Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Wangler]

Doing a search for early climate models this video came up:



This is a pretty explicit example of what alarmists are will to do to. Nobody's worried about the fear mongering? Seriously?

That video, if not a parody, is pretty disturbing.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't usually post "news", but I noticed the usual "news" mongers weren't having anything to do with it.

Don't think I didn't notice you didn't have any comment on the study

It's very new. I'm not one to leap to comment on a new paper. You, on the other hand, seem to have done just that. 'So we've got what, about 150 years to avert this "disaster"? '. No qualifiers, no "if this result is robust", just "So". A hostage to fortune, delivered into my hands. And it's from NASA.

Yah, apparently they're calling it the "Al Gore effect".

They are? And what should I call them?

This might be an example of "reporting bias" (by which I do not mean a conspiracy of reporters in the Matt Giwer sense). I'm sure his itinerary is available, but I really can't be bothered to check. He gets about a bit and given the fact that it's been warm globally this year it seems unlikely he's only been in the unusually cold bits.

The weather doesn't seem to care much about the climate says it should do.

The climate doesn't care where Al Gore is, or about him at all.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/10/nasa-hottest-year-on-record-deepest-solar-minimum/

Hottest November on record. That's from NASA as well.

It's been unusually cold so far this December here in Ontario. In fact it's so cold I'm pretty sure the summer claims of 2010 being the hottest year on record are in serious jeopardy. I guess we'll know in a few more weeks.

Ontario isn't about to jeapordise the world any time soon. It may seem of central importance to you, and immense, but most people couldn't find it on a map.

I'm sure NASA covered it, though. And it's looking like a top-three hottest year, globally.

 

[CapelDodger]

So far I understand you take an extreme cold scenario, present it as a menace ...

It's easy to see the attraction in this argument. Whatever does happen due to AGW it can be presented as less bad than a glaciation which would have taken over otherwise, on a similar time-scale. Or at best we'd have been plunged back into 19thCE climate conditions with nothing but modern technology to help us survive.

It doesn't attract me, of course (what attracts me is the prospect of being right about things and saying "Told you so!") but I'd use it to sell something.

 

[CapelDodger]

Doing a search for early climate models this video came up:



This is a pretty explicit example of what alarmists are will to do to. Nobody's worried about the fear mongering? Seriously?

I think more people are worried about the US Congress than in something plucked from YouTube. And about FoxNews. The Murdoch press generally. Marc Morano. And all the internet sites telling people AGW is a hoax. Stuff like that.

I'm too old and cynical to worry much either way. (It helps to be child-free, I'm sure.) I can kick back, watch the show, and work on my "Told you so!" count. My only concern is not to be part of the problem, or at least to limit my impact. If some punk kid points at me one day and says "You caused this!" I want plenty of ammunition to hand.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Exactly. I don't know how anyone could look at the history of climate science and not be aware of these unfulfilled prophesies. From the moment the role of co2 in the atmosphere was first discovered the threat of a looming apocalypse began.
That took a sideline to the threat of nuclear annihilation, now that the cold war is over the alarmists have simple took up the cause of global warming.
Once global warming is resolved it will be over population. Once that is resolved it will a some viral outbreak. Once that is resolved is will be AI.
As long as there have been people there have been groups looking for and finding some reason to suspect "the end is near".

I've been at this a while.

http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml

Nothing new really. The same ten year predictions are made every year. If the first ten year prediction were honest and legitimate then when the eleventh year rolled around there should have been a shrug and "We tried" and moved back to serious science.

Rather the political effort has redoubled in light of and contrary to the simple fact that it has been TO LATE for 22 years.

If in fact it were truly a credible case that it is to late meaning the science were sound 22 years ago then they would in fact have moved on to serious research on how to best adapt and accommodate to the things the science has predicted.

Sea level is going to rise? Lets start researching the best method of building dikes. Lets stop making 30 year loans on beach-front properties. How about some IMF planning to aid Bangladesh?

There must be a dozen things like that but NO ONE and repeat that in BOLD is acting as though they believe it. No one is acting as though they are taking it seriously.

Factually anyone who has any familiarity with international agreements knows for a fact getting an agreement on this matter is essentially impossible. Anyone thinking it is possible is living out a fantasy found in stories to inspire pre-teens.

Rather what is proposed is a carbon credits bubble. The entire point of carbon credits is to transfer CO2 production NOT reduce CO2 production with Wall Street taking a commission. This in fact creates a positive value out of nothing -- out of a gas which is considered to have a negative value today.

The difference between CO2 and tulips escapes me save that at least tulips did have a real market value whereas CO2 is free for the taking from the air.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Superceding theories in this case have refined the theory, rather than overturning it.
Pardon?

The word theory has a specific meaning in science. Please identify recite that theory. I seem to have missed it.

That's a rather silly contention to draw. Just because something isn't discovered doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

I would have thought anyone following the exchange would have understood that was the point of my post.

You are making the same mistake, The troposphere would expand if there were no other factors in play, and a rising tropopause has been observed. But the stratosphere has been cooling (one of the anticipated effects of AGW that IS happening), so different regions see differing effects, there is no simple 'atmosphere is heated it expands' relationship.

Save every few years you read of the ISS needing to be boosted to a higher orbit because of increased atmospheric drag over and above the planned amount. The stratosphere is not the highest and is not a determinant.

Characterizing the stratosphere thing as a prediction is false as after it was discovered and ad hoc explanation was created by complicating (adding another epicycle) to the melting narrative. Prediction means it was in fact predicted before being measured and that is not the case. That is the only meaning of prediction that matters here.

 

[Matt Giwer]

New Negative Feedback Discovered

A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback – a cooling effect – in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming.

NASA link here

Interested parties may want to read the fine print in this article and take note of the fact that this model actually predicts a 1.7 degrees (C) increase in average global temperature upon doubling CO2.

So where it the temperature increase proportionate to the increase already on record? Or just it only manifest itself "ten" years in the future like everything else?

So we've got what, about 150 years to avert this "disaster"? I'm still not seeing the reason to jack up my fuel bills and sanction third world countries for using cheap energy to industrialize their nations.

On a side note I see the Climate conference in Cancun is seeing record low temperatures today. Oh the irony of it all.

The same thing happened last year in Copenhagen. Record low temperatures are nature's way of telling the melters to shut up already.

But speaking of the increase in plant growth, that is such old news I mentioned it in my essay on the subject back in 1990. It does not merit the attention given to it by JOURNALISM MAJORS.

As a reminder, journalists have agreed to conspire to promote melting in the name of responsible journalism.

 

[Matt Giwer]

This is why data are adjusted for known errors so that statistics can be applied to them.

Sorry, statistics don't work that way. In this case statistics can only be used to estimate the error. Including the error in the raw data only results in analysing the error not the data.

This is the way it is. I cannot change it. You cannot change it.

 

[bit_pattern]

You are correct though, it is warming and there is consensus to that effect. The same way 30 years ago it was cooling and there was consensus to that.

Demonstrably false. Google it. Reviews of the literature from the period show that articles favouring warming outnumbered those suggesting cooling by 7/1. A couple of sensationalist reports Time Magazine and the NYT don't make scientific consensus.

 

[BenBurch]

Demonstrably false. Google it. Reviews of the literature from the period show that articles favouring warming outnumbered those suggesting cooling by 7/1. A couple of sensationalist reports Time Magazine and the NYT don't make scientific consensus.

It's interesting that this keeps coming up. I think that the deniers believe that if they repeat that lie often enough, people will come to believe that it's the truth. And they might be right.

 

[macdoc]

We haven't doubled C02 yet and the .6 that has occurred and additional .6 that is inevitable is due to hysteresis in the massive climate systems which take decades to reach a new equilibrium point. That rise is entirely in line with a doubling as 1.7 is the amount of the C02 effect on climate not the knock on magnification by water vapour feedback.

Scientists confirm positive CO2 feedback
Thursday, 28 January 2010Anna Salleh
ABC

Scientists have calculated the most accurate estimate to date on how rising temperatures will trigger the release of more CO2 from the ocean and land, further amplifying the greenhouse effect.

But some experts warn it still won't tell us exactly what will happen to the planet as CO2 in the atmosphere continue to rise.

Palaeoclimatologist Dr David Frank of the Swiss Federal Research Institute in Birmensdorf and colleagues report their findings in today's issue of the journal Nature.

"It's well known that the CO2 increase will cause a temperature increase," says Frank.

"But what also happens is that you have increased temperatures that causes the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere to also release more CO2 into the atmosphere."

This additional CO2 acts to further increase the temperature in what is sometimes called a "positive feedback" loop.

Frank and colleagues analysed the most comprehensive collection of records to date on temperatures and atmospheric CO2 from ice cores prior to the industrial revolution - between 1050 and 1800.

"We found that for every degree of warming, the CO2 concentration increased by [a median of] 7.7 parts per million," says Frank.

The researchers calculated the increase in CO2 concentration during that period ranged from 1.7 to 21.4 parts per million per degree Celsius.

b) and if you were actually well informed on the subject you would know what an Arctic dipole was and why a warmer Arctic leads to cooler continental

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported on 6 December 2010 that November Arctic sea ice extent was the second lowest on record. Ocean waters normally ice-covered in parts of the Arctic are pumping heat into the atmosphere, altering atmospheric circulation, and contributing to extreme weather conditions that extend into mid-latitudes. A similar pattern was evident during the Fall of 2009 and the following Winter, as cold Arctic air pushed into some mid-latitude regions while warm air surged into parts of the Arctic.

meanwhile globally

Globally, the year through 2010 has been the warmest on record and the warmth has been especially pronounced in the Arctic. The figure below illustrates temperature anomalies for October 2010, with areas in dark red recording the largest positive departures from normal.


http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/sit...T_1200km_Anom10_2010_2010_1951_1980-415px.jpg

Above: Surface temperature anomalies, in oC, relative to 1951-1980. Gray areas signify missing data. Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Perhaps reading some science
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/index.html

instead of denier blogs would improve your knowledge of your planet and it's weather - which you are referring to, and it's climate which is warming due to our activities.

oh yeah a little clip from that study

Raupach says an interesting by-product of the study is that it shows that the much-discussed Medieval Warm Period was not as warm as the current period.

Dr Mike Raupach from CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research

•••

As to global dimming indeed there was in some areas and where there are high concentrations of particulates it occurs today just as it does with a large volcano....nothing new there.

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.[1]
It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend in 1990 happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline.
Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.
Deliberate manipulation of this dimming effect is now being considered as a geoengineering technique to reduce the impact of global warming.

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

Denier "arguments" that are old, stale and discounted years ago, stil dredged up as something of relevance.
and yet the same crowd misses the first small bit of negative feedback

Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate.

"This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming," Bounoua said.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/12/07/greener.climate.prediction.shows.plants.slow.warming

at the same time the old fav of deniers - clouds have turned out to be AGW amplifiers as well

cience 10 December 2010:
Vol. 330 no. 6010 p. 1465
DOI: 10.1126/science.330.6010.1465
NEWS OF THE WEEK
CLIMATE CHANGE
El Niño Lends More Confidence to Strong Global Warming
Richard A. Kerr
Some scientists have argued from observations that global warming will alter clouds in ways that will largely counter warming by greenhouse gases. But the overwhelming majority of climate scientists sides with the models, which show clouds changing in ways that amplify warming, not dampen it. Whom to believe? To help sort it out, a climate researcher looked at the example of El Niño and La Niña, naturally occurring weather patterns that cause warming (El Niño) and cooling (La Niña) in the tropical Pacific and around the globe. In a report on page 1523 of this week's issue of Science, he analyzes how they have actually influenced clouds and concludes that—at least on the scale of decades—clouds do not counter warming.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1465.summary

that would be model outcome confirmed by observation....the way science works.

anyone that at this point is unable to "observe" AGW impacts is living in an altered reality...

 

[Furcifer]

Demonstrably false. Google it. Reviews of the literature from the period show that articles favouring warming outnumbered those suggesting cooling by 7/1. A couple of sensationalist reports Time Magazine and the NYT don't make scientific consensus.

Screw the reviews, do you have the actual articles? I've been "googling" and can't find anything besides paywalls. (I was supposed to have some research database access when I bought a book for school, but it was garbage. I can honestly say I miss having access to the University library)

 

[Furcifer]

More confirmation bias. Look for positive feedback, find positive feedback. Look for negative feedback, find negative feedback.

It's just that people don't cry over finding negative feedback

 

[Mikemcc]

Demonstrably false. Google it. Reviews of the literature from the period show that articles favouring warming outnumbered those suggesting cooling by 7/1. A couple of sensationalist reports Time Magazine and the NYT don't make scientific consensus.

Here you go, here's the link:

A few climate scientists have now scanned through the research literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. The results are being published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html

 

[Furcifer]

Here you go, here's the link:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html

Fair enough. Perhaps "consensus" was a tad overstated.

It's probably more important to this discussion of where the 7 cooling and 20 neutral went wrong. Obviously the science hasn't changed, so what gives? If it was "wrong" then how do we know it's right now? It seems to me it would be more scientific to take a look at the papers and refute them or comment on what they did wrong. Has that been done? Or is this really what they claim, a pseudoscience, validity determined by the number of papers published and not the actual science.

 

[Warmer1]

AGW mitigation article at the Economist site

This post is with kind regards for T Shaitanaku who wrote:

"That said, I'll step away from this thread now until it comes back to issues of the science or the actual adaptation/mitigation strategies needed to deal with the changes that are already upon us and headed our way."

There was an interesting article on the Economist website today about mitigation stategies. I thought I would post the link as I thought about the post quoted above when I read it.

http://www.economist.com/node/17572735

"Facing the consequences
Global action is not going to stop climate change. The world needs to look harder at how to live with it"
...........
"But for the two-degree scenario 2.8% is just the beginning; from 2020 to 2035 the rate of decarbonisation needs to double again, to 5.5%. Though they are unwilling to say it in public, the sheer improbability of such success has led many climate scientists, campaigners and policymakers to conclude that, in the words of Bob Watson, once the head of the IPCC and now the chief scientist at Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Two degrees is a wishful dream.”
.........
"Even then, adaptation can help only up to a point. A 2009 review of the cost of warming to the global economy suggests that as much as two-thirds of the total cannot be offset through investment in adaptation, and will be felt through higher prices, lower growth and misery regardless. But adaptation can still achieve a lot."
...........
The indiscreet charm of being loaded

Rich countries can also afford big, expensive projects. Studies suggest that although much of the Netherlands lies below sea level or is at risk of river flooding, the Dutch can view the prospect of a rising sea level with a certain equanimity, at least for their own land. Plans outlined in 2008 to deal with a rise of more than two metres by 2200, as well as increased winter flow along the Rhine and Meuse rivers, put the cost of holding at bay the worst flood expected for 10,000 years at €1 billion-2 billion ($1.5 billion-3 billion) a year for a century. That is easily affordable.

I thought the article was interesting but then again I don't get out much?

Happy celestial teapot season everyone!

 

[Pixel42]

It's probably more important to this discussion of where the 7 cooling and 20 neutral went wrong. Obviously the science hasn't changed, so what gives?

Don't forget the 60s/70s was when the details of the cycles of past glacials/interglacials and their correlation with the Milankovitch cycles was first being worked out, and when the discovery that most interglacials last not much longer than the current one had already lasted was being made. Projecting the Milankovitch cycles forward did indeed suggest that the current interglacial was drawing to a close.

There's an excellent summary of the history of our increasing understanding of past climate changes and what drove them (and hence what the future might bring) here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

 

[Mikemcc]

Fair enough. Perhaps "consensus" was a tad overstated.

It's probably more important to this discussion of where the 7 cooling and 20 neutral went wrong. Obviously the science hasn't changed, so what gives? If it was "wrong" then how do we know it's right now? It seems to me it would be more scientific to take a look at the papers and refute them or comment on what they did wrong. Has that been done? Or is this really what they claim, a pseudoscience, validity determined by the number of papers published and not the actual science.

They didn't necessarily 'go wrong'. We don't know what they they were actually studying or what data they were using without doinng a lot more digging. There had been a cooling period from the 1940s. We understand the conditions better now, the studies and bodies of knowledge progress and will continue to do so.

 

[BenBurch]

...

Happy celestial teapot season everyone!

I think M8 is just the coolest thing in the right low F-ratio medium-large telescope...

 

[macdoc]

Post coal solutions

baby steps.....but at least some move forward..

Salty solar plant stores sun's heat

• 14 December 2010 by Sonia Van Gilder Cooke
• Magazine issue 2790. Subscribe and save

The plentiful sunshine of southern Spain is being harvested to generate electricity day and night
DRIVING through the baking landscape of Almería, it is no mystery why this Spanish province is home to a novel type of power station that generates electricity by harnessing the heat of the sun.
For over 20 years, the Plataforma Solar de Almería, sited on an almost rainless plain in the south of the province, has been at the forefront of research into solar thermal power generation. Helped by Spain's sunny climate and generous government subsidies, this has led to the construction of 10 solar thermal plants across the country in the last three years alone. Some 50 more are planned.


Within the centre, parabolic dishes lie strewn about like huge discarded toys, but the site is dominated by a giant white tower. Thousands of mirrors, known as heliostats, surround it, catching sunlight and focusing it onto a receiver on top of the tower. This concentrated sunlight produces superheated steam that drives a turbine to generate electricity

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827904.500-salty-solar-plant-stores-suns-heat.html

US could be off coal in 30 years if they were motivated.....combination of strategies - efficiency, public nukes, private solar and wind.
Most of the sun belt - which is getting dryer anyways could use solar steam

Even natural gas is better tho fracking is a horror unfolding...

Breaking Away From Coal

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

Published: November 29, 2010

HOUSTON — Progress Energy Carolinas, one of the South’s larger utilities, faced a dilemma last winter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/business/energy-environment/30utilities.html?pagewanted=all

The Facts About Getting America Off Coal.

ShareNew 0
by ManfromMiddletown

Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 04:12:47 PM PST

We all know the story by now. Flags across the country are at half mast, and in West Virginia 25 miners are dead. We depend on coal to keep the lights on, and as the chart below shows we got nearly half of our electricity from it in 2009.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/12/856618/-The-Facts-About-Getting-America-Off-Coal.

MIT: Simply dispatching natural gas plants before coal would cut U.S. power-sector CO2 emissions 10%

Gas can be a bridge to low-carbon future if we put a price on CO2

July 13, 2010 The overbuilding of natural gas combined cycle plants starting in the mid-1990s presents a significant opportunity for near term reductions in CO2 emissions from the power sector. The current fleet of natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units has an average capacity factor of 41 percent, relative to a design capacity factor of up to 85 percent. However, with no carbon constraints, coal generation is generally dispatched to meet demand before NGCC generation because of its lower fuel price.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/13/mit-study-natural-gas-dispatch-coal/