Since you can't predict the variability of the sun ahead of time what do you think they can do to include it?
When he says this is a coupled system, he is presuming not only that solar variability affects the Earth's climate, but that the Earth's climate affects solar variability. There is no reason to expect that this is the case (frankly it seems implausible).
Solar output has dropped since the 1950's. To the extent that it has had an impact on global temperatures, it has been a cooling one. Greenhouse gasses will not only have been responsible for observed warming, but will also have compensated for the cooling effect of the waning sun.
Dyson is absolutely right. Solar output has an impact on global temperatures. That's not controversial. What you are failing to grasp is this: To the extent that solar output affects global temperatures, it has had a negative (cooling) impact over the last several decades. Solar output has been dropping.
If you argue that solar variability has a very large impact on global temperatures, then we need to conclude that the warming caused by increased CO2 is much larger than we expect. CO2 has not only caused the observed warming, but also compensated for the cooling effect of the waning sun.
Realclimate has a good article on this which concludes: "The methane hydrates in the ocean, in cahoots with permafrost peats (which never get enough respect), could be a significant multiplier of the long tail of the CO2, but will probably not be a huge player in climate change in the coming century."
Another article looks at a "worst case scenario" for Arctic methane and finds it "At worst comparable to CO2 except that CO2 lasts essentially forever."
Yes, the climate is a coupled non-linear chaotic system. Nonetheless dwindling solar output will have a net negative forcing on global temperatures. It really can't explain recent warming and will have actually acted to reduce observed warming.
Probably should not believe and predictive models of climate that doesn't also have an accurate, predictive model of the Sun. Coupled systems cannot be magically decoupled.
This is a very good point. Climate models are really nothing more than projections that assume "all else being equal". That's something that folks generally don't appreciate when comparing actual temperature rise to model projections.
The fact of the matter is that solar output has not been static. It's been falling for the last several decades. That's been driving global temperatures lower than they would otherwise be. It won't stay down forever though, so we should realize that warming in the next several decades. At which point global temperatures rise will further accelerate.
So your theory is that changes in the Sun's output are causing the recent rise in temperature?
1) Is rise in greenhouse gases the cause or effect?
Solar output has been falling over the last several decades. There is no coloration between solar output and rise in greenhouse gasses. Dwindling solar output has been driving global temperatures down. That means something else is responsible not only for driving temperatures up, but also for compensating for the drop in solar output.
"Yeah, but..." is not fact checking. It's spinning.
Perhaps Snopes shouldn't bother with "yeah, but". They should call it what it is: a lie. If a person is not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth then they are being dishonest.
Yes and no. They are intended for entertainment but sometimes hard news is disseminated on these platforms. You can't deny this.
And sometimes the National Enquirer tabloid rag has a fact in it. That doesn't exactly justify it's existence or my need to read it. If the hard news is worthy enough, it will be picked up and reported on by reputable sources, without having to wade through the other 99% of bullshit click-bait.
And sometimes the National Enquirer tabloid rag has a fact in it. That doesn't exactly justify it's existence or my need to read it.
Ultimately it doesn't matter whether you or I can recognize bullshit. The president of the USA is susceptible. Likely a sizable group of voters are as well. As you say, we can't fix stupid, but if we want an informed democracy then we shouldn't promote it.
It would be interesting to get a hold of the dataset and use it as the corpus for a word2vec vector space model. An obvious use would be to create a Russian troll detector, but there are many other academic (and possibly some mischievous) uses.
An unfortunate fact of human nature is that when people make up their mind about something, they tend not to change it -- even when confronted with facts to the contrary. "It's very unscientific,"
This is by a gentleman named Marcott, not Mann, but it is consistent with the dozens of other temperature reconstructions of this period. It turns out that no matter who attempts a reconstruction, or what method they use, they end up with this same result. Rapid warming up until about 10,000 years ago. Cooling for the last 6000, then an abrupt reversal - an unprecedented spike in warming - over the last 100 or so. Any bold claims you make about what the "ice is SUPPOSED" to do needs to be based on evidence. Dismissing the evidence doesn't bolster your case.
2.36 is well inside the 95% confidence interval of the observations (2.29-2.84), so it's not accurate to say that this is way off from observations. Indistinguishable would be a closer word. As far as policy implications go they are also indistinguishable. Both are about 1/2 an Ice Age Unit (IAU) for a doubling of CO2. We're on track to much more than double by the end of the century.
I believe that more than a few prognosticators will be absolutely correct;
Probably not. They say "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful". This is the nature of models regardless of the field. Though even the wronger ones can be useful insofar as you can attempt to understand why it deviated from reality.
In this case "The big advance of Manabe and Wetherald’s work was to model not just the feedbacks but the interrelationships between the different components that contribute to the Earth’s temperature. As the atmospheric contents change, so do both the absolute and relative humidity, which impacts cloud cover, water vapor content and cycling/convection of the atmosphere. What they found is that if you start with a stable initial state—roughly what Earth experienced for thousands of years prior to the start of the industrial revolution—you can tinker with one component (like CO2) and model how everything else evolves."
Even in this case where the projected answer is indistinguishable from observations, it is wrong to assume that they got it exactly right. Their projection is that a doubling of CO2 will cause 2.36C of warming - all else being equal. In reality all else was not equal. Solar output has been waning since the study was published. Aerosols have likely been increased. Etc. Still, it's useful to understand what worked and why.
Words like "confidence" and "Likely" have very specific meanings here: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/suppor... . Of course we want them to communicate the level of certainty on each item. Where there is uncertainty there is risk as things may be better or worse than we anticipate. If we know with certainty what we are in for then we can plan for it.
Wait what? Hurricanes are caused by global warming now?
Here's what has happened over the last few decades: "it is virtually certain that intense tropical cyclone activity has increased in the North Atlantic since 1970."
Here's what we expect with global warming:
Although projections under 21st century greenhouse warming indicate
that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either
decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely
increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed
and rainfall rates, there is low confidence in region-specific projections
of frequency and intensity. Still, based on high-resolution modelling
studies, the frequency of the most intense storms, which are associated
with particularly extensive physical effects, will more likely than
not increase substantially in some basins under projected 21st century
warming and there is medium confidence that tropical cyclone rainfall
rates will increase in every affected region. - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...
Rainfall is what caused most of the damage this year AFAIKT, so that seems in line with our expectations for a warmed world, though these are early days and large impacts are not anticipated until later in the century. Possibly this was just bad luck. Possibly the impact was enhanced by global warming. Either way it's probably it is something we should learn to get used to.
Maybe he could explain what he means by "before the first El Nino?" When was that exactly?
Regarding the impact of El Nino on Hurricanes, Dr Trenberth of NCAR responded to a question about why 2015 - the most active year globally for hurricanes, but mostly in the Pacific and related in no small part to a very active El Nino. What does it say that we are getting this kind of storm in a non El Nino year?
He responded "The action in an El Nino year is in the Pacific... during El Nino years the Atlantic activity, the Atlantic hurricanes tend to be surpressed. And in fact that's one of the things which perhaps leads to more activity this year because there's some pent up action. There's a bit more ocean heat in the Atlantic.that hasn't been taken out in the previous years because all of the action was in the Pacific. So this is one of the components of natural variability that comes into play and helps to cause some of the variability from one year to the next.
The very active El Nino years, the second most active year was probably 1997 which was again a very active El Nino year. All of the action was in the Pacific and it was a very quiet year in the Atlantic.
And where did I say Nazis shouldn't be allowed to spew their hate? Providing they're not conspiring to commit acts of violence, they have that right,
Right. And the article doesn't say anything about changing the rules, It just says that they will apply the rules regardless of the medium. I would have thought that would go without saying. Death threats are death threats. "But I did it on the internet, not IRL!" can't really be a defense... can it?
Neo-Nazis are terrorists. Al Qaeda are terrorists. Some Christians are Neo-Nazis. Some Muslims are Al Qaeda. See how that works? Do you really think all Christians are terrorists?
Slashdot Mirror
Try to keep up here... what I've said is any climate model must first have an accurate model of the Sun.
That is a baseless assertion. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide some evidence.
You cannot magically decouple coupled systems.
Since you can't predict the variability of the sun ahead of time what do you think they can do to include it?
When he says this is a coupled system, he is presuming not only that solar variability affects the Earth's climate, but that the Earth's climate affects solar variability. There is no reason to expect that this is the case (frankly it seems implausible).
Solar output has dropped since the 1950's. To the extent that it has had an impact on global temperatures, it has been a cooling one. Greenhouse gasses will not only have been responsible for observed warming, but will also have compensated for the cooling effect of the waning sun.
Dyson is absolutely right. Solar output has an impact on global temperatures. That's not controversial. What you are failing to grasp is this: To the extent that solar output affects global temperatures, it has had a negative (cooling) impact over the last several decades. Solar output has been dropping .
If you argue that solar variability has a very large impact on global temperatures, then we need to conclude that the warming caused by increased CO2 is much larger than we expect. CO2 has not only caused the observed warming, but also compensated for the cooling effect of the waning sun.
Realclimate has a good article on this which concludes: "The methane hydrates in the ocean, in cahoots with permafrost peats (which never get enough respect), could be a significant multiplier of the long tail of the CO2, but will probably not be a huge player in climate change in the coming century."
Another article looks at a "worst case scenario" for Arctic methane and finds it "At worst comparable to CO2 except that CO2 lasts essentially forever."
It's physics. Call it what you like. What's your point?
Yes, the climate is a coupled non-linear chaotic system. Nonetheless dwindling solar output will have a net negative forcing on global temperatures. It really can't explain recent warming and will have actually acted to reduce observed warming.
Probably should not believe and predictive models of climate that doesn't also have an accurate, predictive model of the Sun. Coupled systems cannot be magically decoupled.
This is a very good point. Climate models are really nothing more than projections that assume "all else being equal". That's something that folks generally don't appreciate when comparing actual temperature rise to model projections.
The fact of the matter is that solar output has not been static. It's been falling for the last several decades. That's been driving global temperatures lower than they would otherwise be. It won't stay down forever though, so we should realize that warming in the next several decades. At which point global temperatures rise will further accelerate.
So your theory is that changes in the Sun's output are causing the recent rise in temperature?
1) Is rise in greenhouse gases the cause or effect?
Solar output has been falling over the last several decades. There is no coloration between solar output and rise in greenhouse gasses. Dwindling solar output has been driving global temperatures down. That means something else is responsible not only for driving temperatures up, but also for compensating for the drop in solar output.
"Yeah, but..." is not fact checking. It's spinning.
Perhaps Snopes shouldn't bother with "yeah, but". They should call it what it is: a lie. If a person is not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth then they are being dishonest.
Another msmash abortion of an article about doom and gloom that probably won't happen.
And yet it melts...
Yes and no. They are intended for entertainment but sometimes hard news is disseminated on these platforms. You can't deny this.
And sometimes the National Enquirer tabloid rag has a fact in it. That doesn't exactly justify it's existence or my need to read it. If the hard news is worthy enough, it will be picked up and reported on by reputable sources, without having to wade through the other 99% of bullshit click-bait.
And sometimes the National Enquirer tabloid rag has a fact in it. That doesn't exactly justify it's existence or my need to read it.
The president of the USA cites the National Enquirer as a reliable source. He says it has a very good record. Possibly some of that affection comes from the fact that they have engaged in at least one cover up on Trump's behalf.
Ultimately it doesn't matter whether you or I can recognize bullshit. The president of the USA is susceptible. Likely a sizable group of voters are as well. As you say, we can't fix stupid, but if we want an informed democracy then we shouldn't promote it.
It would be interesting to get a hold of the dataset and use it as the corpus for a word2vec vector space model. An obvious use would be to create a Russian troll detector, but there are many other academic (and possibly some mischievous) uses.
An unfortunate fact of human nature is that when people make up their mind about something, they tend not to change it -- even when confronted with facts to the contrary. "It's very unscientific,"
Or maybe they're just not unbelievable pussies! “You know, I think I’ve come around to your way of seeing things,” the weakling said, reportedly reassessing his viewpoint to accommodate new information like an unbelievable pussy instead of doubling down on his previously held belief like a real man."
It's called the Michael Mann
This is by a gentleman named Marcott, not Mann, but it is consistent with the dozens of other temperature reconstructions of this period. It turns out that no matter who attempts a reconstruction, or what method they use, they end up with this same result. Rapid warming up until about 10,000 years ago. Cooling for the last 6000, then an abrupt reversal - an unprecedented spike in warming - over the last 100 or so. Any bold claims you make about what the "ice is SUPPOSED" to do needs to be based on evidence. Dismissing the evidence doesn't bolster your case.
Maybe take a second look? I think you missed something.
1st. 2.36 and 2.56 are wayyy off.
2.36 is well inside the 95% confidence interval of the observations (2.29-2.84), so it's not accurate to say that this is way off from observations. Indistinguishable would be a closer word. As far as policy implications go they are also indistinguishable. Both are about 1/2 an Ice Age Unit (IAU) for a doubling of CO2. We're on track to much more than double by the end of the century.
I believe that more than a few prognosticators will be absolutely correct;
Probably not. They say "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful". This is the nature of models regardless of the field. Though even the wronger ones can be useful insofar as you can attempt to understand why it deviated from reality.
In this case "The big advance of Manabe and Wetherald’s work was to model not just the feedbacks but the interrelationships between the different components that contribute to the Earth’s temperature. As the atmospheric contents change, so do both the absolute and relative humidity, which impacts cloud cover, water vapor content and cycling/convection of the atmosphere. What they found is that if you start with a stable initial state—roughly what Earth experienced for thousands of years prior to the start of the industrial revolution—you can tinker with one component (like CO2) and model how everything else evolves."
Even in this case where the projected answer is indistinguishable from observations, it is wrong to assume that they got it exactly right. Their projection is that a doubling of CO2 will cause 2.36C of warming - all else being equal. In reality all else was not equal. Solar output has been waning since the study was published. Aerosols have likely been increased. Etc. Still, it's useful to understand what worked and why.
This graph illustrates nicely: https://www.climate.gov/sites/...
Something happened over the last hundred or so years to abruptly reverse our course... but what?
Words like "confidence" and "Likely" have very specific meanings here: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/suppor... . Of course we want them to communicate the level of certainty on each item. Where there is uncertainty there is risk as things may be better or worse than we anticipate. If we know with certainty what we are in for then we can plan for it.
Wait what? Hurricanes are caused by global warming now?
Here's what has happened over the last few decades: "it is virtually certain that intense tropical cyclone activity has increased in the North Atlantic since 1970."
Here's what we expect with global warming:
Although projections under 21st century greenhouse warming indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rainfall rates, there is low confidence in region-specific projections of frequency and intensity. Still, based on high-resolution modelling studies, the frequency of the most intense storms, which are associated with particularly extensive physical effects, will more likely than not increase substantially in some basins under projected 21st century warming and there is medium confidence that tropical cyclone rainfall rates will increase in every affected region. - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...
Rainfall is what caused most of the damage this year AFAIKT, so that seems in line with our expectations for a warmed world, though these are early days and large impacts are not anticipated until later in the century. Possibly this was just bad luck. Possibly the impact was enhanced by global warming. Either way it's probably it is something we should learn to get used to.
Less immigration possibly?
Maybe he could explain what he means by "before the first El Nino?" When was that exactly?
Regarding the impact of El Nino on Hurricanes, Dr Trenberth of NCAR responded to a question about why 2015 - the most active year globally for hurricanes, but mostly in the Pacific and related in no small part to a very active El Nino. What does it say that we are getting this kind of storm in a non El Nino year?
He responded "The action in an El Nino year is in the Pacific... during El Nino years the Atlantic activity, the Atlantic hurricanes tend to be surpressed. And in fact that's one of the things which perhaps leads to more activity this year because there's some pent up action. There's a bit more ocean heat in the Atlantic.that hasn't been taken out in the previous years because all of the action was in the Pacific. So this is one of the components of natural variability that comes into play and helps to cause some of the variability from one year to the next.
The very active El Nino years, the second most active year was probably 1997 which was again a very active El Nino year. All of the action was in the Pacific and it was a very quiet year in the Atlantic.
And where did I say Nazis shouldn't be allowed to spew their hate? Providing they're not conspiring to commit acts of violence, they have that right,
Right. And the article doesn't say anything about changing the rules, It just says that they will apply the rules regardless of the medium. I would have thought that would go without saying. Death threats are death threats. "But I did it on the internet, not IRL!" can't really be a defense... can it?
Neo-Nazis are terrorists. Al Qaeda are terrorists. Some Christians are Neo-Nazis. Some Muslims are Al Qaeda. See how that works? Do you really think all Christians are terrorists?
:-$ oops!