|
On February 07 2012 01:52 shuurai wrote:
Certainly sounds a lot better than what's been sold in '99, if still overly ambitious. Any published predictions out there? Does your fluid dynamics model exhibit PDO/AMO? What about the solar model? Orbital variance?
Thanks for the effort, but there is one major problem with both instances: They've been written after the fact. I was asking for a model that made correct predictions in the past, as everyone can predict yesterday's future.
entering a discussion I cannot win ... ~
ad 1) every model I know of exhibits variants of PDO and AMO and has so since we started coupling GCMs. The solar model is always tuned to the best known reconstruction of the 21st century, including 11 year cycles. We even have different reconstruction for different wavelength bands, as the radiative model clearly is discrete in nature. Orbital variance is also included in the model, even though it is not relevant for the question at hand due to time scales: a collegaue of mine investigated the mid-holocene (6ky back) with the same model that we are using today, with the correct orbital settings for back then, the orbital changes in the 20 and 21s century are minor (but included).
ad 2) you did not read them detailed enough: the papers have been written after the fact to explain things to you (aka the public) that have been in the literature / community already (before the fact), they are based on model runs from previous intercomparison projects (before the fact). It was just unclear to the science community that variability has to be stressed so strongly, that became clear following the discussion of "global warming has stopped". I agree that some of this is faulty communication and it might be related to some elder scientist that underestimated the role of variability. I believe also that you either dont understand the concept of prediction / projection sufficiently or you are trying to cherry-pick: models have shown significant decadal variability for decades (essentially since coupling them to the oceans and it has been improved since we do not rely on flux correction anzmore). It has not been communicated efficiently to the stakeholders (society) which those papers I have shown you attempt now, that a fluctuation in Earths climate leads to people stating, all models got it wrong (which is not true if you start downloading data from CMIP3, for example). The data is free, the plotting programs are so, too.
w
|
and to adress your other two questions:
2) There is ample evidence for historical periods of substantially more warmth in history (e.g. Medieval Warm Period, Holocene Optimum) , none of which have been caused by industrialization and none of which resulted in ecological disaster -- to the contrary, in fact. Knowing that vast changes have occurred quite naturally, and without disastrous results, what arguments are there to justify the current efforts to "fix" the climate?
different times, different forcings, different worlds.
a) the fact that in the past the climate reacted sensitiv to changes in forcings (orbit, volcanic) makes the case even better, that the ver strong , measurable change in forcing that humans cause will lead to a change in climate.
b) the rate of change is much faster than everything related to orbital changes, thus the biosphere has much less time to adapt.
c) the earth is overcrowded and polluted in the sense that we are killing biosphere resilience left and right. this _might_ lead to less resilience of the biosphere, that is something that we just will see.
3) Ice cores, providing us with the longest historical temperature records available, clearly indicate a larger cycle of about 100.000 years of which roughly 10.000 tend to be "interglacials", i.e. times in between ice ages (The underlying theory of which, "Milankovitch Cycles", now is being recognized by the likes of NASA et al btw...). What's more, the end of the current interglacial is just about overdue, making excessive future cooling a very likely -- and very hostile -- scenario, calling for its very own preparations in stark contrast to those for "global warming". If you discard this scenario, on what grounds?
nothing to answer here: the long term glacial / interglaical cycles are dominated by orbital forcing changes that are enforced by co concentration changes.
it is true that the end of the current cycle is due in the next 2000 to 5000 years. it is also true that the change into a glacial is so slow that the rate with which we heat the earth is 2 orders higher.
so, nobody discards any scenario, it is just not happening anytime soon. since about 100 and for the next hundreds of year, the major forcing agent (bar a major volcano or a methane reaction) will be co2.
w
|
On February 07 2012 02:06 shuurai wrote:TheFrankOne, a cursory glance at wikipedia alone shows plenty of global references to the MWP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_PeriodOn the topic of disaster, do you seriously expect human society to be capable of opposing the forces of nature responsible for i.e. the Holocene Optimum or ice ages? Would the IPCC have saved the Megafauna? Methinks this is quite a lot of hubris, really.
From the wikipedia page on the MWP:
"The IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 summarised research at that time, saying "... current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".
"Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early and mid-20th century.[17] Crowley and Lowery (2000)[18] note that "there is insufficient documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere."
So... yeah, it was not a global temperature event, it is widely recognized as a regional climactic event. If you had read a little more of the article on Wikipedia, that might have managed to get past your confirmation bias.
Also, I never said that we could stop the ice age, or the IPCC would have saved the megafauna because those statements are ridiculous, I said that the previous climate changes you referenced had significant ecological impacts, something you denied, don't start moving those goalposts now.
On February 06 2012 23:41 shuurai wrote:
2) There is ample evidence for historical periods of substantially more warmth in history (e.g. Medieval Warm Period, Holocene Optimum) , none of which have been caused by industrialization and none of which resulted in ecological disaster -- to the contrary, in fact. Knowing that vast changes have occurred quite naturally, and without disastrous results, what arguments are there to justify the current efforts to "fix" the climate?
Emphasis mine.
|
On February 07 2012 01:52 shuurai wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 00:48 dabbeljuh wrote:
I am unclear where I managed to deserve your aggressive tone.
I think you've mistaken skeptical for aggressive. I know that in a heated debate a civil tone is often lost and I admire the ability to defend your point, but treating everybody who disagrees with you in the slightest as an enemy to be attacked is not the right tone for it. I think the original point of the thread was more as an information-seeking dialogue than as a persuasion dialogue, although it has slowly become the latter. However, persuasion also requires one to at least be open to new ideas and attack the ideas, not the messenger.
Other than that, dabbeljuh clearly knows far more about the topic than I do. All I can post are blogs showing that the original projection of the IPCC of 1990 were not all that wrong. I believe the problem with the graphs skeptics like to post is one mainly of statistics. Specifically they like to show the 3 different IPCC predictions as lines and imply they are lower and upper bounds of a significance range. However, that is far from true. The 3 different IPCC predictions were 3 different predictions and the significance range is left out entirely in the predictions.
Anyway, here's someone who explains it in more detail:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
|
hi acrofales,
I agree, I should not have been picky about the tone.
What I meant to say: the place to lead scientific discussion is not here, its in scientific journals and in conferences.
On an internet forum, all we can do is repeat and explain, put up questions and answer them in a civil way, something I tried to achieve.
I have tried to show throughout the thread, that there are questions that are ongoing and that people work hard to answer them. I have also at points said, that those questions are not answered yet. I just felt that shuurai has spammed this thread over the past few pages with agressive - to me - sounding posts that did not put up questions (I answered the posts that did) and that ridiculed other people who did not share his opinion. I dont agree with that type of discussion.
Everybody has the right on an opinion on policy options wrt climate change. Everybody has the right to go into science and challenge the climate change science. Everybody has not, however, the right on mixing - current-state of-the-art -facts and opinions that underly this policy options. 
Best
w
|
Well, I feel a lot smarter now ! thanks :D
|
On February 07 2012 02:36 dabbeljuh wrote:hi acrofales, I agree, I should not have been picky about the tone. What I meant to say: the place to lead scientific discussion is not here, its in scientific journals and in conferences. On an internet forum, all we can do is repeat and explain, put up questions and answer them in a civil way, something I tried to achieve. I have tried to show throughout the thread, that there are questions that are ongoing and that people work hard to answer them. I have also at points said, that those questions are not answered yet. I just felt that shuurai has spammed this thread over the past few pages with agressive - to me - sounding posts that did not put up questions (I answered the posts that did) and that ridiculed other people who did not share his opinion. I dont agree with that type of discussion. Everybody has the right on an opinion on policy options wrt climate change. Everybody has the right to go into science and challenge the climate change science. Everybody has not, however, the right on mixing - current-state of-the-art -facts and opinions that underly this policy options. Best w
Lol, the quotes went fubar there. My response was to shuurai, not you. You have been far more civil than I could be in this thread.
|
TheFrankOne,
the IPCC even went so far as to erase the MWP from the infamous "hockey stick" graph to emphasize their point. They claimed Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, without any basis in fact. They claimed that the planet would experience warming even if CO2 emissions were halted entirely. In short, they are undeserving of the aura of scientific rigor that you're granting them.
By "ecological disaster", I was speaking of rendering the planet uninhabitable -- you know, the scenario we're being presented with vis-a-vis global warming. Get in line...or die!
dabbeljuh,
considering you seem very confident in your inarguably intricate model, I don't think it''s too much to ask for a few predictions, maybe for 2, 5 and 10 years from now. What will the climate look like then, according to you?
On February 07 2012 02:25 dabbeljuh wrote:
and to adress your other two questions:
Thanks for that.
Show nested quote +2) There is ample evidence for historical periods of substantially more warmth in history (e.g. Medieval Warm Period, Holocene Optimum) , none of which have been caused by industrialization and none of which resulted in ecological disaster -- to the contrary, in fact. Knowing that vast changes have occurred quite naturally, and without disastrous results, what arguments are there to justify the current efforts to "fix" the climate? different times, different forcings, different worlds. a) the fact that in the past the climate reacted sensitiv to changes in forcings (orbit, volcanic) makes the case even better, that the ver strong , measurable change in forcing that humans cause will lead to a change in climate. b) the rate of change is much faster than everything related to orbital changes, thus the biosphere has much less time to adapt. c) the earth is overcrowded and polluted in the sense that we are killing biosphere resilience left and right. this _might_ lead to less resilience of the biosphere, that is something that we just will see.
a) surmises that one (you...) were able to specifically explain the development of the known historical climate record, pinpointing the respective forcing in play. Is that so?
b) the rate of change however is not at all unprecedented, considering ice core data.
c) I'm all for preserving nature -- I just think that the current course of action is severely misguided and funneling energy into the wrong avenues.
Show nested quote +3) Ice cores, providing us with the longest historical temperature records available, clearly indicate a larger cycle of about 100.000 years of which roughly 10.000 tend to be "interglacials", i.e. times in between ice ages (The underlying theory of which, "Milankovitch Cycles", now is being recognized by the likes of NASA et al btw...). What's more, the end of the current interglacial is just about overdue, making excessive future cooling a very likely -- and very hostile -- scenario, calling for its very own preparations in stark contrast to those for "global warming". If you discard this scenario, on what grounds? nothing to answer here: the long term glacial / interglaical cycles are dominated by orbital forcing changes that are enforced by co concentration changes. it is true that the end of the current cycle is due in the next 2000 to 5000 years. it is also true that the change into a glacial is so slow that the rate with which we heat the earth is 2 orders higher. so, nobody discards any scenario, it is just not happening anytime soon. since about 100 and for the next hundreds of year, the major forcing agent (bar a major volcano or a methane reaction) will be co2.
From what I've learned, the end of the current cycle is due right about...now, but whatever. Time will tell. Same goes for every other disputed question in this thread, I guess...
|
On February 07 2012 03:19 shuurai wrote:
By "ecological disaster", I was speaking of rendering the planet uninhabitable -- you know, the scenario we're being presented with vis-a-vis global warming. Get in line...or die!
Do you have a source for that? Meaning a source of global warming alarmist (or whatever you call them) claiming something like that.
|
|
|
If by not quite as severe you mean not anything like it, yes. Otherwise try again or retract at least this statement.
|
|
|
I'm seriously curious and not asking this to "win" anything, but is this what you perceive as the mainstream view propagated by the media (and/or alarmist)?
[EDIT]: Sorry for derailment, should perhaps take it to personal messages. In a sense the whole discussion is very fascinating for me on both a science related level (thanks dabbeljuh, awesome job) and in the involved psychology.
|
Let me ask you a question in return:
Don't you feel that when it comes to global warming climate change, there always are undertones of urgency -- like we're working against the clock? Like our window of opportunity to effect a change will soon be coming to a close? That future generations depend on us making the right choice now?
Feast your eyes on these juicy quotes (I'm sorry, the layout is horrible...): http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
|
On February 07 2012 04:04 shuurai wrote:
Let me ask you a question in return:
Don't you feel that when it comes to global warming climate change, there always are undertones of urgency -- like we're working against the clock? Like our window of opportunity to effect a change will soon be coming to a close? That future generations depend on us making the right choice now?
None of our personal opinions on the issue matter, but that's precisely the view every notable scientific organization has without fail.
Yeah they could all be wrong, but there isn't really any reason to think that with the lack of compelling evidence to the contrary.
|
|
|
That's precisely the point. We're not qualified to distinguish the compelling evidence from the bogus evidence on anything more than a superficial level. No one here less the OP is, and most bloggers and journalists are not either.
Edit: I don't know if you've ever gone through graduate school, but reflect on the difference in expertise between yourself and an undergrad - let alone a layman - in a particular subject, and just how suited they are to assess data in your field. If you haven't, in my experience the gap is absolutely enormous.
Edit again, in response to the above: Yes, they're probably mostly scientists. That does not make them climate scientists, which is the relevant expertise...
|
We certainly are led to believe that we should leave the thinking to the 'experts', for sale to the highest bidder. Mr. Kant and I disagree, though.
"An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing."
I've gone through grad school, yes. But in keeping with another fine gentleman, Mr. Twain, I never let my schooling interfere with my education. Apart from that, on the internet, everyone can be anything. I could be an highly specialized expert for global warming climate change, for example. Wait a minute -- I actually am!
Edit: "Climate science" as such is a new field. Most of those 'practising' it right now have no degree in it and are anything from geologist to physicist to botanist. James Hansen: BA of Arts, MS in astronomy; Michael Mann: PhD Meteorology; Al Gore: Invented the Internet.
|
Interesting quotes though they lack context and are subject to interpretation. several of them are uncontroversial and seem only to be filler to make it seem like there is a lot of 'alarming statemets', like for example: “There are probably already too many people on the planet”.
Also some are obviously deliberetly taken out of context like: "There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated...It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society".
Without the context it's impossible to respond to it, though most of them appear to be statements made by PR people or executives/politicans when commenting on some event or policy, like the Kyoto Protocol. I did find a few handful of quotes that I found legitimately concerning like for example: Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos."
Though lacking context that is a worrying quote, since he is a person who should be really responsible and make sure to be educated about what he is speaking about, but lacking context it's hard to tell. Is there anything I'm missing or is there a list of citations for those quotes? I'm sure as hell not going to google each one to try and find a source.
|
A degree is generally a necessary condition for expertise, but not sufficient. An expert in climate science is a person who regularly publishes on climate science in addition to a PhD in a relevant field.
This discussion, though, is clearly not worth the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
