Go back, re-read what I actually said, and try responding to that.
Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
Are you absolutely 100% certain of this?
no - I would make that claim about very few things, but perhaps I should amplify my prior discussion about all linear models contain zero mutual interactions - that that requires a quadratic term in the model to permit mutual interactions like I represented by F(j, k) to be included in the model. Linear models can include many terms. The IPCC's has 9 but they do subdivide a few that could be counted separately.
I. e. they study and generate a set of numerical values - constant in the model they call forcing functions. For example in the latest model CO2's value is 1.66W/m^2 and they give an uncertainty range for these constants of the model. In the next IPCC report some, if not all of these constants will change as global warming is a very non-linear problem with huge number of mutual interactions between different effects, but if they did their setting of constants in the model well, it gives, as first order accurate results for a few years, until they need to readjust the values of the constants (their radiative forcing numbers in W/m^2).
Now in the process of setting the fixed constant values used in any year's model, the IPCC does consider many different effects and the interactions between them too but the end result is a constant and the model's calculation is based on those constants - does not in the model include the changing interactions, as it should if it wanted to be accurate for more than a few years. For example a change in ocean circulation patterns can neither be predicted or included in the fixed constants of this fifth IPCC model.
It is stuck for several years (due to the lengthy political approval process) with constant values from several years earlier. A true model is not built on only constants, but has the dynamic interactions between the variables in the model.
Quick SUMMARY of my POV:
The IPCC can and does tabulate their results - a table is NOT a model - it is a "a snap shot" of conditions at some point in time.
Last edited by a moderator:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
At first glance it seems like the low range prediction of 1.5 C is a consequence of leaving out feedback data? With feedback data a consensus minimum of 2.6C?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_sensitivity
From where i sit it appears much of the problem here is in your understanding of who the ipcc are and what they do.
First clue: The IPCC doesn't generate science, they summarize it.
Second clue: The IPCC doesn't have any models, they use the results of models generated by third parties.
Third clue: the ipcc doesn't document those models, the people that developed them do.
Fourth clue: go back and re-read what i said about HadCM3 and take the time to understand its implications in regards to your concerns.
If folks who are heavy oil industry were required to approve the IPCC reports I'm real suspect of what was approved. Based on firsthand experience working 40 years in the industry and understanding the industry love for the bottom line over everything else.
How much input, do you suppose, the oil industry has had into the work of the Hadley Climate Research Unit?
The part of my statement above, now bold, is wrong. At least the 2012 anomaly is well understood (and that of 1981 / 82 was probably due to same effect.):{Post 1258 in part}...
The latest data is still recovering from the "three sigma" 2012 anomaly like it did after the 1981 anomaly. The cause of these "3 sigma" anomalies is not well understood, but it is the trend than is dominate on multi-year scales of interest.
http://www.businessinsider.com/arctic-sea-ice-grows-but-still-shrinking-2014-9 said:
It is taking a few years for that massive and sudden injection of warm water to cool down to the ice's temperature, and the volume of ice to get back on its relatively steady decline line.
I wouldn't know but I know how they put pressure on me to join the company PAC which focused on the stuff it doesn't want you to know about. Want's you to think it's a hoax. I figure you knew something bout the attempt to minimize the science in the eyes of world citizens? One good thing about the oil industry. Make them face the piper and it becomes a company value. Like when OSHA demanded that we fix the ridiculous safety record of the oil industry and when the citizens of CA forced us fix the ridiculous non compliance involving environmental regs.. Soon as it became clear it was going to effect the business model in a negative way we complied and made it a company value. Safety and the environment. That could happen here but it needs to get done. BTW BP is the last ditch holdout on the safety and environmental compliance. The scourge of the industry. Look at the bullshit commercials they sponsor. Ask the citizens of the gulf if they're a bunch of lying sociopaths. I really enjoyed my involvement in plant operation over the course of my career. Otherwise the leadership is filled by a bunch of oligarchs who don't give a crap about anything but the bottom line and the status quo.
"Storms of My Grandchildren" book by James Hansen has just updated most of its figure (on 19 August 2014). Here are a few I found interesting:
First graph with > 400 ppm I'v seen. Note curve is still bending upwards - faster than linear increase. In right graph below, note UK is worse than US - must be heating afternoon teas.
Brazil is too low to show in either graph*
see more (and other Global Warming related items) via link at: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/
* Gets ~95% of its energy from renewable sources**; more than half its cars use slightly CO2 net negative fuel (and even the "gasoline" is 25% alcohol); home with heating instead of sweater use in winter is very rare - In 20 years, I have never seen one.
**~ 2% of the remaining 5% is nuclear - I'm not counting nuclear as renewable until it comes from a "breeder reactor."
see more (and other Global Warming related items) via link at: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/
* Gets ~95% of its energy from renewable sources**; more than half its cars use slightly CO2 net negative fuel (and even the "gasoline" is 25% alcohol); home with heating instead of sweater use in winter is very rare - In 20 years, I have never seen one.
**~ 2% of the remaining 5% is nuclear - I'm not counting nuclear as renewable until it comes from a "breeder reactor."
Last edited by a moderator:
The oil industry would probably rather you didn't listen to the Hadley - they're responsible for HadCM3 HadCRUT3 and numerous other things, they've been involved in climate change research since the late '60s and have been producing gridded data sets since the late '70s and have demonstrated 0.8k warming over the last 150 years. Much of this thread is mud slinging trying to get something to stick to them to discredit them in the eyes of the public - that's where the whole FOIA scandal comes in.
The point being that while Billy T might believe that big oil has influence over the IPCC, it's not the IPCC generating the science, it's people like Archer, Mann, and organisations like Hadley and NASA that are generating the science. The role of the IPCC is to summarize the science for politicians and the general public.
This is, I think, where Billy T has gone off the track. The IPCC relies on the results of third party results, analyses those results and computes what it thinks is the most likely outcome based on the range of those results. The IPCC does not control the models, it does not write the models, it is not responsible for the models in any way, and while 'big oil' might have influence over the IPCC and how strongly worded its reccomendations are, it is not neccessarily in control of the science.
Then we get back to my point regarding HadCM3 which Billy T seems to have chosen to ignore.
A model does not have to have a feedback loop explicitly written into it in order for the feedback loop to spontaneously arise, it only has to have variables that influence each other. This is a GOOD thing, by the way, because that's the way they arise in the real world.
I'll give you and example:
f(t) = f(E) + f([CO2]) + f([CH4]) + f([N2O]) + f([RmCnH2n+2-m])
This, according to Billy, is a linearized approximation of the problem. I'm contending that the problem is actually that Billy hasn't dug deep enough, rather than that the science is being supressed.
t is temp, E is energy, and I hope the rest is obvious.
For example:
If
f(E) = f(Long)xf(albedo)xf(insolation)
And:
f(albedo) = f(t)xf(long)
f([CH4]) = f(long)xf(t)x(albedo)xf([OH.])
Then we have built our arctic feedback into our 'linear' model. Billy T is focused on the final numbers published by the IPCC without looking into how they were derived.
Also note - In the post I asked Billy T to read again, which he currently appears to be ignoring - I said nothing about the soot issue that he is now fixated on. Indeed, forest fires are a seperate issue to the reduced carbon uptake of the amazon forest in response to decreased rainfall due to increased temperature.
I'm not real clear what you're referring to here - look, my only point is that the explanation Billy T seems to be pushing as an undeniable fact isn't the only possible explanation. In my opnion it doesn't even seem like the most probable explanation. Call me a pollyanna if you want, I really don't care, I simply do not share Billy T's cynicism in this matter. If I'm wrong, you know what, I'm fine with that.
My job is enforcing environmental law - I spend 37.5 hours a week trying to safe-guard the environment for my children and being paid to do so.
And there in lies the problem and the solution - welcome to the modern world, the new american dream, and the realities of hypercapilistic society where I have heard consultants advise clients that they can save money by lowering their standards of waste treatment before discharge due to a change in loading patterns.
Last edited:
To the general reader: be sure to read at least the footnote, even if not interested in the on-going exchanges with Trippy.
To make my point very clear (as you don't seem to have grasped it yet) let me again use trig function sin(x) in the linearized form, sin(x) = x to forcefully make the point. At zero extension from the origin, this gives sin(0) = 0, 100% correctly. The slope of the curve sin(x) is 1 at time 0 (the origin) Thus the error made by extending this linear slope is small if x is small - extending moldel's summary of conditions existing ~3 year ago, slightly into the future is not bad. I.e. sin(0.1) truly is 0.09983341664 and the linearized version gives 0.1, less than 0.3% error; but the sin(1.0) is truly 0.8414709848 but the lineraized version give sin(1) = 1 an error of about 16 %; but the sin(2) truly is 0.90929743 but linear version gives sin(2) = 2, more than 100% error.
The farther into the future you make a prediction with a linerarized model of a non-linear function, like global warming with many CHANGING mutual feed backs, your error grows rapidly. This is why IPCC's projections with it linerazed model become almost silly in 6 years or more. Why they correct their old prediction in each new report. Why I told Billvon the IPCC's linerized model (actually not even a true model, but a snap shot of conditions about 3 years prior to report date) was not the best for making decade or more predictions of future conditions. For example when the arctic ocean would be essentially ice free - not their ~ 2060 but like 2016 (50/50 chance, I think or by 2018, 90% chance I think).
Observing this fact is not a statement that the IPCC did poor research - I know the do essentially none, but only read the literature for facts (at least those they can use without great threat to the oil industry). The point I make is that the IPCC places those chosen facts into a linearized model of global warming despite global warming being a highly non-linear problem - with catastrophic and very rapid change in the historic records! - That is impossible to occur in the linearized model the IPCC has made. - oil company profits are safe for some decades.*
I am not Ignoring your two Hadley related posts - in fact when you first said I was, I went back an read them both a second time. Problem is those two post ignore (do not speak to) the main point I have been making. I agree the IPCC used literature data derived form models that have feed back loops, but then the IPCC FREEZES THE RESULTS in a linearized model built on UNCHANGING constant values. Linearly extrapolates from point in time already ~3 years old to get a briefly valid prediction of a very non-linear problem, Global Warming.
BTW, few know the huge role APL/JHU has played in the US unmanned space program. Invented more than a dozen new satellite systems and designed several hundred satellites, often building the first few of each series launched - for details on each series, skim this long report: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a066299.pdf
--------------------------
* Carbon credits are now only a very low cost PR trick of oil companies to appear greener:
"The average carbon dioxide coefficient of distillate fuel oil is 429.61 kg CO2 per 42-gallon barrel (EPA 2013b)." - from US EPA at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html
Thus the number of barrels of oil that contain a metric ton (2,000kg) of CO2 when burnt is 2000/429.61 = 4.655 And at $90/brl the sell for $419, but if oil company buys Off setting carbon credits, that cost less than $3/ metric ton, their net income from the sale is "only" $416. Gee, I feel so sorry for them - what a mean slap on the wrist!
I agree and never said otherwise. My point being precisely that - I. e. the IPCC does select from the literature (If I wanted to be mean, I could say "cheery picks" but that is not correct; however, they give zero consideration to the more dire literature) and then summarizes, in projections with ONLY short term validity. (Due to putting the data selected in a linear summary). That is simply a linear extrapolation from when the data used was publishd. In other words, they find what the slope of the change curve about 3 years ago (the average age, at best of the literature data they use) and extend it into the future.
To make my point very clear (as you don't seem to have grasped it yet) let me again use trig function sin(x) in the linearized form, sin(x) = x to forcefully make the point. At zero extension from the origin, this gives sin(0) = 0, 100% correctly. The slope of the curve sin(x) is 1 at time 0 (the origin) Thus the error made by extending this linear slope is small if x is small - extending moldel's summary of conditions existing ~3 year ago, slightly into the future is not bad. I.e. sin(0.1) truly is 0.09983341664 and the linearized version gives 0.1, less than 0.3% error; but the sin(1.0) is truly 0.8414709848 but the lineraized version give sin(1) = 1 an error of about 16 %; but the sin(2) truly is 0.90929743 but linear version gives sin(2) = 2, more than 100% error.
The farther into the future you make a prediction with a linerarized model of a non-linear function, like global warming with many CHANGING mutual feed backs, your error grows rapidly. This is why IPCC's projections with it linerazed model become almost silly in 6 years or more. Why they correct their old prediction in each new report. Why I told Billvon the IPCC's linerized model (actually not even a true model, but a snap shot of conditions about 3 years prior to report date) was not the best for making decade or more predictions of future conditions. For example when the arctic ocean would be essentially ice free - not their ~ 2060 but like 2016 (50/50 chance, I think or by 2018, 90% chance I think).
Observing this fact is not a statement that the IPCC did poor research - I know the do essentially none, but only read the literature for facts (at least those they can use without great threat to the oil industry). The point I make is that the IPCC places those chosen facts into a linearized model of global warming despite global warming being a highly non-linear problem - with catastrophic and very rapid change in the historic records! - That is impossible to occur in the linearized model the IPCC has made. - oil company profits are safe for some decades.*
I agree and said so here:
No the IPCC "model" does NOT have feedback loop in it, not even implicitly. It has the FIXED effect at some point in time of some feed back loops in other models in it; but as noted in bold red of my self quote above there is no changing effect of feed back loops in the IPCC's linerized summary of fact in the literature.
I am not Ignoring your two Hadley related posts - in fact when you first said I was, I went back an read them both a second time. Problem is those two post ignore (do not speak to) the main point I have been making. I agree the IPCC used literature data derived form models that have feed back loops, but then the IPCC FREEZES THE RESULTS in a linearized model built on UNCHANGING constant values. Linearly extrapolates from point in time already ~3 years old to get a briefly valid prediction of a very non-linear problem, Global Warming.
Basically true. They could have 100% valid data, at the time it was published in the literature, yet when frozen in FIXED numerically values of "radiative forcing" in their linerized model of highly non-linear problem, they are (to use an expression from my years in APL/JHU's space department when one of our satellites became very sick) in "deep yogurt" with any prediction more than few (say 5) years into the future (~ 8 years from when the data was valid).
BTW, few know the huge role APL/JHU has played in the US unmanned space program. Invented more than a dozen new satellite systems and designed several hundred satellites, often building the first few of each series launched - for details on each series, skim this long report: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a066299.pdf
--------------------------
* Carbon credits are now only a very low cost PR trick of oil companies to appear greener:
"The average carbon dioxide coefficient of distillate fuel oil is 429.61 kg CO2 per 42-gallon barrel (EPA 2013b)." - from US EPA at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html
Thus the number of barrels of oil that contain a metric ton (2,000kg) of CO2 when burnt is 2000/429.61 = 4.655 And at $90/brl the sell for $419, but if oil company buys Off setting carbon credits, that cost less than $3/ metric ton, their net income from the sale is "only" $416. Gee, I feel so sorry for them - what a mean slap on the wrist!
This data is more than a year old. The price for metric tonn of carbon credit offset has fallen so low, that it did not cover the US exchange markets cost - so it is now closed!http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/carbon-offsets-can-environmental-harm-good-73924 said:
Last edited by a moderator:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
While the Global Mean Surface Termperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980 – 1998, it has shown no
significant rise for the past 15 years.
Some analyses attempt to fit the GMST over almost a century by a linear combination of
aerosol, ENSO, CO2, and TSI7
. As the natural aerosol and ENSO forcings are coherent only over a
few years, only anthropogenic aerosols, CO2, and perhaps TSI are responsible for interdecadal
climate change. As the anthropogenic aerosols and CO2 were present only after about 1850,
this picture implies that only variations in TSI are responsible for centennial-scale climate change
prior to the 20th Century
Three questions:
To what would you
attribute the current stasis?
If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of
increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and
in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?
What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI? Is it coincidence that
the stasis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle in about a century?
significant rise for the past 15 years.
Some analyses attempt to fit the GMST over almost a century by a linear combination of
aerosol, ENSO, CO2, and TSI7
. As the natural aerosol and ENSO forcings are coherent only over a
few years, only anthropogenic aerosols, CO2, and perhaps TSI are responsible for interdecadal
climate change. As the anthropogenic aerosols and CO2 were present only after about 1850,
this picture implies that only variations in TSI are responsible for centennial-scale climate change
prior to the 20th Century
Three questions:
To what would you
attribute the current stasis?
If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of
increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and
in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?
What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI? Is it coincidence that
the stasis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle in about a century?
Warmest year on record: 2010
They sometimes enhance warming trends and sometimes suppress warming trends. Sometimes OTHER anthropogenic influences enhance or suppress warming. (Take, for example, the period of time from 1940-1970; you could claim there was 30 years of no warming. But the long term trend continues.)
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Which doesn't negate the observed stasis of no significant rise for the past 15 years.
It does indeed negate the "observed stasis." Stasis means "no change." There has been change; it has been getting warmer, just more slowly than it was from 1980-1998.
Although your point of unreliability past a few years is well taken, in theory a projection function containing only derivatives (linearizations, matrices of fixed values) can, in analogy with a Taylor series, be used to approximate a nonlinearly changing reality to any accuracy desired -> if the reality is smoothly changing. <-billy said:
It can be nonlinear, no problem, as long as it is smooth enough.
That is, the difficulty is not with the linearity of the coefficient matrices in the projection function being unable to handle a nonlinear reality, but the lack of data and solid description for the higher order derivatives and - especially - the presence of discontinuities in the reality: phase changes of significant amounts of water and methane, ocean current disruptions, volcanic and other seismic activity, massive combustion events or other vegetation regime catastrophes, and so forth.
Now that doesn't mean the IPCC or their chosen major sources are doing that - they may be just extrapolating from some kind of Jacobian into the future, and that may be the limit of their capabilities. But they could.
Observation shows significant rise in the past 15 years - the trend line has a significantly positive slope.sculptor said:
I would attribute the claim of current stasis, at root, to the preferences of some wealthy and powerful people for increases in their wealth and power over sound governance and the public welfare.sculptor said:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
You and the APS seem to have different opinions on that------They jumped right from "no significant rise", to "stasis" without skipping a beat.