Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[JerrySeinfeld]

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/offset:-0.16/plot/rss/from:1997

where's that warming?

[pete t teepee]

Energy is important - no, VITAL.

It's an agreed upon idea that the few may have to suffer from time to time so that the many may thrive.

Oil is the reason our standard of living is as high as it is. People like to decry oil, but oil is seriously the source of so much good in our world. Travel, medicine, warmth...all of this is thanks to oil.

Have you ever driven or walked past a car accident? A fatality? Bloody horrible. Mangled bodies and blood everywhere. It's ugly. But we all, as a society, accept that this will happen. Nobody tries to ban cars because of accidents. Because we accept the cost benefit.

Again, oil is messy stuff. But our lives are all so soooo much better because of it. This is why we accept the odd spill.

Where is this acceptable? in jerry's fantasy land? Our own justice system is saddled with a tremendous appeals process because it's based on the premise that it's better for a thousand criminals to walk free than it is to punish a single innocent person.

It's why YOU accept the odd spill. When we're done investigating a car accident, WE CLEAN IT UP! We don't throw a blanket over it and say "its fine now" so that it doesn't cut into profits. Childish analogy!

Edited September 15, 2012 by pete t teepee

[pete t teepee]

It truly is amazing isn't it? Most rivers are cleaner than they were a decade or two ago. The country has way more trees than 20 or 30 years ago. The environment is truly in great shape!

As for the oil sands, isn't it fantastic that we have this resource? We are truly blessed in this country.

Okay...innocent people die a slow horrible death. Children, parents, watch their very reason for being, the centre of their universe, slowly rot from the inside out, until they're dead and you denigrate this tragedy with an infantile trolling comment? I so...so wish you would repeat this comment while standing in Fort Chipeweyan. The closest person to you would knock your skull apart like a pinata.

I should expect no less from someone who throws out gems like "brass tax".

My 12 year old daughter has a better understanding of a colloquialism than you.

I'm arguing with an imbecile.

Washing the dishes would have been more productive.

I'm disgusted with myself for even entertaining your idiocy with replies. I'm outta here

[waldo]

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/offset:-0.16/plot/rss/from:1997

where's that warming?

is there a reason you didn't include a trendline in that graph Jer? Oh... that's right... you'd have to first understand what trending is, particularly longer-term trending - where you don't purposely target (cherry pick) from a known denier 'sweet spot' - 1997 (one of the all time warmest years on record, right Jer?). But... let's play, hey?

here's your linked 'hadcrut3' graph with a trendline added: even in your 1997 cherry-picking best, there is a positive trendline - warming is there, right Jer?

as I mentioned to you earlier, clearly a point that would have gone right by you, hadcrut3 was a known 'less warm' global surface temperature dataset (for various reasons, most particularly that it didn't include weather station data from the Arctic... you know, Jer... the place where it's warming the most!). Hadcrut3 has always been the preferred go-to dataset for deniers like you Jer! But here, let me bring you current with hadcrut4 - the dataset that has been updated to more correctly represent the Arctic (amongst other changes/improvements)... with Hadcrut4 now being a more representative global surface temperature record dataset. Have a chew on this updated hadcrut4 dataset plot... still keeping to your preferred cherry-picked 1997 date. Are you liking this plot any better Jer?

how about using GISTEMP... but still keeping to your cherry-picked 1997 date.

but c'mon Jer, let's have a look at some longer-term trending - even with the older denier preferred hadcrut3 dataset... say from 1940 forward. What do you think Jer?

or GISTEMP from 1940 forward... how's it look Jer?

Jer... where's that warming?

[waldo]

no, not at all. As I said, if you focus on the simulation scenario associated with the best estimate climate sensitivity... while using a more globally representative surface temperature dataset, you'll very much appreciate the associated IPCC FAR projection does very well - indeed. It sure highlights the projection capabilities of climate models, hey Jer?... even those early iterations, now decades old; notwithstanding ongoing advances/improvements.

notwithstanding you haven't a clue about anything you reference or anything being presented to you. We've seen your type many times before... you lay down a 'ta da' link, without you having any understanding of what you're presenting, without you actually offering any interpretation of what you're posturing over. You can't argue a single point... any ole fake skeptic denier, like you, can drop links and scurry away.

Aww - you're cute. Silly me. If only I had focussed on the simulation scenario associated with the best estimate climate sensitivity maybe that darn global warming would've happened, and then my life's work of taking core samples from glaciers in Tuktoyuktuk would have been worthwhile after all.

Or wait, that'd be you.

considering you didn't initially know what your ta-da link was even about, it's remarkable what chest-pumping bravado you come back with when your pants are at your ankles!

[waldo]

Speaking of "cherry picking" - convenient how you and you'r buds in the science department picked 1970.

It;s cute how angry these guys are. "2000-2009 is warmest!!!"

Haha. A little touchy? Being warm doesn't a trend make. Just because the world got warmer in the 90's and stayed that way in the Oughts doesn't a trend make. To say nothing of causality. These dudes are grasping at straws. And so are you.

there's nothing special about 1970... is there Jer? C'mon - step up... make your case. Sure you can!

Have you ever considered, even for an instant, that you are wrong?

If you haven't, then you aren't a scientist, you are a religious zealot, which I think we all knew all along.

wrong Jer? About warming? Really... is that your position... there is no warming - it hasn't warmed? Say you're one of those guys, Jer. Say it loudly and proudly!

[waldo]

But since you have your head in the sand, here you go.. Wait, let me quote:

"The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

a legitimate point/study worth referencing - albeit a single paper that has been challenged, right Jer? In any case, at the highest of levels, the papers premise, if accepted, is that a 'warming discrepancy' between observations and projections could be attributed to either a too high climate sensitivity estimate and/or a greater cooling influence from atmospheric aerosols. Certainly, much more could be said, drawing into many of the past discussions held on MLW concerning climate sensitivity estimate levels... and the uncertainties relative to the radiative forcing level for aerosols. Why don't you take us there, hey Jer? (I'll check back towards the middle of next week as I'll be away, sequestered, planning for our big upcoming fall OccupyMovementPalooza... can I count you in Jer?)

[jbg]

Such nonsense is why many people feel that CAGW is nothing but an income redistribution scheme invented by leftists that can't get enough political support via regular channels.

I think part income redistribution and part from their control-freak nature. They never see an activity they don't wish to regulate.

[jbg]

wrong Jer? About warming? Really... is that your position... there is no warming - it hasn't warmed? Say you're one of those guys, Jer. Say it loudly and proudly!

In your opinion, is warming normal when emerging from an Ice Age?

[jerryseinfeld1]

is there a reason you didn't include a trendline in that graph Jer? Oh... that's right... you'd have to first understand what trending is, particularly longer-term trending - where you don't purposely target (cherry pick) from a known denier 'sweet spot' - 1997 (one of the all time warmest years on record, right Jer?). But... let's play, hey?

here's your linked 'hadcrut3' graph with a trendline added: even in your 1997 cherry-picking best, there is a positive trendline - warming is there, right Jer?

as I mentioned to you earlier, clearly a point that would have gone right by you, hadcrut3 was a known 'less warm' global surface temperature dataset (for various reasons, most particularly that it didn't include weather station data from the Arctic... you know, Jer... the place where it's warming the most!). Hadcrut3 has always been the preferred go-to dataset for deniers like you Jer! But here, let me bring you current with hadcrut4 - the dataset that has been updated to more correctly represent the Arctic (amongst other changes/improvements)... with Hadcrut4 now being a more representative global surface temperature record dataset. Have a chew on this updated hadcrut4 dataset plot... still keeping to your preferred cherry-picked 1997 date. Are you liking this plot any better Jer?

how about using GISTEMP... but still keeping to your cherry-picked 1997 date.

but c'mon Jer, let's have a look at some longer-term trending - even with the older denier preferred hadcrut3 dataset... say from 1940 forward. What do you think Jer?

or GISTEMP from 1940 forward... how's it look Jer?

Jer... where's that warming?

You're awesome. I did your graph from 2010. Here's what I got:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2010/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2012/trend

hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa. You are a genius my friend, bar none.

Edited September 15, 2012 by jerryseinfeld1

[jerryseinfeld1]

there's nothing special about 1970... is there Jer? C'mon - step up... make your case. Sure you can!

wrong Jer? About warming? Really... is that your position... there is no warming - it hasn't warmed? Say you're one of those guys, Jer. Say it loudly and proudly!

I don't think anyone argues that the world is a bit warmer. Is that your bombshell?

The fact of the matter is, the predictions were wrong. And it's entirely up to you, but I think it would help your cause if the tone of your posts weren't so mean - as per "hey jer". It's not constructive and I tend to think you are doing it mostly for effect, to try to lend yourself some kind of credibility. It's annoying, so if that's your goal, then keep it up. Something tells me it is.

[jerryseinfeld1]

the uncertainties relative to the radiative forcing level for aerosols.

I think you summed it up in one word: uncertainties. Thank you. But I truly do love academics. That need for importance just cries out like a lonesome baby.

To the rest of us, the world got a little warmer then basically stayed that way for a while. To Waldo, this is a life project.

Edited September 15, 2012 by jerryseinfeld1

[GostHacked]

In your opinion, is warming normal when emerging from an Ice Age?

That's a good question.

[cybercoma]

Really? Are you really debating whether or not the predictions were incorrect?

I thought even the most ardent warmist accepted this obvious fact.

But since you have your head in the sand, here you go.. Wait, let me quote:

"The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

Maybe you should read past the first sentence if you're going to use something to support your argument that doesn't.

Just to make it explicitly clear just how wrong you are

The current best estimate and uncertainty range of the earth's climate sensitivity suggest an equilibrium increase in the earth's global mean surface temperature for forcing by anthropogenic long-lived greenhouse gases of 2.1K (range 1.5-2.3K, roughly 1 standard deviation), well in excess of the observed increase relative to the preindustrial times, about 0.8K. The discrepancy is attributed mainly to uncertainty in climate sensitivity and/or cooling forcing by anthropogenic aerosols, also highly uncertain; countervailing natural cooling and thermal lag inc limate response seem to be relatively small. Because of the great difference in atmospheric residence times of greenhouse gases and aerosols, the effect of the greenhouse gases will dominate long-term forcing and climate response. Even if the earth's climate sensitivity is at the low end of the IPCC estimated "likely" range, continued emissions of CO

₂

at the present rate would exhaust in just a few decades the shared global resource of the incremental amount of CO

₂

that can be added to the atmosphere without exceeding proposed maximum increases in GMST. If the sensitivity is greater, the allowable incremental emissions decreases sharply, essentially to zero at the present best estimate of climate sensitivity, and is actually negative for greater values of this sensitivity. As has been widely discussed elsewhere, redirecting the world's energy economy from its present reliance on fossil fuels or developing effective means of sequestering CO

₂

emissions would require immense and rapid changes in how the world meets its energy needs. Advance knowledge of the earth's climate sensitivity would be of enormous monetary value, estimated in the tens of trillions of dollar (Edmonds and Smith 2006) in terms of efficient planning and averting costs associated with abandoning fossil fuel plants or retrofitting CO

₂

sequestration systems to existing facilities. Consequently much improved knowledge of the earth's climate sensitivity is urgently and rapidly required for determining the extent of timing of reductions in CO

₂

emissions needed to limit the increase in GMST to a given value. The principal limitation to empirical determination of climate sensitivity or to the evaluation of the performance of climate models over the period of instrumental measurements is the present uncertainty in forcing by anthropogenic aerosols. This situations calls for greatly enhanced efforts to reduce this uncertainty.

Schwartz, Stephen E., Robert J. Charlson, Ralph A. Kahn, John A. Ogren, Henning Rodhe, 2010: Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?. J. Climate, 23, 2453–2464.

doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3461.1

This paper doesn't say what you think it says. It confirms that temperatures are rising and it calls for more studies on why and how to help determine the urgency with which we need to change our industrial and energy practices. As opposed to your ridiculous notion that temperature is actually decreasing and nothing needs to be done, they're confirming that something needs to be done and are asking for more studies to assess how quickly those changes need to be made. You would have known that if you actually read the paper or even just the conclusion that I transcribed.

[cybercoma]

you haven't a clue about anything you reference or anything being presented to you. We've seen your type many times before... you lay down a 'ta da' link, without you having any understanding of what you're presenting, without you actually offering any interpretation of what you're posturing over. You can't argue a single point... any ole fake skeptic denier, like you, can drop links and scurry away.

See my last reply.

[cybercoma]

Speaking of "cherry picking" - convenient how you and you'r buds in the science department picked 1970.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself and any rational point that might be hiding behind all of your dogmatic hot air. You offer that temperatures have fallen since 1998 and waldo gives you an animated graph showing exactly why the claim is ridiculous and you're going to say that he's the one cherry-picking data? He's the one that put your cherry-picked data in context.

It;s cute how angry these guys are. "2000-2009 is warmest!!!"

No one's angry, JS. People are just pointing out in explicit detail where you're wrong. You seem to think being boorish and insulting somehow substantiates your claims and it doesn't.

Have you ever considered, even for an instant, that you are wrong?

Of course he has considered it. However, you haven't provided evidence that's even remotely as compelling, let alone more compelling than the existing evidence. When you do, I'm sure you'll change some minds.

I'm not going to hold my breath though because you're completely ignorant about the topic, as we've seen with your miscomprehension of the sources over and over again. Let me guess, you punch in a few keywords on Google then run back to the forum and post your findings without ever having read the studies or even knowing the broader context of the debate the researchers are wading into.

Am I close?

It's a rhetorical question. Don't bother responding. The answer is in your posts already.

[cybercoma]

You're awesome. I did your graph from 2010. Here's what I got:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2010/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2012/trend

hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa. You are a genius my friend, bar none.

You're trying to make an argument about temperature trends with 2 years of data. Do you have any idea how stupid that is?

[jerryseinfeld1]

You're trying to make an argument about temperature trends with 2 years of data. Do you have any idea how stupid that is?

No. I'm laughing at how the green trend line goes up even when the data doesn't support it. I love science

[jerryseinfeld1]

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself and any rational point that might be hiding behind all of your dogmatic hot air. You offer that temperatures have fallen since 1998 and waldo gives you an animated graph showing exactly why the claim is ridiculous and you're going to say that he's the one cherry-picking data? He's the one that put your cherry-picked data in context.

No one's angry, JS. People are just pointing out in explicit detail where you're wrong. You seem to think being boorish and insulting somehow substantiates your claims and it doesn't.

Of course he has considered it. However, you haven't provided evidence that's even remotely as compelling, let alone more compelling than the existing evidence. When you do, I'm sure you'll change some minds.

I'm not going to hold my breath though because you're completely ignorant about the topic, as we've seen with your miscomprehension of the sources over and over again. Let me guess, you punch in a few keywords on Google then run back to the forum and post your findings without ever having read the studies or even knowing the broader context of the debate the researchers are wading into.

Am I close?

It's a rhetorical question. Don't bother responding. The answer is in your posts already.

It's not that hard, dude. The predictions were wrong. Wait, let me say that more slowly for you.

The. Predictions. Were. Wrong.

Does Waldo get some credit because the earth slightly warmed (much less than predicted) over the past decade? I suppose I could throw him that bone. Again., though, the causation doesn't really match up.

What's funny is his desperate attempt to show knowledge. Face it. We have no idea - he has no idea - what drives climate. They pay people millions of dollars to analyze the global economy, as complex as it is. And yet, for all it's complexity, the world markets are simple compared to the global climate and all the factors that come into play. Do you really expect some schlepp like Waldo to figure it out?

But for Waldo, this is no deterrent. If the earth hasn't warmed as much as he had hoped (seriously...he hopes! or that funding may dry up!), then it must be the aerosols! thats the ticket! THE AEROSOLS IN CHINA!! Why didn't we think of that before?

Our models are excellent. Last time we just forgot about the Aerosols. Next time, and we promise for real this time, the aerosols will be factored in. Because we wouldn't wanna just throw in some random environmental phenomenon to make an excuse for how badly our models failed or anything like that.

Edited September 15, 2012 by jerryseinfeld1

[jerryseinfeld1]

lets dissect this.

In any case, at the highest of levels, the papers premise, if accepted, is that a 'warming discrepancy' between observations and projections could be attributed to either a too high climate sensitivity estimate and/or a greater cooling influence from atmospheric aerosols.

