|
Post by magellan on Jul 14, 2009 16:42:23 GMT
Actually I didn't even open the link, but now that I have, do you realize what it going on? It is too hilarious and I'd like to see them say it with a straight face. I see WUWT is now discussing it. Notable quotes from there: We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020. Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond. If warmers can't see through the fog of those statements, there's no hope for them. I've been harping since joining this forum that so-called "long term trends" are bogus and say nothing of what the climate system is actually doing. We don't need 30 years of data to changes in trends. 30 years is an arbitrary number, it has no scientific basis in meteorology. There are many cycles within cycles, but it is the PDO that is ~30 years, yet warmers (including the large institutions i.e. Met O) pretended the cycles no longer existed. The climate modelers at RC are preparing their zombies for failure, but it really isn't a failure because things will really heat up beginning at some point in the far future. However, as we all know climate sensitivity is so high, it is being masked by "natural variation" for only 20+ years. Remember this graph? Please don't lecture or say "nobody ever said the globe would always warm". Honestly, spare yourselves the embarrassment. How does this fare for climate models? ;D
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 14, 2009 16:57:03 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...blah blah... Misrepresenting what the other side is saying adds nothing to the discussion. Claiming that the misrepresentation doesn't matter because what the other side says is rubbish adds nothing to the discussion (unless you're in a school playground). Wrong. Since you ask the models show that precipitation in the eastern Mediterranean will be significantly reduced and levels of near surface ozone will significantly increase in a number of key agricultural areas. Both effects would radically reduce agricultural productivity leading to starvation in developing countries and more expensive food for everyone. Now lets get back to the subject. Can one rely on Loehle's reconstruction to say that since we survived 2C warming in the middle ages, that 2C is nothing to worry about. No! That's just plain silly. If I said that the reason the Antarctic is hard to live on is because there is no development or infrastructure you'd quite rightly laugh in my face. And the existence of "development" does not guarantee that the development will survive. What happened in Oklahoma in the 30s?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 14, 2009 17:04:19 GMT
Actually I didn't even open the link, but now that I have, do you realize what it going on? It is too hilarious and I'd like to see them say it with a straight face. I see WUWT is now discussing it. I find it amusing that you didn't know that the scientific debate is open and continuing in climate science including on the realclimate site. It must be quite embarrassing to realise you fell for the lies that claimed scientists were saying "the science is settled".
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 14, 2009 17:16:56 GMT
Actually I didn't even open the link, but now that I have, do you realize what it going on? It is too hilarious and I'd like to see them say it with a straight face. I see WUWT is now discussing it. I find it amusing that you didn't know that the scientific debate is open and continuing in climate science including on the realclimate site. It must be quite embarrassing to realise you fell for the lies that claimed scientists were saying "the science is settled". Will it now be said that climate models can predict the past but not the future? ;D I never said or can be quoted as saying any particular scientist said "the science is settled". "Unequivocal", "90% certainty" etc. is good enough. Your game with symantics is getting old. Now that your heros at ReinventedClimate are backpedaling, how long before we get the next "new and improved" Met O Climate Model? It must be up to version 5 at least.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 14, 2009 18:00:43 GMT
I find it amusing that you didn't know that the scientific debate is open and continuing in climate science including on the realclimate site. It must be quite embarrassing to realise you fell for the lies that claimed scientists were saying "the science is settled". Will it now be said that climate models can predict the past but not the future? ;D I never said or can be quoted as saying any particular scientist said "the science is settled". "Unequivocal", "90% certainty" etc. is good enough. Your game with symantics is getting old. Now that your heros at ReinventedClimate are backpedaling, how long before we get the next "new and improved" Met O Climate Model? It must be up to version 5 at least. Words fail me.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 14, 2009 18:02:38 GMT
I've stated on a few occasions before that 1998 and 2003 were ahead of trend.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 14, 2009 18:09:30 GMT
Misrepresenting what the other side is saying adds nothing to the discussion. Claiming that the misrepresentation doesn't matter because what the other side says is rubbish adds nothing to the discussion (unless you're in a school playground). You said, "Poitsplace, most of what you say doesn't relate to what Roy Spencer says and doesn't accurately represent the state of the science."The problem is that you keep trying to use "the state of the science" to justify your claims while ignoring painfully obvious things that basically show you're wrong. There has NEVER been a sufficient rate of warming. Adapt the hypothesis to reality...reality sure as heck isn't going to adapt to the hypothesis. There would have to be a truly radical change in climate back before temperatures leveled off for us to reach a 3C anomaly. 2C is pretty much off the table right now too. No, 100% right...What I said was that even the models show most of the warming in the places that are cooler and little warming where it's already hot. I never said the models were ACTUALLY right. I merely implied that even you with the horribly inaccurate models you have faith in (and make no mistake, it's faith) you should also agree that the hot places won't get too much hotter. Also, models have been absolutely terrible at predicting local climate (lol, or overall climate). Just deal with it, man. They cannot predict rainfall totals. They never have. Zero evidence. It's been warmer at some point in the Holocene and we survived it. We survived it all over the world. There's no point trying to wrap your head around Loehle's reconstruction when yourbattle was lost long ago. Reality still favors that mostly harmless assessment no matter how right or wrong that reconstruction was. Oh really? You want to go there? Oklahoma in the 30's? How much has the world warmed since the 30's? Is Oklahoma under constant drought? You seemed to imply that its works like that...that heat=drought. Also, YES, the antarctic is almost entirely unlivable without infrastructure or development. They have a base there...which is the only reason humans can live there for any length of time. But we were talking about heat. It's funny but humans just live way better with clean water, medical care, protection from the elements (whatever they might be), etc.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 14, 2009 18:44:41 GMT
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 These are out of date, both using ocean models that since have been put into questionable light via recognition of the impacts of previously unrecognized ocean oscillations. Akasofu has shown this error in his charts but this has not been reflected in changes by the alarmist camp to estimates of climate sensitivity. They are not discreditably denying ocean oscillation climate affects but instead are pigeon-holing it as an emerging area of science too immature to use to rebuild the climate case from the ground up. Thats cherry picking because they don't treat stuff that makes the alarmist case using the same standard and in fact, as you have so aptly pointed out, the base case observational sensitivity assumptions are built on those very shifting sands. 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. My oh my what a busy strawman builder you are!! No this topic is not coming to an end. I am not trying to use Gore's statements to undermine science Steve. You have manufactured that completely out of straw. I merely pointed to an NPR article saying Gore said the science is settled after you claimed he never said any such thing. Its really indicative of your religious zealotry to this subject that you would even deny that Gore has said the science is settled. I don't even know for sure if he used those exact words. . . .buts its beyond absurd to suggest for one minute that is not what he has claimed.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 14, 2009 19:02:11 GMT
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. Those warm places are not as difficult as living on the south pole. Our cavemen ancestors lived entirely in one place and not the other. . . .can you name which one? LOL! Personally I think you can take your models and stuff them. Actually I will take that last statement back. Models are a good thing as long as you understand their limitations. An interesting study would be to look at the success rate of modeling of natural systems over time and what it has taken them in the way of experience and use to actually become useful.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 15, 2009 0:52:04 GMT
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. Those warm places are not as difficult as living on the south pole. Our cavemen ancestors lived entirely in one place and not the other. . . .can you name which one? LOL! Personally I think you can take your models and stuff them. Actually I will take that last statement back. Models are a good thing as long as you understand their limitations. An interesting study would be to look at the success rate of modeling of natural systems over time and what it has taken them in the way of experience and use to actually become useful. In reply to the thread title question: Apparently not very well. At least according to the recent news from Nature Geoscience and Rice; “In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald thingyens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.” www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=12794&SnID=1419357327 . This on top of the revelations posted on RealClimate today. Shucks. What a bummer. Maybe we should take up a collection and send flowers to Al.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 15, 2009 1:15:56 GMT
Actually I didn't even open the link, but now that I have, do you realize what it going on? It is too hilarious and I'd like to see them say it with a straight face. I see WUWT is now discussing it. I find it amusing that you didn't know that the scientific debate is open and continuing in climate science including on the realclimate site. It must be quite embarrassing to realise you fell for the lies that claimed scientists were saying "the science is settled". Steve: The science debate on real climate is only open to those who agree with them. I have tried posting numerous times on that site, to no avail. Was told by Gavin that even tho papers are peer reviewed, they were not accepted. HUH?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 15, 2009 8:32:49 GMT
Steve: The science debate on real climate is only open to those who agree with them. I have tried posting numerous times on that site, to no avail. Was told by Gavin that even tho papers are peer reviewed, they were not accepted. HUH?I've posted critical stuff which has got through, but I notice that there is often delay which means the topic has gone cold. Typically there is a surge of interest early on in a new blog article. I've found it difficult to get stuff posted in the first few days when more people are reading. Re: Kyle Swanson Post on RC This doesn't actually mean a great deal other than the fact that, if true, it makes 'my' climate sensitivity estimate more likely - despite arguments to the contrary on RC. AGW theory is not solely, or even partly, reliant on models. If it turns out that the models over-estimate warming (which is what I think will happen) it does not change the truth about the basic theory.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 15, 2009 9:11:02 GMT
poitsplace, Magellan has posted a link where Roy Spencer claims there are inconsistencies in the state of the science. I am responding by saying that Roy Spencer is wrong about the inconsistencies he refers to. Your off-topic opinion that Roy Spencer might as well shut up as the state of the science (which includes Roy Spencer's opinion about the usefulness of models) is all wrong anyway doesn't add anything to the discussion. It's been warmer at some point in the Holocene and we survived it. We survived it all over the world. There's no point trying to wrap your head around Loehle's reconstruction when yourbattle was lost long ago. Reality still favors that mostly harmless assessment no matter how right or wrong that reconstruction was. Civilisation was slightly different in the Holocene. We are no longer a nomadic species. Globally it probably wasn't warmer than now, and the climate didn't change as quickly as it is changing now. No I'm not saying that heat=drought! You say development will protect people from the effects of climate change. Well no it doesn't all the time, and when it does it costs money. This all goes back to your claim that warm is better and warmer is better. You've no evidence that this will always apply and you've no evidence that it won't cause significant problems to large numbers of people and species.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 15, 2009 9:29:08 GMT
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 These are out of date, both using ocean models They don't use models - that's why they undermine Spencer's argument that the evidence is primarily model based. It doesn't matter if they are out of date (most science is out of date, but that doesn't make it worthless). They show that observational evidence has always been part of climate science. 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. I don't even know for sure if he used those exact words. . . .buts its beyond absurd to suggest for one minute that is not what he has claimed. [/quote] If you don't know he said it, then why claim he said it. Perhaps if you listened to what he said then provide a transcription and a youtube link we could discuss what he actually said rather than what you've been told he said. On another thread might be better. No more Gore here please.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 15, 2009 9:39:14 GMT
For the record, I posted the link to realclimate because the link was relevant to Roy Spencer's article both because Roy cites an earlier paper to the one discussed on the realclimate site and because it shows up quite clearly that scientific discussion is alive and well.
You should realise that providing a link is not the same as offering wholehearted devotion to the site being linked to and/or the opinions expressed therein.
|
|