The War On Science

brianlux

more...

Many climate scientists—myself included—think that a single decade is too brief to accurately measure global warming and that the IPCC was unduly influenced by this one, short-term number. Furthermore, other explanations for the speed bump do not contradict the preponderance of evidence that suggests that temperatures will continue to rise. For example, the accumulated effect of volcanic eruptions during the past decade, including the Icelandic volcano with the impossible name, Eyjafjallajökull, may have had a greater cooling effect on the earth's surface than has been accounted for in most climate model simulations. There was also a slight but measurable decrease in the sun's output that was not taken into account in the IPCC's simulations.

Natural variability in the amount of heat the oceans absorb may have played a role. In the latter half of the decade, La Niña conditions persisted in the eastern and central tropical Pacific, keeping global surface temperatures about 0.1 degree C colder than average—a small effect compared with long-term global warming but a substantial one over a decade. Finally, one recent study suggests that incomplete sampling of Arctic temperatures led to underestimation of how much the globe actually warmed.

None of these plausible explanations would imply that climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases. Other measurements also do not support the IPCC's revised lower bound of 1.5 degrees C. When all the forms of evidence are combined, they point to a most likely value for ECS that is close to three degrees C. And as it turns out, the climate models the IPCC actually used in its Fifth Assessment Report imply an even higher value of 3.2 degrees C. The IPCC's lower bound for ECS, in other words, probably does not have much significance for future world climate—and neither does the faux pause.

For argument's sake, however, let us take the pause at face value. What would it mean if the actual ECS were half a degree lower than previously thought? Would it change the risks presented by business-as-usual fossil-fuel burning? How quickly would the earth cross the critical threshold?

Predicting the FutureA Date with Destiny: 2036
Most scientists concur that two degrees C of warming above the temperature during preindustrial time would harm all sectors of civilization—food, water, health, land, national security, energy and economic prosperity. ECS is a guide to when that will happen if we continue emitting CO2 at our business-as-usual pace.

I recently calculated hypothetical future temperatures by plugging different ECS values into a so-called energy balance model, which scientists use to investigate possible climate scenarios. The computer model determines how the average surface temperature responds to changing natural factors, such as volcanoes and the sun, and human factors—greenhouse gases, aerosol pollutants, and so on. (Although climate models have critics, they reflect our best ability to describe how the climate system works, based on physics, chemistry and biology. And they have a proved track record: for example, the actual warming in recent years was accurately predicted by the models decades ago.)

I then instructed the model to project forward under the assumption of business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions. I ran the model again and again, for ECS values ranging from the IPCC's lower bound (1.5 degrees C) to its upper bound (4.5 degrees C). The curves for an ECS of 2.5 degrees and three degrees C fit the instrument readings most closely. The curves for a substantially lower (1.5 degrees C) and higher (4.5 degrees C) ECS did not fit the recent instrumental record at all, reinforcing the notion that they are not realistic.

To my wonder, I found that for an ECS of three degrees C, our planet would cross the dangerous warming threshold of two degrees C in 2036, only 22 years from now. When I considered the lower ECS value of 2.5 degrees C, the world would cross the threshold in 2046, just 10 years later [see graph on pages 78 and 79].

So even if we accept a lower ECS value, it hardly signals the end of global warming or even a pause. Instead it simply buys us a little bit of time—potentially valuable time—to prevent our planet from crossing the threshold.

brianlux

and...

Cautious Optimism
These findings have implications for what we all must do to prevent disaster. An ECS of three degrees C means that if we are to limit global warming to below two degrees C forever, we need to keep CO2 concentrations far below twice preindustrial levels, closer to 450 ppm. Ironically, if the world burns significantly less coal, that would lessen CO2 emissions but also reduce aerosols in the atmosphere that block the sun (such as sulfate particulates), so we would have to limit CO2 to below roughly 405 ppm.

We are well on our way to surpassing these limits. In 2013 atmospheric CO2 briefly reached 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history—and perhaps for the first time in millions of years, according to geologic evidence. To avoid breaching the 405-ppm threshold, fossil-fuel burning would essentially have to cease immediately. To avoid the 450-ppm threshold, global carbon emissions could rise only for a few more years and then would have to ramp down by several percent a year. That is a tall task. If the ECS is indeed 2.5 degrees C, it will make that goal a bit easier.

Even so, there is considerable reason for concern. The conclusion that limiting CO2 below 450 ppm will prevent warming beyond two degrees C is based on a conservative definition of climate sensitivity that considers only the so-called fast feedbacks in the climate system, such as changes in clouds, water vapor and melting sea ice. Some climate scientists, including James E. Hansen, former head of the nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, say we must also consider slower feedbacks such as changes in the continental ice sheets. When these are taken into account, Hansen and others maintain, we need to get back down to the lower level of CO2 that existed during the mid-20th century—about 350 ppm. That would require widespread deployment of expensive “air capture” technology that actively removes CO2 from the atmosphere.

Furthermore, the notion that two degrees C of warming is a “safe” limit is subjective. It is based on when most of the globe will be exposed to potentially irreversible climate changes. Yet destructive change has already arrived in some regions. In the Arctic, loss of sea ice and thawing permafrost are wreaking havoc on indigenous peoples and ecosystems. In low-lying island nations, land and freshwater are disappearing because of rising sea levels and erosion. For these regions, current warming, and the further warming (at least 0.5 degree C) guaranteed by CO2 already emitted, constitutes damaging climate change today.

Let us hope that a lower climate sensitivity of 2.5 degrees C turns out to be correct. If so, it offers cautious optimism. It provides encouragement that we can avert irreparable harm to our planet. That is, if—and only if—we accept the urgency of making a transition away from our reliance on fossil fuels for energy.

BS44325

None of that is a scientific study. That is just a scientist discussing an educated opinion. It is not worthless but it is only commentary. I was referring to the published journal article that the Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause piece was based on.

oftenreading

rgambs said:

I'm not sure nutrition is an easier field of study than climate. Both fields are riddled with variables we can't control. There definitely has been some funny business in nutrition science...mostly a problem of neglect. Big Pharma has suppressed nutrition science in medical education for decades.
The problem I have with the money argument in climate issues is that nobody has ever provided a plausible reason for creating a hoax.

Rgambs, what do you mean by your statement "Big pharma has suppressed nutritional science in medical education for decades"? Are you referring to medical school curricula, continuing medical education, or something else? Because there are many factors influencing the development of curricula for medical schools, but Big Pharma isn't one of them (at least, not in recent decades- I can't speak for many decades ago). You are correct that nutrition hasn't been given the attention it deserves but then again that applies to many other areas - there has been and continues to be an explosion in medical knowledge but no increase in the length of time of a typical medical school program (4 years). As well, there is of course a strong push to increase the amount of time spent in direct clinical contact even in the earliest weeks and months, not just in the later years. The current rules around pharmaceutical company involvement in formal medical education are very strict (appropriately so), with little to no contact allowed with drug reps, and drug companies are not involved in the development of teaching material.

If I've misunderstood your point, let me know, but otherwise I have to say that this is one area you can't blame Big Pharma for.

dignin

I knew you were an academic oftenreading......just too damn well written not to be. Glad to have your well written and well thought responses here on this thread.

oftenreading

dignin said:

I knew you were an academic oftenreading......just too damn well written not to be. Glad to have your well written and well thought responses here on this thread.

rgambs

BS, you certainly have a better grasp on climate science than the Senator who threw a snowball on the floor lol

rgambs

oftenreading said:

rgambs said:

I'm not sure nutrition is an easier field of study than climate. Both fields are riddled with variables we can't control. There definitely has been some funny business in nutrition science...mostly a problem of neglect. Big Pharma has suppressed nutrition science in medical education for decades.
The problem I have with the money argument in climate issues is that nobody has ever provided a plausible reason for creating a hoax.

Rgambs, what do you mean by your statement "Big pharma has suppressed nutritional science in medical education for decades"? Are you referring to medical school curricula, continuing medical education, or something else? Because there are many factors influencing the development of curricula for medical schools, but Big Pharma isn't one of them (at least, not in recent decades- I can't speak for many decades ago). You are correct that nutrition hasn't been given the attention it deserves but then again that applies to many other areas - there has been and continues to be an explosion in medical knowledge but no increase in the length of time of a typical medical school program (4 years). As well, there is of course a strong push to increase the amount of time spent in direct clinical contact even in the earliest weeks and months, not just in the later years. The current rules around pharmaceutical company involvement in formal medical education are very strict (appropriately so), with little to no contact allowed with drug reps, and drug companies are not involved in the development of teaching material.

If I've misunderstood your point, let me know, but otherwise I have to say that this is one area you can't blame Big Pharma for.

On paper eveverything you say is true, but I was there at my wife's side as she went through Optometry school and I worked in a major hospital as a trusted surgical assistant and I can tell you flat out, the industries that profit from healthcare dictate the standards of care in a number of ways.
Two good examples are the twisted relationship between Luxotica and EyeMed in Optometry and the meteoric rise of ChloraPrep in surgery.

rgambs

Big Pharm absolutely has it's hands in the medical school curriculum and continuing education. There is no doubt. Do you think the endowments and donations are done for pure charity? It's the exact game that lobbyists and politicians play in Washington.

Last-12-Exit

rgambs said:

Big Pharm absolutely has it's hands in the medical school curriculum and continuing education. There is no doubt. Do you think the endowments and donations are done for pure charity? It's the exact game that lobbyists and politicians play in Washington.

That's pretty much been my point throughout this thread.

oftenreading

rgambs said:

Big Pharm absolutely has it's hands in the medical school curriculum and continuing education. There is no doubt. Do you think the endowments and donations are done for pure charity? It's the exact game that lobbyists and politicians play in Washington.

Well, if your US medical schools are allowing pharmaceutical companies to be involved in development of their curricula then they have major problems and are breaking their policies. Continuing education after med school and specialty training is another story, as I said - the quality of events purportedly for education depends greatly. Of course physicians could choose to get their information from drug companies directly, or from events sponsored by them, but that isn't really considered continuing education and wouldn't be accepted for the CME credits needed for licensure.

brianlux

BS44325 said:

None of that is a scientific study. That is just a scientist discussing an educated opinion. It is not worthless but it is only commentary. I was referring to the published journal article that the Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause piece was based on.

Sorry man, I can't find the article.

I hereby gracefully bow out of trying to convince you that the major increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anthropogenic, or that this increase is of a any significant concern. Good luck.

dignin

brianlux said:

BS44325 said:

None of that is a scientific study. That is just a scientist discussing an educated opinion. It is not worthless but it is only commentary. I was referring to the published journal article that the Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause piece was based on.

Sorry man, I can't find the article.

I hereby gracefully bow out of trying to convince you that the major increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anthropogenic, or that this increase is of a any significant concern. Good luck.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/insider-insights/articles/natural-cycle-pacific-ocean-implicated-global-warmings-false-pause/46243/

brianlux

dignin said:

brianlux said:

BS44325 said:

None of that is a scientific study. That is just a scientist discussing an educated opinion. It is not worthless but it is only commentary. I was referring to the published journal article that the Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause piece was based on.

Sorry man, I can't find the article.

I hereby gracefully bow out of trying to convince you that the major increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anthropogenic, or that this increase is of a any significant concern. Good luck.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/insider-insights/articles/natural-cycle-pacific-ocean-implicated-global-warmings-false-pause/46243/

Excellent article that explains this phenomenon very well! Thanks dignin. And despite my retiring here from attempting to swing anyone's opinion, I do hope someone reads the article at the link!

dignin

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

BS44325 said:

None of that is a scientific study. That is just a scientist discussing an educated opinion. It is not worthless but it is only commentary. I was referring to the published journal article that the Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause piece was based on.

Sorry man, I can't find the article.

I hereby gracefully bow out of trying to convince you that the major increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anthropogenic, or that this increase is of a any significant concern. Good luck.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/insider-insights/articles/natural-cycle-pacific-ocean-implicated-global-warmings-false-pause/46243/

Excellent article that explains this phenomenon very well! Thanks dignin. And despite my retiring here from attempting to swing anyone's opinion, I do hope someone reads the article at the link!

You are not allowed to retire Brian. We need your environmental passion here. They will eventually come around. Keep on keepin' on.

BS44325

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

BS44325 said:

None of that is a scientific study. That is just a scientist discussing an educated opinion. It is not worthless but it is only commentary. I was referring to the published journal article that the Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause piece was based on.

Sorry man, I can't find the article.

I hereby gracefully bow out of trying to convince you that the major increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anthropogenic, or that this increase is of a any significant concern. Good luck.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/insider-insights/articles/natural-cycle-pacific-ocean-implicated-global-warmings-false-pause/46243/

Excellent article that explains this phenomenon very well! Thanks dignin. And despite my retiring here from attempting to swing anyone's opinion, I do hope someone reads the article at the link!

I'm still trying to get access to the journal source this is based on. Currently all we have on how the data was generated to explain the pause is this:

"Mann's latest study, published in the journal Science with fellow researchers Byron A. Steinman, from the University of Minnesota-Duluth and Sonya K. Miller from Penn State, looked at climate model runs along with real-world observations."

We need to know more about the climate models and the data. Are they valid? What variables are controlled for? Can the results be reproduced? During my MSc. thesis defence I would get hammered on questions such as these. I am not necessarily arguing that the models are wrong, although they could be, I am just trying to get at the root of how the pause is being explained. The pause is happening and we need to understand it before setting policy.

dignin

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

BS44325 said:

None of that is a scientific study. That is just a scientist discussing an educated opinion. It is not worthless but it is only commentary. I was referring to the published journal article that the Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause piece was based on.

Sorry man, I can't find the article.

I hereby gracefully bow out of trying to convince you that the major increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anthropogenic, or that this increase is of a any significant concern. Good luck.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/insider-insights/articles/natural-cycle-pacific-ocean-implicated-global-warmings-false-pause/46243/

Excellent article that explains this phenomenon very well! Thanks dignin. And despite my retiring here from attempting to swing anyone's opinion, I do hope someone reads the article at the link!

I'm still trying to get access to the journal source this is based on. Currently all we have on how the data was generated to explain the pause is this:

"Mann's latest study, published in the journal Science with fellow researchers Byron A. Steinman, from the University of Minnesota-Duluth and Sonya K. Miller from Penn State, looked at climate model runs along with real-world observations."

We need to know more about the climate models and the data. Are they valid? What variables are controlled for? Can the results be reproduced? During my MSc. thesis defence I would get hammered on questions such as these. I am not necessarily arguing that the models are wrong, although they could be, I am just trying to get at the root of how the pause is being explained. The pause is happening and we need to understand it before setting policy.

I will take a look around. My wife is far better at navigating peer reviewed papers, and as I'm sure you know.....we don't all have access to these papers in journals, unless we pay a licence fee.

Here is an abstract.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150226144911.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6225/988

brianlux

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

BS44325 said:

None of that is a scientific study. That is just a scientist discussing an educated opinion. It is not worthless but it is only commentary. I was referring to the published journal article that the Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause piece was based on.

Sorry man, I can't find the article.

I hereby gracefully bow out of trying to convince you that the major increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anthropogenic, or that this increase is of a any significant concern. Good luck.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/insider-insights/articles/natural-cycle-pacific-ocean-implicated-global-warmings-false-pause/46243/

Excellent article that explains this phenomenon very well! Thanks dignin. And despite my retiring here from attempting to swing anyone's opinion, I do hope someone reads the article at the link!

You are not allowed to retire Brian. We need your environmental passion here. They will eventually come around. Keep on keepin' on.

Well, OK. How about a little vacation then?

BS44325

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

BS44325 said:

None of that is a scientific study. That is just a scientist discussing an educated opinion. It is not worthless but it is only commentary. I was referring to the published journal article that the Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause piece was based on.

Sorry man, I can't find the article.

I hereby gracefully bow out of trying to convince you that the major increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anthropogenic, or that this increase is of a any significant concern. Good luck.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/insider-insights/articles/natural-cycle-pacific-ocean-implicated-global-warmings-false-pause/46243/

Excellent article that explains this phenomenon very well! Thanks dignin. And despite my retiring here from attempting to swing anyone's opinion, I do hope someone reads the article at the link!

I'm still trying to get access to the journal source this is based on. Currently all we have on how the data was generated to explain the pause is this:

"Mann's latest study, published in the journal Science with fellow researchers Byron A. Steinman, from the University of Minnesota-Duluth and Sonya K. Miller from Penn State, looked at climate model runs along with real-world observations."

We need to know more about the climate models and the data. Are they valid? What variables are controlled for? Can the results be reproduced? During my MSc. thesis defence I would get hammered on questions such as these. I am not necessarily arguing that the models are wrong, although they could be, I am just trying to get at the root of how the pause is being explained. The pause is happening and we need to understand it before setting policy.

I will take a look around. My wife is far better at navigating peer reviewed papers, and as I'm sure you know.....we don't all have access to these papers in journals, unless we pay a licence fee.

Here is an abstract.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150226144911.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6225/988

Thanks for posting. Trying to get at the full article from my old university account. I don't want to prejudge but this quote leads me to believe that the findings are largely based on conjecture and/or researcher bias.

"The researchers conclude that the down-trending PMO and the unusual slowing of warming over the past decade are tied to heat burial beneath the tropical Pacific and a tendency for sustained La Niña type conditions. While there is paleoclimate data suggesting that this type of response could come from subtle features of climate change itself that climate models do not currently capture, the researchers note that the most likely explanation is the random excursions of the AMO."

I don't mean to question Mann's motives but if he cannot explain the pause it certainly impacts much of his earlier research. Previous research could have been well intentioned but current data is not lining up with what initial models predicted. This is problematic.

If this study is correct though the concept of "heat burial" needs to be investigated further. What is it exactly? Is it another feedback mechanism that allows for earth temperature regulation? Can the earth deal with man made temperature fluctuations?

HughFreakingDillon

what type of data would it take to definitively convince people that man made technology has fucked with and/or sped up the natural climate cycles on earth?