Global warming should be called global heating, says key scientist

[Media_Truth]

This British scientist makes some great points in his address at the UN climate summit, currently underway, in Katowice, Poland.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...o-describe-risks-to-planet-says-key-scientist

Prof Richard Betts, who leads the climate research arm of Britain’s meteorological monitoring organisation, made the comments amid growing evidence that rising temperatures have passed the comfort zone and are now bringing increased threats to humanity.
....
“Global warming doesn’t capture the scale of destruction. Speaking of hothouse Earth is legitimate,” he said.
...
At 3C of change, Schellnhuber said southern Spain would become part of the Sahara. Even 2C, he said, could not be guaranteed as safe.

 

[longview]

This British scientist makes some great points in his address at the UN climate summit, currently underway, in Katowice, Poland.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...o-describe-risks-to-planet-says-key-scientist

Prof Richard Betts, who leads the climate research arm of Britain’s meteorological monitoring organisation, made the comments amid growing evidence that rising temperatures have passed the comfort zone and are now bringing increased threats to humanity.
....
“Global warming doesn’t capture the scale of destruction. Speaking of hothouse Earth is legitimate,” he said.
...
At 3C of change, Schellnhuber said southern Spain would become part of the Sahara. Even 2C, he said, could not be guaranteed as safe.

One would think that since Prof Richard Betts says that,
“Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet,”
He would be able to produce a measurement of this change in energy balance.

 

[DaveFagan]

Like a voice crying in the wilderness. He's heard for one MSM minute and the Anti AGW group money will purchase 100 MSM minutes with a propaganda spiel authored by the biggest and mot egregiouls contributors to AGW. That's our reality. Needs change so I'm pretty sure they will be shutting up the one minute Scientist as soon as they can.
/

 

[Media_Truth]

One would think that since Prof Richard Betts says that,
“Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet,”
He would be able to produce a measurement of this change in energy balance.

Richard is Chair in Climate Impacts at the University of Exeter and Head of Climate Impacts in the Met Office Hadley Centre. His undergraduate studies were in Physics at the University of Bristol, followed by an MSc in Meteorology and Climatology at the University of Birmingham. For his PhD, he used climate models to assess the role of the world’s ecosystems in global climate and climate change. He has worked in climate modelling since 1992, with a particular interest in the impacts of climate change on ecosystems and the interactions with other impacts of climate change such as on water resources. He is also interested in the wide-ranging effects of land use and land cover change on climate. He has pioneered a number of key developments in the extension of climate models to include biological processes. He leads the EU Framework 7 Project HELIX (High-End cLimate Impacts and eXtremes), which assesses the impacts of climate change at 2, 4 and 6°C global warming above pre-industrial state.

Richard was a lead author on the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis), leading the assessment of the influences of land cover change on climate and contributing to the assessment of climate change impacts on fresh water. He played a similar role in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. He is also lead author on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report in Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability), responsible for assessing the impacts of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems.

Broad research specialisms:
Large-scale modelling of ecosystem-hydrology-climate interactions
Land use change and deforestation
Integrated impacts modelling
Qualifications
BSc (Physics), University of Bristol, 1991.
MSc (Meteorology and Applied Climatology), University of Birmingham, 1992.
PhD (Meteorology), University of Reading, 1998.

 

[longview]

View attachment 67245989

Richard is Chair in Climate Impacts at the University of Exeter and Head of Climate Impacts in the Met Office Hadley Centre. His undergraduate studies were in Physics at the University of Bristol, followed by an MSc in Meteorology and Climatology at the University of Birmingham. For his PhD, he used climate models to assess the role of the world’s ecosystems in global climate and climate change. He has worked in climate modelling since 1992, with a particular interest in the impacts of climate change on ecosystems and the interactions with other impacts of climate change such as on water resources. He is also interested in the wide-ranging effects of land use and land cover change on climate. He has pioneered a number of key developments in the extension of climate models to include biological processes. He leads the EU Framework 7 Project HELIX (High-End cLimate Impacts and eXtremes), which assesses the impacts of climate change at 2, 4 and 6°C global warming above pre-industrial state.

Richard was a lead author on the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis), leading the assessment of the influences of land cover change on climate and contributing to the assessment of climate change impacts on fresh water. He played a similar role in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. He is also lead author on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report in Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability), responsible for assessing the impacts of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems.

Broad research specialisms:
Large-scale modelling of ecosystem-hydrology-climate interactions
Land use change and deforestation
Integrated impacts modelling
Qualifications
BSc (Physics), University of Bristol, 1991.
MSc (Meteorology and Applied Climatology), University of Birmingham, 1992.
PhD (Meteorology), University of Reading, 1998.

I missed the point where he says that they have empirical data showing that a measurable energy imbalance has, and is occurring.
His credentials mean little if he cannot support his statement with actual data.
Here is some actual measurements,
https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin..._Challenge_Workshop/presentations/GC_Loeb.pdf
But they have this footnote on page 14,

Note
: We cannot close the global atmospheric energy budget from observations to better than -14 Wm-2.

But if CO2 caused an energy imbalance, over the life of the CERES satellite measurements, (2000 to 2018),
it would be 5.35 X ln (408/370)= .52 Wm-2.
Wow, if they cannot determine the energy budget to closer than 14 Wm-2, would .52 Wm-2 even be detectable from the noise?
We may well be able to detect an energy imbalance from added CO2, but detecting and measuring a signal are sometimes two different things.

 

[Media_Truth]

I missed the point where he says that they have empirical data showing that a measurable energy imbalance has, and is occurring.
His credentials mean little if he cannot support his statement with actual data.
Here is some actual measurements,
https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin..._Challenge_Workshop/presentations/GC_Loeb.pdf
But they have this footnote on page 14,

But if CO2 caused an energy imbalance, over the life of the CERES satellite measurements, (2000 to 2018),
it would be 5.35 X ln (408/370)= .52 Wm-2.
Wow, if they cannot determine the energy budget to closer than 14 Wm-2, would .52 Wm-2 even be detectable from the noise?
We may well be able to detect an energy imbalance from added CO2, but detecting and measuring a signal are sometimes two different things.

Read IPCC AR4 and AR5. They cover everything. These are co-authored by thousands of Climatologists worldwide, not one Climatologist-wanna-be.

 

[apdst]

View attachment 67245989

Richard is Chair in Climate Impacts at the University of Exeter and Head of Climate Impacts in the Met Office Hadley Centre. His undergraduate studies were in Physics at the University of Bristol, followed by an MSc in Meteorology and Climatology at the University of Birmingham. For his PhD, he used climate models to assess the role of the world’s ecosystems in global climate and climate change. He has worked in climate modelling since 1992, with a particular interest in the impacts of climate change on ecosystems and the interactions with other impacts of climate change such as on water resources. He is also interested in the wide-ranging effects of land use and land cover change on climate. He has pioneered a number of key developments in the extension of climate models to include biological processes. He leads the EU Framework 7 Project HELIX (High-End cLimate Impacts and eXtremes), which assesses the impacts of climate change at 2, 4 and 6°C global warming above pre-industrial state.

Richard was a lead author on the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis), leading the assessment of the influences of land cover change on climate and contributing to the assessment of climate change impacts on fresh water. He played a similar role in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. He is also lead author on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report in Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability), responsible for assessing the impacts of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems.

Broad research specialisms:
Large-scale modelling of ecosystem-hydrology-climate interactions
Land use change and deforestation
Integrated impacts modelling
Qualifications
BSc (Physics), University of Bristol, 1991.
MSc (Meteorology and Applied Climatology), University of Birmingham, 1992.
PhD (Meteorology), University of Reading, 1998.

If the global warming scare were to go away, he would be out of a job. He obviously has a vested interest in keeping the hoax alive.

 

[Deuce]

If the global warming scare were to go away, he would be out of a job. He obviously has a vested interest in keeping the hoax alive.

Relativity is wrong because Einstein got paid money.

 

[longview]

Read IPCC AR4 and AR5. They cover everything. These are co-authored by thousands of Climatologists worldwide, not one Climatologist-wanna-be.

If you think IPCC AR4 and AR5 show empirical evidence of CO2 caused energy imbalance, you need to cite the exact section.

 

[KLATTU]

Like a voice crying in the wilderness. He's heard for one MSM minute and the Anti AGW group money will purchase 100 MSM minutes with a propaganda spiel authored by the biggest and mot egregiouls contributors to AGW. That's our reality. Needs change so I'm pretty sure they will be shutting up the one minute Scientist as soon as they can.
/

Yeah because MSM isn't all in on pushing the LW narrative on climate change .

{I'm too lazt to post a picture of an ostrich with his head in the sand}

 

[Deuce]

Yeah because MSM isn't all in on pushing the LW narrative on climate change .

{I'm too lazt to post a picture of an ostrich with his head in the sand}

Media accurately reports conclusions of scientists. Terrible, just terrible.

 

[KLATTU]

Media accurately reports conclusions of scientists. Terrible, just terrible.

Yeesh.

( insert picture of ostrich with head in sand)

 

[Deuce]

Yeesh.

( insert picture of ostrich with head in sand)

Compelling argument. I'm convinced.

 

[Media_Truth]

If you think IPCC AR4 and AR5 show empirical evidence of CO2 caused energy imbalance, you need to cite the exact section.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

The tables in the above link are helpful to follow this analysis.

The tropospheric mixing ratio of CO2 has increased globally from 278
(276–280) ppm in 1750 to 390.5 (390.3 to 390.7) ppm in 2011 (see
Section 2.2.1.1.1). Here we assess the RF due to changes in atmospheric concentration rather than attributing it to anthropogenic emissions. Section 6.3.2.6 describes how only a fraction of the historical
CO2 emissions have remained in the atmosphere. The impact of land
use change on CO2 from 1850 to 2000 was assessed in AR4 to be 12 to
35 ppm (0.17 to 0.51 W m–2).
Using the formula from Table 3 of Myhre et al. (1998), and see Supplementary Material Table 8.SM.1, the CO2 RF (as defined in Section 8.1)
from 1750 to 2011 is 1.82 (1.63 to 2.01) W m–2. The uncertainty is dominated by the radiative transfer modelling which is assessed to be 10%
(Section 8.3.1). The uncertainty in the knowledge of 1750 concentrations contributes only 2% (see Supplementary Material Table 8.SM.2)
Table 8.2 shows the concentrations and RF in AR4 (2005) and 2011 for
the most important WMGHGs. Figure 8.6 shows the time evolution of
RF and its rate of change. Since AR4, the RF of CO2 has increased by
0.16 W m–2 and continues the rate noted in AR4 of almost 0.3 W m–2
per decade. As shown in Figure 8.6(d) the rate of increase in the RF from the WMGHGs over the last 15 years has been dominated by CO2.
Since AR4, CO2 has accounted for more than 80% of the WMGHG RF
increase. The interannual variability in the rate of increase in the CO2
RF is due largely to variation in the natural land uptake whereas the
trend is driven by increasing anthropogenic emissions (see Figure 6.8
in Section 6.3.1).
As described in Section 8.1.1.3, CO2 can also affect climate through
physical effects on lapse rates and clouds, leading to an ERF that will
be different from the RF. Analysis of CMIP5 models (Vial et al., 2013)
found a large negative contribution to the ERF (20%) from the increase
in land surface temperatures which was compensated for by positive
contributions from the combined effects on water vapour, lapse rate,
albedo and clouds. It is therefore not possible to conclude with the
current information whether the ERF for CO2 is higher or lower than
the RF. Therefore we assess the ratio ERF/RF to be 1.0 and assess our
uncertainty in the CO2 ERF to be (–20% to 20%). We have medium
confidence in this based on our understanding that the physical processes responsible for the differences between ERF and RF are small
enough to be covered within the 20% uncertainty.

 

[longview]

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

The tables in the above link are helpful to follow this analysis.

The tropospheric mixing ratio of CO2 has increased globally from 278
(276–280) ppm in 1750 to 390.5 (390.3 to 390.7) ppm in 2011 (see
Section 2.2.1.1.1). Here we assess the RF due to changes in atmospheric concentration rather than attributing it to anthropogenic emissions. Section 6.3.2.6 describes how only a fraction of the historical
CO2 emissions have remained in the atmosphere. The impact of land
use change on CO2 from 1850 to 2000 was assessed in AR4 to be 12 to
35 ppm (0.17 to 0.51 W m–2).
Using the formula from Table 3 of Myhre et al. (1998), and see Supplementary Material Table 8.SM.1, the CO2 RF (as defined in Section 8.1)
from 1750 to 2011 is 1.82 (1.63 to 2.01) W m–2. The uncertainty is dominated by the radiative transfer modelling which is assessed to be 10%
(Section 8.3.1). The uncertainty in the knowledge of 1750 concentrations contributes only 2% (see Supplementary Material Table 8.SM.2)
Table 8.2 shows the concentrations and RF in AR4 (2005) and 2011 for
the most important WMGHGs. Figure 8.6 shows the time evolution of
RF and its rate of change. Since AR4, the RF of CO2 has increased by
0.16 W m–2 and continues the rate noted in AR4 of almost 0.3 W m–2
per decade. As shown in Figure 8.6(d) the rate of increase in the RF from the WMGHGs over the last 15 years has been dominated by CO2.
Since AR4, CO2 has accounted for more than 80% of the WMGHG RF
increase. The interannual variability in the rate of increase in the CO2
RF is due largely to variation in the natural land uptake whereas the
trend is driven by increasing anthropogenic emissions (see Figure 6.8
in Section 6.3.1).
As described in Section 8.1.1.3, CO2 can also affect climate through
physical effects on lapse rates and clouds, leading to an ERF that will
be different from the RF. Analysis of CMIP5 models (Vial et al., 2013)
found a large negative contribution to the ERF (20%) from the increase
in land surface temperatures which was compensated for by positive
contributions from the combined effects on water vapour, lapse rate,
albedo and clouds. It is therefore not possible to conclude with the
current information whether the ERF for CO2 is higher or lower than
the RF. Therefore we assess the ratio ERF/RF to be 1.0 and assess our
uncertainty in the CO2 ERF to be (–20% to 20%). We have medium
confidence in this based on our understanding that the physical processes responsible for the differences between ERF and RF are small
enough to be covered within the 20% uncertainty.

What you are calling evidence is the IPCC saying that We know what the CO2 level was in the past,
and we have used our estimates of CO2 forcing to calculate what we think that energy imbalance was in 1750 and 1850,
based on our estimates.
I think Myhre et al. (1998) was where they reduced the 2XCO2 forcing from 4.2 down to 4 Wm-2.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ve_forcing_due_to_well_mixed_greenhouse_gases

Abstract
We have performed new calculations of the radiative forcing due to changes in the concentrations of the most important well mixed greenhouse gases (WMGG) since pre‐industrial time.
Three radiative transfer models are used. The radiative forcing due to CO2, including shortwave absorption, is 15% lower than the previous IPCC estimate.
The radiative forcing due to all the WMGG is calculated to 2.25 Wm−2, which we estimate to be accurate to within about 5%.

 

[Waddy]

After reading all the research I could, this is my personal conclusion. Climate change is real, the planet is warming little by little, but I think most of it is driven by nature. Man is contributing, man is accelerating the change. How much mankind is contributing to the change is debatable. The solution is not renewable energy. As one study showed, you would have to cover half of England with wind turbines, solar panels and saw grass to meet the current needs of that island. This does not factor in population growth. Simply put, there are too many humans right now for the planet to support, either in raw materials, food production or energy. If we don't find a way to curtail population, Malthus will be proven correct. The planet will survive, but we will be returned to cave man status.

 

[Media_Truth]

What you are calling evidence is the IPCC saying that We know what the CO2 level was in the past,
and we have used our estimates of CO2 forcing to calculate what we think that energy imbalance was in 1750 and 1850,
based on our estimates.
I think Myhre et al. (1998) was where they reduced the 2XCO2 forcing from 4.2 down to 4 Wm-2.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ve_forcing_due_to_well_mixed_greenhouse_gases

You're delusional. That's not what it says at all. You're link can't even spell "radiative".

 

[Media_Truth]

After reading all the research I could, this is my personal conclusion. Climate change is real, the planet is warming little by little, but I think most of it is driven by nature. Man is contributing, man is accelerating the change. How much mankind is contributing to the change is debatable. The solution is not renewable energy. As one study showed, you would have to cover half of England with wind turbines, solar panels and saw grass to meet the current needs of that island. This does not factor in population growth. Simply put, there are too many humans right now for the planet to support, either in raw materials, food production or energy. If we don't find a way to curtail population, Malthus will be proven correct. The planet will survive, but we will be returned to cave man status.

You throwing in the towel? Do you personally have rooftop solar?

 

[Waddy]

You throwing in the towel? Do you personally have rooftop solar?

No roof top solar. I'm not throwing in the towel, whatever that means, but I don't do any more than the average person. I am confident in the conclusions I've drawn; all the alternative energy we could ever produce won't be enough unless we get population under control. And we also need to develop a sustainable economic system not based on continual growth. BTW; it's not just me thinking this way. There are a number of scientists warning about this.

 

[Media_Truth]

No roof top solar. I'm not throwing in the towel, whatever that means, but I don't do any more than the average person. I am confident in the conclusions I've drawn; all the alternative energy we could ever produce won't be enough unless we get population under control. And we also need to develop a sustainable economic system not based on continual growth. BTW; it's not just me thinking this way. There are a number of scientists warning about this.

There is no question, that it's a rough road. And I certainly agree with your comments about a sustainable economic system. That said, it's amazing where we've come in just the last 10 years. Here's US numbers for electrical generation. Many other countries have similar or better track records.

Renewable Energy Surges to 18% of U.S. Power Mix | Fortune

Eighteen percent of all electricity in the United States was produced by renewable sources in 2017, including solar, wind, and hydroelectric dams. That’s up from 15% in 2016, with the shift driven by new solar and wind projects, the end of droughts in the West, and a dip in the share of natural gas generation. Meanwhile, both greenhouse gas emissions from power generation and consumer spending on power declined.

Renewables’ share of U.S. energy consumption has now doubled since 2008...

And it's not just electricity. More efficient appliances, furnaces, etc. Geothermal and passive solar design. Superinsulated homes. Zero-energy homes. Although companies like Goldman-Sachs are investing billions into renewable energy, most of these technologies require an individual investor, like you and me. The buy-in and purchase of these technologies do more to support that "sustainable economic system" than anything a government may or may not do. Hybrid cars, electric cars, high speed rail, and on and on...

 

[Waddy]

There is no question, that it's a rough road. And I certainly agree with your comments about a sustainable economic system. That said, it's amazing where we've come in just the last 10 years. Here's US numbers for electrical generation. Many other countries have similar or better track records.

Renewable Energy Surges to 18% of U.S. Power Mix | Fortune

Eighteen percent of all electricity in the United States was produced by renewable sources in 2017, including solar, wind, and hydroelectric dams. That’s up from 15% in 2016, with the shift driven by new solar and wind projects, the end of droughts in the West, and a dip in the share of natural gas generation. Meanwhile, both greenhouse gas emissions from power generation and consumer spending on power declined.

Renewables’ share of U.S. energy consumption has now doubled since 2008...

And it's not just electricity. More efficient appliances, furnaces, etc. Geothermal and passive solar design. Superinsulated homes. Zero-energy homes. Although companies like Goldman-Sachs are investing billions into renewable energy, most of these technologies require an individual investor, like you and me. The buy-in and purchase of these technologies do more to support that "sustainable economic system" than anything a government may or may not do. Hybrid cars, electric cars, high speed rail, and on and on...

