20TH CENTURY CLIMATE: An effort to provide a better understanding of climate change over the 20th century may be cancelled due to budget shortfalls.
Image: NOAA George E. Marsh Album, theb1365, Historic C&GS Collection
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has abandoned an effort to reconstruct a detailed picture of hour-by-hour changes in the atmosphere stretching back to the 19th century.
Known as the 20th Century Reanalysis, the project has already helped scientists better understand the causes of historic weather events like the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and unusual Arctic warmth during the 1920s and 1930s. Those discoveries and others could eventually improve the predictions of climate models that look decades into the future.
But now the program, originally scheduled to run through 2013, is on hold as NOAA struggles with a large budget shortfall in its Climate Program Office.
Climate scientists are crying foul, calling the decision to pull the plug shortsighted.
Richard Seager, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, was part of the team that used 20th Century Reanalysis data to tease apart the drivers of the Dust Bowl. Now he's using the information to analyze the factors that produced historic flooding last year along the Ohio and Missouri rivers.
"[NOAA] defunded this at a time when everyone is using this dataset to look at long-term changes," Seager said. "To defund it now is a very strange decision."
Others lamented the cut but sympathized with NOAA's budget struggles.
"I understand where NOAA's coming from, because they didn't get the funds from Congress, but it's a very sad commentary on politics in this country," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Going back in time to search forward
Researchers familiar with the program say its budget is vanishingly small, less than a tenth of 1 percent of the $4.9 billion NOAA received this year.
The 20th Century Reanalysis is one of several projects clumped into a $2 million line item that included $250,000 for reanalysis work at NOAA's lab in Boulder, Colo., and additional money for data managers at the agency's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
"It's a relatively inexpensive program," said Phil Arkin, director of the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites at the University of Maryland. "And it does play a larger role than its cost would indicate. Reanalysis datasets are used constantly, all over science."
What scientists once called "retrospective analysis" -- these days shortened to just "reanalysis" -- was pioneered in the early 1980s at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting.
Researchers began knitting together observations of temperature, air pressure, wind speed and precipitation collected by ground-monitoring stations, weather balloons, aircraft, buoys, satellites and weather radar to go back in time, using computer models to create an hour-by-hour view of the atmospheric processes that drove past weather.
But that type of reanalysis -- conducted these days by ECMWF, NASA, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Prediction and the Japan Meteorological Agency -- is limited by its reliance on satellite data that began pouring in during the 1970s.
Including the satellite data makes it hard to look much past the middle of the 20th century, said Dick Dee, head of the reanalysis section at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting.
The 20th Century Reanalysis is the first attempt to get around those limits and create a record that reaches far enough into the past to reveal processes that have shaped natural climate cycles, like the El Niño Southern Oscillation, as well as the drivers of man-made climate change.
The project does so by eschewing satellite observations, relying only on temperature and pressure data to reconstruct the climate in six-hour chunks from 1871 to 2010.
See what we're tweeting about
111 Comments
Add CommentWith the expected changes in weather patterns predicted in the coming century this seems very short sighted indeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing is stopping all of the wealthy politicians, wealthy liberal billionaires or the "green" industry from funding this voluntarily. I know, I know, the liberals/warmists have created the condition that the only valid science is what the government pays for, talk about short sighted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the wealthy politicians and green corporations stand to reap billions of dollars of off global warming(real or scam) they can pony up the money for this research.
If no one does volunteer to pay for it, we have additional evidence this global warming theory is in fact a scam itself or if real is being used to line the pockets of some scientists and politicians, companies involved and get power for those who desire it.
Too bad the predictions are so far not remotely accurate. Where do you people stand now? Lets see, the last decade of warming as predicted by your models did not happen, many glaciers world wide were predicted to lose ice and it didn't happen, some are actually gaining ice. No causal connection between CO2 and Asthma or other similar problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am pretty confident the warmist prediction from NASA that alien beings from another planet smiting us evil polluting humans will not likely happen as predicted.
It is and our government is cutting the budget on the backs of those departments that are politically acceptable to cut like NOAA and NASA. On the other hand, this may force these agencies to do more with less.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike climate change which is hard to comprehend, I fear this budgetary cut is only the tip of a very large iceberg of cuts to come.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...global warming(real or scam)..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, you admit that AGW could be true? What evidence would convince you of this? What proof are you waiting to see to make up your mind?
Glaciers world wide, that were 10's of thousands (some millions) of years in the making have already melted to virtually nothing! Why are we even talking about proof? Is it ignorance or GREED that has fueled resistance to taking steps to counter AGW? Is it too late to make a difference....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, it could be true unlike warmists I am not arrogant enough to believe I know everything. The problem I mainly have is the method causing it, CO2 as the sole and only way it could be happening. Also, the effects, mitigation methods it is all totally speculative and based entirely on statistical math and computer models. We simply do not know enough about the atmosphere and how it works and how it interacts with space, the sun, ocean and land to make such specific conclusions like CO2 is the only cause. I have said before the mere fact we have 7 billion human bodies all producing body heat, cook fires, furnaces, running car engines(producing heat) billions more in livestock producing heat and the millions of factories, steel mills and on and on all producing heat, it would stand to reason all of our heat producing activities are warming the globe and a greenhouse effect is not even needed. BUT none of you warmists consider anything outside of CO2 is it and taxing CO2 is the only way to reduce it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow if someone said, Co2 and methane, and our heat producing activity, reducing forests, burning the same forests all in combination is causing warming, then I could begin to see what is an effect. The CO2 stuff just doesnt cut it. Co2 has been in far higher concentrations in the past without the calamaties predicted and it doesnt even do the greenhouse effect claimed. It does have an effect but that effect caps out. Once at the cap, it doesn't trap heat any further.
Anyway, yeah humans cause pollution, problems and we could be heating the planet, I just dont buy the story you people claim is how it happens. I am for mitigating all possible effects or preparing for the consequences, not putting all effort into one theory and hoping we get it right and somehow it negates the effects of everything else.
I know sault, you claim somehow because I am not a climatologist I dont know what i am talking about. Debatable there but I am a highly paid analyst and programmer, so I know exactly how computer models with incomplete info get it all wrong and there is no way the statistical information that supposedly proves CO2 caused global warming would pass muster in my line of work. The data is simply not complete enough or our understanding of the atmosphere complete enough for us to make the Co2 only claim or give much credence to the more specific predictions.
Anyway back to the article, there are plenty of warmist millionaires who could fund this, so step up Al Gore.
"Now if someone said, Co2 and methane, and our heat producing activity, reducing forests, burning the same forests all in combination is causing warming, then I could begin to see what is an effect. The CO2 stuff just doesnt cut it. Co2 has been in far higher concentrations in the past without the calamaties predicted and it doesnt even do the greenhouse effect claimed. It does have an effect but that effect caps out. Once at the cap, it doesn't trap heat any further."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSweet hopping green jesus on a lilypad. You claim not to be arrogant, but you are evidently arrogant enough to opine on this even though you've clearly never paid any attention to all the scientists saying, oh, "this is how methane and land-use changes play their part" and "this is why CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas and how we know we haven't capped the effect" and "here is how CO2 and the other atmospheric changes act as feedbacks to each other." Before you start to vilify "warmists", don't you think maybe you should take a little time and find out what the science actually IS?
::facepalm::
5 seconds on Google:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/the-impacts-of-land-use-on.html
Years ago when I was taking my M.Sc. I was doing computer simluations on natural gas reservoirs. After months working on what appeared to be a fairly simple problem, my supervisor walked into my office and asked "So, how is it going?". I said "Great! I give up."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe asked why, as it appeared to be a worthy line of research. I told him "With just 5 variables, I can alter any or all of them slightly, and get whatever answer I want. Therefore, all I can really say is that variables appear resonable. But testability, predictability and falsifiablity are non-existent, so scientifically, the value of this research zero."
My supervisor agreed and I moved onto something more worthwhile and ended up producing some useful results.
NOAA, perhaps had the same insight.
"The problem I mainly have is the method causing it, CO2 as the sole and only way it could be happening."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's not what climate science is saying:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm
There's also the problem of methane outgassinge from melting permafrost and undersea clathrates. The fact that there are so many positive feedbacks in the climate system makes our planet have a high sensitivity to initial climate forcings. In fact, without these positive feedbacks, the large temperature swings between glacials and interglacials become impossible to explain.
If you take the heat produced by all our fossil fuel use, heck even add in nuclear power too, and compare that amount to the 1.7W/m2 that JUST the %40 more CO2 that we have added is trapping, CO2 warming is 50,000 TIMES greater. That's because it's 1.7W/m2 over the WHOLE globe. Burning fossil fuels releases heat, but the CO2 it releases stays in the air for decades or even centuries, so that heat continues to build year after year.
The CO2-is-saturated myth was disproved decades ago by basic physics:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm
shoshin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat post. It's something those not involved in science research completely fail to understand. The variables chosen for a model and the weight given those variables are somewhat subjective. Tweak a variable and results change. This is a major issue with climate study.
There are no absolutes to work with. Worthwhile results need to contain qualifiers such as as maybe, perhaps,
probably, etc. When, in contast, actual predictions are pronounced the red flags need to be raised.
Nice try Sault, but you miss one fundamental issue: This whole theory falls apart in that it predicts a hotspot in the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat hotspot has never been found.
A theory that fails in it's predictions is a discredited theory. Not sure what this paper was attempting to cobble together, but it failed.
Anymore pseudo-science?
And have you yet found the CO2 amplification circuit? In the real world I mean, not just in a computer model that spits out the answer you want by tweaking the variables.
Nobody else has depite billions and billions of $$$. You'd think something that powerful and pervasive would be fairly easy to find; we're not talking Dark Matter here.
