• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

SNOWMANN

Formerly Mcdowell_Weather
Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
954
Reaction score
1,205
Location
Marion, NC
Any of you boys down on the coast of NC live near one of them pellet mills that gets shipped to Europe for there energy I watch a cool documentary about it. Sounds like a con were giving up our forest so Europe can look good on paper to cut down emissions.
 

Lickwx

Ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise?
Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
9,772
Reaction score
11,898
Location
Lizard Lick, NC
Any of you boys down on the coast of NC live near one of them pellet mills that gets shipped to Europe for there energy I watch a cool documentary about it. Sounds like a con were giving up our forest so Europe can look good on paper to cut down emissions.
Yeah I know exactly you are talking about . @metwannabe lives in the central area for it all. Halifax , Warren , and Northampton county are one giant pine plantation.


 

SNOWMANN

Formerly Mcdowell_Weather
Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
954
Reaction score
1,205
Location
Marion, NC
Yeah I know exactly you are talking about . @metwannabe lives in the central area for it all. Halifax , Warren , and Northampton county are one giant pine plantation.


Yeah thats it. It sounds like a joke to me.
 

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
1,073
Reaction score
2,078
Location
Clemmons, NC
Nice job cherry picking an IPCC report that’s now 3 issues old and completely taking it out of context (as @EastAtlwx has said above). As for it not being made public, every IPCC report is public.
Sorry Eric, at the time of the reports release, it was not given to the media or the public and you don't think that was intentional? Sure they are released now, but the media reported on the conference without having that tidbit to read. Like most dissenting opinions, it was censured out until the damage was done and no longer a "story". When the models can predict clouds and water vapor content then they will start being more predictive but that day is far far away.
From the latest NASA CERES data it appears that models will need to add ocean cycles such as the PDO and AMO to get even close to accurate cloud data. The data shows a significant reduction in clouds around 2014 that appears to be tied to the PDO. The added solar energy from fewer clouds led to an increase of +1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020 (most of it in the last 6 years)
comment image
This energy is actually more than enough to explain all the warming over those 20 years. One might even conclude increasing CO2 provided cooling to offset some of that warming.
 

Webberweather53

Meteorologist
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
47,060
Location
Desert Southwest 🌵
Sorry Eric, at the time of the reports release, it was not given to the media or the public and you don't think that was intentional? Sure they are released now, but the media reported on the conference without having that tidbit to read. Like most dissenting opinions, it was censured out until the damage was done and no longer a "story". When the models can predict clouds and water vapor content then they will start being more predictive but that day is far far away.
From the latest NASA CERES data it appears that models will need to add ocean cycles such as the PDO and AMO to get even close to accurate cloud data. The data shows a significant reduction in clouds around 2014 that appears to be tied to the PDO. The added solar energy from fewer clouds led to an increase of +1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020 (most of it in the last 6 years)
comment image
This energy is actually more than enough to explain all the warming over those 20 years. One might even conclude increasing CO2 provided cooling to offset some of that warming.

Sorry Eric, at the time of the reports release, it was not given to the media or the public and you don't think that was intentional?

They've always been released and made very public, how exactly is that the fault of the scientists developing these reports exactly like they're trying to purposely hide something as you've appeared to insinuate? This seems like you're just extremely misinformed and out-of-the-loop here because the IPCC reports have been widely publicized during the entire 21st century (if you don't believe me, see Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth released in 2006 (never was a fan of this, and it was at best a wild over exaggeration of reality, but the point is the publicity has been there for a long time, I don't think you can really make that argument here).


When the models can predict clouds and water vapor content then they will start being more predictive but that day is far far away.

Sure, accurately modeling clouds and mainly aerosol cloud feedbacks (water vapor not necessarily, it has more to do w/ fine, sub-grid scale precipitation more-so than just water vapor in general) will make the models more valuable but overall their predictions haven't been so awful they aren't valuable. Against observed temperature changes, the first several IPCC reports have fared pretty well, slightly warmer than forecast overall, but well within the range of uncertainty of modeled scenarios.

IPCC's latest take on this is fairly reasonable.
Some CMIP6 models demonstrate an improvement in how clouds are represented. CMIP5 models commonly displayed a negative shortwave cloud radiative effect that was too weak in the present climate. These errors have been reduced, especially over the Southern Ocean, due to a more realistic simulation of supercooled liquid droplets with sufficient numbers and an associated increase in the cloud optical depth. Because a negative cloud optical depth feedback in response to surface warming results from ‘brightening’ of clouds via active phase change from ice to liquid cloud particles (increasing their shortwave cloud radiative effect), the extratropical cloud shortwave feedback in CMIP6 models tends to be less negative, leading to a better agreement with observational estimates (medium confidence). CMIP6 models generally, represent more processes that drive aerosol–cloud interactions than the previous generation of climate models, but there is only medium confidence that those enhancements improve their fitness-for-purpose of simulating radiative forcing of aerosol–cloud interactions

IPCC AR4 (2005) vs HADCRUT4
AR4-comparison-1536x904.png
IPCC report vs AR3 (2001) prediction
TAR-comparison-1536x1008.png

IPCC AR1 (1990) prediction vs actual global temperature
FAR-comparison-1536x904.png


From the latest NASA CERES data it appears that models will need to add ocean cycles such as the PDO and AMO to get even close to accurate cloud data

First of all, in order to derive the PDO and AMO oscillations, it's actually common practice to remove global warming (detrending) from the mean SST first before computing the index, so it's actually going to reflect basic state climate changes by the way it's calculated (i.e. the correlation between AGW and these phenomena is actually artificial). Btw, these oscillations don't really change the total amount of heat in the earth system or contribute to net cooling or warming of the climate over long periods of time, rather oceanic variability (including ENSO) only fluxes heat around (& change when/where the heat is stored + released) and manifesting as internal variability that gets superimposed onto a warming climate.


