Kyoto Debunked

[a_unique_person]

Climate models don't work that way- they don't assume global warming at the outset. What they have are various inputs called radiative forcings, such as changes in solar activity, tropospheric aerosols, ozone depletion and greenhouse gases. Some of these have positive forcings, such as GHGs, some are negative, such as aerosols. They then run the models with these time-dependent forcings to see how the system reacts- in particular, you will get processes that react to changes in temperature and in turn act back on the climate. These positive or negative feedbacks, like changes in atmospheric water vapour, cloud cover and the ice-albedo, will tend to amplify or dampen the temperature changes.

It just so happens that there has been a net positive forcing in the last few decades due to GHGs, which is expected to continue in the future. Positive feedbacks also outweigh negative feedbacks, so that you have an amplification effect on top. This is where the warming comes from.

Whoa, stop making so much sense.

 

[BobK]

OK, lets see some evidence that this is the case. Why would it be ludicrous for the government to increase funding if there were no problem? It would help get a constant thorn out of the conservatives sides. My scenario is just as much a 'what if' as yours. Perhaps the simple fact is, these are scientists doing their job.

Your scenario is not equal. When the public no longer sees a problem (the thorn), why would any rational politician/party not direct those resources toward something where the public does see a problem? Do you expect them to be kindhearted to some program that does them no political good and solves no problem?



They are not perfect, and I have never claimed they are. They are good enough and consistent enough to provide reliable results, with a defined range of error. The range of error is what is being reduced. The issue, as far as the scientists are concerned, is basically decided. It is just a matter of degree.

Here the text of your post in response to drooper about 6-8 posts from the top of this page.

With respect, you don't. The models have been tested against past climatic conditions, including ice-ages, and come up correct.

I queried you to provide a link to the veracity of that statement and you failed miserably.
So now your going to try to substitute the word "perfect" for my citation of your use of the word "correct" and then try to attack my query on the possibility of your change of position as if my query was bogus. How low can you go? I'm trying to have a rational discussion, but it seems you're not going to let a little thing like rationality or honest exchange of ideas to get in the way of your beliefs. You don't seem to care if you twist the statements of others, use personal attacks or simply ignore simple questions I have posed more than once.

For crying out loud! Even your failure to answer or even acknowledge the simple question I asked concerning the MM vs Mann controversy which was "Are you even curious?" Are you afraid you'll get the answer wrong if you don't have an authority figure to give you their answer as to what you should think about being curious?


Have you demonstrated that the scientific process is failing here? Scientific frauds are usually found out, even if it takes a few years. Yet in this case you are claiming that the the vast majority of scientists in this area of research are in on some massive conspiracy. Maybe you should consider the possibility they are correct.

I made no such assertion of conspiracy. Conspiracy to me involves planning between the modelers. What I do see is involuntary collusion by the modelers, with each watching out for themselves by taking a "don't rock the boat attitude", and others using scare tactics to attempt to exert control over an ever larger portion of the public's money. You may consider this a cynical viewpoint, but I consider it a more realistic one than what you believe.

Consider the possiblility they are correct? Where have you been? Isn't considering the possibility they might wrong the major portion of that exercise?

 

[ceptimus]

We won't know for sure how accurate the predictions for the next 20 years are, until the 20 years have passed.

However, policy for the next few years has to be determined now. Should we:

1. Not bother about GHGs and keep producing them as the economy grows, probably at an ever-increasing rate?

2. Make drastic changes to current practises and cut GHG emmisions as low as we possibly can?

3. Try to cap emmisions at roughly the current levels, maybe allowing a gradual increase or reduction?

To me the third option seems the most sensible given the current level of knowledge. However, I can see that oil companies, and governments heavily influenced by oil companies might prefer option one.

 

[Luke T.]

Climate models don't work that way- they don't assume global warming at the outset. What they have are various inputs called radiative forcings, such as changes in solar activity, tropospheric aerosols, ozone depletion and greenhouse gases. Some of these have positive forcings, such as GHGs, some are negative, such as aerosols. They then run the models with these time-dependent forcings to see how the system reacts- in particular, you will get processes that react to changes in temperature and in turn act back on the climate. These positive or negative feedbacks, like changes in atmospheric water vapour, cloud cover and the ice-albedo, will tend to amplify or dampen the temperature changes.

It just so happens that there has been a net positive forcing in the last few decades due to GHGs, which is expected to continue in the future. Positive feedbacks also outweigh negative feedbacks, so that you have an amplification effect on top. This is where the warming comes from.

So this past Saturday afternoon, I tuned into the Weather Channel to see what the weather would be like this week. They said it would be raining here Monday through Friday. Today is Tuesday and no sign of rain yet. In fact, the weather is beautiful.

I should trust a weather forecast for 50 years from now?

 

[Brian the Snail]

So this past Saturday afternoon, I tuned into the Weather Channel to see what the weather would be like this week. They said it would be raining here Monday through Friday. Today is Tuesday and no sign of rain yet. In fact, the weather is beautiful.

I should trust a weather forecast for 50 years from now?

Well, I guess the simple answer to that is that nobody is trying to predict the weather for 50 years from now- they're trying to predict climate, which is an aggregate of weather conditions over many years. This may seem rather glib, but there's actually a big difference between the two, with different challenges for the two types of models (i.e. weather models suffer more from chaos which makes predictions after a few days very difficult, while climate models are more difficult to verify).

But if your point is that these types of computer models are not perfect, then that's well taken. Certainly, I don't think that anybody is saying that they're crystal balls. However, just like with the weather, they're the best tools that we have for trying to get some idea of what will await us in the future, and whether it is prudent to start taking some kind of precautions now.

 

[Luke T.]

Well, I guess the simple answer to that is that nobody is trying to predict the weather for 50 years from now- they're trying to predict climate, which is an aggregate of weather conditions over many years. This may seem rather glib, but there's actually a big difference between the two, with different challenges for the two types of models (i.e. weather models suffer more from chaos which makes predictions after a few days very difficult, while climate models are more difficult to verify).

But if your point is that these types of computer models are not perfect, then that's well taken. Certainly, I don't think that anybody is saying that they're crystal balls. However, just like with the weather, they're the best tools that we have for trying to get some idea of what will await us in the future, and whether it is prudent to start taking some kind of precautions now.

I understand that long term big-picture predictions are probably easier to make than short term snapshot predictions. I can probably safely say that the stock market will be much higher 50 years from now than it is today, but I can't say where Intel's stock will be a week from now, unless I was a doom and gloom kind of guy and then I would say that the stock market will be non-existent 50 years from now because we will all be extinct from a comet, or Jesus, or global warming.

Computers work on the principle of garbage in-garbage out. Whatever predicitions they make seem about as accurate as Sylvia Browne so far.

 

[rockoon]

I suppose you think the moon landing was a hoax, then. How could they have ever expected the rocket to get up there and back, just because it was pointed in the right direction.

So I take it that you are NOT going to brush up on your information theory?

 

[rockoon]

Climate models don't work that way- they don't assume global warming at the outset.

The climate model to which AUP posted a link to, does infact work that way. Does infact assume global warming at the outset. They say so themselves.

Thanks for the link, AUP!

 

[a_unique_person]

I understand that long term big-picture predictions are probably easier to make than short term snapshot predictions. I can probably safely say that the stock market will be much higher 50 years from now than it is today, but I can't say where Intel's stock will be a week from now, unless I was a doom and gloom kind of guy and then I would say that the stock market will be non-existent 50 years from now because we will all be extinct from a comet, or Jesus, or global warming.

Computers work on the principle of garbage in-garbage out. Whatever predicitions they make seem about as accurate as Sylvia Browne so far.

You are consusing two completely different forecasts. One is at a macro level, down to an area the size of a state, the other is at the micro level, for an area the size of a city. The scientists are not claiming that

Once again, read these excellent FAQs. They are not presented at the scientist level, but then, if they were, I would doubt we could understand them.

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/faq/contents.html

The climate system is complex and models still cannot represent all aspects of the system. However, confidence in the ability of computer models to project future climate has increased substantially during the past five years. There are a number of reasons for this:

Scientists better understand climate processes such as the role of water vapour, sea-ice dynamics and ocean heat transport and are able to incorporate these interactions into models.

New models simulate current climate quite well.

There is good consistency between observed changes in global average surface temperature over the 20th century and model simulations that include natural variability as well as human-induced warming and cooling.

Other aspects of model simulations have improved, including their ability to simulate monsoons, El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the North Atlantic Oscillation, and selected periods of past climate.

The analysis and confidence in models is still developing with regard to some of the more complex interactions such as those between clouds and humidity and atmosphere and ocean systems. As our understanding of these interactions improves and model resolution increases, so will our ability to model storm systems and other extreme events.

Another major improvement in recent years has been the development of techniques to allow regional scale climate to be modelled. This allows scientists to project how climate change may affect regional areas such as specific Australian states. However, it should be noted that the coarse resolution of models at present limits detail at the regional level.

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/faq/page13.html

 

[a_unique_person]

So I take it that you are NOT going to brush up on your information theory?

So I take you don't believe that certain physical events can be modelled successfully.

 

[rockoon]

Originally posted by rockoon

So I take it that you are NOT going to brush up on your information theory?

So I take you don't believe that certain physical events can be modelled successfully.

1:1 physical events can be modeled correctly. Climate models are not 1:1. Due to this they are subject to constraints imposed by information theory. A climate model has relatively few variables compared to the number of variables they are trying to model. This means that any attempt specifically designed to make the model fit past data invalidates the reliability of that model for future data.

For more understanding, brush up on your information theory.

 

[a_unique_person]

So I take you don't believe that certain physical events can be modelled successfully.

1:1 physical events can be modeled correctly. Climate models are not 1:1. Due to this they are subject to constraints imposed by information theory. A climate model has relatively few variables compared to the number of variables they are trying to model. This means that any attempt specifically designed to make the model fit past data invalidates the reliability of that model for future data.

For more understanding, brush up on your information theory. [/B][/QUOTE]

The models have successfully modelled the earths behaviour of protracted periods of time. They are being adapted constantly to be more and more accurate. The level of accuracy has reached a level that the scientists are confident that they are forecasting correctly.

Luke has already asked about the reliability of local forecasting. The idea that you could give a reasonably accurate forecast out to a week would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago, kind of like making a moon landing. Yet, we can now get quite reliable forecasts for many regions around the planet, and for quite specific areas. Where I live in Melbourne, we have quite variable weather. Four seasons in one day is a common complaint, yet they can model this for a week quite reliably.

Ditto for the earth itself. The level of detail is on a completely different scale. The models have shown to be accurate to specified levels. They are not claiming a 1:1 accuracy, but an accuracy within a range of confidence. They do take into account what Snail has referred to, the various 'forcing' factors. Many of these, when incorporated, are not significant. For example, the solar cycle is a factor, but so insignificant that it does not really matter.

So yes, there are many factors that are considered, and people have come up with them. But on the macro level, they do not figure against the larger influences.

How do scientists work out what the climate is going to be like in future?
Scientists use sophisticated computer models of the world's atmosphere, surface and oceans to examine likely future changes to climate due to global warming.

Climate models are complex, lengthy computer programs based upon the physical laws and equations of motion that govern the Earth’s climate system. The models work by mimicking (or reproducing) the way in which the Earth's climate behaves from day to day, and from season to season. They do this for all parts of the globe: the surface, throughout the atmosphere, and for the depths of the oceans.

Climate models are good at simulating the broad features of our present climate. Simulated distribution of surface temperatures, winds and precipitation over the seasons are very similar to what is observed. This gives us confidence that the models adequately represent the important physical and dynamic processes of climate.

Using these climate models, scientists can simulate present climatic conditions (‘control’ runs). They can also simulate anticipated future conditions, such as increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, changes to aerosol levels or different ozone levels (‘climate prediction’ runs). By comparing results from the two (or more) simulations allows scientists to assess likely future climate changes.

Scientists also study changes that have happened throughout history on geological timescales when greenhouse gas concentrations were higher than today to learn about what may happen in future.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm#25

So they are constantly testing, revising and comparing the models.

Now, given that they are not perfect, should we just ignore the issue?

Is greenhouse just a theory?
Yes and no! The way in which greenhouse gases affect climate is based on observations and scientific interpretations, as is the evidence that human activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The way in which these increases will affect our future climate is, and can only be, the result of theoretical calculations.

However, there is unequivocal evidence that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere. Since the industrial revolution the level of carbon dioxide alone has risen from approximately 280 ppm (parts per million) to approximately 360 ppm. This will have an effect on the world's climate. What is not clear is the exact magnitude of that effect.

 

[a_unique_person]

I queried you to provide a link to the veracity of that statement and you failed miserably.
So now your going to try to substitute the word "perfect" for my citation of your use of the word "correct" and then try to attack my query on the possibility of your change of position as if my query was bogus. How low can you go? I'm trying to have a rational discussion, but it seems you're not going to let a little thing like rationality or honest exchange of ideas to get in the way of your beliefs. You don't seem to care if you twist the statements of others, use personal attacks or simply ignore simple questions I have posed more than once.

For crying out loud! Even your failure to answer or even acknowledge the simple question I asked concerning the MM vs Mann controversy which was "Are you even curious?" Are you afraid you'll get the answer wrong if you don't have an authority figure to give you their answer as to what you should think about being curious?


Have you demonstrated that the scientific process is failing here? Scientific frauds are usually found out, even if it takes a few years. Yet in this case you are claiming that the the vast majority of scientists in this area of research are in on some massive conspiracy. Maybe you should consider the possibility they are correct.

I made no such assertion of conspiracy. Conspiracy to me involves planning between the modelers. What I do see is involuntary collusion by the modelers, with each watching out for themselves by taking a "don't rock the boat attitude", and others using scare tactics to attempt to exert control over an ever larger portion of the public's money. You may consider this a cynical viewpoint, but I consider it a more realistic one than what you believe.

Consider the possiblility they are correct? Where have you been? Isn't considering the possibility they might wrong the major portion of that exercise?

[/QUOTE]

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/press/lgm_e.html

and the paper itself:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/P...anopolski98.pdf

Mob mentality is exactly what the scientific process is supposed to prevent. And even then, there are the scientists out there who go against the flow, like Lindzen. Unfortunately for him, while he is quite a good scientist in some areas, in this one, where he holds a contrary view, he can't or won't get a paper published. Now, don't forget, that reviewer does not have to agree with what a paper is stating, merely that correct arguments and methodology have been followed.

The possibility that they are right, using tried and proven scientific methods, is the possibility that I will consider most likely. The day that the scientific method is shown to fail for such a protracted period of time for such a large area of research is the day I start believing in god again.

 

[Brian the Snail]

Computers work on the principle of garbage in-garbage out. Whatever predicitions they make seem about as accurate as Sylvia Browne so far.

I guess I was surprised to read this, since I was under the impression that the predictions have been pretty much on the mark so far (bearing in mind the predictions are mostly for 50 or 100 years in the future, and decent climate models have only been around for 20 years).

Do you have any specific examples of predictions that have been shown to be wrong?

 

[BobK]

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/press/lgm_e.html

and the paper itself:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/P...anopolski98.pdf

Your 1st link is simply a press release, not science, and the 2nd couldn't be found on the server.


Mob mentality is exactly what the scientific process is supposed to prevent. And even then, there are the scientists out there who go against the flow, like Lindzen. Unfortunately for him, while he is quite a good scientist in some areas, in this one, where he holds a contrary view, he can't or won't get a paper published. Now, don't forget, that reviewer does not have to agree with what a paper is stating, merely that correct arguments and methodology have been followed.

I guess you just can't help yourself. It must be in the nature of your character.
Why you gratuitously brought Richard Lindzen into this simply to slam him with innuendo I'll never understand. Nobody has mentioned him at all.

Here's the 1st paragraph from his testimony before the senate.

I wish to thank Senator Voinovich, Senator Smith and the Environment and Public Works Committee for the opportunity to clarify the nature of consensus and skepticism in the Climate Debate. I have been involved in climate and climate related research for over thirty years during which time I have held professorships at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the author or coauthor of over 200 papers and books. I have also been a participant in the proceedings of the IPCC (the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

Not published? He's lead author of one of the IPCC chapters. His credentials also seem pretty impressive. Are you losing it?


The possibility that they are right, using tried and proven scientific methods, is the possibility that I will consider most likely. The day that the scientific method is shown to fail for such a protracted period of time for such a large area of research is the day I start believing in god again.

Well if that's the case, here's a link you might find useful in the future.
RaptureReady

For anyone interested, here is a link to Richard Lindzen's testimony. It's a good read.

PDF format
Richard Lindzen senate testimony

 

[Brian the Snail]

Brian the Snail: Climate models don't work that way- they don't assume global warming at the outset.

rockoon: The climate model to which AUP posted a link to, does infact work that way. Does infact assume global warming at the outset. They say so themselves.

You mean this quote:

Scientists use sophisticated computer models of the world's atmosphere, surface and oceans to examine likely future changes to climate due to global warming.

I think you are inferring more from the quote that is intended, though I agree that it could have been worded better. What they mean, of course, is that they simulate the climate, find global warming, and look at associated changes in the climate (for example, precipitation levels and distributions) due to this temperature change.

They could of course just assume a particular temperature, and look at the associated changes in precipitation etc. to study the impacts of climate change. That's also a useful exercise. However, the point is that they don't have to do this- models produce warming all by themselves if forcings are included. For an example, look here:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_HansenSatoN.pdf

Abstract: We define the radiative forcings used in climate simulations with the SI2000 version of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) global climate model. These include temporal variations of well-mixed greenhouse gases, stratospheric aerosols, solar irradiance, ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and tropospheric aerosols. We illustrate the global response to these forcings for the SI2000 model with specified sea surface temperature (SST) and with a simple Q-flux ocean, thus helping to characterize the effectiveness of each forcing. The forcing data cover the period 1951-2000. The climate simulations are extended to 2050 for two forcing scenarios. The results suggest that observed global temperature change in the past 50 years is primarily a response to radiative forcings. It is also inferred that the planet is now out of radiation balance by 0.5 to 1 W/m2 and that additional global warming of about 0.5°C is already "in the pipeline".

 

[rockoon]

I think you are inferring more from the quote that is intended, though I agree that it could have been worded better. What they mean, of course, is that they simulate the climate, find global warming, and look at associated changes in the climate (for example, precipitation levels and distributions) due to this temperature change.

They could of course just assume a particular temperature, and look at the associated changes in precipitation etc. to study the impacts of climate change. That's also a useful exercise. However, the point is that they don't have to do this- models produce warming all by themselves if forcings are included. For an example, look here:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_HansenSatoN.pdf

I find it quite interresting that this link of yours does not come from the CSIRO.

Why are you trying to use a NASA link to show that the models the CSIRO runs don't assume global warming?

They say their models assume global warming and I happen to believe them.

To quote AUP: Do you think they are idiots?

If anyones reading anything into what they say its the person who doesnt take what they said at face value.

 

[a_unique_person]

I find it quite interresting that this link of yours does not come from the CSIRO.

Why are you trying to use a NASA link to show that the models the CSIRO runs don't assume global warming?

They say their models assume global warming and I happen to believe them.

To quote AUP: Do you think they are idiots?

If anyones reading anything into what they say its the person who doesnt take what they said at face value.

They have already proven it is happening, they are just working on refining the models.

 

[Brian the Snail]

I find it quite interresting that this link of yours does not come from the CSIRO.

Why are you trying to use a NASA link to show that the models the CSIRO runs don't assume global warming?

They say their models assume global warming and I happen to believe them.

To quote AUP: Do you think they are idiots?

If anyones reading anything into what they say its the person who doesnt take what they said at face value.

Well, I stand by my first impression that the wording is ambigious at best. I don't see how one can infer can from that sentence that they are assuming global warming in their models. Perhaps they are- as I pointed out before, there are good reasons where they might want to assume some higher temperature, for example, to study regional impacts of climate change. However, as I also tried to point out, this is pretty much irrelevant since in general models do not have to assume global warming, and a lot of work has been done, by groups around the world, that have shown that if you put all the relevant forcings into the model then you get global warming as an output. That was the point I was trying to make in posting the link to NASA.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not published? He's lead author of one of the IPCC chapters. His credentials also seem pretty impressive. Are you losing it?


The possibility that they are right, using tried and proven scientific methods, is the possibility that I will consider most likely. The day that the scientific method is shown to fail for such a protracted period of time for such a large area of research is the day I start believing in god again.

Well if that's the case, here's a link you might find useful in the future.
RaptureReady

For anyone interested, here is a link to Richard Lindzen's testimony. It's a good read.

PDF format
Richard Lindzen senate testimony [/QUOTE]

I said not pulbished in this area. In some areas of his science, he is quite ok, but for some reason, he is totally contrary in this one. In this area, he cannot get published.