Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming

sadly, it is not what most people will hope when they read the title: that science has exaggerated or invented man-made climate change. To the contrary, because usually only fast feedbacks, such as water vapor and sea ice, are included in climate models, the sensitivity to CO2 change may have been massively underestimated! That means way more warming in the longer run than currently predicted by the IPCC.

Lessons from Earth's Past

Jeffrey Kiehl


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6014/158.summary

Climate models are invaluable tools for understanding Earth's climate system. But examination of the real world also provides insights into the role of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide) in determining Earth's climate. Not only can much be learned by looking at the observational evidence from Earth's past, but such know ledge can provide context for future climate change.

Click to expand...

Doesn't sound bad to this point, does it?
Here's the bad news hidden away behind the paywall:

On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter

Click to expand...

that's the title of a lengthy and detailed post on Climateprogress on the paper.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/13/science-kiehl-ncar-paleoclimate-lessons-from-earths-hot-past/

The official news release is here:
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/3628/earth-s-hot-past-could-be-prologue-future-climate

if carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current rate through the end of this century, atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas will reach levels that last existed about 30 million to 100 million years ago, when global temperatures averaged about 29 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.

Click to expand...

ouch!


Comparable temperatures and CO2 levels - that puts us at the Eocene/Pligocene boundary, if my memory serves. At that time, the tropical(!) forests of Antarctica had given way to deciduous forests and soon later (Oligocene) tundras became wide-spread.

Going further back (due to the uncertainties in the paleo-CO2-measurements the possible range includes even the Cretaceous) - well, you can imagine. We are time-warping our planet into a climate state from way back. However, we give the flora and fauna a scant century to adapt. This will not end well for 90% of all people alive at the end of the century, I fear.

More on this can be found on Climateprogress, e.g. via the links in the post linked above.


PM me your email address if you want the PDF of the original paper.

carlosMM said:

PM me your email address if you want the PDF of the original paper.

Click to expand...

Your effort is admirable, but nobody here actually reads research articles and then criticizes them based on the reading.

SS-18 ICBM said:

Your effort is admirable, but nobody here actually reads research articles and then criticizes them based on the reading.

Click to expand...

Not science ones, anyway!

SS-18 ICBM said:

Your effort is admirable, but nobody here actually reads research articles and then criticizes them based on the reading.

Click to expand...

So what?

There is a grand coalition of polluters worldwide trying to smother the media with claims that global warming is not happening, or happening but not harmful (they fail to note that these two positions are contradictory) - if (apparently) people only want the digests I think it a good idea to give them digests of real stuff, not some marketing campaign fantasy.

*cue predetermined answers and responses*

SS-18 ICBM said:

Your effort is admirable, but nobody here actually reads research articles and then criticizes them based on the reading.

Click to expand...

Reading articles produced by this so-called science of climatology is a waste of time. That they study and model what they do not understand is obvious through the simple fact that they constantly contradict themselves. That there is a political agenda driving it becomes clear through the simple fact that even though their predictions vary wildly, they all now predict warming.

That it must be warming has been shoehorned into the models, so that even though small changes in a chaotic system should produce deviations either towards cooling or warming, they are all towards more or less warming! The whole argument for global warming rests on two factors: the greenhouse effect and temperature trends. And the tools which supposedly "prove" climate predictions are the computational climate models, using existing data as inputs.
But that the world is going to warm is not an hypothesis under study within those models. It's a built-in assumption! Their agreement in predicting warming, even though there is wild disagreement about how much, is pretty damning evidence of this built-in bias. If you make it a condition of your model that it must predict warming, then it will predict warming - big news! Are we supposed to take that seriously as proof of something?

If that's how it actually worked, no.

innonimatu said:

Reading articles produced by this so-called science of climatology is a waste of time. That they study and model what they do not understand is obvious through the simple fact that they constantly contradict themselves.

Click to expand...

Hm, funny - can you show us a few examples of such "constant contradictions"?

That there is a political agenda driving it becomes clear through the simple fact that even though their predictions vary wildly, they all now predict warming.

Click to expand...

that does not follow - there is solid evidence for warming, there is a solid explanation why it happens, and because the cause is continuing there are forecasts that warming will continue. What varies (a bit) is how MUCH warming is predicted.

That it must be warming has been shoehorned into the models

Click to expand...

please prove that claim.

, so that even though small changes in a chaotic system should produce deviations either towards cooling or warming, they are all towards more or less warming!

Click to expand...

Climate is chaotic?
pleas prove that as well - it is the first time I have ever heard that

The whole argument for global warming rests on two factors: the greenhouse effect and temperature trends.

Click to expand...

uh, wrong! There's a huge number of furhter facts.

And the tools which supposedly "prove" climate predictions are the computational climate models, using existing data as inputs.

Click to expand...

False - hindcasts use known temperature developments to test predictions from models. Funny - if the models were only self-proving, why should they work for that?

But that the world is going to warm is not an hypothesis under study within those models. It's a built-in assumption!

Click to expand...

Wrong - no assumptions need to build in - or can you actually prove your claim?

Their agreement in predicting warming, even though there is wild disagreement about how much, is pretty damning evidence of this built-in bias.

Click to expand...

Now you start to repeat your claims - time to put something on the table or shut up.

If you make it a condition of your model that it must predict warming, then it will predict warming - big news! Are we supposed to take that seriously as proof of something?

Click to expand...

Nope - but you'll have to rpove that there is a mysterious built-in warming in the models. Any model description I have ever read had none.

So shut up or money up - or should I better ask who pays you to spout such nonsense?

I'll ask the mods to give you an infraction if you continue to slander scientists. So bring proof or shut up.

innonimatu said:

That they study and model what they do not understand is obvious through the simple fact that they constantly contradict themselves.

Click to expand...

The OP article doesn't really seem a contradiction. In fact, it revises the predictions of higher temperature upward.

innonimatu said:

That it must be warming has been shoehorned into the models

Click to expand...

It is far more convincing to show than tell. I really question how many here actually know the details of the models, other than "they can change it like I can add volcanoes in SimCity".

Well well, look who's back in the global warming argument.

if carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current rate through the end of this century, atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas will reach levels that last existed about 30 million to 100 million years ago, when global temperatures averaged about 29 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.

Click to expand...

So? The connection between the two doesn't show which is the cause and which is the result. I know everybody in here is going to assume it's CO2 causing higher temperatures, but what if it's the other way round? What if it's higher temperature that causes higher CO2 emissions....?

Well, everybody knows that global warming was invented by Al Gore so he could buy a fleet of Private Jets!

carlosMM said:

sadly, it is not what most people will hope when they read the title: that science has exaggerated or invented man-made climate change. To the contrary, because usually only fast feedbacks, such as water vapor and sea ice, are included in climate models, the sensitivity to CO2 change may have been massively underestimated! That means way more warming in the longer run than currently predicted by the IPCC.




Doesn't sound bad to this point, does it?
Here's the bad news hidden away behind the paywall:


that's the title of a lengthy and detailed post on Climateprogress on the paper.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/13/science-kiehl-ncar-paleoclimate-lessons-from-earths-hot-past/

The official news release is here:
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/3628/earth-s-hot-past-could-be-prologue-future-climate



ouch!


Comparable temperatures and CO2 levels - that puts us at the Eocene/Pligocene boundary, if my memory serves. At that time, the tropical(!) forests of Antarctica had given way to deciduous forests and soon later (Oligocene) tundras became wide-spread.

Going further back (due to the uncertainties in the paleo-CO2-measurements the possible range includes even the Cretaceous) - well, you can imagine. We are time-warping our planet into a climate state from way back. However, we give the flora and fauna a scant century to adapt. This will not end well for 90% of all people alive at the end of the century, I fear.

More on this can be found on Climateprogress, e.g. via the links in the post linked above.


PM me your email address if you want the PDF of the original paper.

Click to expand...

correlation≠causation

What makes these models more valid than other ones?

Who gives a crap about Global warming when your out of a job? Worrying about it has been pre-empted by other more pressing matters.

MobBoss said:

Who gives a crap about Global warming when your out of a job? Worrying about it has been pre-empted by other more pressing matters.

Click to expand...

So after the job market improves we can tackle other things?

Wouldn't restructuring everything create jobs?

civ_king said:

correlation≠causation

Click to expand...

What the heck does this try to show?

Skwink Caesar said:

What the heck does this try to show?

Click to expand...

I said what I meant

MobBoss said:

Who gives a crap about Global warming when your out of a job? Worrying about it has been pre-empted by other more pressing matters.

Click to expand...

Well then those unemployed proles should stop being so lazy, get marketable talents, stop leeching on the government, (as if it's the government's job to intervene in the economy and improve unemployment?) and leave the science policy to the scientists.

I do remember 10 years ago when global warming was a hypothesis, that it has become a generally accepted fact in recent times is due to scientific concensus. Increased level of greenhouse gases like CO2 have a warming effect on the enviroment, it is a direct causation and not a correlation. It could be argued (if anyone would care to) that the increased level of CO2 gases are not a result of human factor, but not that global temperatre is on the trend rising.

Shaihulud said:

Increased level of greenhouse gases like CO2 have a warming effect on the enviroment, it is a direct causation and not a correlation.

Click to expand...

Can you actually prove that? Almost all of the "proof" you've seen in your life is proof of correlation--not proof of cause.

I can even explain how higher temperature can cause higher CO2 levels (as opposed to the other way round). Here's how: before humans and cars and factories existed, what was the primary source of CO2 for plants to inhale? Animals exhaling. And what do animals do when it's cold? They become less active, or they hibernate. They don't have any choice in the matter--because when it's cold there's less food for animals to eat. Less food, less energy. So they become less active, and consume less oxygen, thereby producing less CO2. Hence: animals exhale less CO2 when it's cold, and more when it's warm.

So, no. While CO2 and temperature are connected, I see no reason to believe that the one causes the other (though it is possible). If you want me to believe it, you have to prove it. Proof of correlation, again, is not enough; you must prove that it's specifically CO2 that specifically causes a rise in temperature, and not a rise in temperature that causes higher CO2 levels.

Have no illusions, this is all old news to me. The most frustrating part, for me, is when I explain that current events violate the allegation that CO2 is causing global warming. Because today's high levels of CO2 haven't caused gigantic amounts of warming. The CO2 blanket has nearly doubled (and other greenhouse gases have more than doubled!). If the alarmists' claims are true, we should already have seen massive amounts of warming, and we have not. But whenever I point this out, some stupid knucklehead claims it takes half a century to happen, thereby rendering their claims untestable. For a scientific claim to be valid, it must be testable.

There are no gremlins in your fridge.