|
Post by trbixler on Sept 6, 2011 2:17:47 GMT
In the middle of the storm of politics. Peer review on a platter for team members but editor hara-kiri? Where is the honor in slicing oneself to avoid the reality that he himself created. Then the team rallies a triumvirate hatchet job followed by a stab at quelling the cat that left the bag. "More Thoughts on the War Being Waged Against Us" "Our paper not only didn’t ignore previous work on the subject (as we have been accused of by Kevin Trenberth), our main purpose was to show why the commonly used data analysis methods in previous works was wrong. To accuse us of ignoring previous work reveals either total ignorance or deception on the part of our critics. (Publishing a paper that “ignored previous work” was a central reason given by the Editor-in-Chief for his resignation). The key figures in our paper are Fig. 3 & Fig. 4. We reveal the large discrepancy between climate models and observations in how the Earth gains & loses energy to space during warming and cooling, and show based upon basic forcing-feedback theory why most previous estimates of feedbacks from observational data are (1) virtually worthless, and (2) have likely given the illusion of higher climate sensitivity than what really exists in nature. It is something we have shown before using phase space analysis. We are told our paper will indeed be disputed this week, as Andy Dessler has hurriedly written and gotten favorable peer review on a paper in Geophysical Research Letters. (Gee, I wonder if the peer reviewers were also associated with the IPCC, whose models they are trying to protect from scrutiny?)"www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/more-thoughts-on-the-war-being-waged-against-us/www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 6, 2011 2:36:37 GMT
Please learn proper use of the forum when replying. Including your responses within quotes makes it very difficult to follow.I used one of the dominant practices on this site, the use of different colour to show quotes. I find it quite easy to use and extremely easy to understand. Since it is far easier to understand responses that take each bit and answer it instead of waiting until the very end and mashing it all together, I think I'll keep the technique. The alternative would be to create multiple quote boxes, but that seems a waste of effort when colour does the job. I can't imagine anyone having difficulty in understanding this very site-standard technique, but then you are a special case. I kept the quote box simply to show who the quote can be attributed to. In deference to you, I removed it this time. I can't promise I'll do such a silly thing again. I asked you for published research validating climate models. You came back again with a lecture.
I have no less than 20 invalidating them. Others here know we've been through this countless times, and the AGW 'true believers' get slammed every time. If after this time you can't supply a legitimate source that validates climate models, we'll spoon feed you, but this looks to be a repeat of every other debate on the matter and you'll continue with quotes rather than data.
First and foremost, find one that correctly models cloud dynamics.Why would you ask me for something which is impossible? Models by definition are imperfect. Cloud dynamics are only now being incorporated into models. The fact that models do so well without it speaks volumes about the relative importance of cloud changes. Models get better and better with each release. I am sure that every single analysis of models will come to the conclusion that they are imperfect, and hopefully provide specific clues as to how improvements can be made. Your jump to the conclusion that they are somehow invalid is unwarranted. Models appear to be a favourite red-flag issue for you and a few others on this board, I usually refrain from mentioning them at all. Models are imperfect, and we can disagree on how imperfect they are. I base my arguments on the ACTUAL temperature record and the ACTUAL measurements of CO2 and other factors, instead of models. But since you want to debate models and that's relevant to this thread, here's an interesting article: www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/hoax.aspIt goes over the big flap in the 2000s about climate models. Lo and behold, it turns out that the models were validated (whatever that means) in this case. Now, had they been invalidated, then they would have been improved to incorporate the issue. That's how science works, and doesn't detract from the fact that models are very useful tools. Have you properly kept this instance in your list of peer reviewed model analysis as a mark in favour of models? Have you kept any paper which supports model results? Have you noted where models have been updated to include issues brought up by any of your "20 papers"? Of course not. That would be proper science! The horror!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 6, 2011 2:42:26 GMT
Please learn proper use of the forum when replying. Including your responses within quotes makes it very difficult to follow.I used one of the dominant practices on this site, the use of different colour to show quotes. I find it quite easy to use and extremely easy to understand. Since it is far easier to understand responses that take each bit and answer it instead of waiting until the very end and mashing it all together, I think I'll keep the technique. The alternative would be to create multiple quote boxes, but that seems a waste of effort when colour does the job. I can't imagine anyone having difficulty in understanding this very site-standard technique, but then you are a special case. I kept the quote box simply to show who the quote can be attributed to. In deference to you, I removed it this time. I can't promise I'll do such a silly thing again. I asked you for published research validating climate models. You came back again with a lecture.
I have no less than 20 invalidating them. Others here know we've been through this countless times, and the AGW 'true believers' get slammed every time. If after this time you can't supply a legitimate source that validates climate models, we'll spoon feed you, but this looks to be a repeat of every other debate on the matter and you'll continue with quotes rather than data.
First and foremost, find one that correctly models cloud dynamics.Why would you ask me for something which is impossible? Models by definition are imperfect. Cloud dynamics are only now being incorporated into models. The fact that models do so well without it speaks volumes about the relative importance of cloud changes. Models get better and better with each release. I am sure that every single analysis of models will come to the conclusion that they are imperfect, and hopefully provide specific clues as to how improvements can be made. Your jump to the conclusion that they are somehow invalid is unwarranted. Models appear to be a favourite red-flag issue for you and a few others on this board, I usually refrain from mentioning them at all. Models are imperfect, and we can disagree on how imperfect they are. I base my arguments on the ACTUAL temperature record and the ACTUAL measurements of CO2 and other factors, instead of models. But since you want to debate models and that's relevant to this thread, here's an interesting article: www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/hoax.aspIt goes over the big flap in the 2000s about climate models. Lo and behold, it turns out that the models were validated (whatever that means) in this case. Now, had they been invalidated, then they would have been improved to incorporate the issue. That's how science works, and doesn't detract from the fact that models are very useful tools. Have you properly kept this instance in your list of peer reviewed model analysis as a mark in favour of models? Have you kept any paper which supports model results? Have you noted where models have been updated to include issues brought up by any of your "20 papers"? Of course not. That would be proper science! The horror! Why would you ask me for something which is impossible? Models by definition are imperfect. Cloud dynamics are only now being incorporated into models. The fact that models do so well without it speaks volumes about the relative importance of cloud changes. That has got to be in the top ten idiotic statements ever to have entered this forum. There aren't words available to describe it. Ok, you are completely clueless. I'm done. Others, have fun if it gives you enjoyment. This guy is hopeless.
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 6, 2011 2:45:41 GMT
Sigurdur, another very simple concept of modeling is that is one part of the model fails, the entire model is failed, but not in climate "science". You'll have to define "fails". Plus, your concept is patently false. There is 100% probability that many parts of every model fail. There is no escaping that and never will be. Your conclusion, that the model as a whole "fails", is simply a way to deny modelling completely. Models succeed or fail based on whether they are useful as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 6, 2011 2:51:36 GMT
What all the fuss about this paper shows me is that I have missed something in my 2nd reading of it. I am going to have to go back and re-absorb this with what Dr. Spencer has written and the criticism's of it as well.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 6, 2011 12:25:17 GMT
What all the fuss about this paper shows me is that I have missed something in my 2nd reading of it. I am going to have to go back and re-absorb this with what Dr. Spencer has written and the criticism's of it as well. Seems like figs 3 and 4 bother some folks.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 11, 2011 2:12:23 GMT
The silence is deafening. What was it again that is so demonstrably wrong with Spencer's paper vs Dessler?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 17, 2011 3:38:16 GMT
All in a days work. Why even YAD06 is shaking its branches. "More Hypocrisy from the Team" "If Trenberth really wants to get into the question of failures to explore “rudimentary questions” of robustness, I invite him to examine the infamous CENSORED directory of MBH98 or to search for the verification r2 results of early steps of MBH98. Trenberth observes that “correlation does not mean causation” – a principle that is important at Climate Audit: Moreover, correlation does not mean causation. This is brought out by Dessler [10] who quantifies the magnitude and role of clouds and shows that cloud effects are small even if highly correlated." climateaudit.org/2011/09/16/more-hypocrisy-from-the-team/
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 17, 2011 11:40:36 GMT
Roy's paper is wrong because he compared 10 years of obs with 100 years of averaged modelled data and because he analysed 14 models and failed to identify that the important distinction was not high vs low sensitivity but whether the observations could better be described by ENSO.
So in short it is a rubbish paper.
He can spin his patronising home-spun thinking as much as he likes, but he ain't going to make it as a climate scientist at this rate.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 17, 2011 12:03:10 GMT
He can spin his patronising home-spun thinking as much as he likes, but he ain't going to make it as a climate scientist at this rate.
A little old fashioned honest non-hypocritical observation is more than the climate community can bear huh?
Bottom line it is a completely unsupported and vacuous supposition that ENSO is not part of the climate system and its ultimate sensitivity. Its mere game playing by modelers to try to disguise they have no clue what they are doing. You glibly attempt to set Spencer outside of climate science with absolutely zero science to support your view. In other words apparently the climate community cannot stand any ideas outside of the box they have created. That doesn't say much for the climate science community.
This has been an excellent exchange as it really well delineates the landscape of what is going on and who the scientists are and who the politicians are.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 17, 2011 17:19:42 GMT
It's unsupported and vacuous to state that because models don't represent ENSO well it must mean that climate scientists don't think it is important. There are plenty of other ways of analysing the impact of ENSO which is essentially what Dessler did in his 2010 paper. If you want to use models then do what Dessler did in his 2011 paper which was to show that even if you fixed sea surface temperatures in the models you got the effect in the models that Lindzen and Choi thought was evidence of negative feedback. Yes, absolutely zero science apart from the scientific observation that he has picked the wrong models to check and compared a ten year average with a 100 year average. I'm afraid that *is* science
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 17, 2011 18:11:50 GMT
It's unsupported and vacuous to state that because models don't represent ENSO well it must mean that climate scientists don't think it is important. There are plenty of other ways of analysing the impact of ENSO which is essentially what Dessler did in his 2010 paper. If you want to use models then do what Dessler did in his 2011 paper which was to show that even if you fixed sea surface temperatures in the models you got the effect in the models that Lindzen and Choi thought was evidence of negative feedback. Yes, absolutely zero science apart from the scientific observation that he has picked the wrong models to check and compared a ten year average with a 100 year average. I'm afraid that *is* science All you need to do steve is present the models that correctly simulate climate metrics for the past 10,30 or 100 years. That does not include "tuning" to match temperatures. In fact steve, let's have a special thread on observations that support climate models. It's also interesting you haven't peeped one sentence on the absolute smack down of Dessler 2010 over at CA.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 17, 2011 19:11:51 GMT
It's unsupported and vacuous to state that because models don't represent ENSO well it must mean that climate scientists don't think it is important. I would suggest that if its important we should know more about it before coming to conclusions. This isn't a guessing game. Governments should have sound science upon which to make decisions. There are plenty of other ways of analysing the impact of ENSO which is essentially what Dessler did in his 2010 paper. If you want to use models then do what Dessler did in his 2011 paper which was to show that even if you fixed sea surface temperatures in the models you got the effect in the models that Lindzen and Choi thought was evidence of negative feedback.Thats fine and dandy Steve. How do you rate the probability? About the difference between Dessler's and Spencer's correlation? Say about 2/3rds going Spencer's way and 1/3rd going Dessler's way? Or do you use a divining rod to choose? Yes, absolutely zero science apart from the scientific observation that he has picked the wrong models to check and compared a ten year average with a 100 year average. I'm afraid that *is* science I would suggest the 100 year average is how the models were tuned. Basic curve matching. The 10 years is the only thing available for validation. One needs to be careful here about conclusions. The 100 years means nothing in regards to model validation; while the 10 years means something. Bottom line Steve is the models fail to reproduce the 1911 to 1944 warming. One would think with a hypothesized new forcing on the block somewhere between 5 and 10 times stronger than in the first half of the 20th century pushing incessantly for warming, the climate would have at a minimum cooperated for at least as much warming and for at least as long as the 33 years from the first part of the 20th century. But it didn't. What that leaves is zero evidence of CO2 forcing. That fact was reflected in the confident predictions of El Ninos becoming the new normal, and AGW overpowering natural variation. Fact is natural variation not only over powered AGW forcing, it overpowered the heat in the pipeline as well and it appears on its way to making La Nina the new norm. Pretty sad commentary for the science leadership of AGW. One tends to think they had no clue about what they were talking about. Seems natural to extrapolate that! Especially since extrapolation is the new science du jour! p.s. An element to consider here is how you want to put the finger on Spencer's suggestion of low sensitivity. Thats more than unfair as Spencer disavows being able to calculate sensitivity accurately. It is crucial to note that Spencer states it implies low sensitivity only in the case of accepting model assumptions.Thats not a minor caveat! In fact it exposes the hypocrisy of mainstream climate science. They are going to try to take on Spencer as if their basic estimates of direct forcing of CO2 were sacrosanct and exclusive and the only issue is sensitivity. Thats exactly the stiff-necked attitude of the Pope to Galileo! It has establishment written all over it in bold neon! . . . . namely don't mess with our entitlements!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 17, 2011 19:27:57 GMT
It's unsupported and vacuous to state that because models don't represent ENSO well it must mean that climate scientists don't think it is important. I would suggest that if its important we should know more about it before coming to conclusions. This isn't a guessing game. Governments should have sound science upon which to make decisions. There are plenty of other ways of analysing the impact of ENSO which is essentially what Dessler did in his 2010 paper. If you want to use models then do what Dessler did in his 2011 paper which was to show that even if you fixed sea surface temperatures in the models you got the effect in the models that Lindzen and Choi thought was evidence of negative feedback.Thats fine and dandy Steve. How do you rate the probability? About the difference between Dessler's and Spencer's correlation? Say about 2/3rds going Spencer's way and 1/3rd going Dessler's way? Or do you use a divining rod to choose? Yes, absolutely zero science apart from the scientific observation that he has picked the wrong models to check and compared a ten year average with a 100 year average. I'm afraid that *is* science I would suggest the 100 year average is how the models were tuned. Basic curve matching. The 10 years is the only thing available for validation. One needs to be careful here about conclusions. The 100 years means nothing in regards to model validation; while the 10 years means something. Bottom line Steve is the models fail to reproduce the 1911 to 1944 warming. One would think with a hypothesized new forcing on the block somewhere between 5 and 10 times stronger than in the first half of the 20th century pushing incessantly for warming, the climate would have at a minimum cooperated for at least as much warming and for at least as long as the 33 years from the first part of the 20th century. But it didn't. What that leaves is zero evidence of CO2 forcing. That fact was reflected in the confident predictions of El Ninos becoming the new normal, and AGW overpowering natural variation. Fact is natural variation not only over powered AGW forcing, it overpowered the heat in the pipeline as well and it appears on its way to making La Nina the new norm. Pretty sad commentary for the science leadership of AGW. One tends to think they had no clue about what they were talking about. Seems natural to extrapolate that! Especially since extrapolation is the new science du jour! When 14 models are wrong, they'll say this other model is right. When it is pointed out that model is wrong on ocean heat transport or hydrological simulations, they then say true, but this other model is right on those. It goes on and on like that. It's a cherry picking Texas Sharpshooter exhibition; like listening to interpretations of the quatrains of Nostradamus.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 18, 2011 13:46:09 GMT
|
|