Global warming discussion III

[Emily's Cat]

are you really that gullible?? tsk tsk...in a science forum too.

I don't think it's gullibility so much as dogmatism.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't have a passionate opinion one way or the other concerning global warming. I simply don't know enough. I used to just assume it was happening...really because I witnessed my own climate changing. The winters I remembered as a kid (say 1980 to 1990) simply were not as bad as I got older... the snow never stayed more then a few days and you'd get some freakishly warm weather... from like 1997 to 2012 it just seemed winter was no where near as lethal as I remembered. You could not snowmobile near as much, the massive banks that built up in the gully by our home never developed.

But the last 2 years.... the winter I remember is back and I am wondering why. Maybe it's more cyclical then anything else, I don't know.

I know I'm not presenting evidence of any sort... I'm just posting what I'm observing locally.

Who are you going to believe, Christopher Booker or your own lying eyes?

In the UK we've had some winter cold in recent years but not cold winters; we've had a few weeks to a month of cold weather in the midst of relative warmth. One thing I notice is that when we do get snow these days it's gone in a few days if not less. When I was a kid we'd get snow lying for weeks or months but now it just melts in the general warmth.

We also get very few frosts, which is, of course, marvellous news for the slug population .

 

[CapelDodger]

I'd like to think so but they were the third person to post that link, so they obviously hadn't bothered to read even the last few posts before doing so. If they had they would have seen Mikemcc's excellent reply to the first person who posted it.

To be fair those comments are on the precious page. I'd rather attribute to laziness or oversight before malice.

I think we can all agree on ClarkMag, though.

 

[Pixel42]

I figured it catches the point pretty well, and Douglas Adams is awesome, so it's a perfect match.

But seriously, the ocean is really, really big, and really, really deep. Ice takes up more space then liquid water. The ice caps only exist at the poles, and at the surface of the ocean. Yes, I know the majority of icebergs are below the water line, but relative to the depth of the ocean, it's still at the surface. When they melt, they're added to the entirety of the volume of the ocean. The total volume of liquid water in all of the polar caps is a very small percentage of the volume of all the oceans on the planet. The effective change in high-level-mark is subsequently pretty small.

Don't forget thermal expansion.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

 

[Mikemcc]

I figured it catches the point pretty well, and Douglas Adams is awesome, so it's a perfect match.

But seriously, the ocean is really, really big, and really, really deep. Ice takes up more space then liquid water. The ice caps only exist at the poles, and at the surface of the ocean. Yes, I know the majority of icebergs are below the water line, but relative to the depth of the ocean, it's still at the surface. When they melt, they're added to the entirety of the volume of the ocean. The total volume of liquid water in all of the polar caps is a very small percentage of the volume of all the oceans on the planet. The effective change in high-level-mark is subsequently pretty small.

Only icebergs formed by calving from glaciers add to the sea level rise. Ice sheets form and melt on an annual basis (through there is some multi-year ice), consequently the net volume of fluid remains the same as the melting ice is only returning fluid that was used to form them. As mentioned in other posts thermal expansion of the ocean is still the largest component of sea-level rise.

 

[Reality Check]

Is there any truth to this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

No - this is an ignorant rant from the crank Christopher Booker about scientists doing valid science by analyzing data correctly.
See The superhuman cock-ups of Christopher Booker but note that this is an article in The Guardian and so obviously biased .

The article starts with repeating the paranoia of Paul Homewood who thinks that weather station records were purposely adjusted to produce temperature rises instead of falls. The science is that weather station records are adjusted for many reasons, e.g. changes in location or instruments. They are then extended to cover a region rather than the single points at which they are taken. That means that station data are 'homogenized' to cover a region. There is no deliberate adjustment of trends up or down. That just happens as a result of the data analysis.

The article ends with Booker's personal paranoia and ignorance - the adjustment of temperature records to cater for station changes and extend to regions is well explained by GHCN, GISS, the scientific literature, many blogs and probably even textbooks.

 

[lomiller]

How would you know if they were doing it "properly",

Because I looked what the IPCC actually presented

I've given you guys some leeway here, acknowledging that because you don't really understand the statistics, you have little choice but to believe the IPCC (or at least what you understand the IPCC to be telling you, which is unfortunately often filtered through activists who care little for actual science).

While it may not be recent, I’d suggest my education in signal processing and control systems gives me a lot better tools for understanding of the question at hand than anything you seem to have.

That aside, you should really look to yourself and really read your posts and how they appear a skeptic. You are claiming that the peer reviewed literature and the people published it are all wrong because you have some super special knowledge no one else it capable of understanding and we should just stop pointing out your mistakes and your account as to why mainstream science

Once again, your strange belief in 30 years as being some magic number at which things become significant is hopelessly misguided.
[

Strawman. No one ever claimed 20-30 years is a magic number. It’s a rule of thumb and no one other than you has ever said otherwise. Specifically it’s a rule of thumb for how long a period you would need for warming of current rates to show up against the observed natural variation in the data.

Natural Variability and Chaos – Four – The Thirty Year Myth

I get the feeling you didn’t understand what you were reading. The article you found does not address the question of how long a period you need to establish statistical significance of a trend.

Rather, it’s discussing how chaotic systems like climate become less sensitive to initial conditions over time. What this means is that there is no set period where initial conditions stop mattering but that the longer the period you look at the less likely they are to matter.

The point the article is making is that you can’t just take an observed 30 year trend and compare it to a modeled 30 year trend and make a direct comparison because the even at 30 years initial conditions can invalidate this result. This is what you did!
If you follow their lings the best way to make this comparison is to generate an ensemble of model runs that cover the range of model and initial condition uncertainly and find out if the observed results fall in the same range. This is what I told you to do!

Ah, you're trying to cover up for CapelDodger's mistake now.
[

I’m pointing out your mistake. You are choosing a methodology that does not accurately reflect the actual model results documented by the IPCC.

I was responding to CapelDodger who referred to the "long-term trend", not what the model runs show for 2000-2015. [

To refresh:
You wrote:

I just ran the numbers for HadCRUT4.
OLS trend from 1998-2014 annual near surface temps is 0.0066 deg C per year.
OLS trend from 2000-2014 annual near surface temps is 0.0062 deg C per year.

Both well within margin of error and far smaller than the 0.02 deg C per year central prediction of the IPCC (and supposed long-term trend).

The actual observed values from the years 1998 - 2014 are within the range of the model runs presented by the IPCC. You incorrectly reported otherwise. I pointed out the error and explained what you did wrong.

 

[lomiller]

I think we'll be hearing more of the following, which is presumably what Haig is referring to via the useful filter of WattsUpMyButt :

Seafloor Volcano Pulses May Alter Climate
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3231




It hits a lot of the right notes, such as "models might have to be adjusted", "may alter climate" and natural cycles.

I haven't read the full paper but the cycles referred to appear to be the Milankovich cycles and a tidally-induced two-week cycle.



About 88 million metric tons; for comparison we put out about 30 billion tons a year, as I recall. But (well, there's always a but)


Perhaps 10 times to 880 million tons? Versus 30 billion tons or so. Make of that what you will. And you can make even more of it if it actually happens.

More importantly, even if it’s correct the paper is still arguing that CO2 is the base driver of long term climate change. At most it’s offering a different possible answer for how Milankovich cycles trigger the initial feedback loop that warmest/cools the planet by suggesting they influence CO2 emission via volcanic activity.

 

[CapelDodger]

More importantly, even if it’s correct the paper is still arguing that CO2 is the base driver of long term climate change. At most it’s offering a different possible answer for how Milankovich cycles trigger the initial feedback loop that warmest/cools the planet by suggesting they influence CO2 emission via volcanic activity.

Indeed. A few mutiples of 88m tons per annum could perhaps make a difference over centuries if not swamped by our 30 billion per annum.

AGW deniers might be thinking that the extra lava provides the necessary heat - lets not forget there are people out there who think one volcano is melting the entire Antarctic ice-cap (if it's melting at all, which it isn't, but if it is that's definitely what's doing it, you betcha).

I find this line a bit dubious

"The findings suggest that models of earth’s natural climate dynamics, and by extension human-influenced climate change, may have to be adjusted"

That doesn't strike me as a legitimate extension - just look at the timescales - and it may be a product of Columbia's PR department not the paper itself. It hardly needs saying that nothing grabs attention for a science paper like making it AGW related, especially if it "questions" the models.

 

[logger]

Whenever a new piece (or often, as in this case, a rehash of an old piece) of ignorant denier nonsense makes the rounds we get a slew of driveby posts of arrogant cluelessness (I really must thank Coolsceptic for that phrase, it sums it up beautifully). The posters responsible are never going to read the replies - indeed they never read the thread at all, which is why they don't notice when they're the third or fourth poster to deposit the same turd - so I find the best thing to do is just ignore them. Sensible conversation can resume in a day or two.

