Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[aleCcowaN]

Except that we are seeing cooling now. When CO2 level are the highest ever.

We'll always see cooling all the time, no matter CO2 levels. Your "except" is wrong, I'm afraid.

 

[CapelDodger]

Doesn't matter what people "assume"...the definition of a positive feedback loop is fixed. I am an RN, in biology, a positive feedback loop example is contractions during delivery cause oxytocin to be produced which increase amplitude/frequency of contractions, causing more oxytocin to be produced during labor and delivery of an infant. In electronics, it is feedback in which the output quantity or signal adds to the input quantity or signal. Positive feedback is responsible for the squealing of microphones when placed too close to the speaker through which their input signals are amplified.

There are two varieties of feedback there. In the latter case the gain on each cycle (from mike to amp to speaker back to mike) is greater than the original input so the signal races off to maximum. In the former case the gain on each cycle is (I strongly suspect) less than the original signal so the signal reaches a limit. Consider, for instance, the sequence 1 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125 + ... , which never reaches 2.

When an area of Arctic sea-ice is lost the positive feedback removes an extra area which is much less than the original amount. This in turn removes an even smaller amount, and soon the process reaches a limit.

Negative feedback loops DO keep things locked the way they are. An example would be a thermostat. The heat in a room rises, the Air Conditioning comes on, cooling it down then shutting the air conditioning off. There is a semi-stasis in a negative feedback loop that does not exist in a positive loop.

In biology, of course, this is known as homeostasis, something we should be very glad of. It's what stops us going off like aleCcowaN at the slightest deviation.

 

[aleCcowaN]

How can the earth be cooling when the thirteen hottest years since records began have been this century and the last year with average temperatures below the 20th century average was 1976?
I suspect as well that what you have read about volcanoes and glaciers wasn't the paper itself but the wattsupwiththat interpretation of it.

Sorry, but the Earth certainly cools from mid July to mid January every year. It cools five or ten times what you are talking. On a daily basis, it cools some 45% of the days, and between 12 p.m and 0 a.m. GMT it generally cools every day. What? That wasn't what r-j meant? You may use your time to prove my assertions factually wrong -you won't be able to- or to realize what r-j meant. My analysis is: He posted a non sequitur mixed with a couple of out of the blue comments. When somebody reads those tea leaves into something controversial and decide to debate the controversy with him, such controversy will become what he meant in the very beginning.

You also may ignore this whole thing. Or revise your working definition of troll and trolling. Or ask me to screen-analyse one or two of r-j's posts.

 

[CapelDodger]

That post and other few like it are meant to trigger reflection.

Not working, is it? Your apparent guru complex just puts people's backs up. I say "apparent" because I'm sure it's not real, but I don't think everybody is.

 

[greybeard]

That post and other few like it are meant to trigger reflection. If you felt to be a sinner because someone is speaking of sin around you, that would be your problem, not other's. Leading, taking the lead ... what are you talking about, man? what importance might that have? Anywhere, there's no mandatory reading. Cluttering? tell me how much time takes you to scroll them down and I'll write you a cheque. If they don't appear to be meant to trigger reflection is good of you to point that out. The rest is free speech, yours and mine.



Then you were reading other thread.

There hasn't been, are or will be IPCC material regarding future temperatures that is telling all the elements in the scenario to be true, unchangeable or both. All the conversation about temperature rise by 2100 is off in such a way, and it repeats here periodically with the same absurd framing that I can't decide if I'll cut my veins or I'll let them grow long and mat them into dreadlocks (attempt to match the logic level of such debate).

The ipcc's "slightly conservative" report predicts possibly nearly a 1m sea level rise by the end of the century, coupled with greater storm intensity, increased drought and floods, more extreme heat waves, the effects of ocean acidification etc. IMO most of the posts from people who accept that AGW is a fact reflect that. I would actively encourage you to point out where anyone overstates the likely effect but you seem to be vastly overstating exaggeration of AGW while ignoring the fact that often nearly half of the posts in this forum are from people who get their scientific "facts" either directly or indirectly from the Heartland institute or the GWPF.

 

[CapelDodger]

You would be wrong as usual.

greybeard was right that you haven't seen the paper. Pre-print at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1405184111.full.pdf+html

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-major-west-antarctic-glacier-geothermal.html#jCp

[/quote]From which :

"According to his findings, the minimum average geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is about 100 milliwatts per square meter, with hotspots over 200 milliwatts per square meter. For comparison, the average heat flow of the Earth's continents is less than 65 milliwatts per square meter."

200 milliwatts integrated over the entire Thwaites Glacier can melt about 3.5Gt of ice per annum, I'm reliably informed. Thwaites is losing about 70Gt per annum.

http://www.livescience.com/41262-west-antarctica-new-volcano-discovered.html

Nope, no volcano discovered. There may be one but none has been discovered.

Nor is there any suggestion that this is a new development, since these are the first measurements. Nor, of course, does it mean that contact with warm water doesn't melt ice. It does mean that Thwaites is likely to be less stable, and more prone to sliding off out to sea, than was previously thought.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The ipcc's "slightly conservative" report predicts possibly nearly a 1m sea level rise by the end of the century, coupled with greater storm intensity, increased drought and floods, more extreme heat waves, the effects of ocean acidification etc. IMO most of the posts from people who accept that AGW is a fact reflect that. I would actively encourage you to point out where anyone overstates the likely effect but you seem to be vastly overstating exaggeration of AGW while ignoring the fact that often nearly half of the posts in this forum are from people who get their scientific "facts" either directly or indirectly from the Heartland institute or the GWPF.

I was talking of temperature, it was clearer when this part of the discussion started: "+4.5°C by the end of the century". No way. I don't doubt the other forecasts, though we may quantify a bit. One of the problems I wanted to call attention on with all the questioning and maps that so much displeasure arose is that warming going into deep ocean calls for a boosted thermal expansion -thermosteric component of sea level-. Sea level rise indeed depends on what has already happened and I don't remember the estimations of sea level rise if we cut emissions cold turkey, but it was something like 25 cm from thermal expansion and 10cm from ice melting by the end of the century. Ocean acidification is another point with unavoidable consequences, but it couples for worse with temperature levels.

Let me say that your paragraph might suggest I'm dismissing or diminishing consequences or postponing solutions for some time in the future. Not at all, but it's a false debate the one that leaves empty the middle ground. It can't be that any random denialist that shows in here to share his or her creed, or person under/misinformed that posts mimicking some wrong notions that are promoted by denialism, inevitably lead to a debate with inevitable collapse and dyer consequences by 2100. It's like that wikipedia-meme telling "Hitler" is going to be named if the debate continues has here a subject-specific version: "2100: fried!".

It looks to me like everybody knows that global warming is a tragedy in slow motion and is aware that the sky won't fall during the next 20 years, so they are wishing or praying with all their strength for the Arctic sea ice to vanish and the image of hundreds of polar bears drown, and for all model, system and analysis to show catastrophe a century ahead because if we are not willing today and/or we have not the technology today to avoid the problem, we both won't be willing and we won't have that technology each and every one of those hundred years during the incoming century. That is simply calling stupid us, our children and generations to come, and claiming to have a crystal ball about what technology will be available in 70 years. In 1885 there were no cars, in 1955 they were everywhere; two world wars had passed, wars that didn't favour specially car development (aviation, I can tell).

I'm not calling for inaction either. I am personally very active cutting my own emissions (for instance, I have my thermostat now in 17°C and 1/3 of my home locked out to save energy), including work and including purchases, and I'm not claiming that all the time nor reproaching the rest for not doing the same. I only call for a rational debate, where denialist brutality and random parachutists coming here to provoke non-ending stupid debates for their own pleasure are dealt in the most aseptic way, while some knowledge base and methods are developed collectively, not as climate science but as popular education, as part of the goals of JREF.

 

[Reality Check]

Except that we are seeing cooling now.

Except that is a lie.
We are seeing a large decrease in the warming trend for global surface temperatures. It is still warming, not cooling. This decrease in warming has become well understood and modeled.

 

[a_unique_person]

By true believers presumably you mean those who take the same position as the IPCC, the vast majority of scientific papers published on the subject (which is where the science that makes up the IPCC reports is from) and every scientific organisation in the world. All you have done so far is say that you don't believe them with no factual argument to back it up. I'm constantly living in hope that someone will come in to this thread with an argument that shows that scientists are wrong and we can continue to emit billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere without serious consequences. So far I have been sorely disappointed.

All he has said is that since he does not believe them, he is just going to believe whatever is most convenient for him.

 

[Reality Check]

You would be wrong as usual.

You would be definitely wrong as usual, r-j !

You replied to this post about the melting of 6 glaciers in Antarctica - entire glaciers, not the top, middle or bottom.
You are citing news articles, essentially the blogs you despise, r-j !

Researchers find major West Antarctic glacier melting from geothermal sources

...The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet's stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.

This news article are is geothermal sources not melting entire glaciers. It is about geothermal sources melting the underside of the glacier.

The irrelevant Active Volcano Discovered Under Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Also irrelevant: Warm Water Under Antarctic Glacier Spurs Rapid Melting (no mention of geothermal sources or volcanoes). It is warm sea currents under the ice shelf.

 

[a_unique_person]

Except that is a lie.
We are seeing a large decrease in the warming trend for global surface temperatures. It is still warming, not cooling. This decrease in warming has become well understood and modeled.

Some people seem to expect there to be a direct link between co2 and surface temperature. As if it worked like an engine directly turning the wheels of a car. The climate system is far larger and more complex than that simple model. There is a lot of noise in the climate system, such as the El Nino cycle, which produces much larger short term changes than the long term warming signal.

 

[CoolSceptic]

well increased rates of warming are far more realistic than any cooling.

the CO2 forcing is getting bigger and bigger. positive feedbacks are getting stronger, less sea ice = albedo change etc.

no forcing in sight that could bring any cooling.

If the system is linear, then no, increased rates of warming are not more realistic than cooling.

If the system is non-linear, then "positive feedbacks are getting stronger" is pure nonsense.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I strongly disagree that the numbers in the IPCC report are remotely credible, though. Obviously I'll never persuade the true believers that populate this thread, but just making the statement for the record

you got better projections than those from the IPCC?

Naive baseline is more credible than the IPCC, especially 86 years from now

 

[CoolSceptic]

All you have done so far is say that you don't believe them with no factual argument to back it up.

Nah. I've presented many factual arguments here, a few years back. Only one other person on the forum actually spent any time trying to understand the points I was making (people either tried to rebut my points having spent zero time understanding them, or lacked the basic scientific skills to actually address the points I made).

The one person who did try to respond claimed that non-overlapping confidence intervals for measurements of the same thing was absolutely something to ignore and not worry about. That was funny.

I'm not getting the feeling the quality of science on this thread has improved any (although I wasn't holding my hopes out TBH)

 

[CoolSceptic]

I strongly disagree that the numbers in the IPCC report are remotely credible, though. Obviously I'll never persuade the true believers that populate this thread, but just making the statement for the record

That’s a statement more fit for the CT forum since it effectively puts you at odds with the entire climate science community and nearly all the published literature on the topic.

Nah. Here's a plot that was shown at the recent European Geosciences Union general assembly (held every year in Vienna, although staggeringly expensive for those of us who don't get paid from the climate science trough to be there):



It is a comparison of hindcasts of precipitation by climate models and observations at the globally averaged level across land. Note how badly the models perform: the mean, the standard deviation, the trends, the autocorrelation function; pretty much every basic property you might want to achieve bears no resemblance to reality.

If models can't get the hydrological cycle right - which includes precipitation, cloud cover, water vapour concentrations etc. etc - they stand no hope of getting temperature right, as these things are so important to temperature. Well of course hindcasts of temperature sort of match up - but such hindcasts are not blinded or out-of-sample tests - and it is clear from the above plot that there is no reason to believe they are right for the right reasons.

As we see from the EGU general assembly, my ideas are not so far from those of some mainstream scientists. But I suspect you wouldn't know that if you rarely ventured outside the echo chamber.

 

[DC]

If the system is linear, then no, increased rates of warming are not more realistic than cooling.

If the system is non-linear, then "positive feedbacks are getting stronger" is pure nonsense.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

what system are you talking about? the climate system as a whole?

 

[DC]

Naive baseline is more credible than the IPCC, especially 86 years from now

naive baseline? what do you mean?

 

[DC]

Nah. Here's a plot that was shown at the recent European Geosciences Union general assembly (held every year in Vienna, although staggeringly expensive for those of us who don't get paid from the climate science trough to be there):

View attachment 31129

It is a comparison of hindcasts of precipitation by climate models and observations at the globally averaged level across land. Note how badly the models perform: the mean, the standard deviation, the trends, the autocorrelation function; pretty much every basic property you might want to achieve bears no resemblance to reality.

If models can't get the hydrological cycle right - which includes precipitation, cloud cover, water vapour concentrations etc. etc - they stand no hope of getting temperature right, as these things are so important to temperature. Well of course hindcasts of temperature sort of match up - but such hindcasts are not blinded or out-of-sample tests - and it is clear from the above plot that there is no reason to believe they are right for the right reasons.

As we see from the EGU general assembly, my ideas are not so far from those of some mainstream scientists. But I suspect you wouldn't know that if you rarely ventured outside the echo chamber.

do you have any details to that graph?

 

[Trakar]

Nah. I've presented many factual arguments here, a few years back. Only one other person on the forum actually spent any time trying to understand the points I was making (people either tried to rebut my points having spent zero time understanding them, or lacked the basic scientific skills to actually address the points I made).

The one person who did try to respond claimed that non-overlapping confidence intervals for measurements of the same thing was absolutely something to ignore and not worry about. That was funny.

I'm not getting the feeling the quality of science on this thread has improved any (although I wasn't holding my hopes out TBH)

If you are speaking of your contributions here, I agree, a lot of assertions, zero evidence, zero substance, so far. Feel free to address this deficit in future postings.

 

[macdoc]

Nah. Here's a plot that was shown at the recent European Geosciences Union general assembly (held every year in Vienna, although staggeringly expensive for those of us who don't get paid from the climate science trough to be there):

Attachment 31129

It is a comparison of hindcasts of precipitation by climate models and observations at the globally averaged level across land. Note how badly the models perform: the mean, the standard deviation, the trends, the autocorrelation function; pretty much every basic property you might want to achieve bears no resemblance to reality.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31129&thumb=1&d=1402614888

provide a link from the EGU as from what I see you claim is utter nonsense. Show us the source of the graph and who authored it.

What it looks like to me is something you concocted from whole cloth from
http://www.climatedata.info/index.html

This on the other hand is what a simulation against data for precipitation actually looks like.


http://www.climatedata.info/resources/Precipitation/prc-01-IPCC---Fig-9.18a.gif

So what the reader should conclude is that the factual and or science content of your posts are as odiferous as the ejecta from a bull with a serious case of the trots.....and to be equally ardently avoided.