A Lid for the Can of Worms. Good Heavens, We'll Freeze to Death! 41

[ornerynorsk]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/

Take that, Mr. Gore.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Greg and Cajun both seem to require climate models
Please do not put words in my mouth. What I said was that IF you want to claim that you have a comprehensive model, then you need to factor in as many of the parameters, to whatever degree possible, that impact what the model is trying to predict.

==> 1 How a trained engineer could expect climate scientists to divine future unknown events..
Volcanos are part of the total climate equation, are they not? Or do you believe they don't play a role in the earth's climate? But if you believe they're part of the equation, (which I do for both short-term and long-term cycles) then you would, as you would for any intended predictive model, study past events, frequency, severity, climate impact, etc., etc., and extrapolate those trends and effects, consistent with how much effect they have, into your predictive model. In other words, you do it in the same manner than a trained engineer would expect a climate scientist to divine future unknown catastrophic hurricanes. They do claim they're going to increase both in number and intensity, do they not? In the same manner that a trained engineer would expect a climate scientist to divine future unknown temperature fluctuations.

No one is expecting the model to indicate on which day a volcano is going to erupt, but neither are the models trying to say even which year is going to be a bad hurricane year, nor what the temperature will be even for a specific year. These are macro level predictions, and that's what you expect from a future looking climate model. Macro estimates. However, these macro estimates are based on a small microscope window of historical data. That's a disconnect.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[ornerynorsk]

Bloody hell, this is better than "Who's on first" !!! Someone should copyright and publish for the comedic entertainment of future generations!

Now that we've determined that climate change won't kill us tomorrow, or even the day after tomorrow (no pun regarding the movie intended) let's tackle which came first, the chicken or the egg.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[TenPenny]

I am at a loss how to understand..

1 How a trained engineer could expect climate scientists to divine future unknown events..

When I was a lad at University, I was taught that the point of a scientific model used to predict future behavior was to, well, PREDICT FUTURE BEHAVIOR.

Now, if your contention is that climate scientists are NOT expected to predict the future, then hey, let's all agree that there is NO POINT to all of the climate change discussion, since climate scientists can't, and therefore shouldn't be expected to, predict the future.

 

[2dye4]

""Bloody hell, this is better than "Who's on first" !!! Someone should copyright and publish for the comedic entertainment of future generations!""

It is very funny, somebody is a little bit crazy here. It is completely irrational to expect climate scientists to predict volcanic eruptions of course.

Cajun says that they must to form a comprehensive model.

WHICH IS THE **** POINT.

Climate models are not designed to predict climate decades ahead no matter what the heck happens.

They are predicting the CO2 forcing part. Meaning among the many variables this one adds Y heat per X input.
Now I have been informed here that this is impossible to do, I dunno, I'm not a climate scientist.
But if this is true it renders the entire field of climate prediction an impossibility and we might as well just
forget the whole issue. Maybe that is what they want....

How many of the climate skeptics here earn a significant part of their living either directly from the carbon energy industry or
secondarily through providing goods or services to them??
There has to be some explanation for why they frame this problem into impossible corners..

 

[TenPenny]

They are predicting the CO2 forcing part. Meaning among the many variables this one adds Y heat per X input.
Now I have been informed here that this is impossible to do, I dunno, I'm not a climate scientist.
But if this is true it renders the entire field of climate prediction an impossibility and we might as well just forget the whole issue.

I can't quite understand your point. Are you suggesting that climate scientists are trying to create models, using past data, to predict what will happen in the future, as long as we have NO natural occurrences, such as volcanoes?

What, pray tell, would be the value of such a model, since it would be based on having volcanoes in the past, while assuming there will be none in the future?

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Climate models are not designed to predict climate decades ahead no matter what the heck happens.
That clears it up. Thanks.


Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[debodine]

==> Climate models are not designed to predict climate decades ahead no matter what the heck happens.

And this why I want politicians to keep their bloody hands off my wallet. They don't know the future because the climate researchers don't know the future. But politicians know that climate researchers have given them charts and statistics they can use to legislate stealing from my family to enrich carbon credit traders.

 

[ornerynorsk]

A star for you debodine! Why is it that all solutions, especially solutions to imaginary problems and potential falling-sky events ALWAYS involve the further fleecing of taxpayers and/or the further reduction of personal liberties. This is not about climate at all, it's about the further securing of the general populace more securely under the thumb of the powers that be. Fascism dressed in any other coat is still fascism.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[2dye4]

Seriously ???

Everyone would like a crystal ball to know what is coming. Yes there might be a meteorite strike the Earth, massive volcano, thermonuclear war..... the list is endless as to what might alter the climate severely.

"" Are you suggesting that climate scientists are trying to create models, using past data, to predict what will happen in the future, as long as we have NO natural occurrences, such as volcanoes?""

Slow down and listen... NO they are not making absolute predictions.. How could they..

Does this mean give up ???

There is one facet that we stand a tiny chance of fixing, actually not really because too many people "think" like some of
the opinions posted here, but still the truth is necessary even if we decide to ignore it.

 

[CajunCenturion]

It is completely irrational to expect climate scientists to predict volcanic eruptions of course.

I invite you to take a loot at this: The Physics of Climate Modeling

Since then, ever more components have been added to climate models — land, oceans, sea ice, and more recently, interactive atmospheric aerosols, atmospheric chemistry, and representations of the carbon cycle.

(emphasis mine)

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines produced sulfate aerosols that affected climate for years and offered climate modelers an unprecedented opportunity to compare models with observations.

So yes, the climate scientists ARE factoring in volcanic effects.
And there is this: Modeling the climatic effects of large explosive volcanic eruptions
The article on Volcanoes discusses volcanoes and climate.
And here is an section from the AR4 report from the IPCC that talks about volcanoes and climate models: 8.7.2.3 Volcanoes That speaks to both the need to incorporate these activities as well as the unknowns involved.

So clearly, it is not nearly irrational as you think. To reiterate what others have already said, I'm not sure you really have a good handle on what the current climate models can do and what they can't do, as well as in what aspects they are continuing to evolve.

The bottom line is that the observed temperature of the last 15 to 17 years does NOT match the predictions of the models. The models are missing something, or many things. Further, I submit that it no small part, it's the incredibly small data sample size that is a core problem. There is still much that we don't know, so now is not to time to start taking drastic actions. We need to continue to study and learn.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be good stewards of the environment, nor that we shouldn't be more judicious in our use of fossil fuels. It also doesn't mean we that we need to throw a hail mary.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[GregLocock]

They could factor in average volcano effects in the future. I can live with that. What I can't believe is that a model that is calibrated for 150 years and let run for 15 further years and that overpredicts temperatures consistently is taken seriously when it predicts calamitous temperatures (they aren't) 60 years and more out. I'd love to be the investment advisor for someone who can swallow that logic. The parrot is an ex-parrot.





Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[JJPellin]

The last video I posted a link to did not describe the true situation as well as this one. Many factors show that global warming is continuing.

Johnny Pellin

 

[TGS4]

Ummmm - so these scientists have hung their hat on atmospheric temperatures as being the cornerstone of their warming hypothesis. Then, when that measure stops indicating warming, they move the goalposts and now start to use ocean temperatures, of which we have somewhat reliable measurements for all of, what, ten years.

Oh, the stupid - it burns.

 

[TenPenny]

Slow down and listen... NO they are not making absolute predictions.. How could they..

Does this mean give up ???

There is one facet that we stand a tiny chance of fixing, actually not really because too many people "think" like some of
the opinions posted here, but still the truth is necessary even if we decide to ignore it.

Slow down and listen. What exactly is it that we "stand a tiny chance of fixing", since by YOUR OWN statements, we can't predict what is going to happen, so we don't really know what the future problems will be?

The truth is, indeed, necessary. That's why I support ongoing research and discussion. But you, and your ilk, have decided that the future is cast in stone, and want to radically change our economy based on that, while at the same time, you state repeatedly that you don't actually know what will happen, or what the causes are.

The truth is necessary, but going off half cocked simply because everyone doesn't like 'big oil' and the energy industry is completely nonsensical.

The truth is necessary, and the more ANYONE claims that 'no more discussion is necessary', the more people with intelligence will question. 'I'm a salesman, trust me' has been replaced by 'I'm a climate scientist, trust me, the science is settled'. The more I hear that, the more I recoil in horror.

 

[cranky108]

Here is more of an example of populace fleacing.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/epa-a...obal-warming/article/2536384?utm_campaign=Fox

News&utm_source=foxnews.com&utm_medium=feed

Regulations that won't solve the problem they were intended to solve. But what can you expect from people who can't hold down a regular job.

 

[ornerynorsk]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162...5-percent-certain-climate-change-is-man-made/

"They're as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe."

Funny stuff. You can't make this up. Let's emphasize our level of surety by relating it to yet another no-proof, highly debatable subject. The would-be scientific community continues to make a farce and a spectacle out of themselves, the media, and all of the Kool-aid drinkers who want to virtually enslave the population of the developed world over their perceived sense of value and ideals. Fools.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[rconnor]

No comments on the BC carbon tax? A real world example of significant scale isn’t worthy of commentary? I guess we prefer unsubstantiated comments like the following:

But politicians know that climate researchers have given them charts and statistics they can use to legislate stealing from my family to enrich carbon credit traders

…ALWAYS involve the further fleecing of taxpayers and/or the further reduction of personal liberties…Fascism dressed in any other coat is still fascism

(I could include a litany of other quotes from post before mine but I’ll give them the excuse of ignorance)

In the light of real world examples, that speak to the contrary, this is frustrating. It speaks to irrational fears and the refusal to even acknowledge evidence when presented. There’s plenty of issues to discuss in the debate but the absurdity of relating carbon taxation to fascism is beyond comprehension. The even crazier part is that orenerynorsk made a joke about Godwin’s Law then brings fascism into the mix (maybe you’re trolling your own thread…).

But onto more debatable points…

GregLocock – After a nice nod to my post (appreciated), you start off with categorically rejecting my references (well, climate science in general) because of the models discrepancy with observed temperatures. Then you refer to Kosaka & Xie 2013 (which I appreciate) that demonstrates a possible source of error and demonstrates that when that error is addressed, the results match the observed data extremely well. See the Tamino article again. Yet this works against your (and others) dismissal of climate science because it’s an example of (successful) efforts to improve the accuracy by accounting for sources of error. Specifically, it illustrates the reason why models over the last 15 years (your period in question) have been overestimated temperatures.

Furthermore, it’s an example of how the “pause” could be due to a temporary, natural effect (namely La Nina). Again, ENSO cannot be used as a physical mechanism behind climate change because it is a temporary effect that, as historically evidence shows, has no long-term trend. It is the storage (during La Nina’s) and release (during El Nino’s) of energy in the oceans. It doesn’t influence the energy imbalance and any feedback effect of ENSO (cloud coverage for example) would oscillate between the EL Nino’s and La Nina’s; therefore, it doesn’t affect long term climate.

See papers/articles on the effect of ENSO:
Here
Here
Here
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/]Here[/url]
Here
Here
[link ftp://kakapo.ucsd.edu/pub/sio_220/e03%20-%20Global%20warming/Levitus_et_al.GRL12.pdf]Here[/url]

I’ve also already linked 11 articles relating to the “pause”, plus a few new ones in this post. If you want to keep bringing it up then you best start by addressing my counter-points (papers and articles).

Now, back to models. A good break down of the history of climate models can be found here or a good FAQ on climate models here (part 1) and here (part 2) (also, Cajun’s link is a good read as well). I want to start by saying that models are not perfect and there are improvements to be made. Feedbacks, sensitivity and forcings are in constant research. As new information comes in, they are added to the models. This is not an admission of climate science being wrong, it is being scientific. This is a double standard that is frustrating when reading through skeptic blogs. IPCC is adjusting forcing values (to show marginally less anthropogenic effect or marginally increased natural effect)= GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS DEAD. IPCC is not adjusting other aspects = CONSPIRACY THEORY. Models show warming = MODELS/DATA ARE JUNK. Models show steady temperatures = GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS DEAD. Hurricanes in New York = YOU CONFUSE CLIMATE AND WEATHER (I’d agree in part). La Nina’s causing slowing of global temperatures = GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS DEAD.

Beyond anything else, my point in these posts is to demonstrate that climate science is a robust and developing field of study. It’s the reason why I’ve included link after link, paper after paper, to show this is not some scam by the UN. I want to expose you to the good science that is being done that can otherwise be carefully avoided by sticking to news outlets/blogs that just support your viewpoint.

Now let’s begin clearing some confusion when it comes to predicting volcanoes (and, possibly more importantly, ENSO for that matter).
- Models and climate scientists CANNOT PREDICT VOLCANOES AND ENSO EVENTS.
- Instead they try and use historical data to estimate the effect of both and put an average effect into the models
- Therefore, if tomorrow we had a massive volcano eruption, don’t expect models to accurately predict next year’s temperatures.
- However, as the effect of a volcano is temporary, temperatures soon recover back to normal trends (unless it’s a catastrophic eruption that flips the climate trends)
- The same applies for ENSO. Models can’t (and don’t try to) predict a double-dip La Nina or any SPECIFIC ENSO event.
- Strong single events or long streaks of just El Nino’s or just La Nina’s will affect the accuracy of models (note: the pause started during a very strong El Nino and has carried through two consecutive La Nina’s)
- Again, this is fine because they don’t affect long term trends and will average to the normal trends over long periods.

Volcanoes temporarily effect the energy balance. ENSO temporarily effects the distribution of energy around the planet. Neither has long-term effects on the energy balance which is what drives a long-term change in climate. I also really like this from the Real Climate article found below:
“And a reminder: The warming trend of the 15-year period up to 2006 was almost twice as fast as expected (0.3°C per decade, see Fig. 4 here), and (rightly) nobody cared. We published a paper in Science in 2007 where we noted this large trend, and as the first explanation for it we named “intrinsic variability within the climate system”. Which it turned out to be.”
Temporary effects cut both ways. Clear?

No? Well, see more articles/papers below:
IPCC Models comparing natural and anthropogenic effects against observations (from the 3rd assessment report, so a little outdated but still relevant and a good illustration)
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/models-2/]An analysis of the IPCC 4th Assessment[/url]
RC article on ocean heating (and some discussion on ENSO effects)
RC article on scientific error (yup, a “pro” AGW blog talking about error…how very…scientific of them)
McIntyre – desmog (because McIntyre was brought up as a case-closed argument against temperature data/models/climate science in general)
BEST data – relates to Eschenbach and McIntyre
(Yes this is a SkS article. I’m done pandering to upfront rejections. If you don’t like it, let me know what’s wrong with it. See my last point in this post.)
BEST data – Watts before and after
More McIntyre commentary re: hockey stick
Montford and McIntyre re: hockey stick, temperature records
Dessler 2011 paper (cloud cover) in response to climate sensitivity
Dessler 2011 video (cloud cover)
Surface Temperature Measurement article at SkS
Information relating to changes made to GISS
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2006/11/08/tales-from-the-thermometer/]History of surface temperature measurements from Tamino[/url]

It’s this categorical rejecting of all things climate science (well except when it’s about cooling temperatures or arctic sea ice “recovery”) that I find incredibly unscientific. This is made even worse by hypocritical acquisitions of “true believers” being blind to the “real” data. Yes, there are both on either side that outright reject data/information that doesn’t support their view. There is however middle ground where debates can be had. Start off by addressing why the references I provided are false or misleading. Use other references to back up your statements.

A quick comment about references, specifically blogs. A lot on my side scoff at WUWT articles, while the other side does the same with SkS articles. I read both (and a few others on either side). In both cases, you have to look past some rhetoric and name calling (I really think WUWT is especially bad for the latter). Both can make some good points and both can have some weak arguments. Reviewing both sides gives you a balanced approach to reviewing and interpreting the data. However, I suggest doing two things when reviewing blog posts:
(1) Critique the reliability of the information. Are papers referenced and linked? Is the source of data referenced and linked? Are the methods used in the calculations available? What sort of scales and sample periods are selected of the analysis? Does this match up with the papers linked or is it a small section of the data? If the latter, why?
(2) Look through the comments (yes, sometimes they are a cesspool of dogma and childish banter…read the comments of a Monkton article on WUWT for a great example of this). A lot of times, good arguments about the article with appear in the comments. The communities have some very educated people that will detail counter-points to the article and others will provide a rebuttal to those. You can, sometimes, learn a lot more about the articles strengths and weaknesses by reviewing the comments.

 

[ornerynorsk]

rconnor, what, precisely, would YOUR definition of fascism be?

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[cranky108]

Just so I have a clearer understanding, if we were to accept a tax on carbon, where would the money go?

If the money goes to the goverment general fund, then my elected official has a vote on how to spend it (assumption).
If the money goes to wall street or the UN, then I have no directly elected official that has to vote on how it is spent (we already had a war over this).

So if the first one is true, we can eleminate the income tax (correct)? Or part of it?

If the second be true, we should all buy guns (correct)?

What exactly is the end game?

 

[debodine]

rconnor, I respectfully take exception to only one point in your post. When you quoted from my post and gave your evaluation of my comment, the only real disagreement I have with you is your use of the word "irrational". The last 100 years of US government encroachment into far more areas than allowed for by the US Constitution (I am 58 so I will state that I have personally witnessed the last 40 years of the encroachment), and constant legislative tactics to force my family to pay for it makes my fear rational even if you believe such encroachment is for the better.

We can disagree on everything else but I am unalterably convinced that no matter how noble any cause is, I don't believe the US government can possibly do it right and they will try to bankrupt me to pay for their errors in judgment.