another kick at the climate change cat ... 34

[rb1957]

i think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.

the second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects.

i think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing; and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions.

i think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased.

i think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate ... maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation.

once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things ... there's a cost and a benefit associated. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today.

we can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option.

it is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability ... truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output.

if we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose) ... where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rconnor]

Ok, this is ridiculous. Let’s recap how “skeptics” review sources of information:

New York Times – crazy environmental extremist paper
Nature (the journal) – biased journal that blocks all real science from being published
Science (the journal) – part of the cult of global warming and nothing they publish should be trusted
Data Sets (that show agreement with anthropogenic climate change theory) – corrupted data
Data Sets (that show disagreement with the theory) – trustworthy data (even if from the same source as above but used a different way)
IPCC – evil entity bent on world domination through climate taxes
NIPCC – defending the rights of the people from the evils of the IPCC
National Science Academies (from 34 countries) – A bunch of idiots that “drank the Kool-aid”
CATO – Unbiased and not ideologically driven. Smarter than those other guys.
Blogs (that agree with the theory) – nothing but uneducated liars, anything quoted from such a source can be dismissed prior to reading
Blogs (that disagree with the theory) - the paragons of truth and reason. No other source carries more credibility.

If you say I’m drinking the Kool-aid, then I say you’re sniffing the gas.

(BTW, I read WUWT regularly and, yes, I’ve already read Watts’ take on the whole BEST data issue. I don’t slag Watts, I slag the quality of the content on his site.)

Spencer’s post and Tropospheric Temperatures
I listed 6 sources of empirical evidence that both agree with the anthropogenic climate change theory and disagree with solar activity/orbital cycles. You then paraded Spencer’s post as some knock-down argument against the predictions of the theory, implying, incorrectly, that tropospheric hotspots are a key prediction to the theory. I stated that tropospheric temperatures are not central to the theory as it is not a distinguishing feature between it and any counter theory.

As to the implication that it disproves the accuracy of climate models, I stated that there is a known cooling bias in tropospheric temperature data which is partly due to stratospheric cooling. So, explain to me how I didn’t address his post and your comments?

A 2006 Report, which John Christy was a co-author, states the following:
[ul]
[li]“It is likely that a net spurious cooling corrupts the area-averaged adjusted radiosonde data in the tropical troposphere, causing these data to indicate less warming than has actually occurred there”[/li]
[li]”[Model-Observation disagreement] may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored”[/li]
[/ul]

I’ll add that a great argument was put forth by Glenn Tamblyn in the comment section of the very blog post you referenced. It’s well worth the (short) read. Spencer never responded.

So, as I said, it’s not an argument against the anthropogenic theory only, as it applies to solar activity as well. The issue, if it exists, lies with the understanding of lapse rate feedbacks. But that issue might not even exist.

But what if it does? Does the theory fold like a house of cards? Well, lapse rate feedback is a negative feedback. So, if our current understanding of the physics is overestimating the effect then it is also overestimating the effect of a negative feedback. The lack of hotspots, if they exist, would suggest a higher sensitivity than previously thought.

rb1967, re: solar activity
You spliced together that quote from two different sections that were talking about two different things. The first part was talking about atmospheric temperatures, the second part was talking about the list of 6 lines of empirical evidence in support of the theory. You cannot have a cooling stratosphere and warming surface caused by increased solar activity (or decreased for that matter). So, while solar activity can possibly provide an explanation to some aspects of climate change, it is directly contradicted by other changes. There may be an explanation that could salvage the sun theory from aspects like a cooling stratosphere but I haven’t seen it. CO2, on the other hand, does a very good job at providing a causal relationship to most climate changes we see.

“Models are still in their infancy” – about 10 years ago, I would have completely agreed with this statement. Models, in lockstep with our physical understanding of climate science, are improving each and every year. There are still areas that require some fine-tuning, feedbacks being one such. Sherwood et al 2014, linked above, is a good example of this.

However, our physical understanding of climate science and, subsequently, models have improved to the point that the foundational science is solid. Could it be up-ended by future discoveries? Sure but the probability gets less and less with each passing paper or line of evidence that pushes the science further toward, instead of away from, the conclusion that humans are the primary driver behind the recent change in climate. I’d love for the theory to be up-ended, I would sleep much better at night knowing that the problem facing future generations isn’t as bad as we previously thought. However, I don’t argue based on what I’d like the outcome to be, I argue based on what the science shows. This is quite contrary to most “skeptics” who argue based on an opposition to the taxes/regulations and force or filter the science to fit that opinion.

beej67, I’m really not going to bother with this too much. I’ve included references to forcings from various different sources, albedo and CO2 were both on it. You’ll have to provide a reference to a paper that says albedo is a stronger forcing than CO2 because it flies in the face of every paper I’ve ever read on the subject (that was the reference I was asking for).