Who knows, maybe you'll be The One to find it.
Ah! So you're switching to YET ANOTHER ARGUMENT! Too bad the "hotspot" argument is just another failure to add to the denier's pile:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
Do you not see that using 173 different arguments REEKS of the kitchen sink approach and that the supposed "smoking gun" has never been found by the denier camp? Why can't the head-in-the-sand folks agree on 1 or 2 major objections? Why does the scientific argument on their side keep changing? If they were right, you would think they wouldn't have to keep chainging their approach, would they?
There is no "CO2 amplification circuit". There are positive feedbacks, however. Do you agree that the oceans take up CO2 slower when they warm? The initial CO2 forcing causes carbon sinks to slow down, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere until a new equilibrium is reached. Without this mechanism, the temperature swings between glacials and interglacials become impossible to explain.
When ice melts, Earth's albedo drops, causing more heat to be retained in the climate system. When the permafrost melts and undersea clathrates become unstable due to warming temperatures, they release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. So much methane is bubbling up out of the permafrost, you can light it on fire. Now how is this not alarming to you?
When we disrupt ecosystems through land use changes, pollution, or temperature changes, the biosphere's ability to absorb carbon slows down, amplifying the warming even more. See the bark beetle infestations and increasing wildfires in Western North America for examples.
Clouds are a little complicated as they can both warm and cool, but are responsive to temperature and humidity levels. However, high-altitude clouds tend to cool while low-altitude clouds tend to warm. Additionally, daytime clouds tend to cool while nightime clouds tend to warm. The science on this is incomplete, but it's nowhere NEAR complete enough that you can say with ANY certainty that clouds are a negative forcing. The latest science on the issue states that clouds might be a weak POSITIVE forcing after all.
So, chalk up another few failed theories for the denier camp. They have such a horrible track record, why do you even still take them seriously?
Climate models are reliable and the only ones that can successfully hindcast are the ones that incorporate a 3C climate sensitivity and Anthropogenic forcings:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Natural gas fields and the atmosphere are two totally different things. We have historical data on the atmosphere and can observe basically all of the forcings acting upon it so your analogy is not applicable. And besides, just because you failed at something doesn't make it impossible! Just ask the Russians about landing a space probe on Mars and getting it to function for more than a few seconds!
Sault,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComputer models, whether of climate, the Relativity, the Big Bang are not evidence of anything. The very best that they can do is to point you in a direction to find some real evidence.
Hindcasting is irrelevant and naive. I can build a computer model to match exactly the historical behavior of the stock market (actually, I did build one as an excercise when I was taking my MBA). It was accurate right up to the opening bell of the next days trading and then blew apart.
You are one messed up puppy. I'm a bit embarrassed now to realize that I've given you far more credit than was due. Your grasp of science is non-existent and I'm a bit ashamed that it took me this long to realize it.
Please stick to discussing things with your own scientifically illiterate cadre of eco-loonies. Your undisciplined minds are the stuff Greenpeace dreams are made of.
"sault", "priddseren" has a very valid point, but his denier mentality will not allow him to see it. Global warming his caused by hundreds of different activities, as he said. You and I both know that is true, but we cannot explain it to him where he can understand it. What he refused to realize, probably because he watches Faux News and listens to Rush Limpballs and believe that what they say is the gospel according to Luke -or repugs- in this case, is that all these activities causes a huge increase in CO1s and CO2s and it is those huge increases that is causing global warming and we humans are the major contributor with our advanced transportation and energy production activities. It was the republicans, i.e., Faux News and Rush Limpballs, who said that CO2 is the only cause of global warming. Faux News did this to try and make the environmentally conscious democrat, Vice President Al Gore look stupid and ended up making themselves look even more stupid, greedy and anti-environmental than what they tried to make Al Gore look
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf "priddseren" would set aside his political quackery, he would see that you are right, and if you would set aside your 'superiority complex' you would see that he is correct in his own warped way. I respect both of you a great deal, but some times you both act like spoiled rich brats and the bully out on the play ground pestering the hell out of people.
"sault", you do an excellent job at explaining these, some times pathetically written articles and false information that is not even fit for Mrs. Jones 3rd grade class...keep up the good work; a lot of people depend on you to tell us the truch.
"priddseren", get your head out of the repugs behind and you would be a very knowledgeable person that a lot of people would respect. Although I will never agree with you on the clean and green nuclear power, I would still respect your opinion more.
Don't worry, America.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSooner or later some European group will do one of these - like CERN did with the LHC.
If you are lucky, in a hundred years or so news will cross the ocean and get to you, you know, like with the theory of evolution. You just sit back, watch some American Gladiators and Jersey Shore.
*POW*
Sorry for rubbing in. Where's Carl Sagan when you need him?
As usual, there's plenty of pathetic knee-jerk reactions to this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIronically, the climate cynics should be supporting this kind of research because by looking at past, scientists might actually find other explanations for climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. As it is, the climate cynics have yet to come up with defendable theories as to natural processes causing climate change, what mysterious processes cause manmade greenhouse gases to behave differently in the atmosphere than in the lab, and the amazing coincidence of simultaneous climate change & manmade greenhouse gases.
For instance, "natural cycles" are endlessly parroted, but nobody has found a natural cycle that explains what we now see. For instance, the last 2 times the earth was this warm was at the sunniest part of the Milankovitch cycle, and we are certainly no-where near such a peak.
You & your Co2 as villain companions were comprehensively demolished at:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=corals-more-threatened-by-temperature-than-acidifying-ocean#comments
Those who missed that debate please read it. How sault continues to deny the truth & repeatedly calls for evidence then runs for cover when it is provided is his stock in trade. You see it is useless providing the evidence to people who even refuse to admit that the email scandal is anything more than a beat up. Again I urge those who missed it to read the posts at the above link.
You have an interesting definition of "demolished"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou didn't present a single scientific argument, trotting out urban myths that even educated skeptics wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole, like the 800 year lag, and cosmic rays ("backed" by papers that THEMSELVES show its nonsense, if you dig into the statistical argument being claimed), and then run around quoting a bunch of emails, once it's demonstrated that you're not smart enough to actually discuss science.
Then you fell back on personal characterization, and ad hominem attacks.
Even if I didn't have exams that will thoroughly tie me up for the next couple of weeks, I probably wouldn't have bothered to respond further, since you basically discredited yourselves, resting your entire argument on nothing but a vast conspiracy theory you can't back with a single piece of empirical evidence.
Come back when you can actually discuss atmospheric physics like an adult please.
Or don't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou and all what, five?, six?, remaining skeptical scientists out there can live in your bubble, while the rest of us move on and discuss solutions.
You cut & ran claiming you were too busy to continue debating VangelV
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee post# 191 at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=corals-more-threatened-by-temperature-than-acidifying-ocean#comments: Sadly, I won't have time for further responses like I would have liked for a few weeks.
You are without honour or credibility. I sincerely hope you are sharing your posts with your students so they see your duplicity.
I had no need to again substantiate my claims when the debate was so ably being taken up by VangelV & others.
You can think whatever you want about my motivations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery single argument you presented was shot down the ease. The PDO argument, the cosmic ray argument, the 800 year lag (which I quickly addressed not once, but twice, and after your scientifically ignorant and trite little arguments failed, you turned on me.
Attacking me seems to be about all your pathetic online presence is good for; an actual, civil debate about facts and science is clearly just beyond what you're willing and/or able to do, and since, in lieu of that, you feel the need to launch attacks on me, it makes you nothing but a sad little person who's so desperate to prove an outmoded point of view that actual scientists left behind years ago, that you insult and accuse anyone who dares to disagree with your point of view, a tactic not only exclusive to you (not to your side of the debate, just you), but something you so insisted on, that even when I tried to get the topic back on track and initiate a civil discussion with you, looking past the petty remarks about me that you rested your case on, you blew right past that attempt and just kept on going with your little personal vendetta.
If I didn't have time to spend hours going through and correcting Vangel there, I certainly don't have time to respond to your drivel here.
So please, by all means, continue your irrelevant character assassination of a person you've never met and know nothing about.
It's clear you certainly can't discuss the science.
I, on the other hand, will go find adults to have a discussion with, who care about discussing science, rather than their opponent, at least when the time becomes sufficiently available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI extended an offer to continue a discussion with you, once the time became available, but since an actual discussion isn't something you're interested in, I see little point.
Read the posts folk. You do not need interpreters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a final point, I am not a teacher, nor have I claimed to be, nor do I desire to be, but should that ever become my profession, and this issue arise, I will present the manner in a more balanced and robust way than you, sticking the science, not characterizations, and certainly not attacking any student who disagrees with me in the manner you have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is because, however, the difference between you and me seems to be that your only goal here, insofar as you have argued, is to "win" and look like you're right. My goal is to explore the issue and try to learn something, which is why when someone presents a new piece of information to me, I take it into consideration, like I did with Vangel's paper on pH fluctuation, admitting, right then and there, that he had both an interesting point and backing for it.
You do not discuss in any such fashion, and were I to argue like you, I would use that fact to personally characterize who you are, but I don't argue like you, so I will leave the statements to stand as commentary on your method of discussion, not you, personally.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more important things to do for awhile than debunk the likes of you.
"Read the posts folk. You do not need interpreters."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, do.
Read the part where I debunk all their scientific arguments, and recieve nothing but personal abuse from Carlyle, who contributed nothing else. Read the part where I was shown a paper on ocean pH that clearly disagreed with my position, and responded by pointing it out as being indeed backing for the poster's point.
