Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 15:54:43

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16745
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby jedrider » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 16:16:39

The scientific method CAN work without having a laboratory control, but it does require having a brain.
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby Ibon » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 16:21:18

dohboi wrote:It's just total and utter bullsh!t on the face of it, obvious to anyone who stops for a moment to think about it.


KJ is requesting that we do just that, stop for a moment, think about it, leave the emotions aside, and address the challenge of AGW as a theory. I would say the use of this exercise is to practice in negotiating with someone who has knowledge and who does not accept AGW. If you were a political candidate you would be prepped by doing a mock debate with someone like KJ before the real thing. Why not play along as practice for the times you may be similarly challenged by someone who asks you to be a bit more rigorous in examining your conclusions. All these emotions and impatience seems to indicate a squirmy resistance to look at the nuts and bolts.

CO2 emissions increasing by human activity is not hypothesis. I would say this is valid theory supported by data on emissions and seeing the accelerated increase happening right along with the emergence of the industrial revolution. That would seem to validate as a theory that humans are responsible for increased CO2 emissions.

From there we move to the next step in proving that this increase of 400ppm of CO2 emissions validate that theory that they are causitive to the recent temperature rise. Also we have to also validate with proof that the measurements that conclude rising temperatures are reliable. THis all stays within the domain of science.

KJ, you started this thread, you are asking for inputs. Some wont even entertain you. Some will. So there is a point here where you will have to depart from only asking questions to then provide answers as well in your opinion as to the challenge of making this a viable theory. You dont have to do that yet, but for me if your exercise here will have value and not be just an aggressive troll manipulation, you will have to educate and not obfuscate. Otherwise your credibility will dissolve as fast as a glacier in Greenland.

You are challenging the group here with your thread. You also are going to be challenged to participate and at some point that means specifying the critical parameters that you see as non conclusive and then further specifying the threshold that will satisfy their validity as moving from hypothesis to theory in your view.
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby Ibon » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 16:26:55

I would further say that very very few of you have ever really deeply looked at the science with the critical eye of questioning assumptions and rigorously analyzing the methodology of the studies you usually cherry pick to reinforce your preconceived notions.

Science is practiced these days by very few. In fact, the internet has been a curse in this regard not an asset.

Mob science I call it, peer reviewed by bobbing heads.
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 16:41:27

jed wrote: "The scientific method CAN work without having a laboratory control, but it does require having a brain."

Nicely put.

kj has shown no, zero, nada interest in engaging in the kind of dialogue Ibon seems to want.

He has been presented repeatedly with the basic physics and facts that are the real foundation of GW science. But he won't ever explain which part of that physics or facts he doesn't accept, or what blindingly obvious dots he can't connect and why.

Yet he is shocked if everyone doesn't bend over backwards in responding to specific (and idiotic) questions.

It doesn't work that way. Answer straightforward questions presented to you, and then people will be more willing to interact with you. Otherwise, you can expect more ridicule, as is the proper response for such trollish behavior.

As I pointed out elsewhere, Aristotle got it right long ago when he pointed out: “…those who are not angry at the things they should be angry at are…fools”

"very very few of you have ever really deeply looked at the science with the critical eye of questioning assumptions and rigorously analyzing the methodology of the studies ...blah blah blah"

More unsupported accusations. Insulting, really. Many of us have looked very critically at many things for many years.

Furthermore, guess what? There are people who are professional skeptic. They are called scientists. Not only are the fundamentally skeptics, they also have undergone years of rigorous training to become very very good at critical skills needed to be a good skeptic, and have studied deeply to acquire the knowledge necessary to be effectively skeptical.

And guess what else? Every single organization of these professional, well trained skeptic in the world has concluded that AGW is real and very dangerous.

But I guess if kj thinks he's smarter than all these people in all these organizations all over the world, we should all spend lots of time to see if maybe he's onto something that all these other smart well trained folks all over the world, the vast, vast majority of them, especially in those trained in the relevant field, have somehow overlooked.

Hmmmm... 8) 8) 8)
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16745
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 17:31:05

The Navier-Stokes equations and the radiative transfer equations are based on first principles and not knob tuning and ad hoc approximations. Solving the radiative transfer equations for specific mixtures of gases and making simplifications based on this ........


Which is all good but completely misses the point that he made…..there are still unknowns or forcings that are known but are poorly contstrained. Not having a complete understanding of the impact of unknown unkowns is important and Gavin Schmidt gives a good example where the consensus of chemistry models that projected a slow decline in stratospheric ozone levels in the 1980s, but did not predict the emergence of the Antarctic ozone hole because they all lacked the equations that describe the chemistry that occurs on the surface of ice crystals in cold polar vortex conditions--an "unknown unknown" of the time. With respect to poorly constrained variables the IPCC itself has a fairly wide range on what they accept as equilibrium climate sensitivity (which they believe is due to poor understanding of cloud feedback) and a number of recent papers has increased the range of what that sensitivity might be. CO2 increase in and of itself (all things being equal) will have a negligible impact on temperature going forward, what drives the projections is climate sensitivity and with a wide range in that number you end up with a tremendous range in modeled projections. Feedbacks are not all well understood according to IPCC and numerous papers published as of late which means arriving at climate sensitivity from first principles rather than having to torture it out of empirical observations is difficult at best. Add to that the assumptions in each model run regarding values that are quite variable such as (and not limited to) precipitation, total cloudiness, cloud parameterization, meridional wind, aerosols and sea surface temperature and you have uncertainty which would be best handled through stochastic approaches.

Wow, what a complete and utter rubbish claim. The energetics of the ocean-atmosphere system are not some probabilistic projection based on "assumptions". They are deterministic and can be quantified with current knowledge based on first principles equations. The main problem is how to measure the energy content of the ocean-atmosphere system due to the sparsity of observations. But recent work has done a good job of identifying the heat accumulation in the oceans. That accumulation does not resemble any stochastic process whatsoever. 


Well I think this is a massive over-simplification and flies in the face of what the IPCC has identified as uncertainties in models as well as what has been identified by a number of scientists who are currently spending much of their time working on how to quantify uncertainties in climate models and projections. You seem to suggest that there is zero uncertainty with respect to forcings or interaction of forcings but if that were the case why are there so many individual models in CMIP5? Why is there so much time being spent by researchers looking at variability in the models and how to constrain the results better? Richard Feynman probably captured this best by saying Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty— some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”

You clearly are denier since you make the above BS claim which is a mishmash of denier talking points. The CO2 levels are observed and the associated warming is determined by both observations and models. Simulations between 1850 and the modern period show good fidelity between models and observations. 


First off I think you misunderstand what was being said. With regards to the range of IPCC projections CO2 is indeed a major "tuning knob" simply because each RCP (representative concentration pathway) represents a different projection with regards to CO2 contribution to the atmosphere going forward. The IPCC sees this as being one of the large uncertainties as to future climate.

Secondly the models have not done a very good job of prediction over the past several decades (presumably the impact of poorly constrained climate sensitivity). Looking at past temperatures and tweaking model parameters to give you an answer you want is hardly proof positive of anything. The models offer non-unique solutions, different combinations of variables and weightings can result in the same answer. But how good is the fidelity you speak of? As the IPPC stated in AR5

Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years. There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5496
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 20:00:16

I note that KJ refused to answer my simple question---if CO2 isn't causing the global warming we've seen since 1880 then what is?

KJ----what is your preferred hypothesis for the observed warming?

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20512
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 20:03:52

Plant, I think KJ, is on the record having said that he thinks it is natural variation especially due to the Sun.
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dissident » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 20:09:04

rockdoc123 wrote:
The Navier-Stokes equations and the radiative transfer equations are based on first principles and not knob tuning and ad hoc approximations. Solving the radiative transfer equations for specific mixtures of gases and making simplifications based on this ........


Which is all good but completely misses the point that he made…..there are still unknowns or forcings that are known but are poorly contstrained.


Put up or shut up. List these unknown forcings. I dare you.

Not having a complete understanding of the impact of unknown unkowns is important and Gavin Schmidt gives a good example where the consensus of chemistry models that projected a slow decline in stratospheric ozone levels in the 1980s, but did not predict the emergence of the Antarctic ozone hole because they all lacked the equations that describe the chemistry that occurs on the surface of ice crystals in cold polar vortex conditions--an "unknown unknown" of the time.


The ozone hole and the radiative effect of CO2 are unrelated physical processes. The lack of a prediction of the ozone hole rested completely on the lack of the chemistry being represented in the models. CO2 is a dry gas and we do not need to worry about its chemistry, only about its production.

