Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[TimG]

but the sheer overwhelming of evidence that points toward the concept of climate change cannot be reasonably doubted by those with scientific knowledge in the science field relating to this topic.

You are attacking a strawman. There is lots of evidence that climate change is going on but that is not the issue. The issue are the predictions of future evolution of the climate and the consequences for human society. There is no evidence to support these claims. I know you want to claim that the climate models are accurate but that is a matter of faith for you - its not science. It simply takes too long to verify a climate model prediction so that means the models can never really be validated which makes it impossible to put much weight on any claims of accuracy.

[Sleipnir]

You are attacking a strawman. There is lots of evidence that climate change is going on but that is not the issue. The issue are the predictions of future evolution of the climate and the consequences for human society.

First you accept climate change but remain skeptical of the consequences.....now you deny them both?

Make up your mind already?

[wyly]

First you accept climate change but remain skeptical of the consequences.....now you deny them both?

Make up your mind already?

ya, this is the same timg that claimed an economic depression due to green energy plans was a worse possible outcome than an extinction event due to uncontrolled global warming....

[wyly]

Except there is NO trend. Here is a graph of global hurricane frequency:

http://wattsupwithth...e_frequency.png

Other types of extreme weather show the similar results.

Tornados:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...es.html#history

Droughts:

http://www.worldclim...ipcc-take-note/

The idea that extreme events are increasing is a outright myth spread by climate alarmists.

you're making shitte arguing about what with whom none of that crap has any relevance to my post...

[Guest]

ya, this is the same timg that claimed an economic depression due to green energy plans was a worse possible outcome than an extinction event due to uncontrolled global warming....

Not to get involved in someone else's argument, but do you really believe that a green energy plan can stave off an extinction event?

[Bonam]

I know you want to claim that the climate models are accurate but that is a matter of faith for you - its not science. It simply takes too long to verify a climate model prediction so that means the models can never really be validated which makes it impossible to put much weight on any claims of accuracy.

Hmm well we've had functional climate models for about a decade or so. Predictions from 2002 can be tested against real data for the following 10 years (I understand the agreement in these cases is not very good). Today's models will be able to be tested against 10 years of future data by 2022. These timescales are not "too long" and they do not make validation "impossible". There are many scientific efforts that span decades of time before they bear fruit. Climate models may be one of those, but they'll get there.

[TimG]

Predictions from 2002 can be tested against real data for the following 10 years (I understand the agreement in these cases is not very good).

Your comment is correct and highlights the problem. People have done testing of models from 2001 using many different techniques and the same answer keeps popping out: the models overestimate the amount of warming. However, this is not a result that alarmists what to hear so they dismiss the analyses because the 'time scale is too short'. The fact that the math takes the short timescale into account and the result is robust across different models, temperature datasets and statistical techniques is irrelevant - alarmists still dismiss it.

This gets into my primary gripe about climate science: subjectivity. If a result casts doubt on the consensus is it often very easy to nitpick about the techniques used and claim the result is "wrong". If a result confirms the consensus no one looks at the techniques closely and the result is presumed correct even when blatant statistical errors are found by outsiders. This creates a self perpetuating loop where bad papers that confirm the consensus are added to literature while good papers that cast doubt are excluded as 'obviously wrong' because they failed to confirm the consensus. The net result is a scientific field where we can really have no faith that the literature fairly represents the science.

Edited October 31, 2012 by TimG

[Bonam]

Your comment is correct and highlights the problem. People have done testing of models from 2001 using many different techniques and the same answer keeps popping out: the models overestimate the amount of warming. However, this is not a result that alarmists what to hear so they dismiss the analyses because the 'time scale is too short'. The fact that the math takes the short timescale into account and the result is robust across different models, temperature datasets and statistical techniques is irrelevant - alarmists still dismiss it.

...

Sounds like some studies of that sort have been done and published, even if they disagree in some ways with the "alarmist" narrative. There is plenty of good, unbiased, science being done in this field, even if there is also some tendency to favor results that conform with a consensus view. Personally, I am quite confident that our models will continue to improve, and tests done against today's models 10 years down the road will likely produce closer agreement than tests done today against models from 10 years ago. Science is something that inherently builds on itself, and furthermore our computational capabilities and ability to supply initial data to these models is getting better at a rapid pace.

