General Climate Change

[jethro]

Here's a fresh new one for general discussion.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks J , I'm a little confused why the other was locked (unless posts were deleted?) as things ,for the 'G' thread , seemed reasonably in order.

I'll get back to where we left off with the sun moving further and further outa the frame for any major warm ups/cool downs (for our recent warming). Is it about time to put 'solar' on the back burner as an alternative explanation for what we have seen this past 150yrs?

Undersea volcanoes seem to be back in the frame though. Not as some skeptics would have it though (heat into the Oceans) but as Fe for the southern ocean algal blooms to munch on and prosper so removing up to 1/4 of the CO2 consumed by the ocean sinks. Better hope those smokers keep smoking eh?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE62E0QJ20100315?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=401

And what a toasty winter we've just had (as a planet!!!);

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/03/winter_was_cold_in_us_but_warm.html?wprss=capitalweathergang

Ho Hum.......

[Admiral_Bobski]

Why is solar moving further and further out of the frame, GW? Did I miss something?

CB

[jethro]

Here's an odd one

http://www.guardian....teal?CMP=AFCYAH

It appears the Amazon is more resistant to drought than first thought

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7437016/UN-climate-change-claims-on-rainforests-were-wrong-study-suggests.html

[Devonian]

Here's an odd one

http://www.guardian....teal?CMP=AFCYAH

It appears the Amazon is more resistant to drought than first thought

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7437016/UN-climate-change-claims-on-rainforests-were-wrong-study-suggests.html

I think these reports (The Telegraph isn't theonly one reproting this) have it wrong - this RC article I'm trying to get to grips with has it right I think.

So, anyhow, here is a quote from The Telegraph headline: "The United Nations' climate change panel is facing fresh criticism after new research contradicted the organisation's claims about the devastating effect climate change could have on the Amazon rainforest."

But the report quoted was only studied a year or so of data. Is a year climate? No of course it isn't. So can the Telegraph make the claim it does? I think not.

Put it this way (and you're more the expert here than me wrt plants) above a certin amount of rainfall there is rainforest but, clearly, there is a lower rainfall limit else there would be no deserts or savannah? So, lower the rainfall and, at some point, rainforest will start to disappear and turn to grassland - right?

So, does one year's worth of data mean climate change wont effect the rainforest? Again, I think not

Edited March 16, 2010 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

I think these reports (The Telegraph isn't theonly one reproting this) have it wrong - this RC article I'm trying to get to grips with has it right I think.

So, anyhow, here is a quote from The Telegraph headline: "The United Nations' climate change panel is facing fresh criticism after new research contradicted the organisation's claims about the devastating effect climate change could have on the Amazon rainforest."

But the report quoted was only studied a year or so of data. Is a year climate? No of course it isn't. So can the Telegraph make the claim it does? I think not.

Put it this way (and you're more the expert here than me wrt plants) above a certin amount of rainfall there is rainforest but, clearly, there is a lower rainfall limit else there would be no deserts or savannah? So, lower the rainfall and, at some point, rainforest will start to disappear and turn to grassland - right?

So, does one year's worth of data mean climate change wont effect the rainforest? Again, I think not

Yes, it appears as though these people are cherry picking chalk or cheese.

One study measures the growth rate of trees, the other measures the death rate. Both try to correlate it with rainfall without reference to the other, and both use different methods to arrive at their conclusion - one uses ground observations, and the other satellite measurements.

The one that suggests that Amazon is much more resistant to drought finds that the growth rate of trees is not statistically connecting with rainfall (must be the sun, then :unsure: ) whilst the RC referenced study shows that the death rate of trees does increase inversely proportional to rainfall.

I suspect a third study that brings it all together is on it's way since multi-variate regression is hardly the Einsteinian end of climatology.

Edited March 16, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Essan]

So, anyhow, here is a quote from The Telegraph headline: "The United Nations' climate change panel is facing fresh criticism after new research contradicted the organisation's claims about the devastating effect climate change could have on the Amazon rainforest."

But the report quoted was only studied a year or so of data. Is a year climate? No of course it isn't. So can the Telegraph make the claim it does? I think not.

More to the point, the report on how the Amazon was affected by the 2005 drought came out 2 years after the latest IPCC report.

Now, I may be stupid here, but since when were the IPCC expected to use time travel in producing their reports?

As we all know, all science is subject to alteration in the like of new data.

The only criticism that can possibly be made of the IPCC in this case is that they failed to ask Dr Who's advice.

[jethro]

And there was me thinking I was bringing good news, a little ray of sunshine to start the day. Hey ho, that'll teach me to be blinded by cheer into taking something at face value.

[VillagePlank]

Now, I may be stupid here, but since when were the IPCC expected to use time travel in producing their reports?

At the risk of being obtuse - that's exactly what's being attempted when some computer models are extrapolated forward through time.

[VillagePlank]

Anyhow, is UK government doom-saying all over, now that one (or two) of their primary propoganda tools has been banned, here.

[Devonian]

At the risk of being obtuse - that's exactly what's being attempted when some computer models are extrapolated forward through time.

A little unfair. I think it's reasonable to expect warming of ~1C for a Co2 doubling - I don't think that needs to be modelled, it's physics. The rest is a good deal less certain I agree - and since it's uncertain it could be indeed be less, or, indeed, more...

Otoh, perhaps it's unreasonable to run a computer model that predicts that the Sun will still be here in 2100 :winky: ?

Edited March 17, 2010 by Devonian

[Essan]

At the risk of being obtuse - that's exactly what's being attempted when some computer models are extrapolated forward through time.

A lot of people are currently using similar methods to travel in time to the finish of the Cheltenham Gold Cup

Computer models are just that. Models. A prediction of what might happen assuming the parameters entered are correct and no unforeseen event occurs. Like an asteroid hitting Prestbury Park. There is nothing wrong with computer modelling so long as any statements based on the models make it clear that that is the case.

I do understand though that some people have big issues with models. Some, because it's like witchcraft. Which is evil. And some because they don't the results.

Odd thing is, when a model produces the results people want, then they never complain

[VillagePlank]

<snip> I can't really be bothered </snip>

Edited March 17, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Essan]

Anyway, more important, breaking news. It's all Kate Moss's fault

cocaine users 'making global warming worse'

[Devonian]

Anyway, more important, breaking news. It's all Kate Moss's fault

cocaine users 'making global warming worse'

Interesting, because no one actually mentions you know what (in the report anyway), except the reporter....

[rob48]

Whoever would have thought it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7440664/Government-rebuked-over-global-warming-nursery-rhyme-adverts.html

Kindred spirits protecting each other's interests.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

And what a toasty winter we've just had (as a planet!!!);

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/03/winter_was_cold_in_us_but_warm.html?wprss=capitalweathergang

Ho Hum.......

Yes ho hum to a record -AO and significant El Nino, that accounts for an awful lot of that?

BFTP

Edited March 18, 2010 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[laserguy]

Thought *some of you* might like this commentary and it's replies:

http://bighollywood....re-programming/

... I know I did!

I'm ashamed and embarrassed that in the early days of all the CO2-inspired global warming rubbish that is now an integral part of our daily lives,that for a little while I actually thought there might be some substance to it. Fortunately it was only a fleeting illness and I made a speedy and full recovery. Hope all you who are still afflicted do,too.

[VillagePlank]

Thought *some of you* might like this commentary and it's replies:

http://bighollywood....re-programming/

... I know I did!

I'm ashamed and embarrassed that in the early days of all the CO2-inspired global warming rubbish that is now an integral part of our daily lives,that for a little while I actually thought there might be some substance to it. Fortunately it was only a fleeting illness and I made a speedy and full recovery. Hope all you who are still afflicted do,too.

Some hyperbole in that article, there, LG!

But it does contain an interesting point. For all the prevaricating on degrees of freedom, independent results confirming each other. It seems, at least on a cursory basis, that NASA's dataset is not independent of CRU's, according to here

Given that there are 2 primary datasets - one is now known to be not recreatable, firstly due to licensing concerns, and then because of lost raw data, the second is based on the first so one presumes the same problems.

This, it seems to me, is quite serious.

(On a personal note, I see no problems with the datasets - since I think the CRU set is more or less right; but it is, at the very least awkward, that the climate community has claimed that the two sets are seperate, say more or less the same thing, therefore the hypothesis is true)

Edited March 19, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Thundery wintry showers]

Two words to describe Laserguy's inference from the article: "confirmation bias".

Looking at the article, it does seem that there's a chance that NCDC's dataset might be independent of CRU's, though it only mentions NCDC's coverage of the USA so I can't be sure of where the coverage of the rest of the globe comes from. I always approach articles like that with a little scepticism (things tending to be misquoted/added out of context, hyperbole etc) but I can believe that the emails in question at least approximate truth.

To be honest I've never relied upon NASA's data- despite the claims of better coverage of the Arctic- because there have been numerous reports of tweaking of that dataset in recent years. I always use a combination of NCDC's data (the results of which are published on the internet each month) and CRU's data as the "proxy" for global temperatures, especially as the two datasets closely agree with each other. Hence I err on the side of suggesting that at the surface this winter has been one of the warmest globally but not the warmest- though January 2010 was certainly record-breaking in the lower troposphere as a whole.

Hopefully all of this stuff- as it's exposing some pretty misleading stuff re. uncertainty and independence of data- will help to improve the climate monitoring situation in future.

[VillagePlank]

Hopefully all of this stuff- as it's exposing some pretty misleading stuff re. uncertainty and independence of data- will help to improve the climate monitoring situation in future.

Yup - I think we're probably converging on the crux of the matter - climatology has only been considered a distinct science since it found that there might be problems with mankinds impact upon it.

Before that, I suspect, but can't ever know, it was simply an extension of the Geology department of some university somewhere. If this is true, and I think that it is, then what we are witnessing is the growth, by hook or by crook, dragged screaming, from a child science into a mature one.

And that can only be good for everyone involved: whether a participant, or interested observer.

[Devonian]

Thought *some of you* might like this commentary and it's replies:

http://bighollywood....re-programming/

... I know I did!

I'm ashamed and embarrassed that in the early days of all the CO2-inspired global warming rubbish that is now an integral part of our daily lives,that for a little while I actually thought there might be some substance to it. Fortunately it was only a fleeting illness and I made a speedy and full recovery. Hope all you who are still afflicted do,too.

Which bit of that pile of junk are we meant to take seriously? "A funny thing happened on the way to a global conspiracy." not a good start...."There was a vast left wing conspiracy in other words" it's a political polemic..."But two things happened last year that shot an arrow in the heart of the beast; one of the worst winters on record and Climategate." oh no, he isn't confusing weather and climate? well, yes he is :winky: ..."In fact, they “lost the records” when they were forced to produce them. Oops!" it gets dafter. How can you loose records which are copies?..."The climate scam is worth trillions of dollars" scam? trillions?

Like I say, which bit of it are we meant to take seriously?

Edited March 19, 2010 by Devonian

[Thundery wintry showers]

Just realised, I was reading the more circumspect article that VillagePlank referred to and somehow missed the article that Laserguy directly referred to. I can see scope for all the usual arguments designed to bring debate around in circles, "AGW is a myth" "Why?" "Because the article confirms it" "And how do you know the article is right?" "Because AGW is a myth!".

That's probably about as much as that particular article deserves, but VP's one is far more well-reasoned and thought-provoking.

I think the point about climate science maturing is a good one- I think the maturing process will also be ongoing over the coming decades, as more and more information is unearthed by researchers.

[Devonian]

Just realised, I was reading the more circumspect article that VillagePlank referred to and somehow missed the article that Laserguy directly referred to. I can see scope for all the usual arguments designed to bring debate around in circles, "AGW is a myth" "Why?" "Because the article confirms it" "And how do you know the article is right?" "Because AGW is a myth!".

Indeed - but not easy to argue against if that circularity isn't acknowledged

[VillagePlank]

Indeed - but not easy to argue against if that circularity isn't acknowledged

It's not so hard.

As soon as you recognise petitio principii, you can break the circle at any point, or, even better, you can repeatedly ask for what the persons starting premise is.

It is, perhaps, worth mentioning that most arguments, unless argued by some super-arguer of whom is well versed in all the logical fallacies can be re construed so that it appears, or even is circular - this is the case since a lot of people try to misrepresent a conclusion that is in fact a premise (straw-man fallacy leading to circular argument)

A common one is:

• Scientists think AGW is real
  
• I think AGW is real
  
• How do you know?
  
• Because scientists think AGW is real.
  

.. which is a conclusion that is really a restatement of a premise which is therefore circular.

Edited March 20, 2010 by VillagePlank