Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

Good article on climate change head space

http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/...the-psychological-battle-over-global-warming/

 

[DC]

i wonder what others think here, i would argue climate model results are empirical evidence, claimte models are or can be experiments based on empirical data.

"Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation." WP

"In the scientific method, an experiment is an empirical method that arbitrates between competing models or hypotheses." WP

"Scientific modelling is a scientific activity the aim of which is to make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate." WP

am i too climate model friendly?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Global Cooling

Well.... all those people who said Global Warming was a lie are gonna love this: apparently now we're going through a global cooling

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

I'm just glad the Polar Bears are gonna be ok after all. Those pictures of Polar bears sitting on floating ice caps in the middle of nowhere really depressed me

 

[lionking]

Daily Mail article, so instantly dismissed.

We've just come off our hottest winter on record in Australia.....

 

[DC]

Daily Mail article, so instantly dismissed.

We've just come off our hottest winter on record in Australia.....

no wonder your winters are warm, you have them in the middle of the summer

 

[uke2se]

No, we're not going through a global cooling.

 

[lionking]

no wonder your winters are warm, you have them in the middle of the summer

Damn! I didn't see that flaw in my argument. Well detected DC.

 

[DC]

No, we're not going through a global cooling.

im sure the daily mail's climate expert Rose

looks at a bigger picture

 

[aleCcowaN]

Well.... all those people who said Global Warming was a lie are gonna love this: apparently now we're going through a global cooling



I'm just glad the Polar Bears are gonna be ok after all. Those pictures of Polar bears sitting on floating ice caps in the middle of nowhere really depressed me

Where's the global cooling going on? I want to be there !

This reminds me that about "It was a bright cold day in April and the clocks were striking thirteen" as we are in front of a new case of journalism used to rewrite the past.

First of all, the original "prediction" during 2007. Note that the journalist was not happy with the predictions of an ice-free Arctic by as late as 2100 ( «... These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100») and he decided to interview who had the most tabloid-compatible view.

Today, we are experiencing what is really predictable in a context of a warming planet, but that is going to be twisted as cooling, following the lame and laughable path of those who take heavy snowfall also as a signal of cooling. Ignorance is blizzard. Of course, that random "prediction" will become what '(all) the scientists promised' as it helps denialism in its preaching.

no wonder your winters are warm, you have them in the middle of the summer

Damn! I didn't see that flaw in my argument. Well detected DC.

That should have been the cause we experienced here at Buenos Aires on September 10th with a 23°C low and 35°C high, a typical very hot day of Summer.

There's a certain irony in this business of denialism celebrating yet once again the beginning of cooling and all the global indicators of the climate that are suggesting more warming in the pipe.

 

[macdoc]

Hmmmm - very interesting set of observations....

Multi-agency study reveals widening seasonal swings in CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere

Molly Crotwell

A specially equipped Gulfstream V aircraft, owned by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and operated by NCAR, prepares for takeoff at the Rocky Mountain Regional Airport in 2009. The GV captured detailed data on Earth's atmosphere in a pole-to-pole mission between 2009 and 2011. Findings from that mission and others show that the seasonal swings in carbon dioxide, in the Northern Hemisphere, have grown significantly wider in recent decades, for unknown reasons.
Credit: Will von Dauster, NOAA.

Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rise and fall annually as plants take up the gas in spring and summer and release it in fall and winter through photosynthesis and respiration. Now the range of that cycle is growing as more CO2 is emitted from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, according to a study published in Science by Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, with CIRES and NOAA co-authors.

more

http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/vegetation.html

 

[aleCcowaN]

Hmmmm - very interesting set of observations....


more

http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/vegetation.html

I'm pretty sceptic about where that analysis points. It basically takes data along the line of what is depicted in the image I linked on Nov. 15th (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/globalview/images/gvco2_lg_movie.gif) and makes a theory about vegetation. I didn't find any other points of analysis, like ocean absorption. I couldn't find yet a pdf of the paper to give it a read, but I don't lose hope.

Again, hmmm!!!

