Forums  > Off-Topic  > global warming poll  
     
Page 5 of 5Goto to page: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5] Prev
Display using:  

Energetic
Forum Captain

Total Posts: 1512
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-14 22:21
It would be pointless to debate who sees what. But you can simply perform a subtraction to compute dT=T(2014)-T(1995) and convince yourself that the result is not statistically different from zero. Then try to find a model that predicted such a small (if not negative) dT over *any* 20 year period.

"Solar activity" hypothesis is interesting but you have to believe in the accuracy of their proxies first and that's another set of models. On the opposite side of the solar business is "global dimming" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong. - H. L. Mencken

Strange


Total Posts: 1616
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-14 23:08
@Energetic "dT=T(2014)-T(1995) and convince yourself that the result is not statistically different from zero"

Erm, I think we have past the point of trying to disprove global warming. It's certainly statistically significant and you don't need to be a climatologist to notice it. XKCD cartoon from a few posts prior is a good illustration. However, the human contribution is what's being questioned by some in this thread.

"In Russia, every CDS ends in bullet payment"

goldorak


Total Posts: 1085
Joined: Nov 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-15 10:07
Hands up.

I have an issue with the above ground temperature measurements, their quality, their representativeness and their filtering. Especially pre-1990.

I have an issue with the very limited amount of data available on upper layers of the atmosphere pre-1990.

I have an issue with the notion of spatially averaging temperatures. But it seems OK with the "scientific community". Probably I am completely dumb and the others are all fire brigade experts or never stayed more than 5 minutes in an "eco building" where, on average, everything is fine.

I have an issue with reducing the complexity of an atmospheric system down to above ground temperature.

I have an issue with previous temperatures inferred from other measurements and their actual granularity. But I admire the dedication of people doing it. I remember reading blogs written by scientists in that field and could greatly appreciate their professionalism. I have far more respect for them than the "simulators" out there. However, in a non reproducible process, the best you can prove to be "exact" is to compare inferred temperatures to actual measurements. With actual measurements not available more than 100 years ago, bias is still a big issue.

I have an issue with the notion that scientific claim something based on science when they cannot. Earth climate is "like" the market, it not a reproducible system (although 42 was claimed to be obtained 3.71 times), hence the scientific method does not apply. Any result one obtains in this field must be considered with a modicum of cautiousness.

I have an issue with non mathematicians claiming they proved something. If global warming is proved, we do not need to fund them anymore, obviously. I guess they would change their speech pretty quickly.

Finally, I have an issue with the base temperature set by all triumphant homo sapiens and his cohort of porks, cows and poultry that suits HIS well being only, to the detriment of other species who may favor another temperature basis.

Unfortunately for most climatologists out there, modeling complex systems is a lot more than just putting together a sequence of "simple" physical effects. Greenhouse effect is plain simple to understand only in the context of a small magazine illustration. I remember watching a video of a specialist showing how incredibly hard it can be to model air and temperature flows in a building. Will look for it.

My 2c: just prevent people from having more than one kid for the next 200 years. On a short-term basis, stop providing advanced medical services to people above 80.

Disclaimer: the "science" of "economics" would generate 10x more issues from my side. Just to put things into perspective.


If you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much space.

goldorak


Total Posts: 1085
Joined: Nov 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-15 10:15
The physics of hot air 23'55" is really funny to watch.

If you are not living on the edge you are taking up too much space.

nikol


Total Posts: 909
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-15 10:18
Agree.
Admit, I tend to put theory in front of facts.
Firm fact is Global Warming. It's observable.
Next is how we explain that, i.e. model. Promoted agenda is CO2 as a cause. Second, humans are to blame. Third is let's join together to fight promoted cause.

Solar, sea salt and streams, hurricanes or volcanoes belong to model regressors.

Energetic
Forum Captain

Total Posts: 1512
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-15 15:14
@Strange

Dude, how about you read what I wrote before objecting? OK, once again, self-quote for your benefit:

None of the above is meant to deny the fact that the greenhouse effect is real, the GW is real and to some, possibly large, extent anthropogenic, nor that a large warming with potentially very negative outcomes is possible.

The fact that GW paused for 20 years doesn't mean that it stopped forever or never happened.

Yes, human contribution is very hard to assess. Much of they write about it in the media and even in scientific publications is BS.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong. - H. L. Mencken

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 5122
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-15 16:31
I don’t agree that you can pick two points twenty years apart that difference to zero and say it’s paused, but that’s ok. I agree that the question “do you believe in GW?” Is ill-posed and, frankly, phucking annoying identity politik bullshit. But I did bring this up earlier, separating the modeling and the anthropogenic arguments, and just focusing on GW: what scale should be used against what metric? The prevailing wisdom has been longer time scales against avg temp. It seems that this is in question, that there’s short(ening) range memory and avg temp isn’t the best metric. This, anthropogenic or not, would point to warming.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

Maggette


Total Posts: 1187
Joined: Jun 2007
 
Posted: 2020-01-15 18:02
"Disclaimer: the "science" of "economics" would generate 10x more issues from my side. Just to put things into perspective.
"
I agree!!! 100%. And I think we, as nations and societies, are makíng far more impactfull and severe decisiions on that kind of "science". Still, I don't hear anybody complaining about that. That is one of the reasons why I am a little bit sceptical about teh sudden concerned about "good science" by many right wingers:). Or the left wingers predicting socio-economic desasters as a consequence of climate change.

"I have an issue with the above ground temperature measurements, their quality, their representativeness and their filtering. Especially pre-1990."

Above the ground data is better than everything else we got(regarding IQR of measurement error). Satellite data is ok but noisy, weather balloon (radiosondes) data is better and, as far as I am aware of, pretty much in line (regarding temperature trend) with surface temperature for most heights. My understanding is that a sensor fusing approach gives pretty much the same picture. It's gettimg warmer. Overall.

Is the data great? No! Would more be better (especially pre 1990)? Sure. But so what?

To get an rough idea about the current temperature in your bath tub and it's development over time, it's ok to put the thermometer somewhere in the water. You are interested in the overall energy balance. It get's you a rough idea where you*re at and where things are headed.


"I have an issue with the very limited amount of data available on upper layers of the atmosphere pre-1990."

I don't see a real problem. Again: baloon data seems to be in line (trend wise) with surface temperature.

More important the atmosphere will not be the thing that gets warmed up that much, it's not the place where all the energy can go....sea water is. Sea surface water to be exact. And that is pretty much surface temperature. Or are you suggesting there is a scenario where surface temperature (including and dominated by surface sea water temperature) is heating, but the overall system is not? I have a very very hard time envisioning this.


The "simulation guys" became incredible good at short term local and global weather forecast using models that are structually very very close to the climate simulations. Here the time horizon is bigger, but the predicted variable is much more forgiving...the average temperature of the system.

Disclaimer: my "widsom" on cliamte simualtion models comes from talking to two people in the field, wiki, some blogs, a couple of papers and this book:
https://www.amazon.de/Demystifying-Climate-Models-System-Systems/dp/3662489570/ref=sr_1_3?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=climate+models&qid=1579111096&sr=8-3


So obviously not an expert (no working knowledge = journalist level)

Ich kam hierher und sah dich und deine Leute lächeln, und sagte mir: Maggette, scheiss auf den small talk, lass lieber deine Fäuste sprechen...

Maggette


Total Posts: 1187
Joined: Jun 2007
 
Posted: 2020-01-15 18:02
"Disclaimer: the "science" of "economics" would generate 10x more issues from my side. Just to put things into perspective.
"
I agree!!! 100%. And I think we, as nations and societies, are makíng far more impactfull and severe decissions on that kind of "science". Still, I don't hear anybody complain about that. That is one of the reasons why I am a little bit sceptical about the sudden concern about "good science" by many right wingers:). Or the left wingers predicting socio-economic desasters as a consequence of climate change.

"I have an issue with the above ground temperature measurements, their quality, their representativeness and their filtering. Especially pre-1990."

Above the ground data is better than everything else we got(regarding IQR of measurement error). Satellite data is ok but noisy, weather balloon (radiosondes) data is better and, as far as I am aware of, pretty much in line (regarding temperature trend) with surface temperature for most heights. My understanding is that a sensor fusing approach gives pretty much the same picture. It's gettimg warmer. Overall.

Is the data great? No! Would more be better (especially pre 1990)? Sure. But so what?

To get an rough idea about the current temperature in your bath tub and it's development over time, it's ok to put the thermometer somewhere in the water. You are interested in the overall energy balance. It get's you a rough idea where you*re at and where things are headed.


"I have an issue with the very limited amount of data available on upper layers of the atmosphere pre-1990."

I don't see a real problem. Again: baloon data seems to be in line (trend wise) with surface temperature.

More important the atmosphere will not be the thing that gets warmed up that much, it's not the place where all the energy can go....sea water is. Sea surface water to be exact. And that is pretty much surface temperature. Or are you suggesting there is a scenario where surface temperature (including and dominated by surface sea water temperature) is heating, but the overall system is not? I have a very very hard time envisioning this.


The "simulation guys" became incredible good at short term local and global weather forecast using models that are structually very very close to the climate simulations. Here the time horizon is bigger, but the predicted variable is much more forgiving...the average temperature of the system.

Disclaimer: my "widsom" on cliamte simualtion models comes from talking to two people in the field, wiki, some blogs, a couple of papers and this book:
https://www.amazon.de/Demystifying-Climate-Models-System-Systems/dp/3662489570/ref=sr_1_3?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=climate+models&qid=1579111096&sr=8-3


So obviously not an expert (no working knowledge = journalist level)

Ich kam hierher und sah dich und deine Leute lächeln, und sagte mir: Maggette, scheiss auf den small talk, lass lieber deine Fäuste sprechen...

Energetic
Forum Captain

Total Posts: 1512
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-15 18:51
@chiral3

OK, don't say it is paused. The term doesn't matter. What does matter is that such event wasn't predicted. There exists natural climate variability on decadal time scale that is not currently reproduced in the models. That is the point. And it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in 100-year forecasts.

I don't know what can replace avg temps as a single number for mass consumption. Anybody who is interested in more granularity can look at the regional maps and find a lot more color.

As for time scale, despite the "pause", any consecutive 15 years are warmer on avg than the previous. For now, heuristically, seems to be a good time scale.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong. - H. L. Mencken

nikol


Total Posts: 909
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-16 22:16
Just few more:

- continents are spread over the hemispheres unevenly: 2:1 for Norht:South
- respectively, since continents cover 30% of the planet we have the water surface asymmetry as 3:4 for North:South.

It is important because thermal conductivity (TC) of Water and Ground is very different. TC(Water):TC(dry Ground)=5:1, while TC(Water):TC(wet Ground) ~ 1:1 . Also cold/warm water moves around and mixes all the time, while heated/cooled Ground has fixed place. That's why we have Continental climate with extreme temperatures, while seaside countries have mostly less contrast.

Therefore, claim: Milankovich cycles will be irrelevant if entire planet is covered with water or if ground covers it evenly.

Hence, how global average temperature is measured? Does it account for asymmetry?

Another. We know Epps effect - correlation goes to zero with increase of sampling frequency. Over the period of 1 million years the correlations with 1000 years sampling will be higher than the one with 1 year sampling.

Therefore, it might be the case that all we see is spurious effects of noise and misquoting of measurements without accounting of surface asymmetries.

Energetic
Forum Captain

Total Posts: 1512
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-16 22:34
Milankovich cycles *were* irrelevant until a few mln years ago even though the land mass was about the same as now. The popular but unproven hypothesis is that they were enabled by opening of the Drake Passage. Indeed, that was a major change in the Earth geography that resulted in formation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. The oceanic heat flux from the equator to the Southern Pole was substantially reduced and the Antarctic ice shield eventually formed. Nobody knows how this enabled Milankovich, and there is no physical model to back up the claim, but the timing is suggestive.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong. - H. L. Mencken

nikol


Total Posts: 909
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-16 23:06
> a few mln years ago even though the land mass was about the same as now.

that's another one. I narrow my statement "at current conditions with evenly distributed land Milankovitch is irrelevant".

My earlier statement was that the sun is cooling down that's why Milankovitch gets pronounced. Perhaps we face a coincidence of several factors, like N/S continental asymmetry, separation between Atlantic and Pacific, formation of Indian bipolar ocean structure (warm and cold currents nearly do not mix up), El Nino & La Nina, Pacific volcanic activity (with dust pollution bigger that all cities together) etc etc. All can and likely do interfere with Milankovitch

Strange


Total Posts: 1616
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-17 04:48
@Energetic
Sorry, missed your previous post - went straight to the last page. Mea culpa.

"In Russia, every CDS ends in bullet payment"

Kitno


Total Posts: 406
Joined: Mar 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-17 22:54
As a small aside I've always wondered how much the temperature change in the last circa 70 years has been down to heat dumping (energy conversion into heat).

Before the crisis I used to buy bonds delivery free of payment and demand the back office wire the cash to an account number. Legit.
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 5 of 5Goto to page: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5] Prev