Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Aussie Thinker
(I guess not as most of you seem pretty clever.. and I would agree with you 99 % of the time.. you must see something in it I cannot).

I just wonder why AGW seems to get by with less real evidence than other things !

....It depends on what you count as 'real evidence'. But it's also partly because of what's at stake....

Good, let's all agree to give bad science a pass because of "what's at stake"...

Now that needs to go back to the loonietoon bin.

 

[Megalodon]

Mhaze et al:

You keep slandering scientists at every turn, even after being proven wrong and/or liars numerous times. Again, where is your evidence of "bad science"?

Remember, there are hundreds of papers on climate change, thousands if you include peripheral effects. All the respected Academies of Sciences across the world weighted in on the matter, and are worried about AGW.

What do you have? Your side brought to the table ridiculous works (like the one that preferred the atmospheric CO2 measurements made in the cities), fake experts (including a construction worker), and distortions, misdirections and lies. And, of course, Diamonds very own "communist scientists are trying to destroy the US economy" conspiracy theory, to which Mhaze resorts in times of weakness.

Your only constant position in this years is that global warming is not anthropogenic, and you'll grasp at any straws to avoid looking at reality.

Well, put up, or shut up: where is the evidence behind the slanderous accusations you throw on the scientific community?

 

[CapelDodger]

I keep saying this but none of the GWSkeptics will listen... climate models can only do long-term trends in forecast mode. The models keep getting better, but the current developments are motivated more by improving their abilities to predict regional climate and extreme weather.

Scientists Take Off For Southeastern Pacific Climate Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081006102541.htm

"During October and November 2008, some 150 scientists from 40 institutions in eight nations — including scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory — will take part in an international field experiment designed to make observations of critical components of the climate system of the southeastern Pacific."

An excellent project which should improve our understanding of El Nino/La Nina no end.

"Because elements of this system are poorly understood and poorly represented in global climate models, collecting real-time, complementary data from a variety of areas will go a long way toward improving scientists’ ability to use these models for making accurate predictions about Earth’s climate."

A worthy objective.

This project just a cherry on the cake of 2008, the 6th International Polar Year. Climate science (as distinct from meteorology) and oceanography are no longer backwater subjects. There's an upside to the "more research is required" policy - much more research is being funded.

By the time things settle down (in climate terms) there'll be no mystery left. And very little ice.

 

[CapelDodger]

Change in 2004 brokerage reserves and from traditional capital reserves to one selected after computer gaming. Smart little bankers kept plugging parameters in until the output was what they wanted.

They did nothing of the sort. They had money at stake, they wanted such models to be right, not concocted. These were statistical models, not physical models. They actually work very well as long as the models' very existence does not affect the systems they're modelling.

For instance, Milken's analysis of junk-bond returns was spot-on - the risk-premium more than outweighed risk spread across the board. Had he kept that fact quiet and made money for his clients on the margins everything would have remained fine. Instead he promoted it, and disturbed the system that his analysis was dependent on.

Is there a similarity in "Climate Modeling?"

No. Climate models are physical models, not statistical models, nor supermodels, nor (for the Brits among us) Airfix models.

 

[Spud1k]

Scientists Take Off For Southeastern Pacific Climate Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081006102541.htm



An excellent project which should improve our understanding of El Nino/La Nina no end.



A worthy objective.

This project just a cherry on the cake of 2008, the 6th International Polar Year. Climate science (as distinct from meteorology) and oceanography are no longer backwater subjects. There's an upside to the "more research is required" policy - much more research is being funded.

By the time things settle down (in climate terms) there'll be no mystery left. And very little ice.

It's really ironic you should mention that project because a bunch of people I work with happen to be involved in it (through the FAAM BAe-146 and ARSF Do-228 aircraft). In fact, I probably would have been going there myself if it hadn't been for other projects taking precedence. As it is, I'm going to be spending all next week in Hungary, which isn't quite as glamorous. Ah well...

 

[CapelDodger]

Major AGW scientists predict cooling at least until 2015, so Capeldodger stands apostate in the church of Warmology.

What you've probably missed is that capel is the Welsh for chapel, which in these Wesleyan parts is equivalent to church.

In South Welsh the equivalent for dodger is fly-half, and CapelFlyHalf seemed a step too far when I registered.

 

[Spud1k]

Good, let's all agree to give bad science a pass because of "what's at stake"...

Now that needs to go back to the loonietoon bin.

(sigh) Let's face it, if the problem didn't exist on the magnitude it does, you wouldn't have a reason to care and you wouldn't even be here.

The science isn't 'bad'. My point is that if it wasn't for the issues that are in our collective faces right now, we would be allowed the luxury of ignoring the science until something that is more than 90% definitive presents itself.

 

[TrueSceptic]

No. Climate models are physical models, not statistical models, nor supermodels, nor (for the Brits among us) Airfix models.

Revell for ex-colonials?

 

[TrueSceptic]

What you've probably missed is that capel is the Welsh for chapel, which in these Wesleyan parts is equivalent to church.

In South Welsh the equivalent for dodger is fly-half, and CapelFlyHalf seemed a step too far when I registered.

And I thought all this time that you were a chapel (church) avoider.

 

[Spud1k]

I was the class short-arse, so the only position I could play at school was scrum half.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's really ironic ...

Misuse of "ironic", I'm afraid. "As it happens ..." or "Funnily enough ..." would be more appropriate. Call me pedantic (you'd hardly be the first) but irony is something I care about. It's one of the more devastating weapons I have in my arsenal. Naturally I never descend to sarcasm .

... you should mention that project because a bunch of people I work with happen to be involved in it (through the FAAM BAe-146 and ARSF Do-228 aircraft). In fact, I probably would have been going there myself if it hadn't been for other projects taking precedence. As it is, I'm going to be spending all next week in Hungary, which isn't quite as glamorous. Ah well...

That's irony. You lucky bastid .

The glamour of great expanses of ocean soon wears off. The glamour of Hungarian supermodels doesn't. Sadly, the glamour of dollar-salaried academics is pretty faded these days ...

But hey, at least you've got something to see and experience instead of just measure by instruments.

eta : Damn, I forgot you're a Brit. Which makes you an even luckier bastid.

 

[Spud1k]

Misuse of "ironic", I'm afraid. "As it happens ..." or "Funnily enough ..." would be more appropriate. Call me pedantic (you'd hardly be the first) but irony is something I care about. It's one of the more devastating weapons I have in my arsenal. Naturally I never descend to sarcasm .

OK, let me refine: It's ironic that you should mention that at a time when some of my friends are gearing up to go to Chile while I'm currently trying to find the best car hire deal in Budapest. Is that good enough?

But hey, at least you've got something to see and experience instead of just measure by instruments.

Oh, there'll be lots of instruments, don't worry. It's just that us in situ guys get to go to weird places to use them.

 

[CapelDodger]

Revell for ex-colonials?

That seems to be a good translation .

Lest the point be lost on some people (and some do require points to be hammered home) the word "model" has multifarious applications.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Spud…

I have a lot of faith in science.. and I am sure that Global weather models WILL improve. That is why the weather experts are CONSTANTLY refining them.

But right now these models seem inherently flawed and unpredictable.

Please refer me to ANY model that has gotten anything even remotely correct.

Global temperatures have not increased for the last 8 years, most of the models said they would.

Why would we base our future on models that continually fail to make predictions ?

A good example are the evolution models… they hit almost all the time.. its why that theory is robust and AGW isn’t !

Capel Dodger….

Couldn’t work out the Aussie meant Australian… you being a pom and all, you haven’t even got the excuse of ignorance…… maybe you are having more trouble working things out than you think !

 

[CapelDodger]

I was the class short-arse, so the only position I could play at school was scrum half.

Take, pass to fly-half, duck behind the pack for protection. What's the problem?

Tall boys such as I was get put on the wing, where you're all on your own. My policy was to actually be somewhere else entirely when the ball arrived, and pretty soon I wasn't picked to play at all. Rugby's a great game to watch, IMO. It never appealed to me as a game to play.

 

[Spud1k]

Please refer me to ANY model that has gotten anything even remotely correct.

For the second time this thread, this is taken from page 12 of the executive summary of AR4WG1:

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.

That's more than 'remotely correct' in my opinion. Also note that the climate models have improved substantially since then and the anticipated accuracy of their predictions has improved.

Global temperatures have not increased for the last 8 years, most of the models said they would.

8 years (while being a generous assessment) is still not long-term, as I keep stressing while no-one from the GWSceptic side appears to be paying any attention to me. Ocean currents alone operate on time scales of that order and their inherently chaotic nature means that the year-on-year variability will never be able to be properly forecasted. Hell, surface temperatures have stalled before on a number of occasions; look at the graph I posted earlier and you'll see that there was a downturn around 1980 (for example). It didn't change the overall upward trend, which is what people should be paying attention to.

Climate models have been predicting long-term warming for more than two decades now. Long-term warming has happened. What more do you want?

 

[DogB]

I'll bear that in mind. We're new to each other, and for what it's worth I haven't taken an instant dislike to you .

Aw shucks. You old smoothy.

This is where we differ.

Perhaps not.

The 2007 reduction in ice extent (15% ice cover) revealed how much ice volume had been lost over the previous few decades. 2007 could not have happened otherwise. Ice extent has previously been robust in the face of similar weather conditions, after all.

Absolutely. I inferred this in a statement to lomiller on a previous page.

I am talking "tipping-point", and ice is notorious for tipping-point behaviour.

Nope, hang on, you were right the first time – this is where we differ. I see 07 as a typical seasonal variation revealing an inherently stressed system. A seasonal variation that will inevitably return to a more normal state – admittedly one still receiving long persistent loss. You see it as the edge of the precipice. I still fail to see how 08 fits into that scenario.

Perhaps I’m just a bit thick.

I'm on record as predicting a record minimum next summer. I'm taking a punt on wind and weather. If I'm wrong it'll be humble pie (I hate that) but a chap has to go out on a limb to claim a "Told You So" (I live for them).

Very brave. Long term patterns would seem to make your hypothesis unlikely. But I guess the ‘I told you so’ will be all the sweeter.

 

[fsol]

Spud…

I have a lot of faith in science.. and I am sure that Global weather models WILL improve. That is why the weather experts are CONSTANTLY refining them.

Weather isn't climate

But right now these models seem inherently flawed and unpredictable.

Please refer me to ANY model that has gotten anything even remotely correct.

Global temperatures have not increased for the last 8 years, most of the models said they would.

see above.

Why would we base our future on models that continually fail to make predictions ?

A good example are the evolution models… they hit almost all the time.. its why that theory is robust and AGW isn’t !

Capel Dodger….

Couldn’t work out the Aussie meant Australian… you being a pom and all, you haven’t even got the excuse of ignorance…… maybe you are having more trouble working things out than you think !

 

[David Rodale]

Weather isn't climate



see above.

Warmer terminology:
Weather: when conditions are not favorable to AGW it is weather. Ten years without warming is noise. Seven years of downward trend is too short to mean anything. Nobody ever said temperatures would be a continuous upward process (except IPCC).
Climate: when weather is warm and conditions are opportune for AGW dogma. One year anomalies such as Arctic ice melt is proof of AGW. A return to colder Arctic weather is only temporary and further proof of a strong AGW signal. Faulty predictions do not disprove climate models.

From Tamino the clown:

October 8, 2008: A Brief Comment on "Spencer's Folly"
For anyone who has stumbled across a rather condescending critique of our latest research on feedback by someone who calls himself "Tamino", I can only say that Tamino could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he would have noticed that all of my feedback work addresses TIME-VARYING radiative forcing (as occurs during natural climate variability), not CONSTANT radiative forcing (as is approximately the case with global warming). Tamino's analytical solution does not exist in the time-varying case, and so his holier-than-thou critique is irrelevant to what I have presented.

October 8, 2008 Research Update #1:
Our Feedback Diagnosis paper to appear in J. Climate, Nov. 1 issue.

October 8, 2008 Research Update #2:
Recent satellite data invalidates IPCC climate models.

Now, if the modelers STILL insist that this short term (5-year) feedback behavior -- even in the models -- does not invalidate positive feedback for long-term global warming, I will respond: "OK, then adjust the models so they behave like the satellite observations on the short (5-year) time scale, and THEN show us how much global warming the models predict".

 

[fsol]

Warmer terminology:
Weather: when conditions are not favorable to AGW it is weather. Ten years without warming is noise. Seven years of downward trend is too short to mean anything. Nobody ever said temperatures would be a continuous upward process (except IPCC).
Climate: when weather is warm and conditions are opportune for AGW dogma. One year anomalies such as Arctic ice melt is proof of AGW. A return to colder Arctic weather is only temporary and further proof of a strong AGW signal. Faulty predictions do not disprove climate models.

Sure, just keep on building those straw men and knocking them down. Build an army of them. It isn't going to change reality one little bit.