Global climate prediction system models tested

Sep 18, 2012 by Daniel Stolte
These maps show the observed (left) and model-predicted (right) air temperature trend from 1970 to 1999. The climate model developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) is used here as an example. More than 50 such simulations were analyzed in the published study. Credit: Koichi Sakaguchi

(Phys.org)—A new study has found that climate-prediction models are good at predicting long-term climate patterns on a global scale but lose their edge when applied to time frames shorter than three decades and on sub-continental scales.

Climate-prediction models show skills in forecasting over time spans of greater than 30 years and at the geographical scale of continents, but they deteriorate when applied to shorter time frames and smaller geographical regions, a new study has found.  

Published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, the study is one of the first to systematically address a longstanding, to systematically address a longstanding, fundamental question asked not only by climate scientists and weather forecasters, but the public as well: How good are Earth system models at predicting the surface air temperature trend at different geographical and time scales?  

Xubin Zeng, a professor in the University of Arizona department of atmospheric sciences who leads a research group evaluating and developing climate models, said the goal of the study was to bridge the communities of climate scientists and , who sometimes disagree with respect to climate change.  

According to Zeng, who directs the UA and Hydrometeorology Center, the weather forecasting community has demonstrated skill and progress in predicting the weather up to about two weeks into the future, whereas the track record has remained less clear in the community tasked with identifying long-term trends for the

"Without such a track record, how can the community trust the climate projections we make for the future?" said Zeng, who serves on the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the National Academies and the Executive Committee of the American Meteorological Society. "Our results show that actually both sides' arguments are valid to a certain degree." 

" are correct because we do show that on the continental scale, and for time scales of three decades or more, climate models indeed show predictive skills. But when it comes to predicting the climate for a certain area over the next 10 or 20 years, our models can't do it." 

To test how accurately various computer-based climate prediction models can turn data into predictions, Zeng's group used the "hindcast" approach.  

"Ideally, you would use the models to make predictions now, and then come back in say, 40 years and see how the predictions compare to the actual climate at that time," said Zeng. "But obviously we can't wait that long. Policymakers need information to make decisions now, which in turn will affect the climate 40 years from now." 

Zeng's group evaluated seven computer simulation models used to compile the reports that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, issues every six years. The researchers fed them historical climate records and compared their results to the actual climate change observed between then and now.  

"We wanted to know at what scales are the climate models the IPCC uses reliable," said Koichi Sakaguchi, a doctoral student in Zeng's group who led the study. "These models considered the interactions between the Earth's surface and atmosphere in both hemispheres, across all continents and oceans and how they are coupled."  

Atmospheric sciences professor Xubin Zeng and graduate students Koichi Sakaguchi (left) and Michael Brunke (right) take advantage of high-performance computers to develop, evaluate and improve Earth system models to help predict trends in global climate. Credit: Daniel Stolte/UANews

Zeng said the study should help the community establish a track record whose accuracy in predicting future climate trends can be assessed as more comprehensive climate data become available. 

"Our goal was to provide climate modeling centers across the world with a baseline they can use every year as they go forward," Zeng added. "It is important to keep in mind that we talk about climate hindcast starting from 1880. Today, we have much more observational data. If you start your prediction from today for the next 30 years, you might have a higher prediction skill, even though that hasn't been proven yet." 

The skill of a climate depends on three criteria at a minimum, Zeng explained. The model has to use reliable data, its prediction must be better than a prediction based on chance, and its prediction must be closer to reality than a prediction that only considers the internal climate variability of the Earth system and ignores processes such as variations in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and land-use change, for example urbanization and deforestation.  

"If a model doesn't meet those three criteria, it can still predict something but it cannot claim to have skill," Zeng said.  

According to Zeng, global temperatures have increased in the past century by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit or 0.8 degrees Celsius on average. Barring any efforts to curb global warming from greenhouse gas emissions, the temperatures could further increase by about 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 degrees Celsius) or more by the end of the 21st century based on these climate models.  

"The scientific community is pushing policymakers to avoid the increase of temperatures by more than 2 degrees Celsius because we feel that once this threshold is crossed, global warming could be damaging to many regions," he said.    

Zeng said that climate models represent the current understanding of the factors influencing climate, and then translate those factors into computer code and integrate their interactions into the future. 

"The models include most of the things we know," he explained, "such as wind, solar radiation, turbulence mixing in the atmosphere, clouds, precipitation and aerosols, which are tiny particles suspended in the air, surface moisture and ocean currents." 

Zeng described how the group did the analysis: "With any given model, we evaluated climate predictions from 1900 into the future – 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years. Then we did the same starting in 1901, then 1902 and so forth, and applied statistics to the results." 

Climate models divide the Earth into grid boxes whose size determines its spatial resolution. According to Zeng, state of the art is about one degree, equaling about 60 miles (100 kilometers).  

"There has to be a simplification because if you look outside the window, you realize you don't typically have a cloud cover that measures 60 miles by 60 miles. The models cannot reflect that kind of resolution. That's why we have all those uncertainties in climate prediction." 

"Our analysis confirmed what we expected from last IPCC report in 2007," said Sakaguchi. "Those are believed to be of good skill on large scales, for example predicting temperature trends over several decades, and we confirmed that by showing that the models work well for time spans longer than 30 years and across geographical scales spanning 30 degrees or more." 

The scientists pointed out that although the IPCC issues a new report every six years, they didn't see much change with regard to the prediction skill of the different models. 

"The IPCC process is driven by international agreements and politics," Zeng said. "But in science, we are not expected to make major progress in just six years. We have made a lot of progress in understanding certain processes, for example airborne dust and other small particles emitted from surface, either through human activity or through natural sources into the air. But and the Earth system still are extremely complex. Better understanding doesn't necessarily translate into better skill in a short time." 

"Once you go into details, you realize that for some decades, models are doing a much better job than for some other decades. That is because our models are only as good as our understanding of the natural processes, and there is a lot we don't understand." 

Michael Brunke, a graduate student in Zeng's group who focused on ocean-atmosphere interactions, co-authored the study, which is titled "The Hindcast Skill of the CMIP Ensembles for the Surface Air Temperature Trend." 

Explore further: Jeju Island is a live volcano, study reveals

More information: doi:10.1029/2012JD017765

Related Stories

Models look good when predicting climate change

Apr 02, 2008

The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject of debate among politicians, environmentalists and even scientists. A new study by meteorologists at the University ...

55 million years of climate change

Jun 27, 2011

State-of-the-art climate models, as used in the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, could be giving a false sense of security in terms of upcoming abrupt change, suggests a Commentary ...

The insides of clouds may be the key to climate change

Feb 17, 2007

As climate change scientists develop ever more sophisticated climate models to project an expected path of temperature change, it is becoming increasingly important to include the effects of aerosols on clouds, according ...

Recommended for you

Jeju Island is a live volcano, study reveals

5 hours ago

In Jeju, a place emerging as a world-famous vacation spot with natural tourism resources, a recent study revealed a volcanic eruption occurred on the island. The Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral ...

Has Antarctic sea ice expansion been overestimated?

6 hours ago

New research suggests that Antarctic sea ice may not be expanding as fast as previously thought. A team of scientists say much of the increase measured for Southern Hemisphere sea ice could be due to a processing ...

User comments : 123

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (25) Sep 18, 2012
One word sums-up all the weather and climate change predictions to date: FAIL

But it's okay to keep trying, just don't base expensive policy on data that ain't accurate.

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining"...from the movie "The Outlaw Josey Wales".
runrig
3.7 / 5 (15) Sep 18, 2012
One word sums-up all the weather and climate change predictions to date: FAIL

But it's okay to keep trying, just don't base expensive policy on data that ain't accurate.

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining"...from the movie "The Outlaw Josey Wales".


Climate models are as accurate as the science allows, and are continually being improved. That is all that can be done.
Are you saying we should ignore what they are saying then? There are arguments on how the money should be spent but this a problem that will take the world many decades to put right, and the sooner we start the better, because the consequences are to great to do otherwise.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (18) Sep 18, 2012
"Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather."

-Wikipedia article on Chaos Theory.

Trying to model a chaotic system is doomed to failure.
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2012
One word sums-up all the weather and climate change predictions to date: FAIL

But it's okay to keep trying, just don't base expensive policy on data that ain't accurate.

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining"...from the movie "The Outlaw Josey Wales".


Climate models are as accurate as the science allows, and are continually being improved. That is all that can be done.
Are you saying we should ignore what they are saying then? There are arguments on how the money should be spent but this a problem that will take the world many decades to put right, and the sooner we start the better, because the consequences are to great to do otherwise.


Shoot first, ask questions later!
rubberman
3.2 / 5 (18) Sep 18, 2012
"Trying to model a chaotic system is doomed to failure."

As the article states, that depends on how accurate you want your prediction to be and how accurate your information you are basing your model on is. Given what is at stake, they are better than nothing.
wwqq
3.2 / 5 (15) Sep 18, 2012
"Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather."


Climate is not wheather and is not chaotic.
lewando
1 / 5 (5) Sep 18, 2012
To quote Flounder: "This is gonna be GREAT!"
Meyer
3 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2012
"Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather."


Climate is not wheather and is not chaotic.

Some people seem to think the climate system is chaotic.

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."

http://www.ipcc.c.../501.htm
jonnyboy
1.9 / 5 (17) Sep 18, 2012

"Climate-prediction models show skills in forecasting climate trends over time spans of greater than 30 years and at the geographical scale of continents, but they deteriorate when applied to shorter time frames and smaller geographical regions, a new study has found."

they build the model to match long term changes....they are therefore meaningless at predicting long term changes. If they don't match short term changes.... that would make them totally meaningless.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2012
"Trying to model a chaotic system is doomed to failure."

As the article states, that depends on how accurate you want your prediction to be and how accurate your information you are basing your model on is. Given what is at stake, they are better than nothing.


"An early pioneer of the theory (chaos) was Edward Lorenz whose interest in chaos came about accidentally through his work on weather prediction in 1961 ... To his surprise the weather that the machine began to predict was completely different from the weather calculated before... Lorenz's discovery, which gave its name to Lorenz attractors, showed that even detailed atmospheric modelling cannot in general make long-term weather predictions. Weather is usually predictable only about a week ahead." -Wikipedia article on chaos theory.

Explain how you can increase the accuracy of predictions of chaotic systems, which are inherently unpredictable by definition.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (12) Sep 19, 2012
Claudius: You said: "Explain how you can increase the accuracy of predictions of chaotic systems, which are inherently unpredictable by definition." with respect to Lorentz and his work on weather. I hope you understand that the solar system is also a chaotic system with limits on the prediction of stability of just a small fraction of the life of the solar system. That does not keep us from making predictions a long way out on trajectories of the planets and asteroids. Lorentz was looking at weather, not climate. They are different systems. If you look at the work on chaotic systems you will know that they have trajectories and attractors. What that means is that different approaches to solving the system will give differeing solutions over time. It is the trajectory in phase space that determines how fast the inherent equations diverge with the steps taken. (continued)
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (15) Sep 19, 2012
Continued: Those who throw up their hands and say: "this is a chaotic system and can't be modeled" have never tried to model a chaotic system. There are a number of ways to improve the predictions including smaller steps, better numerical accuracy, and chort studies of thousands of preterbed trajectories. All of those things are being done and are faster and more consistent every year. You are bordering on being a Ludite if you just disparage the models and assume they are inherently incapable of giving results. I have similar problems with combustion codes and have some that run for months on a large array. That does not mean they are not helpful in identifying factors that change the combustion system. A burner is also chaotic and I have to produce an array of results at varying boundary conditions to put an envelope on the results. The same is done for climate models. Please tell us how you would approach the problem?
thermodynamics
4.8 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2012
Continued: I just noticed I mispelled Lorenz. I am sure that disqualifies my comments.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2012
Continued: I just noticed I mispelled Lorenz. I am sure that disqualifies my comments. :-)
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2012
What fools never seem capable of comprehending is that the discovery of Chaos is significant for two reasons.

First: It is because such systems have a state that is critically sensitive to initial parameters and hence increasingly divergent from computational predictions as simulation time progresses.

Second: It is because such systems do have fundamental characteristics (the systems attractor set) that are fundamental to the system as a whole.

The attractor set is a set of one or more points around which a chaotic system orbits, and generally orbits in a stable manner.

However, external perturbations to a system invariably cause the orbit of a system state to change, in some instances coming closer to it's attractor in some instances farther away.

Orbits are not circular, and can take on many shapes.

Should the system state get close to another attractor (should one exist), it's orbit will be perturbed by that attractor as well, and if a state is sufficiently altered it may CONT
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2012
make a sudden jump from one attractor to another. Or it may meander between a set of attractors and eventually find itself orbiting stabily around different attractor that is a large distance away in state space.

The first key ideas to take away from this are that stable chaotic systems have a bulk property that is predictable, and that property is it's attractor set.

The second key idea is that chaotic systems often have attractor sets that are spaced such that small purturbations in the state of the system can cause large dislocations in the orbit of the system state as the orbit critically jumps from one attractor to another.

In the case of the Earth's climate, such a attractor transition has become to be known as a "tipping point".

Due to past climate change, scientists know that the currently dominant attractor around with the current climate state evolves, is stable to around 2'C.

Somewhere past that temperature it is anticipated that the climate system has an CONT
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2012
increasingly high probability of making a critical jump to some distant attractor. And at that point the earth's climate system wil become radically different than it is today.

Most probably the climate state system will appear to randomly jump between orbiting current attractor A and new attractor B, and as a result the climate will become highly variable until B gains dominance.

If the attractors are spaced critically enough, then the climate system may jump from A to B to C to D, etc, and randomly transition between multiple attractors. Several decades of ice age weather may suddenly follow after a decade of exceptional warm temperatures. Stability will be lost for centuries, and food production levels will not be able to be sustained at current levels.

VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2012
Chaos is not so significant because it tells us that some problems can not be practically solved, but significant because it gives scientists with the tools to statistically quantify, and characterize those systems.

In short, Chaotic systems are important because while the evolution of their state (weather) can not be predicted over long periods, their attractor (climate) can be.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2012
See above.

The state of the system (weather) is chaotic and unpredictable.

The attractor of the system (loosely, climate) around which the state (weather) orbits, is predictable and well defined."

"Explain how you can increase the accuracy of predictions of chaotic systems, which are inherently unpredictable by definition." - Claudius
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2012
False. They build models based on the laws of physics.

"they build the model to match long term changes" - JohnnyTard

They input a starting condition and the models evolve their internal state, emulating the climate system.

You clearly know NOTHING about how climate models are produced or the results they generate.

NOTHING.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2012
Climate is not weather is correct.

"Climate is not wheather and is not chaotic." - wwg

We don't know if climate itself is chaotic. It is possible that Climate attractor set evolves in a chaotic manner.

Given the time period for answering such a question is on the order of hundreds of millions of years, and given the changes in the earth system which occur over such time scales, the question will most probably never be answered.

It has Zero implication to Anthropogenic climate change anyhow.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2012
Wrong again.

"Trying to model a chaotic system is doomed to failure." - Claudius

The solar system is a chaotic system. It isn't even possible to determine if the system is stable. It is possible that one or more of the smaller planets may be ejected from the solar system given enough time.

Yet modelers have accurately computed the positions of the planets forward in time to at least 5 billion years.

They know that their solutions are correct because they can start the solar system model with slightly different parameters and find that the evolved solutions are only slightly different indicating that the detail in the model equals or exceeds the detail needed to overcome the chaos.

Your comprehension of the nature of chaos theory is childishly naive.
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2012
One word sums-up Shooter's faculties in reading comprehension.

"Illiterate".

"One word sums-up all the weather and climate change predictions to date: FAIL" - Shooter
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 19, 2012
Thank you Vendi and TD. Accurate and useful information.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2012
More bad news for ParkerTard and the other Global Warming Denialists.

Today, after increasing for the last 3 days, Arctic Ice area has tied the all time low set last week.

This comes 3 weeks after ParkerTard declared that arctic sea ice had reached it's minimum and had already began it's increase, and that this had resulted in one of the shortest melt seasons on record.

In fact, today's tied minimum puts the minimum of the melt season approximately 3 days past the average end of the melt season.

Arctic waters are still quite warm and it is most probable that a new minimum ice extent will be seen tomorrow.

Already the current minimum is the lowest ice area ever recorded in human history.
jakack
2.6 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2012
For the sake of argument, assume AGW is a real threat to the livelihood of mankind, I would have to say its better to be safe than sorry ONLY if the costs to do so do not create another real threat to the livelihood of mankind. If fixing AGW was significantly cheap, easy, and had minimal effect on our livelihood, I'd say lets go out and nip this AGW thing in the butt. But it's none of these. If taken to the extreme, "fixing" AGW will be 10x the threat to mankind than AGW itself, then to top it off we'd lose the resources to actually "fix" AGW.

There is more than the science that skeptics are skeptical about, we are skeptic about the role of government, skeptic about the efficiency of government to fix the problem, skeptic about the efficiency of alternative energy sources, skeptic about the ability to even make a difference, skeptic about what the real threat will be when the economy is supporting a "bubble" of an inefficient industry surrounding "fixing" AGW.
jakack
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2012
This doesn't mean that skeptics aren't interested in investing in R&D into renewable sources and more efficient ways of doing things. But this risk should be taken on by the individual, not by government. Government will end up taking inefficient risks because it isn't their money.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (12) Sep 19, 2012
Jakack - First of all I am beyond skeptical of the human race doing anything because of AGW. Because of dwindling fossil fuel resources, yes. Because of less than adequate food and water supplies, yes. And it is precisely because of the "kill the world to save the economy" attitude that nothing meaningful will be done. Economics and the environment will be forever at odds with each other. Admitting that AGW is real simply means that you understand the science, denying it simply means you don't care or don't want to hear about the science. Either way, globally we are decades away from a year where we as a race put less CO2 into the atmosphere than we did the year before....the models cannot account for the ever increasing level of human stupidity.
ScooterG
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 19, 2012
For the sake of argument, assume AGW is a real threat to the livelihood of mankind, I would have to say its better to be safe than sorry ONLY if the costs to do so do not create another real threat to the livelihood of mankind. If fixing AGW was significantly cheap, easy, and had minimal effect on our livelihood, I'd say lets go out and nip this AGW thing in the butt. But it's none of these. If taken to the extreme, "fixing" AGW will be 10x the threat to mankind than AGW itself, then to top it off we'd lose the resources to actually "fix" AGW.

There is more than the science that skeptics are skeptical about, we are skeptic about the role of government, skeptic about the efficiency of government to fix the problem, skeptic about the efficiency of alternative energy sources, skeptic about the ability to even make a difference, skeptic about what the real threat will be when the economy is supporting a "bubble" of an inefficient industry surrounding "fixing" AGW.


Well stated.
ScooterG
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 19, 2012
I'm curious to know how many AWG proponents drive a Chevy Volt, as opposed to a heavier footprinted ICE-powered vehicle? That would make an interesting study.

No doubt they can talk the talk, but do they walk the walk?
jakack
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2012
Rubberman-
denying it simply means you don't care or don't want to hear about the science.


Is this the truth, or just what you want to believe? Or is this part of your strawman mentality of labeling others who differ from you so you can somehow morally justify invalidating them as a person?

It may be true that you are the wise, all knowing, speaker of truth around AGW. But are you all that wise and wonderful to know what other people care about and know themselves?

If you truly care and believe in AGW, labeling others as stupid, ignorant, and careless are certainly going to get you nowhere. If you care and believe it so deeply, start or join a foundation. Put your own money where your mouth is. Give to your own religion of saving the planet from the stupid human race.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2012
My transportation has 2 wheels, and gets 70 Mpg city, 54 freeway.

I consume around 7Kwh of electricity per day, and in winter 3**m per day for heating (if my memory is correct).

That is the extent of my personal energy consumption.

"I'm curious to know how many AWG proponents drive a Chevy Volt, as opposed to a heavier footprinted ICE-powered vehicle?" - ScooterG
jakack
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 19, 2012
My transportation has 2 wheels, and gets 70 Mpg city, 54 freeway. I consume around 7Kwh of electricity per day, and in winter 3**m per day for heating (if my memory is correct).

That is the extent of my personal energy consumption.


And I'm sure you'd be the first to force everyone else to do the same...to be just like you...because you are also the all wise, all knowing, and the model for all humanity.
ScooterG
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2012
Admitting that AGW is real simply means that you understand the science, denying it simply means you don't care or don't want to hear about the science.


Even though your statement was not directed at me, it is an interesting observation. Oddly enough, I don't give a rip about the science or the studies or the numbers associated with AGW and here is why: We have been lied to and cajoled and threatened and ridiculed to the point that none of the AGW data presented is believable.

The AGW crowd has a credibility problem. The more we are force-fed the AGW diet, the more resistive and skeptical we become. Some people are in tune to science, some are in tune to "follow the money". I am in that latter group.
ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2012
And (as was pointed out to me on a different post) I mistakenly typed AWG when I meant AGW.

AWG means Anthropogenic Warming Gihad, a different critter entirely.

Bwahahahahaha! I crack myself up sometimes
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 19, 2012
"Is this the truth, or just what you want to believe?"

Both.

"If you truly care and believe in AGW, labeling others as stupid, ignorant, and careless are certainly going to get you nowhere."

As opposed to the utopian destination all of us debating whether AGW is real or not are headed for?

"The AGW crowd has a credibility problem."

If you truly believe there is an agenda to "fake the science". Go to a conspiracy theory site..you may meet a card carrying member of AWG.

"But are you all that wise and wonderful to know what other people care about and know themselves?"

That would depend on which people we are discussing. Are we talking an Oklahoma rancher, an Inuit hunter, snookie from Jersey shore or some kid pumping gas to put him or herself through school? We are all impacted differently, feel differently. But none of them are on a science website discussing economics in the string of article on climate modelling like they are scared about having to ride a bike.
jakack
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2012
That would depend on which people we are discussing. Are we talking an Oklahoma rancher, an Inuit hunter, snookie from Jersey shore or some kid pumping gas to put him or herself through school? We are all impacted differently, feel differently. But none of them are on a science website discussing economics in the string of article on climate modelling like they are scared about having to ride a bike.


I'm talking macro-economics, not of some individual feeling the pain in their pocket. If we go the route you seem to be suggesting such as an all out war on AGW with stiff regulations and high taxation, it would likely take all of humanity to a stone-age economy where technology and websites like this will cease to exist (or at least be of any importance). Good luck with writing about how you were so right about AGW on the wall of your cave!
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2012
jakack: You said: "I'm talking macro-economics, not of some individual feeling the pain in their pocket. If we go the route you seem to be suggesting such as an all out war on AGW with stiff regulations and high taxation, it would likely take all of humanity to a stone-age economy where technology and websites like this will cease to exist (or at least be of any importance). Good luck with writing about how you were so right about AGW on the wall of your cave!"
Are you ignoring that we already have taxes on gasoline to pay for our highways? What is so different about taxing other fuels to pay for the change in our atmosphere? Do you even have the ability to estimate the cost/benefit? My guess is that you don't have the technical ability to even come close and you are ready to yell conspiracy about those who might. What other conspiracies do you subscribe to?
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2012
I hope you understand that the solar system is also a chaotic system ... Lorentz was looking at weather, not climate.


Actually, Lorenz was trying to predict climate. At least, that's what he thought.

If climate could be predicted as reliably as the motion of the planets, I would not be quibbling. It is significant that attempts at "weather" or "climate" prediction was the event that spawned chaos theory. It is THE chaotic system, sot trying to compare it to whatever chaos is exhibited by planetary motion is a bit disingenuous.

I do not dispute that climate shows cyclic patterns, but it was not that long ago that the prediction was for an imminent ice age.

Then there is this: http://www.scienc...12001658 "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature"

thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2012
Claudius: You said: "I would not be quibbling. It is significant that attempts at "weather" or "climate" prediction was the event that spawned chaos theory. It is THE chaotic system, sot trying to compare it to whatever chaos is exhibited by planetary motion is a bit disingenuous. I do not dispute that climate shows cyclic patterns, but it was not that long ago that the prediction was for an imminent ice age."

Talk about disingenous, the idea that there were any other than some spurious papers (10% by estimate) on global cooling is not telling the truth. Check here to see that this is a specious argument:

http://en.wikiped..._cooling

You should also check back up on Lorenz and you will find he was forcasting weather. He identified attractors (as you were told before by VD). He is the one who first described the flipping from one attractor to another in chaotic systems. (continued)
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2012
For Claudius Continued: From Lorenz's paper 1969 Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol 26, page 636: "The problem of weather forcasting, may be identified with with the problem of discovering, by one means or another, a particular solution of these equations, whose initial conditions correspond to the present state of the atmosphere."

Of course Lorenz could be wrong about his own paper and he must have been talking about climate because that is what you think. I am sure you know more about it than he did. :-)
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2012
Wrong again Tard Boy....

No such predictions were ever made.

You have been inhaling way too many Conservative denialist farts and your brain has gone soft.

http://www.youtub...S0fnOr0M

Educate yourself.

"but it was not that long ago that the prediction was for an imminent ice age." - Claudius
VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2012
"you are also the all wise, all knowing, and the model for all humanity." - JacAck

Correct.

"And I'm sure you'd be the first to force everyone else to do the same...to be just like you.." - JacAck

http://www.youtub...amp;NR=1

http://www.youtub...=related

PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2012
@jakack,
...all out war on AGW with stiff regulations and high taxation, it would likely take all of humanity to a stone-age economy where technology and websites like this will cease to exist (or at least be of any importance). Good luck with writing about how you were so right about AGW on the wall of your cave!
Take a look at the DOE estimates for various energy source costs by 2017:

http://en.wikiped...stimates

It seems that AT WORST (compared to cheapest, natural gas fired generators), renewable sources are no more than 5x more expensive (but more typically, in the range of 2-3x more expensive.)

Please use your massively erudite grasp of macroeconomics to explain how, if costs of electricity rose by even a factor of 5 compared to what they are right now, we would suddenly find ourselves living in caves.

(Never even mind continual conservation and efficiency improvements at the consumption end of things...)
VendicarD
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2012
"I'm talking macro-economics" - jakack

Well, you should stop because you don't know much about the subject.

"If we go the route you seem to be suggesting such as an all out war on AGW with stiff regulations and high taxation, it would likely take all of humanity to a stone-age" - JakAck

Not according to the Stern report. In face not burning carbon fuels wasefully would actually provide more money for consumers to spend on other things, rather than spending it on what is in effect digging an economic and environmental hole for themselves.

You do not seem to realize that for the cost of the American War Crimes in Iraq, America could replace all of it's electric power generating stations with solar panels.

Did the Iraq war reduce America to the economics of the stone age?
jakack
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2012
Did the Iraq war reduce America to the economics of the stone age?


I believe so. It is one large factor out of many that diverts dollars towards ineffectual goals. If we, speaking of the US, were to cut most of the ineffectual programs of govt that are not only wasteful but detrimental to society, I would be a lot more open to spending money towards research towards renewable energy. I think it is in our interest to be a leader of technology and innovation, not a leader of giving out freebies and reacting towards every other nations conflict with massive spending.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2012
You should also check back up on Lorenz and you will find he was forcasting weather...Of course Lorenz could be wrong about his own paper and he must have been talking about climate because that is what you think. I am sure you know more about it than he did. :-)


1976 Nondeterministic theories of climate change. Quaternary Research. Vol.6 - Edward Norton Lorenz

as you were told before by VD

... and I should pay attention to Mr. "Tard Boy"?
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2012
Claudius: So, now you are changing the target again. You stated that Lorenz was trying to predict climate when he came up with the concept of chaos theory. Now you are citing an article from years after his paper on weather - not climate. Make up your mind. Did he develop the theory based on weather or climate? I showed he developed it based on weather and then you come back with a newer paper on climate. Typical to change the topic.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2012
I showed he developed it based on weather and then you come back with a newer paper on climate. Typical to change the topic.


"In 1963 he published a landmark investigation of the type of equations that might be used to predict daily weather."

"That did not necessarily apply to the climate system, which averaged over many states of weather. So Lorenz next constructed a simulacrum of climate...he could not find any valid way to statistically combine the different computer results to predict a future state. It was impossible to prove that a "climate" existed at all, in the traditional sense of a stable long-term average."

http://www.aip.or...haos.htm

PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2012
@Claudius,

Nice reference (AIP); glad to see you're trying to educate yourself on the issues. But don't stop at the paragraphs you cited; read further through to the bottom. If you did, you'd see things like this:
Most scientists agreed that climate has features of a chaotic system, but they did not think it was wholly unpredictable. ... As the computer work became more plausible, it set limits on the amount of variation that might be ascribed to pure chance. ... This set strict limits on how far the climate system could drive its own variations independent of outside forces. ... Just about any decent computer model, run repeatedly with just about any plausible initial conditions plus a rise of greenhouse gases, predicted a global warming.
There are limits to how much variability can be attributed to chaos, given fundamental issues of energy balance and conservation, magnitude of known energy inputs, and the hard facts of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

ctd.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2012
Those who focus unduly on the complexity and dynamism of climate sometimes miss the forest for the trees.

In such cases, I like to use the analogy to a kettle of water on a stove burner.

Without question, it is impossible to predict the exact motions of turbulent convection within the kettle as it gets heated. The reason for this impossibility is exactly the chaotic dynamical nature of that turbulence, and its extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. No two runs of the experiment will ever produce exact same patterns of turbulence, regardless of how well you control the initial conditions.

And yet, zooming out of this microscopic complexity and chaos, we can use very simple formulae to accurately calculate and predict the average temperature of water in that kettle at any given time. All we need to know, is the rate at which heat is being pumped into the system, the rate at which it is being lost from the system, and the heat capacity of water.

ctd.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2012
Analogously, the Earth is the kettle, the Sun is the stove burner, and the atmosphere coupled to oceans and the top few meters of Earth's surface, is the water. The turbulence in the kettle is the weather and the natural climate fluctuations. The average temperature of water in the kettle is the average global atmospheric temperature.

Pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is equivalent to pushing a lid onto the kettle, thus preventing it from losing heat as quickly as it previously could. Provided the rate of energy influx is the same as before, the kettle will reach higher temperatures with a lid on, than with the lid off. The same thing with the atmosphere: add more greenhouse gases, preventing the atmosphere from shedding heat as rapidly as it could earlier, and provided the Sun continues to irradiate at the same rate, the atmosphere will warm up until it reaches a new thermal equilibrium at a higher temperature.

Those are the bare basics of AGW.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2012
Then there is this: http://www.scienc...12001658 "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature"
https://troyca.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/comment-on-the-phase-relation-between-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-and-global-temperature/

http://www.realcl...nfusion/

IOW, your link to the contrarian "peer-reviewed" paper looks a lot like a reference to yet another example of "tobacco science". Ahh, the sweet smell of astroturf in the morning...
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2012
Pink: Thanks for trying to explain to Claudius how system models can be used on chaotic systems. I go back to my simulations of combustion where I use stochastic methods to view cohort solutions and examine the statistics of the responses. As you pointed out, I can't predict a specific flame, but I can see how the cohort responds to various boundary conditions. I just don't think that Claudius has the brain power to understand the methods. Lump him in with NutPecker, Ubtuba and, now, ScooterG. The fringe contributors that escaped from the padded cells.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2012
Those are the bare basics of AGW.


A wonderful theory, but I don't believe it. Warming jihadistas too often are proven liars and frauds. Besides, this is far too simplistic to be believable.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2012
Those are the bare basics of AGW.


A wonderful theory, but I don't believe it. Warming jihadistas too often are proven liars and frauds. Besides, this is far too simplistic to be believable.


Once again (I have asked in another thread), can you please fill us in on the specific lies and frauds? Please share you conspiracy theories so we can point out that they have been investigated and found to be sound science and give you real references so you can ignore them. You must be a very frightened ignorant little person to be afraid of evey conspiracy you see on FOX news.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2012
Best cure for mental illness induced by FAUX News: The Daily Show with John Stewart on the Comedy Channel. Closely followed by the Colbert Report on that same channel. Both highly amusing, and highly recommended.
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2012
Best cure for mental illness induced by FAUX News: The Daily Show with John Stewart on the Comedy Channel. Closely followed by the Colbert Report on that same channel. Both highly amusing, and highly recommended.


Great suggestions PE but I think it might be too late for ScooterG, NP, Claudius, and Unatuba. I think they have permanant brain damage from FauxNews.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2012
Thanks for the interesting blather on climate and chaos theory.

In regards to PinkElephant's kettle analogy, here's what's happening inside the kettle:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2012
In regards to PinkElephant's kettle analogy, here's what's happening inside the kettle:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

Try and move that lower date up or down by 1 year, and report the results. Then admit that you don't have the first clue regarding statistics, trending, or data analysis in any form. Which, of course, doesn't prevent you from flouting your ignorance and incompetence all over this site.

Whether it's mere hubris, or a classic manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect, only you could judge...
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2012
And actually, if you want a close analogy to the kettle, take a look at the global oceanic heat content:

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

That's literal water, literally heating up. The analogy doesn't get much better than that!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2012
In regards to PinkElephant's kettle analogy, here's what's happening inside the kettle:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend


Try and move that lower date up or down by 1 year, and report the results. Then admit that you don't have the first clue regarding statistics, trending, or data analysis in any form. Which, of course, doesn't prevent you from flouting your ignorance and incompetence all over this site.

Whether it's mere hubris, or a classic manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect, only you could judge...

Okay, so Pinkelephant thinks the temperature (and temperature trends) inside the kettle are relevant, only if they meet his preconceived expectations ...defining for himself, his own Dunning–Kruger effect.

Science plus prejudice = nonsense.

PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2012
Pinkelephant thinks the temperature and temperature trends inside the kettle are relevant, only if they meet his preconceived expectations
Actually, PinkElephant thinks temperature trends inside the kettle are relevant only when measured on timescales that exceed the scales of the turbulent noise inside the kettle. You are failing to distinguish the signal from the noise. Instead, you are measuring the noise and calling it signal.

How do we know that's a fact? Simply because even slight modification of your trending intervals tends to drastically reverse your findings. That is the el primo, numero uno indicator that you are detecting noise instead of signal. Real signal should be stable with no need for fine-tuning the interval of data used to measure it.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2012
And actually, if you want a close analogy to the kettle, take a look at the global oceanic heat content:

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

That's literal water, literally heating up. The analogy doesn't get much better than that!
And looking at a close-up snapshot of the data we get this:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

Are you now ready to admit there's been no significant global warming for at least 11 years?

PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2012
1) Sea Surface temperatures are not the same thing as ocean heat content (as measured down to 700 m and 2000 m in the link I provided.)

2) You are still failing miserably by measuring the noise instead of the signal (see my immediately preceding post above), as can be clearly seen by once again adjusting your ranges to view the more complete data set:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2012
Pinkelephant thinks the temperature and temperature trends inside the kettle are relevant, only if they meet his preconceived expectations
Actually, PinkElephant thinks temperature trends inside the kettle are relevant only when measured on timescales that exceed the scales of the turbulent noise inside the kettle. You are failing to distinguish the signal from the noise. Instead, you are measuring the noise and calling it signal.

How do we know that's a fact? Simply because even slight modification of your trending intervals tends to drastically reverse your findings. That is the el primo, numero uno indicator that you are detecting noise instead of signal. Real signal should be stable with no need for fine-tuning the interval of data used to measure it.
So how long must I measure the temperature in my boiling kettle before I ascertain it is, in fact, boiling? And how long must I measure the temperature to ascertain it's been boiling for 11 years?

PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2012
Funny, I haven't noticed the oceans boiling. Maybe I don't live as close to hell as you, I don't know...

As for global climate, it is a very large kettle, with very large thermal inertia. Considering it lurched seemingly cooler for ~30 years between the 1940's and 1970's, I'd say subjectively a 60-year average might be a safe bet. I've seen mention from more rigorous analyses, that something on the order of 20 years might also be sufficient to filter out most (but not all) sources of climatic variability.

But don't despair: a more clear signal can emerge faster when you observe multiple indicators. For instance, if you measure the combination of air temperatures, surface temperatures, ocean heat content, the temperature of the top few meters of dry land, the mass of glaciers, the location of regional climate bands, the time of onset for spring and fall -- when all of them put together start trending down in unison, then we might start to worry about the science of AGW.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2012
1) Sea Surface temperatures are not the same thing as ocean heat content (as measured down to 700 m and 2000 m in the link I provided.)
So now only the data you think might support your preconceived expectations matter? Can you even show these have been significantly trending upward for the past 11 years?

...crickets chirping...

I thought not.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2012
But don't despair: a more clear signal can emerge faster when you observe multiple indicators. For instance, if you measure the combination of air temperatures, surface temperatures, ocean heat content, the temperature of the top few meters of dry land, the mass of glaciers, the location of regional climate bands, the time of onset for spring and fall -- when all of them put together start trending down in unison, then we might start to worry about the science of AGW.
You mean data like this (includes HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, and RSS):

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2012
So now only the data you think might support your preconceived expectations matter?
Nope. Quite simply, sea surface temperatures are tightly linked to atmospheric temperature due to the obvious interaction between the two, so they don't really provide much additional information. Deep ocean heat content, on the other hand, is an entirely different type of data source. By its nature, it does not fluctuate rapidly; it serves as a natural averaging engine (an integrator, essentially) for surface temperature conditions.
Can you even show these have been significantly trending upward for the past 11 years?
Yes, just look at either of graph #1 or graph #2 (click on the numbers below the chart, to select the appropriate graph):

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

But more to the point, you are still failing to comprehend that 11 years is too short of an interval. In graph #2, you can see oscillations with a period of ~15 years (e.g. 1957-1974).
PinkElephant
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2012
You mean data like this (includes HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, and RSS)
No, I mean something in addition to atmospheric temperature records (and that, only to help you distinguish signal from noise on time scales shorter than the typical periodicity of natural variability seen in atmospheric temperature data alone.)
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2012
Quite simply, sea surface temperatures are tightly linked to atmospheric temperature due to the obvious interaction between the two, so they don't really provide much additional information.
But isn't atmospheric warming supposed to be the cause of global warming? Are you now suggesting the oceans are causing global warming themselves? How does atmospheric CO2 cause the deep ocean to warm, if the upper ocean is cooling?

Deep ocean heat content, on the other hand, is an entirely different type of data source. By its nature, it does not fluctuate rapidly; it serves as a natural averaging engine (an integrator, essentially) for surface temperature conditions.
It's barely warmed a 10th of a degree in over a hundred years, and we certainly can't attribute it to AGW. It's been warming since the days of iron men in wooden ships.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2012
You mean data like this (includes HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, and RSS)
No, I mean something in addition to atmospheric temperature records (and that, only to help you distinguish signal from noise on time scales shorter than the typical periodicity of natural variability seen in atmospheric temperature data alone.)

I don't know about you, but I live in the atmosphere, not the deep ocean.

And, weather, snow, and ice form in and near the atmospheric boundary, not in the deep ocean.

And, you'll have to explain the "temperature inertia" problem. Why is the deep ocean continuing to warm, when the upper ocean and atmosphere are not? is it magic?

ScooterG
1 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2012
Science plus prejudice = nonsense.


BINGO!!! This is AGW in a nutshell.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2012
But isn't atmospheric warming supposed to be the cause of global warming?
No, accumulation of solar heat on the surface of the Earth, driven by increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, is the cause of global warming.
Are you now suggesting the oceans are causing global warming themselves?
From where would they get the excess energy to drive global warming?
How does atmospheric CO2 cause the deep ocean to warm, if the upper ocean is cooling?
The ocean is deep, and contains a lot of ancient cold water. Deep ocean currents slowly mix the deep cold water with the surface warm waters. A big upwelling of deep cold water (e.g. as happens during La Nina) can cool both the surface of the ocean and the atmosphere above it. That does not mean the ocean isn't continuing to absorb more solar energy than it is able to shed.
you'll have to explain the "temperature inertia" problem
Overwhelmingly the bulk of the inertia is in the ocean, not the atmosphere.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2012
No, accumulation of solar heat on the surface of the Earth, driven by increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, is the cause of global warming.
What "accumulation of solar heat" are you talking about? The atmosphere hasn't been warming in more than 11 years, remember?

Perhaps you mean our thin atmosphere can hold enough energy to suddenly heat the whole deep ocean (magically, without even heating the surface layer), without cooking us? Are you even aware of the energy required to do this?

From where would they get the excess energy to drive global warming?
I don't know, that's what I'm asking you.

The ocean is deep, and contains a lot of ancient cold water.
The cold water isn't ancient. It comes from the poles (primarily in the winter) and is spread around by currents.

cont...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2012
That does not mean the ocean isn't continuing to absorb more solar energy than it is able to shed.
Sure. But it's been doing that for a very long time. What's AGW have to do with it?

Overwhelmingly the bulk of the inertia is in the ocean, not the atmosphere.
So now you admit the atmosphere has nothing to do with ocean warming? Where's the heat coming from then?

PE, you can't have it both ways. CO2 is not going to act to heat the oceans without significantly heating the surface as well. Therefore, AGW is not responsible for deep ocean temperatures and therefore, since it hasn't been warming at the surface in more than 11 years, there's been no significant GW (and particularly AGW) in at least 11 years.

Gpnum
4.4 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2012
PinkElephant, keep the good work.
Ubba is obviously trying to keep it up until you grow tired, to give the impression he over-smarted you, but I think he doesn't realize he gives you opportunity to provide tons of reasonable sound information to the thread readers.
Ubba is smart and good at what he does most of the time, but instead of feeding the troll, I think you feed the readers and annoy the troll.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2012
What "accumulation of solar heat" are you talking about?
Again, look at charts of ocean heat content. Do you think that heat magically materialized out of nothingness?
Are you even aware of the energy required to do this?
Indeed, it takes a lot of energy to warm up the oceans. Which is the main reason AGW is proceeding as slowly as it does. The oceans absorb a lot of the excess heat from the atmosphere, thus helping the atmosphere stay much cooler than it would have been otherwise.
The cold water isn't ancient.
Read this paper (you only need to read as far as page 2.

http://www.people...raft.pdf

You learn something new every day, don't you? One would think that someone with so much to learn, wouldn't be so eager to dispense their "wisdom" in public on subjects they know so little about...
But it's been doing that for a very long time.
In the past 6000 years?

http://en.wikiped...evel.png
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2012
Where's the heat coming from then?
The Sun, of course.
So now you admit the atmosphere has nothing to do with ocean warming?
The atmosphere helps trap more heat from the Sun, than would be available absent the atmosphere. With more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it helps trap even more heat per unit of atmospheric mass and per unit of time, than before.
CO2 is not going to act to heat the oceans without significantly heating the surface as well.
Indeed. Of course, ocean surface is not static. It is subject to mixing with the colder subsurface. Perhaps you've heard of such things as AMO and ENSO, for instance? Yes, the surface will (and does) get warmer on average, over the long term. In the short term, it is subject to the short-term climate oscillations and variability. If you STILL can't (and/or refuse to) see the difference between signal and noise, that's not my problem (rather, you need to get your head examined.)
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2012
it hasn't been warming at the surface in more than 11 years
I'll repeat it as many times as it takes to get through your extraordinarily thick skull.

There have been several prior periods of decade-plus duration, during which global average atmospheric temperatures stagnated or even trended down. That does not preclude the overall longer-term trend from being up, as you can easily confirm by a simple visual examination of the complete instrumental data set going back to 1850. It does not negate AGW. It is a signature of climatic variability and cyclical behaviors, additively combining with the underlying warming trend. Such cycles and natural deviations have their "up" phases, where they amplify the underlying trend (such as the monster El Nino of 1998), and they have their "down" phases where they depress the underlying trend. But these cycles and phases are not permanent; they dynamically evolve. The underlying trend is permanent, and does not dynamically evolve.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2012
AGW is not responsible for deep ocean temperatures and therefore, since it hasn't been warming at the surface in more than 11 years...
...it follows that the subsurface "therefore" has been violating laws of energy conservation and thermodynamics by obtaining heat from a parallel dimension through some act of dark magic? Is that your brilliant deduction?

Let's go back to the kettle analogy. Think of the ocean as one big wide kettle, and no it hasn't yet come to a boil. Indeed, rather than being heated from the bottom it's being broiled from the top by a compact heater element. Now you're going to have chaotic convection patterns developing in your pot. Measure the average temperature over the top surface, and, unless your system had come to thermal equilibrium, you'll see that temperature reading go up, down, and sideways -- but over the long term, always higher and higher it will climb until thermal equilibrium is achieved.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2012
Lastly, speaking strictly of land surface (which, unlike ocean surface, doesn't easily mix its temperature with the subsurface in cyclical/chaotic multi-year patterns), we have the completed Berkeley Earth data set (covering land only):

12-month moving average plot

10-year moving average plot

And how good is the fit to a simple model involving effects of the atmospheric greenhouse and volcanic eruptions?

I'd say pretty damn good.

By the way, in the last 2 plots above, you can clearly see multi-decadal oscillations (Berkeley Earth thinks it's mostly the AMO), so even land temperatures are not immune to the long-scale oceanic cycles and circulation variability.

Naturally, combined (land and surface) temperature records will have even more of that short term climatic noise in them.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2012
Oops...
Naturally, combined (land and surface) temperature records
That was supposed to be "land and ocean", not "land and surface".
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2012
The computer model is the modern version of the crystal ball of the soothsayer.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2012
What "accumulation of solar heat" are you talking about?
Again, look at charts of ocean heat content. Do you think that heat magically materialized out of nothingness?
Of course not, but apparently, you do.

Indeed, it takes a lot of energy to warm up the oceans. Which is the main reason AGW is proceeding as slowly as it does. The oceans absorb a lot of the excess heat from the atmosphere, thus helping the atmosphere stay much cooler than it would have been otherwise.
So now heat convection from the atmosphere to the ocean ignores the laws of thermodynamics? It magically transfers heat into the deep oceans, but completely ignores the surface and land? How does that work?

The cold water isn't ancient.
Read this paper (you only need to read as far as page 2.
Oh please, you're making this too easy.

First, this paper isn't about cold reservoirs, but ocean mixing.

This slow mixing belies your claim ocean mixing is causing the deep ocean warming!

cont..
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2012
And you can hardly classify a mere 1,500 years as "ancient" in geological timescales.

You learn something new every day, don't you? One would think that someone with so much to learn, wouldn't be so eager to dispense their "wisdom" in public on subjects they know so little about...
Indeed.

In the past 6000 years?
http://en.wikiped...evel.png
LOL. Now you're confusing post glacial sea level rise with currently increasing temperatures? ...and using this to argue against continued heating in spite of AGW?

Sheesh, Louise! You aren't even as good as Vendibot.

Overwhelmingly the bulk of the inertia is in the ocean, not the atmosphere. - PE
So now you admit the atmosphere has nothing to do with ocean warming? Where's the heat coming from then? - uba
The Sun, of course. - PE
This is a disengenuous response. Try again.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2012
The computer model is the modern version of the crystal ball of the soothsayer.


What on earth are you doing on a science site? Almost everything that is high technology today(your iPhone, computer, vehicle, yard tools, kitchen appliances...) are the result of computer modeling and, in many cases, contain their own computers). Did you lose your way from some Luddite site? Did you think we are discussing religeon here? You are one of the first I have seen to say computers = sooth saying. What a shame that you are using a computer to make your post and don't even realize the network you are running over was the result of computer modeling. What a whacko. Tighten that tin-foil hat.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2012
The atmosphere helps trap more heat from the Sun, than would be available absent the atmosphere. With more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it helps trap even more heat per unit of atmospheric mass and per unit of time, than before.
And yet it manages to do this without affecting the surface temperatures? How does that work? Is it magic?

CO2 is not going to act to heat the oceans without significantly heating the surface as well.
Indeed. Of course, ocean surface is not static. It is subject to mixing with the colder subsurface.
But you just claimed it takes 1,500 years to do this!

Perhaps you've heard of such things as AMO and ENSO, for instance? Yes, the surface will (and does) get warmer on average, over the long term. In the short term, it is subject to the short-term climate oscillations and variability.
But the surface isn't getting warmer.

cont...
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2012
If you STILL can't (and/or refuse to) see the difference between signal and noise, that's not my problem
The deep ocean heating from today must come from somewhere. It doesn't simply percolate through the system over time. It requires real and applied energy to raise the temperature. How is CO2 causing this, if CO2 is not similarly and much more severely affecting the atmosphere?

There have been several prior periods of decade-plus duration, during which global average atmospheric temperatures stagnated or even trended down. That does not preclude the overall longer-term trend from being up, as you can easily confirm by a simple visual examination of the complete instrumental data set going back to 1850. It does not negate AGW. It is a signature of climatic variability and cyclical behaviors, additively combining with the underlying warming trend.
So now you're claiming AGW manifested in 1850? Really?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2012
Such cycles and natural deviations have their "up" phases, where they amplify the underlying trend (such as the monster El Nino of 1998), and they have their "down" phases where they depress the underlying trend. But these cycles and phases are not permanent; they dynamically evolve. The underlying trend is permanent, and does not dynamically evolve.
Sorry, temperatures do not arbitrarily move up and down. It takes continuous energy transfer to vary temperatures. If it gets hotter, energy had to increase in the systems. if it gets colder, energy had to decrease. This energy comes from and goes to somewhere. Temperatures don't arbitrarily change of their own accord.

...it follows that the subsurface "therefore" has been violating laws of energy conservation and thermodynamics by obtaining heat from a parallel dimension through some act of dark magic? Is that your brilliant deduction?
Apparently, this is in line with your thinking.

cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2012
The computer model is the modern version of the crystal ball of the soothsayer.


What on earth are you doing on a science site? Almost everything that is high technology today(your iPhone, computer, vehicle, yard tools, kitchen appliances...) are the result of computer modeling and, in many cases, contain their own computers). Did you lose your way from some Luddite site? Did you think we are discussing religeon here? You are one of the first I have seen to say computers = sooth saying. What a shame that you are using a computer to make your post and don't even realize the network you are running over was the result of computer modeling. What a whacko. Tighten that tin-foil hat.


Moron, there is a difference between modeling natural and unnatural systems, maybe I should qualified my statement further. However, they are predicting the future using an incomplete set of factors, maybe you can explain how it is any different than a well informed fortune teller.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2012
Let's go back to the kettle analogy. Think of the ocean as one big wide kettle, and no it hasn't yet come to a boil. Indeed, rather than being heated from the bottom it's being broiled from the top by a compact heater element. Now you're going to have chaotic convection patterns developing in your pot. Measure the average temperature over the top surface, and, unless your system had come to thermal equilibrium, you'll see that temperature reading go up, down, and sideways -- but over the long term, always higher and higher it will climb until thermal equilibrium is achieved.
Sure. But the deep oceans are still recovering from the ice age. Their rising temperatures have nothing to do with AGW.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2012
Lastly, speaking strictly of land surface (which, unlike ocean surface, doesn't easily mix its temperature with the subsurface in cyclical/chaotic multi-year patterns), we have the completed Berkeley Earth data set (covering land only):
The current trend looks like this:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

And how good is the fit to a simple model involving effects of the atmospheric greenhouse and volcanic eruptions?
It looks like CO2 is more an artifact of warming, than a driver. We could make the same comparison with sea level. Surely you're not going to suggest sea level rises are causing global temperature rises, are you?

And lately CO2 has been doing this:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

And temps this:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2012
Ubba is obviously trying to keep it up until you grow tired, to give the impression he over-smarted you, but I think he doesn't realize he gives you opportunity to provide tons of reasonable sound information to the thread readers.


Ubbatuba is a denier, and certainly has lost the respect of anyone in the scientific community. I've never have understood this about the climate deniers; how stupidity can somehow become the battle cry for the rightwing class.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2012
cantdrive85: You said:

"Moron, there is a difference between modeling natural and unnatural systems, maybe I should qualified my statement further. However, they are predicting the future using an incomplete set of factors, maybe you can explain how it is any different than a well informed fortune teller."

First of all, are you referring to supernatural systems instead of "unnatural systems"? What do you mean by the term "unnatural?"

Do you mean organic systems? Are you saying that gravity is supernatural and can't be modeled? Are you saying that heat transfer is supernatural and can't be modeled? Please specify exactly what has you thinking that climate models are guessing games so we can get more people in on your joke of a response.

Are you back to the chant that chaotic can't be modeled and so don't bother trying? Do you even know what a model is and how one can be used? I thought you were uneducated but I can see, now, you are just stupid.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2012
Ubbatuba is a denier, and certainly has lost the respect of anyone in the scientific community. I've never have understood this about the climate deniers; how stupidity can somehow become the battle cry for the rightwing class.

Now this was a well considered and lucid argument (not).

What's with the science deniers who think regressing into ad hominem attacks somehow strengthens their position?

And I'm not even a right-winger. I'm an Obama supporter.

Howhot appears to need some help.

Birger
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2012
Venicar, I am just waiting for someone to say the arctic ice has been bribed by the global warming conspiracy. :-)
djr
5 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2012
"maybe you can explain how it is any different than a well informed fortune teller." What do you suggest we do about the climate? No one can deny that we are engaged in a grand experiment. Burning large quantities of fossil fuels - and altering the content of our atmosphere. Don't you think it is smart to study the issue? Modeling is the best tool we have for trying to project the system into the future. Because of chaos and complexity - we face a daunting task. If we continue to study, and model - we get better at it - right?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2012
What do you suggest we do about the climate?
Pardon my intrusion, but what makes you think we can, and should, do anything about the climate?

No one can deny that we are engaged in a grand experiment. Burning large quantities of fossil fuels - and altering the content of our atmosphere.
Barely. Here's a great illustration:

http://www.youtub...mLW4k4aI

djr
5 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2012
Pardon my intrusion, but what makes you think we can, and should, do anything about the climate?

I think we can study it - and try to understand how it works - and figure out what it means to be putting 15 ppm C02 into our atmosphere. Do you propose not studying it?

Barely. Here's a great illustration:

I do understand what ppm mean. It did not hurt to watch your demo video. What your video does not address - is what is the affect of adding 15 ppm of C02 to our atmosphere. Surely you understand the poor logic of saying - "Oh it is just a tiny quantity - it can't be having any significant effect"?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2012
I think we can study it - and try to understand how it works - and figure out what it means to be putting 15 ppm C02 into our atmosphere. Do you propose not studying it?
Of course not. But to ask, "What do you suggest we do about the climate?" implies a proactive suggestion.

I do understand what ppm mean. It did not hurt to watch your demo video. What your video does not address - is what is the affect of adding 15 ppm of C02 to our atmosphere. Surely you understand the poor logic of saying - "Oh it is just a tiny quantity - it can't be having any significant effect"?
Actually, I would argue the CO2 radiative forcing signal is likely drowned out by other factors. For instance, the activities of man have also increased negative radiative forcing (NRF) components to the atmosphere. Is it enough to counter CO2? It's hard to say. Most of the NRF's are relatively short lived, but they cycle through quite regularly.

Meyer
2 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2012
I think we can study it - and try to understand how it works - and figure out what it means to be putting 15 ppm C02 into our atmosphere. Do you propose not studying it?

Yes, studying the climate is as important as any scientific pursuit. Someday we may get an idea of who will be affected by natural OR manmade changes, where, how, and when. "Global climate" forecasts are not useful for that purpose, and the so-called precautionary principle is another example of poor logic.

Without knowing with accuracy and precision how local ecosystems and economies would adapt in various scenarios, we can't know whether the impacts of a new policy would benefit or harm people. So study on, I say, but keep politics out of it until a beneficial course of action can be determined with some certainty.
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2012
Ubatubby: You said: "Pardon my intrusion, but what makes you think we can, and should, do anything about the climate?"

First, we don't have much to say about your intrusion. Not many like it but we have to put up with it.

Second, you say: "makes you think we can, and should, do anything about the climate..."

The preponderance of evedince shows we are already doing something about it by changing climate with our pollutatnts. What we have to do is reverse what we are doing to let the climate, more nearly, follow its natural course. The experiment is underway. What we need to do is change some inputs. That might cost you a little bit, and that is what has you up in arms (from your prior posts about destroying the economy).
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2012
Ubatubby: You say: "Actually, I would argue the CO2 radiative forcing signal is likely drowned out by other factors. For instance, the activities of man have also increased negative radiative forcing (NRF) components to the atmosphere. Is it enough to counter CO2? It's hard to say. Most of the NRF's are relatively short lived, but they cycle through quite regularly."

Your argument is just that. "Your" argument. Would you please put numbers and references out so we can examine them? You can probably quote FoxNews and WattsUp and very little other. Start looking at the science please. Forcing is small, but what the heck does "drowned out" mean in a science discussion? Small parameters can have large results with respect to humanity.
Meyer
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2012
The preponderance of evedince shows we are already doing something about it by changing climate with our pollutatnts. What we have to do is reverse what we are doing to let the climate, more nearly, follow its natural course. The experiment is underway. What we need to do is change some inputs. That might cost you a little bit, and that is what has you up in arms (from your prior posts about destroying the economy).

What course are we on now? A supernatural course? What makes you think the natural course is better for us than a supernatural course? (Just a jab at your earlier comment.)

What, specifically, will happen if we change the inputs a little? Suppose we turn back the dial on industry - who will benefit and who will be harmed? It won't turn back time and put us on a "natural" course, but it will reduce our ability to guard against and respond to natural disasters, so the benefit had better be enormous. Prove it.
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2012

What course are we on now? A supernatural course? What makes you think the natural course is better for us than a supernatural course? (Just a jab at your earlier comment.)

What, specifically, will happen if we change the inputs a little? Suppose we turn back the dial on industry - who will benefit and who will be harmed? It won't turn back time and put us on a "natural" course, but it will reduce our ability to guard against and respond to natural disasters, so the benefit had better be enormous. Prove it.


Meyer: We have been proactive about turning the clock back on things we have identified as bad in the past (lead in gasoline, not-so-much for smoking, halocarbons, arsenic in makeup, chromium ions in wastewater...). There is nothing wrong with recognizing that we have made mistakes along the way and move to fix them. The hysteria comes in when people, without any knowledge, scream it will bankrupt the world (which may already be bankrupted by wars).
Meyer
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2012
Meyer: We have been proactive about turning the clock back on things we have identified as bad in the past (lead in gasoline, not-so-much for smoking, halocarbons, arsenic in makeup, chromium ions in wastewater...). There is nothing wrong with recognizing that we have made mistakes along the way and move to fix them. The hysteria comes in when people, without any knowledge, scream it will bankrupt the world (which may already be bankrupted by wars).

The clock wasn't turned back on any of those. Lead levels remain elevated near highways, for example. Leaded fuel was eliminated because the evidence of damage was clear and alternatives were readily available. Without a suitable alternative, it may have been better to continue using lead and adapt in other ways.

The dangers (and benefits) of CO2 are not as clear, the alternatives (except nuclear) are not nearly as promising, and most won't need to adapt for 100 years, when those affected will be richer and smarter than us.
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2012
Meyer: You said: "The dangers (and benefits) of CO2 are not as clear, the alternatives (except nuclear) are not nearly as promising, and most won't need to adapt for 100 years, when those affected will be richer and smarter than us."

I agree with this statement as it is. However, this is a science web site and so I like to look at what is fuzzying up the view. One possibility is CCS (carbon capture and sequestration). That seems to be a field with a lot of promise. Goals that were originally set have already been met (<=40% increase in cost of electricity and 1000 year storage). New goals (<-35% COE and 10,000 year storage) are being investigated now. Think of what an improvement it could be the US economy if we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil AND reduce our carbon footprint. I have confidence we can and will solve this problem - but maybe not until it has been forced upon us. I would rather get started now and learn more along the way.
Meyer
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2012
One possibility is CCS (carbon capture and sequestration)
...
Think of what an improvement it could be the US economy if we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil AND reduce our carbon footprint.

At the least, CCS is a good way to sell and burn more coal, but I'm not convinced that reducing our carbon footprint or dependence on foreign oil (in general) are beneficial. If they are, I'd prefer to build a water pipeline from the ocean to the desert and capture carbon by growing algae, build a nuclear desalination plant, and ultimately produce arable soil, all while reducing sea levels by a little bit. Something constructive and progressive rather than regressive.
I have confidence we can and will solve this problem - but maybe not until it has been forced upon us. I would rather get started now and learn more along the way.

Forced upon "us"? It sounds more like you want to force a dubious plan upon others before establishing if it's even beneficial in the first place.
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2012
Meyer: You said: "Forced upon "us"? It sounds more like you want to force a dubious plan upon others before establishing if it's even beneficial in the first place."

No, you paranoid goof-ball. I am not talking about some conspiracy with people taking your money to line their pockets (although that is what I should be expecting to come to mind you you and your ilk). I am talking about the oceans rising and temperatures rising to the point where action has to be taken to protect our way of life. You have this knee-jerk reaction that anything that has to be done will take your money away. Have you thought that by doing nothing your money might go away? (I have to talk in terms of money because you and the other deniers think that is all that is important). If it were only as simple as science instead of people like you who see everything as a conspiracy. Have you visited a physician to discuss your problem?
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2012
First, we don't have much to say about your intrusion. Not many like it but we have to put up with it.
Well, aren't we in a snit?

The preponderance of evedince shows we are already doing something about it by changing climate with our pollutatnts. What we have to do is reverse what we are doing to let the climate, more nearly, follow its natural course.
Why? What makes you so sure it's not better, left alone?

The experiment is underway. What we need to do is change some inputs. That might cost you a little bit, and that is what has you up in arms (from your prior posts about destroying the economy).
I think you may be referring to someone else here. I don't recall making such an argument. But presuming I may be mistaken, do you have a reference to such an argument put forth by me?

djr
4 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2012
"Actually, I would argue the CO2 radiative forcing signal is likely drowned out by other factors"

How is it that climate scientists are (I think correctly) castigated for making predictions beyond the scope of their data (ie. climate catastrophe), but you have no problem in making very bold statements - without providing any supporting research. You did not say what those 'other factors' are, how we measure them - or how we measure their affects on the system as a whole. My wider point on this and other threads - is if you feel competent to make such bold assertions - why not write a paper on it - and have it submitted for review and publication. Like I said - posting comments on the discussion section of a web site is not science.
djr
3.5 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2012
"the alternatives (except nuclear) are not nearly as promising, and most won't need to adapt for 100 years, when those affected will be richer and smarter than us"

It sounds like you have accepted that adaptation is going to be necessary - but you are happy to kick the can down the road - interesting dynamic in there. My question is about the black and white thinking - that says any adaptation has to be painful - and involve cost. Why can't we apply our creativity to win win strategies. For example - here in Oklahoma - a large builder (Ideal homes) - will build a regular house for you - but for about $30,000 more - will make it a zero energy home (super insulated - with a small set of solar panels). The additional investment saves you money over the life of the house - through energy bill savings - ie going from $200 - $300 per month - to zero. The value of your house increases, and quality of life is improved (house more quiet). What is not to like - and no government involved.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2012
You can probably quote FoxNews and WattsUp and very little other.
Don't be an ass.

And here I gave you credit for asking a thoughtful question earlier (which response you've yet to address).

ubavontuba
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2012
How is it that climate scientists are (I think correctly) castigated for making predictions beyond the scope of their data (ie. climate catastrophe), but you have no problem in making very bold statements
I don't see that suggesting I'd make any particular argument (and admittedly uncertain argument) is inordinately "bold."

without providing any supporting research.
I provided additional data.

You did not say what those 'other factors' are, how we measure them - or how we measure their affects on the system as a whole.
1,000 character limit.

why not write a paper on it - and have it submitted for review and publication.
Because right now, I feel like having an informal discussion in a forum.

Like I said - posting comments on the discussion section of a web site is not science.
I disagree. It's not formal science, but it can still be science.

Why are you being such a killjoy? Are we having a bad day?

djr
4.5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
"I disagree. It's not formal science, but it can still be science"

you and I use the term science differently - which of course creates a bit of a problem for communicating - but such is the world of communication.

"1,000 character limit" Smile - seems like a pretty important set of details to me.

"Why are you being such a killjoy? Are we having a bad day?"

Smile - yes - but does not seem like a relevant issue.

I see a huge double standard in all of this stuff. Outrage and self righteousness towards scientists who must be held the highest standards of science - but I can make an "admittedly uncertain argument" - without including any important details.
Meyer
2 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2012
"the alternatives (except nuclear) are not nearly as promising, and most won't need to adapt for 100 years, when those affected will be richer and smarter than us"

It sounds like you have accepted that adaptation is going to be necessary - but you are happy to kick the can down the road - interesting dynamic in there. My question is about the black and white thinking - that says any adaptation has to be painful - and involve cost. Why can't we apply our creativity to win win strategies. For example - here in Oklahoma - a large builder (Ideal homes) - will build a regular house for you - but for about $30,000 more - will make it a zero energy home (super insulated - with a small set of solar panels).

No, I was allowing the possibility of adaptation being necessary. Depending on my forecast for events, it may make more sense to "kick the can down the road" and invest that $30,000 somewhere more profitable, allowing me to adapt to energy prices AND other unforeseen changes.
Meyer
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2012
Meyer: You said: "Forced upon "us"? It sounds more like you want to force a dubious plan upon others before establishing if it's even beneficial in the first place."

No, you paranoid goof-ball. I am not talking about some conspiracy with people taking your money to line their pockets (although that is what I should be expecting to come to mind you you and your ilk). I am talking about the oceans rising and temperatures rising to the point where action has to be taken to protect our way of life. You have this knee-jerk reaction that anything that has to be done will take your money away.

If you support the plan, it's dishonest to say "forced upon us" when you're not in the group it would be forced upon. And I'm talking about the the real possibility that temps and oceans WON'T rise to a point where immediate action was needed, and the action displaces other activity that would have allowed future humans to adapt to climate (or other events) more easily with resources to spare.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2012
"and invest that $30,000 somewhere more profitable" But don't you see that you are not having to invest $30,000. That is money you would have to spend any way - so you are just redirecting the money - and getting the added benefit of a zero energy home. It is a win win - and I think we are on the verge of finding many many win win scenarios. Of course entrenched interests are pushing back. Are you aware that solar panels cost around $6 a watt to install in the U.S. - but only $2 a watt in Germany. Why? government red tape. So much for the land of free enterprise. I have a friend who wanted to make a little side business by putting a pop machine and a candy machine in the building we work in. He had to apply for 3 different permits. So much for the land of the free....
Meyer
3 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
"and invest that $30,000 somewhere more profitable" But don't you see that you are not having to invest $30,000. That is money you would have to spend any way - so you are just redirecting the money - and getting the added benefit of a zero energy home. It is a win win - and I think we are on the verge of finding many many win win scenarios.

So today I have $30,000 of cash to spend. I can do the solar/insulation thing and almost meet my energy needs for 20 years, occasionally supplementing from the grid. Or put the money in savings at 1% interest and pay energy bills that increase by, say, 10%, but then buy that same solar/insulation kit in 10 years if the price falls to $15,000. Or maybe invest in a startup providing cloud computing services more efficiently than if clients did the processing in-house, reducing CO2 emissions growth by millions of tons while I make $300,000 (donating some to charity for tax purposes). Many possibilities. It's not a simple dichotomy.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2012
you and I use the term science differently - which of course creates a bit of a problem for communicating - but such is the world of communication.
Indeed. But we're trying to understand each other ...and that's a start.

"1,000 character limit" Smile - seems like a pretty important set of details to me.
LOL.

"Why are you being such a killjoy? Are we having a bad day?"

Smile - yes - but does not seem like a relevant issue.
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. I hope things rapidly improve.

I see a huge double standard in all of this stuff. Outrage and self righteousness towards scientists who must be held the highest standards of science - but I can make an "admittedly uncertain argument" - without including any important details.
For science to be good science, it must withstand scrutiny. If mere criticism brings it down like a gust of wind on a house of cards, of what value was it?

Besides, the details are readily found with a competent search.

GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2012
That was an interesting article. It agrees with similar reports I have seeen from other sources I trust, and it points out the exagerations I suspect are coming from other sources on both sides of this issue.

Has anyone read the working group 1 section of AR5 that deals with this topic? They did a similar analysis, and I wonder if their findings are the same as the ones above? AR4 said basically the same as above, though the summary for policy makers was worded to place a much more positive cast to it.

I would do a search for a draft version of AR5, but I'm feeling too lazy today. :)

Can anyone offer help with that?