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
  • Wow RB - yet another shocking revelation from your desk. As highlighted in your most recent posting/update - it is indeed very disturbing to hear of any examples relating to the suppression/withdrawal of scientifically sound, 'evidence based' technical arguments, as presented in published articles and technical papers, on the subject of Climate Change and Mankind's Ability/Inability to materially influence our Climate.


    More importantly, it begs the question as to what hidden agendas so many administrations and/or the most active and successful lobby groups have in giving such aggressive support to the belief that we all need to radically change our travelling, energy consumption and dietary habits within the next 15 to 20 years, or sooner, in a last chance attempt to save the planet.


    Maybe the possibility that our current 'chaotic climate changes' are actually largely beyond our control is too frightening a prospect to swallow. By all means let us legislate to improve air quality in our big cities by controlling the burning of fossil fuels in cars, lorries, homes and and factories and by the use of appropriate alternative technologies to facilitate this improvement.


    However when we learn that a highly respected Scandinavian Professor of Physics and GeoSciences recently published a report giving detailed 'whole life cycle' calculations which compared the impact of battery electric cars vs internal combustion engined cars and concluded that their overall environmental damage/impacts were very similar and that even the real world 'cost benefit break even point' for BEV vs ICE could easily be around 250,000 miles - he was told that his figures were unacceptable and that he needed to substantially change/simplify his exhaustive list of facts and initial assumptions. Reluctantly he revised all his assumptions to be either softer or negligible and was discouraged from even considering worst case vs best case scenarios and the breakeven point was still around 80,000 miles - at which point the authorities thanked him for his work and then made sure it got little or no publicity. 


    I am following with great interest, the current situation in the USA where New York State is bringing a law suit against The Exxon/Mobil Oil Corporation for allegedly having two sets of figures relating to the likely future impact of emmissions regulations on the future value of stocks and shares in the Oil and Petro-Chemical Industries. Other leagl cases are currently in the pipeleine aginast BP, Shell etc on similar themes. I wonder whether the Oil Industry legal teams will be able to effectively challenge all the assumptions made relating to the alleged close correlation between man made CO2 emissions and climate change - let's face it when there is money and the potential for damages being paid out (cf the VW Diesel Gate Scandal) - but this time running into possibly billions of dollars - it really does tend to focus the mind.


    We all wait with bated breath until the next Solar CME that threatends to take out all our GPS Satellites and our power grids etc - roll on the next 11 year/33 year/99 year/300 year etc solar cycle... Do the Corporate Lobby Groups have a PLAN TO COUNTER THAT I WONDER..?

     

Reply
  • Wow RB - yet another shocking revelation from your desk. As highlighted in your most recent posting/update - it is indeed very disturbing to hear of any examples relating to the suppression/withdrawal of scientifically sound, 'evidence based' technical arguments, as presented in published articles and technical papers, on the subject of Climate Change and Mankind's Ability/Inability to materially influence our Climate.


    More importantly, it begs the question as to what hidden agendas so many administrations and/or the most active and successful lobby groups have in giving such aggressive support to the belief that we all need to radically change our travelling, energy consumption and dietary habits within the next 15 to 20 years, or sooner, in a last chance attempt to save the planet.


    Maybe the possibility that our current 'chaotic climate changes' are actually largely beyond our control is too frightening a prospect to swallow. By all means let us legislate to improve air quality in our big cities by controlling the burning of fossil fuels in cars, lorries, homes and and factories and by the use of appropriate alternative technologies to facilitate this improvement.


    However when we learn that a highly respected Scandinavian Professor of Physics and GeoSciences recently published a report giving detailed 'whole life cycle' calculations which compared the impact of battery electric cars vs internal combustion engined cars and concluded that their overall environmental damage/impacts were very similar and that even the real world 'cost benefit break even point' for BEV vs ICE could easily be around 250,000 miles - he was told that his figures were unacceptable and that he needed to substantially change/simplify his exhaustive list of facts and initial assumptions. Reluctantly he revised all his assumptions to be either softer or negligible and was discouraged from even considering worst case vs best case scenarios and the breakeven point was still around 80,000 miles - at which point the authorities thanked him for his work and then made sure it got little or no publicity. 


    I am following with great interest, the current situation in the USA where New York State is bringing a law suit against The Exxon/Mobil Oil Corporation for allegedly having two sets of figures relating to the likely future impact of emmissions regulations on the future value of stocks and shares in the Oil and Petro-Chemical Industries. Other leagl cases are currently in the pipeleine aginast BP, Shell etc on similar themes. I wonder whether the Oil Industry legal teams will be able to effectively challenge all the assumptions made relating to the alleged close correlation between man made CO2 emissions and climate change - let's face it when there is money and the potential for damages being paid out (cf the VW Diesel Gate Scandal) - but this time running into possibly billions of dollars - it really does tend to focus the mind.


    We all wait with bated breath until the next Solar CME that threatends to take out all our GPS Satellites and our power grids etc - roll on the next 11 year/33 year/99 year/300 year etc solar cycle... Do the Corporate Lobby Groups have a PLAN TO COUNTER THAT I WONDER..?

     

Children
No Data