Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[rovermorris999]

So why is temperature flatlining while 'carbon' is increasing?

[TheExcession]

rovermorris999 said:

So why is temperature flatlining while 'carbon' is increasing?

Because it hasn't been adjusted yet?

[QuantumTokoloshi]

rovermorris999 said:

So why is temperature flatlining while 'carbon' is increasing?

The science is settled, correlation and causality is absolute, remember the consensus.

It seems someone forgot to tell the climate though. A silly oversight.

[Lotus 50]

How about inter-decadal patterns of Pacific Ocean circulation?

http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/gl...

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2106.epdf?r...

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n7/full/...

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D...

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 4th March 07:59

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Lotus 50 said:

How about inter-decadal patterns of Pacific Ocean circulation?

http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/gl...

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2106.epdf?r...

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n7/full/...

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D...

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 4th March 07:59

What that is telling me is the science is far, far, far from settled. The professed, arrogant certainty of the interaction of C02 within the earth's climate and the actual global effects thereof is not understood sufficiently to make the ever more hysterical grandiose predictions of doom.

These prognostications being prefaced on stochastic models, whose predictive power is being called into serious doubt due to ever growing divergence to real world data.

[Lotus 50]

You might choose to interpret it that way. Another way of interpreting it is that:

- the models give a close simulation of global temperatures in the absence of the current ocean circulation patterns
- the models can be improved so that why predict short-medium term and more localised trends more skilfully
- there is still an upward trend in temperatures as a result of increased levels of atmospheric CO2
- it seems that at the moment the Pacific ocean circulation patterns are restraining that temperature rise, which is probably a good thing

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the current circulation pattern ends though. Hopefully it won't mean sudden very rapid warming at a rate much faster than previously.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 4th March 09:03

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 4th March 09:07

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 4th March 09:08

[rovermorris999]

Lotus 50 said:

You might choose to interpret it that way. Another way of interpreting it is that:

- the models can be improved but there is still an upward trend in temperatures as a result of increased levels of atmospheric CO2
- it seems that at the moment the Pacific ocean circulation patterns are restraining that temperature rise, which is probably a good thing

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the current circulation pattern ends though. Hopefully it won't mean sudden very rapid warming at a rate much faster than previously.

You have used words such as 'seems', 'hopefully' and 'probably'. Hardly words to employ when the science is settled and the models working.
Pleas prove your statement that 'there is still an upward trend in temperatures as a result of increased levels of atmospheric CO2'. I have yet to see any causal proof, only computer generated GIGO.
I have no axe to grind on man-made warming, cooling or whatever. If hypothesis and data agree for a significant period then I'm happy to go along with it. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

[Lotus 50]

I use those phrases because even 95% certainty isn't definitive proof that something exists, that said I wouldn't bet against it. Re increased emissions of CO2 have you read chapter 8 here: http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ ?

[rovermorris999]

Lotus 50 said:

I use those phrases because even 95% certainty isn't definitive proof that something exists, that said I wouldn't bet against it. Re increased emissions of CO2 have you read chapter 8 here: http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ ?

So you agree that those who are saying 'the science is settled' are wrong?

[Lotus 50]

Nope. My turn of phrase comes from my science background - 95% certainty means there is a highly significant relationship between CO2 emissions and temp increases (in fact I think the actual stats level of confidence was 99%).

[PRTVR]

hairykrishna said:

Raising the CO2 content of the upper layers of the atmosphere raises the amount of IR absorption. This is IR that previously would be radiated to space. Increased IR absorption raises the total energy of this bit of atmosphere. This increases the population in the state which leads to IR emission. This emission is isotropic - some goes back down rather than to space. These photons are absorbed by a lower layer, it's energy is raised above what it would be without these 'extra' photons, it's emission is raised etc etc all the way down. It doesn't require a given photon to make it's way all the way through the atmospheric column.

It's easiest to think of the layer from which radiated photons are eventually likely to be radiated to space. As the IR absorber concentration rises the height of this layer rises and the amount 'escaping' reduces.

But surely the amounts we are talking about are minute, we are talking about a small part of a trace gas, that is surrounded by other gasses, mainly N2, then we come to the part of causation, how do you attribute any change to Co2 when it is normal to see a change in ground temperature of 10° C due to night time cloud cover, water vapour masks anything that would be recordable?

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Lotus 50 said:

- the models give a close simulation of global temperatures in the absence of the current ocean circulation patterns

Do they? The IPCC recognises the divergent trend between prediction and actual data. Why was this not included as a factor / parameter within the models? A lack of understanding of the global climate and the interactions therein would be the reasonable conclusion to draw.

Lotus 50 said:

- the models can be improved so that why predict short-medium term and more localised trends more skilfully

So you agree the models are not accurate, why are we basing decisions which will effect society for generations on models which exhibit poor predictability? It seems not only illogical, but irrational. You should ask the banks about the effects of poorly understood and inaccurate stochastic and deterministic predictive models.

Lotus 50 said:

- there is still an upward trend in temperatures as a result of increased levels of atmospheric CO2
- it seems that at the moment the Pacific ocean circulation patterns are restraining that temperature rise, which is probably a good thing

It seems? Let me repeat the comment from above. The IPCC recognises the divergent trend between prediction and actual data. Why was this not included as a factor / parameter within the models? A lack of understanding of the global climate and the interactions therein would be the reasonable conclusion to draw.

Lotus 50 said:

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the current circulation pattern ends though. Hopefully it won't mean sudden very rapid warming at a rate much faster than previously.

A much higher possibility and known, confirmed cause of violent climate change and large scale species extinction is a collision between the Earth and another planetary body, yet humans prefer to spend our capital on mitigating the poorly understood effects (if any) of C02 on the global climate.

Which will have a greater impact on the human race and entire planet? If we are going to talk negative outcomes as a basis for urgency, C02 is bit player in this case. A large or even small asteroid or comet will ruin our planetary day, yet as a species we are willing to take that risk, without attempting to mitigate it in any substantive way.

We prefer to spend trillions mitigating a unquantified AGW threat, that we cannot with any reasonable certainty confirm is a threat, or the effects thereof, if any.

Global warming is not the greatest threat facing humans, gullibility is.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 4th March 10:05

[hairykrishna]

PRTVR said:

But surely the amounts we are talking about are minute, we are talking about a small part of a trace gas, that is surrounded by other gasses, mainly N2, then we come to the part of causation, how do you attribute any change to Co2 when it is normal to see a change in ground temperature of 10° C due to night time cloud cover, water vapour masks anything that would be recordable?

It doesn't really matter that it's a trace gas. What matters is how much the absorbtion properties change with changes in this trace gas. Those changes aren't insignificant.

We're looking for a long term trend. Short term variation of 10 degrees or even more won't mask it.

[hairykrishna]

TheExcession said:

rovermorris999 said:

So why is temperature flatlining while 'carbon' is increasing?

Because it hasn't been adjusted yet?

I have to say that I don't find the idea that 'temperature is flatlining so CO2 isn't a problem' particularly convincing. There's just not enough data to support it.

We have temperature records that show that there’s been a significant rise in temperature over the past 100 years. We have basic physics which tells us that CO2 changes the earths radiation budget. A simplistic linear combination of log CO2 concentration and volcanic sulphate emissions (for the big dips around eruptions) does a pretty good job of fitting the temperature record. What’s the alternate theory that better fits the observations?

[PRTVR]

hairykrishna said:

PRTVR said:

But surely the amounts we are talking about are minute, we are talking about a small part of a trace gas, that is surrounded by other gasses, mainly N2, then we come to the part of causation, how do you attribute any change to Co2 when it is normal to see a change in ground temperature of 10° C due to night time cloud cover, water vapour masks anything that would be recordable?

It doesn't really matter that it's a trace gas. What matters is how much the absorbtion properties change with changes in this trace gas. Those changes aren't insignificant.

We're looking for a long term trend. Short term variation of 10 degrees or even more won't mask it.

But with long term trends how do you account for the variability in water vapour in the atmosphere and the effect it has on temperature, do we even have data on the amount of clouds in the atmosphere? And no I don't mean models.

How can it not really matter that its only a small part of a trace gas? If its surrounded by mainly N2,surely its ability do anything but a transient slowing down of heat in a tiny part of the atmosphere, the heat will pass to surrounding gas ie N2 and then on into space.

[plunker]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Lotus 50 said:

- the models give a close simulation of global temperatures in the absence of the current ocean circulation patterns

Do they? The IPCC recognises the divergent trend between prediction and actual data. Why was this not included as a factor / parameter within the models? A lack of understanding of the global climate and the interactions therein would be the reasonable conclusion to draw.

Lotus 50 said:

- the models can be improved so that why predict short-medium term and more localised trends more skilfully

So you agree the models are not accurate, why are we basing decisions which will effect society for generations on models which exhibit poor predictability? It seems not only illogical, but irrational. You should ask the banks about the effects of poorly understood and inaccurate stochastic and deterministic predictive models.

Lotus 50 said:

- there is still an upward trend in temperatures as a result of increased levels of atmospheric CO2
- it seems that at the moment the Pacific ocean circulation patterns are restraining that temperature rise, which is probably a good thing

It seems? Let me repeat the comment from above. The IPCC recognises the divergent trend between prediction and actual data. Why was this not included as a factor / parameter within the models? A lack of understanding of the global climate and the interactions therein would be the reasonable conclusion to draw.

Lotus 50 said:

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the current circulation pattern ends though. Hopefully it won't mean sudden very rapid warming at a rate much faster than previously.

A much higher possibility and known, confirmed cause of violent climate change and large scale species extinction is a collision between the Earth and another planetary body, yet humans prefer to spend our capital on mitigating the poorly understood effects (if any) of C02 on the global climate.

Which will have a greater impact on the human race and entire planet? If we are going to talk negative outcomes as a basis for urgency, C02 is bit player in this case. A large or even small asteroid or comet will ruin our planetary day, yet as a species we are willing to take that risk, without attempting to mitigate it in any substantive way.

We prefer to spend trillions mitigating a unquantified AGW threat, that we cannot with any reasonable certainty confirm is a threat, or the effects thereof, if any.

Global warming is not the greatest threat facing humans, gullibility is.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 4th March 10:05

I notice you avoid talking about the implications.

Decadal-scale ocean cycles, being cycles, will likely cancel out.

Centennial scale models, not falsified.

Asteroids/comets = a squirrel.

[hairykrishna]

PRTVR said:

How can it not really matter that its only a small part of a trace gas? If its surrounded by mainly N2,surely its ability do anything but a transient slowing down of heat in a tiny part of the atmosphere, the heat will pass to surrounding gas ie N2 and then on into space.

CO2 absorbs photons. The energy is thermalised through collisions with all the other molecules surrounding it. A proportion of the CO2 is in a high enough energy state that it emits photons. The proportion depends on the temperature of the gas mixture. These photons are emitted in all directions i.e. some of them go back down, transferring energy to lower levels of the atmosphere.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

plunker said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Lotus 50 said:

- the models give a close simulation of global temperatures in the absence of the current ocean circulation patterns

Do they? The IPCC recognises the divergent trend between prediction and actual data. Why was this not included as a factor / parameter within the models? A lack of understanding of the global climate and the interactions therein would be the reasonable conclusion to draw.

Lotus 50 said:

- the models can be improved so that why predict short-medium term and more localised trends more skilfully

So you agree the models are not accurate, why are we basing decisions which will effect society for generations on models which exhibit poor predictability? It seems not only illogical, but irrational. You should ask the banks about the effects of poorly understood and inaccurate stochastic and deterministic predictive models.

Lotus 50 said:

- there is still an upward trend in temperatures as a result of increased levels of atmospheric CO2
- it seems that at the moment the Pacific ocean circulation patterns are restraining that temperature rise, which is probably a good thing

It seems? Let me repeat the comment from above. The IPCC recognises the divergent trend between prediction and actual data. Why was this not included as a factor / parameter within the models? A lack of understanding of the global climate and the interactions therein would be the reasonable conclusion to draw.

Lotus 50 said:

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the current circulation pattern ends though. Hopefully it won't mean sudden very rapid warming at a rate much faster than previously.

A much higher possibility and known, confirmed cause of violent climate change and large scale species extinction is a collision between the Earth and another planetary body, yet humans prefer to spend our capital on mitigating the poorly understood effects (if any) of C02 on the global climate.

Which will have a greater impact on the human race and entire planet? If we are going to talk negative outcomes as a basis for urgency, C02 is bit player in this case. A large or even small asteroid or comet will ruin our planetary day, yet as a species we are willing to take that risk, without attempting to mitigate it in any substantive way.

We prefer to spend trillions mitigating a unquantified AGW threat, that we cannot with any reasonable certainty confirm is a threat, or the effects thereof, if any.

Global warming is not the greatest threat facing humans, gullibility is.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 4th March 10:05

I notice you avoid talking about the implications.

Decadal-scale ocean cycles, being cycles, will likely cancel out.

Centennial scale models, not falsified.

Asteroids/comets = a squirrel.

I notice you avoid talking about the implications.

Inaccurate models = poor understanding of global climate

AGW = Badger with false teeth.

[plunker]

plunker said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

I notice you avoid talking about the implications.

Decadal-scale ocean cycles, being cycles, will likely cancel out.

Centennial scale models, not falsified.

Asteroids/comets = a squirrel.

I notice you avoid talking about the implications.

Inaccurate models = poor understanding of global climate

AGW = Badger with false teeth.

Inaccurate at the decadal scale doesn't = inaccurate at the century scale.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

plunker said:

plunker said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

I notice you avoid talking about the implications.

Decadal-scale ocean cycles, being cycles, will likely cancel out.

Centennial scale models, not falsified.

Asteroids/comets = a squirrel.

I notice you avoid talking about the implications.

Inaccurate models = poor understanding of global climate

AGW = Badger with false teeth.

Inaccurate at the decadal scale doesn't = inaccurate at the century scale.

Global temperature stochastic models have shown poor predictability when compared to actual data, which part of this is difficult to understand ?