Ok this is good stuff. But I think, in english, he is saying: "the fact that warming hasn't happened as expected is, regretfully, true. but I don't like it. we don't know for sure why we were wrong, but today we're pinning it on particulate matter (which we somehow forgot to put into our models), or just simply that our models were bogus. er..sorry, our "climate sensitivity estimate" was...hmm, what's the word, bad."

Certainly, much more could be said, drawing into many of the past discussions held on MLW concerning climate sensitivity estimate levels... and the uncertainties relative to the radiative forcing level for aerosols. Why don't you take us there, hey Jer?

Ok this one is a doozy. Let's try a translation, shall we? : "darn, I was so busy worrying about carbon, I forgot to put aerosols into my models. we should all have an academic discussion about why I was wrong. but keep it academic. simply stating "I was wrong" doesn't sound too good for the funding. aerosols threw a wrench into our plans for global armageddon, and we're never forgiving China for that."

[Michael Hardner]

I think it's a reach to say that climate science is "wrong" if they're downgrading the degree to which warming is happening.

Cyber summarizes it above:

This paper doesn't say what you think it says. It confirms that temperatures are rising and it calls for more studies on why and how to help determine the urgency with which we need to change our industrial and energy practices. As opposed to your ridiculous notion that temperature is actually decreasing and nothing needs to be done, they're confirming that something needs to be done and are asking for more studies to assess how quickly those changes need to be made.

For those who say cooling is happening, it's pretty ridiculous to call climate science "wrong" when they're still saying - correctly - that warming is happening, and you're not.

[gunrutz]

I think it's a reach to say that climate science is "wrong" if they're downgrading the degree to which warming is happening.

Cyber summarizes it above:

For those who say cooling is happening, it's pretty ridiculous to call climate science "wrong" when they're still saying - correctly - that warming is happening, and you're not.

Except of course when your dire predictions of more major hurricanes, more killer tornadoes, major sea level rise, major increases in temperatures, and so on haven't actually happened, it is some of you who look for excuses, well it must be because of a b or c, and i will admit that it could be. Why don't those of you on the bandwagon admit that maybe we don't know enough about any of this to be sure what is happening or why, it the isn't skeptics who believe in fantasy. We could be causing warming, but it does appear that our very best predictions aren't always accurate, maybe our understanding isn't as complete as some of you desperately want it to be.

[jerryseinfeld1]

Except of course when your dire predictions of more major hurricanes, more killer tornadoes, major sea level rise, major increases in temperatures, and so on haven't actually happened, it is some of you who look for excuses, well it must be because of a b or c, and i will admit that it could be. Why don't those of you on the bandwagon admit that maybe we don't know enough about any of this to be sure what is happening or why, it the isn't skeptics who believe in fantasy. We could be causing warming, but it does appear that our very best predictions aren't always accurate, maybe our understanding isn't as complete as some of you desperately want it to be.

That's an awesome post. Well done.

[Michael Hardner]

Except of course when your dire predictions of more major hurricanes, more killer tornadoes, major sea level rise, major increases in temperatures, and so on haven't actually happened,

You are putting all of the media hysterics into the same box as what the scientists say. Some of these things have been said and some have not.

In the same way I don't quote every Tea Party ding-a-ling when I'm addressing the policies of the Republican Party ( ) you should be specific about who said what.

We could be causing warming, but it does appear that our very best predictions aren't always accurate, maybe our understanding isn't as complete as some of you desperately want it to be.

I don't desperately want anything. I'd like for people to defer to authoritative knowledge (from both sides) when it comes to complex scientific matters rather than to make things up on their own.

[cybercoma]

In the same way I don't quote every Tea Party ding-a-ling when I'm addressing the policies of the Republican Party ( ) you should be specific about who said what.

This has been one of my biggest pet peeves recently. Many of the arguments on this forum seem to stem from a place of "they said" without ever specifying who "they" are. For those of you that find yourselves doing this, it amounts to a fallacious strawman argument. You're creating a position and arguing against it, rather than attacking a particular argument made by specific research or a specific person. Your argument becomes meaningless because it's not directed at any express position someone has taken or holds. In other words, you're arguing against nothing or rather something you believe others hold when they do not.