Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Pixel42]

This just shows to what length global warming scientists will go to prove their thesis. Black is White. Up is Down.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html

An interesting and, as the authors say, wholely unexpected finding.

Do you have any reason to doubt the quality of the research that led to it? And how precisely do you think it helps "global warming scientists" (by which I assume you mean climatologists) "prove their thesis"?

 

[bit_pattern]

Ugh

Cuccinelli goes fishing again
Filed under:

* Climate Science

— group @ 4 October 2010

In keeping with our role as a site that tries to deal with the science of climate change rather than the politics, we have specifically refrained from commenting on various politically-motivated legal shenanigans relating to climate science. Some of them have involved us directly, but we didn’t (don’t) want to have RC become just a blog about us. However, the latest move by Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia, against Mike Mann and UVa is so ridiculous it needs to be highlighted to the widest audience possible.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/10/cuccinelli-goes-fishing-again/

 

[Pixel42]

I do not see the point of your response.

The point of my response was to give you two examples of how a steadily changing single factor can be identified as responsible for a long term underlying trend, even though its effect is occasionally drowned out - or even briefly reversed - by other shorter term factors.

So the fact that the rise in global temperature does not always "exactly track" the rise of atmospheric CO2 does not mean that the latter can be ruled out as the principle cause of the former, which is what you seemed to be suggesting in the post I quoted.

 

[CapelDodger]

If the CO2 component cannot be separated out and quantified then there is no basis for saying it is a contributing factor.

There is physical basis for saying that it is a contributing factor, which is why the current warming was predicted. Physics predicted it. It didn't precisely quantify it, of course, but it got within the ball-park.

Qualitative assessments are useful in only the simplest examples and even then are of little use in doing other than explaining a physical principle to the student.

The laws of physics are all about the quality.

Without the math physics is of no value.

Numbers aren't math. Extracting exactly what contribution enhanced CO₂ has made to day-to-day climate change (or even decade-to-decade) is not what confirms the laws of physics - those laws which were used to predict the current warming. Not to predict the exact warming, nor its exact impact on climate from place to place and year to year, but to predict that it would happen. Before the event.

It is not credible that global climate can change because of modest industrialization over 2-3% of the world.

Europe, Russia, North America, India, China, Japan, and other parts with slightly less intensity is a bit more than 2-3% of the land-surface. And from those parts the aerosols (being airborne) travelled to yet more distant parts, even over the oeans.

It is very credible.

I am unaware of any quantitative determination of this as fact.

The quality is good though. As explanations for what happened go, it does very well. It wasn't predicted before the event but it does go a long way to why it happened.

Again without math there is nothing which can be said on causes. That is the way it is even for simple systems. The earth's climate is rather beyond a simple system.

Far from simple, but not mysterious. By demanding exact numbers for everything you treat climate as if it is a simple system.

It's a system which is going in one way only - ever warmer. Just as expected.

 

[Matt Giwer]

No, that shows that science is complicated and not always intuitive.

On an aside note, regarding Macdoc's exchange above with Matt regarding physics; read it and weep, Matt:

It is not wise to confuse a job title with a substantive difference.

But please prove me wrong. Describe the physical principles that are unique to "atmospheric" physics which a not found in physics in general.

There are legitimate distinctions as classic, quantum and nuclear physics because they involve principles that are not found in the others.

What might be called atmospheric physics is almost all classical physics and the almost is only for the possibility of cosmic rays contributing to cloud nucleation and a possible ozone production contribution which I am reasonably certain has been ruled out.

 

[The True Scotsman]

Simple correction:

(* signifies where the change occurred)

Once this *methane is in the atmosphere it will be hard to get out.

Changed from "permafrost" (which made absolutely no sense )

 

[Pixel42]

Europe, Russia, North America, India, China, Japan, and other parts with slightly less intensity is a bit more than 2-3% of the land-surface. And from those parts the aerosols (being airborne) travelled to yet more distant parts, even over the oeans.

It is very credible.

Far more credible than that a few chemicals produced by a handful of domestic products like hair spray and refridgerators could dramatically effect the amount of ozone high above the South Pole. And yet ...

 

[aleCcowaN]

It is not credible that global climate can change because of modest industrialization over 2-3% of the world.

Europe, Russia, North America, India, China, Japan, and other parts with slightly less intensity is a bit more than 2-3% of the land-surface. And from those parts the aerosols (being airborne) travelled to yet more distant parts, even over the oeans.

It is very credible.

I'd say that following your original idea one should answer such phrases with "It is not credible that 0.1 grams of potassium cyanide can kill a 160 pound person" or "it is not credible that the finger pressing the button that starts a turbine motion in a hydro-electrical plant have the power to provide electricity to every household in a city", that is, the kind of phrases that show lack of knowledge or complete disregard about physics, chemistry, system dynamics and a lot of scientific disciplines and still are trying to say how the world works.

It was most kind of you explaining how things really work, but in this case it seems that the categorical "it is not credible" has replaced the acceptable "I don't believe" not by an accident. I know you knew, but I wanted to state it explicitly.

 

[bit_pattern]

The dip in temperatures after 1940 are also, at least in part, an artefact of the war and a change in the way the navy gathered SST data before and after the war:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/full/nature06982.html

 

[lomiller]

If they can be accounted for then it should be a simple matter to run the equations backwards and reconstruct the last 2000 years of climate fluctuations in warming, cooling including the little ice age and going beyond those 2000 years back to the real ice age and the interglacial periods. I am unaware that has been done but again, if it has, I would much appreciate proper references to this having been accomplished..

This is done regularly and with some success, but you miss the stunningly obvious problem that you need valid inputs. How much CO2 is known to some degree, how much energy the earth was receiving from the Sun is less certain and Ozone/Aerosol levels are almost a complete unknown.

You also miss the obvious issue that the earths climate is both non-linear and chaotic. While there are well defined mathematical methods for dealing with both of these, they preclude the type of exact knowledge you claim should exist but nicely describe trends unless a non-linear tipping point is encountered. In such systems uncertainly arises out of the mathematical equations themselves, not form any lack of understanding of the system. So you basic premise is deeply and irrevocably flawed.

But then it leaves the greatest problem of all. The simulations cannot be verified until there are results which match the predictions.

Which isn’t a problem, as you can predict things for which observations already exist but play no part in defining you model. Every climate model predicts the last 100 years with reasonable accuracy when given the input conditions that occurred over that period. (CO2, solar, volcanic activity, etc)

 

[lomiller]

But please prove me wrong. Describe the physical principles that are unique to "atmospheric" physics which a not found in physics in general.

Why the demand they not apply to physics in general? The greenhouse effect is a consequence of really well documented physics that are universal and are used by physicists everywhere. Indeed many branches of physics are impossible to apply without using these very same principles and laws.

In any case the effect MacDoc was describing is counterintuitive but doesn’t require any special physics to understand. The paper is saying that when they measured the energy in various bandwidths they found that when the Suns energy total output is lowest, it’s actually producing more energy in the visible band and much less UV. Since the visible band gets absorbed by the troposphere while most UV doesn’t get past the ozone layer the earth actually gets more energy from the sun when it’s total energy output is low. Simple physics, counterintuitive results.

What might be called atmospheric physics is almost all classical physics

Completely false. The absorption and emission of photons by a gas molecule is a behaviour best described by quantum mechanics.

a possible ozone production contribution which I am reasonably certain has been ruled out.

Ozone is a well known greenhouse gas. Not only has it not been “ruled out” it’s been positively identified as a smallish player in climate change.

 

[macdoc]

Ironic our armchair environment critic misses methane - 20 x more potent than C02 and the 900 lb gorilla waking up,

Published on Monday, July 19, 2010 by CommonDreams.org Methane Seeps, Tipping Points Feared as Congress Sleepwalks

Dangerous Methane Seeping from Siberian Seabeds

by Gary Houser

"Methane is leaking from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf into the atmosphere at an alarming rate... Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming."
- National Science Foundation press release (March 4, 2010)

lucky it's relatively short lived persistence but the feedback potential is ferocious given it's strength as a GHG

 

[bit_pattern]

From Michael Mann: Get the antiscience bent out of politicshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705484_pf.html

 

[Matt Giwer]

The point of my response was to give you two examples of how a steadily changing single factor can be identified as responsible for a long term underlying trend, even though its effect is occasionally drowned out - or even briefly reversed - by other shorter term factors.

So the fact that the rise in global temperature does not always "exactly track" the rise of atmospheric CO2 does not mean that the latter can be ruled out as the principle cause of the former, which is what you seemed to be suggesting in the post I quoted.

So separate it out and show me instead of telling me it can't be done. Show me exactly its effects so that the other variables can be assessed.

If that has not been done then there is no brief for or against CO2, period.

 

[Matt Giwer]

There is physical basis for saying that it is a contributing factor, which is why the current warming was predicted. Physics predicted it. It didn't precisely quantify it, of course, but it got within the ball-park.

Care to provide a citation of the paper which predicted it?

I will wait with abated breath and expect to become very smurfish before receiving a reply.

 

[Matt Giwer]

This is done regularly and with some success, but you miss the stunningly obvious problem that you need valid inputs. How much CO2 is known to some degree, how much energy the earth was receiving from the Sun is less certain and Ozone/Aerosol levels are almost a complete unknown.

Unless there were some secret industrial societies in the world over those years then CO2 was constant. And unless they were producing CFCs then that was a constant,i.e., negligible to none. You don't have to worry about those. Therefore the model should give results mirroring the known swings in temperate as there was no anthropogenic contribution.

Keep in mind the assumption today is there would be no change in temperature were it not for human activity. So the model must also show changes with no contributory human activity. Yes, I am aware it must do two contradictory things but that is the way the melters are selling it.

You also miss the obvious issue that the earths climate is both non-linear and chaotic. While there are well defined mathematical methods for dealing with both of these, they preclude the type of exact knowledge you claim should exist but nicely describe trends unless a non-linear tipping point is encountered. In such systems uncertainly arises out of the mathematical equations themselves, not form any lack of understanding of the system. So you basic premise is deeply and irrevocably flawed.

If one introduces the chaotic nature then there is no way to attribute any change in climate to anything. And there is no evidence supporting the existence of these so-far hypothetical tipping points so they cannot be introduced as other than hypothetical.

Yet my premise is that the melters are correct in identifying CO2 and if they are correct then they have to do what I say. You however are saying there is no way to identify any cause for the reasons you give.

Which isn’t a problem, as you can predict things for which observations already exist but play no part in defining you model. Every climate model predicts the last 100 years with reasonable accuracy when given the input conditions that occurred over that period. (CO2, solar, volcanic activity, etc)

Which means there is no way to validate the predictions for another century of doing exactly the same thing we are doing now. Quite worthless in regarding to predicting anything for most people alive today.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Why the demand they not apply to physics in general?

Read what I am responding to and see why.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Ironic our armchair environment critic misses methane - 20 x more potent than C02 and the 900 lb gorilla waking up,

lucky it's relatively short lived persistence but the feedback potential is ferocious given it's strength as a GHG

Like that hasn't happened before.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

A sign of things to come perhaps?
The full letter can be found at the link provided.

Here's some of the fun stuff. Bolded is mine.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

 

[CapelDodger]

Care to provide a citation of the paper which predicted it?

I will wait with abated breath and expect to become very smurfish before receiving a reply.

It goes back to Arrhenius at the turn of the 20thCE and is obvious given the physical principles involved. He, of course, thought it was a purely technical point for a distant future, living in a time when cars and electric power-grids were a novelty and powered flight was still a pipe-dream. As a Swede he also thought warming might be rather a good thing.)

Subsequently there was the work by Callendar and Plass and a growing awareness in the scientific community through the 60's and 70's that AGW was a near-term issue. This emerged onto the more general scene in the 80's. It has, of course, proved to be a near-term issue because here it is in 2010. Hardly surprising given that the laws of physics dictate it and aren't mysteriously different when applied to climate.