This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Is the Science Really Settled?

Whilst looking for something else I came across this piece on Cloud Climatology on the NASA GISS website. As one of the premier research institutes in this field they don’t seem to think we know enough. Here are some quotes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
•Clouds cool Earth's surface by reflecting incoming sunlight.
•Clouds warm Earth's surface by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and re-radiating it back down toward the surface.
•Clouds warm or cool Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and radiating it to space.
•Clouds warm and dry Earth's atmosphere and supply water to the surface by forming precipitation.
•Clouds are themselves created by the motions of the atmosphere that are caused by the warming or cooling of radiation and precipitation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right now, we do not know how important the cloud-radiative or cloud-precipitation effects are and cannot predict possible climate changes accurately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When contemporary models are given information about Earth's present condition — the size, shape and topography of the continents; the composition of the atmosphere; the amount of sunlight striking the globe — they create artificial climates that mathematically resemble the real one: their temperatures and winds are accurate to within about 5%, but their clouds and rainfall are only accurate to within about 25-35%. Such models can also accurately forecast the temperatures and winds of the weather many days ahead when given information about current conditions.
Unfortunately, such a margin of error is much too large for making a reliable forecast about climate changes, such as the global warming will result from increasing abundances of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), predicted to take place in the next 50 to 100 years, is expected to change the radiation balance at the surface by only about 2 percent. Yet according to current climate models, such a small change could raise global mean surface temperatures by between 2-5°C (4-9°F), with potentially dramatic consequences. If a 2 percent change is that important, then a climate model to be useful must be accurate to something like 0.25%. Thus today's models must be improved by about a hundredfold in accuracy, a very challenging task. To develop a much better understanding of clouds, radiation and precipitation, as well as many other climate processes, we need much better observations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1974 an international conference of investigators in Stockholm highlighted the need for greater understanding of clouds as one of the two biggest obstacles to further progress in climate research. The second was inadequate knowledge of ocean currents. Recent comparisons of the predictions made by various computer climate models show that the problem has not gone away. In some models, for instance, clouds decrease the net greenhouse effect, whereas in others they intensify it.
https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#COMP_MODS
 
The summary of those points is that we have no idea if the current series of climate models is accurate and the potential errors are much bigger than the potential changes. Nice to know what our policy makers are basing their policies on ?
Best regards
Roger

Parents
  • Oh my Goodness Roger B - I am truly shocked by what you have unearthed - but to be honest not really surpised. The ability of big business sponsored lobby groups,with significant vested commercial interests in the resultant legislative frameworks - to materially influence government thinking, policy and ultimately legslative output has been seriously flawed for decades.


    Take as an example the direct injection, turbo charged diesel engines with nasty particulates - nitrous oxides - but comparitively low carbon dioxide output per litre vs the far cleaner, normally aspirated, multlipoint fuel injected, minimal particulate producing but much higher carbon dioxide output per litre petrol engines FIASCO resulting in an unnatural and inherently less good for air quality bias - indeed a positive encouragement towards buying a diesel car -  with VED or 'benefit in kind' costs for privately owned and business owned motor cars with internal combustion engines cars based SOLELY on their 'green house gas' carbon dioxide output - as measured in the magic 'grams per kilometre' figures obtained under frankly unrepeatable laboratory conditions.


    All this is a reflection that we only have one or two professional engineers who are MPs in our houses of parliament and so the whole legislature has had the proverbial wool well and truly  pulled over its eyes and ears for decades with no one 'on the team'  to carry out any scientific checks and balances. Needless to say it has only now been discovered that the process of direct gasoline (petrol) fuel injection produces much higher levels of particulates than the use of mutipoint gasoline (petrol) fuel injection and so now some of the latest GDI 'petrol' engines (where GDI = Gasoline Direct Injection) are having to have Petrol Particulate Filters fitted ( just like modern Turbo Direct Injection Diesel engines have DPFs fitted) in order to meet the emmissions standards demanded by Euro 6 and subsequent Euro Emmissions Standards. However, some skilful manufacturers have managed to design their T-GDI engines to capture most of the excess particulates in suspension in the engine oil which turns from honey gold to brown and eventually to black after each mandatory 10,000 mile interval oil change compared with similarly powered mutli-point fuel injection engines which have theri engine oil remaining visibly honey golden on the dipstick for most of the 10,000 miles of motoring! .


    Time to set radical new standards for technical scrutiny within our legislative framework and within oir scientific civil service me thinks ?


    It really is a scandal.

Reply
  • Oh my Goodness Roger B - I am truly shocked by what you have unearthed - but to be honest not really surpised. The ability of big business sponsored lobby groups,with significant vested commercial interests in the resultant legislative frameworks - to materially influence government thinking, policy and ultimately legslative output has been seriously flawed for decades.


    Take as an example the direct injection, turbo charged diesel engines with nasty particulates - nitrous oxides - but comparitively low carbon dioxide output per litre vs the far cleaner, normally aspirated, multlipoint fuel injected, minimal particulate producing but much higher carbon dioxide output per litre petrol engines FIASCO resulting in an unnatural and inherently less good for air quality bias - indeed a positive encouragement towards buying a diesel car -  with VED or 'benefit in kind' costs for privately owned and business owned motor cars with internal combustion engines cars based SOLELY on their 'green house gas' carbon dioxide output - as measured in the magic 'grams per kilometre' figures obtained under frankly unrepeatable laboratory conditions.


    All this is a reflection that we only have one or two professional engineers who are MPs in our houses of parliament and so the whole legislature has had the proverbial wool well and truly  pulled over its eyes and ears for decades with no one 'on the team'  to carry out any scientific checks and balances. Needless to say it has only now been discovered that the process of direct gasoline (petrol) fuel injection produces much higher levels of particulates than the use of mutipoint gasoline (petrol) fuel injection and so now some of the latest GDI 'petrol' engines (where GDI = Gasoline Direct Injection) are having to have Petrol Particulate Filters fitted ( just like modern Turbo Direct Injection Diesel engines have DPFs fitted) in order to meet the emmissions standards demanded by Euro 6 and subsequent Euro Emmissions Standards. However, some skilful manufacturers have managed to design their T-GDI engines to capture most of the excess particulates in suspension in the engine oil which turns from honey gold to brown and eventually to black after each mandatory 10,000 mile interval oil change compared with similarly powered mutli-point fuel injection engines which have theri engine oil remaining visibly honey golden on the dipstick for most of the 10,000 miles of motoring! .


    Time to set radical new standards for technical scrutiny within our legislative framework and within oir scientific civil service me thinks ?


    It really is a scandal.

Children
No Data