Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

miniTAX wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Real life may not be. But the amount of CO2 an ocean of temperature T can hold is, and so is the amount of CO2 neccessary to increase concentration from the 1850s levels to today's levels. By comparing the amounts you can conclude that the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere didn't come primarily from the oceans -- which is parados's claim, as I understand it.
But ocean temperature is not uniform, neither horizontally, nor vertically. And CO2 absoprtion is not solely dependant of temperature but of ocean's chemical composition, biological activity, stream circulation, mixing activity by wave, wind, weather... Oceans cover 2/3 of the planet and we know nearly nothing of deep ocean. The measument array ARGO existed only since early 2000 and covers only a small portion of the oceans. Satelitte covers all but gives only surface information.
Given this complexity, describing CO2 atmo-ocean exchanges with a simple equation is what I call a simplistic approach, to say the least.

Really? Wow.. What a revelation. The ocean temp hasn't increased dramatically in the last 50 years either.

Since we know nothing of the deep oceans, please provide some scientific evidence that they would have changed in the last 50 years. Water is water is water is water... Unless something about that water changed, the amount of CO2 it can hold has not changed. We do know that as water heats up it can hold less CO2. Are you arguing that the deep oceans have warmed dramatically more than even the warming "alarmists" have stated.

Or are you telling us that the chemical composition of the oceans have suddenly changed. Please provide any evidence to back up this theory.

Now for some simple stuff. The oceans mix slowly. The CO2 at the bottom of the ocean will not work its way to the top in a short time period. Please provide your evidence that the CO2 in the ocean water moves faster than it does in the lab measurements.

If the mixing activity of the oceans are the cause then provide us evidence that the ocean currents or wave actions have changed dramatically over the last 50 years. If wave action is a cause of CO2 being trapped or released on a large scale why didn't the Tsunami register in the atmospheric CO2 readings?

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

CO2 ocean-atmo exchanges are not just explained by the Raoult law since SST is not uniformed in space or time but largely driven but unpredicted events such as oceanic currents or multidecadal oscillations. Just the 1998 El Nino event has made a huge surge and the Pinatubo or El Chichon have made a huge dip in CO2 atmo content.

Please provide your datasets that show this "huge surge" and "huge dip"

Please explain how it is ONLY the events you listed that affect CO2 concentrations. Explain how the atmosphere is much simpler than the ocean so you can use only a single event to explain changes of CO2 concentrations.

Tell us what % change in overall CO2 concentrations is a "huge surge" and a "huge dip" Explain how an increase in CO2 is actually a "dip" since the Mauno Lau data shows increases every year in CO2 concentrations in 1981-83 and 1990-92. I assume you mean the 1991 and 1982 eruuptions of Pinatubo and El Chichon. If you meant other years. Please tell us which years and give a citation of an eruption that year.

The Mauna Lao data set can be found here..
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

But in my opinion, e.g. tree-ring widths, coral growth, isotope variations in ice cores don't show the real temperature neither. Does this mean we have to wait until we can make time travels?

I believe you have stated a profound question here, and that its answer is YES. The future is basically unknowable. Despite the great accumulation of knowledge and understanding humanity has developed over the ages, our ability to accurately predict the future in both the physical world and in human affairs is severely limited.

In many cases we lack adequate models to mathematically describe the governing processesthat determine events. In others, where we do have such models (fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, chemistry, for example) fundamental and intractable mathematical uncertainties, associated witth the intrinsic complexity, non-linearity and parabolic character of these models, limit their ability to accurately predict the future state.

This observation about the unknowability of the future also conforms to human experience in many areas of life.

What is particularly interesting here is the very odd willingness of large numbers of people to believe unfounded doomsday predictions that they can hardly understand themselves, and to inflict real penalties on themselves (and others) in the vain attempt to evade an assumed outcome of this fantasy.

The most interesting elements (to me at least) of the contemporary global warming hysteria are its psychological implications.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe you have stated a profound question here, and that its answer is YES. The future is basically unknowable. Despite the great accumulation of knowledge and understanding humanity has developed over the ages, our ability to accurately predict the future in both the physical world and in human affairs is severely limited.

The accuracy depends on the prediction made. I think if I predict that the sun will come up tomorrow it is fairly accurate. We make predictions based on past events and it gives the likelyhood of the prediction being true in the future.

Quote:

In many cases we lack adequate models to mathematically describe the governing processesthat determine events. In others, where we do have such models (fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, chemistry, for example) fundamental and intractable mathematical uncertainties, associated witth the intrinsic complexity, non-linearity and parabolic character of these models, limit their ability to accurately predict the future state.

Which is why those models are back tested and modified as they prove to be wrong. It happens in all fields of endeavor. You should look at the formulas that hedge funds use to predict sometime. In engineering a safety factor is introduced to try to compensate for those unknowns. That safety factor certainly could be considered to inflict penalties (cost of extra materials and labor) on large numbers of people (taxpayers) based on a doomsday prediction (bridge collapse).

Quote:

This observation about the unknowability of the future also conforms to human experience in many areas of life.

What is particularly interesting here is the very odd willingness of large numbers of people to believe unfounded doomsday predictions that they can hardly understand themselves, and to inflict real penalties on themselves (and others) in the vain attempt to evade an assumed outcome of this fantasy.

There is a difference between an "assumed" outcome and likely or probable outcomes. The IPCC isn't "assuming" an outcome. They are predicting it based on mathematical models. They models may not be complete but it is rare that any are.

It is interesting how both sides often tend to misrepresent what the other side is doing. You just did it here with your use of "assumed" and "unfounded". The doomsday predictions may be the extreme but they are hardly without any foundation.

Quote:

The most interesting elements (to me at least) of the contemporary global warming hysteria are its psychological implications.

We see it on both sides. Interesting how you only use "hysteria" to describe one side. I think it could be used for the extremes on both sides.

0 Replies

parados,

I think yoou have either failed to grasp or to recognize the significance of the point I made with respect to chaos in non-linear, coupled, parabolic mathematical systems.

Not all mathematical systems or models used to describe natural events and processes have these characteristics. For example, the elliptical (a mathematical term of art) equations used to describe the static stresses in engineered structures. do not encounter chaos. They can be hard, even impractical, to solve, but their solutions, once obtained are exact and accurately predict what occurs in the physical world. Thus, before the age of computers, steel truss bridges were usually limited to a fairly small number of girder intersections, precisely because the mathematical models for solving for the stresses involved the inversion of a matrix with dimension equal to the number of such intersections. Until 1960 the inversion of a matrix of dimension greater than about 30 was a near impossible task (now it is done in milliseconds). Worse the models themselves didn't fully account for all the stresses in the girder intersections and the pins & bolts that joined them. Finally things like corrosion and imperfections in the steel added other uncertainties. The result was that industry developed safety factors that reliably (usually) added the needed extra margin, and at tolerable economic cost, so that reliable structures could be built.

Chaotic systems are fundamentally different in that the smallest errors in the specified initial conditions (the result merely of using a finite decimal representation of them) yield a situation in which the exact solution of the model's predictions of the future state very quickly yields a result with only a random relationship to what actually occurs. This is a profoundly different situation, and it cannot be cured by better, faster computers or by refinements in the model itself. It is an inherent limitation in the knowability of future states in processes describable by such models. It cannot be overcome by any "safety factor", simply because the actual result is, after sufficient time, likely to be unpredictably far from the prediction.

Hedge fund models, and other mathematical models of the future behaviors of markets and price indicies are indeed subject to chaotic uncertainty. We have already seen several notable examples of huge financial failures associated with them. Those that appear to work generally involve only very short range predictions, and are reliable only in a statistical sense -- more or less like counting cards in blackjack.

0 Replies

parados writes

Quote:

We see it on both sides. Interesting how you only use "hysteria" to describe one side. I think it could be used for the extremes on both sides.

I think the skeptics are not in any way hysterical. They aren't proclaiming that the world as we know it will end in the near future if we do not mend our ways. They aren't suggesting that coastlines or islands or other low lying areas are doomed if we don't change our lifestyles now. They are requiring anything of anybody other than common sense measures to protect the environment in reasonable ways and focus our energies on looking for ways to constructively adapt to a naturally warming planet should that become necessary.

And most importantly, they aren't asking and/or attempting to require that everybody else conform to some radical lifestyle changes that they are unwilling to make themselves. Nor are they demanding all this while being unwilling to lead the charge by their own example.

0 Replies

Quote:

. They aren't proclaiming that the world as we know it will end in the near future if we do not mend our ways.

Wrongo; they proclaim that attempts to keep the world from overheating will end the world as we know it, destroy the economy, and ruin lives.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Really? Wow.. What a revelation. The ocean temp hasn't increased dramatically in the last 50 years either.

Since we know nothing of the deep oceans, please provide some scientific evidence that they would have changed in the last 50 years. Water is water is water is water... Unless something about that water changed, the amount of CO2 it can hold has not changed. We do know that as water heats up it can hold less CO2. Are you arguing that the deep oceans have warmed dramatically more than even the warming "alarmists" have stated.

Or are you telling us that the chemical composition of the oceans have suddenly changed. Please provide any evidence to back up this theory.

Now for some simple stuff. The oceans mix slowly. The CO2 at the bottom of the ocean will not work its way to the top in a short time period. Please provide your evidence that the CO2 in the ocean water moves faster than it does in the lab measurements.

If the mixing activity of the oceans are the cause then provide us evidence that the ocean currents or wave actions have changed dramatically over the last 50 years. If wave action is a cause of CO2 being trapped or released on a large scale why didn't the Tsunami register in the atmospheric CO2 readings?

Sorry Parados, but read a good book about climate or go outside and look at how wind and water and rain and snow work, i don't know Surprised

No offense but, your view is so outrageously simplistic that I don't know where to start.
1. We are talking about the recent climate changes, ie 1900-1940 warming + 1940-1975 cooling (yeah, cooling) + 1975-now warming, right ?
2. We are talking about how the ocean react to an increase in atmospheric CO2 and CH4 content
3. We are talking about variation in the ocean behavior, for example changes in the conveyor belts flow rate or the area of upwelling (for example the North Atlantic THC or the Pacific Kuroshio)
4. We are talking about underwater geothermal activity
5. We are talking about change in frequency or intensity of cyclones which have a huge influence in mixing
6. We are talking about change in phytoplankton provoked by change in nebulosity
7. We are talking about ENSO, NAO, PDO, large scale multidecadal oscillations we observe but we don't know how to predict (for example ENSO index, which has a huge influence on global temperature, has a periodicity of about 30 years).
...
All the above changes may vary NATURALLY from year to year or decades to decades or even centuries to centuries (the oceanic conveyor belt cycle is more than 1 thousand year), some with periodicity we know, some with periodicity we don't know, some without periodicity (for example tectonic movments, do you know that under the Artic, there are to huge ridges with intense geothermal activity whose evolution in time is virtually unknown ?) And all thoses changes have a direct influence on CO2 atmo-ocean exchanges rate.

So what on earth do you mean by "water is water is water is water", Parados ???? Do you mean that the ocean behavior with CO2 is constant and influenced solely by anthropogenic emission ? That there is no feedback, no abrupt change, no natural cycles or variability whose amplitude is unknown ? If that's what you mean, it's crazy !

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Wrongo; they proclaim that attempts to keep the world from overheating will end the world as we know it, destroy the economy, and ruin lives.

The world temperature is 15°C NOW and has been warmer on many occasions in the past. A lot of people and plants and animals and microbes are well off living above 20°C. Florida is at 22°C and Singapour is at 27°C and flourishing. So saying that the world is overheating because its temperature has risen 0,6°C in one century and "might" rise 3°C in one more century is rather ludicrous, at least for someone who still has his head Mad

If you can believe the world is overheating or risks overheating, you'll believe in anything.

0 Replies

You weren't serious with that response, right?

(The following is only copied from the Independent because just at hand.)

Quote:

The visible impact on Britain's wildlife has manifested itself in the form of earlier than normal breeding, egg-laying, nesting and flowering of plants and trees, observed in British wildlife for more than 15 years and now linked to global warming in a whole series of scientific studies. They have sparked huge new interest in the discipline of phenology the timing of natural events.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You weren't serious with that response, right?

What was "not serious", Walter ? Shocked

And what do you mean with your link ? That "before", things didn't change, climate was stable, no drought, no flooding, no heat wave, no storm ?

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

parados wrote:
Really? Wow.. What a revelation. The ocean temp hasn't increased dramatically in the last 50 years either.

Since we know nothing of the deep oceans, please provide some scientific evidence that they would have changed in the last 50 years. Water is water is water is water... Unless something about that water changed, the amount of CO2 it can hold has not changed. We do know that as water heats up it can hold less CO2. Are you arguing that the deep oceans have warmed dramatically more than even the warming "alarmists" have stated.

Or are you telling us that the chemical composition of the oceans have suddenly changed. Please provide any evidence to back up this theory.

Now for some simple stuff. The oceans mix slowly. The CO2 at the bottom of the ocean will not work its way to the top in a short time period. Please provide your evidence that the CO2 in the ocean water moves faster than it does in the lab measurements.

If the mixing activity of the oceans are the cause then provide us evidence that the ocean currents or wave actions have changed dramatically over the last 50 years. If wave action is a cause of CO2 being trapped or released on a large scale why didn't the Tsunami register in the atmospheric CO2 readings?

Sorry Parados, but read a good book about climate or go outside and look at how wind and water and rain and snow work, i don't know

Nice try on the ad hominum. Maybe you should answer the science questions.

Quote:

No offense but, your view is so outrageously simplistic that I don't know where to start.
1. We are talking about the recent climate changes, ie 1900-1940 warming + 1940-1975 cooling (yeah, cooling) + 1975-now warming, right ?

Yes, and the cooling is probably a result of particulates in the air. Which shows that many things contribute to warming. One problem though. In that cooling period we still had an increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Explain it please in light of your theory that warming causes the CO2 increases. Wouldn't a decrease in temperature REQUIRE a decrease in CO2 if temperature is the cause of the increase in CO2?

Quote:

2. We are talking about how the ocean react to an increase in atmospheric CO2 and CH4 content

No, you were claiming that the increase in atmospheric CO2 was the RESULT of the ocean giving off CO2. Are you now claiming that the ocean gives off more CO2 as a result of more CO2 in the air? How did that CO2 get there?

Quote:

3. We are talking about variation in the ocean behavior, for example changes in the conveyor belts flow rate or the area of upwelling (for example the North Atlantic THC or the Pacific Kuroshio)

Changes that are naturally occuring and when they have changed in the past have not increased CO2 in the atmosphere. What changed?

Quote:

4. We are talking about underwater geothermal activity

That has always occurred. Do you have evidence of any changes in that activity? Or is this just your hairbrained theory to deny CO2 comes from fossil fuels?

Quote:

5. We are talking about change in frequency or intensity of cyclones which have a huge influence in mixing

An increase in storms? Based on what evidence? Why is there an increase in storms? Aren't storms fed by warming water? Why did that water warm? Who is being simplistic here mini?

Quote:

6. We are talking about change in phytoplankton provoked by change in nebulosity

Your evidence of this change is where?

Quote:

7. We are talking about ENSO, NAO, PDO, large scale multidecadal oscillations we observe but we don't know how to predict (for example ENSO index, which has a huge influence on global temperature, has a periodicity of about 30 years).

If it is a 30 year cycle and it has an effect on CO2 then we would see a 30 year cycle in that CO2, would we not? Are you arguing something can be a cause without any effect?
...

Quote:

All the above changes may vary NATURALLY from year to year or decades to decades or even centuries to centuries (the oceanic conveyor belt cycle is more than 1 thousand year), some with periodicity we know, some with periodicity we don't know, some without periodicity (for example tectonic movments, do you know that under the Artic, there are to huge ridges with intense geothermal activity whose evolution in time is virtually unknown ?) And all thoses changes have a direct influence on CO2 atmo-ocean exchanges rate.

All the above do occur but there is NO increase in CO2 from other centuries when those things all occurred. I'll give you 2 choices. -
1. Provide evidence that they are occurring differently today.
2. Admit you are talking out your ass.

Quote:

So what on earth do you mean by "water is water is water is water", Parados ???? Do you mean that the ocean behavior with CO2 is constant and influenced solely by anthropogenic emission ? That there is no feedback, no abrupt change, no natural cycles or variability whose amplitude is unknown ? If that's what you mean, it's crazy !

Of course the ocean changes but it has cycles. If those cycles are the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 then we would see a similar cycle in the CO2 concentrations. You can't argue they are a cause without providing evidence of the effect. Those cycles make it hard to predict year to year but without a change in those cycles we MUST see a similar reaction in the long term. Yet somehow, there is no such long term reaction. How is that possible? Provide evidence that those cycles have changed. You have not and you will not. You accuse the warming people of not following science. Hell, you don't even follow common sense.

Water is water because its chemical composition doesn't change. The cycles in the ocean have not been shown to have changed. You have provided no evidence of any change that could possibly be the cause for your claim that the ocean is holding less CO2 and thus responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2. Nor have you provided a solution as to where the CO2 from burning fossil fuels has magically dissappeared to since that is not in the atmosphere.

0 Replies

Goerge,
There is no "exact solution" in predicting chaotic events. I never said there was. You can predict probability of events occurring however. That is what is done in weather predictions. Sometimes they are wrong but they have gotten better as computers have gotten faster and we put more information in.

The same is true of the climate change models. They are predictions of likely outcome. Ultimately it is the same thing in engineering. You can't predict the exact stresses which will occur to weaken a structure so you predict what will likely occur. It is those likely stresses that create your safety factor. I can't predict how many or what weight vehicles will pass over a bridge in the next 20 years. I can only make an estimate based on modeling of some kind.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Goerge,
There is no "exact solution" in predicting chaotic events. I never said there was. You can predict probability of events occurring however. That is what is done in weather predictions. Sometimes they are wrong but they have gotten better as computers have gotten faster and we put more information in.

The same is true of the climate change models. They are predictions of likely outcome. Ultimately it is the same thing in engineering. You can't predict the exact stresses which will occur to weaken a structure so you predict what will likely occur. It is those likely stresses that create your safety factor. I can't predict how many or what weight vehicles will pass over a bridge in the next 20 years. I can only make an estimate based on modeling of some kind.

The difference between climate modeling and engineering modeling, however, is that you CAN control what weight will be allowed onto the bridge. And it does not require major life changes or disadvantaging the poor of the world to put a weight limit on a bridge. Further, the engineer doesn't have to GUESS how much steel will support how much weight. And if you need to move bigger vehicles, you just build a stronger bridge.

Engineers can also design structures to withstand a certain veolocity of wind or ground movement during earthquakes or snow load on the roofs. There is always the chance that the wind will be stronger or the earthquake more powerful or an unprecedented amount of snow will fall and the structure will be shown to be insufficient, but again reasonable cause and effect could be determined. Meanwhile people learn what to do to best protect themselves should the worst happen.

In climate modeling, the cause and effect is only marginally measurable, and nowhere near probable based on any science we have available to us now. The only practical planning should be to plan to deal with known hazards and plan our lives and build our structures accordingly. We should not be telling people they cannot use their own resources to improve their lives based on models that nobody has been able to make work using known data, much less supposed data either past or present.

0 Replies

"No where near probable?"

On what science do you base that statement Fox. Please provide your math that shows that none of the computer models are "no where near probable." Statistical analysis is hardly a guess. It is a science.

Climate models are always back tested just as engineering strength coefficients and standards are based on testing. What works on paper in engineering may sometimes not work in reality. The Tacoma Narrows bridge is a perfect example of engineering that worked great on paper but failed in reality.

Engineering also works with a safety factor that is many times the expected maximum load. As I pointed out before, there is a lot of added cost to any engineering project for that safety factor that in most cases is unnecessary.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

"No where near probable?"

On what science do you base that statement Fox. Please provide your math that shows that none of the computer models are "no where near probable." Statistical analysis is hardly a guess. It is a science.

Climate models are always back tested just as engineering strength coefficients and standards are based on testing. What works on paper in engineering may sometimes not work in reality. The Tacoma Narrows bridge is a perfect example of engineering that worked great on paper but failed in reality.

Engineering also works with a safety factor that is many times the expected maximum load. As I pointed out before, there is a lot of added cost to any engineering project for that safety factor that in most cases is unnecessary.

True that "Statistical analysis is hardly a guess". however, it has been proven time and time again that it doesn't work for the weather. In that case, it is only a best guess.

Come to west Michigan and see how reliable the weather reports are.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Goerge,
There is no "exact solution" in predicting chaotic events. I never said there was. You can predict probability of events occurring however. That is what is done in weather predictions. Sometimes they are wrong but they have gotten better as computers have gotten faster and we put more information in.

The same is true of the climate change models. They are predictions of likely outcome. Ultimately it is the same thing in engineering. You can't predict the exact stresses which will occur to weaken a structure so you predict what will likely occur. It is those likely stresses that create your safety factor. I can't predict how many or what weight vehicles will pass over a bridge in the next 20 years. I can only make an estimate based on modeling of some kind.

I'm afraid you have missed the point completely. Not all numerical models are equal. Numerical weather predictions have not improved, and the integration of the time dynamic equations does not produce the most likely outcome - the results after a short period bear only a random relation to reality..

0 Replies

parados wrote:

"No where near probable?"

On what science do you base that statement Fox. Please provide your math that shows that none of the computer models are "no where near probable." Statistical analysis is hardly a guess. It is a science.

Climate models are always back tested just as engineering strength coefficients and standards are based on testing. What works on paper in engineering may sometimes not work in reality. The Tacoma Narrows bridge is a perfect example of engineering that worked great on paper but failed in reality.

Engineering also works with a safety factor that is many times the expected maximum load. As I pointed out before, there is a lot of added cost to any engineering project for that safety factor that in most cases is unnecessary.

What CJ and George said. I can't show any math to prove my opinion because there IS no math that could prove my opinion. Or yours.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

parados wrote:
Goerge,
There is no "exact solution" in predicting chaotic events. I never said there was. You can predict probability of events occurring however. That is what is done in weather predictions. Sometimes they are wrong but they have gotten better as computers have gotten faster and we put more information in.

The same is true of the climate change models. They are predictions of likely outcome. Ultimately it is the same thing in engineering. You can't predict the exact stresses which will occur to weaken a structure so you predict what will likely occur. It is those likely stresses that create your safety factor. I can't predict how many or what weight vehicles will pass over a bridge in the next 20 years. I can only make an estimate based on modeling of some kind.

I'm afraid you have missed the point completely. Not all numerical models are equal. Numerical weather predictions have not improved, and the integration of the time dynamic equations does not produce the most likely outcome - the results after a short period bear only a random relation to reality..

Are you arguing that weather forecasts are reasonably accurate only 50% of the time? That would be required for it to be random in relation to reality. I would argue that you can't show me any random sampling of forecasts that aren't close 50% of the time.

0 Replies

Just throwing in here that it generally accepted:
-weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time,
- climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

Quote:

What Weather Means
Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.

In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.

NASA

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know