|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 13, 2009 16:37:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 13, 2009 17:11:22 GMT
A nice piece of propaganda from Roy Spencer. I have no problem with 95% of it. But the summary is that as we're not sure whether we're destroying the planet, let's wait a few years and see. I would disagree on these points: - evidence of high sensitivity is not just from models. It is also from observations. Spencer ignores this point. - Loehle 2007 is not very dependable evidence. It is certainly not good evidence that proves that the climate can vary by 2 degrees without significant impacts on existing species and humanity. - identifying possible causes for where climate models might have gone wrong is not a valid reason for assuming they *have* gone wrong. - Spencer ignores any possibility that models are wrong because they are underestimating the sensitivity. - No scientist and few politicians say "the science is settled" - not even Al Gore has said "the science is settled". So including this statement marks the article out as being propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 13, 2009 19:22:21 GMT
Of course:
I consider computer modeling to be an absolutely essential part of climate research. After all, without running numbers through physical equations in a theoretically-based model, you really can not claim that you understand very much about how climate works."
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 13, 2009 19:26:10 GMT
- evidence of high sensitivity is not just from models. It is also from observations. Spencer ignores this point. What evidence? - No scientist and few politicians say "the science is settled" - not even Al Gore has said "the science is settled". So including this statement marks the article out as being propaganda. Talking through your hat again. . . .eh Steve? |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 14, 2009 7:32:16 GMT
A nice piece of propaganda from Roy Spencer. I have no problem with 95% of it
Actually Spencer discusses quite a few things which if he posted them on this blog under the peudonym of 'glc', 'steve' or 'socold' he would be dismissed as a raging warmaholic.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 14, 2009 8:35:16 GMT
Actually Spencer discusses quite a few things which if he posted them on this blog under the peudonym of 'glc', 'steve' or 'socold' he would be dismissed as a raging warmaholic. Dream on! |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 14, 2009 9:58:46 GMT
- evidence of high sensitivity is not just from models. It is also from observations. Spencer ignores this point. What evidence? The point is that there is evidence which Spencer chooses to ignore because to do otherwise would undermine his argument. For a start: An observationally based estimate of the climate sensitivity JM Gregory, RJ Stouffer, SCB Raper, PA Stott … - Journal of Climate, 2002 Deriving global climate sensitivity from palaeoclimate reconstructions MI Hoffert, C Covey - 1992 - Nature Once again you fall into the trap of trying to disprove climate science by reference to a trite phrase that a few politicians might have used. As it happens you have read my post through your hat: - I said " few politicians say "the science is settled"". - That article doesn't have "the science is settled" in quotes - I do not think Gore said "the science is settled". Normally, this discussion comes to an end when I ask for a youtube link to Gore's presentation stating the time within the clip when Gore says "the science is settled": I could do with an emoticon of a tumbleweed blowing silently across the screen. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 14, 2009 10:10:47 GMT
A nice piece of propaganda from Roy Spencer. I have no problem with 95% of it. But the summary is that as we're not sure whether we're destroying the planet, let's wait a few years and see. I would disagree on these points: - evidence of high sensitivity is not just from models. It is also from observations. Spencer ignores this point. The ONLY evidence that there can be in a poorly understood, non-linear system like the climate...is the bottom line. You can ramble on about one-sided, alarmist "evidence" but without actually knowing the whole picture it's pointless. We were supposed to have warming anyway during that time. To reach even a 2C anomaly we'd have to continue at the same rate as the warming period. Read that again THE WARMING PERIOD. In order to reach a consistent 2C anomaly the warming period would actually need to have been stronger than it was. It wasn't stronger, the cooling period will knock some off of the next cycle. It's difficult to say but since the moves in and out of the ice ages were in an evolutionary blink of an eye, it's doubtful that our piddly increase (if there is any significant increase from us) will wipe anything out. In fact, since the only, largely uninhabited areas are in the north...warming would likely free up more habitat than ANYTHING ELSE humans have ever done. As for damage to humans...that too is unlikely. Cold is a greater burden on humanity than warmth. I realize everyone's been brainwashed into believing the opposite is true...but it's the reason people vacation in spain, florida, etc...WARMTH. That's the reason the elderly (the "weak" people that would be "harmed" by global warming) move to florida. For MOST of the world's population...warmer is waaaay better. For those in the tropics...it's not supposed to warm up as much anyway...not even a whole degree (if the entire earth only warms 2C...which at this point looks unlikely) This would be true if the data the models used in the first place was known to be accurate. The data is KNOWN to be inaccurate. Each model assumes different forcings and feedbacks or else we'd only have one model. What they DO share in common is the main assumption that CO2 is a substantial driver of climate. If you only have a hammer... Reality does a WAY better job of ignoring the models on the issue of "underestimating sensitivity". Seriously, you guys aren't even grabbing at straws with this idea. What sensitivity? Point me to the ever-increasing high temperatures. Explain to me how a climate with such ABSURDLY HIGH FEEDBAKCS could ever maintain ANY temperature without pushing the feedbacks to their limits almost immediately. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 14, 2009 11:15:15 GMT
