The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science 77

[rconnor]

----------Introduction---------
A comparison of recent temperature trends in isolation of earlier data, say 1998-present, to long(er)-term temperature trends, say 1970-present, reveals that more recent temperature trends are lower than long-term temperature trends. This has led many, including many prominent climate scientists, to refer to the recent period as a “pause”, “hiatus” or “slowdown”. While in isolation of any other context besides two temperature trends, the term “pause” or “hiatus” may be quasi-accurate, much more context is required to determine whether these terms are statistically and, more importantly, physically accurate.

It should be noted that most times when these terms are used by climate scientists, they keep the quotation marks to indicate the mention-form of the word and are not implying an actual physical pause or hiatus in climate change. The subsequent research into the physical mechanism behind the “pause” has continually demonstrated that it is not indicative of a pause in climate change nor does it suggest a drastic reduction in our estimates of climate sensitivity. However, this fact appears to be lost on many who see the “pause” as some kind of death-blow to the anthropogenic climate change theory or to the relevancy of climate change models.

While this subject has been discussed repeatedly in these forums, it has never been the focus but rather used as a jet-pack style argument to change the conversation from the subject at hand to the “pause” (“Well that can’t be right because the Earth hasn’t warmed in X years!”). Revisiting past threads, I cannot find an example of where someone attempted to defend the “pause” as a valid argument against anthropogenic climate change. It is brought up, debunked and then not defended (and then gets brought up again 5 posts later). The hope is to discuss the scientific literature surrounding the “pause” to help readers understand why the “pause” is simply not a valid argument. While some points have been discussed (usually by me) before, this post does contain new research as well as 2014 and 2015 temperature data, which shed even more light on the topic. The post will be split into three parts: 1) the introduction (and a brief discussion on satellite versus surface station temperature data sets), 2) Does the “pause” suggest that climate change is not due to anthropogenic CO2? and 3) Does the “pause” suggest that climate models are deeply flawed?

------Why I Will Be Using Ground-Based Temperature Data Sets-------
Prior to going into the meat of the discussion, I feel it necessary to discuss why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and not satellite data sets. Perhaps one of the most hypocritical and confused (or purposefully misleading) arguments on many “skeptic” blogs is the disdain for all ground-based temperature data sets and the promotion of satellite temperature data sets. The main contention with ground-based temperature data sets is that they do not include raw data and require homogenization techniques to produce their end result. While I am not here (in this thread) to discuss the validity of such techniques, it is crucial to understand that satellite temperature data sets go through a much more involved and complex set of calculations, adjustments and homogenizations to get from their raw data to their end product. Both what they measure and where they measure it are very important and highlights the deep confusion (or purposeful misdirection) of “skeptic” arguments that ground-based temperatures are rubbish and satellite-based temperatures are “better”.

[ul][li]Satellites measure radiances in different wavelength bands, not temperature. These measurements are mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature (Uddstrom 1988). Satellite data is closer to paleoclimate temperature reconstructions than modern ground-based temperature data in this way.[/li]
[li]Satellite record is constructed from a series of satellites, meaning the data is not fully homogeneous (Christy et al, 1998). Various homogenization techniques are required to create the record. (RSS information)[/li]
[li]Satellites have to infer the temperature at various altitudes by attempting to mathematically remove the influence of other layers and other interference (RSS information). This is a very difficult thing to do and the methods have gone through multiple challenges and revisions. (Mears and Wentz 2005, Mears et al 2011, Fu et al 2004)[/li]
[li]Satellites do not measure surface temperatures. The closest to “surface” temperatures they get are TLT which is an loose combination of the atmosphere centered roughly around 5 km. It is also not even a direct measurement channel (which themselves are not measuring temperature directly) but a mathematically adjustment of other channels. Furthermore, due to the amount of adjustments involved, TLT has constantly required revisions to correct errors and biases (Christy et al 1998, Fu et al 2005).[/li]
[li]See the discussion on Satellite data sets in IPCC Report (section 3.4.1.2)[/li]
[li]Satellite data and the large amount of homogenization and adjustments required to turn the raw data into useful temperature data are still being question to this day. Unlike ground-based adjustments which lead to trivial changes in trends (from the infamous Karl et al 2015), recent research shows that corrections of perhaps 30% are required for satellite data (Weng et al 2013 .[/li][/ul]

None of this is meant to say the satellite temperature data is “wrong” but it very clearly highlights the deep-set confusion in the “skeptic” camp about temperature data sets. If one finds themselves dismissing ground-based temperature data sets because they require homogenization or adjustments while claiming satellite temperature data sets are superior have simply been lead astray by “skeptics” or are trying to lead others astray. Furthermore, it clearly demonstrates that any attempt to compare satellite data (which measures the troposphere) to the surface temperature output of models is completely misguided (*cough*John Christy *cough*). It is for these reasons that I will use ground-based data in the rest of the post.

Again, I would like to state that I do not wish this to be a focal point of this discussion. I am merely outline why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and my justification for that as, undoubtedly, someone would claim I should be using satellite temperature datasets. In fact, I appear to be in pretty good company; Carl Mears, one of the chief researchers of RSS (and the same Mears from all the papers above), stated:

My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset

If this is a topic of interest to people, perhaps starting your own thread would be advisable as I will not be responding to comments on temperature data sets on this thread. Now, onto the actual discussion…

 

[rconnor]

beej67, ok, what your saying is that past changes in the amount of energy stored in photosynthesis, caused by deforestation/land use changes, is responsible for a significant portion of global warming. Correct?

The very first litmus test you must perform is to demonstrate that the amount of energy is in the ball park of being significant. The entire biosphere absorbs 3,000 EJ/year through photosynthesis. That’s 0.08% of the total energy absorbed by the planet. Right away, your idea is dead in the water. But, it becomes even more absurd when you start digging into it more. What percentage of the total biomass have we destroyed? It’s much less than 100%, so we are talking about much less than 0.08%.

While we should stop there, we can go even further. The next question needs to be where does the “extra” energy, now not stored in photosynthesis go? Again, some of this energy would likely be reflected back to space and not absorbed by the “measureable earth”. So not only are we talking about fractions of 0.08% but we are talking about fractions of fractions of 0.08%. I’m sorry but your guess was wrong; changes in energy stored by photosynthesis cannot be responsible for a significant portion of global warming.

On top of all of this, I’m still not convinced the term is “missing” in the energy balance. I certainly could research this more to find out but when we are talking about fractions of fractions of 0.08%, it doesn’t matter in the slightest. It's like when you said that nuclear bomb detonations could have been responsible for a portion of the warming since 1950 (5 May 14 19:53) and both TGS4 (10 May 14 02:42) and I (6 May 14 11:53) told you it was ridiculously insignificant. Rather than proclaiming your idea relevant and in some cases superior to the current climate science, please save us all the trouble and do the basic litmus tests first.

rb1957, not true. Taking a necessary step back when people say “climate models are wrong” the relevant point they are hoping to make is “CO2 sensitivity estimates are wrong, therefore the planet won’t warm as much as we thought”. None of the studies listed above change the underlying physics nor the parameterization nor anything that would impact CO2 sensitivity estimates. Nor do any of the changes impact long-term projections. This is perhaps a point that you missed because it was included further down in my post, but it is a very important one.

So, if you correct for the proper ENSO state and the model had a worse match or a non-improved match, then you’d have to conclude that the discrepancy is likely due to something else and possibly something significant to CO2 sensitivity. However, repeatedly (and I referenced a number of studies), when climate scientists correct for natural variability the models have a much improved match with observations. This suggests that the short-term discrepancy is most likely due to natural variability (that models were never designed to get predict) and not an issue with the underlying physics. This is far from meaningless.

I'll note here that I'm not saying the underlying physics in models is perfect. We certainly have a lot to build upon. The representation of the climate in models can (and very likely will) be improved. However, as the new research comes in, it continues to support the same common answer - if we continue to emit CO2 at the rate we are currently going at, the global temperature will rise substantially. (and, conversely, if we limit the amount of CO2 we emit, the global temperature will not rise as much.)

As has been demonstrated and supported by a vast amount of research, a comparison between models and observations during the "pause" does not put that conclusion into question in the slightest. In fact, it provides further support for it.

Let me know if I can clarify more.

 

[beej67]

beej67, ok, what your saying is that past changes in the amount of energy stored in photosynthesis, caused by deforestation/land use changes, is responsible for a significant portion of global warming. Correct?

I'm saying that there is no damn way the land cover changes caused by mankind during our population explosion have cooled the earth on their own. There is just no way. The IPCC have that backwards, somehow, some way. Stored energy in carbon bonds due to photosynthesis being interned into the earth was just one of the many ways I brewed up to possibly explain it, but if that's not it, then it's something else. They're missing something.

The IPCC thinks if you paved every forest on earth you'd cool the earth down. And that's just not right. It's not right. Especially when we can look at IR maps from satellites and tell where human activity is on the planet just from that.

Go read 8.3.5 closely. They are doing something wrong if they think adding tree cover heats the planet, and removing tree cover cools it. Maybe, and I mean maybe, up in the northern tundra where snow albedo is a big deal. But not on a wider scale. Current IPCC thinking is that if we went totally carbon neutral tomorrow, but turned the entire planet into urban sprawl suburb, the globe wouldn't warm any. And that's not right.

You and I can agree to disagree on this, and you can feel free to appeal to authority if you like, but someone's doing something wrong with this science, and I fear that they're doing it wrong because they're worried they might find out that CO2 isn't the only boogyman, which would undermine some policy objectives that are relatively sketchy to begin with.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

The IPCC have that backwards, somehow, some way. Stored energy in carbon bonds due to photosynthesis being interned into the earth was just one of the many ways I brewed up to possibly explain it, but if that's not it, then it's something else. They're missing something...You and I can agree to disagree on this, and you can feel free to appeal to authority if you like, but someone's doing something wrong with this science

Here's the thing. I'm not appealing to authority, I'm proving you with the evidence you should have looked up yourself. You, on the other hand, believe the evidence must be wrong based off a hunch. You've done no research, you've done no analysis but you seem to conclude that tens of thousands of papers are obviously incorrect and your little idea is obviously right. So, ya, we'll agree to disagree.

It's similar to the other poster here that sees every bit of published climate science as a part of some nefarious plot to suppress the truth (or something). You simply cannot have a rational, meaningful conversation with someone like that (hence why I don't respond to their comments).

 

[beej67]

So you also believe that if we paved every forest on earth, it would cool the earth off? You didn't seem to believe so two days ago, a half a dozen posts up. You replied to me on the presumption that reforestation was a good thing, global warming wise, without even reading 8.3.5 closely enough to realize what they're trying to say.

As I say above, I'm glad they're at least willing to admit this:

there is low agreement on the sign of the net change in global mean temperature as a result of land use change. {8.3.5}

...but that's something else they have to get very right if they're going to have a model that's remotely predictive. Before we trot out policy objectives, there needs to be near universal agreement about all the anthropogenic drivers that are in play with that policy change. "low agreement" is not good enough.

My intuition, which I will agree is intuition, is that a third of the warming we've had in the past century has been natural, a third has been CO2, and a third has been land use changes. Right now, the IPCC is claiming that basically none of it is natural, we've experienced a net cooling from land use changes, and that the CO2 has been sooooo warmy that it's overcome the net cooling from land use changes. That's just not right. Someone is going to figure out why, sooner or later, and the IPCC is going to have egg on their faces when they do.

 

[rconnor]

So you also believe that if we paved every forest on earth, it would cool the earth off?

Beej67, the vast majority of deforestation isn’t to build new/expand cities, it’s for agriculture or to harvest the tree. From 8.3.5.2, “Hurtt et al 2006 estimates that 42 to 68% of land surface has been impacted by land use activities during the 1700-2000 period”. Meanwhile, 3% of the land surface is covered by urban areas (source). Therefore, the vast majority of deforestation is replaced by grasses and cropland (that have a higher albedo), not pavement.

You replied to me on the presumption that reforestation was a good thing, global warming wise, without even reading 8.3.5 closely enough to realize what they're trying to say.

IPCC and I have never suggested that deforestation is a reasonable method to combat global warming. The very slight increase in albedo caused by deforestation is minimal in comparison to the loss of a carbon sink, not to mention the loss of habitat. Read AR5 WGIII. The IPCC explicitly states that a reduction in deforestation is an effective mitigation and adaptation technique in WGIII SPM.4.2.4. Furthermore, WGI clearly indicates that deforestation and other land use change are a significant contributor to CO2 released to the atmosphere. The IPCC believes that deforestation worsens climate change, as do I. They and I have never said otherwise.

My intuition, which I will agree is intuition, is that a third of the warming we've had in the past century has been natural, a third has been CO2, and a third has been land use changes.

I’m going to be honest beej67, no one cares about what your intuition tells you about climate change. Especially when it goes against thousands upon thousands of studies. To quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson,

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.

