IPCC | Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis 32

[cmoreride]

Climate change is widespread and intensifying
says the latest IPCC report.
It underscores the urgency of strong,
sustained cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

 

Again, projecting your assumptions onto my words.

I could dance with you all day long, but it would be like wrestling the proverbial greased pig.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I thought your words were pretty straightforward. "My two eyeballs are not 'junk science'"

I took the most obvious interpretation of those words, and pointed out that Global Warming is not something can be be proven or disproven based on anyone's personal experience with what they see or feel in their region. I don't think I was rude in anyway. I wasn't really even argumentative. I just pointed out what is a personal pet peeve of mine.... when people (like Peter King) assume their personal observations are indicative of Global Warming which is a laughable assumption.

You can feel free to clarify what you meant by that quote. But, certainly the most straightforward way of interpreting your remark would make you guilty of the same laughable assumption that I cited from Peter King.

 

[1503-44]

Nukes aren't my problem either. They may be one necessary evil in the puzzle that we will have to accept. My problem is why you say this, "Those are highly speculative and are really difficult to get even close to correct when you have an incredibly complex multi-variable system like the earths climate." That tells me that you do not believe that you believe in climate change, as you have said. You believe in climate change, but do not believe the models? Why is that. They're real-time models today. That's how they tune them finer and finer. A couple of degrees low on an extreme curve of a 70yr projection is pretty f#*%¥*n accurate and that was the model they trashed. Again, this "and pointed out that Global Warming is not something can be be proven or disproven based on anyone's personal experience with what they see or feel in their region" says you don't believe yourself what you told us. If you did believe, you would certainly agree that evidence is everywhere and can be found in personal experience. Myself, I've personally seen it happening over 30yrs. Now it's finally in the data too. Convince me you believe and I might believe you believe. Its looking like a big gap right now.

Your argument that individual events cannot to be considered as climate change, yet the integration of those events over a long enough time could prove climate change doesn't hold water, ice or vapor. Many events are insignificant and hard to see, true, but many events are significant and increasing in frequency and can be seen and predicted by these models and can be confirmed in real world events. Climate models over 10,000 years are long enough and accurate, until fossil fuel is present in the models and confirmed in the physical world from gas samples taken from many different sources. Is that supposed to be coincidence?

These models are not highly speculative. They are in the stage of being tuned and verified to a fine edge. If you can model the last 10,000 years accurately, why don't you think that they cannot predict within reasonable error margins the next 20 or 50 years. They're telling you now they can reach out to 70 years with reasonable accuracy. Where is your basis for calling them "speculative"? You've done extensive research into the models? You can tell us what aspects you think are speculative? You have special expertise in climate change modeling you haven't told us about? Where's that "speculative" coming from? Maybe that is simply your opinion? Why should I take your opinion seriously? Any reason I should not just drop it in file 13?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

That tells me that you do not believe that you believe in climate change, as you have said. You believe in climate change, but do not believe the models? Why is that

1) We have data for at least a few hundred years that show we have been experiencing temperature increases. That is imperfect because, of course.... "Urban Heat Island" effect tending to increase temperatures at some sensor sites. The UK institute that captured and categorized much of this data ended up losing that data and being unable to explain how they produced the data.... very embarrassing since that was their main function. Blah, blah, blah. All caveats about imperfection aside, I still believe it's a reasonable starting point.

2) We have data from ice records going back thousands of years that somewhat align with our temperature records and show a pattern between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Still imperfect because the CO2 increase tends to trail the temperature increase rather than the other way around. But, still enough to build upon the data from item 1).

3) We have excellent excellent models that predict surface temperatures for planets based on distance from the sun for planets without atmosphere. We can see very clearly the effect of atmosphere on temperatures of the various planets. I'm not expert here, but we also can know enough about the atmospheres of these planets that we can see the correlations between our theoretical theories about which gasses contribute to the "greenhouse" effect of atmosphere. I put greenhouse in quotes because it is actually the opposite of a true green house. But, that's the poor colloquial term we've settled on.

4) We have really good data from Hawaii (the hockey puck graph) showing the startling rise in C02 going back long enough.

This is enough to convince me of the basic relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperatures. Period. We've increase CO2 so much that we are inviting problems if we continue to do so based on the very well established scientific knowledge that we have now.

Now, why do I not fully trust these models?

a) I do a lot of structural modeling work. When I do simple models (linear elastic variables, with well defined relationships) it is very difficult to "fudge" the analysis in any way. When I start introducing multiple sources or geometry and material non-linearity the analysis gets much harder to "get correct". Throw in methods of convergence and such and the only way you can demonstrate that your modeling is correct is to compare it to real world tests.

I have a friend who did more of this type of highly non-linear modeling who said something like, "I can may the analysis show you whatever results you want to get. I just have to know how to manipulate all the various variables and convergence criteria and such."

b) These systems I'm dealing with are way, way, way less complicated than our atmosphere. Like, multiple orders of magnitude. The first reaction to industrialization was to deal with particulate matter in the atmosphere. That was a terrible problem 100 years ago and is nearly non-existent today. Do we know how to include this in our models? If we do, how accurate is it.

The ozone whole (and CFC's in general) were a major, major atmospheric problem 40 years ago, not so much today. How well do the models account for that?

Effects of warming on the production of low lying clouds. The effects of low lying clouds on temperatures. Effects of warming on higher altitude clouds. Effects of warming on the amount of algae in the ocean and the volume of CO2 these Algae can absorb. Effects of increased CO2 on plant growth in general. Effects of warming on wind speeds and hurricanes and such (i.e. a conservation of energy effect). How much of the increased temperature gets converted into kinetic energy. Same question related to ocean currents and such.

c) Ergo, I have some healthy degree of skepticism of these models. I don't completely trash them. However, I want to see that what they predict actually comes true or a decent about of time before I drink the Kool-Aid.... By that, I mean become convinced that the only way to solve the problem is to commit economic suicide.

These models are not highly speculative. They are in the stage of being tuned and verified to a fine edge. If you can model the last 10,000 years accurately, why don't you think that they cannot predict within reasonable error margins the next 20 or 50 years. They're telling you now they can reach out to 70 years with reasonable accuracy.

d) Can you cite to me a single example of when these models were correct in their dire predictions of what would happen 20 years in the future? I'll be kind and drop the criteria to 10 years.... which is really generous.

e) Even worse are the dire predictions that the IPCC political arm puts out that get widely reported. 1989 UN report that was widely reported as saying that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth due to rising sea levels by as early as the year 2000 (just 11 years from that point). Well, we're 21 years past that date and I don't think any of the low-lying nations in the pacific or such have been wiped of the face of the earth, have they? I understand that there is a big difference between what the scientists actually say and what the IPCC reports actually say. And, just as big of a difference between what the IPCC says and what the media reports.

f) Ergo, I have skepticism about what the politicians, say.... what the IPCC says, and what the activists say.

Your argument that individual events cannot to be considered as climate change, yet the integration of those events over a long enough time could prove climate change doesn't hold water, ice or vapor. Many events are insignificant and hard to see, true, but many events are significant and increasing in frequency and can be seen and predicted by these models and can be confirmed in real world events.

g) You will need to demonstrate to me that these events have increased in the last 30 years or so by some significant factor of the standard deviation over the patterns of the last 500 years of so for me to accept this as proof. Do you understand what I'm saying? Just because someone says, "hey we've had a lot of hurricanes this year" doesn't mean that we've actually had a lot of hurricanes compared to years past. You need to demonstrate that with numbers. And, as far as I understand it, the numbers do not support this as conclusive proof. Too much variability in historical records to demonstrate this STATISTICALLY.

 

[1503-44]

Yes I agree computer models are problematic. Myself, I dont believe much about any structural analysis past basic beams and trusses. FEA analysis is almost always not very useful for one reason or another. Usually it's difficult to see the reality of the initial model to the how the connections are designed, or the bars dont fit where you need them, not mentioning running in the right direction. With pipe stress work, many just put in anchors in places they don't need them, just because the program won't run without at least one anchor.

As for the rest. Looks like this is going into Cayote and Roadrunner territory. Let's hope that it will be one of these cases where

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-experts-are-almost-always-wrong-9997024/

 

In my line of work I also see many garbage FEA reports - because they are done with questionable inputs, by kids who often aren't even sure what they are analyzing for. Worse, their faith in all things digital is unshakeable.

The climate model is not invalidated because it is complex. The input data is based on actual measurements over a long period of time. It represents the cumulative effort of thousands of researchers, and is regularly tweaked as new information arises. The curious thing about atmospheric modeling is that when NASA performs it for distant planets, no one questions it, but when they do it for our planet, with infinitely more and more detailed data, people scream 'junk science' while more dark money flows to national capitals.

The latest data validates the earlier models and shows that these models understated the current severity of heating. (Scientists have generally been extremely careful to be conservative in their public conclusions.)

That, plus the evidence of significant change in my neighbourhood over my lifetime provided by my personal eyeballs, make the conclusions inescapable. Inaction and delay are completely inexcusable. It is not at all being dramatic to say it constitutes a crime against all humanity by those in positions to direct policy.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[rb1957]

"4) We have really good data from Hawaii (the hockey puck graph) showing the startling rise in C02 going back long enough."

you do realise that the "hockey stick" is a complete fudge ? (see Steven McIntyre "Climate Audit" and Steve McKittrick)

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[rb1957]

"The curious thing about atmospheric modeling is that when NASA performs it for distant planets, no one questions it," ... could that be because on one (other than a few specialists) are particularly invested in the work ? It's not like NASA is saying "we have to spend billions to "fix" the climate in XYZ"

I do find it "odd" that for something you know something about (structural analysis and FEA) you are (rightly) suspicious of models, but accept the (insert whatever adjective you want, I was thinking of crude) modelling of the world's climate easily ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

The climate model is not invalidated because it is complex. The input data is based on actual measurements over a long period of time. It represents the cumulative effort of thousands of researchers, and is regularly tweaked as new information arises. The curious thing about atmospheric modeling is that when NASA performs it for distant planets, no one questions it, but when they do it for our planet, with infinitely more and more detailed data, people scream 'junk science' while more dark money flows to national capitals.

Agreed. These climate models are very much different that the "my two eyeballs are not junk science" comment you made earlier.

As I said earlier, I don't completely trash them. However, I maintain my healthy degree of skepticism. I appreciate the work they've done and the effort that's behind it. But, I don't take their predictions as anything more than that. Predictions.

The biggest difference between my belief and that of some of the others on this forum is that I don't FEAR global warming as a direct threat to my life or my existence. Or, the lives of my children. I am very concerned and want to take action now so that they can live out their lives without the worst possible consequences.

Note: Doomsday predictions are not anything new. I've experienced them before in my life. First it was that we were all destined to die in a nuclear holocaust and that we all needed to become anti-nuke activists to stop it. Next it was that the Ozone hole was going to make the surface of our planet unlivable and we were going to have to learn how to live underground or could only go out at night or such. There was always some truth in these doomsday predictions. But, the predictions were more rooted in fear than anything else.

In summary, Global Warming is real. The consequences of global warming are real. The apocalyptic warnings and fears are probably greatly exaggerated.

 

[1503-44]

So how does doing nothing mitigate that risk.
Or the risk, in your opinion, is so small that it's OK to ignore it?

I wouldn't trust a climate scientist to do design a 1000mi long pipeline, as I'm sure you would not trust me, or one of them to design a 100 story building, yet you know enough about climate change to decide that doing nothing is your option of choice. Very interesting.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

So how does doing nothing mitigate that risk.

While I take dire / apocalyptic warnings with a grain of salt, doing nothing is NOT an option (IMO). Not sure how anyone could construe my previous comments as suggesting that. I have been pretty consistent about a few things:

1) Replace Coal Power now. Not tomorrow, but today. That means probably replacing those plants with Natural Gas plants. But, that's still a huge win for reducing carbon emissions.

2) Encourage nuclear where ever it is feasible. Nuclear is carbon free power.

3) I prefer the type of solar that is done at IvanPah compared to roof top solar arrays because I feel like it is a more efficient use of government dollars. But, I don't object to solar panels.

4) I love Hydroo power. Encourage it where ever it is feasible.

5) Maybe we should start imposing taxes and tariffs against countries that aren't doing their share with carbon reduction.

Now, I'm still in favor of domestic oil and gas production.... At least for a while. I just think it's better to use the stuff that's right here where we live rather than buying it from countries across the world that support groups that want to kill us.

 

[1503-44]

OK, that's not doing nothing, but it is ""holding the status quo". Steady course ahead to +5C.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I'd quibble with calling my recommended actions "status quo", but it definitely is more "conservative" or "gradual" action than others would argue for. But, that's largely semantics. So, I won't disagree with your use of the term.

Ultimately, there is a balance between the economic / social aspects and the environmental aspects. Just like the climate scientists cannot build a pipleline, they also can't be trusted to handle the macro-economic policies for the country or the world.

We're in something of a political "no win" situation right now. Grid lock when action NEEDS to be taken. I'd argue that to overcome the gridlock we take as many small steps in the right direction that we can. That's not going to make a huge difference this decade, but hopefully, it will make the next stage of more moderate steps easier to do 5 or 10 years from now.

 

[1503-44]

OK. Be prepared and realize it's like maintenance and operation costs. What you don't do today only comes comes along later with a bite 100x harder. Surfside Lesson #1.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

My issue is that too many politicians have the following attitudes:

Person A: If we can't get from A to Z in the next 20 years then climate change is going to destroy our society. This is our WWII. We need to eliminate all carbon emission as soon as possible.

Person B: I understand, not sure I fully agree. But, I do understand what you're saying. What do you propose?

Person A: I propose the following radical changes that will take us from A to M in the next 5 years.

Person B: Wow! That's a lot of change. Change that could do a lot of harm in a number of very well defined ways. I'm more afraid of the definite harm that can be done by your changes than by the less well defined harm that say will happen if we don't implement them.... What about if we do the following that will take us from A to B this year, from B to D next year and D to H within the next 5 years? Then we can see how much our changes have made and re-evaluate what we're going to do at that time.

Person A: You're hopeless! You don't believe the science. You're not worth talking to. I'm never going to accept your proposal.

Person B: Well, I'm not going to accept your proposal. It's just too radical and dangerous to me. I know it's not what you want, but doesn't it move us in the right direction?

Person A: I disagree, your refusal to accept my proposal means that you (and people like you) are going to destroy our society.

Person B: So, that means you prefer to stay at point A right now? Okay. I guess I'll accept this stalemate.... Because, being called names by you doesn't frighten me anywhere near as much as the proposals that you're making.

 

[rb1957]

That is, I think, a good summary of the situation. How much pain do we suffer now (certain pain) to offset a future (possible) worse pain ?

I have likened it in the past to life insurance ... how much insurance do you pay to remediate a possible future problem (like critical illness) or even a certain one (like death) ?

and you, as an individual and wholly accountable for your choices, have it easy ... compared to multiple countries ... if we don't all follow the same (or similar actions) then the result will be less +ve impact on the problem and a worse -ve impact on ourselves (when the countries that don't absorb these costs undercut our efforts and gain by taking our business).

WWIII anyone ?


another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[moltenmetal]

Status-quoism, to coin a phrase in place of "denialism" which always gets a knee jerk emotional response, is laid out like positions on a battlefield- forward trenches with a series of fall-back positions.

It's exactly like the positions laid out against the science relating smoking to cancer and heart disease, unremarkably because the marketing communication approach to both were authored to some extent by the same people.

The original position was, "The scientists are liars and frauds. Global warming isn't happening, or in the remote chance that it is, it isn't us causing it"

That position was over-run, finally, though a few fanatics are still out there and they won't change their minds until they die.

The retreat positions are many:

"It's real and it's happening, and we've caused it, but it's not important" or "other things are more important" or "mitigating it would make us starve and freeze in the dark" etc.

"It's real, happening and important, but there's nothing we can do about it- all the alternatives are bad"

It's actually a nest of often mutually exclusive positions that all have one thing in common: a fear of change.

There's no point in trying to change the minds of the people in the trenches here. The positions being held aren't rational and subject to change by presenting better evidence- they're related to maintaining a world view against change because change is scary, especially if you're old.

Yes, it's a sad fact that this can apply to highly educated people with engineering degrees. An education is like a vaccination- it provides some measure of protection but not full immunity.

 

[1503-44]

Like life insurance??? OK, lets dumb it down some more. But only if you've already got 10 (or more) of the world's best, foremost and outstanging oncologists telling YOU biopsies look really, really bad.

 

[SkipVought]

But what if your "10 (or more) of the world's best, foremost and outstanging oncologists telling YOU biopsies look really, really bad" were beholden to the insurance company for massive contributions for their research projects?

You might call it a conflict of interest: your health interest vs. their survival in the professional and academic world at their current level of comfort and acclaim. Conform or be Expelled!

My list of foremost and outstanding scientists versus your list of foremost and outstanding scientists.

Oh, but my list of scientists are science denier quacks! They've been Expelled!

Trouble is the current situation does not allow dialog in certain sacred spaces. Its "settled science!"

Skip,

_{Just traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance!}

 

[1503-44]

They are not. I picked them. They're on my payroll.

Its your choice. Chose the experts, or the quacks. Or just Google it and you can be expert too.
Entropy is gone exponential on the Internet.