Climate Change - The Scientific Debate - Vol II

Climate Change - The Scientific Debate - Vol II

Author
Discussion

Lotus 50

593 posts

104 months

Friday 11th September 2015
quotequote all
:-)

Applies in the opposite direction too though!

Jinx

8,792 posts

199 months

Friday 11th September 2015
quotequote all
Lotus 50 said:
:-)

Applies in the opposite direction too though!
Yep - hence I regularly look up the research that appears as "news" - frequently to find the papers referenced are in the "yet to be published" or are studies of dubious size/scope full of "may", "could" and incorrect basic assumptions.
There is a fear in the current scientific climate to admit that they just don't know. The data is inadequate and limited (possibly also contaminated) and the theories are based on special cases that do not exist in the real world.
When the messages are contradictory from the same sources you know there must be something wrong e.g. Karl et al. have disappeared the "pause" in the surface temperature data by "re-analysing" the ocean data - the consequence of which is that the global warming rate is reduced so much it could easily be natural variation (therefore isn't changing "faster" than ever before) . So if you take Karl et. al. as gospel then you cannot fear catastrophic climate change - that rate doesn't support that narrative.
If instead you keep the pause intact (as Trenberth is doing) then you must find some reason for it ( 52 so far)
The science isn't settled.

hidetheelephants

14,489 posts

132 months

Friday 11th September 2015
quotequote all
Lotus 50 said:
self-affirming confirmation bias
What other kind of confirmation bias is there?

QuantumTokoloshi

3,982 posts

156 months

Friday 11th September 2015
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
Lotus 50 said:
self-affirming confirmation bias
What other kind of confirmation bias is there?
I agree with you. wink

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Friday 11th September 21:40

LordGrover

30,345 posts

151 months

Tuesday 29th September 2015
quotequote all
I saw a TED talk yesterday by Allan Savory: How to fight desertification and reverse climate change.
Makes a change from the more prevalent fossil fuels debate.
Advertisement

Brother D

2,246 posts

115 months

Wednesday 30th September 2015
quotequote all
So a study that rather focusses exclusively on the opinions of Climate focused 'scientist' also includes other STEM professors/scientists, not quite what I would call unanimous but interesting study none the less.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-932...

XM5ER

5,073 posts

187 months

Wednesday 30th September 2015
quotequote all
Just when you thought that the settled science was settled, it turns out not to be (again).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/30/massive_gl...
The paper
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b0238

rovermorris999

4,540 posts

128 months

Wednesday 30th September 2015
quotequote all
XM5ER said:
Just when you thought that the settled science was settled, it turns out not to be (again).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/30/massive_gl...
The paper
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b0238
Gosh. An 'unknown unknown' to quote Donald Rumsfeld. Plenty more out there IMHO.

XM5ER

5,073 posts

187 months

Wednesday 30th September 2015
quotequote all
rovermorris999 said:
Gosh. An 'unknown unknown' to quote Donald Rumsfeld. Plenty more out there IMHO.
This is now an "known unknown". Poor scientists, they can't see that AGW bandwagon juggernaut bearing down on them, they are about to be flattened.

Diderot

3,912 posts

131 months

Wednesday 30th September 2015
quotequote all
I look forward to reading all about this on the BBC website.

turbobloke

84,351 posts

199 months

Wednesday 30th September 2015
quotequote all
XM5ER said:
Just when you thought that the settled science was settled, it turns out not to be (again).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/30/massive_gl...
Good stuff but this is one of tens of omissions from models, including known unknowns that were known for some time - should we be surprised?!

Check out forcing LOSUs in IPCC SPMs or the content of any technical section against this fag packet list kept on a shelf for PH and posted a couple of times (certainly once in 2011):

Meteorite and cometary impacts
Cosmic dust accretion (Sun)
Changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun i.e. elliptical eccentricity
Changes in the angle of tilt of the Earth upon its axis
Shorter duration 'wobbles' of the Earth upon its axis
The changing shape of the Earth [the Earth's mean dynamic oblateness parameter)
The changing rotational velocity of the Earth's core
Lunar tidal slowing of the Earth's rotation, previously >465d in 1 year
Changes in the Earth's magnetic field
Tectonic movements of the Earth
Volcanic eruptions
Changes in the circulation patterns of the oceans
Changes in ocean salinity and chemistry as a coupled atmosphere system
Changes in ice-sheet extent
Changes in sea-ice thickness
Changes in atmospheric water vapour
Clouds and cloudiness, links to cosmic rays (above) and nucleation (below)
Natural variations in atmospheric gases
Changing albedo (reflectivity of Earth) through natural landscape change
Surface radiative energy fluxes
Vegetative emission of volatile organic aerosols (add sea surface VOCs)
Other biogeographical factors across a wide range e.g. nucleation, albedo


Then check this list of model 'per se' shortcomings from the other side of the fag packet:

Time intervals in global climate modes ~ 1 - 3 hours in stepwise evolution, due to lack of computing power
Atmospheric cell size
Ocean cell size
Treating the planet's hemispheres as identical for symmetry purposes
Rigid paramaterisation and the vertical profile problem
Sun et al (2012) showed that climate models can't get surface solar radiation right
Errors in precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations
Underestimating the magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport
Poleward transport of energy by the ocean circulations
Overestimates of LW exchange in the tropics and underestimates over high latitudes
The initial value problem, and...
Has computing power suddenly increased my many orders of magnitude recently?



motco

11,573 posts

185 months

Thursday 1st October 2015
quotequote all
The paper has disappeared! (Or the link is duff)

XM5ER

5,073 posts

187 months

LordGrover

30,345 posts

151 months

Thursday 1st October 2015
quotequote all
Perhaps the thinking should be more along the lines of improving the environment than targeting specific/potential causes?

plunker

542 posts

65 months

Thursday 1st October 2015
quotequote all
XM5ER said:
Just when you thought that the settled science was settled, it turns out not to be (again).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/30/massive_gl...
The paper
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b0238
"As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought."

Wow a silver bullet found - and just in the nick of time!



LongQ

13,440 posts

172 months

Thursday 1st October 2015
quotequote all
plunker said:
"As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought."

Wow a silver bullet found - and just in the nick of time!
Are you suggesting that the tidal wave of material, some coming from the direction of science but most from the direction of politics, during the past few months is entirely coincidental to the CO2 spewing jamboree soon to take place in Paris?

And now a rare article suggesting a wider point of view attracts your sarcastic wit? I'm surprised you thought it important enough to comment.

motco

11,573 posts

185 months

Thursday 1st October 2015
quotequote all

plunker

542 posts

65 months

Thursday 1st October 2015
quotequote all
LongQ said:
plunker said:
"As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought."

Wow a silver bullet found - and just in the nick of time!
Are you suggesting that the tidal wave of material, some coming from the direction of science but most from the direction of politics, during the past few months is entirely coincidental to the CO2 spewing jamboree soon to take place in Paris?

And now a rare article suggesting a wider point of view attracts your sarcastic wit? I'm surprised you thought it important enough to comment.
There's nothing rare about it. Just another interesting new result being leapt on and promoted as a game-changer by someone in a hurry.


wc98

7,567 posts

79 months

Saturday 3rd October 2015
quotequote all
a question for plunker. any clue as to why the north sea surface temperature peaked 6 degrees c lower than last year ? i can't quite understand that after all the recent warmest years ever.

PRTVR

4,563 posts

160 months

Saturday 3rd October 2015
quotequote all
wc98 said:
a question for plunker. any clue as to why the north sea surface temperature peaked 6 degrees c lower than last year ? i can't quite understand that after all the recent warmest years ever.
That's an easy one, in the parallel universe that they exist in, heat makes things cold and cold makes things hot. hehe