Quote: Original post by Trapper ZoidI worded poorly in a haste. :) Yep, they care then. Not really now as it looks like only some of the people living there have only vaguely heard of something called global climate crisis. Though they know there's more drought than used to be, or floods as it rains fewer times but more at a time.Quote: Original post by Naurava kulkuri
I also bet that not many ordinary people care that much about melting Siberia or Himalaya or warming oceans as these don't have direct, noticeable impact to daily lives.
The Himalayan glaciers and snow regulate the river flow to most of South Asia. As they disappear, it means the rivers will be prone to running dry when it's not raining and occasionally flash flooding when it does. There's over a billion people living in the Indian subcontinent. The affect on the rivers in that region is actually one of the affects of climate change I'm most worried about.
Climate Gate
344
December 17, 2009 02:27 AM
---Sudet ulvovat - karavaani kulkee
120
December 17, 2009 07:18 AM
Quote: Original post by EelcoErr... nothing "worries" me about the paper. You made some silly post that roughly claimed that the IPCC reports pulled their conclusions from thin air, in contradiction to the fact that their conclusions are drawn from papers like this one.Quote: Original post by HostileExpanseQuote: Original post by EelcoQuote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components
of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297–302
The paper seems uncontroversial to me....
Uncontroversial? I guess you're referring to the paper that is linked, instead of the one in huge font. Perhaps the one in red makes for a more interesting target for you....
Looked at it; wasnt shocked. Perhaps you could tell me what exactly worries you here, instead of having me try and guess at it?
I'm glad you find the paper uncontroversial, though. We'll have to revisit that one.
Quote: Original post by EelcoYou tried to use an excuse about "not being able to find any research on the overall notion of AGW." You now have plenty.
I get the impression you are just throwing random papers around here.
-------------
Quote: Original post by EelcoGood job. You clearly picked the paper's conclusions apart. (I assume you're talking about this paper.)
Are you even reading what I write? There is nothing to debunk there. The facts seem all very agreeable. But aside from the subjective and unquantified claim in their conclusion, it simply isnt a 'paper supporting [anthropogenic] climate change'. Just a summary of some obviously borked climate models.
Not that there's much hope of improving on the perfection of your rebuttal, but here's a whacky idea --- feel free to actually elaborate on the failures of these "obviously borked" models.
Also, on the off-chance that it strengthens your rebuttals, you might actually try grasping the fact that the paper isn't "just some summary of models."
Quote: Original post by Eelco
Now you stop dancing around, and take another look (assuming youve read the paper at all) at that graph of actual temperatures and models, and tell me with a straight face youd bet anything on the predictive power of those models. (I bet you will anyway, but it would be comical to have it on record)
lol .... for someone who pretends to be so informed in the matter, it's amazing that you actually think that there should be some sort of precise prediction on the temperatures. People who don't argue for the sake of being internet trolls actually recognize that the temperature trends predicted by an ensemble of the models would track the observed temperature trends rather closely for the 1950-1999 period.
Quote: Original post by EelcoNor would there be any reason for them to do so....Quote: Original post by HostileExpanseQuote: Original post by EelcoYep. That'd be awfully curious in a paper which declares that it is studying temperatures from 1900 to 1999.
.... if we could do any such thing, isnt it curious they didnt predict the lack of warming in the early 21th century? They sure dont seem to mention it in this paper.
I was just throwing you a bone there; I dont actually expect they made any such prediction, anywhere, inside or outside that paper.
Quote: Original post by Eelcolol ... doubling down by dancing around the obvious inaccuracies in your assumption about "a lack of warming" with yet another presumption. You're quite a master at deflection.Quote: (Also, educated denialists might have missed the memo, but the early 21st century is set to be the hottest decade on record.)
Sensationalists might have missed the memo (forgivable given how the media keeps echoing your message): but that rather meaningless. Hottest deccade on [thermometer] record. Coldest deccade on record. Either is to be expected in a system that shows variability over timescales far longer than the measurement period.
After trying to claim the models are somehow woefully inadequate, it's hilarious that you "expect variability" now. Dance around it all that you like, but your assumption about how "scientists should have predicted a lack of warming!" [paraphrased] looks pretty ignorant when it is revealed that you're talking about the hottest decade on record.
[Edited by - HostileExpanse on December 17, 2009 11:18:01 AM]
301
December 17, 2009 12:19 PM
Quote: Original post by HostileExpanseQuote: Original post by EelcoErr... nothing "worries" me about the paper. You made some silly post that roughly claimed that the IPCC reports pulled their conclusions from thin air, in contradiction to the fact that their conclusions are drawn from papers like this one.Quote: Original post by HostileExpanseQuote: Original post by EelcoQuote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components
of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297–302
The paper seems uncontroversial to me....
Uncontroversial? I guess you're referring to the paper that is linked, instead of the one in huge font. Perhaps the one in red makes for a more interesting target for you....
Looked at it; wasnt shocked. Perhaps you could tell me what exactly worries you here, instead of having me try and guess at it?
I'm glad you find the paper uncontroversial, though. We'll have to revisit that one.
The paper deals with the effect of aerosols on temperature. Its only related to AGW in the sense that measured temperatures might be an underestimate of the rate of change of temperature, accounting for aerosols. Regardless; the rate of change of temperature is nothing out of the ordinary.
Quote:Quote: Original post by EelcoYou tried to use an excuse about "not being able to find any research on the overall notion of AGW." You now have plenty.
I get the impression you are just throwing random papers around here.
As I suspected: you are just throwing some papers around to appear smart, without making any informed judgement as to the relevancy of them to this discussion.
Quote:Quote: Original post by EelcoGood job. You clearly picked the paper's conclusions apart. (I assume you're talking about this paper.)
Are you even reading what I write? There is nothing to debunk there. The facts seem all very agreeable. But aside from the subjective and unquantified claim in their conclusion, it simply isnt a 'paper supporting [anthropogenic] climate change'. Just a summary of some obviously borked climate models.
Not that there's much hope of improving on the perfection of your rebuttal, but here's a whacky idea --- feel free to actually elaborate on the failures of these "obviously borked" models.
I already did. They dont match the 20th century temperatures, not even to first-order trend. Even if they did: without making actual predictions, its a case of fitting elephants. Science 101.
Quote:Quote: Original post by Eelco
Now you stop dancing around, and take another look (assuming youve read the paper at all) at that graph of actual temperatures and models, and tell me with a straight face youd bet anything on the predictive power of those models. (I bet you will anyway, but it would be comical to have it on record)
lol .... for someone who pretends to be so informed in the matter, it's amazing that you actually think that there should be some sort of precise prediction on the temperatures. People who don't argue for the sake of being internet trolls actually recognize that the temperature trends predicted by an ensemble of the models would track the observed temperature trends rather closely for the 1950-1999 period.
I dont just pretend to be informed on the matter: computational fluid dynamics is actually my profession. As for who the troll is here; I beg to differ.
Actually, im not impressed at all by their trends (as I elaborated on previously). Not even all models predict the first-order trend. And thats a ridiculously low bar to beat. Again, none of these models recreated both the 1940 and 2000 optima.
Im sorry, but these just arnt dependable models by any metric. The author stating that they are in his conclusion regardless, doesnt change a thing about that; stating that your work is awesome and relevant in the only part of your paper people deciding on money-matters will read is obligatory. Literally. Thats what the head of your department will order you to do, even if it doesnt make any fucking sense, as with this paper. Been there, done that.
Quote:Quote: Original post by EelcoNor would there be any reason for them to do so....Quote: Original post by HostileExpanseQuote: Original post by EelcoYep. That'd be awfully curious in a paper which declares that it is studying temperatures from 1900 to 1999.
.... if we could do any such thing, isnt it curious they didnt predict the lack of warming in the early 21th century? They sure dont seem to mention it in this paper.
I was just throwing you a bone there; I dont actually expect they made any such prediction, anywhere, inside or outside that paper.
Aside from trying to give their model credibility beyond that of mere curve fitting you mean?
Quote:Quote: Original post by Eelcolol ... doubling down by dancing around the obvious inaccuracies in your assumption about "a lack of warming" with yet another presumption. You're quite a master at deflection.Quote: (Also, educated denialists might have missed the memo, but the early 21st century is set to be the hottest decade on record.)
Sensationalists might have missed the memo (forgivable given how the media keeps echoing your message): but that rather meaningless. Hottest deccade on [thermometer] record. Coldest deccade on record. Either is to be expected in a system that shows variability over timescales far longer than the measurement period.
After trying to claim the models are somehow woefully inadequate, it's hilarious that you "expect variability" now. Dance around it all that you like, but your assumption about how "scientists should have predicted a lack of warming!" [paraphrased] looks pretty ignorant when it is revealed that you're talking about the hottest decade on record.
You are quite a master at (deliberate) misinterpretation, trying to spin my 'lack of warming', into a 'lack of warmness'. Which is pretty ridiculous since I explicitly acknowledge the current warm period in about every post.
120
December 17, 2009 02:09 PM
Quote: Original post by EelcoQuote: Original post by HostileExpanseQuote: Original post by EelcoQuote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components
of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297–302
The paper seems uncontroversial to me....
I'm glad you find the paper uncontroversial, though. We'll have to revisit that one.
The paper deals with the effect of aerosols on temperature. Its only related to AGW in the sense that measured temperatures might be an underestimate of the rate of change of temperature, accounting for aerosols.....
No. Not even close.
Quote: Original post by EelcoYeah, drawing your attention to a paper cited in the IPCC assessment for its insights into quantifying our AGW problem ... pretty random stuff.Quote: Original post by HostileExpanseQuote: Original post by EelcoYou tried to use an excuse about "not being able to find any research on the overall notion of AGW." You now have plenty.
I get the impression you are just throwing random papers around here.
As I suspected: you are just throwing some papers around to appear smart, without making any informed judgement as to the relevancy of them to this discussion.
[Edited by - HostileExpanse on December 17, 2009 3:09:37 PM]
115
December 17, 2009 02:14 PM
I happen to work at the nso (National Solar Observatory), as a tech, not a scientist. I can say that there are a lot of really smart, informed and connected people here, and there is an overwhelming support of global warming/climate change. We aren't in the climate change research, so the opinions aren't political, either.
And on a note from earlier in the thread - we used to have intense winters here, on top of the mountain. The winters have become virtually non-existent for more than five years now. Our summers and winters have more or less fused into one giant season. The summers lack all the insects (such as billions of grasshoppers and moths), that used to flourish. Recently we actually had a winter storm, and it was a record breaking storm rather than a return to old trends. In fact, a state of emergency was declared for the entire state due to down lines ( New Mexico ). Old timers say they haven't seen anything similar for 20 years.
It seems to me that we are recreating an atmosphere that's similar to what the dinosaurs had - richer in gases - warmer. The dino-organisms sucked up their environment (carbon for instance) and sequestered it into the ground. We're now undoing all of their hard work. Organisms have a profound effect on the contents of their environment, they suck stuff up, manufacture stuff, and release stuff.
To think that humans aren't subject to this trend, that is ridiculous. We created the ozone-hole, we created the plastic ocean - but we haven't had any impact on "natural earth climate cycles"? Please.
[Edited by - nickak2003 on December 17, 2009 3:14:15 PM]
And on a note from earlier in the thread - we used to have intense winters here, on top of the mountain. The winters have become virtually non-existent for more than five years now. Our summers and winters have more or less fused into one giant season. The summers lack all the insects (such as billions of grasshoppers and moths), that used to flourish. Recently we actually had a winter storm, and it was a record breaking storm rather than a return to old trends. In fact, a state of emergency was declared for the entire state due to down lines ( New Mexico ). Old timers say they haven't seen anything similar for 20 years.
It seems to me that we are recreating an atmosphere that's similar to what the dinosaurs had - richer in gases - warmer. The dino-organisms sucked up their environment (carbon for instance) and sequestered it into the ground. We're now undoing all of their hard work. Organisms have a profound effect on the contents of their environment, they suck stuff up, manufacture stuff, and release stuff.
To think that humans aren't subject to this trend, that is ridiculous. We created the ozone-hole, we created the plastic ocean - but we haven't had any impact on "natural earth climate cycles"? Please.
[Edited by - nickak2003 on December 17, 2009 3:14:15 PM]
301
December 17, 2009 02:31 PM
Quote: Original post by HostileExpanseQuote: Original post by EelcoQuote: Original post by HostileExpanseQuote: Original post by EelcoQuote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components
of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297–302
The paper seems uncontroversial to me....
I'm glad you find the paper uncontroversial, though. We'll have to revisit that one.
The paper deals with the effect of aerosols on temperature. Its only related to AGW in the sense that measured temperatures might be an underestimate of the rate of change of temperature, accounting for aerosols.....
No. Not even close.
Yeah, youre right; its even worse as far as relevancy is concerned. The paper deals with a statistical technicality of how to sum the effects of different aerosols/forcings.
The actual input that goes into their work is where the controversy resides, of course. Why dont you link to a paper that actually derives the figure from greenhouse forcing used here? Perhaps the [Ramaswamy 2001] citation would be more interesting to discuss; but id have to find someone who actually shows any signs of understanding before wasting any time on that.
115
December 17, 2009 02:31 PM
The atmosphere of the earth has shrunk recently. This actually means that the earth, at least in the far atmosphere, is cooling. This means that any increase in temperature, has not been caused by the sun ( besides the fact that its in a cool phase atm). Any ambient increases in temperature has probably been caused by reflection ( green house effect ).
The earth has no magical "natural cycles". There are limited means to change its temperature. We have artifical heat production, the sun, the cosmos, the core, the atmosphere/clouds/ozone, the ocean, and the configuration of land mass. That is it. These are the only possible variables that can be considered.
People need to stop mocking things up to magical "natural cycles", and start identifying causes, or be quiet.
[Edited by - nickak2003 on December 17, 2009 2:31:46 PM]
The earth has no magical "natural cycles". There are limited means to change its temperature. We have artifical heat production, the sun, the cosmos, the core, the atmosphere/clouds/ozone, the ocean, and the configuration of land mass. That is it. These are the only possible variables that can be considered.
People need to stop mocking things up to magical "natural cycles", and start identifying causes, or be quiet.
[Edited by - nickak2003 on December 17, 2009 2:31:46 PM]
120
December 17, 2009 03:03 PM
Quote: Original post by nickak2003
... This means that any increase in temperature, has not been caused by the sun ( besides the fact that its in a cool phase atm). Any ambient increases in temperature has probably been caused by reflection ( green house effect ).
Here's a graph of the data from the paper that I tried pointing out to Eelco (pg 298) ... the one he amusingly refers to as being "irrelevant" to climate change. LOL
[Edited by - HostileExpanse on December 17, 2009 4:03:55 PM]
120
December 17, 2009 03:06 PM
Quote: Original post by EelcoSo, after posting about this paper three times about how it was supposedly "only dealing with aerosols" you finally realize that you missed the subject by miles? How in the world could you have read that paper and come up with something so way off-base, as to what it was about....Quote: Original post by HostileExpanseQuote: Original post by EelcoQuote: Original post by HostileExpanseQuote: Original post by EelcoQuote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Boucher, O., and J. Haywood, 2001: On summing the components
of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 18, 297–302
The paper seems uncontroversial to me....
I'm glad you find the paper uncontroversial, though. We'll have to revisit that one.
The paper deals with the effect of aerosols on temperature. Its only related to AGW in the sense that measured temperatures might be an underestimate of the rate of change of temperature, accounting for aerosols.....
No. Not even close.
Yeah, youre right;
Quote: Original post by EelcoYou must mean "someone with an understanding that you can turn to in order to help with your understading of these papers," since you are the one making multiple posts about a study while still not even being able to figure out what it's discussing .... that should be a basic question a person can have answered by checking the title and the 4-sentence abstract. If you can't even accomplish that much, then it's certainly not worth wasting anymore time on an academic topic with you.
Perhaps the [Ramaswamy 2001] citation would be more interesting to discuss; but id have to find someone who actually shows any signs of understanding before wasting any time on that.
301
December 17, 2009 03:08 PM
Quote:Quote: Original post by HostileExpanseSo, after posting about this paper three times about how it was supposedly "only dealing with aerosols" you finally realize that you missed the subject by miles? How in the world could you have read that paper and come up with something so way off-base, as to what it was about....
Yeah, youre right;
Im affraid that was sarcasm. The point was: this paper is irrelevant to this discussion.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
