Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

Pixel42 said:
Clearly.


What always puzzles me is the assumption by some (not necessarily you) that if the models are inaccurate then they are overestimating the effects of human activity on long term climate when it is of course just as likely that they are underestimating it.
Click to expand...

I can't talk for anyone else, but I am making no assumptions. Just noticing that actual temperature anomolies have been running below forecasts (See various analyses of TAR and AR4 projections, Hansen 1988 etc.)

The question of genuine enquiry is; is this signficant?
 
It's certainly significant that they are shown up to not know what they are talking about.

It's signficant if the basic conceptual mechanisms of climate models are wrong (say if Tsonis 2007 has it right, then they have it wrong). But note that this approach is in opposition to taking a 90% confidence level that the climate is outside of the bounds of the model predictions.

And it is significant as a harbinger of less of a problem with feedbacks and high forcings than would have been the case, if the rates of temperature increase of the 1980s - 1990s had continued.

It is significant politically, as the average guy will just say "Warming? What warming? Those scamming politicians are just looking for another way to tax us".

And it is signficant because scientists must incoroporate these realities into their conceptual frameworks. Which results in progress.
 
Pixel42 said:
What always puzzles me is the assumption by some (not necessarily you) that if the models are inaccurate then they are overestimating the effects of human activity on long term climate when it is of course just as likely that they are underestimating it.
Click to expand...

The comment of mine to which you refer was not one about models, but rather about the sensational sounding reply to the following question:

"How likely is a major release?"

The subject was carbon from thawing tundra.

The overblown reply:

"I don't think it's a case of likelihood," he said. "I think we are playing with fire."

Was what I was commenting about.
 
Geckko said:
The question of genuine enquiry is; is this signficant?
Click to expand...

Figment of your imagination would be the best description.

The only model runs that are higher then the observations by any statistically significant amounts are the ones asking the question what would global temperature be if CO2 emissions had been much higher then what actually occurred.
 
The comment of mine to which you refer was not one about models, but rather about the sensational sounding reply to the following question:

"How likely is a major release?"

The subject was carbon from thawing tundra.

The overblown reply:

"I don't think it's a case of likelihood," he said. "I think we are playing with fire."

Was what I was commenting about.
Click to expand...
and why would you think he his over stating the case when the warnings have been clear and consistent and growing more urgent.....

We KNOW what a massive methane release can entail - Siberian traps.

We KNOW methane has 25 times the impact of C02 on warming

We KNOW it's melting and we KNOW there is an incredible amount at risk.

We don't know the timing
 
Last edited:
But hasn't this subject been discussed on JREF several times and the indication was that this was a way overhyped Alarmist type topic?

I did some calculations a couple months ago and didn't see that methane release was any big deal.
 
Pixel42 said:
What always puzzles me is the assumption by some (not necessarily you) that if the models are inaccurate then they are overestimating the effects of human activity on long term climate when it is of course just as likely that they are underestimating it.
Click to expand...

Well said

Pixel42 said:
When there are a range of possible outcomes, some of which are very bad indeed, it's difficult to judge just how "alarmist" one should be. It's understandable that the people who think there's a high probability that the actual outcome will be toward the "very bad" end of the range, and who see very little being done to avert such an outcome, are getting increasingly concerned and outspoken.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately humans tend to have short attention spans. A few cold winters and mild summers and we get all relaxed about the problem. If the AGW theory is correct then the warming will return strongly and real pressure will begin to be placed on our leaders.

We may have lost some ground but on the other hand we know more than we did, so our reaction might well be better informed. Swings and roundabouts.
 
Originally Posted by Pixel42
What always puzzles me is the assumption by some (not necessarily you) that if the models are inaccurate then they are overestimating the effects of human activity on long term climate when it is of course just as likely that they are underestimating it.



DogB said:
Well said.....
Click to expand...

If the climate was from 2000 to 2009, 0.5C warmer than was predicted by climate models....you or I might say:

"The models are wrong"

Imagine that you then hear...

"But it's just as likely the models show too much cooling as too much warming".

The logical response takes off from the assertion "The Models Are Wrong" but fails to include what evidence caused that to be said. Namely, that the direction of temperature change predicted by the models is not happening. Only in the AGW world would someone claim that when the models did not show warming as predicted, the models were as likely to be wrong in the direction of more warming as less.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
If the climate was from 2000 to 2009, 0.5C warmer than was predicted by climate models....you or I might say:
"The models are wrong"
Click to expand...

We might, depends on the claimed errors. I would probably state that the models may be flawed.

mhaze said:
Imagine that you then hear...
"But it's just as likely the models show too much cooling as too much warming".
Click to expand...

Please, who would say that? :D

mhaze said:
The logical response takes off from the assertion "The Models Are Wrong" but fails to include what evidence caused that to be said. Namely, that the direction of temperature change predicted by the models is not happening.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree but the models do not preclude the possibility of temperature stabilisation or even slight cooling. You and I might then claim that makes the model effectively useless, and to be perfectly honest I wouldn’t argue too strongly against that premise, but nevertheless the current data doesn’t rule the models invalid. Yet.

mhaze said:
Only in the AGW world would someone claim that when the models did not show warming as predicted, the models were as likely to be wrong in the direction of more warming as less.
Click to expand...

There’s nothing mathematically incorrect in that statement and if we’re honest we must at least entertain the possibility.
 
Generally...

"X" is consistent with the models showing "Y", where Y is randomly Warming or Cooling, and where X is a phenomena from Xtot, the universe of all phenomena.

we randomly extract X, and run our test.

Con.....Sistent!

Whee!!!
 
Doesn't make the models wrong, just less useful.

Exactly where less useful become useless is another question entirely.

Economic models are basically junk yet people, quite literally, bet the bank on them. Go figure.
 
macdoc said:
We KNOW it's melting and we KNOW there is an incredible amount at risk.

We don't know the timing
Click to expand...

These almost seem to be mutually exclusive...if we KNOW it's melting, why don't we know the timing?
 
I know I'm eventually going to die, it the timing that bugs me. ;)
 
Last edited:
DogB said:
I know I'm eventually going to die, it the timing that bugs me. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, using that as an analogy makes what the permafrost expert said sound not as bad:

"How likely is your death?"

"I don't think it's a case of likelihood, I think I am playing with fire."

So we know major, climate shifting gas releases from tundra is as certain as death, and probably as certain as taxes too?

;)
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
PopTech, are you aware that most journals, including Science, have a "letters" section and that the normal procedure if you've spotted an error in someone's paper is to submit a letter to the journal? If you actually look at journals, you will often find letters taking issue with something that was published in the journal (along with a response from the author of the original paper). Why do you think that Dr. Stockwell published his critique in a magazine that many readers of Science might not know even exists?
Click to expand...

I know, I know, pick me!!!!!

(aside to classmate: "it's the same reason those troofer character have their own journal instad of using real one's!!!")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom