Nations walk out on Canada

[Moonbox]

think about what you're saying ...the models projected lower increases than observed data...the models were too conservative!...do you undertsand now?...as well as models with only natural forcings did not match observed data, not until anthropogenic forcings were added did observed data and models match...

All I understand is that the models were WRONG. It doesn't matter whether they were too conservative or too aggressive. They weren't accurate. This isn't evidence that we are not warming the Earth, but it IS evidence that the models aren't reliable.

[Moonbox]

basic rule of science, nothing happens for no reason...action and reaction...cause and effect...

Problem is that we clearly don't understand the causes, have proven we CANNOT predict the effect and thus our conclusions are nothing better than guesses.

[wyly]

All I understand is that the models were WRONG. It doesn't matter whether they were too conservative or too aggressive. They weren't accurate. This isn't evidence that we are not warming the Earth, but it IS evidence that the models aren't reliable.

:rolleyes:the globe is warming faster than model projections so it is not actually warming...does this make sense to you???....the trend line of the models actually does reflect the warming very well, and no model can ever exactly predict day to day, month to month or year to year...

[wyly]

Problem is that we clearly don't understand the causes, have proven we CANNOT predict the effect and thus our conclusions are nothing better than guesses.

the truth is you don't know the causes, climatologists do...models without anthropogenic causes show no warming, once CO2 and other anthropogenic causes are added the projections match the observed data...NO denier has come up with a natural forcing that explains the temperature rise, only CO2 fits...

[Riverwind]

the trend line of the models actually does reflect the warming very well

You really need to stop making stuff up. The climate models predicted way more warming than has occurred. This applies to surface temperatures, ocean heat content and tropospheric temperatures.

More importantly, other scientists have developed models based on ocean currents and successfully predicted the current cooling period so if you want to rely on hand waving "temps went up so the models are right" argument then you have to accept that other models that predicted that "temps would rise and then decline slightly" because those models are a lot closer to being right.

Here is a reference to the paper: http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/10/skeptic-got-it-right-warmist-theories.html

The original is not available online.

[Riverwind]

the truth is you don't know the causes, climatologists do.

Prove it. Where is the real conclusive evidence that supports their claims? hint: computer models don't count as real evidence.

Only CO2 fits is one starts with data contaiminated by UHI and then carefully picks values for unknowns like aerosol forcings. The net result will be a climate model that shows anything they want it to show. It is a well known process called curve fitting which has fooled many people into believing they had found a causal relationship when none exists.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Riverwind

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It would seem to me that we are in another natural cycle. The earth warms up and the earth cools down. We have ice ages and warming periods, and there is data to support this. Those facts are not in dispute. The thing that is new is simply the finger pointing and the potential windfall of dollars some some groups and some individuals. We cannot stand in natures way on any kind of large scale. Yes we can and do control specific pieces of nature and use them to our advantage where we can, but that is not the same thing.

In truth Darwin said it best with his "Adapt or die" line. I don't give a damn who is guilty of what or at least accused of whatever, the important thing is to use science to identify and prepare for the natural conditions on the planet we live on.

[Moonbox]

:rolleyes:the globe is warming faster than model projections so it is not actually warming...does this make sense to you???....the trend line of the models actually does reflect the warming very well, and no model can ever exactly predict day to day, month to month or year to year...

WYLY! Don't be dense! I'm not saying the globe isn't warming. I'm not saying I don't believe we are warming the planet. I'm saying the models and the science aren't reliable. For all I know the oceans could boil next year. I'm not making a conclusion one way or the other.

The MODELS though, have shown that they aren't reliable. You said they made inaccurate predictions about how fast the globe would warm. That SHOULD lead people to wonder why so many people are willing to blindly accept the conclusions scientists are making from them.

Just because the models erred conservatively doesn't mean they're valid. The model had a 50% chance of doing that regardless.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Moonbox

[wyly]

You really need to stop making stuff up. The climate models predicted way more warming than has occurred. This applies to surface temperatures, ocean heat content and tropospheric temperatures.

More importantly, other scientists have developed models based on ocean currents and successfully predicted the current cooling period so if you want to rely on hand waving "temps went up so the models are right" argument then you have to accept that other models that predicted that "temps would rise and then decline slightly" because those models are a lot closer to being right.

Here is a reference to the paper: http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/10/skeptic-got-it-right-warmist-theories.html

The original is not available online.

what you're saying is you don't have peer reviewed paper to back up your evidence just another blog site....now who is making stuff up?

[wyly]

WYLY! Don't be dense! I'm not saying the globe isn't warming. I'm not saying I don't believe we are warming the planet. I'm saying the models and the science aren't reliable. For all I know the oceans could boil next year. I'm not making a conclusion one way or the other.

The MODELS though, have shown that they aren't reliable. You said they made inaccurate predictions about how fast the globe would warm. That SHOULD lead people to wonder why so many people are willing to blindly accept the conclusions scientists are making from them.

Just because the models erred conservatively doesn't mean they're valid. The model had a 50% chance of doing that regardless.

ok that's better...now if those models had all been higher than observed data you would say what? there is no global cooling...

but if you look at a graph of the projections and observed data the link is undeniable...

[Riverwind]

what you're saying is you don't have peer reviewed paper to back up your evidence just another blog site....now who is making stuff up?

Not all peer reviewed papers are available online. The paper is referenced by other peer reviewed papers published in the late 90s and you can see that in their bibliographies. The paper was real the only issue is the predictions were not quantified so it is difficult to access how right it was. But if you want wave your hands and claim that any temperature rise means the climate models were right then I can point to this paper as a model that was more accurate than the climate models.

[wyly]

It would seem to me that we are in another natural cycle. The earth warms up and the earth cools down. We have ice ages and warming periods, and there is data to support this. Those facts are not in dispute.

and on one has ever said there are not natural changes in climate...

The thing that is new is simply the finger pointing and the potential windfall of dollars some some groups and some individuals. We cannot stand in natures way on any kind of large scale. Yes we can and do control specific pieces of nature and use them to our advantage where we can, but that is not the same thing.

well there numerous scientists who would disagree with you and there research being done to slow and reverse anthropogenic warming...

In truth Darwin said it best with his "Adapt or die" line. I don't give a damn who is guilty of what or at least accused of whatever, the important thing is to use science to identify and prepare for the natural conditions on the planet we live on.

wishful thinking, complex organisms don't adapt on the time scale we are experiencing,if everything(warming trend) stays as is and have a potential 5c rise by 2100 and 10c by 2200, this is the stuff of mass extinctions...

[Riverwind]

but if you look at a graph of the projections and observed data the link is undeniable.

Yes, it is undeniable that the climate models predict more warming than has actually occurred. This result is consistent with the opinion of a number of climate scientists who feel that the effect of CO2 on the climate system is being exaggerated.

[wyly]

Not all peer reviewed papers are available online. The paper is referenced by other peer reviewed papers published in the late 90s and you can see that in their bibliographies. The paper was real the only issue is the predictions were not quantified so it is difficult to access how right it was. But if you want wave your hands and claim that any temperature rise means the climate models were right then I can point to this paper as a model that was more accurate than the climate models.

so all you have a hearsay interpretation/spin blog by a denier... just as before where the blogger didn't know CO2 was GHG... and the other site by professional agnotologist funded by a Coal company....in other words you have nothing...

and what about farming in frigid Greenland???

Edited November 5, 2009 by wyly

[Riverwind]

if everything(warming trend) stays as is and have a potential 5c rise by 2100 and 10c by 2200, this is the stuff of mass extinctions...

The chance of a 10 degC rise by 2200 is basically zero since this would mean the earth's temperature would reach levels that have never been seen in 4 billion years.

[Riverwind]

so all you have a hearsay interpretation/spin blog by a denier.

I gave you the contents of the paper. If you really believe that the blog misrepresented the contents of the paper then why don't you go find the original paper and make the case. Until then you have nothing. In any case the ocean driven model of climate is well established and others successfully predicted the recent cooling as well.

[Riverwind]

and what about farming in frigid Greenland???

link

Known for its massive ice sheets, Greenland is feeling the effects of global warming as rising temperatures have expanded the island's growing season and crops are flourishing. For the first time in hundreds of years, it has become possible to raise cattle and start dairy farms.

In other words, Greenland is only just returning to the climate that existed 1000 years ago. We have not exceed the normal range of climate variations for the planet. It is not necessary to 'explain' the current warming with something like CO2. The recent down turn in temperatures was predicted by people using the ocean driven model of climate but it was not predicted by climate models.

[Moonbox]

ok that's better...now if those models had all been higher than observed data you would say what? there is no global cooling...

No I wouldn't say that. I'd say the model was wrong and start to wonder why it was wrong. If the model was wrong then failing something outstandingly out of the ordinary you have to assume that there's something wrong with the actual model itself.

but if you look at a graph of the projections and observed data the link is undeniable...