As dohboi has pointed out numerous times, Arhenius knew about the radiative effect of CO2 over a century ago. Before any climate model and before the side issue of the ozone hole. The radiative transfer equations came long before climate models. The claim that they are uncertain and that the effect of CO2 is obscure is a patent lie.

With respect to poorly constrained variables the IPCC itself has a fairly wide range on what they accept as equilibrium climate sensitivity (which they believe is due to poor understanding of cloud feedback) and a number of recent papers has increased the range of what that sensitivity might be.


I could care less what the IPCC consensus is because it is compromised by the lowest common denominator of having to accommodate countries were AGW denial is strong (e.g. Saudi Arabia). IPCC follows the philosophy of "if in doubt, leave out". They did this in the case of land ice melt and came to the "consensus" that sea level rise would be 0.5 meters based purely on thermal expansion of the oceans. In the latest round they have had to backpedal on this BS.

CO2 increase in and of itself (all things being equal) will have a negligible impact on temperature going forward, what drives the projections is climate sensitivity and with a wide range in that number you end up with a tremendous range in modeled projections.


Yet another rubbish claim designed to pull the wool over the eyes of non-experts (and you are one of them). CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth. Water vapour is slaved to the temperature by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Without CO2 the Earth would become an ice Hell. The salty oceans would freeze. Water is a very effective greenhouse "gas" but it is not a dry gas and is very efficiently removed by precipitation. N2 and O2 simply do not trap infrared radiation. Being a noble gas argon does not either. That leaves H2O vapour and trace gases such as CO2, CH4, N2O, NOx, O3 and HOx as the main components of the radiative budget of the atmosphere. Of these CO2 is the most important.

Feedbacks are not all well understood according to IPCC and numerous papers published as of late which means arriving at climate sensitivity from first principles rather than having to torture it out of empirical observations is difficult at best. Add to that the assumptions in each model run regarding values that are quite variable such as (and not limited to) precipitation, total cloudiness, cloud parameterization, meridional wind, aerosols and sea surface temperature and you have uncertainty which would be best handled through stochastic approaches.


Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about. The circulation is not prescribed or parameterized in GCMs. It is resolved. That is on of the main reasons why we run those models. Deniers love to harp about cloud physics in GCMs and claim it is all BS. Deniers are the ones spouting off BS. Cloud parameterizations give valid leading order behaviour to inputs since they are based on physics and not nose-picking. The only serious skeptic out there, Richard Lindzen, proposed all sorts of theories how clouds could offset warming by acting like IR valves or via positive albedo feedbacks. All of his theories have flopped. I respect him for think outside the box and actually doing science. I cannot respect rabid obfuscators and liars who claim all sorts of things about AGW none of which are based on scientific research.

Wow, what a complete and utter rubbish claim. The energetics of the ocean-atmosphere system are not some probabilistic projection based on "assumptions". They are deterministic and can be quantified with current knowledge based on first principles equations. The main problem is how to measure the energy content of the ocean-atmosphere system due to the sparsity of observations. But recent work has done a good job of identifying the heat accumulation in the oceans. That accumulation does not resemble any stochastic process whatsoever. 


Well I think this is a massive over-simplification and flies in the face of what the IPCC has identified as uncertainties in models as well as what has been identified by a number of scientists who are currently spending much of their time working on how to quantify uncertainties in climate models and projections. You seem to suggest that there is zero uncertainty with respect to forcings or interaction of forcings but if that were the case why are there so many individual models in CMIP5? Why is there so much time being spent by researchers looking at variability in the models and how to constrain the results better? Richard Feynman probably captured this best by saying Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty— some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”


You have not refuted anything I said. You just trot out an argument that because research is an ongoing process where various details are uncertain that the knowledge of the whole system is uncertain. You are changing the subject. Deniers claim that the ocean-atmosphere system is intrinsically uncertain like some stochastic process. This is BS. Your example does not support your uncertainty claim. The global integral of the equations governing the system removes the dynamics leaving only the radiative transfer and boundary conditions. Academics spend a lot of time looking at second order effects because they are academics and not business people who need to optimize revenues for some company and meet fixed deadlines.

You keep harping on this climate sensitivity issue as if it is some defining element of climate science:

1) Climate sensitivity F > delta where delta is a positive number greater than zero. Deniers go so far to claim that delta is zero or less than zero. Total BS.

2) F is almost a meaningless concept. It is trying to parametrize a complex process in terms of a bulk variable. So it is never right at any given point and any given time. One cannot derive F from the underlying equations. Real Climate shoots down the lowball estimates of F very effectively by pointing out the serious limitations of the two papers that underestimated it. For humanity the short term F which may be several times larger than the long term F is likely to be of critical interest. Deniers would like everyone to wast their time with getting this fuzzy metric "super precise" as if it makes any difference. A typical denier disruption ploy.

You clearly are denier since you make the above BS claim which is a mishmash of denier talking points. The CO2 levels are observed and the associated warming is determined by both observations and models. Simulations between 1850 and the modern period show good fidelity between models and observations. 


First off I think you misunderstand what was being said. With regards to the range of IPCC projections CO2 is indeed a major "tuning knob" simply because each RCP (representative concentration pathway) represents a different projection with regards to CO2 contribution to the atmosphere going forward. The IPCC sees this as being one of the large uncertainties as to future climate.


You have utterly no idea what a climate model simulation is. CO2 is not a tuning knob it is a genuine input like the solar constant. Climate models do not simulate human industry, resource extraction and the burning of biomass and fossil fuels. Climate models deal with the impact of the chemical composition changes on the atmosphere. Recently they have been coupled to ocean models. Since the dynamical timescales and spatial resolution requirements are vastly different in these two systems the numerical challenges are significant.

You make the implicit claim that uncertainty in CO2 emissions from humans validates the drivel of the original poster. Yet more denier BS. Even if humans stopped CO2 emissions today the system is locked into at least 2 C of warming. Of course denier diversion will focus on the lack of total precision in the forecast for human CO2 emissions as some show stopper for evaluating the impact of historical to present day CO2 emissions. As if they are old news and not a monkey on humanity's back.

I will say that you and the rest of the deniers can sod off. The CO2 emissions vs global GDP correlation is incredibly tight based on all of the historical data. So technological evolution makes basically no impact on CO2 emissions. There is no way that CO2 emissions will stop unless the global GDP goes to zero. So this IPCC scenarios being "tuning" is beyond absurd. Go ahead and claim that CO2 emissions will become irrelevant in the future. But I bet you won't and instead prefer to deliberately mix up the "uncertainty" of the inputs with the uncertainty of the physical process being modeled.

Secondly the models have not done a very good job of prediction over the past several decades (presumably the impact of poorly constrained climate sensitivity). Looking at past temperatures and tweaking model parameters to give you an answer you want is hardly proof positive of anything. The models offer non-unique solutions, different combinations of variables and weightings can result in the same answer. But how good is the fidelity you speak of?


More of the broken "uncertainty" record mixed in with the tired lie about tuning. Runs between 1850 and 2005 have done a good job capturing the observed temperature change. I dare you to produce any evidence to the contrary.


As the IPPC stated in AR5

Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years. There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend.


Here we see why the IPCC is a politically tainted waste of time. It actually repeated the denier lie about some "hiatus" in the warming. Climate models are not weather models. They are not subjected to assimilation of observations to nudge them on the right trajectory in state space. Their objective is to consider the effect of the energy balance on where the weather trajectories will reside in state space. As such climate runs are done as ensembles and the trends away from the current climate are discerned from the changes that survive averaging of the ensemble members. Since CO2 and its slave H2O will have a direct impact on the temperature and the energy in the system it is not surprising that climate models find solutions (weather trajectories) that deviate beyond dynamical noise form the current state.

The so-called hiatus is a deliberate misinterpretation of the data. There was a surge in warming during the mid-1990s that petered out by the mid 2000s. So the temperature trend "flattened out" in the mid 1990s. But we have seen on this board plenty of evidence that the 2000s have been warmer than the 1990s. So this undulation on the temperature trend did not actually affect the long term trend.

The origin of the multi-year undulations are due to heat exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere. ENSO is not the only such exchange mode. There is a whole spectrum of them spanning a few years (ENSO) to decades (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). These are nonlinear oscillations that can change their frequency rather substantially. A climate simulation with a GCM is not going to capture such oscillations with the right timing even if the GCM is coupled to a full ocean model. As I mentioned already, climate simulations are free runs and not weather simulations. The objective is not to anchor them to daily weather observations. It is enough for them to capture the main physical processes.

The historical runs between 1850 and 2005 did a good job capturing the cooling during the 1950s through the 1970s associated with the global dimming effect of pollution. That they did not time the bogus "hiatus" right is a total non-issue.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dissident » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 20:19:46

onlooker wrote:Plant, I think KJ, is on the record having said that he thinks it is natural variation especially due to the Sun.


That just confirms that his opinion is totally worthless. Solar output has been anti-correlated with the warming trend since the 1980s. But the issue is not the level of correlation. It is the magnitude of the solar output variations. The radiative impact of the cumulative CO2 increase dominates any such variation.

Deniers are a broken record.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 20:25:21

Ibon, I am not sure we need now Cid's input given the very expert testimony of Dissident. I can safely say that in a given field, here on this site Dissident must be an expert in the field of Earth sciences. In the way I know Rockman is in the Oil industry. Dave in finances and Kaiser in computers. So we should all be grateful to hear such a technical and expertly detailed analysis from someone like Dissident who obviously knows what he is talking about.
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 20:42:28

dissident wrote:
onlooker wrote:Plant, I think KJ, is on the record having said that he thinks it is natural variation especially due to the Sun.


That just confirms that his opinion is totally worthless. Solar output has been anti-correlated with the warming trend since the 1980s. But the issue is not the level of correlation. It is the magnitude of the solar output variations. The radiative impact of the cumulative CO2 increase dominates any such variation


If KJ thinks the global warming we've seen since 1880 is caused by the sun then he isn't firing on all cylinders. There is good quality instrumental data on solar intensity going back over a century and really excellent satellite data over the last few decades and if anything insolation has DECREASED slightly

Dissident is right----KJ's solar global warming hypothesis is absolute BS

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20512
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dissident » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 21:17:36

I meant that the temperature trend "flattened" out during the mid 2000s.

Image
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 21:34:00

Thanks, dis. I was going to respond to babyroc, but I knew you would do a much more masterful job of it, and you proved me right.

And that kj thinks 'it's the sun' just emphasizes how utterly clueless (or intentionally deceptive) he is.

As dis pointed out, the sun is has not been getting hotter over the last 30 years or so, yet the earth has.

On top of that, all the things that should be happening if it were the sun are the opposite of what is actually happening. If the sun was warming the earth:

• The stratosphere would be warming at the same rate or faster than the troposphere--but in fact the stratosphere is cooling slightly while the troposphere is warming, exactly what we we should expect from GHG-driven warming.

• Days would be warming more than or the same as nights--but in fact nights are warming faster than days, exactly what we we should expect from GHG-driven warming.

• Summers would be warming more than or the same as winters--but in fact winters are warming faster than summers, exactly what we we should expect from GHG-driven warming.

....

As the Siamese king says in The King and I: etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSd6-EvBgN4

Anyone who had the slightest interest in actually knowing the truth rather than in just cherishing his own delusions could have easily figured this out in a few seconds. But truth does not seem to be kj's main goal here, unfortunately.

More here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar- ... arming.htm
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16745
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 12:32:35

Put up or shut up. List these unknown forcings. I dare you.

Oh for crying out loud….you do realize that “unknown” means it isn’t known as either being important or having much affect at this point in time or is English a second language for you? There are publications that point to possible important affects that require more research all the time. Lot’s of examples but how about:

Maitra. A et al, 2014. Solar control on the liquid water content and intergrated water vapor associated with monsoon rainfall over India. Journal Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial physics. V 121, pp 157-167.

These authors noted solar control on monsoon rainfall, integrated water vapor and cloud liquid water content.

Andrews. M.B. and Gray, L.J. 2015. A simulated lagged response of the North American Oscillation to the solar cycle over the period 1960-2009. Environ. Res Lett. 10 054022

The authors model a mechanism whereby large changes (up to 100%) in solar UV over solar cycles affect heating rates of the upper stratosphere, which in turn affect winds and temperature gradients in the troposphere, and heat storage in North Atlantic Ocean. This results in a lagged effect of 3-4 years in the amplitude of the North Atlantic Oscillation, which in turn affects Arctic sea ice extent, other ocean oscillations, the jet stream, and weather patterns around the globe. 

Adolphi. F et al., 2014. Persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2225

The authors describe a solar amplification mechanism by which solar minima favor the development of high-pressure blocking systems which block the jet stream and cause increased jet stream dips of the polar vortex 

And this is the means by which science advances. Rather than say…oh we know it all, the science is settled, research continues identifying other complexities and interactions in the system. They are investigated and either dismissed or incorporated as understanding progresses. This is quite evident in the advances made with respect to model inputs between AR4 and AR5.

The ozone hole and the radiative effect of CO2 are unrelated physical processes. The lack of a prediction of the ozone hole rested completely on the lack of the chemistry being represented in the models. CO2 is a dry gas and we do not need to worry about its chemistry, only about its production. 


Exactly what does that have to do with anything? The only reason I pointed to Gavin’s statement was that it shows an example where models at any given time are a product of the knowledge at that time. It wasn’t until the models incorporated the appropriate equations that projections approached observations. I did not mention CO2 at all.

Yet another rubbish claim designed to pull the wool over the eyes of non-experts (and you are one of them). CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth. Water vapour is slaved to the temperature by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Without CO2 the Earth would become an ice Hell. The salty oceans would freeze. Water is a very effective greenhouse "gas" but it is not a dry gas and is very efficiently removed by precipitation. N2 and O2 simply do not trap infrared radiation. Being a noble gas argon does not either. That leaves H2O vapour and trace gases such as CO2, CH4, N2O, NOx, O3 and HOx as the main components of the radiative budget of the atmosphere. Of these CO2 is the most important.

Give us all a break here. No one ever has argued against the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 you are simply creating a strawman argument. The fact remains that without feedbacks that create large equilibrium climate sensitivity the impact of an increase in CO2 on temperature is minimal. IPCC uses a best estimate of 3 C for ECS in AR5 but there are a host of papers now showing the value is less than 2 C and many that are suggesting it is actually less than 1C. It is undisputed that without feedbacks (either positive or negative) a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would result in a 1 degree increase in global warming. All higher projections require a higher equilibrium climate sensitivity.

Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about. The circulation is not prescribed or parameterized in GCMs. It is resolved. That is on of the main reasons why we run those models. Deniers love to harp about cloud physics in GCMs and claim it is all BS. Deniers are the ones spouting off BS. Cloud parameterizations give valid leading order behaviour to inputs since they are based on physics and not nose-picking. The only serious skeptic out there, Richard Lindzen, proposed all sorts of theories how clouds could offset warming by acting like IR valves or via positive albedo feedbacks. All of his theories have flopped. I respect him for think outside the box and actually doing science. I cannot respect rabid obfuscators and liars who claim all sorts of things about AGW none of which are based on scientific research.


What a loud of complete and utter BS. There is continual work being published on the effects and interactions of clouds. Here is one:
Differences in EIS and EIS change between GCMs are found to be a good predictor of current-climate MLM cloud amount and future cloud change. CMIP3 GCMs predict a robust increase of 0.5–1 K in EIS over the next century, resulting in a 2.3%–4.5% increase in MLM cloudiness. If EIS increases are real, subtropical stratocumulus may damp global warming in a way not captured by the GCMs studied.

Caldwell, P.M., et al., 2013. CMIP3 Subtropical stratocumulus cloud feedback interepreted through a mixed-layer model. Journal of Climate, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00188.1
And another one:

Specifically, we analyse observations of co-located aerosols and clouds over the world’s oceans for the period August 2006–April 2011, comprising over 7.3 million CloudSat single-layer marine warm cloud pixels.We find that thermodynamic conditions—that is, tropospheric stability and humidity in the free troposphere—and the state of precipitation act together to govern the cloud liquid water responses to the presence of aerosols and the strength of aerosol–cloud radiative forcing.


Chen, Y. et al, 2014. Satellite-based estimate of global aerosol-cloud radiative forecing by marine warm clouds. Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/ngeo2214

The IPCC made this comment in AR5 (in the research section):

The quantification of cloud and convective effects in models, and of aerosol–cloud interactions, continues to be a challenge. Climate models are incorporating more of the relevant processes than at the time of AR4, but confidence in the representation of these processes remains weak. Cloud and aerosol properties vary at scales significantly smaller than those resolved in climate models, and cloud-scale processes respond to aerosol in nuanced ways at these scales. Until sub-grid scale parameterizations of clouds and aerosol– cloud interactions are able to address these issues, model estimates of aerosol–cloud interactions and their radiative effects will carry large uncertainties. Satellite-based estimates of aerosol–cloud interactions remain sensitive to the treatment of meteorological influences on clouds and assumptions on what constitutes pre-industrial conditions.


So you can blather on pretending to be a climate modeler but is quite clear that you actually don’t understand where the science currently sits with this at all.

Real Climate shoots down the lowball estimates of F very effectively by pointing out the serious limitations of the two papers that underestimated it. For humanity the short term F which may be several times larger than the long term F is likely to be of critical interest. Deniers would like everyone to wast their time with getting this fuzzy metric "super precise" as if it makes any difference. A typical denier disruption ploy.


Again you seem to be a bit out of date with studies on sensitivity. There are about 40 papers out there now that point to ECS less than the IPCC best estimate and at last count 20 that point to ECS at the very low end or lower than the IPCC range. If you want I can point to all of those papers. And you seem to ignore the response of the authors to Real Climate’s claims and also the authors subsequent publications confirming their original findings.

More of the broken "uncertainty" record mixed in with the tired lie about tuning. Runs between 1850 and 2005 have done a good job capturing the observed temperature change. 


Are you claiming that modelers do not adjust inputs in order to replicate the past temperature? If so you are completely full of BS. That is precisely what is done. As an example aerosol effects were "tweaked" in order to match the cooling in mid-twentieth century.

Here we see why the IPCC is a politically tainted waste of time. It actually repeated the denier lie about some "hiatus" in the warming.


The quote from AR5 is not from the political summary but rather from the research section which is compiled from the work of scientists publishing in that particular area. There are many publications in peer reviewed literature that investigate the “pause” or “hiatus”. It is accepted amongst climate scientists as valid and satellite temperature data confirms it. Your rant reminds me of conspiracy theorists.

One example from many:

Huber, M, and Knutti, R. 2014. Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response to the recent haitus reconciled. Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/ngeo2228

Global mean surface warming over the past 15 years or so has been less than in earlier decades and than simulated by most climate models1. Natural variability, a reduced radiative forcing, a smaller warming response to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and coverage bias in the observations have been identified as potential causes. However, the explanations of the so-called ‘warming hiatus’ remain fragmented and the implications for long-term temperature projections are unclear


so if there was no hiatus why did AR5 point to all the work which was being done to reconcile it and why are there papers being accepted through strenuous peer review up until quite recently that have the whole intent of explaining the hiatus?

But apparently you are the expert and all of those publications and researchers are wrong :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5496
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby sparky » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 13:18:03

.
Rocdoc , having an intelligent discussion with a alarm-warmist is a complete waste of times ,
they infect sites like this one , having no real purpose other than contamination with their bigotry
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 13:47:52

Nailed to the wall by dis, babyroc predictably responds with a gishgallop series of non-sequiturs, lies and distortions.

But amongst the dross, we actually do have an admission that he accepts the very basic science that CO2 is a GHG, and that increasing it will increase the temperature of the earth. Are we making progress??? :-D

But now he seems to be suggesting that there are no reinforcing feedbacks.

Hmmmm.

Now one must wonder whether he also accepts:

• The equally solid physical fact that water vapor is also a GHG

• The rather obvious fact that most of the surface of the earth is covered with water

• The equally obvious fact that warming up the earth will warm up the water, thereby increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (already it has increased by about 7%), which, since it is a GHG (see above, in case you have already forgotten :) ), means it will then further heat up the planet, causing more water vapor to rise from the vast watery surfaces of the planet...and BINGO, you have a powerful reinforcing feedback...

Hmmmm, maybe I went too fast for him on that last bullet point and lost him. Perhaps these dots are not yet blindingly obvious for him to connect? Or perhaps, as the old saying goes, it will be difficult to wake someone up who is only pretending to be sleeping. Or as Upton Sinclair put it: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” :) :)
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16745
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 22 Oct 2016, 16:03:52

Nailed to the wall by dis, babyroc predictably responds with a gishgallop series of non-sequiturs, lies and distortions.

Since you didn’t understand anything of what either of us posted I am not even sure why you would make a comment but it explains why you would see gishgallop instead of cogent argument.

ut amongst the dross, we actually do have an admission that he accepts the very basic science that CO2 is a GHG, and that increasing it will increase the temperature of the earth. Are we making progress???  

But now he seems to be suggesting that there are no reinforcing feedbacks.

Hmmmm


Well clearly you’ve never read anything I’ve written on this subject before, or at least didn’t understand any of it. There is virtually no one out there who argues about the impact of AGW who disputes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I certainly never have. What is disputed is the level of importance it plays and that is via feedbacks. The fact that many recent papers point to lower ECS means the possibility those feedbacks cancel one another or are of lesser importance than assumed. Do I really need to start listing off the scores of recent papers that speak to this?

