Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Herzblut]

There are numerous pieces of evidence to support GHG as the cause of the warming over the past few decades --skip--

Warming? Over the past one decade there has been no warming.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

This has actually been developing for a while. As Prof Gerald Dickens says :

"You go along a core and everything's the same, the same, the same, and then suddenly you pass this time line and the carbon chemistry is completely different," Dickens said. "This has been documented time and again at sites all over the world."

Interestingly (I think), scientists 55m years in the future might well be saying the same thing .

 

[shadron]

PopTech, I answered your last post about computer modeling over in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4903537&postcount=259 , which I never got an answer to, so I'll put it here:

Every model produces distinctively different results. You are confusing "close-enough" with the same. But they average within the same linear trend. Because they all include similar CO2 climate forcing equations.

Wow - so you really do gripe because they are not identical, as pointed out by SezMe. But they are identical enough to predict global warming. But they're wrong because they all use the same "CO2 forcing equations". So maybe now we are focusing on the culprit, and, as opposed to what you say above, you believe that the forcing equations are either wrong or are incorrectly modeled. I thought that might be the case, based on:

Scientists who rely on computer climate models simply do not understand the limitations of the simulations. It is simply a matter of ignorance.

So you, as a computer programmer, see fit to call climatologists ignorant in their specialty (not yours, since this is not a matter of analysis, design, coding, following a spec, or incorrect algorithm use). That's some weak stance. But, to get back to those CO2 forcing equations, by which I presume you mean the radiative forcingWP equations as applied to the gas CO2. They are defined by:

The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values.

(http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL018141.shtml)

Now let's get specific: what in this theory of radiative forcing do you object to? Is it the way of measuring incoming irradience, or the way in which the balance is computed, or what? These forcing equations and values are derived in a lab, but are certainly valid, as valid as the temperature at which water turns to ice at STP. What, precisely, are you objecting to? What would you replace the forcing equations with? Get specific, PopTech. We all want to hear about it.

 

[athon]

PopTech again with "We don't know everything so we know nothing".

Which is perhaps one of the most common arguments put forward by AGW deniers. It's an easy way to simply dismiss all of the information in one go - say 'the models are wrong, so they are all useless'.

As I tried to say in another thread, such efforts are harmful to the debate. I'm all for good discussion, which is happening in the journals, conferences and research organisations across the globe. Climate researchers understand that the models are limited and fundamentally problematic due to the complexity of the systems. Try talking to a climatologist, and their side of the conversation will be full of qualifiers based on probabilities.

The difference is, deniers take these probabilities to be flat-out 'wrong!'. Their certainty is why I tend to dismiss what they say until they can express their view in a way that makes me see they actually know what they're talking about. PT hasn't done that yet, and I'm not confident at this rate that he will.

Athon

 

[Wowbagger]

You can't

Okay.... then how is one supposed to... I dunno... model the climate, if they needed to?

Besides, your opening post shows that you already accept some climate models. Just not those ones you happen to disagree with.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Poptech, how would one would go about proving that the warming has been due to changes in the Sun or cosmic rays or internal variability?

 

[BenBurch]

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

No, this is just a transparent excuse to hoist the "simulations are worthless" flag and see if anybody salutes it THIS time.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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

The relevance of this statement is?

 

[shadron]

Then there's this one that you also have avoided. Referencing potholer54's introductory climate video:

That video is very misleading.

The fact that CO2 lags temperatures is overwhelming and the nonsense that some sort of feedback loop is invoked is not substantiated.

No - he is merely pointing out that previous high temperature cycles were started by the Milankovitch cycle, and that the CO2 cycle followed along, when the sun warmed up the permafrost and the oceans. In our case, though, because we aren't near a Milankovitch maximum, there would normally be no temperature change, but throwing all the additional CO2 into the air as we are doing is, this time, causing the CO2 to lead the temperature change. We changed the trigger scheme, and therefore it would be abysmally stupid to think the CO2 would follow the temperature.

No feedback loop - in fact, the normal cycling triggered by the M cycle is the case of feedback, where the warming effect causes the CO2. In the athrogenic case, we skipped the middleman and went directly to the CO2. Direct effect. When he talks about feedback, potholer54 is referring to the fact that warming causes CO2/CH4 release which warms further.

Based on this logic the planet should have went into a runaway greenhouse long ago.

All such runaways eventually end because of non-linearities in the system drivers (System Engineering 101). In this case, the warming ends when most of the CO2 and methane trapped in the permafrost is released into the atmosphere. As the source of the bulk of permafrost GHGs has now dried up, the CO2 cannot be driven higher. Except that that's not true in this current case, now, is it? Perhaps with the fall of our industrial civilization the Earth climate system will see another non-linearity, proving you shouldn't fool with Mother Nature.

But then, why are you disagreeing with CO2 vs temperature cycles when your real beef is with the misapplication of radiative equations in computer models? (See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=259) It would seem that rather than having a real beef with anything in AGW, you, rather, have soaked up the whole panoply of denialist arguments, from the subtle to the stupid, and wield them all. It doesn't look to me that you're really sincere about arguing about AGW - you just want to spread your politics, and our forum is a handy soap box for that, because we don't normally ban idiocy.

 

[Poptech]

PopTech, I answered your last post about computer modeling over in...

And this is not that thread.

Which is perhaps one of the most common arguments put forward by AGW deniers. It's an easy way to simply dismiss all of the information in one go - say 'the models are wrong, so they are all useless'.

This is how computers work and what people do not understand.

Antarctic Temperatures Disagree With Climate Model Predictions (Ohio State University)
Are Existing Large-scale Simulations Of Water Dynamics Wrong? (Soil Science Society of America)
Climate Models Overheat Antarctica, New Study Finds (National Center for Atmospheric Research)
Dunes, Climate Models Don't Match Up With Paleomagnetic Records (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)
Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong (Rice University)
Global Warming Predictions Are Overestimated, Suggests Study On Black Carbon (Cornell University)
New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability (International Journal of Climatology)
Overconfidence Leads To Bias In Climate Change Estimations (Penn State)
Widespread 'Twilight Zone' Detected Around Clouds, Not Included In Most Climate Change Models (NASA)

and on and on... They are a big joke.

 

[Poptech]

Okay.... then how is one supposed to... I dunno... model the climate, if they needed to?

You can't

 

[BenBurch]

The relevance of this statement is?

It has none. Just like his false claim to be a computer scientist.

 

[Herzblut]

Okay.... then how is one supposed to... I dunno... model the climate, if they needed to?

And how is one supposed to heal cancer, if needed? Is that a smart question at all?

 

[Poptech]

It has none. Just like his false claim to be a computer scientist.

Yes of course Ben my degree and job as an analyst are all fantasy.

 

[Myriad]

And how is one supposed to heal cancer, if needed?

A good first step is to model the disease process. The models can then be tested for ways of interfering with said process.

Most past medical breakthroughs have come about through the use of animal models (i.e. inducing a similar disease process in another species) but the complexity and individual specificity of cancer makes this method relatively ineffective. Computer models incorporating specific human genetics and protein biochemistry will be key to most future improvements in prevention and treatment.

Those opposed on principle to such "virtual reality" approaches are, of course, welcome to refuse any such treatments, and enroll instead in gen-yoo-wine real-world laboratory studies in which patients are randomly treated with various chemicals while keeping track of which ones die fastest.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[BenBurch]

You can't

Why?

 

[BenBurch]

Yes of course Ben my degree and job as an analyst are all fantasy.

You've revealed no knowledge beyond that you might get reading SciFi.

I ask you to compute things and you seem to be unable to, or at least you never attempt it.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Warming? Over the past one decade there has been no warming.

According to GISS, June 2009 was 0.29 degC warmer than June 1999.

 

[shadron]

And this is not that thread.


This is how computers work and what people do not understand.

Antarctic Temperatures Disagree With Climate Model Predictions (Ohio State University)
Are Existing Large-scale Simulations Of Water Dynamics Wrong? (Soil Science Society of America)
Climate Models Overheat Antarctica, New Study Finds (National Center for Atmospheric Research)
Dunes, Climate Models Don't Match Up With Paleomagnetic Records (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)
Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong (Rice University)
Global Warming Predictions Are Overestimated, Suggests Study On Black Carbon (Cornell University)
New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability (International Journal of Climatology)
Overconfidence Leads To Bias In Climate Change Estimations (Penn State)
Widespread 'Twilight Zone' Detected Around Clouds, Not Included In Most Climate Change Models (NASA)

and on and on... They are a big joke.

Sidestep noted. So I guess the poor forcing equations can again bare their face in public, as PopTech doesn't care any more.

 

[shadron]

Those opposed on principle to such "virtual reality" approaches are, of course, welcome to refuse any such treatments, and enroll instead in gen-yoo-wine real-world laboratory studies in which patients are randomly treated with various chemicals while keeping track of which ones die fastest.

Respectfully,
Myriad

It's too bad we can't leave to another planet and let the GW Denialists stay here and face their non-disaster.