The climate change debate continues.

[Dax]

13 hours ago, octave said:

I have looked at a battery for my rooftop solar.

His battery is solely for his car, he is already off grid like me and doesn't have any power bills. Return on investment depends on how you go about it, the simplest way is to buy a few lifepo4 cells to make up a small battery, buy an ebay inverter and switch to it at night. Once you decide what you really need, you can expand your battery and get the best of both worlds. Free power, excess to the grid. Then all you need is decent charge controller which you can program yourself. As for longevity of solar panels, have some from back in the late 1980's still working on my workshop.

[pmccarthy]

Summary of paper:

Since the 1980s, it has been known that solar radiation at the surface of the Earth goes through increases (brightening) for two-to-three decades followed by decreases (dimming) over similar periods. These cyclic patterns are not caused by variations in the sun's emission but rather by changes in cloud cover and dust in the atmosphere. Brightening and dimming occur all over the globe. Dimming was documented in the U.S. from the 1950s to about the mid-1980s. In the mid-to-late 1980s, solar radiation at the surface reversed course and increased for more than 20 years. Here, we show that this most recent brightening period in the U.S. ended in 2012. Surface solar radiation decreased over the U.S. after 2013, signaling the possible beginning of a new dimming period. We determined that systematic changes in cloud cover were mostly responsible for these trends and that atmospheric dust played only a minor role. Knowledge of dimming and brightening is useful for research in weather, climate, agriculture, renewable energy, and any other process that responds to systematic changes of solar energy at the surface.

 

Full paper at https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033590

[octave]

33 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Here, we show that this most recent brightening period in the U.S. ended in 2012. Surface solar radiation decreased over the U.S. after 2013, signaling the possible beginning of a new dimming period.

 

Can you explain the implications of this to me?     (To me, a lay person) this seems to run counter to the idea that increased average temperatures are driven by solar insolation.

[Dax]

This article says it all, extremely hard to deny real physical evidence. Temps 18deg hotter than normal, are not to be sneezed at, or denied. The article claims sea levels have already risen 20 centimetres and sea levels in my area support that.

 

"Rain has fallen on the summit of Greenland’s huge ice cap for the first time on record. Temperatures are normally well below freezing on the 3,216-metre (10,551ft) peak, and the precipitation is a stark sign of the climate crisis."

Scientists at the US National Science Foundation’s summit station saw rain falling throughout 14 August but had no gauges to measure the fall because the precipitation was so unexpected. Across Greenland, an estimated 7bn tonnes of water was released from the clouds.

The rain fell during an exceptionally hot three days in Greenland when temperatures were 18C higher than average in places. As a result, melting was seen in most of Greenland, across an area about four times the size of the UK."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/20/rain-falls-peak-greenland-ice-cap-first-time-on-record-climate-crisis

 

[Old Koreelah]

22 hours ago, nomadpete said:

…I seriously doubt that the fossil fuel industry use a genuine "whole of life" costing when comparing their electricity with other forms of generation.

Well said NP, but the fossil fuel industry own enough politicians to ensure this doesn’t happen.

22 hours ago, nomadpete said:

…`So far, I've seen many open cut coal mines. New ones and Old. I've seen some attempts at revegetation..

I have been driving thru the Hunter Valley regularly for decades as open cut coal mines took over. They are an eyesore our distant descendants will have to suffer. 

To their credit, some of the revegetation done by the mines is impressive, but fly over them and you’ll be appalled by the mess out of sight from the road.

22 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Where underground coal mines have intruded under towns, there has often been subsidence of houses. Sometimes making homes unlivable. Sometimes even creating sinkholes…

We’ve trained with Newcastle’s Police Rescue Squad and they have horrifying stories of houses collapsing into sinkholes. Bumps on the freeway are above old mines. The Mines Subsidence Board will be busy long after the last coal mine is closed.

[pmccarthy]

22 hours ago, octave said:

 

Can you explain the implications of this to me?     (To me, a lay person) this seems to run counter to the idea that increased average temperatures are driven by solar insolation.

No one can explain it at present. There is a useful 2021 paper “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate” see https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131 But even this paper (with 25 well-qualified authors) only deals with the Northern Hemisphere data.

In the abstract they say “For all five Northern Hemisphere temperature series, different Total Solar Irradiance estimates suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural).

 

The main point I draw from all this and other research is that scientists don't know, and that there is no "consensus" about whether unusual warming is occurring and what drives climatic variation.

[octave]

Yesterday I did a search and the consensus does seem to be that the majority of sources suggest average temperatures are climbing whilst the influence of the sun is going the other way at the moment.

 

Is the Sun causing global warming?

What role has the Sun played in climate change in recent decades?

Better Data for Modeling the Sun’s Influence on Climate

The Role of Sunspots and Solar Winds in Climate Change

Does the Sun affect the Earth's climate?

 

I could post a much longer list than this.   

 

The conclusion from the paper you posted a link to says.

 

Conclusion. In the title of this paper, we asked "How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends?" However, it should now be apparent that, despite the confidence with which many studies claim to have answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.

 

27 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

The main point I draw from all this and other research is that scientists don't know, and that there is no "consensus" about whether unusual warming is occurring and what drives climatic variation.

 

At what point can we use the term "consensus"?       I found it very difficult to find any papers linking significant climate change to solar activity and I did spend about 4 hours looking.   

 

 

If as this conclusion  is true that we "don't know yet" then surely the assertion from the  Ole Humlum report -

 

"The most straightforward explanation for this phenomenon is that much of the warming is caused by solar insolation, but there may well be several supplementary reasons"

 

is also wildly premature isn't it?

 

Why should I place more trust in the 1 study that says at best "we need to do more research"   rather than the many studies that suggest a reasonable level of certainty that it is the solar rather than CO2?

 

 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Octave, I am grateful for your serious interest in this. We probably agree on many things. 

 

My main point is that we don't know what drives climate change, or even whether abnormal climate change is occurring. There are many peer-reviewed papers and books that challenge the alarmist views. This all would not matter except that there is a political movement to make changes which challenge the world's economies and destroy the mental health of the younger generation. 

 

I can point to dozens of references by geoscientists which say that the current climate is part of natural variation. Evidence such as grass and crops in Greenland, the Roman and Medieval warm periods, and the Little Ice Age, are supported by the dated vegetation and tree trunks appearing from under retreating glaciers. In the longer term, over tens of thousands of years, temperatures from ice cores show large variations.

 

My personal bias is that I believe there is a socialist political movement behind much of the disinformation, but that is no basis for a scientific argument and I try to stick to facts. My other bias, from personal experience, is that I do not believe any conclusions drawn from computer modelling. I am happy to look at any real world data, particularly temperature records that have not been "adjusted" by computer modelling.

 

I have no problem with Humlum saying that "The most straightforward explanation for this phenomenon is that much of the warming is caused by solar insolation, but there may well be several supplementary reasons". It IS the most straightforward explanation from that data set. But the real world climate is complex. There is no scientific consensus at present and, in any case, science does not work from consensus but from hypothesis, challenge and experiment.

 

On the solar insolation question, the best study in your references is the  third one. It says: How accurately these models reproduce SSI before direct observations started remains a major open question. All these models assume that the present relationship between SSI and solar proxies holds for past variations. The recent and unusually long period of low solar activity that took place in 2008–2009, however, challenges our ability to reconstruct solar activity from proxies. To overcome challenges with solar irradiance models, scientists need to piece together a record longer than the past few decades. So to those authors the question is open. I know of others who argue strongly for a large solar influence. We simply don't know. 

 

 

 

 

[Yenn]

As far as computer modelling goes it is a case of garbage in, garbage out. So far the modelling has not been proven correct. There have been many predictions and according to the laws of probability, some of them may come true.

In Qld we have been told that we will get more cyclones, stronger cyclones, droughts, floods, rising sea levels and many other nasties. Just predicting something bad seems to be the current fad.

No matter what reducing coal burning cannot be bad. It is obvious that burning coal causes smoke and particulates to be released into the atmosphere, which cannot be good for anything.

Some of the naysayers are using the argument that producing solar cells and electric vehicles is bad, because they cause greenhouse gases to be produced. What we shold be doing to prove them wrong is reducing our use of anything that reduces greenhouse gas. We don't need to have airconditioning everywhere we go, especially if it is set at 20 deg C. Nor do we need to have lighting everywhere someone may go.

[octave]

1 minute ago, Yenn said:

In Qld we have been told that we will get more cyclones, stronger cyclones,

 

   If the popular media has said there will be more cyclones then I am not sure where they got that information. The CSIRO predicts fewer tropical cyclones.

[octave]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

Octave, I am grateful for your serious interest in this. We probably agree on many things. 

Agreed.

 

 

What I am trying to achieve here is to go through the Ole Humlum report point by point as someone coming from the viewpoint of someone who does not yet have an opinion.

 

46 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

There are many peer-reviewed papers and books that challenge the alarmist views.

Just a small point here but the word "alarmist" to me is the counterpoint to "denialist"  which is a term I try to avoid.

 

47 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

This all would not matter except that there is a political movement to make changes which challenge the world's economies and destroy the mental health of the younger generation. 

 

I think changes do have to work and that may not always be easy.   As for being a political movement, I am sure that there are some people for whom this is a motivator but I am not sure if the folks at NASA or CSIRO are lefty hippies. I know someone who works at CSIRO in the area of co2 capture and storage, he doesn't seem like someone who is trying to destroy the capitalist system.     Mental health of young people can be impacted in many ways.   Unrelenting pessimism is bad and this is not where I am coming from.  What is also bad for the mental health of young people is older generations saying that wont do anything in case it has some costs.  The fact is that our generation will probably be fine but I don't think I could say to my grandchildren (of which I have none) I don't know if there is a problem or not but I am willing to place a bet on your future.   Talking to younger people what some of the say is that the really depressing is that many older generation folks appear not to care either way.

 

The economy is important however alarmism is not confined to one side of the debate.    It was not long ago that some were warning that renewables would lead to higher electricity bills and less reliability.   

 

https://www.aemc.gov.au/market-reviews-advice/residential-electricity-price-trends-2020

 

Certainly my KWh price was around to 30 cent mark and it is now around 20 and I pay extra for a greener option.

 

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

I can point to dozens of references by geoscientists which say that the current climate is part of natural variation. Evidence such as grass and crops in Greenland, the Roman and Medieval warm periods, and the Little Ice Age, are supported by the dated vegetation and tree trunks appearing from under retreating glaciers. In the longer term, over tens of thousands of years, temperatures from ice cores show large variations.

 

The fact that there are natural variations and there have been warmer periods in the past does not preclude abnormal warming now. My understanding is that it is more the rate of change.  

 

 

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

My personal bias is that I believe there is a socialist political movement behind much of the disinformation, but that is no basis for a scientific argument and I try to stick to facts.

 

It is a shame that politics seems to seep into everything these days  from climate change to epidemiology.     Just to narrow it down to one scientific organization are you saying that CSIRO socialist agenda?    It is clear that you believe the the organization as a whole is publishing misinformation.  I am wondering if you believe they are being misleading because they are scientifically sub standard or they are being deliberately misleading. As you say you try to stick to the facts, do you that the CSIRO do not stick to the facts?    

 

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

have no problem with Humlum saying that "The most straightforward explanation for this phenomenon is that much of the warming is caused by solar insolation, but there may well be several supplementary reasons". It IS the most straightforward explanation from that data set. But the real world climate is complex.

 

"It IS the most straightforward explanation from that data set."     the other study you posted suggests that it is inconclusive.    "If he is to say the most likely explanation is"    it would be good if he could show the data.  Certainly NASA (the people with the satellites)  state that solar irradiance is running in the other direction running in the other direction

 

I need to know why this data is either incorrect or not relevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

"I need to know why this data is either incorrect or not relevant."

 

The temperature data is, I understand, incorrect. For Australia, see https://climatechangethefacts.org.au/2021/08/12/fussing-over-one-degree-of-simulation/

 

BOM was asked about this in parliament and I have not seen their response yet. There are similar articles about the US data set. There nearly 50% of the data points have been "adjusted"" using a computer model, which makes the past cooler and recent times warmer. I'm not saying there is not warming, but the red line on that chart is, I understand, incorrect.

 

There is also a problem of extrapolating from past ground-based readings for the USA, Australia and Western Europe to the temperature of the atmosphere of the whole world both land and sea.

