Printable View
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
I am not sure what report you are talking about but this one considers alternative causes (including solar irradiance along with volcanic activity). I posted this link when you claimed it didn't the first time. You had no argument at the time, more or less accepting the fact that you're not very bright...
I don't suppose that after reading the introduction one may expect to find much about Earth's precession or Milankovich's cycles there. I don't suppose that there is anything about plants either. I mean anything meaningful...
-In my days, If I handed-in a report decorated with statements such as: "However, this effect is variable; sometimes plants acclimate so that higher CO2concentrations no longer enhance growth(...)" "Atmospheric aerosols are perhaps the most complex and most uncertain component of forcing due (...)" Not only would my work be immediately rejected, but it would probably also be used as ridiculing material at an appropriate occasion during, say the following class in the lab. - This is not scienece. This is literature. I am not reading this report to admire someones writing skills and broad vocabulary.
What about main statement that you are so eagerly advocate here - one that actually reads that humans are causing global warming? Cannot wait till you point me to that because so far you we have all missed it and it is actually the most important thing.
There is an entire section that discusses the contribution of humans to global warming which I linked for you several months ago and you had no objection to. I have acknowledged I am not an expert on the subject and have not had any formal study of climate. But in my view, if I made one claim in a post and someone demonstrated it was addressed, I would not change the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
The reason I preface what I said with my lack of expertise is because I am uncertain what I am about to say is correct. But I think that the report looks at something more proximate than Earth's precession to determine whether precession could be a cause of climate change. Wouldn't a change in the Earth's precession change the amount and distribution of solar energy transferred to Earth? Maybe you can answer for me. How does a change in Earth's precession mediate changes in temperatures? Isn't it because of proximity of regions of Earth to the sun? And isn't this measurement captured? Genuinely interested.
Isn't that what this section says? I know you have objections like they're communists and other things but that's what the entire section goes about discussing...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/
Earth’s climate is undergoing substantial change due to anthropogenic activities (Ch. 1: Our Globally Changing Climate).
"Human activities continue to significantly affect Earth’s climate by altering factors that change its radiative balance. These factors, known as radiative forcings, include changes in greenhouse gases, small airborne particles (aerosols), and the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface. In the industrial era, human activities have been, and are increasingly, the dominant cause of climate warming. The increase in radiative forcing due to these activities has far exceeded the relatively small net increase due to natural factors, which include changes in energy from the sun and the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions."
Oh. So my objection based e.g. on this chart https://science2017.globalchange.gov.../figure2_1.png (which is so far from where it is referred to it that you forget what you are reading about by the time you scroll half of the chapter to see it - yet another reason to dismiss the piece of communist literature right at that point), which shows that there is a dP = 1W/m/m (or as they state underneath a dP'=0.6W/m/m) between the energy that bounces of Earth and energy absorbed by Earth is not valid, is it? Why then, if you read on it is stated that "Geothermal heat from Earth’s interior, direct heating from energy production, and frictional heating through tidal flows also contribute to the amount of energy available for heating Earth’s surface and atmosphere, but their total contribution is an extremely small fraction (< 0.1%) of that due to net solar (shortwave) and infrared (longwave) radiation" Which basically means that 0.1% of this 339W/m/m is "extremely low" So 1W/m/m is worth noting butt 0.3W/m/m, which is 30% of that worth noting value - is not worth noting and analysing further... I wonder if the authors ever even actually considered errors that those measuring instruments and methods used by the pseudo-scientists who allegedly conducted the research this report is based on introduce. Or that there is also a significant difference between a watt and a kilowatt.
...And "signifficantly affecting" or "climate is undergoing substantial change" does not exactly mean that humans "cause global warming". So no, it is not what the section says.
I had not looked at the chart. I will have to do that later if I am able. I simply don't expect that even if I spent weeks analyzing the report I'd be able to understand every aspect of what people have spent their entire adult lives thinking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
But this is what is in the middle of that paragraph I quoted. I think you misrepresented it by cherry-picking words:
"In the industrial era, human activities have been, and are increasingly, the dominant cause of climate warming". That is fairly unequivocal. Dominant cause not sole cause. This is in the part that explains their conclusions.
Human activities continue to significantly affect Earth’s climate by altering factors that change its radiative balance.
- This means that we somehow contribute to changes in radiative balance. I would like to see quantification of the "significantly" especially that...
