I want to discuss the recent Kaufman study which purports to reconcile flat temperatures over the last 10-12 years with high-sensitivity warming forecasts. First, let me set the table for this post, and to save time (things are really busy this week in my real job) I will quote from a previous post on this topic
Nearly a decade ago, when I first started looking into climate science, I began to suspect the modelers were using what I call a “plug” variable. I have decades of experience in market and economic modeling, and so I am all too familiar with the temptation to use one variable to “tune” a model, to make it match history more precisely by plugging in whatever number is necessary to make the model arrive at the expected answer.
When I looked at historic temperature and CO2 levels, it was impossible for me to see how they could be in any way consistent with the high climate sensitivities that were coming out of the IPCC models. Even if all past warming were attributed to CO2 (a heroic acertion in and of itself) the temperature increases we have seen in the past imply a climate sensitivity closer to 1 rather than 3 or 5 or even 10 (I show this analysis in more depth in this video).
My skepticism was increased when several skeptics pointed out a problem that should have been obvious. The ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities — how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures? If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data. But they all do. It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct (or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time).
The answer to this paradox came in a 2007 study by climate modeler Jeffrey Kiehl. To understand his findings, we need to understand a bit of background on aerosols. Aerosols are man-made pollutants, mainly combustion products, that are thought to have the effect of cooling the Earth’s climate.
What Kiehl demonstrated was that these aerosols are likely the answer to my old question about how models with high sensitivities are able to accurately model historic temperatures. When simulating history, scientists add aerosols to their high-sensitivity models in sufficient quantities to cool them to match historic temperatures. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.
Specifically, when he looked at the climate models used by the IPCC, Kiehl found they all used very different assumptions for aerosol cooling and, most significantly, he found that each of these varying assumptions were exactly what was required to combine with that model’s unique sensitivity assumptions to reproduce historical temperatures. In my terminology, aerosol cooling was the plug variable.
So now we can turn to Kaufman, summarized in this article and with full text here. In the context of the Kiehl study discussed above, Kaufman is absolutely nothing new.
Kaufmann et al declare that aerosol cooling is “consistent with” warming from manmade greenhouse gases.
In other words, there is some value that can be assigned to aerosol cooling that offsets high temperature sensitives to rising CO2 concentrations enough to mathematically spit out temperatures sortof kindof similar to those over the last decade. But so what? All Kaufman did is, like every other climate modeler, find some value for aerosols that plugged temperatures to the right values.
Let’s consider an analogy. A big Juan Uribe fan (plays 3B for the SF Giants baseball team) might argue that the 2010 Giants World Series run could largely be explained by Uribe’s performance. They could build a model, and find out that the Giants 2010 win totals were entirely consistent with Uribe batting .650 for the season.
What’s the problem with this logic? After all, if Uribe hit .650, he really would likely have been the main driver of the team’s success. The problem is that we know what Uribe hit, and he batted under .250 last year. When real facts exist, you can’t just plug in whatever numbers you want to make your argument work.
But in climate, we are not sure what exactly the cooling effect of aerosols are. For related coal particulate emissions, scientists are so unsure of their effects they don’t even know the sign (ie are they net warming or cooling). And even if they had a good handle on the effects of aerosol concentrations, no one agrees on the actual numbers for aerosol concentrations or production.
And for all the light and noise around Kaufman, the researchers did just about nothing to advance the ball on any of these topics. All they did was find a number that worked, that made the models spit out the answer they wanted, and then argue in retrospect that the number was reasonable, though without any evidence.
Beyond this, their conclusions make almost no sense. First, unlike CO2, aerosols are very short lived in the atmosphere – a matter of days rather than decades. Because of this, they are poorly mixed, and so aerosol concentrations are spotty and generally can be found to the east (downwind) of large industrial complexes (see sample map here).
Which leads to a couple of questions. First, if significant aerosol concentrations only cover, say, 10% of the globe, doesn’t that mean that to get a 0.5 degree cooling effect for the whole Earth, there must be a 5 degree cooling effect in the affected area. Second, if this is so (and it seems unreasonably large), why have we never observed this cooling effect in the regions with high concentrations of manmade aerosols. I understand the effect can be complicated by changes in cloud formation and such, but that is just further reasons we should be studying the natural phenomenon and not generating computer models to spit out arbitrary results with no basis in observational data.
Judith Currey does not find the study very convincing, and points to this study by Remer et al in 2008 that showed no change in atmospheric aerosol depths through the heart of the period of supposed increases in aerosol cooling.
So the whole basis for the study is flawed – its based on the affect of increasing aerosol concentrations that actually are not increasing. Just because China is producing more does not apparently mean there is more in the atmosphere – it may be reductions in other areas like the US and Europe are offsetting Chinese emissions or that nature has mechanisms for absorbing and eliminating the increased emissions.
By the way, here was Curry’s response, in part:
This paper points out that global coal consumption (primarily from China) has increased significantly, although the dataset referred to shows an increase only since 2004-2007 (the period 1985-2003 was pretty stable). The authors argue that the sulfates associated with this coal consumption have been sufficient to counter the greenhouse gas warming during the period 1998-2008, which is similar to the mechanism that has been invoked to explain the cooling during the period 1940-1970.
I don’t find this explanation to be convincing because the increase in sulfates occurs only since 2004 (the solar signal is too small to make much difference). Further, translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isnt really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance.
Curry offers the alternative explanation of natural variability offsetting Co2 warming, which I think is partly true. Though Occam’s Razor has to force folks at some point to finally question whether high (3+) temperature sensitivities to CO2 make any sense. Seriously, isn’t all this work on aerosols roughly equivalent to trying to plug in yet more epicycles to make the Ptolemaic model of the universe continue to work?
Postscript: I will agree that there is one very important affect of the ramp-up of Chinese coal-burning that began around 2004 — the melting of Arctic Ice. I strongly believe that the increased summer melts of Arctic ice are in part a result of black carbon from Asia coal burning landing on the ice and reducing its albedo (and greatly accelerating melt rates). Look here when Arctic sea ice extent really dropped off, it was after 2003. Northern Polar temperatures have been fairly stable in the 2000’s (the real run-up happened in the 1990’s). The delays could be just inertia in the ocean heating system, but Arctic ice melting sure seems to correlate better with black carbon from China than it does with temperature.
I don’t think there is anything we could do with a bigger bang for the buck than to reduce particulate emissions from Asian coal. This is FAR easier than CO2 emissions reductions — its something we have done in the US for nearly 40 years.
Also, please refrain from spouting BS like:
“the science shows with greater than 90% certainty we’ve got problems coming down the pipe.”
…until you can explain what certainty you are talking about with your own words.
My son would say: pwned.
Bravo, Alex.
Renewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
**********
since 2005 this hasn’t been true has it ?
Where is this heat build up being stored ?
If it is at the bottom of the sea it won’t cause much warming will it ?
When will it return to the surface 1,000 years from now ?
[See the Missing heat arguments}
Renewable
from your own link.
“the study does not explain why the records suggest that ocean warming has stalled since 2004. ”
Did you read the story ?
If there is an energy imbalance the amount of heat on planet earth must increase every second. There can be measurement errors but 7 years of erroneous measurements of oceans and atmosphere by thousands of sensors is unbelievable!
The “many lines of argument” is spurious since almost everyone believes that CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas. Even biased estimates only predict 1 ° C for a doubling of all CO2. The crisis comes from positive feedback which is ASSUMED in climate models and climate models alone. There is no other confirming evidence.
Someone is having fun using my name. It is flattering, but can’t you use your own name if you are so proud of your comments?
netdr: clearly you haven’t got the remotest understanding of any of those papers. So don’t embarrass yourself by talking about climate models, ever again.
Ted Rado: you suck dick.
netdr:
Renewable
from your own link.
“the study does not explain why the records suggest that ocean warming has stalled since 2004. ”
Did you read the story ?
############################
sounds like you didn’t read the whole story Net.
For Net
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42649
However, the re-analysis sheds little light on why ocean temperatures appear to have remained steady since about 2004. This is at odds with satellite measurements, which suggest the Earth has continued to heat up over the past six years, leading to questions over where the “missing heat” has gone.
####################
Two sets of instruments giving two different results.
Alex:
Also, please refrain from spouting BS like:
“the science shows with greater than 90% certainty we’ve got problems coming down the pipe.”
…until you can explain what certainty you are talking about with your own words.
############################
Why is that a good rule? The scientists have repeated this many times.
Net:
The “many lines of argument” is spurious since almost everyone believes that CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas. Even biased estimates only predict 1 ° C for a doubling of all CO2. The crisis comes from positive feedback which is ASSUMED in climate models and climate models alone. There is no other confirming evidence.
####################
Where did you get this?
Alex:
Renewable Guy:
“The few proxies that were crticized do not cause Mann’s work to fall apart.”
Oh, really? So, Mann’s statement that: “A skillful EIV reconstruction without tree-ring data is possible even further back, over at least the past 1,300 years” still stands? Care to demonstrate it? Which figures in the Mann’s paper should I look at?
“Some of the problems were openly discussed in papers along with the solution to it which was a work around.”
There was a follow up, but it contained no solution. If you think the follow up contained the solution, please quote that solution.
##############################
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/09/02/0805721105.DCSupplemental/0805721105SI.pdf
THe work around was to put in the temperature record from 1960 on.
Alex:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.htmlhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.html
there are a variety of independent methods to determine past temperature changes: tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments, boreholes, stalagmites, etc.
#############################
You have proven that you have something going for yourself. I’m not going to answer your question directly. This does show how proxies are independent of one another.
Should you to choose to read this, this will suppport my origonal point.
Renewable Guy:
Net:
The “many lines of argument” is spurious since almost everyone believes that CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas. Even biased estimates only predict 1 ° C for a doubling of all CO2. The crisis comes from positive feedback which is ASSUMED in climate models and climate models alone. There is no other confirming evidence.
####################
Where did you get this?
*************
The British Royal society for one. Dr Hansen for another. In fact it seems to be commonly agreed upon by both alarmist and skeptical scientists. The lay alarmists even the “deacons” don’t seem to know it.
I am surprised how many seemingly knowledgeable alarmists don’t know this fact.
BTW: The missing heat is “missing” and can’t cause any warming even if it is hiding at the bottom of the sea. If it returns in 1,000 years it may be a problem.
Para 29)
“Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of processes that amplify or reduce climate change (see paragraphs 12 & 13), the climate sensitivity would be around 1° C, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing of 1.6 Wm-2”
It couldn’t be clearer than that.
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
Notice that I am courteous enough to provide a link unlike Humpty.
Humpty Dumpty is using my login name and Ted Rado’s again.
As I said:
“Attempting to argue with Humpty [Waldo] is like trying to teach calculus to a pig, it is a waste of time and it annoys the pig”
I don’t need to use vulgar language I am a bigger person than that.
Alex says: ‘you mentioned IPCC and I wanted to emphasize that you and me seem to be rooting for the same things except that one difference on the role of IPCC.’
The role of the IPCC is pretty darn important. I don’t know how you perceive it, but if you guys know of any bad flaws you should really let them know. But at this late stage, after the IPCC, and the science, has been open to scrutiny for ages, I have to wonder what the skeptics are doing.
Alex says: ‘I am interested to know how exactly does the report “show” that, in terms of science. So, how? This is a scientific question. Could you or anyone else help me get a scientific answer?’
Well what did the contacts say when you told them to show it in terms of science? Did you check out the links or find the actual report?
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of
processes that amplify or reduce climate change (see paragraphs 12 & 13), the climate
sensitivity would be around 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing
of 1.6 Wm-2 (see previous paragraph) would, in this hypothetical case, lead to a globallyaveraged
surface warming of about 0.4oC. However, as will be discussed in paragraph 36, it is expected that the actual change, after accounting for the additional processes,
will be greater than this.
Climate models indicate that the overall climate
sensitivity (for a hypothetical doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is likely to lie in the
range 2oC to 4.5oC; this range is mainly due to the difficulties in simulating the overall
effect of the response of clouds to climate change mentioned earlier.
#################################
Good ole water vapor
Warren seems to be misunderstanding the role of plug variables in science. They’re often an essential part of formulating a partial understanding of something, so work can proceed from there. For instance, Kepler’s laws are:
1. The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two focus.
2. A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
Law #2 included a different plug variable or “constant” for each planet (the area per time unit). When Kepler announced #3 ten years later (it took a long time to do all those calculations by hand!), he could calculate all the previous constants from one new one and the period of each planet. However, Earth’s moon required a different constant, and a third one was needed when the orbits of Jupiter’s moons were established.
Newton then showed that there was one constant, G, accounting for all of Kepler’s constants in any system of bodies orbiting a much larger body, although all you can calculate from astronomical data is GM, where M is the mass of the central body, so you still had to figure a plug variable to fit the data for each orbital system. A century later, Cavendish managed to estimate G in a lab experiment, and then the planetary masses could be divided out of the GM estimates.
So, Kepler’s 1609 model (laws 1 and 2) involved a lot of plug variables. It was messy, but not nearly as messy as epicycles, and without figuring those constants so his model fit the data, neither he nor Newton could have proceeded. His 1619 model (with law 3) required just one for the sun to describe all planetary orbits, but different ones for each system of one or more moons orbiting a planet. Newton theorized that these third law constants were the product of one universal constant “G” and the mass of a body “M”, and astronomers still fit “GM” to the data (using the 3rd law or orbital pertubations), and divide by G to get the mass.
That’s the proper use of plug variables. They carry you through until the science is settled and you can explain them in terms of proven theories and a few universal constants. You will never have the whole truth, but you can keep getting closer, and at each round your plug variables should become fewer and closer to universal.
So the issue isn’t that climate modelers are using plug variables – it’s that they not only haven’t got them down to universal constants, but they can’t even agree on the plug-in values to use in analyzing a single data set, so claiming that “the science is settled” is ludicrously premature.
markm:
That was informative.
When you say the science isn’t settled, are you saying they aren’t sure its anthropogenic?
*****you just feel more comfortable talking about them, plus you’d like to avoid discussing science so that you don’t get nailed on actual numbers.
I know you are trying to be stinging, Alex, but (unless you have become remarkably smarter since I was here last) your understanding is really not much better than mine. You are no scientist, don’t pretend you are. You are arguing about things you really don’t know about. Like it or not, Renewable’s answers are substantive and he uses sources.
And I’m most interested in the hypocrisy of the denialists–no one here knows the numbers well enough to make this a valid scientific discussion. You focus on models (which have been at least accurate to a substantial degree) and ignore the worst weather damage year on record, new heat records, and continually mounting scientific evidence. You focus on models (which I doubt you really understand), which scientists admit are limited, and because they are predictions, will always have an error margin. Hansen’s “B” scenario was fairly accurate. Sorry.
You are hypocritical because Willie Soon just blew his cover. If you are really a climate critic you’d be just as outraged as the thinking people are. Be a thinker, Alex.
*****Go back to where you were hiding, Waldo.
Nope. I am needed here.
And netdr, that was your lamest response yet. Ted Rado handed you your hat. Put your money where your mouth is.
“When you say the science isn’t settled, are you saying they aren’t sure its anthropogenic?”
There’s an anthropogenic component to warming, but the magnitude of the effect is not settled. Basic physics of the sort that can be done in the lab with repeatable experiments gives a direct effect of about 1.6 degrees C per doubling of CO2, which certainly isn’t catastrophic. It’s building strong positive feedback into the models that gives them predictions of several degrees C rise in this century from less than one doubling of CO2. There’s so much guesswork (plug variables, etc.) in these models that I’m sure that if it was politically correct to predict an imminent ice age temporarily held back by anthropogenic warming, they’d be predicting that. (Again.)
Since the climate has been stable within a few degrees for the last 8,000 years, in spite of solar variations, human population growth, and large changes in how much forest was removed for agriculture, I’d think that a more stable model would be much more plausible than either of those extremes.
Renewable Guy:
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of
processes that amplify or reduce climate change (see paragraphs 12 & 13), the climate
sensitivity would be around 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing of 1.6 Wm-2 (see previous paragraph) would, in this hypothetical case, lead to a globally averaged surface warming of about 0.4oC. [That is even lower than the figure I quoted.— NetDr]
However, as will be discussed in paragraph 36, it is expected that the actual change, after accounting for the additional processes,
will be greater than this. [Enter POSITIVE FEEDBACKS to the rescue.–NetDr]
Climate models indicate that the overall climate
sensitivity (for a hypothetical doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is likely to lie in the
range 2oC to 4.5oC; this range is mainly due to the difficulties in simulating the overall
effect of the response of clouds to climate change mentioned earlier.
#################################
Good ole water vapor
[Notice that the statement said they had great difficulty in simulating the effect of good old water vapor. The effect may even be negative. –NetDr]
****************
Obviously the feedbacks aren’t happening and CAGW is a farce without them.
.
The GCM’s predict 3 ° C or more warming for a doubling of CO2. The alarmists like Hansen even predicted 6 and 8 ° and more depending on how badly he wanted to scare the public.
[In recent years the predictions have gotten lower and lower. Pretty soon they will be so low they may get it right.]
.
Since we have had 1/3 of a doubling we should have had 1/3 of 6 or 2 ° C warming so far. [since the effect is logarithmic the effect should be greater than that.]
When skeptics point this out the alarmists pull out an even lower estimate for a doubling of CO2 and they are still too high.
.
Since we are a the top of the PDO sine wave even the puny warming we have seen so far overstates the long term warming.
.
When skeptics point out the lack of warming the alarmists mutter something about the missing heat hiding in the bottom of the oceans where it won’t cause any warming for 1,000 years. I am so frightened !
.
Peer reviewed studies have shown the feedback from water vapor and everything
else to be negative, so even 1 ° C overstates the actual warming. [ the British think the direct effect of CO2 is only .4 ° C [see above].To be fair there are other studies which find the feedback to be positive.
.
I am constantly amazed by the number of alarmists that think CO2 is a strong GHG which can cause Catastrophic AGW [CAGW]when it is obviously nothing of the sort.
.
The theoretical feedbacks obviously aren’t happening are they ?
To be clear the climate system is obviously a negative feedback system. If it weren’t the first warm summer day would cause Earth to get almost as hot as Venus since warming would cause more warming which would cause more warming etc.
.
Warming does not cause more warming [which is the definition of positive feedback] or the process would be wildly unstable. Warming instead causes increased radiation which counteracts the warming so it is a true negative feedback system.
.
What the climate scientists call positive feedback is simply less negative feedback. All other branches of Physics would call the climate a negative feedback system.
The only thing more ludicrous than the idea that some horrible catastrophe is looming is the even more ridiculous idea that we (the United States, and the ‘West’) have the ability to actually impact climate change….
We can inflict damage on society and progeny with our self-indulgent hubris, but that’s about all.
One might do well to note that while U.S. carbon emissions have actually been declining for a decade, without any government B.S. involved, we are now not the major source, and are daily becoming less significant overall. All we can do with Cervantes like attempts to regulate or tax the ‘problem’ away is destroy jobs, impoverish the middle class, and kill the very poor. I have no doubt at all the prospect actually PLEASES most environmental advocates, who have universally supped at the trough of misanthropic self-destructive ‘nature’ worship. The entire movement is morally and ethically bankrupt at this point, and very well on the way to total discredit, well deserved.
Gosh, netdr, I think you’re onto something. I’d say peer review your theories on feedback.
And this, ADiff — “destroy jobs, impoverish the middle class, and kill the very poor” — is a really balanced, level headed overview of the situation, particularly the killing part–the very poor don’t pay many taxes, anyway, and what government wouldn’t want to destroy the middle class?
Glad the peeps here are really interested in “graphs and charts” and things like that.
If anyone knows of a GCM which has been reasonably accurate for the last 13 years please post a link to it. Humpty obviously doesn’t or he would have posted it long ago. He doesn’t even know what one is.
They might exist but are never published where a politician might see them and conclude massive spending was unnecessary.
Even if [for the sake of debate] the Chinese coal excuse is valid it just goes to show that our baby climate science can’t predict the future temperatures even reasonably well for 20 years. Believing it can predict atmospheric temperature for 100 years is beyond ridiculous.
The missing heat isn’t even on planet earth if the theory is correct so sudden warming to make up for the 13 year pause is a bad joke.
As far as the list of supposed “climate models” which weren’t climate models at all posting a list of papers you haven’t red and can’t understand is so simple even Waldo could do it.
hey i am looking forward to this global warming thing. I am in Brisbane in australia and just waiting for the possibility to extend the great barrier reef down to here. Also been looking at a few possible farming spots in siberia and northern canada. Right next to the planned oil fields there. For all those in the currently cold areas you will not have to buy so much fuel now thats great for you.
There was a prediction made that the temperature would rise by 1 celcius. This was said would start to cause major disruptions. Where people would have to move because of different rainfall distribution. And we live in an age of terrorism. Do some of these things sound familiar. It is from The Late William Kellog, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in 1978. To be fair though he was not so alarmist as they are now saying there would be winners as well as losers. Unlike the current crop who say that everybody will be worse off. But the prediction then was that the poles would be most affected which makes scientific sense no special CO2. So as a theory it is more credible. The problem is that Antarctica is still a very cold barren piece of ice. So that theory is wrong. In the australian sense the next theory said that we would never have significant rain again because the El Nino was here to stay which means many areas of australia recieve less rain. Your equivalent which is also quoted here is that there are more hurricanes in the north atlantic. Yes there has been because of El Nino. But that theory ended when a strong La Nina system developed and there was a lot of flooding and i expect there will be less hurricanes there this year unless goes to strong El Nino system again. So theory number 3 is causing more droughts and floods. In other words back to normal. We did have a significant cyclone (hurricane) and because it was the strongest on record (actually not but could be said to be the strongest recorded by satelite). So theory Number 3 is going to work because it predicts nothing.
Juan Uribe no longer plays for the Giants. He now plays for the Dodgers.
Juan Uribe no longer plays for the Giants. He’s now a Dodger.
NetDr:
YOu really don’t have a background in models, don’t understand climate directly, how can you really criticize climate models?
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
This professor who teaches climate science at UIC in Illinois understands understands models, and understands climate science very well. If you decide to listen to his lectures, tell me what of it is wrong.
Adiff:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/13/267390/cleantech-jobs-2-7-million-clean-economy-high-wage-brookings/
One might do well to note that while U.S. carbon emissions have actually been declining for a decade, without any government B.S. involved, we are now not the major source, and are daily becoming less significant overall. All we can do with Cervantes like attempts to regulate or tax the ‘problem’ away is destroy jobs, impoverish the middle class, and kill the very poor.
#####################
I don’t think so. Oil and coal will drive our economy into the ground because they will be expensive to start and also because of the co2 they emit. 2% of gdp if we start today or 20% of gdp if we wait too long.
Now come on, netdr, your bluff has been called several times on this thread already. Since Hansen has been a topic of discussion: “Scenario B.” Look it up. Your question about the last 13 years is a good one, however, so…
since you know so much about GCMs, look it up yourself; you can download the data here:
http://www.ipcc-data.org/sres/hadcm3_download.html
(Just make sure you don’t mistake a short-term weather-trend with climate…which I’m sure you’ve thought about)
I’ve asked the good folks over at Real Climate–we’ll see if they get back to me.
I have learned that the CS tribe often demands information (such as papers and links to GCMs), only to ignore it once it is presented on these boards. Like those papers the pseudo-Ted Rado presented you with (by the way, I am not the same posted as either Ted Rado).
Good luck.
Renewable
I have watched some of the video you linked to. The problem is that each segment is 30 to 50 minutes long and it wold take 8 hour days to watch them all.
If you have any particularly interesting parts please reference video and approximate time into it. Pointing to 1,000,000 word documents [or better yet just saying find it yourself like Humpty] is a cop out.
I watched the “feeedback” video [35 Mins] and am watching the “Clouds” one[48 mins}. Since I am a college professor and an ex design engineer [electronic] I use positive and negative feedbacks extensively and am quite aware of them.
I have read many alarmist books, but my bible is “a Rough Guide to Climate Change” By Henson [Not Hanson]. Watching the whole set of video’s would entail going over ground I am already very familiar with, but if you have any particular points please reference them by topic and approximate time I will take the time to watch it.
The professor makes some good points and I won’t judge them until I have watched the end of “clouds”.
As we saw before the warming of a doubling of CO2 according to the British Royal society is .4 ° and is obviously not a problem. The problem is all in the models and the feedbacks which is why I chose that video to watch. Claiming that many other disciplines prove there is a problem too is bovine scatology all “catastrophe” predictions come from models and positive feedback [which may be negative feedback.]
If Humpty will be reasonable and not abusive I would love to discuss models with him. I have built computer models for years professionally for the defense department and am not impressed by back-casting at all. [It is a good FIRST step.] The technically illiterate are far too impressed by it. The proof of understanding is if the model matches reality. Excuses just show that you have omitted a variable or have weighted it wrong. This just proves that you do not understand the problem well enough to predict 100 years in the future.
It is easy to say that everything has been included and weighted properly but the proof is in the pudding. Did he include “India’s coal burning ? What if they switch to another source of coal which has more sulfur ? I don’t think the climate can be modeled accurately by our baby climate science at this time.
That said, I will look at the site Humpty provides. {That is a big improvement over a citation to documents behind a pay wall. Evaluating a document from an abstract is not possible.]
Unless I find a different better graph on the site [And I will look] I will continue to believe that these represent the AR4 model “projections” [Not even predictions anymore?]
http://imageshack.us/m/831/1395/ipccar4a1bmonthlypredic.png
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html
If I find a good data set and plot it in Excel Humpty won’t believe me anyway.
I will get back to Renewable when I finish the “clouds” video. So far there were no surprises in the feedback one but since I teach feedbacks at a college it would be surprising if there were.
I am sincere about having an open mind about reading [watching] and understanding both sides of the discussion. I started out as a true believer after watching “An Inconvenient Truth” and slowly became aware of the holes in the arguments.
I am familiar with the experiments of Arrhenius and many of the major studies done to date. He was wrong in that he thought CO2 was far more potent than modern climatologists think it is [.4 ° C per doubling] and he didn’t include feedbacks. Do 2 wrongs make a right? [No but 3 lefts do.]
Renewable
First comments:
I like the professor and find his candor about uncertainties refreshing. The Joe Romm’s of the world exaggerate the certainties greatly.
I have a life to live so I will get back to you tomorrow.
As far as Humpty is concerned being abused by a fool isn’t my idea of fun. [It is kind of “self abuse” in a way, but less fun.] The purpose of the abuse after all is to squelch debate not to engage in it.
I will scan the site he posted for correct global model predictions. If he finds one please point it out.
An experimentally determined constant (such as the gravitational constant) is something completely different than a fudge factor. The first is based on lots of observed data. The second is put in to make the calcs work. A new set of data frequently results in the need for a new fudge factor. Any data can be made to fit with fudge factors. As the climate data shows, yesterday’s fudge factors don’t work today. Why do we assume todays will work 100 years in the future?
netdr:
I also built computer models for many years (for chemical plants and processes). Only RIGOROUS models, based on first principles are really useful. Empirical models, in my experience, not only don’t predict future results, but are dangerous. They cause bad decisions. With rigorous models, one can predict performance under new conditions with confidence.
The climate models are not only full of fudge factors, but are probably missing all sorts of variables we aren’t even aware of.
netdr:
Your point that any increase in temp would set off a chain reaction is well taken. The rise in temp should be autocatalytic. A rise in temp increases water vapor pressure. This causes further temp increase, etc. Thee temp should then run away. Thsi phenomenon occurs frequently in chemical ractions.
The fact that temp does not run away suggests that there is some feedback mechanism that stops it from happening. Some have postulated that the cloud formation does this. In any case, experience suggests that for this reason a “run away” global warming is unlikely. It should have happened long ago. Can I prove this? No, but the AGW pushers can’t disprove it either.
Ted
The fact that temp does not run away suggests that there is some feedback mechanism that stops it from happening.
*************
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
Watch Renewable’s video I think it is the one about Clouds at the end. [ about min 38 or so]. The professor’s point is that rainfall acts like a thermostat and if the relative humidity gets too high it rains which dissipated energy and it cools. This has been cited by skeptics many times. [The earth tends to drive temperatures toward the set point so it is overall a negative feedback system.]
.
Negative feedback at it’s finest.
.
I like the professor in the video because he understands what is and isn’t known and isn’t trying to con anyone.
.
He admits that at this time we cannot possibly simulate clouds of indeed the environment from first principals.
.
I think Humpty stole your log in but you now seem more like your earlier posts.
NetDr:
Kudos to you Net for looking into it.:) I’ve presented this to lots of other people at different sites and you’re the first I know of to even look into it. While I was with my son during a sleep study, I downloaded and listened to several that day.
Hmmmmm….the tone and diction of “netdr” has changed somewhat…reminds me of someone who also used to come to grand climate conclusions after plugging things into excel spreadsheets…and who claimed academic connections, had a similar sensitivity to “abuse,” similarly called for decorum and conversation (but who frequently reverted to pop-culture resources), and had a similar level of articulation, diction, and verbosity which netdr usually does not…is there more moniker jumping going on?…methinks I recognize this new-articulate-netdr…
And it is equally unlike the old netdr to actually look at anything…but not unlike the poster I used to know…
But okay, I’ll buy.
What do you suppose you’ll prove by looking at GCMs and weather since 1998? From the get-go modelers have admitted and continue to admit the limitations of their models. Are you in danger of confusing a short term weather trend with climate?
And since you are an academic, new-articulate-netdr, what is your response to the charges that Willie Soon took big money from energy companies? Most academics perceive an ethical purpose to academia and are righteously offended by fellow academics who behave unethically–particularly in the sciences. Upstairs netdr posted about ‘groupthink,’ an entirely subjective and unproven allegation, but Soon’s very questionable payola seems to get a pass. Is there hypocrisy or a double standard in the critic camp?
And I’m sorry you think a link to the IPCC is a “cop out,” but I assumed (rightly, it seems) that no one had actually done a reckoning of the data.
So, lets see: if aerosols cool the earth, then why not pump them into the air to save the planet from the catastrophic warming? Yes, they are pollutants, and will probably increase asthma and other pollution related illnesses, but surely that is better than the whole doom-and-gloom-end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it associated with global warming, n’est pas?
Renewable
First let me say that I believe in AGW but not CAGW. Some effects of mankind living on the planet watering their lawns, building dams etc must affect temperature.
.
Second I liked the professor, he told both sides of the story and didn’t pretend that the case for CAGW was solid.
.
Ice melt is clearly a positive feedback although a small one. About 1 % of the globe at a oblique angle for a month or so. I found it interesting that except for the peninsula he said that the south pole showed no warming. [He didn’t say so but the peninsula is known for underwater volcanoes which cause warm water and localized warming.] The interesting thing is that a supposed global thing like CO2 effects only one pole. Why ? He also stated that the interior of Antarctica was cooling which alarmists have been denying recently. Polar amplification may be caused by soot ? [just a guess]
.
The big overall negative feedback is radiation, as it warms more radiation occurs which causes cooling this varies according to Boltzmann as the cube of temperature [I believe I have read elsewhere] . This is so much greater than any other feedback that the system is overall a negative feedback one which is a good thing.
.
The [North] polar ice just makes the overall negative feedback very slightly less negative.
.
Clouds cause warming and cooling and there is no data especially since 1860 to document what changes there have been. The effect positive or negative is hundreds of times greater than ice albedo effects. I have read that 5 % change would easily explain the slight warming since 1860.
.
He explains that high clouds cause warming and low clouds cause cooling[ which I already knew] but he admitted we don’t have the science required to compute how they change with global temperature from first principals. Instead we parametrize. [His honesty was refreshing, unlike the Romm snake oil salesmen.]
.
Size of droplets makes the difference in the effect of water vapor. Since water vapor has been going down since 1950 it is hard to see how this could cause warming. Even since 1998 there has been no warming so no feedback is possible.
.
Since the temperature hasn’t changed for 13 years feedback doesn’t matter much recently.
.
Aerosols effect is also dependent upon particle size big causes cooling and small causes warming according to him. We have no actual data of this even recently and particularly since 1860 so our baby climate science just has to guess it’s amount and effect.
.
That is how the Chinese coal excuse came to be. I respond that when you claim to be a know it all you had better know it all, no excuses allowed. What other effects are unknown at this time which will be important later ? Indian coal ?
.
If the aerosols cause the light to go back to space there is no “warming in the pipeline” is there ? The missing heat isn’t on earth but back in space.
.
No big surprises but his candor was refreshing.
.
I have read more books and papers than any alarmist layman that I have run across yet. If they knew the big picture they wouldn’t be alarmists.
Since the entire alarmist house of cards stands or falls on the basis of feedbacks I didn’t watch the other video’s but would be interested if you would recommend a particularly interesting portion.
.
Claiming that CAGW rests on dozens of other lines of inquiry is bovine scatology. The case for “C” is all in models and assumed feedback.
.
The belief that we live on a 1 variable planet and that 380/1,000,000 [.000038] PARTS of CO2 dominates everything else is ridiculous.
ace10:
So, lets see: if aerosols cool the earth, then why not pump them into the air to save the planet from the catastrophic warming? Yes, they are pollutants, and will probably increase asthma and other pollution related illnesses, but surely that is better than the whole doom-and-gloom-end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it associated with global warming, n’est pas?
************
Actually that Idea has been seriously explored. A very small amount of sulfur pumped high into the stratosphere would cause long term cooling and since volcanoes do it every few years it is hard to believe it would be harmful.
It is amazingly cheap.
Or we could pay the Chinese to keep burning high sulfur coal until we convert to renewables naturally.
I can imagine all sorts of aerosols. Black, reflective, different particle sizes that interact with different wavelengths, different chemical composition, etc. The possible variations are endless. Has all this been dealt with, or are we just saying an aerosol is an aerosol? Also, who knows what new varieties of aerosols will appear in the future from some new volcano eruption or whatever? Further, different aerosols may very well behave differently in cloud seeding and other climate related processes.
I liked the professor [from renewable’s post] but as a tool to convince skeptics he is a dud. He was far too honest.
.
He was obviously trying to present the case for feedback warts and all to a group of students who one day might try to reduce the uncertainties. He even admitted that we aren’t even sure about the sign of the 900 lb gorilla of feedbacks water vapor. Some effects are positive and some are negative and the baby science of climatology doesn’t know which predominate.
.
He even missed the “blanket effect” which I have personally experienced.
.
I spent a summer and part of a winter in the Amargosa desert in Nevada. I noticed that some days I would be subjected to temperatures of 100+ and when there were no clouds the nights would be so cold I needed a warm jacket. When it was heavily overcast I could barely sleep at night because it was so hot.
.
Possibly hot days “burn off” the clouds and make for clear and colder nights so there is a negative effect. The jury is out as to which predominates.
.
If you watch a single smallish cloud for 30 minutes or more I have observed that the peripheries disappear over a short period of time and finally the whole cloud disappears as vapor. Kind of like a morning fog is “burned off” by the sun at ground level.
.
The analyses I have seen only deal with the daytime radiation.
.
Peer reviewed Studies like Lindzen and Choi 2010 seem to indicate that the overall feedback is negative so the overall warming for a doubling of CO2 would be less than .4 ° C. To be fair, other peer reviewed studies find the feedback to be positive. [The science is unclear on this terribly important point.]
The lack of warming since 1998 despite tons of CO2 released argues for a negative feedback especially from water vapor. The smallness of the warming over 120 years and the fact that it is confined to times when ocean cycles would naturally cause warming without CO2 argues for slight or no effect from CO2.
Judith Curry’s blog had an interesting point.
No scientist would ever say “Proposition “X” should be believed because 97 % of scientists believe it.” He would be laughed at.
The phony 97 % number came from a self selected group of scientists who have a lot to lose if global warming were to be proven to be natural.
Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be.
Netdr says; ‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be.’
how do you know that?
Netdr: ‘The phony 97 % number came from a self selected group of scientists who have a lot to lose if global warming were to be proven to be natural.’
And every other non ‘selected’ scientist has a lot to gain if they prove that global warming is natural– or just contrary to the current hypothesis, or corrupted, or derived from group think, etc…
It is ages since climate science and the IPCC were very vulnerable to any kind of criticism, be it media, politics, blog, or scientific, but you guys really didn’t run with that ball did you.
Considering how sure you guys think you are about the situation, one really wonders what the hold up is.