I withdraw my claim that Catamount is a teacher. He denies that this is so. I was sure that he had claimed to be, but I am unable to find such a claim & concede I must have been mistaken.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can see that statistics was not a strong point of your MBA program (as demonstrated by your naive stock-market model)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFortunately, climate researchers have a better grasp of the limitations of mathematical models, as evidenced by the successful predictions of climate models from 20 years ago.
".... The variables chosen for a model and the weight given those variables are somewhat subjective. Tweak a variable and results change. ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need to be more specific with what you mean by "variable": Your statement is a Rorshach tautology....
Off you go then. Back in your box. If you do not have time to answer the questions & specific emails refered to on the previous string, what are you doing here? sault did not answer them either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcept that proceed from false pretenses, or state your position dishonestly. I already said I'd look into the emails, that's part of what I'll do over the next week between exams, because unlike you, my position actually has room for a little more nuance than "cLIamte hoax LULZ!!1ONE!", and I don't claim the situation is 100% black and white.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no doubt that given enough time, eventually one of the emails will show some dishonest climate scientist, somewhere, out of the tens of thousands employed. Of all those thousands of scientists who agree with AGW, I have no doubt that a couple in a thousand are trying to make careers on dishonest information.
Does it change that fact that essentially EVERY scientist who's a self-proclaimed skeptic is dishonest? Nope.
Does it change the fact that you have no scientific argument against AGW? Nope.
So tell me, who should go back to a box, you, the guy who isn't even intelligent enough to debate the topic at hand, and doesn't know enough about science to debate it at the most rudimentary level, or me, the guy who, despite modest knowledge, is able to easily put to rest any semblance of scientific arguments from the skeptic side, such that it sends you scurrying for your pathetic little pile of political stunt emails?
Given enough time to look over some of this new evidence, which unlike you, I do, I will have a proper response, because again, that's what I do, and you don't. I actually examine evidence.
Of course, if I do reply further with a proper response, it'll be to the other people here, who actually have arguments to make, and don't spend 100% of their time taking petty jabs at people like you do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonestly, have you made a single argument that actually addresses the topic at hand in any substantive way once the past week?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI couldn't contribute as little to a discussion as you if I tried.
It's no wonder you have such a preoccupation with trying to pick personal fights with me; the fact that I can actually address the topic at hand must be quite threatening to you.
I posted: #83 So, like Sault, you refute the evidence exposed in the email scandal & want us to have our judgment modified by apologist spin doctors rather than reading the actual emails? Nothing to see here, according to Sault. Perhaps I have missed your response to the emails. It is rather a litmus test you see. Exposes at least one of the prisms you view reality through.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour response: #89
If these emails were an honest attempt to raise alarms about the science to begin with, they'd all be released at once.
Instead, these people wait until a climate summit, then release a few emails, then wait for another climate summit, then release a few more, basically as a repeated political stunt.
There are numerous examples of excerpts from these emails, those held up as the most egregious examples of fraud, being nothing more than out-of-context nonsense.
Are there also emails that show something substantive? Perhaps.
Show a specific email, and I'll tell you whether I think the conclusion you're drawing from it is reasonable or not.
I declined. Anyone giving such an apologist answer was showing too much bias for me to be bothered with. You objected to my stance but later when another poster gave you specific examples you failed to respond.
"I note you have not answered the email samples provided by post # 155. VangelV"
Now you come up with a pathetic excuse. Sault usually jumps in on these discussions too. He has not responded either.
You accuse me of a lack of credibility?
So, since you DID NOT address the following points and went straigh back to ad hominem attacks, I'll just assume you agree with them or are retreating from the debate in failure:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the "hotspot" argument is just another failure to add to the denier's pile:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm"
"Do you not see that using 173 different arguments REEKS of the kitchen sink approach and that the supposed "smoking gun" has never been found by the denier camp?"
"Do you agree that the oceans take up CO2 slower when they warm? The initial CO2 forcing causes carbon sinks to slow down, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere until a new equilibrium is reached. Without this mechanism, the temperature swings between glacials and interglacials become impossible to explain.
When ice melts, Earth's albedo drops, causing more heat to be retained in the climate system. When the permafrost melts and undersea clathrates become unstable due to warming temperatures, they release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. So much methane is bubbling up out of the permafrost, you can light it on fire. Now how is this not alarming to you?
When we disrupt ecosystems through land use changes, pollution, or temperature changes, the biosphere's ability to absorb carbon slows down, amplifying the warming even more. See the bark beetle infestations and increasing wildfires in Western North America for examples.
Clouds are a little complicated as they can both warm and cool, but are responsive to temperature and humidity levels. However, high-altitude clouds tend to cool while low-altitude clouds tend to warm. Additionally, daytime clouds tend to cool while nightime clouds tend to warm. The science on this is incomplete, but it's nowhere NEAR complete enough that you can say with ANY certainty that clouds are a negative forcing. The latest science on the issue states that clouds might be a weak POSITIVE forcing after all."
"Climate models are reliable and the only ones that can successfully hindcast are the ones that incorporate a 3C climate sensitivity and Anthropogenic forcings:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Even if you engaged me on the FACTS on just 1 or 2 of these points, we could have a meaningful debate. That you and the other deniers here are so afraid of discussing facts is very troubling for your side's credibility.
The "Climategate" nontroversy has been investigated by 9 independent reviews and ALL scientists involved have been cleared of ALL wrongdoing:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/11/23/375268/the-real-climategate-scandals-are-piling-up/
And how is releasing these emails right before major climate conferences NOT suspicious? If the hackers who illegally stole these emails were actually interested in the truth, you think they would have released ALL of the emails as soon as they got them, right? But no, we get a vague PR stunt that the media eats up and then forgets to report on the exonerations of climiate science a few months later.
If there was something fishy going on, how could 9 different reviews completely miss it? You think there would be SOMETHING to all these emails people are blabbering on about, but after (let me say this again) 9 independent reviews, there's NOTHING! The only "evidence" coming out of these emails is the incoherent ramblings of science deniers with a pro-pollution agenda. After (one last time...) 9 independent investigations, anybody who thinks "Climategate" was anything more than an overblown media circus driven by out-of-context quotes and ignorance of how science actually works is severely out of touch.
Numerous people have challenged you before, including me. I gave links to numerous climate predictions that have failed. You did not respond & now claim I offer no evidence, and then you swing to your blindingly obvious denial of reality re the emails. How anyone can read them & still point blank argue that they are not relevant or a beat up or should be explained by some approved expert or committee defies belief. What is the point of debating things with you? I see no point in arguing the toss with you when experience shows me it is pointless. Other more articulate people than me have failed totally to bring reason to your attention. The models are NOT accurate. If they were we would all be able to see the results. Farmers would be able to reliably sow their crops or decide not to, sporting events would be rescheduled well beforehand if the models could even predict if the coming season was going to be hot or cold, wet or dry. People could arrange their wardrobe for the coming season. Even on a broader scale the predictions fail. Warmer oceans. Fail. Semi permanent drought in Australia. Fail. Children will grow up in England not knowing what snow is Fail. Ski resorts will have to close through lack of snow. Fail. It goes on & on. The Arctic will be ice free by the summer of 2012. Really? If you got your heads out of your computer models & opened a window your predictions would be more accurate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Carlyle", "sault" is correct, and I think down deep inside your mind, you know it. Because of the speed the Earth is revolving, you cannot predict the weather with any accuracy, but you can see the results we humans are having on the climate, and we can clearly see the results humans has had on the climate in the past. This year in West Virginia has been the warmest winter we have had on recorded record and two days ago is the first snow we have had this winter. We usually get about 5 to six feet of snow a winter, but that doesn't mean we will not make up for it next winter, or we will pay for it this summer. The great amount of pollution we humans are pumping into the atmosphere is giving us these swings in the intensity of storms, abnormally warm temperatures and abnormally cold temperatures, and it is affecting the whole world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is pathetic that you use those e-mails to argue your point when they have been proven nine times to be a media stunt to stifle progress in climate restoration. If you think scientists can give you 100% accurate predictions, then maybe you should give it a try with your arguments. Or, maybe you should run for president and present you argument to President Obama or Secretary of Energy Chu. You can still get on the write-in ticket and the Tea Party will back you.
Fortunately, with the growing list of failed predictions, this expensive farce will be over in a few more years. I remember very similar weather to what we are having now, back in the mid 1940s. I would be interested to know what the weather records show from the mid forties to 1950s globally. I remember that Europe was suffering its coldest winter in forty years in the winter after 'D' day, as they are having now. In Australia we had the same wet seasons at that time after an earlier drought that we are experiencing now. If your memory is long enough you will remember. Later, I think late fifties there were the massive floods that swamped Holland with massive casualties. When that weather returns AGW believers will think it reinforces their case. It will not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really do not believe AGW was trying to convince anyone about what all the pollution we are putting into our environment is doing to our climate. You can, more or less, stick your head out your door, take a breath of air and realize that yourself. I think what AGW is trying to do in get people to understand that if we do not stop polluting our environment and do it quickly, we are going to have some very serious problems with our health and our eating habits worldwide. Our transportation and the source of energy extraction we use is causing about 95% or more of our problems. Just getting away from fossil fuel will probably return our climate to a preindustrial age, and do it quickly. How quick is debatable, but if we do nothing in the next 40 to 100 years, we could have some serious problems ahead of us. I do not think we should wait that long so some greedy people can make huge profits off our suffering in a really dirty environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI gather you are not from America, so you may not be fully aware what our political party called the republicans are doing to our environment and the research and development of clean energy...they need to be stopped before they destroy our country's environment and our health. If we had more people like "sault" we could get there a lot faster in stopping the republicans from returning us to the stone age.
"How anyone can read them [the "Climategate" emails] & still point blank argue that they are not relevant or a beat up [sic] or should be explained by some approved expert or committee defies belief."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, nice to see you admitting that the facts defy your beliefs. Anyway, I guess those NINE SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS that found ZERO wrongdoing by climate scientists have "beat up" any claims to the contrary!
What didn't I respond to? Failure to find the "hotspot"? Responded. Climate models aren't accurate? Responded. CO2 is a NEGATIVE feedback? Responded, debunked, etc. The fact that you switch around between the 173(!) different denier arguments every time I debunk your nonsense is very telling. I've never gotten a solid rebuttal from you EVER on these issues.
I know I'm not going to change your mind. A lot of political analysts think the only way we're going to get meaningful action on climate change eventually is through "cohort replacement" (look it up). However, I'm not going to stand idly by when you trash sound science and the scientists who conduct it. At least the others reading this board will know that there is another side to the debate you're trying to frame and they will be able to make their own calls one way or the other.
Carlyle, your "post 83" doesn't even make an argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make a vague reference to the emails, and when I challenge you to provide a specific example, you are entirely unable to.
That's what you call contributing to a discussion?
You do a great job of spinning the situation and misrepresenting our points of view, but its sufficiently transparent that I'm not sure who you think you're fooling.
Never have I said that there are no climategate emails that could expose dishonesty, in fact, I just said the exact opposite, but I also noted that even were such examples out there, you'd be implicating an individual scientist here or there.
Since I've already stated that there are probably individual scientists out there who are dishonest, what revelation do you think the emails contain?
They still don't change the fact that you don't have a single, scientific argument.
In other words, the emails are a classic red herring, and they're not a particularly good one, because they're almost always vague statements, without much context, that are entirely open to interpretation.
Direct scientific evidence is not vague, and not so open to interpretation, either it supports a conclusion, or it doesn't.
This is why you can't argue science, and why you have to argue emails, despite the ultimate irrelevancy, besides spotting out single scientists who MIGHT be dishonest (congratulations?), and to date, no email you or anyone else has presented has directly backed such an accusation.
There's no scientist admitting they're doctoring data, and really not even anything indicative of dishonesty in the emails you or VangelV presented. There are criticisms of MBH98, but half the failings VangelV thinks are revelations from the emails are limitations discussed IN THE PAPER, and papers are debated constantly in public.
That a few emails criticize one paper isn't evidence of dishonesty.
So, do you actually have a scientific argument? Of course not.
VangelV is trying there, at least, even if most of his arguments are whimsical and irrelevant, and I look forward to debunking them later, but you, you can't even do that.
"Fortunately, with the growing list of failed predictions"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep, all those failed predictions, like when models successfully predicted the response to pinatubo, or when Hansen's '88 model showed a trend in temperature in response to forcings that for the next 20 years, the real temperature followed until the real-world forcings departed from his own (and even when they did, such as the mismatch on volcanic eruptions, since no one can predict volcanic eruptions, climate still responded in the way he predicted, with the right magnitude and duration), or how about that time climate models got sea level rise right, and arctic sea ice... oh wait, the sea ice situation is worse than the models predicted, my bad
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Exactly what is this mountain of failed predictions you're referencing?
What predictions have climate models actually made that haven't come to pass? Even if there are some, how do you explain the fact that they're clearly getting some important ones right?
Also, on the emails, in working up a response to VangelV (which is why I need the time; he tossed a lot of stuff out, not because I "cut and run", thank you very much), it looks like VangelV's most damning email, the one from Wigley, is, *drumroll*, YET ANOTHER out of context statement, that once seen in context, means absolutely nothing particularly damning (it's actually a statement of the obvious).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat Wigley actually said was
"Paleo data cannot inform us *directly* about how the climate sensitivity (as climate sensitivity is defined). Note the stressed word. The whole point here is that the text cannot afford to make statements that are manifestly incorrect. This is *not* mere pedantry. If you can tell me where or why the above statement is wrong, then please do so.
Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one could do better with paleo data, then you're fooling yourself. This is fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant claims."
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=253
Now do what the nice man says, Carlyle, note the stressed word.
Wigley is stating that climate sensitivity is worked out indirectly, and so I would tell you if you asked. A lot of science is worked out indirectly. Try taking a course or two in evolutionary biology, and you'll become a master of indirectly worked out science.
You see why I don't like the emails? It's not that they might reveal something damning, if anything, I would have expected them to already reveal more damning facts than they have (I think there are MORE dishonest scientists out there than have been uncovered in the emails, which is to say: 0 to date).
They're also extremely open to manipulation is misquoting. Were there not an easy site to openly view those emails, the omission would never be discovered, and we'd walk away with an entirely incorrect idea (which I do not blame VangelV for; he probably just read the cherry picked version from Anthony Watts or Climate Audit and unwittingly posted it).
This is why I debate science, and only science, not your grand delusion of a global conspiracy.
Priddseren's response at 8 is the opposite of not-arrogant enough. The attempts at points are rife with error, misrepresentation, and uninformed attitude. It's one thing not to know jack about the issues, it's quite another to brag about it like Priddseren. Here's a clue - there never was, isn't, and never will be, a "CO2-only" claim. That's the first warning that's the comment is a wrapper for more pro-pollutionist word rubbish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe collapse of the reconstruction project stands with the drawdown on expeditions to Mars. The Global Depression isn't lifting and the priority is paying for the deficit-funded economy injections that didn't work.
That is a very interesting observation and the same thing that I have been saying on these boards for a very long time. Just because you can produce a curve fitter that appears to work does not mean that it is the only valid solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that had you pursed the problem further you would have found that the way to proof check you tweaking of the inputs was to perform an uncertainty analysis of the results. By performing this work you then get a reasonable range of outcomes based upon the reasonable range of the inputs.
As of now I have been unable to find a reference which indicates that such a uncertainty analysis of the GCMs has been performed. I have found a few papers that indicate that the monte carlo attempts have been of limited use. I believe that this is because sometimes when you run these analyses and do not properly set the interdependency between the variables correctly the results seem have too large a range.
Just my thoughts.
Your statement regarding the nature of the GCMs and natural gas reservoir indicates your lack of knowledge regarding the discussion which you claim to hold expertise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimply: the n-dimensional models (which run in 4 dimensional space) are EXACTLY the same. The only difference is that they are modeling fluid flow through different media. I dare say that the models used to determine reservoir fluid flow are actually more complicated due to the fact that the fluid does not only have to obey thermodynamic laws but also relative permeability and capillarity.
So once again: if the climate modelers would get off of their high horse and enlist the help of the evil 'dirty energy' folks maybe they could get a better result. Of course they might actually find out that their results are actually within the noise of the analysis itself.
So, stop regurgitating your interpretation of what skeptical science has to say on the topic and think for yourself. Since you are an ME start with finite element analysis and then start reading about reservoir simulation. Once you have all of that information then start thinking critically about what the GCMs are attempting and you will begin to see what those of us that have expertise in such endeavors see.
Please do not bring that argument about the 97% again. That 97% was a subset, which was deemed to be 'representative' of the group of responses to a question of which only 1/3 replied to the survey. If I recall correctly the survey went to 10000 'scientists' and of those between 3000 and 4000 replied. The replies were then culled for appropriate credentials and then tabulated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive me a break. Just because the people that are being funded to do the work think that it is valid is does not mean that it is. Also, it does not mean that the people who have an opposing point of view are crazy.
97%
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've never claimed that particular figure. In reality, it's probably far more than that for climate scientists, but regardless, please don't put words in my mouth.
The only figure I've given for overall scientists is 86%, and I only give that number with the caveat that what most scientists think is irrelevant, since most have never studied the issue. What most rubber chemists thinks about climatology is as irrelevant as what most climatologists think about the finer points of rubber chemistry.
"Also, it does not mean that the people who have an opposing point of view are crazy"
Not at all, in fact many skeptics have brought valuable insight to the discussion.
Richard Muller's insistence on making sure the statistical treatment of historical climatological data was robust, and didn't introduce bias, was a very valuable contribution from a long-time skeptic to the climatological community, which is why he was contact by climate scientists before beginning, including Hansen, and wished the best with his research.
Other skeptics/denialists/whatever you want to call them, have not contributed so much. Even looking past non-experts like Plimer with long histories of blatant deception and no history of contribution, work by people like, say, Patrick Michaels, has been dubious at best, and he's been caught in direct lies, such as his doctoring of data for his 1998 presentation to Congress.
Still, I've never said people with opposing viewpoints make no contribution. Even within the vast majority of researchers who endorse AGW, there are stark disagreements over many finer points. Disagreement is what fuels science to improve.
Sorry if i put words into your mouth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, your statement that the only scientific opinion that counts is that of the climate scientists is dead wrong. I make this statement because what they are doing is something that other sciences have done and are doing each and every day. If you do not like the fact that the expertise in making models and history matches to historical data lies in the energy industry that is just too bad.
There is a wealth of expertise in building, running and interpreting the results of the exact same types of models that the climate scientists are attempting. The real difference between the two groups is not all that much, in terms of what they are trying to do with the models and use of the results.
There is quite a bit more to debate than the 'finer points' as the computer models are not even a reasonable representation of reality unless they do in fact incorporate uncertainty analysis (meaning monte carlo). Before you reply look that up (I have read the papers that the analysis was attempted and the results were essentially nonsense) because presenting mean result of a bunch of different models is not uncertainty analysis nor is the plot presented by Mann with his three cases. The uncertainty analysis should include between 5 and 10 thousand iterations that produce a P1 to P99 range which can then be examined against the deterministic mean.
Without this analysis (which incidentally can be run in Excel with some addins) the GCMs are meaningless. This does not even account for the fact that they may be woefully underparameterized and/or way too coarsely gridded to actually work properly. This would probably fall out of the monte carlo analysis.
It is pure lunacy to believe that a GCM can work over a long term but not the short. This is evidence that they are nothing more than curve fitters.
"Sorry if i put words into your mouth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, your statement that the only scientific opinion that counts is that of the climate scientists is dead wrong"
You could get that implication, but it's not exactly what I was saying.
It would be more accurate to say that I don't think most non climate scientists HAVE a scientific opinion, merely a personal one, so you can't just take a poll of general scientists and draw a conclusion.
According to PEW, 86% of general scientists do back AGW theory, but so what? I know many scientists who don't know the first thing about the topic to begin with.
On the other hand, some people have useful contributions to make. Muller isn't strictly a climate scientist; he's a physicist with work that lies largely outside of that area. He's also qualified to comment, however, on the particular area he's studied, because he's done that work, and has proved to have familiarity with the topic, but .
That's why the most useful measure of consensus is by measuring research, not polling individuals (especially because anyone outside of the field, if they really had something to contribute, can write a paper, anytime).
"If you do not like the fact that the expertise in making models and history matches to historical data lies in the energy industry that is just too bad.
There is a wealth of expertise in building, running and interpreting the results of the exact same types of models that the climate scientists are attempting"
I've never said anything of the sort. In fact, I've heard more than a few climatologists lament over the lack of statisticians they get access to. They have personnel for that, but it's less than ideal. In fact, last I checked, UEA was hiring more for that reason.
As for where they come from, I don't much care where scientific expertise comes from. Science is science.
" presenting mean result of a bunch of different models is not uncertainty analysis nor is the plot presented by Mann with his three cases"
You mean Hansen? The purpose of that was never to establish uncertainty. It was simply to show differences in climatic behavior to different circumstances.
It was never meant to establish the uncertainty in the model.
Climate models make projections, not predictions. They can only tell you how climate will react to a certain set of circumstances, hence the scenarios.
That still makes them very valuable tools, but if your complaint is that they can't tell the future, well I hate to break it to you, but no tool in the history of science can do that.
Your comments indicate you have no knowledge of either the AGW issues or the climate models used for synthesizing knowledge about the problem. Your objections to either/both of the Oreskes work or the Doran study is cheap and insulting ... and invalid at anything other than a bean-counting level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Instead of inventing phantom and phony criticisms of any modelling, you should go get the public domain code of at least one of them before making erroneous blanket claims about all of them.
"It is pure lunacy to believe that a GCM can work over a long term but not the short. This is evidence that they are nothing more than curve fitters"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefine short and long-term.
Climate models aren't going to predict the future on ANY timescale, science doesn't do that anyways, and climate is no difference (since you never know what the forcings will be), and climate models are able to model many relatively short-term phenomena, such as the response to pinatubo.
You're going to have be a lot more specific with this claim for it to mean anything.
"http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo THAT is where the 97% figure comes from. Yeah, I'd say that's pretty conclusive, and the group pretty inclusive.
Still, I like Oreskes 2004's method best, and of people want to criticize the method, well why don't they go out and repeat her experiment? I have, granted, with only 50 papers, but still, it seems pretty difficult to find a paper in a random sample that's actually skeptical of AGW. Their out there, and there authors are quite prolific, it's just that there's so few such skeptical authors, finding one of their papers in a random sample is absurdly unlikely.
Neither of those posts have anything do do with the code in the curve fitters. So what is the point? Fine people want to believe in the incomplete results of GCMs then that is their choice but I for one am going to rely on my own expertise when it comes to this type of model.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what do you have to say about the models themselves?
In response to posts 55 and 57:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I mean is that I have been told that while the models cannot indicate the short term variances (such as the flattening in the overall increase which we are currently experiencing) but they can predict long term trends.
What this means to me is that the regression (or curve fit) through the existing data is not matching the current observation. Therefore using such models to indicate the future, as I have seen many times, is incorrect and reckless. As you say they cannot predict the future.
As far as determining the response to different forcing. If the models are going to provide correct answers then they must include all forcings and since the climate system is extremely complex I am going to go out on a limb and say they probably do not. Even if you believe that they have the 'most important' forcing elements you do not know which are important if you do not know all of them.
You are correct: I did mean Hansen. I was not specifically thinking his models only but also the figures in the IPCC work that plot a number of models mean result on the same graph as proof of the validity of the models and a range of uncertainty. This does not change the fact that there are problems with the lack of uncertainty analysis.
On another note I would love to hear peoples bashing of this article:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
I know, they are probably some bunch of lunatics with no credible basis but they have some interesting thoughts. Also, I forgot this petition was only signed by 31,487 scientists. So if they were included in the pool of those surveyed then 10% of 'scientists' would agree that AGW exists.
I assume you say 'bean counting' because you do not know what I am talking about?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry for speaking over your head but information about building gridded models and monte carlo analysis is freely available as well.
Re post #44
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCapitalism certainly has its faults but the alternatives are infinitely worse. We have a socialist left government in Australia that has taken our economy from billions in the black to billions in the red despite a minerals boom supplying China, practically unaffected by the global financial crisis & unprecedented levels of export earnings.
Saults solution to cutting carbon emissions is alternative energy.
Have a look at Spain.
Daniel Silva, AFP, Feb 1:
SPAIN’S push to become a world leader in renewable energy risks collapsing after the government slammed the brakes on generous subsidies as part of an austerity drive. Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s government passed a decree on Friday to “temporarily suspend” subsidies for all new wind, solar, co-generation or waste incineration plants as it seeks to curb the public deficit . . . In 2008 Spain accounted for half the world’s new solar power installations in terms of wattage thanks to the subsidies designed to help get the young sector up and running. . . From 2008-2010 the sector shed 20,000 jobs largely because of the previous government’s subsidy cuts, and the end of new subsidies announced on Friday will likely lead to the loss of a similar number of jobs this year.
Or Germany:
Alexander Neubacher, January 18, Der Spiegel:
THE costs of subsidising solar electricity have exceeded the E100 billion ($1.2bn) mark in Germany.. . . Solar farm operators and home owners with solar panels on their roofs collected more than E8bn in subsidies in 2011, but the electricity they generated made up only about 3 per cent of the total power supply, and that at unpredictable times . . . German consumers already complain about having to pay the second-highest electricity prices in Europe . . . In 2004, Germany held a 69 per cent share of the global solar panel business. By 2011, it had declined to 20 per cent. Former industry giant Solarworld is having problems. Solon and Solar Millennium have gone out of business. Schott Solar shut down a plant, shedding 276 jobs and losing E16 million in government subsidies in the process.
If those are solutions you can keep them.
"What I mean is that I have been told that while the models cannot indicate the short term variances (such as the flattening in the overall increase which we are currently experiencing) but they can predict long term trends"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModels don't predict, they project. There's a big difference between a prediction and projection.
Now, models can make predictions in the scientific sense, and often get those predictions right, but in the sense of predicting the future?
Well the day they can make a computer model like that, I'll just retire from science altogether, and I suspect a lot of others will to.
"What this means to me is that the regression (or curve fit) through the existing data is not matching the current observation. Therefore using such models to indicate the future, as I have seen many times, is incorrect and reckless. As you say they cannot predict the future"
Models can make projections about what might happen if this or that comes to pass, but again, that's a projection, not a prediction.
Of course, you get alarmists sometimes who try to spin those as being something they aren't, and you're right, then it's just silly. I mean, just think of the logic this way: Let's assume the IPCC is correct for just a moment in their projections; they whole thesis on their part is to stop the forcings from being nearly what's figured into their projections, so the IPCC would actually be TRYING to make their own predictions wrong.
That's why, as you say, it's important to remember that nobody is predicting the future here, and anyone who claims otherwise either doesn't understand what the science is even saying, or is spinning.
"As far as determining the response to different forcing. If the models are going to provide correct answers then they must include all forcings and since the climate system is extremely complex I am going to go out on a limb and say they probably do not. Even if you believe that they have the 'most important' forcing elements you do not know which are important if you do not know all of them"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell this is largely dependent on a number of definitions here, not the least of which being the definition of "correct". Models are far from perfect, so in that sense, they're cleraly wrong, but that's different from being "correct" enough to be useful.
As for whether models are wrong because of missing forcing elements, all of the forcings of which we are aware, which are actually varying, and which seem to have a significant impact on climate during the periods in question, we seem to have a workably good understanding of.
Now, it's entirely possible that there are important forcing elements that we just don't know about, but that's not an objection to climate science; it's an objection to all fields of science. Evolution, heliocentrism, plate tectonics, uniformitarianism, quantum mechanics, the nuclear atom, relativity, thermodynamics, these could all be incorrect models of how the universe works, on account of mysterious, hitherto unknown forces.
Science certainly can't absolutely prove that this is not the case, but that's because science neither deals in proofs, nor absolutes. Science is just a means of determinging how systems probably work, based on the best knowledge we have at hand.
To that end, climate often seems to operate very much like the models indicate it should, and empirical data is backing many aspects of climate models, some of which were covered in the above Skeptical Science article, which lists a few examples. Pinatubo is a prime example, because it not only showed that climate had the sensitivity that the models showed to aerosols, but also helped us constrain models further and gain certainty about other forcings (uncertainty about aerosols is one of the biggest things holding us back from constraining other forcings, odd as it seems).
"On another note I would love to hear peoples bashing of this article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf"
Yeah, I think most of us have seen it, and yes, it's horribly bad. Since they apparently don't even understand the proper format for citations, actually getting at many of their sources would be laborious, but without digging through every red herring and scientific error, just look at how they try to attribute all warming to the solar forcing, even though, even though the solar forcing hasn't had any trend up or down since 1978. It's been responsible for past temperature changes, even up through the 20th century, but they obscure the fact that it's had no bearing on temperatures for decades.
It's just one small example of the cesspool of bad in that, well, "paper", if you must.
"I know, they are probably some bunch of lunatics with no credible basis but they have some interesting thoughts. Also, I forgot this petition was only signed by 31,487 scientists. So if they were included in the pool of those surveyed then 10% of 'scientists' would agree that AGW exists"
Except that they didn't take a random sample of scientists and ask them. They ONLY asked for signatures backing the thesis of the petition, so that statement is completely non sequitur.
On the other hand, only 39 climatologists are included. If you were to include all the fields they draw signatures from, some as irrelevant as medicine, do you have any idea how small a portion of the US community in those fields it would represent?
All those signatures would be a fraction of a percent of JUST natural scientists and mathematicians (include the medical professions, and it's an even smaller fraction).
So that petition doesn't represent any notable portion of any field, and any random sample shows that most people agree, whether it's a random sample of scientists, or a random sample of papers.
"As of now I have been unable to find a reference which indicates that such a uncertainty analysis of the GCMs has been performed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFIVE SECONDS WITH THE GOOGLES:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=uncertainty+analysis+of+GCMs+&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2000&as_vis=0
Or I can just think back to my heat transfer classes and remember that thicker insulation increases the temperature differential between two bodies. Just sayin'!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou left out these parts:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The boom in renewables helped several Spanish firms to become global leaders in the sector.
Power giant Iberdrola is the world's biggest producer of clean energy while Gamesa is one of the world's top wind turbine makers.
The loss of jobs in the clean energy sector would add to Spain's already dire unemployment situation."
Looks like England is not fairing too well under this austerity garbage either. How do you create jobs by cutting jobs? Doesn't make sense to me.
And how these little tidbits NOT oozing with bias?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Solar Subsidy Sinkhole
Re-Evaluating Germany's Blind Faith in the Sun
The government is struggling to come up with a new concept to promote the inefficient technology in the future."
And this is a whopper:
"The distribution networks are not designed to allow tens of thousands of solar panel owners to switch at will between drawing electricity from the grid and feeding power into it. Because there are almost no storage options, the excess energy has to be destroyed at substantial cost. German consumers already complain about having to pay the second-highest electricity prices in Europe."
All un-sourced, all unfounded and blatantly false. Does this guy not know ANYTHING about basic electronics? Where is this energy distroyed? How much does it cost? Is this guy totally ignorant of curtailment, a standard practice in the industry? The ignorance just dripps off this page and it should be clear to anyone who cares about the facts that it is just one more anti-renewable energy hit-piece.
The only thing he got right was this:
"...harmful carbon dioxide emissions..."
So, the paper you quote ENDORSES the scientific consensus on climate change! Did you EVEN READ IT?
The boom in renewables helped several Spanish firms to become global leaders in the sector.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPower giant Iberdrola is the world's biggest producer of clean energy while Gamesa is one of the world's top wind turbine makers.
The loss of jobs in the clean energy sector would add to Spain's already dire unemployment situation."
Looks like England is not fairing too well under this austerity garbage either. How do you create jobs by cutting jobs? Doesn't make sense to me.
The most effective way for you to get a reality check would be for you to invest a substantial proportion of your net worth in these firms.
World wide, people are waking up to the renewable energy scam & demanding governments stop wasting their money.
Renewable energy, by driving cost of electricity up has cost many more jobs than it has created & also delayed implementation of the only clean green power source available. Nuclear.
You think I am wrong? Take my investment tip or easier would be to buy some of those carbon junk things the European governments are supporting. A one billion euro buyout support to try & keep the market up. It will collapse just as surely as the great tulip boom turned to bust. You can depend on it.
By the way, where is your peer reviewed evidence that the energy costs are false?
Why is it that SCIAM is not reporting on the five hundred people who have perished so far in this European winter from the cold when a well known climate scientist had told English people only a few years ago that their children would grow up without ever seeing snow?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust so you don't think Der Spiegel is biased against clean energy on the whole, the DID mention that Germany is now getting OVER %20 of their electricity from renewable sources:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,783314,00.html
Why is it a SCAM when people don't know the difference between weather and climate? Well, only when they pretend to know enough about climate science to even try and debate these issues with those that know better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDer Spiegel may not be a totally biased rag, but Alexander Neubacher is a totaly right-wing hack. Just LOOK at the scaremongering tripe he writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.spiegel.de/international/search/index.html?suchbegriff=Alexander+Neubacher
He pretty much wants people to think that the Eurozone is dissolving into crisis, sanctions against Iran are harmful and ANYTHING having to do with clean energy is pointless. Yeah, he's a TOTALLY credible journalist...
Der Spiegel may not be a totally biased rag, but Alexander Neubacher is a totaly right-wing hack. Just LOOK at the scaremongering tripe he writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.spiegel.de/international/search/index.html?suchbegriff=Alexander+Neubacher
He pretty much wants people to think that the Eurozone is dissolving into crisis, sanctions against Iran are harmful and ANYTHING having to do with clean energy is pointless. Yeah, he's a TOTALLY credible journalist...
Yes I read that one and the results were less than compelling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes that's right: they did not get citation format correct so everything that they said must be wrong. Also, I think that you may have not read the paper because they did not say that it was all solar forcing. What they did say is that it is not just GHG's. You cannot dismiss the work out of hand because of the source (although the AGW crowd does like to demonize those that do not drink the kool aid)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKind of funny: when I look at figure 13 I see something interesting with regard to the interaction of the different data sets. The most striking is that there does not appear to be a linear relationship between fossil fuel usage (and by proxy CO2 increase) and glacier shortening nor temperature. Puzzling if I am to believe that anthropogenic CO2 is to blame for the warming and glacier shortening.
Also, in response to sault's comment regarding the uncertainty analysis please refer to figure 19. The problem with the monte carlo is that when you construct a tornado plot of the relative influences of the variables what you are going to find is that CO2 is going to rank as one of the minor influences. Since CO2 is the 'worst' of the GHG's then it would just follow that the rest of them have even less of an influence. Therefore, what we find is that the models (which I would call curve fitters) forward projectioons are going to be way inside the uncertainty of the elements used to construct and constrain the model(s).
Just because green energy cratered Spain's economy does not mean anything. I mean if it is what is best for us then who cares what the economic consequences?!?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just saw a showing of spOILed which was attended by one of the two film makers and it was eye opening. While the film was a bit on the alarmist it did make an interesting point which is that without transportation, which relies heavily on oil, we do not have our current existance.
I would challenge anyone that has seen Mr. Gore's masterpiece to also view the afore mentioned movie and see what they have to take away.
Well put. I'm a retired information systems analyst with a primary background in large system performance analysis & capacity planning, including some significant experience using simulation an analytical modeling methods - I concur with you assessment. The number of variable factors influencing climate are enormous and their complex interactions are not likely well enough understood to provide produce accurate models.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe SA Feb. 2012 print issue contains a very interesting article "Swept from Africa to the Amazon". It quotes Natalie Mahowald, "a Cornell University Professor who develops atmospheric models": "It's [cloud formation] even more complicated than you might think", and Paul Ginoux, "who produces climate models at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at NOAA", stating that he points out that even the best computer simulations do not give a full picture: "We know the physical processes, but it's difficult to evaluate what's happening with any precision."
Also, see the slide show:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dust-spectacular-plumes-reach-across-world
Moreover, reliable climate models must be verified by predicting actual climate results from past conditions. Likewise, the can only be formally validated by comparing past predictions against actual conditions. This is must be achieved by publishing detailed model predictions, then years later formally comparing those past predictions against several years of actual climate conditions. To my knowledge climate models are not being formally validated - the predictions of untested models are being relied upon to evaluate future conditions.
Hopefully these briefly historical evaluation efforts will be funded in the future, since without fully understanding at least the recent past no accurate assessment of future conditions is possible.
"Yes that's right: they did not get citation format correct so everything that they said must be wrong. Also, I think that you may have not read the paper because they did not say that it was all solar forcing. What they did say is that it is not just GHG's. You cannot dismiss the work out of hand because of the source"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm, because that's what I said. Oh wait, no it isn't.
The paper isn't bad because they can't cite sources correctly, actually naming the works they cited, instead of an obscure author-date method (there is a reason citations are formatted the way they are), it's bad because the science is bad, chalk full of every obfuscations and logical fallacy you could ever learn any college argument class. The citation issue just means it's far harder to track down their claims, which I suspect was the goal.
Honestly, it's kind of hard to take this reply of yours seriously when they say, RIGHT ON THE GRAPH "Temperature correlates with the sun, NOT hydrocarbon use". Yeah, they're pretty blatantly saying it's the sun, and Co2 has no correlation.
In truth, it correlates to both, but they obscured the complexity of the issue for people more interested in upholding beliefs than actually getting a good rundown of the science. Hydrocarbon use correlates poorly (or maybe modestly at best) to temperatures during the 19th century and much of the early 20th, and the sun correlates very well.
What their "the temperature correlates with the sun and not hydrocarbon" nonsense completely obscures is that from the 1970s onward, temperature DOES NOT correlate with the sun, but does correlate with changes in atmospheric composition for its overall trend (and a few other things here or there like ENSO for shorter-term effects). They never bother to state this most important of caveats that their statement is completely wrong for the past several decades.
They also never bother to add a graph of just the past 40 years.
It's not the only problem, but it's one of the most glaring problems.
This paper is written for drooling idiots, and you don't strike me as a drooling idiot, so I suggest you distance yourself from this drivel if you want to maintain credibility, something I'd say is important given that you're one of the few remotely credibly skeptics to come across these comment sections.
Also, it's interesting that you didn't chose to respond to my comment on the meaninglessness of the 30,000 (with a whopping 39 climate scientists) signatures, but really, let's just drop that move on past the petition project, for everyone's sake.
"I would challenge anyone that has seen Mr. Gore's masterpiece to also view the afore mentioned movie and see what they have to take away"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt actually sounds like an interesting film; I'll have to take a look later.
This is one of the big problems with issues like this, you get activists, on both sides (Gore, Dicaprio, Durkin, Monckton, etc), who in both cases might mean well, but tend to either not understand the issues well enough to intelligibly comment, or do, and obscure the issues for their own reasons (I won't speculate on which for anyone of them).
As a result, things like calls for alternative energy have been poorly researched and often amount to little more than disastrously expensive wastes of time (ethanol?).
Honestly, sometimes it feels like even if we could reach a definitive agreement, with everyone, everywhere, on something like AGW, it wouldn't matter, because there's never an intelligent discussion of what to do about that, and other energy-related and environmental problems. You just end up with the same two rigid sides (the alarmists, and the denialists, with no one in between).
Carlysle: "a well known climate scientist had told English people only a few years ago that their children would grow up without ever seeing snow?'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo true. Fortunately even less people are now drinking the grape Kool-Ade.
'Believe or perish'
The Earth's climate has a finite response time, so there is a delay between input and output responses. What, you think the Earth can change it's temperature on a dime? Mother Nature is impressive, but not THAT impressive. Therefore, if you try to see immediate input / output relationships, you won't find them. What you will see is a lot of natural variability from ENSO, PDO, Solar Cycle, etc. overlaid over a long-term rise in temperatures. It's kind of like a massive semi moving down a bumpy road, even a light tap on the accelerator will eventually speed it up, but you'll never know the difference if you take 1 snapshot as your only evidence. You need video evidence of a certain minimum length to realize the accelerator pedal is down just a little bit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate models and prediction verified right here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Predictions_150
Short version: skeptics utterly fail and mainstream science comes out on top.
Could you please link to the quote?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like the analogy of a tide better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can model how far tide will come in in a given place at a given time pretty easily, and even moreso if you have a running history of tides in that location, but could your model remotely state the EXACT distance inland the next wave will travel? Of course not.
There are many, many, phenomena for which short term fluctuations are hard to model or predict even if you have some idea of what the conditions will be, but long term trends are not, because there are many phenomena for which the most important influences only affect long-term trends.
Still, I don't think the arguments are ultimately necessary for climate models, because when you have knowledge of the short-term forcings, models have shown they can do a pretty good job on even fairly small time scales, globally. Hopefully, with better understanding, that'll be reduced to good regional modelling (local? I doubt it).
What gets difficult is trying to make predictions out, because you can't possibly know what the forcings are. You can extrapolate what the forcings will likely be to some extent, so limited prediction is possible, but for the most part, climate models are tools to tell you how climate behaves under certain circumstances, not what those circumstances will be. Most (all?) science works like this.
If you look at Hansen's 1988 model for Scenario B, for instance, yes, he predicted long-term trends for something like 17 years, and that's not bad, but that's not the REAL success of the model.
The real success is that, timing aside, climate seemed to behave in the manner the model identified for a given set of forcings. He figured on a late 90s major volcanic eruption; pinatubo erupted in 1991. You can't predict when something like that will happen. If you look, however, other than the year offset, the climate DOES respond mostly as the model outlines. The climate deviates when the forcings deviate (eg, 1998, 2008, etc), but again, you can't blame a model for that. They don't predict the future.
"Could you please link to the quote?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould it matter?
Denialists like Carlyle like to harp on bad statements by an individual climate scientist here or there, but they always like to gloss over the fact that almost EVERY skeptical scientist is either dishonest, or has nothing valuable to say.
Michaels lied right to Congress, Friis-Christensen's papers have a pattern of strange mathematical errors that just happen to "accidentally" match his personal opinion, Svensmark writes up "papers" defending his cosmic ray hypothesis that end up showing the exact opposite of his continually defended thesis (like when he removes the "inconvenient" warming trend in temperatures to make CRs fit), Spencer throws the ocean mixed layer depth out the window to make his PDO hypothesis work, I haven't seen Christy make any comment of use beyond harping on isostatic adjustment being somehow dishonest (even though you're told how much the adjustment is for, so you could easily undo it if you disagreed with it), Lindzen, well gosh, do I even have to say anything about Lindzen beyond "LC09"? They remove half the forcings from climate models, and then complain that climate models don't match the radiation budget (because, you know, it's not like Pinatubo is going to have a big impact or anything!)... I mean, need I even go on?
Hell, I'll freely say a few climate scientists who are AGW proponents have said some stupid things. As I often cite, Hansen was responsible for the "Obama has four years to save the world" comment.
So congrats to Carlyle et al on successfully demonstrate that something like 0.0001% of climate scientists have said something stupid in their career. Too bad that include ALL The skeptical ones.
Well, I should equivocate a bit; it includes the at least most of the most of the publishing skeptical scientists. I can't say all, since there might be one or two respectable ones somewhere out there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand while I'm equivocating, I should probably also learn to proofread my posts for basic grammatical errors :(
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you call this some random: Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr R K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Addressing students at Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham on the sixteenth Institution Day Celebrations here on Friday, he lauded the efforts of the administration, pertaining to their green drive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPage 10. http://www.teriin.org/index.php?option=com_teriinnews&limit=10&limitstart=90
When the head of the IPCC claims that the actions of mankind are causing tsunamis you have institutionalised non scientific green garbage going unchallenged at the very top of the AGW tree. Not just some rogue element. Why is this tolerated? Where are all these honest scientists? Why don’t they condemn this garbage?
You must have a short memory, given that my last comment was in regard to one of those "damning" climate emails discussing just such a criticism, once you looked at the whole thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides, this argument is nothing but the latest in an increasingly long line of increasingly increasingly desperate arguments.
I outline direct dishonesty in most of the skeptical scientists out there, and I could certainly go on, (Plimer, Evans, Avery, etc), and the best response you have is "well AGW proponents don't all jump up and point out the one or two instances of dishonesty out there for mainstream scientists!"
Even were that the case, a questionable assertion, at least those scientists don't all publish only work that's transparently flagrantly bad, chalk full of fallacies even the average highschooler could spot out.
The desperation and hypocrisy here would be stunning, were it not for the fact that it's nothing new from you.
But of course, you don't argue the science, so what does it matter to you that, for all intents and purposes, all the skeptical scientists out there basically either contribute nothing, or detract from the discussion with obvious dishonesty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I assume you say 'bean counting' because you do not know what I am talking about?"
Nope. Your comment raised the 97% issue, and flatlined in the process. When you got called on it, you turtled with a pretentious attitude and a clear indication you didn't know look back to see what you wrote.
Your knowledge of climate issues flunks at every level. Somehow your knowledge of a pipeflow diagram seems to make you think you can skip the homework assignment and steal material from pro-pollutionist blogs to make up for it. Untrue.
So you do not give any more seriousness to false statements by the head of the IPCC than to some minor player?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not condone false statements wether they are uttered by Plimer or Al Gore. The statements by either of these however pale into insignificance compared to those of the head of the IPCC with all its power & influence. I fully understand that you can not grasp the difference. As for the tiny proportion of AGW exponents who you claim are in error, is that minor component before or after those numbers have been massaged by mock peer reviews?
You really just aren't capable of saying anything of substance, are you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make unbacked claim and insinuations, and harp on irrelevancies, rather than making actual arguments that actually address the topic at hand.
It's almost as if you don't realize argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
I think you're going a little too far there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonestly, if you could see the worthless tripe brought up by most of the self-proclaimed skeptics on these comments sections...
Evosburgh's comments may at times be a bit dubious (like trying to compare the Petition Project to an actual survey), but they're far and away a cut above what anyone else on his side of the issue has been saying. He hasn't even brought up "the emails" yet! I give him serious props just for that.
Let me get this straight. It does not matter what the head of the IPCC says? Whether it be on tsunamis or Himalayan glaciers? Does that mean everything he says or only some of the things he says? You do not think his pronouncements have any significance? Where exactly am I going wrong? He is after all the head of a very large green tree whose fruit is wasted billions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispridseren is getting very close to right on target.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real truth comes from the arena that really affects global change and that is the Universe. More specifically, our furnace, the Sun and the many known and more unknown along with likely never to know factors. The Sun is currently in a low sun spot stage. Information that will come from stage #25 will be more accurate in providing somewhat of a prediction in the global temperature arena. We are very likely heading for what could turn out to be a mini ice-age. It has happened before on the 11 year solar cycle that astronomers are attempting to understand. Global warming caused by human activity is virtually impossible. However, as P.T. Barnum stated "there is a sucker born every minute" and naturally the suckers are what he depended on for much of the Circus income. Now, for the suckers that want to continue to believe the "global warming hoax" or "scam", you have every right to do so. Our Constitution gives you that right. It also provides the scammers the right to deliberately lead the unknowing astray and in the process fill their own pockets with gold, leaving the "believers" paying the price. I tend to look to see where the money is. That becomes a starting point for a Professional Futurest. It should be anyone's starting point when that money is coming out of their pocket and headed for the scammer's pocket. Right at this moment, the entire scam is coming unraveled. Truth is winning out over contrived fiction and junk science. I am a long-time skeptic and have studied various areas of science since I learned to read over 70 years ago. Don't trust your computer to spell wright all the thyme. Junk in = junk out squared.
Designed To Fail! As part of the standard modern Republican/Libertarian Playbook, all of these (or similar) programs are systematically and deliberately being starved of basic funding support. This is done so that they are ultimately ineffective and can offer no additional, supporting or corroborating evidence toward anything they deem detrimental to their narrow agenda. It then becomes very easy to point at them and say, “See, they don’t work anyway. What a waste of money.” This duplicitous action is then justified as simply good maneuvering and sound political strategy for success when in fact, it is little more than a LIE… excusable under the “all is fair in love and war” dictum. They also obviously have a cadre of people (probably paid) following this type of article posting to immediately offer a negative rebuttal toward any statement that might support any position opposing their own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDesigned To Fail! As part of the standard modern Republican/Libertarian Playbook, all of these (or similar) programs are systematically and deliberately being starved of basic funding support. This is done so that they are ultimately ineffective and can offer no additional, supporting or corroborating evidence toward anything they deem detrimental to their narrow agenda. It then becomes very easy to point at them and say, “See, they don’t work anyway. What a waste of money.” This duplicitous action is then justified as simply good maneuvering and sound political strategy for success when in fact, it is little more than a LIE… excusable under the “all is fair in love and war” dictum. They also obviously have a cadre of people (probably paid) following this type of article posting to immediately offer a negative rebuttal toward any statement that might support any position opposing their own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt matters in the same sense as my coffee tasting bad this morning mattering, which is to say, not for the purposes of this discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, we know there are alarmists, some of them very vocal. On the other hand, there are also denialists who say equally wrong and downright things, which is to say, everyone who publicly doubts AGW.
What that has to do with the science itself is absolutely nothing. But you've run out of every other argument, haven't you? Any supposedly scientific objection you've ever brought up is in shambles, your email conspiracy (which never really was a substantive argument) more and more reveals itself to be nothing but either cherry picked quotes or statements that are merely interpreted to mean something that doesn't remotely necessarily follow from them, with every new one we examine, you can't claim the scientists themselves are dishonest, because I can show that your side is basically 100% dishonest, while you could never reciprocate, so now you're down to picking on one guy.
Okay, He shouldn't be making such comments. Neither should Al Gore, or Leonardo DiCaprio. On the same token, Lord Monckton shouldn't be lying through his teeth, and neither should Ian Plimer, or "rocket scientist" David Evans, nor all the contributors on that wreck of editorialized propaganda, the NIPCC report.
People say silly things all the time, but at least climate mainstream scientists are trying to actually contribute something to the discussion, which is more than any publicly known self-proclaimed skeptic has been able to say for about two decades.
Congratulations, we've just treaded the same useless ground yet again.
So enough of your editorialized BS; do you have an argument suggesting the science itself is fundamentally wrong, or don't you?
We both know the answer to that, but let's see if you can admit it like an adult.
PT Barnum was right, and the fact that you've fallen for the latest denialist red herring shows that fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey throw out one shiny object to keep people like you affixed, and then when you get bored of it, they show you another, or just recycle the first.
From 1990, first it was the sun, then it was cosmic rays, then it was "the world has been cooling since 1998!", and now it's the sun again.
If you actually bothered to read into the issue more, you'd see that there are scientists who starkly disagree with the "New Maunder Minimum" finding (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/a-solar-scientist-rebuts-a-cool-sunspot-prediction/), and if you read the scientific literature, you'd see that the effect isn't estimated to be much anyways, and that, furthermore, such solar events aren't known to last beyond a period of mere decades, which means that even the modest impact would reverse itself long before 2100 (or at most, if you're talking the really high-ball figures, maybe around 2100).
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042710.shtml
Or how about science journalist Peter Hadfield?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAvYK1O-ic&feature=youtu.be
"Interesting how government researchers are corrupt liars when they say the Earth is warming, but the model of integrity when they're thought to be suggesting that the Earth is cooling"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, Potholer, it is, isn't it?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=corals-more-threatened-by-temperature-than-acidifying-ocean#comments
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I am still waiting. Still nothing to see here.
"I note you have not answered the email samples provided by post # 155. VangelV"
That's because I'm still working up a response to Frolly. Even if he's not here, the fact that he's provided the most scientific position of any skeptic here in days is worth consideration and thoughtful response.
You denigrate anyone who raises the email issue. When I raised the issue & asked your position on it, you said amongst other things that you would respond to specific emails. When another poster gave you a list you wimped out. See:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this155. VangelV
in reply to Catamount
05:33 PM 2/8/12
"&For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate."
And another:
"All of our attempts, so far, to estimate hemisphere-scale
temperatures for the period around 1000 years ago are
based on far fewer data than any of us would like. None
of the datasets used so far has anything like the
geographical distribution that experience with recent
centuries indicates we need, and no-one has yet found a
convincing way of validating the lower-frequency
components of them against independent data. As Ed
wrote, in the tree-ring records that form the backbone of
most of the published estimates, the problem of poor
replication near the beginnings of records is particularly
acute, and ubiquitous. I would suggest that this problem
probably cuts in closer to 1600 than 1400 in the several
published series. Therefore, I accept that everything we
are doing is preliminary, and should be treated with
considerable caution."
And another:
"2) No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann et al did (I don't think we can say we didn't do Mann et al because we think it is crap!)"
And another:
"I have just read this lettter - and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other "target" series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years , and ... (better say no more)"
There are many other e-mails that show that the very people who were defending Mann thought his methods were producing crap results. Try to explain that.
No, I denigrate people who's argumentative tactic is ad hominem attacks, but apparently you don't actually know what that means.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for whether you have an argument on whether the science is fundamentally wrong, or whether you'll admit you don't like an adult, well I already knew the answer we "no" on both counts, but your confirmation is noted just the same.
Also, if you think those emails show dishonesty, then show me where those people have made contradictory public statements.
Oh, that's right, you can't. My bad.
It's funny how I go through and directly show that yet another of your emails is directly nonsense, because the quote you use is a cherry pick that distorts the overall meaning of the email, and you continue right along, unhumbled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat faith you show in your own point of view, but then, faith is about what you have, since it obvious isn't science. VangelV continues on, unhumbled, after I completely tear his "cosmic ray" fantasy limb from limb and rattles off about 30 cliche urban myths with startling consistency in the inanity of them, and after I continually dismantle more and more of your arguments, you accuse me of "wimping out", even though you two clowns continually get shown to have nothing but nonsense.
No, you two are just a waste of time and energy, because your arguments are unintelligent. When I lack for anything better to do, I'll finish up my full response to VangelV, and shoot down yet more of his BS, and then he'll probably shoot off a dozen more bad cliches.
You, on the other hand, will just continue trolling these threads, with not so much as a hint of an argument. Since it's been shown that you don't understand, nor have anything to say, on the science, I'd ask you to crawl back under your rock and leave the adults who actually know something to have the discussion, but by definition of a troll, you won't.
Oh, and do you realize the comments in that first email of yours on your latest post, phrased in a way indicative of being advice for IPCC TAR, were adopted into the report?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe second paragraph of 2.3.1 makes a statements noting what was essentially said in that email exchange.
So that email just demonstrates the honesty of the climatological community. Oops, your bad.
Here's an interesting experiment, I wonder how many more emails I'd have to shoot down before you stopped uncritically parroting out of context quotes and questionable interpretations of them.
Actually, my mistake, TAR basically presents agreements with the both of the first TWO email exchanges quoted there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave it your way. I am happy to have your responses on the record. I disagree. I find that no matter what the evidence, there is a hard core of believers who will find a way to sanitise anything that conflicts with their world view. You & sault fall into that category.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe emails point to bad science being privately acknowledged but publicly denied by this influential group of climate scientists.
In other words "I don't really have an argument anymore, so I'm just going to get in one last obnoxious comment taking a jab at my opponents to cement just how much of a troll I am".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe emails point to nothing you claim, and everytime I examine a specific email, I show that it shows nothing of the sort, not Wigley's email, and not these last ones either. You claim they contradict public statements yet you completely failed to meet my challenge to show public statements they disagreed with, or to address the fact that I directly refuted the first two within just a few second, by citing a public statements agreeing with them (a decade before the email hack even occurred).
and you still don't have a single, solitary argument about the science, because I've shot all those down too.
So go on, scurry off and bug someone else. You have no place in a scientific discussion. You accusations mean little when you're the only one who's refusing to acknowledge, or present, evidence.
The climate is either stochastic (so complex the only way you can work out what moves it is via probability theory) or deterministic (you can work it out via a relatively simple formula). It can't be both, yet the warmists want it both ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLean & Rind (2008), Foster & Rahmstorf (2011), Hansen in his analysis of 2011 claim that they've been able to reduce what looks like a chaotic climate in to a deterministic problem requiring only 3 variables - solar activity, enso events and CO2. If this is the case, then why do we need more than 1 climate model?
If the problem is stochastic, then why is it more difficult to predict the near term than the long term? Life expectancy is a stochastic problem and it's a darn sight easier to predict the population's life expectancy in 10 years time than it is in 100 years time.
A false dichotomy; we totally haven't seen THAT one before. Because it's not like a system can be partly understood, such that you can deduce certain facts deterministically, while others benefit from statistical analysis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly, either you know everything about a system, or you know nothing, and there's no in between. Oh wait, my bad, that's actually completely crap.
Those papers also say nothing of the sort. Foster and Rahmstorf never claimed absolute determination over climate; they were merely examining temperature trends, and seeing how it seemed to respond to particular forcings, not claiming nothing else affected climate, and you didn't even mention one of the most important forcings they mentioned in this ridiculous caricature.
If you can't even represent the papers honestly, there seems little point in discussion.
The rest has already been addressed in previous comments.