Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[kerplunk]

LongQ said:

Well, you mentioned "politically motivated paper".

Any excuse to meander off the subject I don't mind too much, but you'll understand if I don't respond to your replies to me very often.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

This I don't accept. AFAIK the GHE contribution supplied by CO2 is an emergent property from the radiative physics in the model not just an assumed value that's punched in like you're implying.

Nope. Forcing datasets for ModelE are programmed in https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

Fair enough I'll accept that. I must be thinking of other models in the model hierarchy. I'm not exactly well equipped in this area.

[hairykrishna]

It's a long way off "a model that assumes CO2 controls the temperature". It's input as a forcing derived from fairly basic physics. If this amount of forcing was irrelevant in the context of other forcings, as is often touted on this thread, then the model would not predict a temperature change.

[Jinx]

hairykrishna said:

It's a long way off "a model that assumes CO2 controls the temperature". It's input as a forcing derived from fairly basic physics. If this amount of forcing was irrelevant in the context of other forcings, as is often touted on this thread, then the model would not predict a temperature change.

All that the paper showed was for that particular model given those particular forcings CO2 was shown to be the control knob that kept the model from slipping into a snowball earth state. Nothing else and little that we didn't already know or suspect about the GISS modelE.
Given this model is used in CMIP5 and CMIP6 and given the lack of correlation to existing (pre_Karlizsed) global surface temps we can safely assume that CO2 is not what is keeping the earth from slipping into a catastrophic cooling event (CCE as opposed to CCC) and we can be thankful it isn't.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

hairykrishna said:

It's a long way off "a model that assumes CO2 controls the temperature". It's input as a forcing derived from fairly basic physics. If this amount of forcing was irrelevant in the context of other forcings, as is often touted on this thread, then the model would not predict a temperature change.

All that the paper showed was for that particular model given those particular forcings CO2 was shown to be the control knob that kept the model from slipping into a snowball earth state. Nothing else and little that we didn't already know or suspect about the GISS modelE.
Given this model is used in CMIP5 and CMIP6 and given the lack of correlation to existing (pre_Karlizsed) global surface temps we can safely assume that CO2 is not what is keeping the earth from slipping into a catastrophic cooling event (CCE as opposed to CCC) and we can be thankful it isn't.

Calculations are assumptions, models are bunk. Make me wonder how you can possibly 'safely assume' anything when you reject so much. What are you working with?

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Calculations are assumptions, models are bunk. Make me wonder how you can possibly 'safely assume' anything when you reject so much. What are you working with?

I don't reject anything out of hand. Only that which has proven time and time again to be nonsense. CO2 rises after temperature. CO2 also does nothing to stop ice ages (we have pretty good evidence of both). The earth system is in an evolutionary stable state and whilst on certain scales the "rise in CO2" looks unprecedented (the resolutions of the proxies we have do not actually prove this) on a local scale the rates do not even match diurnal or seasonal variations that nature not only adapts to but thrives on.
We simply do not have enough accurate data to support the catastrophic narrative and the catastrophic narrative requires a belief in a precarious "balance" in nature that simply could not exist (anything that precarious would have collapsed eons ago). Climate science jumped the shark by allowing Hansen's CO2 fixation to poison the well and as such set back our understanding of climate 100 years - much like nutrition and the false data against fat.
There is some good science being done but it is hidden within reams of poor papers that run with the RCP 8.5 and get published without raising a single objection from reviewers or editors. This will run for some time until the money runs out - unfortunately it may well take the reputation of unrelated sciences with it.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Calculations are assumptions, models are bunk. Make me wonder how you can possibly 'safely assume' anything when you reject so much. What are you working with?

I don't reject anything out of hand. Only that which has proven time and time again to be nonsense. CO2 rises after temperature. CO2 also does nothing to stop ice ages (we have pretty good evidence of both). The earth system is in an evolutionary stable state and whilst on certain scales the "rise in CO2" looks unprecedented (the resolutions of the proxies we have do not actually prove this) on a local scale the rates do not even match diurnal or seasonal variations that nature not only adapts to but thrives on.
We simply do not have enough accurate data to support the catastrophic narrative and the catastrophic narrative requires a belief in a precarious "balance" in nature that simply could not exist (anything that precarious would have collapsed eons ago). Climate science jumped the shark by allowing Hansen's CO2 fixation to poison the well and as such set back our understanding of climate 100 years - much like nutrition and the false data against fat.
There is some good science being done but it is hidden within reams of poor papers that run with the RCP 8.5 and get published without raising a single objection from reviewers or editors. This will run for some time until the money runs out - unfortunately it may well take the reputation of unrelated sciences with it.

Lots of waffle but I don't see anything that's a basis for saying the no CO2 = no H20 = ice bound earth scenario is a "totally incorrect assumption".

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Lots of waffle but I don't see anything that's a basis for saying the no CO2 = no H20 = ice bound earth scenario is a "totally incorrect assumption".

Because it can be shown on all time resolutions and in all circumstances that CO2 follow temperatures. Temperatures do not follow CO2. Have a read of Frank Lansner at WUWT) easy to follow with good diagrams.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

Because it can be shown on all time resolutions and in all circumstances that CO2 follow temperatures. Temperatures do not follow CO2. Have a read of Frank Lansner at WUWT) easy to follow with good diagrams.

You don't need blog posts from biased websites; there is scientific research about this:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/171...
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/172...
https://www.clim-past.net/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-20...

[Jinx]

durbster said:

You don't need blog posts from biased websites; there is scientific research about this:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/171...
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/172...
https://www.clim-past.net/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-20...

Read the post as it refers not only to the data but the Hansen's incorrect assumptions - the whole point of the exchange I was having with KP.

[kerplunk]

durbster said:

Jinx said:

Because it can be shown on all time resolutions and in all circumstances that CO2 follow temperatures. Temperatures do not follow CO2. Have a read of Frank Lansner at WUWT) easy to follow with good diagrams.

You don't need blog posts from biased websites; there is scientific research about this:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/171...
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/172...
https://www.clim-past.net/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-20...

Indeed, the details that come out of the ice cores in terms of timings, lags, rates of change at glacial terminations and inceptions etc are scientifically interesting for what they suggest about the various processes involved and that's why scientists go to such efforts to flesh the details out. Only in the dumbed-down blogosphere is it used to 'prove' CO2 doesn't do nuffin. It's like an Al Gore level of discussion; if you can show something that superficially counters Gore's simplified narrative then you've won the argument. But it's not as simple as that.

[Toltec]

kerplunk said:

Indeed, the details that come out of the ice cores in terms of timings, lags, rates of change at glacial terminations and inceptions etc are scientifically interesting for what they suggest about the various processes involved and that's why scientists go to such efforts to flesh the details out. Only in the dumbed-down blogosphere is it used to 'prove' CO2 doesn't do nuffin. It's like an Al Gore level of discussion; if you can show something that superficially counters Gore's simplified narrative then you've won the argument. But it's not as simple as that.

It does appear that what is happening now is different than what is seen in the ice cores, on the one hand it points towards man made change, on the other it means any models designed to work on recent data will not work if fed with historic data and vis versa.

As pointed out by others there must be processes that tend toward stabilising climate within a certain range otherwise ice ball or greenhouse would have already occurred. The really interesting thing will be if those processes can compensate for changes we may have caused. Personally at the moment I am more concerned by the long term effects of all of the plastics contaminating the environment than the CO2 released from fossil fuels. The gas is not a new and unknown addition to the biosphere, even if CFC etc. are; plastic eating bacteria and fungi already exist and evolution will drive adoption of new food sources so we may find we start to have problems with objects made with plastics degrading and causing premature failures.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Indeed, the details that come out of the ice cores in terms of timings, lags, rates of change at glacial terminations and inceptions etc are scientifically interesting for what they suggest about the various processes involved and that's why scientists go to such efforts to flesh the details out. Only in the dumbed-down blogosphere is it used to 'prove' CO2 doesn't do nuffin. It's like an Al Gore level of discussion; if you can show something that superficially counters Gore's simplified narrative then you've won the argument. But it's not as simple as that.

Only in the atmosphere it shows CO2 is driven by temperature.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Indeed, the details that come out of the ice cores in terms of timings, lags, rates of change at glacial terminations and inceptions etc are scientifically interesting for what they suggest about the various processes involved and that's why scientists go to such efforts to flesh the details out. Only in the dumbed-down blogosphere is it used to 'prove' CO2 doesn't do nuffin. It's like an Al Gore level of discussion; if you can show something that superficially counters Gore's simplified narrative then you've won the argument. But it's not as simple as that.

Only in the atmosphere it shows CO2 is driven by temperature.

Sure that's trivially true. So what?

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Sure that's trivially true. So what?

