Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

We have run the gamut of warming doubt from "it isn't happening" to "it's the sun" to "it's a conspiracy" to "it's happening but we don't know how much or how little" to finally this: "warming is good for you". I suppose if you keep the water cloudy long enough something good might happen.

 

Thanks for playing.

 

What was that Ghandi quote? Oh, yes:

 

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

 

Now, I wonder how that applies here.... :blink:

[Zelandakh]

I see no link between the quote provided and your suggested headline.

[PassedOut]

This paper is making the rounds throughtout the blogosphere, with the usual comments from each side. An interesting conclusion, if true.

 

http://phys.org/print289149026.html

Interesting to see how this plays out. Thanks for the link.

[Al_U_Card]

Interesting to see how this plays out. Thanks for the link.

Here is a rather complete and technical (mathematical) analysis and demonstration of why [CO2] does not control global temperature to any significant extent (because its concentration relates only to the integral of global temperature).

 

Maybe the advocates will soon propose CFC credits or ....?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0&feature=youtu.be

[Winstonm]

The response

You will note that every time the data disagrees with Salby's 'model', he trusts his 'model' over the data. Which contravenes the 'skeptic lore' that models are worthless and must be bashed, and only data should be trusted.

[ArtK78]

NYC Lays Out $20 Billion Plan to Adapt to Climate Change

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100808071?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Crelated%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=100809548%7CSales%20of%20Orwells%201984%20

[Winstonm]

Here is a peer-reviewed refutation of the basic Salby argument, albeit made by by another professor at an earlier time (Essenhigh, R. H. Energy Fuels 2009, 23, 2773−2784) .

it is straightforward to show, with considerable certainty, that the natural environment has acted as a net carbon sink throughout the industrial era, taking in significantly more carbon than it has emitted, and therefore, the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 cannot be a natural phenomenon.

[Al_U_Card]

The environment acted as a net carbon sink during the industrial age....so maybe now it is acting as a carbon source as a gradually warming world and oceans gives it back?

Either way, if CO2 is the GHG it is cracked up to be, then temperatures should continue to rise...unless the environment is once again acting as a sink...which would explain the increased greening of the planet.

Opposing views provide room for discussion. The climate system is chaotic and cannot be easily modeled nor "controlled" by any given forcing. Science continues to discover and divulge despite attempts to stifle the debate and process with claims of consensus.

 

SkepticalScience....hmmmn

 

I wonder who pays their bills? Big Green? Maybe...

[Zelandakh]

Opposing views provide room for discussion.

Discussion is usually a positive force, certainly. But it is important to listen to "opposing views" with the same skeptical approach as is taken for anything else in science. It is also important to understand that people often lose some of that skepticism when an opposing view happens to match their own viewpoint.

[Daniel1960]

Discussion is usually a positive force, certainly. But it is important to listen to "opposing views" with the same skeptical approach as is taken for anything else in science. It is also important to understand that people often lose some of that skepticism when an opposing view happens to match their own viewpoint.

So true. People attribute greater significance to that which corresponds to their own viewpoint. Witness the recent climate dialogue, whereby one group is lauding the Cook/Nucitelli paper about 97% consenesus, while the opposing group is praising Lu's work on CFCs. Each group is then overly critical of the other's work (in Dana's case, he is both). Of course, the media like to fan these flames, as two diametrically opposed positions seem to garner more and juicier press coverage.

[Al_U_Card]

Despite his living in the lair of the beast... this climate scientist seems to be even-handed in his assessments.

 

a model environment

 

"So, why might the simulations appear too warm? One possibility is that aerosol emissions have not declined as rapidly as assumed since 2005, causing the simulations to appear too warm. However, observations of aerosol emissions are somewhat uncertain. Also, no volcanic eruptions are present in the post-2005 simulations, although it is possible that recent moderate eruptions have had a cooling influence. In addition, solar activity post-2005 has been weaker than the simulations assume. All of these effects would make the simulations appear too warm.

 

There is also some recent evidence that the models with the very highest climate sensitivities may be inconsistent with the observations. Uncertainty in the observations of global temperatures is also not negligible, as shown by the red lines.

 

The final possible explanation is that internal climate variability has reduced the rate of warming this decade, and that some of the additional energy may be in the deep ocean instead of the atmosphere."

[Winstonm]

Temperature stalls and falls are not inconsistent with AGW - regardless of the past 10 years. What has happened to average temperatures over the past 100 years, 500 yeas, 1000 years? Average temperatures are rising.

[billw55]

Temperature stalls and falls are not inconsistent with AGW - regardless of the past 10 years. What has happened to average temperatures over the past 100 years, 500 yeas, 1000 years? Average temperatures are rising.

If the warming trend goes back 500-1000 years, then at least some component of it must be natural. How much warming was there prior to ~1800?

[Daniel1960]

Temperature stalls and falls are not inconsistent with AGW - regardless of the past 10 years. What has happened to average temperatures over the past 100 years, 500 yeas, 1000 years? Average temperatures are rising.

Average temperatures have risen during the past hundred years at a rate of ~0.6C/century. Average temperatures have also risen over the past 500, with the 1600s being considered the depths of the Little Ice Age (the 18th century temperature rise was similar to the 20th century). Concerning the last 1000 years, the jury is still out as to whether average temperatures are higher today than the height of the Medieval Warming Period. Regarding the average temperature of the last decade, the temperature rise had stalled twice in the past century, and there is no reason to suspect that this recent period is any different. The last two period lasted ~30 years each, with some suggesting that this recent period will be similar.

[Winstonm]

If the warming trend goes back 500-1000 years, then at least some component of it must be natural. How much warming was there prior to ~1800?

 

The entire science underpinning AGW is the search for the signature that signifies non-natural causes. The bulk of the denial response is to confuse the issues, cloudy the waters, and delay action as long as possible.

[hrothgar]

If the warming trend goes back 500-1000 years, then at least some component of it must be natural. How much warming was there prior to ~1800?

 

Press Release 13-072

Analysis of 2,000 Years of Climate Records Finds Global Cooling Trend Ended in the 19th Century

 

The most comprehensive evaluation of temperature change on Earth’s continents over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years indicates that a long-term cooling trend--caused by factors including fluctuations in the amount and distribution of heat from the sun, and increases in volcanic activity--ended late in the 19th century.

 

The study also finds that the 20th century ranks as the warmest or nearly the warmest century on all of the continents, except Antarctica. Africa had insufficient data to be included in the analysis.

 

Global warming that has occurred since the end of the 19th century reversed a persistent long-term global cooling trend, say the researchers.

 

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=127658

[Daniel1960]

If the warming trend goes back 500-1000 years, then at least some component of it must be natural. How much warming was there prior to ~1800?

The warming from 1600-1800 approximately equals the warming from 1800-2000. However during each bicentennial period, all the warming occurred in the second century, with the first showing equal amounts of rises and falls.

[Zelandakh]

Global warming that has occurred since the end of the 19th century reversed a persistent long-term global cooling trend, say the researchers.

The warming from 1600-1800 approximately equals the warming from 1800-2000.

Conclusions presumably taken from the same data.

[Daniel1960]

Conclusions presumably taken from the same data.

Quite possibly. While temperature reconstructions prior to the year 1000 show greater divergence, and have higher uncertainty, those since show a fairly similar patter. A temperature peak somewhere between 1000 and 1100 a.d., following by a longterm decline to the 1600s. The proxies then show roughly one century significant warming up to the 1700s (different proxies yield different specific dates). From then, temperatures appear to oscillate in a fairly narrow range until ~1910, when temperature began to rise up to the current 2000 range.

 

Just like the recent temperature data. Some people will look at the plot and see long term warming, some will see short term cooling, other will look at the entire graph and see periods of both overlapping an underlying rise.

[Al_U_Card]

Regarding models and their forecasts, William Briggs has an interesting blog post concerning ensemble forecasts and their efficacy.

 

Worth the read.

 

Specifically regarding climate models he states:

 

Now, are the original or adjusted ensemble forecasts any good? If so, then the models are probably getting the physics right. If not, then not. We have to check: do the validation and apply some proper score to them. Only that would tell us. We cannot, in any way, say they are wrong before we do the checking. They are certainly not wrong because they are ensemble forecasts. They could only be wrong if they fail to match reality. (The forecasts Roy S. had up a week or so ago didn’t look like they did too well, but I only glanced at his picture.)

 

Conclusion: ensemble forecasts are fine, even desirable since they acknowledge up front the uncertainty in the forecasts. Anything that gives a nod to chaos is a good thing.

 

 

Update: Although it is true ensemble forecasting makes sense, I do NOT claim that they do well in practice for climate models. I also dispute the notion that we have to act before we are able to verify the models. That’s nuts. If that logic held, then we would have to act on any bizarre notion that took our fancy as long as we perceived it might be a big enough threat.

 

Come to think of it, that’s how politicians gain power.

[Winstonm]

Update: Although it is true ensemble forecasting makes sense, I do NOT claim that they do well in practice for climate models. I also dispute the notion that we have to act before we are able to verify the models. That’s nuts. If that logic held, then we would have to act on any bizarre notion that took our fancy as long as we perceived it might be a big enough threat.

 

Come to think of it, that’s how politicians gain power.[/i]

 

A bold non sequitur. Then we come to the italicized crux of the matter - the ideology that free markets must be protected from government. Nothing whatsoever to do with science, but politics.

 

Pot calling the kettle black, it seems.

[Al_U_Card]

A bold non sequitur. Then we come to the italicized crux of the matter - the ideology that free markets must be protected from government. Nothing whatsoever to do with science, but politics.

 

Pot calling the kettle black, it seems.

 

His opinion.

 

Avoiding the issue does not help the discussion advance.

 

The models have serious flaws (because they are diverging from REAL data) and should not be used for policy decisions. Conferring "expert" or "consensus" status on their results may be IPCC policy but it is far from science, of any kind.

[Winstonm]

Regarding models and their forecasts, William Briggs has an interesting blog post concerning ensemble forecasts and their efficacy.

Conclusion: ensemble forecasts are fine, even desirable since they acknowledge up front the uncertainty in the forecasts. Anything that gives a nod to chaos is a good thing.

 

Update: I also dispute the notion that we have to act before we are able to verify the models.

 

"Delay action because all is not known" has been used to fight regulation of the following: cigarettes, second-hand smoke, acid rain, ozone depletion, and global warming. Oddly, the same group of characters have been involved in most, if not all, of those causes.

[PassedOut]

"Delay action because all is not known" has been used to fight regulation of the following: cigarettes, second-hand smoke, acid rain, ozone depletion, and global warming. Oddly, the same group of characters have been involved in most, if not all, of those causes.

Maybe not so oddly...

[Al_U_Card]

Maybe not so oddly...

 

Would that make them the New World Order, Illuminati, Old World Order, or just a bunch of evil people, out to destroy our beautiful planet for their own, nefarious ends?

 

Inquiring minds want to know before they send their cheques... :blink: :lol: