Climate Models Reveal Inevitability of Global Warming

[chaim]

Scientific American: Climate Models Reveal Inevitability of Global Warming

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA7C0-FBE9-1239-BBE983414B7F0000

How to best curb greenhouse gas emissions is a hotly debated topic. But new research suggests that putting the brakes on greenhouse gas levels is not enough to slow down climate change because the ocean responds so slowly to perturbations. The study results, published today in the journal Science, indicate that even if greenhouse gas levels had stabilized five years ago, global temperatures would still increase by about half a degree by the end of the century and sea level would rise some 11 centimeters.

What do you think we should do about global warming?

 

[Redneck]

How do they figure out how much warmer the world is going to be ninety-five years from now?

 

[MichaelFJF]

What do you think we should do about global warming?

Buy a cooler.

 

[Voegelin]

Employing traditional scientific methods to study it might be useful. No double blind studies have ever been done to my knowledge. Nor have predications of this lab or that been rigorously, independently investigated and duplicated. Ask 20 labs what the average mean global temperature will be in even 10 years and you will probably get 20 answers. Get's even worse when labs are asked what the effect of reducing greenhouse gases by such and such a percentage will do in temperatures in the future.

The computer program which was thought to prove a correlation between human activity and global warming was discovered last year to contain a math flaw which made the models which used it worthless. Berkeley Physics professor Robert Muller discusses the error here:

Global Warming Bombshell

 

[chaim]

Employing traditional scientific methods to study it might be useful. No double blind studies have ever been done to my knowledge. Nor have predications of this lab or that been rigorously, independently investigated and duplicated. Ask 20 labs what the average mean global temperature will be in even 10 years and you will probably get 20 answers. Get's even worse when labs are asked what the effect of reducing greenhouse gases by such and such a percentage will do in temperatures in the future.

The computer program which was thought to prove a correlation between human activity and global warming was discovered last year to contain a math flaw which made the models which used it worthless. Berkeley Physics professor Robert Muller discusses the error here:

Global Warming Bombshell

I don't exactly understand what you mean by double blind studies? What would you like to see? Model runs have been repeated thousands of times by a multitude of independent labs. How is the scientific method not being followed? The hypothesis is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will cause a rise in global temperature. Experiments are performed to test this by modeling the effect of greenhouse gases on climate using a global circulation model. The results are presented in the article I originally cited and in hundreds of other similar papers.

Infact there was just a paper published about a "grand ensemble" analysis that was performed on personal computers much like SETI@home. In this study some 10,000 model runs were performed, and they predicted an increase in temperature some where between 3 and 12 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. The reason there is such a variation in results is that there is uncertainty associated with a lot of the parameters that the model requires. However that is why ensemble forcasting is used. You put in the upper and lower bounds for a give parameter and you get out the upper and lower bounds for warming. No model runs have shown zero warming and even 3 degrees of warming is a serious change.

The article you quote is talking about a statistical technique used to produce one graph published a number of years ago. The argumet is that the technique used to produce the graph favors the shape we see. It has no relevance to modeling studies and was quite thoroughly refuted in this months Geophysical Research Letters. However it does demostrate that the science is being scrutinized and stands up to scrutiny, which is a good thing.

 

[Voegelin]

Muller disagrees with your contention the math error was limited in effect. But given the problem of the error has been "debunked" you can cite all the studies you want which have been done but the fact is policy is being made without adequate evidence. The Kyoto Treaty is Exhibit #A. No one knows what the results will be if the protocols are followed. The agenda is purely political. Science has nothing to do with Kyoto. Yet scientists--those getting paid by the politicians pushing their agenda--are hopping up and down like puppets demanding even more action. ENRON, rest in peace, pushed Kyoto fiercely because Lay, Skilling and Fastow saw millions to be made trading carbon credits. Some on the left see Kyoto as a way toward equality between rich and poor nations.

The entire field has been corrupted. Probably irredeemably so.

I pity the poor scientists who do come up with something worthwhile. Few will pay attention because of the Lysenkoists.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

I'm watching the Day After Tomorrow right now, pretty entertaining movie.

 

[chaim]

No he doesn't. Muller at no point states that the problem with the hockey stick diagram applies to anything more than the hockey stick diagram. He also says he believes in anthropogenic and global warming and that it is a good thing that the math is being checked. This is also old news. Since Muller wrote this peice McIntyre had his results published in GRL and a rebutal from Mann was also published.

What would you consider adequate evidence? How are scientists being political? Do they somehow cheat in their models to come to the conclusion that yes global warming is occouring? If so it must be a vast international conspiracy amongst scientists because researchers from all over the world are coming up with the same result - the earth is warming partly due to increased CO2.

I agree the Kyoto agreement isn't going to do much. It is way to lax - but it is better than nothing at all. At best it is a first step in the right direction. Saying that Kyoto has nothing to do with science is absurd. You do realize 99% of atmospheric scientists either support Kyoto or don't support it because they think it doesn't go far enough. We do know what the results of Kyoto there have been several studies looking into the climatic effects of Kyoto most noteably by Reilly et. al. in Nature.

Muller disagrees with your contention the math error was limited in effect. But given the problem of the error has been "debunked" you can cite all the studies you want which have been done but the fact is policy is being made without adequate evidence.
The Kyoto Treaty is Exhibit #A. No one knows what the results will be if the protocols are followed. The agenda is purely political. Science has nothing to do with Kyoto. Yet scientists--those getting paid by the politicians pushing their agenda--are hopping up and down like puppets demanding even more action. ENRON, rest in peace, pushed Kyoto fiercely because Lay, Skilling and Fastow saw millions to be made trading carbon credits. Some on the left see Kyoto as a way toward equality between rich and poor nations.

The entire field has been corrupted. Probably irredeemably so.

I pity the poor scientists who do come up with something worthwhile. Few will pay attention because of the Lysenkoists.

 

[chaim]

Voegelin,

On what grounds do you dissmiss global warming? Is there something I have missed?

 

[Vylo]

We should reduce the output of greenhouse gases based on the fact that they poison us, not on doomsday theories of meteorlogical end-times. The globe is going to heat up whether we like it or not, or emission are a drop in the bucket. But they still harm us and our children.

 

[chaim]

We should reduce the output of greenhouse gases based on the fact that they poison us, not on doomsday theories of meteorlogical end-times. The globe is going to heat up whether we like it or not, or emission are a drop in the bucket. But they still harm us and our children.

Our CO2 emissions are not just a drop in the bucket. We have increased CO2 levels by 30% and will have doubled CO2 by 2030.

 

[Vylo]

I meant mankinds contribution to greenhouse compared to natural sources.

 

[chaim]

I meant mankinds contribution to greenhouse compared to natural sources.

CO2 is the major greenhouse gas so our doubling of CO2 is surely going to be responsible for a large part of the warming. There are other greenhouse gases with a much higher global warming potential such as methane which humans also contribute a significant amount. The gases with the highest global warming potential (about 10,000 times that of CO2) are of HFC family and these are not found in nature and are soley produced by humans. Luckily they are not produced in anyway near the quantities that CO2 is.