CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy

[Michael Hardner]

.

Of course they have. Has temperature increased at the predicted rate? No. That makes the predictions of the model false.

I think they have. Are you referring to the "lack of warming" comments in the email ?

Yeah, it doesn't work. As I said, either variables are missing or the data is incorrect or both.

In consensus of what? That the models are accurate? Are you kidding me? The consensus at this time would have to be that the models have been wrong.

I don't think the models themselves are being questioned by the scientific community - but as things change fairly quickly I may be wrong. What's your cite ?

[Riverwind]

I don't think it's likely that an 80C variation is considered an accurate model. Is that really true ?

The problem is the IPCC makes no attempt to sort the good models in from the bad ones and then it claims that ALL models are valid if one had somehow managed to predict some outcome. For example, take a look at planet alternating current. You can see that this model has no problems "predicting" the recent downturn but it is pretty clear that the model is garbage when you look at the hindcasts.

Climate models are complex topic and I have only brushed the surface. However, what I have seen is enough to convince me that none of these models should be taken as truth or even plausible.

I also don't think that there's a lack of warming either. This last decade was the warmest on record, wasn't it ?

The last decade is the warmest on record meme is rediculously deceptive because it means nothing because no one disputes the warming. This issue is whether the warming is slower than the models claim. Edited December 11, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

The problem is the IPCC makes no attempt to sort the good models in from the bad ones and then it claims that ALL models are valid if one had somehow managed to predict some outcome. For example, take a look at planet alternating current. You can see that this model has no problems "predicting" the recent downturn but it is pretty clear that the model is garbage when you look at the hindcasts.

Climate models are complex topic and I have only brushed the surface. However, what I have seen is enough to convince me that none of these models should be taken as truth or even plausible.

The last decade is the warmest on record meme is rediculously deceptive because it means nothing because no one disputes the warming. This issue is whether the warming is slower than the models claim.

Are you taking the models together ? It seems that there's no model with the 80C variation you indicated, and I still don't know what recent "lack of warming" you refer to - unless it's the snippet from the email.

I don't have time/knowledge to look into many models, or papers but if you have an examples of the above please post them as I'd like to see. So far, it seems to me that we have a large body of scientists looking at multiple data sets and models all pointing to the same thing, which is warming.

The Climategate emails warrant an investigation but I'm not convinced that they will do any damage to the science here.

[noahbody]

I think they have. Are you referring to the "lack of warming" comments in the email ?

I don't think the models themselves are being questioned by the scientific community - but as things change fairly quickly I may be wrong. What's your cite ?

Looking for a citation for you, I came across this. The first is a graph from the IPCC on model predictions. Note that it was published in 2007, but the actual temperature on the graph ends at 2005; temperature data from 2006 was not included. A reporter should ask them why it wasn't.

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts26.jpg

This link includes an updated graph showing how inaccurate the models' predictions have been since then:

http://www.paulmacrae.com/

[Riverwind]

It seems that there's no model with the 80C variation you indicated

You are nitpicking. The 80degC was to illustrate that the onus cannot be placed on others to prove the models wrong because they predict anything.

So far, it seems to me that we have a large body of scientists looking at multiple data sets and models all pointing to the same thing, which is warming.

The issue is how MUCH warming - not whether warming occurs. Why is it so difficult to understand? The IPCC itself says that warming could be as low as 1.5degC. There are peer reviewed papers than make the case that warming will be on the low side by looking at real data. The emails tell us that somee leading climate scientists are more than willing to exagerrate the science in order to promote their political goals. The only real question is why anyone still takes them seriously after what was revealed. Edited December 11, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Looking for a citation for you, I came across this. The first is a graph from the IPCC on model predictions. Note that it was published in 2007, but the actual temperature on the graph ends at 2005; temperature data from 2006 was not included. A reporter should ask them why it wasn't.

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts26.jpg

This link includes an updated graph showing how inaccurate the models' predictions have been since then:

http://www.paulmacrae.com/

Well, if it was published as part of a study then a scientist should do it. My question is which study was that taken from ? Where was it published and what was the data used ?

Whichever source you got it from would be a good start.

On the idea of having journalists look at scientific papers: journalists today have a hard enough job covering civic issues, government and so forth, which are more fathomable than science. And anyway don't you think there's a liberal bias ? I say leave science to the scientists.

[Michael Hardner]

You are nitpicking. The 80degC was to illustrate that the onus cannot be placed on others to prove the models wrong because they predict anything.

Fair enough, but I took it verbatim.

The issue is how MUCH warming - not whether warming occurs. Why is it so difficult to understand? The IPCC itself says that warming could be as low as 1.5degC. There are peer reviewed papers than make the case that warming will be on the low side by looking at real data. The emails tell us that somee leading climate scientists are more than willing to exagerrate the science in order to promote their political goals. The only real question is why anyone still takes them seriously after what was revealed.

I thought the issue was whether humans were causing warming. If the graphs continue to show future increases as man-made carbon increases then it seems to me we're on the same page, just in disagreement as to how long it would take us to get into trouble, no ?

[Riverwind]

just in disagreement as to how long it would take us to get into trouble, no ?

Completely wrong.

1) CO2 has a logarithmic response which means the more that gets added the less effect it has. If CO2 sensitivity is low we may never run into trouble because we will eventually have to find alternatives to burning oil no matter what the science of GHGs says.

2) There is a huge difference between saying we have 10 years to 'fix' the problem and saying we have 100 years. In the later case we can afford to wait for technologies to become economic instead trying to rig the market and cause great economic harm in the process.

3) Slower warming also makes it a lot easier to adapt. Especially since the population will start declining in next 50 years or so.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Completely wrong.

1) CO2 has a logarithmic response which means the more that gets added the less effect it has. If CO2 sensitivity is low we may never run into trouble because we will eventually have to find alternatives to burning oil no matter what the science of GHGs says.

2) There is a huge difference between saying we have 10 years to 'fix' the problem and saying we have 100 years. In the later case we can afford to wait for technologies to become economic instead trying to rig the market and cause great economic harm in the process.

3) Slower warming also makes it a lot easier to adapt. Especially since the population will start declining in next 50 years or so.

Ok, then. I would put all of these issues into the discussion of impact and response - which would necessarily be addressed if/when there is popular support for the idea that Global Warming is significantly caused by human carbon pollution.

The questions would then be - how much warming, is it too much, and what if anything can we do ?

[noahbody]

Well, if it was published as part of a study then a scientist should do it. My question is which study was that taken from ? Where was it published and what was the data used ?

Whichever source you got it from would be a good start.

It's from the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

On the idea of having journalists look at scientific papers: journalists today have a hard enough job covering civic issues, government and so forth, which are more fathomable than science. And anyway don't you think there's a liberal bias ? I say leave science to the scientists.

I think you're missing the point. By not including the 2006 data, the IPCC graph was hiding the decline.

[Riverwind]

The questions would then be - how much warming, is it too much, and what if anything can we do ?

The better question is even if one accepts that we could 'do something' one must ask if the money/resources are better spent elsewhere. That is my opinion. The cost of reducing CO2 by any meaningfully amount is astronomical and if we are willing to spend that kind of money on 'social welfare' then there are better ways to accomplish more with less money.

[Michael Hardner]

It's from the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

I think you're missing the point. By not including the 2006 data, the IPCC graph was hiding the decline.

Ok - well give us a link and let's look into it. I will tell you this, that I will be looking to other scientists first to comment on the study.`

[Michael Hardner]

The better question is even if one accepts that we could 'do something' one must ask if the money/resources are better spent elsewhere. That is my opinion. The cost of reducing CO2 by any meaningfully amount is astronomical and if we are willing to spend that kind of money on 'social welfare' then there are better ways to accomplish more with less money.

I think we're saying the same thing there.

[myata]

I'm going to propose a practical way out of the sceptical stalemate to anybody genuinely interested in finding a scientific answer to their concerns. Participating sceptic raises an issue with a particular piece of research, model, etc. The issue is addressed in a discussion on this board.

There's a short list of common sense and intuitive conventions to make the discussion meaningful:

1) No flooding: one issue per sceptic poster, everybody's time here being finite;

2) Specifics and details: issue can be raised about specific, particular research, result, conclusion, set of input data and so on. No meaningless generalisations like "models...", "data sets...", "scientists...", "science" are allowed.

3) Correctness: issues, questions and arguments are formulated in the correct language (in the context of applicable discipline). Discussion is terminated if it becomes clear that scientifically meaningful dialogue could not be maintaned (setting a hard maximum of, say, 7 meaningless statements per discussion).

4) Proofability: all statements are formulated as either scientifically correct (as above) original deductions, or references to peer reviewed publications in the professional media of the applicable discipline. No general web "quote mining".

Does it make sense & any takers (on either side of the debate)?

[Michael Hardner]

I'm going to propose a practical way out of the sceptical stalemate to anybody genuinely interested in finding a scientific answer to their concerns. Participating sceptic raises an issue with a particular piece of research, model, etc. The issue is addressed in a discussion on this board.

There's a short list of common sense and intuitive conventions to make the discussion meaningful:

1) No flooding: one issue per sceptic poster, everybody's time here being finite;

2) Specifics and details: issue can be raised about specific, particular research, result, conclusion, set of input data and so on. No meaningless generalisations like "models...", "data sets...", "scientists...", "science" are allowed.

3) Correctness: issues, questions and arguments are formulated in the correct language (in the context of applicable discipline). Discussion is terminated if it becomes clear that scientifically meaningful dialogue could not be maintaned (setting a hard maximum of, say, 7 meaningless statements per discussion).

4) Proofability: all statements are formulated as either scientifically correct (as above) original deductions, or references to peer reviewed publications in the professional media of the applicable discipline. No general web "quote mining".

Does it make sense & any takers (on either side of the debate)?

I think it would make sense to have one thread per skeptic/defender and at some point they're closed off when the issue is resolved or deemed unresolvable.

Who would defend though ?

[wyly]

Looking for a citation for you, I came across this. The first is a graph from the IPCC on model predictions. Note that it was published in 2007, but the actual temperature on the graph ends at 2005; temperature data from 2006 was not included. A reporter should ask them why it wasn't.

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts26.jpg

rarely will you find anything published with the preceeding years figures, it takes time to assemble all the data...don't go looking for 2009 graphs in January 2010, the most complete data will be of 2008...

This link includes an updated graph showing how inaccurate the models' predictions have been since then:

http://www.paulmacrae.com/

cherry picking data from a denier site, short term and incomplete...long term data has proven to be too conservative and less than observed temps...denier sites love nothing more than to pick their graphs that start with a warm year and end with following cool year, standing back and looking at the bigger picture they never do...one of their favourites, start with an an uber el Nino year of '98 and end it with the la Nina of 08... Edited December 11, 2009 by wyly

[wyly]

Completely wrong.

1) CO2 has a logarithmic response which means the more that gets added the less effect it has. If CO2 sensitivity is low we may never run into trouble because we will eventually have to find alternatives to burning oil no matter what the science of GHGs says.

BS...post the evidence.... no, denier blog sites are not acceptable

2) There is a huge difference between saying we have 10 years to 'fix' the problem and saying we have 100 years. In the later case we can afford to wait for technologies to become economic instead trying to rig the market and cause great economic harm in the process.

who has said we have 100years? post it...I have heard 10 yrs as a minimum....no we cannot wait, todays temps and damage was caused by emissions from decades ago not yesterdays emissions, the emissions today will make their effect known decades from now...

3) Slower warming also makes it a lot easier to adapt. Especially since the population will start declining in next 50 years or so.

you have no evidence that warming will slow...you have no evdence populations will decline, that's just an assumption on your part... Edited December 11, 2009 by wyly

[waldo]

You really don't need a lot of intelligence to question the models at this point. Their predictions have shown to be false. So either the models are faulty (due to unknown variables), the data is faulty or both are faulty.

citation request:

- what models - from who/what?

- what "predictions" have shown to be false?

Looking for a citation for you, I came across this. The first is a graph from the IPCC on model predictions. Note that it was published in 2007, but the actual temperature on the graph ends at 2005; temperature data from 2006 was not included. A reporter should ask them why it wasn't.

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts26.jpg

This link includes an updated graph showing how inaccurate the models' predictions have been since then:

http://www.paulmacrae.com/

It's from the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

I think you're missing the point. By not including the 2006 data, the IPCC graph was hiding the decline.

yes - the first graphic is from the IPCC AR4... WG1/TS. The second graphic within that linked to deniers blog is most definitely not from the IPCC... that graphic is from a Christy (of UAH) Powerpoint presentation... one of the 'king' deniers!

as for the first graphic you really should understand what you're linking to before actually blindly putting it up with no comment: the full graphic (with it's actual annotation now included) Does linking to something that actually confirms the model projections help... or hinder... your case against model projections? From the IPCC report:

Previous IPCC projections of future climate changes can now be compared to recent observations, increasing confidence in short-term projections and the underlying physical understanding of committed climate change over a few decades. Projections for 1990 to 2005 carried out for the FAR and the SAR suggested global mean temperature increases of about 0.3°C and 0.15°C per decade, respectively.10 The difference between the two was due primarily to the inclusion of aerosol cooling effects in the SAR, whereas there was no quantitative basis for doing so in the FAR. Projections given in the TAR were similar to those of the SAR. These results are comparable to observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, as shown in Figure TS.26, providing broad confidence in such short-term projections. Some of this warming is the committed effect of changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases prior to the times of those earlier assessments.

as for your moronic suggestion of "hiding the decline"... want a cracker, polly? As wyly suggests, it's nothing more than a timing aspect. The IPCC’s AR4 was published in the spring of 2007... the official cut-off date for assessment towards inclusion in the report was May 2006. If scientific papers were involved, that deadline for inclusion in the AR4 was even earlier given the lag between submitting and accepting papers. What this really highlights is how 'dated' the IPCC AR4 report really is... and why many scientists claim it's findings are too conservative in relation to most recent published study findings.

I'll keep putting this previous MLW post link forward as it speaks to the robust results of model comparisons to observations: in particular the Rhamstorf et al 2007 study - abstract

as for the second denier bloggers post of the Christy graphic, apparently everything is so self-explanatory in denier world... the blogger also blindly drops the graphic without actually offering any comment about it. In regards that graphic, would you actually like to speak to HadCrut data over the last decade... it's actually one of the datasets that shows less warming (not cooling) than other surface temperature datasets... given Hackergate, it would be poetic to see a MLW denier come forward and champion the case for HadCrut data within that Christy graphic Would you actually like to speak to UAH lower tropospheric data over the last decade? Would you actually like to say anything specific, polly?

[jbg]

I recently came across an article a friend of mine wrote on the CBC's Rex Murphy and his views on climate change. You can read it here. It's a short article and to the point, so a lot of the details of the story are missing but you can easily pick up on them with a simple Google search. What are you thoughts on the whole "climategate" speculations? Should Rex Murphy be allowed to "spout nonsense" or should he be held to higher standards of fact-checking? I'd be interested to get all of your opinions on this.

You buy this "hockey stick" and other global warming nonesense hook, line and sinker. At least Murphy doesn't spout this childish nonesense as a shill for Powercorp. and Desmairis.

[noahbody]

yes - the first graphic is from the IPCC AR4... WG1/TS. The second graphic within that linked to deniers blog is most definitely not from the IPCC... that graphic is from a Christy (of UAH) Powerpoint presentation... one of the 'king' deniers!

The first graph is the latest information available on the IPCC site. They have failed to update it, but we can assume from recent comments, to paraphrase we might have to wait 10 or 15 years for warming to continue," that the Christy satellite graph is correct. If you want to provide a citation that can disprove it go ahead. Something better than "one of the 'king' deniers." He was a lead author for the 2001 IPCC report and he does believe man impacts climate. He just believes the consequences are grossly exaggerated. So if you don't believe in doom, you're a king denier? Please.

Does linking to something that actually confirms the model projections help... or hinder... your case against model projections?

Are you saying model projects are accurate?

as for your moronic suggestion of "hiding the decline"... want a cracker, polly? As wyly suggests, it's nothing more than a timing aspect. The IPCC’s AR4 was published in the spring of 2007... the official cut-off date for assessment towards inclusion in the report was May 2006.

If you're making a report to policy-makers who could be investing a trillion dollars, you'd better report any relevant new discoveries. Turing a blind eye is incredibly deceitful. As I've said, they still haven't updated the information on their site, years later.

[waldo]

yes - the first graphic is from the IPCC AR4... WG1/TS. The second graphic within that linked to deniers blog is most definitely not from the IPCC... that graphic is from a Christy (of UAH) Powerpoint presentation... one of the 'king' deniers!

as for the first graphic you really should understand what you're linking to before actually blindly putting it up with no comment: the full graphic (with it's actual annotation now included) Does linking to something that actually confirms the model projections help... or hinder... your case against model projections? From the IPCC report:

Previous IPCC projections of future climate changes can now be compared to recent observations, increasing confidence in short-term projections and the underlying physical understanding of committed climate change over a few decades. Projections for 1990 to 2005 carried out for the FAR and the SAR suggested global mean temperature increases of about 0.3°C and 0.15°C per decade, respectively.10 The difference between the two was due primarily to the inclusion of aerosol cooling effects in the SAR, whereas there was no quantitative basis for doing so in the FAR. Projections given in the TAR were similar to those of the SAR. These results are comparable to observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, as shown in Figure TS.26, providing broad confidence in such short-term projections. Some of this warming is the committed effect of changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases prior to the times of those earlier assessments.

as for your moronic suggestion of "hiding the decline"... want a cracker, polly? As wyly suggests, it's nothing more than a timing aspect. The IPCC’s AR4 was published in the spring of 2007... the official cut-off date for assessment towards inclusion in the report was May 2006. If scientific papers were involved, that deadline for inclusion in the AR4 was even earlier given the lag between submitting and accepting papers. What this really highlights is how 'dated' the IPCC AR4 report really is... and why many scientists claim it's findings are too conservative in relation to most recent published study findings.

I'll keep putting this previous MLW post link forward as it speaks to the robust results of model comparisons to observations: in particular the Rhamstorf et al 2007 study - abstract

as for the second denier bloggers post of the Christy graphic, apparently everything is so self-explanatory in denier world... the blogger also blindly drops the graphic without actually offering any comment about it. In regards that graphic, would you actually like to speak to HadCrut data over the last decade... it's actually one of the datasets that shows less warming (not cooling) than other surface temperature datasets... given Hackergate, it would be poetic to see a MLW denier come forward and champion the case for HadCrut data within that Christy graphic Would you actually like to speak to UAH lower tropospheric data over the last decade? Would you actually like to say anything specific, polly?

The first graph is the latest information available on the IPCC site. They have failed to update it, but we can assume from recent comments, to paraphrase we might have to wait 10 or 15 years for warming to continue," that the Christy satellite graph is correct. If you want to provide a citation that can disprove it go ahead. Something better than "one of the 'king' deniers." He was a lead author for the 2001 IPCC report and he does believe man impacts climate. He just believes the consequences are grossly exaggerated. So if you don't believe in doom, you're a king denier? Please.

Are you saying model projects are accurate?

If you're making a report to policy-makers who could be investing a trillion dollars, you'd better report any relevant new discoveries. Turing a blind eye is incredibly deceitful. As I've said, they still haven't updated the information on their site, years later.

ha! Hey, thanks for accepting my statement that the second graph actually originates from Christy... neither you or your go-to denier blogger bothered to mention that little ditty... or actually knew where it originated from. If you're suggesting the IPCC hasn't updated AR4, well... it's closed... but have a look for working outlines toward AR5 - they're there

is that graph a, as you state, "Christy satellite graph"?... one that includes surface temperatures from HadCrut? Oh my! But, hey now... are you suggesting that satellite data does not confirm that global warming is occurring? Just exactly what are you saying... other than blindly dropping links. Ya, Christy says a lot of things, and he and his cohort Spencer have been responsible for much of the false propagation of denier claims. Want a blind link - here => Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say? Frankly, I could care less what you think of that linked article or the direct negative references it assigns towards Christy. It's clear you haven't a clue on anything you've offered or stated to-date.

as for model projections - comparisons to observations... I offered you reference to the IPCC itself, to a previous MLW post, as well as a often cited study. It's clear you thought you had something negative to say about the models by dropping blind links to two graphics... it's rather unfortunate for you that one of those graphics counters your own premise. If you really have something to say about the models... if you can really do anything other than drop blind links... or parrot to the tune "of hiding the decline"... go for it!

[noahbody]

ha! Hey, thanks for accepting my statement that the second graph actually originates from Christy... neither you or your go-to denier blogger bothered to mention that little ditty... or actually knew where it originated from.

I did look into its origin. Sorry to disappoint you. Are you able to dispute the data?

If you're suggesting the IPCC hasn't updated AR4, well... it's closed... but have a look for working outlines toward AR5 - they're there

Show me a link that states global temperatures for the years 2006 to present. Thanks.

But, hey now... are you suggesting that satellite data does not confirm that global warming is occurring?

Not at the rate that the models predicted. That's what I'm saying. Show me a citation that says temperature is rising at the rate the models predicted. Thanks.

Ya, Christy says a lot of things, and he and his cohort Spencer have been responsible for much of the false propagation of denier claims.

And his claims can't be right, because he doesn't agree with you. I see your point.

Frankly, I could care less what you think of that linked article or the direct negative references it assigns towards Christy.

Try debating his findings. That's science. You're attacking like a politician. Which is the problem with the entire debate.

Edited December 12, 2009 by noahbody

[waldo]

I did look into its origin. Sorry to disappoint you. Are you able to dispute the data?

BS - you never heard of Christy before... all you did was drop a blind link to the blogger - that's all you did... without uttering a peep. Since you appear to want to advocate for Christy... now that you actually have it pointed out to you that it was his graphic... exactly what is it you're trying to say (for Christy) in terms of that graphic. What's on the graphic and what are you saying in relation to models? Make your case for that graphic... do you have any data to back it up... and related studies? Any actual reference to what Christy might presume to suggest it says. Anything? Anything, at all?

What? No comment about the actual IPCC graphic and your misinterpretation of it... that, somehow, you felt it actually helped your argument against models?

Show me a link that states global temperatures for the years 2006 to present. Thanks.

The current data from all the various compilations are readily available from the respective 'owners'... regular, monthly updates are provided, on queue... to the masses that await the monthly updates. Full archives are also available - knock yourself out.

Not at the rate that the models predicted. That's what I'm saying. Show me a citation that says temperature is rising at the rate the models predicted. Thanks.

I quoted directly from the IPCC report... I provided you a link to an oft cited study... the models are adhering to the projected 0.2°C per decade warming. You've yet to cite anything - all you've done is drop a blind link to a denier blogger who himself didn't even comment on a graphic you appear to be fixated on. Are you able to reference a published paper that speaks to the models not performing as projected?

And his claims can't be right, because he doesn't agree with you. I see your point.

