Global Warming

[Scuffer]

I would like to see a statistical analysis of global temperature, using multiple proxies and/or remote sensing data, to show with a 99% confidence interval that the last 20 years are warmer than any time in the previous 5,000.

You won't get it, ever. Too many other factors are involved to be able to tie any change down to one. In order to test, you'd have to have a model system - 2 identical planets, one with higher CO2 than the other.

I would further like to see CO2 concentrations over the last 100 years plotted against derived global temperature (using multiple proxies) such that the regression coefficient is 0.7 or higher.

this might be possible, although it won't be a linear realtionship. Also need to be over a longer period recently.

Finally, I would like to see global predicted temperatures published by five (5) models currently in existance, for the next ten years, with the agreement from the modelers that if the predicted temperature change does not occur, the models will each be discarded.

Discarded or refined? Discarding doesn't help anyone, and is somewhat unfair to expect to predict the future. Other factors might be uncovered that need incorperation.

 

[gene90]

You are very selective in choosing studies that you can exaggerate to suit your agenda. The myth that wind farms are particularly dangerous to birds originated at one single wind farm: the Altamont Pass in California.

Hey Pikachu.

All you did in response to my attack on renewable energy was point out that it supposedly doesn't kill quite as many birds as it is reputed to.

So, uh, why does the Audubon Society want a moritorium on all new windfarms in flyways?

 

[Gothmog]

gene90, I posted those plots to show how many factors are involved. Factors that we currently have good data on, but do not for even 200 years ago. This was to get you to stop with your 'please correlate CO2 and temperature' ballony. You will note that volcanos are a large global source of atmospheric cooling, etc. etc.

Also to show why we can explain current climate better than climate of 200 years ago or longer.

I guess I failed.

I also wanted to show that the solar output is specifically incorporated, down to the 11 year sun-spot cycle that you were so happy to post earlier. And to show that it is currently on a local downward trend.

Again, if you want to talk about the science that is incorporated into any of the process models that make up a climate model. I'll be happy to oblige.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

[gene90]

You won't get it, ever. Too many other factors are involved to be able to tie any change down to one. In order to test, you'd have to have a model system - 2 identical planets, one with higher CO2 than the other.

In the piece of text you wrote in this response to, I asked if we could show with 99% confidence that the climate today is warmer than previously. That is a core assumption of GW, and there actually is some evidence behind it. It should be a walk in the park for the GW people.

And if you can't show that Earth is getting warmer, why is "Global Warming" even worth a debate on an Internet site?

Discarded or refined? Discarding doesn't help anyone, and is somewhat unfair to expect to predict the future. Other factors might be uncovered that need incorperation.

A theory can never be discarded if it has infinite leeway to be refined, even if it is wrong, even to the point of absurdity. Because GW is complex, modelers have a lot of leeway, probably far too much leeway, to change their numbers to fit observations, even if their core assumptions about greenhouse gases are wrong.

In fact, if they are allowed to float a large enough number of models, some of them will exactly fit observations simply out of probability. So we have to be strict in judging models.

 

[Scuffer]

Perhaps because it has been worried by the myth that wind farms are particularly dangerous to birds. That would be a sensible explaination of their concerns.

 

[gene90]

gene90, I posted those plots to show how many factors are involved. Factors that we currently have good data on, but do not for even 200 years ago.

I am not totally insensitive to your plight, GothMog. I have at least a faint understanding of how complex climate is, and for your models to be effective you have a lot of variables to deal with.

Unfortunately, this does not absolve you from testing your models just like any other science would.

Now, previously you said that a 150-year prediction is not testable until 150 years have elapsed. Bull!

Unless you are claiming that the average global temperature is going to jump from the present temperature to however much you predict at midnight on December 31, 2154, it is testable. Every ten years you could measure how much progress you have made toward the final result. If twenty years in, you don't get the rise, that would make the 2155 prediction kind of questionable, now wouldn't it?

This was to get you to stop with your 'please correlate CO2 and temperature' ballony. You will note that volcanos are a large global source of atmospheric cooling, etc. etc.

I am not responsible for having to deal with "random" phenomena in climate, you are. If you can't test your models, then it is your fault for choosing to model a system that is too complex. I am unwilling to change the burden of proof for you.

Also to show why we can explain current climate better than climate of 200 years ago or longer.

I will try to further look into it as time permits. This is interesting stuff.

You may be shocked to learn that I was running a distributed networking climate model on my computer recently. I ended participation when it suddenly lost a rather large workunit. I forget the name of it, it was a Monte Carlo simulation. Interesting, but like other models, a methodology that was potentially flawed.

 

[Scuffer]

In the piece of text you wrote in this response to, I asked if we could show with 99% confidence that the climate today is warmer than previously. That is a core assumption of GW, and there actually is some evidence behind it. It should be a walk in the park for the GW people.

By asking for a 99% probability, you are asking for experimental statisitics. You design the experiment, I'll do the stats. We can not do the experiment 'live', because we can not control it.

You can't just demand the impossible and take its impossibility as proof you are right.

A theory can never be discarded if it has infinite leeway to be refined, even if it is wrong, even to the point of absurdity. Because GW is complex, modelers have a lot of leeway, probably far too much leeway, to change their numbers to fit observations, even if their core assumptions about greenhouse gases are wrong.

I would agree that some models are useless, and wrong about about core assumptions. Those will become apparent over time, and can be discarded.

The idea that we should look over a ten year period, discard everything that didn't work and start over from scratch is counter-intutive. When I do something that doesn't work, I look at what went wrong and see if it can be changed for the better.

 

[gene90]

By asking for a 99% probability, you are asking for experimental statisitics. You design the experiment, I'll do the stats. We can not do the experiment 'live', because we can not control it.

We don't need to set up an experiment, we already have one. We're living on it. And we have lots of ways to take the Earth's temperature, from remote sensing to direct measurement at weather stations, to measurements of sound velocity in the ocean over long distances.

You are absolutely correct, of course, about the difficulty of trying to make a perfect empirical model of this planet. I think we don't need it, though.

You can't just demand the impossible and take its impossibility as proof you are right.

Sure I can, it just depends on what I am claiming. If GothMog can't test a model, it does not mean the model is automatically wrong. But it does mean that it isn't science. Or, to put it in different terms, if we can't find out if it is wrong, we can never know if it is right or wrong. Therefore, it is not justification of action to mediate GW.

The idea that we should look over a ten year period, discard everything that didn't work and start over from scratch is counter-intutive. When I do something that doesn't work, I look at what went wrong and see if it can be changed for the better.

Perhaps you are right here. But there need to be limits.

 

[Scuffer]

We don't need to set up an experiment, we already have one. We're living on it.

This isn't an experiment. We control very little about it. We can just take readings and make predictions from them. Very much like people who study volcanos, in fact, and they certainly can't tell whats going to happen. We just won't be able to get 99% stats on it.

Sure, if we do it for long enough, we might get enough data, but that would either require you to be right (everyone lives happily ever after) or GW types are right (everyone drowns, or starves, or freezes). Until then we have to rely on models. If we could design the experiment, we'd know very quickly.

 

[Gothmog]

gene90, there are limits. J Hansen is one of the best scientists in the country.

You need to define your limits of proof.

It has been verified by satellite data that our earth system is currently absorbing more energy than it is radiating away. This is what is meant by global warming, this is the W/m2 forcing.
Is that proof? Well, of some hypotheses yes, of others no.

Climate models can reproduce many data sets representing climate over the last 150-200 years.
Is that proof, again yes and no.

Each process model in a coupled climate model can be individually tested.
Is that proof? yes and no.

Once again, predictions made about 100 years in the future (or even 10 years) cannot be verified until that amount of time has passed. There is no way around that.

Also there are variables that we cannot constrain on that time scale. Such as solar output, cloudiness, oceanic circulation, etc. etc. Not to mention future human actions.

I totally agree that we need to be sceptical of climate models, but we also need to be open to them. They have strengths as well as weaknesses.

I have a lot to do today and wont be able to go back and forth with you, but I want to say this one more time:

There is scientific consensus that humans have significantly changed the radiative balance of our earth system, and that such a significant change will have some effect on our climate on short and long time scales.

 

[gene90]

Perhaps because it has been worried by the myth that wind farms are particularly dangerous to birds. That would be a sensible explaination of their concerns.

Probably, but what this amounts to is a major environmentalist organization that sees problems with windfarms.

 

[gene90]

I totally agree that we need to be sceptical of climate models, but we also need to be open to them. They have strengths as well as weaknesses.

I find the above statement agreeable, but I have a problem with blanket statements of cause and effect, as most commonly expressed by CarlosMM.

There is scientific consensus that humans have significantly changed the radiative balance of our earth system, and that such a significant change will have some effect on our climate on short and long time scales.

I agree to this to, but notice you did not mention greenhouse gases.

I expect that urban sprawl and agriculture will affect climate. That I don't have a problem with because climatological studies have been done, and are driven by observation. The CO2-mediated changes seem to be mostly riding on models, and are too complex to be tested. I'm not willing to go that far.

 

[Scuffer]

Probably, but what this amounts to is a major environmentalist organization that sees problems with windfarms.

The Audubon Society is more of bird lover's organization than anything else. This is why they are concerned about bird deaths. It does not represent a major flaw with wind farms.

 

[gene90]

This isn't an experiment. We control very little about it.

Well, we can measure temperature, and we can measure CO2 concentration. As CO2 concentration goes up, we can see how temperature will respond. That's the core of global warming. If CO2 is causing temps to go up, this will be observable.

We can just take readings and make predictions from them.

And then, we can test the predictions.

Very much like people who study volcanos, in fact, and they certainly can't tell whats going to happen.

Good analogy. Volcano science has come a long way in the last 30 years, too. To the point where reliable warnings can be issued. It's not perfect, but neither are weather forecasts.

We just won't be able to get 99% stats on it.

We should already have good enough data for this.

or GW types are right (everyone drowns, or starves, or freezes). Until then we have to rely on models.

These are not necessarily the outcomes of GW. It might even be beneficial. Remember, we are arguing over whether it even exists. It's a long way from knowing the outcome.

 

[gene90]

The Audubon Society is more of bird lover's organization than anything else. This is why they are concerned about bird deaths. It does not represent a major flaw with wind farms.

So, the bird deaths only matter to people that care about birds?

EDIT: Discrediting the Audubon Society because of their interest in bird conservation is a logical fallacy that draws attention away from the point at hand. The point of mentioning them is that people are concerned about bird casualties associated with windfarms, to the point of asking for a moratorium in important bird areas. What the society is about is irrelevant to the issue.

 

[Scuffer]

As has been pointed out very often by people opposing GW, there are other factors involved. Sunspots, etc etc etc. I'm sure you know them better than me. This is why it is impossible to plot CO2 against temp and come up with anything meaningful. If we knew and understood the other factors, we could eliminate them and work out the effect of CO2 directly. We don't.

We can read and predict - that is exactly what we have been doing. We call them models. As we know, they have their problems. Unfortunatly, and again similar to volcano experts, getting them right takes a long time. Like volcanos again, we have to wait for things to happen to improve them, so that we can study for the signs. We do not really have the luxury of 30 years, 50 years, 100 years, to improve if GW is a reality.

We don't have enough data for 99% stats (I only work to 99% with bacteria!), for the 'other factors involved' reason.

Bird deaths concern everyone who like birds. It is not sufficient reason to abadon a potentially useful energy supply. Burning wood upset people who like trees.

 

[Scuffer]

EDIT: Discrediting the Audubon Society because of their interest in bird conservation is a logical fallacy that draws attention away from the point at hand. The point of mentioning them is that people are concerned about bird casualties associated with windfarms, to the point of asking for a moratorium in important bird areas. What the society is about is irrelevant to the issue.

This is cheap.

I am not discrediting the Audubon society. I am pointing out that the people concerned about bird deaths are those interested in birds. Especially as you described audubon as "major environmentalist organization" which is just rubbish. They are interested in birds and bird conservation. I don't see Greenpeace wailing about it.

In fact Audubon are campaigning against oil drilling in the Artic, to protect bird life. Will this sway oilmen's opinion? Do you think that the birds will change windfarms?

 

[gene90]

As has been pointed out very often by people opposing GW, there are other factors involved. Sunspots, etc etc etc. I'm sure you know them better than me. This is why it is impossible to plot CO2 against temp and come up with anything meaningful.

Ok. But if you cannot link to CO2 to temperature in the past, what is the justification for linking it to temperature in the future?

If climate is so susceptible to sunspots, etc., that the CO2 overprint is not the driver, then that effectively undermines the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. In fact, that's what a lot of us have been saying all along; that CO2 is not that important. This sounds almost like a concession.

If we knew and understood the other factors, we could eliminate them and work out the effect of CO2 directly. We don't.

Well, this is what modelers are trying to do.

But if GW is untestable, and it sure seems to be, it doesn't matter if the problem is inherent in the issue or not. If a premise is untestable, it is not science, period. Why it is untestable doesn't matter.

Bird deaths concern everyone who like birds. It is not sufficient reason to abadon a potentially useful energy supply. Burning wood upset people who like trees.

EDIT: And burning coal upsets people that are concerned about GW.

I think the above text means that you agree with me, at least partially, that all our decisions will have some effect upon environmental quality, and that there are no "free" choices, or sources that have no environmental impact. Of course, some energy sources have greater environmental impacts than others.

 

[gene90]

I am not discrediting the Audubon society. I am pointing out that the people concerned about bird deaths are those interested in birds.

Yeah, they like birds.

Your point?

I don't see Greenpeace wailing about it.

So you find Audubon less credible than Greenpeace? That is effectively trying to undermine Audubon's authority on the issue. Poisoning the well fallacy: trying to discredit someone's opinion because of alleged biases.

Do you think that the birds will change windfarms?

No, the absurd cost (in money and resources), gaping inefficiency, unreliability, tremendous use of land, and inconvenient location will stop the widespread use of windfarms. The bird issue is simply evidence of environmental cost.

It's not hard to find websites of political groups and individuals opposed to them, either:

http://www.countryguardian.net/case.htm
http://www.warmwell.com/windfarms.html
http://www.surfbirds.com/blogs/mduchamp/

What really doesn't help is that the second link claims that it is apparently cheaper to filter CO2 out of coal powerplant emissions than it is to displace wattage to windfarms.

 

[Gothmog]

I agree to this to, but notice you did not mention greenhouse gases.

I expect that urban sprawl and agriculture will affect climate. That I don't have a problem with because climatological studies have been done, and are driven by observation. The CO2-mediated changes seem to be mostly riding on models, and are too complex to be tested. I'm not willing to go that far.

I'm not following you here. This is a simple question of forcing and does not need a climate model to be answered.

If you saw the plots I posted you will notice that they include land use (which includes urban sprawl and agriculture). The forcing they provide over the time scale in the plot (150 years) is much smaller than greenhouse gas forcing. This conclusion has nothing to do with any feedbacks or any results from a climate model.

This is pure observation and physics. This represents the input to a climate model.

We know how much urban sprawl and agriculture change albedo. We just look down from space.
We know how much additional infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gasses. We just measure spectra.

The level of these forcings in W/m2 is very tight science, and easily verifiable.

The climate model is needed to describe what effects such a forcing might have on climate.