Do AGW models account for natural cycles.?

[Admiral_Bobski]

I don't have much time, but it's more complicated that x+y = 10 becuase you also have x/y= 3.5 and y-x = 3.5 as well. It's makes the end answer a lot easier.

Matt

It was a simplified analogy

C-Bob

[Iceberg]

So the sum up the thread.

There is not a single process natural cycle which has been mentioned which the climate models have left out.

Because we don't know 100% everything any thoery is useless and doomed to be wrong.

Sceptics will continue to say that its all natural but cannot explain why it's natural nor what the natural cycle is.

um come on sceptics you can do better than this if you intend on using it as a get out of jail free card, when the going gets tough......

[Admiral_Bobski]

So the sum up the thread.

There is not a single process natural cycle which has been mentioned which the climate models have left out.

Because we don't know 100% everything any thoery is useless and doomed to be wrong.

Sceptics will continue to say that its all natural but cannot explain why it's natural nor what the natural cycle is.

um come on sceptics you can do better than this if you intend on using it as a get out of jail free card, when the going gets tough...... B)

There is not a single known process that has been left out of the models - there may be other processes of which we are not aware. But, as I said earlier in the thread, there is a difference between attempting to account for these processes and accurately accounting for them.

It's not a question of having to know 100% of everything, but all bases should be covered. Again, many skeptics believe that insufficient time has been spent investigating other possible causes. Occam's Razor may say that the simplest solution is usually the correct solution, but it doesn't say that once a seemingly simple solution has been found we should just stop looking. Although finding another solution may be difficult, it doesn't mean that the solution itself would necessarily be intrinsically complicated - there may be a yet simpler solution just waiting to be uncovered.

Only a portion of "skeptics" claim that mankind is unequivocally having no effect on the environment. Many skeptics (if not the majority of them) believe that mankind may be having an effect (note the word may) and that, if we are, the theory of AGW greatly exaggerates mankind's contribution.

The problem that "skeptics" have is that the vast majority of research looks at "known" causes of GW (mostly anthropogenic, from the looks of it). There is remarkably little time spent on other potential causes, and consequently far fewer papers that support the skeptic viewpoint. There are many papers about solar cycles and radiative output of the sun which discuss such things in great detail but don't mention any connection with Earth's climate (since, for the most part, that isn't what the papers are studying - astrophysics tends to look outwards rather than inwards).

So, since the scientists don't seem to be spending any time trying to correlate certain papers with the theory of GW, it is left to the layman to do so. Unfortunately, the layman is usually not up to the task, as they do not have the necessary understanding to make informed judgements - and even if the layman were to successfully produce a competing theory, I suspect it would be shot down in flames quite quickly on the basis that the author is not a scientist.

The AGW argument is largely one-sided, not necessarily because there is "no debate" but because far too much time is spent concentrating solely on Anthropogenic causes. I can assure you that as soon as a competing theory is thought of it will receive some airtime on this forum, but in the meantime we can all pick away at the holes in AGW theory - the simple fact of the matter is that if AGW theory is correct and internally consistent then there should be very few holes, and the theory shouldn't suffer from their picking.

C-Bob

[Gray-Wolf]

From my meanderings 'Darn Sarf' (Antartica) it would seem that there are areas of climate response that are nowhere near 'understood' though ,because the info comes from a peer reviewed paper, much of the knowledge can be viewed as 'definative' for those unwilling to dig.

Keep up the digging C. Bob! be the problem worse or better it is NOT what is held as true today!(IMHO)

[parmenides3]

The AGW argument is largely one-sided, not necessarily because there is "no debate" but because far too much time is spent concentrating solely on Anthropogenic causes. I can assure you that as soon as a competing theory is thought of it will receive some airtime on this forum, but in the meantime we can all pick away at the holes in AGW theory - the simple fact of the matter is that if AGW theory is correct and internally consistent then there should be very few holes, and the theory shouldn't suffer from their picking.

I agree with the last part of this statement, but not the first part. :)P

On your previous points: As we can't include an 'unknown' into a calculation by definition, all we are left with is the 'known'. Agreed, it is important to accurately account for known forcings and, agreed, we cannot yet do this with certainty, but it is not unreasonable to assume that the answers that the scientists come up with (which are constantly refined) are as good as we can get them. I also would suggest that, given the number of alternatives which have been suggested (and found inadequate), and the range and variety of observations and experiments which still continue, that it is becoming increasingly unlikely that a previously unconsidered 'force' is going to suddenly appear to account for GW.

Some efforts which have not been able to account for (recent) GW (plenty of research, plenty of debate, but the numbers don't add up):

Sunspot cycles

Orbital variation

Cosmic rays

Natural climate oscillations/cycles

Land-use changes

Tectonic plate movement

atmospheric aerosol reduction (see other thread)

er...

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

Some efforts which have not been able to account for (recent) GW (plenty of research, plenty of debate, but the numbers don't add up):

Sunspot cycles

Orbital variation

Cosmic rays

Natural climate oscillations/cycles

Land-use changes

Tectonic plate movement

atmospheric aerosol reduction (see other thread)

er...

:)P

Part of the problem here is that these various different "alternatives" are often (if not usually) analysed independently - fair enough that sunspot cycles don't fully account for observed changes; fair enough that orbital variation alone doesn't fully account for observed changes; fair enough that cosmic rays don't...and so on... But why should any one factor be "THE" cause? Combinations of all these things could contribute more than is currently allowed for in the models. I wouldn't be so naïve as to suggest that sunspot activity could be the sole cause of the perceived warming, but the general opinion seems to be that, since sunspots don't account for all the warming, it should be dismissed entirely.

Also, I wasn't suggesting that models should somehow account for unknown factors - obviously an unknown cannot be accounted for by virtue of its being unknown - but I was suggesting that the models should be taken with a pinch of salt since there is a fair chance that something may be missing. Models that are held up as evidence of global warming are being publicised badly - models can't be used as evidence, only as support for the current theory. Evidence is (or should be) comprised of incontrovertible facts - facts cannot change (though our understanding of them can), but models can be altered or discarded at will.

Models suggest that a certain degree of warming will occur, but only time will tell...

C-Bob

[parmenides3]

Part of the problem is that the only way you can do the number-crunching required to take all the different 'alternatives' into account is to use a supercomputer and - a GCM. None of the alternatives are dismissed at all; real attempts are made to measure and calculate both their forcing effects and their feedback effects, both separately and together. The general opinion you suggest isn't quite right: it's more like, 'whilst sunspot cycles could account for some variation on the 'eleven year cycle', they can't account for much'. The same goes for the others. Taken all together, their forcing power is still inadequate to account for the recent warming.

The models aren't in themselves 'evidence' for GW, but the output they produce, based on actual data and known physics, fits with the AGW stuff quite well. I agree that there is a tendency to exaggerate the reliability of their output in the media, but part of the IPCC process which is taken very seriously is an analysis and evaluation of all the models used and their 'skill'.

The point I was trying to get at was where you suggest that there is a 'fair chance' that something may be missing. I'd be inclined to say that there was a slim chance at most that some factor had been underestimated or not fully considered. On the other hand, if you add up all the uncertainties and error bars, it is possible to come to the conclusion that even the IPCC's conservative estimates are exaggerations.

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

None of the alternatives are dismissed at all; real attempts are made to measure and calculate both their forcing effects and their feedback effects, both separately and together.

Apologies! Once again I didn't say quite what I meant. What I meant was that the alternatives are dismissed quite freely in discussions such as these, not necessarily that they are dismissed by scientists. When arguing the skeptic viewpoint it is common to focus on one aspect of the counter-argument (such as sunspots or orbital variation) and try to show that it has a bigger impact than it is given credit for. However, when trying to argue a single aspect such as this the debate often reaches an impasse because the counter-counter-argument is that the one aspect being discussed doesn't account for everything... (Does that make sense? It did to me, when I started typing it!) But still, I suspect these "small" factors are not being given enough "oomph" - the degree of individual "oomph" would not need to be greatly underestimated for their combined "oomph" to be greatly underestimated.

The models aren't in themselves 'evidence' for GW, but the output they produce, based on actual data and known physics, fits with the AGW stuff quite well. I agree that there is a tendency to exaggerate the reliability of their output in the media, but part of the IPCC process which is taken very seriously is an analysis and evaluation of all the models used and their 'skill'.

Agreed, but the reason it fits with the AGW stuff quite well is because it is essentially tailored to the AGW argument. Another, equally valid, model could be made if anyone would spend the time on creating it, I am sure. Having said that, an absolutely absurd model could probably be made that works quite well up to a point, too. Such is the nature of models. But if the IPCC are basing their analysis on how well the models simulate the factors in scientific papers then it may not be a good enough analysis, for the simple fact that the scientific papers themselves are, if you like, "tailored" to the AGW argument. That sounds conspiratorial, or that I'm suggesting some kind of deceit, but that's not what I mean - the papers are, for the most part, investigations into the causes and processes of AGW, which leads to an AGW bias in the models - not because the papers are biased necessarily, but because all of the model input is AGW related.

The point I was trying to get at was where you suggest that there is a 'fair chance' that something may be missing. I'd be inclined to say that there was a slim chance at most that some factor had been underestimated or not fully considered. On the other hand, if you add up all the uncertainties and error bars, it is possible to come to the conclusion that even the IPCC's conservative estimates are exaggerations.

I'd have to disagree with you there - I say there's a fair chance of something being overlooked (not a great chance, but a fair one) simply because of the enormous complexity of the system being modelled. The complexity of the model is precisely the reason why I would argue that there's a big chance that some factor has been underestimated or not fully considered.

I may just be rambling now!

C-Bob

[parmenides3]

Agreed, but the reason it fits with the AGW stuff quite well is because it is essentially tailored to the AGW argument. Another, equally valid, model could be made if anyone would spend the time on creating it, I am sure. Having said that, an absolutely absurd model could probably be made that works quite well up to a point, too. Such is the nature of models. But if the IPCC are basing their analysis on how well the models simulate the factors in scientific papers then it may not be a good enough analysis, for the simple fact that the scientific papers themselves are, if you like, "tailored" to the AGW argument. That sounds conspiratorial, or that I'm suggesting some kind of deceit, but that's not what I mean - the papers are, for the most part, investigations into the causes and processes of AGW, which leads to an AGW bias in the models - not because the papers are biased necessarily, but because all of the model input is AGW related.

What you seem to be suggesting here is that there is the danger of some circularity in the system. This doesn't sound like an unreasonable idea, but I'll bet somebody's checking this out, too. I'd certainly agree that some of the diagnostic sub-projects appear to be rather too focussed on the model output, but it really is hard to avoid the models when we're dealing with such a complex system. Which, in turn, comes down to the issue of how much confidence we have in the models... (haven't we been here before?).

I'm still inclined to think that there is enough variety and range of research and theory, outside the 'party line', which is considered and taken into account, when the report is put together, even though this cannot be reflected in the summary.

The problem with your 'fair chance', is what do we imagine might, conceivably, not yet have been considered, which is both within the realms of possibility and capable of analysis?

We're not really that far apart in our thinking, just somewhat different in our prejudices, I suspect...

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

The problem with your 'fair chance', is what do we imagine might, conceivably, not yet have been considered, which is both within the realms of possibility and capable of analysis?

If we knew that then it probably would have already been considered!

I think you may be right - we're both reading the same book, but we're on slightly different pages! (Or something like that... )

C-Bob

[Devonian]

Agreed, but the reason it fits with the AGW stuff quite well is because it is essentially tailored to the AGW argument. Another, equally valid, model could be made if anyone would spend the time on creating it, I am sure. Having said that, an absolutely absurd model could probably be made that works quite well up to a point, too. Such is the nature of models. But if the IPCC are basing their analysis on how well the models simulate the factors in scientific papers then it may not be a good enough analysis, for the simple fact that the scientific papers themselves are, if you like, "tailored" to the AGW argument. That sounds conspiratorial, or that I'm suggesting some kind of deceit, but that's not what I mean - the papers are, for the most part, investigations into the causes and processes of AGW, which leads to an AGW bias in the models - not because the papers are biased necessarily, but because all of the model input is AGW related.

C-Bob

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/72_1.html

[Admiral_Bobski]

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/72_1.html

Good article, Devonian, but what's your point? Besides a comment near the end about how "surprisingly unbiased" the models are, I don't see anything counter to what I have said. Also, I talk about the models being "biased" due to their input, whereas Mr. (or Dr.) Schmidt is talking about the lack of bias in the models themselves. I appreciate that the scientists involved take great pains to make accurate and realistic models, but that doesn't mean the models actually are accurate and realistic.

C-Bob

[Devonian]

Good article, Devonian, but what's your point? Besides a comment near the end about how "surprisingly unbiased" the models are, I don't see anything counter to what I have said. Also, I talk about the models being "biased" due to their input, whereas Mr. (or Dr.) Schmidt is talking about the lack of bias in the models themselves. I appreciate that the scientists involved take great pains to make accurate and realistic models, but that doesn't mean the models actually are accurate and realistic.

C-Bob

It's another view.

Anyway, CB, what do you mean by 'tailoring'? How could another 'equally valid' model be developed if not by substituting what we know with what we don't? That would be a equally valid model? How?

When scientists model rivers they put into the model what they know. Should they not do that? When they modelled these galaxies you think is it likely they tailored their models and does that invalidate them.? Or is it only climatologists who you claim tailor their models. If so why only them?

Edited February 16, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

It's another view.

Anyway, CB, what do you mean by 'tailoring'? How could another 'equally valid' model be developed if not by substituting what we know with what we don't? That would be a equally valid model? How?

When scientists model rivers they put into the model what they know. Should they not do that? When they modelled these galaxies you think is it likely they tailored their models and does that invalidate them.? Or is it only climatologists who you claim tailor their models. If so why only them?

Everyone tailors models - even the astrophysicists who study galaxies. By tailoring I mean that they adjust forcings to the levels they believe them to be. However, if the forcing caused by sunspot activity were stronger (I'm not saying it necessarily is, but let's play Devil's Advocate) then the models would no longer work - there would have to be an equivalent reduction of another forcing. The current models take certain figures as their input data, but if these figures are different then the model doesn't work any more.

I am not saying that the climatological modellers are sitting in a room wickedly twirling their waxen moustaches. I am saying that any computer model is only as good as the data that are put into it (and the accuracy of the progamming, of course). This brings the question back down to "do AGW models sufficiently take natural cycles into account?"

I am also not saying that the scientists are wrong in inputting the data they have at their disposal, but I am reinforcing the point that the models should be taken with a pinch of salt.

C-Bob

PS - Astonishingly, modelling galactic collisions is significantly more straightforward than modelling climatic change.

[Stratos Ferric]

...It is utter rubbish to say that man made warming now only controls climate...

Daniel, it is precisely this (in your case probably accidental) type of misrepresentation that undermines much of the good sense spoken by the vast majority of the AGW lobby. Will you please point to a single reponse on N-W provided by any of those of us who accept the premise of AGW (to whatever extent) where it has been suggested that man alone controls the climate. I have NEVER EVER seen this written by any respondent. What we differ on is the extent to which man is influencing warming, but that is far from being the same thing as saying man alone is driving it.

[Optimus Prime]

Well the UK is a very populated country and seems to be experiencing faster warming then many far lesser in population country's.So in that respect I think the more people you have, the more cars and the more buildings built in a smaller area is where warming is likely to increase faster. And this country is a perfect example. We're on an island with large cities creating the heat island effect all contributing to the heat island. And of course the heat effect from the water surrounding us In other words we've got Heat Island, Island on an Island. And I think that's why we cant get cold winters anymore.

[parmenides3]

Well the UK is a very populated country and seems to be experiencing faster warming then many far lesser in population country's.So in that respect I think the more people you have, the more cars and the more buildings built in a smaller area is where warming is likely to increase faster. And this country is a perfect example. We're on an island with large cities creating the heat island effect all contributing to the heat island. And of course the heat effect from the water surrounding us In other words we've got Heat Island, Island on an Island. And I think that's why we cant get cold winters anymore.

It seems to make sense, OP, but it doesn't really work that way. Our climate is linked most strongly to sea surface temperatures and the NAO: these are not subject to any 'urban heat island' effect. Also, not that most of the area of the UK is still countryside, especially outside the SE corner. Nice thought, though.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

It seems to make sense, OP, but it doesn't really work that way. Our climate is linked most strongly to sea surface temperatures and the NAO: these are not subject to any 'urban heat island' effect. Also, not that most of the area of the UK is still countryside, especially outside the SE corner. Nice thought, though.

P

Unless 'The changes' include more frequent 'summer blocking' and then, if you live there (the urban sprawl), night time temp's will tell you different!!!

EDIT; Think local, affects Global?

EDIT,EDIT; and 2003 did make our doors hang strange!!! so the 'ground influence' (think French reactor core foundations 2003) of over summer 'warming' must reflect that of water (longer heating, greater depth of heating) and so impact the abilty of an 'early frost' (ground penetrating) by radiating it's heat out until later on into the year

Edited February 21, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

? Are you saying that warming will be greater in cities, or faster? Not the same thing. :)P

[Gray-Wolf]

? Are you saying that warming will be greater in cities, or faster? Not the same thing. P

Maybe I'm just mulling 'Developed world impact' of any synoptic/weather frequency changes in our climate of late really P3.

You know I fully adhere to the notion of AGW.

The 'Urban heat Island effect' was the primary cause of many French deaths in 2003 (or so I understand) so the Media/Public perception of the 'Developed World' to 'AGW' was heightened by the 'nearness' of the event.

Huge temp hikes in the polar regions affect wildlife but not many people (immediately) but impacts amongst the populace lead to cries for action/understanding.

Any move toward a NWestern Europe with an expanded 'continental climatic influence', (expanding outwards,beyond Ireland,) means a greater immediate impact upon the more 'temperate' NW regions of Europe (that happen to house most of the power/influence throughout the rest of Europe...IMO) and so 'hasten' the close of debate as to whether or not we need bother to do anything or not!!! Be it a naturally augmented warming it is AGW 'enhanced'.