1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Climate change news

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by tochatihu, Jun 16, 2014.

  1. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,068
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    I'm glad you posted that link as I've been following the Arctic sea ice cover. I am wondering if the more abundant, warm water is playing a larger role?

    The most rapid Arctic sea ice melt starts, aggressively, on the Atlantic and Pacific ends. But the section that borders the Canadian Arctic islands and Greenland still remains in an icy grip. In contrast, the Eurasian / Russian shore has become all but ice free. The Canadian, island dotted shores should be shallower, inhibiting warm water infusion from the oceans. In contrast, the Eurasian / Russian side does not have the island population array seen on the opposite shore. Not a hypothesis, just a suggestion, I'm wondering of the ocean heat is seen in the Arctic Sea ice melt?

    Our 'less hot' Northern hemisphere seasons have been punctuated by substantial, Arctic cold descending. But every Arctic bubble leads to more favorable Arctic sea ice melt. Our friends in Alaska and other Northern latitudes are seeing erosion of permafrost and rapid land snow and ice melt. Whether these 'weather' related Arctic air bubbles are where climate-meets-weather.

    Bob Wilson
     
  2. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,527
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    OK, so where is Trenberth's missing heat. No its not in the Atlantic. Its in the mind of the believer. We do know, well those of us looking at things scientifically, that the hockey stick and the UN climate models poorly model the natural variation in ocean osculations. So yes better modeling of the Atlantic and pacific are needed to predict accurate rates of heating. The recent discovery that effects like enso existed long ago as strong as today, thows away the idea that the onlty thing that is important are green house gasses.

    On arctic ice we may be a slower calving of glaciers, this allows the seas to be more free. That also points to slower (than hansen) rising sea levels.
     
  3. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,973
    3,501
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    "No its not in the Atlantic"
    Is this the conclusion you came to after reading Chen and Tung? it differs from theirs.

    "thows away the idea that the onlty thing that is important are green house gasses"
    Orbital forcing and ocean heat-sinking patterns are important. Geological uplift and mineral weathering rates are important. Plant 'innovations' and planetary albedo are important. Cloud distributions and aerosols are important.

    Atmospheric CO2 is important as direct forcing and also as feedback on several of the above.

    It's a great idea to throw away CO2-only as it is a straw man, and as it poses a risk of degrading the (hard-won) understanding of the actual multifaceted role of this IR absorber/plant food.

    But here at PC we are not in the business of degrading. We are using our better-than-average layman brains to confront evolving climate science, warts and all. This might help:
    10 new climate change controversies – now that the cause is settled - Road to Paris - ICSU
     
  4. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,527
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Not a conclusion a point of view. Normally you have a theory, then a hypothesis. When the data doesn't match the hypothesis, then you need to change or reject the theory if you are a following scientific method. Or you can claim there is something wrong with the experiment. There is missing heat, which is not very scientific.

    OK, so what do I think was wrong with the theory? Ocean modeling was done poorly. Now we have Chen and Tung saying its the atlantic. Well this fits both theories 1) missing heat, or 2) bad ocean modeling but what happens 10 years from now when things are different? Are we really likely to find this mysterious "missing heat" in the atlantic, and not some "missing cold" in the pacific? So no problem with the paper, but we should have perspective on this idea of "missing heat". We have other papers that found better proxies that say that ENSO model of the far past was wrong, with the ENSO not just starting in modern times, but having been as strong in the past, then weakening before returning to present levels.

    NO its rather the missing heat came from that co2 centric point of view, you know the one that claimed the LIA and MWP were just local phenomina. We got some cherry picked paleo data that seemed to predict it would be much warmer now. Get rid of that need to remove past non-ghg centric climate change, and the models have a much better chance of being accurate. Let's talk about models that need to improve instead of some mysterious missing heat as if it was an algebra problem.
    +1
     
  5. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,068
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Curious as my understanding is:
    1. Question or curiosity - like an opinion, something that piques our interest such as: [​IMG]
    2. Hypothesis - a model or mechanism is proposed. A hypothesis can not be proven but only experimental observations used to disprove the hypothesis.
    3. Theory - a hypothesis that has survived enough testing that it is 'promoted'.
    4. Law - a theory that continues to survive, the final promotion, . . . until an experiment reveals a problem. [​IMG]
    Of course like the 'theory of evolution,' this is subject to debate.

    Bob Wilson
     
  6. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,527
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Nice so we could have a theory that the fathers know a lot. Then we have a hypothesis from the handbook as mentioned. Now we can test the hypothesis, or rather let myth busters test it.

    Sneezing With Your Eyes Open : Discovery Channel

    Now we can reject the hypothesis about eyes and sneezes. Hooray. Now a lot of dad's even knowing this would repeat the fake idea of eyes poping out. Reflexes are the correct explanation, and could be kind of fun, and you can use the knee, kick reflex to demonstrate, but that leads to a lot of other questions, while eyes poping out is an easy thing for a kid to visualize.

    Theories often are a collection of hypothesis that are either untested, or data supports.

    If dad choose the fake story because he likes it, then the theory dad knows a lot could still be true, but we need to modify this with ....but sometimes dad tells made up stories. This is a modified theory. The dad handbook, yep every dad does get one on the internet today :)

    Now back to the missing heat.

    We have two theories Catastrophic human caused climate change and ghg based climate change. Trenberth subscribes to Catastrophic human caused climate change or CACC, which has hypothesis like more fossile fuel burned more bad weather. That theory had missing heat, that we somehow magically can find in the atlantic. Also it explanation on changing the MWP to a MCA was because it was small and regional, based on bad data. When better data came to light they claimed the natural climate change wasn't as big as human caused so it still is a climate anomally not a warm period. Its about excuses not explanations.
     
  7. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,973
    3,501
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    There is at least one type of coral that seems quite resistant to acidity increases in its environment:

    Caribbean gorgonian corals are resistant to ocean acidification -- ScienceDaily

    They talk about pH from 8.1 (at or just below current global surface-water average). To 7.1 one pH unit means 10 times more H+ ions. A bit confusing that the press release directly equates that to CO2 - where? dissolved in water? It's not quite that simple...

    Anyway this goes in your good news file because anybody still calcifying at pH 7.1 is worth noting.
     
  8. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,973
    3,501
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    A new climate model:

    What has gone wrong with the IPCC models?

    That page has a bad link to the paper though. go here instead

    Science Bulletin

    scroll about 3/4 down the page , find it, and click on pdf.

    Basically I am amused, but that should have no bearing on your assessment of the model. It should however be of interest that the authors started by averaging 2 surface-temperature data sets with two analyses of satellite derived troposphere T. I don't think anyone has done that before :)

    They predict average warming of 0.09 oC per decade, all the models summarized by IPCC are in the range of 0.13 to 0.50. So, we'll see.
     
  9. Stevevee

    Stevevee Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    821
    224
    0
    Location:
    Vermont
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Just think of the job opportunities
     
  10. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,068
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Thanks!
    The sources of this paper have me (*WARNING: URL='http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=509579')reading this paper /URL) with a skeptical eye like I would read a paper on tobacco health effects from a cigarette maker. Still, I did a quick read pending printing the paper and these are my initial impression:

    "The irreducibly simple model . . . "

    It appears to be a CO{2} only model (pp. 124.) The secondary effects are tossed out. I do not claim to understand all of the secondary effects but some are too obvious to ignore such as polar ice cover loss and permafrost melting.

    My initial review does not find specific analysis of the flaws of these secondary effects. At a minimum I would expect a listing of these secondary effects with an analysis of each. The dismissal phrase ". . . since feedbacks are likely to be net-negative, . . . " (first page) reads a speculation, 'are likely', an opinion not supported in the body of the paper.

    Multiple Temperature Records

    So "Fig. 1 Medium-term global temperature trend projections from FAR, extrapolated from January 1990 to October 2014 (shaded region), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue), as the mean of the RSS, UAH, NCDC, HadCRUT4 and GISS monthly global anomalies [9–13]" (pp. 123) starts well but soon they start tossing out other temperature scales. For example:
    Ibid, pp. 123

    So I did a simple Google search and a temperature record not used in this paper:
    [​IMG]
    Source: Monitoring Global and U.S. Temperatures at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center | Monitoring References | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

    The term 'bait and switch' comes to mind when multiple temperature scales are brought in. It is a variation of 'cherry picking' and recalls the doctor testimonials of cigarette brands. Missing was a systematic listing of the temperature scales to establish a basis for subsequent analysis of "The irreducibly simple model."

    CONCLUSION

    This was just a cursory view of the paper read on screen. Reading a hard copy is my gold standard. The authors of this paper initially left me skeptical and made it easy to spot advocacy techniques. Still I'll print it and take a another read.

    Bob Wilson

    * - I was able to download this PDF file without a problem with my Macintosh. However, at work, Firefox reported "application/x-download from: http://www.scibull.com:8080" and prompted to ask if I should "Open with" or "Save File." I don't run strange software. But when I ran it under Internet Explorer, it used a custom downloader and voila, the PDF was there. Hummmm! So I printed the file and started a detailed read. Then Tuesday, our Virus scanner went off and I now have a security incident. I have no idea how long it will take to clear the problem and may have my work computer wiped out. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!!
     
    #30 bwilson4web, Jan 25, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
  11. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,973
    3,501
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    When I saw the headline at spacedaily, I was actually hoping that someone had done better work addressing ocean dynamics. Of course, the model is not about that at all.

    It does fit some sort of gap though. For a long time, there have been folks saying standard climate models are inadequate. To which, a common response has been 'OK, so make a better one'. This is what has been done here. It is for others to decide whether the model moves us forwards. The authors have done their part.

    Must say though that the spacedaily introduction was unusual in several ways. For one I had never heard the (Chinese) Science Bulletin so highly praised. If you know what journal impact factor is, you understand what 1.3 means. For another, making open access is a matter of paying the publisher. Typically $2000 or so; I did not find that information immediately on the journal website. Yet I must say I have never read before of 'generosity' in making an article open access. That it was done by Heartland (everybody must have heard of them by now) was part of the amusement.
     
  12. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,973
    3,501
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    This journal does publish correspondence, so if you have a reasoned, insightful response, that would be the place to send it.
     
  13. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,068
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    While doing a Google search for temperature records, I found this article:
    Earth's Temperature Tracker : Feature Articles
    Now I understand why "The irreducibly simple model . . . " using CO{2} only is so critical. Double the predicted numbers and voila, we have the standard models. So the elephant in the room, CO{2} remains the single largest contributor, half. But the others "CFCs, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone" play a part too.

    What this does is layout a roadmap to understanding how the models came into being and the contributing greenhouse gasses. Methane I knew about and CFCs makes sense. But I didn't know about NO{x} and ozone but this makes sense.

    An ozone 'hole' or thinning would allow an especially high energy part of the Solar spectrum to reach the earth surface and re-radiate as heat. As for NO{x}, I need to learn more to understand its spectral characteristics.

    Bob Wilson
     
  14. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,973
    3,501
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Ozone in the stratosphere (strat. energy balance in general) is a way for solar energy output to modulate Earth climate. So I say. It is not in the 'visible' wavelengths, because there the variation is really small. In UV wavelengths, the solar cycle is huge.

    None of that pertains to the study/model I posted. It only considers CO2. It excludes ocean dynamics, solar, cloud, water vapor, aerosols, and everything else.

    Now this could pose a problem for our PC friends who suppose that 'anything but CO2' drives climate change. The current model aspires to debunk models presented by IPCC. But buying into this model means throwing away all the other things that have previously been argued for. Even here.

    Dang, that is tricky. If somebody on the affinity websites 'makes a case' it will be re-posted here by somebody or other. While waiting for that wisdom, what did Monckton do, and show, with their new model?
     
  15. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,068
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Interesting, I was not aware but here is reference to this phenomena:
    http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter3/Ency_Atmos/Radiation_Solar.pdf

    I am not an advocate of this paper as I did a quick scan. However this figure tells the tale it is trying to claim:
    [​IMG]
    • The 'SIMPLE MODEL' has a much lower heating rate than the other models
    • Over time, the other models have reduced their projected heating rates
    The only problem is the positive slope of their 'SIMPLE MODEL' shows global warming:
    Source: Now We’re Just Haggling Over the Price | Quote Investigator

    Bob Wilson
     
  16. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,973
    3,501
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    It;s like this, I think. If we could be sure that the 21st century warming will average less than 0.2 oC per decade, many people will be unmotivated to decrease (slow the increase) in fossil fuel combustion.

    Doesn't help with ocean pH going down, but anyway...

    So, can a one-dimensional model with a step-function CO2 doubling make one sure? If so, skepticism has disappeared.

    I think it's more appropriate to say that a range of possible futures exists. This new model does not actually extend the range. So, mindful of that range, and certainly mindful that fossil fuel combustion is one of the several ways to spread energy (economic development) more widely across humanity, what is the best choice for future CO2 paths? Increase each year by a few ppm, or something different?
     
  17. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,973
    3,501
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Soething else new.
    This was published in Nature Climate Change, 19 January 2014
    Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming
    doi:10.1038/nclimate2100

    OK, fair enough, but now, this has been published in the same journal, 26 January 2015
    Increased frequency of extreme La Niña events under greenhouse warming
    doi:10.1038/nclimate2492

    The careful reader will…notice something. Furthermore, both studies have the same first author.

    I’m not going to try to sort this out, beyond saying that these are extremes of the Pacific Ocean ‘slosh’, and that intermediate years are ENSO neutral. Cai and co authors seem to be building the case that the ocean will move more quickly between extremes, and spend less time ‘in the middle’.

    As with so many other things, we’ll see. Certainly, ENSO presents a long instrumental record, since 1865 or so. Proxy records since 1500 or so.A menable to statistical testing.
     
  18. Stevevee

    Stevevee Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    821
    224
    0
    Location:
    Vermont
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Before long, the hockey stick will more closely resemble a ruler
     
  19. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,973
    3,501
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    SteveVee, a lot of paleoproxy studies have been published since (I presume you mean) Mann et al. 1997. They include many more types of proxies, and much better spatial coverage. Is it a matter of interest to you what they have found out?
     
  20. Stevevee

    Stevevee Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    821
    224
    0
    Location:
    Vermont
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Most of the reading I've done the last several months are regarding the explanations and research on the ocean temperatures.