Notices
Results 1 to 61 of 61

Thread: The Copenhagen Diagnosis

  1. #1 The Copenhagen Diagnosis 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    This is a summary of peer-reviewed climate science since the IPCC TAR4, with a comprehensive reference list. There are several areas where uncertainties mentioned in TAR4 have been resolved or diminished.

    The report was prepared for the Copenhagen climate conference attendees. It's a useful reference for anyone interested in the science.

    http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhag...gnosis_LOW.pdf


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    I don't see any proper discussion of alternative theories. It also brazenly mischaracterizes the most recent surface temperature data. Almost as if they have an agenda and quite consistent with the emails that were leaked. This whole thing is starting to stink very badly.

    In order to make good policy decisions, you need to have all the data and information and you need to have balance from every perspective, right or wrong so that it can be compared and contrasted. This document mischaracterizes and shuts out the opposing view and will make it very difficult to make effective decisions.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Predictable response. I'm quite sure the holders of opposing views are at liberty to prepare their own report, complete with references to their peer-reviewed literature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    What you describe is the way political debates occur where the advocates or lobbyists for each view must prepare and present their own documents and reports. They must secure influence so they will be allowed to distribute and describe their viewpoint with no guarentee that they have a seat at the table.

    If this is what you are advocating then let's drop the pretention that this is a scientific debate and that the report is a scientific report.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    In order to make good policy decisions, you need to have all the data and information and you need to have balance from every perspective, right or wrong so that it can be compared and contrasted.
    Balance? Let's imagine a balance like a laboratory scale. In one pan put the organizations that accept the IPCC report. In the other pan put those that dissent. Wikipedia has this data:

    "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions."

    Then there's Naomi Oreskes analysis of peer review literature, but as an interested person you obviously know what she reported.

    So, no, there is no balance, and perspectives which are right or wrong are judged on their scientific merit. Your perspective has been judged wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    In order to make good policy decisions, you need to have all the data and information and you need to have balance from every perspective, right or wrong so that it can be compared and contrasted.
    Balance? Let's imagine a balance like a laboratory scale. In one pan put the organizations that accept the IPCC report. In the other pan put those that dissent. Wikipedia has this data:

    "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
    What incentive is there for a scientific organization to dissent from another?

    Then there's Naomi Oreskes analysis of peer review literature, but as an interested person you obviously know what she reported.
    Yet since in this case, it's a political policy decision where public opinion trumps the bias of organizations, the tendency for research topics to be driven by those willing to fund it, and the perspective that comes with the money. Gallup reports that by 62% to 36% the US public is unconvinced.

    So, no, there is no balance, and perspectives which are right or wrong are judged on their scientific merit. Your perspective has been judged wrong.
    Unfortunately scientific perspectives don't fair well in terms of accuracy. Since you are well versed in the nature of scientific research results, you must know that reviews indicate that over 50% of the conclusions of peer reviewed research papers are later discovered to be incorrect. The betting person would do well to go agaist scientific opinion. This is particularly true when the research is politically or idealogically motivated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    What incentive is there for a scientific organization to dissent from another?
    Integrity... and the ability to be shown that you have none when others show your claims to be lies or misinformation.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Gallup reports that by 62% to 36% the US public is unconvinced.
    And only 40% of the american public think evolution is true. That just means that the american people have swallowed lies for so long that they can often no longer discriminate them from truth. It says nothing about the validity of the topic.



    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Unfortunately scientific perspectives don't fair well in terms of accuracy.
    And blatant generalizations offered by idiots should warrant banning.

    You're obviously an engineer. Much like most people in cooking... You're great when following a recipe, but pathetic when trying to come up with new dishes or when understanding why the ingredients come together the way they do.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Since you are well versed in the nature of scientific research results, you must know that reviews indicate that over 50% of the conclusions of peer reviewed research papers are later discovered to be incorrect.
    Actually, what I'm well-versed in is your consistency in misrepresenting studies and sharing a very spun version of them. If you're going to make this claim, then you're going to share it's source so we can all read for ourselves why your words are worth our time.

    Until then, your words do little more than waste everyone's time, and this is apparent to practically everyone, but you.



    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The betting person would do well to go agaist scientific opinion.
    Only if they like losing.


    Now, can you kindly please stop trolling this thread and let those mature enough to accurately represent the reality around them have an actual discussion for a change?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Gallup reports that by 62% to 36% the US public is unconvinced.
    And only 40% of the american public think evolution is true. That just means that the american people have swallowed lies for so long that they can often no longer discriminate them from truth. It says nothing about the validity of the topic.
    Seems like the public has good reason to be wary of many scientific claims. Here is that source you asked for.

    Here we have a prominent environmentalist calling for one of these supposedly unbiased research leaders to resign.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Unfortunately scientific perspectives don't fair well in terms of accuracy.
    And blatant generalizations offered by idiots should warrant banning.
    Because it doesn't fit with your presuppositions? Have another look at the source you asked for.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Since you are well versed in the nature of scientific research results, you must know that reviews indicate that over 50% of the conclusions of peer reviewed research papers are later discovered to be incorrect.
    Actually, what I'm well-versed in is your consistency in misrepresenting studies and sharing a very spun version of them. If you're going to make this claim, then you're going to share it's source so we can all read for ourselves why your words are worth our time.

    Until then, your words do little more than waste everyone's time, and this is apparent to practically everyone, but you.
    I don't make this up. If you haven't already, look at the link above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman dutchie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    11
    Um... that would be the very same prominent environmentalist who just published an article showing how special interest groups have muddied the discussion on the science of gobal climate to the point where the same old tired arguments are now being blared on forums all over the internet, and damn any proof to the contrary?
    (I'm rather disappointed to find them so well represented on the Science forum as well)

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Here we have a prominent environmentalist calling for one of these supposedly unbiased research leaders to resign.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: The Copenhagen Diagnosis 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    The report was prepared for the Copenhagen climate conference attendees. It's a useful reference for anyone interested in the science.

    http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhag...gnosis_LOW.pdf
    Thanks Bunbury.

    Kinda weird repetitive mention of variable sunlight, i think it was included poorly. Like "the extremely low brightness of the sun over the past three years" WTF?! That plus common sense does not instill confidence in the report! I think they'd intended to debunk the sunspots cause climate change nonsense but rather smudged it around.

    Very glad to see a section on land surface, and explanation this was omitted last time because frankly its affects aren't much understood. Then the section contains CO2 buzzphrase filler text for want of thesis, yet seems to say we should not cut trees; though land carbon sink (plant mass) since 1960 it says grew 25% due to pollution aerosols, and will die if we reduce "potentially harmful particulates in the air "??! Point? Policy? Maybe should have omitted land surface this time as well.

    Later the report rates the possible greening of the Sahara "a rare example of a positive tipping point". :x If they don't understand the climatic consequences of land changes they shouldn't loose such anthropocentric judgments.

    The bit on sea level should make everybody gulp. I think a lot of coastal developments are gonna have to redesign their wastewater arrangements, quoting straight out of this report.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    (I'm rather disappointed to find them so well represented on the Science forum as well)
    To be fair to thescienceforum though, it is a place where people discuss science, not only for scientists.

    NS. Welkom terug dutchie! Kom jy oorspronklik van Suid Afrika af?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman dutchie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    11
    ha! i do, actually, grew up around cape town
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    NS. Welkom terug dutchie! Kom jy oorspronklik van Suid Afrika af?
    yah i know, i stand corrected. i have very low expectations of the copenhagen event and added to that, i am by now a bit irritated by the rather relentless pseudo-discussion that keeps people's attention away from what matters most. i usually don't get pulled in these discussions any more, but it amused me that monbiot was being touted.
    To be fair to thescienceforum though, it is a place where people discuss science, not only for scientists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Pong: I agree this report didn't read so well. It looked like a rush job. Doesn't change the facts though.

    Re. Monbiot, I think Jones has stepped aside anyway, while the email thing is investigated by the university. This too doesn't change the facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Pong: I agree this report didn't read so well. It looked like a rush job. Doesn't change the facts though.

    Re. Monbiot, I think Jones has stepped aside anyway, while the email thing is investigated by the university. This too doesn't change the facts.
    I'm just curious what the 'facts' are. I find these ones relevant:

    1. The Earth has a long history of warming and cooling.
    2. In the recent past it has been about 1C warmer than our current peak in 1998, After which it cooled by about 2.5C and has since gained by about 1.3.
    3. Ocean and global surface temperatures are trending flat and downward since around 2003.
    4. CO2 concentration continues a steady rise upward.
    5. Arctic Ice cover declined up to 2007 but is now on the rise again.
    6. Sun activity correlates well with global temperature cycles and it leads.
    7. CO2 does not correlate well with global temperature cycles.
    8. Sun activity has declined since 2002 and is predicted to be lower for a couple of decades.
    9. CO2 variations at low concentrations has a very modest theoretical direct impact on surface radiant heat loss to the upper atmosphere and deep space. The theoretical impact is not significant above 700 ppm.
    10. The earth's atmosphere is about 380 ppm CO2 about 100 ppm higher than 150 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    8. Sun activity has declined since 2002 and is predicted to be lower for a couple of decades.
    I graphed some data from Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE). The first is the daily adjusted TSI (total solar irradiance, colum 5) to 1 AU. The second is the same with column 10 (true TSI) added. The third, I averaged the data from the start, 25 Feb 04, for 365 days using column 10 so my graph starts a year later, but is a years average to that date, using actual irradiance.







    In the interest of full disclosure, there were five blocks of missing days. I simply linearized the data through the missing points. One was one day, simple average. Two points were of two days, then one of 6 missing days and another of 9 missing days.

    (12/12/09 edit)

    The data link above is no longer active. They apparently change the link as data is updated. Data page:

    Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Data
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchie
    Um... that would be the very same prominent environmentalist who just published an article showing how special interest groups have muddied the discussion on the science of gobal climate to the point where the same old tired arguments are now being blared on forums all over the internet, and damn any proof to the contrary?
    (I'm rather disappointed to find them so well represented on the Science forum as well)
    I listed a few facts in my last post dutchie. Perhaps you could add these proofs you rely on to convince you that these arguments are tired. What clairvoyance do you hold that I somehow missed? What are these additional facts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman dutchie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I listed a few facts in my last post dutchie. Perhaps you could add these proofs you rely on to convince you that these arguments are tired. What clairvoyance do you hold that I somehow missed? What are these additional facts?
    are you talking about these?

    1. The Earth has a long history of warming and cooling.
    2. In the recent past it has been about 1C warmer than our current peak in 1998, After which it cooled by about 2.5C and has since gained by about 1.3.
    3. Ocean and global surface temperatures are trending flat and downward since around 2003.
    4. CO2 concentration continues a steady rise upward.
    5. Arctic Ice cover declined up to 2007 but is now on the rise again.
    6. Sun activity correlates well with global temperature cycles and it leads.
    7. CO2 does not correlate well with global temperature cycles.
    8. Sun activity has declined since 2002 and is predicted to be lower for a couple of decades.
    9. CO2 variations at low concentrations has a very modest theoretical direct impact on surface radiant heat loss to the upper atmosphere and deep space. The theoretical impact is not significant above 700 ppm.
    10. The earth's atmosphere is about 380 ppm CO2 about 100 ppm higher than 150 years ago.



    I'll say yes, and...? to the first but the rest of it, i'm not biting.

    i'm sure this is not the first time someone suggests you read up here. this might be a new reference for you, it's an entire textbook on the physics of climate science by Raymond Pierrehumbert, professor of geosciences at the university of chicago. i found it an excellent book.

    i'm not a climate scientist, i'm not clairvoyant, i am a marine biologist. took me over six years of full time study and work to gain my masters in this field. there is some overlap but i would not presume to know any other scientist's field of expertise just on the basis that i read up some about it. neither am i going to deconstruct and do-over every peer reviewed article out there. the system of peer review is quite robust, imo, and when all the climate science over the past ten years by various institutions over the world come up pointing more or less in the same direction, i'm quite happy to accept that as the most probable version of our world until via the same peer reviewed system, someone comes up with a better one. what i won't do, is keep arguing about the yabbut science (yabbut did they factor in water vapour?? yabbut ozone was gonna kill us and now look at it, and so on). i did that for many years until it dawned on me that i was expending all my energy on a hydra. and i am no heracles.

    these days, i tend to keep my discussions focused on the implications of the outcome of peer reviewed climate research on human society and life in general on this planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchie
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I listed a few facts in my last post dutchie. Perhaps you could add these proofs you rely on to convince you that these arguments are tired. What clairvoyance do you hold that I somehow missed? What are these additional facts?
    are you talking about these?

    1. The Earth has a long history of warming and cooling.
    2. In the recent past it has been about 1C warmer than our current peak in 1998, After which it cooled by about 2.5C and has since gained by about 1.3.
    3. Ocean and global surface temperatures are trending flat and downward since around 2003.
    4. CO2 concentration continues a steady rise upward.
    5. Arctic Ice cover declined up to 2007 but is now on the rise again.
    6. Sun activity correlates well with global temperature cycles and it leads.
    7. CO2 does not correlate well with global temperature cycles.
    8. Sun activity has declined since 2002 and is predicted to be lower for a couple of decades.
    9. CO2 variations at low concentrations has a very modest theoretical direct impact on surface radiant heat loss to the upper atmosphere and deep space. The theoretical impact is not significant above 700 ppm.
    10. The earth's atmosphere is about 380 ppm CO2 about 100 ppm higher than 150 years ago.



    I'll say yes, and...? to the first but the rest of it, i'm not biting.
    I find that interesting given your previous post where you used these words.

    Quote Originally Posted by dutchie
    Um... that would be the very same prominent environmentalist who just published an article showing how special interest groups have muddied the discussion on the science of gobal climate to the point where the same old tired arguments are now being blared on forums all over the internet, and damn any proof to the contrary?
    I was interested in these proofs that have been damned. Now you seem reluctant to offer them.

    i'm sure this is not the first time someone suggests you read up here. this might be a new reference for you, it's an entire textbook on the physics of climate science by Raymond Pierrehumbert, professor of geosciences at the university of chicago. i found it an excellent book.
    I've read much of it but I find training in environmental engineering and atmospheric chemistry over the past 20 years was more comprehensive.

    i'm not a climate scientist, i'm not clairvoyant, i am a marine biologist. took me over six years of full time study and work to gain my masters in this field. there is some overlap but i would not presume to know any other scientist's field of expertise just on the basis that i read up some about it. neither am i going to deconstruct and do-over every peer reviewed article out there.
    I can appreciate that. I just find it out of step with your earlier proclamation. It seemed that you were indicating that somehow you knew more that some of us about what is really going on.

    the system of peer review is quite robust, imo, and when all the climate science over the past ten years by various institutions over the world come up pointing more or less in the same direction, i'm quite happy to accept that as the most probable version of our world until via the same peer reviewed system, someone comes up with a better one.
    Until recently (~5 years ago) I had the same opinion. I don't share that anymore. There are clear indications that the system works very well when there are no ideological biases and no political motivations and when funding is evenly distributed amongst the various competing directions. I could provide some links but instead I just urge the interested readers to look into this issue more. The most troubling aspect of the CRU email release is the discussions amongst these scientists to tamper with the peer-review process.

    what i won't do, is keep arguing about the yabbut science (yabbut did they factor in water vapour?? yabbut ozone was gonna kill us and now look at it, and so on). i did that for many years until it dawned on me that i was expending all my energy on a hydra. and i am no heracles.
    I also find this interesting in contrast to your previous statement here:

    Quote Originally Posted by dutchie
    i am by now a bit irritated by the rather relentless pseudo-discussion that keeps people's attention away from what matters most.
    Given that you proclaim these discussions pseudo (fake or false), presumably because they don't fit your prior commitment (it must be a prior commitment because above you said that you don't understand the science well enough to add to the facts list). But if you admit you don't understand the science then how do you know these discussion are false?

    these days, i tend to keep my discussions focused on the implications of the outcome of peer reviewed climate research on human society and life in general on this planet.
    How unfortunate given the high frequency that peer-reviewed research reaches incorrect conclusions (in the areas studied), then by extension, over half your time may have been wasted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman dutchie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    11
    like i said, i'm not biting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    How unfortunate given the high frequency that peer-reviewed research reaches incorrect conclusions (in the areas studied), then by extension, over half your time may have been wasted.
    Uh huh.
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=222424#222424
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchie
    I'll say yes, and...? to the first but the rest of it, i'm not biting.

    i'm sure this is not the first time someone suggests you read up here. this might be a new reference for you, it's an entire textbook on the physics of climate science by Raymond Pierrehumbert, professor of geosciences at the university of chicago. i found it an excellent book.
    First of all, I suggest you ignore the propaganda site called RealClimate. As for that 545 page Principles of Planetary Climate, I downloaded it and will look through it.
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchie
    i'm not a climate scientist, i'm not clairvoyant, i am a marine biologist. took me over six years of full time study and work to gain my masters in this field.
    Then tell me, how much has the ocean temperature raised in the past centuries. What type of data do you have for the total average by volume.

    When you find that data, apply it to Henry's Law, and solubility of gasses in sea water by temperature and salinity. You will find that the sea temperature change accounts for between 60% to 100% of the sea level rise by thermal expansion, and 90% to 98% of the increase CO2 in the atmosphere by how temperature affects the equilibrium of CO2 as a gas in the Sea water.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Uh huh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    How unfortunate given the high frequency that peer-reviewed research reaches incorrect conclusions (in the areas studied), then by extension, over half your time may have been wasted.
    Uh huh.
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=222424#222424
    Thanks for the link inow. Most readers should be able to wade through all the crap you pile on and see what I am talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    How unfortunate given the high frequency that peer-reviewed research reaches incorrect conclusions (in the areas studied), then by extension, over half your time may have been wasted.
    Uh huh.
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=222424#222424
    Thanks for the link inow. Most readers should be able to wade through all the crap you pile on and see what I am talking about.
    Uh huh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    i'm sure this is not the first time someone suggests you read up here. this might be a new reference for you, it's an entire textbook on the physics of climate science by Raymond Pierrehumbert, professor of geosciences at the university of chicago. i found it an excellent book.[/URL]
    First of all, I suggest you ignore the propaganda site called RealClimate.
    Couldn't agree more with the recommendation of Pierrehumbert's book (which I posted a link to some time ago). Pierrehumbert is a contributor to RealClimate. His last post is a good read too. This particular post only deals with a particularly egregious inaccuracy (picked from among the truckloads put out by the deniosphere) about solar cells and their relative value. The basic issue of AGW is not even in dispute in Prof. Pierrehumbert's view. Propaganda? You decide.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-steve-levitt/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    When you find that data, apply it to Henry's Law, and solubility of gasses in sea water by temperature and salinity. You will find that the sea temperature change accounts for between 60% to 100% of the sea level rise by thermal expansion, and 90% to 98% of the increase CO2 in the atmosphere by how temperature affects the equilibrium of CO2 as a gas in the Sea water.
    What effect do you think temperature rise has on the properties of ocean water as it pertains to its function as a CO2 sink? Would you consider CO2 solubility in sea water a feedback or forcing mechanism?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    When you find that data, apply it to Henry's Law, and solubility of gasses in sea water by temperature and salinity. You will find that the sea temperature change accounts for between 60% to 100% of the sea level rise by thermal expansion, and 90% to 98% of the increase CO2 in the atmosphere by how temperature affects the equilibrium of CO2 as a gas in the Sea water.
    What effect do you think temperature rise has on the properties of ocean water as it pertains to its function as a CO2 sink? Would you consider CO2 solubility in sea water a feedback or forcing mechanism?
    I've explained that in this, or another thread someplace.

    The equilibrium of CO2 changes with temperature. The rise in measured surface temperature accounts for nearly all the rise in atmospheric CO2. The ocean would normally absorb more than 98% of the atmospheric changes if it stayed the same temperature. With the ocean rising in temperature, it would become a net source of CO2 even if we didn't add any to the atmosphere. If I remember, I calculated it to be about 370 ppm with no anthropogenic CO2. As for sea level rise, temperature applies here too. We have about a 20 cm (8") rise in sea level over the last 100 years. With an average depth of 3.6 km, 20 cm is a very small 0.0056% increase in volume. It takes very little average temperature change to make that happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Actually Kalster, I calculated a 8 ppm increase if we expelled 8 GtC of carbon (29.33 GtC CO2) annually for 100 years:

    Consider how the ratio changes with temperature. Consider how the percentage stays the same when there is no temperature change. Now lets assume there is no ocean warming. That the ocean maintains the 1.88% in the atmosphere and 98.12% in the ocean. Here's what happens with 100 years of an added 8 GtC carbon in the atmosphere:

    Start 39870 GtC, 750 (1.88%) in the air, 39120 in the ocean, about 380 ppm

    First year, 39878 GtC, 750.2 in the air, 39127.9 in the ocean, about 380.08 ppm

    Next year, 39886 GtC, 750.3 in the air, 39135.7 in the ocean, about 380.15 ppm

    third year, 39892 GtC, 750.5 in the air, 39143.5 in the ocean, about 380.23 ppm

    100 years later, 40670 GtC, 765 in the air, 39905 in the ocean, about 388 ppm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    This is a summary of peer-reviewed climate science since the IPCC TAR4, with a comprehensive reference list. There are several areas where uncertainties mentioned in TAR4 have been resolved or diminished.

    The report was prepared for the Copenhagen climate conference attendees. It's a useful reference for anyone interested in the science.

    http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhag...gnosis_LOW.pdf
    Here is further indication that we should be careful when relying on IPCC conclusions and in particular this summary of "peer-reviewed" science. Not all of this report is accurate and I would guess that Bunbury would agree that wrong conclusions are not "useful".

    In this analysis, a particular error is traced back to the source. It reveals an alarming disregard for the careful review the IPCC claims they perform on their report and conclusions.

    By the way, there will still be glaciers in the Himalayas in 2035

    I realize supporters of the IPCC will say this is an understandable oversight, just one error in an otherwise good report, but it is by no means the first and the process by which this error made its way into the report and did not get validated by any of the supposed 2500 reviewers reveals just how well this information is vetted. Combine this with the revelations about how IPCC scientists have systematically tampered with the peer-review process, destroyed and concealed raw data and allowed bias to color their judgement so that their adjusted data reflects that bias and permeates the conclusions, and we have good reason to question the conclusions even while allowing that all these people have good intentions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Not all of this report is accurate and I would guess that Bunbury would agree that wrong conclusions are not "useful".
    There is an error in the TAR4, concerning the transposition of a date from 2350 to 2035. I'd be surprised and pleased if this is the only error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Not all of this report is accurate and I would guess that Bunbury would agree that wrong conclusions are not "useful".
    There is an error in the TAR4, concerning the transposition of a date from 2350 to 2035. I'd be surprised and pleased if this is the only error.

    Predictable response, do you cheerleaders have talking points?

    I realize supporters of the IPCC will say this is an understandable oversight, just one error in an otherwise good report, but it is by no means the first and the process by which this error made its way into the report and did not get validated by any of the supposed 2500 reviewers reveals just how well this information is vetted. Combine this with the revelations about how IPCC scientists have systematically tampered with the peer-review process, destroyed and concealed raw data and allowed bias to color their judgement so that their adjusted data reflects that bias and permeates the conclusions, and we have good reason to question the conclusions even while allowing that all these people have good intentions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Not all of this report is accurate and I would guess that Bunbury would agree that wrong conclusions are not "useful".
    There is an error in the TAR4, concerning the transposition of a date from 2350 to 2035. I'd be surprised and pleased if this is the only error.
    You have me confused.

    Do you mean TAR (Third Assessment report) or AR4 (Assessment report #4?)

    I have both saved on my hard drive. Chapter please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Not all of this report is accurate and I would guess that Bunbury would agree that wrong conclusions are not "useful".
    There is an error in the TAR4, concerning the transposition of a date from 2350 to 2035. I'd be surprised and pleased if this is the only error.
    You have me confused.

    Do you mean TAR (Third Assenssment report) or AR4 (Assessment report #4?)

    I have both saved on my hard drive. Chapter please?
    He meant AR4.....

    "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other
    part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate
    continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035
    and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at
    the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present
    500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)." (IPCC AR4 WG2 Ch10, p. 493)

    The entire statement is mucked up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    He meant AR4.....

    "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other
    part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate
    continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035
    and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at
    the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present
    500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)." (IPCC AR4 WG2 Ch10, p. 493)

    The entire statement is mucked up.
    Thank-You.

    I wonder how much of that melt is from black carbon on ice?

    The faithful of the Global Warming dogma seem not to understand important scientific things like albedo, emissivity, etc. between various materials, and combination of materials.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    You know, I was reading that section in Chapter 10. I am one who parses words. I guess you can say I look for loop-holes that other peple don't see, but are worded to mislead. How about this, on that same page:

    The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be
    attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in
    anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.
    The term "can be" is not very solid. It can also be attributed to the sun, someone using a blow drier up there, etc. Just how relevant is "can be?"

    I find things like this all the time. Articles suggesting certain causes without being able to show any reasonable evidence. Shouldn't this supposed scientific assessment be scientific?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    You know, I was reading that section in Chapter 10. I am one who parses words. I guess you can say I look for loop-holes that other peple don't see, but are worded to mislead. How about this, on that same page:

    The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be
    attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in
    anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.
    The term "can be" is not very solid. It can also be attributed to the sun, someone using a blow drier up there, etc. Just how relevant is "can be?"

    I find things like this all the time. Articles suggesting certain causes without being able to show any reasonable evidence. Shouldn't this supposed scientific assessment be scientific?
    Kinda takes the wind out of bunbury's claim and the IPCC's assurance that 2500 scientists reviewed and contributed to the document when in reality sections like this one aren't even worth the paper it is written on.

    If you are of the mindset of many of those here who advocate for AGW, it really doesn't much matter. The IPCC says it it must be true (or in inow's case valid), therefore it doesn't have to make sense or have support by anything other than a climate model that is circularly written to give the result programmed into it.

    What difference does it make if the information comes from the WWF or a research group, as long as it tells the right story. Then throw in some value add data that is impossible to independently verify and you are good to go. Hey they are after all trying to save the planet.

    The point is there is no excuse for sloppy work, but when you have a mindset that you are right then there is no need to check the claims. They are after all correct by default. This clearly seems to be the prevailing attitude.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    The IPCC says it it must be true (or in inow's case valid), therefore it doesn't have to make sense or have support by anything other than a climate model that is circularly written to give the result programmed into it.
    Seriously, how can you know this? You say the same thing about evolutionary algorithms. How do you know?? Do you really think serious scientists would expect any useful information from such an obvious thing to avoid? Don't you think they program the laws of physics with all the variable into the computer and sees what happens? If this were the case, how do the models manage to accurately retro predict past trends? The image you are propagating of climate scientists is that they are nothing more than a bunch of propaganda spouting buffoons that invent figures that support their preconceived notions from thin air, all the while doing it with "good intentions". Hitler had good intentions. Seriously?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The IPCC says it it must be true (or in inow's case valid), therefore it doesn't have to make sense or have support by anything other than a climate model that is circularly written to give the result programmed into it.
    Seriously, how can you know this? You say the same thing about evolutionary algorithms. How do you know?? Do you really think serious scientists would expect any useful information from such an obvious thing to avoid?
    I know because for 17 years I wrote and managed engineering control systems and complex physical system modeling software, both dynamic and steady state. As a result, know how they are written, and how to deconstruct them. And yes I do expect serious scientist think they get useful information from them. It is also not something that should always be avoided. The point is they do tell you what you program into them and rarely much more. Some of them are quite accurate. Physical modeling systems, feedback control simulators for example.

    Even the climate models produce good results when good assumptions are made. The point is that we are uncertain about the impact CO2 has on climate and global temperatures. We know that climate models do not take into account all relevant inputs and all oceanographic effects. We also know that climate models will only produce what the programmer accounts for in the way the programmer defines. This information and knowledge is what causes me to say what I said about climate programs and about the current generation of evolutionary algorithms.


    Don't you think they program the laws of physics with all the variable into the computer and sees what happens?
    Yes they do, that is part of it, but in many cases only a small part of it. They also rely heavily on empirical results and "tuning parameters" to tweak the output so that it matches historical data trends. This is especially true with climate models. The truth is that most modeling systems are 60-90% empirical. Some that I have worked on are 100% empirical. Often they produce the best results (results that correlate with blind runs). However, producing good results for certain situations does by no means tell us that the model is correct.

    If this were the case, how do the models manage to accurately retro predict past trends?
    Most often they produce good results when the past trends are similar to the trends that were used to tune or tweak the model. If the model consistently produces accurate results over a complete range of radically different situations with radically different historical data trends, then I would tend to agree the model is realistic. Climate models are not even close to this situation.

    The image you are propagating of climate scientists is that they are nothing more than a bunch of propaganda spouting buffoons that invent figures that support their preconceived notions from thin air, all the while doing it with "good intentions". Hitler had good intentions. Seriously?
    Not buffoons, but they do not tell you the whole story. If they did they fear that many people would not understand the difficulty dealing with such complex systems and would misinterpret it as them being a bunch of propagandists buffoons. They are humans, they have both bias and agendas and a good percentage of them become myopic because of it. It happens on both sides and it is why it is critical to openly share data and methods, have open debates, fairly consider all sides of an argument, and be honest about what is known and what uncertainties exists especially due to method errors.

    Sadly, many in the climate crowd have become myopic. Many don't share methods and data. They routinely belittle the skeptics and consistently cast them out. They strut around convinced by their bias, and often their political leanings that they alone understand climate research and what humans are doing to this planet and they justify it all by their good intentions. They should stop to consider the consequences of possibly being partially wrong and re-recognize the role of critical challenge in science. If they did so, they would become invaluable contributors to this difficult issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    This is especially true with climate models. The truth is that most modeling systems are 60-90% empirical.
    I doubt that, and I have more than a passing familiarity with the underlying physics which make up the climate models. The global climate models (GCMs) have at their root the same equations of motion as weather models--neither is mostly empirical. The mperical parts of the models are parameterizations of small scale (mesoscale) phenomena such as boundary layer, and convective storm transport of energy and moisture and in some cases long term extremely slow changes.


    Some that I have worked on are 100% empirical. Often they produce the best results (results that correlate with blind runs).
    Which Global climate models (GCMs) are 100% empirical? And do they show the same success as the more physics based counterparts when run over the past 120 years.

    However, producing good results for certain situations does by no means tell us that the model is correct.
    True. But it's telling that most models can now get the temporal and 3D-spatial distibution of changes mostly right over the past 120 years. The same GCMs even get climates largely right when run against completely different circumstances such as the conditions during the last Glacial Maximum. The reality is GCMs are mostly based on underlying physics rather than empirical methods and given the number of variables and range of conditions could not be tweaked with the same success as you suggest.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    This is especially true with climate models. The truth is that most modeling systems are 60-90% empirical.
    I doubt that, and I have more than a passing familiarity with the underlying physics which make up the climate models. The global climate models (GCMs) have at their root the same equations of motion as weather models--neither is mostly empirical. The mperical parts of the models are parameterizations of small scale (mesoscale) phenomena such as boundary layer, and convective storm transport of energy and moisture and in some cases long term extremely slow changes.
    Perhaps you are unaware of how many fluid dynamics, heat and mass transfer relationships are empirical themselves. emmisivity for example as is much of the radiative forcing models and heat transfer as a whole. Much of thermodynamics is also empirical. Irradiance and atmospheric interactions, mostly empirical, ocean currents... empirical, sun cycles .... empirical. When you add it up my estimate is pretty close.


    Some that I have worked on are 100% empirical. Often they produce the best results (results that correlate with blind runs).
    Which Global climate models (GCMs) are 100% empirical? And do they show the same success as the more physics based counterparts when run over the past 120 years.
    I don't know of any climate models, I was not trying to mislead you. It was a general example of use of empirical data in modeling. If you reread the paragraph that should be clear.

    The climate models have been tweaked and adjusted to show good results over the past 120 years. This was my point. Don't get me wrong, it is exactly the correct thing to tweak models so they reproduce good results. But it is absolutely incorrect to say that because a tweaked model shows good results is evidence that one or more minor aspects of the model mimics reality. What percentage of the total result (in Kelvin) does an increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 play in the typical climate model? Let me tell you... 0.5% at most.

    However, producing good results for certain situations does by no means tell us that the model is correct.
    True. But it's telling that most models can now get the temporal and 3D-spatial distibution of changes mostly right over the past 120 years. The same GCMs even get climates largely right when run against completely different circumstances such as the conditions during the last Glacial Maximum.
    I bet I could de-emphasize CO2 impact and increase solar activity impacts a bit, perhaps throw in some more ocean current effects, adjust the aerosol influences and get as good or even better results. Do you doubt this?

    The reality is GCMs are mostly based on underlying physics rather than empirical methods
    Are you aware that much of the formulas from physical chemistry are themselves empirical?

    and given the number of variables and range of conditions could not be tweaked with the same success as you suggest.
    We will have to agree to disagree on this point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    When you add it up my estimate is pretty close.
    The % is pretty much pulled out of thin air without basis. Yes of course there are empirical parts having to do with parametrizations, just as there are assumptions to the physical equations due to scale—that doesn't eliminate the fact that they are at their heart based on the physical equations of motion.


    Some that I have worked on are 100% empirical. Often they produce the best results (results that correlate with blind runs).
    Which Global climate models (GCMs) are 100% empirical? And do they show the same success as the more physics based counterparts when run over the past 120 years.
    I don't know of any climate models, I was not trying to mislead you.
    Good. There aren't any modern GCMs that are entirely empirical. I don't doubt there are some engineering applications which might find success with using mostly empirical means but there certainly aren't any weather or climate models which do so.

    and given the number of variables and range of conditions could not be tweaked with the same success as you suggest.
    We will have to agree to disagree on this point.
    We don't have to...all you have to do is show us one entirely empirical GCM model which does well at the past 120 years in all 3 spacial dimensions. You can't because is doesn't exit.

    Respectfully you're simply wrong.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    When you add it up my estimate is pretty close.
    The % is pretty much pulled out of thin air without basis. Yes of course there are empirical parts having to do with parametrizations, just as there are assumptions to the physical equations due to scale—that doesn't eliminate the fact that they are at their heart based on the physical equations of motion.
    It is based on my experience programming and managing a host of physical models including some storm models, I think I made that clear. I also think we are arguing about things that are not relevant. CO2 effect is likely less that 0.5% of the total system so if even 5% is empirical (I am willing to bet 6 months pay it is greater than that) it still matters that empirical relationships are part of the system. I suggest we focus on the primary points.


    We will have to agree to disagree on this point.
    We don't have to...all you have to do is show us one entirely empirical GCM model which does well at the past 120 years in all 3 spacial dimensions. You can't because is doesn't exit.

    Respectfully you're simply wrong.
    If that isn't a giant red herring. You can be certain that I won't show you an entirely empirical GCM because I said as much. I think that makes me in agreement with you on that point, and I doubt you are claiming you are wrong. On the substance of this argument you simply skipped right past and my questions to you. Can I assume you agree with me on these points?

    To restate it, do you claim that GCM's which correlate with recent histories do so without programatic, formula and input adjustment? Do you claim that they would even if all empirical correlations, and formula and all tuning parameters were removed so that only physical properties and formula remain? Do you believe computer programs return results independently from the intentions of the programmer? Finally do you believe that modeling software results is good and valid evidence for an actual physical event?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I suggest we focus on the primary points.
    Let's. You are making assumptions based on your own experiences. Do you have any first hand knowledge of climate models other than that they are pretty accurate?

    I bet I could de-emphasize CO2 impact and increase solar activity impacts a bit, perhaps throw in some more ocean current effects, adjust the aerosol influences and get as good or even better results. Do you doubt this?
    I do. You think you could do this while still holding to inescapable laws of physics and the conclusions of numerous experimental results? If you do, my question is still: [i]how do you know"? You can't base your conclusions on how you would have done it without first hand knowledge of the actual models themselves, which again, accurately predict known events in earth's history.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I suggest we focus on the primary points.
    Let's. You are making assumptions based on your own experiences. Do you have any first hand knowledge of climate models other than that they are pretty accurate?
    Yes, we use them for offshore weather and marine current predictions to use for ballasting, tensioning and positioning our floating platforms and drilling rigs etc. I claim they are chock full of empirically derived formula and adjustments. On the order of the percentages mentioned. But what is your purpose, to discredit me or to address the substance of the issue?

    I bet I could de-emphasize CO2 impact and increase solar activity impacts a bit, perhaps throw in some more ocean current effects, adjust the aerosol influences and get as good or even better results. Do you doubt this?
    I do. You think you could do this while still holding to inescapable laws of physics and the conclusions of numerous experimental results? If you do, my question is still: [i]how do you know"? You can't base your conclusions on how you would have done it without first hand knowledge of the actual models themselves, which again, accurately predict known events in earth's history.
    Yes, I think I could. I am quite confident that there a numerous empirical correlations built into the models that can be adjusted. I am certain I could add some more and add some physical formula too. Remember conclusions of numerous experimental results are the basis for empirical correlations. Non-ideal gas PVT and partial pressure correlations alone are entirely empirical. Why are we arguing about this?

    How do I know? I bet, I think. Clearly there is uncertainty, and that is why I would not bet my house. But my experience in this area gives me a strong indication that this is the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I suggest we focus on the primary points.
    Let's. You are making assumptions based on your own experiences. Do you have any first hand knowledge of climate models other than that they are pretty accurate?
    Yes, we use them for offshore weather and marine current predictions to use for ballasting, tensioning and positioning our floating platforms and drilling rigs etc. I claim they are chock full of empirically derived formula and adjustments. On the order of the percentages mentioned. But what is your purpose, to discredit me or to address the substance of the issue?
    That is not climate and you know it. What I am doing is telling you that your anecdotal accounts are not sufficient to discount climate models.

    Perhaps we should start a new thread and look specifically at climate models, that is if Lynx thinks that is appropriate?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I suggest we focus on the primary points.
    Let's. You are making assumptions based on your own experiences. Do you have any first hand knowledge of climate models other than that they are pretty accurate?
    Yes, we use them for offshore weather and marine current predictions to use for ballasting, tensioning and positioning our floating platforms and drilling rigs etc. I claim they are chock full of empirically derived formula and adjustments. On the order of the percentages mentioned. But what is your purpose, to discredit me or to address the substance of the issue?
    That is not climate and you know it.
    Weather patterns and marine currents are not climate systems? That's news to me.

    What I am doing is telling you that your anecdotal accounts are not sufficient to discount climate models.
    I don't discount climate models. I do argue that software models are not good evidence for validation of physical events that are a minor (<0.5%) part of the whole system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Weather patterns and marine currents are not climate systems? That's news to me.
    What I mean is that the systems you were involved in don't operate on the same time scales as climate does, so the parameters are different. And I am pretty sure you know that.

    I don't discount climate models. I do argue that software models are not good evidence for validation of physical events that are a minor (<0.5%) part of the whole system.
    You should realize that even parts of a whole that make up 0.5% of the total program can still have major influences on the whole over time and in the presence of positive feedback loops. That is one of the major differences between the short term models you were involved in and the long term emergence of feedback loops in climate models. Besides, you know full well that the greenhouse effects of CO2 accounts for much more than 0.5% of the energy available to our climate system. It is not really a convincing argument.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Weather patterns and marine currents are not climate systems? That's news to me.
    What I mean is that the systems you were involved in don't operate on the same time scales as climate does, so the parameters are different. And I am pretty sure you know that.
    Contextually they are not too much different. Same physics, same empirical formulas in the core routines. I don't consider them different for this discussion.

    I don't discount climate models. I do argue that software models are not good evidence for validation of physical events that are a minor (<0.5%) part of the whole system.
    You should realize that even parts of a whole that make up 0.5% of the total program can still have major influences on the whole over time and in the presence of positive feedback loops. That is one of the major differences between the short term models you were involved in and the long term emergence of feedback loops in climate models. Besides, you know full well that the greenhouse effects of CO2 accounts for much more than 0.5% of the energy available to our climate system. It is not really a convincing argument.
    Again you are straying from the main points. The question is do you think that a software model that is specifically coded to show the results it does is independent evidence for a physical event? Do you agree that a minor effect that is less than 0.5% of the total energy balance (a change in CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm is less than 0.5% of the total energy budget) who's effects are not understood from a physical perspective and where it and many other more significant effects are estimated empirically from data that has tens if not hundreds of independent and dependent variables cannot be definitively understood by such a process?

    The answers of course are no and yes. Yet as far as I understand it the models are touted by many as the best evidence. I suppose it is because the overall evidence is so weak.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Kinda takes the wind out of bunbury's claim and the IPCC's assurance that 2500 scientists reviewed and contributed to the document when in reality sections like this one aren't even worth the paper it is written on.
    Well, I don't know how accurate this is, but I heard after the contributing scientists did their work, only fifty-something people (not all scientists) compiled everything, only a handful per section.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    CO2 effect is likely less that 0.5% of the total system so if even 5% is empirical (I am willing to bet 6 months pay it is greater than that) it still matters that empirical relationships are part of the system.
    I think this is where CO2 is so misunderstood. CO2 has such a small warming effect by istelf. However, with the atmospheric window already about 2/3rds closed to IR, it small changes do make a large difference.

    If we assume the IPCC claim of 1.66 watts is true, then that means that increased CO2 only has to block an additional 0.12% IR, yet it adds about 0.32% to the radiative forcing.

    Small changes make a big difference. I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of greenhouse gasses currently blocking 62.43% of the IR, to blocking 62.55% of it. You see, as the approximate 37.5% window gets smaller, the greenhouse effect dramatically increases. The energy increases and increases until a balance is achieved between the incoming radiation, to the outgoing radiation.

    I think this is why some say there is a feedback between greenhouse gasses. I don't see it as a feedback. Just making the percentage of energy smaller that escapes the system. CO2 by itself has very little warming potential. By itself, at atmospheric saturation, it can maybe block 20% of the IR. So many other factors can make for additional 0.12% change of the escaping energy. Funny how, through all this, the earth still seems to regulate herself rather well.

    This is also likely a reason why we all disagree on how much it warms, but I do take that into account. How many do? I simply believe the solar and soot that isn't properly accounted for makes the CO2 increase much less than the 1.66 watts. Maybe about 0.5 watts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Weather patterns and marine currents are not climate systems? That's news to me.
    What I mean is that the systems you were involved in don't operate on the same time scales as climate does, so the parameters are different. And I am pretty sure you know that.
    Would you agree then there is long term lag in the thermal changes and gas ratios?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    What I mean is that the systems you were involved in don't operate on the same time scales as climate does, so the parameters are different. And I am pretty sure you know that.

    Contextually they are not too much different. Same physics, same empirical formulas in the core routines. I don't consider them different for this discussion.
    The time scales are different by orders of magnitude. That radically changes the role of every physical constant - right down to its roundoff error -, and every non-linear feedback loop, and every cyclical process, in the models.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I think this is why some say there is a feedback between greenhouse gasses. I don't see it as a feedback.
    That has nothing to do with what everyone else is calling "feedback". By "feedback" they are referring to such things as the extra water vapor entrained in the CO2 warmed air, which in turn warms the air further.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Funny how, through all this, the earth still seems to regulate herself rather well.
    Sure. By melting the ice sheets and creating deserts and expanding the oceans and increasing the air temps until income matches outgo again.

    The planet is in no danger here.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    This is also likely a reason why we all disagree on how much it warms, but I do take that into account. How many do? I simply believe the solar and soot that isn't properly accounted for makes the CO2 increase much less than the 1.66 watts. Maybe about 0.5 watts.
    Keep pulling numbers out of your ass, maybe you'll get lucky - is that the approach?
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Would you agree then there is long term lag in the thermal changes and gas ratios?
    Lag between what and what? There are dozens of lags involved, short and long term, cyclical and monotonic and boom/bust.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Keep pulling numbers out of your ass, maybe you'll get lucky - is that the approach?
    Wouldn't it be more appropriate and civil to ask me where I get my numbers from rather than making such unfounded accusations?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The time scales are different by orders of magnitude. That radically changes the role of every physical constant - right down to its roundoff error -, and every non-linear feedback loop, and every cyclical process, in the models.
    Can global circulation models simulate the day to day evolution of the weather systems that make up our climate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER

    I don't discount climate models. I do argue that software models are not good evidence for validation of physical events that are a minor (<0.5%) part of the whole system.
    You should realize that even parts of a whole that make up 0.5% of the total program can still have major influences on the whole over time and in the presence of positive feedback loops. That is one of the major differences between the short term models you were involved in and the long term emergence of feedback loops in climate models. Besides, you know full well that the greenhouse effects of CO2 accounts for much more than 0.5% of the energy available to our climate system. It is not really a convincing argument.
    Returning to these points, Here is an excellent article that largely mirrors my overall point about accuracy and relevance of complex climate models. In this article they show how a very simple climate model returns results that are over seven times more accurate than the ones you are advocating. In the article they allude to the issues involved in including/programming in complex interactions that are not well understood and how that influences results. They talked about the numerous (72 of 127) violations of forecasting principles that the IPCC models and resulting forecasts contain in a previous paper linked here.

    http://kestencgreen.com/gas-2009-validity.pdf

    The conclusion:

    Global mean temperatures have been remarkably
    stable over policy-relevant horizons. The benchmark
    forecast is that the global mean temperature for each
    year for the rest of this century will be within 0.5 C
    of the 2008 figure.
    There is little room for improving the accuracy
    of forecasts from our benchmark model. In fact,
    it is questionable whether practical benefits could
    be gained by obtaining perfect forecasts. While the
    Hadley temperature data in Fig. 2 drifts upwards over
    the last century or so, the longer series in Fig. 1
    shows that such trends can occur naturally over long
    periods before reversing. Moreover, there is some
    concern that the upward trend observed over the last
    century and half might be at least in part an artifact
    of measurement errors rather than a genuine global
    warming (McKitrick & Michaels, 2007). Even if one
    accepts the Hadley data as a fair representation of
    temperature history, our analysis shows that errors
    from the benchmark forecasts would have been so
    small that decision makers who had assumed that
    temperatures would not change would have had no
    reason for regret.

    In this research they used a very simple model that assumed future temperatures would mirror last years temperature. Over the period of industrialization from 1850 to current, it produced results that were 7.7 times more accurate than the IPCC climate models over the same time frame. In other writings they describe how they violated only 2 of the 127 principles in this simple model and predict even better results by clearing up these two errors.

    The point though is largely confirming what I have claimed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    to add to my previous post here is a relevant quote from the earlier paper linked above.

    "The methodology for climate forecasting used in the past few decades has shifted
    from surveys of experts’ opinions to the use of computer models. Reid Bryson, the
    world’s most cited climatologist, wrote in a 1993 article that a model is “nothing more
    than a formal statement of how the modeler believes that the part of the world of his
    concern actually works” (p. 798-790). Based on the explanations of climate models
    that we have seen, we concur."

    Again, this mirrors my claim that computer models largely reproduce what the programmer believes, and therefore codes into the model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Again, this mirrors my claim that computer models largely reproduce what the programmer believes, and therefore codes into the model.
    This is correct to the aspect that a model is designed by someone to match as well as possible how they perceive things to work. Their perception could be wrong, and I am certain the models are wrong. I think I have done a good job of showing a few aspects that few people have discussed.

    I find it disturbing that any model I have seen does not account for the variability of the ocean and indirect forcing of the sun. They treat both more static than the dynamic variables are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Wouldn't it be more appropriate and civil to ask me where I get my numbers from rather than making such unfounded accusations?
    I've been watching you pull numbers out of your ass for months now, right in front of me on these threads, waving your hands about "Henry's Law" and "lags" and so forth. What's unfounded about that?

    Where do you think you got this .5 from:
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I simply believe the solar and soot that isn't properly accounted for makes the CO2 increase much less than the 1.66 watts. Maybe about 0.5 watts.
    ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Wouldn't it be more appropriate and civil to ask me where I get my numbers from rather than making such unfounded accusations?
    I've been watching you pull numbers out of your ass for months now, right in front of me on these threads, waving your hands about "Henry's Law" and "lags" and so forth. What's unfounded about that?

    Where do you think you got this .5 from:
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I simply believe the solar and soot that isn't properly accounted for makes the CO2 increase much less than the 1.66 watts. Maybe about 0.5 watts.
    ?
    In the IPCC AR4, they list black carbon on snow/ice as 0.1 watts/meter of radiative forcing ±0.1. This figure was later upgraded to 0.3 watts, I forget the uncertainty. As for pulling numbers out my ass...

    Lets start with remembering my point that the IPCC, rather than added indirect solar variations in the solar variation radiative forcing column, they likely place it as added CO2 forcing. My example of the 0.18% increase shows, without doubt, the 0l.12 watt increase they do call out as "DIRECT" solar radiative forcing of 0.12 watts, but the source power for the greenhouse effect is also increased by that 0.18% which they don't account for, other than, like I said, likely place it as CO2 forcing. This is an additional 0.81 watts that should be assigned to solar rather than CO2.

    OK, 0.3 - 0.1 = 0.2.

    1.66 - 0.81 = 0.86

    0.86 - 0.2 = 0.66 watts for CO2 going by this methodology.

    Now I do believe Black Carbon on Ice is even more effective than listed, plus, the actual increase from the maunder minimum was 0.20+% rather than 0.18%.

    I say I am safe in claiming the 0.5 watt number. Even at that, I did say "Maybe about 0.5 watts. "

    When someone says "maybe," does that qualify as pulling numbers out of their ass?




    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Where do you think you got this .5 from:
    cobra wrote:
    I simply believe the solar and soot that isn't properly accounted for makes the CO2 increase much less than the 1.66 watts. Maybe about 0.5 watts.
    ?

    In the IPCC AR4, they list black carbon on snow/ice as 0.1 watts/meter of radiative forcing ±0.1. This figure was later upgraded to 0.3 watts, I forget the uncertainty. As for pulling numbers out my ass...
    The number you have to explain in this latest challenge, of the dozens possible, is the .5 you obtained from the 1.66 IPCC number you've been misusing by - you said - somehow using soot and solar factors not accounted for by the IPCC.

    The 1.66 is not an "ice melting" number, btw - neither is the .5, then, to the extent it makes any sense at all.

    So - - -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Where do you think you got this .5 from:
    cobra wrote:
    I simply believe the solar and soot that isn't properly accounted for makes the CO2 increase much less than the 1.66 watts. Maybe about 0.5 watts.
    ?

    In the IPCC AR4, they list black carbon on snow/ice as 0.1 watts/meter of radiative forcing ±0.1. This figure was later upgraded to 0.3 watts, I forget the uncertainty. As for pulling numbers out my ass...
    The number you have to explain in this latest challenge, of the dozens possible, is the .5 you obtained from the 1.66 IPCC number you've been misusing by - you said - somehow using soot and solar factors not accounted for by the IPCC.

    The 1.66 is not an "ice melting" number, btw - neither is the .5, then, to the extent it makes any sense at all.

    So - - -
    I had a premature post. I just finish it. Go back and read it again please.

    I understand the the IPCC is claining that for CO2. I am saying that they justify CO2 by the subtraction of other factors, and that it is not as high as they claim.

    Solar is definitely higher than they claim. Since they specifically have the 0.12 watts for solar irradiance listed specifically as "direct" and don't account for the "indirect" anywhere, it has to come off other numbers, somewhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •