Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[CapelDodger]

I'm not sure any "forecasts" for regions are of much use just now tho China is diligently working on a monsoon model that is useful.

Getting a better handle on monsoons would be an enormous help for the regions where most people (by far) live.

Observation of changes in the climate bands ( tropics expanding, deserts moving north, warmer Arctic Ocean, stalled highs over continents making them cooler in winter, shifts in the winds around Antarctica ) are useful but as to forecasts arising from them???...

Predicting what the climate will evolve into is one thing; predicting how it evolves, and when various stages will be reached, is quite a challenge. Apart from anything else, we've never observed such an evolution with the time-resolution we're concerned with.

What I will predict is that the next El Nino will put the cat amongst the pigeons. If it happens next austral summer it'll be a really big cat.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Climate models aren't perfect, of course, but the chances of another La Nina must be minute.

It's a boy!

 

[lenny]

Indefinitely as at some point it becomes weather.

not sure exactly what you mean by "indefinitely": if a model is generating regional weather at very low fidelity, then eventually it cannot be expected to get a changing climate usefully even on larger scales.

All models are wrong, some models are useful.

. while i am a fan of george box(and my boss heard him say this ), i prefer:
"all models are wrong, some are dangerous"
in this context.

About the only two things that can be said are more intensity in rain storms ( not more frequency )

the more rain argument with 2xCO2 has been clear since the 1920's, the intensity/frequency question is still pretty open. i'd take 10:1 the balance there will change again.

higher risks of extreme weather and that is mostly from the plain physics of more moisture and more heat in the atmosphere and more heat in the upper ocean

yep

and even now in the deeper ocean impacting the ENSO events.

maybe; but our models of el nino are a good example of an important phenomena which we cannot simulate realistically, so it seems a bit of a reach to claim we can simulate its (el nino's) evolution under a changing climate realistically.

and inasmuch as it have nontrivial effects, and triggers important feedbacks, a lack of high fidelity el nino would soon have nontrivial flaws in the base simulations of future climate.

 

[lenny]

There are actually two sets of predictions : one refers to the equilibrium state at some given warming,

agreed. although i would not call these equilibrium runs "predictions" in any sense. fixing the CO2 level at a given value and waiting (arguably a very long time) for everything to come into balance is nothing a planet would ever do. as back in the old days when we made "perpetual January" runs: no annual cycle would have had that "equilibrium january".

those experiments tell us more about climate (model) phenomena than about the future of our planet.

while the other refers to the transition from here to there.

yep. and to get that usefully (as a prediction) i'd expect that we need to have relatively high fidelity simulation of weather-like phenomena.

Climate is easier to model than climate change, I suspect (purely intuitively).

i think not, but am curious why you think so.

my reasoning here goes back to the use of anomalies, which appears as unjustified as it is common. our models agree more in terms of (global) change than they do on global (or local) climate. Graphs in the AR4 and AR5 all but suppress this. (the AR5 is a bit better). i find the fact poses no real challenge for mitigation, but casts attempts to use models predictions in adaptation into a dark place.

does anyone have a good, clear justification for the consideration of anomalies?

 

[lenny]

Apart from anything else, we've never observed such an evolution with the time-resolution we're concerned with.

agreed. in fact there has never been such an evolution with this timescale. asteroids are much faster, orbital changes much slower.

...the next El Nino ... If it happens next austral summer it'll be a really big cat.

i thought it was named el nino because it tended to coincide with christmas. is that relation not robust?

 

[macdoc]

the more rain argument with 2xCO2 has been clear since the 1920's, the intensity/frequency question is still pretty open. i'd take 10:1 the balance there will change again.

Intensity is clear, frequency is not...

Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
and even now in the deeper ocean impacting the ENSO events.

maybe; but our models of el nino are a good example of an important phenomena which we cannot simulate realistically, so it seems a bit of a reach to claim we can simulate its (el nino's) evolution under a changing climate realistically.

Never claimed we could model ENSO...that said -ENSO merely moves heat around rather than being an external forcing.
So it is an important aspect of regional forecasting which points out the difficulty faced in getting a useable forecast for any given region. But that aspect would be problematic whether there is climate change or not.
To some degree it is another issue apart from climate change.

and inasmuch as it have nontrivial effects, and triggers important feedbacks, a lack of high fidelity el nino would soon have nontrivial flaws in the base simulations of future climate.

don't agree....it's not a forcing and should get picked up in the averages over time - there should be X el Ninos and Y La Nina's within any run from the historical record.

Now if we seean increase in La Nina's ( some evidence of that )- that should not impact the global model but may well impact regional ( South America in particular ).