The equally obvious fact that warming up the earth will warm up the water, thereby increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (already it has increased by about 7%), which, since it is a GHG (see above, in case you have already forgotten  ), means it will then further heat up the planet, causing more water vapor to rise from the vast watery surfaces of the planet...and BINGO, you have a powerful reinforcing feedback...


OH quick….you need to call the IPCC and get them to include your amazing insight into their models. OOPps before you do you might want to read this

Garfinkel, C et al, 2013. Temperature trends in the tropical upper troposhoere and lower stratosphere: Connections with sea surface termperatures and implications for water vapor and ozone. Jour Geoph Res, 118 (17) DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50772

Since you seem challenged when it comes to reading actual research here is the Science Daily summary:

The satellite observations have shown that warming of the tropical Indian Ocean and tropical Western Pacific Ocean -- with resulting increased precipitation and water vapor there -- causes the opposite effect of cooling in the TTL region above the warming sea surface. Once the TTL cools, less water vapor is present in the TTL and also above in the stratosphere.
Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say.


But then again perhaps water vapor hasn’t been increasing:

Dessler, A. et al, 2014. Variations of stratospheric water vapor over the past three decades. Jour Geoph Res, 119, pp 12,588-12,598. DOI: 10.1002/2014JD021712

We examine variations in water vapor in air entering the stratosphere through the tropical tropopause layer (TTL) over the past three decades in satellite data and in a trajectory model. Most of the variance can be explained by three processes that affect the TTL: the quasi-biennial oscillation, the strength of the Brewer-Dobson circulation, and the temperature of the tropical troposphere. When these factors act in phase, significant variations in water entering the stratosphere are possible. We also find that volcanic eruptions, which inject aerosol into the TTL, affect the amount of water entering the stratosphere. While there is clear decadal variability in the data and models, we find little evidence for a long-term trend in water entering the stratosphere through the TTL over the past 3 decades.


Just another piece of unsettled science.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5496
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 05:09:32

Predictably...unfortunately...more utter BS.

Either this guy is utterly and completely clueless about what he is posting, or he intentionally trying to slip thing by that might seem to some to support his position, but that actually don't

Obviously, water vapor, as a ghg, will keep more warmth closer to the surface of the planet...ummm, like where we all live. Like a blanket, it will tend to hold in the heat.

But also like a blanket, since more of the heat is held in the troposphere (the part of the atmosphere closest to the surface, where things like terrestrial life happens), obviously the layer above that will get less of the heat, so it will cool. This, of course, is one of the best proofs that the source of increased heating is increased GHGs, not increased insolation, which would not give that effect.

I'm done playing chess with this pigeon, now. I'll leave it to others to take it from here if anyone has the stomach or inclination.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16745
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dissident » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 08:56:59

Stratospheric cooling is mostly due to the CO2 and other greenhouse gas increase. Above 10-16 km (i.e. the tropopause) the atmosphere is optically thin to IR so the "cooling to space" approximation is valid. Ozone acts as the heating source since it absorbs UV (shortwave radiation) and thermalizes it via collisions with other molecules and atoms, this thermal energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases and partly emitted as IR (longwave radiation). So shortwave heating is balanced by longwave cooling. There is some heating from the troposphere below but it does not dominate the thermal budget (since the atmosphere is optically think to IR at these altitudes and intercepts little of the upwelling IR from the troposphere).

You can see the distinct nature of radiative transfer in the stratosphere by the fact that the temperature maximum migrates from pole to pole during the annual cycle. In the troposphere the heating is dominated by the tropical Hadley circulation structure. There is a vast amount of latent heat release by deep convection in the ITCZ (inter-tropical convergence zone). So the heating and temperature distribution in the troposphere has a hill shape with a peak that oscillates about +/- 10 degrees meridionally from the equator (reflecting the ITCZ movement) and with slopes extending to the poles.

Due to the temperature structure in the troposphere there are westerly winds in the extratropics (with tropical weak easterlies) in both hemisphere during summer and winter (with variations in intensity during the seasonal cycle). In the stratosphere there is a strong easterly jet during summer time and a strong westerly jet during wintertime in either hemisphere. The added wrinkle in the stratosphere is that the polar night temperatures are very low so that the westerly jet is dominated by the temperature gradient around the polar night terminator. So the westerly wind maxima are in high latitudes. But there is also contribution from the temperature gradient in lower latitudes so it is not accurate to associate the westerlies solely with the polar night terminator.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: onlooker and 12 guests