|
Post by steve on Apr 16, 2010 7:22:19 GMT
I used "mitigation" using the climate policy definition that means cutting CO2 emissions. The implication of the word "mitigation" is that it is supposed to be a "good thing" and implies some level of personal sacrifice for the benefit of the greater good. I suppose in economics, raising interest rates to control inflation counts as mitigation as it adds costs to most people and businesses in the short term.
If a business, regulator or rating agency changes its policies in response to the wider environment then that is probably analogous to the climate policy of "adaptation". Widescale "adaptation" to existing economic policies can have a radical effect on the impact of the policies. Eg. a planned economy where failure to meet targets results in severe personal sanctions (such as a long holiday in Siberia) leads to corruption - failures are hidden and auditors are bribed.
"Adaptation" to climate change will have virtually no effect on the climate, though, because the physical laws are immutable.
No. The economic model is broken because people are more fickle and devious than physical laws which means any model is likely to quickly go out of scope.
As I said, the models that try to apply the physical laws governing radiative forcing and the earth system can demonstrate most of the variation of the climate of the 20th Century. There is no need to hypothesise a long-term warming trend with no apparent physical cause. There is *still* a need to hypothesise and theorise causes of short term variability.
In the period 1999 to now, for example, the ocean heat content has gone up significantly which means the propensity for the atmosphere to warm greater than it did in 1998 is still there. Most climate models show similar sorts of cooler decades, so by definition there are physics based theories for such cooling periods occurring. There are also theories relating to the solar minimum having a slightly larger effect than TSI implies, and preliminary observations that suggest that the stratosphere water vapour has dropped since 2000 (which would reduce radiative forcing). These are the sorts of observations Trenberth is looking for, He is not looking for a new theory for global warming.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 16, 2010 16:17:35 GMT
I used "mitigation" using the climate policy definition that means cutting CO2 emissions. The implication of the word "mitigation" is that it is supposed to be a "good thing" and implies some level of personal sacrifice for the benefit of the greater good. I suppose in economics, raising interest rates to control inflation counts as mitigation as it adds costs to most people and businesses in the short term. If a business, regulator or rating agency changes its policies in response to the wider environment then that is probably analogous to the climate policy of "adaptation". Widescale "adaptation" to existing economic policies can have a radical effect on the impact of the policies. Eg. a planned economy where failure to meet targets results in severe personal sanctions (such as a long holiday in Siberia) leads to corruption - failures are hidden and auditors are bribed. "Adaptation" to climate change will have virtually no effect on the climate, though, because the physical laws are immutable. It is apparent that what you are trying to draw distinctions on is that there is a substance in this universe that is not governed by physical laws. Care to describe it? No. The economic model is broken because people are more fickle and devious than physical laws which means any model is likely to quickly go out of scope. Until you hypothesize on the above there is no sense in responding to this claim as you may be confounding complexity with a fundamental difference in substance. As I said, the models that try to apply the physical laws governing radiative forcing and the earth system can demonstrate most of the variation of the climate of the 20th Century. There is no need to hypothesise a long-term warming trend with no apparent physical cause. There is *still* a need to hypothesise and theorise causes of short term variability. Short term variability being very quick implies it is perhaps far stronger than the forcings that drive long term variability. That can be seen in how an underpowered heater takes longer to heat a house. So if forcings for short term variability is perhaps factors of magnitude stronger than forcings for long term variable, finding the causes of short term variability should be easier. . . .I believe Akasofu is making that point. In the period 1999 to now, for example, the ocean heat content has gone up significantly which means the propensity for the atmosphere to warm greater than it did in 1998 is still there. Most climate models show similar sorts of cooler decades, so by definition there are physics based theories for such cooling periods occurring. There are also theories relating to the solar minimum having a slightly larger effect than TSI implies, and preliminary observations that suggest that the stratosphere water vapour has dropped since 2000 (which would reduce radiative forcing). These are the sorts of observations Trenberth is looking for, He is not looking for a new theory for global warming. So Trenberth is operating like a police department that thinks it has its man and not looking for alternative suspects. That in itself becomes a strong defense argument and really is a sign of police incompetence when it occurs in the face of wide uncertainty like we have with the ranges of uncertainty we see in the AGW theory. I replied elsewhere here to GLC on a topic related to this of the uncertainty in the range of warming we would see if CO2 concentrations were held at 2000 levels. Seems it appears (eyeball wise) somewhere between .1degC and .7degC over the next century and the line is still sloping upwards after 100 years. That in itself implies huge uncertainty about the potential sources of recent warming. You can have no visible change in forcing over more than a 100 years and still have warming occurring. Since most observations more than about 50 years old are via proxy the uncertainty window opens wide and hypothesizing an exclusive suspect becomes quite risky. Other than that I agree that heat content went up for a while after 1998 and it could get warmer. If it does I will probably hold out for 12 years of that being just weather as the current AGW crowd loudly and insistently maintains. . . .in other words I agree its a good defense. Eventually though say maybe up to another 60 years or so we should know what track we are on for the centennial whether it be a balmy, normal, probably natural .5degC or a hot, unusual, probably AGW 6degC.
|
|
|
Post by latecommer on Apr 16, 2010 19:42:31 GMT
I wonder what the point of this discussion is. why concern yourself with a model's reliability when none of its projections have occurred? Isn't it self evident that these 20+ models are not detailed enough with the factors that we "know" let alone those we don't know to predict what next years climate will be. Yet we allow politicians to tax us and to impede our economy based on 100 year projections. The world is mad. Add this to the FACT that warming is totally beneficial in every timespan researched by science, and it obvious that there is an agenda that has nothing to do with climate or science acting here.
Will some of you true believers post a list of all the terrible things that will happen if we warm 3 degrees? We have been that warm in the past...what horrible things happened then? We have had times of 20X the present amount of CO2...what horrible things happened then?
Warmer climate means less violent storms, more food for the world, more financial benefits, more leisure time, more time for culture, less starvation.....
As if we could effect it anyway....
Be smart and prepare in what ways you can for colder winters and shorter growing seasons. Not only because it is far more prudent to prepare for the worst of the two , but because most climate indicators show that the low activity of the Sun means we are entering a minimum....just like every other time the Sun has quieted.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 17, 2010 1:06:39 GMT
Aye latecommer. I have been stateing the obvious for some time. Some prefer to be like a horse of old.....blinders fully on to protect their single minded thought processes.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 17, 2010 2:44:14 GMT
Aye latecommer. I have been stateing the obvious for some time. Some prefer to be like a horse of old.....blinders fully on to protect their single minded thought processes. Static minds in a dynamic world. Historically the first to get eaten.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 19, 2010 11:46:50 GMT
You are failing to see the wood for the trees. Computers are not capable of anticipating one human's economic choices let alone the collective choices of hundreds of millions of humans, or the day-to-day changes in mind of a typical human in response to differing economic scenarios (pay day, tax refund, 50%-off on baked beans).
What do you mean by "stronger"? Short term variability has always happened and will always happened. The point is that there is a reason for it. Most of the identified causes of short term variability are self-limiting (ENSO, AMO, PDO, solar cycles etc.) in that they cannot or do not just get stronger and stronger.
You're getting hung up on what you think Trenberth's verdict is even though what Trenberth's chosen verdict is does not affect the discussion we are having. The central point of what Trenberth is saying is that there are movements of energy that could be measured but that aren't, and if they were measured better we'd know more about what the climate is doing and will do.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 19, 2010 13:41:17 GMT
You are failing to see the wood for the trees. Computers are not capable of anticipating one human's economic choices let alone the collective choices of hundreds of millions of humans, or the day-to-day changes in mind of a typical human in response to differing economic scenarios (pay day, tax refund, 50%-off on baked beans). Most economic models perform better than the Mets seasonal prediction models. Of course that isn't saying much as a random selection of seasons would do better than the Met. What do you mean by "stronger"? Short term variability has always happened and will always happened. The point is that there is a reason for it. Most of the identified causes of short term variability are self-limiting (ENSO, AMO, PDO, solar cycles etc.) in that they cannot or do not just get stronger and stronger. Self limiting in that a new forcing, say a step change in TSI might take several hundred years to fully warm the ocean and have its full effect on climate. You're getting hung up on what you think Trenberth's verdict is even though what Trenberth's chosen verdict is does not affect the discussion we are having. You brought Trenberth up as a defense, so I have no problem with you withdrawing from that argument. The central point of what Trenberth is saying is that there are movements of energy that could be measured but that aren't, and if they were measured better we'd know more about what the climate is doing and will do. LOL! Still on the hunt, huh? I know what Trenberth is saying and he is using ignorance as a defense to forestall a declaration of failure on the models he is associated with. While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that tactic, the fact is we do measure heat a lot on this planet and we have been unable to detect the heat his models hypothesize. That is a problem in that people are concerned about heat that affects them not heat they can't detect. And despite huge efforts maybe the problem isn't heat measurement at all but instead something we do a really lousy job of measuring. . . .clouds. Over at CERN it looks like they are nucleating clouds right and left using beams. Perhaps that will become part of the answer down the road. . . .and explains the sudden shift of every AGW advocate in the world widely granting tiny pieces of the cookie to solar. How many negative watts per m2 did you say a solar minimum exerts?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 20, 2010 3:32:52 GMT
steve, Can you provide a source that shows GCM's correctly model clouds and ocean circulation? For instance, Josh Willis in the last few years, particularly since his 2005 contribution to The Smoking Gun (now debunked), has been subtly noticing big problems with the AGW hypothesis. His latest observation: Can in situ floats and satellite altimeters detect long-term changes in Atlantic Ocean overturning?Global warming has been predicted to slow the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), resulting in significant regional climate impacts across the North Atlantic and beyond. Here, satellite observations of sea surface height (SSH) along with temperature, salinity and velocity from profiling floats are used to estimate changes in the northward-flowing, upper limb of the AMOC at latitudes around 41°N. The 2004 through 2006 mean overturning is found to be 15.5 ± 2.4 Sv (106 m3/s) with somewhat smaller seasonal and interannual variability than at lower latitudes. There is no significant trend in overturning strength between 2002 and 2009. Altimeter data, however, suggest an increase of 2.6 Sv since 1993, consistent with North Atlantic warming during this same period. Despite significant seasonal to interannual fluctuations, these observations demonstrate that substantial slowing of the AMOC did not occur during the past 7 years and is unlikely to have occurred in the past 2 decades.
Ah, let's guess. It is still consistent with AGW theory and GCM's have the physics right. Or maybe ocean circulation doesn't involve physics at all
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 20, 2010 3:38:42 GMT
Self limiting in that a new forcing, say a step change in TSI might take several hundred years to fully warm the ocean and have its full effect on climate. It is indeed puzzling...that CO2 forcing takes the better part of a century to show up but solar forcing is assumed to be pretty much instantaneous.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2010 8:26:48 GMT
Icefisher
Sorry if you are having trouble following the logic of the above. Trenberth's central argument is for better measurements of energy flow which is an excellent idea which I fully subscribe to. The ongoing improvements in observations and analyses of observations are destroying all the sceptic points one by one.
The problem is that you are getting hung up on Trenberth's underlying belief that there is undetected warming in the earth's system which has nothing to do with the argument about whether models are fundamentally at odds with observations.
You have said "Up to now there is no argument statistical, logical, or otherwise to believe that the recent warming was from fundamentally a different cause or intensity than the warming of a century ago."
But you have nothing to base it on. Past warming does not falsify the models. Current warming has "paused" for only 5 years (based on the ARGO data) again perfectly in line with models. There is no sign of cooling to even the levels of a year or two before the current pause.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 20, 2010 13:35:38 GMT
Icefisher Sorry if you are having trouble following the logic of the above. Trenberth's central argument is for better measurements of energy flow which is an excellent idea which I fully subscribe to. The ongoing improvements in observations and analyses of observations are destroying all the sceptic points one by one. The problem is that you are getting hung up on Trenberth's underlying belief that there is undetected warming in the earth's system which has nothing to do with the argument about whether models are fundamentally at odds with observations. You have said "Up to now there is no argument statistical, logical, or otherwise to believe that the recent warming was from fundamentally a different cause or intensity than the warming of a century ago." But you have nothing to base it on. Past warming does not falsify the models. Current warming has "paused" for only 5 years (based on the ARGO data) again perfectly in line with models. There is no sign of cooling to even the levels of a year or two before the current pause. From The Smoking GunThis imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. We've been told for many years the evidence is unequivocal. Current warming has "paused" for only 5 years (based on the ARGO data) again perfectly in line with models PRODUCE THE MODELS THAT PREDICTED THIS. Hopefully you don't need a definition of what a prediction is. BTW, 2003-2010 is not 5 years. You need to update your talking point memos.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2010 15:43:10 GMT
Icefisher When you're back is against the wall you can't help bringing out Hansen or Gore
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 20, 2010 16:25:31 GMT
Icefisher When you're back is against the wall you can't help bringing out Hansen or Gore I don't recall Al Gore's Nobel Prize winning research being cited in IPCC AR4, but could be wrong. Now that you've built the strawman, it shouldn't be difficult to find where I've ever even invoked the name of Al Gore. Hansen 2005 however is heavily relied upon for IPCC conclusions; it was the smoking gun, only now it is proven to have shooting blanks. We'll be patiently waiting for confirmation of your latest unreferenced claim. Current warming has "paused" for only 5 years (based on the ARGO data) again perfectly in line with models How could they predict the "pause" if they didn't know where the heat was going or why it "paused" in the first place? You really are grasping at straws.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 20, 2010 16:31:57 GMT
Icefisher Sorry if you are having trouble following the logic of the above. Trenberth's central argument is for better measurements of energy flow which is an excellent idea which I fully subscribe to. The ongoing improvements in observations and analyses of observations are destroying all the sceptic points one by one. Steve, I think you are wearing sunglasses with the mirror painted on the wrong side of the lens. Skeptic points have always been questions about the foundational aspects of AGW theory. Folks that strongly hold views the opposite AGW theory are not skeptics. . . .they may be anti-AGW but the anti-AGW kneejerk panic reaction crowd includes both the middle and the other extreme. Its an abuse of the word skeptic to include skeptics and all other dogmas into a category of skeptics. Heretics might be a better and more precise characterization from your point of view than skeptic. And when you get that straightened out I am still not so sure you have a good word yet to describe whose points are being destroyed one by one. So rather than making magnanimous statements to include everybody but true AGW believers as having points destroyed perhaps you should give us an itemized list and while at it include all the foundational beliefs of the AGW crowd that is being hacked to pieces at the same time. . . .particularly failed model predictions, changing beliefs in the effects of heat sinks, etc. Meanwhile you should keep in mind that these wrong conclusions were used wholesale to create a body of literature ostensibly rule out alternative theories over time. Once one goes back and separates the wheat from the chaff in the literature record you will likely find much of that exclusionary science disappearing as well. The problem is that you are getting hung up on Trenberth's underlying belief that there is undetected warming in the earth's system which has nothing to do with the argument about whether models are fundamentally at odds with observations. AGW advocates have long relied upon spaghetti graphs liberally sprinkled with questionable science to draw a line through the center of to argue a point. Indeed observations are fundamentally at odds with that line. In your altered world perhaps not. You have said "Up to now there is no argument statistical, logical, or otherwise to believe that the recent warming was from fundamentally a different cause or intensity than the warming of a century ago." But you have nothing to base it on. Past warming does not falsify the models. Current warming has "paused" for only 5 years (based on the ARGO data) again perfectly in line with models. There is no sign of cooling to even the levels of a year or two before the current pause. I think the most basic doctrine in science is that the future will look like the past yet you seem willing to just bury that foundational theory without so much as a howdy doo. The cavalier attitude regarding this exuding from the AGW community frankly is most tiresome of all disputes. And in fact your statement that there is no sign of cooling to even the levels of a year or two before the current pause is likely false and dependent upon what you consider the pause to be. No significant warming since 1995 would seem to include at least 3 years before what is widely regarded as the start of the "pause" and that in itself is contrary to every model none of which envisioned a 15 year pause with no end in sight. There are severe problems with extrapolations of basic science to large or complex systems. An even rudimentary understanding of history would at least give some insight into the complexities of our climate. As it stands it is both large and should be assumed as complex too. It would be different if experiments were possible then and only then can you disregard history and pose a theory independent of the past.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 21, 2010 6:28:37 GMT
It's an imperfectly referenced claim. Josh Willis has looked into it and seems happy that coupled models do demonstrate variable ocean heat content in line with past and current observations. I'm not an expert but I see no reason why Willis would make such a claim given that he was quite happy to publish a controversial paper that showed much more significant ocean cooling than turned out to be happening. Certainly I would like to see what happens to OHC in models that demonstrate ups and downs in atmosphere temperatures.
You are going down the route of demanding impossible levels of evidence when you want the models to predict when and how the pause could happen. Yes, even if the models are demonstrating variable OHC then they could be doing so for the wrong reason. The ARGO network will likely lead to a big improvement in ocean modelling and, possibly, in decadal forecasting. But it will take time to gather and interpret the data, and to feed it into improved models.
While this particular thread is about models, this issue is not just a model thing. Past measurements of ocean heat content has ups and downs indicating that what we have now is not that unusual.
|
|