Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Atomic12C]

Just adding a point about the scientific method in use with climatology, as I see it.....
The IPCC statement from a few posts earlier is basically pointing towards a method whereby evidence is gathered, evidence is then thrown in to a model and then predictions are made. Its then a case of waiting for decades to see if that prediction was accurate.

The main problem being is that, if the models do not contain all causal data with known periodic cycle influence data (along with how historical changes feedback and influence the rate of change and for future causal factors), then the models are always going to have an error, basically its impossible for the models to predict based upon the data fed in to them (leaving only chance for them to be anywhere near close).

I'd hazard a guess that not only has computing power not been big enough to date, but also its not going to be enough for the next decade or so, as the amount of calculations and complexity required, not only in having an effecting program code that can interpret and model all the interactions, but also the sheer processing power of a network of computers is still a way off. Meaning that the IPCC will continue to NOT be able to predict the future climate and leaving the door open for wild predictions that scare politicians and the public.

As with many complex areas of study, its a hard process to prove any mis-predictions with a correct alternative - as both are futile if you don't have the ability to provide convincing evidence.

[Toltec]

PRTVR said:

Clouds are not just weather, they are a major driver of our climate, but hey let's just ignore it because it's complicated and focus on a minute addition to a trace gas.

CO2 is not a major contributor in itself, in fact it is pretty transparent to the IR wavelengths emitted by most things at normal Earth surface temperatures. Water vapour, though again transparent at those wavelengths, is a much greater greenhouse contributer. The theory is that an increase in CO2 creates a small increase in temperature which then increases how much water vapour is in the atmosphere etc. Self consistant within the theory is that CO2 while a trace gas is an important driver for climate so their focus is justified. There is a difference between climate and environment however so what you should possibly be worried about is the focus on AGW rather than climate and the environment as a whole.

Things like rising sea levels and changes in habitability zones are more of an issue for humans than the planet as a whole, people have been building in flood zones for years because it confers some advantage and either hoping it will be OK in the future or not really worring past the immediate needs that are satisfied by doing so. Not unlike building cities on or next to volcanos and fault lines, you know it will be a problem eventually, but likely someone else's problem so who cares.

Rapid climate change will cause problems for plant and animal species that cannot adapt or migrate to match the rate of change, as a species this is less likely to be a problem for us, but is likely to result in widespread misery and death at individual levels. Of course we could then have a nice big nuclear war to top things off.

There is the possibility that the change in climate could run away into a full boiled dry or flip into frozen snowball either permanently or for long enough to kill off all or most life.

That is still pretty much all climate stuff, it will be a shame if we end up with a planet with a wonderfully stable climate, but the water and air is toxic, and nothing much can survive without technology to sustain it.

I have always been much more worried about the environment than the climate, as others have mentioned the CO2 mania has actively caused environmental damage.

[durbster]

Terminator X said:

Durbester - do you agree that the planets system is so complicated that no model can possibly predict it? If you do (it must be) then surely all the models are garbage. They can't possibly predict the future, who can after all.

TX.

Predict to what extent? It's unlikely we'll ever devise a system that can model the intricacies of atmosphere with absolute certainty any time soon, certainly not with today's computing technology anyway. But we can do broad strokes pretty well, given the physics underlying it all are well established.

There seems to be a curiously persistent myth among people who reject AGW that all climate projections have been proved wrong. It's easy to look them up so it's odd that people keep implying that.

That increasing CO2 would raise global temperatures was proposed well back in the 20th century, and things have more or less happened as predicted since. Given the fundamental physics are very well understood, the question is more what makes people think this was not predictable?

[grumbledoak]

durbster said:

That increasing CO2 would raise global temperatures was proposed well back in the 20th century, and things have more or less happened as predicted since. Given the fundamental physics are very well understood, the question is more what makes people think this was not predictable?

That's a brass-necked misrepresentation of both the original hypothesis and the last 150 years.

Since modern industrial times we have had fear of global cooling, then fear of man made global warming, and then "hide the decline" and "explain the pause". There has been no "more or less as predicted" at all.

As can be verified by looking at past climate alarmist predictions.

[durbster]

grumbledoak said:

That's a brass-necked misrepresentation of both the original hypothesis and the last 150 years.

Since modern industrial times we have had fear of global cooling, then fear of man made global warming, and then "hide the decline" and "explain the pause". There has been no "more or less as predicted" at all.

