Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Wangler]

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

....depending upon which climatologist you ask.

 

[Poptech]

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

That depends on the model.

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

Yes

"First, there is the tuning in a single formula in order for that formula to best match the observed values of that specific relationship. This happens most frequently when new parameterisations are being developed. Secondly, there are tuning parameters that control aspects of the emergent system. Gravity wave drag parameters are not very constrained by data, and so are often tuned to improve the climatology of stratospheric zonal winds. The threshold relative humidity for making clouds is tuned often to get the most realistic cloud cover and global albedo." - Gavin

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

Again you definition of "models". I am not talking about "computer models" in general but "computer climate models".

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

The "Hockey Stick" is a fraudulent work.

"Simulations with red noise do lead to hockey sticks. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism on the hockey stick from 1998 is entirely valid on this particular point." - Hans von Storch, Ph.D. Climate Statistics Specialist

What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)

Hockey Stick - What is Normal? (Video) (8min)

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)

"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape"

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.

Please let the IPCC and all the world's government know. All the models shows is that if you program X to increase Y it will happen in the model. This proves nothing in the real world.

...with an overall trend towards global warming.

Global Warming and AGW are two different things.

 

[BenBurch]

....depending upon which climatologist you ask.

I'll side with the 90+% of them who are convinced.

 

[technoextreme]

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.

Its not a strawman when all of science uses models that every scientist on the face of the earth is will admit are not 100% correct. You can't invalidate global warming based off the fact the models are not 100% correct because no model is 100% correct and you will in fact invalidate every single science on the face of the earth. Only people who have no freaking clue what the hell they are talking about thinks there is any difference between a computer model and equations on a paper. The computer is just faster at doing math.

Again you definition of "models". I am not talking about "computer models" in general but "computer climate models".

Well unfortunately you can't have your cake and eat it. Computer models in general are exactly the same as to computer climate models. Hell most science models are generally the same as to computer climate models.

 

[macdoc]

Answer the question Poptech.....

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

 

[Wowbagger]

For arguments sake, even if global warming was not human-caused, it is still a cause for concern. We would still need to develop the technologies and policies necessary to make life on this planet sustainable.

Though, I fail to see how all the impact humans have had on the planet could not possibly be a significant contributing factor.

 

[Wangler]

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)

Poptech, it seems you are getting beat up because of your stance about climate models being "100% wrong" (my paraphrase).

Looking at some of your links, a defensible position may be thus: too much significance is placed upon forecasts made with current climate models.

But I find it hard to find the "climate models are 100% wrong" slant defensible.

I am interested in your opinion of my perception.

 

[Poptech]

Its not a strawman when all of science uses models that every scientist on the face of the earth is will admit are not 100% correct. You can't invalidate global warming based off the fact the models are not 100% correct because no model is 100% correct and you will in fact invalidate every single science on the face of the earth. Only people who have no freaking clue what the hell they are talking about thinks there is any difference between a computer model and equations on a paper. The computer is just faster at doing it.

It is a strawman claiming I believe science is 100% correct. You just create strawman arguments that have nothing to do with what I stated. I stated the REAL world environment is 100% correct nothing else. There is a lot more to a computer climate model then simply an equation on paper, they are complex interaction of equations that create data dependencies based off assumptions and approximations. Only someone who has no remote clue about computer climate models would believe they are not attempting to simulate a chaotic system. Oh wait that would be you...

Someone back me up here but economic models are chaotic as opposed to climate models.

 

[Wangler]

For arguments sake, even if global warming was not human-caused, it is still a cause for concern.

My take: global warming should certainly be monitored. May or may not be a concern.

We would still need to develop the technologies and policies necessary to make life on this planet sustainable.

My take: I would like us to develop technologies to lessen our impact on this world of ours, but I don't think it is necessary to do so to make life on this planet sustainable.

Though, I fail to see how all the impact humans have had on the planet could not possibly be a significant contributing factor.

My take: Humans have contributed perhaps, but a significant factor? I am not so sure.

 

[macdoc]

What's the problem Poptech - afraid to answer the question about C02 forcing....after all you quoted the paper.....

Might just undermine the whole ball of crap you have spooled up like a hyperactive dung beetle.....

 

[technoextreme]

It is a strawman claiming I believe science is 100% correct. ..

No. I didn't actually say that. I said that because science is almost entirely composed of models that don't entirely behave according to the "REAL" world that you say is the only way to go your argument is dumb. Really really dumb.

 

[Wowbagger]

My take:

is just a more mild version of mine. So, it's hardly worth arguing about.

Now, has anyone come up with a brilliant, new substitute for computer models, yet?!

 

[Poptech]

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

Does the paper make this statement, "We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing"... yes the paper makes this statement. And this is also concluded...

"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."

Now Mac, answer my question.

"Do you support Socialism or Capitalism?"

Though, I fail to see how all the impact humans have had on the planet could not possibly be a significant contributing factor.

I believe it is possible humans can have a "contributing" factor the question is exactly how and how much.

 

[DogB]

For arguments sake, even if global warming was not human-caused, it is still a cause for concern.

We don’t know that. If for the sake of argument you assume that the current warming is not due to AGW then it may be part of a normal cycle. If so then it’s clear we don’t understand even the basics of climate and there’s no reason to assume what direction the climate is heading next year.

We would still need to develop the technologies and policies necessary to make life on this planet sustainable.

But we're not doing that. We're planning how to stop AGW by reducing emissions. If the theory is wrong we're expending research effort and dollars in the wrong place.

Though, I fail to see how all the impact humans have had on the planet could not possibly be a significant contributing factor.

I agree completely other than the use of the word ‘significant’.

 

[Poptech]

No. I didn't actually say that. I said that because science is almost entirely composed of models that don't entirely behave according to the "REAL" world that you say is the only way to go your argument is dumb. Really really dumb.

Empirical observations are observations of the 100% correct REAL world. Empirical experiments are done in the 100% correct REAL world. Thus they have REAL validity. Yet empirical "models" as you define them can be experimentally reproduced. The rest is based on faith and I am not religious.

 

[technoextreme]

But we're not doing that. We're planning how to stop AGW by reducing emissions. If the theory is wrong we're expending research effort and dollars in the wrong place.

Well no. Its not a zero sum game because its not like those emissions aren't harmful for other reasons.

Empirical observations are observations of the 100% correct REAL world. Empirical experiments are done in the 100% correct REAL world.

Yeah but what happens when the REAL world contradicts the model. And yes I actually am setting you up to throw out an entire field of science. Guess which one.

 

[aleCcowaN]

But we're not doing that. We're planning how to stop AGW by reducing emissions. If the theory is wrong we're expending research effort and dollars in the wrong place.

World expenditures in "defense" are 1.2 trillion usd a year (almost 60% USA). During Cold War more than a third of researchers were involved one or other way in "defense", a fraction still are. Is that money expended in the right place? Is that good use of research effort?

It's a contradiction: billions of dollars spent in weapons just because that country might attack "us" but just coins to climate science and data collection because there is just a 67-90% probability of AGW.

Maybe "we" have to be more open-handed with climate research, not with bio-fuels. Maybe we'll be able then to say where 'significant' must be placed.

 

[technoextreme]

World expenditures in "defense" are 1.2 trillion usd a year (almost 60% USA). During Cold War more than a third of researchers were involved one or other way in "defense", a fraction still are. Is that money expended in the right place? Is that good use of research effort?

It's a contradiction: billions of dollars spent in weapons just because that country might attack "us" but just coins to climate science and data collection because there is just a 67-90% probability of AGW.

Maybe "we" have to be more open-handed with climate research, not with bio-fuels. Maybe we'll be able then to say where 'significant' must be placed.

Technically that is a fallacy. 1.2 trillion dollars isn't just spent on weapons.

 

[BenBurch]

Empirical observations are observations of the 100% correct REAL world. Empirical experiments are done in the 100% correct REAL world. Thus they have REAL validity. Yet empirical "models" as you define them can be experimentally reproduced. The rest is based on faith and I am not religious.

Parody is dead.

 

[macdoc]

and he STILL won't believe the critters.....

or answer a simple question about C02 forcing from a paper he supplied.......

need to rename this PopTart Comedy Central ....