This comment seems … odd. How familiar are you with Chaos Theory? Will you please read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article and explain where it goes wrong?
(post shortened)
It’s a start. It’s common ground that we can all agree on. Can’t we? Maybe we can’t?
In the 28 years of the UN/IPCC cyclic global warming/recent global warming/anthropogenic global warming/climate change/man-made-CO2-is-evil debate there have been credulous “experts” on all sides. Mistakes have been made by all sides. That has produced a certain amount of skepticism on all sides.
Who is credible? What is credible? All sides have a big PR problem. You’re (not you) stupid for saying the sun warms the Earth. You’re stupid if you don’t believe that CO2 is a pollutant. You’re stupid if you don’t believe the East Anglican University staff conspired to prevent global warming skeptics from seeing the hard data that supposedly proved global warming. You’re stupid if you believe the EAU’s private investigation of the EAU was actually impartial. You’re stupid if you whine, pro or con, about the “hockey stick” reconfiguration of the global temp timeline. You’re stupid if you are unaware that Hansen’s NASA/GISS had relied on illogically placed and poorly maintained temperature recording devices to provide U.S. temp readings. Carbon regulation. Carbon taxes. Carbon indulgences. Millionaires flying private planes across countries to demand that other people cut back on their carbon footprint. Four polar bears may have drown. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Clean air and clean water was a relatively easy sell. There was opposition, of course, but a majority came to understand that the air and water was not clean. This whole man-made-CO2-is-evil is a cluster fuck at best, and the global warming warnings aren’t convincing the masses that massive regulatory changes are needed.
This was addressed to someone else so I didn’t pay attention to it at first. Whatever it is you’re trying to do here, it makes absolutely no sense. First of all you do realize that the “v” at the end of “ppmv” stands for “volume”, right? You’re trying to taking a volume proportion and use it directly as a mass proportion, though it doesn’t matter because none of the other numbers are right, either. You seem to be conflating annual emissions with total accumulation. The other poster made the reference to “hundreds of gigatons of CO2” as the cumulative amount we’ve put into the atmosphere as inevitably having some effect on climate, and of course he’s right.
For the record, current CO2 emissions are around 33.6 gigatons annually (that was the figure for 2010). Some of this is taken up by carbon sinks, but CO2 has an average atmospheric lifetime exceeding 100 years, so clearly “hundreds of gigatons” is correct based on less than a decade of emissions at modern-day rates.
The more pertinent numbers are the 280 to 285 ppm that existed for thousands of years in the present interglacial, versus the 400 ppm that we have today, rapidly heading for 500 and 600 and beyond. It would behoove us to realize that CO2 has never exceeded 300 ppm in any period when any kind of even vaguely human-like creature had yet evolved on earth. This is beyond prehistoric – these levels of CO2 are taking us to the climate of a completely different geological era. In the process, it’s forcing the global climate system to metaphorically try to turn on a dime, with a suddenness that never occurs in nature, with corresponding consequences.
False equivalence fallacy.
The mistakes were made mostly by the contrarians, deniers and former skeptics. The former skeptics are no more specially after they get deeply involved with the data.
The reality is that the bad PR was made by the deniers groups themselves, indeed they also financed the propaganda to make it sound like if the denier side has a leg to stand on.
[More nonsensical equivalency snipped]
But the part about the data not being used properly by people like Hansen was debunked by Muller and Berkeley Earth and it was confirmed by many other researchers. Again, all the issues you are pointing as PR problems for the scientists are manufactured also by the merchants of doubt.
:rolleyes:
Paloclimitalogy demonstrates what a CO2 increase does to the temperature increase in the past. It is very, very unlikely (And the evidence is already that it is doing the same thing as in the past) that the CO2 humans release now (at the tune of about 40 gigatons per year) will behave differently.
http://epa.gov/climatestudents/basics/past.html
As for “convincing the masses” There are many times in the past that I linked to surveys and polls that show that a super majority of Americans do want the government to do more about this issue, the group that remains generally contrarian are very conservative Republicans that are usually of the Tea Party kind.
