Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[BenBurch]

Yes, dishonest politicians all round.

And while they are stuck in the power games and profiteering, the world can burn right?

Corrupt fossil fuel people with LOTS of money are problems when the problem is burning fossil fuel. They do things like fund AGW denialism. They buy votes. Sometimes you need to do an end run around such corrupt people to get things done. For example, what was just done about mountain range removal mining.

 

[DC]

Here's a good article on the cloud of uncertainty surrounding GCM's:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html

"The average energy impact of clouds on Earth climate is worth about -27.6 W/m2. 27 That means ±10.1% error produces a ±2.8 W/m2 uncertainty in GCM climate projections. This uncertainty equals about ±100 % of the current excess forcing produced by all the human-generated greenhouse gasses presently in the atmosphere."

There's nothing to support claims of changed rainfall patterns 50 years out. Alarmists don't mention that, instead they talk about them as certainties, much like we've seen in this thread. All we really know is that if it warms, more water will evaporate and there will be more rainfall and more cloud cover. That's the fact, the rest is just conjecture based on models that don't have the resolution to make meaningful predictions.

So that vaporized water will just stay in the air?

 

[Stray Cat]

Corrupt fossil fuel people with LOTS of money are problems when the problem is burning fossil fuel. They do things like fund AGW denialism. They buy votes. Sometimes you need to do an end run around such corrupt people to get things done. For example, what was just done about mountain range removal mining.

Ah, so if they disagree or deny they are "corrupt fossil fuel people with lots of money".... right, I got it now.

And who are they actually corrupting with their agendas and lots of money?
Oh the honest, poverty stricken politicians who whisper in corners plotting against them at climate change conferences (after flying halfway round the world in jet airplanes to get there).

You don't see the problem here? What you are saying is on the verge of, if not complete Conspiracy Theory.

 

[Furcifer]

So that vaporized water will just stay in the air?

more water will evaporate and there will be more rainfall

No, it will fall, as rain.

 

[macdoc]

Geez briliant climate sources you quote there 3b - got a few preachers to toss in as well......

The guy you are quoting is a chemist with not a single climate paper to his name....


and his "credentials" .....

The following is Patrick Frank’s controversial article challenging data and climate models on global warming. Patrick Frank is a Ph.D. chemist with more than 50 peer-reviewed articles. He has previously published in Skeptic on the noble savage myth, as well as in Theology and Science on the designer universe myth and in Free Inquiry, with Thomas H. Ray, on the science is philosophy myth.

even the magazine hedges with "controversial and you swallow it hook line and sinker in a desperate attempt to avoid the reality of AGW.

Then you top it off by admitting more water vapour and don't think rainfail patterns will change....



hint....they already have.....

 

[CapelDodger]

If it's not feasible to grow right now then they can't continue to farm. There are more than enough farms in Canada in the US that can't make a living because the prices are so low.

I doubt that. There are farms which can't compete because their costs are high and production is low relative to the market average. Climate change will bring changes to all three factors - price, costs, and production. Variously, by region, in a global market. The final upshot is not as trivial a question as you're assuming.

And there's more than enough capacity. This protectionism you're supporting hurts more people than it helps.

Protection will push prices up - that's what it's for. Taking that factor in isolation, more farms will be able to compete, and more capacity will be utilised.

What it took the glacier 1000 years to shove forward 1m takes a bulldozer 5 seconds. A couple dump trucks can move in a day what took them 100 000 years.

You'll surely forgive people for thinking you just pick numbers out of the air. You don't, do you?

If you want to move soil glaciers are not the best means of doing so anymore.

Glaciers are free, though. Bulldozers are a cost.

No, grow the same things that the grow in similar climates today. It isn't going to be any worse than Arizona or Mexico, and they do just fine.

Drought conditions are pushing a lot of farms out of the competition down there. Rising prices might compensate for that, but do mean rising food prices. In a global market, where they might have non-agricultural ramifications. In holiday destinations, even. See what I mean about climate change not being a trivial issue?

The plants are already adapted to the climate. Irrigation is a last resort.

More like a Final Redoubt. What land can be profitably irrigated has been by now. When the blighted forests of British Columbia give way to wheatlands irrigation will be the least of the problems. Bulldozer rental prices will be a bitch.

We already deal with climates harsher than the ones proposed by the models. Some people don't find that alarming.

I hope "we" won't include me, because I like the standard of living in the temperate zone. Subsistence level is not my cup of tea, even with a top-up from tourism. Which is likely to suffer if food-riots and army coups get too common.

Sweden and Norway aren't any basis for comparison to the US and Canada. It's no wonder Harper and the others just shake their heads when they hear people trying to relate them to us.

People just shake their heads at belief in north American exceptionalism. You are different, there's no doubting that, but not exceptional.

lol, shut off the flow of hydrocarbons for a day, then see how much support their is for remuneration from the people and the governments. I'd say the longest a strike could last is about 3 days before this little fantasy would come to a screeching halt.

Call in the Pinkertons. Works every time.

 

[CapelDodger]

The problem of the tropics is that the rain patterns are shifting and the character of the soils is such that they tend toward becoming prairies and then deserts as the tropical rains diminish and the temps continue to climb. It is more an issue of expanding deserts, with warmer temps and rains being shifted more northernly.

Soils, of course, are a long-term product of prevailing climate. This is the sort of complication which takes the triviality out of climate change .

If 3bodyproblem prefers cold swamplands to frozen tundra that's an individual choice he's welcome to. Personally, I see no great gain or benefit to the switchover, and I am pretty sure that those mining the diamonds and oilsands in those regions aren't likely to appreciate the change either.

Providence willing, we'll be able to watch this in real-time. The north has already warmed, so (by 3bodyproblem's simple model) wheat production will soon be expanding to take advantage. We know how to condition bogland (lime for pH, sand and gravel for drainage, and drains), and the cost is trivial for modern agribusiness.

It was always going to come to this. The impact of climate change is no longer solely a matter of prediction, it's also a matter of observation. We are living the dream.

 

[Trakar]

~12 C is not out of the question, though it is an outlier result in simulations.

Within the next century for sure. Ultimately,however,that is largely unknown territory. Then again, we are already well into uncharted and outlier impact situations, at least with regard to the geologic record. Even the huge shifts of similar atmospheric composition change and subsequent temp. equilibration were 3-4 orders of magnitude slower. Scary to witness when you understand the significance, potential and increasingly unavoidable impacts.

 

[Trakar]

Just because you don't understand them doesn't make them wrong.

I'm not disputing anything about climate change science. I'm disputing the honesty of politicians in how they are handling it.

Get your head round that before offering me a reading list thanks.

I can only offer information and an assessment based upon and supported by that information, if you are uninterested in exploring why I find your statements to be incompatible and consider your issues to be specious misunderstandings of the mainstream scientific perspectives presented (with accompanying peer-reviewed and journal published references), then I must assume that you have more persuasive and compelling references and supports for your understandings and assertions,...please present them.

 

[Trakar]

Here's a good article on the cloud of uncertainty surrounding GCM's:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html...

Would certainly be of great signifcance if GCMs were a fundemental pillar of AGW evidence and understanding rather than simply one of the tools used to help quantify and forensically analyze our current understandings.

You do realize that uncertainty cuts both ways,...don't you? This paper is also presenting data that it is equally likely that things could be orders of magnitude worse than current projections as it is that it could be minor or insignificant. As the data is leading us along a path at the high end of early projections (over the last few decades) I would be surprised to see any statistically significant anomalous drop not accounted for in most modern GCMs.

 

[Stray Cat]

I can only offer information and an assessment based upon and supported by that information, if you are uninterested in exploring why I find your statements to be incompatible and consider your issues to be specious misunderstandings of the mainstream scientific perspectives presented (with accompanying peer-reviewed and journal published references), then I must assume that you have more persuasive and compelling references and supports for your understandings and assertions,...please present them.

As I haven't offered any opinions of mainstream or indeed fringe science except that I fully accept the reality of AGW, your assertion that I am somehow misunderstanding it is just plain wrong. If I were to give you compelling references to support my opinion on the science, I would cite exactly the same sources you have done as I have no disagreement with science on the issue.

What I take exception to is the way politicians are handling the subject, so please stop tilting at windmills.

 

[macdoc]

and that is EXACTLY what has occurred in the north where the GCMs are weakest and the factors very complex - reality has far outrun projections and outlines proven far too conservative.

and really - do consider the source of the material 3b touts...the author not a climate scientist, no published papers in the field and on that basis 3B wants to toss an entire body of work decades and billions of dollars in the making which one it's leading experts is first to acknowledge is very much a work in progress......

3b is really scraping the effluent from the bottom of the denier barrel with that bit of speculative nonsense.....even the skeptic magazine distances itself from.

 

[Furcifer]

Would certainly be of great signifcance if GCMs were a fundemental pillar of AGW evidence and understanding rather than simply one of the tools used to help quantify and forensically analyze our current understandings.

You do realize that uncertainty cuts both ways,...don't you? This paper is also presenting data that it is equally likely that things could be orders of magnitude worse than current projections as it is that it could be minor or insignificant. As the data is leading us along a path at the high end of early projections (over the last few decades) I would be surprised to see any statistically significant anomalous drop not accounted for in most modern GCMs.

Check this out then, http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/c47t1650k0j2n047/?p=7857ae035f62422491fa3013c9897669&pi=4

"The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature"

Did you catch that? The uncertainty in measurement is greater than the observed change over the last 100 years. We don't even know where we stand right now relative to where we were, or where we are going.

Looks like we might be starting from scratch.

 

[BenBurch]

Ah, so if they disagree or deny they are "corrupt fossil fuel people with lots of money".... right, I got it now.

And who are they actually corrupting with their agendas and lots of money?
Oh the honest, poverty stricken politicians who whisper in corners plotting against them at climate change conferences (after flying halfway round the world in jet airplanes to get there).

You don't see the problem here? What you are saying is on the verge of, if not complete Conspiracy Theory.

I spent a lot of years actively involved in politics, and this is how it works on any controversial subject. You don't like it, you need to have a dictatorship.

 

[Trakar]

Check this out then, http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/c47t1650k0j2n047/?p=7857ae035f62422491fa3013c9897669&pi=4

The Energy and Environment Journal!?
surely you jest?

 

[Trakar]

As I haven't offered any opinions of mainstream or indeed fringe science except that I fully accept the reality of AGW, your assertion that I am somehow misunderstanding it is just plain wrong. If I were to give you compelling references to support my opinion on the science, I would cite exactly the same sources you have done as I have no disagreement with science on the issue.

If this is accurate, then where do these statements of yours come from:

I doubt anyone can deny that the climate is changing nor that it has constantly changed since the formation of the planet billions of years ago.
(reference)

Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, this is a standard denialist dismissal argument - the links I presented discuss in detail why it is improper and incorrect to conflate natural and anthropogenically forced climate change.

...Instead of apparently putting all this effort into the present (politically motivated) tax raising and chasing our carbon footprints. There should also be an equal amount of resources put into figuring out ways of living with the natural climate change mechanisms that we can not control.
(reference)

natural climate change issues that we can't control aren't a problem at this time and are completely irrelevent to any discussion of carbon taxes or any other mitigation strategies with regards to AGW.

Having to pay 10p for a plastic carrier bag at the supermarket does not do anything to prepare for natural climate change nor does it slow anthropomorphic climate change down. (reference)

What I take exception to is the way politicians are handling the subject, so please stop tilting at windmills.

It discourages the use of plastic carrier bags and encourages people to find alternatives. Of course the best approach would probably just involve an out right banning of such uses, but I've no real objection to employing market strategies to encourage people to do the right thing rather than simply narrowing thier choices and options. Again, you seem repleat with many confusions and misunderstandings on this topic, I have offered you information and tried to explain why your statements are inaccurate but you reject these seemingly without consideration. Please feel free to present references which support your contentions as in accord with mainstream science and understandings.

 

[FattyCatty]

This article on PhysicsWorld.com says the amount of energy the Sun gives to Earth is less than previously thought. Climate models will be able to use more accurate data. It sounds like the new data won't make much difference in climate models; do you agree?

Researchers in the US claim to have the most reliable estimates yet of the amount of energy that the Sun provides to Earth – and it is less than previously thought. The findings will give scientists more robust solar data to feed into climate models, though much more work needs to be done to fully understand the relationship between the Sun and the Earth.
<snip>
Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) in Boulder, Colorado, and Judith Lean of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC say they have acquired a more reliable estimate of solar activity. They analysed data collected by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE), a satellite launched in 2003 to investigate why solar variability occurs and how it affects Earth's atmosphere and climate.
<snip>
These findings are presented in a paper in Geophysical Research Letters.

 

[macdoc]

Still quoting ill informed "cranks" 3b.

Models and stations only server to confirm and understand the reality of warming and change that is observed in dozens of different disciples across decades by thousands of scientists in a myriad of disciplines.

The climate scientists themselves use the models to help understanding just as nuclear and aerodynamics processes and thousands of others are modelled to improve understanding.

All models are wrong ....some models are useful.

We don't fully understand aerodynamics but we design and build aircraft and trust our lives to them.

As to Frank...just another crank you keep dragging out from under denier rocks....

snip

The people doing this software are NOT amateurs. Nor are the people using it.

On Frank’s second point…that the physics of the atmosphere is not well understood, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Here is what it tastes like:

“No model – whether a wind tunnel model for designing aircraft, or a climate model for projecting global warming – perfectly reproduces the system being modeled. Such inherently imperfect models may nevertheless produce useful results. In this context, GCMs are capable of reproducing the general features of the observed global temperature over the past century,”[2]

Are the models perfect? Of course not, but thousands of scientists have used them, tested them and found them to be generally valid. So even if Frank is right that the code has never undergone formal review (which I doubt) if it works, and works repeatedly, what’s his problem?

The models are a tool to help us understand the dynamics of an immensely complex and chaotic system. I am sure they will continue to evolve, and that each revision will be exhaustively tested against known climate history. I don’t care how many “numerical” reviews are performed. The code could pass those reviews and still not model the “real world” correctly.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978587566

 

[Trakar]

"Ongoing climate change following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions"

abstract extract

A threat of irreversible damage should prompt action to mitigate climate change, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which serves as a basis for international climate policy. CO2-induced climate change is known to be largely irreversible on timescales of many centuries, as simulated global mean temperature remains approximately constant for such periods following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions while thermosteric sea level continues to rise. Here we use simulations with the Canadian Earth System Model to show that ongoing regional changes in temperature and precipitation are significant, following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions in 2100, despite almost constant global mean temperatures. Moreover, our projections show warming at intermediate depths in the Southern Ocean that is many times larger by the year 3000 than that realized in 2100. We suggest that a warming of the intermediate-depth ocean around Antarctica at the scale simulated for the year 3000 could lead to the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which would be associated with a rise in sea level of several metres...

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1047.html

 

[Trakar]

Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-global-warming-be-caused-by-natural-cycles.html

"What if global warming is just a natural cycle?" This argument is, perhaps, one of the most common raised by the average person, rather than someone who makes a career out of denying climate change. Cyclical variations in climate are well-known to the public; we all studied the ice ages in school. However, climate isn't inherently cyclical.

A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide...