• 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.
3bodyproblem said:
GCM's Not so hot:


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.
Click to expand...

That's what this is, a proposal for more study of a very particular and specific set of conditions and processes and relating them weather events (precipitation/storm formation) and such understandings will improve weather forecasting and understanding and will undoubtably refine regional and global climate projections, but there is no indication that these issues will reverse or substantially alter the current prevalent understandings and projections.
 
TShaitanaku said:
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!
Click to expand...

Yes it does, I was unable to get a transcript of the discussion or find any papers. Perhaps it has to do with this?


Radiative and Dynamical Feedbacks Over the Equatorial Cold-Tongue: Results from Seven Atmospheric GCMs-snip...The equatorial Pacific is a region with strong negative feedbacks. Yet coupled GCMs have exhibited a propensity to develop a significant SST bias in that region, suggesting an unrealistic sensitivity in the coupled models to small energy flux errors that inevitably occur in the individual model components. Could this 'hypersensitivity' exhibited in a coupled model be due to an underestimate of the strength of the negative feedbacks in this region?
Click to expand...

link here

Maybe there are other hypersensitivities in the GCM's? This could account for some of that uncertainty expressed by Robert Charlson.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Heisenberg would be proud:


Abstract here.

There is considerable uncertainty in Global Climate Models. Something to consider.
Click to expand...

You do realize that this study is primarily about cloud ice-crystal collection methodologies and estimations, not how those particles or particle densities actually relate to climate warming, or any findings that actually impact upon climate change one way or the other,...don't you? Not sure if you did a term search for "climate, uncertainty" or are just utilizing the fruits of a someone else's search, but you should vett for relevence.

Nothing in life is certain
 
TShaitanaku said:
You do realize that this study is primarily about cloud ice-crystal collection methodologies and estimations, not how those particles or particle densities actually relate to climate warming, or any findings that actually impact upon climate change one way or the other,...don't you? Not sure if you did a term search for "climate, uncertainty" or are just utilizing the fruits of a someone else's search, but you should vett for relevence.

Nothing in life is certain
Click to expand...

I believe it came up in a search for "global warming climate models". Then hitting "More Like This" on one of the articles.

The article is one of many that discusses how GCM's poorly model clouds, convection and other seemingly simple processes.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Incorrect. From the abstract:



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.
Click to expand...

That's because the primary purpose of the study you cite was to establish the determination of the parameterization outline. As they specifically note in the course of fulfilling this grant study, however:
"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."
Click to expand...

There are uncertainties in everything, but none of those characterized in any of these pieces are anything that undermines, reverses or (in many cases) is even relevent to, the mainstream scientific perspective regarding anthropogenic Global Warming.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Yes it does, I was unable to get a transcript of the discussion or find any papers. Perhaps it has to do with this?



link here

Maybe there are other hypersensitivities in the GCM's? This could account for some of that uncertainty expressed by Robert Charlson.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, here are some more of his publications:

COMMENTARY Quantifying climate change — too rosy a picture? (2010)

Stephen E. Schwartz,Robert J. Charlson,Henning Rodhe

Abstract
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assesses the skill of climate models by their ability to reproduce warming over the twentieth century, but in doing so may give a false sense of their predictive capability. The challenge of climate change research is to develop confident predictive capability. Given prospective future emissions of greenhouse gases and other climate influencing substances such as aerosols, what changes in global mean surface temperature and other climate attributes can be expected, and what confidence can be placed in these projected changes? The single most important concept here is the relationship between climate forcing and the response of the system. Forcing (measured in watts per square metre) is the global mean change in energy balance imposed over time by changes in atmospheric composition (for example CO2, CH4 and aerosols) and other influences such as land use. It is the key diagnostic of human climate perturbation. NEW DIRECTIONS In its latest report on the physical science basis of climate change 1, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) moves increasingly beyond detecting global change and attributing it to human activity, into quantitative assessment of the ability to forecast the prospective change in climate that would result from future emissions scenarios. This new direction requires careful analysis of the uncertainties associated with assessing future climate change, and the new report is explicit in its definitions. In a departure from previous reports, the latest assessment gives a best estimate of climate sensitivity — the increase in global mean surface temperature that would be expected to result from a doubling of atmospheric CO 2 levels. The present best estimate....
Click to expand...

Darn the cliff hangers!

Paragon : a systematic, integrated approach to aerosol observation and modeling (2009)

Climate forcing by aerosols – A hazy picture (2008)

Sulphate aerosols and climate (1989)

Biological regulation of climate (1987)

Yeah lots of interesting stuff and this was just a quick hop and a skip through his publication history, see anything you like?
 
r-j said:
Death is certain.
Click to expand...

True, but generally, death happens at the end of life, and while its typically considered inevitable its usually is not predictable with any certainty.
 
Mitigating Uncertainty
A Flexible Approach for the Statistical Visualization of Ensemble Data-We present a collection of overview and statistical displays linked through a high level of interactivity to provide a framework for gaining key scientific insight into the distribution of the simulation results as well as the uncertainty associated with the data.
Click to expand...

Scientists look at ways of mitigating the uncertainty in not only the models, but the data itself.
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
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.
Click to expand...

So just because you've found a few uncertainties that means we should ignore all the certainties? Not a risk management strategy I'd be happy to go along with.

Speaking of risk, an interesting article in my local paper today, obviously in response to the conference on tackling AGW communication referenced above, the author suggests framing the debate in terms of risk and put more emphasis on recognition of the uncertainties, he calls it a 'dialogue of risk'.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Mitigating Uncertainty


Scientists look at ways of mitigating the uncertainty in not only the models, but the data itself.
Click to expand...

Though probably a better question for the moderated board, I have no way to transpose threads. What relevence do you attach to this paper and how do you see this impacting the current state of climate understanding?
 
"And that's exactly where we get back to risk management which is how do you decide what risks to take in face of these risks, understanding that if the risks are based only on data they can be objective but when they're based upon models constructed from data, that they're not. In fact it always makes me laugh to hear circumspect scientists, especially physicists who know nothing about climate, coming in and telling us, 'I don't believe in models.' Oh sure, so what do you believe in? 'Well, I look at the data.' Well, as soon as you've associated two pieces of data you're a modeller, you're just a lousy modeller because it's so much better to be explicit in varied parameters you're unsure about than to sit there and assume that you can just extrapolate that kind of stuff. Or the alternative, say nothing and let the society fall into traps. Most of us would rather not do that."

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2859986.htm#transcript
 
Resolver - from your link

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007.[2][3] So
Click to expand...

not sure what dissenting opinion you refer to but in mainstream climate science there is nil as to human impact on climate.
There are, as with evolution some few cranks and interest groups that attempt dissent on the reality and theory of AGW.....unsuccessfully.
 
macdoc said:
Resolver - from your link



not sure what dissenting opinion you refer to but in mainstream climate science there is nil as to human impact on climate.
There are, as with evolution some few cranks and interest groups that attempt dissent on the reality and theory of AGW.....unsuccessfully.
Click to expand...

Oops, meant these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't know which I should debunk first. I'm sure they've all been debunked, but haven't seen it done all in 1 place yet.

Is there somewhere you can point to the is dedicated to addressing and debunking all of these? If not, shall we have fun knocking these down, directly?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3bodyproblem said:
A revisit on my earlier observation in another thread:



Article here.

Sounds interesting. Why indeed.
Click to expand...

It could be that the heat energy is being stored in the deep ocean, because despite the fact it isn't being reflected in the surface temperature there is a clear and quantifiable energy imbalance where more energy is going into the system than is being released. Oceans are a much more efficient storage medium than the atmosphere and heat content of the oceans has nearly tripled over the last fifty years.
 
Resolver said:
Oops, meant these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't know which I should debunk first. I'm sure they've all been debunked, but haven't seen it done all in 1 place yet.

Is there somewhere you can point to the is dedicated to addressing and debunking all of these? If not, shall we have fun knocking these down, directly?
Click to expand...

Check here. Desmogblog has done a good job tracking down the employers of many of these characters, despite their unwillingness to reveal sources for their funding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom