Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"[W:1000, 1660]

[LowDown]

In the journal Science a group of investigators explains why computer models of the atmosphere are likely to be inaccurate in predicting future climate.

Aerosols counteract part of the warming effects of greenhouse gases, mostly by increasing the amount of sunlight reflected back to space. However, the ways in which aerosols affect climate through their interaction with clouds are complex and incompletely captured by climate models. As a result, the radiative forcing (that is, the perturbation to Earth's energy budget) caused by human activities is highly uncertain, making it difficult to predict the extent of global warming. Recent advances have led to a more detailed understanding of aerosol-cloud interactions and their effects on climate, but further progress is hampered by limited observational capabilities and coarse-resolution climate models.

Climate Effects of Aerosol-Cloud Interactions

The authors go on to say that it will be "many decades" before computer models have the skill to accurately take aerosols and clouds into account globally and on an extended time scale.

ht: hockeyschtick.blogspot.com

 

[Earthling]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

I see we're back to those elusive clouds again.

Climate Change’s Inherent Uncertainties

Virtually all scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous uncertainties associated with their product. How is it that they can place hands over hearts and swear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are wrecking the planet?

The World Meteorological Organisation of the United Nations took its first steps towards establishing the World Climate Program in the early 1970s. Among other things it held a conference in Stockholm to define the main scientific problems to be solved before reliable climate forecasting could be possible. The conference defined quite a number, but focused on just two.

The first concerned an inability to simulate the amount and character of clouds in the atmosphere. Clouds are important because they govern the balance between solar heating and infrared cooling of the planet, and thereby are a control of Earth’s temperature. The second concerned an inability to forecast the behaviour of oceans. Oceans are important because they are the main reservoirs of heat in the climate system. They have internal, more-or-less random, fluctuations on all sorts of time-scales ranging from years through to centuries. These fluctuations cause changes in ocean surface temperature that in turn affect Earth’s overall climate.

The situation hasn’t changed much in the decades since. Many of the problems of simulating the behaviour of clouds and oceans are still there (along with lots of other problems of lesser moment) and for many of the same reasons. Perhaps the most significant is that climate models must do their calculations at each point of ...
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/

 

[joG]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

In the journal Science a group of investigators explains why computer models of the atmosphere are likely to be inaccurate in predicting future climate.



Climate Effects of Aerosol-Cloud Interactions

The authors go on to say that it will be "many decades" before computer models have the skill to accurately take aerosols and clouds into account globally and on an extended time scale.

ht: hockeyschtick.blogspot.com

Wouldn't it be a pity, if we evaporate in the heat, before we know why. And so humiliating for the scientists!

 

[LowDown]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

I see we're back to those elusive clouds again.

Climate Change’s Inherent Uncertainties

Virtually all scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous uncertainties associated with their product. How is it that they can place hands over hearts and swear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are wrecking the planet?

The World Meteorological Organisation of the United Nations took its first steps towards establishing the World Climate Program in the early 1970s. Among other things it held a conference in Stockholm to define the main scientific problems to be solved before reliable climate forecasting could be possible. The conference defined quite a number, but focused on just two.

The first concerned an inability to simulate the amount and character of clouds in the atmosphere. Clouds are important because they govern the balance between solar heating and infrared cooling of the planet, and thereby are a control of Earth’s temperature. The second concerned an inability to forecast the behaviour of oceans. Oceans are important because they are the main reservoirs of heat in the climate system. They have internal, more-or-less random, fluctuations on all sorts of time-scales ranging from years through to centuries. These fluctuations cause changes in ocean surface temperature that in turn affect Earth’s overall climate.

The situation hasn’t changed much in the decades since. Many of the problems of simulating the behaviour of clouds and oceans are still there (along with lots of other problems of lesser moment) and for many of the same reasons. Perhaps the most significant is that climate models must do their calculations at each point of ...
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/

Interesting article. The key quote:

What has happened to the scepticism that is supposedly the lifeblood of scientific inquiry?

The answer probably gets back to the uncertainty of it all. The chances of proving that climate change over the next century will be large enough to be disastrous are virtually nil. For the same reason, the chances of a climate sceptic, or anyone else for that matter, proving the disaster theory to be oversold are also virtually nil. To that extent there is a level playing field for the two sides of the argument. The problem is that climate research necessarily involves enormous resources, and is a game for institutions and organisations. Scepticism is an occupation for individuals. Things being as they are in the climate-change arena, scepticism by an individual within the system can be fairly career-limiting. In any event, most individual scientists have a conscience, and are reluctant to put their heads above the public parapet in order to propound a view of things that may be inherently unprovable.

In short, there is more than enough uncertainty about the forecasting of climate to allow normal human beings to be at least reasonably hopeful that global warming might not be nearly as bad as is currently touted. Climate scientists, and indeed scientists in general, are not so lucky. They have a lot to lose if time should prove them wrong.

I disagree. It is an obvious fact that climate catastrophe has been oversold. With every month that the global temperatures don't rise that becomes even more obvious. But perhaps that's what he means by time proving them wrong.

The alarmists are also manifestly wrong when they claim certainty to be "95%" or some such. As the OP and the above citation show, there is too much uncertainty to be able to predict catastrophy or to dictate policy.

 

[Phys251]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

In the journal Science a group of investigators explains why computer models of the atmosphere are likely to be inaccurate in predicting future climate.



Climate Effects of Aerosol-Cloud Interactions

The authors go on to say that it will be "many decades" before computer models have the skill to accurately take aerosols and clouds into account globally and on an extended time scale.

ht: hockeyschtick.blogspot.com

This is strictly referring to aerosols' effects on global warming, not global warming itself. These effects are currently--wait for it--up in the air.

 

[LowDown]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

This is strictly referring to aerosols' effects on global warming, not global warming itself. These effects are currently--wait for it--up in the air.

The difference between catestrophic warming and warming that's nothing to worry about hinges on feedback effects that are greatly affected by clouds. What the citation in the OP is saying is that not much is known about how to model clouds and aerosols, certainly not enough to be able to make predictions of climate for 100 years into the future.

 

[Phys251]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

The difference between catestrophic warming and warming that's nothing to worry about hinges on feedback effects that are greatly affected by clouds. What the citation in the OP is saying is that not much is known about how to model clouds and aerosols, certainly not enough to be able to make predictions of climate for 100 years into the future.

OK, so you agree that this is merely studying the effects of aerosols, not CO2 or other greenhouse gases?

 

[Earthling]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

How much of almost 0.8º C of warming over the last 160 years is human activity responsible for.

NASA says that 25% of the warming is caused by solar heating.

That leaves almost 0.6ºC to account for.

It is becoming more obvious by the day that CO2 cannot be the climate driver.

 

[Dezaad]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

How much of almost 0.8º C of warming over the last 160 years is human activity responsible for.

NASA says that 25% of the warming is caused by solar heating.

That leaves almost 0.6ºC to account for.

It is becoming more obvious by the day that CO2 cannot be the climate driver.

Nobody of any credibility ever said CO2 is the climate driver. All climate scientists know that it CAN be a climate driver, and one of many. When you debunk something that no one ever said, that is known as setting up a straw man and then knocking it down. When you are caught at it, you should crawl into a hole on account of embarrassment.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Nobody of any credibility ever said CO2 is the climate driver. All climate scientists know that it CAN be a climate driver, and one of many. When you debunk something that no one ever said, that is known as setting up a straw man and then knocking it down. When you are caught at it, you should crawl into a hole on account of embarrassment.

Really?

The The warmers bible (IPCC AR4) claims 1.66 W/m^2 of global warming for CO2 and a net global warming of 1.6 W/m^2. CO2 is where they place their faith.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

How much of almost 0.8º C of warming over the last 160 years is human activity responsible for.

NASA says that 25% of the warming is caused by solar heating.

That leaves almost 0.6ºC to account for.

It is becoming more obvious by the day that CO2 cannot be the climate driver.

Don't forget the ever increasing value they assign to soot.

 

[Earthling]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Nobody of any credibility ever said CO2 is the climate driver. All climate scientists know that it CAN be a climate driver, and one of many. When you debunk something that no one ever said, that is known as setting up a straw man and then knocking it down. When you are caught at it, you should crawl into a hole on account of embarrassment.

You're right, nobody of any credibility posted this on their website under this dubious title:

CO2 is not the only driver of climate
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change.

Please can I crawl out of my hole now?

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

OK, so you agree that this is merely studying the effects of aerosols, not CO2 or other greenhouse gases?

Well call me picky but given that clouds and water vapor make up 95% of greenhouse gases I'd say that admitted large uncertainties about it are of fairly major significance.

 

[Dezaad]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Really?

The The warmers bible (IPCC AR4) claims 1.66 W/m^2 of global warming for CO2 and a net global warming of 1.6 W/m^2. CO2 is where they place their faith.

Several drivers of climate over relatively recent history:


You must admit, the person to whom I was replying had an ignorantly simplistic viewpoint. Whether it was willful or not is irrelevant as to whether he should be embarrassed.

As to deniers, they disagree with climate scientists as to the relative importance of these factors, for the most part, and/or possible levels of other feedbacks.

 

[Dezaad]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

You're right, nobody of any credibility posted this on their website under this dubious title:

CO2 is not the only driver of climate
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change.

Please can I crawl out of my hole now?

No, you can crawl right back in and not come out for years and years actually. See my post above on the fact that climatologists recognize other drivers of warming. You are reading climate skeptics sites about what climatologists believe, and you are ignorant as a consequence.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Yet another climate thread title not supported by the actual source. Why do they do that?

 

[Phys251]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Well call me picky but given that clouds and water vapor make up 95% of greenhouse gases I'd say that admitted large uncertainties about it are of fairly major significance.

Source that indicates that water vapor has a significantly higher effect on global warming than CO2? Notice I didn't say "amount"; I said EFFECT. Hint: Water vapor tends to spend much less time in the atmosphere than CO2 does.

 

[Phys251]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Yet another climate thread title not supported by the actual source. Why do they do that?

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <- That's why.

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Source that indicates that water vapor has a significantly higher effect on global warming than CO2? Notice I didn't say "amount"; I said EFFECT. Hint: Water vapor tends to spend much less time in the atmosphere than CO2 does.

You should really acquaint yourself with some facts and figures here

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

 

[Phys251]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

You should really acquaint yourself with some facts and figures here

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Why are you linking me to a website about West Virginia plant fossils?

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Why are you linking me to a website about West Virginia plant fossils?

I'm not. This is fully referenced

Once again I'm amazed at how fast you guys can speed read through a mass of data in just 3 minutes ..... WOW ! :shock:

 

[Phys251]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

I'm not. This is fully referenced

Once again I'm amazed at how fast you guys can speed read through a mass of data in just 3 minutes ..... WOW ! :shock:

Well then! All that atmospheric water that has come out of nowhere must have done it. Next thing you know, the deniers are going to be claiming that Noah's Flood II is coming...

Except, it hasn't come from nowhere. Carbon dioxide is the culprit. Or more accurately, the species that emitted all the excess CO2 is the culprit.

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Well then! All that atmospheric water that has come out of nowhere must have done it. Next thing you know, the deniers are going to be claiming that Noah's Flood II is coming...

Except, it hasn't come from nowhere. Carbon dioxide is the culprit. Or more accurately, the species that emitted all the excess CO2 is the culprit.

I'll stick with the non cartoonist more scientific types for my info if its all the same :lol:

 

[Phys251]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

I'll stick with the non cartoonist more scientific types for my info if its all the same

Excuse me? One should not throw stones in a glass house.

 

[flogger]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Excuse me? One should not throw stones in a glass house.

Once I start using non scientific activist individuals for my sources you will have a point