Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road... 43

[ewh]

What is the reputation of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a organization of 50 "top" scientists) in the engineering community? I really don't know how reliable they are, but a study (Climate Change Reconsidered II) produced by them and published by the Heartland Institute (an organization which espouses other ideas I disagree with) claims to be "double peer reviewed" and presents a seemingly well-founded arguement that AGW is a political red herring.
I am not a climate scientist, but thought that this was a good example of one side of the differing dogmas surrounding the issue. Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

or the summary

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[rb1957]

you free to assume whatever you like !

personally, the lack of response is due less to the overwelming rationalisation of your position and more to do with resignation to the futility of the exercise.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rconnor]

rb1957, I do not disagree with you. It is rather futile to offer unscientific, unsupported, opinion-based rebuttals, that amount to nothing but “I don’t believe that peer-reviewed literature your referencing”, to a scientific issue.

But maybe I will be surprised with a well-thought out, well-referenced rebuttal…although I’m not holding my breath.

 

[beej67]

“quadrupling the measured greenhouse effects of carbon” – they do not “quadruple” the measured greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is what it is in the lab. However, this causes positive feedbacks such as increased water vapour, decreased albedo, etc, which further increase the temperature.

That's no different in the model than quadrupling the greenhouse effect of carbon. No different. Those other feedback quantities aren't keyed to historical water vapor levels, or historical albedo, they're calibrated against carbon to make the model track temperature rise. That's bad science. It can lead to good modeling results, but it proves nothing.

“use calibrated model…” – this takes GregLococks false assumption that models are calibrated to match historical temperatures. That is not true.

It is true. They are calibrated models. The feedback terms are knobs that they twiddle until the model matches historical temperatures. Which is good for prediction of future warming based on current trends alone, but is terrible for proving causality and terrible for showing cases other than continuation of the status-quo.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/09/climate-model-tuning/

“carbon credits will fix it” – Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. Look it up. You can obtain an estimate for where global surface temperatures will settle out to based on a change in forcing (i.e. CO2 concentrations). The greater the CO2 concentration, the greater the temperature rise to the new equilibrium point.

The globe was warming before the industrial revolution. The globe began warming at a higher rate after the industrial revolution. That's not "equilibrium."

But lets pretend, falsely, that you are correct that the globe wasn't warming before the industrial revolution. The only way to stop warming according to the words you just wrote is to stop all CO2 emissions, because every pound of carbon released increases the atmospheric concentration of carbon, which pushes the new equilibrium point higher. If your presumptions are true, then the only way to stop global warming is to cease all carbon emissions entirely. Not tax them. Not trade them. Cease them entirely.

With aggressive mitigation measures, but not so aggressive as to send us back to the stone age like some here are suggesting, it’s possible to keep the equilibrium temperature at a less dangerous level.

No. You just said that when carbon concentration goes up, the globe gets warmer.

And you're also continuing to ignore that the globe was warming beforehand. If we cut CO2 emissions to zero the globe still warms, just at the pre-industrial revolution rate. The glaciers still recede, just not as fast.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[JJPellin]

beej67,

You continue to disregard the data that rconnor has provided. There are mechanisms within the atmosphere to remove carbon. It is not necessary to eliminate all carbon emissions. At any rate of carbon emissions, there will be an equilibrium point where the atmospheric concentrations level out and the global temperature also reaches equilibrium.

Perhaps an example might clarify. My wife decided she really likes burning candles. She now keeps a small candle burning in our living room at all times. As soon as one burns out, she immediately replaces it with another. We happen to live in an area with a very mild climate. We never run our heater or air conditioner. And, all of our windows are sealed shut. I have calculated the heat addition to our home from this candle. According to my calculations, the temperature in my living room will exceed the melting point of iron within a year. Does this seem like a valid analysis of the situation? Or, is it more likely that the temperature in my living room with reach some new equilibrium point. That equilibrium point will still change from day to night and from season to season. But, that new equilibrium point will be at a higher temperature than it would have been without the candle burning.

Replace the candle with a 1000 watt heater. The temperature in my living room will rise again and will reach another equilibrium point at a higher temperature. This does not require that the temperature at this new equilibrium point will remain absolutely constant. It will still have variation based on other factors. But, the temperature in my living room will be higher than it would be if I turned off the 1000 watt heater.


Johnny Pellin

 

[swall]

JJPellin--could you elaborate on the mechanism by which carbon is removed from the atmosphere?

 

[rb1957]

trees ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[JJPellin]

CO2 is removed directly from the atmosphere by plants. In addition to that, some is removed by the hydrological cycle. It is washed out of the air by rainfall and ends up in the oceans. In solution in water, it participates in number of different chemical reactions and biological processes. Some of these reactions tie up the carbon in various reaction products, some of which end up trapped in sediments. Limestone is a classic example of carbon that was removed from the atmosphere and trapped in rock.

Johnny Pellin

 

[cranky108]

formula CaCO3, is created when Ca ions in hard water react with carbonate ions creating limescale. Ca(OH)2 + CO2 → CaCO3 + H2O

Trees aren't the only way to remove CO2 from the air.

 

[beej67]

There are mechanisms within the atmosphere to remove carbon. It is not necessary to eliminate all carbon emissions.

Were those mechanisms absent before the industrial revolution? If not, then the only way to get back to the rate of pre-IR warming is to eliminate carbon emissions.

At any rate of carbon emissions, there will be an equilibrium point where the atmospheric concentrations level out and the global temperature also reaches equilibrium.

The globe was warming before the IR. The globe has been warming for the past 22 thousand years. Even if the "CO2-and-only-CO2" folks are correct, which I doubt for reasons laid out above, completely eliminating CO2 emissions simply cause the globe to revert back to it's pre-IR rate of warming.

Perhaps an example might clarify. My wife decided she really likes burning candles. She now keeps a small candle burning in our living room at all times. As soon as one burns out, she immediately replaces it with another. We happen to live in an area with a very mild climate. We never run our heater or air conditioner. And, all of our windows are sealed shut.

This is a great example. Thanks for it.

I have calculated the heat addition to our home from this candle. According to my calculations, the temperature in my living room will exceed the melting point of iron within a year. Does this seem like a valid analysis of the situation?

No.

No it doesn't.

Now what would you do if a bunch of people plotted the average temperature in your living room from the months of December to May, and used that data to build an energy model of your living room. Then, in order to explain the rise in temperature from December to May, they calibrated their models against the amount of "anthropogenic candle wax consumption" in your living room? Their data looks great, by the way. Every day you consumed wax from candles the temperature went up. Their models are clearly predictive. They show that at this rate of warming, in another 12 months your living room is going to be well over 100 degrees F.

Now, the amount of energy added to your living room by the candle itself doesn't itself account for the entire warming trend, so they calibrate all the other possible "feedback effects" to warming from anthropogenic candle wax consumption. They claim that although only a few degrees worth of living room warming are directly due to the candle, the candle's effect must clearly be feeding back and causing all the rest of the warming.

They have models, after all, which they've calibrated, and which predict your living room climate fairly well from December to May. They're quite predictive.

Now I ask you, are these predictive models adequate scientific proof that all the warming in your living room from December to May is due to anthropogenic candle wax consumption? Or did the living room modelers forget one pretty important element of the scientific process when they decided to analyze your living room? The correlation is great. Is that correlation enough to prove causality with a calibrated model?



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[SomptingGuy]

Re: trees removing CO2 from the atmosphere...

Ask a random lay person what trees are made of and they'll answer "wood". Ask where that wood comes from and they'll normally give an answer along the lines of "through the roots". Push further and ask about the carbon part that makes up wood and you get a blank look.

- Steve

 

[rconnor]

Beej67,

Model Tuning
From Gavin Schmidt of NASA,

Are climate models just a fit to the trend in the global temperature data? No. Much of the confusion concerning this point comes from a misunderstanding stemming from the point above. Model development actually does not use the trend data in tuning (see below). Instead, modellers work to improve the climatology of the model (the fit to the average conditions), and it’s intrinsic variability (such as the frequency and amplitude of tropical variability). The resulting model is pretty much used ‘as is’ in hindcast experiments for the 20th Century.

From Hegerl et al comments to Curry’s “Uncertainty Monster”

The authors [Curry and Webster] claim that ‘The 20th century aerosol forcing used in most of the AR4 model simulations (Section 9.2.1.2) relies on inverse calculations of optical properties to match climate model simulations with observations’ and thus claim ‘apparent circular reasoning’. This is incorrect. The inverse estimates of aerosol forcing given in 9.2.1.2 are derived from observationally based analyses of temperature and are compared in Chapter 9 with “forward” estimates calculated directly from understanding of the emissions in order to determine whether the two are consistent. But it is critical to understand that such inverse estimates are an output of attribution analyses not an input, and thus the claim of ‘circular reasoning’ is wrong. The aerosol forcing used in 20C3M (see

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/ann_20c3m.php)

climate model simulations was based on forward calculations using emission data (Boucher and Pham, 2002; references in Randall et al., 2007).

Pre-Industrial Warming
Here is the temperature trend since 1400:
[image

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/20362/large/HockeyStickValidatedbyNCAR.jpg?1361579945

]

As posted before, here is the temperature trend of the last glacial-interglacial transition (red - Antarctic temperature, Blue - Global temperature, yellow dot - CO2). Note the settling to the new equilibrium point.
[image

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ShakunFig2a.jpg

]

So beej67, you do realize that the warming of the last glacial-interglacial period, which took place over ~10,000 years, ended ~10,000 years ago?

In your “rebuttal” to JJPellin you state “completely eliminating CO2 emissions will simply cause the globe to revert back to its pre-IR rate of warming”. Firstly, it’s not that simple. Secondly, the pre-IR/post-interglacial period had a pretty flat temperature profile. Thirdly, what are you basing that one?

Not much pre-industrial warming since the last glacial-interglacial transition. It appeared to hit a new equilibrium point in the Holocene. Now, through anthropogenic actions, we’ve kick started another shift in climate. What temperature it equals out to is dependent on where we hold CO2 levels at.

Holding CO2 Concentrations Steady (Doesn’t) Mean Stopping All Emissions
“Every pound of carbon released increases the atmospheric concentration of carbon”. Why do rb1957 and JJPellin need to explain to people that there are naturally processes that sequester carbon? The problem is that we are releasing carbon at a much faster rate than it is being re-stored and this problem is exacerbated by deforestation. The solution is to reverse those two problems.

 

[rb1957]

1) "modellers work to improve the climatology of the model (the fit to the average conditions)" = tuning, in my mind.
2) i guess there was no "little Ice Age" in the 1600s, 1700s ?
3) a second comment on your termperature graph ... since Mann '98 is proven (in my mind) to be a "fabrication", other reconstructions based on the same data showing the same response must be treated with the same "skepticism".
4) "you do realize that the warming of the last glacial-interglacial period, which took place over ~10,000 years, ended ~10,000 years ago?" ... only if you don't extend you graph to the left, further back in time, as see that things were much hotter

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[beej67]

So you contend that glacial recession started in 1890? Be careful how you answer.

Read the study linked in the Curry blog above.

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/klockedaniel/Mauritsen_tuning_6.pdf

They took their model and calibrated it three ways, and got answers that were 3K off depending on the calibration methods.

Figure 1 instead shows the absolute temperature evolution from 1850 till present in realizations of the coupled climate models obtained from the CMIP3 and CMIP5 multimodel datasets. There is considerable coherence between the model realizations and the observations; models are generally able to reproduce the observed 20th century warming of about 0.7 K, and details such as the years of cooling following the volcanic eruptions.

Yet, the span between the coldest and the warmest model is almost 3 K, distributed equally far above and below the best observational estimates, while the majority of models are cold-biased.

Calibrated models are great at predicting the future of the status-quo alternative. They are not great at predicting other alternatives, because one modeling parameter may be overcompensating in error for another modeling parameter that's under-utilized in error. That all works out if you're just predicting our future, but it blows up if you're predicting the results of adopting different policies. It's bad science.

Ask a random lay person what trees are made of and they'll answer "wood". Ask where that wood comes from and they'll normally give an answer along the lines of "through the roots". Push further and ask about the carbon part that makes up wood and you get a blank look.

I got similar blank looks right here on this forum when I mentioned that burning wood is a completely "carbon neutral" energy source. Even had half a dozen people trying to argue the point with me. It was humorous.


Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

there you go "curry" and "blog" in the same sentence !

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rconnor]

rb1957 (and beej67),
1) I’m not saying that they do not tune models. The assertion being made is that parameterization and other such “control knobs” are tuned in order to match historical temperature records directly (i.e. chasing the noise). That is incorrect. The “knobs” are tuned to create a better representation of their specific aspects of the climate system. These adjustments can only be made in the range established by observations or peer-reviewed study. Once that is achieved, they run the GCM to see how they compare to observed temperature trends. If there are discrepancies, they aim to resolve them by reviewing how the subsystems or the interaction between subsystems are represented. Again, this is done to better represent those aspects, with the indirect result being a more accurate representation of historical temperature trends. They do not blindly tune these parameters, such that they behave in a way outside of observed, experimental or theoretical expectations, just to match the GCM to historical temperature trends.

This is made clear in the paper beej67 referenced:

Climate model tuning has developed well beyond just controlling global mean temperature drift

The MPI-ESM was not tuned to better fit the 20th Century. In fact, we only had the capability to run the full 20th Century simulation according to the CMIP5-protocol after the point in time when the model was frozen.

The impacts of the alternative tunings presented were smaller than we thought they would be in advance of this study, which in many ways is reassuring. We must emphasize that our paper presents only a small glimpse at the actual development and evaluation involved in preparing a comprehensive coupled climate model

I don’t disagree with the Mauritsen et al paper. It outlines the modeling process and highlights some accurate concerns. My contention is with the unfair and, at times, untrue stretching of its conclusions, which are directly disproven by quotes from the paper itself. Curry actually did not make this mistake (at least not directly). She said very little about the paper besides calibration is poorly documented. She left it up to her readers to misrepresent the paper, which they did in spades.

For more information and to avoid the one-study syndrome, I recommend reading IPCC AR5, specifically box 9.1 on the subject.

2) There was a dip after the medieval warm period, yes. The rate of both the warming during the Medieval Warm Period and cooling of the LIA were much lower than the rate of change seen recently. Furthermore, the extent of warming during the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent cooling of the LIA are not as great as some “skeptics” might believe it is. Much of the “drastic” warming in the MWP comes from only using temperatures from one region and saying it was global (very similar to the faulty argument made about Antarctic temperatures during the last glacial-interglacial period).

3) One-study syndrome. One-study, that has been shown to have serious holes in it by various other studies, shows that Mann ’98 was a “fabrication”. Meanwhile, numerous studies have validated Mann ’98. To avoid this trite topic, I’ll just say, fine throw out Mann ’98 from this discussion. How does this help with beej67’s point (which is what again? He’s hopped between arguments, selectively choosing which rebuttal to address and which to ignore, that I have lost track of his core argument).

4) Addressed in 2. Yes, there was some warming in the Medieval Warm Period. However, it was nowhere near the extent of the warming in the last glacial-interglacial period or recently, for that matter. The rate of warming is an even worse comparison between the MWP and today. So, what’s your point? Does it relate to beej67’s?

beej67, what? I’m saying that there was a major shift in climate about 18,000 years ago and then stabilized around 10,000 years ago. There have been relatively minor variations since then (MWP and LIA discussed above). However, now we are in another shift in climate, this time it appears to be driven by anthropogenic actions. The rate of this change is unlike the last glacial-interglacial period.

But, as stated above, you’ve bounced around from point to point, failing to address half of what I’ve said. I’m at the point that I don’t know what your even arguing for (and I believe you don’t either). Here’s a rundown of your past points:
1) Anthropogenic actions aside from CO2 emissions are the cause of the warming – I’ve referenced a bunch of articles that look at the forcings from various anthropogenic sources and CO2 is the greatest forcing. You haven’t responded to this or provided anything to support your claim.
2) CO2 emission restrictions will not slow temperature rise – Completely off topic from point 1. I discussed equilibrium climate sensitivity. You didn’t really response to this but made the false claim described below.
3) CO2 emission restrictions won’t work because we have to completely eliminate CO2 emissions to keep concentrations at a safe level – Completely off topic from point 1. Regardless, I (and others) have demonstrated that this is false. It’s really silly logic. You haven’t responded to this or provided anything to support your claim.
4) Models are tuned to match historical temperatures – Completely off topic from point 1 and 3. Regardless, I have demonstrated that this is false (twice now). You actually did offer something to support your claim but the problem is, it doesn’t really support your claim.
5) It was warming before the industrial revolution! – Completely off topic from point 1, 2 , 3 and 4. Regardless, I have demonstrated that this is false. You need to provide something to support this claim.
6) Some random article from GWPF – Nothing to do with anything else really. Regardless, I demonstrated that the author of the main paper GWPF used in their argument said that their conclusion was wrong. Your rebuttal was to include a quote which actual validated my point.

Find a topic, define why and how it challenges the CO2 theory, support it with references and then stick with it. This jumping from topic to topic is such a tiresome game by “skeptics”. I’ve actually taken the time to address each individual concern, perhaps encouraging this silliness, and then you or someone else completely changes the topic. It’s gish gallop, pure and simple.

 

[beej67]

Let me fix some of these for you, just so you can be clear.

1) Some warming is from CO2, some is from other anthropogenic sources, and some is natural. The way the models are calibrated leaves how much from each source open to the modeler's judgment, as is absolutely represented in the linked article when they talk about how they do all their calibration by hand, instead of with a computer process.

2) CO2 emission restrictions in the United States will not slow temperature rise a significant enough amount to warrant unilateral US policy on the matter, and good luck getting Russia, China, or India to play along. This is really the only important point out of them all. I've repeatedly asked for you to provide a "peer reviewed journal article" stating that the United States can unilaterally reverse global warming with our emissions policy, and haven't seen one yet.

3) If we presume that all anthropogenic warming is due to carbon, then even if we eliminated CO2 emissions, the globe would continue warming at the rate that it did between 1750 and 1850, which clearly wasn't due to carbon.

4) Models are in fact tuned to match historic temperatures, because if they tune a model, and it doesn't match historic temperatures, they throw the tuning out and redo the model.

5) It was warming before the industrial revolution. This is not false. Glaciers have been receding since at least 1750, depending on where you look, and that is a better indicator of temperature than any global mean record brewed up from mixed observations. Some have been receding since the late 1600s. In fact, when you plot the rate of glacial recession, it's "hockey stick" starts right around the same time the human population hockey stick starts, not the CO2 hockey stick. Go figure.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

What of the recent news that pollution from China is causing the rain shortages in the US. Where are the taxes that will fix that?

 

[GregLocock]

beej67 - I really don't like glaciers as a proxy for anything, because they are snowfall dependent, which means they are affected by uptake from oceans and so on.


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[GrandpaDave]

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,
according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north
as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced
by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never
before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that
due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

Oops...

I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in
The Washington Post some 90+ years ago.

Darn that pesky global warming... or is it climate changes which have been cycling up and down for eons?

Check out SNOPES:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp

Notice how they spin the truth. Interesting how lawyers and politicians can spin the truth until its a non-truth.

PS: I didn't create this. I received this from an old college chum. Not being a climate expert, I can only have opinions.

 

[cranky108]

On the other hand, tornado season is off to a much slower start, and there are predicted to be fewer hurcanes this year. I can probally live with that change.

I also see no one wants to comment on China's pollution problems effecting the US. How to fix that?