Thought I'd let you think about this for a bit. Why did Karl add 0.12 C to the buoy data to align with the bucket data again if the link to temperatures is merely trivial?

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Sure that's trivially true. So what?

Thought I'd let you think about this for a bit. Why did Karl add 0.12 C to the buoy data to align with the bucket data again if the link to temperatures is merely trivial?

By trivially true I mean it's the standard explanation, and what other mechanism could there possibly be? I'm not aware of any other so it seems a no-brainer.

I can't see how that relates to the Karl SST adjustments so I'm baffled by your question.

[kerplunk]

Toltec said:

kerplunk said:

Indeed, the details that come out of the ice cores in terms of timings, lags, rates of change at glacial terminations and inceptions etc are scientifically interesting for what they suggest about the various processes involved and that's why scientists go to such efforts to flesh the details out. Only in the dumbed-down blogosphere is it used to 'prove' CO2 doesn't do nuffin. It's like an Al Gore level of discussion; if you can show something that superficially counters Gore's simplified narrative then you've won the argument. But it's not as simple as that.

It does appear that what is happening now is different than what is seen in the ice cores, on the one hand it points towards man made change, on the other it means any models designed to work on recent data will not work if fed with historic data and vis versa.

As pointed out by others there must be processes that tend toward stabilising climate within a certain range otherwise ice ball or greenhouse would have already occurred. The really interesting thing will be if those processes can compensate for changes we may have caused. Personally at the moment I am more concerned by the long term effects of all of the plastics contaminating the environment than the CO2 released from fossil fuels. The gas is not a new and unknown addition to the biosphere, even if CFC etc. are; plastic eating bacteria and fungi already exist and evolution will drive adoption of new food sources so we may find we start to have problems with objects made with plastics degrading and causing premature failures.

(only just seen your post)

A few years ago now under the heading of "Great pics of dead baby albatrosses" I posted some photos on facebook from here:

http://www.chrisjordan.com/gallery/midway/#CF00031...

It's the only time I've had an fb post censored by facebook! Presumably the 'dead baby' part attracted their attention.

It's fking awful but this thread is about climate change.

[Toltec]

kerplunk said:

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Sure that's trivially true. So what?

Thought I'd let you think about this for a bit. Why did Karl add 0.12 C to the buoy data to align with the bucket data again if the link to temperatures is merely trivial?

By trivially true I mean it's the standard explanation, and what other mechanism could there possibly be? I'm not aware of any other so it seems a no-brainer.

I can't see how that relates to the Karl SST adjustments so I'm baffled by your question.

It is one of the more interesting things about the current situation, if anthropomorphic CO2 has caused a temperature rise then that in turn will likely cause a natural rise, historically some climate feedback system has reversed this trend. If the feedback is in the form of plant growth in the oceans and on land how will human action affect that? Will a higher rate of change of temperature be sustained and mean that the ecosystem will not be able to adapt in time to become a carbon sink? Will some half-arsed human attempt to fix this just make things worse? Will the ecosystem collapse do to plastic waste and make climate change academic? How can the planet support a growing human population with increasing energy and resource use without us starting to kill each other in pursuit of said resources?

Pessimistically I think we'll be lucky to get out of it without either a population collapse or a very much reduced standard of living as we define it in the developed world. Economics means we are caught in a consumption elevator and getting off means a very long drop.

Optimistically, science and technology may find fixes quickly enough to prevent an economic collapse and leaders will stay sane enough not to exchange short term gain for a long term future.

That is all kind of political, however what I mean is only science is going to save us, whether it proves AGW real or not.

Edited by Toltec on Thursday 11th January 12:53

[LongQ]

Toltec said:

Optimistically, science and technology may find fixes quickly enough to prevent an economic collapse and leaders will stay sane enough not to exchange short term gain for a long term future.

To find a fix for something you have to know rather well and clearly what is broken.

However I concur with your sentiments though I have long doubted that "the leaders" are sane (in the sense we might like the word to be used) or focused on anything much apart from themselves and their very localised world.

[LongQ]

For those who feel the geology is (or should be) a valid and important part of what we know as Climate Science, here is a link that you might appreciate.

The start of the post sets out what the objective of the discussion is intended to be and so is worth reading.

http://euanmearns.com/the-geological-society-of-lo...


There is a rather excellent précis of what geology/climate science seems to be telling us posted by "Javier" here.

http://euanmearns.com/the-geological-society-of-lo...


Note that the comments are being moderated with the intention of keeping comments right on topic.

Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 16th January 10:53