Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Toltec]

Jinx said:

No. Not even wrong. Global warming theory is dependent on the poles warming more rapidly than the tropics. This reduces the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles. With a reduced gradient storms become less severe and less likely (as the data shows in the last few decades - showing that the earth has indeed warmed).
So either the earth has warmed and therefore is suffering less storms (as the data shows) or the earth hasn't warmed (or is on a cooling trajectory) and we are getting more storms. To claim the storms are worse is to deny global warming.

Interesting, I get what you are saying, if the area of ice decreases the albedo drops so the differential reduces even if the average temperature rises. What about vertical temperature changes, thunderstorms are driven by air heated near the surface rising? Higher temperatures allow higher humidity and as water has a higher heat capacity than air there can be more energy in the atmosphere. Venus is an extreme example of a high energy atmosphere with constant storms yet there is very little temperature difference across the surface.

I am not at all convinced about anthropomorphic forcing of the climate and even less that building windmills will fix it. What is evident is that the steadily increasing world population of which an increasing proportion will have access to power consuming equipment means we will need even more power to be produced. Burning fossil fuels is not a great way to achieve this.

[Gandahar]

Arctic sea ice lowest in the satellite record on this date.

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent


Antarctic seems to tied lowest with 1986. Which is unusual because the Antarctic has been trending upwards. However I expect it to get to near normal on the melt season up to March. If it does not then it will be interesting.

Edited by Gandahar on Friday 28th October 23:22

[durbster]

Toltec said:

I am not at all convinced about anthropomorphic forcing of the climate ...

Is this is because you have not looked into it in any detail? It's an extremely well established scientific theory, backed up by a wealth of evidence gathered over many decades.

This popped up in my news feed this morning which might be worth a read:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-cli...

And here's a quick rundown of the most common points of argument:
https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscien...

[LongQ]

Toltec said:

What is evident is that the steadily increasing world population of which an increasing proportion will have access to power consuming equipment means we will need even more power to be produced.

Not necessarily.

If you look at where the population increases are predicted to occur and the consider what changes there may be in power usage the model may be somewhat different. Demand per had of population, for want of a better measure, may not be linear not in line with historic usage.

To take a very simple example from everyday life ...

Light bulbs.

The Fluorescent and halogen eras of light bulbs were hardly economically viable (and not exactly attractive for the fluorescents) as replacements for the cheaper to produce incandescent.

However LEDs are a different matter, especially as prices fall.

In winter in the northern hemisphere there is a case for suggesting that incandescent beneficially as both light and heat but that would be a negative argument in a warmer part of the world.

For lighting there is a potential demand decrease of 90% per installation for all new installations and that would also factor in to the supply network requirements.

The LED bulbs are more expensive, perhaps threatening uptake in the sort of areas that would have no lighting at the moment. However the life expectancy, if delivered, should offset the costs. If run off-grid via small solar deployments the potential for earlier deployment without much infrastructure is clear. Whether that is beneficial globally in the short, medium or long term may be less clear.

On the other hand the world (or at least the so called "developed" parts of it) is becoming so reliant on constantly available electricity that the risks and costs of supply failure are greater than they have ever been. (Assuming one is not an anarchist who might enjoy the chaos that significant failures could induce.)

Continuity of supply, taking into account reasonable risks and a few extreme events as recently experienced in South Australia for example, and creating a resource that can help to ensure that continuity in any predictable and manageable situation is probably more important at this time than fretting over a few fossil fuel powered power stations that will in any case come to the end of their (extended) design life expectancy in the next few decades.

However the subject of population is, in general, a subject for politics rather than Science.

The sort of Science that might be brought most directly to bear on population was discussed in the first part of the 20th century and as a result society decided it was an unacceptable subject for further development.

There are some who think that was a mistake.

[Toltec]

durbster said:

Is this is because you have not looked into it in any detail? It's an extremely well established scientific theory, backed up by a wealth of evidence gathered over many decades.

This popped up in my news feed this morning which might be worth a read:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-cli...

And here's a quick rundown of the most common points of argument:
https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscien...

Various things ring alarm bells, dodgily scaled graphs, carefully selected data sets, sample frequencies in historic data that could hide the time span of the recently reported temperature and co2 rises.

Then there are things like -

newscientist said:

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

Incorrect. For instance, while there is much uncertainty in this area, there is growing evidence that hurricanes will get stronger, though there may not be more of them.

This is oddly what I thought would be the case though Jinx above believes the opposite is true which makes me think he read it on a pro-AGW site.

As I stated before we need to be burning less fossil fuels, they are a limited resource and add pollutants to the atmosphere. The whole CC thing is more of a political than scientific issue, if anything it draws attention away from more pressing environmental problems.

[Jinx]

Toltec said:

newscientist said:

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

Incorrect. For instance, while there is much uncertainty in this area, there is growing evidence that hurricanes will get stronger, though there may not be more of them.

This is oddly what I thought would be the case though Jinx above believes the opposite is true which makes me think he read it on a pro-AGW site.

As I stated before we need to be burning less fossil fuels, they are a limited resource and add pollutants to the atmosphere. The whole CC thing is more of a political than scientific issue, if anything it draws attention away from more pressing environmental problems.

The IPCC does not agree with this. And the data shows the opposite is true. If you accept the earth has warmed then you should also accept that the data on storms shows a distinct reduction in both frequency and severity - which is in line with global warming theory. Weasel words of "may" and "growing evidence" in the face of actual data is not worthy of being included as a rebuttal. Just asserting "incorrect" and then adding some hand waving is not a valid response and not worthy of being called Science.
Fossil fuels are not as limited as feared - and their energy density and ease of transport makes them very suitable sources until such time as they are disrupted by a better energy source. The "pollutants" are easier to deal with (and can be) and cause less direct harm to life than bird and bat chopping windmills and bird frying solar farms. Do we even know the risks to whales and dolphins from offshore wind and tidal subsidy farms?

[Toltec]

Jinx said:

The IPCC does not agree with this. And the data shows the opposite is true. If you accept the earth has warmed then you should also accept that the data on storms shows a distinct reduction in both frequency and severity - which is in line with global warming theory. Weasel words of "may" and "growing evidence" in the face of actual data is not worthy of being included as a rebuttal. Just asserting "incorrect" and then adding some hand waving is not a valid response and not worthy of being called Science.
Fossil fuels are not as limited as feared - and their energy density and ease of transport makes them very suitable sources until such time as they are disrupted by a better energy source. The "pollutants" are easier to deal with (and can be) and cause less direct harm to life than bird and bat chopping windmills and bird frying solar farms. Do we even know the risks to whales and dolphins from offshore wind and tidal subsidy farms?

Are you saying then that the climate scientists supplying the IPCC with information are correct, but the ones quoted from the New Scientist are not?

Yes there are untapped reserves of fossil fuels, accessing them will become increasingly difficult and will attract protests, see fracking. What technology are you expecting to replace them, fusion possibly? I find it concerning that construction of power stations is a multi-decade endeavour and we have just agreed one after a long process that will supply a just 7% of our energy needs in the UK.

[LongQ]

Toltec said:

Jinx said:

The IPCC does not agree with this. And the data shows the opposite is true. If you accept the earth has warmed then you should also accept that the data on storms shows a distinct reduction in both frequency and severity - which is in line with global warming theory. Weasel words of "may" and "growing evidence" in the face of actual data is not worthy of being included as a rebuttal. Just asserting "incorrect" and then adding some hand waving is not a valid response and not worthy of being called Science.
Fossil fuels are not as limited as feared - and their energy density and ease of transport makes them very suitable sources until such time as they are disrupted by a better energy source. The "pollutants" are easier to deal with (and can be) and cause less direct harm to life than bird and bat chopping windmills and bird frying solar farms. Do we even know the risks to whales and dolphins from offshore wind and tidal subsidy farms?

Are you saying then that the climate scientists supplying the IPCC with information are correct, but the ones quoted from the New Scientist are not?

Yes there are untapped reserves of fossil fuels, accessing them will become increasingly difficult and will attract protests, see fracking. What technology are you expecting to replace them, fusion possibly? I find it concerning that construction of power stations is a multi-decade endeavour and we have just agreed one after a long process that will supply a just 7% of our energy needs in the UK.

Not only that but it's a design that seems to be having a few problems at other build locations.

Meanwhile "we" push ahead with closing generating capacity that could be used pad the gap.

Either they are very confident that they can control supply and demand well enough to avoid serious disruption or they have no clue and are just hoping that things will turn out well.

The the second option could be explained based on what "advisors" are advising ... in which case you are probably looking at Politics rather than Science.

[Silver Smudger]

Toltec said:

Jinx said:

... Fossil fuels are not as limited as feared - and their energy density and ease of transport makes them very suitable sources until such time as they are disrupted by a better energy source. ...

... Yes there are untapped reserves of fossil fuels, accessing them will become increasingly difficult and will attract protests, see fracking...

Protesters are not a problem with the fuel itself though, are they

[Jinx]

Toltec said:

Are you saying then that the climate scientists supplying the IPCC with information are correct, but the ones quoted from the New Scientist are not?

I would suggest the ones quoted in the "New Scientist" are not Scientists in the traditional sense as the rebuttals listed are mainly hand waving contradictions and not evidence.

Toltec said:

Yes there are untapped reserves of fossil fuels, accessing them will become increasingly difficult and will attract protests, see fracking. What technology are you expecting to replace them, fusion possibly? I find it concerning that construction of power stations is a multi-decade endeavour and we have just agreed one after a long process that will supply a just 7% of our energy needs in the UK.

Nothing wrong with fracking - has reduce the USA's CO2 footprint Just because the anti-human movement protests against it doesn't make it bad.
I agree we should have been building and updating our nuclear capacity in line with France's - then the interconnect could work both ways.

[plunker]

Toltec said:

Jinx said:

The IPCC does not agree with this. And the data shows the opposite is true. If you accept the earth has warmed then you should also accept that the data on storms shows a distinct reduction in both frequency and severity - which is in line with global warming theory. Weasel words of "may" and "growing evidence" in the face of actual data is not worthy of being included as a rebuttal. Just asserting "incorrect" and then adding some hand waving is not a valid response and not worthy of being called Science.
Fossil fuels are not as limited as feared - and their energy density and ease of transport makes them very suitable sources until such time as they are disrupted by a better energy source. The "pollutants" are easier to deal with (and can be) and cause less direct harm to life than bird and bat chopping windmills and bird frying solar farms. Do we even know the risks to whales and dolphins from offshore wind and tidal subsidy farms?

Are you saying then that the climate scientists supplying the IPCC with information are correct, but the ones quoted from the New Scientist are not?

Here's what the IPCC said about tropical cyclones in the last report (AR5):

“Projections for the 21st century indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rain rates (Figure TS.26). The influence of future climate change on tropical cyclones is likely to vary by region, but there is low confidence in region-specific projections. The frequency of the most intense storms will more likely than not increase substantially in some basins. More extreme precipitation near the centers of tropical cyclones making landfall are likely in North and Central America, East Africa, West, East, South and Southeast Asia as well as in Australia and many Pacific islands.”

[Jinx]

plunker said:

Here's what the IPCC said about tropical cyclones in the last report (AR5):

“Projections for the 21st century indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rain rates (Figure TS.26). The influence of future climate change on tropical cyclones is likely to vary by region, but there is low confidence in region-specific projections. The frequency of the most intense storms will more likely than not increase substantially in some basins. More extreme precipitation near the centers of tropical cyclones making landfall are likely in North and Central America, East Africa, West, East, South and Southeast Asia as well as in Australia and many Pacific islands.”

The above essentially says nothing (more likely than not is effectively a 50.0000000000000000000001 to 49.99999999999999999 chance - so not exactly going out on a limb here) . I was referring to the section on actual data and hurricane land fall statistics not model projection - but given the above doesn't really say anything (how precipitation in the centre of a cyclone can be more extreme - surely it is saturated already) ? But the reduction in frequency according to the models should be celebrated

[plunker]

Jinx said:

plunker said:

Here's what the IPCC said about tropical cyclones in the last report (AR5):

“Projections for the 21st century indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rain rates (Figure TS.26). The influence of future climate change on tropical cyclones is likely to vary by region, but there is low confidence in region-specific projections. The frequency of the most intense storms will more likely than not increase substantially in some basins. More extreme precipitation near the centers of tropical cyclones making landfall are likely in North and Central America, East Africa, West, East, South and Southeast Asia as well as in Australia and many Pacific islands.”

The above essentially says nothing (more likely than not is effectively a 50.0000000000000000000001 to 49.99999999999999999 chance - so not exactly going out on a limb here) .

The above says global mean hurricane strength is 'likely' to increase and frequency to decrease/stay the same.

Likely = >66%

[rovermorris999]

Some realism regarding solar power in northern climes
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/batteries-will-not-s...

[Toltec]

plunker said:

The above says global mean hurricane strength is 'likely' to increase and frequency to decrease/stay the same.

Likely = >66%

Which is what I suggested at the start, more energy leads to more extreme weather events. Yet it appears while that is my interpretation Jinx takes the frequency rather than the amplitude as the key factor. How many of the arguments about CC are of this nature? It's as bad as power and torque.

Perhaps we need to get rid of the scientists and get some engineers on the case.

[turbobloke]

Basic climate science, prior to its politicisation via coup de politics, always had it right by pointing out that extreme weather is driven by the pole-to-equator temperature differential, this increases with global cooling not global warming. It's basic science.

In contemporary works, the findings of Sabatier et al (2014) support several other recent studies which find that global warming decreases weather extrema e.g. Clarke et al (2009).

AGW junkscience predictions of both more and fewer hurricanes is but one example of the non-falsifiability of such nonscience. This news item was previously posted in another PH climate thread:

Hurricanes and tropical storms will become less frequent by the end of the century as a result of climate change, US researchers have suggested.

<snip>

The findings are at odds with some other studies, which forecast a greater number of hurricanes in a warmer world.

OOI what's non-falsifiable nonscience around AGW and hurricanes doing in the science forum?! It should be over in the Politics thread.

A stellar second place on flat self-contradiction within AGW is the issue of jet stream shifts. Scientists at the Carnegie Institution determined that the jet streams in both hemispheres have risen in altitude and shifted toward the poles, and have also weakened. These changes 'fit the predictions of global warming models' apparently. Their work was published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2008 iirc.

When the UK had a spell or two of stormy weather in recent years, AGW bandwaggoners noted a concurrent shift in the jet stream and thereby blamed global warming. However the northern jet stream had intensified and moved away from the pole, precisely the opposite of AGW modelling predictions; not to worry "the data don't matter".

[plunker]

Toltec said:

plunker said:

The above says global mean hurricane strength is 'likely' to increase and frequency to decrease/stay the same.

Likely = >66%

Which is what I suggested at the start, more energy leads to more extreme weather events. Yet it appears while that is my interpretation Jinx takes the frequency rather than the amplitude as the key factor. How many of the arguments about CC are of this nature? It's as bad as power and torque

Oh I think it's a lot worse than that

[Jinx]

Toltec said:

Which is what I suggested at the start, more energy leads to more extreme weather events. Yet it appears while that is my interpretation Jinx takes the frequency rather than the amplitude as the key factor. How many of the arguments about CC are of this nature? It's as bad as power and torque.

Perhaps we need to get rid of the scientists and get some engineers on the case.

The only data we have is in number of storms and category. These have both shown a reduction in recent years. To claim less of them but more "extreme" would require some definition in the word "extreme" and hence we have no data for this. No data means no science.
There is not more "energy" available to storms - CO2 does not provide kinetic energy (15 micron IR absorption does not increase the kinetic energy (temperature) of CO2 molecules) .

[rovermorris999]

The other way storms are viewed is by how many £'s worth of damage they have caused. People have so much more stuff now so not unsurprisingly (in richer countries at least) the cost goes up so the storm is 'worse'. It's a bit like saying a film is the biggest grossing ever without considering how much a ticket costs and factoring in inflation.

[hairykrishna]

Jinx said:

There is not more "energy" available to storms - CO2 does not provide kinetic energy (15 micron IR absorption does not increase the kinetic energy (temperature) of CO2 molecules) .

There is more energy available - surface temperatures have risen. I'm not going through the CO2 absorption/thermalisation explanation again because we must have done it 3 times at least.