[Al_U_Card]

Despite his living in the lair of the beast... this climate scientist seems to be even-handed in his assessments.

a model environment

"So, why might the simulations appear too warm? One possibility is that aerosol emissions have not declined as rapidly as assumed since 2005, causing the simulations to appear too warm. However, observations of aerosol emissions are somewhat uncertain. Also, no volcanic eruptions are present in the post-2005 simulations, although it is possible that recent moderate eruptions have had a cooling influence. In addition, solar activity post-2005 has been weaker than the simulations assume. All of these effects would make the simulations appear too warm.

There is also some recent evidence that the models with the very highest climate sensitivities may be inconsistent with the observations. Uncertainty in the observations of global temperatures is also not negligible, as shown by the red lines.

The final possible explanation is that internal climate variability has reduced the rate of warming this decade, and that some of the additional energy may be in the deep ocean instead of the atmosphere."

[Winstonm]

Temperature stalls and falls are not inconsistent with AGW - regardless of the past 10 years. What has happened to average temperatures over the past 100 years, 500 yeas, 1000 years? Average temperatures are rising.

[billw55]

 Winstonm, on 2013-June-13, 09:09, said:

Temperature stalls and falls are not inconsistent with AGW - regardless of the past 10 years. What has happened to average temperatures over the past 100 years, 500 yeas, 1000 years? Average temperatures are rising.

If the warming trend goes back 500-1000 years, then at least some component of it must be natural. How much warming was there prior to ~1800?

[Daniel1960]

 Winstonm, on 2013-June-13, 09:09, said:

Temperature stalls and falls are not inconsistent with AGW - regardless of the past 10 years. What has happened to average temperatures over the past 100 years, 500 yeas, 1000 years? Average temperatures are rising.

Average temperatures have risen during the past hundred years at a rate of ~0.6C/century. Average temperatures have also risen over the past 500, with the 1600s being considered the depths of the Little Ice Age (the 18th century temperature rise was similar to the 20th century). Concerning the last 1000 years, the jury is still out as to whether average temperatures are higher today than the height of the Medieval Warming Period. Regarding the average temperature of the last decade, the temperature rise had stalled twice in the past century, and there is no reason to suspect that this recent period is any different. The last two period lasted ~30 years each, with some suggesting that this recent period will be similar.

[Winstonm]

 billw55, on 2013-June-13, 09:47, said:

If the warming trend goes back 500-1000 years, then at least some component of it must be natural. How much warming was there prior to ~1800?

The entire science underpinning AGW is the search for the signature that signifies non-natural causes. The bulk of the denial response is to confuse the issues, cloudy the waters, and delay action as long as possible.

[hrothgar]

 billw55, on 2013-June-13, 09:47, said:

If the warming trend goes back 500-1000 years, then at least some component of it must be natural. How much warming was there prior to ~1800?

Quote

Press Release 13-072
Analysis of 2,000 Years of Climate Records Finds Global Cooling Trend Ended in the 19th Century

The most comprehensive evaluation of temperature change on Earth’s continents over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years indicates that a long-term cooling trend--caused by factors including fluctuations in the amount and distribution of heat from the sun, and increases in volcanic activity--ended late in the 19th century.

The study also finds that the 20th century ranks as the warmest or nearly the warmest century on all of the continents, except Antarctica. Africa had insufficient data to be included in the analysis.

Global warming that has occurred since the end of the 19th century reversed a persistent long-term global cooling trend, say the researchers.

http://www.nsf.gov/n...?cntn_id=127658

[Daniel1960]

 billw55, on 2013-June-13, 09:47, said:

If the warming trend goes back 500-1000 years, then at least some component of it must be natural. How much warming was there prior to ~1800?

The warming from 1600-1800 approximately equals the warming from 1800-2000. However during each bicentennial period, all the warming occurred in the second century, with the first showing equal amounts of rises and falls.

[Zelandakh]

 hrothgar, on 2013-June-13, 13:13, said:

Global warming that has occurred since the end of the 19th century reversed a persistent long-term global cooling trend, say the researchers.

 Daniel1960, on 2013-June-13, 14:05, said:

The warming from 1600-1800 approximately equals the warming from 1800-2000.

Conclusions presumably taken from the same data.

[Daniel1960]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-June-14, 03:04, said:

Conclusions presumably taken from the same data.

Quite possibly. While temperature reconstructions prior to the year 1000 show greater divergence, and have higher uncertainty, those since show a fairly similar patter. A temperature peak somewhere between 1000 and 1100 a.d., following by a longterm decline to the 1600s. The proxies then show roughly one century significant warming up to the 1700s (different proxies yield different specific dates). From then, temperatures appear to oscillate in a fairly narrow range until ~1910, when temperature began to rise up to the current 2000 range.

Just like the recent temperature data. Some people will look at the plot and see long term warming, some will see short term cooling, other will look at the entire graph and see periods of both overlapping an underlying rise.

[Al_U_Card]

Regarding models and their forecasts, William Briggs has an interesting blog post concerning ensemble forecasts and their efficacy.

Worth the read.

Specifically regarding climate models he states:

Now, are the original or adjusted ensemble forecasts any good? If so, then the models are probably getting the physics right. If not, then not. We have to check: do the validation and apply some proper score to them. Only that would tell us. We cannot, in any way, say they are wrong before we do the checking. They are certainly not wrong because they are ensemble forecasts. They could only be wrong if they fail to match reality. (The forecasts Roy S. had up a week or so ago didn’t look like they did too well, but I only glanced at his picture.)

Conclusion: ensemble forecasts are fine, even desirable since they acknowledge up front the uncertainty in the forecasts. Anything that gives a nod to chaos is a good thing.


Update: Although it is true ensemble forecasting makes sense, I do NOT claim that they do well in practice for climate models. I also dispute the notion that we have to act before we are able to verify the models. That’s nuts. If that logic held, then we would have to act on any bizarre notion that took our fancy as long as we perceived it might be a big enough threat.

Come to think of it, that’s how politicians gain power.

[Winstonm]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-June-22, 05:08, said:

Update: Although it is true ensemble forecasting makes sense, I do NOT claim that they do well in practice for climate models. I also dispute the notion that we have to act before we are able to verify the models. That’s nuts. If that logic held, then we would have to act on any bizarre notion that took our fancy as long as we perceived it might be a big enough threat.

Come to think of it, that’s how politicians gain power.[/i]

A bold non sequitur. Then we come to the italicized crux of the matter - the ideology that free markets must be protected from government. Nothing whatsoever to do with science, but politics.

Pot calling the kettle black, it seems.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2013-June-22, 07:24, said:

A bold non sequitur. Then we come to the italicized crux of the matter - the ideology that free markets must be protected from government. Nothing whatsoever to do with science, but politics.

Pot calling the kettle black, it seems.

His opinion.

Avoiding the issue does not help the discussion advance.

The models have serious flaws (because they are diverging from REAL data) and should not be used for policy decisions. Conferring "expert" or "consensus" status on their results may be IPCC policy but it is far from science, of any kind.

[Winstonm]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-June-22, 05:08, said:

Regarding models and their forecasts, William Briggs has an interesting blog post concerning ensemble forecasts and their efficacy.
Conclusion: ensemble forecasts are fine, even desirable since they acknowledge up front the uncertainty in the forecasts. Anything that gives a nod to chaos is a good thing.

Update: I also dispute the notion that we have to act before we are able to verify the models.

"Delay action because all is not known" has been used to fight regulation of the following: cigarettes, second-hand smoke, acid rain, ozone depletion, and global warming. Oddly, the same group of characters have been involved in most, if not all, of those causes.

[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2013-June-23, 17:34, said:

"Delay action because all is not known" has been used to fight regulation of the following: cigarettes, second-hand smoke, acid rain, ozone depletion, and global warming. Oddly, the same group of characters have been involved in most, if not all, of those causes.

Maybe not so oddly...

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2013-June-23, 21:42, said:

Maybe not so oddly...

Would that make them the New World Order, Illuminati, Old World Order, or just a bunch of evil people, out to destroy our beautiful planet for their own, nefarious ends?

Inquiring minds want to know before they send their cheques...

[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-June-24, 05:09, said:

Would that make them the New World Order, Illuminati, Old World Order, or just a bunch of evil people, out to destroy our beautiful planet for their own, nefarious ends?

Inquiring minds want to know before they send their cheques...

The linkages between the early tobacco denialism and climate change skeptics is well documented.
I think you primarily have a collection of left over cold warriors combined with some Jesus freaks.

Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, and Bill Nierenberg are considered prototypical examples
Merchants of Doubt has quite good treatment of the limited number of individuals involved in the denialist movement

http://en.wikipedia....chants_of_Doubt

As for sending in your check, I pretty much figure that you're collecting one in exchange for trolling the news group.

You're long history of 9-11 of a 9-11 truther suggests that you might just be a random troll, however, at this point in time you've spent years on this site doing nothing but regurgitating warmed over crap from WUWT. You got bored with the truther stuff after only a couple years so I figure that you're probably paid through some kind of associates program.

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2013-June-24, 06:31, said:

The linkages between the early tobacco denialism and climate change skeptics is well documented.
I think you primarily have a collection of left over cold warriors combined with some Jesus freaks.

Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, and Bill Nierenberg are considered prototypical examples
Merchants of Doubt has quite good treatment of the limited number of individuals involved in the denialist movement

http://en.wikipedia....chants_of_Doubt

As for sending in your check, I pretty much figure that you're collecting one in exchange for trolling the news group.

You're long history of 9-11 of a 9-11 truther suggests that you might just be a random troll, however, at this point in time you've spent years on this site doing nothing but regurgitating warmed over crap from WUWT. You got bored with the truther stuff after only a couple years so I figure that you're probably paid through some kind of associates program.

I disagree. While the tobacco companies purposefully tabled their own data in favor of "made-up" data showing no health concerns, those questioning climate change are not affiliated with any company (or cartels) and are using real scientific data (as opposed to modeled data). There are several who deny that there exist a rather large contingent of scientists who do not agree with those predicting climate catastrophes - notice I said "do not agree" as oppose to "disagree." This is significant, as John and Dana's recent paper claimed that since only 3% disagreed, that the other 97% must agree - faulty logic. The shoe appears to rest on the other foot here, as the more vocal activists are the ones denying the scientific data, in favor of selected models and projections.

Taking action may be a good preventative move, in case the more alarming predictions come true. However, risking the lives of millions of people by employing expensive and questionable actions is not acceptable. This is a classic case of the ends justifying the means, except that we do not even know if the end is accurate.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-June-24, 07:18, said:

I disagree. While the tobacco companies purposefully tabled their own data in favor of "made-up" data showing no health concerns, those questioning climate change are not affiliated with any company (or cartels) and are using real scientific data (as opposed to modeled data). There are several who deny that there exist a rather large contingent of scientists who do not agree with those predicting climate catastrophes - notice I said "do not agree" as oppose to "disagree." This is significant, as John and Dana's recent paper claimed that since only 3% disagreed, that the other 97% must agree - faulty logic. The shoe appears to rest on the other foot here, as the more vocal activists are the ones denying the scientific data, in favor of selected models and projections.

Taking action may be a good preventative move, in case the more alarming predictions come true. However, risking the lives of millions of people by employing expensive and questionable actions is not acceptable. This is a classic case of the ends justifying the means, except that we do not even know if the end is accurate.

Whatever gets you through the night, you lying, worthless, piece of ***** troll...

[Winstonm]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-June-24, 07:18, said:

Taking action may be a good preventative move, in case the more alarming predictions come true. However, risking the lives of millions of people by employing expensive and questionable actions is not acceptable. This is a classic case of the ends justifying the means, except that we do not even know if the end is accurate.

Yours could as easily be a direct quote from from The Heartland Institute, whose website once (falsely) claimed that if only the EPA had not banned DDT in the US, "some one million African, Asian, and Latin American lives could be saved annually."

Do you receive funds to promote these views?

[billw55]

 hrothgar, on 2013-June-24, 07:27, said:

Whatever gets you through the night, you lying, worthless, piece of ***** troll...

This type of rhetoric tends to mark *you* as a troll.