Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[technoextreme]

The REAL world is obviously wrong!

Are you being dumb on purpose or did you seriously answer my question? I honestly can't tell with you.

 

[Poptech]

The economics forum is over yonder....even The Economist notes it's not a science, and has failed spectacularly.....humans will decide on what approach they take..just as I do in my own sustainable, approaching zero carbon, no growth required business that has been around for a 1/4 of a century... I decide...not some invisible hand
......not that Adam Smith was correct anyways ( or did you miss that bit )

You are as misguided and poorly informed about how people make decisions in the economic sphere as you are about the earth sciences.....laughing stock comes to mind.....never more evident than from your posts....

Mac, you have no remote understanding of economics. That Economist article refers to the failure of Keynesian based Macroeconomics, Macroeconomic Modeling and Central Banks. Adam Smith is a Classical Economist which differs from Keynesianism, the Chicago School, Supply Side Economics, The Austrian School ect...

"Mainstream Keynesian Macroeconomics" has been a total failure! I agree but this has nothing to do with those who were right.

Peter Schiff Was Right (2006-2007) (Video) (10min)
America's Unsustainable Boom (2004) (Stefan Karlsson, Economist)
Housing Bubble: Myth or Reality? (2003) (Frank Shostack, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)

The only laughing stock is you Mac, you show your economic illiteracy with each post. You confuse Keynes with Smith and free market economics. This a common error of ignorance. Capitalism and free market economics have not failed, the mixed economy and government intervention has.

Don't Blame Capitalism (The Washington Post)

 

[mhaze]

Does the paper make this statement, "We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing"... yes the paper makes this statement. And this is also concluded...

Now Mac, answer my question.

"Do you support Socialism or Capitalism?"...

Warmers all smear and attack the likes of Heritage Foundation and CEI, and other free market and capitalism advocacy groups. Then they link to and naively, gullibly present as Truthy such sources as Sourcewatch, MediaMatters, and Realclimate - associated with and or funded by far left political operations.

What does that tell you?

 

[mhaze]

For arguments sake, even if global warming was not human-caused, it is still a cause for concern. We would still need to develop the technologies and policies necessary to make life on this planet sustainable.

Though, I fail to see how all the impact humans have had on the planet could not possibly be a significant contributing factor.

Oh, you will find a lot of support for that statement by skeptics of global warming and the middle ground, which is 90% of the public and of the scientists.

However, your argument cannot support the current mania on AGW and GW and cannot support in any fashion the platforms advocated by far left environmental groups. They also cannot support the myopic sciency propaganda and the political pushiness to tax carbon or subject it to cap and con (essentially only stealth taxation).

The reaons I make these points is because a rational view would put GW as a cause for concern along with other natural and human issues - hunger, education, third world issues, looming problems of superbugs, pandemics, global cooling, asteroid strikes, etc. The irrational view which is in fact being discussed here is a myopic focus on CO2 taxation.

A rational view on climate effects alone would consider all possible human influences on climate and of these CO2 would be a minor issue.

 

[Tapio]

Warmers all smear and attack the likes of Heritage Foundation and CEI, and other free market and capitalism advocacy groups. Then they link to and naively, gullibly present as Truthy such sources as Sourcewatch, MediaMatters, and Realclimate - associated with and or funded by far left political operations.

What does that tell you?

Not commenting either way, but asking. Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I assure you it's an honest one.

What difference does it make where the funding comes from if the science adds up?

 

[CapelDodger]

Then they link to and naively, gullibly present as Truthy such sources as Sourcewatch, MediaMatters, and Realclimate - associated with and or funded by far left political operations.

What evidence you have for that?

What does that tell you?

What does it tell us that you make these claims despite having no evidence, and despite the fact that they make you sound completely insane? Do you not even care?

 

[bobdroege7]

Capitalism and Democracy are the two greatest social ideas produced by man, however they both have serious drawbacks, currently there are no true democratic governments of any importance.

All humans have at least a little bit of greed, which has caused the economic problems we are in right now. It is difficult for humans to look far enough ahead to make the right decisions. Adjustable rate mortgages anyone. A little bit greedy to buy one, the one who sells it is a little bit greedy, each little mortgage company has to make money seeling mortgages and then selling to larger companies ect. And then default mortgage swap made on margin. But that is off topic.

