Eaarth

[t vago]

Yet another money quote:

[Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Studies in Germany Hans-Joachim] Schellnhuber acknowledges the difficulty of interpreting the IPCC's temperature-increase predictions for the end of the century, which range from 1.4 degrees centigrade to 5.8 degrees. "There is a certain arbitrariness," he says. "Two Japanese models, one showing a 9-degree warming and the other showing zero warming, were thrown out because they were felt to be too far outside the range. So you take all these models and average them out, and you get a 3- or 4-degree warming. What does it mean?" He shrugs. "If one model is operating on wrong principles, all of them are off."

[t vago]

And another money quote:

Back in the 1980s, climate models were very crude simulations of the greenhouse effect. The main test of a climate model is to start sometime in the past and "predict" the present, with all the temperature swings and ice ages and so forth in between. When scientists tried this out on their early models, they got silly results, such as severe ice ages occurring in the 20th century. To avoid this kind of "drift," scientists applied a sort of fudge factor to ensure a sensible outcome. This doesn't do much good when it comes to predicting the future, which may be why 1988 predictions of rapid warming by 2000 never panned out. The average temperature hasn't climbed at all.

The change adds to the models' credibility, but does it mean they are reliable in predicting the future? It doesn't, Lindzen argues. For one thing, added complexity does not ensure that the models reflect what nature is doing. Take the case of aerosols--dust and other particles in the atmosphere. Scientists realized only a few years ago that aerosols reflect light and may exert a cooling influence; their effects are poorly understood. Putting them in climate models is essentially the same thing as adding a fudge factor. "There are no records of aerosol production before the 1960s," Lindzen says. "So you have complete freedom to adjust the amount of aerosols to make the models replicate the temperature record."

[NeilBlanchard]

Science is all about the unknown. We ask questions, find some answers, and more questions are raised. There is always more unknowns.

But that doesn't invalidate the answers. The new questions will either confirm, adjust, or completely overturn the earlier answers. But, as we have gone along, reality has been worse than predicted by the models, and new data narrows the uncertainty.

We certainly do not know everything about DNA and genes, but that doesn't make our knowledge invalid! We don't know everything about Relativity, but it is certainly correct. We only confirmed the existence of Pangaea about 45 years ago, and we certainly have a lot left to learn about it, but it did really exist.

And you completely ducked the fact that anthropogenic global climate change is the scientific conclusion.

[Edit: show me where the 19th century is missing from the models, please?]

[Edit 2: that is how models work -- if they are all wrong, they chuck 'em and try again. The results have to fit the data, so that you can know they are working properly!]

[Edit 3: The BIG PICTURE is clear. All the uncertainties are small and fine tuning and help understand all the details about how it works.

Any scientist will tell you about uncertainties -- they live and breath uncertainties. The IPCC report states the uncertainties.

But the uncertainties do not negate the main conclusion!]

[dcb]

look, we can't even say if it is gonna rain tomorrow reliably, and I've known plenty of clueless scientists, and even more clueless non-scientists. There's a lot of over-ambitious models out there in a lot of disciplines that need a lot of work, no doubt. I don't think anyone here is saying how great the models are at predicting stuff, so lets move on from that, k v? DNA modeling is a walk in the park compared to the biosphere.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Science is all about the unknown. We ask questions, find some answers, and more questions are raised. There is always more unknowns.

Therefore, we have to ban all Manmade carbon dioxide now, NOW, NOW, NOW!!!!!!

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

My feelings? Not even close. My question still stands.

What is "not true" about sunspots?

You tell me, Neil. You keep on stating that a) they aren't important, or b) they're accounted for in your precious computer models when they're not.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Here's the direct relationship of carbon dioxide level with temperature:


(click on image for link)

Here's a graph that shows how my improved fuel economy has dragged down the average temperature of Akron, OH, and both are normalized to between 0 to 1.



You can clearly see my fuel economy go up, as the average temperature falls. I made my fuel economy increase, but the weather became colder as a result. It must be true, because it's in a graph form.

In other words, merely posting a graph that shows two different measurements, that happen to trend each other, does not mean that one caused the other. You keep neglecting to point out that a third cause might cause both to trend the same way.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

But that doesn't invalidate the answers. The new questions will either confirm, adjust, or completely overturn the earlier answers. But, as we have gone along, reality has been worse than predicted by the models, and new data narrows the uncertainty.

Back in the 1980s, climate models were very crude simulations of the greenhouse effect. The main test of a climate model is to start sometime in the past and "predict" the present, with all the temperature swings and ice ages and so forth in between. When scientists tried this out on their early models, they got silly results, such as severe ice ages occurring in the 20th century. To avoid this kind of "drift," scientists applied a sort of fudge factor to ensure a sensible outcome. This doesn't do much good when it comes to predicting the future, which may be why 1988 predictions of rapid warming by 2000 never panned out. The average temperature hasn't climbed at all.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

And you completely ducked the fact that anthropogenic global climate change is the scientific conclusion.

By your zealots, perhaps. Not by me. Not by others here. And certainly not by a sizeable minority of well respected scientists and professors other professionals who know much more about the details of climate than we do. Remember, Neil, science does not function as a democracy.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

But the uncertainties do not negate the main conclusion!]

Which is that there's significant and credible doubt as to the accuracy or validity of AGW. Putting your conclusions in boldface do not make them somehow true.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by dcb

look, we can't even say if it is gonna rain tomorrow reliably, and I've known plenty of clueless scientists, and even more clueless non-scientists. There's a lot of over-ambitious models out there in a lot of disciplines that need a lot of work, no doubt. I don't think anyone here is saying how great the models are at predicting stuff, so lets move on from that, k v?

Nope. The models are the heart of AGW. And as long as Neil keeps on banging the AGW drum here, I'm going to keep on point out errors in them that would cause any other theory so supported to crash and burn.

You don't base a scientific theory on a computer model that doesn't even accurately represent the environment being modeled, adjust that computer model to account for things the model didn't predict, and still claim that the model predicts theory. That's not how science works.

BTW, here's yet another money quote from that Newsweek article.

Lindzen's contrarian attitude about global warming first stirred in 1988. In the heat of an atypically hot summer in the United States, Sen. Al Gore held hearings in which prominent scientists raised fears of rapid warming. The IPCC was formed to assess the need for action. "I wrote a piece for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society saying that perhaps we should go easy on this because the case wasn't strong," Lindzen recalls. "I got people telling me that perhaps, as a Democrat, I shouldn't say that." In 1989 he spoke to an Earth Day gathering at Tufts University. "I was put down immediately," he says. "Scientists can have doubts, but environmentalists can't."

And another...

This statement contains the crux of Lindzen's beef with the global-warming establishment. What is the relationship between nature, on the one hand, and the gigantic computer models that churn out climate predictions for 100 years hence? "In the scientific methodology," he says, "simulation is the weakest link. To say you've simulated something is to say very little." To appreciate why requires a brief foray into the world of climate science.

Oh, and Neil? You need to prove that the computer models do model the 19th century. Why don't you do some real digging, for once?

[t vago]

New paper indicates 80% of warming caused by... the Sun?

Read it if you dare, Neil.

"A peer-reviewed paper [Krivova et al.] published in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) show a significant increase since the Maunder minimum in the 1600's during the Little Ice Age and shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries.....Use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation indicates that a 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity could account for an approximate .44C global temperature increase.....A significant new finding is that portions of the more energetic ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum increased by almost 50% over the 400 years since the Maunder minimum.....This is highly significant because the UV portion of the solar spectrum is the most important for heating of the oceans due to the greatest penetration beyond the surface and highest energy levels. Solar UV is capable of penetrating the ocean to depths of several meters to cause ocean heating." [N. A. Krivova, L. E. A. Vieira, S. K. Solanki 2010: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115, A12112, 11 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2010JA015431]

[t vago]

Giant solar explosion in August 2010 may force NASA to start conducting real solar research, for a change

Seems this eruption disproved the standard solar model. Under this model, such an eruption, as was seen in August of last year, should not have happened. However, it did.

Oddly enough, the standard solar model is an input to these pretty AGW computer models.

[Arragonis]

The American Meteorological Society has a new paper on recent climate variations. Peer reviewed and everything, for what that is worth given Climategate...

Abstract

The problem of separating variations due to natural and anthropogenic forcing from those due to unforced internal dynamics during the twentieth century is addressed using state-of-the-art climate simulations and observations. An unforced internal component that varies on multidecadal time scales is identified by a new statistical method that maximizes integral time scale. This component, called the Internal Multidecadal Pattern (IMP), is stochastic and hence does not contribute to trends on long time scales, but can contribute significantly to short-term trends. Observational estimates indicate that the trend in the spatially averaged \well observed" sea surface temperature (SST) due to the forced component has an approximately constant value of 0.1K/decade, while the IMP can contribute about ±0.08K/decade for a 30-year trend. The warming and cooling of the IMP matches that of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and is of sufficient amplitude to explain the acceleration in warming during 1977–2008 as compared to 1946–1977, in spite of the forced component increasing at the same rate during these two periods. The amplitude and time scale of the IMP are such that its contribution to the trend dominates that of the forced component on time scales less than 16 years, implying that the lack of warming trend during the past ten years is not statistically significant. Furthermore, since the IMP varies naturally on multi-decadal time scales, it is potentially predictable on decadal time scales, providing a scientific rationale for decadal predictions. While the IMP can contribute significantly to trends for periods of 30 years or less, it cannot account for the 0.8°C warming trend that has been observed in the twentieth century spatially averaged SST.

What this suggests is that a predictable, regular event (the IMP) causes signals which can overwhelm any AGW created signals, so how could we know what the effects or otherwise of those signals given we only have records to 1850 - is that long enough in planetary terms ?

For long term temp records only ice cores or really reliable. Tree cores are far less reliable. Anyone want to google the lonseome pine and global warming ?

There is so much doubt in this science we may as well have a tax on Smarties causing wind, a kind of "Parp and trade" - its as much value as Cap and Trade as it would limit more powerful GHGs such as methane. And I make quite a bit of methane myself...



I suddenly feel hungry.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by dcb

I'm asking for supporting evidence (links, data), not color commentary.

It's been given time and again, should you wish to see it.

The questions were directed at arragonis fyi.

You happen to be on an internet forum.
If you want to ask one particular member a particular question, please use private messages.