Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[BornFromTheVoid]

Okie-doke. I don't think anyone here takes them as gospel, but see's them more so as a useful tool in climate science, as they demonstrated by casting some light of the apparent paradox discussed in the original article.

When I said known physics, I meant more that the physics in them are based, at least loosely, on real world physical relationships and processes.

[VillagePlank]

I don't think anyone here takes them as gospel,

I think you'd be surprised :thumbs:

[BornFromTheVoid]

I think you'd be surprised :thumbs:

 

Carefully now. These days, that kind of thing could be grounds for your posts "disappearing" from this thread!

[VillagePlank]

Carefully now. These days, that kind of thing could be grounds for your posts "disappearing" from this thread!

 

 

[SomeLikeItHot]

Yes, BFTV; but replicating the past is often no indication of prediction. For instance, I can problem knock up a polynomial that follows the moving average of climate pretty well (high r² > 0.75) It's not hard, you can't do it with Excel, but with a little bit of coding it's not too hard. Do you think that that would therefore be a good predictor of future climate? Of course, not, and I know you'd agree to that.

The question though here is whether they are testing them on in sample or out of sample data. Not clear to me from the article. It seems to be saying that this model is being tested on a section of climatic data that the models are not usually calibrated on, if so then its an interesting result and lends some support to the model.

If behaviour on this period is use to calibrate parameters in the model then I agree with your point above and its a lot less interesting.

[Gray-Wolf]

But isn't it just common sense that the end of the planet with most 'land surface' would end up with most ice ( much more land ASL for ice to claim before temps at sea level become low enough to produce ice?) . That said would not the albedo impacts of that 'extra ice' then impact temps? Would not also the 'extra ice' lead to 'freshening events' once it gives up the ghost and returns to the ocean as water?

[UV-RAY]

But isn't it just common sense that the end of the planet with most 'land surface' would end up with most ice ( much more land ASL for ice to claim before temps at sea level become low enough to produce ice?) . That said would not the albedo impacts of that 'extra ice' then impact temps? Would not also the 'extra ice' lead to 'freshening events' once it gives up the ghost and returns to the ocean as water?

But it probably won't will it, unless you have evidence it will. Far too much emotive posting going on by some, amongst some good stuff by others.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Not sure what you're on about GW!

 

SI, where is this emotive posting you're talking about?

[UV-RAY]

Not sure what you're on about GW! SI, where is this emotive posting you're talking about?

Not from yourself BFTV, it's best not to name and shame though. As I said there is some good stuff posted in here regardless of which side of the camp your in.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Not from yourself BFTV, it's best not to name and shame though. As I said there is some good stuff posted in here regardless of which side of the camp your in.

 

Emotive posting can be a problem from both sides of the debate SI. Glad you're getting some use out of this thread though.

[Methuselah]

Not sure what you're on about GW!

 

SI, where is this emotive posting you're talking about?

Me neither... 

[knocker]

Regarding models I'm not sure whether I posted this. Mat Collin's talk number 1 at the Chines Meteorological Administration Summer School -

 

Uncertainties in Climate Projections

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32802122/MatCollins_ISCS_uncertainties.pdf

Edited July 17, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Climate change perspective: Canada in flames

With ongoing climate change, we often get both type of weather extremes at the same time. While Canada was battered with record floods in Calgary and Toronto, huge megafires were recently raging in Nothern Quebec. According to available statistics (see below) this fire is the 3rd largest since at least 1959, and has burned almost as much forest (1.6 mil. acres) as all forest fires this year in the US.

 

 

http://thefrogthatjumpedout.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/climate-change-perspective-canada-in.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Edited July 17, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

Another piece of data that (some would have us believe) casts further doubt on AGW...Excuse me, for not quite seeing how? 

 

http://polarbearscience.com/2013/07/15/global-population-of-polar-bears-has-increased-by-2650-5700-since-2001/

[SomeLikeItHot]

Another piece of data that (some would have us believe) casts further doubt on AGW...Excuse me, for not quite seeing how? 

 

http://polarbearscience.com/2013/07/15/global-population-of-polar-bears-has-increased-by-2650-5700-since-2001/

I find in impawsable not to comment on this, even though I know its bearly worth it.

[loafer]

I think this is wrongly used by both sides of the arguement.

On the "green" side "won't someone think of the poor polar bears" is used often, when in fact they are thriving, but ironically they are thriving by being driven towards food sources in urban areas by changing climate.

So neither side is covered in glory, really...

[Methuselah]

I think this is wrongly used by both sides of the arguement.On the "green" side "won't someone think of the poor polar bears" is used often, when in fact they are thriving, but ironically they are thriving by being driven towards food sources in urban areas by changing climate.So neither side is covered in glory, really...

It would be an indisputable consequence of any wholesale Arctic melt-out. But then again, as you say, it doesn't (of itself) change any facts...

[BornFromTheVoid]

Are polar bears thriving across the Arctic?

[knocker]

Challenged by carbon: rocks and climate change

You can’t argue with a rock. Thanks to geology, the scientific case for human-induced climate change has recently become significantly more plausible.  New observational science based on cores taken from deep beneath the floor of the oceans offers crucial support and control for the computer-based forecasts of those creating models of future climate change.  Thanks to the work of the late Sir Nick Shackleton and his colleagues, the record of Earth’s past climates recorded in rocks can now be measured with far greater definition than before: divided into thousands rather than millions of years

 

 

http://climatica.org.uk/challenged-by-carbon-rocks-and-climate-change

Edited July 18, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Snow and Arctic sea ice extent plummet suddenly as globe bakes

NOAA and NASA both ranked June 2013 among the top five warmest (NOAA fifth warmest, NASA second warmest) Junes on record globally (dating back to the late 1800s).  But, more remarkable, was the incredible snow melt that preceded the toasty month and the sudden loss of Arctic sea ice that followed.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/07/18/snow-and-arctic-ice-extent-plummet-suddenly-as-globe-bakes/

[SomeLikeItHot]

It would be an indisputable consequence of any wholesale Arctic melt-out. But then again, as you say, it doesn't (of itself) change any facts...

A population decline would be likely but not necessarily - certainly it would destroy their current habitat and way of life but many (but certainly not all or most) species have adapted to new enviroments. The image of cute (from a distance) polar bears being wiped out by global warming is a great emotive argument which is why its used. At best though the population level is always going to be a very much second order effect compared with the direct measures such as ice extent, temperature.

[Methuselah]

A population decline would be likely but not necessarily - certainly it would destroy their current habitat and way of life but many (but certainly not all or most) species have adapted to new enviroments. The image of cute (from a distance) polar bears being wiped out by global warming is a great emotive argument which is why its used. At best though the population level is always going to be a very much second order effect compared with the direct measures such as ice extent, temperature.

Tbh, I really can't imagine an entire species of mega fauna evolving, into something new, within the space of, say, 30 years? It's camouflage is hardly conducive to its learning to sneak up on prey in anything other than an ice-dominated environment. So, I guess the day, when the entire population of polar bears is confined to zoos, is coming - sooner or later.

 

Unless, of course, natural drivers can offset the human contribution?

[crikey]

Hey.I  didn't know the ARCTIC  had record first year ice pack !!

Didn't hear that on the media...

 

Is this' inconsequential'?

 

quote from Knockers article posted above

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/07/18/snow-and-arctic-ice-extent-plummet-suddenly-as-globe-bakes/

 

 

quote

"Even though this year’s ice pack consists of a record amount of first-year ice ...."

[songster]

It's an inevitable consequence of the fact that last year was a record low for summer ice. Given that winter extent is much less variable, a higher proportion of it must therefore be newly formed first-year ice.

[crikey]

How long is the record for newly formed first year ice? from that data set