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

  • Simon Barker:

    Bear in mind that tiny changes can make huge differences to the people on Earth.

    . . .

    The Earth is receiving massive amounts of energy from the Sun.  Massive amounts of energy leak back out into space again.  It's the precise balance of those that makes the difference between our present climate, an ice age, or the planet becoming too hot to live.



    The operative words are "precise balance". There are many unknowns in this debate. One thing we do know is that carbon dioxide levels are rising, for whatever reason, and this is linked with global warming.


    It is quite likely that part of the trend of global warming is due to natural cycles. However we must not become complacent, even if it can be proved that this is the main cause. Carbon dioxide generated by mankind's operations is going to boost this trend. This is not helped by tropical forest fires on a large scale, producing vast amounts of carbon dioxide in the process and leaving behind less vegetation to absorb carbon dioxide. It is not helped by global warming causing thawing of tundra, releasing methane, a greenhouse gas, causing further global warming. There are real worries from some quarters that this could become a vicious circle. We have a vested interest in doing what we can to reduce carbon dioxide generation. If climate is indeed so finely balanced, then we cannot presume that the vast increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the past century, due to human activity, has not played a part. Ever- increasing human population is not helping.


    If indeed, as has been suggested elsewhere, global warming does level off in the next ten years, there will no doubt be many sighs of relief. But our efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will not have been without good effect. In the mid-20th century it was taken for granted that factory and household chimneys alike belched out smoke and soot, blackening buildings and jeopardizing our health - but look how we have progressed since then! By checking carbon emissions we are playing our part in maintaining a well-balanced climate and a cleaner planet.
     

Reply

  • Simon Barker:

    Bear in mind that tiny changes can make huge differences to the people on Earth.

    . . .

    The Earth is receiving massive amounts of energy from the Sun.  Massive amounts of energy leak back out into space again.  It's the precise balance of those that makes the difference between our present climate, an ice age, or the planet becoming too hot to live.



    The operative words are "precise balance". There are many unknowns in this debate. One thing we do know is that carbon dioxide levels are rising, for whatever reason, and this is linked with global warming.


    It is quite likely that part of the trend of global warming is due to natural cycles. However we must not become complacent, even if it can be proved that this is the main cause. Carbon dioxide generated by mankind's operations is going to boost this trend. This is not helped by tropical forest fires on a large scale, producing vast amounts of carbon dioxide in the process and leaving behind less vegetation to absorb carbon dioxide. It is not helped by global warming causing thawing of tundra, releasing methane, a greenhouse gas, causing further global warming. There are real worries from some quarters that this could become a vicious circle. We have a vested interest in doing what we can to reduce carbon dioxide generation. If climate is indeed so finely balanced, then we cannot presume that the vast increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the past century, due to human activity, has not played a part. Ever- increasing human population is not helping.


    If indeed, as has been suggested elsewhere, global warming does level off in the next ten years, there will no doubt be many sighs of relief. But our efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will not have been without good effect. In the mid-20th century it was taken for granted that factory and household chimneys alike belched out smoke and soot, blackening buildings and jeopardizing our health - but look how we have progressed since then! By checking carbon emissions we are playing our part in maintaining a well-balanced climate and a cleaner planet.
     

Children
No Data