New Research

[knocker]

Not really.

The physics tells us that CO2 causes warming, it also tells us that this is a logarithmic function (the more you add, the less impact it will have).

It does?

[Alan Robinson]

Not really.

The physics tells us that CO2 causes warming, it also tells us that this is a logarithmic function (the more you add, the less impact it will have).

Are you teasing us Jethro? With f(x) = ln(x), adding just a little to a little has considerable impact. Adding a lot to a lot has far less impact. In both cases, adding has a positive effect, and I do not necessarily mean beneficial. I just wonder, do we have a little or a lot of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere? I am not picking on you though, for I entirely agree about cloud. Do people actually think we can know with sufficient certainty how much cloud there was in the past? I mean, it is difficult enough knowing how much there is right now, despite all our techno-wonders.

It does?

I suspect this is one of the mathematical details that can be easily manipulated to strengthen opinion. I am sure you know, but for convenience, here is the general shape of the curve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm

Edited July 25, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[VillagePlank]

The fact is though that physics tells us the increasing greenhouse gases causes warming and that there is a posiitve feedback from increased water vapour. The 20 the /. 21 st century warming cannot be explained apart from this. You don't need paper after paper to tell you this. We do need research and publications to explore regional climate change and the uncertainties in the magnitude of the warming over the next century.

*sigh*

Yes - the physics of CO₂ is well understood. That we do not need paper after paper to tell us this is exactly what I am saying. No consensus required: Arrhenius (more or less) nailed it - no one (who is sensible) is arguing the properties of 'greenhouse' gases.

But how does that work in a massively complex planet? How can you model it? You cannot represent 1/10th inside a computer using binary - and attempts that have tried to have resulted in death, here - the question is do these models compute using decimal (BCD or similar) or use the ISO real type? You know what the answer is, and, also, you know what the result of exceptionally small errors introduced do to a calculation for a dynamical system over time ... here

It does?

Certainly does. A log function is pretty much the opposite of the exponential function. You'll see all sorts of exponential curves in the literature - but these require feedbacks to make it exponential; the basis of the matter is that the more CO₂ you add - according to the log curve - then part for part, the less warming it will have. With that in mind - in order to keep the rate of warming the same, and with no other factors included, we need to increase our emissions exponentially - by virtue of the definition of the logarithm.

In fact those feedback effects appear to be greater than the amplification required to blame the whole lot on the sun ...

Edited July 25, 2011 by Sparticle

[VillagePlank]

You cannot represent 1/10th inside a computer using binary - and attempts that have tried to have resulted in death, here - the question is do these models compute using decimal (BCD or similar) or use the ISO real type? You know what the answer is, and, also, you know what the result of exceptionally small errors introduced do to a calculation for a dynamical system over time ... here

Even if you try to use a scaled integer (instead of a decimal) you can run into problems

Consider this SQL code:

declare @m money declare @d decimal(19,6)  declare @i intset @i=1000set @m = 12.34 set @d = 12.34  select (@m/@i)*@i select (@d/@i)*@i

This effectively tests two datatypes: money, and decimal by taking the number 12.34, divide by 1000 and then multiply by 1000 - ie (12.34/1000)*1000 = 12.34

The 'money' data which is the main one used for processing, well, money. It is the recommended datatype by Microsoft for all financial calculations. What do you think the results are?

Well, the one designed for financial calculations returns 12.30, and the decimal one returns 12.34 - because the scaled integer type, money, only guarentees correctness to 4 decimal places. If you are reading this and you are responsible for financial SQL then, please, change your code to use decimal(19,6)!

Consider this Visual Basic code snippet:

    Dim i As Long    Dim n As Double        n = 0    For i = 1 To 100        n = n + (1 / 10)    Next        Debug.Print n

What's the answer to adding 100 1/10ths together? Well, I'd go for ten, myself. Not a computer using the ISO real datatype - the answer according to computers is .... 9.99999999999998. A small error, for sure, but, we know about small perturbations in a chaotic system don't we ... it gives rise to wildly different results. As far as I recall, Model E (NASA's climate model) uses the ISO real datatype of 64bit length - a double.

This is why scientists must not be allowed to write software - it is a *very* specialised field, especially numeric programming.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Sparticle

[VillagePlank]

Are you teasing us Jethro? With f(x) = ln(x), adding just a little to a little has considerable impact. Adding a lot to a lot has far less impact. In both cases, adding has a positive effect, and I do not necessarily mean beneficial. I just wonder, do we have a little or a lot of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere? I am not picking on you though, for I entirely agree about cloud. Do people actually think we can know with sufficient certainty how much cloud there was in the past? I mean, it is difficult enough knowing how much there is right now, despite all our techno-wonders.

Really does depend on where we are on the curve:

[Alan Robinson]

Really does depend on where we are on the curve:

Glad we agree

http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happy.gif

Edited July 25, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[jethro]

Are you teasing us Jethro? With f(x) = ln(x), adding just a little to a little has considerable impact. Adding a lot to a lot has far less impact. In both cases, adding has a positive effect, and I do not necessarily mean beneficial. I just wonder, do we have a little or a lot of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere? I am not picking on you though, for I entirely agree about cloud. Do people actually think we can know with sufficient certainty how much cloud there was in the past? I mean, it is difficult enough knowing how much there is right now, despite all our techno-wonders.

I suspect this is one of the mathematical details that can be easily manipulated to strengthen opinion. I am sure you know, but for convenience, here is the general shape of the curve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm

No teasing on my part, just pointing out that simply saying the science is settled because we known CO2 is a GHG and there's now more of it in the atmosphere and we've warmed, is probably the most disingenuous part of this entire debate. I'll leave the maths details to Sparticle, he's far more of a technical genius than I.

We don't really need to know about historical cloud levels to figure out climate sensitivity, what we need is to figure out if clouds form a net positive or negative feedback - some warm by trapping heat, some cool by reflecting the Sun. We simply don't as yet know. There was a paper released last year from Roy Spencer which tried to decipher this puzzle, it created a bit of controversy and was subsequently criticised and shown to be flawed. However, those criticisms were explored and I believe shown to be in error, the paper and official refutation of the criticisms has been accepted for peer review and is due to be published shortly.

[VillagePlank]

Have I got this right? The belief (strangely popular among mainstream scientists) that biological evolution is really happening, is nothing more that an 'appeal to the majority'; that space and time are inextricably linked, likewise; and, ditto for quantum uncertainty??

Sorry for the delay: I took my time thinking about that one.

Taking the abstract into the concrete, then, evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics are theories which are falsifiable. Climate change is not presented as a falsifiable theory; it's presentation is with reference to a quantity (temperature) and humankinds effect upon it.

I can think of no argument that can be used to falsify the proposition that humankinds impact on the climate is necessarily serious - since Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle explicitly states that everything we observe we also change - so we must be having an impact on the climate (we not only observe it we are part of it!) In that respect (and perhaps that respect only) the theory of AGW is not a scientific theory at all since it is not falsifiable by it's own definition - on the assumption that a valid scientific proposition must be falsifiable since all of the tests we do must be in respect of the null hypothesis - and in this case there is no null hypothesis by definition.

The arguments are quantitative not existential. Well, at least sensible arguments are ...

Edited July 25, 2011 by Sparticle

[Methuselah]

Sorry for the delay: I took my time thinking about that one.

Taking the abstract into the concrete, then, evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics are theories which are falsifiable. Climate change is not presented as a falsifiable theory; it's presentation is with reference to a quantity (temperature) and humankinds effect upon it.

I can think of no argument that can be used to falsify the proposition that humankinds impact on the climate is necessarily serious - since Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle explicitly states that everything we observe we also change - so we must be having an impact on the climate (we not only observe it we are part of it!) In that respect (and perhaps that respect only) the theory of AGW is not a scientific theory at all since it is not falsifiable by it's own definition - on the assumption that a valid scientific proposition must be falsifiable since all of the tests we do must be in respect of the null hypothesis - and in this case there is no null hypothesis by definition.

The arguments are quantitative not existential. Well, at least sensible arguments are ...

Thanks for the reply, Mark - but are you sure? What if someone produced proper evidence that proved that man-made CO₂ was, in fact, not a greenhouse gas? Wouldn't that falsify the whole shebang? http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif

[VillagePlank]

Thanks for the reply, Mark - but are you sure? What if someone produced proper evidence that proved that man-made CO₂ was, in fact, not a greenhouse gas? Wouldn't that falsify the whole shebang?

I'm not sure that CO₂ can be shown not to be a greenhouse gas in the same (physical) way that we can't show that water is not wet. It is a physical property of it's existence. ie if CO₂ exists then it must be a GhG, and if water exists it must be wet.

Stretching it a bit (OK - a lot) I suppose it's falsifiable by showing that CO₂ does not actually exist after all ...

Being rather more sensible - it is impossible to falsify an argument that is based on quantity (how much impact do we have?) rather than the normal argument (do we have an impact?) since we necessarily do have an impact by definition.

EDIT: and no, I am not sure ... http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif

Edited July 25, 2011 by Sparticle

[Methuselah]

I'm not sure that CO₂ can be shown not to be a greenhouse gas in the same (physical) way that we can't show that water is not wet. It is a physical property of it's existence. ie if CO₂ exists then it must be a GhG, and if water exists it must be wet.

Stretching it a bit (OK - a lot) I suppose it's falsifiable by showing that CO₂ does not actually exist after all ...

Being rather more sensible - it is impossible to falsify an argument that is based on quantity (how much impact do we have?) rather than the normal argument (do we have an impact?) since we necessarily do have an impact by definition.

EDIT: and no, I am not sure ... http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif

Me neither!

[VillagePlank]

Me neither!

Since we are part of climate we must be affecting it; so my argument from that apparently simple statement is that:

(i) Since we are affecting it any argument detailing why we couldn't possibly be is necessarily invalid

(ii) Because of (i) the only argument left is one of magnitude. How much are we affecting it?

(iii) As a consequence of (ii) there can be no null hypothesis on the existence of a human effect.

Curiously, this is an argument for AGWers to use against some of the more extreme views floating around - ie that AGW couldn't possibly exist. It does; the science is pretty settled.

What is not settled is the question of how much: 0.01C/decade, or 1C/decade of AGW effect? I think that that's pretty open to debate, and, also, I think, it's a sentiment echoed by most normal people. Indeed, the skeptic vs believer (sorry! I don't mean that as it reads) in the sensible debate is really the difference between 'I don't think our pollution will affect us that much' to 'I think that our pollution will cause serious changes to happen'

There are of course nuances such as 'I don't think that GhG are primarily responsible for the modern warming' - but that really does come under the banner 'I don't think our pollution will affect us that much'

That's my best, I'm afraid.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Sparticle

[Methuselah]

Thanks mate. I'll go away and do some more thinking.

[pottyprof]

My brain hurts.........

[Methuselah]

Thanks mate. I'll go away and do some more thinking.

Right, I've done some. So, here's a question: Is it just that (as in the case of the Christian notion of being without sin, that the falsifiability principles of Karl Popper would be better understood as ideals, rather than as a priori realities??

My brain hurts.........

So does mine!

[VillagePlank]

Right, I've done some. So, here's a question: Is it just that (as in the case of the Christian notion of being without sin, that the falsifiability principles of Karl Popper would be better understood as ideals, rather than as a priori realities??

I guess it depends on whether the scientific method can be described as finding new realities or ammending existing ones. Yep - that's a cop out, time for me to run away scuttle to the nearest hostelry and do some more thinking ...

[Alan Robinson]

Right, I've done some. So, here's a question: Is it just that (as in the case of the Christian notion of being without sin, that the falsifiability principles of Karl Popper would be better understood as ideals, rather than as a priori realities??

It occurred to me that it could be difficult to prove or disprove the usefulness of Popper's nul hypothesis opinions, and therefore as a dedicated logical positivist, I cannot see any reason for making postulations on the subject. I simply feel demonstrating something's impossibility is equally useful as proving possibility, and leave it at that. Here's to home brewing, and let me extend the toast thus.........here's to ale, women and song; may none of them be flat.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[VillagePlank]

It occurred to me that it could be difficult to prove or disprove the usefulness of Popper's nul hypothesis opinions, and therefore as a dedicated logical positivist, I cannot see any reason for making postulations on the subject. I simply feel demonstrating something's impossibility is equally useful as proving possibility, and leave it at that. Here's to home brewing, and let me extend the toast thus.........here's to ale, women and song; may none of them be flat.

Yeah - but it's a great mind bending exercise!

[VillagePlank]

The premise is therefore faulty. Since we know what all valid temperatures are and the average of temperatures between two sites doesn't fall within that set of numbers, the precise premise that the average of temperature between two independent sites is a temperature is disproven by means of contradiction.

Bugger. It looks like I am some 4 years late to the party, here. Someone's already had that idea, and it seems to have already been rebutted. Still, thought I was onto something for a couple of days, there

Edited July 27, 2011 by Sparticle

[jethro]

Here is the new paper from Roy Spencer discussing the climate's sensitivity to radiative forcing.

Positive feedback from warming oceans, leading to more heat trapping clouds, creating even greater warming, is a key element to the AGW theory and also one of the greatest uncertainties. This paper shows the climate isn't as sensitive as some feared and that feedback to the extra warmth isn't all positive.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/

[Methuselah]

Is Roy Spencer adding anything new by circulating that paper, J? After-all, it merely says what we all know already to be true: cloud feedbacks are still not properly understood.

The oft-repeated but strangely oxymoronic claim: that cloud-feedback is the most important feedback relating to AGW Theory, whilst, at the same time, that both its magnitude and its direction remain unknown confuses me...If a feedback's magnitude and direction are both unknown, whence comes the certainty as to its importance?

[noiv]

Latest issue of the journal American Psychologist is exclusively on Psychology and Global Climate Change. Unfortunately behind a scientific pay wall, a few aspects are described in detail here. http://climateforce....climate-change/.

One articles covers 'Public Understanding of Climate Change in the United States' and reminds me of the discussion here, so following is a lengthy cite. I'm sure the one or the other will enjoy a meta view on the discussion. The authors are Elke U. Weber, Columbia University and Paul C. Stern, National Research Council.

... In the climate policy debate, the American mass me-

dia have, sometimes inadvertently, promoted the view that

even aspects of climate change that are uncontroversial

among scientists are matters of serious scientific debate

(Boykoff & Boykoff, 2004). On one side of the controversy

portrayed in the media are predictions emanating from

some environmental movement organizations, supported

by scientists concerned about the potential consequences of

climate change, of catastrophes resulting from climate

change, including famine and political instability in devel-

oping countries, loss of species and ecosystems, and new

public health disasters. Advocates have publicized vivid

images of the future they fear, in films such as An Incon-

venient Truth (David, Bender, Burns, & Guggenheim,

2006), and emphasized the growing scientific consensus

about many climate change conclusions and the human

responsibility for climate change. This narrative empha-

sizes elements of dread and unknown risk, which induce

concern and make for a dramatic media story, and activates

personal moral norms to act to reduce such risks through its

claims that negative consequences from climate change

will be large and highly probable and that people are

responsible. This view has sometimes been characterized

as a “Pandora’s box†frame (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009). By

suggesting that future catastrophe is certain unless action is

taken, it goes beyond what many scientists consider defen-

sible. However, the idea that continued emissions of green-

house gases increase the likelihood of catastrophe is en-

tirely consistent with scientific knowledge (National

Research Council, 2010a).

The “other side†presented by the media presents

various forms of reassuring pictures of the future and

critiques of climate science. Such accounts tend to cite (a)

the small number of legitimate scientists who interpret the

existing evidence base on climate change from a skeptical

perspective, focusing more on existing uncertainty about

future climate events and their consequences for human

welfare than on the potential downside risk of these uncer-

tain events, as well as (less scientifically expert sources

(see Footnote 2) engaged in an ongoing movement in the

policy world to deny the reality and recently, even the

science, of climate change. This movement has been

funded by some major oil and gas companies and wealthy

conservative individuals and is largely implemented by

conservative think tanks (Dunlap & McCright, 2010; Hog-

gan, 2009; McCright & Dunlap, 2003). It has been guided

by research conducted for Republican Party strategists and

aided by a small number of contrarian scientists, several of

the most prominent of whom were veterans of an earlier,

industry-funded campaign to minimize the health effects of

tobacco smoke (Oreskes & Conway, in press). Not orga-

nized from a single place, these efforts are best character-

ized as an elite-driven social movement to shape public

perceptions, interpretations, and concerns, motivated by

objectives that include a desire to maximize the welfare of

corporations in the fossil fuel sector and an ideological

opposition to federal regulation, which movement propo-

nents see as the likely consequence of a national commit-

ment to contain climate change (Hoggan, 2009).

The climate change denial movement has promoted a

number of beliefs about the physical phenomena of climate

change that, if widely accepted, are likely to favor the

movement’s policy objectives: the beliefs that climate

change is not happening or has not yet been demonstrated

to be happening; that if it is happening, its causes lie in

natural phenomena rather than human activity; that its

consequences will be familiar and relatively mild (e.g., a

small increase in average temperature); and that actions to

limit greenhouse gas emissions will be catastrophic for

economic and other widely held values.

An important part of the denialist framing has been to

characterize the science concerning the existence, causes,

and consequences of climate change as “uncertain†and to

suggest that “uncertainty†means that the global climate

may not be changing and that delays in action are therefore

prudent. The policy argument is that it is unwise to under-

take expensive “fixes†to a problem that may not exist and

that action should wait until the science is definitive. The

denial movement has emphasized scientific uncertainty by

publicizing events and evidence that appear to contradict

parts of the scientific consensus. It has exploited the pro-

pensity in U.S. journalism to cover controversies by pre-

senting its view of climate change as “the other side of the

story.†The influence of this “scientific uncertainty†frame

has probably increased as a result of economic pressures on

news outlets, which have thinned the ranks of science

journalists and left fewer professionals with time to de-

velop informed judgments about which factual claims have

enough veracity to deserve serious coverage. ...

Also interesting I found the idea to consider climate change as way too complex for an average human brain to understand from personal experience. Which leads to different framing strategies actuated by affect, values, and worldviews , e.g. relying on intermediary sources, eventually opinionated or driven by interests (see above) or focusing the easier part of the concept only or complete denial.

Whatever the preferred strategy is, depends also on risk perception, which I translated into weather and started asking family, friends and colleagues about their most scary weather experience. Currently snow/rain has the lead, and the scary part is mostly getting stuck.

I would say communication is challenging, because CC is a very abstract concept having a very concrete manifestation (weather) and therefore everybody has his very own mindset. We are not talking same thing, but use same words, both not exactly a receipt for consensus.

[Alan Robinson]

Noiv, that pretty much complies with what I have tried to express in the climate science thread. I have also put that I cannot explain myself without becoming prolix, and it seems the APA has the same afflication..............that excerpt is hardly a summing up!

[Alan Robinson]

And understanding methane concentrations in the atmosphere that relies on ice core data.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14476389

I really don't understand why science proceeds like this when the Norwegian Polar Institute back in 1991 refuted the idea that air trapped in ice remains chemically unaltered. Jaworowsky's 1991 paper was unequivocal on this, and as far as I know, Jaworowsky hasn't been proven wrong since.

[knocker]

Arctic ice melt could pause in near future, then resume again

August 11, 2011

BOULDER—Although Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.

The computer modeling study, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, reinforces previous findings by other research teams that the level of Arctic sea ice loss observed in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes alone, and that the ice will eventually disappear during summer if climate change continues.

But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5124/arctic-ice-melt-could-pause-near-future-then-resume-again