|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 30, 2009 7:13:30 GMT
Look, we don't know why the earth cooled during the little ice age or warmed shortly after the little ice age. We don't know why it warmed during the medieval warm period or the roman warm period. We don't know why it cooled between those warm periods. The reason is that we have insufficient data from those time periods. It's not that climate theory is inadequate - it's that the data is inadequate. It's difficult enough to know what happened let alone move to explain it. The last century is the one century of all in which we have the best observational data. So it stands to reason that if we can explain the climate in any period in Earth's history, it will be the climate of the 20th century. Right, we only just noticed a connection between the trade winds and the PDO... but sure, we know exactly how the climate works. Look, the models are crap. Give the heck up on the models. Just assuming the rate will increase as it has is the closest we can get to reality. If that's the case...the smoothed temperature will hit (at most) .5C higher by 2070 (and drop the rest of the century)...and with the solar minimum it's likely we won't even see all of THAT warming. Fossil fuels will either be getting scarce or too expensive relative to alternatives by then...problem solved. Honestly, what would you have us do? Should we pay trillions of dollars to basically PRETEND to "mitigate" a trivial "problem"? All indications are that attempts to mitigate the problem will shave next to nothing off even the wildly inaccurate projections. The temperature isn't going to increase for about 20 more years. We shouldn't actually see higher temperatures until at least 2040. During that time sea levels will either stay the same if the temperatures remain the same...or fall. By 2040 the world will have adjusted to this range of temperatures and the increase to 2070 should cause about as much trouble for everyone as the increase from 1978-2007. And once again I'll point out, CO2 just hasn't lived up to the hype. The best model we have (the actual planet) shows only nuisance warming. CO2 obviously doesn't do very much OR the environment actually has negative feedbacks. Either way...the hypothesis of SUBSTANTIAL AGW is pretty much busted.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 30, 2009 11:29:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 30, 2009 22:56:26 GMT
Right, we only just noticed a connection between the trade winds and the PDO... but sure, we know exactly how the climate works. We don't know exactly how it works, but your point that we know next to nothing (which is essentially what your "models are crap" argument boils down too) is equally wrong. If models were "crap" each individual model would show wildly different behavior, it would be almost random, there would be no pattern whatsoever. None of it would make any sense, it wouldn't even look anything like our climate. This isn't the case. The models do reproduce many aspects of climate fairly well. Rough around the edges but it's clear they are getting a good deal of it right and they all show climate sensitivity is significant. It's a big deal that even the simple models agree with the complex models. Various complexity of model show significant climate sensitivity. The only hope for low climate sensitivity is that something in our understanding of physics of the climate is wrong. Possible, but it's been decades and nothing has come forth. It's more likely at this point that understanding is right. The only significant doubt is whether we see 2C warming or 4C warming from a doubling of co2. I don't think expensive will matter. I suspect fossil fuels will remain cheap enough for current emission levels (at least) to be continued for decades. Even if half the world switches to fusion in 2050, the other half of the world is going to burn more fossil fuel because it becomes cheaper. It's all ending up in the atmosphere. Yes we will not be able to stop it. China and other countries now have the ability to ignore emission reduction measures for decades. I doubt it, I think temp will step up following the next el nino and emergance out of the solar minimum and show where we stand.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 30, 2009 23:36:18 GMT
Right, we only just noticed a connection between the trade winds and the PDO... but sure, we know exactly how the climate works. We don't know exactly how it works, but your point that we know next to nothing (which is essentially what your "models are crap" argument boils down too) is equally wrong. If models were "crap" each individual model would show wildly different behavior, it would be almost random, there would be no pattern whatsoever. None of it would make any sense, it wouldn't even look anything like our climate. This isn't the case. The models do reproduce many aspects of climate fairly well. Rough around the edges but it's clear they are getting a good deal of it right and they all show climate sensitivity is significant. It's a big deal that even the simple models agree with the complex models. Various complexity of model show significant climate sensitivity. No it isn't. It's a given that they would. They've worked their asses off to tweak a large number of variables (which they've admitted can provide WILD variation if they don't adjust with others) to fit as close as possible to the weather we've had. Here's the problem...every time they redo the model IT'S UNPROVEN! All the new models are...not proven. Every time they fail it's an invalidation of what they thought was correct. Gee, how ever could they have predicted the temperature would have dropped again...oh look, by copying and pasting the previous cooling/warming period in photoshop or excel or some other means of manipulating graphs/graphics. The leveling off period should have been a clue that the climate was going through business as usual. Well you'd better tell the environment because the environment is telling you all that you have no freaking clue what you're talking about. That's really where the rubber meets the road. People went crazy because there was a perfectly normal warming period and then expected it to continue at that rate for as long as we kept burning fossil fuels. It didn't. GET OVER IT! Stop looking at models and open a freaking window. If the climate were as sensitive as you people are saying the ONLY way it could get colder after A DECADE OF NO INCREASE is for the earth to have gone into some sort of little ice age. We haven't even had any volcanoes go off until VERY recently...you think that has no affect? EVERYTHING points to your sensitivity figures being wrong EXCEPT the models...and ironically instead of just accepting that the models are wrong, you've decided to double down against reality. It's like you're placing another bet after the dealer's already shown blackjack. Yes, this is the same argument that people made against computers being adopted for certain tasks instead of people. Either coal alternatives will get cheaper than coal (probable)...or the coal will run out. Estimated reserves basically give us enough coal to add 1C on top of the recent temperature plateau at current rates...assuming CO2 even plays a noticeable part. If you want to debate the current rates I suggest you take it up with the planet. And once again "adaptation" wins as the only viable option. Not only that, it's kind of free to at worst, pay as you go, since it takes so long. [/quote] Right, right...the most recent warming period was not significantly different than the one before it, yet you appear to think it was somehow special. If the temperature dropped between them it will likely drop now. It will likely drop for another 20 years...and not recover to even 2000's temperatures until about 2040. Also, the solar maximum this time isn't likely to provide anything near the boost of the last one. I think it highly unlikely it will even hit a smoothed average of 100 at the maximum. Then we'll likely get another loooooong, low minimum before the next cycle which of course will likely be low as well (possibly lower, possibly not). Things are pointing to a dalton-esque minimum. Honestly, the odds are not with you on any of this.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 31, 2009 23:46:26 GMT
We don't know exactly how it works, but your point that we know next to nothing (which is essentially what your "models are crap" argument boils down too) is equally wrong. If models were "crap" each individual model would show wildly different behavior, it would be almost random, there would be no pattern whatsoever. None of it would make any sense, it wouldn't even look anything like our climate. This isn't the case. The models do reproduce many aspects of climate fairly well. Rough around the edges but it's clear they are getting a good deal of it right and they all show climate sensitivity is significant. It's a big deal that even the simple models agree with the complex models. Various complexity of model show significant climate sensitivity. No it isn't. It's a given that they would. They've worked their asses off to tweak a large number of variables (which they've admitted can provide WILD variation if they don't adjust with others) to fit as close as possible to the weather we've had. So a conspiracy theory... Why has noone tweaked the variables realisitically to show what the physics actually show? Noone from any country in the whole world for the last 40 years has thought to do that? Not a convincing argument at all. This argument is bogus. The models show such levelling off periods. Skeptics jump at the mean of multiple model runs and don't even bother looking at the individual runs (because skeptics from heartland and icecap tend to be bone ignorant about what the models do show - they are just churning out politicalish claims - they have no experience with the science to base any of it on fact) There's are plenty of examples here: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/See the noise in the individual model runs: It's not up all the way each year and every year as skeptics from heartland and icecap try to convince (read "lie to") everyone. There are falls in temperature and levelling offs. The models don't extrapolate past warming trends, they calculate what will happen based on the physics. How does that square with the model runs above that show such instances decades without increase? There's also a plot showing that waiting 10 years for a new record (or longer) is not outside the statistics of the model runs: And it ends with this sound advice:
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 1, 2009 0:17:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 1, 2009 1:15:03 GMT
See the noise in the individual model runs: It's not up all the way each year and every year as skeptics from heartland and icecap try to convince (read "lie to") everyone. There are falls in temperature and levelling offs. Yes, indeed...see that noise. Now all those models that overshot? Theyr'e invalid. See the ones that managed to make get recent temperatures right? If they didn't get the past right...they too are wrong. Any that are new (ie, hasn't predicted for any significant length of time)...they're untested, its far easier to fit the model to what has been than it is to predict. However many you're left with (few to none)...those are simply not invalid, candidate models if you will. This is the problems with models...they just keep on tweaking the unholy number of variables to get them close. MOST of those models are actually at odds with each other too...assigning different values to the same variables. Then they lump a bunch of (incompatible) models into a giant prediction spread and average them out....but anywhere within the spread (even though the models are wildly different) they count as "right". The old models have been invalidated. The new ones are untested. All the while we've never had even the slightest hint of the crazy warming alarmists predict. None of its behavior is unusual. We've just finished up a warm period and temperatures had leveled off (like the last time and the time before). Now temperatures are showing signs of falling. Now if during a negative PDO and solar minimum we start warming significantly again for a good decade or more...then I'll be concerned.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 1, 2009 2:59:16 GMT
Well Hansen's NASA are saying it - I don't know whether that is 'a lot' but its significant. And there have been some back-pedalling remarks from the head of the IPCC So 'false' is a little strong. After all this is why all the arguments about sequestered heat have surfaced.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 1, 2009 3:51:43 GMT
See the noise in the individual model runs: Ah the spaghetti graph! The last bastion of the guy that got it wrong. LOL! Wondered when that would appear.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 1, 2009 14:27:03 GMT
Ah the spaghetti graph! The last bastion of the guy that got it wrong. LOL! Wondered when that would appear. No. The last bastion is definitely sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 1, 2009 22:41:55 GMT
Now, I believe in AGW totally and I have always found that it is ALWAYS, not just sometimes, but ALWAYS the fifth hat that really makes the difference!
As I understand it, The AGW atmosphere divides into distinct layers, each one appx one hat level from the next. The first four hats levels just involve pure CO2 bouncing about with each other, but on the fifth level, there is no CO2 left so the temperature drops by exactly 5.675845637 degrees centigrade +/- 9.000012345 degrees. Therefore, it has been decreed that every vehicle carries at least 5 hats per passenger with a minimum of 200 hats in the case of 50 passenger vehicles. Black vehicles are required to carry at least 7.66 hats per passenger.
California Vehicle regulations 2010
Visit our website for more great corporate hat deals..
|
|
|
Post by ron on Apr 4, 2009 1:14:04 GMT
No. The last bastion is definitely sarcasm. Ahahahaha! Good one!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 4, 2009 3:38:10 GMT
See the noise in the individual model runs: It's not up all the way each year and every year as skeptics from heartland and icecap try to convince (read "lie to") everyone. There are falls in temperature and levelling offs. Yes, indeed...see that noise. Now all those models that overshot? Theyr'e invalid. An alternative explaination (or probably dual explaination) for the noise is that the climate noise in the models are not synchronized. As an analogy some are going through a La Nina whiles others are going through an El Nino, hence for any particular year there is a big spread in the temperatures. None of the models show the 1998 El Nino for example, although models do have large El Nino-like and La Nina like peaks and dips. For example one model by chance seems to have a la nina like dip in 2008. There are too many overlaps on that particular graph to tell for sure how many of them are close to the mean trend compared to how many overshoot (start low, end high) or undershoot (start high, end low) I have overlaid HadCrut on top of the model run to show the comparison with observations: The contention is the last few years, 2006 onwards.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 4, 2009 20:12:02 GMT
There's also a plot showing that waiting 10 years for a new record (or longer) is not outside the statistics of the model runs: No...it's not completely outside the range of the model runs, but as we are now working on the 11th year without a new record, the models say there is only a 5-15% chance of that occuring. That should begin to cast some serious doubt on the models to any objective person. In addition, none of the global temperature sources were even close to the 1998 record in 2005 except for GISS...so really, the black line prediction should be favored over the red line.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 4, 2009 22:06:57 GMT
The only reason we are 11 years without a new record is that 1998 contained a strong el nino. A very infrequent event that caused massive amount of extra warming in that year.
I suspect if you plot a different graph with length of time it takes to make a new record following a super el nino, 11 years will not be a particularly long length of time.
|
|