Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Trakar]

Out of every possible scenario, I think this one would be a blessing. A Spanish proverb says "God squeezes but he doesn't strangle". A much warmer 2015 and a horribly destructive hurricane season by, say, 2019, would be a Hiroshima bombing, the way to save ten times the lives. Cars have killed 50 million people and nobody is thinking in banning them, just making them safer.

Perhaps you are correct, but those who are willingly self-blinded are not easily given the eyes to see that their own hands are the cause of their problems. Compound this with the fact that the child is rather sparing of U.S. voters. He tends to bring his pain lightly upon the northeastern massed populations and predominant media centers that seem to be the concentration of the American Id. The heat tends to be most concentrated in the southwest and southeast U.S., and in the past has brought a filling of the reservoirs of the western U.S., as well as exceedingly mild winters. That is why '98, '05, and '10 saw an increasingly blasé attitude towards climate change issues from most Americans. These years may have been massively disruptive in many parts of the world, but were more "odd" than "paradigm changing" with regards to the U.S..

Perhaps a longer, pulsed el Nino will express itself differently, but it goes against my nature to get excited about the potential of any destruction and wholesale death and misery. I spend a great deal of my time trying to reduce and ameliorate these factors in the lives of others. With respect to the current situation, we are mostly spectators, so we shall see what happens regardless of outcome.

 

[Trakar]

2014 probably has seen the warmer spring ever since 1891, according to the Climate Prediction Division of Japan Meteorological Agency (preliminary value):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1187&pictureid=8854[/qimg]​

What global temperature set is this graph using?

apologies I didn't see the link until my reply posted. This is primarily what I was after:

JMA estimates global temperature anomalies using data combined not only over land but also over ocean areas. The land part of the combined data for the period before 2000 consists of GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) information provided by NCDC (the U.S.A.'s National Climatic Data Center), while that for the period after 2001 consists of CLIMAT messages archived at JMA. The oceanic part of the combined data consists of JMA's own long-term sea surface temperature analysis data, known as COBE-SST (see the articles in TCC News No.1(http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/news/tccnews01.pdf) and this report(http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/library/MRCS_SV12/index_e.htm)).

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/explanation.html

(btw, something weird going on with JREF hyperlink scripting right now, from my end)

 

[aleCcowaN]

What global temperature set is this graph using?

JMA's. Similar in grid to hadCRUT. Land data from CLIMAT, and sea data from JMA's own COBE-SST.

Perhaps a longer, pulsed el Nino will express itself differently, but it goes against my nature to get excited about the potential of any destruction and wholesale death and misery. I spend a great deal of my time trying to reduce and ameliorate these factors in the lives of others. With respect to the current situation, we are mostly spectators, so we shall see what happens regardless of outcome.

That sounded a bit like "I'm opposed to the notion of someone studying medicine because that means somebody is going to be ill". What does have to do anxiety on face of an incoming climatic event with "to get excited"? It's like a surgeon should feel guilty for saving a life, mending a hand but loosing two fingers of an idiot who blew himself fooling around playing with hand grenades. Denialists will accuse you of feeling that way and they'll choose among them and send a couple of ambulance chasers after you just to get some money from those lost fingers (they may succeed if the hand was indeed "mended"). But what does it have to do with how you should or should not feel? Does the surgeon need to be less focused and less communicative?

 

[ideogram]

... they will do anything to keep that Global Warming money coming in. Most of them a Intellectual Whores for hire ...
That's what I do for a living.

Thanks for making it clear.

 

[CapelDodger]

That sounded a bit like "I'm opposed to the notion of someone studying medicine because that means somebody is going to be ill". What does have to do anxiety on face of an incoming climatic event with "to get excited"? It's like a surgeon should feel guilty for saving a life, mending a hand but loosing two fingers of an idiot who blew himself fooling around playing with hand grenades. Denialists will accuse you of feeling that way and they'll choose among them and send a couple of ambulance chasers after you just to get some money from those lost fingers (they may succeed if the hand was indeed "mended"). But what does it have to do with how you should or should not feel? Does the surgeon need to be less focused and less communicative?

That's one way of looking at it, but not the only valid one. I can understand people feeling conflicted when being right means bad things happening, or concluding that bad things have to happen for the greater long-term good.

 

[Trakar]

JMA's. Similar in grid to hadCRUT. Land data from CLIMAT, and sea data from JMA's own COBE-SST.

Indeed, that was the reason I was asking, I simply missed the op link.

That sounded a bit like "I'm opposed to the notion of someone studying medicine because that means somebody is going to be ill". What does have to do anxiety on face of an incoming climatic event with "to get excited"? It's like a surgeon should feel guilty for saving a life, mending a hand but loosing two fingers of an idiot who blew himself fooling around playing with hand grenades. Denialists will accuse you of feeling that way and they'll choose among them and send a couple of ambulance chasers after you just to get some money from those lost fingers (they may succeed if the hand was indeed "mended"). But what does it have to do with how you should or should not feel? Does the surgeon need to be less focused and less communicative?

Not reflective of my intent, apologies if my poor wording led you to that interpretation.

 

[Trakar]

That's one way of looking at it, but not the only valid one. I can understand people feeling conflicted when being right means bad things happening, or concluding that bad things have to happen for the greater long-term good.

Closer to my intent, validation of understandings can be intellectually rewarding (like successfully completing a complex, multistep, mathematical proof that one has worked upon for an extended period), but when that validation includes a human face struggling to survive, it can leave an emotional hole that is difficult for me to set aside. It is about empathy with those who suffer.

 

[aleCcowaN]

That's one way of looking at it, but not the only valid one. I can understand people feeling conflicted when being right means bad things happening, or concluding that bad things have to happen for the greater long-term good.

Not reflective of my intent, apologies if my poor wording led you to that interpretation.

Maybe, it's my own daily involvement what makes me see it that way. It's like being a cop. If one wanted the world to be "peace, brother", and "everything will be solve through dialogue", police should never have been one's career choice. By its own nature, AGW was always meant to harm, and it will harm people too as part of its harmful nature. If I am to experience some uncomfortable feeling it will be contempt for those who assign less importance to something happening to other peoples, like in this forum when in time of the Indus' floods with seventeen million people displaced and thousands of dead, some hillbillies and denialists were arguing "there always have been floods, it a flood plain". And that notion is completed by the latent perception of Katrina being valued in a different way if the place were been a low crime rate city and the victims of a different skin tone.

AGW has too extremes. One is the scientific aspect with many things yet to figure out. The so-called "pause" is an excellent reminder of how natural variability combined with generalized transient effects in a more resilient than expected deep system can give you a good lesson. The other aspect is the social one, with plain individual egoism and collective egoism whether in the scale of a tribe or a superpower. Most countries have laws enforcing workers to put 11 to 24% of their income into a fund to be used when they are old. And you know what? Such enforcement is OK, otherwise they will enjoy that money today with total disregard of their future themselves. AGW requires the same kind of thinking and it's much cheaper; it's as cheap as "defence", an euphemistic term that hides every expense incurred to avoid something unlikely.

 

[Trakar]

Maybe, it's my own daily involvement what makes me see it that way. It's like being a cop. If one wanted the world to be "peace, brother", and "everything will be solve through dialogue", police should never have been one's career choice. By its own nature, AGW was always meant to harm, and it will harm people too as part of its harmful nature. If I am to experience some uncomfortable feeling it will be contempt for those who assign less importance to something happening to other peoples, like in this forum when in time of the Indus' floods with seventeen million people displaced and thousands of dead, some hillbillies and denialists were arguing "there always have been floods, it a flood plain". And that notion is completed by the latent perception of Katrina being valued in a different way if the place were been a low crime rate city and the victims of a different skin tone.

AGW has too extremes. One is the scientific aspect with many things yet to figure out. The so-called "pause" is an excellent reminder of how natural variability combined with generalized transient effects in a more resilient than expected deep system can give you a good lesson. The other aspect is the social one, with plain individual egoism and collective egoism whether in the scale of a tribe or a superpower. Most countries have laws enforcing workers to put 11 to 24% of their income into a fund to be used when they are old. And you know what? Such enforcement is OK, otherwise they will enjoy that money today with total disregard of their future themselves. AGW requires the same kind of thinking and it's much cheaper; it's as cheap as "defence", an euphemistic term that hides every expense incurred to avoid something unlikely.

Understood and largely agreed

 

[OCaptain]

OMFG! What JUNK SCIENCE you have submitted! I ask for a Global Warming Model in the range of 20+ years-old and you give me a paper using Models from 2001 (at the oldest) and plotted against Climate Data that has been "Magically" adjusted to fit the curve.

So...when Climate Data doesn't conform to the Model, then Climate data is altered so it fits the Model....is that the latest "Trick"?

Models are not predictions or prophecies, Jules Galen. They are projections, and since science operates with the realization that new data is always coming in to be used to advance the science. Where are you going to put that data if not in the models?? You don't throw out incomplete models like an Old Testament false prophet. Your analogy is wrong. Even I, as a person of faith, understand this.

 

[a_unique_person]

AGW has too extremes. One is the scientific aspect with many things yet to figure out.

For some reason, the fact this is one more area of science where there is much research to be done means that AGW does not exist. I have no idea why this attitude gives people comfort.

Unless you are doing it for the money.

 

[aleCcowaN]

For some reason, the fact this is one more area of science where there is much research to be done means that AGW does not exist. I have no idea why this attitude gives people comfort.

If you bet your meal money in a race and you hear the horse you chose is a nag, you'll find more comfort in the expectation of a race yet to be run than in experiencing its probable outcomes.

Unless you are doing it for the money.

It's always for the money. Dirty money, that wonderful commodity that has the curious property of cleansing itself the moment one gets a hold on it.

 

[OCaptain]

You really are delusional, aren't you?

See...I don't have to impress these people - they will do anything to keep that Global Warming money coming in. Most of them a Intellectual Whores for hire.

All I need to do is to impress the people who vote, and to impress the people who give lots of money to fight Global Warming Alarmism. And I work very hard at it. I write to a lot of conservatives around this country and explain to them the dangers of Global Warming Alarmism and they give lots of money to fight it. That's what I do for a living.

And it's effective! The Congress of the US is not going to pass squat to curb the emission of these "Green House" Gasses - which haven't proven to be of any harm anyways. And the future looks good, too - I just don't see any meaningful legislation on the horizon.

Ya' see...the people with Money are on my side....not yours. Plus...Science is on my side, too. So I'm going to impress, and I'm going to win.

In fact, we've already one, it's now just a mopping-up process.

And what do you win, Jules? How much are you being paid to betray your world that could possibly make it worth it?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Not a nice look yesterday's SST anomalies, and I don't mean the cool ocean under the Chinese record-holding sulphate umbrella:

Finally BoM -the ones with the model predicting the opposite to the rest of the world- changed their outlook.

 

[AlBell]

...

What the model runs do is include a variety of projected conditions such as CO2 emissions, volcanic eruptions, etc. That word projected is what the ensemble of runs is called a projection. What they can do is project a variety of outcomes that "accurately" include the current temperatures.

Is my understanding correct that CO2 sensitivity is not computed from first principals, but chosen from many model runs using different values for it, and the value selected for projections is the one that best ties historical data?

 

[a_unique_person]

Is my understanding correct that CO2 sensitivity is not computed from first principals, but chosen from many model runs using different values for it, and the value selected for projections is the one that best ties historical data?

You can't compute "from first principals" something as complex as the climate. Much of the components of the models are based on well understood physics, however. The Australian climate model is the model used to forecast the weather, IIRC. It is amazing how many days out now they can give an accurate forecast. It can't forecast the weather for a hundred years out, but we don't need to know that, we just want to know what the climate will be like.

 

[Trakar]

Is my understanding correct that CO2 sensitivity is not computed from first principals, but chosen from many model runs using different values for it, and the value selected for projections is the one that best ties historical data?

No, as specifically asked, your understanding is incorrect.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Is my understanding correct that CO2 sensitivity is not computed from first principals, but chosen from many model runs using different values for it, and the value selected for projections is the one that best ties historical data?

I'm not getting your question, even if I change "principal" into "principle". Don't take me wrong, I see a quite legitimate question there, but I'm not sure exactly what. Maybe, if you replace "sensitivity" with another concept, one that is common in this subject but uncommon in daily speech (or just describe what changes when CO2 does this or that). For that replacement, you would be partially right at the beginning and rather wrong from "and the value selected ..." on.

I hope you were asking about that, because yesterday I was about to start discussing the topic here by myself, as it's a natural consequence of some fooleries JG dropped here. But I'll await for your clarification. I am prevented to see what I hope to see regarding scientific endeavours.

 

[AlBell]

I'm not getting your question, even if I change "principal" into "principle". Don't take me wrong, I see a quite legitimate question there, but I'm not sure exactly what. Maybe, if you replace "sensitivity" with another concept, one that is common in this subject but uncommon in daily speech (or just describe what changes when CO2 does this or that).

Sensitivity is what changes and by how much when CO2 does this or that.

My concern is that the CO2 sensitivity is not a magic parameter that contains all unknowns recognized or not. SFAIK there is yet no good consensus on warming/cooling of various cloud types.

For that replacement, you would be partially right at the beginning and rather wrong from "and the value selected ..." on.

Would you better phrase and explain this in current vernacular explaining my rightness and wrongness.

I hope you were asking about that, because yesterday I was about to start discussing the topic here by myself, as it's a natural consequence of some fooleries JG dropped here. But I'll await for your clarification. I am prevented to see what I hope to see regarding scientific endeavours.

I don't understand the bolded sentence. Maybe a language barrier? Sorry.

 

[DC]

Sensitivity is what changes and by how much when CO2 does this or that.

My concern is that the CO2 sensitivity is not a magic parameter that contains all unknowns recognized or not. SFAIK there is yet no good consensus on warming/cooling of various cloud types.

On what do you base your concerns on?