Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View A perfect example of honesty
5 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2009 - 9:01AM #1
Bodean
Posts: 9,495
It is argued time and again about how the models of global warming are based on sound "physics", and as such cannot be wrong.  In contrast, many of us are not as confident in man's ability to accurately define physics, and especially "correctly apply" those physics in such a short time, and believe that it takes many trials and errors before the physics underlying natural phenomenon are sound.  A perfect example involves Daved Hathaway, who to his credit, has written a letter that admits the application of physics in solar models were wrong, the models were wrong, and hence my prediction was wrong .. regarding the solarcycle 24.

solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/10/31/d...

What are chances of the CO2 crowed comming to such a realization?
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2009 - 4:32PM #2
eadler
Posts: 4,449

What do you mean by "such a realization?  The details of the inner workings of the sun are not as well understood as the earth's climate, and we have less data about what exactly is going on inside. The prediction methods are empirical rather than based on a physical model.


solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml


  "A number of techniques are used to predict the amplitude of a cycle during     the time near and before sunspot minimum. Relationships have been found between the size     of the next cycle maximum and the length of the previous cycle, the level of activity at     sunspot minimum, and the size of the previous cycle."


So the predictions of the sun's activity are not analogous to what is done for the earth's climate at all. That said, there are many things in the models that depend on measurements, cloud behavior, and aerosals for example that have uncertainty associated with them. Measurements are ongoing. The numbers certainly aren't settled. In addition the precise tipping points that cause new phenomena to arise and cause more rapid change are also not well known, so surprises are possible, on the up side as well as the downside.



Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2009 - 8:49PM #3
Bodean
Posts: 9,495

Nov 3, 2009 -- 4:32PM, eadler wrote:


What do you mean by "such a realization?  The details of the inner workings of the sun are not as well understood as the earth's climate, and we have less data about what exactly is going on inside. The prediction methods are empirical rather than based on a physical model.


solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml


  "A number of techniques are used to predict the amplitude of a cycle during the time near and before sunspot minimum. Relationships have been found between the size of the next cycle maximum and the length of the previous cycle, the level of activity at sunspot minimum, and the size of the previous cycle."


So the predictions of the sun's activity are not analogous to what is done for the earth's climate at all. That said, there are many things in the models that depend on measurements, cloud behavior, and aerosals for example that have uncertainty associated with them. Measurements are ongoing. The numbers certainly aren't settled. In addition the precise tipping points that cause new phenomena to arise and cause more rapid change are also not well known, so surprises are possible, on the up side as well as the downside.






I beg to differ with you eadler.  There is much much much we don't know about how the Climate works.  If we knew as much as some people think we do, the physical models would be more accurate.  The accuracy in the past could very well have been due to chance, as of recent times, the record of skill regarding climate models is falling apart.


Granted, we know alot about CO2, as that is all some people study.  But we practically know nothing about the natural forcings.  And .. unfortunately, that deficit of knowledge gets plugged into the models ... and it is no coincidence, that the models are beginning to fail. Garbage in = Garbage out.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2009 - 11:05PM #4
eadler
Posts: 4,449

Nov 3, 2009 -- 8:49PM, Bodean wrote:


Nov 3, 2009 -- 4:32PM, eadler wrote:


What do you mean by "such a realization?  The details of the inner workings of the sun are not as well understood as the earth's climate, and we have less data about what exactly is going on inside. The prediction methods are empirical rather than based on a physical model.


solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml


  "A number of techniques are used to predict the amplitude of a cycle during the time near and before sunspot minimum. Relationships have been found between the size of the next cycle maximum and the length of the previous cycle, the level of activity at sunspot minimum, and the size of the previous cycle."


So the predictions of the sun's activity are not analogous to what is done for the earth's climate at all. That said, there are many things in the models that depend on measurements, cloud behavior, and aerosals for example that have uncertainty associated with them. Measurements are ongoing. The numbers certainly aren't settled. In addition the precise tipping points that cause new phenomena to arise and cause more rapid change are also not well known, so surprises are possible, on the up side as well as the downside.






I beg to differ with you eadler.  There is much much much we don't know about how the Climate works.  If we knew as much as some people think we do, the physical models would be more accurate.  The accuracy in the past could very well have been due to chance, as of recent times, the record of skill regarding climate models is falling apart.


Granted, we know alot about CO2, as that is all some people study.  But we practically know nothing about the natural forcings.  And .. unfortunately, that deficit of knowledge gets plugged into the models ... and it is no coincidence, that the models are beginning to fail. Garbage in = Garbage out.




I don't think many people are studying CO2 right now.. It is an old well explored subject. It's spectrum is well known.


They are studying the flow of CO2 in order to understand the location of  sources and sinks, but that is the least of the problems with calculating the future of the climate.


Clouds and aerosals are the most uncertain aspect of climate and are therefore getting the most study. Ice is also important as  a feedback mechanism. This can be seen from the graphic showing the size and uncertainty of the radiative forcing factor.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-for...


 


What is the evidence  that the models are "beginning to fail"?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 04, 2009 - 5:28AM #5
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 12,626
The models that are failing are exploitative, greedy and unsustainable.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 04, 2009 - 8:53AM #6
BeerLover
Posts: 1,242

"What is the evidence  that the models are "beginning to fail"?


Um, the earth itself is cooling?  Here are some excerpts from a BBC News article titled, "What Happened to Global Warming?"


"For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.


And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.


So what on Earth is going on?"


and


"One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up."


Maybe the BBC is in the pocket of Big Oil now, you tell me.  To make matters worse, scientists don't know when it will start getting hotter again, they just know that it will someday.  The larger and more destructive hurricanes will come back as well.  This was the coolest summer in memory across the entire northern U.S.  (not a localized event!)  My parents in S.D. were praying for sun and heat in September to ripen the crops.  Fall and winter aren't looking so good, either.  Commodities traders are banking on a cold winter in the fuel oil market.


I can accept a year or two as an abberation, but some scientists are saying it will be 30 years.  If CO2 is the huge driver they think it is, it should overpower all other effects. 


BL

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 04, 2009 - 9:29AM #7
BeerLover
Posts: 1,242

Oops, forget the link.  Here it is:


news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/82990...


Here's another one, just for good measure:


www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/c...


The tagline is, "Our politicians haven't noticed but the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling."


And the nugget worth pasting into this post:


"There are obviously various reasons for this concern as to whether the world can continue to feed itself, but one of them is undoubtedly the downturn in world temperatures, which has brought more cold and snow since 2007 than we have known for decades."


Now, I've seen graphs of terrestrial temperatures which show it is going up and others which have it going down.  Ditto with ocean temperature.  What does it all mean?  I'm throwing in behind the Japanese scientists which  characterize global weather models as "untested hypotheses which have now become accepted as fact."


BL

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 04, 2009 - 10:46AM #8
eadler
Posts: 4,449

Nov 4, 2009 -- 9:29AM, BeerLover wrote:


Oops, forget the link.  Here it is:


news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/82990...


Here's another one, just for good measure:


www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/c...


The tagline is, "Our politicians haven't noticed but the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling."


And the nugget worth pasting into this post:


"There are obviously various reasons for this concern as to whether the world can continue to feed itself, but one of them is undoubtedly the downturn in world temperatures, which has brought more cold and snow since 2007 than we have known for decades."


Now, I've seen graphs of terrestrial temperatures which show it is going up and others which have it going down.  Ditto with ocean temperature.  What does it all mean?  I'm throwing in behind the Japanese scientists which  characterize global weather models as "untested hypotheses which have now become accepted as fact."


BL




The articles you linked have familiar material from AGW deniers, which has been debunked over and over again. There is nothing new in them. The PDO is not a credible driver of global cooling or warming. It is not really a periodic index that can be relied on.


The year 1998 was an exceptionally strong El Nino year. If you choose 1997 or 1999 as your reference year, the idea of cooling is a non starter. There is also a difference between HADCRut and GISS temperature data sets, due to how do deal with missing data in the Arctic. As result the GISS data shows 2005 as the warmest year, because HADCRUT leaves large parts of the Arctic, where warming is most rapidly occurring, out of their temperature record.


In fact in the short term the short term fluctuations in global temperature are much stronger than the current estimated long term trend of 0.02C/year. It is senseless to argue that short term data shows that global warming is wrong or over. If you want to play this game, the seasonal data for JJA on the GISS web site is 0.6 which is the highest temperature anomaly since 1998 which registered 0.67.


data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB...


The right way to look at this is discussed in the following link.


tamino.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/dont-get...


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 04, 2009 - 8:16PM #9
Bodean
Posts: 9,495

To be fair .. since I am a scientists, Spencer has come out and commented on Lindzen's work at WUWT.


wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/spencer-o...


The wonderful thing about Lindzen, as opposed to the AGW zealots, is that he actually makes his data and methods available for replication and scrutiny.  Can't say this for the likes of Mann and Briffa and Jones, who prefer to work in secret, and have the world accept their garbage as fact pro bono.


At anyrate, Spencer notes that the coupled models react similarly to the ERBE data, showing an increase in radiation, as opposed to the ASIM models.  Spencer notes, however, that these studies are not capable of studying feedback, which is what he is interested in.  He still believes the climate is less sensitive than the models predict, but for different reasons.  NOW .. that's called science.


too bad Gavin and the gang dont' have a clue what science is.


OTOH .. I'll echo BL ... the globe has seen no warming in the last 7 years since 2002, regardless of what database you use. 


www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/fr...


In fact, they all show a decreasing trend in temperature.  I choose 2002 to exclude the 1998 elnino and the 2000 lanina.  however, even if you do include these, they still show no warming. [accept Hansen's shenanigan, which is so discredited that he should be fired and the record taken off the books]


www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/fr...


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2009 - 8:31AM #10
eadler
Posts: 4,449

Nov 4, 2009 -- 8:16PM, Bodean wrote:


To be fair .. since I am a scientists, Spencer has come out and commented on Lindzen's work at WUWT.


wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/spencer-o...


The wonderful thing about Lindzen, as opposed to the AGW zealots, is that he actually makes his data and methods available for replication and scrutiny.  Can't say this for the likes of Mann and Briffa and Jones, who prefer to work in secret, and have the world accept their garbage as fact pro bono.



They give a pretty good account of their work and thinking on Yamal in the following. It has plenty of detail. I shows that McIntyre is full of --it.


www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yama...


www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yama...


 


At anyrate, Spencer notes that the coupled models react similarly to the ERBE data, showing an increase in radiation, as opposed to the ASIM models.  Spencer notes, however, that these studies are not capable of studying feedback, which is what he is interested in.  He still believes the climate is less sensitive than the models predict, but for different reasons.  NOW .. that's called science.



Spencer  hasn't published anything so it is not science yet. I am pretty sure that Lindzen is going to be badly embarrassed by what he has published. The fact that inappropriate models were used was pointed out by James Annan in his blog, as I noted previously. There seem to  errors in Lindzen and Choi's calculations according to Spencer, in addition to the fact that they cherry picked oddball data, and they are not looking at the long time feedbacks that the GCM's calculate. Lindzen and Choi are certainly not science.


too bad Gavin and the gang dont' have a clue what science is.



Your judgement is suspect. You thought Linzen and Choi's paper was big. It turns out to be a big mistake, as I suspected.


 


OTOH .. I'll echo BL ... the globe has seen no warming in the last 7 years since 2002, regardless of what database you use. 


www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/fr...


In fact, they all show a decreasing trend in temperature.  I choose 2002 to exclude the 1998 elnino and the 2000 lanina.  however, even if you do include these, they still show no warming. [accept Hansen's shenanigan, which is so discredited that he should be fired and the record taken off the books]


www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/fr...


 




This argument shows that you are not a scientist. The graphs you produced show no error bars for straight line fit for the different temperature data, The confidence that the slope is negative is not shown.


Whatever your opinion, unbiased statisticians reject it.


 


www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-...


"Statisticians reject global cooling


WASHINGTON — Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book.


Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.


In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.


"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.


....


The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.


Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880."


Realclimate has had many posts debunking this idea.


www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2...


"The bottom line is: the observed warming over the last decade is 100% consistent with the expected anthropogenic warming trend of 0.2 ºC per decade, superimposed with short-term natural variability. It is no different in this respect from the two decades before. And with an El Niño developing in the Pacific right now, we wouldn’t be surprised if more temperature records were to be broken over the coming year or so."


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook