Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 26461 - 26480 of total 27895 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Roger Brown

climber
Oceano, California
Aug 15, 2014 - 01:18pm PT
Just being a lurker and not having too much formal education beyond high school, I just have to rely on what common sense I have. Polar ice caps melt and the oceans rise a little. More water available for evaporation means more cloud cover to hold the earth's heat in, which means more melting which means more evaporation. Kinda a snowballing thing. Is that what is going on or am I dumber than I thought?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 15, 2014 - 01:20pm PT
ok, The Chief can't understand how to extrapolate his linear trend model back into the past...

but we can check his model by looking for a similar trend in the NOAA data, turns out that the time period from 1961-1970 has the same trend... -0.069F/year

Credit: Ed Hartouni

notice that the dashed black lines, which are the linear trend lines for those two subsets, are parallel, which means they are trending down with the same rate.

now The Chief assumes that he can project that into the future 10 or 20 years and that the temperature anomaly so calculated will be what the climate becomes...

using that logic, we can extrapolate the 1961-1970 trend to 2014 and see how well it works:

Credit: Ed Hartouni

somehow, The Chief's assumption is not what the data shows, it is about -3.7F lower than the observed value in 2014.

That's a huge FAIL of his model.

Apparently, his assumption that you can take the 9 year trend and project it into the future didn't work for the period from 1961-1970.

Why would he think it would work doing it with the 2005-2014 data?

k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 15, 2014 - 01:22pm PT
I don't understand?

You have pretty much shown ignorance here, so no, you don't understand your own graph that plots ... wait for it...

the weather.

(Well actually just a small part of the weather, it just plots temperature.)




Then you state the ....

"Weather"


Indeed. Weather. As in day-to-day weather. Over time, you can call it "climate."

I thought you understood this stuff. What happened?
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Aug 15, 2014 - 02:11pm PT
Just being a lurker and not having too much formal education beyond high school, I just have to rely on what common sense I have. Polar ice caps melt and the oceans rise a little. More water available for evaporation means more cloud cover to hold the earth's heat in, which means more melting which means more evaporation. Kinda a snoballing thing. Is that what is going on or am I dumber than I thought?

No one knows how dumb you are or how dumb you think you are, so we can't help you there. But the "snowballing" thing (or "feedback," to use the more common term) is one of the cruxes of the matter.

All scientists (no quotation marks) agree that increasing CO2 will cause increased temperature due to the "greenhouse effect" (which, interestingly, is not the way actual greenhouses work, but that's a digression). This increase is limited and not necessarily anything to get alarmed about.
The question that remains to be answered is whether there will be positive feedback, or negative feedback, or no significant feedback one way or the other.
Your example of clouds is, as I understand it, a very complicated one, as cloud cover may contribute to either warming or cooling depending on the circumstances.
An obvious example of a negative feedback is that increased CO2 will cause more plant growth, which will in turn absorb more CO2 than would have otherwise been absorbed. (But NASA modelers, while acknowledging that this particular negative feedback mechanism is significant, do not currently believe it will prevent significant climate change.)
There are some good hand-waving arguments to consider that negative feedback (or no especially strong feedback one way or the other) is a far more likely scenario. Consider, for example, that CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past than they are now, but that didn't cause the Earth to become like Venus.
But the most honest answer is that we just don't really know what will happen; there is probably some risk that current emissions of CO2, if continued, may have a significant effect on the climate, and at least some of these changes will be negative (although not all of course, for example, lands at very high/low latitudes may become arable).

I do not hold myself out as having any particular technical expertise whatsoever, and I'm just trying to help an apparent noob "get his feet wet" in understanding the issues, if not their resolution. If anything I've written is inaccurate, I'll thankfully stand corrected.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 15, 2014 - 02:15pm PT
No one knows how dumb you are or how dumb you think you are, so we can't help you there.


Hey blahblah, you're speaking to Roger, as in Roger Brown. What's wrong with you, man?
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Aug 15, 2014 - 02:17pm PT
I don't know who Roger Brown is, or why I should or shouldn't speak to him!

Edit: the first sentence in my previous post was intended as a little humor, I apologize both if it hurt anyone's feelings, and if it wasn't funny! Please remember that I did take some time to compose a serious answer to the question.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 15, 2014 - 02:40pm PT
Australopithecus?
Phineas Gage might be a better example.


We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering. Were going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.
http://grist.org/climate-change/adapting-to-climate-change-necessary-but-difficult-and-expensive/


The brutal logic of climate change
http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change/

The brutal logic of climate change mitigation
http://grist.org/climate-policy/2011-12-08-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change-mitigation/
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 15, 2014 - 03:01pm PT

http://sites.uci.edu/energyobserver/2013/02/08/climate-change-suffering-adaptation-and-mitigation-and-their-funding/
TLP

climber
Aug 15, 2014 - 03:38pm PT
Though b2 is right, there is no reason anyone should necessarily know of Roger Brown, and that totally wouldn't matter for how you respond, it happens that lots of us do know of Roger and never miss an opportunity to post up: Thanks, dude!

But back on topic, clouds are one of many different feedbacks, negative and positive, from energy input to the climate system. Even just the one thing, clouds, is complex itself: they do indeed trap some re-radiated heat, but they are white, so they reflect some energy too. The water molecules are a "greenhouse gas" themselves. Climate is without a doubt the most complex system humankind has ever tried seriously to figure out, and we're only part way there.

A few thoughts on some of the bits b2 mentioned: it is true that some plants photosynthesize more if you hold everything constant but just increase the CO2 concentration, but this is not going to matter much for several reasons. One is that we are clearing so much vegetation (resulting in both a lot of carbon release from decomposition and burning) and this is not slowing down any time soon. Another is that other parameters won't just stay the same. As temperature rises, water stress rises, which indirectly reduces photosynthesis. Plus, some plants just have a temperature optimum and photosynthesis starts going down as it is exceeded, even with plenty of water and CO2. So, the idea that the plants will just take care of everything is wrong.

It's really tiresome and useless to keep seeing these posts about CO2 being much higher in the past and Earth didn't turn into Venus. In fact, there WERE giant disruptions of global ecology at those times, which if they were repeated today would be absolutely cataclysmic for human society. There are billions of people living in the tropics. If these became significantly less suitable to support agriculture, they'd be wanting to move to the temperate zone and far north, right away. Take the current stink about a few tens of thousands of kids, OK, even say we're talking about the mere 12 million or something illegal but actually present foreigners in the U.S., now multiply that up to be a couple of billion, and you can imagine that it would be a really really big problem for growing zones to shift. Whatever the Earth's climate was doing prior to, say, the last Ice Age, and maybe even just the past 1000 years, is just plain irrelevant to the whole discussion.

One also sees statements that it's all a matter of solar radiation. Bottom line is, using the exact same scientific review articles, with hundreds of references cited, that have been linked on this very thread by the folks making these statements (thanks for the link, Rick), the only rational scientific conclusion is that solar variation is not that big of a deal to the present situation.

The part of the system that is way less understood than we'd like is oceanic circulation (up and down, not just the swirling around) and the ocean-atmosphere interactions. There are thousands of posts here about the temporary flatness in the global surface temperature (which, it isn't actually that flat if ALL global data are considered, but let's not go there right now). But I haven't seen a single post contesting the clear upward trend in heat content of the oceans, continuing uninterrupted right to the present year. And it's a HUGE amount of heat energy. How it manages to be getting there, and why the ocean and lower atmosphere don't track closely, isn't well understood. But the oceans are the major part of planet Earth, so the ocean data definitively prove that global warming is occurring. Period. Anyway, as someone who provisionally believes the current crop of climate models are mostly right, I'd say the ocean part of the system still needs a lot of 'splaining.

Hope that's at least minimally helpful. And again, thanks!

Roger Brown

climber
Oceano, California
Aug 15, 2014 - 06:39pm PT
blahblah,
No offence taken, and thanks for the time spent to compose your answer. You sound like a person that understands the climate change issue.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 15, 2014 - 07:14pm PT
Yo, blahblah, I know ur comment was toung-in-cheek, so was my response; just a little ribbin'.


But this sh#t here from TLP:


Though b2 is right, there is no reason anyone should necessarily know of Roger Brown ...

Man, oh man, that's just not gonna stand!



You're curious about a fellow bro, go ahead and click on his name, then look up the posts the cat has made to the forum. Then bow down,
because our Roger Brown is as crusher as they come. And the work that he does, it's for our climbing community, man, and for the most part
it's a thankless task. You should feel lucky to be able to stand next to him at all.

See here, just a few nuggets:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2168012&msg=2168012#msg2168012

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1850876&msg=1850876#msg1850876

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=416368&msg=1980183#msg1980183

Nice to see ya posting here Roger.
:- Kelly
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 15, 2014 - 07:18pm PT
Now aren't you the slippery rascal Ed. It appears you went to Bill Clintons school of is ism, so maybe a political career is on your cards post scientific career.

However, you can't have it all to your satisfaction at the expense of bending or even breaking the intent of your little comical graphics. Of course the individual time series, since they are an average of themselves zero out , no contention there. But your intent was to compare the time series to each other as measured against your mysterious baseline to claim a trend for warming in the 2000-2013 series instead of plotting the Chiefs requested linear trend for the 2005-2014 time frame. There is baseline you are comparing it to to claim a trend, and once you identify that baseline that is from NOAA ,or not, each series exceeding 30 years is a trend of long term weather temps better known as climate. What is your baseline? I also find It disingenous to the scale of your typical politicians practice to claim that the Chiefs linear projection of the so far short temp trends fail when all GCM's and climate scientists predictions also fail. Take your hero James "the kilt" Hansen for instance; your claim that his scenario C closely tracks the "altered" contemporary temp history is complete b.s. since he was projecting that temp for the lowest CO2 emission scenario which we missed by a huge margin, even exceeding the do nothing highest emission scenario by a good margin.

TLP, glad to be of service with the informative link(s) you liked. What convinces you, other than unsubstantiated hearsay, that the oceans are currently gaining a substantial amount of heat. Also, if they are gaining heat during periods of increased atmospheric heat (from increased TSI or whatever) why would this spell trouble? Is there never to be a cooling again, during which time the oceans cool?




Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Aug 15, 2014 - 07:20pm PT
Does this indicate much "understanding" ?

in reply to "The deep oceans continue to gain heat. . . . "
May 12, 2014 - 02:37pm PT BlahBlah posted:
Sweet! I guess this means we can keep on burning whatever we want with little fear of any negative repercussions, as those deep oceans are pretty darn big and, well . . . deep!

Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 15, 2014 - 07:30pm PT
CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3
carbonic acid
which is why the ocean is becoming more acidic
so you best like eating jellyfish
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 15, 2014 - 07:36pm PT
Hehe, he said "acid."
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 15, 2014 - 07:45pm PT



the longer you wait to start, the larger the reduction rate has to be

see time 40:00 of
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn3_hviRfdU
for an explanation

or

www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/stocker13sci.pdf


As the emissions scenarios considered here illustrate, even well-intentioned and effective international efforts to limit climate
change must face the hard physical reality of certain temperature targets that can no longer be achieved if too much carbon has already
been emitted to the atmosphere. Both delay and insufficient mitigation efforts close the door on limiting global mean warming permanently.
This constitutes more than a climate change commitment: It is the fast and irreversible shrinking, and eventual disappearance,
of the mitigation options with every year of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/stocker13sci.pdf
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 15, 2014 - 08:40pm PT
ah rick, I have used The Chief's prescription, take the linear trend for 9 years and extend it into the future...

doesn't seem to work...

however, if you look at the climate models, they seem to do a fine job, certainly a lot better than The Chief's

Credit: Ed Hartouni
that would be the green line...

if you want me to change the 1961-1970 baseline to be the same as the 2005-2014 baseline, then The Chief still fails, only by -2.7F

the baselines for all the temperatures are common in what I've plotted.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 15, 2014 - 08:42pm PT
Roger Brown - you picked a strange place to fish for the basic understanding of climate change and as usual your only chance at a judgement call as to what is correct and what is not hinges entirely on who you trust as best source. Lucky for you all you really have to do is go to NOAA or any other substantively authoritative source for a breif summary.

This place is only good for a glimpse into the seedy underbelly, where any representation of informed science is persistently subverted by an army of hill billies possessed by a political ideological fervor to rival the Taliban. When you ask for help here, there is a better than 50% chance that you will get a gypo building contractor offering you both the goods on warmists plus a good deal on a time share in some mine tailings in alaska.

I'm just giving you fair warning. There are good high integrity sources to get the basic understanding, or you can play russian roulete on this thread.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 15, 2014 - 08:54pm PT
As I said, you have a future in politics Ed. You would make a fine (mis) representative.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 15, 2014 - 09:12pm PT
If anybody is interested, that Tom Brokaw series on The Discovery Channel (posted a few pages back) is pretty darn interesting.
Even in just the first 5 minutes, you see a lot.

Man, the color of that blue in those glaciers--impressive! TFPU!
Messages 26461 - 26480 of total 27895 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews