New Global Warming Facts

[PLAYER57832]

Ok, let's reduce CO2 emissions.

Why not start with reducing coal emissions within the US?

Why coal?

What are the alternatives? Wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas, garbage, and petroleum-based power plants. Why not increase the production of those types? (omit petrol- and natural gas-based power plants).

ALL of those have problems. We have to be careful we are not just trading one problem for another, particularly one that is worse.

Wind-- relatively easy, low tech and pollution free in all of its components. You have some issues with battery storage, but storage is a problem for any electric system.

Solar-- can work in some places. However, this uses a lot of very toxic, and also very limited minerals. Storage a problem here, too.

Nuclear -- I believe the problems here are obvious. No storage system, no power plant is gauranteed safe for 200, never mind 500 years. Is it really OK to just push problems on down the road in the hopes that some future generation will find a solution that has eluded us?

Garbage -- not sure how this will result in a lower COs level. It will reduce consumption of some resources, but many things that can be burned are better recycled or composted. This is more a solution to other problems (lack of waste dumps, low cost power, etc.) Also, it could be that giving garbage value in this way will actually result in more waste, not less.. and ultimately cause more problems overall.

Petroleum plants... just trading one CO2 source for another.

Not mentioned -- biofeuls. There is potential for research in this area. The great benefit is similar to that of forests, you have the potential for eradicating CO2 through growth, as well as producing some.


Ultimately, and ironically, our best option may be to keep using coal, but to do a better job of "scrubbing" the emissions.

Then, there's consumption. So, why not make everyone's utilities more expensive in order to curb their consumption? Sure, there'll be complaints, but if one is concerned about global warming, then how much do they really value that concern?

I agree, if its tied to those emitting the most pollution. EXCEPT.. that would push us towards nuclear and I am not sure that is truly beneficial.

[bedub1]

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.acti ... 4979935694
Tropical Forest Growth Aiding Global Warming Fears

A new hypothesis states that tropical forest growth could actually aid global warming of Earth! The hypothesis was concluded by University of Cambridge scientists. The fear is that tropical forests which experience enhanced tree growth will also cause the stimulation of micro-organisms and ultimately lead to soil carbons being released. Basically, it's going to get hot around here if this hypothesis proves true.

Dr. Emma Sayer stated, "Our study demonstrates that interactions between plants and soil can have a massive impact on carbon cycling. Models of climate change must take these feedbacks into account to predict future atmospheric carbon dioxide levels."

The scientists based their theory "on a six-year experiment in a central American rainforest that studied how increases in litterfall (dead plant material which fall on the ground)." An increase in tropical forest growth was shown to increase the litterfall which in turn caused "priming." Priming is the process in which "fresh carbon from plant litter provides much-needed energy to micro-organisms, which then stimulates the decomposition of carbon stored in the soil."

So more trees doesn't necessarily mean global warming will go away. In fact, it looks like if tropical forest growth experiences a spurt then the global carbon balance will be completely out of whack. Well, what's the answer to fixing this potentially huge problem? Who knows? Perhaps scientists will come up with a solution that doesn't involve destroying the trees but does hinder their growth a little.

So I read an article similar to this last week, which got me interested in the "Models of climate change". Turns out there is only 1 model that people use. So no wonder "everybody" comes to the same results. The problem isn't that the Scientists are stupid or wrong, it's that their model is. People think that a super complex model represents reality, which it does not.

[Neoteny]

O rly

[Woodruff]

So I read an article similar to this last week, which got me interested in the "Models of climate change". Turns out there is only 1 model that people use. So no wonder "everybody" comes to the same results. The problem isn't that the Scientists are stupid or wrong, it's that their model is. People think that a super complex model represents reality, which it does not.

In other words, you believe that you can select a proper model for it better than the scientists?

[bedub1]

So I read an article similar to this last week, which got me interested in the "Models of climate change". Turns out there is only 1 model that people use. So no wonder "everybody" comes to the same results. The problem isn't that the Scientists are stupid or wrong, it's that their model is. People think that a super complex model represents reality, which it does not.

