Land Use Changes and Global Warming

[Jack Hays]

start with a religious or mystical belief and then tries to justify it with observations.

That is an accurate presentation of AGW advocacy.

 

[longview]

Just saw this.

I am not sure that the datasets between the two links are exactly the same. The first one in a text table states the following:

GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980

sources: GHCN-v3 1880-06/2016 + SST: ERSST v4 1880-06/2016
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing

If the same adjustments are not in the Giss data Wood for Trees is graphing, then wouldn't the results be different?

Also, in the first table as its deviations from mean, wouldn't it be subject to fairly large swings.

Both are deviations from the mean, and none of that would enplane why December 2014 to January 2015,
and December 2015 to January 2016, had large increases.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I stated that the decadal models are typically on a 30 year temporal resolution, so we cannot expect them to be fully accurate until we can look back at them over 30 years.

I also believe I stated that 2 degrees or so would be acceptable.

So when does that mean that you will be able to tell if we are looking at a temperature rise below 1.5c by 2015? When can you say that there will not be a problem?

 

[Tim the plumber]

He has been dead for 19 centuries. However, his model of the solar system was not primarily based on observations. Every religion of the Roman Empire, including Judaism and early Christianity had a geocentrism view of the earth. Ptolemy then took those religious views as a starting basis for developing a model of the solar system. As it looked to him as though planetary bodies revolved around the earth, he justified that religious mysticism with his observation. That works nothing at all like science, thus its an absurd comparison you are making. Science doesn't start with a religious or mystical belief and then tries to justify it with observations.

The idea that today's temperatures are out of the normal range since the last ice age is not scientific. It is religious. The idea that the temperatures today somehow harbinger the death of the earth is religious.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So when does that mean that you will be able to tell if we are looking at a temperature rise below 1.5c by 2015? When can you say that there will not be a problem?

If temperatures rise by less than 2 degrees C over the course of this century, then it won't be that big of a deal. If they rise by 4 or more degrees, it will be a big deal.

 

[Tim the plumber]

If temperatures rise by less than 2 degrees C over the course of this century, then it won't be that big of a deal. If they rise by 4 or more degrees, it will be a big deal.

So you will be unable to say if there is anything to warry about untill 2100?

Is there any point before that where you could make a judgement? Something like; if there has not been a +0.5c rise by 2025 then there is nothing toworry about.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So you will be unable to say if there is anything to warry about untill 2100?

Is there any point before that where you could make a judgement? Something like; if there has not been a +0.5c rise by 2025 then there is nothing toworry about.

Well here is the problem. I look at the temperature trends and see a clear warming trend.

Not only that, I look at the rapid retreat of alpine glaciers around the world (several of which I have stood on), the rapid encroachment of trees in what was once alpine tundra on many mountain ranges across the globe, the northern movement of the boreal forest zone, the northern movement of USDA planting zones by hundreds of miles, and various other rapid changes in ecosystems and I see a climate that is warming at a fairly rapid clip. Of course there is the physics of it too.

That all said, you I am certainly would disagree. So if we cannot even agree as to the level of warming the earth's climate has undergone so far, then we certainly are never going to agree on what warming there needs to be before we have to really start worrying.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Well here is the problem. I look at the temperature trends and see a clear warming trend.

Not only that, I look at the rapid retreat of alpine glaciers around the world (several of which I have stood on), the rapid encroachment of trees in what was once alpine tundra on many mountain ranges across the globe, the northern movement of the boreal forest zone, the northern movement of USDA planting zones by hundreds of miles, and various other rapid changes in ecosystems and I see a climate that is warming at a fairly rapid clip. Of course there is the physics of it too.

That all said, you I am certainly would disagree. So if we cannot even agree as to the level of warming the earth's climate has undergone so far, then we certainly are never going to agree on what warming there needs to be before we have to really start worrying.

Your reply is typical. It shows your total inability to think scientifically on this subject.

I am not expecting you to agree with me mearly asking you to say when you will be able to see if there has been a "nothing to worry about" result. WHAT IS YOUR FAILURE OF CAGW POINT?

Given that you have not been able to answer that after six attempts to get an answer out of you shows your religious thinking. [7]

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well here is the problem. I look at the temperature trends and see a clear warming trend.

And what is the equalization time for the solar peak of 1958 to run through?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Your reply is typical. It shows your total inability to think scientifically on this subject.

I am not expecting you to agree with me mearly asking you to say when you will be able to see if there has been a "nothing to worry about" result. WHAT IS YOUR FAILURE OF CAGW POINT?

