|
Post by duwayne on Apr 2, 2013 16:33:23 GMT
This representation of my views is a total fabrication. If you have a reference which backs up your representation, provide the quote. Otherwise, I’d ask that you stop such fabrications and retract the statement above. This is the ultimate “strawman”. You attribute something to me when I said just the opposite and then say my views are “nonsense”. What could be worse? Look at my post of March 7, 2012 at 6:45am. on page 43 of this thread. I know you read this post since you posted a comment on it on March 24, 2012 at 9:20am. Read it all the way through. Here’s one quote “There is a long-term upward trend in global temperatures which accelerated when CO2 concentrations started to grow rapidly in the first half of the 20th Century. " Then compare it to your fabrication. The March 7 post is a summary of my previous posts. I hope I don’t have to further waste my time to point out all the contradictions with your strawman. Don’t give me a defense of your above fabrication such as when you said “only” you really didn’t mean “only” or when you said “have no effect at all” you really didn’t mean “have no effect at all”. I had my fill of that when you said “the models don’t assume anything” didn’t really mean that “the models don’t assume anything”. Your fabrications waste my time and misinform other participants on this board. If you don’t understand what I am saying, ask for clarification. If you disagree with any of my comments or views, say so and give your reasons and I'll respond. If you forget what you read in my posts, don’t make up something and attribute it to me. Duwayne, you have me bang to rights on this. I was in a hurry, and being badgered by my other half. I shouldn't have posted. So I apologise and withdraw. I've argued in the past that the 1940s warming seems to be an anomaly that if removed (a la certain climategate email thought experiments) then the apparent rapid warming prior to 1940 and the apparent cooling/no warming after 1940s doesn't look very interesting at all. In other words, the 1940 warming peak needs an explanation. But the period following the peak up to the 1970s doesn't need much of an explanation (other than possibly being related to unremarkable variations in solar, aerosols and greenhouse gases). The period *after* the 1970s is clearly explainable as being mostly CO2. But could part of the warming be due to an event similar to the 1940s event. That's possible. But compared with current warming, the 1940 event is really quite small. The warming up to 1940 seems to be led by the ocean whereas recently the warming is led by the land. The long and the short of it that there is not in my view much evidence of big and long-term divergences between temperatures and known or likely forcings. So there is no need for advocating a big role for ocean cycles in the current warming, and not much case for very long term ocean cycles. Apology accepted. I’ll comment on your observations above but first I’d like to make sure I understand your objectives in the global warming discussion. My objective is to find the model, whether a logic model or a mathematical model or a combination of the two which can best project global temperatures and which can best show what role CO2 plays in that warming. I use this knowledge to make investments in the energy related area. I allot limited time to this model endeavor and I want to spend it usefully. Here’s why I’d like to understand your objective. I have a broad background in science and technology which includes among other things running a sizeable R&D laboratory, running a technology-oriented venture capital business and making investments in energy businesses including fossil fuels and alternate energy. In my R&D position my interactions and discussions were almost entirely with like-minded people who were striving to develop new profitable technologies with open discussions and adherence to scientific principles and logic. In my investment activities, much of my discussions were with people who had, at least in part, very different objectives than mine. The inventors and entrepreneurs wanted to sell me something, generally for a higher value than it was worth. I couldn’t count on their representations to be accurate or complete. But most germane to our discussion, they would never accept anything, no matter how logical and true, that was counter to their personal interests. I learned to not waste my time trying to convince someone who wanted me to invest in a perpetual machine that his science and experimental data were extremely questionable. It was impossible to convince him of that fact because it was his objective to not be convinced. So I just told him he had what might be a great idea but it didn’t meet my strategic objectives. So are you trying to find the model - whether logic-based or mathematical-based or a combination of the two -which can best predict future global temperatures and would thereby define the role CO2 plays in future global warming? This is worth my spending some time on. Or are you just trying to sell me something and you will only accept that part of science and logic and facts which help your case? Will you close your mind to those arguments which oppose your case? So let me start by asking you a question which was/is a question I use(d) in both my R&D management job and my investment selection activities. Your response will give me a good idea of your objective. What do you believe are the major areas of concerned with respect to the validity of the IPCC “central case” model(s)? And I’m particularly interested in those shortcomings for which there are no good answers. And this is not the time for you to try to explain away those shortcomings. If you can’t cope with this question or you can’t think of a good answer, then I’ll know you are trying to sell me something by glossing over the weaknesses. Obviously, if you choose to respond, I’ll tell you what I believe are the shortcomings of my “Ocean Cycle” model.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 2, 2013 17:07:09 GMT
duwayne: It always makes a difference when one has "skin" in the game doesn't it?
I am like you, in that I am wed to no particular "faith" per se. Information is knowledge, and that knowledge is what one tries to make informed decisions with.
This will be a very interesting conversation to watch if Steve replies.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 2, 2013 18:59:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 2, 2013 19:20:14 GMT
I think there are a lot of different answers depending on whether you're interested in long term global temps, decadal global temps, or regional impacts.
If we are talking about global temperature projections/predictions long term, the major concern is obviously the wide range of results. For the same scenario, some models are more sensitive to others. Now some of the models are believed to be poorer than others and are included in the IPCC results for political reasons. But that doesn't matter too much because even the good models (models that most effectively represent current climatology) give differing results.
They give differing results for differing reasons. The clouds are different, the ocean heat uptake is different etc. etc. When you make the models more complex, the differences broaden because you'll get differing responses from the carbon cycle (vegetation and so forth).
For decadal temperature predictions, the issue is possibly more about the observations than the models: we don't have very good detailed knowledge of ocean currents, and the current state of the ocean, ocean climate variability and current levels and types of aerosols/dust, and that makes it difficult to initialise the model forecasts (even if the models were perfect). A perfect model with poor initial conditions will give the wrong result.
For regional impacts, the models don't have sufficient resolution. For this 5-10 more years' of Moore's law is required to give the compute power (as well as solving the science problems).
Despite all that, I think models are a) the best guess and b) are able to reasonably effectively rule out other major causes of warming, because despite their imperfections they are able to represent impressively many aspects of the earth's climate such as Atlantic hurricanes, which suggests to me that they are good test-beds for thought experiments (e.g. what happens to the climate with permanent El Nino, what happens with big volcanoes).
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 2, 2013 19:26:15 GMT
magellan,
In my experience, tenants are price sensitive to levels of rent and rarely concern themselves with the quality of insulation in the house till it is too late.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 2, 2013 20:15:35 GMT
Steve: Good post in ref to climate models. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 2, 2013 21:33:58 GMT
It is barely fall in the Southern Hemisphere.......yet temps wayyyyyy below normal. What gives?
/photo/1
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 3, 2013 4:39:18 GMT
magellan, In my experience, tenants are price sensitive to levels of rent and rarely concern themselves with the quality of insulation in the house till it is too late. that would be a good argument for required disclosure. Plenty of excessive disclosure requirements around on some of the most arcane stuff. The utility of a disclosure requirement of this nature would rank near the top of required disclosures. Insulation can save you quite a few bucks each year. . . .assuming you elect to partake in heating your space as opposed to buying better clothing and better bed clothing. Also the utility of that would vary state to state. Where I live there is no need for heat or cooling even though the insulation is nil. Many people use energy striving for the perfect environment of whatever degree they like the best, but I put on extra clothing and blankets or take it off as needed. . . .sort of proving once again managing from a single point in the universe (Washington DC in our case) hardly leads to the most desirable result. And of course thousands flock here every winter to take up residence on park benches. Of course CO2 is more important to deal with as those fools don't emit any CO2 to speak of so we can distance them even further from housing and even add to their ranks.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 3, 2013 4:40:52 GMT
Despite all that, I think models are a) the best guess and b) are able to reasonably effectively rule out other major causes of warming, because despite their imperfections they are able to represent impressively many aspects of the earth's climate such as Atlantic hurricanes, which suggests to me that they are good test-beds for thought experiments (e.g. what happens to the climate with permanent El Nino, what happens with big volcanoes). Hmmm, how do the models rule major causes? Failing to accurately hindcast?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Apr 3, 2013 19:53:30 GMT
I think there are a lot of different answers depending on whether you're interested in long term global temps, decadal global temps, or regional impacts. If we are talking about global temperature projections/predictions long term, the major concern is obviously the wide range of results. For the same scenario, some models are more sensitive to others. Now some of the models are believed to be poorer than others and are included in the IPCC results for political reasons. But that doesn't matter too much because even the good models (models that most effectively represent current climatology) give differing results. They give differing results for differing reasons. The clouds are different, the ocean heat uptake is different etc. etc. When you make the models more complex, the differences broaden because you'll get differing responses from the carbon cycle (vegetation and so forth). For decadal temperature predictions, the issue is possibly more about the observations than the models: we don't have very good detailed knowledge of ocean currents, and the current state of the ocean, ocean climate variability and current levels and types of aerosols/dust, and that makes it difficult to initialise the model forecasts (even if the models were perfect). A perfect model with poor initial conditions will give the wrong result. For regional impacts, the models don't have sufficient resolution. For this 5-10 more years' of Moore's law is required to give the compute power (as well as solving the science problems). Despite all that, I think models are a) the best guess and b) are able to reasonably effectively rule out other major causes of warming, because despite their imperfections they are able to represent impressively many aspects of the earth's climate such as Atlantic hurricanes, which suggests to me that they are good test-beds for thought experiments (e.g. what happens to the climate with permanent El Nino, what happens with big volcanoes). Steve, all right. Now as promised, here’s what concerns me about my “Ocean Cycle” model. 1) The Ocean Cycle is based on circumstantial evidence. It’s similar to the aerosol cooling in the IPCC models. The IPCC model doesn’t define the specific aerosols and what their impact has been. Instead a “plug factor” is used. I’ve not even given an exact definition of what constitutes “Ocean Currents” although the PDO and ENSO are very important. So in lieu of a detailed assessment of how the “Ocean Currents” affect global temperatures, I’ve used a “plug factor” based upon circumstantial evidence. The “plug factor” covers the effects of the Ocean Currents and elements which are related such as resultant changes in weather patterns – particularly clouds. 2) The “Plug Factor” is based mostly upon historical observations, one of which is a 30-year cycle. There is no certain explanation of what caused that cycle and therefore an uncertainty concerning whether it will continue. This is similar to the case of the 11-year Solar Cycle with respect to the lack of knowledge of the underlying cause, but the Solar Cycle is more believable because there are data which show it has repeated 24 times versus a much smaller number for the Ocean Cycle. 3) The Ocean Cycle model presumes that the global warming from sources other than the ocean cycle remain relatively steady on a decadal basis as long as atmospheric CO2 increases at a relatively constant rate. Among other things this presumes that there is no significant change in decadal and multi-decadal Solar Forcing beyond what I see as being relatively steady (other than the Solar Cycles) over the past 120 years. The sun could be entering a period of lower activity and CO2 could have a diminished impact beyond what is assumed with a logarithmic relationship. Those are my top 3 concerns with respect to the Ocean Cycle model. They may seem overwhelming but I’ll argue later that those concerns are not as significant as they might first appear. I’ve posted information on my model and my forecast on many occasions. My forecast is very specific and I haven’t even bothered with error bars. It runs through the end of this century. The major caveat is that atmospheric CO2 continues to grow at the current rate. Now, I want to make sure I understand which global warming model(s)/forecasts you support as best representing your view at least as of today. From your past posts, I gather that you believe the IPCC mid-range case is the one to bet your money on. Is that correct or do you have something else you believe is better? Then I’ll follow up with more on the key concerns about the models.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 3, 2013 20:05:42 GMT
Despite all that, I think models are a) the best guess and b) are able to reasonably effectively rule out other major causes of warming, because despite their imperfections they are able to represent impressively many aspects of the earth's climate such as Atlantic hurricanes, which suggests to me that they are good test-beds for thought experiments (e.g. what happens to the climate with permanent El Nino, what happens with big volcanoes). Hmmm, how do the models rule major causes? Failing to accurately hindcast? There is a post on WUWT by Richard Courtney referencing a peer reviewed paper of his that is apposite to this discussion. His conclusion: "It shows that (a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2 but (b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^-2 to -0.60 W/m^-2.
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth." See post on WUWT April 3rd
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 7, 2013 20:58:00 GMT
The difference between the aerosol issue and the ocean cycle issue is that the aerosol issue relates to incomplete understanding of observations (how much aerosol of all the different types is emitted, how far it travels and so forth) as well as the fact that they have uncertain impact on clouds.
So you can argue that the amount of aerosol, or the detail of how they interact with clouds could be a "plug factor" but that doesn't mean they have *no* discernible impact, or that we cannot understand anything about their impact.
With oceans, there is also a physical understanding that is incomplete. But ultimately, they influence atmospheric temperatures in physically understandable ways - releasing heat, taking up heat, helping cause more, or less clouds etc. etc.
So an "ocean cycle" theory ought to be able to speculate on what it is about the ocean state can have the purported influence.
[as an aside, the implication that the models were fixed to match 20th Century warming is based on a misunderstanding of how models are developed. Models are developed to match climatology. Also climate models parametrize clouds. So if models sensitive to warming (e.g. have strong positive cloud forcing causing fewer cooling clouds and more warming clouds) turn out to be sensitive to aerosols in the opposite direction (aerosols cause more cooling clouds), it perhaps should not be a surprise as when testing the model against climatology it is the total cloud effect that is looked at.]
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 8, 2013 1:01:57 GMT
The difference between the aerosol issue and the ocean cycle issue is that the aerosol issue relates to incomplete understanding of observations (how much aerosol of all the different types is emitted, how far it travels and so forth) as well as the fact that they have uncertain impact on clouds. So you can argue that the amount of aerosol, or the detail of how they interact with clouds could be a "plug factor" but that doesn't mean they have *no* discernible impact, or that we cannot understand anything about their impact. With oceans, there is also a physical understanding that is incomplete. But ultimately, they influence atmospheric temperatures in physically understandable ways - releasing heat, taking up heat, helping cause more, or less clouds etc. etc. So an "ocean cycle" theory ought to be able to speculate on what it is about the ocean state can have the purported influence. [as an aside, the implication that the models were fixed to match 20th Century warming is based on a misunderstanding of how models are developed. Models are developed to match climatology. Also climate models parametrize clouds. So if models sensitive to warming (e.g. have strong positive cloud forcing causing fewer cooling clouds and more warming clouds) turn out to be sensitive to aerosols in the opposite direction (aerosols cause more cooling clouds), it perhaps should not be a surprise as when testing the model against climatology it is the total cloud effect that is looked at.] If so much physical understanding is incomplete, then whatever hindcasting is performed is not based on actual physics of the real world. It is from the imagination of the modeler. The evidence shows models do not correctly model clouds. Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Apr 8, 2013 8:08:36 GMT
Hi Sigurdur, Ignore my last (hasty) post ; on checking the raw text data download, I noticed that there was no December data supplied for 2012 – hence the appearance of extreme cold for the year. Link for the British Antarctic Survey web site, Amundsen Scott (lat 90S long 0E Height 2835m) text data: www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/Quickly modified plot with all years December data removed:
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 8, 2013 8:15:50 GMT
Cutty: Not only the coldest, but a lot colder.
Interesting that the south pole is cold, while the North Pole is warming.
|
|