• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Land Use Changes and Global Warming

SouthernDemocrat said:
See figures 12.5 and 12.9, 12.10, 12.11 on https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

All of those multi-model are Surface Air Temperature Projections. You will find troposphere projections at figure 12.12.

So yes they did indeed project surface air temperatures.
Click to expand...
I suspect they are using the terms interchangeable, poor editing.
The figures are mostly based on CMIP5, Which I believe has a horizontal resolution of 1 degree in latitude/longitude,
which is about 70 miles on a side. Typical vertical resolution is 30 or 40 hPa, or about 800 to 1000 feet.
The surface temperature is a very chaotic place, micro climates can vary the temperature
by several degrees within a few hundred feet. You would need to get above the Interfacial Layer
to be able to get a stable measurement.
There are some good papers out there which while mostly about wind, address the Lapse rate.
http://www.huduser.gov/portal/Publications/pdf/ground.pdf
The stability of the atmosphere near to the ground is commonly defined by the rate and sign of
air temperature change with height, also referred to as the lapse rate. For neutral (or adiabatic)
conditions, the lapse rate is generally between -1.5 and -0.5o C/100m.
The atmosphere becomes increasingly unstable as the lapse rate takes on larger negative values
(i.e., colder air above warmer air). An extremely unstable atmosphere is one with a negative
lapse rate greater than -1.9o C/100m. Conversely, the atmosphere becomes more stable as the
lapse rate becomes positive and increases in magnitude. A lapse rate of greater than 4o C/100m
is considered extremely stable.
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
I suspect they are using the terms interchangeable, poor editing.
The figures are mostly based on CMIP5, Which I believe has a horizontal resolution of 1 degree in latitude/longitude,
which is about 70 miles on a side. Typical vertical resolution is 30 or 40 hPa, or about 800 to 1000 feet.
The surface temperature is a very chaotic place, micro climates can vary the temperature
by several degrees within a few hundred feet. You would need to get above the Interfacial Layer
to be able to get a stable measurement.
There are some good papers out there which while mostly about wind, address the Lapse rate.
http://www.huduser.gov/portal/Publications/pdf/ground.pdf
Click to expand...

OK wait a second. This is the IPCC 5th Assessment. Do you honestly think it would be poorly edited? They actually differentiate in their projections between projections of surface air temperatures and troposphere temperature projections.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
OK wait a second. This is the IPCC 5th Assessment. Do you honestly think it would be poorly edited? They actually differentiate in their projections between projections of surface air temperatures and troposphere temperature projections.
Click to expand...

Regardless, you cannot trust the conclusions of the IPCC. They are agenda driven by being a political body. You need to careful read how they equivocate, parse, and use weasel words.
 
Here is something of interest:


A new generation of more complex models running scenarios for the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5) is widely, and perhaps naively, expected to provide more detailed and more certain projections. Here we show that projected global temperature change from the new models is remarkably similar to that from those used in IPCC AR4 after accounting for the different underlying scenarios.

----

There are several hypotheses that potentially explain the lack of convergence and associated reduction of uncertainty. There could be (1) inherent limitations in the way models are built given limited computational resources and spatial resolution, (2) lack of process understanding, (3) lack of accurate long term observations to constrain models, (4) lack of consensus on metrics of present-day model performance that clearly separate better from worse models in terms of projection quality, (5) inherent limitation of climate change not being predictable owing to internal variability, (6) addition of dissimilar models from institutions new in CMIP5 and (7) addition of new processes, components, or forcings in CMIP5 that are not well understood, not well represented in the model, or not well constrained by observations.
​

From Nature Climate Change:

Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
OK wait a second. This is the IPCC 5th Assessment. Do you honestly think it would be poorly edited? They actually differentiate in their projections between projections of surface air temperatures and troposphere temperature projections.
Click to expand...
Not so much that as the people doing the editing, associated the actual term
surface-troposphere system
Click to expand...
with just the surface measured temperatures.
In CMIP5 they improved the number of layers modeled, but each layer is still quite thick vertically.
http://www.climatechangeinaustralia...ng-and-projections/climate-models/resolution/
Current CMIP5 models assessed in the AR5 have a vertical resolution in the atmosphere of 20-50 levels.
Click to expand...
So assuming the only modeled the troposphere, (30,000 feet) and had 50 discrete levels,
each level would still be 600 feet thick.
The graphic shows they use 38 levels, so the modeled depth would be 30,000/38= 789 feet,
strangely similar to the 800 to 1000 feet resolution I spoke of.
The models are currently incapable of projecting actual surface temperatures, but rather
can model (poorly) the surface-troposphere system.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
OK wait a second. This is the IPCC 5th Assessment. Do you honestly think it would be poorly edited? They actually differentiate in their projections between projections of surface air temperatures and troposphere temperature projections.
Click to expand...

It is exceptionally well edited to leave out some information, equivocate much, and use weasel words.
 
longview said:
There is something odd about NOAA's graph. the month to month swing in any given year is much greater
than the relative flat lines shown.
GISS 2014 has a .4 C swing between the month to month.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
(Feb at .5 C and Sept at .9 C)
Also the Data sets in wood for trees disagrees quite a bit.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
We should also really question why for example the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016, are not the same number,
because as it looks now, most of the warming is on New Years Eve.
Click to expand...

basement has noticed this too - lower case.jpg
Getting a jump on things, I guess.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
When do you think you will be able to draw any conclusions at all?

What has to happen for you to think that AGW is not going to cause any significant trouble?

If you have no answer for this then you are being utterly unscientific about it.
Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:
We would have very little additional warming over this century for AGW not to cause any significant trouble.
Click to expand...

Third time of asking.[3]

It is so telling that you cannot bear to address this question. It shows ho wedded to there being no possibility of your faith being misplaced. It shows your religion.
 
longview said:
I guess if they are going to manufacturer the data out of whole cloth,
it should at least look like something they want!:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

In the Climate Business (terminology intentional) it's whatcha call a leap of faith.

th
 
Tim the plumber said:
Third time of asking.[3]

It is so telling that you cannot bear to address this question. It shows ho wedded to there being no possibility of your faith being misplaced. It shows your religion.
Click to expand...

You are simply being obtuse. I answered when I thought we could draw conclusions on decadal climate models and I answered what level of warming this century would be a concern. Obviously you think the only correct answer is the one that you believe.

If you think that something in terms of climate science has occurred to you or me or anyone else on a debate politics forum, that has not occurred to climate scientists with decades of study and research behind them, then I don't know what to tell you. Every single major scientific society on earth accepts AGW. The vast majority of climate scientists currently working accept AGW. There is a reason for that. Its the same reason the vast majority of biologists accept evolution.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You are simply being obtuse. I answered when I thought we could draw conclusions on decadal climate models and I answered what level of warming this century would be a concern. Obviously you think the only correct answer is the one that you believe.

If you think that something in terms of climate science has occurred to you or me or anyone else on a debate politics forum, that has not occurred to climate scientists with decades of study and research behind them, then I don't know what to tell you. Every single major scientific society on earth accepts AGW. The vast majority of climate scientists currently working accept AGW. There is a reason for that. Its the same reason the vast majority of biologists accept evolution.
Click to expand...
Have any fact behind your opinion?

The climate sciences are still in it's infancy, with too many unknowns. Too many "low level of understandings." Then, politics has an unusual stranglehold on it as well.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You are simply being obtuse. I answered when I thought we could draw conclusions on decadal climate models and I answered what level of warming this century would be a concern. Obviously you think the only correct answer is the one that you believe.

If you think that something in terms of climate science has occurred to you or me or anyone else on a debate politics forum, that has not occurred to climate scientists with decades of study and research behind them, then I don't know what to tell you. Every single major scientific society on earth accepts AGW. The vast majority of climate scientists currently working accept AGW. There is a reason for that. Its the same reason the vast majority of biologists accept evolution.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of astronomers once accepted the Ptolemaic planetary system. Oops.
 
longview said:
There is something odd about NOAA's graph. the month to month swing in any given year is much greater
than the relative flat lines shown.
GISS 2014 has a .4 C swing between the month to month.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
(Feb at .5 C and Sept at .9 C)
Also the Data sets in wood for trees disagrees quite a bit.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
We should also really question why for example the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016, are not the same number,
because as it looks now, most of the warming is on New Years Eve.
Click to expand...

Just saw this.

I am not sure that the datasets between the two links are exactly the same. The first one in a text table states the following:

GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980

sources: GHCN-v3 1880-06/2016 + SST: ERSST v4 1880-06/2016
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing

If the same adjustments are not in the Giss data Wood for Trees is graphing, then wouldn't the results be different?

Also, in the first table as its deviations from mean, wouldn't it be subject to fairly large swings.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
When do you think you will be able to draw any conclusions at all?

What has to happen for you to think that AGW is not going to cause any significant trouble?

If you have no answer for this then you are being utterly unscientific about it.
Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:
You are simply being obtuse. I answered when I thought we could draw conclusions on decadal climate models and I answered what level of warming this century would be a concern. Obviously you think the only correct answer is the one that you believe.

If you think that something in terms of climate science has occurred to you or me or anyone else on a debate politics forum, that has not occurred to climate scientists with decades of study and research behind them, then I don't know what to tell you. Every single major scientific society on earth accepts AGW. The vast majority of climate scientists currently working accept AGW. There is a reason for that. Its the same reason the vast majority of biologists accept evolution.
Click to expand...

You have not given any date for your point of actually saying when we can draw conclusions from the data.

You have not said what temperature increase is OK.

[4]

I know I am asking a very simple couple of questions and you have blurbed away with evaisive responces which you want to say are answers but they do not actually answer the questions.
 
Jack Hays said:
The vast majority of astronomers once accepted the Ptolemaic planetary system. Oops.
Click to expand...

And comparing views and superstitions of the ancients to modern science is rather absurd.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
And comparing views and superstitions of the ancients to modern science is rather absurd.
Click to expand...

Someday, as a people, will laugh at the level of our current scientific understanding too.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
And comparing views and superstitions of the ancients to modern science is rather absurd.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it's exactly on point. AGW advocacy resembles nothing so much as the increasingly tortured defenses of Ptolemy (epicycles, et al) offered by "the vast majority" of astronomers.

[h=3]The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, Kuhn ...[/h]press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/.../bo13179781.html


University of Chicago Press


The book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, Thomas S. Kuhn is published by University of Chicago Press.


 
Tim the plumber said:
You have not given any date for your point of actually saying when we can draw conclusions from the data.

You have not said what temperature increase is OK.

[4]

I know I am asking a very simple couple of questions and you have blurbed away with evaisive responces which you want to say are answers but they do not actually answer the questions.
Click to expand...

I stated that the decadal models are typically on a 30 year temporal resolution, so we cannot expect them to be fully accurate until we can look back at them over 30 years.

I also believe I stated that 2 degrees or so would be acceptable.
 
Jack Hays said:
On the contrary, it's exactly on point. AGW advocacy resembles nothing so much as the increasingly tortured defenses of Ptolemy (epicycles, et al) offered by "the vast majority" of astronomers.

[h=3]The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, Kuhn ...[/h]press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/.../bo13179781.html


University of Chicago Press


The book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, Thomas S. Kuhn is published by University of Chicago Press.
Click to expand...

Really? So Ptolemy had mountains of empirical studies to back his assertions?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Someday, as a people, will laugh at the level of our current scientific understanding too.
Click to expand...

Yes, but 200 years from now, the basics of modern science will still be the same. Its not going to be like comparing modern science today to ancient mythology.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Really? So Ptolemy had mountains of empirical studies to back his assertions?
Click to expand...

Ptolemy had been dead for centuries, but yes, the observational data of the time was interpreted to support the Terra-centric planetary system he had envisioned.
 
Jack Hays said:
Ptolemy had been dead for centuries, but yes, the observational data of the time was interpreted to support the Terra-centric planetary system he had envisioned.
Click to expand...

He has been dead for 19 centuries. However, his model of the solar system was not primarily based on observations. Every religion of the Roman Empire, including Judaism and early Christianity had a geocentrism view of the earth. Ptolemy then took those religious views as a starting basis for developing a model of the solar system. As it looked to him as though planetary bodies revolved around the earth, he justified that religious mysticism with his observation. That works nothing at all like science, thus its an absurd comparison you are making. Science doesn't start with a religious or mystical belief and then tries to justify it with observations.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
He has been dead for 19 centuries. However, his model of the solar system was not primarily based on observations. Every religion of the Roman Empire, including Judaism and early Christianity had a geocentrism view of the earth. Ptolemy then took those religious views as a starting basis for developing a model of the solar system. As it looked to him as though planetary bodies revolved around the earth, he justified that religious mysticism with his observation. That works nothing at all like science, thus its an absurd comparison you are making. Science doesn't start with a religious or mystical belief and then tries to justify it with observations.
Click to expand...

I can see you have not read Kuhn. Do that, and get back to me. An entire corpus of Ptolemaic observational data was built up over the centuries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom