Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road... 43

[ewh]

What is the reputation of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a organization of 50 "top" scientists) in the engineering community? I really don't know how reliable they are, but a study (Climate Change Reconsidered II) produced by them and published by the Heartland Institute (an organization which espouses other ideas I disagree with) claims to be "double peer reviewed" and presents a seemingly well-founded arguement that AGW is a political red herring.
I am not a climate scientist, but thought that this was a good example of one side of the differing dogmas surrounding the issue. Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

or the summary

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[rb1957]

@rconnor,
will you accept that your graph shows global temperature (if we accept the proxy) increases some 1000 years after the CO2 increase ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TenPenny]

Out of curiosity, do any of you think that there is even the slightest chance of having your opinions, perspectives, or beliefs changed by this 'discussion'?

It's amusing to follow, I admit, but I'm just wondering. Seems much like political talk on television, where the commentators have no intention of actually paying any real attention to what is being said, the point is to keep repeating your own stance and denigrating anything said to the contrary.

But I do admit, it's entertaining. (And I know one of the regulars on here will do his usual thing, and insult me in response; that's fine, if that's your method of operation and it makes you feel better).

 

[cranky108]

Having no responce to my questions, I doubt I will change my mind. But thanks for asking.

 

[swall]

It is possible to have one's opinion changed. Rconnor claims to have had his changed, albeit not because of the discussion on this forum.

 

[ornerynorsk]

Spot on, Tenpenny. I thought I saw Jerry Springer leap out from the sidebar! LOL.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[zdas04]

TenPenny,
If you really want to get fed up with this read the other 4 threads that have each gotten over 200 posts without anyone ever changing their position. One side says "the science is settled and the sky is really falling, I'm not going to be swayed by Luddite Deniers" The other side says "Computer models and adulterated data can't settle anything you religious zealot" over and over and over and over again. As someone who enjoys language for its own sake I am enjoying basically the same group of people talking at each other yet again.

A couple of years ago I read through one of these threads with a tally book and tracked what side of the argument each participant was on. I didn't find a single time that someone crossed the line to/from zealot or denier. I'm not sure "what good it would have done" if one had, but I didn't find that one that was prepared to be swayed.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[beej67]

Out of curiosity, do any of you think that there is even the slightest chance of having your opinions, perspectives, or beliefs changed by this 'discussion'?

The moment someone shows me a study showing how the United States adopting a carbon trading scheme will arrest or reverse global warming, I'd be happy to read it. And if it's solid enough, I might change my mind. In the 1000+ posts so far on the topic on Eng-Tips, nobody has done that, because no such study exists. The entire argument from the IPCC is "Global Warming Exists Therefore Carbon Credits." Aside from missing the crucial link showing how carbon credits will actually fix global warming, the argument is completely disingenuous when they're intentionally snowing under their own numbers on equilibrium climate sensitivity.

In fact, nobody has even responded meaningfully (or at all) to my criticism regarding how correlative models cannot be used to prove cause and effect, other than to Appeal To Authority and Poison The Well.

No, I don't want to argue semantics, that's what you're doing. I want you to link me to a "peer reviewed study" that says carbon trading or carbon taxing will arrest or reverse global warming. I anxiously anticipate the entertainment value of reading it.

I also want you to acknowledge that a climate model that erroneously doubles the net effect of one warming source, while erroneously halfing the net effect of another warming source, can give "good" results if the two sources are in reality equal contributors to warming. And since this sort of error is inherent to the "calibration" process in modeling, the models cannot be used to prove causation from a correlation simply because their results are "good."

I'll leave whether or not the current results are "good" for someone else to argue, but I would like to point out (again) that the equilibrium climate sensitivity shown in AR5 is actually about half what the IPCC says it is, purely based on an objective analysis of their own studies.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

Agreed, so what if it is changing. How do taxes fix it, and no other solution will?

 

[rconnor]

rb1957,

Firstly, the paper states:
“global temperature lags CO2 concentration by 120 yr, which is within the uncertainty range of the proxy-based lag”

So, no I don’t agree that it’s 1000 years. You cannot “eye-ball” the duration of the lag between global temperature and CO2; it’s much more involved than that. I should add that values for the duration of the lag found prior to the Holocene jumps around from study to study. 120 yr is short in comparison with other studies (400-800 yr) but the point remains, you cannot merely eye-ball the duration of the lag.

Secondly, I think you are incorrectly implying that the lag during the last deglaciation phase should be the same as the today. That would be a mistake. Not only is it incorrect to “eye-ball” a phase lag but you also cannot compare a lag in one era and assume it is consistent in another; it’s not. Lag is partly influenced by the rate of change in CO2 concentration (among other aspects).

From the graph, CO2 concentrations rose from about ~185 ppmv to ~260 ppmv over a 12,000 year period. That corresponds to a % increase rate of 0.3%/century (40% increase overall).

For comparison, since 1900, CO2 has gone from 290 ppmv to 400 ppmv . That corresponds to a % increase rate of 33%/century (38% increase overall). More recently, since 1980, the % increase rate is at 56%/century.

Prior to any anthropogenic influences, CO2 changed at a much slower rate (ex. +0.3%/century) and the phase lag between CO2 and temperature can be measured in centuries. However, the rapid increase in CO2 concentrations due to anthropogenic contributions as of late (+33%/century to +56%/century), causes this lag to be almost indistinguishable. For all intents and purposes, it doesn’t make much sense to talk about lag in a modern sense. Instead, we talk about climate equilibrium sensitivity which is the temperature at which a given CO2 concentration will lead to.

It’s important to realize that the total effects of increased CO2 concentration on Earth’s climate will take decades to manifest themselves. If we could magically hold CO2 concentrations at 400 ppm today, the planet would continue to warm by about 0.6 deg C over the next century until the climate system is at equilibrium with the new CO2 concentration level.

 

[GregLocock]

"do any of you think that there is even the slightest chance of having your opinions, perspectives, or beliefs changed by this 'discussion'?"

Well I specifically gave an example where yes, I did some thinking for myself, and agreed that one of the new religion's claims is at least consistent with the evidence, if not proven, and is the Occam's razor solution.

Let's just for fun run through the catechism

1)the earth's surface is getting warmer. yay, we're coming out of an ice age

2) The rate of change since date X is unprecedented. Well, you have to define your terms very carefully there, the data is noisy and the good history is short. But basically, no, not unprecedented.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

for a sensible time scale, or

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg

for a recent example where the rate of change since 1980 is pretty much the same as in 1900-1940

2)the earth getting warmer is a BAD THING. No it isn't, not for the next 60 years according to the IPCC and much longer according to other people

3)It is better to stop the earth getting warmer than to deal with the side effects. Not according to economists and others

4)Atmospheric CO2 is increasing. Yes

5) The increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning. Not proven, but I agree the numbers add up. What has suppressed the natural carbon cycle? Perhaps the carbon cycle has a long time constant

6) The models prove that CO2 is the cause of the rapid increase in temperature. Um, no.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[rb1957]

so then greg, you havn't essentially changed your position. step 6 is TRUE/FALSE gate for the believer/denier divide.

i too am quite prepared to accept that CO2 is increasing. i am surprised that your "back of a napkin" calc links the increase in CO2 with that amount of FF burned in the last 200 years ... i'd be interested in seeing the thought process. i prepared to accept that this CO2 might (probably will) affect the climate in the future.

i too disbelieve the models (in fact i'd have more confidence in the models if their predictions were wrong, since i don't accept that they model all the interactions with sufficient fidelity). and I am suspicious of the political machinations. and how much confidence can you place in a line of research which 1 decade predicts an up coming ice age and then the next says "oops, upcoming heat wave"; at least they've stuck to that story for a while.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

At least there is enough water to send to Mexico, sorry about CA.

In light of the mud slides in WA, we will see more so called weather related issues. But not because of climate change, because there are more people building homes in less desirable places.
A great example is people building in flood plains, well what do you expect to happen? Not at all that we should not build there, but we should be smarter about it.

We need to think about the possible outcomes from our actions. Anyone seen articles about smuggling cigarettes into New York? This happens because of high taxes. What will happen if we rase taxes on other things?

If we can agree that at somepoint too much CO2 in the air will be bad, then we can look at low cost solutions. But if we insist only more taxes will fix this, we aren't going anywhere.

 

[TomDOT]

I'll just leave this here. The link naming is pretty descriptive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...eople-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html

 

[rconnor]

Rb1957, I agree to an extent that models are the crux of the differences in opinion. However, as I tried to demonstrate on your past thread, much of the climate change debate can be discussed without referring to models. I’d like to outline what you can determine without models and what you need models to study.

No Climate Models Required
[ul]
[li]Temperatures have increased[/li]
[li]CO2 concentrations have increased[/li]
[li]Anthropogenic contributions to the increased CO2 concentrations vastly outweigh natural sources[/li]
[li]Ocean heat content is increasing (at all depths)[/li]
[li]Ice coverage is decreasing[/li]
[li]Humidity is increasing[/li]
[li]Sea level is rising[/li]
[li]Outgoing longwave radiation is reduced across wavelengths associated with CO2 (unexplainable by solar activity))[/li]
[li]Increased downward infrared radiation across wavelengths associated with CO2 (unexplainable by solar activity)[/li]
[li]The stratosphere is cooling while the surface is warming (unexplainable by solar activity)[/li]
[li]Nights warming faster than days (unexplainable by solar activity)[/li]
[li]Rising tropopause (unexplainable by solar activity)[/li]
[li]Cooling and contracting ionosphere (unexplainable by solar activity)[/li]
[li]Ocean acidification (unexplainable by solar activity)[/li]
[/ul]

With this set of empirically-driven information and no reliance on climate model simulations, I find a compelling causal link between anthropogenic CO2 concentrations and temperature rise. There is no other theory that explains the observed changes in our climate. “It’s changed before”, besides being a woefully unscientific theory, is directly disproven by these observed changes. Orbital cycles cause changes over the span of millennia, not decades. Furthermore, they could not explain any of the changes listed above with the tag “unexplainable by solar activity”. Not only that but orbital cycles, although the catalyst for changes in climate in Earth’s history, are not the dominate driver – CO2 is. So arguing that “it’s changed before” is actually arguing that CO2 is the control knob for our climate, which I agree with. The difference is that historically natural releases of CO2 were the only source but now humans are the dominate contributor to CO2 concentrations.

It is demonstrated through empirical observations that anthropogenic CO2 appears to be the cause of the recent warming without models ever coming into the picture.

Now, the crucial question is so what? More specifically, how much will it warm and is that a problem? For this, you need to forecast – there’s no way around that. You cannot forecast without models – there’s no way around that.

Climate Models Required
[ul]
[li]Recheck the influence of CO2 on temperature by “turning the knob” on various forcings and see how the system responds[/li]
[li]Recheck the effect that CO2 has on other feedbacks[/li]
[li]Recheck the climate sensitivity to CO2 increases[/li]
[li]Forecast the future effects of increasing CO2[/li]
[li]Simulate various emissions scenarios to establish targets of safe levels of CO2 concentrations[/li]
[li]Understand future impacts so proactive measures can be started before the problem arises[/li]
[/ul]

If you categorically reject the use of models, you remove yourself from the conversation at this point. You don’t get a say one way or the other because you are choosing to not participate in a crucial part of the discussion.

If, instead, you attempt to read about the science behind the models, understand how they are constructed and, without bias, review their results and have a technical issue, then a fruitful conversation can be had. Unfortunately, given the blatant lack of knowledge on some of the most fundamental elements of climate models (ex. they cannot, nor do they attempt to, predict ENSO events or the fact that they are predicated on an energy balance), this is not the case here. Many here work with models and believe that makes them an expert on climate models – it does not. All the arguments that I’ve read on this forums are either an apriori, ideologically-driven rejection of the use of models, stem from a lack of understanding of climate models or stem from a misinterpretation of the results. This is not unique to this forum, it’s ubiquitous across all “skeptic” blogs and think-tanks. Whether the genesis of such misinformation at these sites is attributable to genuine ignorance or an attempt to purposefully obfuscate is both unclear and rather irrelevant. Places like NASA and NOAA will tell you all about the uncertainties and issues with the models and the results – they don’t hide it.

