WeatherRusty Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Most of these are good points about this forum in general. It seems politicized to me also. If you don't buy the science is settled and everything the IPCC says you are automatically assumed to be a right wing, Anthony Watt et al worshiper and a "denier". Nothing could be farther from the truth about my viewpoints. Those who are truly informed read ALL viewpoints and... yes... form an opinion. I have worked as a MET for 20+ years and we are all scientists and we have opinions that can differ, sometime markedly and we don't insult each other, call each other names etc. I have learned to use others viewpoints to my advantage and learn. I guess that is not how climate science works...or at least the discussion on this forum. I respect others viewpoints. Sometimes I get pissed at the insults hurled my way or at other well meaning posters and have come back with some myself...which I regret. Maybe we can have another real climate change forum on this site...we can call it "climate reality". Then many on this forum can ban us from climate change and they are banned from "climate reality". In that way, they can continue to tow their viewpoints and we can actually consider all viewpoints in a constructive manner!! (of course I hope you know I am kidding here...just wanted to add this because some would probably take me seriously!) You are not a scientist. A met is not a scientist. You work in a scientific field. That does not make you a scientist. Do you hold a PhD, conduct research and publish it? Your viewpoint is not science. Your opinion is not science. The science is the peer-reviewed literature. Period..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 You are not a scientist. A met is not a scientist. You work in a scientific field. That does not make you a scientist. Do you hold a PhD, conduct research and publish it? Your viewpoint is not science. Your opinion is not science. The science is the peer-reviewed literature. Period..... Ummm are you a scientist? What makes you the expert. Like I said last night ( my post got deleted) this place is full of political crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u_0JZRIHFtk Ya figures you would go post a graph that shows warming and is discounted. If you look at the UK met offices' graph it shows no upward trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Explain to me that if CO 2 is the driver of AGW, then why haven't we been seeing warming over the last 16 years?hmmmmm Natural variabilty has not dissapeared from the scene. There are several similar periods of little continued warming in the past 100+ years of ongoing AGW. AGW is represented by the long term trend which continues upward. The net radiative forcing produced by human activity is currently near 390ppm CO2 equivalancy. That forcing to this point should have produced a warming of about 0.5C. Natural variability due to coupled oceanic/atmospheric occillations, solar and the like can easily negate some of that, but only temporarilly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Natural variabilty has not dissapeared from the scene. There are several similar periods of little continued warming in the past 100+ years of ongoing AGW. AGW is represented by the long term trend which continues upward. The net radiative forcing produced by human activity is currently near 390ppm CO2 equivalancy. That forcing to this point should have produced a warming of about 0.5C. Natural variability due to coupled oceanic/atmospheric occillations, solar and the like can easily negate some of that, but only temporarilly. Why only temporarilly? Please tell me. From 1940-1975 the earth cooled as a result of natural cycles so what makes you think that this cooler period won't last that long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 nope. the UK Met Office published a response to the incorrect newspaper article that misrepresented what it released: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ I hope you know the they came out with a report on Christmas eve. This is from October 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Why only temporarilly? Please tell me. From 1940-1975 the earth cooled as a result of natural cycles so what makes you think that this cooler period won't last that long? Since we don't have a good handle on natural variablity or even the exact causes and their magnitudes, there can be no certainty as to how long the slowed warming will continue. However, since most of the known causes of natural variability are cyclical in nature, their implact should be too. None of that negates the continuing upward rise in anthropogenic forcing as the background upon which this all plays out. We are not living in a cooler period, we are living in the warmest 10 year period in the 130 years instrument record. My formal education goes back over 40 years, and no I am not a scientist by my own definition. I never earned a PhD. However, I am well trained to understand the radiative physics and radiative transfer, so this is the area I tend to present to this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 No one is anti personal view points and opinions at all. We have worked hard on this forum to start from the base of things we know to be near certain fact. For instance the arctic sea ice. Walsh & Chapman I believe has been published twice. Or originally published but there data has been continuously updated with real time data to give us a longer historical record. Passive Microwave data goes back to 1972. We have 41 years of it. For some reason a couple decades get's thrown around but a more popular figure that is thrown around is 30 years. Which would be 1984-2013 now. I believe it was November of 1978 that the multi-channel ice scanning passive microwave came online and we were able to distinguish FYI with MYI. Just a quick Wikipedia search brings me this: Nimbus 1 August 28, 1964 So, we have had satellite measurement of Sea Ice for 50 years now. Not 30 or a couple decades. FIFTY YEARS. Multiple regulars on this forum continue to spout 30 years when it's hog wash. As you can see below, hi-res images from 