Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[TrueSceptic]

For a followup of Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper (wich falsified models), look at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3486 for a smart discussion, (unlike the one here). Kousutsoyiannis himself is participating and can answer any question about his paper (so the resident mo**ns can ask himself directly.)

Firstly, why are you wasting your time here?

Secondly, you should mind your language.

 

[TrueSceptic]

You might want to discuss Hansen 2008 then?
Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper?
Anything?
My position here is that models lack predictive skills. I have papers and participate in deep discussions about this issue, just in other forums.

My position on the manmade effect on temperature increase is that it have been falsified by thropospheric hotspots. You migh want to discuss that also, but I'd like to do it in cl¡mateaudit, basically because there is where the papers are discussed seriously. The quality of the posters (BOTH sides) is far, far greater than here and you have access to the authors, (but not to Hansen).

You have access to some authors. If you think that CA is in any way a truly sceptical, balanced forum then I think you are mistaken.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I don't like realclimate because they censor posts.

If you want to know why, have a look at Marohasy's blog.

Most blogs are moderated or censored to a degree, including CA. McIntyre knows that the extremists would do more harm than good to his own case.

 

[CapelDodger]

Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper?
Anything?

That's not a link to the paper, but I know of it. It concerns the ability of climate models to accurately predict regional precipitation, with particular regard to Greece. Prof Koutsoyiannis is a hydrologist, and Greece is a country where hydrology matters (there's a reason why it's famous for olives and goats).

My position here is that models lack predictive skills.

Climate models don't pretend to predict rainfall in Greece. Greece occupies its own peculiar geographic niche, well downwind of the Atlantic but intimate with the Mediterranean. This is the very specific issue which Prof Koutsoyiannis is naturally focussed on.

In general terms (not Greek) climate models have performed very well. The current melting in the Arctic and sub-Arctic was well predicted in principle (it has been and is happening); the timescale was off but that's mostly to do with modelling ice-behaviour, which is intrinsically more complicated than climate.

We'll find out what happens to Greek hydrology by observation, even if Koutsoyiannis et al come up with a good model of Eastern Mediterranean precipitation in a warming world. Which I doubt they have the resources for.

 

[lomiller]

Most blogs are moderated or censored to a degree, including CA.

Climateaudit is well know for not only removing posts that disagree with McIntyre, but actually going so far as to change the content of posts.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Noise to signal ratios

here 90%
CA 20-40%

90% is probably about right for here but we know where most of it comes from.

So why waste your time here? Could it be because this forum allows things that McIntyre doesn't?

 

[Diamond]

If by "pick a model" you mean "choose a model that has been verified in the field over decades of constant observation" and if by "feed it assumptions" you mean "use the most conservative assumptions you can", then I guess technically you're correct.

If you think they're claiming the earth will "almost collapse" then you haven't read the article. They are indeed predicting some dire consequences for humans and other species, but this is based on actual research.

Your denial of the possibility of dire consequences is based merely on your own ignorance.

I'll take the research, thank you.

1. You have no evidence that the model has been verified over decades, when it has been tuned to reproduce those decades.

2. You have no evidence that the assumptions fed into the model are physical

3. You have no evidence that warming will produce "dire consequences" and neither do they. The model did not produce a big red banner saying "X species were destroyed" - the modellers were giving their extremely non-expert opinion on biological diversity, ignoring the fact that all life on planet earth has evolved to adapt to climate change.

4. You cannot say that we "deny the possibility of dire consequences". What we can say is that this argument that if climate does continue to warm, some species will thrive and some will do less well - which is the story of life on Earth. What are the dire consequences that have not happened before?

How can anyone deny a future that has not happened? I remember religious people claiming that non-believers were "denying the future Apocalypse and the Final Judgment of God" and that the signs of the End Times were "all around us". The "research" was of similar quality.

There is no difference substantially, between those who use the pronouncements of climate modellers to announce Apocalyptic futures unless we repent of our high carbon ways and seek salvation through "sustainability" and the behavior of religious zealots predicting the End of the World unless we repent of our sins against God.

They are both irrational and they properly deserve skepticism.

 

[Diamond]

Climateaudit is well know for not only removing posts that disagree with McIntyre, but actually going so far as to change the content of posts.

As far as I am aware, Steve McIntyre has removed off-topic comments and references to religion, which he does not want on his blog. He has never changed the content of posts except to update them with new information and to make updates in the light of new information, which appear to be well flagged up as Updates.

You have no evidence that McIntyre changes the content of posts ex-post facto without warning or explanation.

There are many, many comments and commenters who disagree with Steve McIntyre on CA. You must be looking at a different blog to the rest of us. Comments are not pre-screened - unlike RealClimate where comments are deleted without comment or publication all of the time, which frustrates even the cheerleaders.

 

[a_unique_person]

1. You have no evidence that the model has been verified over decades, when it has been tuned to reproduce those decades.

Sure, you tune it against half the temperature record, then let it run against the rest of the temperature record.

2. You have no evidence that the assumptions fed into the model are physical

Maybe if you just show the evidence that the assumptions aren't physical, since you are making the claim.

3. You have no evidence that warming will produce "dire consequences" and neither do they. The model did not produce a big red banner saying "X species were destroyed" - the modellers were giving their extremely non-expert opinion on biological diversity, ignoring the fact that all life on planet earth has evolved to adapt to climate change.

They can't. The point is this change is happening rapidly, geological terms the blink of an eye. Adaptation is going to be very tough. Species can't just migrate easily across a landscape dotted with oceans and cities. Adaptation, by it's very nature, means the loss of those that can't adapt.

4. You cannot say that we "deny the possibility of dire consequences". What we can say is that this argument that if climate does continue to warm, some species will thrive and some will do less well - which is the story of life on Earth. What are the dire consequences that have not happened before?

The weeds will do quite well, for example.

 

[Tubbythin]

3. You have no evidence that warming will produce "dire consequences" and neither do they. The model did not produce a big red banner saying "X species were destroyed" - the modellers were giving their extremely non-expert opinion on biological diversity, ignoring the fact that all life on planet earth has evolved to adapt to climate change.

Diamond, do you understand the difference between human timescales and geological timescales?

 

[CapelDodger]

All it comes down to is you (and others) are trying to judge the 'predictive skills' of the models by pushing them beyond their capabilities. None of that changes the prediction of overall warming, which is the main takehome.

Exactly.

Piggy has used the term "drinking-straw view" to describe this sort of behaviour; varwoche brought it up years ago when they were all piling onto Mann et al; I think of it as the "Don't look at that, look at this" defence. Don't look at the Arctic (where events are very graphic), look at the tropical mid-troposphere (which is invisible to the naked eye but oh so important, and they have old blog posts to prove it).

 

[Diamond]

That's not a link to the paper, but I know of it. It concerns the ability of climate models to accurately predict regional precipitation, with particular regard to Greece. Prof Koutsoyiannis is a hydrologist, and Greece is a country where hydrology matters (there's a reason why it's famous for olives and goats).

Name me a country where hydrology does not matter.

Climate models don't pretend to predict rainfall in Greece. Greece occupies its own peculiar geographic niche, well downwind of the Atlantic but intimate with the Mediterranean. This is the very specific issue which Prof Koutsoyiannis is naturally focussed on.

Nope. He uses Greece as an example of why climate models fail on regional projections of precipitation.

In general terms (not Greek) climate models have performed very well. The current melting in the Arctic and sub-Arctic was well predicted in principle (it has been and is happening); the timescale was off but that's mostly to do with modelling ice-behaviour, which is intrinsically more complicated than climate.

I love this. A religious belief couched in pseudo-scientific language. I can predict a warming or cooling of a particular area at a specific time and then when it happens claim that "the timescale was off".

The current melting of the Arctic has happened many times before. Even in the 1920s newspapers reported big ice melts and a reduction in the ice pack with ships going to latitudes comparable with today.

Climate models have not predicted the expansion of the Antarctic ice pack, which continues to grow.

Ignoring the failures of climate models and excusing their clear problems is rather like watching believers in Sylvia Browne or John Edward counting the hits and failing to register their misses.

We'll find out what happens to Greek hydrology by observation, even if Koutsoyiannis et al come up with a good model of Eastern Mediterranean precipitation in a warming world. Which I doubt they have the resources for.

Well with 3000 years of experience of climate change, I think the Greeks are better placed than many idiots would think, especially serial idiots who are pre-disposed to believe climate scare stories concocted in a computer.

 

[Diamond]

Diamond, do you understand the difference between human timescales and geological timescales?

Yes.

Is there a point to this question?

 

[CapelDodger]

1. You have no evidence that the model has been verified over decades, when it has been tuned to reproduce those decades.

Climate models are physical models, not statistical models, so they aren't tuned to reproduce anything. Models from thirty years ago certainly weren't tuned to the last few decades (they hadn't happened at that time) but warming has occurred with an amplified effect in the Arctic just as predicted.

Over those decades you've been denying (based on no model at all) that any of this would happen.

2. You have no evidence that the assumptions fed into the model are physical

They are physical models, based on physical measurements. The only assumptions involve the albedo feedback, which are fed in from ice-behaviour models. Ice-behaviour is notoriously difficult to model. Climate is relatively simple.

What do you think about what's been happening in the Arctic? It has nothing to do with climate modelling, admittedly, but as a real-world thing it should surely take precedence.

 

[Diamond]

Sure, you tune it against half the temperature record, then let it run against the rest of the temperature record.

Without examination of whether the temperature record is reliable, you make a catastrophic error.

Also, and this is where you fall down, even if the model is tuned to the entire temperature record, the non-linear chaotic nature of climate means that outside of the calibration period, the model rapidly diverges.

This has been known since Lorenz first tried to model climate on a billiard ball earth.

Maybe if you just show the evidence that the assumptions aren't physical, since you are making the claim.

Certainly. Show me an ice core record which shows changes in carbon dioxide and methane DRIVING (ie PRECEDING) changes in temperature.

Its nearly five years since I first asked you for one and you've failed to answer.

They can't. The point is this change is happening rapidly, geological terms the blink of an eye. Adaptation is going to be very tough. Species can't just migrate easily across a landscape dotted with oceans and cities. Adaptation, by it's very nature, means the loss of those that can't adapt.

Which is the story of evolution of Planet Earth. You do believe in the Theory of Evolution don't you?

Because at the moment, you talk about species as fixed things which have never experienced climate variation.

Adaptation (read: survival) is a constant struggle which is the key filter by which evolutionary change occurs, and why all species on planet Earth are evolved to deal with a sometimes rapidly changing climate.

Extinction is also a key result of climate change. Its the story of Life on Earth - Adapt or Die.

The weeds will do quite well, for example.

Weeds are just plants that humans can't eat or make use of. Unless you're a believer in a mythical past stable climate, then weeds will have just as much opportunity or threat to survive and flourish as the rest of nature.

 

[Tubbythin]

Yes.

Is there a point to this question?

Of course...

You said...

the modellers were giving their extremely non-expert opinion on biological diversity, ignoring the fact that all life on planet earth has evolved to adapt to climate change.

ie you seem to be ignoring the fact that the climate is changing on a human timescale where as the animals that are around today have evolved over much longer timescales.

I've run a mile before. But you can't expect me to run another one in 20 seconds.

 

[Tubbythin]

Which is the story of evolution of Planet Earth. You do believe in the Theory of Evolution don't you?

Because at the moment, you talk about species as fixed things which have never experienced climate variation.

He/she did no such thing. He/she said "Adaptation is going to be very tough."

Adaptation (read: survival) is a constant struggle which is the key filter by which evolutionary change occurs, and why all species on planet Earth are evolved to deal with a sometimes rapidly changing climate.

Extinction is also a key result of climate change. Its the story of Life on Earth - Adapt or Die.

Ok. So what degree of extinction is it Ok for humans to be responsible for. 0.00000001%? 1%? 50% 99% Everything but ourselves?

 

[Diamond]

Climate models are physical models, not statistical models, so they aren't tuned to reproduce anything. Models from thirty years ago certainly weren't tuned to the last few decades (they hadn't happened at that time) but warming has occurred with an amplified effect in the Arctic just as predicted.

No it hasn't. The model scenarios of James Hansen have ALL overshot the actual warming of the last 30 years.

The models also predicted POLAR amplification of warming and yet while the Arctic has warmed, the Antarctic has COOLED down.

Once again, like a supporter of a cold reading psychic, you credit the hits and ignore the misses.

Over those decades you've been denying (based on no model at all) that any of this would happen.

It hasn't happened. In the 1970s you believed that we were on the verge of catastrophic cooling - now you believe in warming just as the temperatures have levelled off and may even be starting to decline.

How many more cycles of warming and cooling are you going to join before you realise that climate always changes, always has and always will?

They are physical models, based on physical measurements. The only assumptions involve the albedo feedback, which are fed in from ice-behaviour models. Ice-behaviour is notoriously difficult to model. Climate is relatively simple.

"Climate is relatively simple" - not as simple as the people who believe that climate models predict future climate. No-one who has actually studied mathematical modelling would make such a ridiculous assertion.

What do you think about what's been happening in the Arctic? It has nothing to do with climate modelling, admittedly, but as a real-world thing it should surely take precedence.

What do I think?

I think that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. I think that the Arctic is always either a) warming or b) cooling. There is no such thing as a stable climate.

Is the Arctic warming unusual? No. Newspaper reports and scientific papers from the 1920s and 1930s reported big melting in the Arctic and ships reaching latitudes as high or higher than today. Temperatures recorded in Greenland show temperatures as high or higher in the 1930s than today.

There is evidence that between 6 and 8 thousand years ago the Arctic pack was even smaller and may even have disappeared.

On a much longer scale, we have been been in an Ice Age (with permanent polar ice caps) for only a few million years. Over geological time, most of the time Earth has been without permanent polar ice caps.

Is climate changing? Yes, but that's trivially true because it has always changed.

Is the climate changing at an unusual rate? No. Measurements show that the rate of change of temperature is well within the normal range of climate at this stage in a glacial cycle.

 

[Diamond]

ie you seem to be ignoring the fact that the climate is changing on a human timescale where as the animals that are around today have evolved over much longer timescales.

Rubbish. Climate changes on all timescales not just geological timescales.

For example, here in Australia, the plants and animals are clearly evolved to deal with the multi-year periodic droughts that have been occurring for the last several million years.

They don't simply adapt to geological timescales, they have adapted to to changes that happen from one year to the next.

 

[lomiller]

As far as I am aware, Steve McIntyre has removed off-topic comments and references to religion, which he does not want on his blog. He has never changed the content of posts except to update them with new information and to make updates in the light of new information, which appear to be well flagged up as Updates.

You have no evidence that McIntyre changes the content of posts ex-post facto without warning or explanation.

Obviously any evidence for either blogs editorial policy is going to be strictly anecdotal. It’s telling IMO that you are more then willing to accept that as proof in one case but not the other.

In terms of anecdotal evidence, even “skeptics” who take issue with simple things like say McIntyre should publish rather then rant on a blog have reported their posts changed without notification *after* it was already responded to.