The net result is a scientific field where we can really have no faith that the literature fairly represents the science.

I really hate when people start to talk about having "faith" in science. An individual, if interested in doing so, can take the time to educate themselves and then to read and understand the papers for themselves, and thus form their own appraisal of the science. And, if someone isn't interested in or capable of doing that, then why bother discussing science with said individual?

Edited October 31, 2012 by Bonam

[TimG]

Sounds like some studies of that sort have been done and published, even if they disagree in some ways with the "alarmist" narrative.

Actually the people doing the work have given up trying to get it published. They always get at least one reviewer who is determined to keep such studies out of the literature and the editors seem to let them get away with it. To add insult to injury - a technique they used suddenly appeared in another paper using a cherry picked subset of their data to show that the "models match reality".

I really hate when people start to talk about having "faith" in science. An individual, if interested in doing so, can take the time to educate themselves and then to read and understand the papers for themselves, and thus form their own appraisal of the science.

This is exactly what I have done. But I am constantly bombarded with people telling me that I am wrong because I am not a "climate scientist" and I have no business questioning the authority of climate scientists. IOW - I am told to shut up and have "faith" in a institution that my own training tells me is failing badly. Edited October 31, 2012 by TimG

[Pliny]

As more information becomes available you can allow your position to change. That's how science works.

Does that sound like epistemological nihilism?

We, the lowly subjects, follow along as information becomes available and change our position accordingly. That's how science works?

Epistemological nihilism is a form of extreme skepticism. Having that label applied to "deniers" from skeptics was humourous to say the least.

But this whole argument is bizarre. I don't think the two sides are arguing about the same thing.

There is undeniably climate change. There always has been and there always will be.

Global warming is an empirical fact. The last century temperatures have risen approximately 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit.

Climate change being a fact means there will be global cooling and warming periods.

I think these are facts we all agree upon.

So the question is whether or not the current "climate change" is a natural occurring event or is anthropogenic or is a combination of both.

No one has proven this point conclusively but there is a general consensus among climate scientists, environmentalists and skeptics that the events are anthropogenic and not entirely natural. This conclusion is based upon models that add any anthropogenic factors into a climate system, such as the burning of fossil fuels, and tabulating the results. Apparently, the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of our current warming trend. But has the temperature ever warmed or cooled as much as 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the period of a century? If that has never happened then I would be happy to say that the current warming trend is entirely anthropogenic.

But then, that isn't the whole argument. What do we do about it becomes a big part of the debate. The proposals from politicians are "alternative energies" and taxes on carbon emissions. Taxes on carbon emissions will do nothing in the short term to reverse the damage and getting global participation is not likely especially from emerging economies . Alternative energies are not yet available as replacements for current energy sources. They may be supplemental now but they are not a replacement. We need time to do these things and we can't ruin societies that are heavily dependent upon current energy sources.

One thing is certain we cannot make this political or a solution for political problems, such as not enough revenues for their extravagant spending habits. Science becomes then a political tool. And we can't say that isn't happening. It has happened in the recent past and there are instances of it today in other areas. We can't allow a quid pro quo game between politicians and scientists. No one wins in the long run.

That is my concern, and I think it more devastating a problem than the effects global warming could have.

[Pliny]

Actually the people doing the work have given up trying to get it published. They always get at least one reviewer who is determined to keep such studies out of the literature and the editors seem to let them get away with it. To add insult to injury - a technique they used suddenly appeared in another paper using a cherry picked subset of their data to show that the "models match reality".

This is exactly what I have done. But I am constantly bombarded with people telling me that I am wrong because I am not a "climate scientist" and I have no business questioning the authority of climate scientists. IOW - I am told to shut up and have "faith" in a institution that my own training tells me is failing badly.

Keep talking Tim. Your problem is you are not an automaton.

[Pliny]

I really hate when people start to talk about having "faith" in science. An individual, if interested in doing so, can take the time to educate themselves and then to read and understand the papers for themselves, and thus form their own appraisal of the science. And, if someone isn't interested in or capable of doing that, then why bother discussing science with said individual?

I understand your distaste for meshing "faith" with science but those who aren't interested or those who aren't capable of educating or understanding for themselves rely on "faith" and if they have concerns that the sky is falling they will get involved with the discussion mostly regurgitating what they hear in the media or from politicians, authority or experts.

[Mighty AC]

At least the overwhelming evidence is forcing the opposition in the right direction. At first they denied climate change existed. Next they moved on to the idea that it is purely natural and the actions of man have no impact. When it was apparent that the public wouldn't buy it, the argument shifted to multiple ridiculous fronts. One is that shifting away from fossil fuels is just too hard, too expensive and it would cause an economic collapse. This argument is quickly losing steam as people become aware of the alternatives and the true costs of fossil energy.

So now they are left with attacking climate models and demanding 100% accuracy before we act. As if they are protecting us from a new potentially deadly drug or something. Now, as they have every step of the way, climate experts will use facts and evidence to educate the masses. Anyway, the models argument will soon fall. People already pack an umbrella when there is a 90% chance of rain...they don't wait for 100%.

I'm willing to bet some of the opposition posters on this forum, who are currently in the models camp, were actual GW or AGW deniers in the recent past.

Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you'd be in a car crash, you wouldn't get in the car (or at the very least, you'd wear a seatbelt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.[/Quote] http://skepticalscie...ntermediate.htm

[TimG]

One is that shifting away from fossil fuels is just too hard, too expensive and it would cause an economic collapse. This argument is quickly losing steam as people become aware of the alternatives and the true costs of fossil energy.

The collapse of solar and wind companies around the world as governments cut subsidies to a useless industry is evidence that this is a complete delusion on your part. Even in Germany where utility bills have doubled is rethinking their commitment to useless energy sources. Coal exports from the US to Europe are increasing since Europeans are shunning nuclear and fracking because of idiotic environmental opposition. It the next five years Europe will have to embrace fracking or nuclear power or abandon its CO2 commitments.

So now they are left with attacking climate models and demanding 100% accuracy before we act.

I am not asking for 100% accuracy. I am saying there is no evidence that they have any accuracy at all. As I said, proper tests done on actual predictions rather than hindcasts show the models overestimate the amount of warming. Edited October 31, 2012 by TimG

[PIK]

Lets just come out and say it. There is to many people on the planet and we need to end that. Which means we need to stop the migration of people. It does not help to keep having kids that need to move to different parts of the world to survive. Or maybe we all change our habits of big homes and many cars and all the toys and trips. Now I understand that if all the people stood together ,we would cover up to 10000 sq miles, is that a true figure. But really arguing about CC is like 2 fleas arguing over who is driving the dog they are on.

[Moonbox]

One is that shifting away from fossil fuels is just too hard, too expensive and it would cause an economic collapse. This argument is quickly losing steam as people become aware of the alternatives and the true costs of fossil energy.

We've been over this, and you never responded to my earlier posts. The only alternative right now is nuclear, and that's one that our enviro-crusaders are also decrying.

Wind/Solar isn't economical. It's not even close. I've sourced you the conclusion of the Royal Academy of Engineers, to debunk your lame South African online article, but you didn't see or chose to ignore it, so here you go:

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Cost_of_Generating_Electricity.pdf

Best case scenario has them pegged at double the cost of existing technologies.

[Sleipnir]

This gets into my primary gripe about climate science:

No offense but I think your primary gripe is due to being paranoid and close-minded on this topic.

This creates a self perpetuating loop where bad papers that confirm the consensus are added to literature while good papers that cast doubt are excluded as 'obviously wrong' because they failed to confirm the consensus.

Any valid proof to back that up?

Edited October 31, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Mighty AC]

We've been over this, and you never responded to my earlier posts. The only alternative right now is nuclear, and that's one that our enviro-crusaders are also decrying.

Wind/Solar isn't economical. It's not even close. I've sourced you the conclusion of the Royal Academy of Engineers, to debunk your lame South African online article, but you didn't see or chose to ignore it, so here you go:

http://www.raeng.org...Electricity.pdf

Best case scenario has them pegged at double the cost of existing technologies.

Wait a minute...you think an 8 year old document is still valid on the topic of price?! The article I referenced was printed last week and it lists actual price quotes for new coal (97-120 cents per kwh) and new wind (89 cents per kwh). http://www.iol.co.za...35#.UJFqk2_BF8H

Following your lead I've found a document that states the one year rental cost of a mass produced computer (IBM 650) is actually 15.6 times more expensive than buying a well equipped Ford outright. Sure the document is from 1953 but it's a reputable source.

[TimG]

The article I referenced was printed last week and it lists actual price quotes for new coal (97-120 cents per kwh) and new wind (89 cents per kwh).

Except the cost of the does not include the cost of all of the extras transmission lines required to get wind to market or the cost of the gas fired plant to back up the wind when the wind does not blow. Latter problem will ensure that the true cost of wind is always at least double the cost of fossil fuel.

[WIP]

From what I understand is that much of the infrastructure in the area had been neglegted over the past decade or so, according to some talk shows. So the storm not being really more powerful than other storms (aside from the water surge) will have a greater damage effect simply because of the condition the infrastructure is in.

Look at the recent data, like Jeff Masters has in the most recent post on Sandy at Weather Underground, and there's no case to argue that Sandy is not so unusual that it is a harbinger of a more difficult and dangerous future lying ahead of us. As he points out, this hurricane occurred so late in the season, and the waters in the Atlantic were so warm for this late in the year, that a hurricane was able to maintain its force and combine with what is essentially an early winter storm. And that blocking front coming off the North Atlantic is also a sign of things to come in a world where the Arctic Ocean is melting away.

Words you never want to hear: 'I'm from the government and I am here to help!'.

Seems like a lot of Republicans (like Chris Christie) have changed their tune now on that one! Reagan, the great salesman, was able to sell selfishness as a virtue by using tropes like that one. Everyone in America at the time knew that his real target was white resentment in middle class, mostly immigrant white factory workers (The Reagan Democrats) who did not see themselves as benefiting from government programs, and among themselves, weren't shy about stating that their taxes were going to support lazy blacks. What happened over the last 30 or so years, is that the Reagan Democrats reaped a field of thorns for their greed and animosity, and ended up(or their children ended up) being dumped out of the middle class when Reagan's other great ideas like union-busting and free trade agreements to enable the outsourcing of industry, started to take effect! I guess karma is a bitch! Because there are so many examples where people follow the siren calls of greed, fear and resentment when making political choices end up making their own lives much worse!

[TimG]

As he points out, this hurricane occurred so late in the season, and the waters in the Atlantic were so warm for this late in the year, that a hurricane was able to maintain its force and combine with what is essentially an early winter storm. And that blocking front coming off the North Atlantic is also a sign of things to come in a world where the Arctic Ocean is melting away.

http://judithcurry.c...orm/#more-10332

The only possible impact of global warming that I am seeing on the Atlantic hurricanes is the extension of the tropical Atlantic warm pool eastward (towards Africa), which means formation is occurring further east than previously and results in more TCs curving North into the Atlantic (so called fish storms). Note: the impact of warming on hurricane intensity seems theoretically robust, but impossible to sort out an AGW signal from the natural variability.

IOW - global warming means fewer hurricanes hitting the US. That should be good news! Edited October 31, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Any valid proof to back that up?

Bad papers add to consensus, while good papers cast doubt?

What's there to prove? That's his opinion.

[Mighty AC]

Except the cost of the does not include the cost of all of the extras transmission lines required to get wind to market or the cost of the gas fired plant to back up the wind when the wind does not blow. Latter problem will ensure that the true cost of wind is always at least double the cost of fossil fuel.

Really? Where did you find the numbers for the additional power line charges relating to these prices?

[wyly]

Not to get involved in someone else's argument, but do you really believe that a green energy plan can stave off an extinction event?

and doing nothing at all helps how exactly?...and your plan is to make a possible event a more likely event, that's a good coarse of action is it?

[WIP]

http://judithcurry.c...orm/#more-10332

IOW - global warming means fewer hurricanes hitting the US. That should be good news!

Seems like the spin cycle in the climate denial laundryroom is working at high speed these days.