Climate Science 101

[Keepitsimple]

This guide is an interesting read......it provides a good framework for where the Science is today - breaking it down into what is known, what is still under debate, and what is poorly known. It's a refreshing document where the Society takes earnest steps to provide a more open dialogue - intiated after 43 of its members complained that the previous version failed to take into account the opinion of climate change sceptics.

Link to the Guide: http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

Link to News Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-issues-new-climate-change-guide-admits-uncertainties.html

[Oleg Bach]

Creation of natural or artifical product is a lot like looking for the perpetual motion machine - you just can't by pass the lawys of phyics and that abrasive unpleasant notion of friction..heat is generated by all we do..There is no such thing as "green" - nor is their cold fusion....look around and ask yourself - do I need ten blankets or one?

[RNG]

One of the first truly balanced reports I have been exposed to. Thanks.

[Michael Hardner]

How so ?

[Keepitsimple]

Hal Lewis was a longtime member of the American Physical Society. He recently resigned from the organization because of their official position on Climate Change, which he believes is at odds with the more moderate position of the Association's membership. His resignation letter has had literally millions of "hits" and prompted the APS to issue a news release rebuttal. Below are links to his resignation and the subsequent APS "rebuttal" news release.....but I found the crux of the matter to be very interesting:

Here is the official APS position to which Lewis objects:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Fairly strong language....but in their rebuttal letter, the APS Committee would only go this far:

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

•Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;

•Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and

•The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.

So......the three items that "reputable scientists" agree with happen to be those things that most knowledgeable laymen would also agree with and has been known for over 100 years. Do these same reputable scientists not agree that humans are the driving factor behind Climate Change? In staking out such a clear position in such an important news release - why was that statement not included? Could it be that there simply is not the widespread concensus that we are led to believe? Note all the other uncertainty in the rebuttal.....and how that seems at odds with their policy of "incontrovertible" evidence and "we must act now". Once again, an organization has decided to politicize science - as opposed to sticking to the science.

Link to Resignation Letter: http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

Link to APS Rebuttal: http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

Edited October 14, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

...and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.

I concur that the sentence above is one that people need to understand. As for the other statements, they still add up to human-caused warming.

Arguing that point is likely useless right now. I for one have moved on to the mitigate vs. adapt discussion, and started a thread for that very purpose.

[waldo]

I concur that the sentence above is one that people need to understand. As for the other statements, they still add up to human-caused warming.

Arguing that point is likely useless right now. I for one have moved on to the mitigate vs. adapt discussion, and started a thread for that very purpose.

well, yes... some can move on - to the crux of the matter at hand. But not Simple, cause denier Simple is just being denier Simple... as has been shown over the last years MLW climate change related threads - it took patience, maneuvering and a concerted effort to actually get Simple to admit his outright denial. So... of course... Simple links to a presser from the GWPF - Global Warming Policy Foundation (of which the referenced 'Hal Lewis' is a member) - previously linked Guardian article on the GWPF. Sourcewatch on GWPF - here:

shattering news! Hal Lewis, an aged 87 year old retired physicist who doesn’t know the first thing about climate science has resigned from APS... because he doesn’t know the first thing about climate science! And Lewis resigned... why? Well, because of Hackergate. Yes, that's right - Lewis co-authored a letter that was sent to select APS membership claiming the scientific foundation of AGW climate change was corrupted... and the evidence is in the Hackergate emails! Yes, that's right - the denial machine is still flogging Hackergate. In that letter Lewis was soliciting for APS members to have the APS position statement on climate change rescinded.

Simple, parroting the denialsphere, attempts to find 'wiggle room' in the APS comments to Lewis' resignation. Of course, Simple fails to acknowledge that the APS comments to Lewis' resignation in no way lessen the content, impact or intent of the actual APS National Policy position statement on climate change. Nor does Simple, parroting the denialsphere, acknowledge that APS has not rescinded, or altered, it's National Policy position statement - the statement that reads:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

[Michael Hardner]

Still, I think it's fine for them to downplay some of the hysteria - and so separate the speculation from the science.

[waldo]

Still, I think it's fine for them to downplay some of the hysteria - and so separate the speculation from the science.

hackergate hysteria?

[Michael Hardner]

hackergate hysteria?

Hysteria generated by Hackergate, I suppose. Hysteria period is the enemy of rational thought, pipe smoking and discussing matters of portent in solemn baritone voices.

[RNG]

I don't know how to make it show up in a blue box, but the following is a cut and past from the APS release.

On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.

And this is the crux of the matter. So many of the conclusions are based on these climate models. Not good enough.

[Michael Hardner]

And this is the crux of the matter. So many of the conclusions are based on these climate models. Not good enough.

Why not ? If a climate model isn't good enough, then what is ? Waiting until pineapples grow in Sudbury in March would be too late.

[RNG]

Why not ? If a climate model isn't good enough, then what is ? Waiting until pineapples grow in Sudbury in March would be too late.

So you are OK with costing the economy large amounts of money and letting AlGore get even richer with his carbon credits on the basis of a maybe?

[Michael Hardner]

So you are OK with costing the economy large amounts of money and letting AlGore get even richer with his carbon credits on the basis of a maybe?

That's for the other thread, really.

Is that what this is about ? Let's pretend there's no warming so that Al Gore doesn't get any money ? Why can't we say there is warming, then decide what to do ?

[RNG]

Let's pretend there's no warming so that Al Gore doesn't get any money ? Why can't we say there is warming, then decide what to do ?

Not sure what you are getting at. My point is that this report indicates that especially the computer modeling is lacking, and decisions that could have serious impact on the entire world's economy are being advocated by various activists based on fallible data. Plus consensus on the magnitude and timeframe of the climate change is far from settled. Yes, I favor development of alternative energies. Yes, I lust for a practical electric car. But even then, I did a calculation for another board I visit, and was able to show that for hydrogen fuel cell cars, just in the US, based on 2007, it would take the total output of 407 of the largest nuke power plants to make enough hydrogen to power the car traffic. And that doesn't include trucks, trains and planes.

Don Newman, on the CBC news website has an op-ed suggesting that it is time to move from prevention to mitigation of effects. Perhaps he has a point.

[Michael Hardner]

Not sure what you are getting at. My point is that this report indicates that especially the computer modeling is lacking, and decisions that could have serious impact on the entire world's economy are being advocated by various activists based on fallible data.

Let me ask this: do you believe that there is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century? And that this warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions ? And that rapid increases in sea level are

likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems ?

Don Newman, on the CBC news website has an op-ed suggesting that it is time to move from prevention to mitigation of effects. Perhaps he has a point.

Carbon Credits are about mitigation. It's too late for prevention. If you go to the other thread, we discuss mitigation vs. adaption.

[RNG]

Let me ask this: do you believe that there is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century? And that this warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions ? And that rapid increases in sea level are

likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems ?

Carbon Credits are about mitigation. It's too late for prevention. If you go to the other thread, we discuss mitigation vs. adaption.

Sorry, in your terminology, when I said mitigation of effects I meant adaption.

Is global warming happening. Probably.

Is mankind to blame, possibly.

Is CO2 the baddy, I have my doubts. We are talking about an IR absorber that is way weaker than methane or the real baddy, water vapor. With all the extra people on the earth, all the extra critters on the earth, and all the irrigation the world over, the steady state concentration of water is higher. So we have a relatively weak absorber measured in the ppm range and a very strong absorber measured in the percentage range.

Then look at all the pavement in the world and all the dark roofs. I really would like governments to mandate that all roofs must be white, just to reflect more sunlight back into space. Cheap, help the paint industry and contractors, and not knock off the wheels of business.

[Michael Hardner]

Is global warming happening. Probably.

Is mankind to blame, possibly.

Is CO2 the baddy, I have my doubts.

But these were the conclusions of the report that you praised, so that's why I'm confused.

Anyway, as you have indicated - the real question is whether we spend a lot of money (5%) now or a lot of money (5%) later and that's where the real party is... on the other thread.

Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[RNG]

But these were the conclusions of the report that you praised, so that's why I'm confused.

Anyway, as you have indicated - the real question is whether we spend a lot of money (5%) now or a lot of money (5%) later and that's where the real party is... on the other thread.

Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

But as of three years ago, the conclusion that it is CO2 is based on computer models that can't handle water vapor. Therefore a total joke IMHO. Correct me if newer models can handle water, but to the best of my knowledge they still can't. And the 5% you refer to, that's 5% of what exactly?

[Wild Bill]

Found this article today and thought I'd toss it here onto the fire!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

"Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society."

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety

Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

The entire letter is about a page or two long. It's well worth clicking on the link and reading the whole thing.

[waldo]

I don't know how to make it show up in a blue box, but the following is a cut and past from the APS release.

On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.

And this is the crux of the matter. So many of the conclusions are based on these climate models. Not good enough.

and nothing from that APS release counters it's National Policy statement on climate change... and nothing from that APS release, vis-a-vis uncertainties, counters anything from the consensus understandings and accepted uncertainties related to AGW climate change.

a standard most general statement is one... like yours... that presumes to question 'conclusions' based on climate models. Care to be a bit specific... on anything? Anything? You keep mentioning water vapour but have yet to offer anything of substance - scientific substance - that attributes the recent warming to water vapour and that can stand up to the overwhelming scientific consensus that accepts AGW climate change. Were you simply waiting to be asked... cause... here's the ask.

as I'm aware, none of those 'vaunted' deniers have been able to come up with a reputable unchallenged general circulation model (GCM) that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without including CO2 attribution - as associated with man's use of fossil fuels. You would think this would be the holy grail of deniertown as funded by right-wing think tanks, the oil industry, Koch brothers, etc. Just imagine, as I'm aware, all that vested interest has not been able to bring forward a GCM model that can explain recent warming without including the effects of AGW.

notwithstanding the reams of observational data available, what follows is a most concise explanation that speaks to climate change... AGW climate change... specifically to why increasing CO2 is a significant problem affecting climate change - an explanation without relying on climate models. Critiques - anyone...

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps:

Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.

Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.

Step 3: The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions

Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated

Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2

Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number

[waldo]

Found this article today and thought I'd toss it here onto the fire!

your pattern lately seems to be one of simply dropping links to articles without offering any of your own thoughts/comment???

in any case, you should have checked this same thread you've now dropped your link into... from earlier today...

[waldo]

But as of three years ago, the conclusion that it is CO2 is based on computer models that can't handle water vapor. Therefore a total joke IMHO. Correct me if newer models can handle water, but to the best of my knowledge they still can't. And the 5% you refer to, that's 5% of what exactly?

you've stated the same thing previously - I believe this is at least the 3rd time you've talked of climate models not including water vapour. Would you care to offer a citation to that end... and... state what you believe the impact of water vapour to be as affects impacts to climate change. You earlier offered a resounding 'probably' that warming has/is occurring - really? A 'probably'? No self-respecting denier even challenges warming anymore ... and the best you can do is muster a 'probably'?

[RNG]

and nothing from that APS release counters it's National Policy statement on climate change... and nothing from that APS release, vis-a-vis uncertainties, counters anything from the consensus understandings and accepted uncertainties related to AGW climate change.

a standard most general statement is one... like yours... that presumes to question 'conclusions' based on climate models. Care to be a bit specific... on anything? Anything? You keep mentioning water vapour but have yet to offer anything of substance - scientific substance - that attributes the recent warming to water vapour and that can stand up to the overwhelming scientific consensus that accepts AGW climate change. Were you simply waiting to be asked... cause... here's the ask.

as I'm aware, none of those 'vaunted' deniers have been able to come up with a reputable unchallenged general circulation model (GCM) that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without including CO2 attribution - as associated with man's use of fossil fuels. You would think this would be the holy grail of deniertown as funded by right-wing think tanks, the oil industry, Koch brothers, etc. Just imagine, as I'm aware, all that vested interest has not been able to bring forward a GCM model that can explain recent warming without including the effects of AGW.

notwithstanding the reams of observational data available, what follows is a most concise explanation that speaks to climate change... AGW climate change... specifically to why increasing CO2 is a significant problem affecting climate change - an explanation without relying on climate models. Critiques - anyone...

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps:

Yes, that is what their computer models tell them, but..................

[waldo]

Simple's gleeful posting of this same OP into other threads... was responded to in other threads. Simple wanted to imply (err, parrot) the Royal Society Guide update was offering something 'new', something countering their earlier guide content.

like I said in another reply, since Simple seems very keen to keep linking and referencing to the guide update, perhaps we should hold him to it's key findings on points of scientific consensus. Perhaps Simple would that those points of scientific consensus quoted and attributed to himself.

...

as for the recent Royal Society 'layman guides' update... Simple, your cautious reserved parroting is noted (the usual suspects are labeling the guide update as a 'bow to skeptics'). Point in fact, the guide does not introduce any change to the prevailing science consensus or accepted uncertainties... it entirely supports the mainstream scientific view of man-made climate change as summarized by the IPCC. The chair of the Royal Society group of scientists that developed the updated guide, John Pethica (Royal Society vice president), has been quoted as stressing the revamped guide approach does not signify an acceptance of criticisms that scientists had overstated their case in the past..... "If the report sounds cautious, that's because the IPCC is cautious … There is no change in the science."

Simple... since you've now twice highlighted the Royal Society 'layman's guide' update and linked to it (twice), perhaps we should hold you to it's key findings on points of scientific consensus. Would you like those quoted and attributed to yourself?