If all you are trying to say is that our levels of consumption are effecting the environment, I completely agree. If you are saying that albedo or land use changes have a greater effect on the climate than CO2, I disagree (again, you’ll have to provide a paper that agrees with your stance because it’s contrary to all the papers I’ve already linked that discuss forcings). However, we can solve BOTH issues related to land use changes and CO2 emission by curbing consumption, so let’s work together on that.

 

[GregLocock]

It's not a silly game, it is science. You need testable hypothesese, not possible explanations.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[hokie66]

Curbing consumption is indeed the answer to lots of problems with the Earth today. In order to curb consumption, the Earth's population must be curbed. But yet, we humans insist on increasing populations, and in increasing the life span of those already here. Are there any workable solutions, or just more problems?

 

[beej67]

beej67, I’m really not going to bother with this too much. I’ve included references to forcings from various different sources, albedo and CO2 were both on it. You’ll have to provide a reference to a paper that says albedo is a stronger forcing than CO2 because it flies in the face of every paper I’ve ever read on the subject (that was the reference I was asking for).

I never said it was a stronger force. I said it's a force. And the IPCC papers I've read, which I won't bother to link, actually have the bald faced gall to pretend that global albedo change, global interruption of the hydrologic cycle, and the kinds of global heat generation that we can see from space, provide a net cooling effect. Cooling. Really.

However, we can solve BOTH issues related to land use changes and CO2 emission by curbing consumption, so let’s work together on that.

I agree with you that we can go a long way to solving the environmental problems of the world by murdering 80% of the human population. But there is no legitimate climate model in the world that shows that some countries adopting the Kyoto Treaty in a piecemeal fashion would do diddly squat to affect warming.

I agree that the world's got problems. We're smack in the middle of the sixth great mass extinction. But these clowns who think that carbon "trading" is going to stop it have their heads up their rears, and there's nothing I've seen proposed scientifically that can 'fix' this problem short of unleashing military grade biological warfare on the human population. I'm green, but I ain't that green.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[TGS4]

A little over 320 posts into this thread before the Malthusians show their true colours. If you think that population is a problem, what have you personally done about it? And Paul Ehrlich has been wrong so many times, warning of catastrophes that just never seem to occur - I believe that his batting average is exactly zero.

Sigh.

 

[GregLocock]

Just thinking about the whole testable hypothesis thing, if a community of scientists wishes to test an expensive hypothesis they can get their acts together and do so eg CERN, say 10 billion dollars.

But of course, they have to actually /want/ that to happen.


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[cranky108]

"We're smack in the middle of the sixth great mass extinction" Yes I see that on the news every night. Another shooting, another person run over by a hit and run, another auto accedent. And most of it because we don't take the time to slow down and think.

We all seem to be to busey with schedules, TV, cell phones, and my car is faster than yours.

If you really want to do something, then consiter growing something in your backyard other than grass. I mean really just look at how much energy we use just to grow grass, then we cut it and throw away the cuttings.

That's just the tip of the iceburg. The real problem is keep following the same stupid ideas because we don't know any better, and we don't have time to think for ourselves. We as engineers should be attempting to lead in this change of society, but we don't.

 

[rb1957]

we're just spatting at each other like cats.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[btrueblood]

Thus the title of this thread, rb?

 

[debodine]

Well, since we admit we are spatting like cats, let's paws and see if this discussion has gone too fur. Some of us would like to see a claws added to the tail of the IPCC report admitting the models don't match reality, while others think the IPCC report is the cat's meow. In my opinion, one of those positions is superior to the other by a whisker. And with that I will bid ciao ciao ciao to this frisky bunch of crispy critters!

 

[rconnor]

What? How did “curb consumption” translate to reduce the population for some of you? Would it not be ethically more appealing to live with less than have less of us live?

Despite my interest in this aspect of the discussion, I believe it takes us away from the science. I feel, given the level of understanding of the science by some, it’s more important to keep the conversation there. But that’s just my opinion.

GregLocock, you saying you’d support a $10 Billion project to construct a physical experiment capable of simulating our climate? Assuming that you do, we have a slight problem of how it would work. See my previous post about all the aspects of climate you’d have to incorporate. How would you speed up the interactions? Again, even if you could conceptualize and build such an experiment, it would still be a simplified simulation of our climate system. I guarantee that if such a system was built and agreed with the theory, that “skeptics” would still say “it’s a simplified model and tells us nothing about how our actual climate system works”.

