Climate Change - Impacts, Part I

There are natural drivers of climate, many of which you have mentioned. Global warming theory states that manmade green house gas emissions apply a significant artificial forcing on top of natural climate forcing. So, yes, the sun and volcanoes and other things completely out of our control have the capacity to drive much greater changes to the climate… but this does change the fact that we are altering the energy balance of the planet.[/quote]
Well, this is what the quesion boils down to. Everyone agrees that greenhouse gases play a role. But skeptics think that role may only be 20 or 30%, whereas AGW’ers think it should be perhaps higher, like 80%. The more these natural forcings like the sun and volcanoes keep on trumping these “artificial forcings,” the more we need to ponder just how greatly inflated the influence greenhouse gases really exert has been.[/quote]

Well technically, without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of the planet would be -18°C.[/quote]
No, that’s based on climate models. Climate models are designed by the bias of climate scientists who theorize that greenhouse gases are responsible for 80 or 90% of warming, but just go right ahead and plug that into climate models anyhow as though it were fact.

Climate models are garbage in, garbage out. Garbage in: 80 or 90% of warming is greenhouse gases. Garbage out: planet would be -18C without them. It’s tautology. It’s all built on a house of cards.

There are natural drivers of climate, many of which you have mentioned. Global warming theory states that manmade green house gas emissions apply a significant artificial forcing on top of natural climate forcing. So, yes, the sun and volcanoes and other things completely out of our control have the capacity to drive much greater changes to the climate… but this does change the fact that we are altering the energy balance of the planet.[/quote]
Well, this is what the quesion boils down to. Everyone agrees that greenhouse gases play a role. But skeptics think that role may only be 20 or 30%, whereas AGW’ers think it should be perhaps higher, like 80%. The more these natural forcings like the sun and volcanoes keep on trumping these “artificial forcings,” the more we need to ponder just how greatly inflated the influence greenhouse gases really exert has been.[/quote]

Well technically, without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of the planet would be -18°C.[/quote]
No, that’s based on climate models. Climate models are designed by the bias of climate scientists who theorize that greenhouse gases are responsible for 80 or 90% of warming, but just go right ahead and plug that into climate models anyhow as though it were fact.

Climate models are garbage in, garbage out. Garbage in: 80 or 90% of warming is greenhouse gases. Garbage out: planet would be -18C without them. It’s tautology. It’s all built on a house of cards.[/quote]

That really takes the cake. You may well be the first person in history to make that claim. When you accept your Nobel Prize, don’t forget to mention that good folk of forumosa in your acceptance speech. Congratulations. :bravo:

[quote=“jotham”]No, that’s based on climate models. Climate models are designed by the bias of climate scientists who theorize that greenhouse gases are responsible for 80 or 90% of warming, but just go right ahead and plug that into climate models anyhow as though it were fact.

Climate models are garbage in, garbage out. Garbage in: 80 or 90% of warming is greenhouse gases. Garbage out: planet would be -18C without them. It’s tautology. It’s all built on a house of cards.[/quote]

I think you’ve been reading a bit too much Watts Up With That. Please familiarize yourself with the high school science of the greenhouse effect before making any other daft statements. Here’s a fine place to start:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

See this? Not a climate model:

The fact is that GHGs trap energy within the earth system. Add more GHGs to the atmosphere and more energy is trapped. That much is a scientific fact not at all based on climate models. This is based first and foremost on theory and our understanding of physics and chemistry. Secondly it is based on empirical measurements of many different kinds, not the least of which are satellite measurements that fully validate what the theorists have been saying for more than a century. There is absolutely nothing controversial about the basic science of the greenhouse effect.

So, again, my point: denialists regularly nitpick, muddy the waters, and try to weasel out of having to back up their claims. AGW has a very strong foundation in science. If you dispute that science you need to provide a sensible alternative to our current understanding of the big picture, namely that GHGs increasingly trap energy within the earth system. It seems from your misguided statements that you doubt even the basic science of the greenhouse effect… which is a bit like doubting gravity. Good luck with that.

Strawman alert. I don’t think that anyone here is disputing that. The dispute is with the projections. Lo and behold… the warming has stopped and there is no explanation in the models for the pause. The projection was for 6C of warming by 2100. That is most likely NOT going to happen. The final tally will be more likely in the area of 1.5 C in warming. The projections (some) state that man is mostly if not entirely responsible for global warming but then cannot explain very clearly without hemming and hawing why the warming that is taking place since 1956 is nearly EXACTLY the same as the warming that took place as we came out of the last Ice Age. That is the EASY part. Then, there is the whole issue of policy related to manmade global warming and this is more of the same tired old rechaufee bullshit that involves the same taking from the productive to give to those who cannot seem to make it and need a whole stable full of government administrators both nationally and globally to “make a difference.” Fuck that! :loco: :loco: :loco:

Typical denialist strategy: change the subject. So simple yet so effective given that there are hundreds of different topics to choose from. If you’re ever cornered you can always slip away and move on to the next without ever acknowledging that you had gotten anything wrong. Later on you can return to the exact same falsehood and blithely act as if your erroneous statements were never countered. Easy work for the denialists, hard work for the people who actually know something about this stuff.

Jotham was suggesting that our understanding of the earth system energy balanced is based on climate models. It is not, as I have demonstrated. There was no straw man involved; Jotham was implying that the science of AGW rests solely on climate models of dubious quality.

As for warming and climate models and all that stuff, I will repeat my inquiry: if you agree that GHGs trap energy within the earth system but disagree that global average surface temperatures are increasing in the long-term… where is that extra energy going? Answer me that.

If we find out what we agree on it may become useful to talk about policy or the quality of climate models… but as always I never know what you really believe or understand. Same with Jotham. You guys are just spouting denialist talking points and slipping away anytime any of us take the time to address your statements.

Strawman alert. I don’t think that anyone here is disputing that.[/quote]

Really? Have you read anything Jotham has been writing? Shall I quote some for you? How about this, from this same page:

[quote=“Jotham”]No, that’s based on climate models. Climate models are designed by the bias of climate scientists who theorize that greenhouse gases are responsible for 80 or 90% of warming, but just go right ahead and plug that into climate models anyhow as though it were fact.

Climate models are garbage in, garbage out. Garbage in: 80 or 90% of warming is greenhouse gases. Garbage out: planet would be -18C without them. It’s tautology. It’s all built on a house of cards.[/quote]

Not to mention, he promotes an alternative hypothesis (by a fellow with no expert credentials, as far as I can find, and no peer-reviewed work published) that is frankly impossible if AGW theory is true and vice versa (for reasons I explained in my last long post in the other thread).

Jotham, although the other thread is temporarily locked, let’s not pretend as if I hadn’t written that last post there, please… you know, the one where I delineate several of the pieces of empirical evidence for AGW? Hopefully The GingerMan will agree to merge the two threads and break “Ocean Heat Content” into a separate discussion, but you’re acting as if you haven’t even seen the stuff I posted there (fits quite nicely with the definition of “denialist” given in this article:

[quote]Denial is when I ignore the fact that your paper number 4 responded to my claims in paper number 3 and go on as if I can keep making those claims. Denial is when there are 50 papers responding to the claims in my paper number 3 and they all show how I was wrong, yet I still act as if those claims are valid.

Denial, in short, is when you stop listening. It’s an absence of curiosity. That very dangerous state appears to be what is happening with climate science and it does not bode well for a technological society that must have an independent means of evaluating technical/scientific claims.[/quote]

Skeptics, Deniers And How To Tell The Difference. Part I: Blues Jam

PS - here’s a supplemental piece for Xeno’s post above:

The Evidence For Climate Change Without Climate Models

[quote=“Xeno”][quote=“jotham”]No, that’s based on climate models. Climate models are designed by the bias of climate scientists who theorize that greenhouse gases are responsible for 80 or 90% of warming, but just go right ahead and plug that into climate models anyhow as though it were fact.

Climate models are garbage in, garbage out. Garbage in: 80 or 90% of warming is greenhouse gases. Garbage out: planet would be -18C without them. It’s tautology. It’s all built on a house of cards.[/quote]

I think you’ve been reading a bit too much Watts Up With That. Please familiarize yourself with the high school science of the greenhouse effect before making any other daft statements. Here’s a fine place to start:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

See this? Not a climate model:

The fact is that GHGs trap energy within the earth system. Add more GHGs to the atmosphere and more energy is trapped. That much is a scientific fact not at all based on climate models. This is based first and foremost on theory and our understanding of physics and chemistry. Secondly it is based on empirical measurements of many different kinds, not the least of which are satellite measurements that fully validate what the theorists have been saying for more than a century. There is absolutely nothing controversial about the basic science of the greenhouse effect.

So, again, my point: denialists regularly nitpick, muddy the waters, and try to weasel out of having to back up their claims. AGW has a very strong foundation in science. If you dispute that science you need to provide a sensible alternative to our current understanding of the big picture, namely that GHGs increasingly trap energy within the earth system. It seems from your misguided statements that you doubt even the basic science of the greenhouse effect… which is a bit like doubting gravity. Good luck with that.[/quote]
You’re totally off. I never questioned that greenhouse gases have a warming effect or can influence the temperature of the earth. The controversy is how much of the warming in the past was CO2 really responsible for. I never implied that the proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is from models. In fact, I said that models are designed to work in a fairytale world where CO2 is responsible for 80 or 90% of the warming. There is no proof of that, that is only theory. I would suggest if it were really true, it would be proven already.

I was scoffing the idea that you can predict with any certainty via models what the earths temperature will be without greenhouse gases when you can’t even predict as much with them.

My appropriate ridicule of your arrogant certainty of temperatures using models under theoretic, fairyland conditions (no greenhouse gases) when certainty repeatedly falls short using them under real-world conditions is not implying that the science of AGW rests solely on climate models. You only inferred it.

With your imprecise wording one has to guess about a few things. Now I realize you are talking about estimates of climate sensitivity:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

This is precisely what the IPCC says: “[climate sensitivity is] likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values”. I suppose it is this estimate that you disagree with. I’m curious then, what do you think the value should be? And what are you basing your calculations on?

This book has a good chapter on the climate sensitivity debate… I implore you to read it as it addresses many of your vague concerns about “models”:
pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publi … o_2008.pdf

As for your talk about “a house of cards”, that is also wrong. The -18 °C figure is derived from physical equations. We can measure solar flux and determine what the temperature of the planet should be without the greenhouse effect. We can also measure the global average temperature at any given point. The difference is the contribution from greenhouse gases. None of this is controversial nor does it involve climate models. You can read a bit of first year university climatology here to brush up on the facts:
eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/cl … radiation/

I express no “arrogant certainty” about climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is an estimate. To a layperson this may sound like we scientists don’t have a clue, that we are just guessing… in fact, science regularly deals in uncertainties. That’s what error bars and confidence intervals are all about. How can we be so sure? We’re never completely sure of anything; findings are always provisional… but at the present moment in history with decades of climate modeling behind us our best guess (what you might call the scientific consensus) is what you find in the IPCC report.

I don’t honestly know where you are pulling this 80 to 90% figure from so I can’t say anything more about that. Anyway, do some reading and back up the claims you’re making with a link or two so we have a better understanding of the argument you are making.

[quote=“Xeno”]With your imprecise wording one has to guess about a few things. Now I realize you are talking about estimates of climate sensitivity:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

This is precisely what the IPCC says: “[climate sensitivity is] likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values”. I suppose it is this estimate that you disagree with. I’m curious then, what do you think the value should be? And what are you basing your calculations on?[/quote]
It’s all over the ballpark, how could you disagree with it?
The climate sensitivity model, though calculating millions of calculations, can often be easily reduced to a simple equation with 99% accuracy to the model, which suggests a strong correlation between inputs and outputs.
These climate models have sensitivities around 2 to 2.4C, not the IPCC estimate that is such a big gap.

But if global cooling occurs and it becomes really obvious the climate models have gone on a really wrong tangent somewhere, is that mean the theory has been cast off? Or will they just adjust the climate models again and figure out some other forcing that makes it look like it’s cooling globally while still saying greenhouse gases are still increasing along with the heat?

Would it kill you to cite a source or two? You’re an obvious non-expert passing on second-hand disinfo. I can’t really say much in response without having a better idea of what’s particular area of AGW you are getting nitpicky about.

@jotham: Yeah a source on your last graph would be nice. Also, could you size it appropriately? The whole thing doesn’t appear in the frame.

As Jotham has already stated, it is not an issue of any of us doubting the warming effects of CO2. We both dispute the climate models and the accuracy with which they can objectively be said to be able to project anything. To which, you go back to evidence from models to buttress your view that the models are accurate predictors because they have been tweaked or the information has been generated to project the very answer that you are citing as evidence for supporting your views that the models are accurate. We have heard all manner of dire forecasts and yet over the past 30 years, who exactly has been vindicated? the alarmists or the skeptics? I think that when we see the editorials of even sympathetic news organizations recanting, then we have to wonder… THAT is the small less than 10 percent part of this argument. The MAIN argument has always been about policy and there… I simply refuse to hand over money, authority and anything else to a bunch of worthless bureaucrats creating worthless entitites to create worthless jobs and benefits for negligible benefits. Again, you say we are always changing the subject. How about for once answering what all these cuts in CO2 emissions will achieve at what cost? The Kyoto Treaty would have achieved next to nothing, could not say for sure whether anything that was being asked for would lead to anything that was being predicted and all at great cost. THAT was an open admission by the SUPPORTERS of the treaty. :loco: :loco: :loco:

You consistently say that. jotham, on the other hand, is doubting the basic physics and chemistry of Earth and the atmosphere which has nothing to do with climate models. Not even noted skeptics like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, to name a couple, make claims like jotham is making. In fact it’s one area where everyone is in agreement no matter what side of the debate they’re on. jotham would be hard pressed to find anybody to agree with his claim.

Got a source on that one fred?

Let me summarize the denialist argument about climate sensitivity reasonably outlined here:
forbes.com/sites/timworstall … -to-solve/

“Climate sensitivity is probably lower than what the IPCC alarmists claim it is therefore global warming won’t be such a problem and we really don’t need to do anything drastic to avert catastrophe. At any rate the scientists aren’t even sure what the climate sensitivity actually is so let’s not do anything rash here.” It is important to note several points implicit in the “climate sensitivity is low” argument:

  1. Global warming is real, not a hoax, and the greenhouse effect does what it says on the tin.
  2. Human civilization is enriching the atmosphere with GHGs therefore we are certainly causing an increase in radiative forcing.

I have taken the time to say this because denialists are quick to trot out “climate sensitivity is low” followed by “global warming isn’t happening” and/or “it isn’t manmade”, arguments that are not mutually compatible without explaining what is happening with all that extra energy.

A few more resources about climate sensitivity, models, and empirical observations…
skepticalscience.com/climate … -basic.htm
skepticalscience.com/climate … ediate.htm
skepticalscience.com/climate … vanced.htm
web.archive.org/web/200805011209 … nsitivity/

Skeptical Science did a piece on one of several “low sensitivity” studies touted by the WUWT crowd:
skepticalscience.com/climate … ition.html

This graph sums up various estimates from climate models as well as the instrumental temperature record (notice the large range of uncertainty), paleoclimate indicators, and other empirical observations.

Even if you’re of the “low sensitivity” type this particular graph should make you stop and think for a minute…

You start with your pre-conceived political beliefs and look for science that would support your ideas. When your science is shown to be of poor quality you retreat back into policy and talk about climate change mitigation as if it were a useless investment of time and energy (“worthless bureaucrats creating worthless entitites to create worthless jobs and benefits for negligible benefits”). The problem here is that you failed to establish that global warming isn’t a problem. For that you would have to return to the science. Policy decisions about global warming can’t be rooted solely in politics; they must extend from our best understanding of the science. What you and your kind do is dismiss the science of global warming because it isn’t compatible with your politics. Similarly, you embrace any and all science that would seem to support your politics. Doesn’t matter whether you believe five random denialist mistruths that are all mutually incompatible. Anything that passes the test (“is this piece of disinfo compatible with my existing world-view?”) is fair game. And so all of us rationalists out here are stuck playing wingnut whack-a-mole…

Just to throw this is the worrks. An op-ed by 4 Republican administrators and noted conservatives who served in the last 4 Republican administrations.

A Republican Case for Climate Action

It mentions the scientific and political / policy aspects of action or inaction.

If you use [ctrl - ] you can manipulate the size of the screen to see the whole graph. I’ve had that problem in the past (where images I post come out huge). That doesn’t, however, deal with the other issue: it doesn’t match at all with any graphs of climate models I’ve seen. The current trend still falls within the error bars of the IPCC predictions, which are based on a HELL of a lot of simulations, and in fact their models are generally held to be conservative. Now you wanna see some ridiculous models, look at the predictions of climate skeptics!

[quote=“Jotham”]You’re totally off. I never questioned that greenhouse gases have a warming effect or can influence the temperature of the earth. The controversy is how much of the warming in the past was CO2 really responsible for. I never implied that the proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is from models. In fact, I said that models are designed to work in a fairytale world where CO2 is responsible for 80 or 90% of the warming. There is no proof of that, that is only theory. I would suggest if it were really true, it would be proven already.

I was scoffing the idea that you can predict with any certainty via models what the earths temperature will be without greenhouse gases when you can’t even predict as much with them…

…My appropriate ridicule of your arrogant certainty of temperatures using models under theoretic, fairyland conditions (no greenhouse gases) when certainty repeatedly falls short using them under real-world conditions is not implying that the science of AGW rests solely on climate models. You only inferred it.[/quote]

:no-no: Oh, so now we’ve retreated back to the second-to-last goalpost, just before we get to "It’s happening and we’re causing it, but maybe it will be good…

…or at least ‘We can’t know what will happen!’ I always find that one hilarious when espoused by alleged “conservatives”. ‘Sure, let’s conduct a humongous, one-time-only experiment on the atmosphere of our one and only planet! Who knows - might turn out ok!’ But I digress…

In any case, if this has always been your stance, why didn’t you say so in the first place and be done with it, so we can discuss sensitivity?

Debating with you really gets more and more like debating with a 9/11 Truther or anti-vaccine advocate. Xeno provides you with excellent resources like this:
pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publi … o_2008.pdf
…and…
eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/cl … radiation/

…and all you want to do is show us a graph from your spin blogs. I find it really disappointing, because for a moment or two, I almost found myself believing you’d actually care about the truth of the matter, and perhaps worry that modern conservatism is locking itself ever tighter into an epistemic bubble - a situation decried by intellectually honest conservatives like David Frumm. You guys used to love to make fun of the Left for its anti-science stance back in the day - RIGHTLY, I’ll add! - and not look what you’ve become. Post Modernists and conspiracy theorists.

In any case, I’ve already shown you empirical evidence that the warming we are seeing has the fingerprints of anthrogenesis. You ignore this and go on with this line. I’ve also pointed out that if Tisdale’s hypothesis were true, we ought not be seeing this evidence, or else we should be seeing a whole lot more warming on top of what we do. You ignore that too. Thus by default, you are indeed denying the entire scientific basis of AGW. But now it’s suddenly all just about sensitivity.

Before, I was ok playing fetch-boy for you because it provides me with ego-incentive to learn more, and I already have a considerable financial incentive to learn as much as I can (figured that might impress you, since it seems to be the only thing conservatives respect). But this is getting ridiculous. You talk as if scientists are either insidiously evil or idiots, and yet you don’t demonstrate much awareness of the copious research that exists unless it is through the filter of your pseudo-skeptical blogs. Here is a mere sample of the extensive research that investigates the natural vs. human-caused composition of global warming:

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do … 1&type=pdf
thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/ … alance.pdf
thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/ … ations.pdf
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- … etype=.pdf
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10. … 2.0.CO%3B2
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3966.1

(The first might be of particular interest to you, because it attempts to incorporate the effect of ENSO.) Now if you’re going to argue in simplistic soundbites like “scientists just do this and that, and then PRESTO!”, why don’t you go ahead and cite some of this research DIRECTLY.