And the Forecast says....

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

  1. Saturnine Pariah Hell is other people Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,072
    Date of article's publication.
    March 11, 2014
    Article Source:
    NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
    Summary:
    A new study shows Earth's climate likely will continue to warm during this century on track with previous estimates, despite the recent slowdown in the rate of global warming. The research hinges on a new and more detailed calculation of the sensitivity of Earth's climate to the factors that cause it to change, such as greenhouse gas emissions. The study found Earth is likely to experience roughly 20 percent more warming than estimates that were largely based on surface temperature observations during the past 150 years.


    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140311184706.htm
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    This is no surprise since the so-called "slowdown" has been in surface air-temperatures, not the energy content of the biosphere.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Claiming science is boring is a non-argument against it's validity.
    As for your specious use of a single weather verification to try and discredit climate science, did you fail to notice that your example had a positive score? That meant it did better than guessing (although perhaps not statistically significantly better). But the actual fallacy is confusing the variability of weather with long-term trends of climate.
    http://skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions-intermediate.htm
    Also, you didn't rebut the factual claim in post #2.
    http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
    http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-slowing-its-speeding-up.html
     
  8. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    True, but I don't think he was commenting on science but on politics. When the models start actually PREDICTING things, then we can talk about science.
     
  9. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    One thing that nobody is taking into account is the atmospheric reaction of CO2 and H2O to form carbonic acid. This molecule changes the absorption spectra compared to CO2. Pure CO2 will absorb in a warmer IR region in comparison to carbonic acid. Or the greenhouse effect is less warm and/or happens with cooler IR. The oversight may be why the predictions seem to lag.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,820
    What is your proof it is not being taking into account?
     
  12. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    That argument, ignorant it is about wavelength and chemistry, has already been recently responded to.


    Sterile denial is not an argument. Repetition of baseless arguments that turn out not to be grounded in science also isn't an argument. Also 1601 cm^-1 = 6.25 µm not near the 10 µm window interesting to Earth-temperature black body radiation. 6.25 µm falls roughly in the middle of a large band of water vapor absorption.

    Further making this graph pointless is the source you swiped the picture from without understanding. http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2005/cp/b510112c
    • HCOOH in this case is formic acid (H₂CO₂) not carbonic acid (H₂CO₃)
    • the word adsorption is a give away that we are not talking about molecules in the gas phase -- the actual paper is about formic acid on particles of calcium carbonate
    • The presence of moisture causes the dry reaction of Formic Acid -> Carbonic acid to continue to Carbonic acid -> Water + CO₂ so under the conditions studied in this paper, more humidity means (very slightly) more CO₂ not less.
    // Edit: The paper is on the author's institution's website: http://cmrf.research.uiowa.edu/file.../PhysicalChemistryChemicalPhysics_article.pdf The diagram is figure 4.
     
  13. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,820
    Well damn, I didn't look closely at what wellwisher had written and just assumed he had at least a semivalid point. Crazy assumption - shame on me.
     
  14. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
  15. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
  16. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    Looks like they added some models that include the fact that there hasn't been a rise in 17 years after their official models failed to predict it. Sounds like a POSTdiction to me. In other words, a lie?

    The increase in CO2 "should" cause a rising temperature over time. The fact that we don't know enough about what is important in the system to model the reality does not actually worry me yet. Pretending we do, and making trillion dollar mistakes because of it, DOES worry me.

    I am supportive of nuclear power because it make great sense for the continuation of a free society AND because it can do so without adding significant CO2 to the environment. I am VERY supportive of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors since they offer both valuable outcomes to a much higher degree.
     
  17. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,305
    A rise in what? Sea levels? Temperatures? The number of hurricanes?
    What "fact" are you referring to?
     
  18. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    The "gold standard set of climate models" that predicted a certain surface temperature rise over they past 20 years and failed to bound reality. So when their "gold standard" when tin, it seems they included more models in their "standard". I wonder what the sensitivity was in the models they added. Could it be that the added models were just the other models with the CO2 sensitivity set to zero?
     
  19. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Hmm. Presumably "gold standard set of climate models" -- an expression that Google does not recognize, is meant to be the IPCC reports. Most of the them are less than 20 years old. However:

    The Final Report of Working Group I of the IPCC FAR dates to 1990 and reads in (very small) part:
    (page xi of http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf, emphasis added.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    (See also Figure 8 and text related to "How much do we expect climate to change?" on page xxii) ​
    And even with those caveats, the IPCC FAR model for scenario A has been accurate to-date.

    http://skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-far.html

    Further, science is about improving understandings of behavior of phenomena, so you only replace the IPCC FAR when you have something better. That "something better" is not climate contrarian anti-science.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html

    Claiming that warming has "halted" or "slowed down" based on misleading presentations of partial data often completely ignores how anomalous 1998 was. Measurements of trends in noisy data is inherently complicated. Comparisons of trends can be worse. Apropos of this is a great science quote:
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

    In contrast

    Does it make you feel good to advocate such fact-free assertions?
     
  20. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    What "assertion"?
    I asked a question.
     
  21. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    A baseless question that is patently ridiculous unless assumes the 97 percent of all climate scientists and the IPCC as a whole are essentially engaged in anti-science and numerology rather than empiricism.
     
  22. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    Many think they are.
     
  23. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Argumentum ad populum is a ridiculous fallacy and a sterile alternative to relying on the professional opinion of the 97% or the conservative international organization with the best empirical understanding of the behavior of climate.
     

Share This Page