Scientist argues that we cannot just wait for the world order to change to tackle the climate crisis

image

Well, its a matter of looking at a thing from the proper angle.

Maybe you haven’t spotted my ‘big pot of cold water’ analogy. Its pretty simple really. You can put a big pot of water on the stove and move the stove heat setting up, down, or not move it at all, and the cold water will continue to warm, so long as the amount of heat provided is above the balance point of the system. Of course, higher energy input will drive faster warming.

Translating the analogy to global warming - the sun is the heat source and the earth is the cold pot of water. In the first part of the 20th century (roughly 1913-1954) there was warming of about 0.10 C/decade that was almost completely attributed to the amount of heat that was delivered to the earth over that time-frame. As we’ve already identified from thinking about the pot on the stove, its not about whether the heat goes up or down or stays the same. Its about whether it is more than the system can handle and how much heat in total. We’ve been told that the sun’s heat at this time was more than the earth’s system could handle and was the main cause of the corresponding warming. For a measure of the total amount of excess heat, I’ve integrated the sum of sunspots for every month in those 42 years. It comes to 42,371. Now this isn’t an actual measure of total heat delivered, but is an accepted proxy. If someone had a way of integrating the area under the TSI curve from your graph, above some baseline, it would correspond to the number of sunspots. Then, for comparison we can choose a matching 42 year period at the end of the century (1965-2006). Here there is a faster warming of 0.15 C/decade and even though not all of the solar cycle peaks are higher than the earlier period, when you do the area under the curve, the total extra solar energy in this 42 year span is 50,448 as represented by sunspot count. So, the total amount of excess heat input from the sun was at least as much at the end of the century as it was at the beginning of the century and therefore must have provided at least as much warming.

I guess you could say that the graph that you provided has valid data in it, but it doesn’t mean what you think it does. Solar energy input needs only to be above the balance point in order provide warming. It does not need to be continually increasing. It can go up or down or stay the same, so long as the amount of energy input is above the balance point.

We have effectively established where the balance point is when we say that 42,371 sunspots worth of solar energy input provided 0.10 C/decade of warming for 42 years. It will only make sense that more solar energy input, eg the 50,448 sunspots worth at the end of the 20th century, will provide even more warming, which then limits how much of that warming could have been provided by CO2.

The upshot of this sensible understanding of how a heat source warms an object, is that the sun has considerably more to do with global warming than the increasing CO2 and if the present low solar energy input becomes a longer-term pattern, then we’ll be able to see it in a slowing of the global warming. Of course, there will still be some warming drive from increases in CO2, along with the various natural feedbacks that have built up. It would take a sustained period of historically low solar
energy input to offset those other factors, but it will only take a few more years to confirm that the CO2 warming drive is not overwhelming the natural (mostly solar) climate drive. Stay tuned.

Thank you for making my point.

Mercury can reach 800F during the day and since there is no atmosphere to “trap” in and retain the heat, -290F at night. In your analogy, the balance point of the system (the earth) is dictated by the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We have to look at the atmospheric window and determine the earth’s energy budget based on atmospheric composition. We know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. This science goes back to Fourier and Tyndall in the 1800s. We can look at CO2 levels and temperatures going back almost a million years. They are very closely correlated. We have been dumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere lately. This means the same amount of sunlight will cause increased warming with all other things being held equal.

You also can’t just look at the sun. There are a number of things at any one time influencing global temperatures (egg, volcanic activity, ocean currents, atmospheric composition). Also, if a very slight uptick in solar irradiance caused the warming 1913-1954, then the fact that there is a slight downward tick on solar irradiance the last 40-50 years should not cause temperatures to spike at even higher rates. On your water analogy, how do you propose to explain how a slight decline in heat leads to a much greater temperature change of the water?

Vinnie

2 Likes

Climate is warming (a fact) and greenhouse gases play a role in that. Even if there would be other driving factors, IMHO we should do what we can to reduce future disasters: reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. We have also the responsibility to do something to slow the ongoing biodiversity crisis. Because of respect and thankfulness of the creation given by God, and because God has given us the responsibility to tend His creation on earth.