In other words, you believe that you can select a proper model for it better than the scientists?

That's not even close to what I said. What I said was the model is wrong, which is why the scientists are wrong. Nowhere in there did I say I could select a better model.

[BigBallinStalin]

So I read an article similar to this last week, which got me interested in the "Models of climate change". Turns out there is only 1 model that people use. So no wonder "everybody" comes to the same results. The problem isn't that the Scientists are stupid or wrong, it's that their model is. People think that a super complex model represents reality, which it does not.

In other words, you believe that you can select a proper model for it better than the scientists?

That's not even close to what I said. What I said was the model is wrong, which is why the scientists are wrong. Nowhere in there did I say I could select a better model.

Which model? And why is it wrong?

[Doc_Brown]

So I read an article similar to this last week, which got me interested in the "Models of climate change". Turns out there is only 1 model that people use. So no wonder "everybody" comes to the same results. The problem isn't that the Scientists are stupid or wrong, it's that their model is. People think that a super complex model represents reality, which it does not.

In other words, you believe that you can select a proper model for it better than the scientists?

That's not even close to what I said. What I said was the model is wrong, which is why the scientists are wrong. Nowhere in there did I say I could select a better model.

I call BS. What do you mean scientists only have one model? Every research group has written their own models. Some models are designed to look at ice core samples. Others look at CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Some are focused on satellite or weather balloon measurements of temperature and/or contaminants in different layers of the atmosphere. Others are based exclusively on ground-based temperature data. The IPCC report is the consensus model but is by no means the only one. Some researchers show climate change at a much slower pace than the IPCC data, while others show the change happening at a much faster pace. Some models predict a significant increase in either the number or intensity of hurricanes, while others suggest that this may not be the case.

But you said there was only one model. Maybe you're right. If so, can you tell me what the name of the model is, who wrote it, and where I can get a copy?

And even if there is only one model, how do you know it's wrong? Absolutely, the various models may not take every factor into account. But they're not attempting to model every aspect of the environment. I work in optics, and I have great models that simulate how an optical signal propagates through some system. Sometimes it's sufficient for me to model that propagation using geometrical ray tracing. This doesn't account for diffraction effects and the finite size of the optical signals, but that's okay in many cases. I have other models that incorporate those effects, and I know from experience when I need to switch to those models. But I could also go a step further. Optical signals can heat up the components which causes their shapes and properties to change. Also, if we're dealing with high energy pulses, we can get pronounced nonlinear effects that can result in some very strange effects. Beyond that, I could use a complete quantum optics model that would accurately describe how the incident electromagnetic field interacts with each molecule it encounters. And to have a truly accurate model, I should include all of these effects and more, but the result would be a simulation that would take weeks to model the simplest of cases, and none of that is necessary. I know what aspects of a complete model are required in most cases, and for the extreme cases, I can make an estimate of how much impact the higher-order optical effects will have on the output and make a note of that in the design reports. So all my models are wrong, but the company I work for is making hundreds of millions of euros selling product based (in part) on those "wrong" models.

[Woodruff]

So I read an article similar to this last week, which got me interested in the "Models of climate change". Turns out there is only 1 model that people use. So no wonder "everybody" comes to the same results. The problem isn't that the Scientists are stupid or wrong, it's that their model is. People think that a super complex model represents reality, which it does not.

In other words, you believe that you can select a proper model for it better than the scientists?

That's not even close to what I said. What I said was the model is wrong, which is why the scientists are wrong. Nowhere in there did I say I could select a better model.

By stating that the model is wrong, you are at the very least implicitly stating that you know better.

[bedub1]

So I read an article similar to this last week, which got me interested in the "Models of climate change". Turns out there is only 1 model that people use. So no wonder "everybody" comes to the same results. The problem isn't that the Scientists are stupid or wrong, it's that their model is. People think that a super complex model represents reality, which it does not.

In other words, you believe that you can select a proper model for it better than the scientists?

That's not even close to what I said. What I said was the model is wrong, which is why the scientists are wrong. Nowhere in there did I say I could select a better model.

By stating that the model is wrong, you are at the very least implicitly stating that you know better.

So the current models are based upon the hypothesis that more trees would eat up more carbon dioxide and lower the levels. This experiment has shown the exact opposite to be true. So in order for the models to more accurately represent the real world, they need to be changed. Thus, the current models are wrong.

[Metsfanmax]

So I read an article similar to this last week, which got me interested in the "Models of climate change". Turns out there is only 1 model that people use. So no wonder "everybody" comes to the same results. The problem isn't that the Scientists are stupid or wrong, it's that their model is. People think that a super complex model represents reality, which it does not.

In other words, you believe that you can select a proper model for it better than the scientists?

That's not even close to what I said. What I said was the model is wrong, which is why the scientists are wrong. Nowhere in there did I say I could select a better model.

By stating that the model is wrong, you are at the very least implicitly stating that you know better.

This is incorrect, because it ignores the reality that scientists often admittedly choose incorrect models for computational simplicity or because they've got nothing better. There's nothing wrong with pointing this out, as long as you recognize that it's not scientists making mistakes but rather scientists doing the best they can with the data they have available to them.

[Phatscotty]

Nothing wrong with not making any decision that will change the world until all the facts are in either.

The plus of all this is that people are more aware of pollution and earth health. Doesn't justify phony science or politically biased science or claiming scientific consensuses though.

THE DEBATE IS OVER!

[PLAYER57832]

So the current models are based upon the hypothesis that more trees would eat up more carbon dioxide and lower the levels. This experiment has shown the exact opposite to be true. So in order for the models to more accurately represent the real world, they need to be changed. Thus, the current models are wrong.

You are referring to one small part of a very complex calculation. Does it matter? maybe. Is it enough to say the entire model is "wrong". No.

[PLAYER57832]

Nothing wrong with not making any decision that will change the world until all the facts are in either.

There is when getting "all the facts" in this sense will never happen and letting things go means the end of us all.

The plus of all this is that people are more aware of pollution and earth health. Doesn't justify phony science or politically biased science or claiming scientific consensuses though

. No, except this is not phony science and there truly is as close to a consensus as there is about anything in science.

THE DEBATE IS OVER!

Yes, it is... but apparently you don't want to accept that.

[Phatscotty]

Nothing wrong with not making any decision that will change the world until all the facts are in either.

There is when getting "all the facts" in this sense will never happen and letting things go means the end of us all.

The plus of all this is that people are more aware of pollution and earth health. Doesn't justify phony science or politically biased science or claiming scientific consensuses though

. No, except this is not phony science and there truly is as close to a consensus as there is about anything in science.

THE DEBATE IS OVER!

Yes, it is... but apparently you don't want to accept that.

First one, fine. The steps they are taking to reduce automobile pollution etc...
The idea that we can trade carbon credits on an exchange to fix or dent the problem, not so much.

The debate isn't over, not for me and 100's of millions of other people. The only thing that is finished debating is that the weather and it's seasonal patterns are about as unpredictable as they were in the middle 1800's when the snow didn't melt until July for for a few years in a row. We are still observing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still pretty neutral on this issue. I have not been convinced or persuaded even, but I'm not going to take a hard stance against the possibility either. I might guess if I had to global warming is not man-made, but I can state with fact that there are still many different studies from many different scientists on the issue.

[PLAYER57832]

Nothing wrong with not making any decision that will change the world until all the facts are in either.

There is when getting "all the facts" in this sense will never happen and letting things go means the end of us all.

The plus of all this is that people are more aware of pollution and earth health. Doesn't justify phony science or politically biased science or claiming scientific consensuses though

. No, except this is not phony science and there truly is as close to a consensus as there is about anything in science.

THE DEBATE IS OVER!

Yes, it is... but apparently you don't want to accept that.

First one, fine. The steps they are taking to reduce automobile pollution etc...
The idea that we can trade carbon credits on an exchange to fix or dent the problem, not so much.

The idea of trading carbon credits is sound. The actual plan proposed by cannot remember.. Al Gore or whomever, was not.

The debate isn't over, not for me and 100's of millions of other people. The only thing that is finished debating is that the weather and it's seasonal patterns are about as unpredictable as they were in the middle 1800's when the snow didn't melt until July for for a few years in a row. We are still observing.

No, the debate IS over for those who actually spend their lives and education studying this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still pretty neutral on this issue. I have not been convinced or persuaded even, but I'm not going to take a hard stance against the possibility either. I might guess if I had to global warming is not man-made, but I can state with fact that there are still many different studies from many different scientists on the issue.

There is debate over what the best solution is. There isn't debate over whether our climate is changing. The media sometimes makes it seem as if there is, because controversy makes people pay more attention than blah.. "this is proven".

[Dukasaur]

So I read an article similar to this last week, which got me interested in the "Models of climate change". Turns out there is only 1 model that people use. So no wonder "everybody" comes to the same results. The problem isn't that the Scientists are stupid or wrong, it's that their model is. People think that a super complex model represents reality, which it does not.

In other words, you believe that you can select a proper model for it better than the scientists?

That's not even close to what I said. What I said was the model is wrong, which is why the scientists are wrong. Nowhere in there did I say I could select a better model.

By stating that the model is wrong, you are at the very least implicitly stating that you know better.

So the current models are based upon the hypothesis that more trees would eat up more carbon dioxide and lower the levels. This experiment has shown the exact opposite to be true. So in order for the models to more accurately represent the real world, they need to be changed. Thus, the current models are wrong.

First off, it would be more accurate to say that current models are incomplete. Which is to be expected. If all the models were perfect then we could close the universities and all the scientists could go seek their true vocations as burlesque dancers or soapstone carvers. It is because models are inherently incomplete that we have to keep doing more research and refining them.

That was just a preamble. Now, on to the business of the article you posted. The link you gave is not to an actual study, but to one non-scientifically-trained columnist's interpretation of the study. If you actually care enough to read the study itself, go here: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1190.html You can buy a copy of the study for $18, but you can have a look at the abstract for free. Here's the pertinent sentence that your columnist was talking about:

Here, we show that experimentally increasing litterfall in a lowland tropical forest enhanced carbon release from the soil. Using a large-scale litter manipulation experiment combined with carbon isotope measurements, we found that the efflux of CO2 derived from soil organic carbon was significantly increased by litter addition. Furthermore, this effect was sustained over several years. We predict that a future increase in litterfall of 30% with an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 150 ppm could release about 0.6 t C ha−1 yr−1 from the soil, partially offsetting predicted net gains in carbon storage

In other words, the rotting of dead leaves in rapidly-growing tropical forests could return as much as 0.6 tonnes of carbon per hectare to the atmosphere every year. By comparison, tropical forests normally absorb about 95 tonnes of carbon per hectare. (http://faculty.unlv.edu/abellas2/Restoration_course/Albrecht%202003%20C%20storage%20in%20tropical%20agoforestry%20systems%20Ag%20Eco%20Envt.pdf)
So, you do the math. If the forest absorbs 95 tonnes, and puts back 0.6 tonnes, how much were the previous estimates off by? About one-half of one percent.

So, yes. Previous models of carbon sequestrations will probably have to be adjusted by about 0.5%. That hardly qualifies as being "wrong". If the speedometer on your car, the thermostat in your house, or the bank's calculation of your credit card bill was off by 0.5%, you wouldn't even notice.

[Woodruff]

So I read an article similar to this last week, which got me interested in the "Models of climate change". Turns out there is only 1 model that people use. So no wonder "everybody" comes to the same results. The problem isn't that the Scientists are stupid or wrong, it's that their model is. People think that a super complex model represents reality, which it does not.

In other words, you believe that you can select a proper model for it better than the scientists?

That's not even close to what I said. What I said was the model is wrong, which is why the scientists are wrong. Nowhere in there did I say I could select a better model.

By stating that the model is wrong, you are at the very least implicitly stating that you know better.

This is incorrect, because it ignores the reality that scientists often admittedly choose incorrect models for computational simplicity or because they've got nothing better. There's nothing wrong with pointing this out, as long as you recognize that it's not scientists making mistakes but rather scientists doing the best they can with the data they have available to them.

Even if what you're saying is true, he's still saying that he knows better than the scientists who are using it.

[Metsfanmax]

Even if what you're saying is true, he's still saying that he knows better than the scientists who are using it.

Yeah I agree in his case. Of course the super complex model we have doesn't represent reality, because it needs to be more complex. Climate and weather patterns have an incredible amount of complexity. That's the whole point of chaos theory.

[PLAYER57832]

This is short, so I am posting the whole thing. It directly speaks to the above. AND, note that this came from the Allegheny Front, NPR:
http://www.alleghenyfront.org/story.htm ... 210.606969

Global Climate Change: The Argument We're Not Having

Ken Chiacchia

Air date: 08/20/2011

I guess my first red flag reading the climate-change blog was that the guy kept referring to "alarmist computer models." Took me a bit to figure out he meant computer models that didn't say what he wanted them to.

The blog was making a lot of hay over a new study from the University of Alabama. That report claims to show that computer models of climate change are over-estimating how much warming the Earth will experience. That interested me; but so did what I hope becomes a sea-change in the climate debate: the guy wasn't denying climate change -- he was just arguing that we didn't need to do much about it.

Let me explain why that seemingly unimportant shift could be vital.

In 2008, John McCain was able to run for president as a Republican, with a stated policy that took the reality of human-driven climate change as a given. It seems nearly impossible that any Republican -- or coal-state Democrat, for that matter -- can run in 2012 without categorically denying it. That's a vast step backward, precisely because folks who do accept climate change science don't often realize how big the margin of error is on the warming predictions. Fact is, we do have a valid debate ahead of us, but it isn't about the reality of the changes.

I took a look at the scientific article that the blog entry was referring to. The researchers re-examined NASA satellite data from 2000 to 2010, and found what seems to be a systematic over-estimation of warming.

Now, I was trained as a biochemist, not a climate scientist. Critiquing a paper outside your specialty is always dangerous, and doubtless the folks who do study this stuff may beg to differ. Still, to my eye the paper presented a thoughtful and thought-provoking argument. Satellites can measure the infrared radiation bopping around the atmosphere and oceans -- but they can't distinguish between radiation that's driving temperature increase and radiation that's being caused by temperature increase.

It’s an important chicken-and-egg problem, because radiation that’s driving temperature is warming the Earth, while radiation driven by temperature is cooling it. And many computer models assume that the cooling radiation is negligible, or at least constant.

The Alabama scientists aren't arguing that cooling radiation is a big percentage of what the satellites have been measuring -- but they do calculate that a relatively small amount of it makes a big difference in the warming we should expect.

The blog that got me interested in the first place used the new result to challenge politicians to abandon any attempt to address global warming. The scientific article was a lot more nuanced: the authors were careful to note that there are still a bunch of variables we haven't pinned down. Their main message is that we just can't be sure.

Granted, the head researcher of the scientific paper, Roy Spencer, is a noted global-warming skeptic. But that shouldn't sway our view of his scientific argument. Even researchers who aren't skeptics admit to a fairly large uncertainty over how much warming will occur. And that's a major problem: don't do enough to fix it, and we may have an ecological disaster; spend too much on unnecessary remedies, and we could cause an economic disaster. Unfortunately, at today's level of certainty, there's no logical solution. It becomes a political Rorschach test -- all about philosophy and comfort with the risks of action versus inaction.

And that's why I regard this blog, as biased as it was, as a positive sign. Arguing over the reality of global climate change, I think, may be worse than futile -- it's eating up time we need for a more important and more valid argument: What should we do, given our uncertainty? Can we get better data? Just how much time do we have to decide?

I'd like to see us get to the point, to paraphrase what Winston Churchill supposedly said, that we're only haggling over the amount, Madam. For that is the big problem with climate change denial: it isn't stopping us from fixing the problem. It's delaying the real argument we're going to need to have, over how to fix it.

[Neoteny]

In case you're curious about what actual climate scientists think ("alarmists" if you're a troglodyte), you can read a typical response here.

It turns out that Realclimate.org is owned by an outfit that is in essence a non-profit public relations firm called Environmental Media Services (EMS), "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues", whose Pittsburgh office houses the RealClimate server.[1] ActivistCash.com describes EMS as "the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications."[2]

EMA's listed registrant, Betsy Ensley, engages in the objective, non-partisan pursuit of "manag[ing] BushGreenwatch.org, a joint EMS-MoveOn.org public awareness website".[3] She also apparently ran WomenAgainstBush.org, and former Harvard string theorist (and still-hilarious climate blogger) Lubos Motl​ notes that when Ensley was campaigning against John Ashcroft​ her secretary was Kalee Kreider, now Al Gore​'s spokesperson.[4] MoveOn is of course in part a George Soros​ venture, and attentive climate realists recall the kafuffle over Soros supporting Hansen's alarmism.[5]

Motl describes EMS as "primarily an organization to pay for junk science about food and beverages, often hired by food companies to damage their competitors".[6] This is known as "black marketing."[7]

This is not inconsistent with my own experience with Fenton, which I first encountered nearly two decades ago. Then, they were representing a "green" lawn care products company in a legislative effort to craft new federal laws creating a secure place in a market otherwise dominated by those whose products attain prominence through competition. This is a modus operandi that will sound very familiar by the time you finish this book. Fenton has also been associated with every questionable campaign from chasing Alar off the shelves by leveraging weepy celebrities and fear tactics to promoting Mother Sheehan's tour.[8]

As critics note, the idea that RealClimate is just a bunch of unpaid "real scientists" is risible, given their methods of argumentation are often little more than smear, ridicule, cherry- picking science, and pronouncing themselves and their exclusive little climate clique as only the few "qualified' to have an opinion on man-made global warming. RealClimate's members, like Andrew Dessler of Grist and writers for the Soros-backed Climate Progress​, perpetrate a unique form of "qualification thuggery" by which anyone skeptical of their agenda are unworthy to comment, typically because they skeptic does not affiliate with the UN IPCC. When the skeptic is an IPCC author or reviewer, well he's still unqualified. And "mere physicists" such as Freeman Dyson​, or chemists, or economists, are also unqualified, but only when they disagree. After all, Dessler is a chemist, and the IPCC's "chief scientist" is no such thing at all, as you'll see.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/27/wh ... larmism-s#

You apparently did not bother to look at the actual authors for the letter in question, two well respected scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Perhaps the "guest commentary" bit should have clued you in?

NNNNNNNOOOOOO REALCLIMATE IS ONE OF SOROS' BLOGS!!!!! Rawr...

I halfway wish I had gone into climate science so that when I rantingly criticize relativity theory, Freeman Dyson would stroke his chin and mumble, "Perhaps he's right..." I suppose I could do that with my bio background, but it loses some irony.

Seriously, it's not that physicists', engineers', whatevers' opinions aren't worth anything, it's just that they carry less weight than, you know, people that have lived and studied climate science most of their lives. Note: a physicist's opinion may count more or less than an engineer's based on several factors (gasplawdinever).

Alright, everyone. Since that will never penetrate the mind of a denialist, let's all take the skeptics oath:

I, (Hapsmo, Nobunaga, etc.), solemnly swear to always take a scientist's words at face value, unless they are speaking on a topic within their own field. In that case, they are clearly just looking for a pay raise, and the free market frowns on rewarding lazy, ivory tower hippies. Amen Jesus please us.

/Gumby smackdown.

[Neoteny]

An interesting update about the paper from OP. The Editor in Chief of Remote Sensing has resigned over the paper. His resignation letter is here.

The paper's author says "meh" on his blog.