Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[technoextreme]

Name one automobile approved safe by the NHTSA based solely on computer models

Name one satellite that hasn't been sent into space based solely on models. Come on ya wimp. Debate an actual engineer and stop ignoring me. Roar!!!!!

 

[macdoc]

 

[CapelDodger]

Um...can someone remind me here but in 1998-1999 weren't global warming disaster alarmists denying that El-Nino was the main cause of the spike in temperatures at the time? And today disaster alarmists are now claiming that El-Nino was responsible...

No, people with an understanding of cimate and El Nino/La Nina said the spike was noise superimposed on a rising trend. Denialists were claiming it was the sole cause of warming and that there wasn't a rising trend. It wasn't until some seven or eight years after that denialists realised they could choose '98 as a start-point and claim a cooling trend.

Maybe my memory is fuzzy ...

Or inventive.

 

[CapelDodger]

Name one satellite that hasn't been sent into space based solely on models. Come on ya wimp. Debate an actual engineer and stop ignoring me. Roar!!!!!

Didn't a team manage to hit a comet with a lump of copper recently, based purely on computer models? I seem to remember something of the sort.

 

[Poptech]

Computer climate models are fundamentally wrong

Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong (Rice University)

A new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University.

"There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

More peer-reviewed evidence of the uselessness of computer climate models.

 

[Wowbagger]

Okay, smarty pants, what else should we use, instead, to model the climate?

 

[Poptech]

You can't

Useless Arithmetic: Ten Points to Ponder When Using Mathematical Models in Environmental Decision Making (PDF)
(Public Administration Review, Volume 68 Issue 3, Pages 470-479, March 24, 2008)
- Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, Orrin H. Pilkey

 

[theprestige]

Okay, smarty pants, what else should we use, instead, to model the climate?

I'm all in favor of using the best tools available to model the climate.

I'm also in favor of being open and honest about the real usefulness of the tools, and of basing major policy decisions on their real usefulness.

There's a huge difference between saying "the science is settled, the time for drastic measures is upon us", and saying "we have some models, but they're not very good yet, so we can't really tell you what's going to happen or what you should do about it".

 

[catbasket]

Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.

That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."

my bold

From that I get that the situation may be worse than current models predict. But it's gone midnight and my reading comprehension may be low.

 

[dahduh]

It comes as no surprise that a model is incorrect or incomplete. That's why you build models, to quantitatively test your ideas about how something works. This report is interesting but I would only take it seriously once it has been thoroughly scrutinized by other modelers and has become a persistent topic of conversation for a while.

 

[kallsop]

Oh oh, global warmers are not going to stand for this. Mobilize the troops, call General Gore, ...

The EPA and I do not welcome opposing viewpoints. Shove it.

 

[BenBurch]

Didn't a team manage to hit a comet with a lump of copper recently, based purely on computer models? I seem to remember something of the sort.

YES!

 

[CapelDodger]

I expected this, but not so quickly.

PopTech again with "We don't know everything so we know nothing". Something happened 55 million years ago to change the global carbon cycle and we don't yet know what that is.

We do know what's been happening to carbon recently, which is that vast amounts are being brought up from underground and burnt in the atmosphere. This clearly wasn't the case 55 million years ago (otherwise the fossil fuels wouldn't have been there for us to dig up). It's an interesting conundrum, but it is not by any means a refutation of climate models or of AGW.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh oh, global warmers are not going to stand for this. Mobilize the troops, call General Gore, ...

The EPA and I do not welcome opposing viewpoints. Shove it.

If I wanted to alarm people isn't this result something I'd welcome? It shows that warming has been under-estimated. So why would your imaginary army object to it?

When you see any evidence that they do, please let us know. That would actually be a contribution.

 

[BenBurch]

Isn't this your 100th thread on this exact topic, Poptech?

 

[Poptech]

It shows that warming has been under-estimated.

No it doesn't. It shows that climate models are fundamentally wrong and thus their "predictive" capabilities utterly useless.

Isn't this your 100th thread on this exact topic, Poptech?

No this is my first topic on this Rice University study.

 

[Poptech]

Name one automobile approved safe by the NHTSA based solely on computer models

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong (Rice University)

More peer-reviewed evidence of the uselessness of computer climate models.

If models are useless, then their conclusion that CO2 couldn't have accounted for all of the warming during the PETM has no basis, correct? So it could mean that a 70 percent increase in CO2 could actually cause a 7 degC increase surface temperatures.

What is the importance of models, anyway? There are numerous pieces of evidence to support GHG as the cause of the warming over the past few decades, including, but not limited to: greater increases in minimum than maximum temperatures, greater warming in high latitudes than low latitudes, and warming in the troposphere coupled with cooling in the lower stratosphere.

 

[CapelDodger]

Isn't this your 100th thread on this exact topic, Poptech?

And just as misdirected.

 

[Poptech]

If models are useless, then their conclusion that CO2 couldn't have accounted for all of the warming during the PETM has no basis, correct? So it could mean that a 70 percent increase in CO2 could actually cause a 7 degC increase surface temperatures.

Or it could mean a 70% increase in CO2 could cause a 0.1 degC increase in surface temperature.