Models are not near perfect. Our understanding of climate sensitivity is not complete. Both are improving as more research comes in. However, this research has continually fine-tuned our understand, not drastically flipped it. It’s possible that future research could have that effect but that won’t come from WUWT, it will come from the people that actually understand the science.

Which does bring me back to my original point, when reviewing the data and information be very aware of the source. Peer-reviewed literature and reputable scientific institutions are much more trustworthy than blogs, regardless of what side of the fence you’re on. It’s a complicated subject and it is so easy to be fooled, especially when the trick affirms your previously held beliefs. It’s important to remember that regardless of the science, places like CATO or GWPF would have the same stance as dictated by their ideological views. Neutral scientific institutions like NASA, NOAA and 197 National Academies of Science have no ideological view to uphold – they present the science as it is, not how they would like it to be.

 

[rconnor]

also rb1957, scientists saying “it’s cooling” in the 1970’s were a fringe voice amplified and, at times, misinterpreted by the media (not unlike the whole “pause” argument). Published studies surveyed between 1965 to 1979 found only 10% predicted cooling. Furthermore, most of the predicted cooling had to do with estimates on increasing aerosol emissions. However, the Clean Air Act was very effective at reducing aerosol emissions. And no, that doesn’t make the Clean Air Act responsible for the warming, it just means that it lessened the negative forcing of anthropogenic aerosols (which were harmful in other ways). Real Climate has a good rundown on this trope.

 

[cranky108]

•Ocean acidification (unexplainable by solar activity)
Strange at the same time Maple trees are in decline because of the increasing of alikanity in the soil. Make me wonder if something else is in the works.
Maybe this is just from the over use of chemicals in the soil, and/or farming methods.

•Humidity is increasing
It's sure not translating into rain/snow fall. So are we also seeing air pressure increasing or decreasing?

 

[btrueblood]

I have to agree with Greg, and this was one point where my opinion has been swayed:

"5) The increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning. Not proven, but I agree the numbers add up. What has suppressed the natural carbon cycle? Perhaps the carbon cycle has a long time constant"

...

"In light of the mud slides in WA, we will see more so called weather related issues."

ARGGGHHH. That hillside has slid more times in the last 100 years than people can count. It slid last in 2006, only 7 years ago. The entire town of Darrington, just upstream, is built on an old landslide/logjam that diverted the north fork branch of the Stillaguamish river so it now flows into the Skagit, instead of meeting the south fork of its eponymous river. The rail line was abandoned...then later the old RR grade re-purposed as a wagon road, then an automobile road. As a local newspaperman wrote - the sad thing is that we knew that hillside was unstable and didn't do anything about it. The land there (and about 2 miles up- and downstream) should be condemned, and the houses/property purchased by the state to create a no-build "wild land" zone. Our state did this once before, in my hometown just south of here (Maple Valley) after repeated floods along the Cedar River kept wiping out, about every 5 years, a trailer park built in low ground behind a woefully inadequate river dike. It's not because of global warming, it's because we've only kept records of floods/rainfall amounts/snowmelts on this whole continent for less than 100 years in many places, and certainly less than 200 years on the majority of it. And, because land developers have a lot of pull (read $$$) with local zoning councils. Ok, you might be able to blame clearcut logging for some of those slides...but not global warming...unless global warming and CO2 increases are both really due to deforestation.

