Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Jules Galen]

Then supply the Scientific argument rather than screaming in big text, Jules Galen.

Anyways, do not expose an ignorance of science by demanding the impossible. No one knew 20 years ago about the conditions that have lead to the decrease in warming over the last decade or so. So it is rather dumb to demand that models produce what they did not know about.

So, in 20 years hence if the models are wrong again, then people can say, "Well...there was just some stuff we didn't know about then, but the models are GREAT NOW!" Sorry...I'm not buying it. Sell it to children who are always begging for a "Do Over".

It is similar to demanding that they know about a big volcanic eruption like the one in Indonesia.

Actually, I wouldn't expect the model to account for Earth-shattering Asteroids, All-out Global Thermo-Nuclear War, Alien Invasion or the return of Cheers to prime-time TV....but I would expect the model to be robust enough to account for the probability of a volcano, or two. I mean, we're working on a Global Scale here over the course of decades and modeling Global Climate - not something as fickle as weather, so I would not expect the model to be "dead-on" every year in all places.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped ignorance...

And you expose your ignorance of science again, Jules Galen !
The models are not wrong now no matter how many times you repeat ignorance about this: How reliable are climate models?
When the real world tells us that there is something that is missing from a model in any branch of science then rational people do not ignore the real world - they add to the model.

That is how science progresses - bit by bit as we learn more the theories and models are adjusted.

The models are definitely robust enough to cater for a volcano or two or more as you would have learned if you bothered to click on any links to the science, Jules Galen: How reliable are climate models?

When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere.

 

[Reality Check]

Not that you will read this, Jules Galen, but who knows:
Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

 

[greybeard]

There seems to be at least half a dozen different stories at the moment. All of them about the same thing.

No warming in the measurements.

How can there be no warming when the thirteen warmest years have been this century. Or are you back to saying that the data is being deliberately manipulated to hide cooling?

 

[greybeard]

I think your are all Butthurt because I've shown just how badly the Climate Models have failed to accurately predict Global Temperature and it's getting worse! According to John Christy's (University of Alabama - Huntsville) presentation given to the US Congress, Not only are the models bad, they don't even agree the basic mechanisms that are driving climate! His testimony to congress is presented here along with a chart of the failed model runs: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY18/20131211/101589/HHRG-113-SY18-Wstate-ChristyJ-20131211.pdf

I urge people to read this testimony and to remember that it was given before Congress: an entity to whom Lying or BS'ing is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE! But, whether you elect to read it or not, I think you can rest assured that Congress is getting the true story on AGW and Climate Change and, as a result, won't pass any stupid laws on the basis on the flawed Science of Climate Modeling.

Also, Americans remain a practical people in some respects and have properly rated their concern about "Global Warming" pretty far down the list....well below "Air Pollution", Drinking-water Pollution and Toxic Waste (http://www.gallup.com/poll/168236/americans-show-low-levels-concern-global-warming.aspx) So....it doesn't look like Americans are going to be fooled by the AGW Hysterics.

Shorter Jules Galen : I can't answer one of the questions you asked about the data I provided so "oh look there's a squirrel over their".

 

[aleCcowaN]

No. Not at all.

I am not saying that we can't know eventually, I am saying that we can't know now, and that it may be a few decades before we do know.

Thus, this is not a Philosophical argument, it is a Scientific one.

Anyways...here's what I'd like someone to show me. Please show me some model runs from 20 or more years ago (that have not been adjusted for current events - or adjusted for anything else) and that accurately predict the current temperatures. I'd really like to see this.

Don't play the scientist here, Jules, trying to make an epistemologic set-out when you're clearly and deeply unqualified for that. I explained it to you in little words loosely conceptually framed just for you to grasp it; don't you like it God, well, try, Darwin.

Be sure the apparent enrage some of us may show to you is mostly feigned. I'm enjoying your participation (and you can't imagine how much), as you increasingly grapple to any kind of faux argumentation that may show models to be the ultimate proof that AGW exists. You are basically doing the same creationists do when they ask for an experiment -a computing model would be faster- showing an ape evolving into a human. The fact you chose a stance of "you can't prove/I can't prove" doesn't make your argument any different. You don't need to be a prophet of an imminent ice age to be wrong because of the exact same reasons.

Back to your models, you are helping us to show denialism stranded in a few spots of swampy land that haven't been washed out yet by the upsurge of scientific knowledge developed during the last three decades. Our knowledge on the subject grows some 10% a year, while you use words, and when asked a figure, you offer a puerile one; when that figure is knocked over with a paper plane, you offer another one a bit less puerile; when that figure is knocked down with a sling, you offer a "serious document in front of the Honourable Congress", which is a slapstick of science and common sense, and containing a figure that is easily dismissed (It was reading just the first line "... I am a distinguished scientist ..." to burst with laughs evoking Count Arthur Strong)

You may attempt to describe it otherwise, like an educational attempt for instance, but the reality is you failed and looked for something better to fail again and again. You are now running out of larger font size and neener-neeners that won't violate rule 6.