Thanks for raising my lowly significance; however, it's the scientific consensus you need to target... and in that regard, Christy's positions aren't favoured. Perhaps you'd like to help champion his cause... we've had lil' buddy Riverwind reference Spencer before... off the top I can't recall anyone really mentioning Christy. Well, actually I did, when we were on a tangent about politicization; in that regard, I couldn't help but bring up the tied-at-the-hip duo, Christy/Spencer, and the attempts they made with the U.S. Congress to attempt to disprove the veracity of climate models using their now infamously incorrect UAH data. You would have read about that little dalliance of theirs if you took the time to peruse that link I (blindly) offered you... you know, the "Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?" link. Here's a couple of other links you might like... one's that speak to models, satellite data and in particular a significant role Christy played in incorrectly fostering doubt and enabling deniers - here & here. Since I seem to have your attention, don't let me forget to highlight the fact Riverwind downplayed this UAH data problem (Christy's errors) in terms of "shit happens... people make mistakes... corrections were made once realized". Apparently, throwing shit and claiming "data manipulation" appears to be a one-way street for some around here, one very selectively applied - indeed!

Try debating his findings. That's science. You're attacking like a politician. Which is the problem with the entire debate.

since we've not actually had anyone step up to present "his findings", it's somewhat difficult to state anything, either way. As I said, you could be his champion... you could actually say something, anything... about "his findings". Have at er.

[noahbody]

BS - you never heard of Christy before... all you did was drop a blind link to the blogger - that's all you did... without uttering a peep.

If you would like to make a wager that I didn't know of Christy before you mentioned his name, I'd gladly take your money. I looked into it because I knew some clown would try to dismiss the data because it was was on a 'denier's site.'

What's on the graphic and what are you saying in relation to models? Make your case for that graphic... do you have any data to back it up... and related studies?

It says that there is a great deal of uncertainty in regard to modeling climate.

Any actual reference to what Christy might presume to suggest it says. Anything? Anything, at all?

(Contacted by Fortune, Hansen acknowledges that his 1988 projections were based on a model that "slightly" overstated the warming created by a doubling in CO2 levels. His new model posits a rise of 3 degrees Celsius in global temperatures by 2100, vs. 4.2 degrees in the old one. Says Hansen, "The projections that the public has been hearing about are based on a climate sensitivity that is consistent with the global warming rate of the past few decades." Christy's response: "Hansen at least admits his 1988 forecasts were wrong, but doesn't say they were way wrong, not 'slightly,' as he states." Christy also claims that even Hansen's revised models grossly overestimated the amount of warming that has actually occurred.)

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm

I first visited that site on Friday, if you'd like to double my money.

What? No comment about the actual IPCC graphic and your misinterpretation of it... that, somehow, you felt it actually helped your argument against models?

I don't think I misinterpreted it at all.

The current data from all the various compilations are readily available from the respective 'owners'... regular, monthly updates are provided, on queue... to the masses that await the monthly updates. Full archives are also available - knock yourself out.

I quoted directly from the IPCC report... I provided you a link to an oft cited study... the models are adhering to the projected 0.2°C per decade warming. You've yet to cite anything - all you've done is drop a blind link to a denier blogger who himself didn't even comment on a graphic you appear to be fixated on.

I've never disputed that the models adhered to projections before 2006. It's after that that I dispute.

Are you able to reference a published paper that speaks to the models not performing as projected?

That's what the Christy graph shows. Can you show that the plotted temperatures are incorrect?

You would have read about that little dalliance of theirs if you took the time to peruse that link I (blindly) offered you... you know, the "Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?" link.

LOL! You're discounting Christy's data because of that?

As I said, you could be his champion... you could actually say something, anything... about "his findings". Have at er.

I think his findings should be debated. That's science.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think all of you folks are out to lunch! Why would we not simply hand the entire mess over to the government. We do have a guy on the peoples dime with the responsibility of the "Environment". This person gets paid by the people to handle matters specific to his Ministry. This comes under that category, and is therefore that persons responsibility, it is this person who is supposed to get to the bottom of the issue and provide recommendations to the Prime Minister.

So why is this not happening? The government employs one hell of a lot of scientists and commissions numerous reports from private sources on a regular basis. Why have they not given a solution to the problem? Why have they not been held accountable for the problems? We need to forget all the media garbage and start to place our concerns where thy belong! Why do we have a government?