30 year trends.

[Essay]

Essay, I think you misunderstand my POV. There is no black and white rejection of climate science. There is a demand for "proof of concept" for want of a better term.

Proof of Concept!?! ...about climate?!? Are you rejecting climate science because of the gray areas then?

 

 

 

Especially in a new discipline there are new underlying assumptions. What I'm trying to do is point out where the underlying assumptions could be incorrect. Taking climate sensitivity as an example, there are those trying to "narrow the range" of this figure. They assume that such a figure exists. The logical upshot of arriving at a single definitive figure, or a constant if you will would be that climate becomes forcing X sensitivity = change, by definition a linear system.

...So about the climate sensitivity parameter....

 

They arrive at their consensus by calculating both theoretically (CO2 physics & radiative balance) and from differing sets of empirical observations (Ice Age shifts & MWP/LIA shift). But that doesn't prove anything, though it adds robustness to their conclusion.

 

But does it really matter if they are wrong? It would matter if they had the sign of the sensitivity wrong, but whatever the magnitude is--one or two or three degrees C per Watt of forcing--we are in for a rough ride as we continue to add more forcing; and adding forcing which is permanent (relative to our civilization) and continuous 24/7/365 decade upon decade, from pole to pole--unlike most forcers.

===

 

 

Since the climate is dynamic and non linear then climate sensitivity can only possibly exist as an abstract concept defining a range dependent on initial conditions and internal dynamics. (From personal communications I know that some in the climate community share this view.)

 

So this is not a rejection of climate science, nor a rejection of the general concept of climate sensitivity, but it is a rejection of the concept that climate sensitivity exists as a single unchanging value. See the difference?

It seems obvious to me that "climate sensitivity can only possibly exist as an abstract concept defining a range dependent on initial conditions and internal dynamics." But I suspect you think that must mean it is too complex to be a useful concept.

 

 

Both "the balance of nature" and "climate sensitivity" exist as an abstract concept defining a range dependent on initial conditions and internal dynamics--as you say. And as such, each concept is useful in understanding what happens to the relevant system (nature or climate) when a perturbation is introduced.

Oh, hey! That is another one to survey--Perturbation Theory!

===

 

 

Similarly climate science can put any meaning it wants to the term "robust" so long as it's roughly in line with the general meaning, however it cannot co-opt terms from other sciences and redefine them. "Statistically robust" has a meaning in statistics and if climate science wants to use the term then they have to conform to the statistical meaning and not substitute their own.

 

Why would you even write this? Again, climate science isn't re-defining any words. But neither do you get to declare your pet discipline's definition as exclusive. Did you read the links about how different disciplines define "robust" differently? So when climate science is looking at data, they use robust statistical analyses (hopefully), and when climate science examines the "systems theory" of climate, they calculate the robustness of system components, feedbacks, and overall output. In both cases they are using robustness as appropriately defined by the relevant disciplines.

 

Either you don't fully see how climate science works by combining multiple disciplines, or you are working hard to discredit an entire community with basic yellow journalism tactics. I'm sure it is the former, but if you want to avoid looking like the latter, you should read those links on how these words are used and defined (especially "robust") in the field of systems theories, and especially in chaos theory. Don't be limited to just the discipline of statistics for your understanding or definitions... or maybe I should say: Don't limit climate science to only the understanding or definitions from your favorite discipline of statistics.

===

 

 

To take an example from another science, Ecology was virtually started by Malthus and therefore had many Malthusian ideas as underlying concepts, concepts so innate that they weren't even thought of as "assumptions". Top of the list here was the idea of a "balance of nature" and everything was viewed from that perspective. Note how long it took that science to get rid of such a stupid and illogical assumption and how strongly the idea was defended in the face of ever mounting and overwhelming evidence. There are still ecologists today who believe in the "balance of nature", something totally imaginary.

 

Note also how this gave rise to the Green movement and its logical process. Nature is in balance, therefore it doesn't change. Something is changing, therefore it is out of balance. Since nature is in balance the change cannot be from nature. Therefore man is changing it.

 

 

 

I disagree with the way you characterize the development of the science and the history of Green social movements, but I know what you mean about folks who view nature as some ideal state upon which humans can only intrude or disrupt (unless they live like cavemen). Right?

 

Treehuggers have many justifications for relatively insane, special-interest, causes to save this or that. But don't paint climate science with that brush. The pictue is more like the reverse logic from what you presented:

1. We observe and measure how man is changing nature (atmospheric chemistry and composition, land use/ecosystem resource shifts, and ocean chemistry, food chains, and biodiversity).

2. This cumulative change is outside of the "range" "defining" that "balance of nature" (on a geologic time scale).

3. Therefore... Shift will happen in response--and a new balance of nature, and a new climate sensitivity, will be established--eventually.

 

Shift happens, but we don't need to magnify it exponentially. In fact, since a lot of change already happens normally in the system, we should take steps to avoid magnifying climate shift and ecosystem resource degradation.

===

 

And another thing about 30 year trends: Why is it... that is was easy to say--when decades ago as people warned of rising temps and melting ice--to say wait another decade or so for true trends to be measured; but now--after only a few years of slower acceleration in temps--now it is easy to claim and perpetuate claims of a conclusive trend? Why don't the denialists need to wait as long as the alarmists were told to wait, before proclaiming the trends as established?

===

 

 

But to conclude:

"What I'm trying to do is point out where the underlying assumptions could be incorrect." -JohnB

"...Could be...."

 

Could be that solar activity has been unusually low during this period where the temps are still warmer than normal but when the anomoly has "leveled out" (or maxed out) so temps haven't become even more "warmer than normal."

 

...and/or...

Could be there is a mechanism which somewhat limits how much air temperature can increase in a given year; and if more heat continues to be added to the system, then something else changes--such as increased melting of ice, or increased heating of surface waters and the planetary crust.

 

Hey, didn't the Arctic experience larger than predicted melting... during those years when you point to temperature increases (per year) as having maxed out or leveled off?

Coincidence? "...Could be...."

===

 

Either way, I'm very skeptical of your suggestion that the science is inadequate or that there is some undiscovered mechanism that will prevent extra heat from continuing to change the system dynamics. Do you think the climate system is too big to fail? ...the bigger they are, y'know, the harder they fall....

 

~

 

[JohnB]

Could be that solar activity has been unusually low during this period where the temps are still warmer than normal but when the anomoly has "leveled out" (or maxed out) so temps haven't become even more "warmer than normal."

 

Thank you for illustrating my point. "Warmer than normal" what? How about some form of definition of "normal" before declaring anything to be "warmer than normal". See my point? What is normal?

 

Reverse the .8 degrees of warming that we have had and we are back in the LIA. What a wonderful time, ice fairs on the Thames, all the partying you could wish for, except for the tens of thousands that would freeze to death every winter. Was that "normal"? I happen to think it was, just as I think .8 degrees of temp rise after leaving a period defined as a "Little Ice Age" is also perfectly "normal".

 

It's late and I've had a long day, so I'll be happy with the answer to that one question. What exactly is the "normal" temperature for the planet?