"Most Caribbean coral reefs may disappear in the next 20 years"

[Krogensailor]

Here's an idea. Let's separate these two camps. All of those who think Climate change is a hoax foisted upon the mass's by a bunch of left wing, come to take over the world liberals, set up an experiment. On the one side, we have a convention in a stadium, a completely closed,as in airtight, stadium. For entertainment have a bunch of those giant four wheeled trucks, 50 of them, smashing and crashing into other four wheelers trucks. Have the rules be that none can shut down their engine's, no matter what. And we can imagine that there is an endless supply of fuel. Kind of like that experiment by that scientist (Erik ?) in the sixties, where he took a bottle, put two fruit fly's and a piece of fruit in it and sealed it. You know what happened in about three day's. But I digress. So, the stadium, again is sealed, and the fun commences. In the meantime all of those liberal hippy types are gonna have their own party, Their all gonna have a festival, not unlike the one in Woodstock New York, free concert's, brown rice and veggies for all, free too. Meditation and love. They'll be free too. Oh' and no reciprocating engine are permitted. Park your car over in Jersey, we have electric buss's that will transport you to the happening. Let's say this experiment goes on for the entire month of June, nice weather outside. We can all meet up back here on July 4th to have another discussion on Climate change and how mankind is influencing it. Dare I say, causing it. I probably will be able to say that, given that the people who would argue with me would not be there, because they'd all be dead in some giant mass grave in a stadium. Why? Because politics is so much more fun than objective reality. And when you avoid reality, you also get to avoid the pain and suffering of having to adjust yourself to said reality. Only time will tell who is right and who is wrong. On the one hand, I say we stop setting our house on fire in order to stay warm. And on the other I say we build a solar warmed house and stay warm.. Same outcome, one way or the other. Except one is sustainable and the other is not. I, for one am more than willing to begin the above experiment. I'm bringing the lemonade made with spring water, organic lemons and sweetened with organic stevia. And my guitar.

[crazyoldboatguy]

=== because they'd all be dead in some giant mass grave in a stadium ===

You need to work on the rhetoric. It won't fit on a bumper sticker.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by John Drake

The problem is amply demonstrated by the fact that not one model has ever accurately predicted any future climate change. Not sea level rise, temperature, arctic ice caps cover, nothing.

Shhhhhh...Don't say facts like that in public, the NSA will call you a Climate Change Denyer and put you on the Domestic Terrorist List! That would be funny if it was true!

[Krogensailor]

will do.

[John Drake]

SV - very true

I should have changed my number when I left...oh well...

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Shhhhhh...Don't say facts like that in public, the NSA will call you a Climate Change Denyer and put you on the Domestic Terrorist List! That would be funny if it was true!

How reliable are climate models?

What the science says...

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.

Climate Myth...
Models are unreliable

"[Models] are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere." (Freeman Dyson)

There are two major questions in climate modeling - can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800's - both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. No one has created a general circulation model that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.


Figure 1: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).

Predicting/projecting the future
A common argument heard is "scientists can't even predict the weather next week - how can they predict the climate years from now". This betrays a misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable, and climate which is weather averaged out over time. While you can't predict with certainty whether a coin will land heads or tails, you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses. In weather terms, you can't predict the exact route a storm will take but the average temperature and precipitation over the whole region is the same regardless of the route.


There are various difficulties in predicting future climate. The behaviour of the sun is difficult to predict. Short-term disturbances like El Niño or volcanic eruptions are difficult to model. Nevertheless, the major forcings that drive climate are well understood.


A paper led by James Risbey (2014) in Nature Climate Change takes a clever approach to evaluating how accurate climate model temperature predictions have been while getting around the noise caused by natural cycles. The authors used a large set of simulations from 18 different climate models (from CMIP5). They looked at each 15-year period since the 1950s, and compared how accurately each model simulation had represented El Niño and La Niña conditions during those 15 years, using the trends in what's known as the Niño3.4 index.


Each individual climate model run has a random representation of these natural ocean cycles, so for every 15-year period, some of those simulations will have accurately represented the actual El Niño conditions just by chance. The study authors compared the simulations that were correctly synchronized with the ocean cycles (blue data in the left frame below) and the most out-of-sync (grey data in the right frame) to the observed global surface temperature changes (red) for each 15-year period.

Figure 2: Red: 15-year observed trends for each period. Blue: 15-year average trends from CMIP5 runs where the model Niño3.4 trend is close to observations. Grey: average 15-year trends for only the models with the worst correspondence to the Niño3.4 trend. The sizes of the dots are proportional to the number of models selected. From Nature Climate Change

The authors conclude,

When the phase of natural variability is taken into account, the model 15-year warming trends in CMIP5 projections well estimate the observed trends for all 15-year periods over the past half-century.

It's also clear from the grey figure that models that are out-of-sync with the observed changes in these ocean cycles simulate dramatically higher warming trends over the past 30 years. In other words, the model simulations that happened not to accurately represent these ocean cycles were the ones that over-predicted global surface warming.


When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5°C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007). More on predicting the future...


Figure 3: Observed and simulated global temperature change during Pinatubo eruption. Green is observed temperature by weather stations. Blue is land and ocean temperature. Red is mean model output (Hansen 2007).

Uncertainties in future projections

A common misconception is that climate models are biased towards exaggerating the effects from CO2. It bears mentioning that uncertainty can go either way. In fact, in a climate system with net positive feedback, uncertainty is skewed more towards a stronger climate response (Roe 2007). For this reason, many of the IPCC predictions have subsequently been shown to underestimate the climate response. Satellite and tide-gauge measurements show that sea level rise is accelerating faster than IPCC predictions. The average rate of rise for 1993-2008 as measured from satellite is 3.4 millimetres per year while the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) projected a best estimate of 1.9 millimetres per year for the same period. Observations are tracking along the upper range of IPCC sea level projections.


Figure 4: Observed sea level rise since 1970 from tide gauge data (red) and satellite measurements (blue) compared to model projections for 1990-2010 from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (grey band). (Source: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009)

Similarly, summertime melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models. The thickness of Arctic sea ice has also been on a steady decline over the last several decades.


Figure 5: Comparison of observed September minimum Arctic sea ice extent through 2008 (red line) with IPCC AR4 model projections. The solid black line shows the mean of the 13 models, and dashed black lines show the range of the model results. The 2009 minimum was calculated at 5.10 million km2, the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario. (Source: Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009)

Do we know enough to act?

Skeptics argue that we should wait till climate models are completely certain before we act on reducing CO2 emissions. If we waited for 100% certainty, we would never act. Models are in a constant state of development to include more processes, rely on fewer approximations and increase their resolution as computer power develops. The complex and non-linear nature of climate means there will always be a process of refinement and improvement. The main point is we now know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).


Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you'd be in a car crash, you wouldn't get in the car (or at the very least, you'd wear a seatbelt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Said

Is there anyone besides me that sees the Irony and humor in a poster named "Imaginary Number" posting data on MMGW...

[John Drake]

Imaginary - instead of posting this lengthy BS of others, look out your own window.

But, if you must, let's take the work you are posting and just give it a quick look.

Love the quote by Freeman Dyson, "[Models] are full of fudge factors..." If someone were to tell you that about anything else, why would you even listen past those words? Be honest.

Are you looking at any of the graphs? None of the predicated values correlate with any of the measured observations. And that is for THIS century. The predictions for the next 100 years vary by 10X.

Here is another great quote, "The behaviour of the sun is difficult to predict. Short-term disturbances like El Niño or volcanic eruptions are difficult to model. Nevertheless, the major forcings that drive climate are well understood."

In other words, there is a lot we don't know, and what was too hard we did not include, but we think this is all good. If one of my scientists ever said something like that to me I would fire them on the spot.

And another nice piece of deception: "The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming."

Come one now, really, this is getting ridiculous. That statement, that you love to harp on is MEANINGLESS. It has no DIMENSION.....if it has no DIMENSION that it is NONSENCE to a model. SO....if you do not know HOW MUCH human activity influences climate change... HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU POSSIBLY DECIDE WHAT TO DO?

Oh yes...CO2.....pathetic...that is ONE variable. If it were as simple as that, the models would all agree and the precision would 100%. Capice?

I have no dog in this fight. I am here to tell you that you guys are fighting about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I can readily accept that climate will change. Big deal.

What matters is ...UNDERSTANDING....the influences and causes of that change.

And precision. If your models begin with flaws, make assumptions and leave out data that you either don't know about or don't understand, they cannot predict with the precision needed guide decisions.

That is where climate change science is right now.

Big deal. If you want to fight over this BS, fight with the other guys and leave me out.

Here is a prediction as valid as any model you can cut and paste:

1. Issues associated with human population in 40 years will far outweigh any climate change issues and render that conversation utterly moot

2. There will be another technology that generates energy without fossil fuels. It will be developed and produced by people who want to make MONEY, not reduce carbon.

Thanks

[Blue Skye]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Is there anyone besides me that sees the Irony and humor in a poster named "Imaginary Number" posting data on MMGW...

hahaha

[Lake-Effect]

JD - Science is studying as much data as possible, and listening to what it tells you, not picking through it to find what might plausibly support your viewpoint.

If a team of Drs told you there's a 90% chance you have cancer you'd strip naked and jump on the OR table before they'd finished speaking.

And, colour me naive... but the person I'd trust most to comment on the work of a climate scientist is... another climate scientist. And we all pretty much know what they think on this. You really think they don't have a handle on the chaos and imprecision of their own field? Do you really think they're all just feathering their nests/sucking down grants/puffing up their resume by making such strong pronouncements? Really?

(and of course you haven't said one word about those who stand to benefit hugely by keeping the AGW issue frozen in debate, and the amount of leverage they possess, or the validity of their pronouncements)

Here is a prediction as valid as any model you can cut and paste:

1. Issues associated with human population in 40 years will far outweigh any climate change issues and render that conversation utterly moot

2. There will be another technology that generates energy without fossil fuels. It will be developed and produced by people who want to make MONEY, not reduce carbon.

1. - The problems and consequences of AGW and overpopulation are not orthogonal. They overlap greatly. Solving one goes a long way towards solving the other. And, in either case, we need to start now, not in 40 years. if you're rolling up your sleeves to work on the looming overpopulation issue, Godspeed. We won't detain you further.

2.a - Well, if people could also make money trading carbon credits, resulting in an overall reduction of carbon emission, why is that so bad?

2.b - We appreciate that you've gone all-in on fusion. We hope it works out for you and that you retire rich. Most financial advisors would advise you to diversify a bit, though. How about putting a little money into renewables and related industries? Some folks are going to make a pile (pun intended) on battery technology. And why not a nice little side bet on carbon cap and trade, just in case it actually does work?

2.c - Companies could actually get on with the real work of developing new energy technologies if there wasn't so damn much money to be made selling fossil fuels, thanks to government-supported low prices and unrestrained demand.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You really think they don't have a handle on the chaos and imprecision of their own field? Do you really think they're all just feathering their nests/sucking down grants/puffing up their resume by making such strong pronouncements? Really?.

Oh absolutely because once it MMGW goes from Science to a Religion (which it has) rational though and analysis is replaced by beleif. Their entire world view and self-worth would be shattered if they admit now the simple truth. Which is....that MMGW is a Religion with the high sacrament being Al Gore's Carbon Credits.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Oh absolutely because once it MMGW goes from Science to a Religion (which it has) rational though and analysis is replaced by beleif. Their entire world view and self-worth would be shattered if they admit now the simple truth. Which is....that MMGW is a Religion with the high sacrament being Al Gore's Carbon Credits.

Next time, please include the smiley so we know you're just trolling. Thanks

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Next time, please include the smiley so we know you're just trolling. Thanks

Then Win an Election based on your MMGW Solutions and have at it....Oh wait....the MMGW Cultists can't do that now can they...then game over....

That is my trolling comment for the day LE....have fun with it becasue the Voters seem to have seen through the Tax Hike Power Grab Liberal Facist Game......how was that?

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It would help a little if people (especially those acting as moderators) would stop referring to AGW as 'nonsense'. Every year brings more information that the deniers are wrong and the science is sound.

Another solution - stop pretending there aren't solutions. Anyone who cruises is already experienced with practising moderation and living within reasonable constraints. We need the political will to start practicing that on a broader scale.

I take great pleasure in informing you that AGW is pure hogwash. It is a myth created and perpetuated by those who are profiting from it, to the tune of billions of dollars per year.


The FACT is that the SUN controls our climate. If the sun disappeared tomorrow, we'd freeze overnight. I don't care how much CO2 there is, there is NO DIRECT correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures.

There is a chart that shows something like 2,000 yrs of CO2 levels, solar activity and global temperatures. The solar activity and global temps were in direct correlation to one another. The rising CO2 levels were not in correlation with either solar activity or global temps.

The earth is a closed system - every atom and molecule is still here from the beginning. Matter is neither created nor destroyed, it undergoes transformation and chemical change. Carbon is the bonding atom that is used to transport energy from latent form (like hydrocarbons) to kinetic (exothermic reaction in an engine) and released as CO2 into the atmosphere. Plants convert the CO2 back into carbon within their cells and release O2. After the plants die, they are converted to hydrocarbons for later burning. The sun inputs the energy into the eco-system, the plants convert it and store it, and we must burn it (hydrocarbons) and release CO2 for the plants to take in for the cycle to be complete. This is one form or "solar power" that is going on on a daily basis.

The answer is not to buy carbon offsets, that only puts money into Al Gore's pockets. Plant more trees if you feel CO2 is not getting consumed at the desired rate. Don't try to correlate CO2 levels with global temps., that is junk science.

Keep in mind that Al Gore's house consumes 18x more electricity than the average American's home (and those homes consume much more than most homes in other countries.) He also travels around in a private jet. His carbon footprint is MUCH larger than average, almost as big as it was when he was VP.

[John Drake]

Hi Lake - good questions.

I am afraid you may not fully appreciate the IPCC statement:

"The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming."

What that means in plain English is that they are 90% certain that people have SOMETHING to do with global warming. OK...WHAT?

To your analogy, that would be my doctor telling me he was 90% sure that something was wrong, but he could not tell me what. OK....I need another doctor.

To your other points.

1. Simply a prediction, human population in 40 years will dwarf the AGW issue. If you don't think so, you are not reading enough. Nothing more I can tell you.

2a. Australia has already discovered what a fraud cap and trade is and repealed it. Why...because it does nothing but make money for the traders. It creates nothing. It does not reduce carbon. But, more than that, if the climate models are not accurate, how do you know reducing carbon by that amount will make any difference? You don't. So, the money is wasted. Not gonna happen.

2b. Your paradigm is just so wrong as to be inverted. We are spending billions on "renewables" with no ROI. If they were the solution, they would have been fully implemented by now. Certainly, you could take the diversification approach. That does not work well, however, on truly big issues. We did not get to the moon by diversifying the effort.

I am not all in on fusion...it was an exemplar....I am 90% certain you know what that word means... but I cannot predict what example you would use.

And thanks, but I already have all the money I need. Pre-IPO tech firms that put money and ideas together created successful innovations helped people and made money.

2c. Why do you think there are only so many companies and whatever limited number there are, are locked out of innovation? That must be Canadian thinking. Here we innovate using venture (vulture) capital. One of these days, some guy (or gal) with money is going to want to make more, they will meet someone with a good idea and the rest will be history. Happens every single day in America. There is no reason to believe that this will not happen in the future.

Thanks