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
  • "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. "



    Denis, this rather confuses the issue between CO2 and pollution. The all out focus on CO2 is neither sensible or useful. We need to reduce our consumption of finite resources and reduce our impact on the planet. All the 'CO2 Neutral' solutions consume other resources and create additional pollution of many kinds. Replacing conventional thermal power stations before they reach the end of their life is also wasteful of resources unless it is also to reduce other forms of pollution. China is building a large number of new, cleaner, coal fired stations so they can shut down the older more polluting ones.


    Is installing solar panels produced using high pollution coal fired power stations in China really sensible? The only reasonable way would be a 'bootstrap' system where you only make renewable energy sources by using renewable energy. Any other way will cause a significant increase in emissions in the medium term.


    Best regards


    Roger
Reply
  • "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. "



    Denis, this rather confuses the issue between CO2 and pollution. The all out focus on CO2 is neither sensible or useful. We need to reduce our consumption of finite resources and reduce our impact on the planet. All the 'CO2 Neutral' solutions consume other resources and create additional pollution of many kinds. Replacing conventional thermal power stations before they reach the end of their life is also wasteful of resources unless it is also to reduce other forms of pollution. China is building a large number of new, cleaner, coal fired stations so they can shut down the older more polluting ones.


    Is installing solar panels produced using high pollution coal fired power stations in China really sensible? The only reasonable way would be a 'bootstrap' system where you only make renewable energy sources by using renewable energy. Any other way will cause a significant increase in emissions in the medium term.


    Best regards


    Roger
Children
No Data