I'm sure glad that Fox put on a scientist to discuss this. With so much public ignorance about the science, just letting some idiot spout off unoppossed would be irresponsible science reporting. And those libtards who say that Fox isn't just biased, but is straight-up propaganda, would really whine if Fox put on, unoppossed, some gop partisan hack, the kind who might've worked with Inhofe, or one skeezy enough to have initiated the Swift Boat campaign. Fortunately, Fox does journalism proud!
I'd like to get a little known FACT out to everyone. When I was in collage I took classes in botany. We did an experiment to show the affects of CO2 with plants. 2 small seedlings, one in exposed to open atmosphere with us in class, the other encased in a closed environment with HIGH LEVELS of CO2 with meters to monitor gas levels for each, side by side. Guess what? The one encased with HIGH levels of CO2 grew 2x larger than the one exposed to our classroom atmosphere. Global warming is a SCAM.
Did you learn about Liebig's law of the minimum in your botany class? And increased plant growth from CO2, even if things were as simple as your one experiment suggests to you, wouldn't in any way, shape, or form imply that global warming is a SCAM. Reaching such a conclusion is a non sequitur.
Thank God The for the the grand solar minimum going on 3 years now. Thousands of people already frozen to death in Europe due to winter weather. Hopefully we will set a new record death toll this winter season with people freezing to death. I just hope most of those people killed by the cold weather are mostly warmists.
The greatest gas in the atmosphere affecting temperature is the 2-3% of water vapor. Unless the Man Caused Global Warming believers start selling dehumidifiers, that won't change. The MCGW believers look upon the subject like a religion, instead of logically. Absolutely nothing will changer their minds, no matter how logical an argument that can be made about disagreeing with MCGW.
The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere averages 338 parts per million. In 2009, it increased by 2 ppm. OMG...run...the sky is falling! The CO2 in the atmosphere varies during the year because plant life love the stuff. The give us O2 in return.
Re: "The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere averages 338 parts per million. In 2009, it increased by 2 ppm. OMG...run...the sky is falling!"
Your armchair intution about what's a big or small number, and its consequent impact, doesn't trump the quantitative conclusions of those research scientists who've dedicated their lives to understanding this stuff.
Listen to the scientists - they know more than you.
Al Gore’s Man Caused Global Warming scam is proving to be bogus, so much so that whenever freezing cold weather hits during an Al Gore Man Caused Global Warming event, Al Gore rationalizes that as Global Warming. Now, because Al Gore wants to not look so foolish, he changed his wording to “Climate Change.” Approximately 600 "scientists" out of about 10,000 believe in "Man Caused." Why doesn't the "News" ever mention those who don't believe?
He's a popularizer. He's not a scientist, as he's the 1st to admit. He's simply getting the scientific community's message out. Informed discussion on this topic doesn't mention Al Gore. This is a SCIENTIFIC issue.
Re: It's NOW called "Climate Change" to hide failures
The IPCC - the conspiracy masters - was formed in 1988. What does IPCC stand for?
Re: "Why doesn't the "News" ever mention those who don't believe?"
@VeryEvilPettingZoo There is Climate Change, it's normal. Remember this Planet has had 3 Ices Ages, and rewarmed up each time? It's done that without any Man Caused CO2. This whole climate scare scam is nothing but a manipulation for power, control, and money. re: "Deniers receive disproportionate attention." Please..............
A recent survey of actively publishing climatologists, 75 out of 77 agreed that humans were a significant cause of the rcent warming. Are the skeptics heard on only 2 out of 77 media discussions of this issue? Or are they heard almost everytime the matter is reported on?
I think you have confused science with political science. A simple examination of the recent CanCon climate cartel confab proves this issue is all about wealth redistribution, not science, as over and over again they called for radical wealth redistribution so the west could atone for its carbon sins. The science is modulated to fit the screed. Don't confuse fallible computer generated climate models with the real data of field studies.
I think you have confused science with political science. A simple examination of the recent CanCon climate cartel confab proves this issue is all about wealth redistribution, not science, as over and over again they called for radical wealth redistribution so the west could atone for its carbon sins. The science is modulated to fit the screed. Don't confuse fallible computer generated climate models with the real data of field
I think you have confused science with political science. A simple examination of the recent CanCon climate cartel confab proves this issue is all about wealth redistribution, not science, as over and over again they called for radical wealth redistribution so the west could atone for its carbon sins. The science is modulated to fit the screed. Don't confuse fallible computer generated climate models with the real data of field
Re: "I think you have confused science with political science. A simple examination of the recent CanCon climate cartel confab proves this issue is all about... "
I think you have it confused. The science is science. How do best adapt to what the science tells us is inherently political, social, and economic.
Re: "The science is modulated to fit the screed."
Bullshit.
Object to that? OK - then which journal or scientist are you accusing of fraud? And your evidence is?
majorl31: You are right. I earlier posted asking VerEvilPettingZoo for evidence that increased CO2 could cause harmful warming. I mistook your post to him for his reply. He spewed a lot of bilge about global warming here but when it comes to providing evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming he is out of here. I think you are right on about the effects of solar changes. Solar storms can be big and check out Hendrick Svensmark on YouTube for how the sun can affect climate.
@majorl31 I have also read that generally quiet solar periods, like the present, can be punctuated by severe solar storms that unleash electromagnetic pulses that could fry a lot of the electronics that our society depends upon. I am also amazed that VeryEvilPettingZoo is directing people to read the IPCC report. It has had so many sections discredited on things like predictions that the snow on the Himalayas would be gone in 30 years, that global warming would destroy the rain forest, etc.
@groweg Yes it is foolish to try to predict the weather patterns,there are freezing temps in Florida right now and millions are going to be lost to the citrus farmers
What the eruption of the volcano in Iceland has to do with the case for CO2 causing harmful warming is beyond me. Please enlighten me. And I'm not sure what it spewed should be characterized as "pollutants" as man-made emissions are thought of.
@groweg what can't you make a connection to how nature can cause more problems than man can,at least man can correct the problems but we cannot stop nature,on the internet they say 2011 will bring bursts from the sun which will effect the whole world in various ways
VeryEvilPettingZoo: I see a lot of your posts promoting the idea of global warming. Can you succinctly inform me as to what evidence there is that CO2 increases can cause harmful warming?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so increasing its atmospheric concentration changes the Earth's energy balance, so increasing average surface temps. That is, super briefly, it.
It would be nice if you could understand all of climatology by understanding a simple experiment, but it happens to be extremely complicated. That's damn good reason to listen to the scientists about this - they know more than you, or me, or other bozos on YouTube.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo The IPCC report is crap. All kinds of unsupportable nonsense founds its way into it. As for "listen to the scientists" that is a very foolish idea. Think for yourself. Consider all the cases where scientists have been mistaken. Like when they didn't believe ulcers were caused by bacteria and then someone came along and proved bacteria caused ulcers and won the Nobel Prize. For many, many more examples read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
It's completely credible in the scientific world. That deniers think it's crap is merely cause for amusement. I'm not going to waste time trying to argue a nutjob into accepting reality. You think it's crap? Fine - be a moron - no skin off my back.
Big $ is spent to confuse you, slandering anything & everything about global warming in order to protect precious corporate profits. And you buy it all, despite how transparent this is. It's just sad to wtiness
@VeryEvilPettingZoo I was most amused when the IPCC report was shown to have relied a magazine article to claim that Himalayan glaciers would be gone in 30 years due to global warming. I was amused to read about the IPCC report claim global warming was going to destroy the rain forests when that turned out to be scientifically unsupported. As for "nutjob" and "moron" comments I take that as projections of your own functioning.
Yes - you've been diligently reading your denier blogs like a good little sheep. You know that a few flaws made it into the IPCC reports among its thousands of citations. Some mistakes among its thousands of pages means it's crap - of course - how could I have been so blind? You're quite knowledgeable about what "crap" it is. That's because you've got such excellent judgement and insight into science - much better than those silly scientists who find the report completely credible.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo All empty talk. Where is your evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming? I understand scientists have spent tens of billions in research dollars on global warming. What is the evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming?
You've proven to be confused about the basics, and to have bought in to all manner of frankly silly arguments, so I'm not going to try to educate you on the totality of climate science. This is a huge subject - it's not as simple as dropping a rock off your roof and observing that "s = v t + 1/2 g t^2". I pointed you to where you can learn about it - IF you care to investigate what the scientific community, based on the totality of the peer reviewed literature, has to say.
Re: "As for "listen to the scientists" that is a very foolish idea. Think for yourself.
Right. Check with the witch doctors! And then perform do-it-yourself brain surgery as needed. Silly "experts" think they know it all...
Re: "Consider all the cases where scientists have been mistaken"
Errr - this takes a long time to explain to the scientifically ignorant. 1) Science is self correcting. 2) Science is obsessed with confidence and bounding error 3) Imperfect doesn't discredit
@VeryEvilPettingZoo As for "this takes a long time to explain to the scientifically ignorant" - It is you who shows a lack of understanding of how science works. You believe a hypothesis for which you cannot produce any proof of correctness.
Irony #4: My quote about this taking a long time was about a DIFFERENT part of your ignorance: your argument that science has been wrong before, and thus it's foolish to listen to the scientists. So now I have to take time to explain what even my it-would-take-time-to-explain comment referred to - even though it was transparent.
Right. But science eventually figured it out, right? There are other examples. Plate tectonics is quite famous. But they're the exception, AND they eventually won the scientific day. AGW has been under intense scrutiny for decades! "Whoops, didn't think of that" ain't likely.
Re: read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
Already read it - and understood it better than you it seems. Deniers have no paradigm shift lurking in the background. AGW isn't strained.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "AGW isn't strained" HA, HA, HA. Look at the work of Lindzen, Spencer, Michaels, Soon, Legates, etc. You cannot produce any evidence that CO2 causes harmful warming. Adherents to global warming told us for years we would see ever increasing temperatures, winter weather would become a thing of the past, heatwaves in the summer would become more intense, hurricane counts would increase - none of these has happened.
Re: "AGW isn't strained" HA, HA, HA. Look at the work of Lindzen, Spencer, Michaels, Soon, Legates, etc."
Your laughter is predictable. I'd get the same thing if I told a 9-11 Truther that it's not in doubt that Al Qeada was behind 9-11. See how that works? Who were you just laughing at? It was NASA, NOAA, USGCRP, NAS, AAAS, ACS - no point in listing them all, since that means listing EVERY prestigious scientific org on planet Earth.
But hey, you've read some convincing denier blogs!
Re: "You cannot produce any evidence that CO2 causes harmful warming"
Why must I repeat and repeat before you hear? I CAN produce such evidence, but I CHOOSE not to. Also, I HAVE pointed you to where the entire scientific case is made in full the detail - which you've simply dismissed. That dismissal, your inability to distinguish CAN-vs-CHOOSE, your several basic scientific confusions, and the ubiquitous denier's brickwall to any actual science - all justify my wisdom here
I'll go over specific parts, but you keep requesting the enitre data dump of the entire scientific body of evidence "that CO2 causes harmful warming". It's a childish request. As I told you before, it's complicated - I wish it were simple and breifly explainable, but it's not. We have to talk about thermodynamics, absorptivity, atmospheres, oceans, currents, clouds, albedo, aerosols, ice caps, transpiration, the carbon cycle, lapse rates, solar irradiance, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
@VeryEvilPettingZoo I have asked you to provide evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming. I have asked this of you many, many times. You finally respond by saying you can but you "CHOOSE not to." Why not? The criticisms of global warming by Lindzen, Spencer, etc. can and are presented succinctly. All your endless verbiage here and no response to a simple request for evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming. You cannot produce such evidence because there is no evidence.
Re: "You finally respond by saying you can but you "CHOOSE not to." Why not? ... All your endless verbiage here and no response to a simple request for evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming. You cannot produce such evidence because there is no evidence."
1) I pointed you to evidence that the scientific community says makes the case for CO2 leading to eventual harmful warming. I pointed to the IPCC. You dismissed without a care. So why should I even bother, if that's your style?
2) I pointed out that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This, surprisingly (pleasantly), you didn't object to, but instead pointed out, correctly, that it's feedbacks FROM CO2's warming effect that produce most of the warming. You were a little confuse about climate sensitivity, but basically ok.
3) So to produce, as you've asked, the evidence of the most harmful extent of the warming requires discussing climate sensitivity - the NET warming consequences of ALL the feedbacks.
4) This is why, as I've repeated over and over and over, I can't briefly (and choose not to even bother trying to give the whole long story given you off hand dismissal of the IPCC) present the evidence of the harmful warming: what needs to be presented are the science of ALL the feedback mechanisms, in the QUANITATIVE EXTENT, that together magnify CO2's warming. If you understand this issue at all, you'll understand that this is a HUGE amount of material to cover.
5) Also, your denier's causal dismissal of legitimate science and your denier's YT/Blog knowledge of this subject means that delving into these issues would be fruitless anyhow. I know from foolish experience the long and foolish utility of hammering out ONE of these issues with deniers - but you want to go over ALL of them. No way!
6) What scientific subjects are you asking for me to explain to you? They include: albedo, aerosols and dimming, ocean currents, ocean CO2-sink capacity, polar ice caps, sea ice, transpiration, forest CO2-sinks, vegetation decay, human land use, stratospheric ozone, methane and permafrost, black carbon, and, of course, lapse rate, water vapor, lower clouds, and upper clouds.
7) I wish it were a short simple situation to describe in a paragraph - but the reality is it's simply not.
8) So stop repeating that there's no such evidence. I've pointed you to the evidence!!! That you've stuck your head in the ground and are pretending that I haven't isn't an argument. I've told you the topics that require discussion (no doubt an incomplete list). And, I've told you, repeatedly and now in hideous detail, WHY I'm not going to just produce the evidence for harmful CO2 consequences.
9) If this detailed explanation doesn't sink in, then there's no point in further discussion.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo I appreciate your long and thoughtful reply. However, many of the scientific topics you mention are peripheral or derivative issues - ocean currents, human land use, methane, etc. None of these are issues if CO2 cannot set in action harmful warming in the first place. The scientific work I brought up apparently demonstrating that CO2 warming has no positive feedback effects make the alleged downstream effects (on albedo, methane) of CO2 buildup meaningless.
Re: "None of these are issues if CO2 cannot set in action harmful warming in the first place. The scientific work I brought up apparently demonstrating that CO2 warming has no positive feedback effects make the alleged downstream effects (on albedo, methane) of CO2 buildup meaningless."
I explained this before, but you're still confused. CO2, by itself, DIRECTLY warms. Warming, from ANY source, creates other changes that cause more/less warming, called the positive/negative feedbacks.
CO2 isn't the feedback (here). It's the initiator of the warming. The feedback mechanisms (NOT CO2) then respond to creating more, or less, warming. The TOTAL effect of ALL these feedbacks is the planet's temp response to the initial CO2-warming. These are bundled together into 1 number: "climate sensitivity" = the total warming, CO2+feedbacks, from doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
And as I explained, to understand climate sensitivity, you need to consider ALL the feedbacks.
I can't stress this enough. You're confused about the very basics here. It's as if you're trying to argue about calculus despite being confused about simple arithmetic.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Another thing: it appears that the computer models of AGW were constructed without testing on "out of sample" or new data. Anyone with any background in computer modeling knows that such models are not worth the CPU time it takes to run them without sufficient testing. I have seen studies that show that all of these models have been inaccurate in predicting temperatures following their creation date. It looks like AGW is the Humpty Dumpty of scientific theories.
Re: "computer models of AGW were constructed without testing on "out of sample" or new data"
Note: GCMs aren't trained up neural nets or parameter tuned "models", but rather grid solutions to complex math equations from physics & climate science.
1) Software testing: looking for mistakes in coding. The data sets don't matter. Even made up data is fine - sometimes even better.
2) Evaluation testing: Does the model's run matches actual history? Using real historical data is a necessity
(1) climate models aren't "engineered", they're thrown together by a bunch of people who know nothing about sound software practices. The "harry" readme text file from the CRU is a good example of how climate scientists write computer software.
(2) They are calibrated against historical data (curve fitting). Of course they match it. With today's starting parameters, they utterly fail at hind-casting.
1) Yeah - this isn't Clean Room development. If it were for the space shuttle, or nuclear launch control, it would be criminally irresponsible. But it's scientific programming, and like many other non-life-threating software projects, it's done messily.
2) All coders encounter unclear requirements. Such occational confusions are the norm inside the shop, especially with so many fine numerical points for these programs.
Personally, I don't set to work until they are clear (I do it for a living). Company profits and ultimately my pay cheque depend on it. With potentially trillions depending on the predictions of climate models, it's pretty shocking that any requirements are left unclear.
"If it were for the space shuttle, or nuclear launch control, it would be criminally irresponsible"
Indeed, it's even more important than that, apparently.
Re: "Personally, I don't set to work until they are clear (I do it for a living)."
I do too. And I also don't begin without clear requirements. BUT, once into it, I inevitably find those special cases, or, with scientific programming, round-off or numerical effects, or conflicting demands, that weren't anticipated at the start.
That's always true, save for truley simple projects. Always. If you say it isn't true for you, then you're either the greatest coder ever, or a liar.
Re: "If it were for the space shuttle, or nuclear launch control, it would be criminally irresponsible" Indeed, it's even more important than that, apparently.
1) The scientific case for AGW doesn;t require these models.
2) The IPCC used something like 23 different group's models. Studies show their differences are mainly with cloud treatment (as you noted, an it's got high uncertainty). But there's little variation between them, so "rejected for poor coding" isn't justifiable.
AGW is the statement that humans are driving the observed global warming. It's a statement of attribution of an effect. JUST the feedback-less 1C, if human driven, establishes AGW. The feedbacks determine the full extent, not the effect itself.
There's no evidence that Human's have caused the observed warming since the end of the LIA, just as there's no evidence that Human's have any affect whatsoever on the hole in the ozone layer, just as there's no evidence for the innumerable other scares the greens and other self-interested parties have foisted upon us over the years.
Re: "There's no evidence that Human's have caused the observed warming since the end of the LIA, just as there's no evidence that Human's have any affect whatsoever on the hole in the ozone layer"
Again, it's the naked assertions of YouTuber Robinsonion, versus the statements, judgements, and EVIDENCE presented by the planet's scientists. Oh dear - what a problem - whom shall I listen to?
Like the evidence that Human's are causing the hole in the Ozone layer? Or the evidence that sea level will rise 20m by the year 2000? Or the evidence that hurricane activity will increase due to warming? Or the evidence that poor diet causes stomach ulcers? It's all bollocks.
Re: "Like the evidence that Human's are causing the hole in the Ozone layer"
Yes - like that. Let me guess - you don't know shit about this issue either, right?
Re: "Or the evidence that sea level will rise 20m by the year 2000?"
I'll be admit that you aren't full of shit, IF you can give a journal citation where any climatologist published any such prediction. But otherwise, you're full of shit.
Re: "Or the evidence that hurricane activity will increase due to warming?"
Do you understand the difference between severity and frequency? That seems to be far too subtle a distinction for the typical denier moron - hence this confusion. A few claims about frequency were made - very tentative, and explicitly w/o high confidence. But hey, you're only 95% wrong here, so it's your best showing! Well done!
Re: "Or the evidence that poor diet causes stomach ulcers?"
1C is far less alarming, true, though still nontrivial. We haven't hit 1C, but already has summer arctic sea ice in its "death throes" according to the NSIDC. And for comparison, the ice ages come and go from just 5C changes over several thousand years.
And of course, feedbacks DO happen, driving the total climate sensitivity to 2-5C, with even greater warming possible, and much less warming not likely. The best estimate is about 3C.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "And of course, feedbacks DO happen, driving the total climate sensitivity to 2-5C, with even greater warming possible"
Disingenuous crap. You know full-well that feedbacks can be both positive and negative and that not enough is known about the climate system as a whole to give a net positive or negative value. Common sense tells us it must be negative.
Re: "And of course, feedbacks DO happen, driving the total climate sensitivity to 2-5C, with even greater warming possible" - Disingenuous crap.
Disingenuous? The planet's climatologists are disingenuous when they claim this? Perhaps you should go to the next meeting of the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences and inform them that their scientific conclusions are "disingenuous crap"
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Perhaps you should go to the next meeting of the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences and inform them that their scientific conclusions are "disingenuous crap"
Re: "it's the models that predict the latter, not the physics"
Climatology isn't basically physics? While a full GCM provides the best quantitative incorporation of all the processes, the individual processes (such as the individual feedbacks) are separately studied and quantitatively evaluated, (again, how do you think they decide what to use the models?). The "models" are just the grand result. The individual pieces are still there (with greater uncertainties) even w/o GCMs.
Re: "23 versions... does not validate the ensemble"
You've deftly defeated something that I didn't claim (though in a related way, I could make that point, I didn't here). You used harryreadme to challenge the coding. I replied that 23 different models give similar results, so "'rejected for poor coding' isn't justifiable". I didn't claim that 23 models with similar results validates them all. If CODING ERRORS meant the models were crap, then they wouldn't basically agree. Get it?
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "If CODING ERRORS meant the models were crap, then they wouldn't basically agree. Get it?"
Wrong. The actual coding showed "hacks" to get the results to agree. It would not surprise me if the 23 other models all did this too. It's called Confirmation Bias and it's ubiquitous in Climate Science. It is quite likely this is the reason all 23 of your models "agree".
Re: "The actual coding showed "hacks" to get the results to agree"
Bullshit.
And yes, I've looked at stolen code that deniers have used to falsely make this charge.
Re: "It would not surprise me if the 23 other models all did this too... It is quite likely this is the reason all 23 of your models 'agree'."
A conspiracy of all the dozens of groups involved, in a common fraud, wouldn't surprise you? That only proves that your judgement & understanding of the world are shit.
Re: "I'd better tweak the parameters so they match". Is that a conspiracy?"
No. And there's also no evidence that any such thing happens. You mistake your fantasies for reality, despite it already being demonstrated that you have no clue about what the GCMs are doing or how they're written.
3) Do you think it's generally any different for other scientific programming? Scientists make a lot of programs, and most of them aren't developed according to industry's best practices. Does that mean the programs are incorrect? No.
4) Do you know if the concerns in harryreadme were addressed? I've written a lot of in-house emails not unlike harryreadme. I've written them in hopes that my issues would be RESOLVED.
5) If you want to eat sausage, it's best not to watch how it's made.
Re: "They are calibrated against historical data (curve fitting). Of course they match it."
No. This is not curve fitting and parameter adjustment. The main wiggle room the GCMs have is how to spacially resolve the data in the form they get (from measurements) into the cells on which the PDEs are evaluated. That's where interpolations and assumptions are made - it's NOT "curve fitting".
Re: "With today's starting parameters, they utterly fail at hind-casting"
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale." (Randal et al)
Your quote there is actually from "A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data", Anagnostopoulos et al, Hydrol. Sci. 2010. "Randal et al" is "Anagnostopoulos et al" citing the IPCC to support their "it is claimed" statement - it is claimed by, Randal et al.. So, ironically, your citation was to the IPCC chapter on climate models. LOL - probably not your intent, but I suggest you follow your own citation and go read it.
The "Anagnostopoulos et al" paper proves that climate models don't accurately hindcast the weather AT PARTICULAR WEATHER STATIONS. They even disgard anomalies in favor of straight temps AT PARTICULAR WEATHER STATIONS. Color me very unimpressed, for obvious reasons.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo However constructed, computer models that uniformly fall flat on their face when tested on climate data subsequent to their creation are worthless.
Re: "However constructed, computer models that uniformly fall flat on their face when tested on climate data subsequent to their creation are worthless."
Bullshit.
But since you've "learned" by reading denier blogs, how could you be expected to know otherwise?
Ex: The most famous climate model prediction came from Hansen's 1988 congressional testimony. That was a long time ago - how have his predictions fared?
Of the 3 environmental scenarios A, B, and C, and the actual situation being very close to B (as predicted), his predicted 1988–2005 temp changes for scenario B were 0.33 C. The measured changes were 0.32 C!!! ("Global temperature change" Hansen et al., PNAS 2006). And note that was a very early and realatively unsophisticated GCM!
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You claim that Hansen's 1988 predictions were accurate. They were wildly inaccurate. Google "Christy Is Jim Hansen's Global Temperature Skillful." It is clear that his predictions were well off the mark. There is also concern that Hansen's GISS temperature record has been "adjusted" upwards to show a warming trend not found in other datasets (i.e. UAH).
Re: "You claim that Hansen's 1988 predictions were accurate. They were wildly inaccurate."
I didn't merely claim the model's prediction was accurate, I told you exactly what its accuracy was. For this most famous of all climate model predictions, for this most simple GCM compared to today's, the model made a prediction 17 years into the future. The model predicted .33C warming, and the measurements showed .32C warming - that's accurate to within 3% looking 17 years into the future!!!
And I didn't just claim it, I cited it: "Global temperature change" Hansen et al., PNAS 2006. Go see for yourself. You rebutted that this was false, that in fact the prediction was "wildly inaccurate", by citing a blog. Ignoring the absurdity of peer-reviewed journal vs blog, let's examine that blog's argument.
Now since the prediction is indisputable, how COULD anyone dispute the finding? Since the prediction is fixed, then one has to challenege the temperature record - and so they did
There's an odd thing there. The blog claims the prediction is poor, by assuming that NASA's temperature data is no good. To exaggerate the point, that's like saying that the prediction is no good because NASA used a machine time to go 17 years into the future and *measure* temps, then returned and pretended to be *predicting* it. Yeah, sure, if you ASSUME they have a time machine, maybe you have a point... but I'm a wee bit more interested in the time machine than the prediction.
Likewise, the blog's claim that the prediction is no good is a minor corollary of its underlying assumption - that NASA's temp data is no good. It says "tropospheric temperatures are used as the comparison metric due to many uncertainties and biases in the surface temperature record", justified by citing widely criticized arguments and papers. In other words, it's the blog's ASSUMPTION that's both suspect and, if correct, profound - not its conclusion about the model's prediction.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo re. Hansen's projections. You claim they were accurate. Just look at Hansen's projections and temperatures in the graph in Christy's post. Hansen's projections were way off.
Re: "Hansen's projections. You claim they were accurate. Just look at Hansen's projections and temperatures in the graph in Christy's post. Hansen's projections were way off"
I explained about climate predictions - I repeatedly gave you the journal cited evidence - all ignored. You reply with a blog. I humored that, examined it, and explained its discrepancy. What's your reply?
"LA LA LA LA LA. I don't listen. I just repeat what my denier blog says. That's how I *know* so much."
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You tout Hansen's projections. The relationship between Hansen's projections and temperature is zilch. The relationship between solar cycle length and temperature is strong and consistent. Google "strum solar cycle length temperature" and look at the last graph in his post. It shows a very close link between solar cycle length and temperature. There is no such link between temperature and CO2 levels, short or long term.
Re: There is also concern that Hansen's GISS temperature record has been "adjusted" upwards to show a warming trend not found in other datasets (i.e. UAH).
(I'll ignore the implicit idiocy about fraud.) The fact is that GISSTEMP is just one of several Earth temp records. No two are identical, but all are pretty close. FYI - thus when GISSTEMP finds a .01C difference between a 17 year prediction and measurement, it isn't be "wildly inaccurate" according to any other - including UAH.
Re: "I have seen studies that show that all of these models have been inaccurate in predicting temperatures following their creation date."
1) Reminder: Computer models are a tool that permit superior predictions and a more quantitative regional understanding of climate change, BUT, the scientific case for AGW doesn't require them.
2) 100% of the models, now and forever, are inaccurate. And every measurement humans ever make is inaccurate. The question is always "by how much?".
3) I can direct you to amazingly close prediction vs measurement examples made by models. I'm guessing your denier blogs don't bother to mention those.
4) Weather vs climate, signal vs noise: Climate models need decades before their predictive value can be fairly assessed. We're approaching that point ONLY NOW, and only with the EARLIEST GCMs. Have your "studies" considered this? If not, then your "studies" are a joke. Climate aren't weather forecasting models!!
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Rubbish. What did Warren Buffet say about investing? "it's only when the tide goes out that you get to see who's swimming naked". In other words, in a bull market, when stocks are increasing, everyone's a genius. Climate models are the same. They have an in-built warming bias, so when the climate is warming, they look correct. We're at an inflection point now - no doubt the models will be "adjusted" to look as if they predicted it all along. They didn't!
1) As I said, GCMs aren't weather forecasting programs. Only looking at long averages - decades - is climate change actually detectable. "Inflection points" will happen due to natural variation, but this doesn't undermine the model's merit. The issue is if long term trends are being correctly predicted.
2) Only the more rcent models account for decadal scale natural variation. With these models, the slowing of the warming during the 2000's is accounted for by the models.
3) See for instance "Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model", Smith et al, Science 2007 and "Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector" Keenlyside Nature 2008.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You write "the slowing of the warming during the 2000's is accounted for by the models." An alternate explanation for the slowing of the warming is that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has shifted into its cold mode. The models will fall apart when we have a few decades of cooling.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Climate models need decades before their predictive value can be fairly assessed." Papers have appeared indicating very poor prediction post-development accuracy so far. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted on these "models" that could have been, for mankind's sake, much better spent.
Re: "Papers have appeared indicating very poor prediction post-development accuracy so far."
That this is your reply to my "Climate models need decades before their predictive value can be fairly assessed" shows that you missed the point. However, I'm happly to look at any papers that you think establishes this.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Climate models have zero predictive power. They're wrong on the short-term, they're wrong on the medium term and they're wrong on the long term. If you can't hind-cast 100 or 200 years correctly, what makes you think you can forecast 100 or 200 years correctly? Your model is only as accurate as the assumptions that went into making it.
See my example to groweg: Hansen et al PNAS 2006. A 17 year prediction of .33 C warming vs observations of .32 C warming.
Re: "They're wrong on the short-term"
That's confused. The models only CLAIM to model long term trends.
Re: "they're wrong on the medium term"
What's medium? As they improve, their applicable time frame shrinks. They're closing in decadal scale phenomenon, but their claimed value is for many decades.
As I said, they're only now approaching the point where the earliest simplest model predictions can be fairly evaluated, and the indications that those early GCMs predicted fairly well.
Re: "If you can't hind-cast 100 or 200 years correctly, what makes you think you can forecast 100 or 200 years correctly?"
Without quibbling over what "correctly" means, their validation runs show that they do hind-cast "correctly".
Re: "Your model is only as accurate as the assumptions that went into making it."
Right. Those would be the laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, etc.. Of course, there are many places where assumptions are made - a computer model of anything necessarily approximates all over the place. Nearly-linear is treated as liner, interpolations are required to fit the actual data into the model cells, and so forth. But the calculations are solving the equations of basic physical laws.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "But the calculations are solving the equations of basic physical laws."
No they aren't. Got Navier-Stokes in there have we? Simulating turbulence? Proper treatment of clouds? Cosmic Ray influence on cloud cover? Proper treatment of PDO, AMO? Convection? Solar activity? Or is it just a complicated way of drawing a pre-determined linear trend that just happens to match an oscillating trend in the present epoch? Refer to previous comment about swimming naked.
Clouds have the most variation between the models because there still remains significant uncertainties about them. Do they *treat* clouds? - Yes. Is it a *proper* treatment? That's obviously ambiguous. They can at best bound their uncertainties (as always).
4) "Cosmic Ray influence on cloud cover?"
I don't know. I doubt any do, since this is a speculative mechanism/effect w/o compelling empirical evidence.
Again - "proper treatment"? I'm don't really understand how atmospheric & ocean currents are handled, but yes, they're included the models (the AOGCMs). See "Assessing General Circulation Model Simulations of Atmospheric Teleconnection Patterns", Stoner et al, Journal of Climate 2009.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Climate is the LONG TERM AVERAGE of weather (typically 30 years is used). Do you expect them to simulate turbulence?"
You seem to be suggesting that everything that needs to be known, is known and that all interactions in the climate system that are relevant to the 30 year "average", down to the smallest, are also known - or can easily be approximated. Only an idiot would suggest such a thing.
Re: "You seem to be suggesting that everything that needs to be known..."
Actually, that's what you were suggesting when you implied an expectation that climate models include turbulence simulations. "Only an idiot would suggest such a thing" - I agree. I was suggesting the exact opposite - that it's perposterous FOR YOU to expect that climate models include simulations of turbulence. Only averaged consequences of turbulence might need to be included, not turbulence itself.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo writes re. climate GCM's "the calculations are solving the equations of basic physical laws." Nonsense. The models incorporate assumptions from global warming theory such as the level of feedback effects. These pre-ordain the results. And those assumptions are wrong. GCM building is a make-work project for programmers, as useful as digging a hole and filling it back up.
Re: "The models incorporate assumptions from global warming theory such as the level of feedback effects. These pre-ordain the results. And those assumptions are wrong."
Just how do you think the feedbacks are determined? It's based on data and known physical theory. So when you then say such things are wrong, it's no different than saying "the science is wrong." That's an assertion, not an argument - and it's an assertion about the science being incorrect, not the models.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo writes "those early GCM's predicted fairly well." Wrong. Douglas et.al. (2007) compared GCM's with real observed data. "Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. "
This denier favorite has been known and examined for some years.
1) When there's a discrepancy between the model and measurement, the problem isn't necessarily with the model.
2) The satellite data is tricky, known to require numerous adjustments (NOT all used by Douglass 2007, though available), and still has big uncertainties even with those corrections.
3) This is a limited part of the planet (tropical latitudes), and of the atmosphere (troposphere), and over a limited time (the discrepancy is only for long term trends - monthly & yearly are ok).
4) The hotspot is an indication of warming from any source. As the discrepancy is under limited conditions where the data is known uncertain, and model & measurement match well over other times, locations, and elevations, the inference is it's due to the data's uncertainty, not model flaws.
5) That conclusion - that this is mainly about uncertainties in the sattelite data, and not the models' failings - has been published repeatedly (though Fred Singer is never an author, unlike he is in Douglass 2007!). Examples: "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere" U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2006 (see page 90), and "Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy?" P.W. Thorne et al, Geophys. Res. Lett. 2007
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "As they improve, their applicable time frame shrinks. They're closing in decadal scale phenomenon, but their claimed value is for many decades."
Do you have any understanding of just how idiotic that sentence actually is? You only get to see who's been swimming naked when the tide goes out (Warren Buffet). For the purposes of the simile, the tide going out = the divergence between temperatures and model predictions.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo re: computer models - "the scientific case for AGW doesn't require them." Then why is it that every few months we hear about a new computer model predicting we will have X degrees of warming by 2100 and therefore we should change our energy infrastructure at the cost of trillions of dollars? As we have covered, there is no empirical evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming. All your side has are computer models and their predictive ability is zero.
Re: "why is it that every few months we hear about a new computer model predicting we will have X degrees of warming by 2100 and therefore we should change our energy infrastructure... ?"
That's your reply to "the ... case for AGW doesn't require (models)"? The scientific case is the scientific case -your response doesn't apply to my comment. Models are a tool to solve nasty equations and for a better quantitative understanding. How they're used in policy arguments is a separate issue
@VeryEvilPettingZoo re: models and the case for global warming. There is no empirical evidence for CO2 caused global warming. Hence, computer models are pressed into service that have no demonstrated accuracy to support public policies that will greatly harm our economy and standard of life. And you have no concern for how they are used in policy issues! This whole global warming matter is of interest because this is a public policy matter, not simply an academic debate.
My concern is the science - so that we can hope to make wise policy!
If AGW were false (not likely), I'd be happy. If true, then we need to understand it!
Deniers, by contrast, start with a fear of the policy, from which they derive their "scientific" conclusion, and then go looking at arguments to justify it. Talk about a recipe for making bad decisions!
"I like smoking, and being healthy, therefore, I'll hunt for any scientific argument possible that smoking isn't a health risk!"
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Both in hindcasting, and prediction, the models have proven merit." Google "Niche modeling How Bad are Climate Models? Temperature" From the article: The models, in important ways that were once claimed to be proof of “… a discernible human influence on global climate”, are now shown to be FUBAR. Wouldn’t it have been better if they had just done the validation tests and rejected the models before trying to rule the world with them?
Re: "It looks like AGW is the Humpty Dumpty of scientific theories."
By reading denier blogs, what other impression could you possibly get? "Learn" from 9-11 conspiracy websites and it will be "obvious" that the "theory" of buildings collpasing due to Al Qaeda crashed planes is completely bogus.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo While we are at it, what is your explanation for the finding, known since 2003, that CO2 levels followed by around 800 years rather than preceded temperature changes in the ice core dataset? This would seem like a basic issue that your finely honed scientific mind would certainly have considered.
Re: "what is your explanation for the finding, known since 2003, that CO2 levels followed by around 800 years rather than preceded temperature changes"
What exactly needs explaining? That CO2 concentration changes didn't INITIATE previous climate changes? Why would that need to be explained, since no one ever suggested it did? Prior major climate changes were mainly from Earth's orbital and rotational changes. (The lag doesn't undermine that ocean-degassed CO2 is a postive feedback.)
@VeryEvilPettingZoo I asked you for proof CO2 could cause harmful warming to no avail. But at least there is a paper just out with empirical findings that bear on the issue of the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Soares in a paper reported on wattsupwiththat reports that "CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed." Can you refute it?
Re: "CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed." Can you refute it?"
Soares' paper is poor, but I'll let YOU refute it. He writes: 'The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes." He's looking at correlations between temps and CO2 on a MONTHLY TO YEARLY scale, and not finding one.
5) We've had 0.8 C global warming since 1880. What's the average yearly & monthly warming over that time?
6) How many significant figures in his temp data?
7) What's the scale of the temp noise (variation, from: weather, ocean current effects, volcanic eruptions, etc etc) compared to the temp signal (the .8 C warming since 1880)?
8) Given #5, #6, and #7, IF CO2 were driving global warming, would you expect to find an "immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature"?
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Whats...the temp noise (variation from...ocean current..volcanic eruptions...)" Warmists have written that CO2 trumps all other influences on climate (solar, currents, etc). The warmists computer models leave these out. Now that there is evidence that CO2 is uncorrelated with climate you want to bring those influences back in to explain the lack of correlation. How convenient.
Re: "Warmists have written that CO2 trumps all other influences on climate (solar, currents, etc). The warmists computer models leave these out. Now that there is evidence that CO2 is uncorrelated with climate you want to bring those influences back in to explain the lack of correlation. How convenient."
You've completely missed the point again. Climate vs weather, forcing vs feedback, short term variation vs underlying trend, signal vs noise - deniers have all the issues confused.
You don't find monthly correlation between CO2 and temps because you're not expected to (for more reasons than I even suggested the 1st time). Read my questions again, and THINK it through. The signal is miniscule on a monthly basis - it's completely masked by the noise AT THAT SCALE. Remember that this is climate vs weather! But on the scale of multiple decades, the signal dominates the noise.
And fyi - you're also wrong that no models include currents or solar forcing.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You state "You don't find monthly correlation between CO2 and temps because you're not expected to..." I believe you are wrong here. If CO2 has a significant warming effect and you had a fairly large number of months the correlation should be there. The problem for AGW is that the long-term ice core data shows CO2 following temperature (hard to explain away, although you tried) and for the short-term the effect is "masked" - so the alleged CO2 effect shows up nowhere!
Re: You state "You don't find monthly correlation between CO2 and temps because you're not expected to..." I believe you are wrong here.
You believe a lot about this subject - most of it false. I'll give you a cookie if you can produce evidence that climatologists hold that we expect to find a monthly correleation between CO2 concentration increases and global mean temp increases.
My signal-to-noise observation about Soares' paper is just one of its many problems.
Did you bother to compute the scale of the underlying signal as I suggested? Numbers matter in this subject, right? Warming of 0.8C since 1880 averages to 0.006 C/year and 0.0005 C/month. Annual and monthly variation in global mean surface temps is on the order of 100 and 1000 times more, respectively. That's way below the precision of the measurements of temp anomalies. The signal is microscopic compared to the noise, so is only detectable over very long times.
And that's just discussing the *unequivocal* warming signal (I haven't even gotten to Soares' CO2 vs temp no-correlation result). You need 15 years to have a prayer of finding significance - of seeing the signal through the noise and variation, of distinguishing climate from weather, of - and 30 years is the preferred amount to even begin to discuss "climate". How many flips of a coin before you start to statistically suspect that heads is biased to come up 50.1% of the time? A lot.
As to his CO2 no-correlation, I think this might make his invalid conclusion obvious to you:
Correlation coeficients are independant of scaling, and CO2 concentration increases are nearly linearly over the time span of his data. Thus CO2 can be rescaled to simply be TIME. Thus he also can conclude that there's no short term correlation between TIME and temps. Why is that? Because on the scale of a passing month or year, what you find is variation - all noise, no signal.
So he's indirectly shown there's no short term correlation between temps and TIME (we know why - a miniscule signal compared to noise). But we KNOW that there's a long term correlation between time and temps - the measured global warming (.8C since 1880). Thus his claim that no short term correlation implies that no correlation at all is demonstrably false, for he's equally shown no short term correlation between temps and TIME, yet we KNOW a long term correlation exists between them.
And that's just one reason why his conclusion fails, as even worse, he attacked a strawman. The climatologists don't claim there's a short term correlation, even if we pretended there was no variation. There are numerous physical mechanisms - interconnected and complicated - between one months CO2 increases and the warming that's measured down the road. The Earth's climate doesn't jump into equilibruim instantly, and even when (theoretically) there, the end result isn't a linear response
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You say: "The climatologists don't claim there's a short term correlation..." Baloney. We have been hearing for years that within a decade we would bee seeing less snow, the ice polar ice cap would be gone by 2015, etc. etc. And all this attributed to global warming. And it obviously did not happen.
All your verbiage, all your time wasted on reading pro-AGW books, and the earth is heading into a major cool down. It is fun to watch AGW believers squirm as temps plunge.
Re: "You say: 'The climatologists don't claim there's a short term correlation...' Baloney. We have been hearing for years that within a decade..."
Baloney? My statement is correct.
What you hear, and what the climatologists say, aren't necessarily the same. If you listen to what they actually say, their warned serious consequences manifest waaaay down the road - the start of the 22nd century or later, though depending on the specific issue some are more recent (like in 50 years).
Of course, those harmful consequences grow gradually from smaller problems, so BOTH when something is predicted, and the severity, depend on the details of a specifc statement.
Furthermore, climatologists don't say "Because of the 2011 CO2 emissions, we predict...". GW is already here, so near term predictions are largely based on what we've already done to the climate. Ex: summer arctic sea ice seems to be in its death throws - but that's not a claim of short term CO2-temp correlation.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo The Sereeze claim for an ice free summer, of course refers to this noted scientist and AGW proponent's claim made in 2010 that the Arctic may be ice free within 3 or 4 years. Something that will be completely falsified within 3 or 4 years.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You claim that climatologists only warned that "serious consequences manifest waaaay down the road." Absolutely untrue. Examples to the contrary abound. One is that in 2008 James Hansen stated "The recent warm winter that Britain has experienced are a clear sign that the climate is changing." In 2000 a British climatologist said that winter snowstorms would be a thing of the past within a decade. Sereeze just this year said an ice free summer may be 3 or 4 years away.
I'm sure glad that Fox put on a scientist to discuss this. With so much public ignorance about the science, just letting some idiot spout off unoppossed would be irresponsible science reporting. And those libtards who say that Fox isn't just biased, but is straight-up propaganda, would really whine if Fox put on, unoppossed, some gop partisan hack, the kind who might've worked with Inhofe, or one skeezy enough to have initiated the Swift Boat campaign. Fortunately, Fox does journalism proud!
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global Warming Idiots will never be taken seriously as long as they keep blaming Everything on Global Warming.
metcard 1 year ago
I'd like to get a little known FACT out to everyone. When I was in collage I took classes in botany. We did an experiment to show the affects of CO2 with plants. 2 small seedlings, one in exposed to open atmosphere with us in class, the other encased in a closed environment with HIGH LEVELS of CO2 with meters to monitor gas levels for each, side by side. Guess what? The one encased with HIGH levels of CO2 grew 2x larger than the one exposed to our classroom atmosphere. Global warming is a SCAM.
FrontlineArms 1 year ago
@FrontlineArms
Did you learn about Liebig's law of the minimum in your botany class? And increased plant growth from CO2, even if things were as simple as your one experiment suggests to you, wouldn't in any way, shape, or form imply that global warming is a SCAM. Reaching such a conclusion is a non sequitur.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
Thank God The for the the grand solar minimum going on 3 years now. Thousands of people already frozen to death in Europe due to winter weather. Hopefully we will set a new record death toll this winter season with people freezing to death. I just hope most of those people killed by the cold weather are mostly warmists.
Michaelwiseguy 1 year ago
Ecomaniacs believe no matter what happens it is 'climate change'. The weather is an inconvenient reality to these double-speakers
guydecervens 1 year ago
I remember tyhe headline in the independant, circa 2000, "kids won't know what snow looks like". Utter bullshit.
MrFooknuts 1 year ago
Oh, I shouldn't have mentioned dehumidifiers. Obama may mandate that each of us go buy one.
DougDaCosta 1 year ago
The greatest gas in the atmosphere affecting temperature is the 2-3% of water vapor. Unless the Man Caused Global Warming believers start selling dehumidifiers, that won't change. The MCGW believers look upon the subject like a religion, instead of logically. Absolutely nothing will changer their minds, no matter how logical an argument that can be made about disagreeing with MCGW.
DougDaCosta 1 year ago
The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere averages 338 parts per million. In 2009, it increased by 2 ppm. OMG...run...the sky is falling! The CO2 in the atmosphere varies during the year because plant life love the stuff. The give us O2 in return.
DougDaCosta 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DougDaCosta
Re: "The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere averages 338 parts per million. In 2009, it increased by 2 ppm. OMG...run...the sky is falling!"
Your armchair intution about what's a big or small number, and its consequent impact, doesn't trump the quantitative conclusions of those research scientists who've dedicated their lives to understanding this stuff.
Listen to the scientists - they know more than you.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
Al Gore’s Man Caused Global Warming scam is proving to be bogus, so much so that whenever freezing cold weather hits during an Al Gore Man Caused Global Warming event, Al Gore rationalizes that as Global Warming. Now, because Al Gore wants to not look so foolish, he changed his wording to “Climate Change.” Approximately 600 "scientists" out of about 10,000 believe in "Man Caused." Why doesn't the "News" ever mention those who don't believe?
DougDaCosta 1 year ago
@DougDaCosta
Re: Al Gore
He's a popularizer. He's not a scientist, as he's the 1st to admit. He's simply getting the scientific community's message out. Informed discussion on this topic doesn't mention Al Gore. This is a SCIENTIFIC issue.
Re: It's NOW called "Climate Change" to hide failures
The IPCC - the conspiracy masters - was formed in 1988. What does IPCC stand for?
Re: "Why doesn't the "News" ever mention those who don't believe?"
Deniers recieve disproportionate attention.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo There is Climate Change, it's normal. Remember this Planet has had 3 Ices Ages, and rewarmed up each time? It's done that without any Man Caused CO2. This whole climate scare scam is nothing but a manipulation for power, control, and money. re: "Deniers receive disproportionate attention." Please..............
DougDaCosta 1 year ago
@DougDaCosta
Re: Climate change is normal.
yes, but the evidence is that we're mainly responsible for the current warming - not natural forces.
Re: ""Deniers receive disproportionate attention." Please....."
A recent survey of actively publishing climatologists, 75 out of 77 agreed that humans were a significant cause of the rcent warming. Are the skeptics heard on only 2 out of 77 media discussions of this issue? Or are they heard almost everytime the matter is reported on?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont)
Re: "This whole climate scare scam is nothing but a manipulation for power, control, and money"
The warmings, of eventual severe consequences if CO2 emission increases aren't restrained, are coming from the scientists.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
I think you have confused science with political science. A simple examination of the recent CanCon climate cartel confab proves this issue is all about wealth redistribution, not science, as over and over again they called for radical wealth redistribution so the west could atone for its carbon sins. The science is modulated to fit the screed. Don't confuse fallible computer generated climate models with the real data of field studies.
pedalingparson 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
I think you have confused science with political science. A simple examination of the recent CanCon climate cartel confab proves this issue is all about wealth redistribution, not science, as over and over again they called for radical wealth redistribution so the west could atone for its carbon sins. The science is modulated to fit the screed. Don't confuse fallible computer generated climate models with the real data of field
pedalingparson 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
I think you have confused science with political science. A simple examination of the recent CanCon climate cartel confab proves this issue is all about wealth redistribution, not science, as over and over again they called for radical wealth redistribution so the west could atone for its carbon sins. The science is modulated to fit the screed. Don't confuse fallible computer generated climate models with the real data of field
pedalingparson 1 year ago
@pedalingparson
Re: "I think you have confused science with political science. A simple examination of the recent CanCon climate cartel confab proves this issue is all about... "
I think you have it confused. The science is science. How do best adapt to what the science tells us is inherently political, social, and economic.
Re: "The science is modulated to fit the screed."
Bullshit.
Object to that? OK - then which journal or scientist are you accusing of fraud? And your evidence is?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
Morano forgot to mention the idiots that blame the Haiti earthquake on AGW as well, such as Danny Glover:
watch?v=gixWSojcUkE
watch?v=eVBMqMAhdu8
This guy's a serious nut job. Still like him in Lethal Weapon though. It's OK Danny, they have meds for your condition.. ;)
MrOllyK 1 year ago
majorl31: You are right. I earlier posted asking VerEvilPettingZoo for evidence that increased CO2 could cause harmful warming. I mistook your post to him for his reply. He spewed a lot of bilge about global warming here but when it comes to providing evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming he is out of here. I think you are right on about the effects of solar changes. Solar storms can be big and check out Hendrick Svensmark on YouTube for how the sun can affect climate.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg I'm not getting an e-mail from your replies it must be because you are posting a comment and not going to reply on the right of my comments
majorl31 1 year ago
@majorl31 I have also read that generally quiet solar periods, like the present, can be punctuated by severe solar storms that unleash electromagnetic pulses that could fry a lot of the electronics that our society depends upon. I am also amazed that VeryEvilPettingZoo is directing people to read the IPCC report. It has had so many sections discredited on things like predictions that the snow on the Himalayas would be gone in 30 years, that global warming would destroy the rain forest, etc.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg Yes it is foolish to try to predict the weather patterns,there are freezing temps in Florida right now and millions are going to be lost to the citrus farmers
majorl31 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@groweg
You might try posting to me if you want me to answer your questions.
Exactly what "bilge" do you think I spewed?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
Hysterical! When will the global warming loonies give up & admit the truth, already?
gigisandiego96 1 year ago
What the eruption of the volcano in Iceland has to do with the case for CO2 causing harmful warming is beyond me. Please enlighten me. And I'm not sure what it spewed should be characterized as "pollutants" as man-made emissions are thought of.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg what can't you make a connection to how nature can cause more problems than man can,at least man can correct the problems but we cannot stop nature,on the internet they say 2011 will bring bursts from the sun which will effect the whole world in various ways
majorl31 1 year ago
VeryEvilPettingZoo: I see a lot of your posts promoting the idea of global warming. Can you succinctly inform me as to what evidence there is that CO2 increases can cause harmful warming?
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so increasing its atmospheric concentration changes the Earth's energy balance, so increasing average surface temps. That is, super briefly, it.
It would be nice if you could understand all of climatology by understanding a simple experiment, but it happens to be extremely complicated. That's damn good reason to listen to the scientists about this - they know more than you, or me, or other bozos on YouTube.
For details, read this pdf:
Google: ipcc wg1 ar4 spm
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo The IPCC report is crap. All kinds of unsupportable nonsense founds its way into it. As for "listen to the scientists" that is a very foolish idea. Think for yourself. Consider all the cases where scientists have been mistaken. Like when they didn't believe ulcers were caused by bacteria and then someone came along and proved bacteria caused ulcers and won the Nobel Prize. For many, many more examples read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "The IPCC report is crap"
It's completely credible in the scientific world. That deniers think it's crap is merely cause for amusement. I'm not going to waste time trying to argue a nutjob into accepting reality. You think it's crap? Fine - be a moron - no skin off my back.
Big $ is spent to confuse you, slandering anything & everything about global warming in order to protect precious corporate profits. And you buy it all, despite how transparent this is. It's just sad to wtiness
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo I was most amused when the IPCC report was shown to have relied a magazine article to claim that Himalayan glaciers would be gone in 30 years due to global warming. I was amused to read about the IPCC report claim global warming was going to destroy the rain forests when that turned out to be scientifically unsupported. As for "nutjob" and "moron" comments I take that as projections of your own functioning.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Yes - you've been diligently reading your denier blogs like a good little sheep. You know that a few flaws made it into the IPCC reports among its thousands of citations. Some mistakes among its thousands of pages means it's crap - of course - how could I have been so blind? You're quite knowledgeable about what "crap" it is. That's because you've got such excellent judgement and insight into science - much better than those silly scientists who find the report completely credible.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo All empty talk. Where is your evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming? I understand scientists have spent tens of billions in research dollars on global warming. What is the evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming?
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
You've proven to be confused about the basics, and to have bought in to all manner of frankly silly arguments, so I'm not going to try to educate you on the totality of climate science. This is a huge subject - it's not as simple as dropping a rock off your roof and observing that "s = v t + 1/2 g t^2". I pointed you to where you can learn about it - IF you care to investigate what the scientific community, based on the totality of the peer reviewed literature, has to say.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Still you can't produce any proof increasing CO2 can lead to global warming. All you have is a lot of meaningless words.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "As for "listen to the scientists" that is a very foolish idea. Think for yourself.
Right. Check with the witch doctors! And then perform do-it-yourself brain surgery as needed. Silly "experts" think they know it all...
Re: "Consider all the cases where scientists have been mistaken"
Errr - this takes a long time to explain to the scientifically ignorant. 1) Science is self correcting. 2) Science is obsessed with confidence and bounding error 3) Imperfect doesn't discredit
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo As for "this takes a long time to explain to the scientifically ignorant" - It is you who shows a lack of understanding of how science works. You believe a hypothesis for which you cannot produce any proof of correctness.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "You believe a hypothesis for which you cannot produce any proof of correctness."
Irony #1: I had just explained that science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in confidence. Hence your post is evidence of scientific ignorance.
Irony #2: As I told you, I CAN give the whole huge argument, but I CHOOSE not to - since it would obviously be wasted on you.
Irony #3: I pointed you to the entire huge argument - which you duly ignored.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Irony #4: My quote about this taking a long time was about a DIFFERENT part of your ignorance: your argument that science has been wrong before, and thus it's foolish to listen to the scientists. So now I have to take time to explain what even my it-would-take-time-to-explain comment referred to - even though it was transparent.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: bacterial ulcers
Right. But science eventually figured it out, right? There are other examples. Plate tectonics is quite famous. But they're the exception, AND they eventually won the scientific day. AGW has been under intense scrutiny for decades! "Whoops, didn't think of that" ain't likely.
Re: read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
Already read it - and understood it better than you it seems. Deniers have no paradigm shift lurking in the background. AGW isn't strained.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "AGW isn't strained" HA, HA, HA. Look at the work of Lindzen, Spencer, Michaels, Soon, Legates, etc. You cannot produce any evidence that CO2 causes harmful warming. Adherents to global warming told us for years we would see ever increasing temperatures, winter weather would become a thing of the past, heatwaves in the summer would become more intense, hurricane counts would increase - none of these has happened.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "AGW isn't strained" HA, HA, HA. Look at the work of Lindzen, Spencer, Michaels, Soon, Legates, etc."
Your laughter is predictable. I'd get the same thing if I told a 9-11 Truther that it's not in doubt that Al Qeada was behind 9-11. See how that works? Who were you just laughing at? It was NASA, NOAA, USGCRP, NAS, AAAS, ACS - no point in listing them all, since that means listing EVERY prestigious scientific org on planet Earth.
But hey, you've read some convincing denier blogs!
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Re: "You cannot produce any evidence that CO2 causes harmful warming"
Why must I repeat and repeat before you hear? I CAN produce such evidence, but I CHOOSE not to. Also, I HAVE pointed you to where the entire scientific case is made in full the detail - which you've simply dismissed. That dismissal, your inability to distinguish CAN-vs-CHOOSE, your several basic scientific confusions, and the ubiquitous denier's brickwall to any actual science - all justify my wisdom here
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
I'll go over specific parts, but you keep requesting the enitre data dump of the entire scientific body of evidence "that CO2 causes harmful warming". It's a childish request. As I told you before, it's complicated - I wish it were simple and breifly explainable, but it's not. We have to talk about thermodynamics, absorptivity, atmospheres, oceans, currents, clouds, albedo, aerosols, ice caps, transpiration, the carbon cycle, lapse rates, solar irradiance, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo I have asked you to provide evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming. I have asked this of you many, many times. You finally respond by saying you can but you "CHOOSE not to." Why not? The criticisms of global warming by Lindzen, Spencer, etc. can and are presented succinctly. All your endless verbiage here and no response to a simple request for evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming. You cannot produce such evidence because there is no evidence.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "You finally respond by saying you can but you "CHOOSE not to." Why not? ... All your endless verbiage here and no response to a simple request for evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming. You cannot produce such evidence because there is no evidence."
1) I pointed you to evidence that the scientific community says makes the case for CO2 leading to eventual harmful warming. I pointed to the IPCC. You dismissed without a care. So why should I even bother, if that's your style?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
2) I pointed out that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This, surprisingly (pleasantly), you didn't object to, but instead pointed out, correctly, that it's feedbacks FROM CO2's warming effect that produce most of the warming. You were a little confuse about climate sensitivity, but basically ok.
3) So to produce, as you've asked, the evidence of the most harmful extent of the warming requires discussing climate sensitivity - the NET warming consequences of ALL the feedbacks.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
4) This is why, as I've repeated over and over and over, I can't briefly (and choose not to even bother trying to give the whole long story given you off hand dismissal of the IPCC) present the evidence of the harmful warming: what needs to be presented are the science of ALL the feedback mechanisms, in the QUANITATIVE EXTENT, that together magnify CO2's warming. If you understand this issue at all, you'll understand that this is a HUGE amount of material to cover.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
5) Also, your denier's causal dismissal of legitimate science and your denier's YT/Blog knowledge of this subject means that delving into these issues would be fruitless anyhow. I know from foolish experience the long and foolish utility of hammering out ONE of these issues with deniers - but you want to go over ALL of them. No way!
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
6) What scientific subjects are you asking for me to explain to you? They include: albedo, aerosols and dimming, ocean currents, ocean CO2-sink capacity, polar ice caps, sea ice, transpiration, forest CO2-sinks, vegetation decay, human land use, stratospheric ozone, methane and permafrost, black carbon, and, of course, lapse rate, water vapor, lower clouds, and upper clouds.
7) I wish it were a short simple situation to describe in a paragraph - but the reality is it's simply not.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
8) So stop repeating that there's no such evidence. I've pointed you to the evidence!!! That you've stuck your head in the ground and are pretending that I haven't isn't an argument. I've told you the topics that require discussion (no doubt an incomplete list). And, I've told you, repeatedly and now in hideous detail, WHY I'm not going to just produce the evidence for harmful CO2 consequences.
9) If this detailed explanation doesn't sink in, then there's no point in further discussion.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo I appreciate your long and thoughtful reply. However, many of the scientific topics you mention are peripheral or derivative issues - ocean currents, human land use, methane, etc. None of these are issues if CO2 cannot set in action harmful warming in the first place. The scientific work I brought up apparently demonstrating that CO2 warming has no positive feedback effects make the alleged downstream effects (on albedo, methane) of CO2 buildup meaningless.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "None of these are issues if CO2 cannot set in action harmful warming in the first place. The scientific work I brought up apparently demonstrating that CO2 warming has no positive feedback effects make the alleged downstream effects (on albedo, methane) of CO2 buildup meaningless."
I explained this before, but you're still confused. CO2, by itself, DIRECTLY warms. Warming, from ANY source, creates other changes that cause more/less warming, called the positive/negative feedbacks.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
CO2 isn't the feedback (here). It's the initiator of the warming. The feedback mechanisms (NOT CO2) then respond to creating more, or less, warming. The TOTAL effect of ALL these feedbacks is the planet's temp response to the initial CO2-warming. These are bundled together into 1 number: "climate sensitivity" = the total warming, CO2+feedbacks, from doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
And as I explained, to understand climate sensitivity, you need to consider ALL the feedbacks.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
I can't stress this enough. You're confused about the very basics here. It's as if you're trying to argue about calculus despite being confused about simple arithmetic.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Another thing: it appears that the computer models of AGW were constructed without testing on "out of sample" or new data. Anyone with any background in computer modeling knows that such models are not worth the CPU time it takes to run them without sufficient testing. I have seen studies that show that all of these models have been inaccurate in predicting temperatures following their creation date. It looks like AGW is the Humpty Dumpty of scientific theories.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "computer models of AGW were constructed without testing on "out of sample" or new data"
Note: GCMs aren't trained up neural nets or parameter tuned "models", but rather grid solutions to complex math equations from physics & climate science.
1) Software testing: looking for mistakes in coding. The data sets don't matter. Even made up data is fine - sometimes even better.
2) Evaluation testing: Does the model's run matches actual history? Using real historical data is a necessity
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(1) climate models aren't "engineered", they're thrown together by a bunch of people who know nothing about sound software practices. The "harry" readme text file from the CRU is a good example of how climate scientists write computer software.
(2) They are calibrated against historical data (curve fitting). Of course they match it. With today's starting parameters, they utterly fail at hind-casting.
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: harryreadme and coding
1) Yeah - this isn't Clean Room development. If it were for the space shuttle, or nuclear launch control, it would be criminally irresponsible. But it's scientific programming, and like many other non-life-threating software projects, it's done messily.
2) All coders encounter unclear requirements. Such occational confusions are the norm inside the shop, especially with so many fine numerical points for these programs.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "All coders encounter unclear requirements"
Personally, I don't set to work until they are clear (I do it for a living). Company profits and ultimately my pay cheque depend on it. With potentially trillions depending on the predictions of climate models, it's pretty shocking that any requirements are left unclear.
"If it were for the space shuttle, or nuclear launch control, it would be criminally irresponsible"
Indeed, it's even more important than that, apparently.
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "Personally, I don't set to work until they are clear (I do it for a living)."
I do too. And I also don't begin without clear requirements. BUT, once into it, I inevitably find those special cases, or, with scientific programming, round-off or numerical effects, or conflicting demands, that weren't anticipated at the start.
That's always true, save for truley simple projects. Always. If you say it isn't true for you, then you're either the greatest coder ever, or a liar.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "If it were for the space shuttle, or nuclear launch control, it would be criminally irresponsible" Indeed, it's even more important than that, apparently.
1) The scientific case for AGW doesn;t require these models.
2) The IPCC used something like 23 different group's models. Studies show their differences are mainly with cloud treatment (as you noted, an it's got high uncertainty). But there's little variation between them, so "rejected for poor coding" isn't justifiable.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "The scientific case for AGW doesn;t require these models."
Oh yes it does. 1K increase per doubling is far less alarming than 4 - 6K - and it's the models that predict the latter, not the physics.
"The IPCC used something like 23 different group's models. Studies show their differences are mainly with cloud treatment "
23 versions of the same basic model, all with the same basic faults, does not validate the ensemble.
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "Oh yes it does"
Oh no it doesn't.
AGW is the statement that humans are driving the observed global warming. It's a statement of attribution of an effect. JUST the feedback-less 1C, if human driven, establishes AGW. The feedbacks determine the full extent, not the effect itself.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo " It's a statement of attribution of an effect"
There's no evidence that Human's have caused the observed warming since the end of the LIA, just as there's no evidence that Human's have any affect whatsoever on the hole in the ozone layer, just as there's no evidence for the innumerable other scares the greens and other self-interested parties have foisted upon us over the years.
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "There's no evidence that Human's have caused the observed warming since the end of the LIA, just as there's no evidence that Human's have any affect whatsoever on the hole in the ozone layer"
Again, it's the naked assertions of YouTuber Robinsonion, versus the statements, judgements, and EVIDENCE presented by the planet's scientists. Oh dear - what a problem - whom shall I listen to?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "and EVIDENCE presented by the planet's scientists"
Like the evidence that Human's are causing the hole in the Ozone layer? Or the evidence that sea level will rise 20m by the year 2000? Or the evidence that hurricane activity will increase due to warming? Or the evidence that poor diet causes stomach ulcers? It's all bollocks.
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "Like the evidence that Human's are causing the hole in the Ozone layer"
Yes - like that. Let me guess - you don't know shit about this issue either, right?
Re: "Or the evidence that sea level will rise 20m by the year 2000?"
I'll be admit that you aren't full of shit, IF you can give a journal citation where any climatologist published any such prediction. But otherwise, you're full of shit.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Re: "Or the evidence that hurricane activity will increase due to warming?"
Do you understand the difference between severity and frequency? That seems to be far too subtle a distinction for the typical denier moron - hence this confusion. A few claims about frequency were made - very tentative, and explicitly w/o high confidence. But hey, you're only 95% wrong here, so it's your best showing! Well done!
Re: "Or the evidence that poor diet causes stomach ulcers?"
WTF?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "1K... is far less alarming than 4-6K..."
1C is far less alarming, true, though still nontrivial. We haven't hit 1C, but already has summer arctic sea ice in its "death throes" according to the NSIDC. And for comparison, the ice ages come and go from just 5C changes over several thousand years.
And of course, feedbacks DO happen, driving the total climate sensitivity to 2-5C, with even greater warming possible, and much less warming not likely. The best estimate is about 3C.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "And of course, feedbacks DO happen, driving the total climate sensitivity to 2-5C, with even greater warming possible"
Disingenuous crap. You know full-well that feedbacks can be both positive and negative and that not enough is known about the climate system as a whole to give a net positive or negative value. Common sense tells us it must be negative.
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "And of course, feedbacks DO happen, driving the total climate sensitivity to 2-5C, with even greater warming possible" - Disingenuous crap.
Disingenuous? The planet's climatologists are disingenuous when they claim this? Perhaps you should go to the next meeting of the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences and inform them that their scientific conclusions are "disingenuous crap"
Re: "Common sense tells us it must be negative"
Your personal intuitions are irrelevant
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Perhaps you should go to the next meeting of the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences and inform them that their scientific conclusions are "disingenuous crap"
I have a feeling they know it already.
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "I have a feeling they know it already"
Back to the conspiracy theories. The planet's scientists are just a bunch of deceivers, eh?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "it's the models that predict the latter, not the physics"
Climatology isn't basically physics? While a full GCM provides the best quantitative incorporation of all the processes, the individual processes (such as the individual feedbacks) are separately studied and quantitatively evaluated, (again, how do you think they decide what to use the models?). The "models" are just the grand result. The individual pieces are still there (with greater uncertainties) even w/o GCMs.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "23 versions... does not validate the ensemble"
You've deftly defeated something that I didn't claim (though in a related way, I could make that point, I didn't here). You used harryreadme to challenge the coding. I replied that 23 different models give similar results, so "'rejected for poor coding' isn't justifiable". I didn't claim that 23 models with similar results validates them all. If CODING ERRORS meant the models were crap, then they wouldn't basically agree. Get it?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "If CODING ERRORS meant the models were crap, then they wouldn't basically agree. Get it?"
Wrong. The actual coding showed "hacks" to get the results to agree. It would not surprise me if the 23 other models all did this too. It's called Confirmation Bias and it's ubiquitous in Climate Science. It is quite likely this is the reason all 23 of your models "agree".
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "The actual coding showed "hacks" to get the results to agree"
Bullshit.
And yes, I've looked at stolen code that deniers have used to falsely make this charge.
Re: "It would not surprise me if the 23 other models all did this too... It is quite likely this is the reason all 23 of your models 'agree'."
A conspiracy of all the dozens of groups involved, in a common fraud, wouldn't surprise you? That only proves that your judgement & understanding of the world are shit.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "A conspiracy of all the dozens of groups involved, in a common fraud,"
"oh my model temperatures don't match expectation, I'd better tweak the parameters so they match". Is that a conspiracy?
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "I'd better tweak the parameters so they match". Is that a conspiracy?"
No. And there's also no evidence that any such thing happens. You mistake your fantasies for reality, despite it already being demonstrated that you have no clue about what the GCMs are doing or how they're written.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
3) Do you think it's generally any different for other scientific programming? Scientists make a lot of programs, and most of them aren't developed according to industry's best practices. Does that mean the programs are incorrect? No.
4) Do you know if the concerns in harryreadme were addressed? I've written a lot of in-house emails not unlike harryreadme. I've written them in hopes that my issues would be RESOLVED.
5) If you want to eat sausage, it's best not to watch how it's made.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Re: "They are calibrated against historical data (curve fitting). Of course they match it."
No. This is not curve fitting and parameter adjustment. The main wiggle room the GCMs have is how to spacially resolve the data in the form they get (from measurements) into the cells on which the PDEs are evaluated. That's where interpolations and assumptions are made - it's NOT "curve fitting".
Re: "With today's starting parameters, they utterly fail at hind-casting"
Bullshit.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale." (Randal et al)
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: Randal et al
Your quote there is actually from "A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data", Anagnostopoulos et al, Hydrol. Sci. 2010. "Randal et al" is "Anagnostopoulos et al" citing the IPCC to support their "it is claimed" statement - it is claimed by, Randal et al.. So, ironically, your citation was to the IPCC chapter on climate models. LOL - probably not your intent, but I suggest you follow your own citation and go read it.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
The "Anagnostopoulos et al" paper proves that climate models don't accurately hindcast the weather AT PARTICULAR WEATHER STATIONS. They even disgard anomalies in favor of straight temps AT PARTICULAR WEATHER STATIONS. Color me very unimpressed, for obvious reasons.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo However constructed, computer models that uniformly fall flat on their face when tested on climate data subsequent to their creation are worthless.
groweg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@groweg
Re: "However constructed, computer models that uniformly fall flat on their face when tested on climate data subsequent to their creation are worthless."
Bullshit.
But since you've "learned" by reading denier blogs, how could you be expected to know otherwise?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Ex: The most famous climate model prediction came from Hansen's 1988 congressional testimony. That was a long time ago - how have his predictions fared?
Of the 3 environmental scenarios A, B, and C, and the actual situation being very close to B (as predicted), his predicted 1988–2005 temp changes for scenario B were 0.33 C. The measured changes were 0.32 C!!! ("Global temperature change" Hansen et al., PNAS 2006). And note that was a very early and realatively unsophisticated GCM!
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You claim that Hansen's 1988 predictions were accurate. They were wildly inaccurate. Google "Christy Is Jim Hansen's Global Temperature Skillful." It is clear that his predictions were well off the mark. There is also concern that Hansen's GISS temperature record has been "adjusted" upwards to show a warming trend not found in other datasets (i.e. UAH).
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "You claim that Hansen's 1988 predictions were accurate. They were wildly inaccurate."
I didn't merely claim the model's prediction was accurate, I told you exactly what its accuracy was. For this most famous of all climate model predictions, for this most simple GCM compared to today's, the model made a prediction 17 years into the future. The model predicted .33C warming, and the measurements showed .32C warming - that's accurate to within 3% looking 17 years into the future!!!
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
And I didn't just claim it, I cited it: "Global temperature change" Hansen et al., PNAS 2006. Go see for yourself. You rebutted that this was false, that in fact the prediction was "wildly inaccurate", by citing a blog. Ignoring the absurdity of peer-reviewed journal vs blog, let's examine that blog's argument.
Now since the prediction is indisputable, how COULD anyone dispute the finding? Since the prediction is fixed, then one has to challenege the temperature record - and so they did
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
There's an odd thing there. The blog claims the prediction is poor, by assuming that NASA's temperature data is no good. To exaggerate the point, that's like saying that the prediction is no good because NASA used a machine time to go 17 years into the future and *measure* temps, then returned and pretended to be *predicting* it. Yeah, sure, if you ASSUME they have a time machine, maybe you have a point... but I'm a wee bit more interested in the time machine than the prediction.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Likewise, the blog's claim that the prediction is no good is a minor corollary of its underlying assumption - that NASA's temp data is no good. It says "tropospheric temperatures are used as the comparison metric due to many uncertainties and biases in the surface temperature record", justified by citing widely criticized arguments and papers. In other words, it's the blog's ASSUMPTION that's both suspect and, if correct, profound - not its conclusion about the model's prediction.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo re. Hansen's projections. You claim they were accurate. Just look at Hansen's projections and temperatures in the graph in Christy's post. Hansen's projections were way off.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "Hansen's projections. You claim they were accurate. Just look at Hansen's projections and temperatures in the graph in Christy's post. Hansen's projections were way off"
I explained about climate predictions - I repeatedly gave you the journal cited evidence - all ignored. You reply with a blog. I humored that, examined it, and explained its discrepancy. What's your reply?
"LA LA LA LA LA. I don't listen. I just repeat what my denier blog says. That's how I *know* so much."
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You tout Hansen's projections. The relationship between Hansen's projections and temperature is zilch. The relationship between solar cycle length and temperature is strong and consistent. Google "strum solar cycle length temperature" and look at the last graph in his post. It shows a very close link between solar cycle length and temperature. There is no such link between temperature and CO2 levels, short or long term.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: There is also concern that Hansen's GISS temperature record has been "adjusted" upwards to show a warming trend not found in other datasets (i.e. UAH).
(I'll ignore the implicit idiocy about fraud.) The fact is that GISSTEMP is just one of several Earth temp records. No two are identical, but all are pretty close. FYI - thus when GISSTEMP finds a .01C difference between a 17 year prediction and measurement, it isn't be "wildly inaccurate" according to any other - including UAH.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "I have seen studies that show that all of these models have been inaccurate in predicting temperatures following their creation date."
1) Reminder: Computer models are a tool that permit superior predictions and a more quantitative regional understanding of climate change, BUT, the scientific case for AGW doesn't require them.
2) 100% of the models, now and forever, are inaccurate. And every measurement humans ever make is inaccurate. The question is always "by how much?".
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
3) I can direct you to amazingly close prediction vs measurement examples made by models. I'm guessing your denier blogs don't bother to mention those.
4) Weather vs climate, signal vs noise: Climate models need decades before their predictive value can be fairly assessed. We're approaching that point ONLY NOW, and only with the EARLIEST GCMs. Have your "studies" considered this? If not, then your "studies" are a joke. Climate aren't weather forecasting models!!
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Rubbish. What did Warren Buffet say about investing? "it's only when the tide goes out that you get to see who's swimming naked". In other words, in a bull market, when stocks are increasing, everyone's a genius. Climate models are the same. They have an in-built warming bias, so when the climate is warming, they look correct. We're at an inflection point now - no doubt the models will be "adjusted" to look as if they predicted it all along. They didn't!
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
1) As I said, GCMs aren't weather forecasting programs. Only looking at long averages - decades - is climate change actually detectable. "Inflection points" will happen due to natural variation, but this doesn't undermine the model's merit. The issue is if long term trends are being correctly predicted.
2) Only the more rcent models account for decadal scale natural variation. With these models, the slowing of the warming during the 2000's is accounted for by the models.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
3) See for instance "Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model", Smith et al, Science 2007 and "Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector" Keenlyside Nature 2008.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You write "the slowing of the warming during the 2000's is accounted for by the models." An alternate explanation for the slowing of the warming is that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has shifted into its cold mode. The models will fall apart when we have a few decades of cooling.
groweg 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Climate models need decades before their predictive value can be fairly assessed." Papers have appeared indicating very poor prediction post-development accuracy so far. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted on these "models" that could have been, for mankind's sake, much better spent.
groweg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@groweg
Re: "Papers have appeared indicating very poor prediction post-development accuracy so far."
That this is your reply to my "Climate models need decades before their predictive value can be fairly assessed" shows that you missed the point. However, I'm happly to look at any papers that you think establishes this.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Climate models have zero predictive power. They're wrong on the short-term, they're wrong on the medium term and they're wrong on the long term. If you can't hind-cast 100 or 200 years correctly, what makes you think you can forecast 100 or 200 years correctly? Your model is only as accurate as the assumptions that went into making it.
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "Climate models have zero predictive power."
False.
See my example to groweg: Hansen et al PNAS 2006. A 17 year prediction of .33 C warming vs observations of .32 C warming.
Re: "They're wrong on the short-term"
That's confused. The models only CLAIM to model long term trends.
Re: "they're wrong on the medium term"
What's medium? As they improve, their applicable time frame shrinks. They're closing in decadal scale phenomenon, but their claimed value is for many decades.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Re: "and they're wrong on the long term"
False.
As I said, they're only now approaching the point where the earliest simplest model predictions can be fairly evaluated, and the indications that those early GCMs predicted fairly well.
Re: "If you can't hind-cast 100 or 200 years correctly, what makes you think you can forecast 100 or 200 years correctly?"
Without quibbling over what "correctly" means, their validation runs show that they do hind-cast "correctly".
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Re: "Your model is only as accurate as the assumptions that went into making it."
Right. Those would be the laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, etc.. Of course, there are many places where assumptions are made - a computer model of anything necessarily approximates all over the place. Nearly-linear is treated as liner, interpolations are required to fit the actual data into the model cells, and so forth. But the calculations are solving the equations of basic physical laws.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "But the calculations are solving the equations of basic physical laws."
No they aren't. Got Navier-Stokes in there have we? Simulating turbulence? Proper treatment of clouds? Cosmic Ray influence on cloud cover? Proper treatment of PDO, AMO? Convection? Solar activity? Or is it just a complicated way of drawing a pre-determined linear trend that just happens to match an oscillating trend in the present epoch? Refer to previous comment about swimming naked.
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "the calculations are solving the equations of basic physical laws... No they aren't"
Yes they are.
1) "Navier-Stokes in there have we?"
Did you really ask that? Anyway - "Yes".
2) "Simulating turbulence?"
Climate is the LONG TERM AVERAGE of weather (typically 30 years is used). Do you expect them to simulate turbulence?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
3) "Proper treatment of clouds?"
Clouds have the most variation between the models because there still remains significant uncertainties about them. Do they *treat* clouds? - Yes. Is it a *proper* treatment? That's obviously ambiguous. They can at best bound their uncertainties (as always).
4) "Cosmic Ray influence on cloud cover?"
I don't know. I doubt any do, since this is a speculative mechanism/effect w/o compelling empirical evidence.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
5) "Proper treatment of PDO, AMO?"
Again - "proper treatment"? I'm don't really understand how atmospheric & ocean currents are handled, but yes, they're included the models (the AOGCMs). See "Assessing General Circulation Model Simulations of Atmospheric Teleconnection Patterns", Stoner et al, Journal of Climate 2009.
6) "Convection?"
Did you really ask that? Anyway - "Yes".
7) "Solar activity?"
Yes.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Climate is the LONG TERM AVERAGE of weather (typically 30 years is used). Do you expect them to simulate turbulence?"
You seem to be suggesting that everything that needs to be known, is known and that all interactions in the climate system that are relevant to the 30 year "average", down to the smallest, are also known - or can easily be approximated. Only an idiot would suggest such a thing.
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "You seem to be suggesting that everything that needs to be known..."
Actually, that's what you were suggesting when you implied an expectation that climate models include turbulence simulations. "Only an idiot would suggest such a thing" - I agree. I was suggesting the exact opposite - that it's perposterous FOR YOU to expect that climate models include simulations of turbulence. Only averaged consequences of turbulence might need to be included, not turbulence itself.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo writes re. climate GCM's "the calculations are solving the equations of basic physical laws." Nonsense. The models incorporate assumptions from global warming theory such as the level of feedback effects. These pre-ordain the results. And those assumptions are wrong. GCM building is a make-work project for programmers, as useful as digging a hole and filling it back up.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "The models incorporate assumptions from global warming theory such as the level of feedback effects. These pre-ordain the results. And those assumptions are wrong."
Just how do you think the feedbacks are determined? It's based on data and known physical theory. So when you then say such things are wrong, it's no different than saying "the science is wrong." That's an assertion, not an argument - and it's an assertion about the science being incorrect, not the models.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo writes "those early GCM's predicted fairly well." Wrong. Douglas et.al. (2007) compared GCM's with real observed data. "Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. "
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: the tropical hotspot issue
This denier favorite has been known and examined for some years.
1) When there's a discrepancy between the model and measurement, the problem isn't necessarily with the model.
2) The satellite data is tricky, known to require numerous adjustments (NOT all used by Douglass 2007, though available), and still has big uncertainties even with those corrections.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
3) This is a limited part of the planet (tropical latitudes), and of the atmosphere (troposphere), and over a limited time (the discrepancy is only for long term trends - monthly & yearly are ok).
4) The hotspot is an indication of warming from any source. As the discrepancy is under limited conditions where the data is known uncertain, and model & measurement match well over other times, locations, and elevations, the inference is it's due to the data's uncertainty, not model flaws.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
5) That conclusion - that this is mainly about uncertainties in the sattelite data, and not the models' failings - has been published repeatedly (though Fred Singer is never an author, unlike he is in Douglass 2007!). Examples: "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere" U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2006 (see page 90), and "Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy?" P.W. Thorne et al, Geophys. Res. Lett. 2007
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "As they improve, their applicable time frame shrinks. They're closing in decadal scale phenomenon, but their claimed value is for many decades."
Do you have any understanding of just how idiotic that sentence actually is? You only get to see who's been swimming naked when the tide goes out (Warren Buffet). For the purposes of the simile, the tide going out = the divergence between temperatures and model predictions.
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@Robinsonion
Re: "Do you have any understanding of just how idiotic that sentence actually is?"
Obviously I disagree, or I wouldn't have said it. So let's hear why you think that.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo re: computer models - "the scientific case for AGW doesn't require them." Then why is it that every few months we hear about a new computer model predicting we will have X degrees of warming by 2100 and therefore we should change our energy infrastructure at the cost of trillions of dollars? As we have covered, there is no empirical evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming. All your side has are computer models and their predictive ability is zero.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "why is it that every few months we hear about a new computer model predicting we will have X degrees of warming by 2100 and therefore we should change our energy infrastructure... ?"
That's your reply to "the ... case for AGW doesn't require (models)"? The scientific case is the scientific case -your response doesn't apply to my comment. Models are a tool to solve nasty equations and for a better quantitative understanding. How they're used in policy arguments is a separate issue
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo re: models and the case for global warming. There is no empirical evidence for CO2 caused global warming. Hence, computer models are pressed into service that have no demonstrated accuracy to support public policies that will greatly harm our economy and standard of life. And you have no concern for how they are used in policy issues! This whole global warming matter is of interest because this is a public policy matter, not simply an academic debate.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
My concern is the science - so that we can hope to make wise policy!
If AGW were false (not likely), I'd be happy. If true, then we need to understand it!
Deniers, by contrast, start with a fear of the policy, from which they derive their "scientific" conclusion, and then go looking at arguments to justify it. Talk about a recipe for making bad decisions!
"I like smoking, and being healthy, therefore, I'll hunt for any scientific argument possible that smoking isn't a health risk!"
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "As we have covered, there is no empirical evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming."
False. What we've covered is that you dismiss the scientific case that's so compelling to the planet's scientists.
Re: "All your side has are computer models and their predictive ability is zero."
False and false.
The numerous physical mechanisms establishing AGW don't require GCMs - they're individual scientific topics.
Both in hindcasting, and prediction, the models have proven merit.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Both in hindcasting, and prediction, the models have proven merit." Google "Niche modeling How Bad are Climate Models? Temperature" From the article: The models, in important ways that were once claimed to be proof of “… a discernible human influence on global climate”, are now shown to be FUBAR. Wouldn’t it have been better if they had just done the validation tests and rejected the models before trying to rule the world with them?
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "It looks like AGW is the Humpty Dumpty of scientific theories."
By reading denier blogs, what other impression could you possibly get? "Learn" from 9-11 conspiracy websites and it will be "obvious" that the "theory" of buildings collpasing due to Al Qaeda crashed planes is completely bogus.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
What a completely bogus argument.
Robinsonion 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo While we are at it, what is your explanation for the finding, known since 2003, that CO2 levels followed by around 800 years rather than preceded temperature changes in the ice core dataset? This would seem like a basic issue that your finely honed scientific mind would certainly have considered.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "what is your explanation for the finding, known since 2003, that CO2 levels followed by around 800 years rather than preceded temperature changes"
What exactly needs explaining? That CO2 concentration changes didn't INITIATE previous climate changes? Why would that need to be explained, since no one ever suggested it did? Prior major climate changes were mainly from Earth's orbital and rotational changes. (The lag doesn't undermine that ocean-degassed CO2 is a postive feedback.)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo I asked you for proof CO2 could cause harmful warming to no avail. But at least there is a paper just out with empirical findings that bear on the issue of the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Soares in a paper reported on wattsupwiththat reports that "CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed." Can you refute it?
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed." Can you refute it?"
Soares' paper is poor, but I'll let YOU refute it. He writes: 'The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes." He's looking at correlations between temps and CO2 on a MONTHLY TO YEARLY scale, and not finding one.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
However, he's quite impressed by the correlation between temps and water vapor.
Now, some questions to ask yourself:
1) Do the climatologists claim you'll find a simple monthly or yearly correlation between CO2 concentration and temps?
2) If not, then what claim is his correlation coefficient data analysis rebutting?
3) Why does humidity correlate so well with temps on a short time scale?
4) What's different between water vapor and CO2? (Compare with #3!)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
5) We've had 0.8 C global warming since 1880. What's the average yearly & monthly warming over that time?
6) How many significant figures in his temp data?
7) What's the scale of the temp noise (variation, from: weather, ocean current effects, volcanic eruptions, etc etc) compared to the temp signal (the .8 C warming since 1880)?
8) Given #5, #6, and #7, IF CO2 were driving global warming, would you expect to find an "immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature"?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Whats...the temp noise (variation from...ocean current..volcanic eruptions...)" Warmists have written that CO2 trumps all other influences on climate (solar, currents, etc). The warmists computer models leave these out. Now that there is evidence that CO2 is uncorrelated with climate you want to bring those influences back in to explain the lack of correlation. How convenient.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "Warmists have written that CO2 trumps all other influences on climate (solar, currents, etc). The warmists computer models leave these out. Now that there is evidence that CO2 is uncorrelated with climate you want to bring those influences back in to explain the lack of correlation. How convenient."
You've completely missed the point again. Climate vs weather, forcing vs feedback, short term variation vs underlying trend, signal vs noise - deniers have all the issues confused.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
You don't find monthly correlation between CO2 and temps because you're not expected to (for more reasons than I even suggested the 1st time). Read my questions again, and THINK it through. The signal is miniscule on a monthly basis - it's completely masked by the noise AT THAT SCALE. Remember that this is climate vs weather! But on the scale of multiple decades, the signal dominates the noise.
And fyi - you're also wrong that no models include currents or solar forcing.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You state "You don't find monthly correlation between CO2 and temps because you're not expected to..." I believe you are wrong here. If CO2 has a significant warming effect and you had a fairly large number of months the correlation should be there. The problem for AGW is that the long-term ice core data shows CO2 following temperature (hard to explain away, although you tried) and for the short-term the effect is "masked" - so the alleged CO2 effect shows up nowhere!
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: You state "You don't find monthly correlation between CO2 and temps because you're not expected to..." I believe you are wrong here.
You believe a lot about this subject - most of it false. I'll give you a cookie if you can produce evidence that climatologists hold that we expect to find a monthly correleation between CO2 concentration increases and global mean temp increases.
My signal-to-noise observation about Soares' paper is just one of its many problems.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Did you bother to compute the scale of the underlying signal as I suggested? Numbers matter in this subject, right? Warming of 0.8C since 1880 averages to 0.006 C/year and 0.0005 C/month. Annual and monthly variation in global mean surface temps is on the order of 100 and 1000 times more, respectively. That's way below the precision of the measurements of temp anomalies. The signal is microscopic compared to the noise, so is only detectable over very long times.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
And that's just discussing the *unequivocal* warming signal (I haven't even gotten to Soares' CO2 vs temp no-correlation result). You need 15 years to have a prayer of finding significance - of seeing the signal through the noise and variation, of distinguishing climate from weather, of - and 30 years is the preferred amount to even begin to discuss "climate". How many flips of a coin before you start to statistically suspect that heads is biased to come up 50.1% of the time? A lot.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
As to his CO2 no-correlation, I think this might make his invalid conclusion obvious to you:
Correlation coeficients are independant of scaling, and CO2 concentration increases are nearly linearly over the time span of his data. Thus CO2 can be rescaled to simply be TIME. Thus he also can conclude that there's no short term correlation between TIME and temps. Why is that? Because on the scale of a passing month or year, what you find is variation - all noise, no signal.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
So he's indirectly shown there's no short term correlation between temps and TIME (we know why - a miniscule signal compared to noise). But we KNOW that there's a long term correlation between time and temps - the measured global warming (.8C since 1880). Thus his claim that no short term correlation implies that no correlation at all is demonstrably false, for he's equally shown no short term correlation between temps and TIME, yet we KNOW a long term correlation exists between them.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
And that's just one reason why his conclusion fails, as even worse, he attacked a strawman. The climatologists don't claim there's a short term correlation, even if we pretended there was no variation. There are numerous physical mechanisms - interconnected and complicated - between one months CO2 increases and the warming that's measured down the road. The Earth's climate doesn't jump into equilibruim instantly, and even when (theoretically) there, the end result isn't a linear response
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You say: "The climatologists don't claim there's a short term correlation..." Baloney. We have been hearing for years that within a decade we would bee seeing less snow, the ice polar ice cap would be gone by 2015, etc. etc. And all this attributed to global warming. And it obviously did not happen.
All your verbiage, all your time wasted on reading pro-AGW books, and the earth is heading into a major cool down. It is fun to watch AGW believers squirm as temps plunge.
groweg 1 year ago
@groweg
Re: "You say: 'The climatologists don't claim there's a short term correlation...' Baloney. We have been hearing for years that within a decade..."
Baloney? My statement is correct.
What you hear, and what the climatologists say, aren't necessarily the same. If you listen to what they actually say, their warned serious consequences manifest waaaay down the road - the start of the 22nd century or later, though depending on the specific issue some are more recent (like in 50 years).
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Of course, those harmful consequences grow gradually from smaller problems, so BOTH when something is predicted, and the severity, depend on the details of a specifc statement.
Furthermore, climatologists don't say "Because of the 2011 CO2 emissions, we predict...". GW is already here, so near term predictions are largely based on what we've already done to the climate. Ex: summer arctic sea ice seems to be in its death throws - but that's not a claim of short term CO2-temp correlation.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo The Sereeze claim for an ice free summer, of course refers to this noted scientist and AGW proponent's claim made in 2010 that the Arctic may be ice free within 3 or 4 years. Something that will be completely falsified within 3 or 4 years.
groweg 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You claim that climatologists only warned that "serious consequences manifest waaaay down the road." Absolutely untrue. Examples to the contrary abound. One is that in 2008 James Hansen stated "The recent warm winter that Britain has experienced are a clear sign that the climate is changing." In 2000 a British climatologist said that winter snowstorms would be a thing of the past within a decade. Sereeze just this year said an ice free summer may be 3 or 4 years away.
groweg 1 year ago