So, the time has come Jules Galen for you to answer questions regarding the science itself, like explanations of your figures. I assume you'll dodge again, and I anticipate great fun if you post more smoke screens and excuses.

 

[aleCcowaN]

How can there be no warming when the thirteen warmest years have been this century. Or are you back to saying that the data is being deliberately manipulated to hide cooling?

Let me offer you this analysis:

«There seems to be at least half a dozen different stories at the moment.»
(honey boo-boo, bachelor crocodile, angry investors,...).

«All of them about the same thing.»
(we can't know if this relates to the previous sentence. If it does, let's say "reality show")

[a large space comes here saying a different unit start]

«No warming in the measurements.»
(what's wrong with this phrase? nothing; it's like All Quiet in the Western Front, it doesn't mean there is no war)

So, basically r-j said nothing related to the thread content at this moment, and "warming" is the only word that avoid it to be a clear off-topic. But you addressed him with the paragraph I quoted above, so he is probably going to reply to it no matter it doesn't relate with his original post.

It was just r-j trying to engage with someone into a discussion. Probably a wearing one.

 

[Mikemcc]

New study of the limitations of the present crop of climate models suggests Jules is pontificating without evidence...

DOI: 10.1002/wcc.288

Article in full here

What are the predictions of climate models, should we believe them, and are they falsifiable? Probably the most iconic and influential result arising from climate models is the prediction that, dependent on the rate of increase of CO2 emissions, global and annual mean temperature will rise by around 2–4°C over the 21st century. We argue that this result is indeed credible, as are the supplementary predictions that the land will on average warm by around 50% more than the oceans, high latitudes more than the tropics, and that the hydrological cycle will generally intensify. Beyond these and similar broad statements, however, we presently find little evidence of trustworthy predictions at fine spatial scale and annual to decadal timescale from climate models.

 

[Trakar]

[B] Rebels without a pause! [/B]

The pause that forgot to,…well, actually “pause”

“Apparent pause in global warming blamed on 'lousy' data” - European Space Agency scientist says annual sea level rises since 1993 indicate that warming has continued unabated - http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/13/pause-global-warming-data-sea-level-rises

Stuart Clark theguardian.com, Friday 13 June 2014 12.39 EDT

Global average sea surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s but have been relatively flat for the past 15 years. This has prompted speculation from some quarters that global warming has stalled.
Now, Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency's Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as "lousy".
"It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is," he said on Friday at the Royal Society in London.
Climate scientists have been arguing for some time that the lack of warming of the sea surface is due to most of the extra heat being taken up by the deep ocean. A better measure, he said, was to look at the average rise in sea levels. The oceans store the vast majority of the climate's heat energy. Increases in this stored energy translate into sea level rises.
"The sea level shows us the engine of global climate not one of the consequences," said Briggs.
In the past 50 years, sea levels indicated that the stored energy had increased by 250 zetajoules, he said. A zetajoule is 10²¹ joules. For comparison, mankind generates 0.5 zetajoules of energy every year in its power stations.
Since 1993, satellites have measured sea levels rising by an average of 3mm per year. Unlike the surface temperature, this rise continued throughout the supposed pause in global warming.

Lower Troposphere: Warmest 10-year Period on Record

This is the 3rd warmest May in the satellite record:
1998 +0.56 (warm ENSO)
2010 +0.45 (warm ENSO)
2014 +0.33 (neutral)

UAH - The last 10 years (120 months), the lower troposphere is the warmest in their records

Here is UAH compared to RSS, adjusting the latter to have the same baseline:

 

[Trakar]

Well, here's a chart of 90 CIMP5 Model runs from Models used in 2008 (even more current than the previous chart). As you can see, these models also fail miserably. This chart is from Roy Spencer...so no doubt he's be fired by NASA if they were propaganda.

[qimg]http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg[/qimg]​

Repeating the same, previously demonstrated flawed and failed messaging does not make that information less flawed.

BTW, why would NASA fire an employee for something he puts up on a personal blog, its not like he is submitting these fantasy doodles as official work, nor is he ruining his career by submitting trash rambling distortions and bundled nonsense like this for a peer reviewed scientific journal, this is just how he gets his personal kicks riling up the rubes in Hicksville.

 

[aleCcowaN]

UAH - The last 10 years (120 months), the lower troposphere is the warmest in their records

​

This figure IS WRONG. The red line is plotted 30 months to the right. Let's Jules Galen to explain why and what does that conceal and reveal

 

[Trakar]

Not half a dozen. Thousands! Didn't you know? Here's becoming colder each single day -two-week average-

Your mileage may vary,...depending upon which hemisphere you happen to be residing.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'd like to repeat how much I love this documentary:

The Great Global Warming Swindle


It has been valuable to me in education. It's like La Era del Ñandú without its last two minutes (in TGGWS, you have to provide it by yourself once the screening is ended) with the advantage of no spoilers or spoilsports.

 

[Trakar]

This figure IS WRONG. The red line is plotted 30 months to the right. Let's Jules Galen to explain why and what does that conceal and reveal

"wrong" is a bit strong (much less "WRONG"), but there are some issues involved in this data presentation that might provide some actual science-relevant discussion of this topic, so please help yourself, if you can persuade him to engage in discussing these issues with you.

 

[Trakar]

I'd like to repeat how much I love this documentary:

The Great Global Warming Swindle


It has been valuable to me in education. It's like La Era del Ñandú without its last two minutes (in TGGWS, you have to provide it by yourself once the screening is ended) with the advantage of no spoilers or spoilsports.

I don't understand your comments, but I guess that is because I don't know or understand your references.

 

[aleCcowaN]

"wrong" is a bit strong (much less "WRONG"), but there are some issues involved in this data presentation that might provide some actual science-relevant discussion of this topic, so please help yourself, if you can persuade him to engage in discussing these issues with you.

I hope s/he'd do. Please, don't provide the corrected RIGTH -and revealing- figure until s/he has commented of refused to do it.

This Jules Galen person participation and what this person says -and how it is said- has reminded me TGGWS and other jewels and how important education is. The phrase in my signature says it all: "if the horse reasons, horse riding is completely over".

 

[aleCcowaN]

I don't understand your comments, but I guess that is because I don't know or understand your references.

La Era del Ñandú refers to another subject but it's like TGGWS, with the same kind of content and approach, but made by Al Gore, who explains in the last minutes how the swindle is made, first with the public emotionally realising the truth and the way they have been swindled and finally being rationally explained. A master piece of communication and education. Well, TGGWS, or a tidy, articulated, intelligent and complete Jules Galen, are great opportunities to educate youths from 16 to 19 because they swallow it hook, line and sinker and become overexcited, to be then explained how they have being manipulated. Ideal for one a half hour of screening, half hour of discussion playing along with the swindle, and one to four hours of explanation about how they have been duped so easily. Later, reports assigned with different subjects -each of them containing two elements, a scientific misconstruction in the documentary and a technique of media manipulation. It's effective like the MMR vaccine.

 

[Trakar]

La Era del Ñandú refers to another subject but it's like TGGWS, with the same kind of content and approach, but made by Al Gore, who explains in the last minutes how the swindle is made, first with the public emotionally realising the truth and the way they have been swindled and finally being rationally explained. A master piece of communication and education. Well, TGGWS, or a tidy, articulated, intelligent and complete Jules Galen, are great opportunities to educate youths from 16 to 19 because they swallow it hook, line and sinker and become overexcited, to be then explained how they have being manipulated. Ideal for one a half hour of screening, half hour of discussion playing along with the swindle, and one to four hours of explanation about how they have been duped so easily. Later, reports assigned with different subjects -each of them containing two elements, a scientific misconstruction in the documentary and a technique of media manipulation. It's effective like the MMR vaccine.

Still not clear on your reference or analogy, but I think I understand the general gist of your analogy.

All too often the only young adults I have seen talk about the farcical TGGWS did not have the benefit of a structured "how this faux documentary fooled you" companion orientation. Most used it to support a pre-existing denialist screed that led them to the video in the first place, and the few who rejected it tended to do so without regard for science considerations. But my sample size is very small.

 

[macdoc]

It would seem the head in the sand crowd has just decided a confident lie in LARGE LETTERS is the method of choice of defending their meme.
When all else fails...LIE. ...it's sort of like absolution...allows the faithful an out

 

[aleCcowaN]

Still not clear on your reference or analogy, but I think I understand the general gist of your analogy.

All too often the only young adults I have seen talk about the farcical TGGWS did not have the benefit of a structured "how this faux documentary fooled you" companion orientation. Most used it to support a pre-existing denialist screed that led them to the video in the first place, and the few who rejected it tended to do so without regard for science considerations. But my sample size is very small.

It would seem the head in the sand crowd has just decided a confident lie in LARGE LETTERS is the method of choice of defending their meme.
When all else fails...LIE. ...it's sort of like absolution...allows the faithful an out

The large letter denying AGW is the equivalent of an army. It's more difficult to fight a large phalanx, and the general may win the battle even with heavy casualties. Science doesn't work that way, but nobody noticing it except people really involved in science.

I think that exposing the ways of AGW denialism largely exceeds the boundaries of the climate crisis itself. It's a matter of general education: "Educate the sovereign". Every country has its guiding fictions, "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is one of USA, "melting pot" is another one. One Argentine guiding fiction has been during almost two centuries "educate the sovereign": the people is the sovereign and no "government of the people, by the people , for the people" would stand a chance to became real unless the sovereign is an educated one.

Promoting simple critical thinking skills, like analysing the first figure Jules Galen dropped here a couple of days ago, with its manipulation of scales just to show disconnection, is the kind of skill general education should promote everywhere. I would expect that PBS had documentaries like La Era del Ñandú but regarding climate change, or 911 truth, or Apollo hoax.