Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming
1–10 of 67 posts
Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming
#2This was an interesting article and the author has strong data. I would want to know about the Younger Dryas [1] period though. This is a warming period about 12,000 years ago when some of the most devastating geological events we know of happen. This includes the outburst floods of glaciers holding back bodies of water larger than Lake Erie (Lake Agassiz [2] for example) and a temperature differential in Greenland of 27 degrees Fahrenheit cooler compared to today.
Human being play a huge role in climate change, but I don’t want to also write off the absolute enormous shifts than can occur naturally. We need to take those just as seriously for our own security.
Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming
#3The headline of this post is bullshit. The author of the article doesn't prove "natural cycles" play small role. He claims that the data he analyses points to the conclusion one specific 60-70 year old cycle of oceanic origin has far less impact on climate than commonly accepted. He talks about one mechanism, there are plenty of other natural mechanisms that affect the climate in various ways.
Quoting the article: >This means that ocean cycles on timescales of 60-70 years are unlikely to be a factor in the observed evolution of global temperatures since 1850. Instead, external factors, such as periods of strong volcanic activity and the release of aerosol particles (air pollution), have caused temperatures to fluctuate.
Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming
#4The headline of this post is bullshit. The author of the article doesn't prove "natural cycles" play small role. He claims that the data he analyses points to the conclusion one specific 60-70 year old cycle of oceanic origin has far less impact on climate than commonly accepted. He talks about one mechanism, there are plenty of other natural mechanisms that affect the climate in various ways. Quoting the article: >T…
There are other cycles, most of which are right now in a cooling phase, and yet we are warming. So those cycles (i.e. Milankovich cycles) can be written off already
Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming
#5The headline of this post is bullshit. The author of the article doesn't prove "natural cycles" play small role. He claims that the data he analyses points to the conclusion one specific 60-70 year old cycle of oceanic origin has far less impact on climate than commonly accepted. He talks about one mechanism, there are plenty of other natural mechanisms that affect the climate in various ways. Quoting the article: >T…
There are other cycles, most of which are right now in a cooling phase, and yet we are warming. So those cycles (i.e. Milankovich cycles) can be written off already
We are still coming out of an ice age. So you comment is false.
Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming
#6The headline of this post is bullshit. The author of the article doesn't prove "natural cycles" play small role. He claims that the data he analyses points to the conclusion one specific 60-70 year old cycle of oceanic origin has far less impact on climate than commonly accepted. He talks about one mechanism, there are plenty of other natural mechanisms that affect the climate in various ways. Quoting the article: >T…
If you look to the paper the article is about - 'A limited role for unforced internal variability in 20th century warming.' - it does seem to demonstrate that natural cycles play small role and the way it is set up it doesn't have to look at all natural cycles to do that.
>Using a two-box impulse response model, we demonstrate that multidecadal ocean variability was unlikely to be the driver of observed changes in global mean surface temperature (GMST) after 1850 A.D. Instead, virtually all (97-98%) of the global low-frequency variability (> 30 years) can be explained by external forcing. We find similarly high percentages of explained variance for inter-hemispheric and land-ocean temperature evolution.
edit - link to paper - https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555....
Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming
#7[deleted]
Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming
#8The headline of this post is bullshit. The author of the article doesn't prove "natural cycles" play small role. He claims that the data he analyses points to the conclusion one specific 60-70 year old cycle of oceanic origin has far less impact on climate than commonly accepted. He talks about one mechanism, there are plenty of other natural mechanisms that affect the climate in various ways. Quoting the article: >T…
If you look to the paper the article is about - 'A limited role for unforced internal variability in 20th century warming.' - it does seem to demonstrate that natural cycles play small role and the way it is set up it doesn't have to look at all natural cycles to do that. >Using a two-box impulse response model, we demonstrate that multidecadal ocean variability was unlikely to be the driver of observed changes in gl…
It still seems ass-about to me. The study doesn't show that natural cycles don't do much, it shows that in our models the external forcing they added is sufficient to cause the observed results.
We already know there's more going on than our models account for (consider the post-9/11 discovery of global dimming from airliner exhausts, as one example). There are probably a heap of effects pushing the measured temperatures in each direction that we don't yet know about.
(Note that I'm not saying natural cycles ARE responsible for the bulk of observed warming - just that this research doesn't seem to prove they're NOT.)
Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look to the paper the article is about - 'A limited role for unforced internal variability in 20th century warming.' - it does seem to demonstrate that natural cycles play small role and the way it is set up it doesn't have to look at all natural cycles to do that. >Using a two-box impulse response model, we demonstrate that multidecadal ocean variability was unlikely to be the driver of observed changes in gl…
It still seems ass-about to me. The study doesn't show that natural cycles don't do much, it shows that in our models the external forcing they added is sufficient to cause the observed results. We already know there's more going on than our models account for (consider the post-9/11 discovery of global dimming from airliner exhausts, as one example). There are probably a heap of effects pushing the measured temperat…
>(Note that I'm not saying natural cycles ARE responsible for the bulk of observed warming - just that this research doesn't seem to prove they're NOT.)
Well it can't, can it? All it can do is provide evidence one way or another. Now if you think that there is a problem in the model they are using, could you point to it and explain the specific issue? I assume that it is somewhat updated since 9/11 and I also suspect that aerosol effects of airliner exhausts will have been known about to the subject of atmospheric physics, 9/11 will have just given some solid numbers. Which are now presumably in the models.
Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming
#10This was an interesting article and the author has strong data. I would want to know about the Younger Dryas [1] period though. This is a warming period about 12,000 years ago when some of the most devastating geological events we know of happen. This includes the outburst floods of glaciers holding back bodies of water larger than Lake Erie (Lake Agassiz [2] for example) and a temperature differential in Greenland o…
It was almost certainly caused by one or multiple comet fragment impacts.
Sources: https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?as_ylo=2018&q=hiawatha+cra...