And the Forecast says....

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Saturnine Pariah, Mar 13, 2014.

Page 3 of 4
  1. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Which predictions, specifically do you feel have not been met? It would be useful if you could cite specific publications.

    Which science do you think is simple? Do goi understand the two different approaches to modelling atmospheric absorption of long wave IR?
     
    Trippy, Mar 20, 2014
    #41

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. KitemanSA

    KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    I have seen spaghetti plots of all the models that the IPCC claimed were good as compared with the surface air temperature plot between (IIRC) about 1995 and last year. ALL of the models predicted higher temperatures than measured. I don't recall the exact reference, this is not a significant interest of mine. I like hard science, not political science.
    The thermo-dynamics of energy transfer into and out of the earth SHOULD be simple and if assumed simple then the models would predict a surface temperature rise once called "global warming". Seems it is not that simple and the rise didn't happen, so people then talked "climate change" and then "severe weather events". The earth surface SHOULD be warming but is not doing so as predicted. Seems it is not as simple as thought.

    I hope the REAL climate / earth scientists figure this thing out before we make any grave errors in judgement.
     
    KitemanSA, Mar 20, 2014
    #42

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I'll reply indepth to this when I get home from work.
     
    Trippy, Mar 20, 2014
    #43

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura

    iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The tech guys like Trippy will no doubt weigh in once again with the formal stuff, but the short answer is that you are posting error and political crap: the rise did happen and is happening, almost exactly as predicted, and the only question is: from where you are getting this "seems" and "should be simple" and so forth?

    Quit paying attention to political crap from that source, whatever it is, pay more attention to physical reality (such as the nature of the recent NA cold snaps, which once again feature smaller temperature drops during the winter nights, longer spans of aberrant conditions, counterbalancing events elsewhere on the planet, and other signs of greenhouse effects), refresh your memory with the several years' pattern of your earlier "seemings" and their subsequent contradiction by circumstance, and you will be less confused.
     
    iceaura, Mar 20, 2014
    #44
  8. rpenner

    rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    In science "It's not good enough" isn't an argument. You don't replace ignorance with wishful thinking and guesses. You don't replace partial knowledge with total ignorance. You replace inferior models with superior models.

    Here as [post=3172065]post #16[/post] makes clear it is the climate change deniers who have the inferior models. And the 1990 FAR not only modeled the climate but it also modeled future CO₂ emissions as "business as usual." In fact, somewhat less CO₂ was emitted during the past 20 years than predicted, and when corrected for the actual CO₂ emissions (the Kyoto treaty means not everything is "business as usual") the 1990 FAR is great at modeling the one issue of this debate -- what is the response of the climate to anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.

    KitemanSA's mantra has been a steady stream of willful ignorance, factually incorrect claims, logical fallacies, and anti-science. It's time to break away from echoing the lies of KitemanSA's evil teachers and actually engage in critical thinking. One way to start is to ask oneself what evidence would convince you that your held position is seriously wrong.

    http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

    One myth I hear a lot is that Global Warming is a new idea in science. But it's not. Like the polar vortex, it predates my science education and was in a field I never formerly studied.

    We've known since 1940 that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions were causing the amount in the atmosphere to rise. Before that we knew a factor of two change in CO₂ content would severely tax our civilization's ability to endure.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    J.S. Sawyer, "Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse” Effect", Nature, 239, pp 23- (September 1, 1972)
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-sawyer-1972.html
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2014
    rpenner, Mar 24, 2014
    #45
  9. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I see a different story when I look.

    See, when I compare, for example, observed temperatures to Hansen et al's 1981 predictions I see this:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Now please note, this is an honest attempt to line up the two sets of data based on the scales, however, the story it tells is quite clear.

    And yet, it isn't as straight forward as you would seem to like to assume.

    For example, there have been not one, but two broad groups of models being used. The first treats the earth's atmosphere as a grey-body at some fixed altitude - The grey body approximation. The second one attempts to integrate the absorption spectrum of GHG's by wavelength - which usually involves binning wavelengths, and attempts to model the atmosphere using a radiative-convective model - This is called the CKD (cumulative k distribution) model. The two different classes of models can give very different predictions under the same circumstances. For example, Hansen's predictions of a venusian runaway greenhouse were based on the grey-body approximation, but, as I recall, the CKD model rules them out on the grounds that there simply isn't enough solar flux.
     
    Trippy, Mar 24, 2014
    #46
  10. rpenner

    rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    One example of this for me is for some other physical model to fit the evidence better than every model of anthropogenic global warming.

    The sun shines roughly steadily on Earth. There is more CO₂ in the air today then there was at any time between 2 4 and 200 years ago. This is because human activities have added more CO₂ than natural processes can remove or sequester in ocean depths. Therefore the optical depth of atmosphere near 10 µm (where a window in H₂O absorption would otherwise allows unfettered blackbody radiation from ground to space) is deeper than at any time between 2 and 200 years ago. Therefore, all things being equal, the immediate first-order prediction is that the equilibrium average temperature of the Earth is going to go higher.

    There are variations in Earth orbit, the solar output, drifting clouds of dust, atmospheric aerosols, albedo change, water vapor concentration changes, other greenhouse gases like methane, atmospheric, ocean currents, winds, clouds and weather to consider. Some of these are beyond human control. Some of these exhibit negative and positive feedbacks in response to other changes. But the positive feedbacks of water vapor and albedo change of ice have always been modeled to greatly increase the raw global warming effect (called forcing) of raising CO₂ concentration. Therefore, with business as usual, the immediate second-order prediction is that the equilibrium average temperature of the Earth is going to trend higher over periods of time where natural variation in weather is inconsequential. Thus one either looks at trends over 30+ years (which shows global warming is accelerating) or uses statistical models of weather events to correct for their effect (which shows global warming is accelerating).

    So far climate change denialists have advocated that these models are "not good enough" but haven't presented alternative models that actually work. This makes them silly advocates of ignorance. To take their professed opinions seriously would be to denigrate expertise. To ignore their ongoing misinformation campaigns is to concede the masses to evil of the bad teachers.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2014
    rpenner, Mar 24, 2014
    #47
  11. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Are you familliar with the R Programming language at all?
     
    Trippy, Mar 25, 2014
    #48
  12. rpenner

    rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    No. That's never been a useful language for my work.
     
    rpenner, Mar 25, 2014
    #49
  13. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Fair enough. I've been toying with a climate model based in R as a consequence of some of the 'discussions' I've had here and elsewhere.

    Toying really is the optimal word here.
     
    Trippy, Mar 25, 2014
    #50
  14. KitemanSA

    KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    I know what I saw, and IIRC, even the IPCC substantially changed their assumed sensitivity level in their latest report, no? Seems the IPCC is good at post-diction.
     
    KitemanSA, Mar 27, 2014
    #51
  15. rpenner

    rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    That's unfiltered anti-science. The equilibrium climate sensitivity of doubling CO₂ concentration isn't assumed, but is a value to be estimated. Now some models have a ECS parameter and some in some models ECS is an emergent parameter. But ECS is ultimately a statement about our physical world and changes made to it and such is a physical value that is estimated and those estimates are subject to validation and refinement.

    The IPCC summarizes research from research groups and doesn't directly control the estimate. The IPCC also transparently cites what papers and numbers went into the estimate. So even if it had changed significantly, that would represent improved human knowledge of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity -- science working as science is supposed to work.

    Instead, an examination of the text of all the IPCC reports shows basically the knowledge of this number hasn't changed significantly since the National Research Council first estimated it in 1979.

    Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
    [table]
    [tr][th]Source[/th][th]Year[/th][th]Low end of likely* range[/th][th]Best guess[/th][th]High end of likely* range[/th][/tr]
    [tr][td]NRC[/td][td]1979[/td][td]1.5[/td][td]-[/td][td]4.5[/td][/tr]
    [tr][td]FAR[/td][td]1990[/td][td]1.5[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]4.5[/td][/tr]
    [tr][td]SAR**[/td][td]1995[/td][td]1.5[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]4.5[/td][/tr]
    [tr][td]TAR[/td][td]2001[/td][td]1.5[/td][td]-[/td][td]4.5[/td][/tr]
    [tr][td]AR4[/td][td]2007[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]3[/td][td]4.5[/td][/tr]
    [tr][td]AR5[/td][td]2013[/td][td]1.5[/td][td]-[/td][td]4.5[/td][/tr]
    [/table]

    *Also "likely" took on a formal sense in AR4.
    ** Found it on page 34 of the SAR

    https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_05.pdf
    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/355.htm
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

    The most likely reason you were so wrong on this issue is that you have delegated all your thinking on climate to authority figures who are either not very reliable authorities or not very skilled communicators. Fortunately, instead of relying on your evil teachers, I have science.
    //Edit -- Also what the hell with the "IIRC" -- why the hell would you trust your memories of this when you do not even the slightest research to confirm your memories before posting? Don't you worry that people are going to consider you as unreliable as your worst posts?
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2014
    rpenner, Mar 27, 2014
    #52
  16. KitemanSA

    KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    Because I don't really care all that much about this. At this point I view the whole thing as arguing how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. I stated much the same up front. Apparently it means a lot more to you. In which case, where do you stand on the use of nuclear energy to combat this looming disaster of yours?
     
    KitemanSA, Mar 28, 2014
    #53
  17. rpenner

    rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    How is that different than disingenuous trolling for attention?

    Also, since you claim to disagree with me that a problem faces both our houses, why should I expect you to agree with me on what should be done to ameliorate it?
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2014
    rpenner, Mar 28, 2014
    #54
  18. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    You didn't ask me, but I think it's our only short-term solution. Unfortunately poor construction and management of some of the first nuclear plants led to catastrophes and near-catastrophes that have scared people away from the technology. The cost of fossil fuel will have to increase to the point that we can no longer afford air conditioning and private transportation before we resume the construction of nuclear plants--which take many years to complete, especially if they're built better than their predecessors--so the crisis will continue.

    Heck, managers may have to get smarter and learn how to manage people they can't see, in order for telecommuting to be reinstated. Doing away with "going to work" will reduce America's petroleum consumption by at least 25%.

    Of course the long-term solution is solar. Not receptors down here, there's no room for enough to power the planet. We have to build giant solar collectors in high orbit and beam the energy down in microwave form. This technology was first suggested almost 50 years ago. The numbers work and it requires no Star Trek gimmicks to do it. Unfortunately it's such a big project that it will require cooperation among all the major countries for a couple of hundred years. What are the odds of that?

    So we may be left with nuclear power permanently. The waste disposal problem will continue to grow incrementally, so no government will be willing to tackle it. They'll just let the next guys worry about it. Until one of the "next guy's" children falls into a nuclear waste dump that was cracked open by an earthquake and identified by a warning sign in a language that no one has used for 50,000 years.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Mar 28, 2014
    #55
  19. KitemanSA

    KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    I've done the calc that showed that there is enough thorium available with current mining techniques to provide enough energy for 15B people at US levels of total primary consumption to last for about 500,000,000 years. That is not simply "a short term solution".

    I've been interested in SSPSs since the advent of the L5 Society and the Space Studies Institute back in the 70s. Currently, I think LFTRs are a better idea.

    The "nuclear waste dump" is only an issue if we remain under the thrall of the anti-nuke cartel. The only thing that is "waste" in spent nuclear fuel is that portion of the fission products for which we have not yet found an economical use. That portion is quite small. That portion is typically safe as dirt in about 300 years. So the entire "50,000 years" message is bogus.
     
    KitemanSA, Mar 28, 2014
    #56
  20. rpenner

    rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    That seems like a reasonable position in a post that is well founded on physical science, economics and an understanding of human nature.
    Studies differ on that one point.
    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/04/14/97/PDF/document_IAEA.pdf
    http://web.archive.org/web/20110927132754/http://lpsc.in2p3.fr/gpr/english/NEWNRW/NEWNRW.html
    http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1450_web.pdf
    But it does seem inconsistent for you to pooh-pooh climate science as being pie-in-the-sky while at the same time advocating a particular unproven reactor technology, when the climate science dates back to before the Manhattan project.
     
    rpenner, Mar 28, 2014
    #57
  21. rpenner

    rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    See http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html also picked up as
    http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/108...s_agree_man_made_global_warming_is_happening/
    And if you want details on those two 2013 papers, it is provided:
    Or maybe CO₂ is not the only signal. We also have volcanos, aersols, the sun and the fact that not all temperature timeseries actually attempt to provide global coverage.

    See http://skepticalscience.com/Climate...le-Agreement-with-Recent-Surface-Warming.html based on http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html
     
    rpenner, Mar 28, 2014
    #58
  22. KitemanSA

    KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    KitemanSA, Mar 28, 2014
    #59
  23. Aqueous Id

    Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Yeah I always rely on Wall Street Journal for my technical source material.

    KitemanSA *Ignore*
    Photizo *Ignore*

    By process of elimination, I'm going to end up with people who either bothered to get an education, and/or are not employed by the Koch Bros./ICR, and/or who didn't get too far with school for reasons beyond their control, but retain a reasonable amount of curiosity about the world and are not compulsive liars.
     
    Aqueous Id, Mar 29, 2014
    #60
Page 3 of 4

Share This Page