As can be verified by looking at past climate alarmist predictions.

Honestly, it requires basic research to find out that all those things are nonsense.

You're using quotes that are not even full sentences, let alone with any context, and as as basis to accuse somebody of misrepresentation!

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

Then how do you explain the fact that the predictions about climate have been largely proven right consistently since the mid 20th century? Do you consider it no more than a massive coincidence, rather than vindication of the science?

Could you provide an example or two of predictions from the middle of the 20th century that have been later shown to have been " largely proven right consistently " nearer to the present day?

Being generous, any specific predictions published before 1995 could count as mid century and some measurements from the last 5 years that align with these predictions would be really good to prove your statement above

[durbster]

Silver Smudger said:

durbster said:

Then how do you explain the fact that the predictions about climate have been largely proven right consistently since the mid 20th century? Do you consider it no more than a massive coincidence, rather than vindication of the science?

Could you provide an example or two of predictions from the middle of the 20th century that have been later shown to have been " largely proven right consistently " nearer to the present day?

Being generous, any specific predictions published before 1995 could count as mid century and some measurements from the last 5 years that align with these predictions would be really good to prove your statement above

This is from 1959:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/2008-...

Or for collated information, have a look at the IPCC reports:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicat...

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Silver Smudger said:

durbster said:

Then how do you explain the fact that the predictions about climate have been largely proven right consistently since the mid 20th century? Do you consider it no more than a massive coincidence, rather than vindication of the science?

Could you provide an example or two of predictions from the middle of the 20th century that have been later shown to have been " largely proven right consistently " nearer to the present day?

Being generous, any specific predictions published before 1995 could count as mid century and some measurements from the last 5 years that align with these predictions would be really good to prove your statement above

This is from 1959:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/2008-...

Or for collated information, have a look at the IPCC reports:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicat...

Here's model predictions and actual temp rise. Opps, they all got it wrong !!

[durbster]

Oh wow, I didn't see that graph coming. What a shock.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Oh wow, I didn't see that graph coming. What a shock.

Refute it then

[budgie smuggler]

robinessex said:

Refute it then

You're welcome.

[robinessex]

budgie smuggler said:

robinessex said:

Refute it then

You're welcome.

Er, that don't do it !!

[budgie smuggler]

robinessex said:

Er, that don't do it !!

is there any possible piece of information, any peer reviewed paper, graph, analysis, any expert opinion which could 'do it' ?

[robinessex]

budgie smuggler said:

robinessex said:

Er, that don't do it !!

is there any possible piece of information, any peer reviewed paper, graph, analysis, any expert opinion which could 'do it' ?

See my graph previously posted

[Globs]

Max_Torque said:

Climate change, as opposed to weather is predictable because it is the average of all those macro effects.

I could argue that your premise is wrong (which it is, albedo depends on the position of the clouds as well as the density etc), but the proof of your invalid premise is in the conclusion you derive from it:

You claim that the climate is predictable, but around $1Tn and many well funded computer models and 'scientists' later and where are we?
Yes: Without a single accurate computer model of the climate. What exactly happened about the unpredicted pause? Why do we still see snow, something we were assured was a thing of the past? Why did AGW claim more storms and yet Harvey was the first in a 12 year absence of storms? Etc.

Your climate models don't work: That's just a fact my friend. Therefore climate is not predictable. Your premise is therefore false.

The reason they don't work is that they fail to take account of the primary driver of climate: the amount of energy reaching the ground from the sun. Read IPCC AR4 and AR5 - they are full of the re-radiation side of the equation, but fail to get within even 10% of the current earth albedo, let alone tiny albedo changes of 1-2% that wipe out all of their emissive crap.

Because no model predicts the clouds positions and densities to anywhere like the accuracy required your models diverge hopelessly and end up like any other broken simulation: without a clue.
The failure to predict the track of a simple hurricane storm system over 24 hours highlights the gross deficiencies in the models that causes the epic failures that we have seen. Climate models are not just like throwing darts at the board: they are worse than chance, it's as if the dartboard is locked in a draw because they have failed to realise they needed one.

Have you got it yet?

No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = no working climate model

It's that simple. You can't keep ignoring the most important side of the equilibrium equation.

[durbster]

Globs said:

Without a single accurate computer model of the climate.

And? Nobody has ever claimed we would have that.

Globs said:

What exactly happened about the unpredicted pause?

There was no "pause", and even so, there are lots of "pauses" in the temperature record, all followed by continued rises. Nobody has ever claimed we would be able to predict short-term climate change, only trends.

Globs said:

Why do we still see snow, something we were assured was a thing of the past?

Another myth.

Globs said:

Why did AGW claim more storms and yet Harvey was the first in a 12 year absence of storms?

With what confidence level?

Globs said:

Etc.

So the best examples you have are some strawmen myths from advocacy blogs.

On the other hand, does the data show global temperatures have risen as predicted; that the Earth has lost ice as predicted; that sea-levels risen as predicted; that the permafrost begun to thaw as predicted; that glaciers retreated as predicted; that animal migrations have changed as predicted? Etc.

Globs said:

Your climate models don't work: That's just a fact my friend.

You're completely ignoring the fact they've worked pretty well so far, see budgie smuggler's post above.

Globs said:

Have you got it yet?

Your argument is based on things that are easily disproven with a few minutes of searching the net so no, I'm afraid I don't get it. Is it that people are just afraid to do the research, unwilling to stray from safe space of advocacy blogs that bend the facts into something they want to hear?

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Globs said:

Your climate models don't work: That's just a fact my friend.

You're completely ignoring the fact they've worked pretty well so far, see budgie smuggler's post above.

The modellers use multiple fudge factors, so of course the models appear to work. It's actually quite pathetic.

[Toltec]

durbster said:

This is from 1959:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/2008-...

On a rapid scan of that paper I note a couple of things.

When describing how cooling is regulated because ice cannot hold as much carbonate as ocean water and therefore CO2 is released as water becomes ice it is clear that the opposite holds, as ice melts more co2 can be held by the oceans. There would be some self regulation to pull the temperature back down, though obviously human release of CO2 could affect this.

I also thought water temperature would be important too, turns out it is a bit more complicated than that-

https://www.iaea.org/ocean-acidification/download/...

The second interesting thing is they mention the strong absorbtion of IR by CO2 in the 13 - 17 micron band "near the wavelengths at which the earth's infrared radiation is most intense". This is true, however the wavelengths at which it is most intense, 8 - 13 microns, both CO2 and water vapour are not strong absorbers, in addition these wavelengths have proportionally higher emissions as the temperature rises.

What I am trying to say is it really isn't simple, there is no easy to digest source of information that does not include lots of hand waving and 'trust me I'm a PhD' because the underlying science is complex and requires a certain level of education not to mention time and dedication to even get a basic grasp of. If I read the ocean carbon dioxide paper fully I'll probably get most of it, the chemistry looks fairly straight forward and the maths is simple enough, but it is probably going to take a few hours to get a full appreciation of it. The physics of atmospheric absorbtion is simple for me because that used to be my field, working out how it affects thermal balance in the atmosphere let alone factoring in how heat transfer between the ground oceans and atmosphere changes the emission spectrum, less so.

[jet_noise]

durbster said:

<snip>

Globs said:

Without a single accurate computer model of the climate.

And? Nobody has ever claimed we would have that.

Globs said:

Why do we still see snow, something we were assured was a thing of the past?

Another myth.

the above points, if I may...

Do I interpret the first response correctly to mean that both Globs and your good self agree we don't have any accurate computer model of the climate?
Surely we must have this before we spend gazillions?

On the second are you really disputing the existence of Dr Viner's oft quoted prediction/projection of children being unaware of that soft white cold stuff because it is all going to disappear in a few years?

[durbster]

jet_noise said:

Do I interpret the first response correctly to mean that both Globs and your good self agree we don't have any accurate computer model of the climate?
Surely we must have this before we spend gazillions?

That depends on your definition of "accurate". A single computer system that can simluate the future atmosphere with precision? I seriously doubt that'll happen in my lifetime.

Instead we have a bunch of different models projecting the outcomes of different scenarios, all with varying levels of confidence and increasingly large error bars over time. They're not perfect (and nobody claims they are), but the observed data validates them pretty well so far.

Look at it this way: if the observed data wasn't matching the model projections, the conspiracy theorists wouldn't have had any need to invent their data corruption and fraud stories would they?

jet_noise said:

On the second are you really disputing the existence of Dr Viner's oft quoted prediction/projection of children being unaware of that soft white cold stuff because it is all going to disappear in a few years?

Yes, because I went and read all of what he actually said.