Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /home3/eastern/public_html/bb/conf_global.php:1) in /home3/eastern/public_html/bb/admin/sources/base/ipsRegistry.php on line 486

Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /home3/eastern/public_html/bb/conf_global.php:1) in /home3/eastern/public_html/bb/admin/sources/base/ipsRegistry.php on line 486

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home3/eastern/public_html/bb/conf_global.php:1) in /home3/eastern/public_html/bb/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 114

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home3/eastern/public_html/bb/conf_global.php:1) in /home3/eastern/public_html/bb/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 127
What temperature threshold would change your mind? - Eastern US Weather Forums - Page 3

Jump to content


What temperature threshold would change your mind?


47 replies to this topic

Poll: Please read the instructions below. (9 member(s) have cast votes)

If you are a "Skeptic" how much warmer/cooler would the 2010s have to be than the 2000s to convince you to become a "Lukewarmer"?

  1. -.1C (1 votes [11.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

  2. -.05C (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. 0C (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. .05C (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. .1C (4 votes [44.44%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 44.44%

  6. .15C (1 votes [11.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

  7. .2C (1 votes [11.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

  8. .25C (2 votes [22.22%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

If you are a "Skeptic" how much warmer/cooler would the 2010s have to be than the 2000s to convince you to be in the "IPCC camp"?

  1. -.05C (1 votes [11.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

  2. 0C (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. .05C (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. .1C (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. .15C (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. .2C (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. .25C (4 votes [44.44%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 44.44%

  8. .3C (4 votes [44.44%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 44.44%

How much warmer/cooler do you expect it will be?

  1. -.3C (2 votes [22.22%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  2. -.2C (1 votes [11.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

  3. -.15C (1 votes [11.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

  4. -.1C (1 votes [11.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

  5. -.05C (2 votes [22.22%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  6. 0C (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. .05C (2 votes [22.22%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  8. .1C (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 ORH_wxman

    SNE wx FOCUS

  • Meteorologist
  • 48,610 posts
  • Location:KORH

Posted 22 October 2010 - 01:58 AM

NZucker, the solar forcing was once researched more extensively in the 1970s and 1980s....however, there seemed to be a "lull" in research once the CO2 hype took over. But it seems to be picking up again. Obviously we have much better tools now than back then.

I do not think we really know much yet in terms of solar...and its subset of impacts (like the cosmic rays you bring up when solar mins occur). I agree that the questioning of the IPCC is only healthy for the science. They obviously have a warm bias and questions only help improve the science. The only bad part of it, is that because politics has become heavily involved, we have to deal with a lot of irrelevant attacks on credibility, motives, and such instead of that actual points at hand. Its too bad, but I think maybe we are headed back in the right direction now that these questions are becoming more public and the decade of zero global temperature change has pretty much forced the issue a bit more.

#42 skierinvermont

  • Members
  • 11,076 posts
  • Location:Lyme, CT

Posted 22 October 2010 - 02:37 AM

View PostNZucker, on 22 October 2010 - 01:49 AM, said:

All this article says is that cosmic rays cannot account for more than 15% of the warming since 1970, and that the connection between clouds and cosmic rays has not been strong since the mid 1990s. However, we've been in a solar maximum for most of this time and thus the cosmic rays may not be as important. It's possible that a solar minimum provides a certain threshold number of cosmic rays that cause cloud cover formation and thus cooling, and that this effect loses coherence outside of the unusual environment of a strong solar minimum such as the Maunder or Dalton. These would be questions to ask the authors of the study and the IPCC. Considering how closely solar activity has paralleled global temperatures since 1500, and how dramatic the cooling from the Maunder was, we need to find a mechanism for this cooling. If a decline in total irradiance cannot explain why solar minimums cool the Earth, then we need to move onto cosmic rays or other explanations. We know solar is important, so we have to find out why, and the IPCC doesn't seem to be that dedicated. If I'm reading correctly, the IPCC 2007 has only a short section on solar and only one sentence in that section about the cosmic ray connection. That's a product of their belief in AGW theory as well as the time period in which the report was prepared.

I didn't mischaracterize anything. I just said we know solar can have a strong cooling/warming effect, and we need to find out why in order to make more accurate predictions about global temperatures. This does nothing to invalidate my stance that a solar minimum coinciding with a strong -PDO/-AMO and increases in volcanic activity could reduce surface temperatures significantly and put the IPCC GCMs into serious question, more serious trouble than they already find themselves in when most of the scenarios are barely in the confidence range during the planet's warmest state, a strong El Niño. Maybe it isn't cosmic rays that drive temperature changes from solar variation, but something has to be doing it, and we know solar state will be important to future temperatures, probably more important than what the IPCC says.

I don't think it's irresponsible at all. I am searching for a mechanism to explain solar's observed effect on global temperatures, and I haven't found it yet. Cosmic rays is one possibility though probably not the whole picture, and it could be something different that we don't understand at all yet. Just think, Andrew, the PDO wasn't discovered until the mid 1990s, and look at how important it is turning out to be in both global temperature patterns and snowfall/temperature regimes in the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. I think the IPCC is very overconfident in our knowledge of the whole system that constitutes global climate, just thinking we can plug it into a computer and have an answer, when that approach has already failed before. I don't think the problem is the specific computer model, it's the philosophy and the hubris. There's so much we don't understand about the climate, many of the expert predictions about arctic sea ice and temperature rises have been a failure, and so I remain somewhat of a skeptic.

I do have a well-reasoned opinion...I don't think any meteorologist would deny that a -PDO, strong solar minimum (by whatever mechanism), -AMO, and volcanic eruption couldn't take us out of the IPCC confidence interval and get us to -0.1C temperature. That's what I'm proposing for the 2030 estimate. And I even said earlier I don't like to guess these things, which is why I didn't participate originally in the polls. I also think questioning science is the way science gets better. AGW has become too much of a status quo, and the field needs to be shaken up a bit in accounting for more natural forcings as well as questioning why computer models are not doing a good job, and whether they are really useful at all in the debate. And people having a variety of opinions is not chaos; it's called democracy and good science. As you know, I've read a handful of books about AGW, researched the PDO extensively, followed the global temperature debate extensively. So I'm not just throwing meaningless stuff out there. I'm also a committed environmentalist who actually thinks the planet's health is bettered by skepticism.

1) Where did I say having a variety of opinions is bad? I said people should have well-reasoned opinions. See the difference?

2) You were suggesting that cosmic rays could cause significant cooling. The science discounts anything more than a very slight effect.

3) Sure anybody would agree a megavolcano volcano could cool us by .1C by 2030, even the IPCC. So what? Do you have evidence a megavolcano will occur in the 2030s? Even then the effect will be temporary unless you are talking about Yellowstone or something like that.

4) Climate models are already able to reproduce paleoclimate temperatures well. The exact effects of solar could be known better but the effect is not going to be large enough to overwhelm CO2 even if we head into a Dalton.

#43 ORH_wxman

    SNE wx FOCUS

  • Meteorologist
  • 48,610 posts
  • Location:KORH

Posted 22 October 2010 - 02:43 AM

View Postskierinvermont, on 22 October 2010 - 02:37 AM, said:

1) Where did I say having a variety of opinions is bad? I said people should have well-reasoned opinions. See the difference?

2) You were suggesting that cosmic rays could cause significant cooling. The science discounts anything more than a very slight effect.

3) Sure anybody would agree a megavolcano volcano could cool us by .1C by 2030, even the IPCC. So what? Do you have evidence a megavolcano is coming?

4) Climate models are already able to reproduce paleoclimate temperatures well. The exact effects of solar could be known better but the effect is not going to be large enough to overwhelm CO2 even if we head into a Dalton.


Those are good arguments...but why we have not warmed in the past decade? IPCC obviously didn't anticipate that when they issued their 2001 report.

#44 NZucker

  • Members
  • 6,185 posts
  • Location:Dobbs Ferry, NY

Posted 22 October 2010 - 03:51 AM

View Postskierinvermont, on 22 October 2010 - 02:37 AM, said:

1) Where did I say having a variety of opinions is bad? I said people should have well-reasoned opinions. See the difference?

2) You were suggesting that cosmic rays could cause significant cooling. The science discounts anything more than a very slight effect.

3) Sure anybody would agree a megavolcano volcano could cool us by .1C by 2030, even the IPCC. So what? Do you have evidence a megavolcano will occur in the 2030s? Even then the effect will be temporary unless you are talking about Yellowstone or something like that.

4) Climate models are already able to reproduce paleoclimate temperatures well. The exact effects of solar could be known better but the effect is not going to be large enough to overwhelm CO2 even if we head into a Dalton.


1) You seemed to be accusing me of being irresponsible because I was introducing a variety of controversial natural forcings which could cause IPCC warming estimates to be incorrect. My opinion is plenty well-reasoned: As I've stated before, solar variation has been known to influence global temperatures significantly. There has to be a mechanism for this, and cosmic rays might be a small part of the picture. There are other parts of the picture that we don't understand yet, and we certainly don't know how a strong solar minimum might combine with a -PDO/-AMO and increasing volcanic activity....that's why it's dangerous to conjecture about future temperatures using computer models. That's why I think IPCC modeling is flawed even though their ideas about greenhouse gases aren't incorrect.

Furthermore, my viewpoint on a meteorology board is not akin to my viewpoint about public policy. In terms of public policy, we have to use the precautionary principle to a certain extent, which would lead us to conclude that cuts in emissions are warranted despite uncertainties in the science. Also, cutting emissions would have other benefits such as reducing urban air pollution and acid rain, alleviating our dependence on hostile countries for fuel, and stretching out our dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. So I can't be labeled as "irresponsible" in a meteorological discussion of global warming...it's apples to oranges my friend.

2)Cosmic rays might have some impact. We haven't had many big solar minimums to test out the theory. It sounds as if they're not the complete answer. I never said they were. Once again you are reducing my argument's complexity in order to repudiate it.

3)I'm not talking about a mega-volcano. I'm talking about something like Katla and perhaps another Icelandic or Indonesian volcanic eruption that could affect global climate, especially when it's combined with other variables. Sure, the effect may be temporary, but it also might have some consequences on albedo that last longer than the actual sulfur dioxide clouds ejected into the stratosphere. More variables that are difficult to account for in computer models....

4)I never said solar activity would overwhelm CO2 alone. It's the combined influence/feedback where we lack understanding and knowledge. Also, it seems that rather minor factors such as the PDO switch in the 1950s can overwhelm the warming influence of carbon emissions, so perhaps carbon isn't as strong a driver as some make it out to be.

#45 skierinvermont

  • Members
  • 11,076 posts
  • Location:Lyme, CT

Posted 22 October 2010 - 02:23 PM

View PostORH_wxman, on 22 October 2010 - 02:43 AM, said:

Those are good arguments...but why we have not warmed in the past decade? IPCC obviously didn't anticipate that when they issued their 2001 report.

Well I mean I think I pretty much agree with you except on semantics.. they did anticipate in effect because it was within the confidence interval for most models. I agree they didn't think it was the most likely scenario.. but a decade of no warming is certainly possible within most models. It lends credence I think to the models which thought that such a scenario was more likely (within an 80 or 90% confidence interval) and discounts those for which it is only in their 95% interval (or perhaps even less likely on some models).

#46 skierinvermont

  • Members
  • 11,076 posts
  • Location:Lyme, CT

Posted 22 October 2010 - 02:25 PM

View PostNZucker, on 22 October 2010 - 03:51 AM, said:

1) You seemed to be accusing me of being irresponsible because I was introducing a variety of controversial natural forcings which could cause IPCC warming estimates to be incorrect. My opinion is plenty well-reasoned: As I've stated before, solar variation has been known to influence global temperatures significantly. There has to be a mechanism for this, and cosmic rays might be a small part of the picture. There are other parts of the picture that we don't understand yet, and we certainly don't know how a strong solar minimum might combine with a -PDO/-AMO and increasing volcanic activity....that's why it's dangerous to conjecture about future temperatures using computer models. That's why I think IPCC modeling is flawed even though their ideas about greenhouse gases aren't incorrect.

Furthermore, my viewpoint on a meteorology board is not akin to my viewpoint about public policy. In terms of public policy, we have to use the precautionary principle to a certain extent, which would lead us to conclude that cuts in emissions are warranted despite uncertainties in the science. Also, cutting emissions would have other benefits such as reducing urban air pollution and acid rain, alleviating our dependence on hostile countries for fuel, and stretching out our dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. So I can't be labeled as "irresponsible" in a meteorological discussion of global warming...it's apples to oranges my friend.

2)Cosmic rays might have some impact. We haven't had many big solar minimums to test out the theory. It sounds as if they're not the complete answer. I never said they were. Once again you are reducing my argument's complexity in order to repudiate it.

3)I'm not talking about a mega-volcano. I'm talking about something like Katla and perhaps another Icelandic or Indonesian volcanic eruption that could affect global climate, especially when it's combined with other variables. Sure, the effect may be temporary, but it also might have some consequences on albedo that last longer than the actual sulfur dioxide clouds ejected into the stratosphere. More variables that are difficult to account for in computer models....

4)I never said solar activity would overwhelm CO2 alone. It's the combined influence/feedback where we lack understanding and knowledge. Also, it seems that rather minor factors such as the PDO switch in the 1950s can overwhelm the warming influence of carbon emissions, so perhaps carbon isn't as strong a driver as some make it out to be.

IPCC and climate science in general has constrained the significance of all the variables you are referring to within certain bounds of uncertainty. You don't have a well-reasoned argument until you show me why those constraints are wrong (and you clearly believe they are wrong or you would not suggest we could cool .1C or more by the 2030s).

It would also take much more than Katla to put more than a small short dent in global temperatures. Many if not most Katla eruptions are not big enough to have a climactic effect, and the biggest are probably still smaller than Pinatubo was (and even Pinatubo had a very shot lived effect allowing the 90s were much warmer than the 80s)

#47 Blue Sky

  • Members
  • 12,378 posts
  • Location:North Penn Valley Pennsylvania

Posted 22 October 2010 - 03:11 PM

I reject that higher temperatures are Proof of AGW.

#48 NYNorthcountry

  • Banned
  • 168 posts
  • Location:Northern Adirondacks

Posted 22 October 2010 - 03:17 PM

View PostBlue Sky, on 22 October 2010 - 03:11 PM, said:

I reject that higher temperatures are Proof of AGW.


I think most people agree with you. However nobody's saying that.




Reply to this topic



  


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users