What do you mean by Implications X? The consequence of warming?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

For those of you who keep claiming that models aren't testable.... Please link and read. In point of fact model have been quite accurate about prediciting near term consequences of one off forcing events lik the eruption o Mt. Pinitubo ....

Since climate is usually forecast in terms o 30 years periods.... trends an direction ae more important. And models do a very good job of that....

huh? So you think these weather guys are able to predict volcanic eruptions? Wow, this global warming stuff is more far reaching (and foolish) than I thought. Funny thing is they have not predicted anything with any sort of accuracy yet, despite your claim that they can predict freaking volcanoes erupting that is?

Tom: read more carefully. Notice the words "consequences of". Can you grasp their significance? Or will you now spend three pages arguing that Ricky said models could predict volcanic eruptions?

Ricky: by "implications" I mostly mean for policy.

GMTom wrote:huh? So you think these weather guys are able to predict volcanic eruptions? Wow, this global warming stuff is more far reaching (and foolish) than I thought. Funny thing is they have not predicted anything with any sort of accuracy yet, despite your claim that they can predict freaking volcanoes erupting that is?

This is why it really is a pain to have you posting in this thread. Ricky made no such claim, as Min X alludes to. Less brain-dumping, more thinking, and we can talk.

Thanks for that link X. The IPCC puts out a good product.

I see the primary hypothesis: that there aren't any other factors other than greenhouse gasses that can explain the modern rapid rise in temperatures. Since there are no supervolcanos spewing fumes or other such megaevents happening, it can only be those pesky industrious humans burning all their stuff.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." I grew up reading Doyle so that quote carries great weight with me. And certainly greenhouse gasses aren't an improbable answer to global warming. Indeed, they are the most obvious and easy answer so they fit Occam's Razor as well. Since there's nobody else but us chickens spewing CO2 these days... QED!

And yet...

Despite your concession of the graphs, I want to return to them as the IPCC does to point out some rather glaring...not inconsistencies...but refreshing admissions by scientists that they don't actually know the whole score. {Will I have to change my sweeping distrust against climate scientists??!! Horrors!}


This is your ice age graph but with a few extras. I'm looking specifically at the grey bars. Those bars represent times between glaciation which can last anywhere from 10 to 30 thousand years. Looking at the graph, it looks like we're at the peak and should be trending downwards...unless there are another 2-3 thousand years of warming due...not unprecedented by the graph. So no...I don't accept that we're overdue for cooling. Let's look at cooling...

Why did the Earth cool off for the ice ages? The IPCC tells us that it's because of the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit around the Sun as well as the atmospheric reduction of CO2. Reduction you say? However did it occur? Well...they're not quite sure. Could've been an explosion of plankton...long term fluctuations in the oceans' salinity...maybe something to do with air flows...maybe a something else they're not aware of. But the IPCC admits thatCO2 actually has little to do with ice ages and that we're going to get another one, sure as clockwork, in 30,000 years. But that's a long time from now...there might not even BE humans then. We need to worry about today.

Narrowing the view to the shorter term I'll concede that the upswing in average temperatures in recent years is awfully sharp. But, again according to the IPCC, it isn't unprecedented. Heck, it isn't even the most dramatic. By the IPCC's overarching hypothesis, these periods of rapid global warming must have been heralded by massive outputs of CO2 from somewhere right? Actually not. Apparently there's some confusion about this as well. Probably a change in sea currents or...something.

It was a very good report I'll admit. The IPCC makes a great case for AGW and has the sand to admit that it may be wrong about many of its assumptions. This is my favorite quote from the whole thing...it's like they were writing to me...

These examples illustrate that different climate changes in the past had different causes. The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper.

Of course...the corollary is also true.

The IPCC gives it a 5% chance that the current climate change is mainly natural. Based on what is apparently not understood about past natural climate changes...I'll take that bet.

excuse me, let's examine what Ricky said and not what we can only guess he meant:

In point of fact model have been quite accurate about prediciting near term consequences of one off forcing events lik the eruption o Mt. Pinitubo ....

I will not comment on the many spelling errors suggesting he is wrong because he spelled something wrong (as some have sought to do when I spelled something wrong)

Models predict forcing events like Pinitubo?
Quite accurate about predicting near term such events?

Please explain how I was wrong? Not what he might have meant, but what he actually said. Models can not "predict" near term forcing events, not unless they are predicting said eruption, what I accused him of is 100% accurate.

Tom, it's a question of word usage. In the IPCC report a 'forcing event' is something like CO2 or ash in the atmosphere that forces the temperature upwards or downwards. The event isn't the volcanic eruption...it's the stuff blown into the atmosphere that is a result of the eruption.

What Ricky's saying is that the models accurately predicted the climatic consequences after the eruption of Mt. Quezanakatanango.

PCHiway wrote:The IPCC gives it a 5% chance that the current climate change is mainly natural. Based on what is apparently not understood about past natural climate changes...I'll take that bet.

You are immediately invited over to my place for poker. I'll even supply the beer.


You'd originally said we were at a cold point and due for warming, and I'd originally said the rate of rise was convincing evidence for AGW. We were both wrong. We're not at a cold point; however, the IPCC models do have natural warming occurring for at least the last hundred years. It's just that the natural warming isn't enough to explain observations of temp at the 95% confidence interval. The rate of increase is not unprecedented, but it has been greater over the last fifty years than can be explained by natural causes alone. You want the 5% position? Fine, I'll take the 95% one.

If I had the time and expertise, I'd really like to dig into those climate models. I used to do some modeling (back in the dark ages of computing). My favorite prof in college (systems analysis) was in charge of the first big non-military modeling work involving (what was at the time) a super-computer. Shortly after WWII (during which he worked on some other computer stuff!) they modeled the entire water resources regime of the NE USA. He told great stories about that. Anyway (getting back on track), if the oil companies wanted to pay me a few million, the place I'd look to find problems with the IPCC work is in the computer models. It seems to me that we have not yet finished learning about all the interactions between the various cycles (energy, carbon, water, oceans, nitrogen, etc.), even if we understand each cycle in isolation. Most especially, I don't think we've learned everything about how the biosphere will react to different perturbations in the environment, and how those reactions will in turn cause alterations in any number of relevant dynamic processes that feed into the causes of the perturbation.

That said, we do know that man is causing CO2 to rise and that CO2 causes warming. And we're seeing warming. The real issues aren't about whether we're causing some warming. They are:

1) not so much how much of the current warming we've caused, but how much more warming will come from what we've already done.
2) and since we're sure to release more greenhouse gases, how much warming will that cause and what are the delays between production of the gases, warming, and then counteracting forces of gas absorption/sequestration or degradation?
3) we know that all sorts of systems will respond to warming, and some will in turn influence further warming or cooling; can we expect a net positive or net negative feedback and by how much? and with what delays? Is runaway warming a real possibility or just an extremely remote one or not one at all?

And then, of course, all the issues about policy - what we should do, or try to, in whole or in part, et cetera.

If you think I have answers for all those questions you're batty; and if you think (I mean any one you, not PCH in particular) you have answers for them you're even more batty.

Tom, for God's sake, read carefully. I have underlined the important bit that you've overlooked.

rickyp wrote:For those of you who keep claiming that models aren't testable.... Please link and read. In point of fact model have been quite accurate about prediciting near term consequences of one off forcing events lik the eruption o Mt. Pinitubo .....

Minister X wrote:Tom: read more carefully. Notice the words "consequences of". Can you grasp their significance? Or will you now spend three pages arguing that Ricky said models could predict volcanic eruptions?.

Now I'm going to make this threat for your own good because I love you. Figure out the truth here and admit your error - it wasn't the worst you or I or anyone will ever make - or forget about me engaging with you in any discussions about anything. This is getting ridiculous and you need to take a deep breath. I hope I've scared you enough to cause you to execute that full intake.

We can't predict volcanic eruptions?

p.s. These smilies are terrible.
p.s.s. Ok, I'll pile on too - Tom, you're wrong about what Ricky said.

What I said was an attempt to be funny, I obviously know a weatherman can't predict volcanoes. I was however pointing out that from the way he put it I can actually be correct in what I stated. I do "get it" no kidding ....I may not be all that bright but the lights aint completely out up there.

x

1) not so much how much of the current warming we've caused, but how much more warming will come from what we've already done.
2) and since we're sure to release more greenhouse gases, how much warming will that cause and what are the delays between production of the gases, warming, and then counteracting forces of gas absorption/sequestration or degradation?
3) we know that all sorts of systems will respond to warming, and some will in turn influence further warming or cooling; can we expect a net positive or net negative feedback and by how much? and with what delays? Is runaway warming a real possibility or just an extremely remote one or not one at all?

I'm doing this from memory from a radio presentation, but I understand the current high consensus models predict that if no more CO2 is added into the atmosphere that the temperature of the earth will still rise 3 degrees C by 2100. Why? Because Co2 remains in the atmosphere for a long time. There is a thirty year period where vegetation can remove an amount at which point that agent reaches an equilibrium... the oceans are slow CO2 sponges, and even slower, but the only permanent sponge, are geological effects...Co2 into rock.
The models also predict that there is a maximum temperature possible, even with CO2 contributions maintained. Primarily because the oceans have a mitigating effect..And as land based glaciers melt the oceans will expand. And as the oceans warm they also expand.
Here's a great radio broadcast from respected scientists that provides their insight into these areas.. you can download and listen whenever...
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/episode/2007/1 ... g-climate/

Has anybody read "The Wave" by Susan Casey (its about surfers and scientists who study ocean waves. a great read) Waves are essentially energy moving through a medium. As the energy in the atmosphere, and the oceans, increase the size of waves being transmitted through the oceans is increasing... To monstrous sizes. Attempting to model for predicting waves is considered more difficult then modeling climate ...but they all point in one direction.

Its the same premise behind stronger storms. (not more frequent but stronger). An increase in energy creates more violent interaction between the elements (wind, air and water) as energy moves through and around them.
If there is one thing that man kind needs to get ahold of, its the inevitable consequence of dislocation caused by rising oceans, and increasingly violent weather caused by the increase in energy in the atmosphere.
(Remember your balloon experiment X. The one that showed that a balloon of CO2 holds heat better than one with an ordinary air mix?) These things aren't a question of if ....its a question of how much and how soon....
There will likely be a large population dislocated by events, and thats the biggest issue.

oh really?

Hurricane Frequency Is Up But Not Their Strength
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112207.htm

then again, I saw all sorts of conflicting info, the "science" is all over the place, (you will easily find plenty to support your claim) you would think simple statistics would all tell the same story? The statistics are completely different all over and each tells a different story.

Wow Tom. I'm impressed. You actually linked a scientific source not sponsored by the Heartland Institute.
The problem with their conclusions is that they are looking at effects today. Most of the work on storms suggests that the major changes will occur after 2050. (So the appropriate reaction to your information is, so?)
However, the premise that either increses in frequency or number is based upon is that there is more energy in the atmosphere... and that energy is being released in either more violent or more frequent storm events... And, since greenhouse gases are held in the atmosphere for a long period, there's little likelihood of mitigating these effects. Especially since there's little likelihood we'll stop adding to the level of greenhouse gases for a century or more.... (In this PC you and I share a sceptical view do we not?...)

I'll note also that your source is a little dated,
Here's a more recent and more in-depth analysis updated in 2010 that looks at the large picture.Please note Tom, the uncertainty recognized in his analysis. Climate is looked at in thirty year periods or more...

In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. A new modeling study projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century.
Therefore, I conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity--and particularly greenhouse warming--has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. ("Detectable" here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some substantial changes that are still below the "detection threshold", or are not properly modeled yet (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
I also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes. In my view, it is more likely than not that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by IPCC AR4 scenarios, such as

A1B
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

The point made in The Wave, about increasing wave sizes remains. Increasing thermal energy increases the severity of weather events caused by the interaction of contrasted temperature (energy) levels... This isn't new science Tom. Its simply the modelling of known events with energy levels increased beyond their currently observed levels.We know what causes Hurricanes. Its simply math to be able to estimate what happens with Hurricanes when water and air temperatures are higher than they have been. Now, try to imagine New orleans being hit by a category 5 hurricane .... Try to imagine what happens if every other year Florida is hit by category 5 hurricanes? One off events are remembered for a generation for the dislocation to lives and business, and they create havoc. Repeated events of the same nature make ways of life impossible. (New Orleans has shrunk, but perhaps it will largely disappear over this century?)

And i'll make the point again. The consequences of Global Warming won't be felt by the current generation. Much. But our grandchildren will be moving coastal communities to higher ground as they become more difficult to sustain in their present locales. 9 of the 10 largest urban centres on the planet are coastal. The scope of the problem is immense. It seems beyond the ability of most to imagine, and because so many seem to only believe something if its happening to them personnally or at least happening today.... we seem to be hamstrung.
And much of this has been caused by public (translated to political) resistance to scientiific expertise. Largely centred in the US. And largely centred on a battle between belief and scientific understanding. Having watched Agora last night, the story of the persecution of Hypatia by Christians in Alexandria .... I can see its a story that has been repeated ad nauseum.

and as I said, you will find statistics supporting anything you like. I did say you could find plenty to support your claims but you can take statistics and find them supporting any claim you wish. It's really all over the place. And we face the same problem with your hysterical claims, the oceans will rise and engulf entire cities! Maybe, maybe not. Eventually anything can and will happen, the world has been, is and will continue to be in constant flux. Can we do anything about it? Will CO2 reduction matter in the least? Will the cost of reduction regarding something that may or may not be on the way be wise? What if the world starts to cool (far worse than warming)? What if CO2 is causing a cooling period to stop? What if's beyond belief but can we stop this? nope, nothing we do will amount to much of anything.