Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

Observations may certainly be going to get seriously out of whack with projected ranges if this accelerates...

Climate trouble may be bubbling up in Far North
Updated Mon. Aug. 31 2009 8:03 AM ET

The Associated Press

MACKENZIE RIVER DELTA, Northwest Territories -- Only a squawk from a sandhill crane broke the Arctic silence -- and a low gurgle of bubbles, a watery whisper of trouble repeated in countless spots around the polar world.
Click to expand...
continues..

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...831/climate_north_090831/20090831?hub=SciTech

snip

Canada's pre-eminent permafrost expert, Chris Burn, has trekked to lonely locations in these high latitudes for almost three decades, meticulously chronicling the changes in the tundra.

On a stopover at the Aurora Research Institute in the Mackenzie Delta town of Inuvik, the Carleton University scientist agreed "we need many, many more field observations." But his teams have found the frozen ground warming down to about 80 meters, and he believes the world is courting disaster in failing to curb warming by curbing greenhouse emissions.

"If we lost just 1 percent of the carbon in permafrost today, we'd be close to a year's contributions from industrial sources," he said. "I don't think policymakers have woken up to this. It's not in their risk assessments."

How likely is a major release?

"I don't think it's a case of likelihood," he said. "I think we are playing with fire."
Click to expand...
indeed....:garfield:
 
Surely you guys knew that I was referring to his answer:

"I don't think it's a case of likelihood," he said. "I think we are playing with fire."

When asked:

"How likely is a major release?"

Once again, he almost sounds like a scientist.

IF you like your scientists giving bogus answers to sciency questions.

:odie:
 
macdoc said:
the underlying physics is sound...
Click to expand...

Our understanding of some aspects if the underlying physics is sound. But every single day we learn more and more about what that means in the RW.

If we understood 100% of the underlying physics then our models would be 100% accurate. Actually not models, model - there would only be one and it would be perfect.

That is clearly not the case.
 
Wangler said:
IF you like your scientists giving bogus answers to sciency questions.
Click to expand...

To be fair that's the sort of answer you often hear via the mainstream media - an opinion dressed in a coat of sensationalism.

I suspect he might have offered a different answer if formally asked in a scientific setting.
 
DogB said:
To be fair that's the sort of answer you often hear via the mainstream media - an opinion dressed in a coat of sensationalism.

I suspect he might have offered a different answer if formally asked in a scientific setting.
Click to expand...

Conceeded.

I just get exasperated with some of what I perceive to be alarmism. That is why the scientists need to be as careful as possible with what they say.

Of course, the scientist has not control over what is printed, regardless of what he/she says.
 
Wangler - he is simply funneling the same frustrations climate scientists feel the world over.....

We are conducting a dangerous experiment with our climate that has no exit strategy......

If in a science setting he more likely to have said that the world ****wits are killing the planet's atmosphere....as have many of his colleagues in more or less graphic terms....

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/scientist-warming-could-cut-population-to-1-billion/
Click to expand...
MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

••
DogB
If we understood 100% of the underlying physics then our models would be 100% accurate. Actually not models, model - there would only be one and it would be perfect.
Click to expand...
Don't be obtuse - I was speaking of the underlying basic physics of AGW.
Y'know - Is CO2 a driver?
Do you have this fixation on models?? - deprived of plastic planes in your youth perhaps....

You seem to have this "all or nothing" attitude.

"Oh that didn't quite work - the door's off kilter - tear the building down":eusa_doh:

Basics that that the climate science community understands....

It's getting warmer. We're the primary cause. It is mostly driven by our fossil C02 release.
The severity of the OUTCOME and pace of change are being modelled to help us deal with the range of consequences..

We cannot model perfectly a candle flame yet we are quite cognizant of the risks of rapid oxidation..

It's called playing with fire...:mgbanghead
 
DogB said:
Honestly, this alone suggests strongly that computer modelling of climate is extremely unreliable.

16 of 18 models couldn't even get the sign of the feedback correct? Jeebus, I might go get some monkeys and some typewriters together, I could hardly do worse could I?
Click to expand...


Maybe that's because the magnitude of the feedback is very small, and the uncertainty large in respect to the magnitude of the feedback.

An increase in temperature causes more water to evaporate which causes more clouds to form, but an increase in temperature allow the atmosphere to hold more water in vapor form, ie less clouds. More clouds cause more incoming short wave radiation to be reflected, but also more long wave radiation to be absorbed by the atmosphere. Clear cold nights or hot muggy nights you pick.

So which is it, more clouds cause more cooling or more heating?

It's so close to a draw it a wonder event the best climatologists can't figure it out or anyone can even guess.

And it is still only a feedback and negative means more stable and positive more unstable.

So what is the climate? Stable or Unstable?
 
macdoc said:
Do you have this fixation on models?? - deprived of plastic planes in your youth perhaps
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about the reliability of models. Let me check...

Yep, that's what we were talking about all right. Try to keep up.
 
Wangler said:
That is why the scientists need to be as careful as possible with what they say.
Click to expand...

Amen.

I have personal experience in how an ‘off the cuff’ attempt at humour can be deliberately misconstrued by the media. My current standard comment to the media is ‘no comment’.
 
DogB said:
Our understanding of some aspects if the underlying physics is sound. But every single day we learn more and more about what that means in the RW.

If we understood 100% of the underlying physics then our models would be 100% accurate. Actually not models, model - there would only be one and it would be perfect.

That is clearly not the case.
Click to expand...
Clearly.

Wangler said:
I just get exasperated with some of what I perceive to be alarmism. That is why the scientists need to be as careful as possible with what they say.
Click to expand...
What always puzzles me is the assumption by some (not necessarily you) that if the models are inaccurate then they are overestimating the effects of human activity on long term climate when it is of course just as likely that they are underestimating it.

When there are a range of possible outcomes, some of which are very bad indeed, it's difficult to judge just how "alarmist" one should be. It's understandable that the people who think there's a high probability that the actual outcome will be toward the "very bad" end of the range, and who see very little being done to avert such an outcome, are getting increasingly concerned and outspoken.
 
mhaze said:
Which shows computer climate models do poorly on clouds. But 2/18 is so low it could be chance.

What do you make of it?

Often when these climatolobotomists do their work, they use an "ensemble of climate models". The idea is that the group collective opinion (of the models) is more accurate than any of the individual opinions (of the models). But here the "ensemble" shows no correlation. So the researchers go to one or two of the 18 that provide results in accordance with preconceived and required bias. Then they report and publish results that said positive feedback?

This is kind of weird sciency thinking in my humble opinion.

This is followed by what, three separate posters to this forum presenting this study (apparently the second and third posters being unaware of the prior production of the link in this thread) ...

as evidence that clouds provide a positive feedback?

That's just too ridiculous. I must have missed something. Or I need to go debate these things somewhere else where the standards are higher.
Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly you have missed something.
 
macdoc said:
Geckko
Economic models I would not compare with models based on physics as there is no fundamental agreement on the underlying "physics" of the economic models in the first place...

While there is also discrepancies and lacunae in climate models as to various interactions the underlying physics is sound...

Not so in economic models IMNSHO as people are not gas molecules.
Click to expand...

Nature of the underlying processes isn't the only issue one needs to contend with when using what in both cases are large systems of simultaneous (partial differential) equations.
 
What always puzzles me is the assumption by some (not necessarily you) that if the models are inaccurate then they are overestimating the effects of human activity on long term climate when it is of course just as likely that they are underestimating it.
Click to expand...

which has clearly been the case in the Arctic by decades

At the same time the climate modellers are the the first to admit cryosphere projections are exceedingly difficult.

I dare say every one of of them would be thrilled to find a strong negative feedback to slow down the pace of change and give humans time.

The only glimmer of a slow down is the Eastern Antarctic where the ongoing ozone is keeping the temps a bit cooler - one anthro impact somewhat offsetting another.

It irks me to no end when the nonsense about "finding what they want to find" gets tossed about by armchair deniers who have never set foot in the field and speculate on CT crap.
We KNOW where the purposeful lies and distortions arise - mHaze and his ilk are classic examples...:rolleyes:

••
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom