Climate Science 101

[waldo]

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

huh! What part of the bold highlighted text that reads, 'an explanation without relying on climate models', do you not understand?

[RNG]

huh! What part of the bold highlighted text that reads, 'an explanation without relying on climate models', do you not understand?

So what are they basing their conclusion on?

What, wrt CO2 did they measure, calculate, experiment on or whatever?

Edited October 15, 2010 by RNG

[dre]

Who freakin cares I say...

Its smart to move away from fossil fuels whether CO2AGW is real or not. And the "sky is falling" idiots that claim it will destroy our economy have it exactly backwards. The one SURE FIRE way to COMPLETELY destroy our economy is to not be prepared when fossil fuels become cost prohibitive... and that will happen a LONG time before oil is used up.

I personally dont care if people invest in energy research because they think a gigantic flying goat will eat their children if they dont. Ill take it. AGW has resulted in an exponential increase in energy R&D world wide, and that will be very important to us in the future.

[waldo]

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

a standard most general statement is one... like yours... that presumes to question 'conclusions' based on climate models.

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

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

huh! What part of the bold highlighted text that reads, 'an explanation without relying on climate models', do you not understand?

So what are they basing their conclusion on?

What, wrt CO2 did they measure, calculate, experiment on or whatever?

clearly you couldn't be bothered to actually read the linked article... where measurements, calculations and supporting links and related papers are detailed/referenced. You pointedly spoke to 'conclusions' based on "suspect" climate models - I asked you to extend upon your generalizations... still waiting. I presented you an example counter argument that has no reliance upon climate models - none. And the best you can do is throw back your most obtuse reply.

[TimG]

Here are some references by a climate scientist who is sceptical of climate models:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/when-is-a-model-a-good-model/

None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.

...

The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity. It works for global forced variations, but it can not work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle. For instance, if the current state is one of drought then it is unlikely to get drier, but unrealistic model states and model biases can easily violate such constraints and project drier conditions.

Of course one can initialize a climate model, but a biased model will immediately drift back to the model climate and the predicted trends will then be wrong. Therefore the problem of overcoming this shortcoming, and facing up to initializing climate models means not only obtaining sufficient reliable observations of all aspects of the climate system, but also overcoming model biases. So this is a major challenge.

[TimG]

I personally dont care if people invest in energy research because they think a gigantic flying goat will eat their children if they dont. Ill take it. AGW has resulted in an exponential increase in energy R&D world wide, and that will be very important to us in the future.

And billions are pissed away on useless anti-CO2 gestures that do nothing for the development of new energy sources (i.e. carbon credits). If alternative energy is the goal then that can be funded directly for a lot less cost.

[waldo]

Here are some references by a climate scientist who is sceptical of climate models:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/when-is-a-model-a-good-model/

ya, ya... Pielke Sr - the skeptic who claims not to be a skeptic... the guy who likes to hang with Watts over at his hobby-horse WTFIUWT... you know... Pielke's real blog/website.

uncertainty in climate models? Wow - stop the presses! Rather than read Pielke's blog musings, this recent paper from Hargreaves/Annan, two of the preeminent climate scientists working with multi-model ensembles, speaks directly to, 'Skill and uncertainty in climate models'

CONCLUSION

In the first section, it was argued that it is impossible to assess the skill (in the conventional sense) of current climate forecasts. Analysis of the Hansen forecast of 1988 does, however, give reasons to be hopeful that predictions from current climate models are skillful, at least in terms of the globally averaged temperature trend. Uncertainty in climate modeling and climate model predictions was considered, highlighting the importance of using the Bayesian framework to progress from model confidence to probabilistic predictions. The second section summarized the way uncertainty was treated in the last IPCC report, highlighting the difficulty of quantifying model confidence, but finding evidence to suggest that the ensemble of IPCC models provides a useful basis for a probabilistic calculation. One challenge for those studying uncertainty is the ongoing incorporation of additional poorly understood feedbacks in the models which provide more sources of uncertainty to be investigated. In the third section, we discussed recent work on attempts to improve confidence in the models, by further constraining the multimodel ensemble and investigating links between past and future climate changes. In order to be meaningful, estimates of climate change must include uncertainty estimates. At present, it seems that direct use of the CMIP ensemble may be the best route to follow and research is required to develop methods for understanding the behavior of the ensemble of models in a more coherent way. Bayesian predictions of future change will be obtained by combining all lines of evidence: the multimodel ensembles run for past, present, future and transient experiments; additional expert opinion; data from the present day, historical record, and paleoclimates. Although small steps have been made toward this goal,51,52 more serious attempts analyzing a broader range of variables than climate sensitivity should be a high priority.

The aim of climate prediction is not just quantifying, but also reducing, our uncertainty. Uncertainty analysis is a powerful, and under utilized, tool which can place bounds on the state of current knowledge and point the way for future research, but it is only by better understanding the processes and inclusion of these processes in the models that the best models can provide predictions that are both more credible and closer to the truth.

uncertainty in climate models? - yes, of course... readily acknowledged. Is model development ongoing; i.e. an always iterative approach towards betterment? - yes, of course... readily acknowledged... see CMIP5 and AR5.

[RNG]

Hey Waldo, what facts do you bring to this discussion. You blather really well, spouting the AlGorithsm beautifully, but you don't present anything other than the rants of the believers. I have a Ph.D. in photochemistry. That's like the study of how electromagnetic radiation (light, IR, UV X-rays) interact with matter. I know how CO2 absorbs IR and how I know how water absorbs IR. Mr. Mann sits there with his pile of discredited statistics and is mainly wrong.

I'm not saying I'm correct, but you guys screaming that you have found the holy grail are full of it.

[waldo]

Hey Waldo, what facts do you bring to this discussion. You blather really well, spouting the AlGorithsm beautifully, but you don't present anything other than the rants of the believers. I have a Ph.D. in photochemistry. That's like the study of how electromagnetic radiation (light, IR, UV X-rays) interact with matter. I know how CO2 absorbs IR and how I know how water absorbs IR. Mr. Mann sits there with his pile of discredited statistics and is mainly wrong.

I'm not saying I'm correct, but you guys screaming that you have found the holy grail are full of it.

then put up something other than your continued need to get your Gore-on... do you really think continuing to bleat on about Gore means anything... at all? Care to step-up and speak to those discredited statistics of Mann... and your claims of him being mainly wrong. While you're doing that, particularly as it relates to progresses in climate science, you might also speak to who gives a FF (other than Steve McIntyre and his denier minions) over a decades old reconstruction... you could start there - hey? We've been down this road several times in other MLW threads - it'll be an easy cut/paste.

uhhh... is your 'supposed' education reference a reach for argument by authority? (/snarc). Is this the way you always react when asked to substantiate your claims?

[RNG]

then put up something other than your continued need to get your Gore-on... do you really think continuing to bleat on about Gore means anything... at all? Care to step-up and speak to those discredited statistics of Mann... and your claims of him being mainly wrong. While you're doing that, particularly as it relates to progresses in climate science, you might also speak to who gives a FF (other than Steve McIntyre and his denier minions) over a decades old reconstruction... you could start there - hey? We've been down this road several times in other MLW threads - it'll be an easy cut/paste.

uhhh... is your 'supposed' education reference a reach for argument by authority? (/snarc). Is this the way you always react when asked to substantiate your claims?

Yet again you blather away and don't present a single fact.

I on the other hand present:

Fact: CO2 is present in ppm concentrations while water is present in whole percentages.

Fact: CO2 is compared to water a poor absorber of IR.

What say you?

[waldo]

Yet again you blather away and don't present a single fact.

I on the other hand present:

Fact: CO2 is present in ppm concentrations while water is present in whole percentages.

Fact: CO2 is compared to water a poor absorber of IR.

What say you?

I say you could use that vaunted PhD of yours and apply relevance and context to some type of argument I presume you're trying to make. While you're at it, don't hesitate to step forward and provide any peer-review science/papers that you'd like to leverage as support... for some type of argument I presume you're trying to make.

[Michael Hardner]

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?

5% of GDP.

Can you send me a link to this water vapor debate you refer to please ? I'm not aware of it, unless you're talking about Richard Lindzen, who still says humans cause up to 30% of warming.

[Michael Hardner]

Here are some references by a climate scientist who is sceptical of climate models:

He is suspicious, but as the wiki tells us:

"the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible "

[Michael Hardner]

Yet again you blather away and don't present a single fact.

I on the other hand present:

Fact: CO2 is present in ppm concentrations while water is present in whole percentages.

Fact: CO2 is compared to water a poor absorber of IR.

What say you?

Others have distaste for Waldo's style of debate here, but you shouldn't let his position affect yours as that is the triumph of ego over reason. It's necessary to maintain one's position, but you don't have to argue everything he says to disagree with him and to still be your own person.

[GostHacked]

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.

LOL, being from Sudbury, you'd be lucky to grow anything there. The 'climate' for Sudbury is pretty bad too. It's much better than what it was some decades ago, but it's overall pretty barren.

And for the rest you guys that are really serious about reducing carbon-dioxide emissions, then you should just stop breathing. Put your money where your mouth is.

[TimG]

the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible

How many times do we have to over this?

1) Warming in the recent past mostly like has a human component

2) Determining what fraction of this warming is due to humans is next to impossible. Estimates range from 30% to 100%

3) Evidence of past warming is NOT evidence of a catastrophe to come.

4) Claims of catastrophe depend entirely on extrapolations with unverified computer models.

You seem to think that any evidence for AGW is somehow evidence that we should "do something". It is not.

[waldo]

Others have distaste for Waldo's style of debate here, but you shouldn't let his position affect yours as that is the triumph of ego over reason. It's necessary to maintain one's position, but you don't have to argue everything he says to disagree with him and to still be your own person.

bugger off... I'm quite tired of your subtle digs on debate style...now raised overtly. As stated previously, the MLW civility and decorum ship within climate change related threads sailed about a year back - I most certainly will not back away from the bullshit peddlers, particularly when they come directly at me. For what it's worth, as reflects upon this particular exchange series, as I recall I've had little (no?) previous exchange with the MLW member. He has repeatedly flogged his water vapour nonsense while never providing a lick of substantiation... I never challenged him previously over his repeated position. So, I asked, quite reservedly, if he could move beyond generalizations and provide support to his position. That results in his Gore ramblings and his most defensive posture that quickly moved into attempting to denigrate me personally. My reaction? Well, I choose not to play the victimization game typically thrown back by deniers. If these panty waists choose to parrot the latest & greatest denialsphere bullshit, they shouldn't expect a free ride - with or without the Michael Hardner debate style endorsement.

[GostHacked]

Carbon is one of the building blocks of life. Carbon dioxide plays an important role in life. We all exhale carbon dioxide. If CO2 is the big threat, then maybe we all should stop breathing.

Edited October 15, 2010 by GostHacked

[waldo]

How many times do we have to over this?

1) Warming in the recent past mostly like has a human component

2) Determining what fraction of this warming is due to humans is next to impossible. Estimates range from 30% to 100%

3) Evidence of past warming is NOT evidence of a catastrophe to come.

4) Claims of catastrophe depend entirely on extrapolations with unverified computer models.

You seem to think that any evidence for AGW is somehow evidence that we should "do something". It is not.

evidence? Thought you were the "zero evidence" guy... apparently... you lost interest in that thread exchange once your claims of "zero evidence" were shown to be, uhhh... questionable - hey?

[waldo]

Carbon is one of the building blocks of life. Carbon dioxide plays an important role in life. We all exhale carbon dioxide. If CO2 is the big threat, then maybe we all should stop breathing.

I understand it's nothing more than "plant food". Carry on...

[GostHacked]

I understand it's nothing more than "plant food". Carry on...

If you know anything about photosynthesis, which was taught in grade 10 biology, then you will understand it is just one form of plant food. Through photosynthesis, the plant turns CO2 into oxygen for us to breath.

[waldo]

Carbon is one of the building blocks of life. Carbon dioxide plays an important role in life. We all exhale carbon dioxide. If CO2 is the big threat, then maybe we all should stop breathing.

I understand it's nothing more than "plant food". Carry on...

If you know anything about photosynthesis, which was taught in grade 10 biology, then you will understand it is just one form of plant food. Through photosynthesis, the plant turns CO2 into oxygen for us to breath.

ok, ok... I was complimenting what I perceived as your adding a bit of levity to the exchange. Perhaps I misinterpreted your (perceived) levity for your actual positional exchange. Just so one can identify the 'players', are you truly advocating for the benign influence of CO2 on climate change... wait, let's be even clearer. Are you stating, quite unequivocally, that CO2 is a harmless contributor, simply something human's exhale, simply 'plant food'. Are you questioning the greenhouse effect? Just what is it you're saying with your repeated one-liners?

[GostHacked]

ok, ok... I was complimenting what I perceived as your adding a bit of levity to the exchange. Perhaps I misinterpreted your (perceived) levity for your actual positional exchange. Just so one can identify the 'players', are you truly advocating for the benign influence of CO2 on climate change...

I do believe it to be benign. We should be more concerned about toxic emissions. Carbon Dioxide is a natural occurrence and has been since life started on this planet. If you really want to reduce carbon dioxide, then you are going to have an impact on the amount of oxygen that is produced for us to breathe.

One form of carbon that is toxic is carbon monoxide. Forget about global warming, lock yourself up in the garage for a day with the car running and see how long you last.

wait, let's be even clearer. Are you stating, quite unequivocally, that CO2 is a harmless contributor, simply something human's exhale, simply 'plant food'. Are you questioning the greenhouse effect? Just what is it you're saying with your repeated one-liners?

To me it is harmless. All living animals on this planet exhale CO2, and have been for centuries. That fact alone means that all of life is responsible for CO2 emissions which in my mind makes it totally benign. To me it's emissions from our factories and industries and life styles that are the issue. And again those emissions may not be responsible for AGW, but they sure as hell pollute the environment which has a more immediate and noticeable impact.

But you can ignore those facts if you wish.

But I have other questions:

What industries contribute to C02 emissions? Break it down for me.

Should we be worried about carbon dioxide (a natural result of any animal) or other toxins and poisons in our atmosphere? We are going to poison ourselves long before we make the temperature rise enough to have any impact on our way of life on this planet.

Also what contributing factors does the sun have on our climate and overall weather on this planet? The sun is hundreds of times larger than Earth and effects weather on other planets in our solar system, like Mars, and at the same time. For the most part that is completely ignores by climate scientists. That information would screw with their models so much, it would render those models utterly useless.

This whole AWG because of carbon dioxide is a side sham show and a distraction from the real problem which is pollution.

Edited October 15, 2010 by GostHacked

[DogOnPorch]

Indeed GH...general polution is still #1 on the runway. Take the high Ph toxic sludge in Hungary. Rather immediate...rather right now.

Here's Google Map's view of the sludge pool before the disaster...such a small pond...such a huge problem.

[wyly]

I do believe it to be benign. We should be more concerned about toxic emissions. Carbon Dioxide is a natural occurrence and has been since life started on this planet. If you really want to reduce carbon dioxide, then you are going to have an impact on the amount of oxygen that is produced for us to breathe.

what a strange idea, until now no one ever suggested changing the natural balances of gases that life has adapted to, you are the first I've ever heard suggest that...and the atmosphere that the first life on the planet lived would have been fatal for us...the only change intended is to keep it within the limits life has adapted to at this time in the planets history...

One form of carbon that is toxic is carbon monoxide. Forget about global warming, lock yourself up in the garage for a day with the car running and see how long you last.

lock yourself in a room of CO2 and see how long you last, you'll be dead in 3 minutes...CO2 is concern in Sick Building Syndrome, it does not need to be in high concentrations before it causes illness...

To me it is harmless. All living animals on this planet exhale CO2, and have been for centuries. That fact alone means that all of life is responsible for CO2 emissions which in my mind makes it totally benign. To me it's emissions from our factories and industries and life styles that are the issue. And again those emissions may not be responsible for AGW, but they sure as hell pollute the environment which has a more immediate and noticeable impact.

But you can ignore those facts if you wish.

CO2 is a toxin as is every gas(oxygen as well) when not in proper balance, we've evolved to breathe a mixture of gases in fixed proportions vary from those proportions and it causes problems...you can ignore those facts if you wish but those are the facts...

toxins from factories are an issue and those are relatively easy and quickly fixed, an atmospheric CO2 imbalance will take centuries to repair...

But I have other questions:

What industries contribute to C02 emissions? Break it down for me.

Should we be worried about carbon dioxide (a natural result of any animal) or other toxins and poisons in our atmosphere? We are going to poison ourselves long before we make the temperature rise enough to have any impact on our way of life on this planet.

that info is on the web...

Also what contributing factors does the sun have on our climate and overall weather on this planet? The sun is hundreds of times larger than Earth and effects weather on other planets in our solar system, like Mars, and at the same time. For the most part that is completely ignores by climate scientists. That information would screw with their models so much, it would render those models utterly useless.

the sun has never been ignored that's completely false...

This whole AWG because of carbon dioxide is a side sham show and a distraction from the real problem which is pollution.

excess CO2 or any gas is pollution...