Now herein lies the problem: any physical experimental sufficiently complex to accurately simulate our climate system would be realistically impossible to build as it would need to be a near copy of Earth, maybe not in size but certainly in complexity. While, any physical experimental simple enough to be realistically possible would be inherently incomplete in its ability to accurately simulate our climate system and, therefore, would be dismissed by “skeptics”. It is analogous to the Godelian problem – any system sufficiently powerful is defeated by its own power, while any system insufficiently powerful is, tautologically, insufficient. Thus, the proposition of constructing a physical experiment that could simulate our climate system is an attempt to stick climate scientists with a self-defeating quest.

Meanwhile, we’ve got model simulations that are more robust and can be more easily reviewed and tweaked than any physical simulation can. Small scale physical simulations are already used to study specific aspects of the physics and then that understanding is taking into the models. This is the most effective and most practical way of studying the complex interactions inherent in our climate system.

 

[cranky108]

That's sort of the problem with most so called solutions. How much is enough, and how much is too much. Population decline, do with less, increase taxes, etc. where is the limit. What is too much.

However, with a solution that has limits, and is less of a problem where it becomes too much would work better.
Like paint roofs white. There are only so many roofs. However taxes don't have a natural limit, and in theory could increase almost for ever (assuming the goverment keeps printing money).

Also simple things work better than gross things like reducing the population by any means other than natural decline.

Curbing consumption of what? If it is food, than that is also reducing the population (in the extreem), but again where is the limit.

Look at simpler things, not complex things that can be driven by ego maniacs.

 

[beej67]

The model simulations are calibrated to produce the answer that the modelers are looking for. Let me state this again, so we're all clear what's going on.

Here, let me spell it out for you very simply. If CO2 is one third of mankind's warming effect, but CO2 scales linearly with all other effects mankind has on warming, then your models still look great if you ignore the other effects and triple the CO2 effect.

And that exact thing, I'd contend, is what's been done. You can tell it's been done because the R^2 values of their modeling predictions are no better than plotting global mean temperature vs human population on an Excel scatter diagram and telling it to best-fit the curve.

And on top of that, exactly zero of these models predicted the temperature would be flat the past 15 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

The models have serious, scientific flaws, that stem from an unsupported presumption of causality from observed correlation. Some warming is due to carbon, but how much has been grossly overstated, and nobody knows what the real amount of warming due to carbon is. Even if we did know this, no amount of "carbon trading" could stop anthropogenic warming unless we did away with all fossil fuels entirely.


Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[TGS4]

Meanwhile, we’ve got model simulations that are more robust and can be more easily reviewed and tweaked than any physical simulation can.

I'm assuming that you are referring to the CIMP5 computer simulations that are now outside of the 5% confidence interval as compared to actual observations? That's not exactly what I would call robust. However, I completely agree with you that they can be (and obviously are mostly) "tweaked". Now, only if that tweaking were somehow related to actual science...

Sorry - your faith in the climate models are just that - blind faith. They are not useful for predictions (or whatever the code-word the IPCC uses these days that gives them plausible deniability when the predictions fail). The claim of catastrophe relies entirely and solely on these models. When the models fails, so do the claims of catastrophe.

House of cards falls down.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with most of the observational science of greenhouse gases (I think that the "Slayers" are completely off their rockers) - I mostly disagree with the claim of future catastrophe. There is just no basis for it.

 

[beej67]

Lets see if I can post some links without someone trying to poison the well...

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...-IPCC-hid-the-Good-News-on-Global-Warming.pdf

http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-insensitivity-what-ipcc-knew-didnt-tell-us

Punchline:

The IPCC claims equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C, and assumes 3°C for the purposes of it's projections, but a detailed review of their own literature indicates that it's most likely to be 1.75°C, meaning they've overstated the impact of CO2 by a factor of two.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[hokie66]

Perhaps I am a "Malthusian", although Malthus himself did not say some of the things attributed to him. But to me, population control is central to our way of life, rather than this carbon dioxide nonsense. When reading Dan Brown's latest novel "Inferno", I found myself sypathizing with the villain.

 

[rconnor]

Do you people suffer from short-term memory loss? The “pause” gets brought up, I break it down, the conversation changes. The “pause” gets re-brought up, I break it down (again), the conversation changes. The “pause” gets re-re-brought up…(at least 12 times in this thread!).

This rare form of selective memory loss appears to be a problem that specifically targets “skeptics”. Maybe it arises from sniffing the gas?

