just wrong (as demonstrated in all of the links previous provided and throughout the researches and studies conducted by a broad range of scientific fields of investigation), it is almost 180º opposite of the evidences.
So you say, except that hundreds of repeatable experiments being performed since about 2000 say that you are wrong. Which observable experiments prove you right?