 

[GregLocock]

Temperatures have increased
CO2 concentrations have increased
Anthropogenic contributions to the increased CO2 concentrations vastly outweigh natural sources. Proves nothing
Ocean heat content is increasing (at all depths) Unproven, changes in temp would have to be of the same oreder as changes in atmospheric temp if they were to drive them which they aren't.
Ice coverage is decreasing. symptom
Humidity is increasing. symptom
Sea level is rising. symptom
Outgoing longwave radiation is reduced across wavelengths associated with CO2 (unexplainable by solar activity)). measured over 30 years or less
Increased downward infrared radiation across wavelengths associated with CO2 (unexplainable by solar activity)
The stratosphere is cooling while the surface is warming (unexplainable by solar activity) also unexplainable by computer models, remeber the missing
Nights warming faster than days (unexplainable by solar activity). urban heat effect
Rising tropopause (unexplainable by solar activity). dunno
Cooling and contracting ionosphere (unexplainable by solar activity). measured since when?
Ocean acidification (unexplainable by solar activity). Tiny change, chemically meaningless.

That's pretty much a ragbag of observations many with accurate data lengths of perhaps twice the length of the pause.

You haven't begiun to deal with

global warming is good
adaptation is better than CO2 reduction

Sorry rconnor I can have an opinion on the models, and the last 17 years says that at best they are being misused, and at medium bad they are a waste of time and at worst they are being used to push an idiotic agenda.




Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[TGS4]

Rconnor - you have presented a textbook case of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Since "it" can't be a few things that we know, it obviously must be our pet theory. Natural cycles? Internal variability? Well, we don't understand that, so obviously it can't be that. Puleeze!

Now, to your asinine suggestion that, although we may know models and even computational models, because we don't know climate models we are singularly unqualified to proffer a learned opinion on said models. What a load of codswallop! I have been using computational/numerical models in the style of finite element / finite volume / and finite difference for 20 years, and have almost 20 papers in those topic areas to my credit. Damn right I know a thing or two about "models", and it matters not what is going on in the element/volume, there are certainly some universal truths:
1) boundary conditions: all models are sensitive to their boundary conditions. For climate models, that means what's happening at the edges of the model. Any textbook description of the atmosphere shows a huge variation in temperature as a function of height (and the height being a function of latitude. Albedo is a boundary condition that is a slight function of the near-surface temperature (and geography and geology).
2) Initial conditions: our current climatological data is so spatially and temporally heterogeneous that setting proper initial conditions sufficiently far in the past so as to train or tune the model to match recent history is a fool's errand. Ergo, and training or tuning of the model to match historical conditions is not and cannot be physics-based.
3) discretization and discretization error: the volume size in the current models are woefully inadequate to resolve spatial and temporally-significant weather and climate (climate being merely the time and spatial-integral of weather) phenomenon. I have lived and travelled in some pretty diverse places, and I can say categorically that the spatial grid-size is poor. I've also done numerical simulations (CFD, in this case) where we are trying to simulate phenomenon such as shock waves. The grid size is everything. Have you seen such presentations of upper-level winds such as

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=153.54,90.50,475

the features shown (and this is actual data, not a simulation) are very important climactically-speaking and yet the grid-size necessary to resolve such details is at least an order or magnitude greater than what the current generation of models have.
4) volume or element formulation. I have done simulations where there are more than 20 variables per grid (including some that had three distinct temperature metrics - plasmas are a blast to model, BTW). Within a single grid, you can model only the most simple physics. Since the resolution of the current climatological models is so coarse, they try to cram all sorts of extras into each grid. Been there - done that - and it's a fool's errand.
5) Validation: this is something that has been hammered home to me so many times by professors and mentors. Does your model match an experiment or reality? Well, the divergence of the atmospheric temperatures during this long "pause" between the real world and the model world shows that validation is not yet achieved. And this failure of validation is likely due to the above-noted issues.

Now - I agree that the CO2-temperature hypothesis does not need these sorts of models. However, claims of forthcoming catastrophe most certainly do. In fact, everything in this topic that is forward-looking relies on "the models". Without catastrophe, there is no need to "act". I am certainly willing to admit that my philosophical and political leanings bias me against the proposed "actions" required to "save the planet", but being sufficiently self-aware, I also know that my technical understanding of this topic is not clouded by my pre-existing biases. Can you say the same?

 

[beej67]

TomDOT -

You mean to say that crop cultivation and urbanization has an effect on climate, and that its effects have been correlated before with nothing other than human population? Even before the industrial revolution?

Naw.

Couldn't be.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com