This is one study I strongly agree with and felt it was a likely forcer. My beef is the the IPCC knew or should have known that aerosols affect the earth's albedo and, thus reflectivity, of incoming thermal radiation.* The IPCC has claimed for 20 years or so, that they knew "everything there was to know about climate drivers**, therefore the difference they could not explain-- ipso facto must be man-caused warming.
Unless the IPCC model goes back and incorporates volcanic emissions for their 200 year timespan and then forecasts-- in some fashion, what it will be for the next 85 years, then amongst other reasons, the IPCC forecast will be as invalid then as it is today. We are just now on the lookout for unrecorded eruptions but will take another 30 years to discover, date and quantify their estimated emissions.
Years ago I ask on a sister list for anyone to quantify the true contribution of humanity to global warming in any measurement of choice no one could. Someone finally was able to establish the proportion of humanity to the global warming heat bucket. Their computations yielded an astonishing figure: .28 % That is less than 1/3 of 1 percent. I don't recall their full methodology of it it was faulty or valid. I just remember it wasn't overtly political or motivated by the Religion of Climatology.
In a side story, the now politicized Goddard SFC of NASA was caught going back into historical temperature recordings and adjusting the temperatures always upward. If it was error/transcription-correction, statistically, there would be a 50/50 up and down. We know this because the temperature records for 200+ years from around the world were published for decades online and in hard copy. Suddenly, over a 2-3 month period, altered historical temperature records started showing up. How can one honestly, with any verifiability, change records in the 1800s or 1900s unless it was to make history fit the computer model to get the warming results some politican ordered them to do? Someone at NASA literally "cooked the books"
Eman
* Historical evidence indicates that 2-3 years of heavy snowfall( cooling triggered by volcanic aerosol from a major lengthy eruption?) over northern Europe and Russia can and has triggered runaway ice-cap advancement, sending the Northern Hemisphere back into a period of widespread ice sheets. Snow cover is a massive changer of reflectivity( albedo--"Al Bee Dough") and therefore can prevent ground warming which is cumulative: Less snow melts and pretty soon the permant ice cap starts moving southward each year.
I don't know how one computes paleo snowfall == varves ? pollen migration? but that is the report I read. Seems to me that all that kind of evidence would be pushed ahead of the ice sheet and be erased. Statistically and historically, it is far more easy to enter heavy glaciation ( Wiping out Alaska, Canada, Iceland , Northern Europe, Tibet, Mongolia and, Russia etc). than it is to exit an ice age via sheet melting and submerge a 30 mile margin of coastal area around the middle lattitudes.
** There are new climate cycles identified on almost a monthly basis and this has been the situation for years. The IPCC model does not incorporate these cycles/forcers, as it tends to treat the world climate as one entity not regional interactions-- and they only choose the established ones they want because they lack a sophisticated model and they want a particular answer. Perhaps, because any more complex, it can't be run on available computers. What you also may not know is that statisticians run a simulation 100-1000s of times and look for the bell curve of probable values, unless you are the IPCC, who stacked the cards with high values and, chose a forecast that was 4(?) Standard deviations (SD) above the center of the bell curve of possible outcomes. That said, I understand that the IPCC values, even as published, are smaller than the ± margin of error. We could also see a cooling trend that is 2-4 times as low as their predicted high value that the politicians and press pick up on.
From: "Lin Kerns linkerns@gmail.com [geology2]" <geology2@yahoogroups.com>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 1:31 PM
Subject: [Geology2] Small volcanic eruptions partly explain 'warming hiatus'
Small volcanic eruptions partly explain 'warming hiatus'
January 10, 2015 | ScienceBlog.com
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment