Global warming

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The IPCC reports are a good source of references to the actual published science that they collate and present to the governments that commissioned them. When it comes to the published science there are no political motives.

If the IPCC has any political motives, one would presumably be its own perpetuation. Given that its patrons are governments it will tend toward telling them what they want to hear. That is, it will be conservative. All the important governments have their own teams of scientists looking at this subject, so nothing radical will be ventured lest it get pounced on as reason to do away with them.

That's one reason why the IPCC reports have a markedly conservative take on climate change. Another, of course, is the natural conservatism of science.

I notice that you did not answer my request for evidence of your assertion concerning models.



The most recent IPCC documents were written by 30 scientists and 300 governmental officials. This is politics with the flavor of science.


Governments tend to attempt to garner more control over the populous. History bears this out. I do not understand why you would conclude that a governmental document would not want to use science to manipulate the people towards the goal of greater control.

 

[CapelDodger]

One thing I notice. Economists are adamant, we can't afford to prevent AGW. However, the free market system is eminiently capable of coping with AGW.

Regarding the whole Lomborg thing : who, frankly, gives a toss? The Stern Report has a damn' sight more substance, but in the end, so what? Nothing substantial will result. Reports aren't commissioned to be acted on, they're commissioned as a proxy for action. When they're presented they can be considered, another proxy. If the roof does actually fall in a committee can be convened to apportion blame ...

That said, Lomborg is young enough to have an angry crowd force-feed him his latest contribution.

The free market may well cope with AGW. There's always a free market, known in extremis as a black market.

Lomborg isn't a fool, he accepts AGW as fact, but in his chosen field - entirely academic - that still leaves him much room to maneouvre while being of stellar status in the contrarian world. The Dr Pangloss du jour .

Let us speak no more of him .

 

[CapelDodger]

Really, do you have evidence of climate models accurately predicting future climate?

The Hansen et al climate model of 1988 accurately predicted current climate, within the stated error-bounds.

Here is an article that throws you a bone and disputes the accuracy of climate models.

There's a big bad analogue model out there that doesn't dispute the accuracy of climate modelling from two decades back, let alone what can be done now. If you're disputing the accuracy of future predictions, you've no evidence to go on yet. You'll have to wait three-to-eight years for that.

So far climate models have performed very well, and I see no reason why they should become less skillful.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The Hansen et al climate model of 1988 accurately predicted current climate, within the stated error-bounds.

Just to make certain: Is this the model to which you are referring?

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

 

[CapelDodger]

I notice that you did not answer my request for evidence of your assertion concerning models.

Funnily enough, I didn't get the memo about you being given priority. I guess I'm out of the loop. (Irony)

The most recent IPCC documents were written by 30 scientists and 300 governmental officials. This is politics with the flavor of science.

Numbers don't define the input. Just consider a company of infantry. And your numbers are fantasy anyway. IPCC reports aren't written, they gestate.

These government officials : which governments, what politics?

All of the science that the IPCC collates is freely avaliable.

Governments tend to attempt to garner more control over the populous. History bears this out. I do not understand why you would conclude that a governmental document would not want to use science to manipulate the people towards the goal of greater control.

Because the world is not as mysterious and scary as you seem to think. Which government does "governmental document" refer to, in your mind?

Science transcends the world of politics and nations. It can't be pressed into malign service in any more than a local sense, and not for long. Three decades of worldwide scientific concern about AGW consistently reinforced by the outcome ... what more does anybody need?

The IPCC is not equivalent to the OGPU. M'kay? (Satirical)

 

[CapelDodger]

Just to make certain: Is this the model to which you are referring?

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

Quite possibly.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because the world is not as mysterious and scary as you seem to think. Which government does "governmental document" refer to, in your mind?

Veiled ad hom much?

Science transcends the world of politics and nations. It can't be pressed into malign service in any more than a local sense, and not for long. Three decades of worldwide scientific concern about AGW consistently reinforced by the outcome ... what more does anybody need?

If the IPCC "transcends the world of politics", why does the documnet need 300 governmental officials to manage what the 30 scientist write?

 

[CapelDodger]

Lomborg has said he believes in AGW, but not in the cataclysmic consequences thereof that some have predicted.

No doubt, but what about the more common prediction, which is not cataclysmic but is still quite distressing? There are some who predict catacysm, and aren't there always. Porn on the InterNet - cataclysm. De-criminalise cannabis - cataclysm. The youth of today - cataclysm.

Where Lomborg is engaged is in the middle-ground, where most of the scientists and scientifically-minded are. He's into predictions of one bad against another, one good against another, all in dollar terms. He's been doing it for a while now, and at very reappraisal he inerringly comes down on the side of not doing anything to disturb the economic status quo.

There may come a time - he's young enough - when he'll have to reignite his celebrity career by a very public conversion without an explicit recantation. That's not a prediction, I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised.

Also, he has never claimed to be a scientist, just a political scientist, and a statistician.

Yet his name keeps cropping up on the Science Forum. Weird.

That doesn't preclude him from writing a thoughtful, provocative book about scientific issues.

By the evidence so far, yes it does. He writes well, better than most weasels, and he's clever, but he doesn't have a clue about science. Lomborg is an economist, which is little better than being a Philosopher.

 

[mhaze]

Scientists are not qualified to make economic pronouncements, but McIntyre is qualified to tell the scientists how to run their own business.

AUP, the immediate answer that pops into my head is that, yes, McIntyre is a businessman.

Not sure that's really what you wanted to here and I suspect that you mean something different than business per se.

 

[mhaze]

If the IPCC "transcends the world of politics", why does the documnet need 300 governmental officials to manage what the 30 scientist write?

Hmm....

Biofuels are on the list of "good things" that the IPCC suggests nations should do to prevent global warming.

 

[a_unique_person]

Veiled ad hom much?



If the IPCC "transcends the world of politics", why does the documnet need 300 governmental officials to manage what the 30 scientist write?

Because the denier countries like China, USA and Australia try to nobble the findings.

 

[David Rodale]

The Hansen et al climate model of 1988 accurately predicted current climate, within the stated error-bounds.

There's a big bad analogue model out there that doesn't dispute the accuracy of climate modelling from two decades back, let alone what can be done now. If you're disputing the accuracy of future predictions, you've no evidence to go on yet. You'll have to wait three-to-eight years for that.

So far climate models have performed very well, and I see no reason why they should become less skillful.

I realize this is hard to swallow for gullible warmers (nice ad hom yes?), but by 1988 a decadal temperature trend was already established. Maybe it impresses you his scenarios appear (deceptively) to have followed that general trend at first glance? Had Hansen made these predictions in 1971 and was even close, that would be something to shout about. However, Hansen was busy creating models for the global cooling gang at that time.

I keep seeing this claim that Hansen's 1988 predictions were validated and figured it would just fade away. Alas, it has not. First, notice in the graph below (Hansen's) the starting point for the observed temperature starts above the start points of the A,B and C predictions:


Oops, that must have been an oversight....maybe a Y2K error.

Next, using HadCRUT3 global temperature data through August 2006 with the starting point at 0 where it should be, we get this:


Now here is GISTEMP:


Houston, we have a problem; there's a lot of gullible people out there.

Also, his GHG predictions were off. So, even if Hansen's "predictions" look close without properly starting at 0 (that must have been an oversight too), in reality temperatures should have been higher. Details, details.
See Hansen's 1998 paper. Pay attention to Figures 5A and 5B.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Here's a good primer on climate models:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf

Although my experience is with industrial modeling, the concepts and issues are similar described in the article above, except the unlicensed software engineers creating climate models are also the same ones using them.....and massaging them.

No matter how it's cut, being right for the wrong reasons is still not validation.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because the denier countries like China, USA and Australia try to nobble the findings.

Using the word "denier" in this context is a blatant attempt at an ad hom attack. I thought the level of discourse was higher at this forum.

Yet, you make a claim. How many of the 300 were representatives of the three countries you named?

 

[mhaze]

I realize this is hard to swallow for gullible warmers (nice ad hom yes?), but by 1988 a decadal temperature trend was already established. Maybe it impresses you his scenarios appear (deceptively) to have followed that general trend at first glance?

Although my experience is with industrial modeling, the concepts and issues are similar described in the article above, except the unlicensed software engineers creating climate models are also the same ones using them.....and massaging them.

No matter how it's cut, being right for the wrong reasons is still not validation.

Models would be good if they gave us a run for 1971 and one for 1988, and both proved right.

But only one did, and modelers trumpet that one (of three projections) that, for a while, came close.

 

[a_unique_person]

Using the word "denier" in this context is a blatant attempt at an ad hom attack. I thought the level of discourse was higher at this forum.

Yet, you make a claim. How many of the 300 were representatives of the three countries you named?

I'll call them sceptics when they stop presenting rubbish like Jaworosky.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'll call them sceptics when they stop presenting rubbish like Jaworosky.

I quoted you. What you have written is incomprehensible to me.

 

[a_unique_person]

I realize this is hard to swallow for gullible warmers (nice ad hom yes?), but by 1988 a decadal temperature trend was already established. Maybe it impresses you his scenarios appear (deceptively) to have followed that general trend at first glance? Had Hansen made these predictions in 1971 and was even close, that would be something to shout about. However, Hansen was busy creating models for the global cooling gang at that time.

I keep seeing this claim that Hansen's 1988 predictions were validated and figured it would just fade away. Alas, it has not. First, notice in the graph below (Hansen's) the starting point for the observed temperature starts above the start points of the A,B and C predictions:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10323470aeaff75e9c.jpg

Oops, that must have been an oversight....maybe a Y2K error.

Next, using HadCRUT3 global temperature data through August 2006 with the starting point at 0 where it should be, we get this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10323470aebdc0202c.jpg

Now here is GISTEMP:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10323470af46440555.jpg

Houston, we have a problem; there's a lot of gullible people out there.

Also, his GHG predictions were off. So, even if Hansen's "predictions" look close without properly starting at 0 (that must have been an oversight too), in reality temperatures should have been higher. Details, details.
See Hansen's 1998 paper. Pay attention to Figures 5A and 5B.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Here's a good primer on climate models:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf

Although my experience is with industrial modeling, the concepts and issues are similar described in the article above, except the unlicensed software engineers creating climate models are also the same ones using them.....and massaging them.

No matter how it's cut, being right for the wrong reasons is still not validation.

What was that crashing sound? That must have been the goal posts moving. The claim was that Hansen was 300% out, by only using scenario A as his pediction.

 

[a_unique_person]

I quoted you. What you have written is incomprehensible to me.

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

 

[mhaze]

What was that crashing sound? That must have been the goal posts moving. The claim was that Hansen was 300% out, by only using scenario A as his pediction.

Do you have the actual text of the Congressional testimony for that? Not the story as spun by Hansen, mind you, the actual transcript.

Nonetheless, your comment relates not to DR's rebuttal of "Hansens valid or not valid models", but to a prior issue you brought up separately, about Michaels. Changing the subject?

 

[a_unique_person]

Do you have the actual text of the Congressional testimony for that? Not the story as spun by Hansen, mind you, the actual transcript.

Nonetheless, your comment relates not to DR's rebuttal of "Hansens valid or not valid models", but to a prior issue you brought up separately, about Michaels. Changing the subject?

That's right, Michaels said that scenario A was the only projection Hansen made to congress, and it was 300% out. Michaels was a liar, Hansen presented three scenarios, with the most likely a reasonable estimate of the actual temperature. Michaels tried the old 'airbrusing' technique to remove the other projections.