The Definitive Global Climate Change (aka Global Warming) Thread — General Discussion and Questions

Login or register to post comments Last Post 895841 reads   4 posts
  • Mon, Aug 13, 2012 - 02:42pm

    #391

    gyrogearloose

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 08 2008

    Posts: 416

    count placeholder

    Logical falacies will end up with a horse flogged to quarks…..

Mark

With respect to the graphic, I detailed its origins in post #331.  “If the false temperature values are from any of the above 2 links, please advise of where the error is, as I have not spotted it. I looked at the 2007 IPCC predictions vs measurements graph. the base image looks to be from http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts26.jpg

Clive appears to have added the HADCRUT3 data points from 2007 to 2011 and drawn a line through all the HADCRUT3 data points. Visually from memory nothing looked amiss with the added 2007 to 2011 HADCRUT3 data points and the earlier HADCRUT3 data on both seems to match.”

And just now I checked the points added by Clive by looking at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc.csv.

I did not spot any anomolies.

What about it looked adulterated to you? Do you now accept it as a fair representation?

Where did the source data for your graph come from?

With respect to your comment “The economic crash of 2007-2008 is readily apparent”, you seem to be linking the 2007-2008 crash to the noticable dip in the observed temperature graph you posted, particuarly when you follow it with “The congruence of the economic woes, the lowest solar minimum in a century and a double dip La Nina should have lead to substantial global cooling”.

I looked at CO2 concentrations, 2007-2008 crash had almost no discernable impact, so how is the crash supposed to have caused that dip in temperatures ?

 

Your comment “Note that the Y-axis is the temperature anomaly. Even the dips in 2008 are above zero. This means that those dips only caused us to warm more slowly”

As I understand it, an anomoly graph is the difference in measurement from a defined reference point. In this graphs case, the difference in temperature from the average of the temperatures from years 1980 to 1999. You seem to be reading it as a rate of change graph, taking any number above 0 to mean the world warmed and any number below 0 it cooled. the most ‘generous’ interperation I could come up with is you meant to say ‘even the dip in the  average world temperature in 2008 did not fall below the average temperature for 1980 to 1999.’

 

In regards to your first paragraphs above, it looks to me like you just gave a couple of good numerical experimental examples of the LNN.

You then use logical fallicy to claim that the numerical examples of the LLN supports your argument.

You then go on to acknowledge “They should be better at the time of initiation and potentially become less accurate over time if there are systematic biases in the models.”

I would consider the climate sensitivity number ( CSN ) to be a systemic bias. As I understand it, predicted temperatures produced by a model run with a CSN of 4 will be higher than if run a CSN of 2, and, as per an earlier post #331  the IPCC’s considers this ranhe to have a probability of occurance of greater than 66%

Lets go back to what you said in post #206  “For global climate models however the analogy is the need to get the temperature right but you get to take the average of estimates for 30 years of 365 days each (give or take a few leap year days) at 5,000,000 locations. That is, you have about 55 billion attempts then you average them. The Law of Large Numbers (LLN) says that your difference from the mean temperature of the planet should be extremely small. “

A little gramattical uncertaintly here, but inferring from context, I took it that  you are implying that the average of the “55 billion attempts” is what the model predicts the temperature to be 30 years in the future, and the “mean temperature of the planet” is the empirically measured average temperature 30 years on.   If this is a correct interperatation, you seem to be making a logical connection where I see none is reasonable.

This illogical ( to me ) connection is re-occuring theme in all your attempts to prove to me your claim that modeling climate is vastly easier than modeling the weather.

As I see it sorting out this differing logical analyis is key to building a common understanding on the modeling issue.

.

Failing a far more consise analysis and explination of everything you said in your most recent post, I would hold that post out as an example of why this subject belongs in the dungeon

 

Cheers Hamish

 

 

 

 

 

  • Tue, Aug 14, 2012 - 03:17am

    #392

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 874

    count placeholder

    The perils of posting after medicating….

Hamish,

Uhh, embarrassing to say this but I started my post after having taken a double dose of sleeping pills. The doctor and my wife have ganged up on me to insist that I sleep. Everything seemed fine while I ran the calculations and wrote the first few paragraphs but somewhere between there and what followed I am not sure I was totally lucid (i.e. in my body).

You are totally correct that the economic crash was not directly causative of any temperature changes at best it would potentially reduce the rate of change in increasing emissions rates but even that slight down trend shows up in 2009. The decrease in 2008 temperature is generally attributed to a combination of –  a) chaotic climate, wherein variations about a trend line are expected; b) The minimum of the solar cycle; c) La Nina.

I see where my confusion on the graphs came in. Yours is in surface warming (y-axis), mine was in anomaly values, I then conflated the two as I drifted further into la la land. I will take a conscious look at the graphics and data and get back to you later on the comparison.

Not sure about the logical fallacy inherent in the math. If you can show anything mathematical to falsify this or indicate why the opposite is true I’d be willing to consider it.

My apologies to you and the rest of the people following this thread for my having posted while impaired. Caught me by surprise. Lesson learned. I will be more careful in the future.

Cheers,

Mark

  • Tue, Aug 14, 2012 - 04:39am

    #393

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    count placeholder

    Australia’s fossil fuel sickness

Australia’s fossil fuel sickness

 

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/australias-fossil-fuel-sic…

The Climate Institute and the Climate and Health Alliance have released a briefing paper today outlining how actions that can cut carbon pollution could also deliver billions of dollars in health benefits. Some rather stark examples used to demonstrate their case are:

— Coal-fired power in Australia burdens the community with a human health cost – from lung, heart, and nervous system diseases – estimated at $2.6 billion annually.

— The annual health cost of pollution from cars, trucks and other modes of fossil-fuelled transport is estimated at around $3.3 billion. In Australia, air pollution is estimated to kill more people every year than the road toll.

The paper takes the logical step of pointing out that a range of measures such as increasing the amount of renewable energy in our electricity supply system, or increasing patronage of public transport would act to reduce the health-damaging pollution from these sources while also reducing greenhouse gases.

Report author Fiona Armstrong points out that: “One recent global study, for instance, found that for every tonne of carbon dioxide they avoid countries could save an average of $46 in health costs –around twice Australia’s starting price for carbon.”

 

  • Tue, Aug 14, 2012 - 09:29pm

    #394

    JAG

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 26 2008

    Posts: 485

    count placeholder

    Climate, Ecology, & Mankind

On another thread I opined that the only “E” that really mattered was Ecology, as the economy, environment, and energy are secondary to ecology. I also think that climate change is secondary to ecology as well, but several people stated emphatically that “ecology utterly relies on climate“.

Isn’t this stance putting the cart before the horse? Don’t ecosystems create their own climate? Would there be O2 in the atmosphere if it wasn’t a “waste” product of earlier ecosystems?

Climate is just a component of an ecosytem. Which came first, the rainforest or the rain? You can’t answer that question because functionally they are one and the same. If climate is changing it means the ecology of the planet has changed.

Feedback?

Thanks…Jeff

  • Tue, Aug 14, 2012 - 09:29pm

    #395

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    count placeholder

    Watch 131 Years of Global Warming in 26 Seconds

 

  • Wed, Aug 15, 2012 - 03:40pm

    #396
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1441

    count placeholder

    ecology vs environment

JAG wrote:

On another thread I opined that the only “E” that really mattered was Ecology, as the economy, environment, and energy are secondary to ecology. I also think that climate change is secondary to ecology as well, but several people stated emphatically that “ecology utterly relies on climate“.

Isn’t this stance putting the cart before the horse? Don’t ecosystems create their own climate? Would there be O2 in the atmosphere if it wasn’t a “waste” product of earlier ecosystems?

Climate is just a component of an ecosytem. Which came first, the rainforest or the rain? You can’t answer that question because functionally they are one and the same. If climate is changing it means the ecology of the planet has changed.

Feedback?

Thanks…Jeff

Jeff

I don’t have a scientifically authoritative answer, just my impressions based on spending a lot of time tromping through a variety of wetlands and forest types with trained biologists.  I tend to think of ecology in terms of ecosystems and environment as larger systems that affect ecosystems.  F’rinstance, I live in the lake effect region of western NY.  Moisture in the forms of rain and snow off Lake Erie are a large part of our weather patterns.  I think of the general area as an ecosystem with smaller microsystems interspersed around.  Microsystems can be as small as the shade garden I have on the north side of the house.  It is partially protected from the environmental impact of the sun and winds.

Our larger ecosystem is quite different from other regions at the same latitude but without the lake effect, such as Wisconsin, Minnesota or the Dakotas,  The differences are due to what I think of as environmental impacts from such forces as geology, latitude, altitude, hydrology, sun, climate change and wind.  So, my own take is that environment and ecology influence each other, but the predominant influences are environment on ecology.

Another example is in the the permafrost regions of the world.  A friend spent a good bit of time studying the permafrost in Alaska.  He described the changes in vegetation as climate change has pushed those regions north.  So, those ecosystems are changing in fundamental ways based on environmental changes in climate.

Hope that makes sense.

  • Thu, Aug 16, 2012 - 07:01am

    #397

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    count placeholder

    Dramatic lessons from the Arctic big melt of 2012

Dramatic lessons from the Arctic big melt of 2012: It’s already too hot, as Greenland melt record is smashed

 
by David Spratt, 16 August 2012
download?mid=2%5f0%5f0%5f1%5f2611954%5fAKHuXkIAAPh5UCwyHAwXdWIt6AY&pid=2.2&fid=Inbox&inline=1&appid=YahooMailClassic
Greenland melt index (2012 red bar)  Source: Marco Tedesco

News today of a dramatic increase in melting of the Greenland ice sheet this northern summer, and the likelihood of a new record low in summer Arctic sea-ice extent, demand a new look at what safe climate action means.
     Today, Marco Tedesco, assistant professor of Earth and atmospheric sciences at The City College of New York, reported that melting over the Greenland ice sheet shattered the seasonal record in the modern era, a full four weeks before the close of the melting season. The melting season in Greenland usually lasts from June – when the first puddles of meltwater appear – to early September, when temperatures cool. This year, cumulative melting by 8 August had already exceeded the record of 2010 (chart above, year 2012 in red). “With more yet to come in August, this year’s overall melting will fall way above the old records. That’s a goliath year — the greatest melt since satellite recording began in 1979,” said Professor Tedesco.

 
 
  • Thu, Aug 16, 2012 - 11:56am

    #398
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1441

    count placeholder

    Thanks Mike

Scary article.  I think this section deserves to be copied here:

Quote:

2012 IN THE ARCTIC

Headlines this northern summer tell the story:
 

  • Record heat in May rewrote weather records in Greenland, setting the stage for a big summer melt.
  • Arctic Ocean floating sea-ice set a record for the largest June sea ice loss in the satellite era. The Arctic lost a record total of about 2.86 million square kilometres of ice. At the end of the month, Arctic sea ice extent was 1.18 million square kilometres below the 1979-to-2000 average.
  • In July, NASA released findings showing surface melt of the Greenland ice sheet of more than 97 per cent  over a few days, a rate unprecedented in the era of satellite observation, and pictured in dramatic satellite images. Most previous similar events were clustered around a period 7000 years ago when variations in the sun’s axis tilt sent more sunshine to extreme northern latitudes, warming them up. There is no such solar tilt now, but the melt is occurring just the same, according to Mark Serreze.
  • In late July, Climate Central reported that that the reflectivity of the Greenland ice sheet, particularly at the high elevations that were involved in the mid-July melt event, had declined to record lows. This indicated that the ice sheet was absorbing more incoming solar energy than normal, potentially leading to 2012 being another record melt year in a long-standing trend of increasingly higher melt seasons. 
  • On 15 August, Marco Tedesco’s findings of record melting on Greenland were released.
  • In early August, a huge, long-lived Arctic ocean storm decimated the sea ice area which was melting out at a record rate, before the high waves and winds shattered the Siberian side of the ice cap.  Sea-ice extent is currently tracking below the previous record low of 2007. 
  • New research finds sea ice loss is 50 per cent higher than previously thought. On 10 August, The Guardian reported that data from the first purpose-built satellite launched to study the thickness of the Earth’s polar caps – the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 probe – indicate that 900 cubic kilometres of summer sea ice has disappeared from the Arctic Ocean over the past year, and “in a few years the Arctic ocean could be free of ice in summer, triggering a rush to exploit its fish stocks, oil, minerals and sea routes.”
  • The combination of global atmospheric warming, and melting sea ice and changing reflectivity of the Arctic surface, are contributing to the high rate of warming in the Arctic, where temperatures are increasing up to four times faster than the global average.
  • The radical decline in sea ice around the Arctic is at least 70% due to human-induced climate change, according to a new study, and may even be up to 95% down to humans – rather higher than scientists had previously thought.
  • Thu, Aug 16, 2012 - 04:27pm

    #399
    John Lemieux

    John Lemieux

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 02 2012

    Posts: 208

    count placeholder

    Thanks Mike

There is a comment below this artical saying that everyone in the world should be informed about this and I certainly agree. I have been following the story of the dramatic loss of the artic sea ice over the past two days but there was nothing about it in our National paper here in Canada. That’s very weird I think as things are getting very scary.

  • Thu, Aug 16, 2012 - 04:28pm

    #400
    John Lemieux

    John Lemieux

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 02 2012

    Posts: 208

    count placeholder

    Thanks Mike

There is a comment below this artical saying that everyone in the world should be informed about this and I certainly agree. I have been following the story of the dramatic loss of the artic sea ice over the past two days but there was nothing about it in our National paper here in Canada. That’s very weird I think as things are getting very scary.

Viewing 10 posts - 391 through 400 (of 3,759 total)

Login or Register to post comments