These factors, known as radiative forcings, include changes in greenhouse gases,
- which might mean that greenhouse gases are only a small part of what causes radiative balances' changes; and greenhouse gases are only one of the radiative forcings, since others are:
small airborne particles (aerosols), and the reflectivity of Earth’s surface.
In the industrial era, human activities have been, and are increasingly, the dominant cause of climate warming.
-A statement out of context considering what was previously said and untrustworthy if you read the report. We suddenly have not changes but climate warming.
The increase in radiative forcing due to these activities has far exceeded the relatively small net increase due to natural factors, which include changes in energy from the sun and the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions. (Very high confidence)
More meaningless rubbish that makes one want to bin the whole thing for wasting one's time on "those activities" "far exceeded" and "relatively small increase"... And the bit about volcanic eruptions' cooling effect? Really? Was that necessary to meet the word quota or something? Basically this key finding should be just the "In the industrial era, human activities have been, and are increasingly, the dominant cause of climate warming. " Only that "human activities" and "increasingly" should be more specific, and what Trish would probably wank over - quantified.
It is quantified. We went over all of this months ago. It describes the human activities in detail and then quantifies their contribution to climate change. I can point you to the section but I can't teach you how to read. You said something wasn't said, I showed you it was said verbatim and you can't even acknowledge it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Your deconstruction of that paragraph only makes me question your literacy.
This from the girl who insists on arguing about the Solar flux even after she made it abundantly clear she doesn’t have the faintest hint what ‘flux’ is or how the greenhouse model works. But no matter how much you flatter me, I’m still going to let you can do your own research. To get you started here’s the 5th IPCC report. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
The following is not an example of my eristics, but a statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
“We do know with a good degree of certainty that between 1750-2011, or since the beginning of the industrial period until today, the average increase in energy hitting a given area of the atmosphere (radiative forcing, measured in a unit called watts per square meter) due to heat-trapping gases is 56 times greater (~ 2.83 watts per square meter) than the increase in radiative forcing from the small shift in the sun’s energy (~0.05 watts per square meter).
In its Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC scientists evaluated simulations of historical climate variables using a number of numerical models. They first assumed no increase in heat-trapping gases since 1750, so that the temperatures calculated were those that would have been achieved if only solar variability, volcanic eruptions, and other natural climate drivers were included.
The temperature results were similar to observed temperatures only for the first half of the century, but the models did not accurately show the general warming trend that has been recorded during the second half of the twentieth century.
When computer models include human-induced heat-trapping gases, they accurately reproduce the observed warming during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
The evidence shows that although fluctuations in the amount of solar energy reaching our atmosphere do influence our climate, the global warming trend of the past six decades cannot be attributed to changes in the sun.”___ https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...l#.Wm3kYoUqmHl
Notice one can tweak the knobs on the standard climate model to include or exclude various factors so that one may compare the predicted effects of those factors. Whether you’re concerned with fluctuations in the Sun’s luminosity, the Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, vulcanism or warming via geothermals one consistently finds that the blanketing effect due to the anthropogenic rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere swamps all other possible causes of our current warming.
We already discussed Milankovitch cycles:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
“The Earth’s precession (the gyroscopic wobble of its spin axis), it’s orbital eccentricity and other orbital parameters vary through a complex set of not yet thoroughly understood cycles called the Milankovitch cycles. As you say, variations in these parameters will induce variations in the flux of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and do (when acting in synchrony) force changes in the Earth’s climate. The cyclic occurrences of Earth’s ice-ages are linked to the Milankovitch cycles. These cycles have (on a human scale) very large periods: on the order of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years (the period of Earth’s precession is somewhere around 25000 years and the period in the variations of Earth’s eccentricity is on the order of 112000 years). That’s why over the period of a mere 200 years these variations are largely negligible. However, if you want to include them in the current climate model, know that the Milankovich cycles are now slowing (by a very very small amount) the warming of the Earth. But they are no match against the greenhouse gases that billions of people have been dumping into the atmosphere over the past 1.5 centuries.”___ from post #1585
Your only response came sometime later when you complained, without adding specifics, that we weren’t addressing the issue of Milankovitch cycles to your satisfaction.
At present, the Milankovitch Cycles cannot explain the current increase in global temperature.___from http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/...StudyR2014.pdf