1966. Before Nimbus was the Tiros program launched in 1960. IIRC, we have images of the sea ice, especially around 70N or so as early as 1961. I do not believe the Vanguard satellite program was capable of retrieving any sort of visible or infrared imagery . Needless to say, if we go by the 1964 launch of Nimbus we are not around 50 years of satellite data. There is no reason for anyone who ever reads this post to ever say again 30 years or a couple decades when our satellite data goes back 50 years for arctic sea ice. Nimbus satellites collected orbital data on the extent of the polar caps in the mid-1960s, recorded in the visible and infrared parts of the spectrum. These first global snapshots of Earth's icecaps provide invaluable reference points for climate change studies. During a narrowing window of opportunity for data archaeology, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NDISC) and NASA were able to recover data that allowed the reconstruction of high-resolution Nimbus 2 images from 1966 showing the entire Arctic and Antarctic ice caps.[2] Here are some links to different set's of data pertaining to real life OBS. Some of the ships data goes back to the mid to late 1700s I believe. Data from the Danes all the way back to the late 1800s. The Russian's have good data going back to the 1930s on. The Canadians have good data going back the 1950s at least. The Brit's have submarine data going back to the 1950s at least. ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02169/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02176/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02195/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02203/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G01111/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/nsidc0105_snowmelt_on_seaice/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/nsidc0192_seaice_trends_climo/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/nsidc0046_weekly_snow_seaice/browse/ Here is the main folder: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/ That is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to sea ice data going back to the late 1800s. This isn't an a opinion contest. This is is data we have, that has been compiled by Walsh & Chapman and another fellow who I can not remember his name but has published twice and his findings are almost identical to Walsh & Chapman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 tell me how the IPCC process of producing its climate reports works. Since blizzard never responded, and I thought this is an important topic that doesn't get discussed much, I decided to answer the question myself. Or, more accurately, I thought I would put up what someone who participated in the process, Michael Mann, wrote in his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Every five to seven years beginning in 1990, the IPCC has published a weighty three-volume set of reports addressing the basic science of climate change (working group 1), the projected impacts (working group 2), and the potential for mitigation of climate change (working group 3). The report of each of the three working groups consists of detailed individual chapters assessing developments in the various relevant subdisciplines of climate science. Each IPCC report chapter is fifty to one hundred pages long, written by about a dozen scientific experts in that subdiscipline who serve as lead authors (I was one in the 2001 Third Assessment). Along with fifty or more additional contributing authors for each chapter, they collectively review the developments detailed in hundreds of peer reviewed research articles relevant to the topic at hand. Each of the three working groups also produces a summary for policy makers, which provides a brief synopsis of the working group’s key findings written in language accessible to a lay audience and policy makers. The IPCC review process remains the most rigorous, comprehensive, and transparent of any major scientific assessment. IPCC reports are subject to three distinct rounds of peer review, each of which takes place over roughly two months. First, there is an initial round of expert review, wherein several thousand scientists from all disciplines and with a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives, drawn from academic, government, and nongovernmental organizations and industry, are called upon to provide detailed comments on the content of the report. Lead authors are required to consider and respond to all comments and make appropriate revisions, all of which are documented and available online. The revision process is overseen by two independent review editors with expertise in the specific subject areas of the chapter, to ensure that any legitimate issues reviewers raise are dealt with in a satisfactory manner. The revised draft report is then subject to the next round of review, the so-called government review, which includes rereview by the original expert reviewers and additional review by government representatives from all participating United Nations member nations. Each government may choose how it implements its review. The U.S. government, for example, solicits public comments through a notice in the Federal Register, in essence allowing anyone at all to serve as a reviewer of the IPCC report. The revision process is again repeated. Finally, national governments are again invited to comment on the report. The final wording of the all-important summary for policy makers for each of the three working groups is agreed upon word-by-word in a final plenary meeting in which government delegations are present and can propose variant terms or make objections to specific wording, but the scientists are in charge. The final version reflects a consensus on the precise wording of the report between the scientists involved in the writing of the report and the representatives of the government delegations. It is difficult to imagine a more open, inclusive, and responsible assessment process than that which the IPCC follows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 The basic science of global warming has been settled a long time ago, so opinion never should enter into the debate. The only relevant fact to be concerned about is how humanity is going to adapt to an increasingly warmer climate going forward. But your opinion actually matters in what the response should be since that's a public policy question which is open to debate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”. The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked. Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades (indeed, the idea was first proposed in 1896). By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming. Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s. There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming. And there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it’s caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. Some aspects are less certain; for example, the net effect of aerosol pollution is known to be negative, but the exact value needs to be better constrained. What about the remaining uncertainties? Shouldn’t we wait for 100% certainty before taking action? Outside of logic and mathematics, we do not live in a world of certainties. Science comes to tentative conclusions based on the balance of evidence. The more independent lines of evidence are found to support a scientific theory, the closer it is likely to be to the truth. Just because some details are still not well understood should not cast into doubt our understanding of the big picture: humans are causing global warming. In most aspects of our lives, we think it rational to make decisions based on incomplete information. We will take out insurance when there is even a slight probability that we will need it. Why should our planet’s climate be any different? Everything you say is pretty much settled. Yes. True. The areas that are not settled and need more research and should be questioned is climate sensitivity. IPCC suggests 2 to 4.5C for a doubled CO2 concentration. However, this assumes all positive feedbacks. This is where there is uncertainty. CO2 doubling leads to an extra 3.7 W/m2 forcing which yields 1.2C warming without feedbacks. Feedbacks are tough to model and are related to clouds and convection which are poorly modeled. That is where there is uncertainty as least for me(and many others too). If this makes me a denier to some, then so be it. They don't understand the complexities of the atmosphere-ocean and whole earth system for that matter. I also agree the earth is warming. But how do we know that this warming is 100% related to CO2 forcing. How are clouds varying? And how is water vapor at high altitudes varying? These are questions that make it difficult to be certain of strong positive feedbacks. I believe from my experience it is somewhere in the middle, CO2 has led to some warming on top of the natural climate cycles...PDO/AMO. In any event, if we wait until we are 100% certain it might be too late. But we don't want to destroy the global economy either...so it is a difficult problem that is in the political realm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Since blizzard never responded, and I thought this is an important topic that doesn't get discussed much, I decided to answer the question myself. Or, more accurately, I thought I would put up what someone who participated in the process, Michael Mann, wrote in his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Every five to seven years beginning in 1990, the IPCC has published a weighty three-volume set of reports addressing the basic science of climate change (working group 1), the projected impacts (working group 2), and the potential for mitigation of climate change (working group 3). The report of each of the three working groups consists of detailed individual chapters assessing developments in the various relevant subdisciplines of climate science. Each IPCC report chapter is fifty to one hundred pages long, written by about a dozen scientific experts in that subdiscipline who serve as lead authors (I was one in the 2001 Third Assessment). Along with fifty or more additional contributing authors for each chapter, they collectively review the developments detailed in hundreds of peer reviewed research articles relevant to the topic at hand. Each of the three working groups also produces a summary for policy makers, which provides a brief synopsis of the working group’s key findings written in language accessible to a lay audience and policy makers. The IPCC review process remains the most rigorous, comprehensive, and transparent of any major scientific assessment. IPCC reports are subject to three distinct rounds of peer review, each of which takes place over roughly two months. First, there is an initial round of expert review, wherein several thousand scientists from all disciplines and with a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives, drawn from academic, government, and nongovernmental organizations and industry, are called upon to provide detailed comments on the content of the report. Lead authors are required to consider and respond to all comments and make appropriate revisions, all of which are documented and available online. The revision process is overseen by two independent review editors with expertise in the specific subject areas of the chapter, to ensure that any legitimate issues reviewers raise are dealt with in a satisfactory manner. The revised draft report is then subject to the next round of review, the so-called government review, which includes rereview by the original expert reviewers and additional review by government representatives from all participating United Nations member nations. Each government may choose how it implements its review. The U.S. government, for example, solicits public comments through a notice in the Federal Register, in essence allowing anyone at all to serve as a reviewer of the IPCC report. The revision process is again repeated. Finally, national governments are again invited to comment on the report. The final wording of the all-important summary for policy makers for each of the three working groups is agreed upon word-by-word in a final plenary meeting in which government delegations are present and can propose variant terms or make objections to specific wording, but the scientists are in charge. The final version reflects a consensus on the precise wording of the report between the scientists involved in the writing of the report and the representatives of the government delegations. It is difficult to imagine a more open, inclusive, and responsible assessment process than that which the IPCC follows. Thanks for responding. You were a reviewer in sub-discipline? that is cool. What is your feeling on the IPCC? Do you think it really is objective? I know another reviewer who felt it was very biased toward the more catastrophic side. That was his opinion. Does the IPCC really think the GCMs are accurate representations of the climate system even with the cloud parameterizations and convective parameterizations?? Good to have someone of your expertise on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 No one is anti personal view points and opinions at all. We have worked hard on this forum to start from the base of things we know to be near certain fact. For instance the arctic sea ice. Walsh & Chapman I believe has been published twice. Or originally published but there data has been continuously updated with real time data to give us a longer historical record. Passive Microwave data goes back to 1972. We have 41 years of it. For some reason a couple decades get's thrown around but a more popular figure that is thrown around is 30 years. Which would be 1984-2013 now. I believe it was November of 1978 that the multi-channel ice scanning passive microwave came online and we were able to distinguish FYI with MYI. Just a quick Wikipedia search brings me this: Nimbus 1 August 28, 1964 So, we have had satellite measurement of Sea Ice for 50 years now. Not 30 or a couple decades. FIFTY YEARS. Multiple regulars on this forum continue to spout 30 years when it's hog wash. As you can see below, hi-res images from 1966. Before Nimbus was the Tiros program launched in 1960. IIRC, we have images of the sea ice, especially around 70N or so as early as 1961. I do not believe the Vanguard satellite program was capable of retrieving any sort of visible or infrared imagery . Needless to say, if we go by the 1964 launch of Nimbus we are not around 50 years of satellite data. There is no reason for anyone who ever reads this post to ever say again 30 years or a couple decades when our satellite data goes back 50 years for arctic sea ice. Here are some links to different set's of data pertaining to real life OBS. Some of the ships data goes back to the mid to late 1700s I believe. Data from the Danes all the way back to the late 1800s. The Russian's have good data going back to the 1930s on. The Canadians have good data going back the 1950s at least. The Brit's have submarine data going back to the 1950s at least. ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02169/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02176/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02195/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02203/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G01111/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/nsidc0105_snowmelt_on_seaice/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/nsidc0192_seaice_trends_climo/ ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/nsidc0046_weekly_snow_seaice/browse/ Here is the main folder: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/ That is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to sea ice data going back to the late 1800s. This isn't an a opinion contest. This is is data we have, that has been compiled by Walsh & Chapman and another fellow who I can not remember his name but has published twice and his findings are almost identical to Walsh & Chapman. This is awesome. I will check it out. Thanks man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Thanks for responding. You were a reviewer in sub-discipline? that is cool. What is your feeling on the IPCC? Do you think it really is objective? I know another reviewer who felt it was very biased toward the more catastrophic side. That was his opinion. Does the IPCC really think the GCMs are accurate representations of the climate system even with the cloud parameterizations and convective parameterizations?? Good to have someone of your expertise on this forum. No, I was not a reviewer. The text in blue was a quote from Michael Mann, not me. I'm afraid I don't have any climate expertise at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 You are not a scientist. A met is not a scientist. You work in a scientific field. That does not make you a scientist. Do you hold a PhD, conduct research and publish it? Your viewpoint is not science. Your opinion is not science. The science is the peer-reviewed literature. Period..... No I don't hold a PHD I have an M.S in meteorology. But I have published several papers in peer reviewed AMS and NWA journals. I also occasionally am a reviewer for the AMS and NWA. Just because a paper is peer reviewed does not make it sound science. I have seen some terrible papers make it thru the peer review process in meteorology. Spencer and Braswell (2008), Linzden and Choi (2001) and Paltridge (2009) made it through and these are often discounted. My viewpoints are based on science because they are based on my knowledge of the atmosphere, radiative transfer, cloud physics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics and numerical weather prediction. 20 years of experience. Maybe that does not make me a scientist in your eyes, but my colleagues and I consider ourselves scientists. The only difference is we are operational scientists which are different from research scientists. But I am not a climate scientist. I admit that but I have a lot of training in climate science at the grad level from professors who actually were on the warm side of the debate. In any event, I respected them and did well in their classes. But no I don't publish in peer reviewed climate journals that is not my job. The whole climate change issue is a keen interest of mine. For some of you, it seems like it is your whole world...wow. Are you a scientist?? curious that's all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 No, I was not a reviewer. The text in blue was a quote from Michael Mann, not me. I'm afraid I don't have any climate expertise at all. whoops. misread. that's ok. thanks for responding for me. I would have had to look up all that stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Everything you say is pretty much settled. Yes. True. The areas that are not settled and need more research and should be questioned is climate sensitivity. IPCC suggests 2 to 4.5C for a doubled CO2 concentration. However, this assumes all positive feedbacks. This is where there is uncertainty. CO2 doubling leads to an extra 3.7 W/m2 forcing which yields 1.2C warming without feedbacks. Feedbacks are tough to model and are related to clouds and convection which are poorly modeled. That is where there is uncertainty as least for me(and many others too). If this makes me a denier to some, then so be it. They don't understand the complexities of the atmosphere-ocean and whole earth system for that matter. I also agree the earth is warming. But how do we know that this warming is 100% related to CO2 forcing. How are clouds varying? And how is water vapor at high altitudes varying? These are questions that make it difficult to be certain of strong positive feedbacks. I believe from my experience it is somewhere in the middle, CO2 has led to some warming on top of the natural climate cycles...PDO/AMO. In any event, if we wait until we are 100% certain it might be too late. But we don't want to destroy the global economy either...so it is a difficult problem that is in the political realm. I would never call you a denier of anything since that isn't my style. The way that I see it is that even if the lower ranges of the sensitivity turn out to be true, the warming would still represent a significant departure from the climate that modern civilization has developed under. I guess that I am in the camp that we may underestimate the effects of even the lower ranges of the IPCC temperature projections. Using conservative projections, I think that crossing the 2C of warming level sometime during this century will have greater impacts than we expect. I am reminded that the Arctic sea ice wasn't expected to decline to these levels so soon under the amount of warming that we have seen so far. So we could be in for some more nasty surprises on a global scale potentially such as drought during this century I don't want to destroy the economy either. I have little faith that politicians will come up with solutions that would be effective at combating climate change under the current global economic system. The problem is that our whole civilization is based on exploiting natural resources to the maximum, while focusing on short term economic gains. Perhaps we need a Marshall Plan to develop future technologies to replace the carbon based economy. But just forcing countries to reduce CO2 emissions without replacement technology to meet their energy needs will result in damage to an already fragile economy. Maybe the path of least resistance politically will turn out to be a business as usual and hefty economic stresses to the system over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 WeatheRusty..... "My formal education goes back over 40 years, and no I am not a scientist by my own definition. I never earned a PhD. However, I am well trained to understand the radiative physics and radiative transfer, so this is the area I tend to present to this forum." So what makes you call me someone who is not qualified to have a scientific opinion on this forum??? Huh? I too am well trained in radiative transfer and radiative physics at both the undergrad an grad level. I also have taken thermo at the undergrad and grad and did very well in all these subjects. My professor in rad tran was skeptical of CO2 being a major driver of climate change by the way and he was a top professor at PSU who is now retired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I would never call you a denier of anything since that isn't my style. The way that I see it is that even if the lower ranges of the sensitivity turn out to be true, the warming would still represent a significant departure from the climate that modern civilization has developed under. I guess that I am in the camp that we may underestimate the effects of even the lower ranges of the IPCC temperature projections. Using conservative projections, I think that crossing the 2C of warming level sometime during this century will have greater impacts than we expect. I am reminded that the Arctic sea ice wasn't expected to decline to these levels so soon under the amount of warming that we have seen so far. So we could be in for some more nasty surprises on a global scale potentially such as drought during this century I don't want to destroy the economy either. I have little faith that politicians will come up with solutions that would be effective at combating climate change under the current global economic system. The problem is that our whole civilization is based on exploiting natural resources to the maximum, while focusing on short term economic gains. Perhaps we need a Marshall Plan to develop future technologies to replace the carbon based economy. But just forcing countries to reduce CO2 emissions without replacement technology to meet their energy needs will result in damage to an already fragile economy. Maybe the path of least resistance politically will turn out to be a business as usual and hefty economic stresses to the system over time. You have good points here. This is a very difficult problem. I DOUBT anything will be done on an international level no matter what the science uncovers. So we will have to adapt as a species. Maybe this will be the way the population of humans stabilizes if indeed we warm way too much?? It is terrible to think this way...but our species seems to be reactionary not proactive enough to prevent something. sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 False, the IPCC includes many positive and negative feedbacks. The NET feedback is positive. IPCC suggests 2 to 4.5C for a doubled CO2 concentration. However, this assumes all positive feedbacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 False, the IPCC includes many positive and negative feedbacks. The NET feedback is positive. NET positive feedback. That is what I meant...sorry. Yes I have seen that bar chart many times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 WeatheRusty..... "My formal education goes back over 40 years, and no I am not a scientist by my own definition. I never earned a PhD. However, I am well trained to understand the radiative physics and radiative transfer, so this is the area I tend to present to this forum." So what makes you call me someone who is not qualified to have a scientific opinion on this forum??? Huh? I too am well trained in radiative transfer and radiative physics at both the undergrad an grad level. I also have taken thermo at the undergrad and grad and did very well in all these subjects. My professor in rad tran was skeptical of CO2 being a major driver of climate change by the way and he was a top professor at PSU who is now retired. You know what, I understand every single point you make and I agree with most all of it. Your professor was correct, CO2 forcing by itself causes a modest warming. 1.2C per doubling. I don't question your background either, you obviously are well versed in the issues surrounding the science. Well over 50% of operational meteorologists profess strong doubts just like you. You are also correct that the area of contention resides in the uncertainty of feedback to the initial radiative forcing. We do not have a tightly confined estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity, the net of all considered short term feedbacks. You say that all feedbacks must be positive in order for a range 2C - 4.5C to be realistic. I disagree. We know for sure the lapse rate feedback is negative. An increase in low cloud amount would be negative. An increase in high cloud amount positve. Most of the 33C global warming produced by the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds (~75%). The net effect of these feedbacks under Earthly conditions has been positive. I know of no reason to suppose that dynamic to suddenly change at the the current global temperature of 18C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 You know what, I understand every single point you make and I agree with most all of it. Your professor was correct, CO2 forcing by itself causes a modest warming. 1.2C per doubling. I don't question your background either, you obviously are well versed in the issues surrounding the science. Well over 50% of operational meteorologists profess strong doubts just like you. You are also correct that the area of contention resides in the uncertainty of feedback to the initial radiative forcing. We do not have a tightly confined estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity, the net of all considered short term feedbacks. You say that all feedbacks must be positive in order for a range 2C - 4.5C to be realistic. I disagree. We know for sure the lapse rate feedback is negative. An increase in low cloud amount would be negative. An increase in high cloud amount positve. Most of the 33C global warming produced by the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds (~75%). The net effect of these feedbacks under Earthly conditions has been positive. I know of no reason to suppose that dynamic to suddenly change at the the current global temperature of 18C. Good summary and reasonable conclusions in my opinion FWIW. The water vapor feedback and effect of clouds are the biggest uncertainties and that gives you the range 2- 4.5C from the IPCC report. Fair enough. Current warming rates from satellite are 1.4C/century and I think from the surface record are 2.4C/century. I thought I saw this somewhere but have failed to find it. Natural climatic variability (and possibly aerosol loading from China and India) has slowed the warming trend to almost a halt since the mid/late 1990s. I would bet in the next 10-20 years we will know for sure what these feedbacks are doing( it will also be way too late if indeed drastic warming ensues). Does anyone know what the issues are with satellite retrievals of high altitude water vapor are? That is key. Dessler (not DRESSLER!!!) showed a positive high altitude water vapor trend from satellite retrievals as we all know. I have read that the retrieval methods are difficult and rife with uncertainties which has temperatures somehow linked in. But I really did not understand the reasoning. I would really like to understand this more because in essence it is the key to climate sensitivity in my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Good summary and reasonable conclusions in my opinion FWIW. The water vapor feedback and effect of clouds are the biggest uncertainties and that gives you the range 2- 4.5C from the IPCC report. Fair enough. Current warming rates from satellite are 1.4C/century and I think from the surface record are 2.4C/century. I thought I saw this somewhere but have failed to find it. Natural climatic variability (and possibly aerosol loading from China and India) has slowed the warming trend to almost a halt since the mid/late 1990s. I would bet in the next 10-20 years we will know for sure what these feedbacks are doing( it will also be way too late if indeed drastic warming ensues). Does anyone know what the issues are with satellite retrievals of high altitude water vapor are? That is key. Dessler (not DRESSLER!!!) showed a positive high altitude water vapor trend from satellite retrievals as we all know. I have read that the retrieval methods are difficult and rife with uncertainties which has temperatures somehow linked in. But I really did not understand the reasoning. I would really like to understand this more because in essence it is the key to climate sensitivity in my humble opinion. My understanding, is that satellite upper air readings are calibrated to the radiosonde data. The radiosonde instrumentation measuring humidity in the very cold is plagued with inaccuracy. Also the temperature monitoring instrumentation has changed over the years, with a warm bias due to inadequate solar shielding identified in earlier years. The result is a lack of confidence in the record when looking for the small changes the radiosonde instruments where never designed for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I see Dessler's name being mentioned multiple times in this thread. Did you know that he recently coauthored a paper that found that the Cloud Feedback was most likely slightly negative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Climate Sensitivity can absolutely be below 1.9 Degrees C. This is what the IPCC has to say about Climate Sensitivity in the GCMs, in their AR4 report: Using feedback parameters from Figure 8.14, it can be estimated that in the presence of water vapor, lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks, but in the absence of cloud feedbacks, current GCMs would predict a climate sensitivity (±1 standard deviation) of roughly 1.9°C ± 0.15°C (ignoring spread from radiative forcing differences). The mean and standard deviation of climate sensitivity estimates derived from current GCMs are larger (3.2°C ± 0.7°C) essentially because the GCMs all predict a positive cloud feedback (Figure 8.14) but strongly disagree on its magnitude.” This means that in the absence of any Cloud Feedback, GCMs predict warming of around 1.9 Degrees C. The Cloud Feedback increases the Climate Sensitivity to 3.2 Degrees C. This is a huge portion of the total positive feedback amplification from no feedback. That also means that if the Cloud Feedback is negative, then consequently, the sensitivity can be lower than 1.9 Degrees C, and much lower than 3.2 Degrees C. There is some evidence for a negative Cloud Feedback, pointing to a sensitivity less than 1.9 Degrees C. Davies and Molloy 2012 The difference between the first and last year of the decade, not directly affected by the La Niña event, is 31 +/- 11 m. If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming, as lower cloud heights reduce the effective altitude of emission of radiation to space with a corresponding cooling effect on equilibrium surface temperature. Cho et al. 2012 This study investigated variations in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) in response to changes in sea surface temperature (SST) over the Pacific warm pool area (20°N–20°S, 130°E–170°W). OLR values were obtained from recent (January 2008–June 2010) geostationary window channel imagery at hourly resolution, which resolves processes associated with tropical convective clouds. We used linear regression analysis with the domain-averaged OLR and SST anomalies (i.e., ΔOLR, ΔSST; deviations from their 90-day moving averages). Results show that the regression slope appears to be significant only with SST least-affected by cloud radiative forcing, for which SST needs to be obtained as daily average over cloud-free regions (ΔSSTclear). The estimated value of ΔOLR/ΔSSTclear is 15.72 W m−2 K−1, indicating the presence of strong outgoing longwave radiation in response to surface warming. This atmospheric cooling effect is found to be primarily associated with reduced areal coverage of clouds (−14.4% K−1). Caldwell et al. 2012 Large-scale conditions over subtropical marine stratocumulus areas are extracted from global climate models (GCMs) participating in Phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3) and used to drive an atmospheric mixed layer model (MLM) for current and future climate scenarios. Cloud fraction is computed as the fraction of days where GCM forcings produce a cloudy equilibrium MLM state. This model is a good predictor of cloud fraction and its temporal variations on timescales longer than 1 week but overpredicts liquid water path and entrainment. GCM cloud fraction compares poorly with observations of mean state, variability, and correlation with estimated inversion strength (EIS). MLM cloud fraction driven by these same GCMs, however, agrees well with observations, suggesting that poor GCM low cloud fraction is due to deficiencies in cloud parameterizations rather than large-scale conditions. However, replacing the various GCM cloud parameterizations with a single physics package (the MLM) does not reduce inter-model spread in low-cloud feedback because the MLM is more sensitive than the GCMs to existent inter-model variations in large-scale forcing. This suggests that improving GCM low cloud physics will not by itself reduce inter-model spread in predicted stratocumulus cloud feedback. Differences in EIS and EIS change between GCMs are found to be a good predictor of current-climate MLM cloud amount and future cloud change. CMIP3 GCMs predict a robust increase of 0.5-1 K in EIS over the next century, resulting in a 2.3-4.5% increase in MLM cloudiness. If EIS increases are real, subtropical stratocumulus may damp global warming in a way not captured by the GCMs studied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 My understanding, is that satellite upper air readings are calibrated to the radiosonde data. The radiosonde instrumentation measuring humidity in the very cold is plagued with inaccuracy. Also the temperature monitoring instrumentation has changed over the years, with a warm bias due to inadequate solar shielding identified in earlier years. The result is a lack of confidence in the record when looking for the small changes the radiosonde instruments where never designed for. Thanks. Does anyone have the Dessler reference for this?? Not the cloud one that was just mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Climate Sensitivity can absolutely be below 1.9 Degrees C. This is what the IPCC has to say about Climate Sensitivity in the GCMs, in their AR4 report: Using feedback parameters from Figure 8.14, it can be estimated that in the presence of water vapor, lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks, but in the absence of cloud feedbacks, current GCMs would predict a climate sensitivity (±1 standard deviation) of roughly 1.9°C ± 0.15°C (ignoring spread from radiative forcing differences). The mean and standard deviation of climate sensitivity estimates derived from current GCMs are larger (3.2°C ± 0.7°C) essentially because the GCMs all predict a positive cloud feedback (Figure 8.14) but strongly disagree on its magnitude.” This means that in the absence of any Cloud Feedback, GCMs predict warming of around 1.9 Degrees C. The Cloud Feedback increases the Climate Sensitivity to 3.2 Degrees C. This is a huge portion of the total positive feedback amplification from no feedback. That also means that if the Cloud Feedback is negative, then consequently, the sensitivity can be lower than 1.9 Degrees C, and much lower than 3.2 Degrees C. There is some evidence for a negative Cloud Feedback, pointing to a sensitivity less than 1.9 Degrees C. Davies and Molloy 2012 The difference between the first and last year of the decade, not directly affected by the La Niña event, is 31 +/- 11 m. If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming, as lower cloud heights reduce the effective altitude of emission of radiation to space with a corresponding cooling effect on equilibrium surface temperature. Cho et al. 2012 This study investigated variations in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) in response to changes in sea surface temperature (SST) over the Pacific warm pool area (20°N–20°S, 130°E–170°W). OLR values were obtained from recent (January 2008–June 2010) geostationary window channel imagery at hourly resolution, which resolves processes associated with tropical convective clouds. We used linear regression analysis with the domain-averaged OLR and SST anomalies (i.e., ΔOLR, ΔSST; deviations from their 90-day moving averages). Results show that the regression slope appears to be significant only with SST least-affected by cloud radiative forcing, for which SST needs to be obtained as daily average over cloud-free regions (ΔSSTclear). The estimated value of ΔOLR/ΔSSTclear is 15.72 W m−2 K−1, indicating the presence of strong outgoing longwave radiation in response to surface warming. This atmospheric cooling effect is found to be primarily associated with reduced areal coverage of clouds (−14.4% K−1). Caldwell et al. 2012 Large-scale conditions over subtropical marine stratocumulus areas are extracted from global climate models (GCMs) participating in Phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3) and used to drive an atmospheric mixed layer model (MLM) for current and future climate scenarios. Cloud fraction is computed as the fraction of days where GCM forcings produce a cloudy equilibrium MLM state. This model is a good predictor of cloud fraction and its temporal variations on timescales longer than 1 week but overpredicts liquid water path and entrainment. GCM cloud fraction compares poorly with observations of mean state, variability, and correlation with estimated inversion strength (EIS). MLM cloud fraction driven by these same GCMs, however, agrees well with observations, suggesting that poor GCM low cloud fraction is due to deficiencies in cloud parameterizations rather than large-scale conditions. However, replacing the various GCM cloud parameterizations with a single physics package (the MLM) does not reduce inter-model spread in low-cloud feedback because the MLM is more sensitive than the GCMs to existent inter-model variations in large-scale forcing. This suggests that improving GCM low cloud physics will not by itself reduce inter-model spread in predicted stratocumulus cloud feedback. Differences in EIS and EIS change between GCMs are found to be a good predictor of current-climate MLM cloud amount and future cloud change. CMIP3 GCMs predict a robust increase of 0.5-1 K in EIS over the next century, resulting in a 2.3-4.5% increase in MLM cloudiness. If EIS increases are real, subtropical stratocumulus may damp global warming in a way not captured by the GCMs studied. You bring up the uncertainties that the role of clouds introduce. That has been my position. The science of major warming is not settled. I am trying to learn more in this area and the water vapor feedback and unfortunately most of these papers are locked down and you have to pay 35 bucks per paper. That is a lot. I can get AMS papers from work but that only includes journal of climate which I believe is the only AMS one devoted to climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 You bring up the uncertainties that the role of clouds introduce. That has been my position. The science of major warming is not settled. I am trying to learn more in this area and the water vapor feedback and unfortunately most of these papers are locked down and you have to pay 35 bucks per paper. That is a lot. I can get AMS papers from work but that only includes journal of climate which I believe is the only AMS one devoted to climate. It's a legitimate uncertainty in Climate Science, but it's very important. If the Cloud Feedback were to be strongly negative, then sensitivities below the blackbody sensitivity of 1.1 Degrees C are definitely on the table. That also then means that the anthropogenic forcing is insufficient to explain the long term warming trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Snowlover123, Here's a paper on the PDO that describes what it is: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3527.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 It's a legitimate uncertainty in Climate Science, but it's very important. If the Cloud Feedback were to be strongly negative, then sensitivities below the blackbody sensitivity of 1.1 Degrees C are definitely on the table. That also then means that the anthropogenic forcing is insufficient to explain the long term warming trend. Except we know that CO2 and methane forcing is far greater than the long-term warming trend. This is not debatable it is a basic logical conclusion. The earth remains in a large energy imbalance. Further warming would take place before equilibrium is reached. Even more warming would take place were it not for the large amount of aerosol pollution we have darkened our atmosphere with and blocked out the sun. Neither internal variables nor the sun could have caused such a massive change in forcing. Only long-lived radiative gases with significant net positive feedback could have done so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.