'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2 40

[frv]

GregLocock-

You wrote that there was a "recent decade long halt in the rise of global temperatures"

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.pdf

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.pdf

The above data are compiled by NASA.

 

[GregLocock]

Intro:

But our data conflict with a temperature reconstruction using an energy balance model that is forced by reconstructed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations18. The results can be reconciled if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were not the principal driver of climate variability on geological timescales for at least one-third of the Phanerozoic eon, or if the reconstructed carbon dioxide concentrations are not reliable.


Conclusions:


Three possible implications of our findings are: (1) the reconstructed past CO2 levels are (partially) incorrect; (2) the role of pCO2 as the main driving force of past global (long-term) climate changes is questionable, at least during two of the four main cool climate modes of the Phanerozoic; and (3) climate models, which include numerous parametrizations, are calibrated to the present (an interstadial in an icehouse climate), and may thus be unable to reproduce correctly the past climate modes. We hope that our results will stimulate further work on these three issues.

Note 2, with qualifier. He is /questioning/ the role of (all) CO2 as a driver for global temperature change, which is actually rather more than what you were asking for.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[frv]

LCruiser-

I am confused as to the purpose of your link. Did you read it fully?

This article in no way refutes the anthropogenic cause of global warming, much less global warming itself.

It is simply addressing the uncertainty of the water vapor feedback system in the climate models.

In their final remarks the authors state that "No empirical or model/data comparisons suggest that water vapor feedback is
negative..."

So where is the smoking gun?

 

[LCruiser]

fry -
You apparently have just joined this thread lately. NASA is not a reliable source - James Hansen, Alarmist in Chief, runs the place. Satellite is the only consistent, non subjective way to measure the "global" temperature - which is actually not that relavent as it doesn't consider joules going into the ocean anyway.

 

[LCruiser]

fry -

As an engineer you should be more concerned with facts than conclusions of others. The fact shown here is that convection is poorly modeled. That's what the point is. The verbiage and obvious bias of the authors in their conclusions is irrelevent.

 

[electricpete]

LCruiser - one thing I got from the link (quoted IPCC figure 4.1) is that the effects of CO2 are in fact saturated at the very center of the absorption band. But these effects are not saturated off-center and therefore increases in CO2 do in fact limit the ability of heat to radiatively escape. So, the bottom line, the center of the band statistic you mentioned, even if true, would not be relevant. Nevertheless, I would be interested to see exactly where your 75m and 150m numbers come from. Can you provide a more specific roadmap to these numbers.
Thanks

Greg - you talked about the recent decade long halt in global warming. NASA has a little something to say about that:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.

And you can certainly see from inspection of the data presented at this link that there that there was indeed an "outlier" high temperature in 1998, as well as minimum of solar forcing in 2007. And the surface temperature data presented in Figure 1a show no sign of flattening.

Now I know there are 15 bazillion different ways to monitor temperaature. Is Nasa presenting only selective data as part of their conspiratorial efforts fool us ? (I assume that is how you would reconcile this link). I assume if global temperautres really had stopped increasing in 1998 it would be quite a stunning turn of events since even those who disputed the causes admit the temperature had been increasing. Naturally this stunning turn of events is documented in some reputable link somewhere in the world? Not to mention peer-reviewed journals?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[GregLocock]

No, I meant the current decade long cessation of global warming, which was reported in papers in my post 17 Jun 08 21:18


Here's another paper, admittedly one year out of date by frv's reasoning

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 August 5; 94(16): 8335–8342. PMCID: PMC33750

Copyright © 1997, The National Academy of Sciences of the USA
Colloquium Paper
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climatechange?
Richard S. Lindzen


The brief conclusion of this paper is that current GCMs are inadequate for the purpose of convincingly determining whether the small changes in TOA flux associated with an increase in CO2 are capable of producing significant climate change. However, we may not be dependent on uncertain models to ascertain climate sensitivity. Observations can potentially directly and indirectly be used to evaluate climate sensitivity to forcing of the sort produced by increasing CO2 even without improved GCMs. The observations needed for direct assessment are, indeed, observations that we are currently capable of making, and it is possible that the necessary observations may already be in hand, though the accuracy requirements may be greater than current data provide. Still, the importance of the question suggests that such avenues be adequately explored. Since the feedbacks involved in climate sensitivity are atmospheric, they are associated with short time scales. Oceanic delays are irrelevant, since observed surface temperatures are forcing the flux changes we are concerned with. The needed length of record must be determined empirically. Indirect estimates, based on response to volcanos, suggest sensitivity may be as small as 0.3–0.5°C for a doubling of CO2, which is well within the range of natural variability. This is not to suggest that such change cannot be detected; rather, it is a statement that the anticipated change is well within the range of what the earth regularly deals with. It is further noted that the common assertion that even small changes in mean temperature can lead to major changes in climate distribution is ill-founded and, likely, wrong.


So I think I've adequately demonstrated that there /are/ peer reviewed papers around that /question/ the link between atmospheric (never mind anthropogenic) CO2 and global warming. All you have to do is look for them rather than following links from the popular press and blogs.





Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[frv]

LCruiser-

Let me get this straight.

I assert that global warming is unquestionably anthropogenic. You respond with what I assume is some evidence to the contrary. I read your evidence and point out that the author's conclusions agree with my statement. Then you come back and state that I should ignore the author's conclusions.

OK.

The article, at best, simply questions the relative importance of the water vapor feedback system in the models. For the record, I don't dispute that this is a terribly difficult thing to model precisely. But neither the article's science, nor the author's conclusions dispute anthropogenic climate change.

You also state that "as an engineer you should be more concerned with facts than conclusions of others", yet I am to take you at your word that NASA is not reputable because one guy has the audacity to vociferously call for action on what is a scientific consensus.

OK

 

[electricpete]

There seems to be two different issues being discussed here.

One (related to frv's comments I believe) is whether there exist any papers questioning the link between CO2 and global warming. You say you have one and I take your word for it even though I can't access it. It doesn't surprise me. What would surprise me would be 100% consensus. As a passing comment, it seems to me from the quoted portion that this author is disputing the magnitude of the CO2 influence ("may be as small as 0.3–0.5°C for a doubling of CO2") rather than the existence of a CO2 influence.

But that was not my question. What I asked about was the claim that global warming (regardless of cause) stopped 10 years ago. If true, it would seem pretty relevant to what we are discussing. If true, I would have thought we'd have heard a lot more details and specifics by now (the number of details I have heard thus far supporting this claim are 0... they may be out there but I'm still waiting to seem them). Do you believe it? Do you have anything resembling a proof or reference for this claim?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

frv posted while I was typing. To clarify, my post was intended as reponse to Greg (although anyone is welcome to respond).

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[frv]

GregLocock-

You are right.

I forgot about Dr. Lindzen.

I guess I forgot to include "reputable scientists" in my demand. Dr. Lindzen is a highly paid oil industry consultant and has been so for many years.

I know, I know.. "he's an MIT professor.. best engineering school in the world..". Doesn't make him honest.

BTW- he has published more recent papers, so the 10-year arbitrary cut-off would have been met had you chosen any of the others.

Anyway, I cede the point on this.

 

[GregLocock]

electricpete, the non-warming data was published last year, check the leads I mention in my post 17 Jun 08 21:18



Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[jmw]

Dang!
Last week I was watching a Euro 2008 semi final when they lost the pictures (due to a thunderstorm)and when they got the signal back two goals had been scored.
This weekend I lose my internet connection and when I get back here I find I have missed a fist fight.

frv,
you aren't that 26 year old finish engineer Tuuka Somonen, who showed a similar set of mannerisms in this blog:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/pgutis/public_enemies.html

or are you? Remarkable behavioural match (and approach to debate)
Just curious.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are suggesting that as engineers, no one here has the right to question the scientist's accuracy, honesty or profficiency. You then also seem to suggest that you are the arbiter of which scientists we should believe.

Great opening. Not afraid to beard a few venerated members eh?
Venerated doesn't, in the internet, necessarily mean old and thus lacking agility or the ability to mount a robust, though usually polite, defence to such tactics.

Looks like a good fight developing but usually the members know when they are wasting their time so unless they meet an antagonist who can give them a good intellectual or technical workout, we ain't going anywhere and so far you haven't lived up to your initial promise. (again, hence the query if you are he).

Scientists are usually wrong.
Engineers are usually more rational than to be overwhelmed by someone else's belief in their own rightness.
Indeed, the one thing they teach in sales training is that most decisions are based on emotion, the old privative brain stem is the vulnerability of most people.
Except, that is, engineers. Engineers rarely make emotional decisions. This is going to make it tough to generate a fight based on rudeness.

To make a good fight of it you are going to need to be a very resourceful engineer and find some very robust logical and demonstrable verifiable evidence and heh, bring your own bottle. If you have a strong view then you bring on your evidence, don't just get obstreperous and expect everyone else to regurgitate a whole list of references that have already been trotted out about 50 times in these various threads.

Yes, accept it, scientists are usually wrong and they know it. That's how they work. Indeed, it is usually more difficult to find a scientist who will say this is the reality (rather than a currently valid working hypothesis) than it is to find an honest politician.
This is how they work (it is mathematicians like "proofs" but are doomed never to find it since mathematics is also based on assumptions). Scvientists progress from one "working hypothesis" to the next.

AGW long ago passed from being a workable hypothesis to a failed one by any scientific standards. You might aswell be still proclaimg the plum pudding model of the universe (or atom?).
It doesn't mean AGW is right or wrong, just that the Hansens of this world are having a hard time proving it with doctored temperature data and computer models.
Calls for dissenters to be jailed isn't helping their credibility any.

There is no unanimity in science.
Nor is it about consensus; how many scientists in your gang vs those in mine.

Anyway, I haven't seen such good internet fight shaping up since the biggy on the electrical engineers fora a few years back which resulted in some serious blood on the carpet... but I'll mention no names, too many posters were blue on blue victims of the fallout.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[LCruiser]

electricpete -

The point of the saturation is that photons in the CO2 band are captured quickly, and as pretty much accepted - that is "consensus" a doubling of CO2 will increase the temp by about one degree. Due to the response of flora and Henry's law, the question of whether or not we will ever get to a doubling even at "business as usual" is significant.

The real question, however, is about feedbacks. My point is that we know basically nothing robust about convection and the ensuing cloud reaction. I will look for a reference on the ~ 100 meter distance of travel of a photon in the CO2 band. However, even if it's 300 meters, the reaction is the same. A CO2 molecule accepts the photon, and on the average (at sea level) has 7,000 collisions with adjacent inert molecules before it would re-emit an equivalent photon, which basically just turns the photon energy into heating the lower atmosphere. Aha! somebody says, "that's what I mean - GLOBAL WARMING!!! Yes, there is global warming. There has always been "global warming" due to CO2 in the atmosphere. What controls it is convection - in other words, hot air rises. Evaporation loads up the lower atmosphere with water vapor, the air is warmed and rises, adiabatic cooling condenses the air into clouds releasing more heat so clouds rise further, and voila! the heat, as latent heat, is moved upward from the surface. Always has, always will.

Convection is the key, and as seen from the basic energy budget I showed before:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html

latent heat is responsible for about 78 w/m^2 of cooling - corresponding to the global average of just under a meter of rainfall per year. A 5% increase, then, in global precipitation, more than offsets the effect of CO2.

Recapping, then: Yes, CO2 warms the atmosphere by capturing photons in a narrow band, and will cause global warming - at about one degree per doubling of CO2 concentration. Is that one degree going to be catastrophic, or will it be more than offset by the gains in food supply due to increased flora? Nobody knows, because nobody knows what the feedbacks are going to do - except global rainfall is increasing.

 

[frv]

jmw-

I wish I were still 26. I've never been to Turkey.

No, I am not suggesting that we have no right to question. As I have mentioned previously, I think we need to possess the proper tools to question intelligently.

I worked in a scientific environment briefly. My best friend is a scientist. To sit here and assert that we/he manipulated data to agree with our/his preconceptions is preposterous. In fact, my friend's research results on his current project (not related to climate change in any way- he's BME) do not agree with his initial postulation. You know what he's doing? Giving lectures on his results. NOT manipulating or hiding data. Pointing out an obvious and very serious conflict of interest by the most recognizable and, admittedly, influential global warming dismisser is hardly postulating myself as the arbiter.

If I come across as loud, it is because it really irks me when people pick and choose a very select few facts to make an argument, as opposed to looking at the evidence as a whole. Then I'm thrown a series of non-sequitur arguments abut the models not being precise the ocean absorbing heat (of course it will!!! that's one of the problems!!) and an outright fallacy about global temperatures not rising over the last decade.

This whole thread reminds of creationism advocates. Ignoring the fact that there is evidence in nearly every -if not every- branch of science pointing toward evolution, in order to hold on to a belief that must be so dear to their hearts they would feel purposeless if proven wrong.

 

[jmw]

frv
and yet that is exactly the attutude that comes across in your posts, that there is some axiomatic "truth" that some people are failing to see.

You think you are the evolutionist rather than a creationist and yet many of the opponents of AGW would suggest that it is the AGW supporters who are the creationists and many argue that AGW is more of a religion than science, Lysenkoism in the extreme.

Data manipulation is exactly what it is being alleged is what Michael Mann is actually indulging in and it is his data that underpins the whole AGW argument.
You have surely visited this website:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2815

and this one:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

These two websites show serious concerns about the quality of the data and the degree to which it is being manipulated. What is alarming is that some data has now been corrupted by these manipulations and that were it not for the fact that some independent organisations had archived the original data, some of the manipulations would be less capable of investigation.

Even if we had reliable data, we would then have to consider the vulnerabilities in theories that surround it.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[SomptingGuy]

Even with reliable (historical) data, only correlation is possible. Models based on correlation cannot predict the future.

- Steve

 

[melone]

"Models based on correlation cannot predict the future."

As a general statement, that is simply not true. As long as the system dynamics don't change, I should be able to predict an outcome based on historical data (providing that there is a strong correlation between the input and output).

 

[LCruiser]

"As long as the system dynamics don't change"

Possibly, but what if you don't know what the input is or will be? Correlation is not causation (to use a well worn phrase).

 

[vc66]

If I'm not mistaken, I think that was SomptingGuy's point. We don't know if the system dynamics will change. If they do, then correlation models are worthless.

Murphy's law may apply here.

V