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: 1518
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: 1648
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.

'Progress just means bad things happen faster.’

goldorak


Total Posts: 1091
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: 1091
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: 1120
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: 1518
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: 5163
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: 1233
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: 1233
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: 1518
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: 1120
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: 1518
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: 1120
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: 1648
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-17 04:48
@Energetic
Sorry, missed your previous post - went straight to the last page. Mea culpa.

'Progress just means bad things happen faster.’

Kitno


Total Posts: 491
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).

All the soul of man is resolution, which in valiant men falters never, until their last breath.

jslade


Total Posts: 1209
Joined: Feb 2007
 
Posted: 2020-01-22 17:26
>I've always wondered how much the temperature change in the last circa 70 years has been down to heat dumping

The answer is basically "none." You can figure it out several ways; either converting total world energy output to kilocalories and noticing heat capacity of air is 1/4 that of water, or by noticing that total human energy output is something like 1/5000 of solar flux.

One thing which is probably still not clear: urbanization definitely increases local temperatures, and for a while at least, there was some controversy over whether or not measured increases in temperature were due to measuring stations being in areas of increased urbanization. Simple reason: human structures absorb a lot of solar heat.

FWIIW years ago, the head of the DoE, Steve Chu (who I loathe personally, FWIIW) pointed out you could probably solve global warming problems by painting roofs and roads white. He was widely denounced for some reason, but I've never seen a convincing argument that he's wrong. Changing planetary albedo is something that should work if higher temperatures are an actual problem. Maybe people chimped because the climatologists can't model cloud cover; dunno.

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."

nikol


Total Posts: 1120
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-22 20:03
> by painting roofs and roads white

Really nice idea... But it will lead to demand of paint and hence of associated metals (zink, titan, lead). Perhaps, still much cheaper than "World Wide eco-reform".

There are also suggestions to spree some dust. In fact, clean air makes the planet warmer.

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 5163
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-22 22:51
I've met Steve a few times, had lunch with him once, always struck me as an administrator type, not much of a researcher or a charismatic teacher, probably good at holding a clipboard overseeing building traps, and it made sense that Nobel propelled him into politics. He's always welcome to come over and paint my roof. He really fucked experimentalists, and I can only assume that's why you're not a fan. Ironically, science spending is up in many areas, only as some weird and perverse fuck you in all the Obama reversals. Whoduthunkit.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

jslade


Total Posts: 1209
Joined: Feb 2007
 
Posted: 2020-01-23 14:44
Chu was the most abysmal administrator in LBNL history. Literally the dude went from running an atomic physics lab with 3-5 grad student slaves in it, to LBNL with 4000 people to the DoE with ... I have no idea how many.

LBNL he was preposterously clueless; management skills of celery. I knew the previous two directors pretty well; Dave Shirley was a total mensch, everyone but a few of his rivals on Cal campus (who ultimately got him cashiered) loved the dude. Shank was a sleazeball, but he knew how to delegate and he was effective and got the job done. Chu's all hands meetings were insane; it's almost like he considered all 4000 people, including various kinds of people he could never, ever fire, his personal grad student slaves. His dealings with individuals were similarly insane and involved a lot of un-management like screeching. All previous lab directors retired after bringing home new lab infrastructure; Shirley's temple was the Advanced Light Source. Shank brought in NERSC and actually ran a research group which did good work developing new undulators for the ALS. Chu's legacy is he dedicated a chemistry building Shank got funded ("nanotech" -how's that working out, bro?), and he opened a hostel for visitors. Also he managed to protect his job by continuing 70 years of UC management. That's it! I don't think he understood what his role was; he just wanted the status associated with the position. I have no idea what he did at the DoE, but my pals who work there say nicer things about Rick Perry, who wanted to close down the DoE.

Anyway, presumably he eventually learned to act like an administrator, but I doubt as he ever joined the human race. Still probably right about painting shit white.

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 5163
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-23 17:11
Didn't know he started NERSC. Worst password reset experience of my life. They'd give me some random 20-some-odd character long password and, after fumble f'ing it into the UXIX shell as hidden characters, just so I could run my code, my account would be locked after one mistake. It didn't matter that I was doing boring fluid and plasma stuff with my DOE grant, it was treated the same as the classified stuff and I had to get on the phone with the guy. You'd think I was getting a new passport. This guy was no Cliff Stoll. Comic book guy meets the BTK killer.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

nikol


Total Posts: 1120
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-25 21:00
Global warming subject is over.

What about "ocean acidification" as result of increase of co2 and temperature increase (rise of chemical speed and gas absoption by water)?

No opinion, really.

goldorak


Total Posts: 1091
Joined: Nov 2004
 
Posted: 2020-01-29 08:51
Not really tied to ocean acidification, but still in the same big blue context. The reading of chapter 5 of "I contain multitudes" by Ed Yong made me very pessimistic on any chance to "save" or even try to understand how we could "save" coral reef.

The complex interactions between coral, algae, bacteria and others are just mind boggling.

Again, it is mostly our presence that ruins it all, not what we actually do.

---- excerpts
What do these microbes do? “First and foremost,” says Rohwer, “they occupy
space.” A coral’s body has only so many places in which microbes can live, and
only so many food sources. If benign species fill those niches, dangerous ones
can’t invade, so a diverse microbiome, through its mere presence, creates a
blockade against disease. This effect is called colonisation resistance. Disrupt it,
and infections become more common. This, Rohwer suspected, was the
underlying explanation for the loss of so many reefs. All the stressors that
weaken the corals – the warming seas, acidic waters, and nutrient overloads –
disrupt their partnerships with their microbes, leaving them with distorted and
impoverished communities that are vulnerable to disease, or that might even
cause disease.

Dinsdale and Rohwer found that as humans become more common, so do
microbes. From Kingman to Christmas Island, top predators such as sharks went
from dominant parts of the reefs to bit-players, coral cover fell from 45 pe rcent
to 15 per cent, and the water contained 10 times as many microbes and viruses.
All of these trends are connected in a complicated web of cause and effect that
revolves around a turf war between corals and their ancient rivals: the so-called‘fleshy algae’.
Some algae are coral allies: they live in their cells and provide them with
food, or form tough pink crusts that link separate colonies into a sturdy whole.
But the fleshy algae are antagonists that compete with corals for space. If the
algae rise, the corals fall, and vice versa.

Jennifer Smith, who was also on the Line
Islands expedition, demonstrated this through a simple experiment. She placed
nubbins of coral and scraps of algae in adjacent aquaria, connected by the same
water but separated by one of those extremely fine filters. Microbes could not
pass through but chemicals in the water could. Within two days, all the corals
were dead. Something in the water, released by the algae, was killing them. A
toxin? Possibly, but when Smith treated the corals with antibiotics, they
survived. Not a toxin, then. Not spreading microbes, either – the filters would
have blocked their path. No, the algae were making something that killed the
corals via their own microbes.

That something turned out to be dissolved organic carbon (DOC); essentially,
sugars and carbohydrates in the water. When algae get too numerous on a reef
they make huge amounts of DOC and create a banquet for coral microbes. These
algal sugars would normally flow up the food chain to be locked away in the
bodies of grazers and, ultimately, sharks; a single shark represents the stored
energy of several tons of algae. But if all the sharks die, those sugars remain at
the bottom of the food web where, instead of fuelling the flesh of fish, they build
the cells of microbes. Nourished by this feast, the microbes bloom so explosively
that they consume all the surrounding oxygen, choking the corals.

But DOC doesn’t nourish all microbes equally. Being high in energy and easy
to digest – Rohwer compares it to hamburgers – it preferentially enriches fast-
growing species, especially pathogens. Around Kingman Reef, just 10 per cent
of the local microbes belonged to families that could cause coral diseases. But
around Christmas Island, half the microbes belonged to such families. “You
wouldn’t want to swim there,” Rohwer wrote. “Unfortunately, the corals have no
choice.” No wonder, then, that Christmas Island has about twice as much
diseased coral as Kingman, despite having only a quarter as much coral. (A later
survey would show that Christmas Island does still have a few healthy reefs:
former nuclear testing sites, where fear of radiation has repelled fishermen and saved both fish and corals.)

Humans can set off this vicious cycle in other unexpected ways. In 2007, an
85-foot fishing vessel ran aground on Kingman Reef, possibly because of an
engine fire. Its origins, its name, and the fate of its crew are unknown. Its effects,
however, have been appallingly clear. As the ship fell apart, its pieces rained
down on the underlying reef, creating a kilometre-long dead zone quite unlike
the usual fields of bleached rubble. Instead, these corals are covered in dark
algae and shrouded in especially turbid water. They are called black reefs. They
are a marine vision of Tolkien’s Mordor, and they happen when a boatload of
iron lands in an ecosystem that is generally poor in nutrients. The iron acts as
fertiliser for fleshy algae, which grow so vigorously that even grazing fish can’t
trim them back fast enough. The algae then trigger Rohwer’s cycle: more DOC,
more microbes, more pathogens, more disease, more dead corals.

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

nikol


Total Posts: 1120
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-29 13:12
to summarize, there are three distinct problems (or maybe combination of those):

1. humans are full of sh*t/microbes, therefore, they are the cause of corals massive death
this reminds me "Wheelers" from Clifford Simak's "The goblin reservation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goblin_Reservation. Highly recommend, sometimes it is really hilarious in the way Simak was writing.

2. Algae is the cause of higher DOC killing reefs

3. higher CO2 absorption combined with Global Warming.


I am more inclined to trust items 2 and 3.


May be I misunderstood something, then correct me.

nikol


Total Posts: 1120
Joined: Jun 2005
 
Posted: 2020-01-31 12:56
W. Engdahl is sometimes crazy (like Keizer), but here is the closest (to mine) account of thoughts about eco-business.

https://journal-neo.org/2020/01/27/follow-the-real-money-behind-the-new-green-agenda/
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 5 of 5Goto to page: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5] Prev