My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[InfiniteNow]

Not according to the article I earlier posted* here and that no one commented on. But whatever. :(

 

But whatever, indeed. You're wrong on a number of fronts. Let me help learn ye sometin'...

 

 

On the subject of models:

 

 

I would first ask that you name a specific model with problems so we might have a real scientific discussion. If you refuse to name a specific model, then you are lacking in academic and scientific integrity. You can make all of the abstract and high level claims you want, but until you name a specific model with accuracy problems, you are simply hand waving.

 

If you name specific models with issues, then we can discuss the margins of error and where that error resides. We can discuss problems in the models inputs, and to what extent those problems cause issues in the results (the outputs). We can even discuss ways to improve the models.

 

However, we cannot do any of that if you continue with your blanket claims and handwaving that models are not to be trusted.

 

 

 

Now, with a substantiated and well supported counter argument:

 

U. study substantiates computer models for global warming — Department of Meteorology

Computer models used to predict climate change are remarkably accurate when measured against actual weather, according to a new study by University of Utah meteorologists. The findings are expected to boost the role of such models in shaping public policy to confront the menacing specter of global warming, generally believed to be caused by rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon from fossil fuel-burning industries.

 

<...>

 

The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism.

 

Another important aspect of the research is that climate models built in the U.S. are now some of the best models worldwide.

 

 

AMS Online Journals - How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate?

Information about climate and how it responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations depends heavily on insight gained from numerical simulations by coupled climate models. The confidence placed in quantitative estimates of the rate and magnitude of future climate change is therefore strongly related to the quality of these models. In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By validating against observations of present climate, we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.

 

Also:

 

 

 

The above looks pretty accurate to me. :confused:

 

 

NOAA has a great site discussing some of the main points in this issue of model accuracy (which includes links to other information).

 

Modeling Climate

 

 

And here is a summary for a wider audience done in 2007 as part of a "responding to the denialists" toolkit:

 

Climate is too complex for accurate predictions - earth - 25 October 2007 - New Scientist Environment

 

 

And below is a whole swath of information specific to models and the challenges to them:

 

RealClimate - Articles on Climate Modeling

 

 

Again, I suggest you respond to my original inquiry and offer a specific model with issues of inaccuracy. Perhaps you can start here:

 

Climate models

 

 

You need to find a specific model, show it’s margin of error, and also how predominantly that one model among many is used in the field when doing this work and forming conclusions.

 

 

Until then, you’re still just waving your hands about and expecting us to take you seriously.

 

 

 

Regarding your challenges to model accuracy, I advise you review these studies which examine that very issue:

 

Performance metrics for climate models

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/10873/2008/acpd-8-10873-2008-print.pdf

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=res-loc&uri=urn%3Aap%3Apdf%3Adoi%3A10.1175%2FBAMS-89-3-303

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/10873/2008/acpd-8-10873-2008.pdf

 

I also advise the reference sections of each.

 

 

 

Regarding the subject of model accuracy, the IPCC 4, states that:

 

There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

 

<...>

 

In summary, confidence in models comes from their physical basis, and their skill in representing observed climate and past climate changes. Models have proven to be extremely important tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is considerable confidence that they are able to provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at larger scales.

 

 

 

 

The understanding of the numerous model variables is quite strong, it's just that computers are often not powerful enough to account for all of our knowledge and understanding. However, with new computers, the ability to add our knowledge of more variables into the system dynamics is growing.

 

 

nsf.gov - Office of Legislative and Public Affairs (OLPA) News - Climate Computer Modeling Heats Up - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

"The limiting factor to more reliable climate predictions at higher resolution is not scientific ideas, but computational capacity to implement those ideas," said Jay Fein, NSF program director in NSF's Division of Atmospheric Sciences. "This project is an important step forward in providing the most useful scientifically-based climate change information to society for adapting to climate change."

 

Researchers once had assumed that climate can be predicted independently of weather, that is, with weather having no impact on climate prediction. Now they're finding that weather has a profound impact on climate, a result that's integral to the drive to improve weather and climate predictions and climate change projections.

 

With this boost in computing capabilities, research team member Ben Kirtman, a meteorologist at RSMAS, has developed a novel weather and climate modeling strategy, or "interactive ensembles," designed to isolate the interactions between weather and climate.

 

These interactive ensembles for weather and climate modeling are being applied to one of the nation's premier climate change models, NCAR's Community Climate System Model (CCSM), the current operational model used by NOAA's climate forecast system (CFS).

 

The CCSM is also a community model used by hundreds of researchers, and is one of the climate models used in the Nobel Prize-winning International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments.

