Global warming

[fbrissette]

Because even though computer models are "wrong often", as you point out, the weather models tend to be okay inside of 5 days.

That doesn't mean that I trust computer climate models outside of 5 or 50 years (or 500 years).

You're lacking the basic understanding of what a climate model is and what it does. It is NOT a forecasting model and cannot be evaluated as such. Weather forecasting is in fact significantly more complicated than predicting the climate.

 

[LasersInTheTaiga]

I was totally hoping this would be a discussion about the Global Warming Glade at Cannon. I appear to be wrong.

 

[Not Sure]

Russians causing trouble again...............:-D

 

[fbrissette]

Russians causing trouble again...............:-D

 

[BenedictGomez]

You're lacking the basic understanding of what a climate model is and what it does. It is NOT a forecasting model and cannot be evaluated as such.

Says the guy who (for some odd reason) brought up climate models and weather models in the same post, and then stated a belief that it's unusual (which it's not) to have some trust in one, but not the other.

 

[fbrissette]

Says the guy who (for some odd reason) brought up climate models and weather models in the same post, and then stated a belief that it's unusual (which it's not) to have some trust in one, but not the other.

There is nothing wrong in discussing climate and weather models together, just as there is nothing wrong to discuss weather and climate side by side.

Your expectation that climate models should have been able to represent the last 20 years of atmospheric temperature (or any 20-year period for that matter) testifies to your ignorance of climate models and what they can and cannot do, hence the idea to discuss both of them together. You simply seem to believe that the former is an extrapolation of the latter which is simply not the case.

Until you're willing to explore, understand and acknowledge the non-sense of your previous statement about 'how almost statistically improbably wrong the climate scientists models and predictions have been over the past 20'ish years' you'll remain an opinionated hack on a ski forum. That might win you some sympathy, but that won't change the fact that you are an uneducated fool in this field.

Signing off.. We'll go at it in a couple of years I guess. It's been that long since the last debate. Feel free to flame me on my arrogance if it makes you feel better.

 

[jack97]

Until you're willing to explore, understand and acknowledge the non-sense of your previous statement about 'how almost statistically improbably wrong the climate scientists models and predictions have been over the past 20'ish years' you'll remain an opinionated hack on a ski forum. That might win you some sympathy, but that won't change the fact that you are an uneducated fool in this field.

Signing off.. We'll go at it in a couple of years I guess. It's been that long since the last debate. Feel free to flame me on my arrogance if it makes you feel better.

Just like old times.... same ad hominem attacks. Attached is a recent AMS paper on "The art and science of climate model tuning". IMO, an interesting read on why climate models have failed in several ways to predict the pause.

http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~hourdin/PUBLIS/Tuning2016.pdf

 

[Bumpsis]

Just like old times.... same ad hominem attacks.

ad hominem attacks??? Really? As if BenedictGomez's posts are all that civil and and polite I'd call them more like mocking and right down belligerent. But given the amount of nonsense that he posted over the years pushing climate change denial, I do have to give BenedictGomez some credit for saying that he now believes that earth is getting warmer. That's almost progressive of him
Let's give it another few years, perhaps the anthropogenic reasons will start making sense to him too. Not like I really give a rat's behind...

 

[bdfreetuna]

That's almost progressive of him

Sounds like fightin' words to me!

 

[Rogman]

It is pretty easy to convince people that global warming/climate change isn’t a real threat. We are not wired to process the kind of danger it poses: long term and slow acting. It is the type of issue we can easily put off until “tomorrow”. However, the bill will come due.

At core, the problem is simple: the amount of heat absorbed from the sun (as well as the latent heat of the earth), exceeds that which is radiated out. The net result is that the earth’s temperature rises. This, in and of itself does not pose a threat. The earth has heated and cooled for millions of years. There have been times in the distant past when the earth was much warmer, and when it was much cooler as well. What makes this different?

The answer is two fold: One, we live here now, and have to deal with the effects. That by itself wouldn’t present a problem: historically humans are nomadic, we could simply move further north to where the climate was more temperate, and abandon those areas that have become inhospitably warm. The second problem is the rate of change. Half the population of the earth lives in coastal zones, and many commercial centers are likely to be inundated by the end of the century. Currently arable farmland will become unworkable. We are talking about a radical shift in both our areas of commerce and our areas of food production.

If this were to occur over a thousand years or so, the economic disruption would be manageable. Cities have risen and fallen through history, and will continue to do so. It is already inevitable that New York City will be underwater. The question, is no longer whether, but when. We have been reduced to arguing over whether it is 50 years, 200, or 500 years. That the sea level will rise 20 feet or more if the current conditions persist is a given. Unfortunately, we are at 400 ppm in C02, and rising. Conditions won’t persist, they will get worse.

The great fear is that there are tipping points, events that will cause run away warming. Arctic methane release is one such example: as the arctic warms, frozen methane hydrates “melt” and add to the greenhouse effect, triggering additional releases. There is a lot of it in arctic and seafloor areas. It was a methane hydrates that ultimately caused the BP blowout in the Gulf.

Glaciers, as they melt lubricate themselves and slide quicker thus accelerating their melting. When an iceberg calves it does not raise the sea level, however, it may be assisting in holding back the ice behind it. There is one in Antarctica the size of Delaware that is happening right now. From the glaciers of Greenland, so much fresh water surface water is running off and accumulating on the ocean surface, it may be having an effect on the Atlantic Meridional overturning current; the Gulf Stream is part of that. There is a long term concern that the Gulf Stream will slow down. While a “Day After Tomorrow” scenario is unlikely, the potential effects are gaining a lot of press: colder winters in Europe, and sea level rise along the eastern seaboard as the Gulf Stream “backs up”.

Right now, much of the excess C02 and warmth is winding up in the oceans. Two problems result. Adding C02 increases the acidification of the water (it is already having an adverse impact on shellfish). Also, warmer water expands, thus even though some of the excess heat is being “stored” at depth, it expands the water, raising sea levels.

It is routinely stated that the models are widely inaccurate and have completely missed the mark on predicting what will happen. Obviously, no model is precise, and they can’t give an exact prediction what will happen. Chaos theory ensures that. What is typically done is over many runs, a range of initial conditions are used, and estimates of future conditions (e.g. how much C02 will actually be added to the atmosphere) this yields a range of results; some apocalyptic, others more benign. The actual results have been somewhere in the middle. How do we know the models are accurate? How do we “validate” these models? It is fairly simple to take past data, say, up to and including 20 years ago, and see where it puts us now. Is what is predicted in the “future” (i.e. now) match what we are actually seeing? According to the IPCC, the answer is yes, and the prediction range has, if anything, been conservative.

When you hear about the “pause”, you are being misled. There was no pause. A quick glance at a global temperature graph including current data reveals that. Any reference to "the pause", always begins with 1997. When you hear about how there are “other” causes of warming, whether it is sunspots, natural cycles, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Nino, whatever, you are being misled. The effects of other forces have been repeatedly been shown to be negligible relative to green house emissions. When you are told the models are “no good”, and have failed to predict current conditions, you are being misled. It is easy to cherry pick data and use it as proof that there is no warming, or that we are not the cause. When you are told that “climate gate” proves that scientists are deliberately trying to deceive the public, you are being misled. It was investigated many times, the email authors were vindicated every time. It was over tree rings, for God’s sake. When you are told that scientists have hopped on the climate change money train to ensure funding, you are being misled. There is far more money in denialism, and every scientist would love to be at the center of proving that climate change is a global fraud. That isn’t going to happen. No conspiracy, just many scientific threads all leading in the same direction.

Scientists have historically not been involved in advocacy: they do their research, and publish their results, and let others figure out the public policy implications. Until early in this century there was a fairly broad based consensus that agreed that climate change was an issue that needed to be addressed. However, money got involved. The Exxon/Mobil’s of the world were well aware of the threat that this posed to their business model: much of their assets are in existing oil and gas reserves. If it became recognized that these assets had to remain in the ground in order to minimize the increase in C02, their share values would tank. So they have deliberately engaged in an effective campaign of disinformation, while at the same time publicly making comments at odds with their own private policies.

It is essential to know who is funding your information sources. Much of what is out there is wrong. I write this knowing full well it will convince no one. I figure I owe it to my grandchildren.

 

[SIKSKIER]

Intolerance to other opinions such as "the debate is other" and "its not a matter of if but when" is not science.Period.Our scientific discovories are always evolving and adjusting our previously held "this is the absolute answer" attitude.Do I have the answers?No,but when people use these shut down tactics they lose all credibility.Science is never absolute.Especially and almost always when politics get in the middle of it.Jeez,keep your minds open and lose the intolerance.All that does is polarize the topic at hand.

 

[bdfreetuna]

I think it's not fully forthcoming to state that there are entrenched, monied interests involved in attempting to minimize the issue of climate change in the minds of the public without recognizing the inverse.

Let me count the ways the global pseudo-government known as the UN benefits from implementing these kinds of agendas..

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

 

[CoolMike]

I think it's not fully forthcoming to state that there are entrenched, monied interests involved in attempting to minimize the issue of climate change in the minds of the public without recognizing the inverse.

Let me count the ways the global pseudo-government known as the UN benefits from implementing these kinds of agendas..

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

There literally is no realistic 'inverse'.

This is the problem I have with so many climate change deniers is that they are willing to believe that there is some secret cabal of scientists, politicians, and bureaucrats who's goal is apparently to consolidate power somehow by pushing the world towards a cleaner more sustainable future while not acknowledging the incredibly obvious and transparent financial benefit that fossil fuel generating countries and companies have reaped from denying climate change. The financial motivation for denying climate change is orders of magnitude higher than any imagined motivating factors for pushing for climate change.

Occam really needs a shave.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Your expectation that climate models should have been able to represent the last 20 years of atmospheric temperature (or any 20-year period for that matter) testifies to your ignorance of climate models and what they can and cannot do, hence the idea to discuss both of them together.

So how long do the computerized climate models get to be wrong before one decides that perhaps the science isn't quite so infallible; is it longer than one human lifetime? Because that sure would be wonderfully convenient.

HINT: That was a rhetorical question

Just like old times.... same ad hominem attacks.

You know what else is far more akin to a religion than a science? Becoming emotionally upset by a topic.

 

[BenedictGomez]

But given the amount of nonsense that he posted over the years pushing climate change denial, I do have to give BenedictGomez some credit for saying that he now believes that earth is getting warmer. That's almost progressive of him

Given that I've never said the earth hasn't been in a warming period, it's obvious that either you've never actually read my posts on this issue over the years, or you have me confused with someone else.

I do enjoy your use of the word, "denial" though, I love it when people who believe in man-made Global Warming use that word.

Intolerance to other opinions such as "the debate is other" and "its not a matter of if but when" is not science. Period..

This (so very obviously this).

I've never seen any other branch of science so emphatically concerned with not solely presenting it's data and findings, but with shutting down and silencing all opposing voices.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Occam really needs a shave.

You seriously cannot think of ways in which various leaders have used Climate Change to both increase power as well as money?

I really don't think you're trying very hard.

 

[bdfreetuna]

This is the problem I have with so many climate change deniers is that they are willing to believe that there is some secret cabal of scientists, politicians, and bureaucrats who's goal is apparently to consolidate power somehow by pushing the world towards a cleaner more sustainable future while not acknowledging the incredibly obvious and transparent financial benefit that fossil fuel generating countries and companies have reaped from denying climate change. The financial motivation for denying climate change is orders of magnitude higher than any imagined motivating factors for pushing for climate change.

I have acknowledged the financial motivation for climate change education and even propaganda designed to minimize the topic in the minds of the public.

Yet you want to mock the idea that "cabal of scientists, politicians, and bureaucrats who's goal is apparently to consolidate power" exists in the United Nations?

These two truths do exist and neither one affects the actual truth of the matter, which is independent of either side's propaganda or motivations and can only be discovered by the layperson -- perhaps -- through a clear lens of objectivity.

I don't claim to possess that lens but at least I'm willing to recognize that.

 

[Rogman]

There are certainly members of the loony left with their own agenda, however, suggesting that there is a global conspiracy by scientists might make you member of the looney right. Certainly anytime you are making predictions about the future, there are a wide range of possible outcomes. The worst are apocalyptic, make headlines, and cause many to roll their eyes, including responsible scientists. However, in any kind of analysis, one looks at the probability of something occurring and how adverse the outcome is. Driving drunk is "frowned upon" despite the odds of your killing or injuring yourself or someone else actually being fairly low. Since the odds are low, why worry about it? Obviously, because the worst case outcome is so horrendous. Those that argue against doing anything substantive about climate change, put all of us at risk, offering up that "well, nothing bad has happened yet". It's a bet that the majority of the scientists are wrong.

 

[bdfreetuna]

I suppose pointing to one of numerous examples of people in academia and science would also put me in the loony right.

Dr. Judith Curry retires from Georgia Tech

"Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc."

...

The cost of taking action should also be a variable when considering probability and adverse effects.

 

[VTKilarney]

Our scientific discovories are always evolving and adjusting our previously held "this is the absolute answer" attitude.

The context matters quite a bit. Take evolution, for example. We are routinely increasing our knowledge in the field, but nobody can argue that the overall theory is without merit. So I guess it really depends on what level you are looking at.