Poitsplace, most of what you say doesn't relate to what Roy Spencer says and doesn't accurately represent the state of the science. A nice piece of propaganda from Roy Spencer. I have no problem with 95% of it. But the summary is that as we're not sure whether we're destroying the planet, let's wait a few years and see. I would disagree on these points: - evidence of high sensitivity is not just from models. It is also from observations. Spencer ignores this point. The ONLY evidence that there can be in a poorly understood, non-linear system like the climate...is the bottom line. It's difficult to say but since the moves in and out of the ice ages were in an evolutionary blink of an eye, it's doubtful that our piddly increase (if there is any significant increase from us) will wipe anything out. In fact, since the only, largely uninhabited areas are in the north...warming would likely free up more habitat than ANYTHING ELSE humans have ever done. As for damage to humans...that too is unlikely. Cold is a greater burden on humanity than warmth. I realize everyone's been brainwashed into believing the opposite is true...but it's the reason people vacation in spain, florida, etc...WARMTH. That's the reason the elderly (the "weak" people that would be "harmed" by global warming) move to florida. For MOST of the world's population...warmer is waaaay better. For those in the tropics...it's not supposed to warm up as much anyway...not even a whole degree (if the entire earth only warms 2C...which at this point looks unlikely) That is just your faith position. There are plenty of warm places that are difficult to live in. But Roy's claim is that Loehle's reconstruction is evidence that 2C warming causes minimal damage. Roy's claim is propaganda because Loehle's reconstruction is somewhat disputed, and Roy has blatantly ignored the dispute. Shouting doesn't make it true. The climate is thought to be sufficiently sensitive such that the basic changes in the atmosphere will result in a temperatures rise about 2-3C for a doubling of CO2. Spencer is arguing that model uncertainty almost certainly means that the figure will be less than 2-3C and ignoring the possibility of more than 2-3C. I'll have to look at his references to check his justifications on this. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 14, 2009 11:18:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jul 14, 2009 13:12:52 GMT
The climate is thought to be sufficiently sensitive such that the basic changes in the atmosphere will result in a temperatures rise about 2-3C for a doubling of CO2. Steve, a couple of weeks ago your warming projection was 0.1 to 0.2 C per decade with the 0.1C lower number reflecting no CO2 feedback. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 14, 2009 13:17:40 GMT
Hopefully readers note steve's incessant use of the term "propaganda" and his subsequent link to arguably the biggest source of propaganda, obfuscation, misinformation and censorship on the web, RealClimate; a motley crew they are. In fact by shear coincidence, Roger Pielke is not letting them get away with it; climatesci.org/2009/07/14/failure-of-real-climate-to-respond-to-the-weblog-real-climate-permits-the-continued-presentation-of-misinformation/Now steve, you have not demonstrated that climate sensitivity is anything but an input assumption by programmers, and ignored the observational evidence presented by Roy Spencer. Instead, you went on a lecture tour. I am loaded for bear to take down RealClimate, so tread lightly. They have no credibility and it is not difficult to prove it. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 14, 2009 13:36:06 GMT
The climate is thought to be sufficiently sensitive such that the basic changes in the atmosphere will result in a temperatures rise about 2-3C for a doubling of CO2. Steve, a couple of weeks ago your warming projection was 0.1 to 0.2 C per decade with the 0.1C lower number reflecting no CO2 feedback. I never said the lower number reflects no feedback, I didn't make a long term warming projection, and the 2-3C figure relates to a doubling of CO2 (from about 270 to 540ppm - and some of the warming has already occurred) whereas projections for the 21st century relate to different numbers and include other gases/aerosols. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 14, 2009 13:55:22 GMT
Hopefully readers note steve's incessant use of the term "propaganda" and his subsequent link to arguably the biggest source of propaganda, obfuscation, misinformation and censorship on the web, RealClimate; a motley crew they are. You started this thread, and the realclimate article is by an author referenced by Roy Spencer in his article talking about something Roy Spencer talked about. So why not stick to the topic instead of acting like a bull faced with a red rag. Sadly, Pielke Sr continues to undermine his credibility. If he can't understand the results published by Ishii, Levitus and Domingues let me help him out: 1. The answer is about zero. 2. The first part of the answer is about zero. The second part is about 0.85. Next question... If you can't cope with a discussion perhaps you could ask the site moderator to lock all your threads after you've started them. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 14, 2009 14:38:33 GMT
Poitsplace, most of what you say doesn't relate to what Roy Spencer says and doesn't accurately represent the state of the science. Yes, the "state of the science". The "state of the science" always looks so certain...just before it's found that it was all a misunderstanding. I honestly don't care who says what when what they say gets smacked back down by reality. I've seen it happen far too many times now. I agree with people when their hypothesis makes sense. If there's a barn-door sized flaw in their hypothesis, I point it out. I'm a luke-(to no)-warmer. CO2 may possibly cause some warming. I don't see any cause for alarm though. LOL, it's not a "faith" position. Evidence and even your own precious models indicate that it won't heat up substantially in the regions that are already hot. It's really only heating up a lot in the places that are somewhat (to extremely) cold limited. Also...rattle off a few of those "warm places that are difficult to live in" that aren't hard to live in because of other problems (lack of infrastructure, already dry climate, etc). In fact, while you're at it why don't you compare a map of the world showing life expectancy as compared to a map of the world by development. You'll note that the worst places are really bad because there's no development. Nor do their thoughts make it true. But reality goes entirely against their "thoughts" on the matter. Even continuing at the rate of the warming period we'd only hit 2C. But we really were in a warming period and should have expected some of that warming (had we realized back then). Reality doesn't care what you think. Reality doesn't have a political affiliation. Reality can't be bribed by big oil or intimidated by an establishment infested with AGW zealots. Reality...doesn't show any signs of even 2C of warming. That reality has only ever given a brief glimpse of enough warming to reach 2C...and it shows few (if any) signs of continuing at that rate. If you don't like that it doesn't care to meet the expectations or the faith you have in the climate models, I suggest you run along outside and take it up with the climate and/or reality. |
|
