[hrothgar]

Hey Al, you constantly demonstrate that you're too stupid to read an article and draw even halfway accurate inferences...
Why the pretense?

Do you think that anyone believes that bold facing a statement is remotely equivalent to understanding what's being discussed?

Al_U_Card, on 2011-September-16, 08:34, said:

Cloud formation shouldn`t be that big a problem when modelling precipitation... ... it`s just that projections are being used to guide policy that are allocating resources, to say nothing of the inherent up-coming tax grab.
(Keep an eye on Australia, they will become the test case when they adopt their carbon "price".)

From the AR4, precipitation model ensemble page: (my bolding)

Despite the many improvements, numerous issues remain. Many of the important processes that determine a model’s response to changes in radiative forcing are not resolved by the model’s grid. Instead, sub-grid scale parametrizations are used to parametrize the unresolved processes, such as cloud formation and the mixing due to oceanic eddies. It continues to be the case that multi-model ensemble simulations generally provide more robust information than runs of any single model. Table 8.1 summarises the formulations of each of the AOGCMs used in this report.

There is currently no consensus on the optimal way to divide computer resources among finer numerical grids, which allow for better simulations; greater numbers of ensemble members, which allow for better statistical estimates of uncertainty; and inclusion of a more complete set of processes (e.g., carbon feedbacks, atmospheric chemistry interactions).

Projections for 2070-2099

[Winstonm]

Quote

sub-grid scale parametrizations are used to parametrize the unresolved processes, such as cloud formation

Clouds have a liberal bias, too?

[mike777]

fwiw again what is the relationiship between CO2 concentration and temp change.

Lets focus on whats important.


Are we talking about a very very urgent disaster or something less?

If the very urgent than we basically have a disaster now. A very very real disaster now as changing economics will bring on disaster.

----


I dont really get if clouds are bias as a joke.

at this point as a dunderhead I would like to learn more abourt c02concentration and temp changes.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2011-September-16, 21:17, said:

fwiw again what is the relationiship between CO2 concentration and temp change.

I recommend reading up on the Greenhouse effect.
Wikipedia has a decent enough treatment.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2011-September-17, 04:55, said:

I recommend reading up on the Greenhouse effect. Wikipedia has a decent enough treatment.

not all greenhouse gases are created equal, and not all have the same effect on certain things, such as temperature

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-September-17, 07:05, said:

not all greenhouse gases are created equal, and not all have the same effect on certain things, such as temperature

True.

Greenhouse effect

Quote

Strengthening of the greenhouse effect through human activities is known as the enhanced (or anthropogenic) greenhouse effect.[17] This increase in radiative forcing from human activity is attributable mainly to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.[18]

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on 2011-September-16, 21:17, said:

fwiw again what is the relationiship between CO2 concentration and temp change.


at this point as a dunderhead I would like to learn more abourt c02concentration and temp changes.

As a potential canary in a coal mine, Mike, it is a reasonable question concerning how 390 or even 3900 ppm of CO2 can affect global temps. The short answer is that computer models, adjusted to create positive feedbacks between water vapour (the real GHG) and CO2, demonstrate rapid warming that is, as yet, unfounded or at least not manifesting as predicted...

The literature shows that CO2 as a GHG provides a logarithmic temperature response to concentration. Under 200 ppm, we all die because there is no green plant growth. The first doubling to 400 ppm provides a theoretical 0.7 C temperature increase. Each subsequent doubling provides less and less so that, at 3,900 ppm, you might get a couple of degrees C out of it. When you consider global temperatures over geological time periods, there has been as much as 6000 ppm CO2 and the average global temp never got much over about 16C or so IIRC.

Recent literature is questioning a lot of the model mania and water vapor (clouds included) may well exhibit the negative feedback that you would expect from a global system that gets day/night temp differences of tens of degrees C to deal with. So don't panic and hope that reason prevails (Like that ever happened!).

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on 2011-August-26, 15:34, said:

well he does have a good point re: australia... i guess we'll see

More on the situation down under. Click on the audio link for the interview. Quite the legislative effort...

Carbon price or price to pay?

[helene_t]

It is Murdoch's fault if the impact of climate change is being exaggerated - after all it was his Time's atlas that showed that 15% of Greenland's ice cover has gone.

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on 2011-September-17, 07:26, said:

As a potential canary in a coal mine, Mike, it is a reasonable question concerning how 390 or even 3900 ppm of CO2 can affect global temps. The short answer is that computer models, adjusted to create positive feedbacks between water vapour (the real GHG) and CO2, demonstrate rapid warming that is, as yet, unfounded or at least not manifesting as predicted...

The literature shows that CO2 as a GHG provides a logarithmic temperature response to concentration. Under 200 ppm, we all die because there is no green plant growth. The first doubling to 400 ppm provides a theoretical 0.7 C temperature increase. Each subsequent doubling provides less and less so that, at 3,900 ppm, you might get a couple of degrees C out of it. When you consider global temperatures over geological time periods, there has been as much as 6000 ppm CO2 and the average global temp never got much over about 16C or so IIRC.

Recent literature is questioning a lot of the model mania and water vapor (clouds included) may well exhibit the negative feedback that you would expect from a global system that gets day/night temp differences of tens of degrees C to deal with. So don't panic and hope that reason prevails (Like that ever happened!).

The good thing is I think this question at some point can be answered by automation(computers).

The huge problem is just how urgent is the problem. If urgent than we have a disaster on our hands as the economic solution leads to disaster.

[Al_U_Card]

From someone who should know.

(Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, and part-time to the Department of Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.)

Fighting for their economic lives.

An excerpt:

The theory of man-made global warming doesn’t stand up to even casual scrutiny. It requires believers to ignore or deny overwhelming evidence that it is bunk. The believers have to be schooled by massive propaganda not to notice certain things, and to ignore and revile anyone who points out those things.
There is in fact no empirical evidence that global warming is mainly man-made. If there was, we would have heard all about it. Tens of billions of dollars has been spent looking for it.
Climate scientists readily concede that there is no direct evidence that global warming is caused by our carbon dioxide. Instead, they say that our knowledge of how the climate works is embodied in their climate models, and the climate models say that global warming is man-made.
Models are logically equivalent to someone punching in numbers and doing sums on a calculator – models are calculations, not evidence. The problem is that the models contain many guesses and assumptions about how things work, and some of them are wrong.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on 2011-September-21, 06:19, said:

Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.)

bah, stanford... if he's an agw skeptic he's either an idiot or listening to fox news or parroting republican talking points

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on 2011-September-21, 15:48, said:

bah, stanford... if he's an agw skeptic he's either an idiot or listening to fox news or parroting republican talking points

I am just waiting for the CAGW crowd (dwindling as it is) to declare jihad on the unbelievers.....(it is a quasi-religion that we are talking about anyway).

Did anyone tune into Gore's Climate Reality Project? (24 hours of pain...or something)

[luke warm]

speaking of consensus (i'm sure we were at some point), it looks like that pertaining to the speed of light may have changed... we'll know more after the tests are verified, if they are

[Al_U_Card]

Dr Dennis Jensen is the Liberal federal member for Tangney in Western Australia. A former air traffic controller, CSIRO and later Defence research scientist,


More of the "Chunder from down-under"...

[PassedOut]

Koch brothers accidentally fund study that proves global warming

Quote

The latest global warming results confirm those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA and elsewhere that came under fire from skeptics in an episode known as 'climategate'.

A new climate study shows that since the mid-1950s, global average temperatures over land have risen by 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit), confirming previous studies that have found a climate that has been warming – in fits and starts – since around 1900.

Most climate scientists attribute warming since the mid-1950, at least to some degree, to carbon dioxide emissions from human activities – burning coal, oil, and to a lesser extent gas, and from land-use changes.

The latest results mirror those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

And now the smoke from Charlie Koch's ears will raise the temperature even more.

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on 2011-October-22, 09:02, said:

Koch brothers accidentally fund study that proves global warming


And now the smoke from Charlie Koch's ears will raise the temperature even more.

Which may end up being the largest anthropogenic component of warming....

Warming is one thing (cooling during periods of increasing [CO2] is another) which the temperature record demonstrates. Causes and not causative factors are the problem.

[mike777]

I still wait to see more studies that discuss the relationship between c02 concentration and temperature and that discuss how urgent the problem is.



If the problem is urgent then the economic solution will be a disaster for the planet.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on 2011-October-22, 23:30, said:

I still wait to see more studies that discuss the relationship between c02 concentration and temperature and that discuss how urgent the problem is.



If the problem is urgent then the economic solution will be a disaster for the planet.

Taken from this cogent analysis of the statistics involved, BEST is not the appropriate modifier.

Technical but clearly why [CO2] is the least of our worries.


Accept that for the moment. The question is then why choose the 1950s as the comparator and not the 1940s when it was warmer? Possible answer: because using the 1950s emphasizes the change. But let’s not start on the politics, so never mind, and also ignore the hyper precision. Concentrate instead on the “+/- 0.033 C”, which we already know is not the uncertainty in the actual temperature but that of a model parameter.
If all the sources of over-certainty which I (and Keenan) mentioned were taken into account, my guess is that this uncertainty bound would at least double. That would make it at least +/- 0.066 C. OK, so what? It’s still small compared to the 8.849 C (interval 8.783 – 8.915 C; and for 2000-2009 it’s 9.678 – 9.842 C). Still a jump.
But if we added to that the uncertainty in the parameter so that our uncertainty bounds are on the actual temperature, we’d again have to multiply the bounds by 5 to 73. This makes the 1950-1959 bound at least 0.132, and the 2000-2009 at least 0.410. The intervals are then 8.519 – 9.179 C for the ’50s and 9.350 – 10.170 C for the oughts. Still a change, but one which is now far less certain.
Since the change is still “significant”, you might say “So what?” Glad you asked: Look at those bounds on the years before 1940, especially those prior to 1900. Applying the above changes pushes those bounds way out, which means we cannot tell with any level of certainty if we are warmer or cooler now then we were before 1940, and especially before 1900. Re-read that sentence, too, please.
And even if you want to be recalcitrant and insist on model perfection and you believe parameters are real, many of the uncertainty bounds before 1880 already cover many modern temperatures. The years around 1830 are already not “statistically different” than, say, 2008.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2011-October-22, 23:30, said:

I still wait to see more studies...

Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process