On page 29 you’ll see results of temperature trends using model with natural forcings (doesn’t match historical). On page 29 you’ll see results when man-made forcings are added (matches the historical hockey stick graph).
Melone –
Actually with respect to ocean temperatures, the models do better at predicting the long-term behavior than the short term behavior. I have pulled out page 32 of 71 of link above into a 1-page pdf document which is easier to read:
Lcruiser – I have no idea what are the answers to your questions. One would assume that thousands of the world’s most respected climatologists in the IPCC had a better idea than me, and factored this into their projections and uncertainty statements.
I went back and looked at the Hadley Center’s publication on uncertainy:
It seems like they use a very logical approach to attempt to quantify their uncertainty. They examine how much does changing a certain parameter assumed value affect their results.
But then on page 9 of 16 there is this interesting tid-bit:
The uncertainty results presented in this report are a new refinement in the technique of making climate predictions with complex climate models. Work still remains to investigate the uncertainty caused by changing more of the model’s parameters, including those in the ocean and carbon cycle, or by making large changes in the structure of the model. Before the results are robust enough to be used for planning, it will also be necessary to establish if the more extreme simulated changes are associated with model versions that simulate observed climate well or poorly. The predictions can then be weighted accordingly.
One has to admire them for their candidness, but critics can easily interpret their phrase “before the results are robust enough to be used for planning, it will also be necessary to…” as implying that their results are not yet a suitable basis for planning or taking action. Hmmm.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
Sorry electricpete, you have demonstrated time and time again that you do not (or will not) understand that the Hadley Centre is irrelevent to a factual discussion in this matter by ignoring the fact they have a mission - to increase their funding by promoting alarmism and barking the government line. You keep quoting them time after time. The latest link you posted on your site showing how climate should have been cooling over the last 40 years is only the latest, and disagrees with accepted science that we are under a peak now and should begin to cool:
Hadley was selected by world-leading scientists of the IPCC to provide input to that international team.
They provide the most complete and balanced information I have seen. Furthermore their general conclusions regarding CO2 are in good qualitative agreement with information that I have shown in links (The Cycle Of Global Warming thread) from other organizations that have a similar level of prestige: Los Alamos National Lb, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, NASA (Hansen), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Academy of Science, MIT Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, National Academy of Science, International Panel on Climate Change.
That I should disregard their input because some guy on the internet with no credentials says they are political is ridiculous. That the only credible source offered in alternative is Pielke is even more ridiculous. I think that any level-headed neutral observer can easily look at the quotes I cited from Pielke regarding recent ocean warming news and come to the conclusion that these comments are misleading (in a direction that supports Pielke's conclusions). Can you possibly disagree that these comments were misleading? Do I need to explain it again?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
Actually, we shouldn't exclude anyone's input. We should just consider their motivation and their credibility.
I am nowhere close to being convinced that Hadley is not credible. The only negative I see about Hadley is what appears from posters in this thread.
I have already voiced my objections to Pielke. (I would still like to know whether you consider those ocean comments miseading). In spite of my objections, I think his comments certainly can be considered along with the other in the debate.
I think the tendency to throw out opinions that don't match your preconceptions is a dangerous one. I am guilty of it to a certain extent, and I believe others are as well.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
Correction:
"I am nowhere close to being convinced that Hadley is not credible. The only negative I see about Hadley is what appears from posters in this thread."
"I am nowhere close to being convinced that Hadley is not credible. The only negative I see about Hadley are the opinions from posters in this thread."
This will clarify that there have been no facts, evidence, quotes etc offered to show Hadley is not a credible source, only opinions from eng-tips posters.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
I see a hodge-podge of links with meandering disussions related to global warming (certainly not all credible).
Can you do me the favor of spelling out your point?
Thanks.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but it would save me some time if you could tell me which information in which links is relevant. One link (to start) would be much more helpful than 761 links.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
The first link describes a tirade by Congressman Joe Barton.
The second link babbles about blogs and pajamas.
The third link written by "Tom Harris" who describes himself as " mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company" (I wonder who pays them)
The fourth link talks about Breast Cancer.
The fifth link is the IPCC Special Report on the challenge of carbon dioxide...
The fifth I am happy to discuss but I but I doubt that's the one that interests you.
I don't have time to look at the remaining 756 links. Hence my request for you to tell me more specifically what you are trying to say and what links might back it up.
Respectfully
electricpete
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
Is it true that, of late, scientists started to lean more on methane emissions from ocean floors as a probable cause of global warming rather than by human-originated CO2 ?
My company (an oil company) believes it is the CO2. There is a potential for large methane releases from the oceans that would cause problems.
I just found this thread. It is surprising how strong some feel (because I don't see the science, just hope) that CO2 is not significantly contributing to the trend in increased temperatures.
My company and several OEM's for machinery think there will be profit in this by storing the carbon somewhere besides the atmosphere.
Ther is no doubt there is "some" truth to it. In the middle of the page is the statement:
"Unfortunately, the argument is also fuelled by ignorance, because nobody knows for sure what is happening to the climate"
Just how much is caused by CO2, how much by land use changes decreasing transpiration which decreases albedo, how much by black carbon, how much by solar particle variations? Nobody knows, and CO2 also is the base of the food chain. So it may be we're barking up the wrong tree, and the overall effect of CO2 is beneficial.
LCruiser - is there any basis for your continued denial of conclusions widely accepted by the world's most respected scientific organizations other than Pielke (discussed at length above... no response) and the Economist?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