The data shows a significant reduction in clouds around 2014 that appears to be tied to the PDO.

I've seen some make the link between clouds and the PDO, but the PDO was actually positive (& strongly so especially in the 2nd half of the year) during 2014, so this actually isn't true. This could have contributed to earlier reductions in clouds during 2010-2013, but definitely make sure you check and double check the data before making claims like these.

2014 -0.56 -0.42 0.30 0.36 1.26 -0.29 0.24 0.33 0.75 1.42 1.35 1.85

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/index/ersst.v5.pdo.dat


"This energy is actually more than enough to explain all the warming over those 20 years.

Wow, this is a really, really bold claim and not consistent at all with published literature and the IPCC's latest assessment reports which characterize these as internal variability, and not sufficient to explain much of the most recent warming. Do you have any real literature to back you up on this one, or are you making this up?


One might even conclude increasing CO2 provided cooling to offset some of that warming."

Huh? This sentence is just complete & utter nonsense. You desperately need to educate yourself on the basics of greenhouse gases before commenting again. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the troposphere (& blocks it from escaping into the stratosphere), at specific infrared wavelengths in large part because of its tri polar atomic structure that gives it more degrees of freedom than oxygen and nitrogen (O2 and N2 respectively). CO2's influence on the climate is positive and very strongly so at that, adding more of it warms the climate, there's absolutely no debate on that one.



climate-forcing-figure2-2016.png
 

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
1,073
Reaction score
2,078
Location
Clemmons, NC
Eric, what are the error bars in GCM'S? Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid 1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid 1980s and late 1990s. Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance, then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq meter. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sq metre). So, the fact that the NASA GISS GCM has problems representing clouds must call into question the entire performance of the GCM.
 

Webberweather53

Meteorologist
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
47,060
Location
Desert Southwest 🌵
Eric, what are the error bars in GCM'S? Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid 1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid 1980s and late 1990s. Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance, then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq meter. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sq metre). So, the fact that the NASA GISS GCM has problems representing clouds must call into question the entire performance of the GCM.

Well, the problem is we actually don't really know for certain what the actual sign of the radiative forcing is from cloud cover, there's a legitimate chance it's actually not significantly negative at all as you're assuming (notice the error bar is anywhere from close to 0 to nearly -1.5 for clouds), because it's dependent on cloud type, the height of the cloud, (cirrus actually contribute to warming, whereas deep Cb favor cooling (at least at the sfc), the types of aerosols contained within it, which impacts albedo, opacity, the feedbacks between these aerosols and clouds, as well as which types are more prominent + when/where they occur, and many of these processes occur at the micro/sub-grid scale level that can't be accurately simulated (& are too computationally expensive (for now) to explicitly resolve.



As for the reduction in top of atmosphere (TOA) outgoing longwave radiation and the graph you showed earlier, there are a lot of reasons for that change, it's not just 100% related to clouds and the total forcing change from that is not anywhere close to being consistent with even the most extremely conservative estimates of the uncertainty cloud radiative feedback. The change you're seeing in TOA radiation (decrease of 5-10 W/m2) actually comes mostly from the so-called blocking effect of outgoing longwave infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the troposphere, that reduces top of the atmosphere radiation because less of earth's heat is escaping out into space/at the top of the atmosphere and instead laying within the troposphere. Aside from man-made CO2 & CH4 (which are agreed to constitute most of the change) a small contribution of could be reasonably coming from increasing ozone levels as well following the Montreal Protocol.
 

weatherfide

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
2,517
Location
Faytteville, GA
Above preindustrial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When, pre-industrial? How does anyone know what the temperature of the globe was in 1700? 1800? or even 1200? How many scientists believe that global temperatures are going rise so fast and with such magnitude that all life on the planet will be in jeopardy? Just because we foolishly built a ton of cities and development in low lying areas doesn't make global warming a catastrophe. Many of these areas are subject to many risks unrelated to rising water levels. They are Tsunami prone, hurricane prone, alligator and snake prone, etc. If we would just not build in these areas, would we still feel the same sense of concern over global warming?

I'm glad it's not global cooling by the way. That would be truly catastrophic very quickly.
 

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
3,440
Reaction score
3,073
Location
Raleigh, NC
Yea they keep kicking that can down the road just like we do with snow. Ice is melting bla bla

When the Thwaites glacier collapses all hell is going to break loose as sea level will rise over 2 feet just from that alone and then several more feet as the ice sheet behind starts dumping into the ocean. It's a domino effect that would cause a very rapid sea level rise with no time to prepare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

NoSnowATL

I like warmth
Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
13,221
Reaction score
23,929
Location
Georgia
When the Thwaites glacier collapses all hell is going to break loose as sea level will rise over 2 feet just from that alone and then several more feet as the ice sheet behind starts dumping into the ocean. It's a domino effect that would cause a very rapid sea level rise with no time to prepare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let’s go!
 

Avalanche

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
4,066
Location
Chapel Hill
TWC running a segment right now on 2021 being the warmest year in over 100 years. Theyre urging Congress to pass the BBB bill that will provide lifesaving cooling to urban areas that dont have the infrastructure to combat the rapid global warming.
 

Bham 99

Supporter
Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
6,884
Reaction score
7,381
Location
Birmingham and Tallahassee
TWC running a segment right now on 2021 being the warmest year in over 100 years. Theyre urging Congress to pass the BBB bill that will provide lifesaving cooling to urban areas that dont have the infrastructure to combat the rapid global warming.
Maybe they should try to change where the temperature is taken. That would solve a lot of the problems that they say we have.
 
Top