The argument that the “pause” disproves the validity of climate models, the crux of most “skepticism”, stems from a foundamental misunderstanding of climate science and climate models. The interdependency of the climate system has to be understood prior to being able to make any broad conclusions. Stagnate temperatures alone prove nothing. When you understand the science and account for ENSO events, the temperature trend sits right in the heart of the model runs. The opposite is also true, when you input ENSO events into the models, they match observations. I’ve demonstrated this by referencing papers, displaying figures and doing my own analysis – 12 times.

Although I’ve already stated this a couple times before, I will re-outline what would constitute a valid argument against the validity of climate models.
[ol 1]
[li]If ENSO neutral years showed a notable decline in temperature trends over a significant time-span --> it doesn’t, they show a very consistent warming trend, even during the “pause”[/li]
[li]If both ocean heat content and surface temperatures showed a notable decline over a significant time-span --> it doesn’t, OHC shows an increase, especially in the deep ocean, during the “pause”. This is exactly what you’d expect to happen in an La Nina dominated period.[/li]
[li]If during the next positive PDO/IPO period, the temperature trend does not resume warming --> we’ll see[/li]
[/ol]

What you call “blind faith”, I call reviewing the data and literature on the subject. I’ve done my homework. Whether you bring up the “pause”, humidity, OHC (surface, deep or abyssal), CO2 taxation, tropospheric hotspots, forcings, solar activity, etc - I have had answers from empirical data and peer-reviewed literature. That isn’t from “blind faith”, that’s from there being a pile of research to support my side. Heck, I use to be a “skeptic”. I believed what Watts and co had to say. But then I studied the subject in more detail and I realized it was nothing but cherry-picked arguments and blatant misdirection.

What do you have to support your view? A misunderstanding of the data stemming from accepting what you read on blogs mixed with a conspiracy theory to “validate” why you don’t have much of any peer-reviewed research to support your side?

 

[GregLocock]

Well you do go on a lot. No, you don't have to simulate the entire Earth's climate in a 10 billion dollar rig. What you do is you take a few aspects of the new religion and test whether they have the effect that the believers say. This is called science. It may not be tweakable, in your cute little phrase, but it can be meaningful. I'd be looking at water vapour myself, if I were interested in atmospherics and heat inputs.

Incidentally I think it was the warmisti who moved the goalposts when it came to the pause. For twenty years global average temperature has been the comparator, suddenly it's net heat input (which I actually agree with).

In some more exciting news a group of ex NASA guys reviewed the literature and think that on a trend based argument we are in for DECADES of divergence between the average GCM model and the real world's temperature, so I suggest you get those goalposts moving as quick as you can otherwise the entire climate religion is going to get laughed out of court. They also found that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is right at the bottom end of the scale.

If as you suggest the climate community has always been interested in a heat based model then why has every single IPCC report emphasised a global temperature sensitivity?

Here's my analysis of a heat based model, better get going on those 10 billion dollar rigs

Consider a control volume around the earth at an altitude of 100-200 km (for example)

Over any given period of time the following equation must be true

Energy incoming-energy radiated+energy generated internally+change of internal energy=0

Now, confusingly most of the first 3 end up as heat, more often than not, but not always. For instance some incident light is absorbed by some molecules and reradiated as heat. But some incident light is reflected directly. So you have to be a bit careful.

The first two can be measured via satellites. The first can also be predicted fairly well, on average.

The second relies on two things. The albedo, greatly affected by cloud cover and snow cover, and the effective average black body temperature of the Earth, which approximately relates back to global average temperature. Small changes in average cloud cover have a big effect on albedo.

The third is easy, just all the man made and natural sources of heat and EM waves that get converted to heat.

The fourth consists of

4.1)Other
4.2)KE and temperature of oceans
4.3)KE and temperature of atmosphere
4.4)KE and temperature of molten core of earth
4.5)strain energy in crust
4.6)PE of various system components
4.7)Chemical/radioactive (fuel) energy of various system components

4.6) and 4.7) we can handle
4.3) we can measure but don't seem very good at predicting

4.5 is not important at a guess
That leaves 4.1 4.2 and 4.4 which are unknown, huge and poorly measured and not modellable, and huge and not measurable or modellable respectively.

Therefore a heat based model will require much more research and will be useless for predictive purposes until 4.2 and 4.4 are sorted, and 4.1 is understood.







Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[beej67]

Whether you bring up the “pause”, humidity, OHC (surface, deep or abyssal), CO2 taxation, tropospheric hotspots, forcings, solar activity, etc - I have had answers from empirical data and peer-reviewed literature.

I definitely missed the peer reviewed study that said CO2 taxation would stop global warming. Would you mind relinking that one? I bet it's a hoot.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[GregLocock]

Sorry, analysis was overstating it, I cut and pasted a quick look-see I typed up a while ago.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?