Getting a handle on ENSO regardless of climate change would be a very useful tool as the NOAA and CIRO hurricane/cyclone forecasts usually are.
NOAA seemed to have a quite improved model .....then 2013 came along.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/13/hurricane-season-inaccurate-forecasts

ENSO understanding/prediction would certainly aid the storm forecasters

 

[jobberone]

Had to do the Turkey thing, watch the game, play with the Admiral, go to my daughter's today then play with the Admiral some more.

As a non-climatologist all I can add to the conversation is what someone from the outside looking in can do. Often that's a little more than a little and a whole lot less than a lot.

We're in a glacial age and have been for some time. So if I say we don't really know what's going to happen over the next 1000 years then I think I'm on solid ground. If you tell me the methane and CO2 levels are going to rise exponentially over the next 100 years then I will wonder how that reconciles with the idea we should be at some point entering into a colder period.

If you're only interested in the next few decades then I really don't bring much to the conversation other than to remind it has been thought we should be getting colder, it has gotten colder in the very recent past and been warmer in the recent past, and it is getting warmer now but not as predictably as we'd like to know in advance.

There are unpredictable changes coming. Nuclear fusion and possible mass desalination. Advances in aging and increasing medical knowledge. Vaccines esp one for malaria. Use of solar radiation esp lunar.

So I'm not trying to step on the experts toes.

 

[aleCcowaN]

As a non-climatologist all I can add to the conversation is what someone from the outside looking in can do. Often that's a little more than a little and a whole lot less than a lot.

Is some sales pitch coming?

We're in a glacial age and have been for some time.

No, we're not and you know it.

So if I say we don't really know what's going to happen over the next 1000 years then I think I'm on solid ground.

No, that's just one of the products you're trying to sell

If you tell me the methane and CO2 levels are going to rise exponentially over the next 100 years then I will wonder how that reconciles with the idea we should be at some point entering into a colder period.

You should revise your paragraph for it to make sense.

If you're only interested in the next few decades then I really don't bring much to the conversation other than to remind it has been thought we should be getting colder, it has gotten colder in the very recent past and been warmer in the recent past, and it is getting warmer now but not as predictably as we'd like to know in advance.

Don't oversell. People tend to be aware of historical events. Don't rewrite history.

There are unpredictable changes coming. Nuclear fusion and possible mass desalination. Advances in aging and increasing medical knowledge. Vaccines esp one for malaria.

And by giving away free passes to your personal version of Epcot Center you think people would buy any of your products?

Use of solar radiation esp lunar.

A mystical phase?

So I'm not trying to step on the experts toes.

You're much too light for the toes to notice you. Yet, if a comparison is allowed, physicians are very uncomfortable when a cure-all snake oil vendor is fooling around. A matter of competition? A matter of competence, I'd rather say. And a matter of sense of purpose when in front of what might be regarded as intellectual turpitude.

 

[Pixel42]

We're in a glacial age and have been for some time.

We're actually in an interglacial period at the moment, and have been for about 10,000 years.

So if I say we don't really know what's going to happen over the next 1000 years then I think I'm on solid ground. If you tell me the methane and CO2 levels are going to rise exponentially over the next 100 years then I will wonder how that reconciles with the idea we should be at some point entering into a colder period.

The current interglacial is set to be an unusually long one, with the next change in insolation that might be great enough to precipitate another period of glaciation not due for at least 23,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

 

[DC]

Had to do the Turkey thing, watch the game, play with the Admiral, go to my daughter's today then play with the Admiral some more.

As a non-climatologist all I can add to the conversation is what someone from the outside looking in can do. Often that's a little more than a little and a whole lot less than a lot.

We're in a glacial age and have been for some time. So if I say we don't really know what's going to happen over the next 1000 years then I think I'm on solid ground. If you tell me the methane and CO2 levels are going to rise exponentially over the next 100 years then I will wonder how that reconciles with the idea we should be at some point entering into a colder period.

If you're only interested in the next few decades then I really don't bring much to the conversation other than to remind it has been thought we should be getting colder, it has gotten colder in the very recent past and been warmer in the recent past, and it is getting warmer now but not as predictably as we'd like to know in advance.

There are unpredictable changes coming. Nuclear fusion and possible mass desalination. Advances in aging and increasing medical knowledge. Vaccines esp one for malaria. Use of solar radiation esp lunar.

So I'm not trying to step on the experts toes.

glacial period? i think you meant an Ice Age, we are in an interglacial within the current ice age.
but we do have a pretty good picture of what is going to happen. especially naturally, what would happen was it not for our CO2.
we would be cooling very slowly into the next glacial period within the next few 1000 years. we actually started this cooling trend over a millenia ago, but then the current warming came and has undone all of the cooling. and now it depends mainly on us what is going to happen.

 

[aleCcowaN]

As Yogi Berra would put it, this is déjà-vu all over again.

 

[jobberone]

We have been in an Ice Age for over 2.5 million years. Yes, we are in an interglacial period but the world has had significant glaciation since Antarctica froze. So yes we are definitely warmer than 12,000 years ago but the world still has significant water stored in ice.

One would be foolish to not be concerned with the rise in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. One would also be foolish to not recognize the benefit to mankind by the same taking say the increase in longevity since then. One would also be foolish to take that for granted and ignore the possibilities for a reversal including events leading to decreases in global populations esp those involving H sapiens.

It concerns me to see either side take such hard stands when history and my own experience lends itself often to unexpected results.

When they have enough accurate data to firm up all the negative and positive feedbacks as well as models that are highly predictive then we will be getting somewhere. Until then it's often hope for the best and plan for the worse.

You cannot take fossil fuels out of the equation just now. The amount of suffering would be too great. You also cannot sit on your thumbs thinking all is well. In the meantime we need the resources to continue to evolve technologically so as to better affect the negative consequences of our own good fortune.

 

[skeptsci]

While one cannot tie any particular weather event to AGW with absolute certainty


http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm

bobwtfong, AlBell wrote AGW not just GW. Conveniently ignored. Not just here but throughout. But interestingly this, as a matter of fact, is the heart of the problematic part of the disagreement. The furthest reaching evidence in this question is for anthropogenic CO2 conc. increase, not temperature increase.

 

[aleCcowaN]

bobwtfong, AlBell wrote AGW not just GW. Conveniently ignored. Not just here but throughout. But interestingly this, as a matter of fact, is the heart of the problematic part of the disagreement. The furthest reaching evidence in this question is for anthropogenic CO2 conc. increase, not temperature increase.

Are you denying that anthropogenic CO2 concentration increase -and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases- have caused so far global average temperature increase and that they will cause further temperature increase in the mid term future?

 

[skeptsci]

Are you denying that anthropogenic CO2 concentration increase -and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases- have caused so far global average temperature increase and that they will cause further temperature increase in the mid term future?

To me you "sound" like the Inquisition of the church. This is not a religious debate, haven't you noticed? So, I'm not "denying" or "believing". Please give me compelling evidence that the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and/or other GHGs is an important cause of the observed GW and I'll be on my way.

 

[DC]

To me you "sound" like the Inquisition of the church. This is not a religious debate, haven't you noticed? So, I'm not "denying" or "believing". Please give me the proof that the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and/or other GHGs is an important cause of the observed GW and I'll be on my way.

here you go

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

its 2013 and you are not aware of the evidence yet? wow you gonna have to do alot of reading

 

[skeptsci]

Thanks DC, I have to go now. I'll return tomorrow after going to the link you posted.

 

[aleCcowaN]

To me you "sound" like the Inquisition of the church. This is not a religious debate, haven't you noticed? So, I'm not "denying" or "believing".

Yes, you seem to be denying it. We only need confirmation.

Please give me the proof that the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and/or other GHGs is an important cause of the observed GW and I'll be on my way.

Do you think that the debate was just waiting for you to dive in so it can be now "finally meaningful"?

We're not writing all of that down again just for you. Do you think that after 20,000 or 40,000 posts on the matter your concern hasn't been extensively explained and backed here?

 

[macdoc]

Please give me compelling evidence that the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and/or other GHGs is an important cause of the observed GW and I'll be on my way.

why how antediluvian of you.
The only person that can "compel" you is you.....the evidence is ABUNDANTLY available...and has both theory and observations to support it. No one can "compel" you learn....that's entirely your decision and I for one could not care less if you choose to be ignorant at this point.
Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Wilfully blind comes to mind. Just don't waste people's time.

•••••

 

[jobberone]

Is some sales pitch coming?



No, we're not and you know it.



No, that's just one of the products you're trying to sell



You should revise your paragraph for it to make sense.



Don't oversell. People tend to be aware of historical events. Don't rewrite history.



And by giving away free passes to your personal version of Epcot Center you think people would buy any of your products?



A mystical phase?



You're much too light for the toes to notice you. Yet, if a comparison is allowed, physicians are very uncomfortable when a cure-all snake oil vendor is fooling around. A matter of competition? A matter of competence, I'd rather say. And a matter of sense of purpose when in front of what might be regarded as intellectual turpitude.

I see this schtick all the time. Not impressed. I'll respond to one of your verbal barbs. The earth has had substantial glaciation for the last 2.56 million years. We are in an interglacial which may or may not last a long time.

Now is there something erroneous about that?

And do me a favor?? You have no idea how I feel about 'global warming' because I don't have a position only concerns. So stop trying to be cute and read my mind. And since you don't know me or my background including education then you have no right to question my intellect or intellectual abilities or honesty.