1 Like

What, that temperature has risen while irradiance has fallen for 60 years? CO2 doesn’t have to be the dominant straw on the camel’s back.

Now is the time.

Reduction of CO2 emissions should mitigate the adverse effects of climate change in the future. If we truly want to reduce the warming to +1.5-2.5 degrees (global average), there is also a need to take carbon out of the atmosphere. Preferably in a way that makes it a profitable business. If you can make money out of it, there is a stronger motivation to act.

Any ideas of how to take carbon out of the atmosphere?

I can think of at least two ways: plantation of trees and making fuel out of CO2. The latter is still expensive but may become a viable alternative if there is enough of cheap energy available.
A third option could be changing cultivation practises so that the amount of carbon in soil increases.

When you look a little closer at the data, you can see that 7 consecutive solar cycle peaks for roughly 70 years (1935-2005) were all above historical average and contributing the bulk of the warming throughout. The only issue is that IPCC acknowledges the solar heat energy supplied in the early part of the century was the dominant driver of warming, whereas the same amount of solar heat (actually a little more) later in the century is deemed to have not added any warming. This is the discrepancy upon which the modeling of severe CO2-driven warming is based. Without it, there really is no climate crisis, only more to learn about how best to look after the planet.

The latest solar energy peak (circ 2014) is the first one in more than 80 years to dip below historical average which may mean that solar heat input has dropped to about med-low, not providing much drive for warming by itself, but not so low to allow a serious swing to cooling. If the next solar cycle peak (expected circ 2025) meets predictions, we will have the first back-to-back below-average solar cycles in more than 180 years. This would still be about med-low heat setting, so no serious push toward cooling, but not much warming drive either. This will be be the closest thing that we’ve had to an extended period with the sun in neutral and we’ll be able to see what the CO2 warming drive does by itself and adjust our models accordingly.

Does this mean that we should wait until the year 2025 before starting any major actions?

1 Like

Your pot is missing its thermal insulator wrap. Do you really think that real climate scientists haven’t considered the factors you imagine, and much more?

1 Like

Can you provide a link to this data? The stuff I am looking at is showing decreased solar irradiance and increasing temperatures. You can’t just look at the peaks. You have to look at the valleys as well.

Vinnie

3 Likes

I am not a climate alarmist… and I am. The WEIRD world won’t notice anything much, it hasn’t yet. More bushfires. That’s about it. No real droughts. A bit more flooding in… flood plains. We are a slowly cooking frog. The Extinction Rebellion hysteria has no credibility at all. Desertification, drought, rising sea levels, more and bigger cyclones are already impacting THE POOR. And they have nowhere to jump. So, are we going to persist in the sin of Sodom?

1 Like

Yes. We live in a flood plane and have for the last 47 years. In fact, on one map at the county surveyor’s office I saw a couple of years ago, it said ‘RIVER’ right over our property.

We’ve had water all around our place before, and twice in one year once before, too, but in 2019 both floods made national news, and I think international as well. But we had never before had it submerge the wellhead like the second one did. Thankfully, it didn’t contaminate the well because I had installed an extension on the vent – I had had it ready since high water had reached just up to the vent in 1995, but had never needed to install the extension before – and thankfully the other seals on the pitless adapter held and didn’t leak.

The evening after the flood the precious night:


 
From an email subscription just after midnight the same evening as the previous photo:


We were shown undeserved mercy.

We may be climate refugees yet, however, but that’s okay, because we are in my Father’s hands.

We are our Father’s hands.

Yes, he works providentially in many ways.

Well there are any of us.

I don’t know what you mean. Was that a typo? I presume you meant ‘many’. Autofill and autocorrect are my worst enemas.

God can work providentially in other ways besides people, however. He is sovereign over place and time and the placing and timing of other events and their extents, as well.

Many. Thanks. I rely on His people. That’s everyone.

His people, no matter how you are defining ‘his’ (not necessarily everyone), may be included in his providential interventions, but his sovereignty is over all things, from the most minute to the massively celestial. And he can indeed intervene into space and time.

Everyone in Corinth is not what this meant:

For I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many people in this city.
Acts 18:10