[Vision2020] Polar Amplification Predicted by Early Climate Modeling Programs: Now Well Verified

[Ted Moffett]

What I thought you meant was that the science behind examining anthropogenic
global warming could *not conduct a "test" on the Earth's whole climate
system's response to human impacts, but could only examine single variables
("some aspect of the theory")* responding or not to increases in atmospheric
CO2, and other human impacts.

But the computer models that have been used since the 1970s to study the
potential consequences of human impacts on climate *attempt to model the
Earth's climate system as a whole,* to determine the effects of increasing
atmospheric CO2, and other variables.  Thus the theory is being *scientifically
examined considering the simultaneous interactions of numerous variables in
the climate system,* as much as this is possible with a computer model.  The
outcomes of the computer models might be considered a single virtual "test"
of the theory in total.

One of the most striking predictions of the earlier computer models was the
rapid deterioration of the Arctic.  While the observed decline in Arctic ice
cover and rapid increases in Arctic temperatures vindicates these earlier
computer models predicting human impacts on climate, *some critics have
emphasized that some of the computer models must be significantly in error,*
*because the decline in the Arctic has been occurring much faster than
predicted.  *Maybe the computer models mathematical accuracy is in
question.  Maybe other variables are not given due consideration.  Some
argue solar variables.  Recently in the media there was a lot of hype about
underwater volcanoes warming the Arctic.

I also thought you might have meant that *repeatable and controlled*
*laboratory
(a cornerstone of much "hard" scientific research) tests* *on the Earth's
climate system as a whole, relating to anthropogenic warming, are
impossible,* given we would need numerous Earth's under controlled
conditions to experiment on, adding CO2 to the atmosphere to test the
outcome numerous times.  A similar argument, I think, is used to criticize
the social sciences, given you cannot take entire societies and put them in
"test tubes" to conduct repeatable controlled experiments on the outcomes of
changing conditions.  Some would argue that the social sciences are a "soft"
science due to this limitation, ditto for climate science.  However, the
lead melting temperatures on Venus (900 F.) do offer an example of the
warming effects of atmospheric CO2 (Venus's atmosphere is about 96 percent
CO2) on the climate of a planet.

Computer models used in climate science are a means to virtually conduct
repeatable tests on the Earth's climate system's response to changing
variables.  *Whether relying on computer models to accurately predict the
Earth's climate system in the future should be considered "hard" or "soft"
science can be debated, but the science behind anthropogenic warming also
relies on accurate paleoclimate data gathered by scientists,* that one of
the world's leading climate scientists, NASA's James Hansen, has pointed out
is more important than computer climate modeling.  He states the Earth's
climate history is the most important basis for climate science:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080804_TripReport.pdf

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080805/james-hansen-how-science-works

James Hansen

Our understanding of the Earth’s climate, in particular, depends foremost on
the Earth’s history: how past climate changed in response to changing
boundary conditions. I rate observations of ongoing climate change and
processes today, processes on the ice sheets, in the oceans, etc., as the
second most important source of knowledge about climate change. Climate
models rate only third, in my opinion. Models are a tool that helps us
understand the other two, i.e., climate history and on-going climate
phenomena. Models are a representation of reality, one that helps us combine
different factors, evaluate relative importance, and try to understand
interactions. As we make progress we add more processes to the models and
improve representations of others.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett


On 4/5/09, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  All I meant was that you couldn't do a single test on the thesis, not
> that it was unsupported by evidence.
>
> Joe Campbell
>
> On Apr 5, 2009, at 7:12 PM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Joe Campbell wrote:
>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-April/062709.html
>
> It isn't as if you could test global warming anyway. Any tests would have
> to be done on
> some aspect of the theory and I imagine such tests are being done.
>
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---------------------
> Do you wish to retract your statement, given your rather puzzling assertion
> that "It isn't as if you could test global warming anyway." assuming
> you accept the validity of the scientific information presented below from
> NOAA on the scientific efforts regarding "testing" global warming theory,
> that have been ongoing for decades?  There is a compelling reason that the
> IPCC issues definitive statements regarding the future impacts
> of anthropogenic climate change:  The theory *has* *been tested* for decades.
> I am astonished that an academic of your standing would write such an
> irresponsible statement about one of the most important scientific issues of
> our time.
>
> Ted Moffett
> ---------------------
>
> NOAA 200th Top Tens: Breakthroughs: The First *Climate Model*<http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/welcome.html>
>
> Testing the Notion of Global Warming
>
> Two scientists from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Drs. Syukuro
> Manabe and Kirk Bryan, published the model results in 1969. By the 1970s,
> general circulation models emerged as a central tool in climate research.
> Dr. Manabe and Mr. Dick Wetherald later used this original model to simulate
> the first three-dimensional experiment to test the notion of global
> warming.  Their groundbreaking results were published in 1975.
> -------------------
>
> The First Climate Model
>
>
> http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/welcome.html
> --------------------
> [image: computing infrastructure that can hold 2,000 terabytes]<http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/GFDL_HPCC.html>
>
> To accommodate growth in the size of model outputs, NOAA has invested in a
> computing infrastructure that can hold 2,000 terabytes (or two million
> gigabytes) of data.  With this capacity, scientists now have the ability to
> store global climate data on a weekly or even daily basis to investigate
> climate change.
> -------------------
> [image: Observed trends in surface air temperature from 1960-1990]<http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/Obstrends.html>
>
> Computer models have long predicted that the climate change will affect
> Arctic and subarctic regions earlier and more dramatically than other parts
> of the world.  Recent studies show marked increases in temperature and many
> other climate variables across much of the far north. Observed trends in
> surface air temperature from 1960-1990 (shown above in degrees centigrade)
> demonstrate "polar amplification,” with largest temperature increases (shown
> in red and magenta) occurring near the North Pole.
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090407/ca4fa8a0/attachment.html