|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 5, 2009 22:06:23 GMT
Socold: I predict that within 10 years, the current AGW models will be totally overhauled. The reason I say that is the availability of new sources of information will require that.
That new information is coming from new satilites, and believe it or not, new thinking. The next person of fame will have thought totally outside the box, looking for factors other than co2 as the cause of warming or cooling. Is that person doing research right now? I would think so. Will that person be published for some time? No. And that is the sad part in all of this.
Kinda like the Polar Bear expert from Canada who was to speak in Denmark till they found out his views weren't compatable with what they were trying to present. OR Dr. Pielke not even being able to post comments on Real Climate, even when they are disucssing his published papers.
Always remember this axiom: There is no such thing as a foolish question. And believe me, I should know as I ask lots of them.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 5, 2009 22:33:29 GMT
So again from a logarithmic increase by CO2, ice-albedo feedback rapidly decreasing to zero and at the very most a linear increase in water vapor feedback (if it's not actually negative) and exponentially increasing output with temperature (a strong negative feedback)...you expect an exponential increase in temperature? I hate to break this to you but mathematically we can consider that entirely falsified. Anything in the models is due to parametrization allowing the models to do things that aren't possible in reality. Look, this is really incredibly simple. We KNOW that a significant portion of the warming from the 80's and 90's was completely natural. Let me just make this simple for you, ok? Can we agree that probably a piddly .2C of the warming was from normal fluctuations of the ocean currents? Can we also also agree that even a linear increase is nonsensical? I mean honestly, there aren't enough fossil fuels to keep increasing it at an exponential rate to offset the ever-increasing absorption rate. Taking the ENTIRE warm period into account and subtracting that natural (and rather low) guestimate of .2C...we're left with a warming rate of about .4C for the whole warming period. Continuing LINEARLY at that rate the MOST we should expect to see by 2100 is about 1.6C. Do you see why I keep saying the higher guestimates are utter madness? We'd need exponential feedbacks to even reach THOSE levels but nothing does that. Ice albedo is ever-weakening. Water vapor could only manage a linear increase if you ignore other aspects of the water cycle (which are extremely powerful negative feedbacks). The earth becomes ever more efficient at radiating away the energy as the temperature rises. It just makes no sense to expect even THAT level of increase and yet thats what you're asking us to expect. How can you POSSIBLY justify that?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2009 22:47:32 GMT
I don't think we are talking about precise references here. Sounds like another of your strawmen. I am unaware of all the precise experiments on co2 spectrum in labs. I am unaware of all the precise experiments measuring IR propagation in the atmosphere. I am unaware of the precise experiments measuring convection and other properties of the atmosphere at various locations. Yet I know these have been done because a) It would be absurd to imagine noone has experimented on these things over the entire 20th century b) It would be absurd to imagine a hoax by which all the data is false and not based on underlying experiments c) There are research areas and applications independant of climate that rely on the same data You are confident but have never seen hide nor hair huh? Its understandable why you find the AGW argument so convincing!! ROTFLMAO! It's all these experiments that come together to form the backbone of the models. {we are talking about experiments that "would be absurd to imagine noone has experimented on these things over the entire 20th century" right?} All the physics and absorption spectrums in the textbooks come originally from experiments. Experiments that perhaps went on to form laws. Stefan-boltzmann law for example wasn't made up on the spot, it was surerly derived from experimentation although again I don't know the precise experiments or how they were done. I am not talking about spectrum or Stefan-boltzman Socold. . . .don't you even know where the dispute is? The actual workings of the climate model are too complex for anyone to understand, you have all these components simultaneously interacting, just as in the real climate, and it's hard to see what is causing what. It's hard for example to tell why one model differs from another in some aspect. Thats a good description Socold. . . .Its the Tower of Babel then huh. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 5, 2009 23:15:26 GMT
Socold: I predict that within 10 years, the current AGW models will be totally overhauled. The reason I say that is the availability of new sources of information will require that. That new information is coming from new satilites, and believe it or not, new thinking. The next person of fame will have thought totally outside the box, looking for factors other than co2 as the cause of warming or cooling. Is that person doing research right now? I would think so. Will that person be published for some time? No. And that is the sad part in all of this. Perhaps this will happen. Certainly the aerosol satellites due to be launched will narrow down aerosol effects. Then again perhaps climate sensitivity estimates will not be radically altered and is already in the ballpack region of actual sensitivity.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 5, 2009 23:23:01 GMT
Socold: I predict that within 10 years, the current AGW models will be totally overhauled. The reason I say that is the availability of new sources of information will require that. That new information is coming from new satilites, and believe it or not, new thinking. The next person of fame will have thought totally outside the box, looking for factors other than co2 as the cause of warming or cooling. Is that person doing research right now? I would think so. Will that person be published for some time? No. And that is the sad part in all of this. Perhaps this will happen. Certainly the aerosol satellites due to be launched will narrow down aerosol effects. Then again perhaps climate sensitivity estimates will not be radically altered and is already in the ballpack region of actual sensitivity. It is not only the aerosol data that will be improved, it is the solar wind date, the sun's magnetic field data, the TSI data, a whole host of other data. This is really an exciting time as the data will become more definitive, rather than suggestive in nature. And in all of this, think of the new influences that will come to light. Climate is so very complicated that for anyone to think they have the raw data to model it is quit comical to say the least. And don't forget, that for each time that co2 has risen in the past, the rise in co2 was a leading indicator of a cooling pattern rather than a warming patter.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 5, 2009 23:26:05 GMT
Look, this is really incredibly simple. We KNOW that a significant portion of the warming from the 80's and 90's was completely natural. Let me just make this simple for you, ok? Can we agree that probably a piddly .2C of the warming was from normal fluctuations of the ocean currents? It isn't that simple. We don't know that a significant portion of warming from the 80s and 90s was completely natural. If ghg levels hadn't risen perhaps temp would have continued declining through the 70s, 80s and into the 90s for example. Patterns in ocean surface temperature are not very helpful because they could be contaminated with the warming itself. They are not independant of any human forcing. Ie if the Earth warms due to human emissions, I suspect that would affect the PDO and AMO indices. Ie they are not independent. I think the high end emission estimates are in case future reserves are discovered and we also start going down the tar sands and oil shales route. I don't really buy more reserves being discovered though so yes I don't buy the high end projections. I think something like 2C by 2100 is more likely. The warming to 3C relies more on rapid increase in emissions than feedbacks. The same feedbacks with a more (imo) realistic emission forecast leads to more like 2C warming.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 5, 2009 23:36:30 GMT
Perhaps this will happen. Certainly the aerosol satellites due to be launched will narrow down aerosol effects. Then again perhaps climate sensitivity estimates will not be radically altered and is already in the ballpack region of actual sensitivity. It is not only the aerosol data that will be improved, it is the solar wind date, the sun's magnetic field data, the TSI data, a whole host of other data. This is really an exciting time as the data will become more definitive, rather than suggestive in nature. And in all of this, think of the new influences that will come to light. The data has been improving over decades, there's nothing especially notable about the next decade in terms of that. It's just part of an existing long process. But it feels like now that all the big stuff has already been discovered. The range of uncertainty in climate sensitivity in the models hasn't shifted significantly for decades so I think it's likely that actual climate sensitivity lies somewhere in that range rather than outside of it. I agree it's possible that some new discovery will be made to turn everything on it's head, I am just saying I think it's unlikely. I think we have enough understanding of many processes that not only can we model it but it's right that we do model it. Modelling is the future of understanding complex systems like the climate. There's too much going on, too many interacting components for someone to figure it out in their head. You need to put all understanding together and run all of that together to see what the result is and then pick apart that result to tease out the contributions of different factors to certain behavior. The models aren't too bad. They capture things like the daily temperature cycle and seasonal cycles fairly well. That's not programmed behavior, that's emergent from the physics put in, hinting that something is being done right.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 6, 2009 1:18:38 GMT
The range of uncertainty in climate sensitivity in the models hasn't shifted significantly for decades so I think it's likely that actual climate sensitivity lies somewhere in that range rather than outside of it. The fact the sensitivity has not shifted significantly is due to primitive anthropogenic drivers. Everytime the climate shifts the primitive egotistical instinct steps in. This instinct is greatly reinforced when the primitive creature spends a few years standing on soap boxes proclaiming the world is coming to an end. Thus any shifts in climate sensitivity go unrecognized by the owners of the models. We saw this early on in the shift when in the first couple of years things weren't going well and these people started seeding epicycles of iceages and stalling thermohaline currents as explanations. But quickly they realized that was somewhat damaging to their positive feedback arguments so they quickly abandoned that tactic.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 6, 2009 1:50:17 GMT
The models aren't too bad. They capture things like the daily temperature cycle and seasonal cycles fairly well. That's not programmed behavior, that's emergent from the physics put in, hinting that something is being done right.
That's a bit like saying solar models predicting the sun will rise in the East and set in the West are from the physics programmed put into them.
As has been noted too many times to recall, climate models do not output results based on pure physics. They are highly parametrized (tuned) to match reality.
What have you got to prove me wrong?
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jul 6, 2009 7:29:59 GMT
It is not only the aerosol data that will be improved, it is the solar wind date, the sun's magnetic field data, the TSI data, a whole host of other data. This is really an exciting time as the data will become more definitive, rather than suggestive in nature. And in all of this, think of the new influences that will come to light. The data has been improving over decades, there's nothing especially notable about the next decade in terms of that. It's just part of an existing long process. But it feels like now that all the big stuff has already been discovered. The range of uncertainty in climate sensitivity in the models hasn't shifted significantly for decades so I think it's likely that actual climate sensitivity lies somewhere in that range rather than outside of it. I agree it's possible that some new discovery will be made to turn everything on it's head, I am just saying I think it's unlikely. I think we have enough understanding of many processes that not only can we model it but it's right that we do model it. Modelling is the future of understanding complex systems like the climate. There's too much going on, too many interacting components for someone to figure it out in their head. You need to put all understanding together and run all of that together to see what the result is and then pick apart that result to tease out the contributions of different factors to certain behavior. The models aren't too bad. They capture things like the daily temperature cycle and seasonal cycles fairly well. That's not programmed behavior, that's emergent from the physics put in, hinting that something is being done right. I think you are being a little naive here. Climate science still has little idea as to what has caused past climate shifts. There are theories, but they are largely unproven, by models or otherwise. Therefore, to assume we know enough to understand current climate change thoroughly is not wise, I think.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 6, 2009 9:27:12 GMT
Socold wrote
Jesus, man...how can you not see that EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of this is toward a LOWER response. To even hit 2C we'd need a LINEAR increase at rates comparable to the 1980's and 1990's.
...but we'll almost certainly stop burning fossil fuels naturally before 2100
...but surely you must concede SOME of the warming period warming was actually from the warming period. Even if it's only .1C ,an absurdly low number when it's observed to be much higher, that drops it below 2C by 2100 for a linear increase. (about 1.8)
...and I know you're aware that SOME of that rate is simply an illusion caused by a lack of volcanic activity later in the period and some activity early in the period. Even a teeny, tiny change to the trend like .2C/century drops you all the way down to 1.6C anomaly...a mere 1C higher than the early 2000's.
...and FINALLY there is no way we should even suspect a LINEAR treand. 1.6C is the technically ABOVE the maximum we should expect. And this assumes we didn't even slip into a cooling period (and won't have another one around 2060-2070)
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 6, 2009 18:46:36 GMT
The models aren't too bad. They capture things like the daily temperature cycle and seasonal cycles fairly well. That's not programmed behavior, that's emergent from the physics put in, hinting that something is being done right. That's a bit like saying solar models predicting the sun will rise in the East and set in the West are from the physics programmed put into them. As has been noted too many times to recall, climate models do not output results based on pure physics. They are highly parametrized (tuned) to match reality. What have you got to prove me wrong? The fact that noone has been able to output low climate senstivity from them. If they are so tunable it becomes a real conundrum as to why noone has managed to tune a low sensitivity out of them. One answer is that they are not tunable to the degree you expect. The tunings are based on empirical data, you can't get away with using any tunings that fall outside of the range of observations and when you stick to sensible input, you get high sensitivity output.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 6, 2009 18:48:51 GMT
The data has been improving over decades, there's nothing especially notable about the next decade in terms of that. It's just part of an existing long process. But it feels like now that all the big stuff has already been discovered. The range of uncertainty in climate sensitivity in the models hasn't shifted significantly for decades so I think it's likely that actual climate sensitivity lies somewhere in that range rather than outside of it. I agree it's possible that some new discovery will be made to turn everything on it's head, I am just saying I think it's unlikely. I think we have enough understanding of many processes that not only can we model it but it's right that we do model it. Modelling is the future of understanding complex systems like the climate. There's too much going on, too many interacting components for someone to figure it out in their head. You need to put all understanding together and run all of that together to see what the result is and then pick apart that result to tease out the contributions of different factors to certain behavior. The models aren't too bad. They capture things like the daily temperature cycle and seasonal cycles fairly well. That's not programmed behavior, that's emergent from the physics put in, hinting that something is being done right. I think you are being a little naive here. Climate science still has little idea as to what has caused past climate shifts. There are theories, but they are largely unproven, by models or otherwise. Therefore, to assume we know enough to understand current climate change thoroughly is not wise, I think. But most of the problem with past climate shifts is the lack of observations to constrain or falsify particular hypothese. The problem is not a lack of hypothese. For example if you know it warmed 5C in 1000 years 42 million years ago, but have absolutely no other data, there are a number of possibilities that could explain that. The problem is not in the theory of climate, but in the lack of data for that particular period.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 6, 2009 19:00:49 GMT
The fact that noone has been able to output low climate senstivity from them. If they are so tunable it becomes a real conundrum as to why noone has managed to tune a low sensitivity out of them. One answer is that they are not tunable to the degree you expect. The tunings are based on empirical data, you can't get away with using any tunings that fall outside of the range of observations and when you stick to sensible input, you get high sensitivity output. Thats way too obvious Socold. Bottom line is if you start with the assumption recent warming is caused by CO2 all you can come up with is high sensitivity assumptions. When you change that assumption that 1/2 of the recent warming was due to CO2, then the sensitivity function shows a corresponding drop towards low sensitivity. Thats exactly what Magellan was getting at regarding the parameterizations. They start with assumptions about recent warming being caused by CO2. . . . but thats not even a good argument when those assumptions exclude for example the 1910 to 1940 warming period and the interim cold spell up until the observed start date of observations of the 70's or 80's. Recall the chart from Akasofu. If you accept his explanations for recent warming then you end up with sensitivities at near zero. That fact brings me back to the issues of completeness and consistency in treating all periods in the recent past and adjusting models for observations over the past decade without simply discounting them as noise. For that is what the modelers started out doing by excluding years before the 70's getting rid of that cold noise, grabbing the warming noise, and then ignoring again the cold noise.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 7, 2009 0:03:05 GMT
It seems you are claiming that models would output low climate sensitivity if only the physics was done correctly.
So lets go with this. Can you explain why the physics has not been done correctly? modelling has existed for decades, but not one person has tried to model climate accurately? All of them deliberately fudged it?
Given how important skeptics find climate science for the sake of the economy, how come not one of them has bothered to end the whole AGW thing in one move by demonstrating that physics-done-right leads to models showing low climate sensitivity?
How come not one of them has bothered to show it is at least a possibility? All it would take was a GCM that showed..a low climate sensitivity.
My hunch is that they haven't done it, because it simply cannot be done.
Ie there is no such error or bias in the physics which all the skeptics are aware about but those evil AGW scientists put in anyway. It's a myth.
|
|