Melting sea ice increases Arctic precipitation, complicates climate predictions

December 21, 2015
Ben Kopec, a Ph.D. candidate in Dartmouth College's Department of Earth Sciences, and his colleagues find that the melting of sea ice will significantly increase Arctic precipitation, creating a climate feedback comparable to doubling global carbon dioxide. Credit: Derek Keats via Foter.com / CC BY

The melting of sea ice will significantly increase Arctic precipitation, creating a climate feedback comparable to doubling global carbon dioxide, a Dartmouth College-led study finds.

"The increases of precipitation and changes in the may create significant uncertainty in climate predictions," says lead author Ben Kopec, a PhD candidate in Dartmouth's Department of Earth Sciences.

The findings appear in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Global climate is influenced by the Arctic water cycle, which is partly regulated by through its control on evaporation and precipitation. There is a growing consensus among scientists that a decrease in sea ice would increase Arctic precipitation because of increased evaporation. Direct measurement of precipitation is difficult in the Arctic because of its cold, windy environments, so the quantitative link between precipitation and sea ice is poorly understood.

In their study, the Dartmouth-led team quantified that link by measuring the hydrogen and oxygen isotopic compositions of precipitation from 1990 to 2012 at six sites across the Arctic. They then used these empirically established sensitivities of precipitation isotopes to sea ice change to project future precipitation changes and to evaluate impacts of these changes on the energy balance. Their approach is based on the premise that Arctic precipitation is composed mostly of water from two marine evaporation regions, or "moisture sources" - one subtropical and one local - and that the relative contributions of the two sources to the precipitation can be determined from the stable isotopic ratios of the precipitation.

They found that for a decrease of 100,000 km2 - or 38,610 square miles—the percentage of Arctic sourced moisture increases by 18.2 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively, in the Canadian Arctic and Greenland Sea regions. This corresponds to increases of 10.9 percent and 2.7 percent per degree Celsius of Arctic warming, respectively.

The researchers reached no conclusion on whether the increased precipitation will fall as snow or rain. If it falls as snow, it could potentially increase glacial mass and the number of days of high land surface reflectivity, thus having a cooling effect. But if the increased precipitation falls as rain, it would cause earlier spring melt and/or later onset of autumn snow coverage, a longer low reflectivity period and additional warming. In either case, the resulting radiative forcing likely has an order of magnitude similar to that of the forcing from doubling carbon dioxide, thus demonstrating that the sea ice feedback to radiation balance through the Arctic water cycle is potentially a major component of climate change.

"Sea ice is declining at an alarming rate, so it is important to understand the consequences of the climate feedbacks caused by these changes," Kopec says. "We show that the loss of sea ice will likely increase precipitation, which will impact communities and ecosystems around the Arctic. The change of , depending on the seasonal distribution, may impact the energy balance on the same order of magnitude as the feedbacks associated with doubling ."

Explore further: Declining sea ice to lead to cloudier Arctic: study

More information: Influence of sea ice on Arctic precipitation, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1504633113

Related Stories

Declining sea ice to lead to cloudier Arctic: study

March 31, 2012

Arctic sea ice has been declining over the past several decades as global climate has warmed. In fact, sea ice has declined more quickly than many models predicted, indicating that climate models may not be correctly representing ...

Melting Arctic sea ice accelerates methane emissions

September 17, 2015

Methane emissions from Arctic tundra increase when sea ice melts, according to a new study from Lund University in Sweden. This connection has been suspected before, but has lacked strong evidence until now.

The Greenland ice sheet contains nutrients from precipitation

November 4, 2015

New research shows that the ice sheet on Greenland contains the nutrient phosphorus, which was carried by the atmosphere across the country, where it fell with precipitation. Studies of the ice core drilling through the kilometers-thick ...

Study sheds light on lake evaporation under changing climate

December 16, 2015

Dartmouth scientists have shown for the first time how winds blowing across lakes affect the chemical makeup of water vapor above and evaporated from lakes, which may aid research into past and present water cycles under ...

Recommended for you

121 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

asok_smith
2.3 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2015
" so the quantitative link between precipitation and sea ice is poorly understood."

None the less, western nations should fork over a trillion a year to African dictators' Swiss bank accounts, you know, just in case.
jeffensley
3.1 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2015
The researchers reached no conclusion on whether the increased precipitation will fall as snow or rain. If it falls as snow, it could potentially increase glacial mass and the number of days of high land surface reflectivity, thus having a cooling effect.


And yet they felt compelled to open the article with this statement...

The melting of sea ice will significantly increase Arctic precipitation, creating a climate feedback comparable to doubling global carbon dioxide, a Dartmouth College-led study finds.


Anyone with an ounce of intellect sees that the narrative, not truth, is what's important here.

animah
4.4 / 5 (15) Dec 22, 2015
And yet they felt compelled to open the article with this statement

While it's important to avoid jumping to conclusions and wait for rigorous analysis, it's pretty clear that an environment in which ice melts tends to imply temperatures above zero.

That suggests a stronger probability of rain than snow, as well as short-lived (i.e. quickly melting) snow.
jeffensley
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2015
If it were that simple, the researchers wouldn't hesitate to make that statement. The fact is, it ISN'T simple. You lean, without an understanding of the process, toward the answer you want to see.
animah
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2015
Well it *is* not that simple. Some of that moisture might be blown to colder parts. Some may stay in place. Some may condense and freeze as snow but fall on open water. Some may end up on ice and some on land where it might run off back to the sea or become trapped in lakes... But in what proportions respectively?

That's why I said it's important to wait until data can be more fully analysed rather than jump to conclusions.

However it is still naive to think that the probability distribution is not biased towards liquid water in an environment where melting is significant.
jeffensley
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 23, 2015
We're talking about sea ice melting. It really has little do do with the average temperature of land bodies that the moisture is eventually carried over as precipitation. It's like equating the temperature of water in the Gulf of Mexico with snowfall in DC. Based on that, it should never snow there.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2015
" so the quantitative link between precipitation and sea ice is poorly understood."

None the less, western nations should fork over a trillion a year to African dictators' Swiss bank accounts, you know, just in case.


Wow, there's a new twist on the conspiracy. It's African Dictators!

Seriously, where do these loons come from? I think it must be antigrezelda in drag or something.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 23, 2015
And yet they felt compelled to open the article with this statement...


Interesting. So jeffensley doesn't know what precipitation is.

The melting of sea ice will significantly increase Arctic precipitation, creating a climate feedback comparable to doubling global carbon dioxide, a Dartmouth College-led study finds.


Anyone with an ounce of intellect sees that the narrative, not truth, is what's important here


And yet, the governments of the entire world agreed it is a problem that needs to be addressed. I wonder Jeff - how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?
cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2015
Didn't these guys get the message the "science has been settled".
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2015
Didn't these guys get the message the "science has been settled".

Silly rabbit, nothing is EVER settled.
Don't you understand that CHANGE is the most fundamental force in the Universe?
jeffensley
3 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2015
And yet, the governments of the entire world agreed it is a problem that needs to be addressed. I wonder Jeff - how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?


Indeed? What did the future look like when you traveled there in your time machine? The inflexible dogma of alarmists like you flies in the face of what science is supposed to be about. How does it feel to be a hypocrite?
antigoracle
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 23, 2015
So, AGW Cult "science" predicted the climate prediction in which the sea ice melts, but they failed to predict that it would complicate the prediction. I know that's a lot of diction for you Chicken Littles to swallow, but no worries eh, because the "science" is settled.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (15) Dec 23, 2015
Aunti once again conflates "settled science" with on-going engineering and new science.
So, AGW Cult "science" predicted the climate prediction in which the sea ice melts, but they failed to predict that it would complicate the prediction. I know that's a lot of diction for you Chicken Littles to swallow, but no worries eh, because the "science" is settled.


The fact that CO2 (and other GHGs) heat the earth is settled science.

How that heat is distributed on the earth is on-going engineering.
jeffensley
3 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2015
The fact that CO2 (and other GHGs) heat the earth is settled science.


No, the proper terminology would be that GHG's increase heating POTENTIAL. The gasses themselves don't generate heat. So many other variables factor into the amount of solar energy we receive and emit so assuming an increase in GHG's automatically means heating is erroneous, though currently I'd say it's probably true. It'll be interesting to see if our predictions about an approaching decline in solar activity come true and how they will affect climate. Either way, our dabbling with models and our grand climate summits really don't effect an outcome though I thin kwe must get some kind of peace of mind pretending we understand and control the Earth.
antigoracle
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2015
Poor thermo, swallowed so much diction he's got brain damage.
Yep, that's the settled science the AGW Cult has been preaching.
Tell me thermo, how much CO2 is the right amount, according to your settled science?
greenonions
4.7 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2015
Jeffensle
What did the future look like when you traveled there
Every day on Physorg, and other sites - we see evidence of the problems being created by both pollution, and climate change. I could show you the data on ocean level/temp increase, melting ice sheets, melting permafrost, glacier retreat etc. Just today there are two articles on extreme levels of pollution in China and India - that causes the death of millions annually. The scientists who are studying the problem are telling us that we are rolling a dice with the climate right now - and the chances are high that if we keep loading the atmosphere with green house gasses - the result is going to be bad. It is clear that the system is going to keep warming - if we keep on with business as usual. Today's article is talking about one small part of a large, complex system - and yes - it show that there is uncertainty. However - the scientists say that continuing with business as usual will almost certainly cont.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2015
cont. cause the system to continue warming - and the odds are high that the consequences will not be pretty. Looking for win/win solutions (such as cheaper, abundant, renewable energy) to deal with the certain problem of pollution, and the almost certain problems caused by warming - seems like a smart investment to those studying the problem. Your approach is screw it - don't worry about the future - live for today - roll the dice - and our grand kids can deal with what ever happens.
richardwenzel987
3.3 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2015
Actually, since this is the only planet we've got or are likely to have, it might be wise to be a little cautious before we alter the composition of the atmosphere, or wipe out ecosystems. The people who are insisting "no problem, don't worry" are expressing certainty about a complex system. And yet, when others point to potential problems, they are criticized for being certain about an uncertain and complex system. You can't have it both ways. Caution is the correct approach, I think.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 24, 2015
Indeed? What did the future look like when you traveled there in your time machine? The inflexible dogma of alarmists like you flies in the face of what science is supposed to be about. How does it feel to be a hypocrite?
It is the unyielding dogmatism and mindless denialsm of the likes of YOU that is hypocritical. There is no science, none, that makes any difference to your politically driven opposition to something that greater than 90% of scientists the world over agree is true that makes you an angry slobbering relic of history. Do you argue the world is circled by the sun too loser? You have about the same degree of scientific support, and you are as far behind the facts now as the church was then.

Laughable!

Bongstar420
3.5 / 5 (14) Dec 25, 2015
I would like increased warming with the elimination of fossil fuels for energy...but if you give me a free ufo space ship, we can have the ice house planet you want instead

Indeed? What did the future look like when you traveled there in your time machine? The inflexible dogma of alarmists like you flies in the face of what science is supposed to be about. How does it feel to be a hypocrite?
It is the unyielding dogmatism and mindless denialsm of the likes of YOU that is hypocritical. There is no science, none, that makes any difference to your politically driven opposition to something that greater than 90% of scientists the world over agree is true that makes you an angry slobbering relic of history. Do you argue the world is circled by the sun too loser? You have about the same degree of scientific support, and you are as far behind the facts now as the church was then.

Laughable!


cantdrive85
3.8 / 5 (13) Dec 26, 2015
It is the unyielding dogmatism and mindless denialsm of the likes of YOU that is hypocritical. There is no science, none, that makes any difference to your politically driven opposition to something that greater than 90% of scientists the world over agree is true

So it's about a popularity contest, are you sure there aren't any hanging chads in the ballot box?
Here is a study by NASA (which was not reported on by the Amerikan press- surprise!) that shows just the exact opposite of what the AGWite Chicken Littles have been preaching for quite some time now. It would seem burning "fossil" fuels and cutting down trees actually results in a COOLING effect.
http://www.expres...ays-NASA
Needless to say, this along with the multitudes of other variables (including the primary, Earth-Sun connection) shows explicitly that the dire forecasts of the AGWite alarmists aren't worth the papers they're printed on.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2015
@canti

The article headline is misleading. The study points out that sensitivity to CO2 has been
UNDER estimated.

"Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be. This means that Earth's climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide — or atmospheric carbon dioxide's capacity to affect temperature change — has been underestimated, according to the study."

"The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7°C); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C)."

TBC

Vietvet
5 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2015
Perhaps you didn't read the entire article or didn't comprehend it.

"If you've got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you're systematically underestimating what's going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver," Schmidt said.

http://www.giss.n...0151218/
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2015
Thanks vietvet for being able to read the article. Seems like that is a rare skill for some. Also for pointing out the obvious - Cantdrive - Cantread either.
rgw
3 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2015
" None the less, western nations should fork over a trillion a year to African dictators' Swiss bank accounts, you know, just in case.


If the money is in Swiss banks, someone should ask which Swiss bankers will 'volunteer' to be put up against the wall to protect an African (or any) dictator's account.

cantdrive85
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2015
Perhaps you didn't read the entire article or didn't comprehend it.

"If you've got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you're systematically underestimating what's going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver," Schmidt said.

http://www.giss.n...0151218/

Nope, I understood it just fine. And I understood the opinion he added at the bottom. The article also says this;
"The study found existing models for climate change had been too simplistic and did not account for these factors."
Such as the finding in the article above. Just another feather in the cap of "the simplistic models did not account for these factors" regarding a "settled science".
greenonions
5 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2015
cantdrive
Nope, I understood it just fine.


No you did not. Otherwise you would not have said this
Here is a study by NASA... that shows just the exact opposite of what the AGWite Chicken Littles have been preaching for quite some time now.


This study - far from showing the opposite of what AGW has been predicting - actually states (as pointed out by vietvet) that the models have underestimated the affect of C02 in the atmosphere.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 26, 2015
jeffensley claims
No, the proper terminology would be that GHG's increase heating POTENTIAL
Not quite correct but, hey an "Environmental Scientist" ES from, Virginia tech *should* know & articulate properly, its radiative transfer
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Simplified for You as Your claim to be an ES is False:-

Visible light to Earth isn't attenuated as it hits land/oceans where it creates heat which is radiated as Infra Red (IR), GHGs not only attenuate flow of IR so space, they also redirect some back down
https://en.wikipe..._forcing
http://cbc.arizon.../sim/gh/

WHY jeffensley don't you get it, its BASIC stuff for an Environmental Scientist ?

jeffensley said
The gasses themselves don't generate heat
Ah got 1 right !

jeffensley claims
.. assuming an increase in GHG's automatically means heating is erroneous
Ah got that WRONG !

See above links, not assumption - proven !

Learn Physics !
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 26, 2015
cantdrive85 confused
"The study found existing models for climate change had been too simplistic and did not account for these factors."
Such as the finding in the article above. Just another feather in the cap of "the simplistic models did not account for these factors" regarding a "settled science".
cantdrive85 please read links offered, they are essential Physics you seem to confuse interpretation of distribution of heat with the radiative properties of heat ie GHG property

Unfortunately some mistake for ALL science, clearly distribution/motion of that *extra* heat is subject to several chaotic factors re shifting currents sea & air, albedo changes etc so that part is not yet fully settled although it is clearly asymptotic

Integration of that heat whether locally distributed chaotically or not is confirmed & averaged at the levels shown in this link:-
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Physics of Radiative transfer settled, any refutation ?
jeffensley
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 27, 2015
Indeed? What did the future look like when you traveled there in your time machine? The inflexible dogma of alarmists like you flies in the face of what science is supposed to be about. How does it feel to be a hypocrite?
It is the unyielding dogmatism and mindless denialsm of the likes of YOU that is hypocritical. There is no science, none, that makes any difference to your politically driven opposition to something that greater than 90% of scientists the world over agree is true that makes you an angry slobbering relic of history. Do you argue the world is circled by the sun too loser? You have about the same degree of scientific support, and you are as far behind the facts now as the church was then.

Laughable!



Thank you for expressing total ignorance as to my stand on AGW.
jeffensley
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 27, 2015
Every day on Physorg, and other sites - we see evidence of the problems being created by both pollution, and climate change. I could show you the data on ocean level/temp increase, melting ice sheets, melting permafrost, glacier retreat etc.


Explain how these are problems and not simply our fear of the unknown? Was it a problem when sea levels rose 15mm/year after the last glacial maximum? Was it a problem when sea levels peaked 20-30 feet higher than current sea levels in the last inter-glacial period?

Just today there are two articles on extreme levels of pollution in China and India - that causes the death of millions annually.


Easy, direct correlations. Burning coal without scrubbers = bad for your health. Incomparable with vague climate change "problems" that ignore geologic history/perspective.

Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 27, 2015
jeffensley missed the point with
Explain how these are problems and not simply our fear of the unknown? Was it a problem when sea levels rose 15mm/year after the last glacial maximum? Was it a problem when sea levels peaked 20-30 feet higher than current sea levels in the last inter-glacial period?
Obviously population levels now are far higher than "way back then" or hadn't you noticed ?

jeffensley, since you mentioned in an earlier post not knowing much about CO2 and recently claimed we don't know what your position is then please state it - just to avoid casually mis-characterizing you as you just don't seem to communicate at all like any "Environmental Scientist" I've ever met that *should* know about radiative transfer ?

ie Especially since its brought into question by you here:-
Thank you for expressing total ignorance as to my stand on AGW.
If you did graduate as an ES then when please AND why pray tell did it miss the important sections re heat ?
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2015
jeffensley
Explain how these are problems and not simply our fear of the unknown?


Well jeff - we can look at the data regarding sea level rise - understand that they are caused by a warming system - that is melting the ice sheets, and raising the ocean temps (thermal expansion). Obviously if the system continues to warm - ocean levels will continue their upward trend. So - cities around the world - will need to pour billions into flood control. London for example - http://21stcentur...-floods/

I think we should be studying the problem - and listening to the scientists. Your approach seems to be - don't worry about the future - it will be what it is. There is clearly the POTENTIAL - for catastrophic consequences to loading our atmosphere with both pollutants, and green house gasses. It is not fear of the unknown - it is science. Let's look for win/win situations - and at least be guilty of acting on the best information cont.
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2015
cont. we have today. As with many areas of life (medicine, technology etc.) let's listen to the experts - and be willing to change if they tell us it is important - especially if we can find win/win situations - that will solve the two headed problem of climate change, and pollution - and create a better world for us to live in. I have a Nissan leaf. We still have a long way to go before EV's are equivalent to gassers. But I far prefer driving the Leaf, and know that future EV's will be far better machines. We have to be willing to try.
jeffensley
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2015
Obviously population levels now are far higher than "way back then" or hadn't you noticed ?


Then wouldn't population and our "permanent" development of impermanent shorelines the issue and not an ever-changing planet?

jeffensley, since you mentioned in an earlier post not knowing much about CO2 and recently claimed we don't know what your position is then please state it - just to avoid casually mis-characterizing you as you just don't seem to communicate at all like any "Environmental Scientist" I've ever met that *should* know about radiative transfer ?

ie Especially since its brought into question by you here:-
Thank you for expressing total ignorance as to my stand on AGW.
If you did graduate as an ES then when please AND why pray tell did it miss the important sections re heat ?
jeffensley
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2015
claimed we don't know what your position is then please state it


I believe we understand as a singular phenomenon, how CO2 (and other GHG's) behave in regards to radiated energy from our sun. I believe the planet is warming and has been since the last glacial maximum with SOME acceleration from anthropogenic CO2. In our efforts to feign understanding and control, we have over-simplified the mechanisms that will control future CO2 concentrations and catastrophized the effects of a warming planet to maximize emotional effect. In other words, media and government, with the support of some activist "researchers" are using flawed models to emotionally manipulate the populace. Very UN-scientific. cont'd
jeffensley
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2015
I believe we are already seeing evidence of the mechanisms the planet uses to deal with change (longer growing seasons, phytoplankton blooms, slight increases in ocean temps, slight decreases in ocean pH). Any human-led attempts to alter the climate would pale in comparison to the Earth's ability to adapt. Any attempts to artificially moderate climate simply in order to protect what have always been impermanent coastlines would be a ridiculously expensive folly. I believe we should continue to research new forms of energy and gradually phase out fossil fuels, not because it will have any effect on the climate but because ideally these new forms of energy would be far more sustainable and less destructive (mining, fracking) to harness.
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2015
jeff
I believe we are already seeing evidence of the mechanisms the planet uses to deal with change
Firstly - what you (or I) believe is irrelevant - and the use of that approach always smacks to me of a very unscientific approach. There are well documented feed back loops (albedo affect for example) - but they often amplify the milankovich cycles - so can you give us any scientific links to support your 'belief'.
I believe the planet is warming and has been since the last glacial maximum
That is the past 26,000 years - correct? Here are some proxies for the past 40,000 years - https://en.wikipe...0kyr.png Do you see the problem in terms of just having a 'belief' system - rather than being interested in science and facts?
jeffensley
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2015
greenonions, a member asked me to clarify my beliefs regarding AGW. They are as relevant/irrelevant as yours are.Why didn't you site references that illustrate how these well documented feedback loops that frighten you so much have the ability to operate in perpetuity? That would be the only reason to fear them. The evidence that they do not comes from simple, geologic history.

Regarding your reference, I thought total heat was the concern now, not proxy surface air temperatures? A continuation of sea level rise through the supposed cooling period that started 10,000 years ago indicates to me that melting was occurring meaning the planet was gaining heat. http://people.unc...1989.pdf
jeffensley
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2015
Also my "un-scientific" beliefs about the planet's ability to deal with change are supported, though I'm sure that won't phase you. Hopefully it will make the "well-documented" feedback loops a little less scary for you, at least.

Phytoplankton subjected to warmed water initially failed to thrive but it took only 45 days, or 100 generations, for them to evolve tolerance to temperatures expected by the end of the century. With their newfound tolerance came an increase in the efficiency in which they were able to convert carbon dioxide into new biomass


http://phys.org/n...ate.html
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2015
jeffensley "believes" as a religious follower
... I believe the planet is warming and has been since the last glacial maximum with SOME acceleration from anthropogenic CO2
jeffensley you are showing yourself up as its not the language (qualitative etc) or process (references etc) of *any* credible scientist, ie Your claim of a degree in "Environmental Science" (ES) is False.

NOT belief its about Evidence, "Balance of probabilities"

jeffensley said
"SOME" acceleration
Please accept the quantification, if not WHY ?
https://en.wikipe..._forcing
which arises from fully proven, never refuted
https://en.wikipe...transfer

jeffensley claims
In our efforts to feign understanding and control, we have over-simplified the mechanisms that will control future CO2 concentrations and catastrophized the effects of a warming planet to maximize emotional effect
No.

CO2 returned via plants or water/ocean absorption it IS simple
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2015
jeff
feedback loops that frighten you so much have the ability to operate in perpetuity?
I never said they frighten me - and I never said they operate in perpetuity. What I took issue with is your use of the terms 'I believe' - with regard to scientific issues. Again - what you and I believe is irrelevant. What is relevant is the data. You never provided any support to asserting that the earth has these wonderful 'mechanisms' that are going to 'deal with change'. You want a link for feedbacks - http://www.metoff...eedbacks
My point is that you make grand declarations - like how the earth is 'dealing with' change - instead of referring to the science - that is currently concerned that we may be looking at a warming effect - caused by loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses - that POTENTIALLY has some serious consequences for us. You produce one study on phyotplankton - (looking at warming temps) - to support your cont.
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2015
assertion that the earth is going to 'deal with' warming. Well there are other studies showing that decreased ph may counteract the effect of your study - and hurt phytoplankton - http://www.planet...lankton/

So Jeff - what are your credentials for making these grand declarations about the future? What do you feel puts you in a position to disagree with the overwhelming body of science - that says that we have a problem - that we bloody well need to be taking seriously - rather than your cavalier attitude - that you know better than the world's scientific community? Again - if we look hard for win/win solutions - while we continue to gather data - and develop our knowledge of this complex system - what could be the objection to that?
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2015
jeffensley claims
greenonions, a member asked me to clarify my beliefs regarding AGW
No !

Never asked for your beliefs, asked you to clarify your position yet you respond with beliefs, greenonions is correctly objecting to that redneck unscientific view

jeffensley, don't you get it, its NOT about beliefs as if a dogma, its about Evidence & the "Balance of Probabilities" (BoP)

So far pattern of Evidence & Bop is:-

1. Sea level rise accelerating overall
2. Albedo decreasing overall

Unless there is some major reduction in CO2 & large increase in Albedo the various longer term catastrophic scenarios severely increase by BoP !

Of course many media sources which gain clicks/views etc for choosing unscientific language isnt helpful but, jeffensley, its clear you are Not a claimed Scientist as you use similar unscientific language consistent with a placator to obfuscate the core issue, long term we are getting into trouble Eg many more live in coastal regions...
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2015
greenonions asked of jeffensley
So Jeff - what are your credentials for making these grand declarations about the future?
jeffensley claimed to be an "Environmental Scientist" (ES) from Virginia Tech but, refuses to say just when :-(

I looked up the course structure and sure enough it includes Physics (heat transfer incl) & Maths with prerequisite Calculus, one would expect that as its part of thermal dynamics in Environment but, here are key problems with jeffensley's decidedly unscientific approach:-

1. Didnt know about radiative heat transfer
2. When advised he downplayed it
3. Claimed chaos theory don't allow predicted effects of increased heat
4. Missed point re Integration re 3.
5. Fails to quantify
6. Use qualitative language consistent with lack of training
7. Writes of belief far ahead of any evidence
8. Chooses language consistent with placating media hype

BoP appears jeffensley is either paid to downplay AGW or happy to waste time on idle beliefs
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2015
@greenonions, I forgot to add jeffensley didnt know anything about the most powerful positive feedback effect of ALL time & that's increased H2O - as the little dweeb Water_Prophet some moons ago correctly stated Water Vapour is more 'powerful' GHG than CO2 but, Water_Prophet mirrored jeffensley's lack of education in THIS:-
https://en.wikipe...ometrics

ie Its the key causal issue as to just WHY Water Vapour is lifted ie (extra) heat, Water_Prophet was advised but STILL failed to understand as he had no basic Physics understanding of heat, jeffensley failed to have any knowledge of Psychrometry

Granted some electrical/nuclear engineers might also have negligible education in Psychrometry though they get a primer in radiative heat transfer

Add to my list in my last post is:-

9. Didnt know anything at all re Psychrometry

ie Courses in "Environmental Science" MUST educate in Psychrometry as it directly relates humidity & temp in the environment !
antigoracle
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 28, 2015
Ho..ho...It's Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast. Mutterin' Mike believes globull warming can evaporate the ocean but not melt the snow in Denmark during the summer.
jeffensley
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2015
Mike has returned to my ignore list with his broken record of insults and ad-hominem attacks. Greenonions, the use of "I believe" is perfectly acceptable. You "believe" scientists when they tell you "x" is happening. More than likely you did not read the study and s and it's even more likely you did not watch them perform their measurements. In other words, you "believe" they did their work properly, you agree with their conclusion, and you believe there was no wrong-doing in the papers approval... all based on what is likely a brief summary article on a site like phys.org. That's faith.
jeffensley
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2015
Secondly, you counter my link that suggests phytoplankton will thrive in higher ocean temperatures with an incomplete one that says lower pH will harm them. That, in a nutshell, is why I don't take our predictions seriously. There's far too much uncertainty in the future. We are clueless as to how Nature responds to change, in part because even Nature doesn't know exactly how it will respond until it happens. Yet, our models don't work unless we presume to know certain values (such as future carbon fixation rates) so we take guesses. I don't "believe" in this methodology. We can apply the scientific method to simple systems and predictions work quite well in laboratory conditions (mass balance is basically a prediction) but when we enter the world of climate science, we are infants.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2015
antigoracle with his usual inarticulate claims says
Ho..ho...It's Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast
As I already accepted Bonobo's are classed as Apes & apologized for the error, it does you no credit to return to grubby attacks again. Never claimed to be a wikipedia scholar ever, as I have mentioned to you previously wikipedia is suitable as an entrant for the less fortunate who missed out on university

You've been here long enough & lots of educated people advise you of errors in your knowledge & methodology but, you refuse to improve your education, what does that say about you ?

You only attack the person & prove incapable of addressing Science :-(

antigoracle claims
Mutterin' Mike believes globull warming can evaporate the ocean but not melt the snow in Denmark during the summer
False !
Never wrote it in any way shape or form ever, prove it please ?

All you have is ugly claim :-(

Learn Physics !
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2015
jeffensley claims
Mike has returned to my ignore list with his broken record of insults and ad-hominem attacks
Good, I'll continue to address your false claims & you can't see them, perfect :-)

jeffensley claims
Greenonions, the use of "I believe" is perfectly acceptable
No, not in the context you used

jeffensley claims
You "believe" scientists when they tell you "x" is happening
No, the correct response is to "accept" based upon evidence currently available

jeffensley Fails to prove his claims
More than likely you did not read the study and s and it's even more likely you did not watch them perform their measurements. In other words, you "believe" they did their work properly, you agree with their conclusion, and you believe there was no wrong-doing in the papers approval... all based on what is likely a brief summary article on a site like phys.org. That's faith.
No.

Above proves your claim to be an "Environmental Scientist" is wholly false
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2015
jeffensley claims
Secondly, you counter my link that suggests phytoplankton will thrive in higher ocean temperatures with an incomplete one that says lower pH will harm them. That, in a nutshell, is why I don't take our predictions seriously. There's far too much uncertainty in the future. We are clueless as to how Nature responds to change, in part because even Nature doesn't know exactly how it will respond until it happens
Vague & off, a trained "Environmental Scientist" (ES) wouldn't write this way, they would "accept" the balance of probabilities by applying comparative quantitative magnitudes

jeffensley claims
Yet, our models don't work unless we presume to know certain values (such as future carbon fixation rates) so we take guesses
Not what a true ES would write, jeffensley cannot be an ES !

Models derive error bars & there are factors re combinatorially derived probabilities.

ie. Albedo re AGW nature has minor -ve f/back, predominant is +ve re IR
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 28, 2015
For those imagining jeffensley's claim to be an "Environmental Scientist" might be close to his version of reality & are interested in truth & details, might like to read someone elses challenge to jeffensley's naive "appeal to authority" claim by Captain_Stumpy here
http://phys.org/n...des.html

Why, because a properly trained "Environmental Scientist" knows full well the value of models that deal with chaos vs integration vs basic Physics & why they are essential processes *within* Science, something which jeffensley fails completely at !

I've told this time waster jeffensley by way of comparison re the models used in engine computers & issue re feedback methods, ie The chaotic nature of combustion is very well integrated re heat/energy & is directly applicable to AGW

Ask when he got his degree & why it badly missed items I listed earlier, in particular the understanding of; radiative heat transfer & especially Psychrometry & Calculus ?
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2015
jeff
Greenonions, the use of "I believe" is perfectly acceptable


There is our fundamental disagreement. It is not OK - in a scientific discussion - to talk about what I 'believe'. Example - 'I believe the earth is flat' So what? What does the data say? What does the science community understand about this topic? Other example - my friend 'believes' that if you eat certain herbs - you can cure yourself of cancer. When I got cancer - I went to the doctor - and had surgery. It did not matter what I 'believed' would cure my cancer - what mattered was that the science community had studied this problem - and I am glad the doc knew what he was doing. The problem for me with the climate change debate - is that the science community is trying to study the issue - and make best recommendations - based on best current knowledge - and the pseudo science community is putting personal belief before prudence - playing with our kids futures.
antigoracle
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 28, 2015
As I already accepted Bonobo's are classed as Apes & apologized for the error, it does you no credit to return to grubby attacks again. Never claimed to be a wikipedia scholar ever, as I have mentioned to you previously wikipedia is suitable as an entrant for the less fortunate who missed out on university

Yep, Wikipedia is such a great resource for the likes of you who can't read, far less comprehend. How else would you make that error, when in the first 2 lines of your wikipedia reference, it clearly stated Bonobos are apes.

http://phys.org/n...ate.html
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2015
jeff
There's far too much uncertainty in the future.
bingo - the situation is incredibly complex - and there is much uncertainty about the future. Did anyone say that we knew everything about the future? However - with that understanding - what should we do? jeffensley wants to say - screw it - don't study the problem - don't make best decisions - based on best current information - roll the die - and let our kids deal with what ever happens. Others of us say - pay attention to the unfolding knowledge - listen to the experts who are studying the problem - and make best decisions based on best available current data. Right now they are telling us - cut green house gasses - and try to limit future warming. Seems like a no brainer to me. Look for win/win ways to do this - by developing low cost/abundant/low carbon energy sources. We get a better world - and our kids appreciate that we were willing to step up.
jeffensley
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2015
We will have to agree to disagree. Labeling a discussion "scientific" doesn't remove the uncertainties of prediction and the requirement of an individual's faith to believe in their validity. Calling computer predictions "science" doesn't make our models anymore valid either. I personally choose to put my faith in the fact that life has existed for billions of years on this planet under a variety of conditions over computer models and our human emotional responses to them. Label that what you will but I feel my views are more founded in reality than those of people who respond to computer model predicitons as if they were the word of an all powerful God.
gkam
2 / 5 (16) Dec 28, 2015
" life has existed for billions of years on this planet under a variety of conditions "
----------------------------------------

Yes, . . but not Human life. We are extremely fragile.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2015
jeff
Calling computer predictions "science" doesn't make our models anymore valid either.


Yes it does. Modelling is the best tool we have today in terms of predicting what will happen in the future. Others may prefer to consult with a psychic. The models are far from perfect - but the best tool we have. Weather models are also far from perfect - and sometimes get the forecast wrong - but they also save a lot of lives - by warning us of future weather events. I of course don't mind that we disagree - but really resent that the world is so trapped in a black hole of ignorance - much caused by those such as yourself - who do not respect science - and want to use personal belief to obstruct the very important changes we need to make - to move the world forward.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2015
antigoracle stated
.. How else would you make that error, when in the first 2 lines of your wikipedia reference, it clearly stated Bonobos are apes.
http://phys.org/n...ate.html
Am on 20+ forums, not my primary expertise already apologised, what is your point ?

I made a slip Eg Monkeys/Apes on adjacent branches, wow, how clever of you to *only* attack & long after another pointed it out - what does that achieve except confirm your only (bad) habit is attacking people, not addressing Science in any way shape or form ?

What do you want antigoracle, brownie points, you didnt check at the time, you blindly follow prejudice & fail yet again, you achieve nothing, sad

NB antigoracle, hiding behind anonymous politically inspired nickname, you have Never ever apologised for Any of staggering number of misquotes, jibes & personal attacks on so many !

Do something useful, learn Physics - attacking the man not addressing Science is a Fail :-(
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2015
jeffensley shows Failure understanding Heat
We will have to agree to disagree. Labeling a discussion "scientific" doesn't remove the uncertainties of prediction and the requirement of an individual's faith to believe in their validity
FFS, its radiative transfer, proven & Integrates over chaos - same principle as ECU in an engine

jeffensley Fails
Calling computer predictions "science" doesn't make our models anymore valid either
Wrong. Founded on Physics !

jeffensley Fails
I personally choose to put my faith in the fact that life has existed for billions of years...
Unscientific to the core ignoring plight of those affected as global warming accelerates, very sad testament of apathy :-(

jeffensley Fails
.. but I feel my views are more founded in reality than those of people who respond to computer model predicitons as if they were the word of an all powerful God
No,, prove "in reality" ?

You missed error bars, 'numerical methods' are Science !
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2015
FWIW: Local Weather forecasts vs climate models

Interesting anomaly re the two is its far easier/elegant to predict long term climate changes over the globe re warming as any local chaotic perturbations are summed very well ie "Integrated" & with far more than sufficient resolution, especially so because the many systems of computers which compute the Physics do so many millions of times faster than climate changes allowing f/back sec by sec to steer away from noise accumulation

ie. Old paradigm of GIGO sidestepped definitely so as the sensor net re weather stations provides wide ranges of f/back very long before billions of model iterations computed often

Essential issue is an Environmental Scientist is taught numerical methods as part of the Science of "Probability & Statistics" enabling extraction of signal from noise. With globe being so large in relation to thermodynamics of local heat variations they sum & don't diverge, a basic principle of Physics re heat
jeffensley
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2015
As a field scientist, I resent that people continue to lend more credence to models than they deserve. Yes, they are the best tools we have but that doesn't mean we are supposed to react today to what they predict may happen in a century or two. What's funny is, we both want the same thing; a turn toward renewable energy but we want it for different reasons. For me it's as simple as it being the right thing to do for a sustainable future. If the die-hard alarmists would simply let go of the idea that we should cut back on CO2 because models say we should, I'd have little to argue with you all about. But reacting to long-range computer models sets a very dangerous precedent for humanity. The flaw of our models and our inability to predict the direction Nature will go in, cannot be overlooked.
antigoracle
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 28, 2015
Unscientific to the core ignoring plight of those affected as global warming accelerates, very sad testament of apathy :-(

Mutterin' Mike blabbers. Tell us Mutterin' Mike, who and how are those affected? Have you stopped burning fossil fuels?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 28, 2015
jeffensley said
As a field scientist, I resent that people continue to lend more credence to models than they deserve
Can jeffensley prove systemic faults in the numerical methodology of current climate models ?

Science is Not about resentment (an unscientific emotive/qualitative term), this proves again jeffensley has negligible education in just why these models are important Eg global Integration of Heat, his claim to be a Scientist is false

jeffensley shifted from claiming "Environmental Scientist" to a "Field Scientist" (FS), what sort of FS, can't he remember which he claimed to be ?

In any case jeffensley *should* know contemporary climate models are firmly founded in Physics ie Statistical Mechanics & Integration & he *should* appreciate just how often models are executed with immense permutations thus avoiding several error types !

If jeffensley had training in numerical methods, probability & statistics he might be able to offer educated commentary
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2015
antigoracle Fails to read & is obviously fishing yet again for another opportunity to attack the person not address the Science
re jeffensley
Unscientific to the core ignoring plight of those affected as global warming accelerates, very sad testament of apathy :-(
Tell us Mutterin' Mike, who and how are those affected?
antigoracle wasting time, his questions already here

You've been on these forums for yrs & already know, why ask me ?

Relevant commentary already in posts on this forum & elsewhere but, thanks for the opportunity to clarify & educate you further :P

1. Sea level rise, see Tuvalu, Bangladesh & others in coastal regions subject to storm surge
2. Ocean acidification, impact on crustacea, fish stocks etc
3. Shifts in rainfall patterns in food growing regions affecting crop viability
4. CO2 affecting quality of food re equilibria shift ie cyanogens eg Cassava, clover
5. Greater fire risks, California, Australia

I've reduced petrol use, have you ?
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2015
further to jeffensley claims
.. Yes, they are the best tools we have but that doesn't mean we are supposed to react today to what they predict may happen in a century or two
This is an immense display of ignorance ie "rate of change" (ROC) in conjunction with ocean's high thermal inertia

Again jeffensley, shows definitively he has negligible understanding of essentials re "Environmental Science" therefore evidence his claims to be a (credible) Scientist are false !

jeffensley *should* have gained key education in Calculus, able to appreciate ROC as part of control systems "feed forward aspect" where earliest pre-emptive action is an imperative !

jeffensley added
What's funny is, we both want the same thing; a turn toward renewable energy but we want it for different reasons
This jibe implies other than a Science sentiment - what "different reasons", what does he imply - can he prove it ?

Why so very often does jeffensley betray a non scientific base ?
antigoracle
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 28, 2015
Shifts in rainfall patterns in food growing regions affecting crop viability

Mutterin' Mike blabbers. Hey Mutterin' Mike, find me a single peer reviewed study that conclusively finds AGW responsible for your claim above.
antigoracle
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 28, 2015
I've reduced petrol use

Mutterin Mike blabbers. Tell us by how much?
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2015
jeff
But reacting to long-range computer models sets a very dangerous precedent for humanity.
The interesting thing is - that you actually do exactly what you are condemning here - only worse. See - whether we like it or not - we have to make decisions today about important issues such as energy systems, environmental management, water policies etc. etc. Doing nothing - is a choice in itself. So - what do we base these decisions on? One option would be the best science available - which would mean listening to the science community - and involving them in the policy making process. Another decision - would be asking jeffensley what we should do - and basing policy decisions on jeff's belief system. So we advocate for a more science based process - and jeff criticizes us - saying that it is dangerous to base policy decisions on best available science evidence (by your own admission). Let's here it for making decisions based on Jeff's intuition!
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 28, 2015
antigoracle demanded impolitely
Shifts in rainfall patterns in food growing regions affecting crop viability
Mutterin' Mike blabbers. Hey Mutterin' Mike, find me a single peer reviewed study that conclusively finds AGW responsible for your claim..
West Australia & once you get education in essentials, specifically radiative heat transfer (never refuted for ~100years) then you can find details yourself.

Chance of key essentials education offers freedom from ugly narrow political propaganda

As you're often; erratic, irrational & impolite but, have observed others more expert than I
ie runrig/thermodynamics etc its sensible, with your particular unclear angry bent, that you address fundamentals & refute basics of radiative heat transfer which lead to:-
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Asked you often & always refused then prior onus squarely on you, not sensible to waste my time going backwards with you,

Petrol ~3L/mth, I trade at home :-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2015
" life has existed for billions of years on this planet under a variety of conditions "
----------------------------------------

Yes, . . but not Human life. We are extremely fragile.

Tell that to Bruce Willis...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2015
The interesting thing is - that you actually do exactly what you are condemning here - only worse. See - whether we like it or not - we have to make decisions today about important issues such as energy systems, environmental management, water policies etc. etc. Doing nothing - is a choice in itself. ... So we advocate for a more science based process - and jeff criticizes us - saying that it is dangerous to base policy decisions on best available science evidence (by your own admission). ...

GO, I think Jeff is simply advocating for a little more "thoughtful pragmatism" and restraint. Models are not the actual science - they are a mathematic collation of science observations which many times (as many scientists have found) are not as complete or as exact as they prob'ly could be.
Rely on them as a tool? Yes. Trust them implicitly? No.
I think of Shakespeare - "The best laid plans of mice and men, oft gang awry...":-)
(Y'all can 1 me now...:-))
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2015
Whydening
GO, I think Jeff is simply advocating for a little more "thoughtful pragmatism" and restraint.
And what should we base that thoughtful pragmatism on? I am advocating for basing that thoughtful pragmatism on the best science we have currently. Jeff seems to want to base it on his intuition. Many of us advocate for listening to the scientists.
antigoracle
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 29, 2015
Mutterin' Mike, once again confirming he's a Wikipedia scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, who cannot read far less comprehend.

Shifts in rainfall patterns in food growing regions affecting crop viability

Mutterin' Mike where's the science confirming what you blabbered above, or is that one link to radiative heat transfer, all you know?
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 29, 2015
Whydening Gyre considered
GO, I think Jeff is simply advocating for a little more "thoughtful pragmatism" and restraint
Maybe if his claims were true but, he is False !

jeffensely is dangerously uneducated advocating restraint (what sort btw ?) as if good re control systems perspective but, he's ignorant of Physics & importance of rate of change re ocean's Specific Heat (SH). Unfortunately he's absolutely NO idea of accelerating rate of increasing CO2 (& its proven thermal properties) in *Conjunction* with ability to effect corrections within control systems paradigm. If it were only atmosphere (low SH) then sure maybe, oceans SH 4000x greater. Momentum Eg Billy cart vs fully loaded Km long ore train.

Whydening Gyre says
Models are not the actual science..
Incorrect, they are the Science in *conjunction* with Physics re enthalpy & carry same weight as structural engineering calculations for buildings, bridges, drug delivery pumps etc !

cont
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 29, 2015
antigoracle can only bark attack
]Mutterin' Mike, once again confirming he's a Wikipedia scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, who cannot read far less comprehend
These issues already covered fully, you are wasting everyone's time !

antigoracle claims
Mutterin' Mike where's the science confirming what you blabbered above, or is that one link to radiative heat transfer, all you know?
Evidence proves I am a qualified engineer and thus have wide understanding of several issues, I am not your bitch, grow up, make some effort, look at weather patterns over longer than 30yrs Eg Western Australia Wheatbelt south west regions. If you get off your arse you can find others, if you had the presence of mind like an intelligent person since you comment often then you would know - if at least as basis to counter via dialectic. Your immense intellectual deficits are not my concern & especially there is considerable evidence you don't value Science !
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 29, 2015
@Whydening Gyre, continued.

By way of equivalent Eg & well proven for decades are electronic control units (ECU) in vehicles for regulating fuel/timing/exceptions etc

ie. The chaos of combustion is *integrated* perfectly reliably in terms of heat ie for power flow (a facet of the Physics of Statistical Mechanics) despite variations within the combustion chamber even at ~6000rpm (100/s). The computations within the ECU are a "Model", there is no restraint, no incremental drift because, appropriately designed ECU has inputs which are also range controlled & variances managed etc, primary being air flow (MAF) or air pressure (MAP) in conjunction with (combustion) feedback via O2 sensor

Completely equivalent to Climate modeling processes (CMP) re heat but, the feedback element for those are *us* ie our instrumentation of eg diverse temp measurements ie Our management input support system for the CMP is same in control systems paradigm as the MAF/MAP & O2 sensor.

cont
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 29, 2015
@Whydening Gyre, continued

Typical vehicle ECU cost little, $10ea in bulk, mature s/w base, high cpu speed, large system mapping etc.
Climate Modeling Process (CMP) re heat is far more advanced by many orders & at so many levels AND is so very much faster than climate is ever able to change...

Impression many get is s/w is one dimensional re outputs, this hides great deal of s/w management issues, simplest important are range controlled inputs re basic Physics/Math in *conjunction* with key material properties re its inputs ie Specific Heat.

Eg. Re paranoid garbage in garbage out (GIGO) paradigm in non managed control system likely generates false outputs from false sensor data. ie Say an ECU sensor for engine temp shows change from normal to cold in short period, in the 30 yr old paradigm this wouldn't be range checked re rate of change of temp re mass of engine block etc.

Now re CMP, sensor data for all inputs range checked in many ways & very sophisticated

cont
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 29, 2015
@Whydening Gyre continued.

Typical Eg re oceans, physics we know how many J it takes to heat a mass of water & how much J lost when in contact with anything cold. Physics of core heat transfer mechanisms are well proven, well known & routine, to add data management input checks is routine & done for decades,

Eg. If array of Atlantic sensor data indicates higher expected temp re the Physics of ocean specific heat then a whole series of calculations re specific heat & transfer permutations are exercised far faster & dealt with which point to sensor faults and/or raise error bars. In any case the system *Integrates* all of that & is one of many issues jeffensley's of the world are completely Clueless about !

NB: Notion of errors pointing to the source of the error is a difficult paradigm to get ones head around & especially so in a system where there's no s/w, its validity proven:-
https://en.wikipe...ing_code

CMP is far more advanced

cont
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 29, 2015
@Whydening Gyre continued

Key issue of Physics of CMP re specific heat especially oceans is immense thermal inertia, this one fact engenders a very high degree of stability re rate of change (RoC).

Unfortunately RoC of CO2's impact re heat is accelerating with *nothing* comparable re orders of magnitude to counter it at all but, say we get hit by a large dusty asteroid which clouds Earth reducing light hitting surface, then that would be immediately factored & the "restraint" jeffensley blurts about is managed but, the very fact we have such high RoC alone creates the imperative we must deal with it far sooner than lazy intellecutally feeble jeffensleys imagine.

NB: He has *Never* quantified just what "restraint" he guesses at, he says this with the glimmer of a political motivation to obfuscate need for change, not a sensible position re the importance.

Suffice to say GIGO fear mongering is dealt with & at many levels but, the misleading blurts havent.

cont
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 29, 2015
@Whydening Gyre continued, finally.

Been writing re Heat. its most important re primary is Power in equations. The CMP secondary aspect is dealing with distribution of that heat ie local temps, error bars for temp calc are various & constantly analysed, dumbly seized upon by uneducated AGW deniers claiming models fail - they don't !
They are within bounds & the discipline based soundly upon Physics

Arriving at error bars is a Science re measurement methodology, numerical methods etc jeffensley incompetence in Science paints these as guesses, he is completely false !

Many models published & huge number not, also literally millions of permutations run & rerun (very often) pre-empting data set variance, often to test CMP stabilities

Predicting temps & especially so lower specific heat atmosphere is secondary & like all Science is asymptotic & improving, this low level aspect should not mislead us to main problem extra energy/chaos & flow as evidence confirms...
antigoracle
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 29, 2015
Evidence proves I am a qualified engineer and thus have wide understanding of several issues

Mutterin' Mike blabbers again. Mutterin Mike your understanding is obviously not wide enough to grasp the fact that you are incapable of reading, far less comprehending. Mutterin' Mike I'm not interested in just any scientific study, but the one(s) that you used to make the claim below.
Shifts in rainfall patterns in food growing regions affecting crop viability

jeffensley
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2015
Whydening
GO, I think Jeff is simply advocating for a little more "thoughtful pragmatism" and restraint.
And what should we base that thoughtful pragmatism on? I am advocating for basing that thoughtful pragmatism on the best science we have currently. Jeff seems to want to base it on his intuition. Many of us advocate for listening to the scientists.


Really? Where did I say that? All I want is for us to base actions and opinions on reality, not the science fiction of long-range models.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2015
jeff
Really? Where did I say that?
You acknowledged right here that you agree that the models are the best science we have at this point.
Yes, they are the best tools we have
But you argue against basing our policy on "the best tools we have" (your words - and I agree with them). So - given that we have to make decisions (no decision is actually a decision) about policy - I figure what is left? Your constantly rattling on about what you 'believe' - rather than basing our thoughtful pragmatism on sound science. You are on a science site - and arguing for anti science. Your need to make your political commentary every time there is a science article on climate change gives you away as a denier.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 30, 2015
jeffensley Fails showing up immense lack of education despite his claims
All I want is for us to base actions and opinions on reality, not the science fiction of long-range models
Abundantly clear jeffensley's facile desire proves overwhelmingly his claim to be "Environment Scientist" (ES) is completely False !

An ES *knows* (FFS) they're based on irrefutable Physics of *heat* ie Enthalpy

jeffensley still Fails to define what he means by "restraint" & Failed to prove claims he's an ES then changed to call himself a "Field Scientist", either way overwhelming evidence of his posts proves he's NO education in essentials ie. Physics of Heat, Experimental Methods, Numerical Methods, Feedback Control Systems & Environmental Modelling !

Observe please since mid 2015 jeffensley's pattern is gnaw at edges trying to obfuscate Science to attempt to drive uncertainty, just like tobacco lobby, ugly sniping & untrustworthy propaganda :-(

What "actions" jeffensley ?
antigoracle
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 30, 2015
Talk about FAILING, Mutterin Mike just keeps blabbering but still FAILS to substantiate any. Mutterin Mike you keep preaching "science", so where is the science behind your blabberings.
Shifts in rainfall patterns in food growing regions affecting crop viability
Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2015
Talk about FAILING, Mutterin Mike just keeps blabbering but still FAILS to substantiate any. Mutterin Mike you keep preaching "science", so where is the science behind your blabberings.
Shifts in rainfall patterns in food growing regions affecting crop viability


"Climate change affects the distribution of rainfall in Indian subcontinent. How can we find strategies to avoid impacts on food crops?"

https://www.resea..._crops11

http://nca2014.gl...iculture

Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 30, 2015
antigoracle again impolite
Mutterin' Mike blabbers again. Mutterin Mike your understanding is obviously not wide enough to grasp the fact that you are incapable of reading, far less comprehending. Mutterin' Mike I'm not interested in just any scientific study, but the one(s) that you used to make the claim below
Shifts in rainfall patterns in food growing regions affecting crop viability
Why can't you use google well ?

Just noticed Vietvet's kind input offering outside Australia, its indeed an increasing global problem, thanks to him for the effort, which antigoracle Fails at dismally & so often

Re Western Australia, where I visited Dept of Agriculture in 2010 as part of my post graduate in Food Science, their library is extensive & back then many climate change related rainfall articles/reports weren't published online however, start here:-
https://www.agric...20change

cont
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2015
antigoracle dependent asks me, WHY ?
Talk about FAILING, Mutterin Mike just keeps blabbering but still FAILS to substantiate any. Mutterin Mike you keep preaching "science", so where is the science behind your blabberings
Why interested ?
Why can't you find them ?
Will it shut you up ?

Continued Western Australia & few other links where YOU can find more detail:-
https://www.agric...atistics
http://www.ncdc.n...s/events
https://scholar.g...as_vis=1
http://file.scirp...129.html
http://evanmills...._gec.pdf
https://www.googl...mage+usa
http://www.c2es.o.../drought

There are many more, learn to do it yourself !
antigoracle
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2015
Mutterin' Mike FAILS again with his blabbering and just reinforces the fact that he's incapable of reading, far less comprehension.
Shifts in rainfall patterns in food growing regions affecting crop viability

Mutterin' Mike you claimed that AGW is responsible for the above. So, for the umpteenth time, where is the scientific proof? Please provide a single scientific study that corroborates your claim.
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2015
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2015
Mike_Massen
Observe please since mid 2015 jeffensley's pattern is gnaw at edges trying to obfuscate Science to attempt to drive uncertainty, just like tobacco lobby
Mike hits the nail right on the head. Jeff - you claim to be a scientist. Yet you argue against the use of best science available in terms of making prudent policy decisions. When challenged on your obstructionism - you claim to be interested in caution. No action can be less cautious than preemptive action. I see the stakes as being way higher than just affecting our climate. I see us as currently in a war for our culture. The religionists, and cultural conservatives - who hate science, and progress - are taking a last stand against the science that will bring us a cure to all disease, and hopefully some day to immortality. Our progress is slowed to a crawl, by your obstructionism.
jeffensley
3 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2015
No offense greenonions but your post above boils down to this... "You don't accept the current narrative thus you must be a religionist who hates science". On top of that you give me far more credit than I deserve. I don't "obstruct" anything. I'm simply using a medium to express doubts about the way the public is expected to blindly accept things if the label "science" is applied to them. We forget that science is performed by ordinary human beings. And we will continue to disagree that computer models = science. What data analysis have you looked at measuring the accuracy of our long-range climate models? To answer the question for you, such analysis doesn't exist because models haven't been around long enough. So, without any evidence to support your suggestion that models are accurate and useful tools, you expect us to take action because it's the best we can do. Would you admit that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics, as your last post suggests?
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2015
jeff
You don't accept the current narrative thus you must be a religionist who hates science
No jeff - I'll summarize it for you. "The experts who are studying the climate are warning us that it is warming rapidly, and based on best current science - if we don't stop loading the atmosphere with green house gasses - there is a high likelihood that we are going to create serious problems. You have admitted that climate models are the best science we have available. Others have pointed out to you that the models are very much based in well understood physics. Despite these factors - you have no problem in encouraging us to do nothing - and leave future generations to possibly deal with some serious problems. You show that you do not respect science - and your objective is clearly to be a part of the obstructionist/denier community. This community is losing the war - but still pushing very hard to impose it's anti science agenda." OK?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2015
jeffensley facile sarcasm
"You don't accept the current narrative thus you must be a religionist who hates science"
Evidence shows jeffensley expressed arbitrary disdain for Scientists, then he claims
I don't "obstruct" anything
Sad attempt, raising doubt without quantification is a type of obstruction as it attempts to manipulate, then confused
..using a medium to express doubts about the way the public is expected to blindly accept things if the label "science" is applied to them
No. Media hype, not key collaborating science bodies, shows jeffensley hasnt read/understood any IPCC reports & worse jeffensley again facile, implying untrained
We forget that science is performed by ordinary human beings
Ugh, Scientists trained via precise disciplines, many branches in Science ie engineers design; machinery, bridges, aircraft, phones, semiconductors - all processes routinely exploit & continue reviewing well developed Physics models !

cont
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2015
jeffensley attempts to wedge a base
And we will continue to disagree that computer models = science
But, jeffensley hasn't ever converged on just Why he claims models aren't science, his position solidly proves he has nil training in *any* Physics equations or basic knowledge re Heat (ie Statistical mechanics) routinely exploited & very successfully in models by Chemical Engineers even air con techs know & use these models !

jeffensley baits with facile claw to mislead
What data analysis have you looked at measuring the accuracy of our long-range climate models?
Ah, jeffensley pulls the switch to further mislead
To answer the question for you, such analysis doesn't exist because models haven't been around long enough
Dead Wrong, analysis continuous at levels he *should* know if he was uni trained as climate models *within* error bars ie accurate !

jeffensley Fails to understand, Science of Heat >100yrs, models routinely confirm key equations often

cont
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2015
jeffensley misleading/scientific ignorance re "accuracy" paradigm
So, without any evidence to support your suggestion that models are accurate and useful tools, you expect us to take action because it's the best we can do
To clarify, nothing's perfectly accurate except at qualitative level of yes/no, up/down etc observation

jeffensley shallow completely Wrong suggesting models accurate OR not, facile betrays lack of Science, attempting to mislead to paint you in a corner to force a choice with manipulative language

ie. 100% accurate re "I dropped the pencil, it fell on the table" & similar re binary (yes/no) observations, happened or it didn't & within bounds of expectation. Not so re instruments/models Eg Ruler is accurate to 1mm +-0.5mm so to suggest models binary is ignorant/disingenuous misleading the position, we have Science of
https://en.wikipe...ematics)

jeffensley slipped
..to do with politics..
Gave himself away :o)
antigoracle
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2015
Mutterin' Mike, the forum's Wikipedia scholar, is still pretending to know science. Mutterin' Mike apparently discovered Google search, but FAILED to grasp how to use it.
Shifts in rainfall patterns in food growing regions affecting crop viability

Mutterin' Mike I'm still waiting for you to provide a single scientific study that corroborates your claim that AGW is responsible for your statement above.
Sincerely doubt the LIAR, FRAUD and THIEF can.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2015
jeffensley
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2015
You have admitted that climate models are the best science we have available. Others have pointed out to you that the models are very much based in well understood physics. Despite these factors - you have no problem in encouraging us to do nothing - and leave future generations to possibly deal with some serious problems.


I'd like you to find and quote where I've suggested we should "do nothing". You won't find it, yet your mischaracterizations continue to rank highly among supposed followers of science. I've already agreed we need to reduce fossil fuel use and turn toward renewable energy. But for whatever reason that doesn't seem to be enough. You all seem to demand a strict adherence to the AGW narrative and anyone who dares question the validity of models and our measurements must be an obstructionist. I don't think you see the hypocrisy inherent in your stance. You're supposed to be the ones who believe and practice science yet your words smack of dogma.
jeffensley
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2015
I'm also waiting for your evidence to support the belief that long range climate model projections are accurate... and models tweaked to accurately hind-cast don't count.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2015
I'm also waiting for your evidence to support the belief that long range climate model projections are accurate... and models tweaked to accurately hind-cast don't count.


You don't understand how models are built. A model is first tested to see if can hind-cast before
it is used for projections. Suggesting a model can be created ad hoc without hind-casting is ridiculous. That's not how it is done.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2015
The first climate models consistently projected warming effects would first be felt at high latitudes
and altitudes. That projection as been spot on.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2015
Jeff - my assertion that you advocate doing nothing - is based on your constant need to comment - every time there is an article advancing our understanding of the climate. Here is an example
Any attempts to artificially moderate climate simply in order to protect what have always been impermanent coastlines would be a ridiculously expensive folly.
Reduction of greenhouse gasses is an attempt to moderate climate. Where is your support to show us that reducing greenhouse gasses would be ridiculously expensive folly - vs perhaps having to build flood protection on low lying cities around the world? The scientists are arguing that we should reduce C02 emissions. You are arguing against that. You do it over and over. This is of course arguing in favor of doing nothing. Stop being so obtuse. Maybe read Mike's post above - seeing your pattern of spreading doubt around the edges - as parallel to the tobacco industry
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2015
jeff
'm also waiting for your evidence to support the belief that long range climate model projections are accurate..
Why do we have to wait for this? Jeff has already acknowledged that the climate models are the best science we have to date. So we should base our policy for the future on the best science we have to date. The models predicted that if we increased the atmospheric content of C02 - the climate would warm. That has happened. What more do you want? Oh that is right - we have to wait until 2100 - and then see that the models were right - and then what? We say "Oh look - the models were right - wouldn't it have been nice if our stupid grand parents had been smart enough to pay attention to the best available science - and cut their green house gas emissions"
jeffensley
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2015
I'm also waiting for your evidence to support the belief that long range climate model projections are accurate... and models tweaked to accurately hind-cast don't count.


You don't understand how models are built. A model is first tested to see if can hind-cast before
it is used for projections. Suggesting a model can be created ad hoc without hind-casting is ridiculous. That's not how it is done.


I'm not saying you don't need a prior data set to build the model off of. What I'm saying is, models have been around for a very short period of time and they are only proven to work looking backwards and not the distant future. By the time the distant future arises, the models we were demanded to react to today will be long gone (or at least unrecognizable) as new conditions and variables arise. We will never have the opportunity to see how good they were at long-range prediction.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2015
jeff
they are only proven to work looking backwards


Not true - and this has been pointed out to you multiple times. Here is a link for you. https://www.skept...dels.htm
Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions.
antigoracle
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2015
The climate models are so fantastic, they even predicted the now non-existent pause.
http://phys.org/n...sed.html
jeffensley
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2015
The climate models are so fantastic, they even predicted the now non-existent pause.
http://phys.org/n...sed.html


Good find. Illustrates perfectly how much human input and more importantly, human INTENT, factor into how our models work.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2015
"Let's face it: The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil. Scientists cannot predict with certainty if temperatures will increase, by how much and where changes will occur."

@jeff

That mirrors what you've written, hell, you could have written it. It is from a 1997 ad from Mobile Oil.

A year earlier though:
"An estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 meters may be assumed" for the 25-year life of the Sable gas field project, Mobil engineers wrote in their design specifications. The project, owned jointly by Mobil, Shell and Imperial Oil (a Canadian subsidiary of Exxon), went online in 1999; it is expected to close in 2017."

http://graphics.l...t=outfit
jeffensley
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2015
Vietvet, no comment on how our models were adjusted to accurately predict a pause in warming that some now argue never existed? Seems to me that scientists are capable of forcing models to say what they want them to say, no?

I have no need to comment on your weak attempt to somehow align me with the oil industry. I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2015
Jeff
Seems to me that scientists are capable of forcing models to say what they want them to say, no?


No - that is a really stupid assertion. You keep showing your ignorance over and over. You said earlier that the models only been proven to work backwards. You have been told that this is not correct - and given information to show that models do work. I corrected you again - but you keep making false assertions. I am out on this one - no point in trying to talk with a serial liar - just put you in the same box with goracle.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2015

I have no need to comment on your weak attempt to somehow align me with the oil industry. I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me.


@jeff

Obviously.

"Today, all of the major oil companies publicly acknowledge the risks of climate change."
http://graphics.l...t=outfit

.

Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2016
jeffensley claims
Vietvet, no comment on how our models were adjusted to accurately predict a pause in warming that some now argue never existed?
How 'adjusted' ?

Did he mean heat transfer equations wrong OR distribution of differential between oceans/atmosphere ?

Which jeffensley, he's vague Again ?
Arbitrarily claim 'adjusted' mirrors denier's uneducated feeble propaganda evidence of NIL understanding of huge effort/depth taken ensuring models tracking as close as possible to reality at ALL feasible levels !

jeffensley takes an unclear, vague & evidently anti-science propaganda position of someone who would *only* make these idle blurts if he had NIL uni training in *any* (math) pre-requisites demanded of "Environmental Science" (ES) course thus Fails

jeffensley caught with foot in mouth Again
Seems to me that scientists are capable of forcing models to say what they want them to say, no?
Implying nil association with them !

Models inside error bars !
jeffensley
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2016
You know you've hit a nerve when people resort to insults.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 02, 2016
jeffensley spat the dummy with
You know you've hit a nerve when people resort to insults
No !

Ugh, its saturation. ie Fed up with time wasting vague propaganda & NIL quantification

If jeffensley could/would be:-

1 Consistent with his "logic"
2 Write like "Environmental Scientist" he claims to be, ie Quantify with Provenance
3 Be scientifically correct Eg. accuracy in respect of resolution & precision
4 Not use language attempting to mislead - the typical bait & switch
5 Address the maths re Heat & why temps are secondary
6 Understand importance of thermal inertia re oceans "specific heat"
7 Explain his terms "action" & "restraint" in *some* quantifiable way
8 Other ie wasting time with vague positions since he joined Mar 2015

Then we might get somewhere but, its clear from jeffensley's attempt he is NOT in any way properly trained as "Environmental Scientist", there are so many core issues he just doesn't KNOW, his tone is vague & tangential thus he Fails !
antigoracle
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2016
It's a new year and Mutterin' Mike, the forum's Wikipedia scholar, is still pretending to know science. Mutterin' Mike apparently discovered Google search, but FAILED to grasp how to use it.
Shifts in rainfall patterns in food growing regions affecting crop viability

Mutterin' Mike I'm still waiting for you to provide a single scientific study that corroborates your claim that AGW is responsible for your statement above.
Sincerely doubt the LIAR, FRAUD and THIEF can.
Hey Mutterin Mike here's a hint, lookup the dust bowl.
Dimis P
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2016
while the internal mechanisms of earth are complex, it is all regulated by solar activity. new insights on climate, solar wind, sunspot cycles, solar activity etc lot of new findings. Poulos, D. @ wix, academia.edu, researchgate etc
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2016
antigoracle claims
It's a new year and Mutterin' Mike, the forum's Wikipedia scholar, is still pretending to know science
Prove it ?
Obviously Science is a disciplined approach to acquisition of knowledge, what is your approach ?

antigoracle claims
Mutterin' Mike apparently discovered Google search, but FAILED to grasp how to use it
Prove it ?

antigoracle claims
Mutterin' Mike I'm still waiting for you to provide a single scientific study that corroborates your claim that AGW is responsible for your statement above
please re-read your initial question, you are way off yet again, besides many links already offered as did Vietvet, please pick closest to illustrate & go from there ?

antigoracle claims
Sincerely doubt the LIAR, FRAUD and THIEF
Prove it, Uncle Ira finding people like him who make only ugly claims & no Evidence & you parrot shows you up.

antigoracle says
.., lookup the dust bowl.
US is only 2% of world & those links supplied.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2016
Dimis P says
while the internal mechanisms of earth are complex, it is all regulated by solar activity. new insights on climate, solar wind, sunspot cycles, solar activity etc lot of new findings
Rather than posting an email link why not post a link to precise of your enthalpy maths ?
https://en.wikipe...Enthalpy

Hey, far more efficient would be to tell us what you think is wrong with contemporary view of radiative transfer which has never been refuted for ~100years ?
https://en.wikipe...transfer
which leads to
https://en.wikipe..._forcing
Graphically illustrated here
http://cbc.arizon.../sim/gh/

Details matter & especially so in order to challenge Physics which has the immense level of consistency in current understanding re Statistical Mechanics as heat basis you need something substantive, so far you have not presented anything to clarify :-(
https://en.wikipe...echanics

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.