• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is a problem, but I don't agree that scientists should engage in the political PR rhetoric. Stick to the facts and when called to it, adjudge the political options presented ("this is in accord with scientific understandings and observations, that is not"). But, if anything, science needs to be further removed from politics rather than more closely wedded to politics. Part of the problem now, is that one party has adopted part of the science, in order to shape and push a larger governance agenda, and the other party has countered by rejecting science in order to attack their rival's agenda. This problem isn't going to be resolved by making science more political and removing the conditional phrasing which actually makes scientific statements more accurate. I wouldn't be opposed Dr Chu taking on a more public stance and advocacy role, nor to the heads of the various national and international scientific organizations, at least as far as properly quantifying and qualifying the changes, causes of change, and the risks and dangers associated with those changes. I just think that we have to be careful about politicizing and polarizing the issue any further, and see this as a big part of the problem now.

Like it or not, it's the political sphere where the problem has to be resolved, because it's the politicians that we entrust to do big things on a grand scale. Identifying AGW was a scientific process, but fixing it is going to be a political one.

People are emotional creatures, not logical ones. That's why it took about 3 million years of human evolution before we figured out this thing called science. People and the politicians they elect are not going to be swayed by numbers and charts and graphs and tables. The reason AGW denialism has been so successful (and tobacco/cancer denialism before it) was the opponents were able to devise a strategy that played to people's desire to continue doing what they had been doing all along without having to change.
 
GCM's Not so hot:
Midlatitude Continental Convective Clouds Experiment (MC3E)

snip...
Despite improvements in computing power, current operational weather and global climate models are unable to resolve the natural temporal and spatial scales that are associated with convective and stratiform precipitation processes; therefore, they must turn to parameterization schemes to represent these processes.

Perhaps the inability to resolve the natural temporal and spatial scales associated with convection and clouds is the root cause for the hypersensitivity seen in many GCM's? More study is needed.
 
Heisenberg would be proud:
Parameterizing Size Distribution in Ice Clouds

snip...

An outstanding problem that contributes considerable uncertainty to Global Climate Model (GCM) predictions of future climate is the characterization of ice particle sizes in cirrus clouds.

Abstract here.

There is considerable uncertainty in Global Climate Models. Something to consider.
 
A scientist expresses the truth about climate models:

"Accounting for Sub-Grid Scale Variability of Clouds and Water Vapor in Large-scale Models Based on ARM Observations"
snip..

Note that uncertainties in cloud parameterizations are a key reason why prediction of climate change from climate models remain unacceptably uncertain.

Would you like to know more? Link here.

Unacceptably uncertain. Indeed they are. More research is needed.
 
La Nina....

It's not a balanced system within the same period.....it's an opposing system to El Nino so it's not moved in space but rather in time..

For instance a couple years back there was back to back to La Nina's

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/la-nina-story.html

Bottom line tho it does not impact the global energy budget in any significant way but sure as hell impacts the weather in various regions.

Do recall the atmosphere is transient compared to the ocean and in a strong El Nino a lot of heat is released into the atmosphere..

this is from this article which is pretty decent short explanation
http://factoidz.com/all-about-el-nio/

Hmmm, interesting, but that seems to be fairly in accord with my understandings and statements, here's the natgeo reference link I somehow left out of the earlier post mentioning it:

"National Geographic Magazine Article: El Nino/La Nina" a few excerpts defining the phenomena:
Normal conditions:
As the trade winds blow westward over the Pacific, they push the warm top layer of the ocean with them, causing the hottest water to pile up around Indonesia, where, because of both wind action and thermal expansion, the sea level is usually about 18 inches [46 centimeters] higher than it is off the west coast of Mexico. All along the eastern Pacific, and especially off Ecuador and Peru, colder subsurface water wells up to replace the sheared-off top layer, bringing up a bevy of nutrients from the deep ocean. That chemical bounty sustains an enormous food web and makes the coastal waters off Peru one of the world’s most prolific fisheries​

el Nino:
For reasons that scientists still do not comprehend, every few years the trade winds subside or even disappear. The usual air-pressure pattern reverses itself in a phenomenon called the southern oscillation, making barometer readings higher in Australia than they are in the central Pacific. The resulting pattern—known as ENSO, for El Niño/Southern Oscillation—involves only one-fifth of the circumference of the planet. But it transforms weather around the globe.
Without the trade winds the top layer of the eastern Pacific does not move west. It stays in place, getting hotter and hotter, swelling as it warms. Eventually it hits the threshold for what meteorologists call deep convection—the point at which the steamy surface air blasts into the upper atmosphere.

la Nina:
In La Niña years the easterly winds from the Americas are stronger than usual. That drives more than the normal amount of warm sea-surface water westward, in turn causing larger than normal volumes of deep, chilly water to rise to the surface and producing a “cold tongue” that extends 3,000 miles [4,800 kilometers] along the Equator from Ecuador to Samoa.

With so much warm water flowing toward Asia, the Pacific’s mighty heat engine remains firmly anchored in the west, causing heavier monsoon rains in India, higher than average precipitation in Australia, and wetter than normal conditions as far west as southern Africa. The huge air masses and cloud banks associated with the hot zone also change the path of the jet streams, which move high-altitude air from west to east across the ocean.

Now, la Nina this may precipitate some temporary regional masking effects, but it looks to me more like a regional fluctuation in the system, squeeze one end of the system and the heat pops out in one spot, squeeze the other end and the heat pops out in a different spot. Regardless, the heat is going to come out, la Nina and el Nino merely squeeze the system in different spots and shift the heat release to different areas of the Pacific basin (which ties in well with why these patterns are a part of what has come to be called the Southern Oscillation).

Briefly looking through the references attached to the NatGeo site I see several that seem to support my perhaps overly simplistic depiction, but I would be interested in exploring any information you might have or run across that describes and explores global cooling/moderating effects associated with la Nina, or even multiple back-to-back la Ninas.

Other References from the NatGeo article:

El Niño: Making Sense of the Weather
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/nino/

El Niño & La Niña Resources on the Internet
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/lib/elninolinks

NOAA El Niño Page
http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/

Tracking El Niño
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elnino

USGS-El Niño
http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/elnino/
 
Trouble I have with the media coverage of those who doubt AGW is that they keep being called Skeptics. They are not. There is a huge gulf between skepticism of unproven claims at odds with scientific understanding and rejecting scientific understanding because it is politically incorrect.

Well I posted several links in the Climate News thread from various sources that clearly indicate the model predictions are "unacceptable". This is from the scientists themselves. The AGW proponents are deliberately misleading people and misrepresenting the science of AGW. It's one thing to doubt the science and another to be skeptical of what the scare mongers are telling people.

It's probably best for the concerned and curious to stay as far away from internet websites and forums like this in order to get a fair sampling of the scientists are saying. The information is being filtered by both sides. The studies have shown that the more people know the less concerned they are. That's a clear indication the skeptics are starting to dispel the effects the fear mongers have had in the past. When people start to get a fair representative sampling of what's really going on with the climate we will then be able to call for an enact changes for the better.
 
There is a huge gulf between having models which can be improved and models which are useless. No model will ever model reality with 100% fidelity, but we use them every day for real-world problems.

So far, the major shortcoming of climate models is that they have been consistently underestimating the amount of warming, and so are giving people a false sense that there is a lot of time left to act.
 
Well I posted several links in the Climate News thread from various sources that clearly indicate the model predictions are "unacceptable". This is from the scientists themselves. The AGW proponents are deliberately misleading people and misrepresenting the science of AGW. It's one thing to doubt the science and another to be skeptical of what the scare mongers are telling people.

It's probably best for the concerned and curious to stay as far away from internet websites and forums like this in order to get a fair sampling of the scientists are saying. The information is being filtered by both sides. The studies have shown that the more people know the less concerned they are. That's a clear indication the skeptics are starting to dispel the effects the fear mongers have had in the past. When people start to get a fair representative sampling of what's really going on with the climate we will then be able to call for an enact changes for the better.

Please provide supporting references and citations for your assertions
 
Like it or not, it's the political sphere where the problem has to be resolved, because it's the politicians that we entrust to do big things on a grand scale. Identifying AGW was a scientific process, but fixing it is going to be a political one.

People are emotional creatures, not logical ones. That's why it took about 3 million years of human evolution before we figured out this thing called science. People and the politicians they elect are not going to be swayed by numbers and charts and graphs and tables. The reason AGW denialism has been so successful (and tobacco/cancer denialism before it) was the opponents were able to devise a strategy that played to people's desire to continue doing what they had been doing all along without having to change.

When and if we ever get to the point of deciding policy to address climate change, then yes it is an issue that will require political addressment. However, we really aren't there yet, and its a good thing because neither political party seems to really understand what is at stake and what must be done to minimize the impacts and ameliorate the problems associated with AGW. The science doesn't support any "side" of the political climate debate, and scientists weighing in on the political debate on either side are expressing their politics more than the science. But this would perhaps be better discussed in the political boards rather than the Science and technology boards.
 
There is a huge gulf between having models which can be improved and models which are useless. No model will ever model reality with 100% fidelity, but we use them every day for real-world problems.

So far, the major shortcoming of climate models is that they have been consistently underestimating the amount of warming, and so are giving people a false sense that there is a lot of time left to act.

No, but I've found several mentions in the journals where the scientists are saying the uncertainties are unacceptable.

I've also found 20 year old references to the parameterizations they use to model clouds and convection that haven't changed much in newer papers.

There's also a lot of discussion about hypersensitivities in the models. That isn't under estimating, that's over estimating.

When you put it all together I'm less convinced than you we don't have time to research and make educated decisions as verifiable data becomes available.
 
A scientist expresses the truth about climate models:



Would you like to know more? Link here.

Unacceptably uncertain. Indeed they are. More research is needed.

Date of research 2000-2003
information missing from above cherry-picked snippets:

"...The research performed revealed several key requirements of a statistical
cloud scheme. Furthermore, new theoretical ground was broken which will permit proper coupling between the cloud scheme and another sub-grid scale
parameterization, cumulus convection. Finally, ARM observations of boundary
layer cloud have been used to provide some observational test for the new cloud parameterization..."

IOW, back a decade ago, some researchers were worried about modelling problems they were experiencing due to the inability to functionally parameterize the precise nature and various actions of clouds at the smallest scales of some of the models being used back then. One of the results of this precise piece of research however, is that those perceived deficits were largely addressed when the efforts of this research produced better modelling of these cloud parameters! I'm sure the efforts, results and improvements have continued over the last decade, and the models we employ today are immensely better than the remarkably accurate ones possessed back in 2000.
 
IOW, back a decade ago, some researchers were worried about modelling problems they were experiencing due to the inability to functionally parameterize the precise nature and various actions of clouds at the smallest scales of some of the models being used back then. One of the results of this precise piece of research however, is that those perceived deficits were largely addressed when the efforts of this research produced better modelling of these cloud parameters! I'm sure the efforts, results and improvements have continued over the last decade, and the models we employ today are immensely better than the remarkably accurate ones possessed back in 2000.

Incorrect, they have not been addressed.

From this year:
"Mid latitude Continental Convective Clouds Experiment (MC3E)"-current operational weather and global climate models are unable to resolve the natural temporal and spatial scales that are associated with convective and stratiform precipitation processes

and 2009:

Parameterizing Size Distribution in Ice Clouds-An outstanding problem that contributes considerable uncertainty to Global Climate Model (GCM) predictions of future climate is the characterization of ice particle sizes in cirrus clouds.

again:

Aerosol indirect effects -- general circulation model intercomparison and evaluation with satellite data
-Aerosol indirect effects continue to constitute one of the most important uncertainties for anthropogenic climate perturbations. snip...and a cloudy-sky (aerosol indirect effect) estimate of -0.7+-0.5 Wm-2

This is an unacceptable margin of error.
 
No, but I've found several mentions in the journals where the scientists are saying the uncertainties are unacceptable.

I've also found 20 year old references to the parameterizations they use to model clouds and convection that haven't changed much in newer papers.

There's also a lot of discussion about hypersensitivities in the models. That isn't under estimating, that's over estimating.

When you put it all together I'm less convinced than you we don't have time to research and make educated decisions as verifiable data becomes available.

Please provide supporting references and citations for your assertions
 
Incorrect, they have not been addressed.

The issue you quoted as a current assessment and flaw in climate models, as expressed by a respected and published climate scientist in what was demonstrated to actually be an out of context snippet where a Researcher was identifying a specific problem which they largely addressed in their study.

If you are now making the same claims with regards to these papers and authors please include links to the papers so that we may confirm that these are not improper qualifications, as turned out to be the case with your last offering.
From this year:
"Mid latitude Continental Convective Clouds Experiment (MC3E)"-current operational weather and global climate models are unable to resolve the natural temporal and spatial scales that are associated with convective and stratiform precipitation processes

and 2009:

Parameterizing Size Distribution in Ice Clouds-An outstanding problem that contributes considerable uncertainty to Global Climate Model (GCM) predictions of future climate is the characterization of ice particle sizes in cirrus clouds.

again:

Aerosol indirect effects -- general circulation model intercomparison and evaluation with satellite data
-Aerosol indirect effects continue to constitute one of the most important uncertainties for anthropogenic climate perturbations. snip...and a cloudy-sky (aerosol indirect effect) estimate of -0.7+-0.5 Wm-2

This is an unacceptable margin of error.

We shall see.
 
A must read on the uncertainty in current models.

The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions-snip...Uncertainty in climate predictions arises from three distinct sources: internal variability, model uncertainty and scenario uncertainty. Using data from a suite of climate models we separate and quantify these sources. For predictions of changes in surface air temperature on decadal
timescales and regional spatial scales, we show that uncertainty for the next few decades is dominated by sources (model uncertainty and internal variability) that are potentially reducible through progress in climate science. Furthermore, we find that model uncertainty is of greater importance than internal variability.

The rest here.

We can see how model predictions vary between a 1.7 degree increase and a 3.5 degree increase by 2100.
 
Last edited:
A revisit on my earlier observation in another thread:



Article here.

Sounds interesting. Why indeed.

Just a teaser/abstract not an article.

One of the article's primary authors, Robert Charlson of the University of Washington in speaking to the University Newspaper regarding the findings of this very study, remarked;"The data show that either we have 40 years of emissions left before the atmosphere can't absorb any more carbon dioxide, or we're already past the point of no return. In other words, the uncertainty rate is unacceptably high." You are correct, it sounds like a very interesting paper!
 
Last edited:
The issue you quoted as a current assessment and flaw in climate models, as expressed by a respected and published climate scientist in what was demonstrated to actually be an out of context snippet where a Researcher was identifying a specific problem which they largely addressed in their study.

Incorrect. From the abstract:

While the final form and implementation of the parameterization has not occurred, the primary accomplishment was to test the ideas and assumptions of the new parameterization.

They haven't even implemented the parameterization as it pertains to their own particular research. This doesn't come anywhere near to addressing the uncertainties inherent in the current GCM's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom