Climate change volcanoes and sun flares

[fazer]

I found this interesting

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

 

[JohnRoberts]

The last ice age was something like 10,000-20,000  years ago so you need a longer time horizon...  but yes, the temperature is always changing, always has and probably will after we are gone.

JR

 

[fazer]

The Paris climate accord talks about preventing a 2 degree rise but  a massive volcanic eruption can create a 1 degree drop. Rising temperature of the ocean is now being looked at with volcanic activity in the ocean itself.  Also high temperatures years are also affected by increased solar flare activity.  It's a very complex issue.  Also the swings are sine wave like in the course of 5000 years and can be related to the above mentioned earth's geological activity during this short period of time compared to the earth,s history over millions of years.  I felt it was a good article by climate scientists that agree a green future is a good direction but not the only issue when looking at the complex issue of the earths climate. 

 

[Phrazemaster]

The Paris climate accord talks about preventing a 2 degree rise but  a massive volcanic eruption can create a 1 degree drop. Rising temperature of the ocean is now being looked at with volcanic activity in the ocean itself.  Also high temperatures years are also affected by increased solar flare activity.  It's a very complex issue.  Also the swings are sine wave like in the course of 5000 years and can be related to the above mentioned earth's geological activity during this short period of time compared to the earth,s history over millions of years.  I felt it was a good article by climate scientists that agree a green future is a good direction but not the only issue when looking at the complex issue of the earths climate.

Best, most balanced viewpoint I've heard. Thanks!

 

[ruffrecords]

I have often wandered what might happen if they poured the billions that are spent on climate change studies into fusion research instead.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

I have often wandered what might happen if they poured the billions that are spent on climate change studies into fusion research instead.

Cheers

Ian

I am probably repeating myself but IMO we need to continue funding pure scientific research, but stop preferentially rewarding scientists that agree with preconceived notions about the outcome. Science is about following wherever the evidence leads. 

It is the nature of politics to reduce all issues to immediate existential binary decisions but we have decades or centuries to figure this very slow moving phenomenon out (IMO).

Speaking of fusion research I am a little disappointed that we have abandoned nuclear energy short of refining the designs to use best technology. There are fission processes that don't create bomb making material as waste. Also reactors can be designed that are self quenching so don't need auxiliary power for cooling in the case of accidents (like Fukushima)

Speaking of spending Billions, there is a Green Climate Fund,  established within the framework of the UNFCCC to assist developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change. This is political code for a wealth transfer from the wealthy west to everybody else. President Obama already gave $1B to this fund and promised $2B more, without congressional oversight which is required by the constitution for all government spending.

A subtext to the Paris accord is that there is a quid pro quo with poor polluting 3rd world countries who will not reduce their pollution levels unless they get significant external funding for clean energy investments.  On the surface this seems like a good idea but I'm not sure we can trust the global elites with billions of our tax dollars to invest effectively. Why not just do this directly if it is such a good idea?
===

The political climate (which has been warming recently too) appears way too angry to look at this, or any other issue, sensibly, but what else is new?

JR

 

[fazer]

Yes I read about the EPA working on  small nuclear reactors as a next step.  They use these on subs but I don't know if it's the same thing.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yes I read about the EPA working on  small nuclear reactors as a next step.  They use these on subs but I don't know if it's the same thing.

It has been a few years since I looked at this but IIRC India was the only nation actively pioneering the new technology reactor.

I have heard about the proposed small reactors but doubt they would be politically acceptable, most are apprehensive about nuclear reactors (NIMBY).

Utilities are actually decommissioning reactors that still work because NG is cheap and nuclear is unpopular.

JR

 

[Sammas]

The Paris climate accord talks about preventing a 2 degree rise but  a massive volcanic eruption can create a 1 degree drop. Rising temperature of the ocean is now being looked at with volcanic activity in the ocean itself.  Also high temperatures years are also affected by increased solar flare activity.  It's a very complex issue.  Also the swings are sine wave like in the course of 5000 years and can be related to the above mentioned earth's geological activity during this short period of time compared to the earth,s history over millions of years.  I felt it was a good article by climate scientists that agree a green future is a good direction but not the only issue when looking at the complex issue of the earths climate. 

Are they actually real scientists though? I mean, I don't think 'only scattered' and 'few' are remotely acceptable for any document claiming to be scientific. That is morning TV weatherman speak and nothing more. In fact, they haven't actually given any real figures for any eruptions that occur in the periods where temperature increases beyond the nominal 57 degrees F. I don't think the article really contains anything of use. They could really spice things up by adding the CO2 level to their graph, but perhaps it challenged the cyclical model they are trying to vaguely reference.

Good scientific articles appear in good scientific journals with references. That is nothing more than a opinion based blog post.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Are they actually real scientists though? I mean, I don't think 'only scattered' and 'few' are remotely acceptable for any document claiming to be scientific. That is morning TV weatherman speak and nothing more. In fact, they haven't actually given any real figures for any eruptions that occur in the periods where temperature increases beyond the nominal 57 degrees F. I don't think the article really contains anything of use. They could really spice things up by adding the CO2 level to their graph, but perhaps it challenged the cyclical model they are trying to vaguely reference.

Good scientific articles appear in good scientific journals with references. That is nothing more than a opinion based blog post.

I'd prefer to not argue over which call to authority is more authoritative and discuss things we agree about...

The earth is in a warming trend at the moment, like it has before.  (Empirical and measured with recent measurements more accurate than distant past))

By their own admission following the Paris accord will make rather small changes to this temperature over the next 100 years.  (These are based on model predictions that have been less than trustworthy but for the sake of argument let's accept them.)

The US contribution to this warming is even smaller. (By their own estimate, and economics is driving a shift to cleaner NG.).

I am starting to understand what this huge (many $B of dollars) global climate slush fund is about. The developing countries that are too poor to stop using dirty fossil fuels, need to effectively be bribed with the west's money to embrace the paris accord. The unwritten quid pro quo, is that  they will reduce emissions, "only" after they get fat clean energy project funding from the west . 

I am not opposed to helping poor nations, but wish the politicians would just one time tell the truth about they are doing just once... 

JR

PS: I predict that in the next 100 years we can develop much cheaper methods to modulate global temperature, IF it is prudent and sensible.  We can spend all the extra money for more directly humanitarian purposes (like teaching STEM in schools).

 

[Sammas]

I'd prefer to not argue over which call to authority is more authoritative and discuss things we agree about...

The earth is in a warming trend at the moment, like it has before.  (Empirical and measured with recent measurements more accurate than distant past))

By their own admission following the Paris accord will make rather small changes to this temperature over the next 100 years.  (These are based on model predictions that have been less than trustworthy but for the sake of argument let's accept them.)

The US contribution to this warming is even smaller. (By their own estimate, and economics is driving a shift to cleaner NG.).

I am starting to understand what this huge (many $B of dollars) global climate slush fund is about. The developing countries that are too poor to stop using dirty fossil fuels, need to effectively be bribed with the west's money to embrace the paris accord. The unwritten quid pro quo, is that  they will reduce emissions, "only" after they get fat clean energy project funding from the west . 

I am not opposed to helping poor nations, but wish the politicians would just one time tell the truth about they are doing just once... 

JR

PS: I predict that in the next 100 years we can develop much cheaper methods to modulate global temperature, IF it is prudent and sensible.  We can spend all the extra money for more directly humanitarian purposes (like teaching STEM in schools).

So you agree that the article lacks any scientific merit whatsoever?

 

[fazer]

So post what you think.  Why should I accept the failure on your part to discredit volcanic activity in the sea as unimportant.

 

[JohnRoberts]

So you agree that the article lacks any scientific merit whatsoever?

Don't make me do homework... I think the paris accord is on thin ice... which if they are correct is not a good place...

This is more about transferring wealth and political power, less about science which is just an authority claim used by the politicians to convince the sheeple to follow along and not ask questions (they blinded them with science).

JR

 

[Matador]

For those arguing that modelling isn't completely accurate and thus results should be discounted must, on principle alone, uninstall all circuit simulation tools like SPICE and agree to never use them to reason about circuits again.

 

[Sammas]

So post what you think.  Why should I accept the failure on your part to discredit volcanic activity in the sea as unimportant.

The article is garbage. It is no different to those free walking tours that you can do in cities around Europe. Highly entertaining? Sure. Gives a few vague insights to the past? Probably. Worth throwing them a few bob as a tip at the end? Perhaps... but fast and loose with the truth in the name of entertaining people.

Science is about nuance. It is about the fine detail. It is about hard data that people can cross check, analysis and form their own hypothesis and conclusions from. That article contains no hard data. It has no references. And any person who is sick of the politicalisation of the topic should be demanding much better, and condemning such articles to the waste bin. People should be sceptical. People should keep an open mind... but not so open that your brain leaks out. That article raises more questions than it even tries to answer.

What is their actual stance? Do they even have one? Or is it as vague as something like: temperatures on Earth have gone in cycles in the past? "Our planet seems to be in a cycle of constant change"??? Are they writing a school assignment? The planet IS in cycles of constant change, a reality that isn't missed by any climate scientist. The actual crux of the argument exists in the cause and effect... and even their attempt to document it disproves their fundamental point.

Just take their graph that brightly indicates 'Whenever solar radiation decreases and volcanic activity had increased, global temperatures SUDDENLY plummet often within weeks or years".  "a 500-Year plus span that extended from the early 1300s to the mid 1800s. During that time, there was little solar activity, or solar storms, which scientists refer to as the “Maunder Minimum.”

The Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715 and was a period observed minimal sunspot activity. The first solar flares weren't observed by humans until the Carrington Event in 1859 but they are closely linked in occurrence, both the result of magnetic field interaction on the Sun. How can the Maunder Minimum be associated with 'Temperatures suddenly plummeting" three centuries before the event actually took place? The event occurs during an upward temperature trend on their graph? It literally indicates the opposite of the conclusion they are trying to draw.

Why is that even remotely acceptable? Why shouldn't it raise more questions? Have they just glanced over it? Does their graph include a degree of smoothing? If it does, why did they include the effect of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcano eruption at a much more microscopic level? Is it because it just fits their conclusion? Why didn't they explain the cause behind volcanoes reducing temperatures (sulphur based aerosols and debris in the troposphere and stratosphere restricting light penetrating to the ground)? Was the consequences to life of eruptions like Lakagígar not worth a mention? Are they really trying to suggest that we are all going to be fine because the volcanoes are going to erupt and reduce the temperate? The graphic does seem to imply that conclusion... despite the data not actually correlating in a way that supports it.

The article is TERRIBLE. Climate, and climate change is complex, and that article is nothing but a hatchet job, politically motivated puff piece.

 

[Sammas]

Don't make me do homework... I think the paris accord is on thin ice... which if they are correct is not a good place...

This is more about transferring wealth and political power, less about science which is just an authority claim used by the politicians to convince the sheeple to follow along and not ask questions (they blinded them with science).

JR

Generate your own electricity and it becomes much less of an issue. The greater irony is that in Australia, the current government (sans prime minster) commissioned a report on renewable energy and chose a former CEO of Caltex to write it. The recommendations were adopted, which blatantly said that while renewable energy would reduce the end cost to consumers at the expense of mining jobs. Now my tax dollars just go to subsidising the construction of one of the biggest coal mines in the world, Indian owned, which has the sole purpose of exporting the coal back to India.

Seems like swings and roundabouts really. Owning a source of renewable energy has become a no brainer in Australia though. Investment schemes are popping up all over the place, that pay a healthy 6 or 7% return... well beyond the 2% of term deposits, etc.

 

[ruffrecords]

For those arguing that modelling isn't completely accurate and thus results should be discounted must, on principle alone, uninstall all circuit simulation tools like SPICE and agree to never use them to reason about circuits again.

As any engineer knows, spice is only a guide to how a circuit might perform. The models of the components and the overall construction of the circuit contain considerable simplifications to make the math tractable.  It will give you and idea of what the circuit will do but no more. There is no substitute for building and measuring the real thing. Climate 'models' are even worse in this respect. Any engineer also knows that the result you get often depends critically on the initial conditions you set. Climate models don't even bother to check how this alters their 'predictions'. Unfortunately they also cannot build the real thing, we just have to wait and see how wrong they were.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

For those arguing that modelling isn't completely accurate and thus results should be discounted must, on principle alone, uninstall all circuit simulation tools like SPICE and agree to never use them to reason about circuits again.

I never did use spice or modelling tools, back in the old days they were only as good as the device models and coding so  could give unreliable results. You kind of needed to know the results in advance to properly code the simulation, easier to just design the circuit and bench test it.  Back in the '70's I did write my own computer program to plot out the amplitude response of cascaded active filters with real cap and real resistor values , saved me a bunch of time designing exotic cascaded active filters for analog delay lines.. 
=======
I guess I am not being clear,,,  my problem is not with the science (even though it is not as precise as they pretend) but the politics.  If we were to cut carbon emissions to zero (an impossibility), the mass of carbon already in the atmosphere would still be there for centuries.  I repeat this hypothetical existential threat (politicians claim people will die, but I guess they mean "more" people will die. ) is being proffered as an excuse to control more of the private economy and transfer more wealth to poor nations (the quid pro quo behind their participation in the Paris accord).  Poor nations can't afford to pay more for energy, that would indeed kill people, but they will embrace any advanced energy technology we give them for free..

I submit that if we ever do need to actively cool (or warm) the planet there are remedies in modulating absorption or reflection of sunlight. Not unlike the short term cooling after massive volcanoes we could cool the planet with increased upper atmosphere reflective particulates. We could increase absorption with treatments of the ocean surface (like iron seeding to create algae blooms). Now that's science,  8)  but I also repeat, we better be damn sure about what we are doing before messing with mother nature on such a massive scale.

The irony of all the political machinations surrounding Kyoto and now Paris  accord is that it will have negligible effect on our climate (probably a good thing considering the folks in charge) . It will have a dramatic effect on GDP and redistribution of wealth, their real goal IMO.

I am not opposed to helping impoverished nations but let's be honest about what we are doing...

JR

PS: for an interesting (to me at least) footnote on this, archeologists have recently discovered human remains  of early homo sapiens  dating back 200,000-300,000 years. Looking at the record of past ice ages this means humans have survived one maybe two ice ages. I won't lose much sleep over a couple degrees rise (?) per century.

 

[Phrazemaster]

What is distressing to me is the complete bashing of any opposing viewpoint surrounding climate change. If you think we humans are not the primary drivers of climate change, you are a "climate denier" and the label prevents articulate discourse. The so-called "science" is not at all "settled" and I would appreciate more open and honest discussion and research. Unless scientists get funding, they cannot research anything - they are not handing out grants to those looking into natural (non-human) causes of global warming. To fund only research that confirms your opinion guarantees you get more results confirming your opinion, the exact opposite of the scientific mandate and a glaring obstruction of what it means to research. Whether or not the OP article is "hard science" or just a junk blog as some has stated, is not the point. What is at stake is greater than this: honest inquiry.

 

[ruffrecords]

+1 to that.

Cheers

Ian