The Evidence for Human Caused Climate Change Part III

[Crezth]

I certainly agree that it would be awesome if a real climatologist would show up in this thread. Unfortunately true experts are pretty rare on random Internet forums.

Let this be a tacit request to any lurking climatologists for an "ask a climate scientist" thread. >_>

 

[Dale]

See, now, when you say sensationalist crap like this, it becomes hard to take you seriously.

I invite you to read the resolutions from the Global Greens conference which was held last month. I apologise if my Liberalism makes me very worried about these declarations. And scoff all you like at me, people who feared eugenics and fascism in the 1920's were also scoffed at.

You may think I'm sensationalist, I don't care. Just don't think I'll bend a knee to the Global Greens without a fight.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And scoff all you like at me, people who feared eugenics and fascism in the 1920's were also scoffed at.

There has been quite a bit of scoffing from you yourself. Does that mean I can draw the link between the people you scoff and the people who feared eugenics and fascism in the 1920's? Or does that only work from your perspective?

You may think I'm sensationalist, I don't care. Just don't think I'll bend a knee to the Global Greens without a fight.

I see. You're a freedom fighter! Fighting the good fight from a keyboard on a messageboard nobody cares about. Respect.

 

[Bootstoots]

And scoff all you like at me, people who feared eugenics and fascism in the 1920's were also scoffed at.

And L. Ron Hubbard is also scoffed at. Many people are scoffed at. Some of those people deserve to be scoffed at. Some do not. Scoffing by itself has no truth value and is not a logical argument.

I'm much more interested in an explanation of why you find the assumption of constant relative humidity to be such a fatal flaw. The assumption itself could easily be wrong, but I want to see why climate models are so sensitive as to whether relative humidity will increase or decrease (e.g. what's the difference between +0.01% per deg C and -0.01% per deg C).

I legitimately don't know the answer here at all and would like to see why you think this is the case. Since you've actually played with these models I think you're the best person on the thread to help elucidate this for me. Feel free to use math and physics to make your points.

 

[Bootstoots]

Well, I mean, who are you and I to judge? I don't mean to offend, but Aristotle's specific opinions were considered "pretty well-founded" in his day, even though nowadays many of us would agree that they're bunk. My point is that the "strength" of his arguments are not something that we're qualified to judge from the point of view that it's not something we can follow from egg to chicken. To use the Aristotle example again, he would talk about how things were made from four basic elements and that burning a log was an example of reducing an item into those four elements. If you follow his logic and judge his arguments qualitatively using gut feeling as a substitute for any critical analysis, you might have no problem accepting his conclusion. But without a knowledge of exo/endothermic reactions and thermodynamics in general, you might not be able to explain why he was wrong. Does that make sense?

I missed this paragraph and I figured I'd reply to it now.

Unlike combustion, Earth's climate is an exceedingly complex system that isn't understood to anywhere the same degree of certainty even among climatologists. To a climatologist from 2300, climatologists from 2012 might seem to have as little clue about the climate as Aristotle did in explaining combustion. But I doubt chemists from 2012 will be found by chemists from 2300 to have any serious misconceptions about combustion.

Most scientific progress this century will probably have to do more with understanding complexity than with figuring out basic physical and chemical laws. Climatologists are certainly ahead of you, me, and Dale at understanding the climate, but there's still a lot of room for doubt on their specific conclusions. As far as I can tell based on what I understand, we're probably in for a wild ride. But I really want to be wrong.

Dale claims to have reached his opinions based on basic math, physics, and computer programming. If this is correct, then you, me, and several other people who have been posting in or following this thread are capable of evaluating the evidence behind his opinions and developing well-informed opinions about them.

It's not really important what he thinks about "Global Greens", "the Left", etc. Whether or not various Green or leftist parties are correct about their claims is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the predictions of climatology depend upon faulty assumptions. If Dale's right about that, I want to find out about it.

 

[Dale]

I'm much more interested in an explanation of why you find the assumption of constant relative humidity to be such a fatal flaw. The assumption itself could easily be wrong, but I want to see why climate models are so sensitive as to whether relative humidity will increase or decrease (e.g. what's the difference between +0.01% per deg C and -0.01% per deg C).

I legitimately don't know the answer here at all and would like to see why you think this is the case. Since you've actually played with these models I think you're the best person on the thread to help elucidate this for me. Feel free to use math and physics to make your points.

First I apologise if I misinterpret your question. I had two wisdom teeth out this morning and am pretty drugged up on pain killers.

I think this paper may help to answer your question: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Paltridge_01.pdf

If it doesn't, give me a couple of days to get my sanity back.

 

[Crezth]

I missed this paragraph and I figured I'd reply to it now.

Unlike combustion, Earth's climate is an exceedingly complex system that isn't understood to anywhere the same degree of certainty even among climatologists. To a climatologist from 2300, climatologists from 2012 might seem to have as little clue about the climate as Aristotle did in explaining combustion. But I doubt chemists from 2012 will be found by chemists from 2300 to have any serious misconceptions about combustion.

Most scientific progress this century will probably have to do more with understanding complexity than with figuring out basic physical and chemical laws. Climatologists are certainly ahead of you, me, and Dale at understanding the climate, but there's still a lot of room for doubt on their specific conclusions. As far as I can tell based on what I understand, we're probably in for a wild ride. But I really want to be wrong.

Ah, well, forgive me if I'm missing the point by saying the difference as you outline it between climate models and thermodynamics is a rather specious point (to say nothing of your silly proposal that combustion isn't all that complex). Presumably, the people of Aristotle's time were as unaware of the principles of thermodynamics as (you could say) we are of climate change. I can buy that, potentially, we are far off the mark as it concerns climate change. But I don't really see how that changes my point that we're still not in a great place to judge, unless you mean to say that good understanding of climate can stem moreorless directly from already-existent knowledge in other fields, which seems plausible, but there persists the problem of us not really knowing what we're looking at when we see this or that trend.

I think that Dale can concoct as many mathematically-derived models as he likes, I just don't think that you or I are in a position to judge them on the merits of much more than "well that seems right" (especially in such an informal setting).

 

[Old Hippy]

First I apologise if I misinterpret your question. I had two wisdom teeth out this morning and am pretty drugged up on pain killers.

I think this paper may help to answer your question: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Paltridge_01.pdf

If it doesn't, give me a couple of days to get my sanity back.

So according to the link we just don't know and the researchers can not draw any conclusions at this stage about thier own research????

Their Conclusion... or lack there of...

Spoiler :

In the meantime, it is important that the trends of water
vapor shown by the NCEP data for the middle and upper
troposphere should not be “written off” simply on the basis
that they are not supported by climate models—or indeed
on the basis that they are not supported by the few relevant
satellite measurements. There are still many problems
associated with satellite retrieval of the humidity information
pertaining to a particular level of the atmosphere—
particularly in the upper troposphere. Basically, this is
because an individual radiometric measurement is a
complicated function not only of temperature and humidity
(and perhaps of cloud cover because “cloud clearing”
algorithms are not perfect), but is also a function of the
vertical distribution of those variables over considerable
depths of atmosphere. It is difficult to assign a trend in such
measurements to an individual cause.

Spoiler :

It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends
from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems
with the instrumentation and operation of the global
Fig. 10 The change in temperature from a doubling of CO2 (lower
frames) showing the effects of prescribed changes in the water vapor
profile (upper frames) for a midlatitude summer standard atmosphere
(McClatchey et al. 1972) without clouds and assuming a moist
adiabatic lapse rate. Below the 800-hPa level, q is adjusted to keep the
relative humidity fixed at the climatological value. Above the 800-hPa
level, various changes in q are imposed: (from left to right) relative
humidity fixed at the climatological value; no change; uniform
decrease of 10%; and a profile based on the NCEP trends (see text).
Each plot of temperature response shows the response with fixed
humidity (blue) and with the prescribed change in humidity (red)
358 G. Paltridge et al.
radiosonde network from which the data are derived. The
potential for such problems needs to be examined in
detail in an effort rather similar to the effort now devoted
to abstracting real surface temperature trends from the
face-value data from individual stations of the international
meteorological networks. As recommended by
Elliot and Gaffen (1991) in their original study of the
US radiosonde network, there needs to be a detailed
examination of how radiosonde instrumentation, operating
procedures, and recording practices of all nations have
changed over the years and of how these changes may
have impacted on the humidity data.

but at least they are sitting on the fence and "yes it deserves further reseach....

 

[classical_hero]

I certainly agree that it would be awesome if a real climatologist would show up in this thread. Unfortunately true experts are pretty rare on random Internet forums.

Can we link to one instead?
http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/09/the-belief-that-co2-can-regulate-climate-is-sheer-absurdity-says-prominent-german-meteorologist/

factum: So we don’t need to do anything against climate change?

Puls: There’s nothing we can do to stop it. Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection. it’s impossible to protect the climate, but we can protect the environment and our drinking water. On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Old Hippy]

Can we link to one instead?

please do ... but i take it you can link to something more than an interview and blogs redoing same interview... thats the point of someone saying

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootstoots
I certainly agree that it would be awesome if a real climatologist would show up in this thread. Unfortunately true experts are pretty rare on random Internet forums.

 

[Bootstoots]

Ah, well, forgive me if I'm missing the point by saying the difference as you outline it between climate models and thermodynamics is a rather specious point (to say nothing of your silly proposal that combustion isn't all that complex).

I certainly don't think combustion is simple, but I do think it's far better understood by science than the Earth's climate is. I would argue that a fire is a much less complex system than the climate of a planet. Not that a combustion reaction (or any given chemical reaction really) isn't full of complexity, but that the level of complexity is lower and this is part of the reason that it is better understood to science.

Presumably, the people of Aristotle's time were as unaware of the principles of thermodynamics as (you could say) we are of climate change. I can buy that, potentially, we are far off the mark as it concerns climate change. But I don't really see how that changes my point that we're still not in a great place to judge, unless you mean to say that good understanding of climate can stem moreorless directly from already-existent knowledge in other fields, which seems plausible, but there persists the problem of us not really knowing what we're looking at when we see this or that trend.

We're not in as good a place to judge as professional climatologists, of course, which is why it would be great if one showed up. But that doesn't mean we know nothing, and discussions like this (when they're running smoothly) are very good ways for us to keep developing our understanding.

You're right of course that we won't be as sure of what we're looking at as a climatologist would be when we see a specific trend or something. I don't think that makes this discussion futile though.

The reason I've decided to wade into this thread and ask questions of Dale is that he does seem to know quite a few details about this field and, even better, he says that he's spent quite a while playing around with climate models and identified faulty underlying assumptions. Even if neither he nor I are experts, it's still intriguing to me that he did that and I'm trying to figure out what exactly led him to his conclusions.

I think that Dale can concoct as many mathematically-derived models as he likes, I just don't think that you or I are in a position to judge them on the merits of much more than "well that seems right" (especially in such an informal setting).

The impression I got is that he isn't dealing with models he just made up himself, but rather messing around with pre-existing climate models published by real climatologists and identifying possible flaws. I think that's within the ability of someone with a strong science and computing background who is familiar with the climatological literature. I don't know how informed my opinion on these possible flaws will be, but that's okay with me. I'm here as a learning exercise, not to publish a peer-reviewed paper or anything.

 

[Bootstoots]

First I apologise if I misinterpret your question. I had two wisdom teeth out this morning and am pretty drugged up on pain killers.

I think this paper may help to answer your question: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Paltridge_01.pdf

If it doesn't, give me a couple of days to get my sanity back.

Thanks - I'll take a look when I get a chance. Good luck with the gum-healing process and don't get any dry sockets!

 

[Abegweit]

Ignore Dale, he legitimately has no idea what he's talking about.

He'll probably make some snarky reply to this, but seriously. He's not a climate scientist or anything, so his "analysis" and "discussion" aren't worth the internet they're printed on.

Dale makes intelligent and articulate posts. The people who need to be ignored are those who worship the paid shills and refuse to think for themselves. Real science is comprehensible to the informed layman. Shill-worshippers merit nothing but scorn.

 

[Abegweit]

Duplicate. Delete please.

 

[Crezth]

I certainly don't think combustion is simple, but I do think it's far better understood by science than the Earth's climate is. I would argue that a fire is a much less complex system than the climate of a planet. Not that a combustion reaction (or any given chemical reaction really) isn't full of complexity, but that the level of complexity is lower and this is part of the reason that it is better understood to science.

Still rather silly, because a fire is not a rocket engine and a rain cloud is not a global climate. The level at which we understand these distinct phenomena is a shade of grey, and I don't think each can be correctly summed as complex or non-complex because it is the intermingling and/or applications thereof that can distort that level of complexity. That is to say: it's a pointless comparison on those grounds and beside my original point anyway.

We're not in as good a place to judge as professional climatologists, of course, which is why it would be great if one showed up. But that doesn't mean we know nothing, and discussions like this (when they're running smoothly) are very good ways for us to keep developing our understanding.

You're right of course that we won't be as sure of what we're looking at as a climatologist would be when we see a specific trend or something. I don't think that makes this discussion futile though.

Not futile, I just don't expect to obtain any particularly interesting or relevant insights.

The reason I've decided to wade into this thread and ask questions of Dale is that he does seem to know quite a few details about this field and, even better, he says that he's spent quite a while playing around with climate models and identified faulty underlying assumptions. Even if neither he nor I are experts, it's still intriguing to me that he did that and I'm trying to figure out what exactly led him to his conclusions.

Well, he certainly gives that impression.

The impression I got is that he isn't dealing with models he just made up himself, but rather messing around with pre-existing climate models published by real climatologists and identifying possible flaws. I think that's within the ability of someone with a strong science and computing background who is familiar with the climatological literature. I don't know how informed my opinion on these possible flaws will be, but that's okay with me. I'm here as a learning exercise, not to publish a peer-reviewed paper or anything.

Findings that would be welcomed by the scientific community with open arms, especially if there is anything of real merit there.

Dale makes intelligent and articulate posts. The people who need to be ignored are those who worship the paid shills and refuse to think for themselves. Real science is comprehensible to the informed layman. Shill-worshippers merit nothing but scorn.

Dale makes confident and articulate posts, that's quite different from posts that are necessarily intelligent, well-reasoned, or supported by facts and evidence. Such as it is, without committing too heavily to a judgement on Dale's posts (nor indict myself for an inability to "think for myself"), I will say that the discourse in these threads thus far has often strayed from any type of rational, well-reasoned discussion.

 

[Dale]

This thread (and others like it) are nothing threads. No one is going to read this thread and change their mind. No one, and if you believe you WILL change someone's mind coming into this thread to post, then you're deluding yourself.

None of the posts in these threads should be taken seriously. There's plenty of sites on both sides that cover all the information necessary. Personally, I suggest three months scouring Google scholar and reading papers. Also find the blogs of scientists and read them. They may not be "peer reviewed" but there's a massive amount of useful info on their blogs.

Anyways, I need to spend more time making my game so enjoy the discussion.

 

[Crezth]

This thread (and others like it) are nothing threads. No one is going to read this thread and change their mind. No one, and if you believe you WILL change someone's mind coming into this thread to post, then you're deluding yourself.

None of the posts in these threads should be taken seriously. There's plenty of sites on both sides that cover all the information necessary. Personally, I suggest three months scouring Google scholar and reading papers. Also find the blogs of scientists and read them. They may not be "peer reviewed" but there's a massive amount of useful info on their blogs.

This would be my point in its entirety, actually.

 

[brennan]

I certainly agree that it would be awesome if a real climatologist would show up in this thread. Unfortunately true experts are pretty rare on random Internet forums.

Check out posts by a gent called 'Gothmog'. He doesn't seem to be around anymore, but climate was his field and he believed in anthropogenic climate change.

gothmog, climate change, civfanatics (googled)

 

[Abegweit]

Still rather silly, because a fire is not a rocket engine and a rain cloud is not a global climate. The level at which we understand these distinct phenomena is a shade of grey, and I don't think each can be correctly summed as complex or non-complex because it is the intermingling and/or applications thereof that can distort that level of complexity. That is to say: it's a pointless comparison on those grounds and beside my original point anyway.



Not futile, I just don't expect to obtain any particularly interesting or relevant insights.



Well, he certainly gives that impression.



Findings that would be welcomed by the scientific community with open arms, especially if there is anything of real merit there.



Dale makes confident and articulate posts, that's quite different from posts that are necessarily intelligent, well-reasoned, or supported by facts and evidence. Such as it is, without committing too heavily to a judgement on Dale's posts (nor indict myself for an inability to "think for myself"), I will say that the discourse in these threads thus far has often strayed from any type of rational, well-reasoned discussion.

You have repeatedly stated that we have to defer to self-proclaimed experts whose only qualifications are that they have been vetted by other self-proclaimed experts - "experts" well-payed to say what they say. I submit that this argument has nothing to do with, and I quote you, "any type of rational, well-reasoned discussion". It is not rational or reasoned. It is pure and simply nothing less than authority-worship. You are quite articulate and seem to be intelligent too. I simply do not understand why you refuse to think for yourself. Grow up. Grow some balls. Think. Just say something for yourself. Are you a man? That's what a man does. He thinks for himself and he assumes responsibility for his conclusions.

 

[Dale]

Going back to something Peter Grimes and I spoke of earlier (the amount of money the US spends on climate change), here are the official US Federal budget amounts for 2008-12 (5 years):

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=91e9fae6-083a-44f6-b47c-33fdac25d6e0

Yep, that's almost $70 Billion. We should actually be spending that money on something worthwhile for humanity and solve a REAL problem. That money would have been half of what's needed to solve World Hunger (UN estimated at $30 Bn for 5 years).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/news/04iht-04food.13446176.html

So next time you warmists get all high and mighty, think of the 1 billion humans starving to death because of your religion.