The problem is our energy supply and if we continue to go with the cheapest available energy, which the free-market system certainly is the best tool to find that cheapest energy, then the resulting CO2 is certainly going to spoil our nest.

Now I'll get back on topic. Just because the earth's climate system is chaotic, doesn't mean it is not predictable. Just because the models don't predict the exact conditions in the future doesn't make climate modeling an epic failure. Earth's orbit is a chaotic system, but we can safely predict that the Milankovich cycles will continue. Each different climate model will predict the future climate within it's own specific precision and we just need to use the most precise ones, and keep improving the models prescision.

To say a model is 100% wrong, well it isn't even wrong to say that. For a climate model to be 100% wrong it would have to predict a temperature of 0 K or 580 K, and one is impossible and the other is highly unlikely.

While I am using percentages, bad

it is true that CO2 is a minor part of the atmosphere, it is also true that gases also act alone. Look up Dalton's law of partial pressures. The majority of the atmosphere, the nitrogen, oxygen and argon are opaque to the long range infared radiation the earth emits, so the actual percentage the CO2 is of the atmosphere is irrelevant.

 

[macdoc]

Tapio

Originally Posted by mhaze
Warmers all smear and attack the likes of Heritage Foundation and CEI, and other free market and capitalism advocacy groups. Then they link to and naively, gullibly present as Truthy such sources as Sourcewatch, MediaMatters, and Realclimate - associated with and or funded by far left political operations.

What does that tell you?

Not commenting either way, but asking. Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I assure you it's an honest one.

What difference does it make where the funding comes from if the science adds up?

Because companies like Exxon will surpress reports even from their own scientists

Fossil Fuel Industries Ignored Their Own Scientists On Climate Change

http://www.nhne.org/news/NewsArticl...eType/ArticleView/articleId/5650/Default.aspx

and junk science spinners like mHaze and Poptech love to wallow in have nothing whatsoever to do with main stream climate science and are right wing nonsense vendors with agendas in the political and economic arena.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/

They don't like SourceWatch as it exposes the manufactured controversy.

They don't like RealClimate as it is actual science by climate scientists and Gavin et al do not suffer fools such as them.
Poptech/Mastertech got tossed for mouthy nonsense that had nothing to do with science......

THIS is international mainstream climate science

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

as is this

http://www.nature.com/earthsciences/index.html

 

[Dancing David]

I understand there is evidence for a mild warming trend since the LIA this is not evidence that man-made CO2 is the cause. Let alone evidence of catastrophe.

Nor does everyone who believes that there is AGW a catastophist. However even a 2 degree centigrade increase in temperature over all will lead to some likely unpleasant consequences in many areas.

I have always phrased my statement with 'might', 'seems likely', yes it may be that CO₂ is not the main driving factor. But there are other reasons to limit as well, even f what i think is slikely turns out to be unfounded.

The LIA may have been very limited as it were in geographic extent, so while I appreciate the argument, I am not sure of it's validity as a starting point.

Why not use the Medieval Warming Period as well?

 

[Dancing David]

Lets look at the news release for this paper.

Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong (Rice University)

More evidence of the models being wrong, of which I have already provided extensive evidence for...

Antarctic Temperatures Disagree With Climate Model Predictions (Ohio State University)
Are Existing Large-scale Simulations Of Water Dynamics Wrong? (Soil Science Society of America)
Climate Models Overheat Antarctica, New Study Finds (National Center for Atmospheric Research)
Dunes, Climate Models Don't Match Up With Paleomagnetic Records (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)
Global Warming Predictions Are Overestimated, Suggests Study On Black Carbon (Cornell University)
New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability (International Journal of Climatology)
Overconfidence Leads To Bias In Climate Change Estimations (Penn State)
Widespread 'Twilight Zone' Detected Around Clouds, Not Included In Most Climate Change Models (NASA)

OMFSM!

SOMEBODY REPORT THIS TO THE MODS!

We must support Poptech in his mistaken claim of persecution and suppresion!

 

[Dancing David]

True. Also a transition to a renewable energy economy is inevitable. You could make the case that it's better to do it now while we have options than later when we don't.

While teh cause of AGW may not be certain and it may not be linked to human industrial CO₂, the cost of changing our energy supply goes up for each increment of time we do not do it. So we have a Pascal's choice.

We can chose to do it now at X cost for subsequent generations or
we can delay
and pay 20X cost for subsequent generations if it is done later (the twenty is just a number it could be 2).

So if we do it now, we save money either way, if AGW is human related or not. In this Pascals choice you have:
-save money if AGW is not true
-save money and help the climate if AGW is true

And the acidification of the oceans is another reason besides the likely AGW.

 

[mhaze]

Not commenting either way, but asking. Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I assure you it's an honest one.

What difference does it make where the funding comes from if the science adds up?

Actually that's a good question. Pure capitalists would argue that virtually all science should be done in the private sector, and that it invariably becomes corrupted in the hands of government.

JREF Warmers continually attack in ad hominem style whatever seems to be a right wing source, and in particular whatever may have had even a microscopic fraction of funding by oil companies. But they have a blind eye to the vast distorsion, bigotry and propaganda by left wing sources.

I would more agree with your comment, than excluding either or both.

While teh cause of AGW may not be certain and it may not be linked to human industrial CO₂, the cost of changing our energy supply goes up for each increment of time we do not do it. So we have a Pascal's choice.

We can chose to do it now at X cost for subsequent generations or we can delay and pay 20X cost for subsequent generations if it is done later (the twenty is just a number it could be 2).

So if we do it now, we save money either way, if AGW is human related or not. In this Pascals choice you have:
-save money if AGW is not true
-save money and help the climate if AGW is true

Really? You presume that the cost for future generations is some higher multiple, and suggest a range of 2-20. How about a cost for future generations of 0.01 to 0.1 of the cost of doing it now? How about a cost to future generations of 0.000001?

Then you proceed to a wrong conclusion based on your initial false premise.

So if we do it now, we save money either way, if AGW is human related or not. In this Pascals choice you have:
-save money if AGW is not true
-save money and help the climate if AGW is true

Apparently you are arguing here that if the 2C midrange temperature increase projected due to AGW by the IPCC occurs but is not due to AGW, then we "save money". And if the 2C increase occurs due to AGW, we "save money and help the climate".

Here is the correction:

If we do it now, we waste money either way.
-"Doing it" won't work, so the money wasted at the git go.
-If we could "do it" but AGW was not true, then we have cooled the planet 2C which is a very, very bad idea.
-If we could "do it" but AGW was true, then the comparative is the cost of "doing it" versus alternative uses of those funds to lower human misery and improve economic conditions

And then you conclude

And the acidification of the oceans is another reason besides the likely AGW.

Which makes NO sense. Perhaps you were trying to say something like "we ought to reverse acidification of the oceans regardless of whether it is caused by man's AGW?"

All kinds of people would disagree with that.

 

[mhaze]

...The LIA may have been very limited as it were in geographic extent, so while I appreciate the argument, I am not sure of it's validity as a starting point....

Oh, it's a good enough starting point, because the global temperature was at a low point during the LIA.

Warmers juggle geography to suit their purposes.

• Is there a Hockey Stick? Use a multiline spagetti chart of Northern Hemisphere temperatures.
• Is there Alarming Warming? Use Arctic temperatures
• Is the Antarctic Warming? Focus on the peninsula, of course

 

[macdoc]

Poptech harps on the Rice paper which clearly indicates the models are underestimating by as much as half the warming we will face.....

That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

so even more reason to go to carbon neutral....but he doesn't get that....

http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=12794&SnID=994429986

From the same journal amongst hundreds of articles

Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 15 January 2009

Where warming hits hard
Threatened with encroaching seas, dwindling water supplies and fiercer storms, Bangladesh is already suffering the ill effects of rising global greenhouse gas emissions. Mason Inman reports on how the region is coping with climate change.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0902/full/climate.2009.3.html

and another paper about sensitivity that warns about underestimating...

Figure 1: Studies estimating the climate's sensitivity give a large range of possibilities, but they agree that the most likely value is 3 °C.

Some scientists worry, however, about the 'fat tail', showing a small but real possibility that the sensitivity could be high — 6 °C or even more. Graph adapted from the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report9.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0905/full/climate.2009.41.html

Which Poptechs paper he is madly waving about actually supports.....and is very likely a transient methane response....which we are seeing now...

Methane Gas Levels Begin To Increase Again

ScienceDaily (Oct. 30, 2008) — The amount of methane in Earth's atmosphere shot up in 2007, bringing to an end a period of about a decade in which atmospheric levels of the potent greenhouse gas were essentially stable, according to a team led by MIT researchers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081029141043.htm

 

[bobdroege7]

Actually that's a good question. Pure capitalists would argue that virtually all science should be done in the private sector, and that it invariably becomes corrupted in the hands of government.

Pure Capitalists would be wrong, and there aren't any such critters anyhow. Show me a CEO of a company that would refuse government money for research he would do anyway.

Lots of research get done before it gets corrupted by the source of funding, corporate or governmental.

And private research never gets corrupted?

-If we could "do it" but AGW was not true, then we have cooled the planet 2C which is a very, very bad idea.

mhaze is a warmer

if CO2 causes warming

then lowering CO2 causes cooling (this is only true if AGW is true)

therefore mhaze is a warmer

 

[mhaze]

mhaze is a warmer

hehehehe....clever, clever, clever....

Show me a CEO of a company that would refuse government money for research he would do anyway.

Many CEOs would refuse government money. This is a broad subject, but for example rights of ownership eg patents and licensing are restricted by the strings that come with government funds. Many other restrictions.

Where warming hits hard
Threatened with encroaching seas, dwindling water supplies and fiercer storms, Bangladesh is already suffering the ill effects of rising global greenhouse gas emissions. Mason Inman reports on how the region is coping with climate change. http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0...te.2009.3.html

That the Bangladesh that is gaining land?

 

[BenBurch]

Not sure the Rice paper is more than suggestive, but to the extent it is, it demolishes the Randite AGW Truthers.

 

[macdoc]

Ben

States it pretty clearly

"in addition to Co2 forcing" - there is additional warming unaccounted for in the observed rise....it does not speculate on a source....

••

Cherry picking again mHaze...never fails...

"There's a lot of accretion, and a lot of erosion, and they're almost in balance," he says. "We are gaining land — but it is a net loss." That's because the new land isn't of much use right away.

.
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0902/fig_tab/climate.2009.3_F1.html

..kinda clear the rest of the scenario

Climate change will almost certainly make these disasters worse, threatening to reverse the country's progress. Hurricanes in this region have gotten stronger in recent decades, and continued warming in the Indian Ocean could see the trend continue, some researchers predict.

Monsoon rainfall is likely to increase and to fall in more intense bursts, making the annual floods broader, deeper and longer, and this could increase river erosion, too. Farmers are already reporting changes in the growing seasons. More erratic weather is making it hard for them to grow crops on the schedules that worked in the past.
And then there's the danger of the encroaching sea, which threatens to submerge a substantial part of the country, to worsen monsoon floods and to help storm surges clear protective embankments. "All of that combines to [make] a recipe for pretty horrific disaster," says Atiq Rahman, executive director of the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS) in Dhaka and a lead author on the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Encroaching ocean

Of all of the effects of climate change, sea level rise may pose the most pervasive challenge for Bangladesh. Nearly the entire country is a vast, flat delta, where even a modest climb in the height of the Bay of Bengal could push water deep inland if it weren't for the protective barriers along the coast.

After being fairly stable for a couple of thousand years, sea levels have crept up about 20 centimetres since the mid-1800s. For the coming century, the 2007 IPCC report talks about sea level rise in centimetres — to be precise, 18 to 59 centimetres.

But most climate scientists agree these estimates are too conservative, as they overlook the ways glaciers and ice sheets can slip, crack and calve off icebergs to dump increasing amounts of ice into the oceans. Now that researchers are watching this happen and beginning to understand these processes, known as glacial dynamics, some are predicting much larger increases in sea levels.

reality for millions of people - some of the poorest on earth and not their doing.....first world civilization's release of GHG....

.....your denial crap is an insult to what they KNOW is going on and have to cope with......

 

[Wangler]

"After being fairly stable for a couple of thousand years,"

What is that supposed to mean I wonder? "Fairly stable"?

 

[Wangler]

Sea level rise:



I just don't see a trend that is much different from pre-1850.....