All good, but it won't be enough. One good thing about global trade is that millions of people around the world have been lifted out of poverty, at a rate never seen before in history. But guess what; they all want the American middle class lifestyle. They want cars, big homes, more meat in their diet, air conditioning, lots of appliances, and all that goes with that lifestyle. Add on even more people, and you have an environmental disaster. Already we exceed the planet's ability to support us with minerals, food and water by 150%. The economy doubles just about every 30 years. that means we use twice as much of everything. We are going to need every type of energy we can dig up, pump out of the ground, and every kind of renewable. We will burn it all if we last that long.

 

[longview]

You're delusional. That's not what it says at all. You're link can't even spell "radiative".

Um! Myhre et al. (1998) was cited in your post #14 by the IPCC, If there are misspellings, they are peer reviewed misspellings,
but that does not address the core of what I was pointing out.

Abstract
We have performed new calculations of the radiative forcing due to changes in the concentrations of the most important well mixed greenhouse gases (WMGG) since pre‐industrial time.
Three radiative transfer models are used. The radiative forcing due to CO2, including shortwave absorption, is 15% lower than the previous IPCC estimate.
The radiative forcing due to all the WMGG is calculated to 2.25 Wm−2, which we estimate to be accurate to within about 5%.

The premise is that CO2 has forced 1.82 W m–2 since 1750 as stated in your quoted section.

Using the formula from Table 3 of Myhre et al. (1998), and see Supplementary Material Table 8.SM.1, the CO2 RF (as defined in Section 8.1)
from 1750 to 2011 is 1.82 (1.63 to 2.01) W m–2.

Since we do not know the amount of radiative forcing in 1750, they calculated it based on their assumptions of how much radiative forcing extra CO2 would cause.

 

[longview]

After reading all the research I could, this is my personal conclusion. Climate change is real, the planet is warming little by little, but I think most of it is driven by nature. Man is contributing, man is accelerating the change. How much mankind is contributing to the change is debatable. The solution is not renewable energy. As one study showed, you would have to cover half of England with wind turbines, solar panels and saw grass to meet the current needs of that island. This does not factor in population growth. Simply put, there are too many humans right now for the planet to support, either in raw materials, food production or energy. If we don't find a way to curtail population, Malthus will be proven correct. The planet will survive, but we will be returned to cave man status.

I do not know what study you looked at, but England could meet their energy needs with a lot less area.
I would not consider saw grass as the density is too low, but solar and wind could meet the demand with a storage mechanism.

 

[longview]

All good, but it won't be enough. One good thing about global trade is that millions of people around the world have been lifted out of poverty, at a rate never seen before in history. But guess what; they all want the American middle class lifestyle. They want cars, big homes, more meat in their diet, air conditioning, lots of appliances, and all that goes with that lifestyle. Add on even more people, and you have an environmental disaster. Already we exceed the planet's ability to support us with minerals, food and water by 150%. The economy doubles just about every 30 years. that means we use twice as much of everything. We are going to need every type of energy we can dig up, pump out of the ground, and every kind of renewable. We will burn it all if we last that long.

You are correct, we simply do not have enough naturally stored energy to sustain everyone alive at near a first world lifestyle for very long.
We can however do it with solar, and hydrocarbon storage.
I think this will happen as soon as market prices for oil make the new technology economically viable. (roughly $90 a barrel)

 

[Media_Truth]

Um! Myhre et al. (1998) was cited in your post #14 by the IPCC, If there are misspellings, they are peer reviewed misspellings,
but that does not address the core of what I was pointing out.

The premise is that CO2 has forced 1.82 W m–2 since 1750 as stated in your quoted section.

Since we do not know the amount of radiative forcing in 1750, they calculated it based on their assumptions of how much radiative forcing extra CO2 would cause.

The Climatologist-wanna-be telling the thousands of International scientists in the IPCC that their calculations are wrong. :roll: That they've overlooked key fundamentals. :roll: That their assumptions and estimates are wrong. :roll: