SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the climate-change-simply-happens dept.
Papas Fritas writes "Patrick Michaels writes in Forbes that atmospheric physicist Garth Paltridge has laid out several well-known uncertainties in climate forecasting including our inability to properly simulate clouds that are anything like what we see in the real world, the embarrassing lack of average surface warming now in its 17th year, and the fumbling (and contradictory) attempts to explain it away. According to Paltridge, an emeritus professor at the University of Tasmania and a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, virtually all scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous uncertainties associated with their product. How then is it that those of them involved in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can put their hands on their hearts and maintain there is a 95 per cent probability that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades? In short, there is more than enough uncertainty about the forecasting of climate to allow normal human beings to be at least reasonably hopeful that global warming might not be nearly as bad as is currently touted.
Climate scientists, and indeed scientists in general, are not so lucky. They have a lot to lose if time should prove them wrong. "In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem-or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem-in its effort to promote the cause," writes Paltridge. "It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society's respect for scientific endeavor.""
(Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Thursday February 20 2014, @11:18AM
Actually, the summary gives a pretty good idea what side of the argument it is coming from: "the embarrassing lack of average surface warming now in its 17th year, and the fumbling (and contradictory) attempts to explain it away" is hardly objective, neutral commentary, is it?
Basic physics hint: put a saucepan full of ice on the fire, and the temperature will stay pretty constant as long as the heat is being "used" to melt the ice. Not a viable climate model in itself, but food for thought for any laypersons who think lack of average temperature increase is somehow a disproof of "global warming".
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2014, @12:53PM
If it is disproof you are looking for, "the fumbling (and contradictory) attempts to explain it away" is probably better.
We keep being told that global warming IS happening, the science is settled, anyone who tries to argue that they may still be missing a variable or two in the equation is labelled a climate change denier - and yet, we are still waiting. Global warming should have been here years ago. The oceans should have rised several feet years ago. And all we hear are lame excuses as for why the predictions didn't hold, but we should still believe everything the very same group of people keep telling us.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2014, @01:28PM
WHO'S telling you that? Give some sources.
I'm sick and tired of hearing that parroted. If someone is saying "the science is settled", they are not scientist! The only time I've EVER heard that line used is by people who refuse to look at any evidence contrary to their own views.
The only people making "lame excuses" are the ones constantly trying to pigeon hole science as having 100% faith it can never be wrong. That's not science, it's religion. Science is the art of being wrong and learning from it to improve our understanding of the universe so we can be more right next time.
I'm not arguing for or against climate change. Climate especially isn't black and white, but there was never a prediction sea level was going to rise "several feet" years ago. Find a source I dare you, because it's most likely the media, non-scientists, misinterpreting the science and blowing things out of proportion. If you can't tell the difference you failed at science and don't belong here, please find some where else to be ignorant.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by harmless on Thursday February 20 2014, @03:10PM
There you go:
Estuarine Beaches [google.de]
This is a book from 1994. To Quote:
"There is now a general consensus that global sea levels will rise at an increased rate from those in the recent past (Barth and Titus 1984; Tooley and Shennan 1987; National Research Council 1987; Oerlemans 1989; Meier 1990). Estimates of sea level rise range as high as 1.17m by the year 2050, considering only changes in greenhouse gases (Hoffman 1984), but the actual rise is likely to be considerable less than that extreme. [...]"
(Score: 3, Informative) by pe1rxq on Thursday February 20 2014, @03:46PM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mcgrew on Thursday February 20 2014, @03:50PM
When I first saw the AC comment above, I thought "uh, oh, a bad slashdotdotter's here". It's obvious when you see it, a stupid and/or trollish post by an AC that gets modded up. I always suspect someone with mod points wants to troll so he makes an AC comment and mods it up himself. Not sure about this one, there's one insightful, one flamebait, one underrated. All are undeserved; it isn't flamebait (who's being flamed?) but it certainly isn't insightful. It would be overrated at 0.
The wrong people are getting mod points. Where are mine? I have yet to get a single one. I'll tear the AC apart point by point:
We keep being told that global warming IS happening
True, we have been told that. Actually, what we've been told is that almost all climate scientists say the Earth is warming.
the science is settled
False. Nobody in the scientific community has ever said that.
anyone who tries to argue that they may still be missing a variable or two in the equation is labelled a climate change denier
False. Of course there are missing variables, there always are in any endeavor. Climate change deniers are the ones who say "well look at all the snow outside? Global warming? Bullshit! That's proof global warming is a hoax perpetrated by evil lying scientists who are hawking this nonexestant threat for the money!"
and yet, we are still waiting
Completely ignoring that the north pole is ice-free for the first time in history, ignoring ocean acidity, etc.
Global warming should have been here years ago.
False. No scientist ever said that.
The oceans should have rised several feet years ago.
False, no scientist ever said that, either. And his grammar shows his education level -- someone who had at least finished high school, let alone attended college, would know that the word is "risen" or "raised", not "rised". There is no such word as "rised" [google.com] unless you refer to the urban dictionary or wictionary, which are, guess what? Edited by high school dropouts. They are not references or citations. The OED also says the word does not exist. Typical Fox News watcher.
And all we hear are lame excuses as for why the predictions didn't hold
Such as?
I really hope soylent gets the same kind of metamoderation slashdot had years ago, the one that actually worked, because two of the three people who moderated that are ignorant and don't give much thought to the comment they're moderating. It only took me seconds to see what's wrong with it (as did one of the three mods, who was also lazy and didn't bother choosing which downmod he wanted to use).
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday February 20 2014, @04:01PM
I'd mod you up as insightful if I hadn't already commented in this thread.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2014, @10:14PM
Let me add a few things:
We already know that you can create an earthquake by damming up a river. Shift the amount of mass on a portion of the crust, and you get earthquakes. A lake such as that in S.C., on the Savannah river, generates quakes every so often.
So far, so good. Now, we see that (fortunately) the ocean levels aren't rising as predicted, despite (unfortunately) the fact that the northern ice sheet has mostly gone away, because (fortunately) the increased storms in the south seem to be covering the Antarctic with a thicker ice sheet.
Unfortunately, that means that there is a LOT of mass that has been lifted off one side of the globe, and stuck on the other. Which might imply the possiblity of increased earthquakes, and increased plate movement, and therefore increased volcanism.
Interesting thought, eh? Global warming doesn't mean quite what we thought. But it means somethign significant, nonetheless.
Now... as to the issue of us not understanding clouds, okay, we don't understand everything about them. I thought the Jeopardy was about knowing the pat question to every answer; science is all about searching for answers. That said, I have a suggestion: the clouds are visible, therefore would appear to be gaseous crystalline. That being the case, as the air currents move a unit of cloud from one location to the other, and the pressures change on the unit of cloud, then we should expect changes in the charge structure on the surface, which will then deposit onto the dry air surrounding the cloud, much as a van-de-graaf generator, causing... lightning.
Which may be correct, may not be... but it's one phase of many in science: people propose ideas, eventually someone checks the ideas out, maybe...
Now... on to this AC posting. Ummm. When I click "Create an Account" I get 500 internal server error. Which makes me very anonymous.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday February 20 2014, @02:39PM
"the embarrassing lack of average surface warming now in its 17th year, and the fumbling (and contradictory) attempts to explain it away" is hardly objective, neutral commentary, is it?
Anytime you see someone referencing "no warming since 1997" you know they are an outright fraudster. 1997 had an exceptionally high average temperature, a major outlier. So of course if you set the baseline to the highest peak in recent history it will look like there hasn't been much of any increases since.
For a while these fraudsters were saying that temps were declining. They can't say that anymore because what was an outlier in 1997 is now almost average.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/1 8/global_warming_denial_debunking_misleading_clima te_change_claims_by_david.html [slate.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by weeds on Thursday February 20 2014, @02:54PM
This is change of state. I'm not sure you can apply that to the entire climate system.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 2, Informative) by theluggage on Thursday February 20 2014, @07:03PM
Pretty sure that "changes of state [noaa.gov]" play a role in the climate. Not to mention exchanges of heat and mechanical energy, or deep dark places that can warm up without affecting average surface temperatures... Just don't expect to fine one single, neat answer.
Anyway, I didn't claim any sort of climate model - it was just an example showing that "heat" is not "temperature" and that even a system as simple as a pan full of ice water doesn't increase in temperature in direct proportion to the heat put in. The climate is a hell of a lot more complex than a pan full of water, and chaotic to boot: even if the alleged "pause" in increasing average temperatures is real (and not a result of cherry-picking which temperatures to average) it's perfectly plausible that any temperature rise will be an uneven process.
(Score: 2, Informative) by weeds on Thursday February 20 2014, @07:35PM
Good explanation. The article you reference seems to say the ice is melting owing to higher temperatures, not that the ice is melting and there is no change of temperature. Didn't mean to sound hostile. "I'm not sure" really meant "I'm not sure."
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 1) by theluggage on Friday February 21 2014, @05:12PM
...obviously the local temperatures will need to be higher to melt the ice. Heat energy doesn't move without a temperature difference. However, because heat energy has been taken out of the air or water by the melting ice, somewhere else is going to be cooler than it would otherwise have been.
Point a fancy thermal imaging camera at your pan of ice water and you'll see columns of warm water rising up, and columns of cold water going down. There will be hot spots and cold spots. Stick a thermometer in and give it a stir, though, and you'll see that the average temperature is fairly static while the ice is melting.
Sticking a giant thermometer into the arctic ocean and giving it a stir is not recommended.
(Score: 1) by weeds on Friday February 21 2014, @08:01PM
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]