My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I am asking for the FOURTH time to see if you can extrapolate your model to the time period 1998-2008, or explain WHY this question is somehow inapplicable!!!!!

I actually can address this. 1998 was the height of a particularly strong el-nino, which means that it should have been unusually warm. The plateau then, is a little alarming, as 2008 temperatures are now comparable to those of unusually strong el nino years.

If you remove or control for the el-nino years 97-98, the warming becomes apparent. If you use five year averages as data points (always a better idea for erratic systems like climate, it washes out anomalies to get a trend), then the warming is also apparent.

As to your question about what a forcing model is: in a forcing model certain data sets (greenhouse gasses, solar activity, etc) are put into climate models by hand (the model has no other way of knowing solar activity, greenhouse gasses emissions etc). The graphs inf. was showing where done by taking a model, and inserting various data sets (solar activity without greenhouse gasses; green house gasses without solar activity, both together, etc), and looking at the various model predictions. All well accepted climate models that I have seen show that greenhouse gasses are the largest component of the current warming.

Lastly, Biochemist, I take from the name that you are or have worked as a biochemist. Not being a climate scientist, why do you put so little faith in the climate scientists? As a physicist, I trust climate scientists to sort out climate science, biochemists to sort out biochemistry, etc.

Earlier in the thread, you make a remark that you wouldn't buy a forcing model because you didn't understand it- but why should someone not trained in climate science be able to jump right in and understand it? Should the majority of the world doubt high energy physics because they don't understand how particle accelerators work? Why shouldn't we trust the climate scientists to understand they're own field well enough to trust the consensus that emerged in the 70s?
-Will

[Biochemist]

Nice post, Eras. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

I actually can address this. 1998 was the height of a particularly strong el-nino, which means that it should have been unusually warm. The plateau then, is a little alarming, as 2008 temperatures are now comparable to those of unusually strong el nino years.

If you remove or control for the el-nino years 97-98, the warming becomes apparent. If you use five year averages as data points (always a better idea for erratic systems like climate, it washes out anomalies to get a trend), then the warming is also apparent.

Thanks for the clarification.

As to your question about what a forcing model is:.....All well accepted climate models that I have seen show that greenhouse gasses are the largest component of the current warming.

Understood, Eras. I was actually attempting to take IN to task for characterizing a model as an observation.

Lastly, Biochemist, I take from the name that you are or have worked as a biochemist.

My actual degree is a Doctor of Pharmacy. I have not done work as a biochemist since 1978. And to be fair, that was work in tissue culture, not really biochemistry. I don't read a lot into folks' screen names here.

Not being a climate scientist, why do you put so little faith in the climate scientists?

I usually do. There is pretty strong heterogeneity among climate scientists about the causality of climate change. I suspect that everyone here is aware of the positions of John Christy (U of Alabama) John Christy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with respect to either the IPCC in specific or greenhouse causality in general. These gentlemen are actively involved in the relevant fields and they have thoughtful positions that are at least occasionally at odds with the "consensus".

...I trust climate scientists to sort out climate science, biochemists to sort out biochemistry...

Not a bad model. But if we restricted the posts here to those folks, we would have some pretty brief fora.

Earlier in the thread, you make a remark that you wouldn't buy a forcing model because you didn't understand it- but why should someone not trained in climate science be able to jump right in and understand it?

I did imply that, and I really should not have (my apologies). What I really meant was that complex models rise and fall on the integrity of thought in the model. I regard forcing as a moderately complex construct (as opposed to a more concrete measure of, say, CO2 directly). Any forcing model adds another degree of freedom to the validity of an assessment.

Should the majority of the world doubt high energy physics because they don't understand how particle accelerators work?

No. But if a bunch of physicists got together and asserted that the international community should get together and sign an international treaty to fund a $10 trillion accelerator for the public good, it is fair to suggest some non-physicists might want to weigh in on how we might better use that $10 trillion.

Why shouldn't we trust the climate scientists to understand they're own field well enough to trust the consensus that emerged in the 70s?

This is still an area of active research. Accepting the consensus on 1) average warming, and 2) some portion of CO2 causality does not obviate the value of debate about how (or whether) to do anything about it.

Again, nice post Eras.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

There is pretty strong heterogeneity among climate scientists about the causality of climate change.

The heterogeneity is more about the degree to which different factors influence the climate. There is universal consensus that warming is happening, and that CO2 causes warming. The big picture, so to speak. The rest is details, which are less well understood.

I suspect that everyone here is aware of the positions of John Christy (U of Alabama) John Christy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with respect to either the IPCC in specific or greenhouse causality in general. These gentlemen are actively involved in the relevant fields and they have thoughtful positions that are at least occasionally at odds with the "consensus".

Richard Lindzen is the only climate scientist I know of who rejects both warming and the very possibility its related to human kind. He also consults for oil companies (and back when he consulted for tobacco he rejected the health effects of second hand smoke, something well outside his field).

But, while I understand the rudiments of climate science, I don't have enough of an understanding to follow the actual science of their respective positions, which makes it difficult to separate the science from the politics.

Not a bad model. But if we restricted the posts here to those folks, we would have some pretty brief fora.

I didn't at all mean to imply that non-scientists have no right to weigh in, simply that I'm routinely surprised by the disregard for the people who actively study the area. In my field (high energy physics), the burden of proof always seems to be on those outside the consensus, while in highly politicized fields (climate science, among others) the burden of proof seems to be shifting more and more to the consensus scientists. Its a situation that I find both interesting, and strange. But it must be very frustrating to scientists in the field.

Also, I think global warming should stir up an active debate about the social policies that can/(should?) be implemented, etc. But how can we have an informed, reasonable debate without trusting the experts paid to study these phenomena?

This is still an area of active research. Accepting the consensus on 1) average warming, and 2) some portion of CO2 causality does not obviate the value of debate about how (or whether) to do anything about it.

I agree. I think, though, that far too much time is spent (at least in media) debating whether or not warming is taking place/whether or not its man made, and not enough on actions that could be taken.
-Will

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Nice post, Eras. Thanks.
.... What I really meant was that complex models rise and fall on the integrity of thought in the model. I regard forcing as a moderately complex construct (as opposed to a more concrete measure of, say, CO2 directly). Any forcing model adds another degree of freedom to the validity of an assessment.

...and a nice, thoughtful post too, BC.

One point jumps out at me.
The word "forcing" or "forcer" is simply a description of each parameter (i.e. CO2, cloud cover, volcanic activity, albedo, etc.).
"Forcers" are not something concocted by scientists as another component (on top of CO2, albedo, etc.) of climate change. "Forcers" just refers to those factors which seem to affect climate.

Determining how these "forcers" change climate is the hard part, and open to lots of critique; but those "forcings" existed since the beginning of time, they're not some "moderately complex construct."
A "concrete measure" does nothing in a model, unless we tell it how to act (force), based on observations.

Am I making too much of this, or does this help?

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Essay

... The word "forcing" or "forcer" is simply a description of each parameter (i.e. CO2, cloud cover, volcanic activity, albedo, etc.).
"Forcers" are not something concocted by scientists...

Understood, and agreed, Es. I think the issue is that one would have to impute 1) a degree of "force" and 2) a relationship (linear or otherwise) between to "forcer" and temperature.

Conceivably, the temperature location (ocean, troposphere, etc) may have variant relationships with the forcer as well.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

The heterogeneity is more about the degree to which different factors influence the climate. There is universal consensus that warming is happening, and that CO2 causes warming. The big picture, so to speak. The rest is details, which are less well understood.

Agreed. (Late edit added)- There is also considerable heterogeneity related to the risk. Some think the CO2 elevation might be self correcting.

Richard Lindzen is the only climate scientist I know of who rejects both warming and the very possibility its related to human kind.

I don't think he rejects the possibility. I think he rejects the causal connection. I don't think I accept the causal connect either- just the correlation.

I didn't at all mean to imply that non-scientists have no right to weigh in, simply that I'm routinely surprised by the disregard for the people who actively study the area.

I have a similar view, although it is almost backwards. I am routinely surprised that we pay so much attention to people with no expertise.

Also, I think global warming should stir up an active debate about the social policies that can/(should?) be implemented, etc. But how can we have an informed, reasonable debate without trusting the experts paid to study these phenomena?

Because (fundamentally) experts can't be trusted to act in a unbiased fashion when in a political context. The IPCC reports were classics for this.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

There is also considerable heterogeneity related to the risk. Some think the CO2 elevation might be self correcting.

Like who? How about a source?

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

...There is universal consensus that warming is happening, and that CO2 causes warming. ...

Eras (or anyone)

Could someone confirm why the attached (showing correlation between solar activity and satellite temps, among other items) is invalid?

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/So...NY_Mar2_08.pdf


Bio

[goku]

?so how much has it warmed up?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Could someone confirm why the attached (showing correlation between solar activity and satellite temps, among other items) is invalid?

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/So...NY_Mar2_08.pdf

One problem is that the temperature change leads, not lags, solar activity changes earlier in the 20th century, despite the statements in your attachment that it lags. Also, there is a very poor correlation for several decades prior to that.

Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun.

Global Warming -- Research Issues


The relatively large TSI rise that occurs later does not begin until 1930, lagging the temperature rise by 20 years, and so the temperature rise starting in 1910 cannot be caused by solar variation.

More here:

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics





He's also screwed up his calculations on the impact of CO₂ on atmospheric temperature. CO₂ accounted for perhaps 0.1 ºC of the warming during the whole span from 1900-1940, but he then extrapolates that same temperature impact through the 21st century as if CO₂ concentrations were in some sort of equilibrium.