Given that you have not been able to answer that after six attempts to get an answer out of you shows your religious thinking. [7]

If the average global temperatures rise by say 4 degrees over this century, then why on earth would you think from an ecological perspective there is nothing to worry about?

 

[longview]

If the average global temperatures rise by say 4 degrees over this century, then why on earth would you think from an ecological perspective there is nothing to worry about?

From the data available The ECS from doubling the CO2 level, would be about 1.8 to 2 C, and that change would be spread over about 180 years.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I ask again for the second time:

And what is the equalization time for the solar peak of 1958 to run through?

 

[Quaestio]

I ask again for the second time:

You can ask as many times as you like. Your question makes no sense. Do you expect other people to read your mind and guess all the incoherent unexplained details of all the amateur pet theories going on in your imagination?

 

[Quaestio]

From the data available The ECS from doubling the CO2 level, would be about 1.8 to 2 C, and that change would be spread over about 180 years.

What available data are you referring to? Your figures seem to be only from the low end of the last IPCC AR5 report.

The cut off for research papers for AR5 was in 2012, so have you done a literature search for papers on climate sensitivity since 2012 and read all of those papers?
eg
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_sdt=1,5&q=climate+sensitivity&hl=en&as_ylo=2012

What definition of ECS are you using?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You can ask as many times as you like. Your question makes no sense. Do you expect other people to read your mind and guess all the incoherent unexplained details of all the amateur pet theories going on in your imagination?

Do you agree the oceans have a slow thermal inertia, or not?

 

[Quaestio]

Do you agree the oceans have a slow thermal inertia, or not?

Of course. The oceans have a large heat capacity so can take a long time to warm or cool.

Do you agree that downward longwave radiation can increase the the temperature of the oceans, or not?

Before you answer, please ask yourself, how is the ocean radiating an average of around 390 W/m^2 when it only receives an average of around 240 W/m^2 from SW radiation?

 

[longview]

What available data are you referring to? Your figures seem to be only from the low end of the last IPCC AR5 report.

The cut off for research papers for AR5 was in 2012, so have you done a literature search for papers on climate sensitivity since 2012 and read all of those papers?
eg
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_sdt=1,5&q=climate+sensitivity&hl=en&as_ylo=2012

What definition of ECS are you using?

After editing, AR5 did not include an estimate of ECS, A group of the lead authors published the findings
that did not make it to the final report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature
response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

The ECS since 2000 appears to be hitting a best estimate of about 2 C.

 

[Quaestio]

After editing, AR5 did not include an estimate of ECS, A group of the lead authors published the findings
that did not make it to the final report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

View attachment 67205727
The ECS since 2000 appears to be hitting a best estimate of about 2 C.

That's just one article by Otto et al based on a simple model over a short period. It was published in 2013 after the cut-off date for the AR5 report (2012). Otto et all acknowledge themselves that it should be interpreted with caution. Try doing a Google Scholar search for the Otto et al paper and note more recent papers that cited that paper and read them.
There have been many climate sensitivity studies published since then, as shown in that Google Scholar search of papers published since 2012. I doubt you'll find many that say that 2C is the most likely ECS, especially the paleo based ones.

Are you not able to read papers published in paywalled Journals? If not, then how can you claim you know what 'the available data shows' when you can't even read most of the papers?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Your reply is typical. It shows your total inability to think scientifically on this subject.

I am not expecting you to agree with me mearly asking you to say when you will be able to see if there has been a "nothing to worry about" result. WHAT IS YOUR FAILURE OF CAGW POINT?

Given that you have not been able to answer that after six attempts to get an answer out of you shows your religious thinking. [7]

If the average global temperatures rise by say 4 degrees over this century, then why on earth would you think from an ecological perspective there is nothing to worry about?

You know when you are trying to debate with a religious nut when they will simply not answer a simple question.

What criteria would make you thinmk that there will be no significant trouble from AGW? That is that there will not be a troublesome rise in temperature? [8]

 

[longview]

That's just one article by Otto et al based on a simple model over a short period. It was published in 2013 after the cut-off date for the AR5 report (2012). Otto et all acknowledge themselves that it should be interpreted with caution. Try doing a Google Scholar search for the Otto et al paper and note more recent papers that cited that paper and read them.
There have been many climate sensitivity studies published since then, as shown in that Google Scholar search of papers published since 2012. I doubt you'll find many that say that 2C is the most likely ECS, especially the paleo based ones.

Are you not able to read papers published in paywalled Journals? If not, then how can you claim you know what 'the available data shows' when you can't even read most of the papers?

Firstly, the Otto et al paper, had many authors, here is the list.

Alexander Otto1*, Friederike E. L. Otto1, Olivier Boucher2, John Church3, Gabi Hegerl4, Piers M. Forster5, Nathan P. Gillett6, Jonathan Gregory7, Gregory C. Johnson8, Reto Knutti9,
Nicholas Lewis10, Ulrike Lohmann9, Jochem Marotzke11, Gunnar Myhre12, Drew Shindell13, Bjorn Stevens11 and Myles R. Allen1,1.

as to paywalls, once you know the name of the paper, it usually can be found in other sources, as in Otto et al, was not found in the Nature site.

 

[Quaestio]

Firstly, the Otto et al paper, had many authors, here is the list.

as to paywalls, once you know the name of the paper, it usually can be found in other sources, as in Otto et al, was not found in the Nature site.

So what if it had many authors? Im not saying there is anything 'wrong' with the paper. But it was just one paper using one simple model using data from over a short period. Have you read what the authors themselves say? It's not 'all the available data' as you claimed, it's just one paper and it's an outlier.
Do a literature search with Google Scholar and see how many paywalled papers about climate sensitivity you can find copies of around the net. I suspect you'll only find a tiny number that get talked about on climate truther/contrarian blogs.

 

[longview]

So what if it had many authors? Im not saying there is anything 'wrong' with the paper. But it was just one paper using one simple model using data from over a short period. Have you read what the authors themselves say? It's not 'all the available data' as you claimed, it's just one paper and it's an outlier.
Do a literature search with Google Scholar and see how many paywalled papers about climate sensitivity you can find copies of around the net. I suspect you'll only find a tiny number that get talked about on climate truther/contrarian blogs.

I have read quite a few, it comes down to how much net positive feedback should be expected from the direct response warming from the added CO2.
The empirical data seems to indicate, the Feedback is at the low end of the IPCC's original scale of 1.5 to 4.5 C.
The models for the most part, seem to be showing too much positive feedback and not accounting for enough negative feedback.
This is validated to some extent by the fact that the models seems to be coming in too high.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You know when you are trying to debate with a religious nut when they will simply not answer a simple question.

What criteria would make you thinmk that there will be no significant trouble from AGW? That is that there will not be a troublesome rise in temperature? [8]

For me to believe that, the majority of climatologists and scientific organizations would have to come to that conclusion. Unlike some, I am not so arrogant to think that something would occur to me that would not occur to climatologists with years of study and decades of research behind them. In fact, I would imagine that deniers sound to them like laymen sound to me when they try to discuss very complex IT issues.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
You know when you are trying to debate with a religious nut when they will simply not answer a simple question.

What criteria would make you thinmk that there will be no significant trouble from AGW? That is that there will not be a troublesome rise in temperature? [8]

For me to believe that, the majority of climatologists and scientific organizations would have to come to that conclusion. Unlike some, I am not so arrogant to think that something would occur to me that would not occur to climatologists with years of study and decades of research behind them. In fact, I would imagine that deniers sound to them like laymen sound to me when they try to discuss very complex IT issues.

So what you are sying is that your committment to the priests of global catastrophy is greater than your ability to look at the facts.

OK, as you say your opinion is worthless.

I will consider you simply a repeater of stuff you have no real understanding of.

Personally I think I can asses the impact of a couple of degrees of temperature rise on humanity and I can look at the temperature data and see if it's shooting up like they said it would or if it's not going up very quickly or if it's not going up at all. That's just my self confidence there.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Of course. The oceans have a large heat capacity so can take a long time to warm or cool.

And SW penetrates deep while LW from CO2, only microns.

Do you agree that downward longwave radiation can increase the the temperature of the oceans, or not?

Not by much at all. Only the immediate surface, and the temperature drops rapidly in water. Almost all absorbed within that few micros is reemitted immediately, almost no time to alter the water temperature. Much of it comes in the form of evaporation, which along with the winds, robs the extra heat in the water from CO2 when there is a phase change from liquid to vapor.

Before you answer, please ask yourself, how is the ocean radiating an average of around 390 W/m^2 when it only receives an average of around 240 W/m^2 from SW radiation?

The 390 and 240 are global averages. Again, SW vs. LW absorption depths, and speed difference of losing the temporary heat gained.

Have something you referred to separating the values of heat output of the land and ocean by chance?