4 ms·

I think in order to make the claim that climate change isn't happening, you need to be able to explain how a massive change in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses i

by jmcqk6 9y ago

I think in order to make the claim that climate change isn't happening, you need to be able to explain how a massive change in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will not result in warming. There is fundamental data that does not depend on climate models that tells us we're in danger. Atmosphere composition in one of them. Ocean ph is another. If you have specific criticisms against how climate models are being run, then the place for that debate is within the scientific community, with scientific arguments. Apparently you have decided that is not for you, though.

huffpopo 9y ago
I make no claim that climate change isn't happening. Being between the modeler and the results meant it was my job to explain the result to the modeler. So criticizing climate change models within the scientific community was my job for over a year and a half.
- Florin_Andrei 9y ago
  > criticizing climate change models within the scientific community was my job for over a year and a half So you had a long and glorious career spanning more than 18 months, that makes you feel entitled to criticize those who studied the field for decades and are actually making a living therein.
  - huffpopo 9y ago
    Yes; but it seems your answer to my question is that I must also have several decades of experience.
    - Florin_Andrei 9y ago
      My answer is - you need to actually understand the thing you're criticizing, not just feel like you do. Another prerequisite is a lack of agenda or bias.
gus_massa 9y ago
> you need to be able to explain how a massive change in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will not result in warming. It's not so easy to be sure about the warning produced by the CO2 because a very big part is the "Climate Sensibility". And there is no straightforward way to calculate the climate sensibility, you must use climate models. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_forcing_due_to_doubled_CO2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_... > CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback";[14] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).
- jmcqk6 9y ago
  > "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. We're going to get warmer, to find out how much warmer, you need more complex models.
gwright 9y ago
No one is making the claim that "change isn't happening". The skeptical view point isn't even "warming isn't happening". The skeptical view is that catastrophic warming isn't an accurate prediction of future temperature trends. I believe the primary difference between the "consensus crowd" and the "skeptic crowd" is that the consensus crowd is confident in the predictive value of models that have a net positive feedback sensitivity to temperature increase while the skeptics argue that we don't actually know what the feedback mechanisms well enough to be confident in the models and in fact basic physical principles argue for a negative net feedback to temperature increases (to avoid runaway warming). As for possibile negative feedback loops, increased CO2 might increase clouds, which increases the earth's albedo resulting in less energy input from the sun, which reduces temperature.
- Oletros 9y ago
  > The skeptical view point isn't even "warming isn't happening". What the heck?
  - gwright 9y ago
    Let me clarify. There is a difference between warming and catastrophic warming. Serious skeptics are arguing against catastrophic warming as predicted by the models. There is another level of debate, less foundational, regarding the quality of our temperature observations and the amount of warming (not catastrophic warming) that is a result of natural variation, human activity, measurement errors, data adjustments and the like. Observational warming has in general been less than that predicted by the models suggesting that the extrapolation into the future by the models may not be accurate.
    - Oletros 9y ago
      > Serious skeptics are arguing against catastrophic warming as predicted by the models. What catastrophic warming? Or better, define catastrophic warming And by the way, 90% of skeptics still say that there is no warming. > Observational warming has in general been less than that predicted by the models suggesting that the extrapolation into the future by the models may not be accurate. Source for that?

by jmcqk6 9y ago

huffpopo 9y ago

I make no claim that climate change isn't happening. Being between the modeler and the results meant it was my job to explain the result to the modeler. So criticizing climate change models within the scientific community was my job for over a year and a half.

Florin_Andrei 9y ago
> criticizing climate change models within the scientific community was my job for over a year and a half So you had a long and glorious career spanning more than 18 months, that makes you feel entitled to criticize those who studied the field for decades and are actually making a living therein.
- huffpopo 9y ago
  Yes; but it seems your answer to my question is that I must also have several decades of experience.
  - Florin_Andrei 9y ago
    My answer is - you need to actually understand the thing you're criticizing, not just feel like you do. Another prerequisite is a lack of agenda or bias.

gus_massa 9y ago

> you need to be able to explain how a massive change in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will not result in warming. It's not so easy to be sure about the warning produced by the CO2 because a very big part is the "Climate Sensibility". And there is no straightforward way to calculate the climate sensibility, you must use climate models. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_forcing_due_to_doubled_CO2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_... > CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback";[14] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).

jmcqk6 9y ago
> "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. We're going to get warmer, to find out how much warmer, you need more complex models.

gwright 9y ago

No one is making the claim that "change isn't happening". The skeptical view point isn't even "warming isn't happening". The skeptical view is that catastrophic warming isn't an accurate prediction of future temperature trends. I believe the primary difference between the "consensus crowd" and the "skeptic crowd" is that the consensus crowd is confident in the predictive value of models that have a net positive feedback sensitivity to temperature increase while the skeptics argue that we don't actually know what the feedback mechanisms well enough to be confident in the models and in fact basic physical principles argue for a negative net feedback to temperature increases (to avoid runaway warming). As for possibile negative feedback loops, increased CO2 might increase clouds, which increases the earth's albedo resulting in less energy input from the sun, which reduces temperature.

Oletros 9y ago
> The skeptical view point isn't even "warming isn't happening". What the heck?
- gwright 9y ago
  Let me clarify. There is a difference between warming and catastrophic warming. Serious skeptics are arguing against catastrophic warming as predicted by the models. There is another level of debate, less foundational, regarding the quality of our temperature observations and the amount of warming (not catastrophic warming) that is a result of natural variation, human activity, measurement errors, data adjustments and the like. Observational warming has in general been less than that predicted by the models suggesting that the extrapolation into the future by the models may not be accurate.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > Serious skeptics are arguing against catastrophic warming as predicted by the models. What catastrophic warming? Or better, define catastrophic warming And by the way, 90% of skeptics still say that there is no warming. > Observational warming has in general been less than that predicted by the models suggesting that the extrapolation into the future by the models may not be accurate. Source for that?