User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:40 am

GRA wrote:Only loosely related to the discussion, but one of my favorite quotes by a well-known climate scientist (whose name escapes me for the moment) is "All models are wrong; some are useful". Or in other words, all models (climate in this case) simplify complex and often only partially understood phenomena, and while they are inherently incomplete and 'inaccurate', they can nevertheless provide useful insight as to what is likely to occur, if they do a good job of reflecting what has actually occurred.
No, they do a HORRIBLE job of hindcasting temperatures of both the atmosphere (with a modeled warming rate that is 1.6X the observed rate) and the ocean (with a modeled warming rate which is 2X the observed warming rate):

Image

The above graphs showed the FAR predictions (2.8X the observed warming), here is what AR5 shows (at 1.67K/century):
Image

Here are the sea-surface predictions versus measurements:
Image
They do not have the ability to model cloud effects beyond basic parameterization, so they do not have the ability to even model the impact of the clouds on temperature. As such, they are not fit for purpose.

BTW, scientists are just now starting to have an ability to model some of the impacts of clouds. They are finding that clouds have a dominant effect on the climate.
GRA wrote:Expecting 100% accuracy is a pipe dream.
But ignoring massive failures of the models to predict (or even hindcast) what is going on does not lead to furthered understanding. Science only advances when investigators acknowledge the failings of the current beliefs and look for corrections. In fact, that is what science is all about.

Fortunately, there is work being done to understand the errors in the current models in terms of their mathematics, structure, and more structure. When a corrected model is constructed without these significant errors, you find that the impact of CO2 on the temperature of the planet is not at all alarming. Specifically, rather than finding that the water vapor emissions layer ascends with increasing CO2 concentration, we learn that it actually descends. That is why there is no "hotspot." (It was never "missing", the models were simply incorrect.) The conclusion is that the impact of a doubling of CO2 on the Earth's temperature is extremely low:
Dr. David Evans wrote:- The ECS might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25C, and most likely less than 0.5C.
- The fraction of global warming caused by increasing CO2 in recent decades, mu, is likely less than 20%.
- The CO2 sensitivity, lambdaC, is likely less than 0.15C W^-1 m^2 (less than a third of the solar sensitivity).
This is all summarized in a PDF here.

Note that this work does not argue ANY against any of the basic tenets of modern climate science about the physics of the system. It simply corrects the failings of the current model to determine how it has gone wrong.

We've known for a long time that the climate models in widespread use today predict WAY more warming than actually occurs. Now we know, in detail, why they are wrong. It's time to move on and actually try to predict what will happen rather than simply making alarming claims about the future.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

Stoaty
Posts: 4488
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:50 pm
Delivery Date: 12 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 3871
Location: West Los Angeles

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:01 am

What journal has published this important work?

Spoiler alert: David Evans has no education in climate science and has not published any articles in peer reviewed journals.

http://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans
RegGuheert wrote:Fortunately, there is work being done to understand the errors in the current models in terms of their mathematics, structure, and more structure. When a corrected model is constructed without these significant errors, you find that the impact of CO2 on the temperature of the planet is not at all alarming. Specifically, rather than finding that the water vapor emissions layer ascends with increasing CO2 concentration, we learn that it actually descends. That is why there is no "hotspot." (It was never "missing", the models were simply incorrect.) The conclusion is that the impact of a doubling of CO2 on the Earth's temperature is extremely low:
Dr. David Evans wrote:- The ECS might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25C, and most likely less than 0.5C.
- The fraction of global warming caused by increasing CO2 in recent decades, mu, is likely less than 20%.
- The CO2 sensitivity, lambdaC, is likely less than 0.15C W^-1 m^2 (less than a third of the solar sensitivity).
2011 Leaf with 62,000 miles given to Nephew
2013 Tesla Model S85 with 251 miles rated range at full charge
Leaf Spy Manual
Battery Aging Model Spreadsheet

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:16 am

As is usual, Stoaty pops in with nothing technical to contribute, but he does provide an ad hominem attack.

Here are Dr. Evans' credentials in relation to his excellent work.:
David Evans is an electrical engineer and mathematician, who earned six university degrees in mathematics and electrical engineering over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering (digital signal processing): PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) from Stanford University, B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc. from the University of Sydney. He is an expert in Fourier analysis and signal processing, and trained with Professor Ronald Bracewell late of Stanford University.

David's main job is researching mathematics (Fourier analysis, calculus, the number system, multivariable polynomials, and related topics). This pays nothing, so David has been doing consulting jobs and investing on the stock market since 1990. Notably, David consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, and part-time for the Department of Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, and was the lead modeler in developing FullCAM, the world-leading carbon accounting model that Australia uses for analyzing the carbon in Australia's biosphere for the Kyoto Protocol.
If this outstanding work by Dr. Evans is NOT accepted for publication, then that should tell you more about the state of climate science than anything else.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

Stoaty
Posts: 4488
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:50 pm
Delivery Date: 12 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 3871
Location: West Los Angeles

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:39 am

RegGuheert wrote:As is usual, Stoaty pops in with nothing technical to contribute, but he does provide an ad hominem attack.
Just providing context for those that wish to save time. There are hundreds of climate science deniers publishing stuff on the internet, some paid for with good money from Exxon Mobil. I think it is prudent to wait until one of those climate science deniers gets an article published in a peer reviewed journal before spending any time on it.
2011 Leaf with 62,000 miles given to Nephew
2013 Tesla Model S85 with 251 miles rated range at full charge
Leaf Spy Manual
Battery Aging Model Spreadsheet

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:08 pm

Stoaty wrote:There are hundreds of climate science deniers publishing stuff on the internet, some paid for with good money from Exxon Mobil.
There's a completely unsupported statement.

I wonder how anyone could construe Dr. David Evans to be a science denier. In fact, he is a scientist of the highest caliber.

I've posted repeatedly about the science. You refuse to post about the science.

The science is quite clear: Since CO2 cannot change the temperature profile of the surface of the ocean by more than an unmeasurable amount, then it does not change (read: does not reduce) the amount of heat flowing from the ocean in any meaningful way. In other words, the amount of heat that is in the ocean is not related a function of the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. (The opposite is NOT true. As the ocean warms, it releases CO2 into the atmosphere.)
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

Stoaty
Posts: 4488
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:50 pm
Delivery Date: 12 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 3871
Location: West Los Angeles

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:19 pm

RegGuheert wrote:I wonder how anyone could construe Dr. David Evans to be a science denier. In fact, he is a scientist of the highest caliber.
I didn't say he was a science denier, I said he was a climate science denier. In other words, his denial is selective, as is the case with most climate science deniers (although some also deny that smoking causes cancer, etc). I haven't seen any evidence presented that he is a climate scientist of the highest caliber. He may be good in some fields, but he has no training in climate science. If his article can pass peer review and get published and subject to scrutiny by climate scientists and they find it has merit, no one would be happier than I... but I am not holding my breath.
2011 Leaf with 62,000 miles given to Nephew
2013 Tesla Model S85 with 251 miles rated range at full charge
Leaf Spy Manual
Battery Aging Model Spreadsheet

WetEV
Posts: 3219
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:17 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
WetEV wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:CO2 has NO ability to heat the oceans and can only reduce the temperature drop of the top 1millimeter surface of the oceans by a mere 0.001K. In other words, it doesn't have any meaningful effect on the heat stored in oceans, which represents 2100X as much energy storage as the atmosphere.
That would be interesting, if the heat flow mostly was from the atmosphere to the ocean.
Please read more carefully. I did not state nor imply that the heat flows from the atmosphere to the ocean.
I agree that the whole atmosphere, CO2 and all of it, mostly does not transfer heat to the oceans.

Exactly the way that a coat does not transfer heat to you. But the coat still keeps you warm.

Go outside on a cold day carrying your coat. Starting to get cold, eh? Now put the coat on. The coat is heated by your body, and doesn't heat your body, but you get warmer, right?
Quoting the last line:
To conclude, it is perfectly physically consistent to expect that increasing greenhouse gas driven warming will heat the oceans – as indeed is being observed.
That is your source, concluding that your conclusion is wrong.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

WetEV
Posts: 3219
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:41 pm

RegGuheert wrote:I've posted repeatedly about the science.
Perhaps you think so, but I don't think you understand the science.

It seems clear to me that your problems with climate science are because you can't accept the conclusions.
F. A. Hayek wrote:Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called "mechanistic" explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:24 pm

If only this forum had addressed climate denial the way the others had, we might have been able to use the minds here to fix problems rather than continue these useless Groundhog Day threads.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/press ... tions.html
Researchers from the Centre for Energy-Efficient Telecommunications (CEET) and Bell Labs explain that the information communications and technology (ICT) industry, which delivers Internet, video, voice and other cloud services, produces more than 830 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, annually. That’s about 2 percent of global CO2 emissions — the same proportion as the aviation industry produces. Projections suggest that ICT sector’s share is expected to double by 2020.
What's the carbon footprint of denial?


https://xkcd.com/1357/

Image

Stop the insanity.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:06 pm

WetEV wrote:Exactly the way that a coat does not transfer heat to you. But the coat still keeps you warm.

Go outside on a cold day carrying your coat. Starting to get cold, eh? Now put the coat on. The coat is heated by your body, and doesn't heat your body, but you get warmer, right?
That's exactly right. And since heat is flowing from your body to the surface, you would measure a HIGHER temperature at the surface of your skin with the coat on versus without. This higher temperature would also tell you that the flow of heat from inside the body to the surface had slowed.

In the case of the surface of the ocean, the same measurement has been made and the surface of the ocean is not measurably different (the difference is LESS THAN ONE ONE-THOUSANDTH OF A DEGREE CELSIUS at the surface) with versus without the extra 1 W/m^2 due to CO2. In other words, the measurement demonstrates clearly that if you had put on a coat, there is no way to tell that you have one on.
WetEV wrote:
Quoting the last line:
To conclude, it is perfectly physically consistent to expect that increasing greenhouse gas driven warming will heat the oceans – as indeed is being observed.
That is your source, concluding that your conclusion is wrong.
The fallacy that you have been lead to believe and that you are repeating here is known as the weak analogy fallacy. In this case, you are putting forth a qualitative argument when a quantitative one is required.

That statement is true, but the lie of omission in that statement is that the effect is so tiny that it will not make any difference whatsoever to the heat content of the ocean. Specifically, the effect is over TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less than the effect of clouds at night and over THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less than the effect of clouds during the daytime. Put another way, a change in average daytime cloud cover of less than 0.1% (and probably much less) completely swamps any effect from CO2.

BTW, please take note of the fact that in the study I referenced NO ONE measured the impact of the CO2 on the surface temperature of the ocean. Why? Because the effect is so small that they simply cannot do it. Instead, what they measured is the impact of clouds on the surface temperature of the ocean. This fact makes my point quite clearly.

If you want to give a better analogy, you might want to suggest that someone put on something like a very thin layer of talcum powder and go out in the cold. This layer needs to be so thin that the change in the temperature of the skin is so low that it is less than 0.001C and therefore immeasurable. In that case, your body will lose heat AT VIRTUALLY THE SAME RATE as it did without the talcum powder since it had virtually no impact on the flow of heat from the body. That's why you cannot measure the difference.

I repeat: the heat that is found in the oceans today is primarily a function of the action of the clouds. CO2 has virtually no impact on the heat content of the oceans. It is what is known in science as a third-order effect.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

Return to “Politics & Other Controversial Topics”