Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Wowbagger]

...in virtual reality.

... as well as empirical evidence in climate change trends, the likes of which I already linked to you.

All the alarmist predictions of AGW on which it is asserted that "Urgent action must happen now" (blah blah blah) are based on computer scenarios (models)

... which are backed up with empirical evidence, the likes of which I already linked to you.

I think this conversation is going in circles. Here's an idea: Why don't YOU propose sometihng vastly more reliable to replace the computer models?

I don't see anyone building a case for anything better. If you can do that, we'll talk.

If not, it's like you're asking airplane pilots to train in cardboard boxes.

 

[mhaze]

... as well as empirical evidence in climate change trends, the likes of which I already linked to you.

... which are backed up with empirical evidence, the likes of which I already linked to you.

I think this conversation is going in circles. Here's an idea: Why don't YOU propose sometihng vastly more reliable to replace the computer models?

I don't see anyone building a case for anything better. If you can do that, we'll talk. ...

That the logic is circular is a complaint that I've made often.

A few comments back, to BenBurch, as just one example. But it isn't my logic that is circular. It's that of typical Warmers. EG:

1. Warmer: "THE ICE IS MELTING! IT'S AGW!!!"
2. Skeptic: "No, the ice is melting because of GW. And the planet has warmed before".
3. Warmer: "BUT WE KNOW AGW EXISTS, and THE ICE MELTING CONFIRMS IT".
4. Skeptic: "No, you don't know AGW exists for sure. If it does exist, you don't have a good idea of the extent and of the feedbacks. With certain tuned parameters, you have computer models that indicate AGW could have caused certain amounts of 20th century warming. No specific link can be made between the ice melting and AGW in the sense of confirmation of the hypothesis, because no clear theory of AGW, and no clearly stated hypothesis exists".
5. Warmer: *(@!#$&*()^+_$% (here is where the personal attacks usually start, eg Saul Alinsky illogical tactics)

Now, you have suggested that I propose something vastly more reliable to replace the computer models. That is certainly possible. Here you go. Gather 50-100 years of data and examine it carefully. By 2050 or 2100 you can bet that science will have a good understanding of climate. Right now we don't. The right thing to do now is to clearly understand that we don't clearly understand it.

 

[Dancing David]

...in virtual reality.

Hi PT,

There are converging areas of evidence that seem to show overall that across the globe, in most areas the temperature has been rising. Now this data comes from a whole lot of places and sources and it is not limited to a single set of data.

So it might be that there is more than just computer models which point to an overall increase in temperature around the globe. To continue to say that only computer models indicate an increase in temperatures on a global scale is not exactly accurate.

(And yes there are areas where this may not be happening, but as a trend it seems likely)

 

[mhaze]

Hmm, kinda like your use of the term deniers?
Those seem to be the monikers given to both sides on this forum.
Warmers believe in AGW and Deniers dont basically, correct? ....
If it is a scientific debate why the need to suppress counter views?....

Thanks for your input.

Warmers "Believe" in AGW. Belief is forced faith.

Deniers is a term used by Warmers to describe people who argue against their Belief set.

The phrase Denier came up when Warmers, who wanted to get their way politically, found that not everyone agreed with them. Someone who opposed the shutting down of coal power plants would be labeled a "Denier". Just as one example.

The same radical environmentalists who would push their illogic, and their views on people, oppose nuclear power.

 

[Poptech]

Yeah they do. Why do you think I bring up Maxwell's equations the last time I lambasted you. It was a ****ing mechanical model.

Define "mechanical models" and how this is the same as computer climate models.

Ooo god. I am about ready to scream. No. I am claiming that you are an have no understanding of the fundamentals of science because of the fact that no model in science is 100% correct and the fact is that it does not invalidate any of them. I mean come on. You've had to have opened a science book at one time or another. This is just really sad more than anything.

More strawmen. I never claimed science is 100% correct, I stated that the REAL world environment is 100% correct - virtual reality is not. What is sad is your fabricated strawman arguments.

Yes, that is true. But, I do not see any evidence of any policy-makers taking models more seriously than that.

ETA: Actually, on second thought, I do object to the usage of "subjective opinion" in your statement. These are empirical-based models, based on well-understood climate processes. They are not mere opinion. But, the point about them being a virtual reality is accepted.

Actually no parameterizations exist for what is not understood and cannot be modeled to scale. If they were not mere opinion then every climate model would be identical!

And my point, here, is that there is no difference, from the perspective of science, between a computer model that extrapolates from real data; and a theory worked out on paper using real data.

But I am not talking about extrapolating from real data.

Both are subject to revision and improvement over time. Your celebration of empirical evidence as "more accurate" than computer models is misguided, for that reason.

Empirical observations and experiments are more accurate because the REAL world environment is 100% accurate.

The evidence for AGW exists in both, but you dismiss both, for different reasons: The computer model you dismiss as "not realistic". The empirical evidence you dismiss as "not really AGW". I think your real problem, is that you hardly know much about the discipline of the scientific method.

The empirical evidence does not support AGW theory, this is only supported in the computer climate models. Does the scientific method involve creating your own "reality" to prove your hypothesis?

You stated computer models can not predict the future, and I stated how far they can do so.

No you didn't. Flight simulators do not predict future events.

And yet they do all the time. Just talk to those folks who are conducting today's spacewalk about how computers projected their orbital trajectory. Or chat with any of the Apollo astronauts about how computers, all the way back in the 1960s, were able to calculate their trip to the Moon. Specifically, you could chat with anyone involved with the Apollo 13 mission where computer simulations helped to solve the problem of how to power up the LEM correctly for the emergency return to Earth.

Nah, those damned computers can't predict anything useful

Strawman Matt is back again. Since they have it all figured out I guess we should have never lost any or had any failures. Maybe you should talk to the Apollo 1 astronauts?

So you mean that all the computer professionals who make their careers out of programming, running, troubleshooting, and interpreting computer modeling of any kind (including climate modeling) are computer illiterate?

Strawman Matt, please show me where I stated all "computer professionals" (FYI the scientists creating the climate models are not) and all computer modeling. When you fail to find this information you can start a new strawman argument but this time with yourself!

 

[Poptech]

Who is suppressing counter views?

The moderation here by editing, moving, locking and merging over 20 of my posts.

Who is stopping Pielke et al publishing their work?

No one is stopping Pielke, he has published some good work.

Climate Prediction as an Initial Value Problem (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 79, No. 12, pp. 2743-2746)
- Roger A. Pielke Sr.

Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 88, No. 6, pp. 913-928, 2007)
- Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.

Microclimate Exposures of Surface-Based Weather Stations: Implications For The Assessment of Long-Term Temperature Trends (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 86, Issue 4, April 2005)
- Christopher A. Davey, Roger A. Pielke Sr.

Overlooked scientific issues in assessing hypothesized greenhouse gas warming (PDF)
(Environmental Software, Vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 100-107, 1991)
- Roger A. Pielke Sr.

Problems in evaluating regional and local trends in temperature: an example from eastern Colorado, USA (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp.421-434, April 18, 2002)
- Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.

Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, 2007)
- Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.

 

[Poptech]

Denier is a fairly generic term for someone whom will never accept the conclusions of mainstream science no matter how much evidence is presented. Its use in this case is appropriate.

Please define "mainstream" science and how this is determined.

It isn’t, really. A scientific debate requires that both sides have science they can bring to the table, which simply isn’t the case here. What we have is one side presenting data from papers published in such Journals as Science and Nature, and another presenting internet blogs and “reports” from political think tanks. That is not a scientific debate.

Total lie, I have presented scientific evidence from journals, universities and real scientists. Some of the topics I started:

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming (Nature Geoscience, July 13, 2009) *
- Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens

* This one was merged with this topic for no other reason then to bury it from view in the forums


Carbon dioxide not to blame in ice age mystery (ScienceNews) *

* This one was originally locked and originally moved out of the forums - I had to repost it


Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Geological Survey of Norway)

Your lies Mr. Miller are duly noted.

Form/Moderation issues should be raised in the Forum Management section. If you would like to discuss thread merges, please do so there.

Posted By: Locknar

 

[BenBurch]

....
Oh wow... just, wow...

So you mean that all the computer professionals who make their careers out of programming, running, troubleshooting, and interpreting computer modeling of any kind (including climate modeling) are computer illiterate?

I get paid quite well to be computer illiterate in that case.

 

[BenBurch]

...in virtual reality.

No, in concrete, empirical, physical reality.

You may repeat that lie as often as you like, however.

 

[macdoc]

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming (Nature Geoscience, July 13, 2009) *
- Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens

tell us Poptech what you think this paper implies......

Lets look at the abstract in full

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

Richard E. Zeebe1, James C. Zachos2 & Gerald R. Dickens3
Top of pageThe Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks1, 2. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth's surface, although the source remains an open issue3, 4. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and stable carbon isotope composition10, 15, 16, 17 along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50

. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

In addition to direct C02 forcing.....sort shoots a gaping crater in your nonsense about C02...

Of course the most likely feedback which is hard to detect in paleo - is methane release which is 25x more potent but shorter lived.....

Now let's ask a direct question since YOU quoted this paper.....

Is C02 a climate forcing???
If it accounted for the amount of warming noted in the paper...( sans of course the known doubling by water vapour ) then upon what ridiculous premise could you possibly think it is not warming the climate NOW.

Did the GHG physics - which the author of the paper clearly understand, suddenly stop.....???

This is a science forum - you quoted a paper from Nature to purported support your position...
defend your position

 

[Poptech]

... as well as empirical evidence in climate change trends, the likes of which I already linked to you.

Those are not evidence of AGW, they are evidence of climate change.

There are converging areas of evidence that seem to show overall that across the globe, in most areas the temperature has been rising. Now this data comes from a whole lot of places and sources and it is not limited to a single set of data.

So it might be that there is more than just computer models which point to an overall increase in temperature around the globe. To continue to say that only computer models indicate an increase in temperatures on a global scale is not exactly accurate.

I understand there is evidence for a mild warming trend since the LIA this is not evidence that man-made CO2 is the cause. Let alone evidence of catastrophe.

No, in concrete, empirical, physical reality

By this logic all evidence of climate change supports AGW theory. Except it does not.

 

[Wowbagger]

But I am not talking about extrapolating from real data.

What do you think computer modelers do?!!!!!

Do you think people just make up data, to put in there?!!

Empirical observations and experiments are more accurate because the REAL world environment is 100% accurate.

But, the conclusions drawn are still considered models, just like the computer models you so revile.

The empirical evidence does not support AGW theory,

Sure it does! The "hockey stick" actually supports it quite well. But, you simply choose to dismiss it for other reasons.

Does the scientific method involve creating your own "reality" to prove your hypothesis?

Models are abstractions of reality. Not a wholesale creation of a new reality.

This is true as much for Einstein's Relativity, as it is for climate computer models.

Flight simulators do not predict future events.

They help us deal with events that could happen, in the future.

No body claims climate models are really predicting the future, either. They are helping us deal with future possabilities. "If we do X we can expect Y to increase by this much...", etc.

 

[Wowbagger]

Those are not evidence of AGW, they are evidence of climate change.

...with an overall trend towards global warming.

 

[Poptech]

tell us Poptech what you think this paper implies.....

Lets look at the news release for this paper.

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

"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 evidence of the models being wrong, of which I have already provided extensive evidence for...

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 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)

 

[Wangler]

...with an overall trend towards global warming.

....which may or may not be attributable to actions by mankind.

 

[macdoc]

Answer the question Poptech.....stop the puerile dodging

Is C02 a forcing as the paper from Nature you quoted maintains......

 

[Wowbagger]

....which may or may not be attributable to actions by mankind.

...though the evidence from carbon isotopes is relatively convincing.

 

[BenBurch]

Poptech, you clearly do not understand the implications of that paper.

Because if you did, you wouldn't have even considered posting a link to it.

What it implies is that we're SCREWED.

A rise comparable to what we project was DEVASTATING due to warming beyond what we expect that sort of rise to cause.

 

[BenBurch]

...though the evidence from carbon isotopes is relatively convincing.

I'd say more than suggestive, for sure.

 

[mhaze]

............Strawman Matt, please show me where I stated all "computer professionals" (FYI the scientists creating the climate models are not) and all computer modeling. When you fail to find this information you can start a new strawman argument but this time with yourself!

The general Warmer technique displayed here is as follows:

1. Warmer A: Misrepresents a skeptic's view substantially in a restatement intended to assert that the skeptic said something glaringly stupid.
2. Warmer B,C,D: Runs with the statement by Warmer A in a chorus of ridicule of the stupidity by the skeptic (which never occurred).
3. Skeptic: Corrects the lie.
4. Warmer A: Starts over with a new parsing.
5. Etc.

Yes, right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook, Rules for Radicals. Standard far left radical environmentalist tactics.

That's the best they can do.

Really.