 

The research serves as a pilot program to prepare for the implementation of more intense computational systems, which currently remain a scientific and engineering challenge.

 

"This marks the first time that we will have the computational resources available to address these scientific challenges in a comprehensive manner," said Kirtman. "The information from this project will serve as a cornerstone for petascale computing in our field, and help to advance the study of the interactions between weather and climate phenomena on a global scale."

 

While this research focuses on climate science, he said, by-products of the work are applicable to similar modeling challenges in other science and engineering fields, particularly the geosciences.

 

 

 

 

Not sure if I've shared this yet, but here's a good assessment of the climate models that just came out:

 

Final Report, CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.1: Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations

 

 

 

 

 

 

But yeah... Whatever. :(

 

 

Btw, nice chatting with you again, Turtle. Maybe one of these days you'll start remembering what you've already been taught repeatedly, hence preventing yourself from getting spanked so thoroughly in a public setting. ;)

[Turtle]

Btw, nice chatting with you again, Turtle. Maybe one of these days you'll start remembering what you've already been taught repeatedly, hence preventing yourself from getting spanked so thoroughly in a public setting. :confused:

 

The only reason you posted was to attack me. You're a sorry piece of work and it's no pleasure of mine.

[Flying Binghi]

Ah, yes, ...those 'charting models' ...Hmmm, wheres the real world evidence ?

[InfiniteNow]

The only reason you posted was to attack me. You're a sorry piece of work and it's no pleasure of mine.

 

Your above characterization is also mistaken, as my post was not a personal attack, but rather an attack on your argument and premise. Big difference. For one who gets "no pleasure" from personal attacks, I find it humrous that you chose to make the "sorry piece of work" comment in your response to me.

 

Care to explain now which of my points was not valid? The honorable thing for you to do is to reciprocate the effort. My post defeated your premise. Which of my premises will your next response attempt to defeat?

[Moontanman]

Dayside is about 107 degrees Celsius, night side -153 degrees Celsius

 

 

Some is absorbed, some is reflected. Of the reflected energy some is absorbed by the atmosphere while some escapes back into space.

 

 

This is a great question:hyper:

We don't overheat because enough of the energy that is reflected from the surface escapes into space.

 

Proponents of GW are concerned that:

A) More of the suns energy is being absorbed as we change the albedo of the surface.

:) Less energy escapes into space as we increase the amount of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere.

 

I think the fact that the Earth rotates much faster than the Moon has something to do with a more even temperature on the Earth as well.

[goku]

Less energy escapes into space as we increase the amount of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere.

CO2 and methane do not conduct energy?

 

the moon is cold and hot, because of no air?

the earth is too hot because of too much air?

but there are cold spots on earth, right?

[freeztar]

CO2 and methane do not conduct energy?

 

I think what Zythryn was trying to explain is the greenhouse effect. CO2 interacts with infrared radiation and prevents this energy from traveling into space.

the moon is cold and hot, because of no air?

Pretty much, yes.

the earth is too hot because of too much air?

I wouldn't say the earth is "too hot". It's more correct to say that global temperatures are in rapid flux. Also, it's not "too much air" that is the problem. It is too many greenhouse gases from human sources that is the problem.

but there are cold spots on earth, right?

 

Of course. What's your point?

[goku]

I think what Zythryn was trying to explain is the greenhouse effect. CO2 interacts with infrared radiation and prevents this energy from traveling into space.

 

well if that radiation comes from space then the GHGs would prevent it from reaching the earth :shrug:

[Moontanman]

well if that radiation comes from space then the GHGs would prevent it from reaching the earth :shrug:

 

No, the radiation from space has a wave length that is too short to interact with the greenhouse gases. When that radiation is radiated back toward space from the Earth it's wave length is long enough for greenhouse gases to absorb it there by making the atmosphere warmer and preventing the extreme cold you would see on an airless body like the moon. in moderation this is a very good thing but too much of a good thing will result in a too warm earth.

[goku]

No, the radiation from space has a wave length that is too short to interact with the greenhouse gases. When that radiation is radiated back toward space from the Earth it's wave length is long enough for greenhouse gases to absorb it there by making the atmosphere warmer and preventing the extreme cold you would see on an airless body like the moon. in moderation this is a very good thing but too much of a good thing will result in a too warm earth.

 

after my last post i started thinking, now some one will say the GHGs act like a check valve. being right is not all it's cracked up to be. :shrug:

[Moontanman]

CO2 and methane do not conduct energy?

 

the moon is cold and hot, because of no air?

the earth is too hot because of too much air?

but there are cold spots on earth, right?

 

There are no spots on the Earth as cold as the moons at it's equator at night or as hot as it's polar regions during the day. The moon is either very hot or very cold, in between is very short lived as the moon cools or warms as the sun rises or sets.

[Moontanman]

after my last post i started thinking, now some one will say the GHGs act like a check valve. being right is not all it's cracked up to be. :shrug:

 

I'm not sure check valve is the right way to say it, it's a very simple process. If you have ever been in a greenhouse with the vents closed you would see exactly what i mean. The short wave length energy (light and infrared) go through the glass, once absorbed by the Earth and objects on the Earth or inside a greenhouse it is re-emitted as long wave length infrared, but the long wavelength infrared is reflected back by the glass (or greenhouse gasses) and the heat builds up. I used to have a big green house the effect is very much obvious, even at night the infrared radiated from the Earth warms the greenhouse above the out side temps.

[freeztar]

I'm not sure check valve is the right way to say it, it's a very simple process. If you have ever been in a greenhouse with the vents closed you would see exactly what i mean. The short wave length energy (light and infrared) go through the glass, once absorbed by the Earth and objects on the Earth or inside a greenhouse it is re-emitted as long wave length infrared, but the long wavelength infrared is reflected back by the glass (or greenhouse gasses) and the heat builds up. I used to have a big green house the effect is very much obvious, even at night the infrared radiated from the Earth warms the greenhouse above the out side temps.

 

Just a minor correction. It is "light and UV radiation" that enter the greenhouse.

[Moontanman]

Just a minor correction. It is "light and UV radiation" that enter the greenhouse.

 

Near infrared (short wave infrared) does too, quite a lot of it too, it's what you feel on your face when you look at the sun. It penetrates the glass (and the atmosphere) very easily but long wave infrared does not.

[Michaelangelica]

An interesting article to read

Perhaps too hysterical or alarmist. What do you think?

Global warming - No more business as usual: This is an emergency!

Global warming - No more business as usual: This is an emergency! | Links

[modest]

Some proponents of 'hey wait a minute' say the albedo of the clouds, which reflect the Sun's radiation back into space, is not accounted for in the models. :xmas_sheep: :D

 

Those proponents would be incorrect;)

They would be correct if they had instead said, there is more research to be done to learn more about the behavior of clouds (especially in the upper atmosphere). But the albedo and heat trapping behavior are both accounted for. We can lessen the level of uncertainty with additional research, but to say that albedo of clouds is not accounted for at all is wrong.

 

Not according to the article I earlier posted* here and that no one commented on. But whatever. :(

 

*cloud problem

UAHuntsville News

 

I've found the paper that your article references:

"Potential Biases in Cloud Feedback Diagnosis: An Energy Balance Model Demonstration" by Roy W. Spencer.

It's in .doc format (or here in html).

 

The paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication by Piers Forster and Isaac Held. Forster is a leading expert with the IPCC which shared Gore's Nobel peace prize for their 2007 report on climate change. Regarding the publication Forster stated (paraphrasing): climate modelers need to be made aware of this important and valid issue.

 

So... I think this is worth the effort of investigating. A good place to start is Spencer's earlier 2007 paper: "Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations" which attempts to support Richard Lindzen's Infrared Iris theory of long-term climate stabilization. In my opinion, the 2007 paper doesn't go anywhere near proving the Infrared Iris theory, but it does appear to be an honest scientific investigation with good data looking at the idea. And, his new paper goes a long way toward showing specific models are vulnerable to bias from surface-temp / cloud-feedback.

 

~modest

[Michaelangelica]

nitrogen trifluoride

Potent Greenhouse Gas More Prevalent Than Assumed

 

Using new analytical techniques, a research team in California has made the first atmospheric measurements of nitrogen trifluoride, which is thousands of times more effective at warming the atmosphere than an equal mass of carbon dioxide.

 

Emissions of nitrogen trifluoride were thought to be so low that the gas was not considered to be a significant potential contributor to global warming. It was not covered by the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions signed by 182 countries. The gas is 17,000 times more potent as a global warming agent than a similar mass of carbon dioxide.

. . .

Nitrogen trifluoride is one of several gases used during the manufacture of liquid crystal flat-panel displays, thin-film photovoltaic cells and microcircuits. Many industries have used the gas in recent years as an alternative to perfluorocarbons, which are also potent greenhouse gases, because it was believed that no more than 2 percent of the nitrogen trifluoride used in these processes escaped into the atmosphere.

Potent Greenhouse Gas More Prevalent Than Assumed