[octave]

17 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

The temperature data is, I understand, incorrect. For Australia, see https://climatechangethefacts.org.au/2021/08/12/fussing-over-one-degree-of-simulation/

 

I think this graph is not about Australia but is a global average compared to solar activity.    To be clear has this graph shows a temperature increase of (roughly) of 1 degree (depending on the starting point)  which seems to align with CSIROs graph. If these graphs are incorrect where can I see the correct information?

[Dax]

I wouldn't accept anything the IPA produces, they are a right wing conservative corporate lobby group.

 

To me it;s irrelevant as what is causing climate change, what's relevant is it's happening and nothing is being done to cope wit the change in the future. It's just more of the same back to the past syndrome we see coming from all ideologues.

 

When rains on top of a glacier, over 3000m high and in the arctic, we have a problem and no amount of denial or excuses will change that glaring fact.

[facthunter]

Trust the IPA? .Check who funds it. It's about vested interests and Party donations and after Parliament jobs for  ex pollies. Nev.

[Marty_d]

Well, some ex pollies anyway.  I don't think they'd welcome anyone from the left.

[pmccarthy]

There is an article in The Age this morning about climate change that might alarm readers if they don’t read to the very end. The last paragraph says:

Professor Fyfe said the increase in ENSO amplitude because of human activities had yet to be identified in observations. “Everything we are talking about here is in ‘model world’,” he said. “This is acknowledged in the IPCC report and in [Dr Cai’s paper].”

[pmccarthy]

Also in The Age this morning, unde the heading Climate Policy, is the headline ‘The sea swallowed everything’: this Brazilian town is drowning'. You have to read the article to find out that the problem has been caused by a river diversion. Despite this, there are references to climate change in the article. The whole thing is irresponsible scaremongering.

[Dax]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

You have to read the article to find out that the problem has been caused by a river diversion. Despite this, there are references to climate change in the article. The whole thing is irresponsible scaremongering.

Have read the article, it does say diverting the river has helped sea inundation, but it does emphasis it's sea level rises from global warming which is driving the situation.

 

Nothing scaremongering about the article and in another article in the age, it explains the difference between the IPPC and Aus scientists calculations, the IPPC seems to be down playing the future effects. We must also remember that these claims from all side are based on models, not reality, so there may be wide margins for error.

 

We already see how previous climate models have got timing and affects wrong, things are much farther down the track by decades for turn of the next century predictions. What they claimed would happen at least 80 years from now, seems to be happening now. This could mean right in front of us is a massive climate change we can't see, rain on high Arctic glaciers could be the canary in the mine keeling over.

 

Of course, things may not change much at all for the next couple of decades, but human population growth will continue unabated and that is the biggest problem with climate change and sustainability.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Dax

[Old Koreelah]

17 hours ago, facthunter said:

Trust the IPA? .Check who funds it. It's about vested interests and Party donations and after Parliament jobs for  ex pollies. Nev.

 

[pmccarthy]

Dax says : Have read the article, it does say diverting the river has helped sea inundation, but it does emphasis it's sea level rises from global warming which is driving the situation.

 

I have re-read the article and still cannot get that interpretation. The causes are given as diversion of the Paraiba do Sul River, and deforestation of mangroves. Then it says "global sea level rise due to melting ice means destruction will continue." So we have two well-established historical causes which have applied over decades, then a speculative comment about a hypothetical sea level rise. The sea level is rising, it has done so since the last ice age, but it is not the cause of the town of Atafona being washed away.

 

 

[Dax]

3 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I have re-read the article and still cannot get that interpretation.

We all interpret things according to our agenda, I have none in this instance, because no matter what I say or think, it won't change the reality. That reality is sea levels are rising, climate is changing, the food chain is close to collapse and the environment is in grave danger. All the people of the world do, is argue, deny or make excuses.

 

Couldn't care less what's causing the changes, human devastation and destruction of the environment, sun spots, little green people. Who cares, it's changing and in my opinion, it's way to late to do anything of worth and there is no political will to do anything, other than deceive the people and grow profits for vested interests.

[pmccarthy]

I guess we each have our own reality. I see the vested interests as those who promote and seek to profit from the scares. 

[nomadpete]

But the biggest profits are from the fossil fuel suppliers. Please allow for that

[Marty_d]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I guess we each have our own reality. I see the vested interests as those who promote and seek to profit from the scares. 

Who profits from the scares?