“the sun warms the earth” is true. We can agree on that, but the real question of how it contributes to climate change. This describes several different contributors, including the sun:
Just to make more explicit something that is implicit in what wolfpup has been saying in response to watchwolf49: A big difference between forecasting the weather and forecasting the response of the climate to a radiative forcing is that the former displays extreme sensitivity to initial conditions whereas the latter does not.
So, for example, if you run a numerical weather prediction model or climate model starting with one initial condition and then you perturb that initial condition and run it again, you find that after a while the two different diverge in the sense that they predict completely different weather features say a month hence (this is what is known as chaotic behavior).
However, if you run the climate model under the gradually increasing radiative forcing due to increasing greenhouse gases, both runs will lead to the roughly the same prediction for how much warmer the climate will be 100 years hence. They will completely differ in the little year-to-year ups and downs that are due, for example, to ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation), because these things ARE very sensitive to initial conditions, but they will predict the same general trend in temperatures over time scales long enough that the general upward trend due to the changing radiative forcing dominates over these jitters.
This makes predicting the future of the climate under a known radiative forcing, such as a certain increase in greenhouse gases, very different than predicting the weather far into the future. It even makes the prediction of the climate 50 years hence, when these “boundary effects” dominate easier than predicting shorter term climate effects (such as, “Will next year be a particularly warm year globally?” or “Will this winter be colder or warmer than average here in Rochester, NY?”) Even though these latter questions can be classified as “climate forecasts”, they are questions that are still quite sensitive to “initial conditions” (although probably less so than weather predictions, since the initial conditions of greatest importance are likely to be in the oceans where the time scales for change are slower than the atmosphere).
And, as wolfpup has pointed out, an analogy to predicting the future climate change in response to radiative forcings is more closely analogous to predicting the response of the climate here in Rochester to the seasonal change in solar insolation that we receive from the sun (i.e., “Roughly how much colder will it be in Rochester this January than it was in July?”) than it is to predicting the weather (or whether this winter will be warmer or colder than average).
I’m not claiming that the question of the climate response to increasing greenhouse gases is as easy as predicting the seasonal cycle (because, for one thing, we have lots more data to check the models in regards to seasonal changes than changes due to increasing greenhouse gases), but the point is that it is not as inherently difficult to impossible as predicting the weather far in advance is.
This far into this thread, posting such nonsense indicates that perhaps you aren’t listening when your misinformation is countered by facts.
Indeed…The modern “grunt weather forecaster” has to be very aware of the chaotic nature of weather.
It is worth noting that if you read the forecast discussion for modern weather forecasting, especially (but definitely NOT exclusively) the longer range forecasts (e.g., 6-10 days or 8-14 days), they make great use of ensembles of runs where the initial conditions are perturbed a little bit and the model rerun. When the different members of the ensemble all predict the same basic features, then the forecasters have more confidence that the forecast weather patterns are relatively robust; when the different members lead to very different forecast weather patterns, the forecasters have much less confidence in their forecast.
The same sort of thing applied to climate models used to predict climate change in response to increasing greenhouse gases shows what aspects seem to be relatively insensitive to initial conditions and what aspects are very sensitive to initial conditions.
The masses, in the U.S. anyway, are not very convinced about evolution either. That doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with the science. People just have a strong tendency to deny science that conflicts with strongly held beliefs or implies policy actions that conflict with political ideologies. There are studies that show that how non-experts weigh conflicting scientific evidence (and there is ALWAYS conflicting evidence) on such issues has more to do with their ideology than on the evidence itself. (Even experts in the field can fall into this trap, although they are less prone.)
Add to that the fact that the whole global warming thing is a slowly unfolding problem (like a frog in a pot of water that is only slowly being heated). So it is hard for people to take it very seriously when there are more time-pressing problems they are dealing with. The problem, however, is although it is happening rather slowly, there is also a large amount of inertia involved in both the climate system and the various economic and technological systems that need to change to deal with it, which means that we can’t afford to wait until the consequences become extremely detrimental to everyone before we take action.
There isn’t anything wrong with the science, and in normal circumstances people wouldn’t have any problem with it. In these (and several other) cases there are well funded ideologues undertaking a campaign specifically to mislead and sell doubt.
Your side, the man-made-CO2-is-evil side, has a huge PR problem. The UN/IPCC man-made-CO2-is-evil claims that the science is settled failed to convince the undecided. Science is never settled when the scientists are still searching for confirmation of their claims. After 28 years, people expect results they can trust or believe. I guess you’ll have to try harder.
That are a minority now.
Not needed when virtually all scientific groups agree this is really, really believable.
Many more in the link.
You are confusing two separate things.
The science has failed to persuade much of the public. That is true. However, it has not been a matter of the scientists failing to present the evidence; it has been a matter of a group who is not engaged in the science actively promoting a propaganda campaign to discredit the science, supported, in part, by the fact that much of the population finds science difficult to understand. It is very much parallel to the “science” that denied the dangers of smoking tobacco or the pseudo-science employed by those who promote Creationism in school science classes. That roughly half of the American population has little understanding of evolutionary theory and nearly as many reject the findings of evolutionary science is a tribute to the powerful nature of anti-scientific propaganda and does not reflect on the actual science employed in evolutionary studies. The same is true regarding AGW.
The 2 ppmv number came from you in post #83. The 5 x 10[sup]15[/sup] tonnes is widely published. The arithmetic gives 10 gigatonnes. Which of the two values are improper?
I’ve found an interesting piece that gives the meteorological definition of “radiative forcing”. It’s pretty clear that this definition applies to AGW theory very well.
There’s more energy coming in than there’s going out. It’s not hard to think of the energy staying on Earth. Do you see how the author correctly just multiplied the total square meters by the forcing? This gives us total Watts. In every other scientific field, “Watts” has a very specific meaning, that being Joules per second. The word “Joule” also has a very specific meaning, the energy transferred by a 1 Newton of force moving a 1 kilogram mass one meter. Force has the specific meaning of mass times acceleration.
Since using the word “force” in it’s classical meaning explains AGW theory so completely, why is it important to you that we use some other meaning? Correct me if I’m wrong, but 2014 was the hottest on record, which part of the greenhouse effect is being obscured by chaos?
I’m glad you brought this up, I appreciate the points you’ve brought up concerning the “dynamic” models. There’s an amount of error in the “initial conditions” of the numerical models used. This error is magnified the further into the future we run the model. I’ve no idea where any 14 day forecasts are published, around here the forecasters rarely give the 6 or 7 day forecast any credibility, and are usually mocking of the 4 or 5 day forecasts. But that’s only half the answer to the question “why are climate models to be trusted when dynamic models are bozo after a week”. I don’t have the other half.
Of course just looking upwind is a good way to forecast the weather.
Radiative forcing is profoundly negative at night and temperatures drop, a fact every forecaster takes into consideration. There’s nothing about the concept that’s exclusive to climatology.
Part two of the above cited article concerning climate sensitivity. A whole debate into itself.
We’re not warming the globe unless we’re warming the oceans, and with just mere Terawatts, we may be waiting a long while …
Well said, AGW theory is inherently complex … and people are afraid they’ll lose their jobs.
Do not ignore the evidence and the references in the article. You were wrong when you claimed that “We’re only observing around 1 ppmv annual increase in CO2.”, logic says that you used incorrect values in your calculation so you were wrong. It is as simple as that.
And it is clear that since your numbers give you a result that shows very little warming, the reality of the loss of ice can not be explained with your mathematical flights of fancy.
If you are telling us that evolution scientists are also doing their work just to keep their jobs your ideas are even more silly.
And sure it is complex, but if you do not manage to convince any science group that you are onto something I will look at what the experts are telling us what it is happening.
So is there a deniers theory about the icecaps?
The climate has always been changing, since long before humans, therefore any change we see now is unrelated to human actions.
Then your work is done. Then there is no reason for you to continue to “try” to convince people that global warming is more than one half of the normal temp swing occurring between ice ages. Global warming, global cooling, global warming, global cooling.