Man Based Global Warming....

No, I am sorry. The funding pushing false documents comes from those who support the IPCC's 'consensus' views. Those views are false and there is no consensus from scientists worldwide. In fact the number skeptics is growing.

You have refuted neither any science I provided nor have you refuted the charges of political and ideological bases for making fear-mongering claims of cataclysm.

I am not suggesting that the burning of fossil fuel has no environmental consequences. What I am claiming is that computer models used to put forth the claim that the CO2 produced by humans is going to inevitably alter the world's climate for the worse are demonstrably inadequate to make that claim. I am suggesting that their very design is to produce the conclusion that mankind's contribution of CO2 will lead to warming. That they do because that is their purpose. It is implicit in the stated purpose of the IPCC in their declaration. That is a fact:

From Wickipedia (anything but a conservative, oil-funded enterprise) The IPCC's own charter declares:

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.[3]

No other aspect of climate change is addressed. They did not say, "Gee, I wonder what drives climate change, wonder what is most influential, how do systems work together, wonder if we should include other known systems in our computer models, can we even find a way to include them" etc. etc. No, the ONLY thing they were chartered to investigate was human-induced climate change. The evidence for why this might be so is all over the internet, but don't bother to look for it or read it. It might just contradict their (your)viewpoint and we wouldn't want that. Your belief is firmly held and nothing must be allowed to interfere. Just belive the GLOBAL GOVERNMENTAL PANEL that wants to control how energy may be portioned out on a GLOBAL basis.


Now, they've put all their eggs in the basket that says man's tiny portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere WILL make global temperature rise and that ONE DEGREE C over a CENTURY WILL devastate the earth. And millions of people believe them because they have snookered them into believeing that thousands of scientists have carefully reviewed the evidence and agree with their assessment. Links I have provided clearly show that the peer review process purportedly followed by the IPCC is definitely suspect and that the scientists in control of the IPCC's science are more like a cabal of like-minded associates than a dispassionate group of truth seekers.

Well, thousands of scientists DO NOT agree and more are joining the skeptic community every day. Why? Because the direct correlation proposed in the computer models - more CO2 = more global temperature - ain't happening. Simple. And yet, rather that admit they are wrong, the proponents fight a rear-gaurd action to discredit the skeptics, slander them as 'deniers', and use a gullible media to further propagandize the populace. Many actually believe that the UN IPCC has human and environmental health as its primary concern. B. and S.


P.S. How does one respond to the irrational statement that you have rebutted my love of plants?

 

Obviously. And sarcasm is no excuse.

 

Tim, we've gone through the motions enough times over the year and I'm aware of your stance and in most cases we agree, at least to an extent. We just end up on slightly different sides is all. I am also a fan of skeptisism because it is what helps move the scientific knowledgebase forward and away from theology/philisophy. I'm at work and cannot take the time to read your links yet but I will do so this week when things slow down (works, doctors appointments, girls etc.)

 

Having met scientists that actually work on models I would have to say you are wrong in your assumption that they all strive only to prove their point with the model and leave out other drivers and/or system components simply because it doesn't fit their agenda. The complex models require vast amounts of computing power and can take days to weeks to run on even the fastest computers which means making endless tweaks can get quite expensive when you are sharing resources with other researchers. We are also still learning how all of these systems work together to form and maintain our atmospheric and oceanic conditions so I'm sure there are pieces of the puzzle that are still missing. Each cell sampled in these models contains millions of bits of data. This, however, is no reason to just automatically dismiss such models, especially when they are compared to past climate conditions and prove fairly accurate.

My stance is based on the scientific data at hand and my best understanding of it. I hold no specific beliefs or worse yet, convictions. I cannot even follow any of the worlds religions because there is even less scientific data for that so please do not lump me into a category of "believer" as you would someone who follows Christ, Wicca, Atheism, or transcendental meditation. I don't study science for a living only to turn away from scientific rigor when it suits an agenda.....

