Coffeehouse Thread

174 posts

Slip Sliding Away--The Joys of Global Cooling

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor:

    I agree with you, but it has been shown that skeptic articles are being deliberately delayed or even flatout refused in the review process without any ground. And it's also been shown that proponent articles have been given unfair advantages, such as publishing a paper that had not been properly been peer reviewd in order to get it into the next assesment report, or being able to respond to skeptic papers even before the skeptic paper was published. So the skeptic views are being spout mainly in the underground blogosphere.

    Until the time that they clean up the review process with the large journals and even within the IPCC, the blogosphere is the place for this debate.

  • User profile image
    WilyHank

    Does atmospheric CO2 warm the oceans? No! Direct sunlight does. The energy from the sun hitting the Earth is in the petawatt range. Given this amount of that energy, how could CO2 affect the climate if it does not warm the oceans? It displaces water vapor, a much more substantial GHG. This displacement of a warmer GHG with a cooler GHG means that CO2 increases should cool the planet (it does in the upper Troposphere, does it not?) The last question is: Why did the rising CO2 not lead to rising temperatures onward and upward? Ahh! That answer is due to the saturation affect. So, I declare we are nearly at that point now, because increasing CO2 has not substantially increased the global temperatures above that which is occurring naturally.  

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , WilyHank wrote

    Does atmospheric CO2 warm the oceans? No! Direct sunlight does. The energy from the sun hitting the Earth is in the petawatt range. Given this amount of that energy, how could CO2 affect the climate if it does not warm the oceans? It displaces water vapor, a much more substantial GHG. This displacement of a warmer GHG with a cooler GHG means that CO2 increases should cool the planet (it does in the upper Troposphere, does it not?) The last question is: Why did the rising CO2 not lead to rising temperatures onward and upward? Ahh! That answer is due to the saturation affect. So, I declare we are nearly at that point now, because increasing CO2 has not substantially increased the global temperatures above that which is occurring naturally.  

    Does a blanket warm my body?  No!  Body heat does.  The energy from the food I eat is in the kilowatt range.  Given this amount of energy, how could a blanket affect my body temperature if it does not warm my body?

     

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    I thought we were done with this thread?

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    I thought we were done with this thread?

    You were the first one to say that you were out. Then you came back. Several times.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    Today I read this:

     

    The Associated Press

    Date: Wednesday Mar. 28, 2012 11:41 AM ET

    WASHINGTON — A new scientific report warns that global warming is causing more extreme storms and droughts and that the world should prepare for an unprecedented onslaught of deadly and costly disasters.

    The report says the greatest danger is in highly populated, poor regions of the world, but no region is immune. The document by a Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists forecasts stronger tropical cyclones and more frequent heat waves, deluges and droughts. The 594-page report released Wednesday blames a combination of man-made climate change, population shifts and poverty.

    The scientists say that some places, particularly parts of Mumbai in India, could become uninhabitable from floods, storms and rising seas. Other cities at lesser risk include Miami, Shanghai, Bangkok, China's Guangzhou, Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh City and India's Kolkata.

     

     

    Then when you download and read the report for yourself, you find its completely different than reported:

     

    IPCC Confirms: We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme

    The full IPCC Special Report on Extremes is out today, and I have just gone through the sections in Chapter 4 that deal with disasters and climate change. Kudos to the IPCC — they have gotten the issue just about right, where "right" means that the report accurately reflects the academic literature on this topic. Over time good science will win out over the rest — sometimes it just takes a little while. –Roger Pielke Jr, 28 March 2012

    FAQ 3.1 Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? [...]None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here. Thus we are restricted to questions about whether specific extremes are becoming more or less common, and our confidence in the answers to such questions, including the direction and magnitude of changes in specific extremes, depends on the type of extreme, as well as on the region and season, linked with the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models.–IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events and Disasters

    There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change... The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados... The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses.  –IPCC Special Report on Extremes, Chapter 4

     

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/29/newsbytes-the-srex-feeding-frenzy/

     

    -----------------------

    Do channel niners think today's computer models can accurately determine what the climate will be like 100 years from now?

     

     

     

  • User profile image
    Charles

    , Proton2 wrote

    Do channel niners think today's computer models can accurately determine what the climate will be like 100 years from now?

    Well, do we compute all possible values of all variables involved? What are all the variables?

    C

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    A nice article I read in the FT:

    When you write about climate change, you get even more angry emails than when you write about Muslims. Last time I tried, one reader berated me for mentioning "fictional pompous Al Gore's enriching scheme of global warming" in my "ridiculous article". This man ended with a quote from Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Another reader, whose sign-off cited his PhD, explained to me that all the international summits weren't "about man-made climate change 'science' ... but really about a larger 'global wealth distribution scheme'."

    It's tempting to blame "climate sceptics" for the world's inaction on man-made climate change. (The United Nations' latest summit, starting in Durban on Monday, won't save the planet either.) Greens often talk as if the enemy were not climate change itself, but a self-taught band of freelance sceptics. No wonder, because fighting culture wars is the fun bit of politics. However, this fight is pointless. The sceptics aren't the block to action on climate change. They just wish they were. Instead, they are an irrelevant sideshow.

    Sceptics and believers quarrel about the science because they both start from a mistaken premise: that science will determine what we do about climate change. The idea is that once we agree what the science says, policy will automatically follow. That's why the Nobel committee gave Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a peace prize.

    Mysteriously, though, the policy still hasn't followed the science. Almost all scientists already agree on the science. An article in the PNAS, journal of the US National Academy of Sciences, last year found that 97 per cent of actively publishing climate scientists believe man-made climate change is happening. Nonetheless, the world hasn't acted.

    Clearly then, science doesn't determine policy, concludes Daniel Sarewitz of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes in Washington. Yet the pointless quarrel about science continues.

    It's pointless first of all because what most people believe about climate change has little to do with science. After all, hardly any layperson understands it. Rather, people's beliefs about climate change follow from their beliefs about the world. "We disagree about climate change because we have different belief systems," writes Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the UK's University of East Anglia.

    American sceptics, for instance, are disproportionately likely to be conservative white males, say the sociologists Aaron McCright and Riley Dunlap. Conservative white males don't like governments interfering with business. They don't like global co-operation. Nothing will convince them that we need global co-operation to interfere with business and tackle climate change, especially not if Al Gore says so.

    Conversely, liberals who do like global co-operation and interfering with business are going to believe in climate change, even though hardly any of them understand the science either. "Climate change has joined gun control, taxes and abortion as a form of social identity marker," writes Matthew Nisbet, social scientist at American University in Washington. In this debate, and not just in the US, almost nobody is open to persuasion.

    Beating the sceptics around the head with the science just gives them attention. It also allows them to roar in triumph whenever the believers get any bit of science wrong, as when the IPCC exaggerated the melting of Himalayan glaciers. The squabble also creates a one-dimensional argument about climate change: do you believe it's real or not? I've found to my cost that many people can only read articles about climate change as statements of either belief or scepticism. This obscures better questions, such as what exactly we should do about climate change.

    The quarrel with the sceptics is additionally pointless because they are a small minority – under a fifth of the 35 million Americans who actively engage in this issue, estimates Jon Krosnick, social psychologist at Stanford University. In a poll sponsored by the World Bank in 15 countries in 2009, "in each country the public believed climate change to be a serious problem," writes Roger Pielke Jr, political scientist at the University of Colorado. He adds: "The battle for public opinion has essentially been won." Admittedly, he cautions, most people who believe that climate change exists feel only lukewarm concern. However, trying to convince them with even more science is probably pointless too.

    The sceptics and the apathetic will always be with us. There'll never be full consensus on climate change. But if governments could only act when there was unanimity, no law on anything would ever be passed. The US invaded Iraq, bailed out banks and passed universal healthcare with much less consensus than exists over climate change. In short, the sceptics are not the block to action.

    Rather, the block is that the believers – including virtually all governments on earth – aren't sufficiently willing to act. We could do something. But shouting at sceptics is easier.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    What are all the variables?

    Off the top of my head:

    One of the main models used for short term analysis is the General Circulation Model that consists of the atmosphere and ocean.

    The Milankovitch cycles which causes changes in the amount of insolation (sun light) that hits earth from changes in orbit amongst other cyclic variables (for example elliptical orbit around the sun causes variability).

    Changes in albedo (reflectivity) from snow cover, sea ice, clouds to name a few.

     Then there is the resolution used. One person I know was told a few years ago that the grid resolution they used was 10 thousand square kilometers. The computers back then couldn't handle anything smaller. Added variables since then have made computing power of even today inadequate.

     "In a "past life" I worked for a major computer manufacturer. While in Hamburg meeting with the people from the German Meteorological Center, I asked one of the scientists what the resolution was for paleoclimate reconstructions – answer 10000 Km^2. I quickly moved on in topic, as he appeared embarrassed to discuss it."

    Today they don't even have microbes in the climate models.:

    "The sum total of microbial activity is enormous, but the net effect of microbes on climate-relevant gases is currently not known," says Edward DeLong of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who co-chaired the report with Caroline Harwood of the University of Washington."

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/microbes-and-their-impact-within-climate-models/

      

    Clouds are currently not well understood or well represented in the climate models.

    The grid resolutions even today are very coarse. They can't determine local effects.

     

    Here is a link to a page listing potential climatic variables, and there looks to be well over 1 hundred, though I haven't counted:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/potential-climatic-variables/ 

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    @evildictaitor: There is no science in that article, it just appears to use ad hominem. Making up excuses why people aren't buying instead of the real reason, which is that there is no science supporting the idea of catastrophe. Don't get me wrong, there is science showing that there is a green house effect, but no indication that it presents a problem.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Proton2 wrote

    @evildictaitor: There is no science in that article, it just appears to use ad hominem. Making up excuses why people aren't buying instead of the real reason, which is that there is no science supporting the idea of catastrophe. Don't get me wrong, there is science showing that there is a green house effect, but no indication that it presents a problem.

    It seems you just read everything with your denialist-goggles on full. The article isn't about how AGW is a real or not. It's merely stating that whether we do something about it has nothing to do with science.

    How the world will respond to global climate change, or whether or not is happening will not be solved here on C9.

    I kindly suggest we give this thread a rest.

  • User profile image
    Proton2

    I recall a C9 video with Wenming Ye where he mentioned a NOAA computer model of climate or weather.

    http://channel9.msdn.com/Series/Show-Us-Your-Tech/High-Performance-Computing-with-Wenming-Ye

    or maybe it was this one:

    http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Cloud+Cover/Episode-67-Techical-Computing-with-Windows-Azure-and-Wenming-Ye

    I have an developing interest in high performance computing ever since I upgraded my math skills while taking a "sabbatical" from the ongoing continuous learning of new programming techniques and technologies. I am glad I bypassed the early versions of for example silver-light. The math skills I have acquired will never become obsolete Wink

    @evildictaitor : I would like to give this threads topic a rest, I just wish the MSM reporting on the topic was more accurate. My apologies if I misunderstood you.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.