Really though I only posted it because its all over the news, I'm only looking out for you fine gentleman. It being all over the news means many will believe, thereby rendering your arguments useless (sigh) again. If you guys could really get on this, you might not be so bad at winning the hearts of people you're trying to convince with your science/consensus/theory, which ever of those you'd like to call it this week.

Remember the whole of humanity is at stake!

PS When is Obama going to start slowing the rise of the oceans?

 

[bit_pattern]

you might not be so bad at winning the hearts of people you're trying to convince with your science/consensus/theory, which ever of those you'd like to call it this week.

Oh. Well done. In one neat sentence you managed to demonstrate that you don't understand what any of those three words mean

 

[Reality Check]

Once again, your strange belief in 30 years as being some magic number at which things become significant is hopelessly misguided.

Maybe you should look up what climate is, CoolSceptic ?
World Meteorological Organization - Climate FAQs

What is Climate?
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

(my emphasis added)
The period of 30 years was probably chosen so that natural cycles (e.g. solar activity) would cancel out, i.e. natural variations become statistically insignificant leaving the greenhouse effect from increased CO2 from our activities with increased solar output until the cooling of the last 35 years.
Separating signal and noise in climate warming is a 2011 press release about the paper "Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The Importance of Time Scale," Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, Nov. 18, 2011.

...Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

 

[bit_pattern]

Maybe you should look up what climate is, CoolSceptic ?
World Meteorological Organization - Climate FAQs

*Actual climate scientists* publish on blogs, not peak international body websites

 

[macdoc]

you might not be so bad at winning the hearts of people you're trying to convince

at this point anyone in denial of AGW is terminally delusional.
Just stemming the denial meme is all to protect the innocent.....the discussion has moved on to what to do about it and not make it worse.

 

[logger]

the discussion has moved on to what to do about it and not make it worse.

What exactly are you/we going to do about it?

 

[macdoc]

Exactly is difficult....there many "things" nations, states, cities, companies and individuals are doing around the world....reducing their carbon emissions.
There are threads here covering several aspects - growth of renewables and weaning off fossil fuels.

Sweden has committed to be carbon neutral by 2050 or sooner and is well on it's way. Europe..a similar sized market and population to the US has far lower carbon emissions tho the US is doing better lately with a lot of wind and solar being installed and coal stations being closed ( job 1 in "doing about it )

That you appear unware of this seems astonishing that you even pose the question.

We have already altered the climate at least 3,000 years out...in CO2 terms the biome has not seen these levels for millions of years.....getting much past 2 C by 2100 poses risks for species unable to adapt in a short period....some species are adapting.....we are adapting...it's not necessary to burn all the fossil fuel available....we'll face going carbon neutral then anyway.
A risk we can and are mitigating.

 

[camejo]

Sweden has committed to be carbon neutral by 2050 or sooner and is well on it's way. Europe...

They have done more than most, but so far they've mostly been picking the low hanging fruit. Nothing is being done about the transport section. They recently decided on building a massive highway around Stockholm, for atleast 30 billion kronor (~5-6 billion$). That hasn't been a great strategy on reducing emissions in the past.

And they seem overly negative towards nuclear, atleast part of the new government, the greens. Doesn't seem certain they will do the necessary investments over the coming decades.

 

[CapelDodger]

PS When is Obama going to start slowing the rise of the oceans?

I appreciate that Obama is President of the greatest power there's ever been or ever will be but there are still limits on what he can actually achieve - a point made once by King Knut. For a start there's a principle called Separation of Powers in the US Constitution; then there's the rest of the world (otherwise known as most of it) which does not obey his dictates; and then there's physics, with the finest band of lawyers ever marshalled. He tries, though, I'll give him that. I doubt History will lay much blame on him for the end of Florida as we know it.

 

[CapelDodger]

They have done more than most, but so far they've mostly been picking the low hanging fruit.

If every country followed suit it might have some impact.

Nothing is being done about the transport section. They recently decided on building a massive highway around Stockholm, for atleast 30 billion kronor (~5-6 billion$). That hasn't been a great strategy on reducing emissions in the past.

In the future someone might invent an electrically powered vehicle.

And they seem overly negative towards nuclear, atleast part of the new government, the greens. Doesn't seem certain they will do the necessary investments over the coming decades.

Nothing's certain except death and taxes.

 

[camejo]

If every country followed suit it might have some impact.

I agree, my only point was that they have a long way to go before they're carbon neutral.

Maybe Elon sorts it out