 

[beej67]

Beej67, the vast majority of deforestation isn’t to build new/expand cities, it’s for agriculture or to harvest the tree. From 8.3.5.2, “Hurtt et al 2006 estimates that 42 to 68% of land surface has been impacted by land use activities during the 1700-2000 period”. Meanwhile, 3% of the land surface is covered by urban areas (source). Therefore, the vast majority of deforestation is replaced by grasses and cropland (that have a higher albedo), not pavement.

One - A lot of it ends up straight desert. I don't know if you watch TV, but the Fertile Crescent ain't all that fertile anymore. If they're trying to model the impacts of land use changes and can't even nail down how much of the world was impacted by them within a range of 42% to 68%, then there's a problem. That range alone is far too wide to brew up anything predictive from. They're clearly missing some pretty important data.

Two - a peanut field is hotter than a forest. If they think the other way around, then they're doing something wrong.

IPCC and I have never suggested that deforestation is a reasonable method to combat global warming.

Of course not, but the IPCC is saying, quite clearly, that deforestation cools the planet. They're saying, quite clearly, that if the human population was today what it was in the 1700s, with 1700s level sprawl and 1700s level agriculture, but the CO2 was the same as it is today, that the globe would be hotter than it is today. According to their math, you warm the planet when you plant a tree. That isn't right. It's not right. They're doing something wrong.

And when they finally figure out what they're doing wrong, the whole apple cart is going to be tipped over on CO2. We will eventually discover that CO2 is probably only half the problem, and that we're only going to net about half the gains we hope to gain by any sort of CO2 mitigation in isolation from other mitigation.

The IPCC believes that deforestation worsens climate change, as do I.

No they don't. They claim land cover changes in 8.3.5 are a negative forcing. They claim that deforestation has cooled the planet, but that that cooling has been overtaken and-then-some by anthropogenic carbon emissions. That's AR5's claim, not mine. It's plain as day, go read it. If you don't believe it, then you're in the same bucket as me, wielding intuition against the IPCC modelers.

The biggest thing the IPCC are missing out on, is they focus way too much on the 1800s+ when they're looking at land cover. There have been huge changes in the amount of anthropogenic influence on land cover throughout history. The biggest global reforestation project in modern history was the simultaneous death of the Aztec, Mayan, and Incan empires from the Two Ss.. ..Smallpox and Spaniards. And what happened to the climate right afterward? All their agricultural lands turned to jungle, and we get the little ice age, that's what.

Trees don't warm the planet. The IPCC is doing something wrong.

 

[GTTofAK]

ENSO is episodic
ENSO is roughly cyclical
ENSO has no notable long-term increase in the intensity of El Nino’s or La Nina’s
ENSO has had no notable long-term impact on pre-industrial temperature trends
ENSO is not a driver of changes in climate
ENSO only causes surface temperature to temporarily deviate from the “average”, it does not impact the “average"
ENSO does not significantly impact the TOA energy balance
ENSO has no inherent mechanism that could have a major impact on long-term trends

I love the arrogance of Rconnor to think that the thread where I trounced his baseless assertions about the nature of the ENSO actually supports his "facts". Please anyone go read that thread. Rconnor shows a lack of even the most basic understanding of what the ENSO is.

Some highlights.

ENSO is stochastic

I think you are confusing models with reality. Models treat the ENSO as stochastic. That does not make it stochastic in the real word. Modeling it as a stochastic event is a simply way to get around something you dont fully understand.

Rconnor doesn't really know what the ENSO is.

However, there is no known mechanism within ENSO events that can lead to long-term impacts.

The fact that the ENSO has to be modeled as a stochastic shows the logical fallacy in your "However, there is no known mechanism within ENSO events that can lead to long-term impacts." Argumentum ad ignorantiam since we don't know enough about it to model it as anything but a stochastic event then the statement of no known mechanism is meaningless, it would only have some meaning if we had a much greater understanding of the ENSO than we presently do.

Here Rconnor was playing on the fact that we know so little about the ENSO to conclude facts about it. Classic logical fallacy and a sign of ignorance as to what we know about the ENSO, he doesn't know what we dont know. THe ENSO is presently full of unknown unknowns he pretends like its a well understood natural event. Its not.

Rather than admit mistakes Rconnor tries to go on the offense like a mad child

"Your attempt to use a minor improvement in our understanding of short-term volcanic impacts as evidence that we know nothing about ENSO (and to use that as evidence that we don't know anything about long-term climate trends) is a nothing more than sophism."

Since we are at 18 years of model diversion how long until the short term becomes long term.

This goes on and on Rconnor uses terms short term and long term but never ever dares to define them. He uses them as they suit his argument.

Rconnor then gets frustrated and tries to shift the burden

"What’s more, you know what actually is an argument from ignorance? To say “the absence of evidence is evidence of the opposite”. For example, “I don’t know that ENSO has no long-term influence on climate (because I haven’t read the science on the matter), therefore it has a major long-term influence on climate."

You claimed it has no long term trend. The burden of proof is on he who makes the argument not he who refutes it. Your attempt to shift the burden is another logical fallacy on your part.

Finnaly my personal favorite where Rconnor really showed that he had no clue what so ever

If La Nina’s cooled the earth by impacting TOA then you’d expect to see sharp drops in OHC during strong La Nina years that mimic the surface temperature. The opposite for El Nino years. However, this is not the case. OHC has steadily risen, even throughout the “pause”"

This is bass ackwards.

This understanding of la nina couldn’t be more wrong. The la nina phase of the ENSO is the ocean heating phase. During an el nino the pacific gives up energy and during a la nina it absorbs energy. Not only does that wind your previously mentioned start to pool energy it also blows away cloud cover letting more solar radiation reach the ocean surface. Remember we don’t care about the top of the atmosphere we care about how much short wave radiation is actually reaching the surface of the ocean. You would think that before making your argument you would make sure you aren’t violating the first law.

So Rcnonnor makes statements he thinks a facts about the ENSO but he doesn't even understand what the la nina is. His understanding of the ENSO is right up there with his understanding of how a thermometer works. Rconnors "analysis" is largely appeal to authority, his authority. Are you going to take the authority of someone who doesn't even understand how a thermometer works and when called out on it wont even admit the mistake?

 

[rconnor]

If anyone is interested in the reading more background on ENSO, please see my comment at 12 Feb 15 23:45 or 13 Feb 15 21:00 of this thread.

 

[jhardy1]

One thing that astounds me when the climate "debate" comes up in a reasonably well-informed engineering forum such as this:

The sceptics are immensely critical of the fact that the climate models are imperfect, and are constantly being refined and updated for new data, new theories and so on; they are doubly critical of the practice of "hind-casting" to calibrate the models against past data, and then use the re-calibrated models for forecasting purposes. Somehow, this practice of calibrating and refining models demonstrates that the models must be "wrong".

Surely the practice of using imperfect models to analyse incomplete date sets of the interactions of an indeterminate number of variables in complex real-world systems, in order to make sensible, informed decisions, is about as accurate a definition of the profession of Engineering as can be put into a single sentence!

Isn't that PRECISELY the process we go through when we design a reinforced concrete beam? We use characteristic expected material properties (rather than testing every single cubic metre of concrete and every rebar), and for most structures, we don't know the actual loads that will be applied to the beam in service - and yet most of the time, our designs are safe and reliable.

It's the same when we decide on the size of a dam spillway to cater for the "Maximum Probable Flood"; or when we design a more fuel-efficient injection system for an internal combustion engine; or when we design a new substation and electrical distribution network for a growing city centre (even though we don't know exactly how many residents there will be, what appliances they will own, etc); or ...

We have imperfect models, incomplete data sets, partially (or poorly) understood interactions, and yet we are still able to understand the problem (to a limited but workable degree), and arrive at sound engineering solutions. Why should we abandon these principles when it comes to understanding the Earth's climate and confronting our impacts upon it - and it's inevitable impact upon us?

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[zdas04]

jhardy1,
You have absolutely missed the point (I'm talking about modeling here, not AGW). Models are imperfect, just like any tool. We all use imperfect tools all the time. Useful models lead us to new areas of investigation. Dangerous models replace investigation. When government policy is based on dangerous models, the conversation polarizes. I don't think anyone is looking for models to be perfect (many of the posters above are modelers and they know about replacing data with assumptions and calibrating models probably at a much deeper level than you do), we are looking for follow-on investigations to fill in the modeling gaps prior to government policy leading nations into bad decisions. People that think that a model can prove something have taken many fields of science in very bad directions. People that know that computer models can only support their underlying bias and (at best) can illuminate areas for investigation are trying to pull it back.

As someone who uses fluid mechanics models in my work, I can say with confidence that my models are often shown after the fact to have properly represented the reality that I later built based on the models. I can also say that occasionally they don't. The models inform the decision, a person must make the decision. The models do not prove that a concept will work, the models sometimes highlight issues that can arrise.

If models could prove future events, all of the computer modelers would be modeling stock markets (and far more of those models fail to predict major market drops than succeed).

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[GTTofAK]

If anyone is interested in the reading more background on ENSO, please see my comment at

Yes please do so but be sure to read further where Rconnor is reduced to demanding that others prove his assertions false rather than him prove them true.

"What’s more, you know what actually is an argument from ignorance? To say “the absence of evidence is evidence of the opposite”. For example, “I don’t know that ENSO has no long-term influence on climate (because I haven’t read the science on the matter), therefore it has a major long-term influence on climate."

Rconnors entire argument stems from the ENSO not being well known so Rconnor believes that he can simply make up any claims he wants and its up to others to prove his assertions false. The man who doesn't understand how a thermometer works wants this forum to take his assertions at face value.

Oh and please read on where Rconnor who is claiming some authority on the ENSO gets the la nina backwards.

If La Nina’s cooled the earth by impacting TOA then you’d expect to see sharp drops in OHC during strong La Nina years that mimic the surface temperature. The opposite for El Nino years. However, this is not the case. OHC has steadily risen, even throughout the “pause”"

Absolutely backwards. Claims to be able to do an analysis on the ENSO and doesn't even know the basics of the la nina. He is no authority what so ever. He cant even get the basics correct.

 

[GTTofAK]

You have absolutely missed the point (I'm talking about modeling here, not AGW).

Actually it isn't even about that David. What is at issue here really is Rconnors insistence to priory throw out any evidence that disagrees with his predetermined conclusion. After NOAA and GISS adopted the Kent adjustment Rconnor knew full well that he could get the results he wanted if he threw out the satellite data sets. So he makes up some excuses and got the results he wanted. The first reason he listed showed abject scientific incompetence as he failed to understand how thermometers work. He also refuses to address the efficacy of the Kent adjustment. He would rather play a hucksters game of citing papers that rely on the data sets that rely on the Kent adjustment giving the appearance of not relying on that single adjustment while he relies almost entirely upone it through proxy.

He then goes onto make absolute statements knowing full well that there are mountains of satellite data the disagrees with him but he is able to ignore such evidence because of his priory decision to ignore it. At least he thinks so but when you make an absolute statement based on partial data that is simply dishonest.

 

[beej67]

We have imperfect models, incomplete data sets, partially (or poorly) understood interactions, and yet we are still able to understand the problem (to a limited but workable degree), and arrive at sound engineering solutions. Why should we abandon these principles when it comes to understanding the Earth's climate and confronting our impacts upon it - and it's inevitable impact upon us?

Absolutely not. We should not abandon these principles, we should double down on them, and triple down on them, and do whatever it takes to get the models right. Nobody in their right mind would design a steel beam if their structural modeling software told them, "well, you either need a beam this big, or maybe something like three times that big." Nobody would use that model. They would tell the modelers to get better at their jobs, and narrow down the size of beam we need.

Especially if the beam was going to cost trillions of dollars.

Yet the climate models we have now simply aren't good enough to nail down the CO2 ECS to within a factor of 3. They predict "either 1.5 C or something like three times that much." That's not good enough to base a policy decision on.

We need more science, and better science, and we need to refine the science until it is verifiably predictable, and all factors must be accounted for. Its job must be to accurately predict. Without that, we cannot weigh the impact of policy.

And you guys can call me crazy if you like, but there is no way in heck I'm going to believe any computer model that says cutting down half the world's trees made the world cooler.

 

[rb1957]

"but" the counter is "we can't wait; waiting for perfect models is like fiddling like Rome burns"

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[zdas04]

You mean because our track record on intervening in natural systems is so stellar?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[beej67]

"but" the counter is "we can't wait; waiting for perfect models is like fiddling like Rome burns"

All the anti-CO2 measures I've seen, policy wise, are gold plated garden hoses that mostly just blow air, with no real guarantee that Rome is actually burning, and no surety that we're using the appropriate fire retardant.

I've linked that before, and rconnor always has a hissy fit when I link it, but there is literally no other source, scientific or otherwise, that even bothers to attempt to predict the impact of that particular 8 billion dollar policy. You can buy a lot of levies for 8 billion dollars. You can also preserve a lot of south American rain forests for 8 billion dollars. But then again, the IPCC seems to think that preserving rain forests makes the globe hotter.