Not at all man.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Let us set aside all the hype and models, the rhetoric from the left and the right, and just think about this. Even using the most primitive sense of logic, there appears to be a level of warming in at least some places on this earth. That trend, should it continue will cause changes to our environment. Now consider this; an awful lot of talk has been done about reductions in this and that to levels from (pick a year). Nobody has said levels of (pick a compound) will actually be reduced, but merely the growth would be slowed to some specific point in time. Now isn't that point already far into a trend that is supposed to be causing problems? So take that a step further, we are not even talking about solving a problem that some people don't even think exists!

For all this talk, not a single person wants to admit that there really isn't anything that can be done about what has already happened. So if there really is a problem it exists without any chance of resolution. In other words its all spilled milk and we are crying in our beer about something we can't do anything about anyway. So I return to my personal stance on the subject, adapt or die. Why not figure out how to live within our means? By that I really do mean finding a way to live within a budget!

[Riverwind]

So if there really is a problem it exists without any chance of resolution. In other words its all spilled milk and we are crying in our beer about something we can't do anything about anyway. So I return to my personal stance on the subject, adapt or die.

Here is a good primer on the economics of climate change:

http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/the-economics-of-climate-change-essential-knowledge/

There have been 13 – count them, 13 – studies published in the peer reviewed literature that have wrestled with the economic implications of a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GhGs) on a CO2-equivalent basis. Those 13 studies have yielded 14 estimates of what will subsequently happen to global GDP. For those who are curious, 10 of those studies assume a subsequent warming of 2.5 C; two assume that a 1 C warming would follow; and two assume a 3 C warming would follow.

Here are the estimated changes to GDP relative to a baseline scenario where no CO2e buildup occurs: +2.5%, +2.3%, +0.9%, +0.1%, no change, -0.1%. -0.4%, -0.9% -1.3%, -1.4%, -1.5% -1.7% -1.9% and -4.8%. In short, climate change will either add or subtract about one year of economic growth from the global economy in the second half of this century.

Yet despite the relatively small estimates of the costs of warming we are being told we must sacrifice as much as 3% of GDP per YEAR starting immediately in order fix the problem that may not really be a problem. AGW is not about science - it is about power and control. Edited November 5, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

if you're going to emphasize a doubt towards the independence of the selection of those statisticians... you had best show where the selection... was not. Yes - those were independently selected statisticians.

The author is a well known AGW propoganda generator. He would have shopped around until he found somebody to support his predetermined position. I provided a link to a source that illustrates how sensitive such claims are to the choice of start date and why picking 1990 as a start date is just as much a cherry pick as picking 1998. The analyses I look at start in 2001 because that is when the climate model runs used in the IPCC report start predicting the future. That makes it the only appropriate date to use when comparing model predictions to reality.

Nonsense – you would think the denialsphere would have flushed out real proof of any as you say, “shopping around”, for predetermined statisticians. The fact is these were independently selected statisticians… you just don’t like the results of their analysis. Feel free to show proof that the statisticians selected were, as you say, “shopped”.

Surely… given your 2001 year emphasis, you can’t be seriously attempting to, with credence, speak to AR4 modelling projection comparisons. Global (warming) temperature signal to variability noise ratio within only 7 years of data introduces major uncertainty to estimated trends. In that context you must be speaking to IPCC TAR (Third Assessment Report) where IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990 - right?

In that IPCC TAR context, model references used to make the IPCC projections begin their computations in 1990. We’re not talking anything new/revealing here… peer reviewed papers have, of course, already shown a comparison of IPCC projections to observed temperature – example: Rahmstorf et al. – a published paper in Science Magazine (VOL 316, 4 MAY 2007) that for comparison purposes used annual average land-ocean surface temperature from NASA GISS and the Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit for the years 1990 through 2006.

From the abstract:

We compiled the most recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Although published in 2001, these model projections are essentially independent from the observed climate data since 1990.

.

.

Overall, these observational data underscore the concerns about global climate change. Previous projections, as summarized by IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in some respects even have underestimated the change, in particular for sea level.

It is quite telling for you to state, “That makes it (2001) the only appropriate date to use when comparing model predictions to reality.” For you to suggest such a short time period since 2001, certainly, calls to question your interpretations of model comparisons (climate or otherwise)… the period since 2001, a mere 7 years, is clearly too short to make meaningful comparisons – to draw trend conclusions… to negate random fluctuations in observed comparison data to long-term projection trends.

You’ve offered previous suggestion that the Rahmstorf et al study was, as you stated, “BS”… by linking to a couple of your skeptic blog specialists who were fixated on the smoothing method and chosen parameters. I’ve read the direct exchanges (and disagreements) between Rahmstorf and one of your linked to denier bloggers… the end result being a challenge from Rahmstorf to your linked to denier blogger to publish his counter findings… that exchange was about a year ago now… interesting that nothing appears to have resulted from that challenge; i.e. the denier blogger appears not to have taken up the challenge. The bottom line appears to be a dispute as to where exactly the Rahmstorf study findings fit within the IPCC TAR projections… not whether they fit within the projections, just where they fit… even with their criticism, your denier bloggers do acknowledge the Rahmstorf study findings fit within “the center” of the IPCC TAR model projections.

In any case others have also shown that the Rahmstorf study findings – the “smoothed temperature curves” clearly lie within the IPCC TAR model projection area for any of the smoothing periods (11, 14 or 15 years), regardless of whether roughness minimization is used – emphasizing that endpoint artefacts are of no consequence.

And yet… you summarily dispatched the Rahmstorf study (previously linked to by wyly) as “BS”. Really – perhaps to skeptic bloggers and those that revere their perceived statistical “wizardry”.

You purposely negate the thrust of what's been front and center across a big part of the denialsphere in recent months/weeks... claims that global warming has been "debunked" because of, apparently, skeptic statistician's claims that temperature cooling trends have been observed in satellite temperature data. Of course you won't listen to NASA or NOAA representatives who recently reworked all their data in response to this latest denialsphere cooling trend BS... finding that no such cooling trend can be found/exists... so... fresh off another of your continuing hyped references to skeptic statisticians I thought it considerate of me to allow you to digest the review of a group of independently selected statisticians... a refreshing change for you... wouldn't you think?

The cooling trend exists depending on where you start. Anyone who says that it has not been cooling over the last 10 years is lying or incompetent.

Those independently selected statisticians looked for trends… across 2 sets of data provided to them: data from, “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.” The independently selected statisticians observed the presence of a, “distinct decades-long upward numbers trend”… while at the same time advising they, “could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set.”

For you to be fixated on a single year starting point within the last 30 years… is that your accepted time frame for considerations toward long term trending? 30 years? In any case, as mentioned, those independent statisticians could not find a cooling trend in the last 10 years of the 30 year data set numbers you prefer/reference.

If you believe that such naive claims are evidence of the "accuracy" of the climate models then you probably believe that astrology can predict the future too. The latest batch of climate models started predicting the future in Jan 2001. Since then temperatures for a number of key metrics have dropped when the climate models said the should have risen. When a proper statistical analysis is done it is possible to show that the difference between reality and the latest batch of models is too large to be explained by random weather variations. Something wrong with the models. The most plausible explaination is they exagerrate the amount of warming that is caused by the CO2.

citation request... for your "proper statistical analysis"

I note you didn't answer my citation request for your declared, "proper statistical analysis"... waiting.

It is in a paper currently going through peer review, however, the techniques used are identical to the techniques used in a recent Santer et al. paper that tried to claim that the data was consistent with the models but they choose to omit data after 1998. When these same techniques are applied to data up to the present the data is not consistent with the models. If you disagree with the techniques then you are disagreeing with the Santer et al paper that used them to support the alarmists position.

The analysis that is used in this submitted paper can be found here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/hadcrut-ncdc-and-giss-trends-through-august/

1.Since 2001 the least squares trends are -0.10 C/century, -0.90 C/century and -0.37 C/century for GISS, Hadley and NOAA respectively. The multimodel mean trends for AR4 runs forced with the A1B scenarios were +2.7 C/century and 2.4 C/century for models forced with and without volcanic aerosols respectively. These fall well outside the redcorrected ±95% confidence interval for the mean trend associated with the earth’s weather noise.

I have no difficulty finding accounts that speak to the robustness of the AR4 projected long term trends (global warming)… and that speak to the affects of short term variable influences (weather) in the models. Again, with your quoted 2001 reference, you/the skeptic blogger continue to have a fixation on short time scale tendencies.

As an aside, with your peer review mention, is this the same peer review process you described as “broken”… otherwise inferring fraud, deceit and favouritism…interesting that you would now tout “peer review” for the skeptic blogger associated with your referenced link. In any case, your referenced link describes nothing about said paper currently going through peer review (journal/magazine/publication?), not withstanding your apparent assumption “said paper” will be accepted within “said peer review process”. You raise a challenge with reference to the “techniques used”… comparing it to a “Santer et al” paper. If you really expect a reply to this, you’ll need to provide something that actually describes the techniques you’re referring to and identifies the “Santer et al” paper you’re comparing them to. Certainly, your referenced skeptic blogger’s link doesn’t speak to that level of detail or comparison.

Direct and inferred criticism/questioning that I’ve read of your referenced skeptic blogger’s ‘unpublished study’ runs the gamut from raised uncertainties associated with shorter term decadal trending (uncertainties associated with LTP/auto correction)… to whether the mean trend results for SRES A1B forcings are correct (with/without volcanic aerosols) and whether they actually fall within (or outside) the confidence limits… to whether long term variability/noise are properly handled within the multi-model analysis… to highlighting the obvious consideration that short term behaviour of individual model runs is impacted by ‘weather’ variability in the models associated with annual/decadal inter-relationships between models. Perhaps… if the skeptic bloggers “findings” gain acceptance – are published …..

But that’s it? You’re offering a refute to the veracity of the AR4 model projections… by providing a skeptic bloggers link (that includes literally a short few paragraphs offering) and suggesting peer review submission is ongoing. That’s it… that’s what you’re going with… to refute the AR4 model projections? That’s the “proper statistical analysis” you referred to… that I asked your citation for (twice). That’s it? By the way… when does “proper statistical analysis” meet “climate science” in your skeptics world... or does it?

I note you didn't provide any of your own example(s) of models that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without factoring CO2... waiting.

The planet warmed from 1910 to 1940. This warming was natural. The rate and magnitude of warming is identical to the warming from 1978 to 1998. This means there is no need for anyone to show that the warming from 1978 to 1998 was natural - that is the default assumption. The onus is on the AGW types to demonstrate that it was not natural and they cannot do that with climate models that have been tuned to match the historical record.

Your default premise/assumption doesn’t account for either the rate or magnitude at which the Earth is warming… and the models follow the historical record with appropriate and accepted/applicable forcings - without greenhouse-gas forcing, there’s simply no explanation for modern warming. Other than your unpublished blogger’s reference, do you have accepted published findings to refute the veracity of the prominent existing IPCC climate models?

I’m also getting mixed singles over your emphasis on “natural warming” and a previous comment where you accept there is a GHG problem but, given economics and energy alternatives, you advise prioritized attention should be given to methane over CO2. I’ve already provided you a linked study to advise on the implications of increased CO2 on Greenland permafrost melting and the major methane release implication. Perhaps you could clarify this (your) apparent contradiction… you emphasize all warming as “natural”, yet acknowledge a GHG problem and suggest prioritizing methane capture/disposal….. and yet you speak of warming as natural - really?

The trouble with CO2 is there are no alternatives that can provide the energy we need at cost that we can afford. What this means is any anti-CO2 policy will fail and the only question is how much money will be wasted while posturing politicians pretend to do something.

Methane is a different story since the capture and disposal of the gas actually produces energy (unlike CO2 which has limited industrial value). Since studies say it may represent as much as 1/2 of

the GHG problem

it would make sense to focus exclusively on methane for now and revist the CO2 issue in 20-30 years after we have had a chance to further develop non CO2-emitting sources of energy.

[Keepitsimple]

On the lighter side....I saw a letter to the Editor in the Star yesterday. They were referring to the "environmentalists" who have been saying that cattle-produced methane gas is a serious problem. The writer was asking if these geniuses had forgotten that North America had once had miliions upon millions of buffalo running loose - producing the same methane gas. The writer ended by saying ".......or maybe that's why their heads were so big".

[wyly]

link

In other words, Greenland is only just returning to the climate that existed 1000 years ago. We have not exceed the normal range of climate variations for the planet. It is not necessary to 'explain' the current warming with something like CO2. The recent down turn in temperatures was predicted by people using the ocean driven model of climate but it was not predicted by climate models.

sorry that doesn't work...the link you claimed is accurate says our temperature is a full degree lower than Greenlands was 1000 yrs ago, it was the insinuated reason the vikings left because it was cold like today...but then that changed when it was revealed greenland has farming in todays colder weather...

there is no definitive archeological answer for why the Viking settlements failed in Greenland...

[wyly]

Yes, it is undeniable that the climate models predict more warming than has actually occurred. This result is consistent with the opinion of a number of climate scientists who feel that the effect of CO2 on the climate system is being exaggerated.

they don't and that's what makes you a denier and not objective...IPCC projections are lower than observed data, and denier blogs you supply denying it are worthless...

[Alta4ever]

.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Alta4ever