Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

Author
Discussion

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Sunday 10th November 2019
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
There are many solar-climate hobby-horses galloping around. Not many are firmly established though.
What exactly is firmly established in climate science?

Gandahar

9,600 posts

127 months

Sunday 10th November 2019
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
There are many solar-climate hobby-horses galloping around. Not many are firmly established though.
What exactly is firmly established in climate science?
Certainly not you and Turboboke doing it as a hobby rather than real science ... hence why they have letters after their names and you have a slightly enlarged electricty bill.,

There's very little science posted on here today unless I post it to be honest.

Pull your scientific socks up or migrate to the political thread where you and your keyboard can feel more at home spouting stuff.


Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Sunday 10th November 2019
quotequote all
Gandahar said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
There are many solar-climate hobby-horses galloping around. Not many are firmly established though.
What exactly is firmly established in climate science?
Certainly not you and Turboboke doing it as a hobby rather than real science ... hence why they have letters after their names and you have a slightly enlarged electricty bill.,

There's very little science posted on here today unless I post it to be honest.

Pull your scientific socks up or migrate to the political thread where you and your keyboard can feel more at home spouting stuff.
I’ll consider myself set straight then!

I missed that science you posted too!

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Monday 11th November 2019
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
There are many solar-climate hobby-horses galloping around. Not many are firmly established though.
What exactly is firmly established in climate science?
Lots of stuff

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Monday 11th November 2019
quotequote all
Toltec said:
OK, what is your take on the validity of an average global temperature value for measuring the scale of global warming?

Mine is that other than an easy sound bite for mass consumption it means very little. It is about as useful as giving an average surface temperature for a kitchen as a measure of how safe it is to touch things in there.
That seems contrary to the fact the data is used for research and analysis.

Toltec said:
From what I understand the oceans are acting as a heat sink absorbing most of any increased energy due to retention of heat by GHGs. Why then isn't the change in energy used as a measure of warming?

Edited by Toltec on Friday 8th November 20:59
It is - see 'ocean heat content' data

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&a...


Edited by kerplunk on Monday 11th November 09:57

stew-STR160

8,006 posts

237 months

Monday 11th November 2019
quotequote all
Gandahar said:
There's very little science posted on here today unless I post it to be honest.
Alrighty then...

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.102...

"Abstract
Realistically representing the Arctic amplification in global climate models (GCMs) represents a key to accurately predict the climate system's response to increasing anthropogenic forcings. We examined the amplified Arctic warming over the past century simulated by 36 state‐of‐the‐art GCMs against observation. We found a clear difference between the simulations and the observation in terms of the evolution of the secular warming rates. The observed rates of the secular Arctic warming increase from 0.14°C/10a in the early 1890s to 0.21°C/10a in the mid‐2010s, while the GCMs show a negligible trend to 0.35°C/10a at the corresponding times. The overestimation of the secular warming rate in the GCMs starts from the mid‐20th century and aggravates with time. Further analysis indicates that the overestimation mainly comes from the exaggerated heating contribution from the Arctic sea ice melting. This result implies that the future secular Arctic warming may have been over‐projected."

Edited by stew-STR160 on Wednesday 13th November 13:42

Toltec

7,159 posts

222 months

Tuesday 12th November 2019
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
Toltec said:
OK, what is your take on the validity of an average global temperature value for measuring the scale of global warming?

Mine is that other than an easy sound bite for mass consumption it means very little. It is about as useful as giving an average surface temperature for a kitchen as a measure of how safe it is to touch things in there.
That seems contrary to the fact the data is used for research and analysis.
It seems more like a product of the analysis than an input.

kerplunk said:
Toltec said:
From what I understand the oceans are acting as a heat sink absorbing most of any increased energy due to retention of heat by GHGs. Why then isn't the change in energy used as a measure of warming?

Edited by Toltec on Friday 8th November 20:59
It is - see 'ocean heat content' data

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&a...
I know, but why is it never mentioned in as a key indicator of climate change in material for public consumption? It is a much better indicator of what is going on and if anything helps explain why we need to be concerned.

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Tuesday 12th November 2019
quotequote all
Toltec said:
kerplunk said:
Toltec said:
OK, what is your take on the validity of an average global temperature value for measuring the scale of global warming?

Mine is that other than an easy sound bite for mass consumption it means very little. It is about as useful as giving an average surface temperature for a kitchen as a measure of how safe it is to touch things in there.
That seems contrary to the fact the data is used for research and analysis.
It seems more like a product of the analysis than an input.

kerplunk said:
Toltec said:
From what I understand the oceans are acting as a heat sink absorbing most of any increased energy due to retention of heat by GHGs. Why then isn't the change in energy used as a measure of warming?

Edited by Toltec on Friday 8th November 20:59
It is - see 'ocean heat content' data

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&a...
I know, but why is it never mentioned in as a key indicator of climate change in material for public consumption? It is a much better indicator of what is going on and if anything helps explain why we need to be concerned.
What is the change in degrees Celsius?

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Tuesday 12th November 2019
quotequote all
Toltec said:
kerplunk said:
Toltec said:
OK, what is your take on the validity of an average global temperature value for measuring the scale of global warming?

Mine is that other than an easy sound bite for mass consumption it means very little. It is about as useful as giving an average surface temperature for a kitchen as a measure of how safe it is to touch things in there.
That seems contrary to the fact the data is used for research and analysis.
It seems more like a product of the analysis than an input.

kerplunk said:
Toltec said:
From what I understand the oceans are acting as a heat sink absorbing most of any increased energy due to retention of heat by GHGs. Why then isn't the change in energy used as a measure of warming?

Edited by Toltec on Friday 8th November 20:59
It is - see 'ocean heat content' data

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&a...
I know, but why is it never mentioned in as a key indicator of climate change in material for public consumption? It is a much better indicator of what is going on and if anything helps explain why we need to be concerned.
It's a fair question, I guess people relate to the surface temps more because it's where they live so maybe the answer is 'because we aren't fish' wink


Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 12th November 09:51

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 12th November 2019
quotequote all
According to my deeply religious supervisor (only when it suits him) we are at the start of rapture, Donald Trump is really the devil and man will burn in hell for their behaviour on this planet. That was started by aliens... wobble

deeen

6,079 posts

244 months

Tuesday 12th November 2019
quotequote all
flashbang said:
According to my deeply religious supervisor (only when it suits him) we are at the start of rapture, Donald Trump is really the devil and man will burn in hell for their behaviour on this planet. That was started by aliens... wobble
Presumably anyone who disagrees with him is a denier? Can you assure us that the highly paid International Panel of Christians and Creationists are busy making computer models to predict how terrible everything will be if we don't all change our lives to conform to their beliefs?

Toltec

7,159 posts

222 months

Wednesday 13th November 2019
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
It's a fair question, I guess people relate to the surface temps more because it's where they live so maybe the answer is 'because we aren't fish' wink
On the other hand a change of a degree or two is something you don't normally worry about. Not that many people would get energy stored in the system either...

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Wednesday 13th November 2019
quotequote all
Toltec said:
kerplunk said:
It's a fair question, I guess people relate to the surface temps more because it's where they live so maybe the answer is 'because we aren't fish' wink
On the other hand a change of a degree or two is something you don't normally worry about. Not that many people would get energy stored in the system either...
Not scary enough? This is an unusual complaint for PH

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 13th November 2019
quotequote all
deeen said:
flashbang said:
According to my deeply religious supervisor (only when it suits him) we are at the start of rapture, Donald Trump is really the devil and man will burn in hell for their behaviour on this planet. That was started by aliens... wobble
Presumably anyone who disagrees with him is a denier? Can you assure us that the highly paid International Panel of Christians and Creationists are busy making computer models to predict how terrible everything will be if we don't all change our lives to conform to their beliefs?
You've hit the nail on the head there. He has an excuse for everything that bloke. Some of the stuff he goes on about is quite scary! eek

stew-STR160

8,006 posts

237 months

Wednesday 13th November 2019
quotequote all
Another nice little article to read-

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...

"Abstract
Probabilistic estimates of climate system properties often rely on the comparison of model simulations to observed temperature records and an estimate of the internal climate variability. In this study, we investigate the sensitivity of probability distributions for climate system properties in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Earth System Model to the internal variability estimate. In particular, we derive probability distributions using the internal variability extracted from 25 different Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 models. We further test the sensitivity by pooling variability estimates from models with similar characteristics. We find the distributions to be highly sensitive when estimating the internal variability from a single model. When merging the variability estimates across multiple models, the distributions tend to converge to a wider distribution for all properties. This suggests that using a single model to approximate the internal climate variability produces distributions that are too narrow and do not fully represent the uncertainty in the climate system property estimates."

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Wednesday 13th November 2019
quotequote all
stew-STR160 said:
Another nice little article to read-

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...

"Abstract
Probabilistic estimates of climate system properties often rely on the comparison of model simulations to observed temperature records and an estimate of the internal climate variability. In this study, we investigate the sensitivity of probability distributions for climate system properties in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Earth System Model to the internal variability estimate. In particular, we derive probability distributions using the internal variability extracted from 25 different Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 models. We further test the sensitivity by pooling variability estimates from models with similar characteristics. We find the distributions to be highly sensitive when estimating the internal variability from a single model. When merging the variability estimates across multiple models, the distributions tend to converge to a wider distribution for all properties. This suggests that using a single model to approximate the internal climate variability produces distributions that are too narrow and do not fully represent the uncertainty in the climate system property estimates."
Science speak for the maths models are bks. RIP

jshell

11,006 posts

204 months

Wednesday 13th November 2019
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Science speak for the maths models are bks. RIP
yesbiglaugh

dickymint

24,097 posts

257 months

Wednesday 13th November 2019
quotequote all
jshell said:
robinessex said:
Science speak for the maths models are bks. RIP
yesbiglaugh
Links in quite nicely with what I just read over at Tallblokes ....

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/climate...

Pupp

12,206 posts

271 months

Thursday 14th November 2019
quotequote all
Heads up for a documentary on Beeb 4 at 9pm this eve about the Uni of EA 'Climategate' affair.
Blood pressure pills might be advised... smile

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Thursday 14th November 2019
quotequote all
Pupp said:
Heads up for a documentary on Beeb 4 at 9pm this eve about the Uni of EA 'Climategate' affair.
Blood pressure pills might be advised... smile
It won't matter what is said...it's the BBC so rejection of it is guaranteed.