Climate Change

[CharonY]

 

 

Why did they change the name from Anthropogenic Global Warming to "climate change"? So they can blame any and ALL weather extremes upon it. You see, this year's coldest winter in over 20 years is caused by AGW or as it's called now "climate change". It simply isn't possible that this is nothing more than weather.

 

 

 

Why do you think anyone changed anything? AGW is a subset of global warming, which is a subset of climate change. AGW is being increasingly used over the years.

[RiceAWay]

 

Why do you think anyone changed anything? AGW is a subset of global warming, which is a subset of climate change. AGW is being increasingly used over the years.

Well, it certainly is clever of you to say that man-made global warming is a subset of global warming with is a subset of climate change. You just proved my point.

[CharonY]

How is that? Your assertion was that there was a change in usage, implying people roll climate change into AGW, but the opposite is the case. People increasingly use AGW specifically when looking at human influence.

[Phi for All]

How is that? Your assertion was that there was a change in usage, implying people roll climate change into AGW, but the opposite is the case. People increasingly use AGW specifically when looking at human influence.

 

These are the clear tactics of a preacher. He objects, you explain, then he rejects you for being clever. No effort to learn, so why are we discussing anything with someone on a soapbox?

[swansont]

Can you use your psychological training to suggest why we cannot tell what the climate will be in two monthss but they are telling us what it will be in 2050?

 

 

The climate in two months will essentially be the same as it is now. On that sort of short time scale the term you probably want is "weather", which is not the same thing as climate.

When explained that CO2 is and insignificant part of the atmosphere, that its chemical properties are that it absorbs and retains less heat than oxygen that is 2,000 times more common in the atmosphere and that its absorption bands are in a region where virtually no energy exists and that ONLY energy reflect from the Earth and NOT solar radiation. And that water which is the major component of the surface of this planet is by far the largest effect on the temperature. What's the response? That it doesn't take much cyanide to kill you.

 

The only response if you ignore the questions about why you think the retained heat of the CO2 is an issue. It's not what the scientists are worried about. But you have steadfastly refused to address this.

 

Water's also been addressed, but since you need to study up on the concept of relative humidity I guess we'll have to wait on that one.

 

Another repeats a comment that he heard somewhere else that he doesn't even understand - but what it means is if Iceland doesn't fit the AGW mold it just means that it doesn't reflect global conditions. Another rants that it is warming so much that the Northwest Passage is open. I STILL haven't an answer as to why it is named the Northwest PASSAGE.

 

What you are apparently missing is that the passage was hoped for and searched for but difficult to find. (People searched for the fountain of youth, too. Naming something you want to discover doesn't guarantee its existence). Sometimes people could traverse the passage, and sometimes it was iced in. But it's becoming more common now, and over a longer period of time, because there's less ice.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

 

"For centuries explorers sought a navigable passage as a possible trade route. An ice-bound northern route was discovered in 1850 by the Irish explorer Robert McClure; however, it was through a more southerly opening in an area explored by the Scotsman John Rae in 1854 that Norwegian Roald Amundsen made the first complete passage in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year. Arctic sea ice decline has rendered the waterways more navigable"

 

In 2012 it was frozen so solid that Russia lost one of the largest Ice Breaker's in there and American responded with our largest which is substantially larger and broke them out. The following year they sent again one of their largest Ice Breakers to resupply their Antarctic Research Station and it got stuck yet again. They sent another and it too was stuck. And again our largest had both to break them out but carry them within resupplying distance.

 

So being called a passage doesn't mean it's clear of ice. Thanks for acknowledging that.

[MigL]

There are at least a dozen ways to respond to RiceAWay's claims and show how wrong they are.

As Swansont and CharonY tried to do.

 

Phi, on the other hand, simply labels him a 'preacher', and refuses to have any discussion with him or his 'soapboxing'.

I have to ask how constructive this approach is. Or is it making things worse ?

 

Do you think you'll ever convince him of the validity of AGW by belittling and ignoring his position ?

Or do you think I'm not a stupid person, but this is a really stupid position to take, and you need to make it CLEAR to me ?

[Phi for All]

There are at least a dozen ways to respond to RiceAWay's claims and show how wrong they are.

As Swansont and CharonY tried to do.

 

Phi, on the other hand, simply labels him a 'preacher', and refuses to have any discussion with him or his 'soapboxing'.

I have to ask how constructive this approach is. Or is it making things worse ?

 

Do you think you'll ever convince him of the validity of AGW by belittling and ignoring his position ?

Or do you think I'm not a stupid person, but this is a really stupid position to take, and you need to make it CLEAR to me ?

 

I'll definitely bow to the superior expertise of swansont and CharonY. I admire them a lot, but not enough to simply parrot what they're saying and how they're saying it.

 

I'm going to amend the "not a stupid person" comment. What I know about you is that you've got some very good science, and we don't agree about politics.

 

Personally, I think one should approach a person who misunderstands something from a bunch of different directions, hoping to find the one that resonates (whoa, too liberal?). Sometimes it's useful to use critical reasoning, but often when the responses are emotional (such as yours, for instance), reason isn't as effective a tool.

 

As far as him preaching is concerned, I think it's important to point out when someone has either stopped listening or never intended to in the first place. There's few things more frustrating than watching good science presented, only to have it roundfiled by someone who disdains cleverness, intellect, and evidence.

[Essay]

 

...what it will be in 2050? And ONLY on the basis that the changes we observe now will continue unabated until then?

This comment shows how mistaken your perspective on climate science is,

because the theory (about how rising CO2 levels will cause climate warming) isn’t based on “the changes we observe.”

 

The theory is based on well-established physics.

The changes we observe are simply confirming the theory.

~

[RiceAWay]

 

I'll definitely bow to the superior expertise of swansont and CharonY. I admire them a lot, but not enough to simply parrot what they're saying and how they're saying it.

 

I'm going to amend the "not a stupid person" comment. What I know about you is that you've got some very good science, and we don't agree about politics.

 

Personally, I think one should approach a person who misunderstands something from a bunch of different directions, hoping to find the one that resonates (whoa, too liberal?). Sometimes it's useful to use critical reasoning, but often when the responses are emotional (such as yours, for instance), reason isn't as effective a tool.

 

As far as him preaching is concerned, I think it's important to point out when someone has either stopped listening or never intended to in the first place. There's few things more frustrating than watching good science presented, only to have it roundfiled by someone who disdains cleverness, intellect, and evidence.

 

I now have a much better understanding of the term "snowflake".

[swansont]

 

Do you think you'll ever convince him of the validity of AGW by belittling and ignoring his position ?

Or do you think I'm not a stupid person, but this is a really stupid position to take, and you need to make it CLEAR to me ?

 

 

Facts and reason won't convince someone to change their mind if facts and reason didn't lead them to their position in the first place. (This helps explain why people move goalposts, dodge questions and belittle others without citing verifiable facts. Facts aren't the issue)

[Phi for All]

I now have a much better understanding of the term "snowflake".

 

Your barrel seems quite empty now, and all you're doing is scraping the bottom of it.

[Raider5678]

 

I think this is a big problem for conservatives who deny climate science based on ideology. They seem to become purposely obtuse about the rational explanations when they're given, and eventually just start claiming nobody refuted them so they must be right about it.

Yes.....

Exactly.....

I'm claiming that I must be right because absolutely nobody refuted me......

Where did I do this again? Please tell me. Because I did not. I specifically said climate change was real.

Jeeze.

[RiceAWay]

 

 

Facts and reason won't convince someone to change their mind if facts and reason didn't lead them to their position in the first place. (This helps explain why people move goalposts, dodge questions and belittle others without citing verifiable facts. Facts aren't the issue)

I will wait UNTIL you have some facts and reason to present other than "Oh you're wrong."

 

Amund made a Northwest passage in the early 1900's and saying that it has become easier lately means NOTHING.

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/01/clitantic-ship-scientists-trapped-in-ice-claim-expanding-sea-ice-caused-by-global-warming-but-data-and-studies-refute-claims/

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

[Raider5678]

I will wait UNTIL you have some facts and reason to present other than "Oh you're wrong."

 

Amund made a Northwest passage in the early 1900's and saying that it has become easier lately means NOTHING.

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/01/clitantic-ship-scientists-trapped-in-ice-claim-expanding-sea-ice-caused-by-global-warming-but-data-and-studies-refute-claims/

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Evidence has been provided.

You ignored it.

Carry on.

[RiceAWay]

 

 

The climate in two months will essentially be the same as it is now. On that sort of short time scale the term you probably want is "weather", which is not the same thing as climate.

 

The only response if you ignore the questions about why you think the retained heat of the CO2 is an issue. It's not what the scientists are worried about. But you have steadfastly refused to address this.

 

Water's also been addressed, but since you need to study up on the concept of relative humidity I guess we'll have to wait on that one.

 

 

What you are apparently missing is that the passage was hoped for and searched for but difficult to find. (People searched for the fountain of youth, too. Naming something you want to discover doesn't guarantee its existence). Sometimes people could traverse the passage, and sometimes it was iced in. But it's becoming more common now, and over a longer period of time, because there's less ice.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

 

"For centuries explorers sought a navigable passage as a possible trade route. An ice-bound northern route was discovered in 1850 by the Irish explorer Robert McClure; however, it was through a more southerly opening in an area explored by the Scotsman John Rae in 1854 that Norwegian Roald Amundsen made the first complete passage in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year. Arctic sea ice decline has rendered the waterways more navigable"

 

 

So being called a passage doesn't mean it's clear of ice. Thanks for acknowledging that.

 

Should I use words of less than three syllables?

 

1. The CLIMATE is so long term that it would take 100 years to tell what is happening. Because this warming trend STARTED in 1886 we KNOW that it wasn't because of man. We also know that WEATHER is variable. We also know that for the last 4,000 years at least that we have had these warm periods totally without the assistance of man. We ALSO know that the earlier one's appear by geologic record to be greater than this one we are presently in.

 

2. So you are denying the NASA stance that the increase in CO2 is the CAUSE of global warming? http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ That's not very scientific of you. By the way - take two bottles. Fill one with pure CO2 and another with pure O2 put them under a heat lamp and act as if it doesn't mean anything when the O2 one is warmer.

 

3. So something you mumble about "relative humidity" proves your point? Gotcha. In fact the NASA paper SAYS that this is the most important "greenhouse gas". Let's see, all of the evidence shows that the rise in CO2 began on the PERFECTLY normal 800 years mark from the last warming period. But for some reason or another none of the "AGW" papers ever get around to mentioning that. We see that the warming period this time has occurred almost on the millennial mark as did the others. BUT IT IS MAN-MADE. Gotcha.

 

4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/10/why-the-northwest-passage-probably-wont-be-ready-for-shipping-any-time-soon/?utm_term=.82c2e7950de5 Curses, foiled yet again.

 

I guess you don't have to resort to countering all of my previous facts. You and your brilliant facebook friends can just yell - YOU DUMB.

How is that? Your assertion was that there was a change in usage, implying people roll climate change into AGW, but the opposite is the case. People increasingly use AGW specifically when looking at human influence.

Don't get funny. Scientists in PAPERS most of which were never even referred to by the public articles used the terms properly since the studies began in 1985 or so.

 

But the media NEVER used climate change and had glaring headlines of Anthropogenic Global Warming. After the term was so badly disgraced by Dr. Mann who so blatantly made end of the world predictions with his "Hockey Stick Curve" and then investigators using emails between the team showed that they had modified data to make it FIT the theory instead of retracting his paper. Dr. Mann's response was "I didn't do it - it was those other guys."

 

So more and more the media used the term climate change FOR global warming.

Edited January 26, 2017 by RiceAWay

[Tim88]

I found these links while deciding to take a look at climate change.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

 

I was wondering the vadidity of what they said.

 

Thanks for that, my first impression was that it's a really good site. And for sure they have a lot of detailed and sophisticated info, that's a big plus. Also that particular article on (no) new little ace age looks great (I just missed them pointing out that the time scales are so great that even a potential ice age around the corner is regretfully not going to save us from overheating).

 

However within minutes I stumbled on this:

The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong.

 

That's a serious misconception - and quite shocking to see from a site that pretends to be "skeptical". In general, a scientific model is first tested on known data; only if the model agrees with know data, is it a possibly viable model. That is for example how SR and GR were first back tested at the times that they were proposed. If there are only few variables with an uncertainty that has little effect on the result, then one has good reason to be optimistic about its reliability for making predictions. In any case, one has to test the true predictions of a model. We can be very confident when such a model proves its worth in making predictions - that is how the scientific method works. SR and GR were not appreciated until the first successful predictions were verified (and in the beginning there was still some reasonable doubt due to lack of precision of the first tests).

 

Happily we now already have decades of sophisticated climate models, and so it is feasible to start putting them to the test, verifying their past trend forecasts with the actual data. Hopefully (despite the above-mentioned blooper) this is fairly discussed somewhere else on that same site.

[Sicarii]

Thanks for that, my first impression was that it's a really good site. And for sure they have a lot of detailed and sophisticated info, that's a big plus. Also that particular article on (no) new little ace age looks great (I just missed them pointing out that the time scales are so great that even a potential ice age around the corner is regretfully not going to save us from overheating).

 

However within minutes I stumbled on this:

 

That's a serious misconception - and quite shocking to see from a site that pretends to be "skeptical". In general, a scientific model is first tested on known data; only if the model agrees with know data, is it a possibly viable model. That is for example how SR and GR were first back tested at the times that they were proposed. If there are only few variables with an uncertainty that has little effect on the result, then one has good reason to be optimistic about its reliability for making predictions. In any case, one has to test the true predictions of a model. We can be very confident when such a model proves its worth in making predictions - that is how the scientific method works. SR and GR were not appreciated until the first successful predictions were verified (and in the beginning there was still some reasonable doubt due to lack of precision of the first tests).

 

Happily we now already have decades of sophisticated climate models, and so it is feasible to start putting them to the test, verifying their past trend forecasts with the actual data. Hopefully (despite the above-mentioned blooper) this is fairly discussed somewhere else on that same site.

 

The climate models have accurately predicted past trends when compared to empirical data. They do discuss that on the following page:

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

 

I suspect your quote came from there as well, as I have not seen it in the links Raider5678 cited.

 

From the link:

 

"Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling."

 

The following graph from the link compares climate models to actual observations:

 

 

EDIT: The following link also has several graphs comparing climate model projections to observations:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

Edited July 21, 2017 by Sicarii

[Strange]

That's a serious misconception - and quite shocking to see from a site that pretends to be "skeptical". In general, a scientific model is first tested on known data; only if the model agrees with know data, is it a possibly viable model. That is for example how SR and GR were first back tested at the times that they were proposed. If there are only few variables with an uncertainty that has little effect on the result, then one has good reason to be optimistic about its reliability for making predictions. In any case, one has to test the true predictions of a model. We can be very confident when such a model proves its worth in making predictions - that is how the scientific method works. SR and GR were not appreciated until the first successful predictions were verified (and in the beginning there was still some reasonable doubt due to lack of precision of the first tests).

 

Happily we now already have decades of sophisticated climate models, and so it is feasible to start putting them to the test, verifying their past trend forecasts with the actual data. Hopefully (despite the above-mentioned blooper) this is fairly discussed somewhere else on that same site.

 

 

Isn't that what the sentence that you quoted says (with less detail)? I'm not clear why you think it is a misconception?

[swansont]

That is for example how SR and GR were first back tested at the times that they were proposed.

 

 

Um, what?

[Tim88]

On 21/07/2017 at 1:31 PM, Strange said:

Isn't that what the sentence that you quoted says (with less detail)? I'm not clear why you think it is a misconception?

The way I understood that remark, is that they pretend that back testing is sufficient for relying on predictions - and note that we are dealing with new conditions that probably never happened before. However, happily we DO have some real verified predictions, as Sicarii points out.

 

[Tim88]

On 20/07/2017 at 11:38 PM, Sicarii said:

 

The climate models have accurately predicted past trends when compared to empirical data. They do discuss that on the following page:

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

 

I suspect your quote came from there as well, as I have not seen it in the links Raider5678 cited.

 

From the link:

 

"Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling."

 

The following graph from the link compares climate models to actual observations:

 

 

EDIT: The following link also has several graphs comparing climate model projections to observations:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

I tried to clarify that normally only models are presented that already have been tuned so as to match known data. No model, theory or hypothesis is taken seriously if it already fails from the outset. But never mind, you pointed to referral to real predictions on that same site [edit: aargh, it's even on the same page; that one phrase was so bad that I did not read on]; that does help to interpret that it was possibly a mere glitch in phrasing.
That's an impressively good result of a real prediction, thanks!

Edited July 24, 2017 by Tim88
phrasing, add remark

[Tim88]

BTW, I notice that I misunderstood the concept behind the name of that site. "Skepticalscience" does not mean that they pretend to be skeptic in their appreciation of climate models. Instead, they clarify on https://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml that the site is in answer to skeptical sites. They claim it to be balanced and purely scientific, even apolitical. They make a very good point that one should not loose sight of the broader picture.

However, looking at the discussion items, I can't help noticing that they present the issues more like a defense lawyer than like a jury. And see where that "apolitical" site is coming from: the owner works for https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/
For a good appreciation one should therefore compare the challenges of "skeptical" sites with the answers on that "apolitical and balanced" site. Good science is skeptic in a healthy, constructive way, without losing sight of the broader picture.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Tim88
typo, phrasing

[Tim88]

On 24/07/2017 at 1:02 PM, Tim88 said:

I tried to clarify that normally only models are presented that already have been tuned so as to match known data. No model, theory or hypothesis is taken seriously if it already fails from the outset. But never mind, you pointed to referral to real predictions on that same site [edit: aargh, it's even on the same page; that one phrase was so bad that I did not read on]; that does help to interpret that it was possibly a mere glitch in phrasing.
That's an impressively good result of a real prediction, thanks!

P.S. I searched for the "IPCC Third Assessment report" but it appears to date from 2001 instead of 1990. I failed to find an IPCC projection from 1990. Anyone?

Meanwhile I did stumble on criticism of that picture, here:
http://nierenbergclimate.blogspot.ch/search?updated-max=2009-12-03T08:02:00-08:00&max-results=7

Regretfully that discussion goes over my head...
All I want is to see the 1990 paper in which the IPCC made that prediction, in order to assess the reliability of the website under discussion here. Verification is what matters.

[Tim88]

And it suddenly strikes me that the simplest and dumbest model would have been the most successful: simply extrapolate the past. However, the disagreement is not about the question if the sea level is rising and if the temperature is raising, but about the main cause of those changes. A serious discussion would be one that compares the predictions for the last decade by different models - in particular comparing those that give more weight to the effects of human CO2 production (mainstream) with those that give more weight to other influences (alternative).

[Essay]

On 7/26/2017 at 8:35 AM, Tim88 said:

.... A serious discussion would be one that compares the predictions for the last decade by different models - in particular comparing those that give more weight to the effects of human CO2 production (mainstream) with those that give more weight to other influences (alternative).

Here is an example where the Univ of Michigan compares "other influences" to a baseline excluding the other influences.  

~