|
Post by icefisher on Jul 15, 2009 14:57:08 GMT
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 It doesn't matter if they are out of date (most science is out of date, but that doesn't make it worthless).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. They most certainly did use a model. A probability distribution for values of the effective climate sensitivity, with a lower bound of 1.6 K (5th percentile), is obtained on the basis of the increase in ocean heat content in recent decades from analyses of observed interior-ocean temperature changes, surface temperature changes measured since 1860, and estimates of anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing of the climate system. Steve, "interior-ocean temperatures" are not being observed. Its based upon a conceptual model of the ocean and surface observations (including observations to depth gradually increasing over time). In 2002, pre-ARGO one model was being used that since has been shown to be incorrect as established by the 2003 rollout of the ARGO system. I think what you will find is the warmologists used assumptions of steeper slopes in ocean temperatures versus depth than has been found by the ARGO system. So belief in the conceptual model led to a belief of the understanding of OHC that since has been falsified. When finally adjusted it will undoubtedly close the 2003 OHC gap. . . .its just that we don't do those kinds of adjustments in today's world where all the official agency heads are nothing but political hores. 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. I didn't say I didn't know he said it Steve. He said it. What I said is don't know if he used the exact words. But exact words don't matter here. What matters is the message and are you going to continue to deny that Gore said the science is settled? That he didn't mean to convey the message that the science is settled? The first that he said the science is settled is beyond dispute with anybody and the second his intent to convey the message to that degree is also beyond dispute except for the most jaded of his apologists.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 15, 2009 15:34:28 GMT
One can always tell when a model is being used as the words "may", "might", etc are a large part of the papers derived from a model rather than empirical evidence.
A paper based on empirical evidence is solidly written, whereas a paper from a model is ..........interesting for thought, but should always be taken with huge grains of salt.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 15, 2009 16:42:23 GMT
Icefisher:
1. You're being pedantic. You know we're talking about climate models. 2. You're being fussy. Roy Spencer said all the evidence is from climate models. The links are provided as examples to show the evidence isn't all from climate models. They're not the only links, but even so, the word of Icefisher about whether a paper is likely to be wrong doesn't cut much ice with me. 3. You're being stubborn. The message is that the science is good enough to indicate that action needs to be taken, which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold. The message is NOT that "the science is settled" which implies there is no possibility that it is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 15, 2009 18:50:28 GMT
Icefisher: 1. You're being pedantic. You know we're talking about climate models. Now you are just making excuses Steve. My statement was: "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." What don't you understand about ocean models? 2. You're being fussy. Roy Spencer said all the evidence is from climate models. The links are provided as examples to show the evidence isn't all from climate models. They're not the only links, but even so, the word of Icefisher about whether a paper is likely to be wrong doesn't cut much ice with me. Technically Spencer is correct. Its a falsehood that the evidence you produced was from observations. Its only partially from observations. Its incorrect to say that amounts to the sensitivity actually being observed. Its actually amazing somebody could get a degree and know the difference between and observation and a conceptual model. Just goes to show how much degrees have been cheapened. 3. You're being stubborn. The message is that the science is good enough to indicate that action needs to be taken, which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold. The message is NOT that "the science is settled" which implies there is no possibility that it is wrong. Its a reasonable opinion but it may not be right. There is risk in everything we do or do not do; thats just a fact of life. Its well known that risk is enhanced when everybody is forced to act the same way. As I see it the risk is probably sufficient to take steps to encourage reduced energy use. But we have too many taxes already so I would propose transferring some our broadly regressive taxes from stuff such as employment taxes that broadly act as a drag on the economy to energy. Jobs and energy are both ubiquitous in the economy so it would likely also minimize transfer effects on different economic sectors and encourage full employment rather than energy use. But that approach doesn't appeal to the pols sucking off the teat as it doesn't represent a new grab bag full of money.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 15, 2009 20:06:50 GMT
There are plenty of climate sensitivity estimates that are not from models. Here's another old one from Hansen back in 1990 using the ice core records: pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdfIn fact Spencer himself has, if I recall correctly, attempted to estimate climate sensitivity without a model using the temperature record.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 15, 2009 20:07:06 GMT
Icefisher, just a comment about risk you mentioned that may help folks get a handle on some specifics. One sector of the economy that has a significant interest in the climate and any cost increases associated with mitigation, regs, etc. is the farming community. In that vein, you might be interested in this recent report regarding the financial impact of Waxman-Markey on agriculture. It only discusses Missouri, but other farming areas will have similar cost increases if it is passed in it's present form. That's not likely, but I'm sure that there will be a compromise bill between the Senate and the House that will contain similar costs. The article is here: www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=policy&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc2217993701227c0e50ab04eb&showCommentsOverride=falseand the report itself is here: www.fapri.missouri.edu/outreach/publications/2009/FAPRI_MU_Report_05_09.pdf . We can be sure that any added cost to ag will be passed along to everyone in the USA, and will include the free food we send to all those folks in other countries. My point is of course a cost/benefit risk, including what I'd term a social cost/risk ( in addition to financial) that is very difficult to get a handle on. As the article states, these risks have yet to be evaluated by the Govt, which is all anyone really wants to know. All we hear is rhetoric. The report was requested by a Missouri Senator in connection with the current debate on the subject. Letter at end of report.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 15, 2009 20:47:20 GMT
There are plenty of climate sensitivity estimates that are not from models. Here's another old one from Hansen back in 1990 using the ice core records: pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdfIn fact Spencer himself has, if I recall correctly, attempted to estimate climate sensitivity without a model using the temperature record. I wouldn't bother socold. Your keyboard was initially "modelled" and so was your internet connection. Therefore according to icefisher nothing trustworthy can come out of it.
|
|
|
Post by notsocold on Jul 15, 2009 21:32:44 GMT
I wouldn't bother socold, my warmist brother. You keyboard was obviously modeled and your internet connection is also faulty as it cannot register a temperature drop. Icefisher is obviously some type of superhuman coolist who can see through your laughable arguments and even your best mate steve (no really, I've no idea who steve is....) cannot save you. You are doomed to become marginalized my friend.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 15, 2009 22:25:08 GMT
I wouldn't bother socold, my warmist brother. You keyboard was obviously modeled and your internet connection is also faulty as it cannot register a temperature drop. Icefisher is obviously some type of superhuman coolist who can see through your laughable arguments and even your best mate steve (no really, I've no idea who steve is....) cannot save you. You are doomed to become marginalized my friend. You need a new hobby mapesy-wapesy. I don't think you have the right temperament to be a troll as you get riled too easily.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 15, 2009 22:29:42 GMT
I wouldn't bother socold, my warmist brother. You keyboard was obviously modeled and your internet connection is also faulty as it cannot register a temperature drop. Icefisher is obviously some type of superhuman coolist who can see through your laughable arguments and even your best mate steve (no really, I've no idea who steve is....) cannot save you. You are doomed to become marginalized my friend. As with your previous persona, you are now on ignore for tomfoolery ;D
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 15, 2009 23:01:11 GMT
There are plenty of climate sensitivity estimates that are not from models. Here's another old one from Hansen back in 1990 using the ice core records: Socold you are a real piece of work! This is not an observational study. At least Steve provided an observational-like study except one of the key assumptions was built on an ocean model that has since been disproved. But fear not!!!! One could do the study again today on the Argo bouy data. . . .but then. . . .unfortunately sensitivity comes out at . ROTFLMAO!!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 16, 2009 1:36:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 16, 2009 2:53:21 GMT
Icefisher, just a comment about risk you mentioned that may help folks get a handle on some specifics. One sector of the economy that has a significant interest in the climate and any cost increases associated with mitigation, regs, etc. is the farming community. Yep, farmers without tractors will be like Napoleon evacuating Moscow. . . .or the modern version of it in Darfur.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 16, 2009 3:00:58 GMT
Icefisher, just a comment about risk you mentioned that may help folks get a handle on some specifics. One sector of the economy that has a significant interest in the climate and any cost increases associated with mitigation, regs, etc. is the farming community. Yep, farmers without tractors will be like Napoleon evacuating Moscow. . . .or the modern version of it in Darfur. The negative impact on ag in the present AGW bill is huge. You might as well figure on at least 15% increase in the cost of your food, and a huge displacement of farmers. The increase in price of fertilizer/fuel/chemicals and metal hardware are enormous. This bill is not good for the country as a whole at all, and even worse if you are involved in agriculture at all. During the WTO talks in Seattle, then VP Gore said, and this is true, that the US did not need agriculture, as we could import our food from other countries and the environmental impact from runoff, burning of fossil fuels etc would be worth the disruption. That was a very foolish statement, as from a National Security perspective, there is nothing more important than food. Starve the masses and the impact would be to overthrow the government.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 16, 2009 3:23:10 GMT
Looks like a wacko study Socold. Someone should count how many times they found something that "suggests", "gives a clue" then the coup d'grace. . . .validating the results by comparison to the results of GCMS. LOL!
|
|