Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Matt Giwer]

I didn’t ask the question, I answered it, but glad to see you are paying attention


The surface are of the earth is hardly a “rule of thumb” and there is plenty of published data on the earths radiative imbalance and the average annual ice loss for Greenland, Antarctica and other glaciers. The question is neither complicated nor dependant on unknown quantities.


And I tried to give you a feel for how simple it really is

Solar radiation is measured quite accurately by satellites, but of course we are not discussing solar radiation we are discussing the heat retained by greenhouse gasses.

Thx for the useless trivia, would you care to tell us what % of arsenic is lethal in the human body?

Let me get this straight. You are saying all these hundreds of millions being spent on climate research and all the supercomputers is a rip off because it is so simple you know the answer. Right?

If I am not right then what are you saying?

If I am right why do you not complain about all the money being wasted when the answer is so simple?

BTW: PLEASE post your simple calculations and the result.

 

[Matt Giwer]

That's utterly wrong. MANY MANY molecules have the same count of atoms yet are structurally different.

Otherwise Di-methyl Ether and Ethanol would be the same chemical.

And this is about as informed as the rest of the argument you are making here.

I know that. But it was an assertion in the early 19th c. that it was not true. But as the person I was addressing was claiming that everything said in the 19th c. is true today I gave that as an example of what has to be true today if his claim is correct.

Follow the thread, please.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Care to give an example to illustrate the part I have highlighted?

That is one of my favorites. How could you have missed them all?

They are all of the form "in ten years it will be too late" which has been a favorite for at least the last 23 years. Today it is still ten years from now that it will be too late.

Those are annual "predictions" not a single one of which has been correct so far -- or at least 22 of them have been wrong. If next year another ten year prediction is made then 23 of them will have been false.

 

[Matt Giwer]

In the case of, for instance, satellite observations adjustments are made to the raw data to take account of instrument changes so that sense can be made out of the data. In the case of economics, adjustments are made for such things as inflation, again so that like is being compared to like as nearly as possible.

Let me try it again. Statistics has a theoretical foundation. As such there are criteria for the input data to which statistics applies. When the data no longer satisfies the criteria statistics no longer applies. This is just the way it is.

 

[Mikemcc]

That is one of my favorites. How could you have missed them all?

They are all of the form "in ten years it will be too late" which has been a favorite for at least the last 23 years. Today it is still ten years from now that it will be too late.

Those are annual "predictions" not a single one of which has been correct so far -- or at least 22 of them have been wrong. If next year another ten year prediction is made then 23 of them will have been false.

Again,care to list or link to any of these so that we can see what predictions you are choosing to say have been missed?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Actually Lamarck was quite wrong (and not above falisfying data), and as to the latter I don't know who held to that idea for long. However that may be, you declared that most of the ideas held in the 19thCE were wrong, and plucking out a well-known example or two doesn't back that up. Kepler wasn't always right either, but he often was.

The issue is you are not only citing what was discovered in the 19th c. but also predictions made based upon those discoveries. The discovery of the laws of thermodynamics has little to do with learning how to apply them correctly. Nor can a correct 1820 theory be taken as applicable despite mitigating new theories which came later.

You tried to make an issue equating the fact of heat from the sun known since forever with a late 19th c. discovery that it was an extension of the visible light spectrum. That is not legitimate.

Not one I'm familiar with, but there was a problem with the then-current state of knowledge, prompting further work which resuted in a solution. This is how science progresses.

That rather depends on which nebulae you're interested in. They weren't all galaxies.

Excuse, there were NO galaxies before this discoveries.

You assume that all stars are the same mass and that all visible matter (that is, detectable by radiation) is contained in stars. Trebling the number of red dwarf stars (there's a clue in "dwarf") does not treble the amount of mass contained in stars. Such thinking is definitely not the way that science progresses.

In fact is was a discovery that most galaxies are not like ours and have a much greater fraction of red dwarves than ours.

Are you quite convinced that dark matter is a foolish idea?

I know the manner in which it is described to do what it supposedly does does not make sense and I have corresponded with one of the team leaders looking for it. Not to make much of it but they are looking for a certain type of matter but cannot exclude some more prosaic explanations. It is a matter of taste I guess. For example the assertion that dark matter does not "stick" as in forming planets but the matter in stars does not "stick" either. That DM does not clump is mostly a desired but not a necessary characteristic. See milkyway@home for more details.

Science is often right. Hoping that, since some science is wrong, any science you don't like might be wrong and can be ignored is foolish, in my opinion

Save what you have so gratuitously cited are implying that facts of science legitimize predictions in vacuuo. That is never the case. A may be true but without considering B C D and all the rest there is no basis for asserting the predictions based upon A alone are true.

For example if the earth is heated the re-radiated heated is in direct proportion as its surface area remains a constant. But if the atmosphere is heated it expands increasing its radiating surface radiating heat faster as a negative feedback rather than as a constant. A prediction which does not account for the atmosphere cannot be correct. Almost the only discovery/knowledge about the atmosphere in the 19th c. was that the pressure decreased with altitude and that only in the very narrow range of balloon height and a few mountains.

And equally false to cherry-pick some well-known errors and use them to characterise 19thCE science.

My intent is not just to cite the errors but also the nonsense that comes from projecting those errors

That's good science. Science isn't embarrassed at all by errors.

Nor are real scientists embarrassed predictions of disaster as they do not make that kind of prediction.

Have I? I don't recall that, but no doubt you have evidence.

Where did you get that from? It sounds pretty unlikely to me, but give me your source and I'm open to persuasion.

You may be mis-remembering a report that loss of the Antarctic ice-cap would result in a re-distribution of water in the oceans, since its mass currently draws ocean water towards it. The science behind that seems sound, but it's hardly an urgent matter.

The mass of the glacier at present attracts water to Greenland increasing the sea level around it. Without the glacier the net result of more water in the ocean less the gravitational attraction results in a net decrease in the local sea level.

Do try to keep politics out of it. That's what led some Marxists to cling to Lamarckianism (it suited their political agenda), and leads some to deny AGW now.You don't want to end up looking as foolish as them, do you?

Just whose political agenda revolves around Greenland's shores is a mystery to me, and I'm quite comfortable having it remain so.

As to a political agenda the mother earth hippies of the 60s and 70s are now running the show and just by the strangest of all coincidences the inspirations and insights granted by Peyote and Marijuana just happen to be correct as soon as they got old enough to run things.

Fascinating that Hippies were in fact prophets

or

We have a self-fulfilling prophecy,

Which do you think is more likely?

 

[Furcifer]

They are all of the form "in ten years it will be too late" which has been a favorite for at least the last 23 years. Today it is still ten years from now that it will be too late.

Those are annual "predictions" not a single one of which has been correct so far -- or at least 22 of them have been wrong. If next year another ten year prediction is made then 23 of them will have been false.

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".

 

[lomiller]

Let me get this straight. You are saying all these hundreds of millions being spent on climate research and all the supercomputers is a rip off because it is so simple you know the answer. Right?

Are you suggesting that someone is spending g hundreds of millions of dollars to calculate how much energy it takes to melt ice? If so I was some evidence, because that’s a highschool level demonstration.

The question asked was simple to answer and simple to calculate. It does not become more difficult because there are more difficult questions out there.

 

[lomiller]

Exactly. I don't know how anyone could look at the history of climate science and not be aware of these unfulfilled prophesies.

First, equating the predictions arising from science with “prophesies” won’t get you far on a sceptic forum. It immediately lumps you in with ID’ers who think Darwin is some religious cult leader.

Second, if you are going to make a claim then back it up. If you claim there are predictions that have turned out false then prove it. Just remember not to fall into the same trap as geckko and invent your own predictions, stick to the ones that have actually been made.

 

[Furcifer]

First, equating the predictions arising from science with “prophesies” won’t get you far on a sceptic forum.

Cataclysmic predictions using limited understanding of known variables and a multitude of unknown variables amounts to "prophesy".

Our understanding of climate science, and our ability to predict future climes, is in it's infancy. We're no more sure of what the climate will be in 2050 than Newton was of discovering ether. And look how that turned out for him

Second, if you are going to make a claim then back it up. If you claim there are predictions that have turned out false then prove it. Just remember not to fall into the same trap as geckko and invent your own predictions, stick to the ones that have actually been made.

It's certainly more speculation than prediction. The fear of droughts, hurricanes, crop failures, melting glaciers and rising sea levels has been bantered about since Abbe Du Bos and David Hume.
If you want specific model predictions, which began in the early 50's I can't provide that because I don't have access to a library. Sufficed to say there wasn't even consensus on the what effect doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere could do to the global average temperature until the late 70's. That says very little about the climate if and when it ever gets to these projected temperatures.

Right now we don't have a complete enough understanding of all the variables to feed into the GCM's to get a meaningful prediction. Plain and simple. Even if we feed everything we know, into the best model, using the best computers, we still don't know enough to make a reliable prediction. It's simply the best prediction we can make with the limited amount we know.

It's like allowing a 3 year old to make decisions on his own. Even he makes the best decisions with everything he knows, he still doesn't know anything. Climate science at this point is preparing for pre-school. It will be a long time before it graduates from Climate Prognostication University (south campus)

I hope this clarifies things.

 

[macdoc]

The level of ENTIRELY "unsupported by climate science" polemic opinions is rather startling in a moderated thread on global warming....
Not a shred of science support evidenced from those in denial tho much opinion and diatribe...

Meanwhile actual scientists......

Measuring Air-Sea Exchange of Carbon Dioxide in the Open Ocean

ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2010) — A team led by scientists at the National Oceanography Centre have measured the air-sea exchange of carbon dioxide in the open ocean at higher wind speed then anyone else has ever managed. Their findings are important for understanding how interactions between the oceans and the atmosphere influence climate.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101206101244.htm

are dealing with the reality we have engendered.

it's getting warmer
we're responsible

which the climate science community has consensus on ...such a simple acceptance of responsibility for our collective action in using the atmosphere as a free dumping ground.

Science experiments like those detailed above further the understanding the pace and extent of the consequences of humanity's "unplanned experiment" with the atmosphere.

Edited by arthwollipot: 

Less snark in a moderated thread, please.

 

[Mikemcc]

Nor can a correct 1820 theory be taken as applicable despite mitigating new theories which came later.

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

Excuse, there were NO galaxies before this discoveries.

Pardon?

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

For example if the earth is heated the re-radiated heated is in direct proportion as its surface area remains a constant. But if the atmosphere is heated it expands increasing its radiating surface radiating heat faster as a negative feedback rather than as a constant. A prediction which does not account for the atmosphere cannot be correct. Almost the only discovery/knowledge about the atmosphere in the 19th c. was that the pressure decreased with altitude and that only in the very narrow range of balloon height and a few mountains.

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.

 

[macdoc]

I hope this clarifies things.

all it clarifies is your lack of understanding of the current state of climae science.
You continue to make broad statements and provide not one shred of support for them.

You also ignore the major cause of uncertainty which is human actions which cannot be predicted - that is why scenarios are developed - as MIT and others have done and as have been pointed out to you ad nauseum which provide a range of outcomes based on various levels of mitigation and up to burning all available known reserves.

Within these parameters the IPCC has time and again been shown to be conservative in the estimates of the rate of change....

How will sea level respond to changes in natural and anthropogenic forcings by 2100?

posted Mar 4, 2010 3:28 AM by Aslak Grinsted [ updated Apr 16, 2010 3:58 AM ] Abstract
Using an inverse statistical model we examine potential response in sea level to the changes in natural and anthropogenic forcings by 2100. With six IPCC radiative forcing scenarios we estimate sea level rise of 0.6-1.6 m, with confidence limits of 0.59 m and 1.8 m. Projected impacts of solar and volcanic radiative forcings account only for, at maximum, 5% of total sea level rise, with anthropogenic greenhouse gasses being the dominant forcing. As alternatives to the IPCC projections, even the most intense century of volcanic forcing from the past 1000 years would result in 10-15 cm potential reduction of sea level rise. Stratospheric injections of SO2 equivalent to a Pinatubo eruption every 4 years would effectively just delay sea level rise by 12 -20 years. A 21st century with the lowest level of solar irradiance over the last 9300 years results in negligible difference to sea level rise.

Citation: Jevrejeva, S., J. C. Moore, and A. Grinsted (2010), How will sea level respond to changes in natural and anthropogenic forcings by 2100? Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2010GL042947 [PDF]




Agreement on future sea level rise.
Sea level will rise by roughly 1 m by the year 2100. This result agrees well with previous estimates projections by Grinsted et al. 2009, Vermeer & Rahmstorf, 2009, and Rahmstorf 2007, while using a completely independent forcing. It also agrees qualitatively with other evidence from Rohling et al. 2007, Carlson et al. 2008, and Pfeffer et al. 2008.

Although it is too early to say that a consensus has been reached in the sea level community, it is clear that the bulk of the recent studies show a much greater sea level rise than projected in IPCC AR4.
Figure caption
Recent studies agree that sea level will rise by roughly one meter over this century for a mid-range emission scenario (A1B). This is 3 times higher than predicted by the IPCC. (The figure is from the press release.)

http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs...hangesinnaturalandanthropogenicforcingsby2100

and this is from the actual scientists working in the field directly

The change in the Arctic in particular has been far and away more rapid than anticipated.

Much talk and waving on hands from the deniers who want to sit on them concerning action....
Not a shred of support from the climate science community for those polemic comments....none offered...not one....just opinion.....seriously ill informed.

The physics of the atmosphere are quite well enough understood to provide policy engendering cautions.

Human's inability to act on that risk is the true unknown tho evidence suggestions we are being seriously stupid about it

 

[Furcifer]

Meanwhile actual scientists......
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101206101244.htm
are dealing with the reality we have engendered.

This is another example of how we are just beginning to learn how to measure the current climate accurately.

This should be a clear indication to anyone we don't have the capacity to measure future climes 25,50 100 years out with any real accuracy.

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.

In fact when you take a look at the climate record and scientific consensus over the last 60 years, the only thing that seems to be consistent is that what ever direction we wish to think the climate was headed the record seems to reflect.

 

[lomiller]

Cataclysmic predictions using limited understanding of known variables and a multitude of unknown variables amounts to "prophesy".

I’m tired of pointing out people inviting their own “predictions” that climate science has made. Tell us specifically which predictions you are talking about and provide evidence they were actually made.

Now are you going to provide examples where mainstream climate science has produced religious “prophecies” or not?

Our understanding of climate science, and our ability to predict future climes, is in it's infancy.

The published science and nearly 100% of working climate scientists say otherwise.

It's certainly more speculation than prediction..

Stop trying to move the goalposts, you said these predictions were made I asked you for evidence that they were not whether they were “prediction or speculation”. Do you have evidence for your claim or not?

If you want specific model predictions, which began in the early 50's I can't provide that because I don't have access to a library.

Until the late 50’s it was believed that the ocean would absorb any CO2 humans emit, so there are no predictions at all about global warming until the early 1960’s. The first practical climate models were developed in the early 1980’s, and even these primitive models did a decent job of predicting climate from the 1950’s until today.

Sufficed to say there wasn't even consensus on the what effect doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere could do to the global average temperature until the late 70's.

The estimates for the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere have remained basically unchanged since the 1960’s.

Right now we don't have a complete enough understanding of all the variables to feed into the GCM's to get a meaningful prediction..

I’m going to write this off as CT nonsense. There are no such variable in GCM’s. GCM parameters are estimates of physical quantities, not variables that you can change however you like.

It's like allowing a 3 year old to make decisions on his own. Even he makes the best decisions with everything he knows, he still doesn't know anything. Climate science at this point is preparing for pre-school. It will be a long time before it graduates from Climate Prognostication University (south campus)

Hand waving and insulting the world’s scientists will get you nowhere

 

[Furcifer]

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 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.

 

[lomiller]

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

Quoted from your link

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.

Albeit on the low end, this paper is consistent with the range of warming for CO2 doubling that has been agreed on for decades. Of course I could just as easily cherry pick papers in the high end, but in the end that would be equally pointless.

 

[Furcifer]

Tell us specifically which predictions you are talking about and provide evidence they were actually made.

Speculations about the cataclysmic effect of global warming have been around since day one. Is that what you mean? Or do you want to talk about claims that clouds from cooling towers might actually result in negative feedback? Stuff like that? Do you want links to papers that clearly indicate the cause of global warming may or may not be man made?

I’m going to write this off as CT nonsense. There are no such variable in GCM’s. GCM parameters are estimates of physical quantities, not variables that you can change however you like.

This is either semantics or you don't understand how computers operate.

 

[CapelDodger]

Let me try it again. Statistics has a theoretical foundation. As such there are criteria for the input data to which statistics applies. When the data no longer satisfies the criteria statistics no longer applies. This is just the way it is.

This is why data are adjusted for known errors so that statistics can be applied to them. Errors can often be identified by using statistics. For instance, statistics can reveal that a satellite's orbit is decaying faster than expected, or that one type of ocean buoy gives a different response to another type of buoy in the same conditions.

The data used in determining trends in temperature or sea-level meet all the requirements for statistical analysis. The fact that raw data is adusted beforehand for good reasons does not invalidate it.

When it comes to, for instance, GISS temps the entire process is transparent. The raw data is available, the ways in which it is systematically adjusted are specified, even the code that is used can be looked over. The data is not being meddled with. Adjustments for systemic errors are as old as statistics itself.

So the 80's were warmer than the 70's, the 90's warmer than the 80's, the 2000's warmer still, and 2010 has been a real hottie. (Globally, that is. Locally, it's bloody freezing around me, but nothing I didn't grow up with.)

 

[CapelDodger]

I know that. But it was an assertion in the early 19th c. that it was not true. But as the person I was addressing was claiming that everything said in the 19th c. is true today I gave that as an example of what has to be true today if his claim is correct.

Does "the person" refer to me, perchance? I suspect so. Naturally I made no such claim, yet my suspicion remains.

You made the claim that most of the ideas held in the 19thCE turned out to be wrong, which is what I contested. I also doubt that anyone, even in the 19thCE, claimed that a given combination of atoms can assume only one conformation. Nor in the 18thCE, for that matter. It appears to be an assumption on your part that such a belief was held.

Kelvin was wrong on the age of the Earth, but he wasn't fanciful in his use of thermodynamics. He just didn't know about radioactive decay. Thermodynamics remains fundamental in science, and actually influenced much of the scientific thinking of the 19thCE. (Darwin may not have directly referenced thermodynamics in his great work, but its influence is clearly there in his way of thinking.)