 

[macdoc]

How can you be skeptical of where it points as the article draws no conclusions. That would imply you are skeptical of your own notion of where it points.
It's a set of observations.

he findings are the result of a multi-year airborne survey of atmospheric chemistry called HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO). Observations of atmospheric CO2 made by aircraft at altitudes between 3 and 6 kilometers (10,000-20,000 feet) – combined with aircraft data from NOAA and CIRES – show that seasonal CO2 variations have substantially increased in amplitude over the last 50 years. - See more at: http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/vegetation.html#sthash.MAjdMGRq.dpuf

they quite freely admit that it's a puzzle to be solved...

It is not yet understood why the increase in seasonal amplitude of CO2 concentration is so large, but it is a clear signal of widespread changes in northern ecosystems. - See more at: http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/vegetation.html#sthash.MAjdMGRq.dpuf

It may well impact models tho....

Simulating complex processes in terrestrial ecosystems with models is recognized to be a challenge, and the observed change in CO2 amplitude is larger than simulated by models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While this underestimate does not call into question the response of climate to CO2 concentration in the IPCC models, it does suggest that a better understanding of what happened over the last 50 years could improve projections of future ecosystem changes. The bottom line is that northern ecosystems appear to be behaving differently than they did 50 years ago, said study authors. - See more at: http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/vegetation.html#sthash.MAjdMGRq.dpuf

 

[aleCcowaN]

How can you be skeptical of where it points as the article draws no conclusions. That would imply you are skeptical of your own notion of where it points.
It's a set of observations.

Not a so innocent set of observations when one starts speculating without completing the sets of data, like sea ice retreat, dynamics of ocean carbon dioxide absorption, CO2 variability related to CO2 stock and deep change in land use, which is not only about replacing woods with pastures or crop land but having crop land and pastures in the 40s without using fertilizers and irrigation, plus crop rotation and other systems aimed to preserve soil natural fertility (not so much biomass into carbon dioxide during Winter), to change them into intensive crops on degraded soils with quite artificial biomass cycles.

It looks to me like the problem was so complex that we decided to ignore 75% of what is necessary to understand it. We're puzzled (no wonder!).

they quite freely admit that it's a puzzle to be solved...

"...a clear signal of widespread changes in northern ecosystems" not so puzzled they seem. Unless land use change was specifically born in mind, and the changes were expected and not a source of puzzlement.

It may well impact models tho....

It should. This shows how primitive models are still today. Earth system models have modules simulating the natural environmental reaction. This is not to wreck models at all, as they are the best we have. But you have to take their conclusions with so many pinches of salt that people with high blood pressure must refrain in dealing with them.

Models are a way to study an extremely complex subject and a step by step progress is to be expected naturally. Model perfected in the last few years let us just make out what our future holds. Make out, not make up.

 

[lomiller]

Well.... all those people who said Global Warming was a lie are gonna love this: apparently now we're going through a global cooling



I'm just glad the Polar Bears are gonna be ok after all. Those pictures of Polar bears sitting on floating ice caps in the middle of nowhere really depressed me

2012 had by far the lowest arctic sea ice on record. More ice than a staggering record low isn’t recovery. Current sea ice in the arctic is MUCH lower than any year prior to 2007.

 

[lenny]

i wonder what others think here, i would argue climate model results are empirical evidence

Putting two marbles in an empty bag, and then putting three more in a bag, and then counting then number of marbles in the bag and finding that there are five. That is empirical.

Writing 2 + 3 = 5 is not empirical.

(Even when it is "true")

 

[DC]

Putting two marbles in an empty bag, and then putting three more in a bag, and then counting then number of marbles in the bag and finding that there are five. That is empirical.

Writing 2 + 3 = 5 is not empirical.

(Even when it is "true")

what they do with climate models is liek, they take empirical data and put them into the models.,, so they know , there are 5 marbles. and dependent on the reaction of the bag we put the 5 marbles in . we can estimate the weight of each marble in the bag, and to check the estimate we can then put the bag in different scenarios and see if the bag is reacting the way like we know from the empuirical data (Paleclimatology / hindactsing))

 

[lomiller]

Realclimate has a new post from Stefan Rahmstorf that among other things discusses Marcott et al. 2013.

I’ll use this as a jumping off point to what’s likely my final comment on “empirical evidence” and climate variation.

First I want to point out that the whole “give me empirical evidence that proves there is no hidden variation in the pale-climate record is back assward. Empirical evidence can never prove there is nothing hidden in the data. The data IS the empirical evidence, so things hidden in it so it can’t empirically show things that are not in it.
Importantly, in science it’s never expected to. Since it’s impossible to disprove every other possibility science uses empirical evidence to support a theory or decide between competing theories, but never to prove no competing theory is possible.

IOW unless a fully formed competing theory is proposed you don’t need to provide empirical evidence refuting it. For example “prove to me with empirical evidence that the WTC wasn’t destroyed with some heretofore unknown type of explosive” isn’t something you can truly prove. Until a real, testable alternative is proposed all you can do is show that no explosive is required to explain the collapse and that there is no evidence of explosives.

Similarly with the climate record you can show that there is no evidence for large rapid climate swings in the paleo-climate record and no known mechanism that would cause such swings. See the links at the start of this post to confirm this has been done. You can also show that should such climate swings occur they would show up in the paleo-climate record. You can see this “empirically” by verifying that volcanic eruptions do show up in the temperature record, or test it using a model (also empirical) as Tamino does here

When there is no evidence for something, no known mechanism by which it could occur and no competing theory which can be disproved the correct skeptical and scientific position is to discount it until there is either evidence or a theory to test. You don’t need to provide empirical evidence it can’t occur, indeed there are plenty of examples of science reversing it’s view when evidence or sound theory is provided. It is, however, the responsibility of the “heretic” to provide that evidence/theory, they don’t get to just sit back and say “I want proof my idea is incorrect”.

 

[CapelDodger]

2012 had by far the lowest arctic sea ice on record. More ice than a staggering record low isn’t recovery. Current sea ice in the arctic is MUCH lower than any year prior to 2007.

Reversion to the mean is where the short money goes (absent any inside information). The trend is where the long money goes - and that factors in a navigable Arctic Ocean. Which is something new, and quite radical. In economic and political terms what happens across and around it matters much more than what's under it. The whole Southern Hemisphere becomes so last century, and as for the Middle East, fuggedaboudit. Russia and Canada become, not the arse-end of everywhere, but the very centre.

The ramifications are a mother-lode of speculation.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by macdoc
they quite freely admit that it's a puzzle to be solved...

"...a clear signal of widespread changes in northern ecosystems" not so puzzled they seem. Unless land use change was specifically born in mind, and the changes were expected and not a source of puzzlement

.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

The puzzle is the size of the swing in range. Changes in vegetation is charted every year in the Arctic report Card amongst many other aspects they are tracking

Record low snow extent and low sea ice extent occurred in June and September, respectively.

Growing season length is increasing along with tundra greenness and above-ground biomass. Below the tundra, record high permafrost temperatures occurred in northernmost Alaska.

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

•••

My curiosity is, could the lower C02 content than expected in summer actually contribute to the cooler continents that have been a feature in winter...

I suppose warm open ocean might cool more rapidly as a result of seasonal reduced C02.
But the impact seems to be on the continents .....blocking highs I guess account for that.

If we took that warm ocean, transparent atmosphere idea further - could the heat be transported from the tropics by ocean currents and then being radiated out more effectively in the Arctic because of the low C02 content in summer and more open water to radiate it.

Could that be one of the factors in the "pause" of atmospheric increases in global temp?

Are we are seeing a more efficient heat pipe to space by way of a C02 depleted Arctic in summer.

 

[DC]

seeing that the 60% sea ice increase nonsense made it already to the European Parliament and the US senate. i am getting so pesimistic. some of the idiots in charge deny the problem, the rest goes about it halfheartetly.....
we humans just don't get it. we just don't so we will do not enough until the concequences are so hard that we will just try whatever is left and that will be geoengineering.
Humanity will fail. we cannot handle a problem like this. sad.