 

You may bristle at being called a 'believer', yet seem to have no difficulty pinning the 'denier' or 'denialist' label on those who genuinely question man's contribution to global warming or the dire predictions of alarmists such as Al Gore and his ilk. What goes around comes around.

Anyone who thinks belief in a religion should be based on scientific data might wish to familiarize himself with concept of metaphysics.

 

Hey, when the denier has no scientific background and posts nothing but hyperbole from unreliable sources I have no problem slamming them for their views. I eat, breath, sleep, and work in the scientific field. I am swayed more by resonable scientists and personal observations than I am media hype and paid-for biostitutes.

I'm not sure what metaphysics has to do with anything. Relationships are non-material yet produce material. Many theories in quantum mechanics are no readily observable by the non-scientist. So what, doesn't this mean I should believe in a religion just because I cannot disprove it? I personally feel religion is a joke because there is no proof of its claims whatsoever and I will not put energy into something so rediculous. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof right? Call me David Hume if you like but some of us require evidence before we will accept some things are "real" and base our lives on those things.

 

JSH is one of the most arrogant and clueless "engineers" I've had the displeasure to come across. He has demonstrated no analytical ability and an amazing capacity for repeated self-delusion. And there is little coherence to his arguments (something he has in common with all the hardcore deniers I've come across so far.) I had to school him about how backwards his SPC analysis was, but he still didn't get it. Kids these days.

One of the first threads I responded to in PC was where a new owner upbraided him for being a jerk to her because she was happy with her new car. The really funny thing is that his main theme for Hinton's anti-Prius rant in that thread was based on his faulty assumptions about interior materials. :bounce::rofl: It was some months later when he tried to dispute what my (and other's) interiors were made of that the source of his error and extremes of his self delusion was revealed. And then it really set in: he has no freakin' idea what he is talking about, even in things in which he claims expertise. I've worked next to folks like this, and they are intolerable on a project team, unable to see the obvious problems in front of them, blinded by their own convictions rather than the information rolling in. You have to learn to work around them and move on. He's made up his mind, and there will be no changing it. With Global Warming there is nothing that one can ever show that is indisputable for the affirmed denier--no matter how ridiculous, contrived, or inconsistent their bases must become. It's not like the Prius dash which one can actually touch and examine to reach an indisputable conclusion. It requires some judgement, and for folks that have demonstrated they have none, that's a test they will fail every time.

Heck, he was completely clueless about the global warming debate until Al Gore's movie so he hasn't exactly kept up with current events for decades at a time...

Trust me, the "ignore list" is the best place for JSH.

 

Please point me to the post(s) where you have slammed Al Gore for his hyperbole. Oh, that's right, he's a believer and one of the priests of your religion, not one of those denier devils.

The rest of your comments are confusing. You say extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you accept the unproven claim that man's continuing contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is of such significance that we must stop it or suffer dire consequences?

Let me ask you another question or six. Is man natural? Does he belong on earth?

You no doubt accept that the universe began with the 'big bang'. What caused that? Has science adequately explained how matter came from nothing? How life arose from mere matter? How life acquired consciousness? How conscious man became self-aware? There is no scientific proof how these things have occurred, yet we live in and of the 'evidence', do we not? Some people 'live the evidence' you do not see. There is probably more spiritual literature than scientific - Indeed science grew from philosophy. Some believe the spiritual paths blazed by others, some don't.

These are areas that have interested a lot of people. Folks a lot more intelligent than you or I have pondered these questions - including a lot of religious scientists.

That said, here is a list of some serious scientists who doubt, for one reason or another, various claims of the believers. Look quickly before it is deleted from Wiki.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming"]List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Why are you able to accept what these men reject? Have you studied and understood the scientific literature more than they have? Can they all be included in the inviolable consensus. What did scientific consensus mean to Copernicus?

 

LOL, ok. I'm done with you. You have turned out no better than the rest of the people I end up argueing with in here. lol

A word of advice or two. Go take some evolutionary biology courses, a couple chemistry courses, maybe some physical geography for the hell of it and please, please, lay off the philosophy courses. lol

 

Another believer flees in terror from rational discourse. So long.

 

Tim, where do we (the climate science community) stand with regards to aerosols and their effect on solar absorbtion and reflection? Is there some newer data on the whole 4% reduction in solar insolation from 1961-1990 (Liepert 2002). i.e. we heard all about "Global Dimming" from Gerry Stanhill and Peter Cox then the reversal of the dimming effect started ocurring after 1990 and we started to increase solar insolation. Where do we stand on this currently and how does that affect your conclusion that an increase in CO2 had no effect on global average temperature for the 50yrs prior to 1998? Did the reduction of pan evaporation rates in the [FONT=AdvTTf90d833a.I][FONT=AdvTTf90d833a.I]

Roderick and Farquhar (​

[/FONT]​

[/FONT]2002) paper ever work out to be something other than a dimming effect?

I need to play catch up on these things. I've been stuck in studying grasslands for too long now. ​

 

No, I just have no urge to discuss wave/partical duality, evolutionary biology, or astrophysics and I damn sure and not going to go into philosophy.

 

F8L - I agree - skepticism is healthy. Heck, I'm even skeptical of the "skeptics". Tim Ball for instance, that was mentioned before. I'm skeptical that he is a particularly well versed in climatology (although I think his arguments re: the IPCC are valid). And I am highly skeptical of those with political or monetary "dogs in the fight", regardless of their views. But I find the subject compelling because it is such and interesting intersection of politics, public policy, and science. I enjoy these debates for reasons of politics but also of learning. Even those with whom I generally disagree with on the topic bring some interesting points to the discussion (when some of them are not calling me a "liar", that is ).

 

For anyone interested in a basic course on Climate Change, The Teaching Company is having a sale on their "Earth's Changing Climate" lecture series with Professor Richard Wolfson of Middlebury College. It's $39.95 but was pretty decent for explaining the fundamentals of climate change and is pretty fair about mentioning what we don't know as well as what we do know regarding climate science. It consists or 12 lectures at 30min. each.

The Teaching Company - Earth's Changing Climate

I find some of their lecture series to be even better than what you get in real classes. I particularly like the Biology -The Science of Life course but it is 72 lectures long at 30min. each! It is taught by Stephen Nowicki of Duke University

 

I think this part is a bit misleading for those who never read up on climate change beyond tabloids or their favorite talk show.

Here is a graph that shows a fairly close model vs. observation in global ocean heat content to contrast the one you provided:


source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=148


Lets give everyone a basic overview of climate models and maybe this will help our discussions here.

Climate Modeling lesson: *I'm no expert and this is not my field of study

1. Climate models are mathmatical descriptions of Earth's climate system. They provide projections, not predictions, of future climate given a set of starting conditions and assumptions about future emissions of greenhouse gases and other factors. There is a hierarchy of models that increase in complexity.
2. The simplest models treat the Earth as a single point and provide only a global average temperature.
3. Two-Box models treat the surface and atmosphere seperately,acconting for the flows of energy between the two, as well as energy input from the sun and infared energy radiated to space.
4. More complex models include variations with latitude and may have many layers of ocean depth and height in the atmosphere.
5. GCMs (Global Climate Model or Global Circulation Model) are the most complex models. They include realistic descriptions of Earth's continents, atmosphere and oceans in three dimensions. They divide the earth's surfcae, oceans, and atmosphere into many small cells and account for flows of energy and matter among cells. There is also a fourth dimenssion: Time. Some models only provide equilibrium climate projections, but some others track the evolution of climate change through time. Coupled Models use seperate modules for different aspects of the climate system- oceans, the carbon cycle, the cryosphere, etc.. They are coupled through the exchanges of matter and energy between the different modules.

Models aren't perfect, we know this. Here are some reasons:

1. Their resolution is limited.

• The best global models have a grid of cells about 100 miles on a side, and they divide the coeans and atmosphere into about 20-40 layers. That makes for several million cells, each with a lot of equations describing processes in that cell and its interactions with adjacent cells. Those equations must be solved repeatedly as the model "steps forward in time".
• Global Climate models tax even the fastest computers, which advance the model climate 5-10 years in 24 hours of computation time.

2. We don't understand the details of every climate process. For this reason, climate models aren't based entirely on first principles but include some processes that are modeled on the basis of observational data.


3. Some climate processes occur at scales below that of the grid-cell size. These situations are handled by approx. schemes calld sub-grid parameterization.

• Clouds such as cumulus are much smaller than the grid size. A crude way to handle a partly cloudy day is to assume a uniform cover of partially transparent clouds over a whole grid cell. More sophisticated parameterizations account for the vertical structure of clouds and the presense of clear sky between clouds, without actually resolving these features.
• Features like cities, lakes, forests, and agricultural lands may be smaller than the grid cell size. Their different climate effects must be parameterized.

4. Feedback effects are an important aspect of the climate systems and climate models must incorporate these effects.


A feedback effect is an additional change to occurs following some change in a system.

• If the additional change enhances the original change, then the feeback is a positive feedback.
• If the aditional change opposes the original change, then the feeback is a negative feedback.

Many feedback operate in the climate system. Three of the most important include:

• Ice-albedo feedback, in which a warming results in the melting of ice and snow, both of which reflect sunlight. The darker the land or ocean that's exposed absorbs more solar energy, resulting in still further heating. Ice-albedo feedback is one of the reasons why polar regions show the greatest temperature increases. This is a positive feedback.
• Cloud-albedo feedback, in which warming results in increased evaporation and thus more clouds. But clouds reflect incoming sunlight, lowering the energy input to Earth and countering the initial warming. This is a negative feedback.
• Water-vapor feedback, in which warming results in increased evaporation and thus more atmospheric water vapor. Because water vapor is a greenhouse gass, the effect is additional warming. This is a positive feedback and is estimated to increase the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse warming by 50%!

Some feedbacks may involve human behavior. For example, in response to warming, people buy more air conditioners or run theirs more frequently. That means more coal is burned to generate electricity, and that means more CO2. That further enhances the greenhouse effect thus leading to more warming. That is a positive feeback.

Although negative feedbacks counter a warming effect, it's possible to show mathmatically that they can reduce the effect but not reverse it-at least for situations in which the climate responds gradually to changes.
......................................................

Much of this is adapted from a lecture series (Richard Wolfson), and various text books as well as model information on RealClimate.org.

 

It is true the data I provided is for a relatively brief period in time (about 5-6 years). The above is as well - so it seems that in one instance the models match well, the other they do not. In any case, it is clear that about half the time they are wrong.

Additionally, it is not clear to me whether the above are forward or backward looking model projections (I suspect these were back-testing results). It is relatively easy to back-test a model and make it "work" by pre-picking the best fit models from an ensemble, and then turning the dials on those until you get a match between model and data. But it is quite another thing to choose a model, then project forward and have that model - even one that back tests quite well - accurately predict future conditions. Just ask the quants on Wall St.

 

I am not fully up to speed on the state of research on aerosols. I know there has been some interesting work of late that suggests a much larger role for aerosols in warming - not cooling:

Though greenhouse gases are invariably at the center of discussions about global climate change, new NASA research suggests that much of the atmospheric warming observed in the Arctic since 1976 may be due to changes in tiny airborne particles called aerosols.

This is an interesting study and I need to better understand the role of aerosols here in warming, since traditionally, as you point out, aerosols are assumed to be a factor in atmospheric cooling.

In any case, I think the "clean air" regulations in Europe and the US are interesting, but I'm not sure there is good empirical evidence to prove the point. Specifically, the clean air regulations were phased in over time, so the effect would likely have not been immediate any way. Furthermore, at the same time we were phasing in regulations to reduce particulate / aerosols, Korea, Taiwan, China, India, etc. were all beginning to rapidly grow economically, presumably offsetting many of the reductions we were achieving in the west.

So the take-aways for me are:
- not withstanding Pinatubo, the role of anthropogenic aerosols (cooling or warming) still seems inconclusive
- the clean air regulations may not have had much effect globally due to other rising economies' emissions
- to my knowledge there is not very good data on aerosol trends over time to very well study the 1970-2000 time period.

There will be better data on aerosols to come from the Glory satellite, as mentioned in the link.

 

Past observations are a given (When not made up by people like Michael Mann). Construct a model to show a wanted clonclusion. Make a run - oops not close enough - tweak it. Run 2 needs more tweaking. Same with 3 and 4. Okay, hey, look what we did! Model with run 5 gets really close to observed data from the past. (Yes, I know your example from realClimate {the AGW based blog} concerns the oceans only.)

Now, we project it into the future and Wth! ? - future observed data don't fit the model. But as soon as we get more, bigger, and faster computers, understand the role of the sun, clouds, cosmic rays and some other stuff, we'll be able to maybe, perhaps get this thing to tell us what the GMT is a hundred years from now.

But in the meantime, let's cap and trade, further control free markets (neglecting to notice that we've screwed them up with government meddling already) and thoroughly ruin our economy because we know with unerring certainty that CO2 is the culprit and we must curtail it.

This is F8L's 'reality' based world.

There are folks constructing models in other areas (and I don't deny that they are extremely talented propagandists, er scientists), making assumptions and now projecting doom for rainforests should they escape the chainsaw. So-called journalists repeat it all verbatim because the 'experts' and 'scientists' tell them it is so.

The alarmism never stops - and it is all based on a few degrees (or less) rise in GMT above 'normal'. (Who determined the 'normal' temperature, anyway? When was this written in stone?) This is why M. Mann (say, isn't he part of Real Climate, now? - why, yes, he is) had to invent the 'hockey stick' which was the IPCC's original 2x4 to whack a sleeping world on the head to feel the fear of the end of the earth.

For a layperson to gain a simple understanding of computer models and not spend any money or sit through hours of lectures:

CMMAP

 

Oh, my. Another believer will now be labelled a denier. The AGW ark used for political purpose becomes less populated. Let's talk Hulme rather than Hume:

Top British boffin: Time to ditch the climate consensus ? The Register


...After all, much of the abuse that is hurled across the climate divide comes from those who like to believe that it is they who are dealing in a currency of proper science - bias and ideology is what the opposition does. Hence the vitriol aimed at Bjørn Lomborg over the years.

“It was interesting as to why he received such hate-mail from very well respected academics rather than simply engaging in the arguments,” says Hulme. “It became very very heavily and easily personalised, when actually Lomborg's position is an entirely defendable position. I mean, you can disagree with it, and you can find flaws in his argument, but let's find those flaws and let's have a disagreement, rather than suddenly becoming reactionaries overnight. And I think there's too much of that. And it's an interesting question as to why it is that people feel that climate change is somehow is the issue beyond all other issues today that one has to stand on shoulder to shoulder and not allow any chink in because it would allow the powers of darkness to somehow gain the upper hand."

This guy makes TOO much sense.

 

As I said before, I am done argueing points with you ufourya, you have nothing of value to add. When you stop playing around with hyperbole maybe we can talk. Until then enjoy your metaphysics.


Tim,

I'll check that paper out when I get home. I know that aerosols can affect climate in both ways, cooling and warming, but it is rather confusing trying to get a handle on when it is causing which effect and in what areas. I.E. when is it causing cooling at the surface level due to blocking insolation (as we saw in the Maldives study)and when is it causing atmospheric warming due to solar absorption (especially soot or dark particals). Let me know what you come up with and I'll do my best to find more information as well.

I also forgot to mention that the complex models produce satisfactory pre-industrial results when anthropogenic CO2 is left out of the model but they become inaccurate for the 20th century until anthropogenic CO2 is added. That is one way that the models work to show CO2 as a climate amplifier. It is not just a simple matter of tweeking the model till you get the results you want. Those results have to compare to past and present scenarios. In all we know they are not perfect and I think most everyone can agree on that.