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

[Ouch!]

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

Here's the IPCC summary of AGW possibilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F...tivity,_based_on_model_simulations_(NASA).png

It says that, according to thousands of simulations, each one based on different assumptions of boundary conditions, there is no possibility of warming less than 1.5 deg C per the first doubling, and a slight possibility of 12 deg C.

Keep in mind that these numbers are abstractions of the global average. For any average level there is much variability around the globe and over time.

 

[Tim the plumber]

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

Here's the IPCC summary of AGW possibilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F...ensitivity,_based_on_model_simulations_(NASA)

It says that, according to thousands of simulations, each one based on different assumptions of boundary conditions, there is no possibility of warming less than 1.5 deg C per the first doubling, and a slight possibility of 12 deg C.

Keep in mind that these numbers are abstractions of the global average. For any average level there is much variability around the globe and over time.

Well that's very reassuring. Absolutely nothing at all to worry about then.

Although when I click on it I get;

File:Frequency distribution of climate sensitivity, based on model simulations (NASA)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No file by this name exists.
File usage
No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file. (Pages on other projects are not counted.)

 

[Threegoofs]

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

Well that's very reassuring. Absolutely nothing at all to worry about then.

Although when I click on it I get;

Well there you are!

Your inability to navigate the Internet negates all of global wsrming science!


Case closed. We can move on.

 

[longview]

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

If you really are a student of climate science, rather than someone primarily driven by a political agenda (I don't know which you personally are but those are the two general groups typically involved in AGW discussions), here's a great source. Technical as much as the explanation requires but otherwise simplified to non PhD English.

Climate sensitivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look it over.

I have actually read this before, Wiki is of limited use, I like the real sources.
The quantum states of Co2 are well understood, as is the accepted greenhouse response.
It is the additional open loop feedback, that I have the issue with.

 

[Tim the plumber]

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

Well there you are!

Your inability to navigate the Internet negates all of global wsrming science!


Case closed. We can move on.

What do you get?

 

[longview]

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

From a Ford website.

DailyTech - Ford Says It Can React Quickly If There is U.S. Demand for Diesel Cars

Ford already offers diesel-powered cars in Europe (where half of all vehicles sold come with a diesel engine) and other world markets as part of its global strategy. If Ford sees the demand in the United States increase significantly for diesel-powered cars, it would be easy to start placing those engines into vehicles destined for the United States. However, Americans would be facing a $3,000 to $4,000 premium compared to an equivalent gasoline-powered vehicle.

Ford has been slow to introduce diesel engines in its U.S. vehicles because it has put quite a bit of energy into promoting its EcoBoost engines instead. The turbocharged engines can be found in varying displacements in everything from the tiny Fiesta to the hulking F-150. However, the fuel efficiency ratings of those comparatively small, turbocharged engines have recently come under fire. Consumer Reports maintains that Ford's turbocharged engines offer little to no improvement over conventional engines in fuel efficiency or performance.

Ford May have their own marketing reasons, But I have actually driven a
2009 Ford Focus C-max for over 800 miles (1300 KM) in Italy, (autostrade speeds (82mph) and got 59 MPG.
I did my own conversion from liters to US gallons.

 

[Ouch!]

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

We know the accepted greenhouse response of Co2, it is not that alarming,
and it's effects decrease as the levels rise.
The scary part of the predictions are based on open loop feedback mechanisms,
which are vaguely defined, and do not appear to be a major factor in the data.
We are 42% of our way to doubling Co2, on a log fit curve, this hits at 51% of the effects
of doubling.
If we are to believe the accepted physics response the IPCC has stated,
this known response would led to a .6 °C increase in temperature.
Since the observed increase is .8 °C in the last 133 years, this leaves only
.2 °C for all other possible variables..
If the forcing is occurring, it's effects must be within that .2 °C.
Baede et al's range for the additional feedback was 1.5 to 4.5 °C for a doubling of Co2.
The large range means their prediction will likely be correct, just not high resolution.
To get to the higher portions of that range, we should have seen the data already changing.
For example if we were on track for a 4 °C rise for a doubling of Co2,
we should be about 2°C higher now, a full 1.2 °C higher than current observations.

The data does not support the predictions so far, this may change,
but probabilities decrease as we move closer to doubling with so little visible forcing.

I think that you are applying a linearity that just isn't there in the real world of climate feedbacks.

Let me give you an example. Let's use a world 100% covered with snow and a climactic average temperature of a tenth of a degree C less than freezing. Snow might come and go but on the average it would be stable to slowly building.

Then we add additional GHGs to the atmosphere and the surface temp rises to a tenth of a degree warmer than freezing. A tiny change but one that would, on the average, decrease snow cover.

The snow pack changing state might absorb the excess energy for thousands of years. But, over time two changes occur. One, the earth's albedo changes as snow cover goes away and more and more incoming solar is absorbed and additional energy is added that way. And as the snow goes away it's ability to absorb heat goes away.

Lots of change caused by a tiny change in atmospheric GHGs.

Before life it wouldn't matter. Before human civilization it would only rearrange the species of life. since human civilization the resulting weather changes would (will) require relocating much fixed civilization infrastructure to different places, or otherwise mitigation and adaptation.

 

[longview]

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

Here's the IPCC summary of AGW possibilities.

File:Frequency distribution of climate sensitivity, based on model simulations (NASA).png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It says that, according to thousands of simulations, each one based on different assumptions of boundary conditions, there is no possibility of warming less than 1.5 deg C per the first doubling, and a slight possibility of 12 deg C.

Keep in mind that these numbers are abstractions of the global average. For any average level there is much variability around the globe and over time.

The IPCC AR5 cites Baede et al, as "1.2.2 Key Concepts in Climate Science"
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
Baede et al puts the range at 1.5 to 4.5°C.
The 1.5 is likely, the 4.5 °C is bordering on ridiculous.
Baede et al states the accepted response for any doubling of Co2 is 1.2 °C.

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase
to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with
radiation.

 

[Ouch!]

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

I have actually read this before, Wiki is of limited use, I like the real sources.
The quantum states of Co2 are well understood, as is the accepted greenhouse response.
It is the additional open loop feedback, that I have the issue with.

What does your preference have to do with reality? Wishing that climate feedbacks don't exist has no effect on them. Do you have science that shows behavior other than what the IPCC has uncovered?

While feedback is the term used by climate science, it's clearer to me to think in terms of cause and effect chains. This causes that, which in turn causes the other thing.

Nothing in Wiki is original. It all comes from appropriate sources like the IPCC.

 

[flogger]

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

Says someone who has clearly demonstrated an unwillingness to show a basic level of respect for the scientific method.

I'm fine with it and once you demonstrate it in support of your contentions you might have a point. But you aren't very good at checking references so your alleged superior comprehension of it is questionable to say the least ! :roll:

 

[longview]

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

I think that you are applying a linearity that just isn't there in the real world of climate feedbacks.

Let me give you an example. Let's use a world 100% covered with snow and a climactic average temperature of a tenth of a degree C less than freezing. Snow might come and go but on the average it would be stable to slowly building.

Then we add additional GHGs to the atmosphere and the surface temp rises to a tenth of a degree warmer than freezing. A tiny change but one that would, on the average, decrease snow cover.

The snow pack changing state might absorb the excess energy for thousands of years. But, over time two changes occur. One, the earth's albedo changes as snow cover goes away and more and more incoming solar is absorbed and additional energy is added that way. And as the snow goes away it's ability to absorb heat goes away.

Lots of change caused by a tiny change in atmospheric GHGs.

Before life it wouldn't matter. Before human civilization it would only rearrange the species of life. since human civilization the resulting weather changes would (will) require relocating much fixed civilization infrastructure to different places, or otherwise mitigation and adaptation.

That was just an example, the real would is more of an inverse response curve,
The more Co2 the less the response.
As to the Forcing, that is a big unknown.
We can not even tell if the feedback will be positive or negative.
More heat could lead to more evaporation, which could lead to more clouds,
which could lead to less heating.
Our new temperatures are moving the hardiness zones,
Hardiness Zone Changes at arborday.org
Will this cause more trees and more carbon uptake?

 

[Ouch!]

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

The IPCC AR5 cites Baede et al, as "1.2.2 Key Concepts in Climate Science"
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
Baede et al puts the range at 1.5 to 4.5°C.
The 1.5 is likely, the 4.5 °C is bordering on ridiculous.
Baede et al states the accepted response for any doubling of Co2 is 1.2 °C.

You have to read all of the words.

First of all, as you might know, tar = third annual report. Pretty early research.

Second, what is he talking about? The total chain of cause and effect or only the first order cause of AGW?

Why is a particular number "bordering on ridiculous" in the absence of any evidence suggesting that it's not possible?

The iPCC say's 12 degrees C is a possibility.

 

[Ouch!]

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

That was just an example, the real would is more of an inverse response curve,
The more Co2 the less the response.
As to the Forcing, that is a big unknown.
We can not even tell if the feedback will be positive or negative.
More heat could lead to more evaporation, which could lead to more clouds,
which could lead to less heating.
Our new temperatures are moving the hardiness zones,
Hardiness Zone Changes at arborday.org
Will this cause more trees and more carbon uptake?

"As to the Forcing, that is a big unknown."

To you perhaps. To the climate scientists of the world, the effects are well understood.

"Will this cause more trees and more carbon uptake?"

Where are they going to grow?

 

[longview]

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

You have to read all of the words.

First of all, as you might know, tar = third annual report. Pretty early research.

Second, what is he talking about? The total chain of cause and effect or only the first order cause of AGW?

Why is a particular number "bordering on ridiculous" in the absence of any evidence suggesting that it's not possible?

The iPCC say's 12 degrees C is a possibility.

The paper may be old, but IPCC AR5 (just released)
Cites Baede et al as "1.2.2 Key Concepts in Climate Science"

And the "bordering on ridiculous" is from the absence of any evidence suggesting that is possible.
Bear in mind The IPCC is saying things will change different than they have been changing.
The burden is on them to produce evidence that what they say will happen is in fact happening.
If they had said evidence, they would be announcing it from the rooftops aside trumpets.

 

[Ouch!]

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

Ford May have their own marketing reasons, But I have actually driven a
2009 Ford Focus C-max for over 800 miles (1300 KM) in Italy, (autostrade speeds (82mph) and got 59 MPG.
I did my own conversion from liters to US gallons.

I had a Renault diesel minivan recently in Italy and it got great mileage too. Sluggish but adequate, to my Prius sensibilities, in mountains.

Standard transmission of course in Europe which might contribute to mileage as well.

 

[longview]

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

"As to the Forcing, that is a big unknown."

To you perhaps. To the climate scientists of the world, the effects are well understood.

Not just to me,
Once again for Baede,

It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks
amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with
radiation.

So they are saying the range of uncertainty is from
almost nothing to it will kill us all, that's a big range.

"Will this cause more trees and more carbon uptake?"

Where are they going to grow?

If you just move the tree line north 100 miles, there is a lot more land.
More heat, more and bigger trees.

 

[Ouch!]

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

The paper may be old, but IPCC AR5 (just released)
Cites Baede et al as "1.2.2 Key Concepts in Climate Science"

And the "bordering on ridiculous" is from the absence of any evidence suggesting that is possible.
Bear in mind The IPCC is saying things will change different than they have been changing.
The burden is on them to produce evidence that what they say will happen is in fact happening.
If they had said evidence, they would be announcing it from the rooftops aside trumpets.

"And the "bordering on ridiculous" is from the absence of any evidence suggesting that is possible."

It was the outcome of some numerical experiments assuming possible boundary conditions. That's evidence. What has no evidence to support it is 1.2 deg C for the first doubling.

"The burden is on them to produce evidence that what they say will happen is in fact happening.
If they had said evidence, they would be announcing it from the rooftops aside trumpets."

What???? There's all kinds of evidence that they are right on target. In fact the only suggestion to the contrary is that 1998 was an anomalous year. Take that out and everything is right on track. Why was 1998 anomalous? No evidence from anybody either way.

 

[Ouch!]

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

Not just to me,
Once again for Baede,

So they are saying the range of uncertainty is from
almost nothing to it will kill us all, that's a big range.


If you just move the tree line north 100 miles, there is a lot more land.
More heat, more and bigger trees.

Then what? If there is any relief there it's temporary. And very slow in coming.

 

[Ouch!]

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

From http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm


"An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter."

"However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick."

"It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, 'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops."

"Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements."

 

[longview]

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

"
It was the outcome of some numerical experiments assuming possible boundary conditions. That's evidence. What has no evidence to support it is 1.2 deg C for the first doubling.
.

We first need to separate the accepted physics, from the speculative predictions.
I think the 1.2 °C for a doubling of Co2 is a valid number, as it is based on an energy
imbalance of 4 Wm−2.

What???? There's all kinds of evidence that they are right on target. In fact the only suggestion to the contrary is that 1998 was an anomalous year. Take that out and everything is right on track. Why was 1998 anomalous? No evidence from anybody either way.

What temperature record are you using, to think we are on track for a an increase greater than maybe 2°C
for a doubling of Co2?
I have been using the GISS,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
(Although it bothers me that the 1880 temperatures are still changing)

 

[longview]

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

Then what? If there is any relief there it's temporary. And very slow in coming.

Bear in mind you said we were half way through our oil supply.
There is no need to panic, we will solve all the problems.
Co2 may or may not be one of the real problems, but we will solve that one also.
When people remove their preconceived notions and stereotypes, and start thinking
outside the box, there are plenty of paths forward for humanity.
Your statement yesterday,

Audi's idea will prolong the life of our obsolete organic fueled fleet

Shows a clear bias towards current IC technology.

 

[Ouch!]

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

We first need to separate the accepted physics, from the speculative predictions.
I think the 1.2 °C for a doubling of Co2 is a valid number, as it is based on an energy
imbalance of 4 Wm−2.



What temperature record are you using, to think we are on track for a an increase greater than maybe 2°C
for a doubling of Co2?
I have been using the GISS,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
(Although it bothers me that the 1880 temperatures are still changing)

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/COP19/COP19_final_presentation.pdf

Page 3

 

[Ouch!]

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

The most important lecture that you will ever attend on effects of green house gases.

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/COP19/COP19_final_presentation.pdf

 

[flogger]

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

From CO2 is plant food


"An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter."

"However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick."

"It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, 'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops."

"Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements."

Just reading through this utter tripe is the perfect example of why one should not use activist cartoonists for their info. The ideal growing levels for added CO2 being around 3 times those we see today

Meanwhile on the real world

Rising CO2 level making Earth's deserts bloom: CSIRO study

Seeing is Believing - YouTube

 

[longview]

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

The most important lecture that you will ever attend on effects of green house gases.

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/COP19/COP19_final_presentation.pdf

It looks like the normal alarmist scare tactics, with just enough truth to sound plausible.
I know Scientist need funding to keep their jobs, but it will take a generation for the
stink of this abuse and politicization of Science to ware off.