Thanks for the post. It's a good opener for beginners. But I think it might give the impression that the attribution process is simpler than it really is (or even that those doing these studies are simple minded!).
For example, there are always questions about the fidelity of models in reproducing certain weather and climate phenomena and this is why the results of models runs are far from decisive.
It would be nice to get a better sense of how these issues are taken into consideration: i.e. how model evidence is evaluated, which models are chosen etc. and why results may differ from observations: why it's often messy and complicated!
I don't feel confident that the GCPs are sufficiently accurate enough to be used in the way described. However, it's clear enough to me that our climate has been modified substantially by humans, so I don't feel that we need to attribute each event to climate change.
I'm also intrigued by James Hanson's recent proposal that the GCP underestimate both the cooling effect of aerosols and the warming effect of CO2, and that our reduction of sulfur in fuels used in shipping has led to additional warming in the victim of major ocean shipping routes. So, again, there's reason to be uncertain about using the GCPs this way.
Thanks Mr Dressler. There are several unknowns that come into the equation. Much of which revolves around evaporation, water vapor, and condensation rates. This is an area that needs much more fine tuning. Atmospheric variability from one spot to another is a mystery..Why the variability? Colder than normal in the lower elevations? hotter than normal in upper elevations in our atmosphere and what could be driving these unusual conditions. An interesting fact from National Wildfire Coordinating Group/Fire Weather Publication, “Clouds and Precipitation”
“Over an area the size of Oregon, 1 inch of rain is equivalent to nearly 8 billion tons of water. All of this water comes from condensation of vapor in the atmosphere. For each ton of water that condenses, almost 2 million B.T.U.’s of latent heat is released to the atmosphere. It becomes obvious that tremendous quantities of water and energy are involved in the formation of clouds and precipitation.”
We cannot stay stuck with seeking more science to make the important, necessary decision: So far, virtually all articles relating to the climate crisis miss a few critical points:
- We must acknowledge that our moving into a hot, unpredictable and for many people deadly future is not unavoidable – compassion must compel us to stop today’s destructive, misguided economic developments.
- We cannot expect individuals, non-profit organizations, and for-profit corporations with government incentives to turn our economy around. Profits will derail good intentions of corporations.
- Governments must form and fund public-private partnership non-profit enterprises to restructure industries, transportation systems and land management.
- Trying to adapt to climate change is fine if you are well-off in a wealthy country. For many populations, heat waves will have huge death tolls. Adaptations are impossible as catastrophes become more unpredictable and deadly.
- The issue is not ‘doomism’ versus ‘hope,’ it is realism. Feeling terrified about the future may stimulate people to think of radical changes that include sacrifices, such as less gadgets, having a mostly plant-based diet and using public transportation instead of electric private steel cars.
- With only gradual changes over decades, we must expect mass migrations that will often lead to violence. Biodiversity will greatly decrease and many ecosystems will be destroyed; in effect, global warming will be genocidal.
When the comparative model runs are done, what period of time do they cover? and with what initial conditions?
A difficult lesson learned during my graduate work is that while it’s good to get some sort of result (whether experimental or computational), it’s a lot better if you can come up with some independent or complementary method that gives the same result!
Thanks for the post. It's a good opener for beginners. But I think it might give the impression that the attribution process is simpler than it really is (or even that those doing these studies are simple minded!).
For example, there are always questions about the fidelity of models in reproducing certain weather and climate phenomena and this is why the results of models runs are far from decisive.
It would be nice to get a better sense of how these issues are taken into consideration: i.e. how model evidence is evaluated, which models are chosen etc. and why results may differ from observations: why it's often messy and complicated!
Great explainer. Thanks!
I don't feel confident that the GCPs are sufficiently accurate enough to be used in the way described. However, it's clear enough to me that our climate has been modified substantially by humans, so I don't feel that we need to attribute each event to climate change.
I'm also intrigued by James Hanson's recent proposal that the GCP underestimate both the cooling effect of aerosols and the warming effect of CO2, and that our reduction of sulfur in fuels used in shipping has led to additional warming in the victim of major ocean shipping routes. So, again, there's reason to be uncertain about using the GCPs this way.
Thanks Mr Dressler. There are several unknowns that come into the equation. Much of which revolves around evaporation, water vapor, and condensation rates. This is an area that needs much more fine tuning. Atmospheric variability from one spot to another is a mystery..Why the variability? Colder than normal in the lower elevations? hotter than normal in upper elevations in our atmosphere and what could be driving these unusual conditions. An interesting fact from National Wildfire Coordinating Group/Fire Weather Publication, “Clouds and Precipitation”
“Over an area the size of Oregon, 1 inch of rain is equivalent to nearly 8 billion tons of water. All of this water comes from condensation of vapor in the atmosphere. For each ton of water that condenses, almost 2 million B.T.U.’s of latent heat is released to the atmosphere. It becomes obvious that tremendous quantities of water and energy are involved in the formation of clouds and precipitation.”
We cannot stay stuck with seeking more science to make the important, necessary decision: So far, virtually all articles relating to the climate crisis miss a few critical points:
- We must acknowledge that our moving into a hot, unpredictable and for many people deadly future is not unavoidable – compassion must compel us to stop today’s destructive, misguided economic developments.
- We cannot expect individuals, non-profit organizations, and for-profit corporations with government incentives to turn our economy around. Profits will derail good intentions of corporations.
- Governments must form and fund public-private partnership non-profit enterprises to restructure industries, transportation systems and land management.
- Trying to adapt to climate change is fine if you are well-off in a wealthy country. For many populations, heat waves will have huge death tolls. Adaptations are impossible as catastrophes become more unpredictable and deadly.
- The issue is not ‘doomism’ versus ‘hope,’ it is realism. Feeling terrified about the future may stimulate people to think of radical changes that include sacrifices, such as less gadgets, having a mostly plant-based diet and using public transportation instead of electric private steel cars.
- With only gradual changes over decades, we must expect mass migrations that will often lead to violence. Biodiversity will greatly decrease and many ecosystems will be destroyed; in effect, global warming will be genocidal.
When the comparative model runs are done, what period of time do they cover? and with what initial conditions?
A difficult lesson learned during my graduate work is that while it’s good to get some sort of result (whether experimental or computational), it’s a lot better if you can come up with some independent or complementary method that gives the same result!