Hell, I bet you could do a lot of climate modeling for 8 billion dollars too. I'd rather spend the money on that, so we can get a predictive model. I highly suspect that once we get a truly predictive model, it's going to show a much larger ROI for planting 8 billion dollars worth of trees.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[moltenmetal]

zdas04: our record related to intervening in natural systems in an effort to benefit them has been poor. Our record of doing unintended harm to natural systems as a result of our mass consumption, and then moving through stages of denial and bargaining prior to acceptance and attempting to do something about it, are similarly written large across history. We've done it again and again, and we're doing it this time for certain.

beej67: you can argue that mitigating measures will be costly and potentially of limited effectiveness, and I don't think reasonable people can argue to the contrary. One thing is certain, though: before we can make meaningful changes, we have to move through a period where the changes we make are insignificant.

The only counterargument that I can make is that doing nothing about this is unsustainable, by definition, because the resource we're squandering is nonrenewable. And to me, investment now to hasten a transition which nature will force on us eventually, and which will yield a dividend to future generations of less toxic pollution AND more fossil liquids to use for higher-value uses than as fuel, doesn't seem to me to be a waste of money in the least. I'd draw the same conclusion even if, were that possible, someone could prove that there is no meaningful threat of AGW causing costly, essentially irreparable harm to the only habitable planet we know of.

 

[GTTofAK]

The only counterargument that I can make is that doing nothing about this is unsustainable, by definition, because the resource we're squandering is nonrenewable

By definition the sun is nonrenewable. Hell eventually the universe will exhaust its kinetic energy and pull back in on itself. You just cant say that something is "nonrenewable" you have to show that we are going to run out in any significant time frame. There is no urgency to replace fossil fuels hence the "need" for the CAGW hypothesis. If we cant prove that we will run out of fuel sans the 1970s peak oil fraud then argue that we will destroy the planet if we burn all of our reserves.

As Rconnor likes to say this is really about "tearing down the capitalist zeitgeist". Of course when the Rconnors of the world get power they tend to not give two @#$%s about the environment. Soviet Russia, China, Norway (how many barrels of oil per capita does Norway produce), Venezuela(same as Norway), etc. etc. After the captalist zeitgeist is torn down it seems that men like Rconnor are far more interested in keeping their inefficient economic system afloat even if that means raping the environment for short term resources.

Capitalism may not perfectly allocate of resources nor does it do a good job protecting the environment, that is where democracy comes in, but it has shown to do both far more effectively than socialism. Socialism only in theory cares about the environment, in practice socialist rape the land for resources to keep their system running time and time again.

 

[zdas04]

Now we're talking about hydrocarbons. There is nothing on earth more renewable than methane. Where do people think that fossil fuels came from? The answer is anaerobic decomposition of organic materials in an environment conducive to trapping the molecules prior to their migration into space. The world's recoverable fossil fuels represent a couple of billionth of a percent of the hydrocarbons that have been produced over the last 400 million years or so. When it stops being economic to search for it we will apply (currently existing) technology to doing a better job of harvesting contemporary methane. Thousands of dairy farms and and feed lots are currently net exporters of power (even when you add in the transportation fuels that they have to import) from harvesting animal waste. Whole cities are supplying their own power from land fill gas. City sanitary waste facilities all over the world are developing plans to harvest the methane from human waste (to meet silly "emissions" goals, which are silly because daily ocean seeps of methane far exceed human-caused annual methane emissions).

When (not if) fossil fuels get too rare to be economically recoverable, we will be able to fill the natural gas infrastructure with waste methane recovery. We will be able to meet motor fuel requirements through chemistry (probably a significant evolution from Fischer Trope, but maybe a whole new approach, hard to guess). We will supply plastics feedstock from the intermediate processes of making liquid motor fuel.

The idea that wind and solar are a significant portion of the 2100 energy mix is just stupid. Hydrocarbons will be mankind's primary energy source until we manage to blow ourselves up or the sun runs out of hydrogen.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rconnor]

Jhardy1, very well said. It is puzzling and I’ve continually asked how skeptics might recommend performing the science. They reply that you do laboratory experiments. To which I repeatedly ask,

How would you create a laboratory scale model to study the interdependent effects of ocean/atmosphere dynamics, prevailing wind patterns, changes in prevailing wind patterns, ocean currents, changes in ocean currents, cloud formation, changes in albedo, etc, such that the can adequately capture the dynamics of the earth’s climate system AND find a way to speed up those interactions such that you can see the impact in 100 years? I don’t believe it can be done. Instead, you’d attempt to break those systems up into subsystems, study them by analyzing observed behavior (past and present) and then take that knowledge into a model. That’s exactly what climate scientists are doing.

I’ve yet to hear an answer.

“Skeptics” love to refer to climate science as some kind of inversion of science. They claim that the answer was hypothesized and models were designed to produce the right answer (usually as part of some nefarious plot by the government or the UN but other times, more sensibly, as pure noble cause corruption). However, this false. For an extensive history of how climate science developed, I’d suggest reading the American Institute of Physics’ “Discovery of Global Warming”. The basics are below:
[ul][li]Svante Arrhenius 1896 and Tyndall 1861 began to establish the basic physics of green house gases and their impact on global temperatures.[/li]
[li]Line-by-line calculations of the greenhouse effect, supported by laboratory experiments, demonstrates that CO2, without any feedbacks, increases temperatures by ~1 deg C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations (source). (see here for a list of papers). However, we know that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour, which is a strong greenhouse gas, and will reduce land and sea ice. Both of these, along with many others, amplify the warming (i.e. positive feedback). Others factors (i.e. Stefan-Boltzmann law) will dampen the warming (i.e. negative feedback).[/li]
[li]Pretty well ever metric points to a planet that is accruing energy (see here at 16 Jan 14 01:20 for ~10 examples) which correlates with the increase in CO2 concentrations.[/li]
[li]Combining the solid science of green house gas warming with the observed changes in climate, CO2 emissions were a very possible candidate for the cause of the warming.[/li]
[li]Then the scientific community began investigating the issue much closer. Anthropogenic CO2 emission fingerprints were all over the evidence (see here at 5 Mar 14 18:24 for examples and references). Furthermore, most of the evidence was counter to the hypothesis that the sun or other natural effects were responsible.[/li]
[li]Massive amounts of research has been done (and is still on-going) to understand climatology by observing the climate and how the climate response to forcings (ex. AR5 WGI Chapter 8 alone has 19 pages of references).[/li]
[li] As a warming planet will have significant impact on humans (through local climate, agriculture, sea level rise, etc), it is economically and socially important to quantify what the future changes might be. However, it’s impossible to conduct a laboratory experiment to see how the Earth’s climate system will ultimately respond to forcings (see my quote above), so you need to look for other methods to investigate the change.[/li]
[li]One obvious place to get an idea of the Earth’s climate sensitivity is to study past changes in climate. Paleoclimatology shows that nearly every major change in atmospheric CO2 levels coincide with changes in global temperatures (usually kick started by insolation changes) (see here at 24 Apr 15 20:24). Past changes in climate are simply unexplainable without a climate sensitivity of ~2.2 to 4.8 deg C (source). It’s rather ironic that a favourite “skeptic” argument that “it’s changed before” actually leads to some of the strongest evidence for a high CO2 sensitivity.[/li]
[li]Models are another method. Unless we have a time machine, they are the only possible way to calculate projections of future temperatures based on various scenarios. It’s important to note CO2 sensitivity is not an input into climate models but an output. In other words, modelers don’t tell the models that the planet is sensitivity to CO2 beforehand. Furthermore, models are locked prior to running full scale GCM's, so they cannot be fiddled with to produce a high-sensitivity result. While there is a wide range in sensitivity estimates, they do broadly agree with paleoclimatology estimates.[/li]
[li]The result of all the research suggests that climate change is happening (AR5 WGI), it’s caused by us (WGI) and it will have a very negative impact (WGII) unless we attempt to mitigate the most possible scenarios (WGIII). While there is still a lot of uncertainty, there is no significant and credible evidence that I’m aware of to suggest that climate sensitivity is so low as to be unimportant (especially when you look at the extent of past changes).[/li][/ul]
If this is an inversion of science, then I’d love to hear how “skeptics” wish it would have been done. (seriously, I really would like to know)

Ironically, it is the “skeptic” camp that has inverted the scientific process. They have been told that the science concludes that mitigation measures are required to avoid harmful repercussions of climate change and these mitigation measures may require new laws and regulations. As this is counter to their libertarian ideology (and I would say that most “skeptics” would self-describe as libertarians. Perhaps 97%?), they cannot agree with this conclusion. They therefore feel that there must be something wrong with the science. In other words, they looked at the conclusion, didn’t like it and decided the science must be wrong – almost purely due to political ideology. Some stop there and flat out reject the science with no further investigation while others comb through the science looking for any error to support their viewpoint. That is an inversion of science. This is exactly the reason I refer to them as “skeptics” not skeptics. To quote Migeul de Unamouno:

The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.