Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[TimG]

What ? They're at the core of the disconnect between reality and spin - they're at the starting square of the board game that is the debate.

The "spin" in this case are the people claiming that they are seriously debated at this time. It is an attempt by alarmists to discredit skeptics by claiming they are arguing points which are clearly understood.

When it comes to the scientific discussion the real questions are how much warming and what are the consequences. On those points it is impossible to prove any hypotheses within an reasonable time frame and the recent pause in warming has shown how there are always ways to fiddle with the evidence to avoid admitting that a prior hypothesis was wrong. i.e. we did not get CO2 sensitivity wrong - the heat is just hiding in the oceans and we have a bridge to sell you as well.

Climate science is a pseudo-science because it is possible to argue away adverse results as long as enough "experts" have an incentive to agree with you.

Edited February 3, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The "spin" in this case are the people claiming that they are seriously debated at this time. It is an attempt by alarmists to discredit skeptics by claiming they are arguing points which are clearly understood.

Presumably then, the science was successfully used to predict a result, ie. that the earth is warming ? The idea that it's a pseudo-science is defeated by the very important contribution to the dialogue about climate change - that you yourself acknowledge here !

[TimG]

Presumably then, the science was successfully used to predict a result, ie. that the earth is warming ?

Predicting a single throw of a 50/50 coin toss is not very interesting. The hypothesis was that CO2 would cause warming at a specific rate and that has failed to occur. Yet instead of admitting failure the establishment simply looks for excuses to explain away the disconnect. This fact that they can get away with shows how malleable the evidence is. Edited February 3, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

Presumably then, the science was successfully used to predict a result, ie. that the earth is warming ? The idea that it's a pseudo-science is defeated by the very important contribution to the dialogue about climate change - that you yourself acknowledge here!

as shown many times within assorted MLW threads, model predictions of long-term temperature have faired quite well in comparison to observations. As you may recall, TimG is once again playing up the "shift" by the Met Office in its latest temperature forecast. Of course, that particular update was played for all it's denying worth. Apparently, to those fake skeptics/deniers, shifting the forecast on a most smallish 5-year interval period, is grounds for labeling climate scientists as, per TimG, "looking for excuses; refusing to admit failure". On a 5 year prediction!!!

for completeness: that Met Office shift in prediction was a new projection about 0.1 degrees Celsius cooler... over a small 5 year time period... nothing to do with long-term temperature predictions:

from: by the period 2012 to 2016, global temperature would most likely reach about 0.54 degrees above the long term average with a likely range of 0.36 to 0.72 degrees.

to: between 2013 and 2017 global temperature is most likely to be about 0.43 degrees Celsius higher than the long term average, measured between 1971 and 2000. The prediction includes some room for variation - temperatures could be as much as 0.59 degrees above average, or as little as 0.28 degrees above the average.

and, of course, TimG plays up the "pause"... the "pause" which isn't. And certainly, anyone disputing ocean warming should do exactly that, formally dispute it... funny how TimG doesn't do that... doesn't do exactly that, by bringing forward his interpretations of formal published disputes of ocean warming! Or anyone continuing to tout a so-called pause (in spite of ocean warming) should formally dispute Cowtan/Way's paper highlighting coverage bias... even crazyAunt Judy, with all her "Arctic expertise" is certainly free to formally dispute it. What's she waiting for? Or the GreatAuditor... what's he waiting for?

[Michael Hardner]

Predicting a single throw of a 50/50 coin toss is not very interesting.

You have been through the math on this, so you know that that this statement is so inaccurate that it could be deemed a purposeful falsehood.

The hypothesis was that CO2 would cause warming at a specific rate and that has failed to occur.

Insincere. The coefficients are arrived at, however there is a range that is considered likely and the coefficients are necessarily adjusted as new data arrives. Warming has happened, so your attempts to downgrade climate science are just a super-sized ad hominem against the scientists.

[Michael Hardner]

As you may recall, TimG is once again playing up the "shift" by the Met Office in its latest temperature forecast.

It's a feeble rationalization, if that's what he's doing. Climate science isn't a science because the coefficients were adjusted by .1 degrees ?

I can't believe that's what he's doing here.

[waldo]

Sandy was a fluke - three storm fronts coming together at high-tide. Worst disaster since 1928. It wasn't Global Warming back then - and it's not now.....but it sure attracts news viewers and readers!

Nothing to do with global warming.

yes, coming from a guy who claims warming is a result of the "Earth coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA)", you certainly would claim that Hurricane Sandy had, as you stated, "Nothing to do with global warming"!

but guys, guys... what caused that most unusual southerly shift in the jet-stream... the blocking event... just what caused Sandy to head inland and to depart from the seaward direction it was on? Was it the, uhhh... remnants of the LIA perhaps? Ya think?

.

[Keepitsimple]

Presumably then, the science was successfully used to predict a result, ie. that the earth is warming ? The idea that it's a pseudo-science is defeated by the very important contribution to the dialogue about climate change - that you yourself acknowledge here !

At best, it's an immature science. Lets put aside GW predictions and observations which have diverged so dramatically over the past 15 years - and concentrate on a major topic which clearly demonstrates this immaturity: the storage of heat in the deep ocean. Scientists were "surprised" at the lack of warming of the last almost 20 years - so the theory was raised that all the heat was building up in the oceans. Measurements of the first 700 meters however - showed nothing. So the theory was expanded - the heat is now theorized to be in the deep ocean below 700 meters. Heat in the ocean has been theorized for years but as you can see - by 2011, we are still difinitively trying to find it - and arguably, the whole AGW case rests on the deep-ocean theory holding water . Note the wording:

but a recent climate modeling study, Palmer (2011), suggests another possible cause - that heat is able to be buried into deeper ocean layers, something the observations seem to support.

.....but lets not forget that over 100 AGW models - with the exception of two - overstated the warming.

Multiple studies measuring from the ocean surface down to 700 metres =ishii]show very little warming, or even cooling, over multiple years in the last decade. This is surprising given that some studies estimate that the imbalance at the-top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA), the difference between energy entering and leaving Earth's atmosphere over that time, has actually grown. So we might have expected the 700 metre sea surface layer to show increased warming. However the average depth of the ocean is around 4300 metres, and in a recent SkS post, we saw that when measurements were extended down to 1500 metres, the oceans were found to still be warming, indicating that heat is somehow finding a way down to the deep ocean.

SkS has recently looked at Asian aerosols as a contributor to the 'slowdown' in warming, but a recent climate modeling study, Palmer (2011), suggests another possible cause - that heat is able to be buried into deeper ocean layers, something the observations seem to support. The study found that there are mechanisms operating in the climate models, over decadal timeframes, which are able to distribute heat to all depths of the ocean. So only measuring down to 700 metres doesn't give an accurate indication of the total amount of heat being absorbed by the oceans.

Link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Heat-Content-And-The-Importance-Of-The-Deep-Ocean.html

Edited February 3, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[TimG]

The coefficients are arrived at, however there is a range that is considered likely and the coefficients are necessarily adjusted as new data arrives.

But they are not doing that - they are insisting that CO2 sensitivity is exactly the same as it was hypothesized 40 years ago. They are manipulating data to fit the theory and that is not how one should conduct science.

Warming has happened, so your attempts to downgrade climate science are just a super-sized ad hominem against the scientists.

You don't seem to understand the issues at all. Warming happening is NOT a vindication of the claims since there are many possible reasons for the warming. It could be just chance. Actually showing that the hypotheses has merit requires an accurate prediction of the magnitude of future temperate changes and they have failed to do that. Yet despite this failure to predict the magnitude of changes they insist there is nothing wrong with their hypothesis and they just need to fiddle with their fudge factors.

This endless fiddling with fudge factors to protect a politically desired hypotheses is why climate science is psuedo-science.

Edited February 3, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

But they are not doing that - they are insisting that CO2 sensitivity is exactly the same as it was hypothesized 40 years ago. They are manipulating data to fit the theory and that is not how one should conduct science.

BS! AR5 brings the lower estimate of the eq range down by 0.5°C... quit making it up to suit your obvious denier agenda.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence). The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing

.

You don't seem to understand the issues at all. Warming happening is NOT a vindication of the claims since there are many possible reasons for the warming. It could be just chance. Actually showing that the hypotheses has merit requires an accurate prediction of the magnitude of future temperate changes and they have failed to do that. Yet despite this failure to predict the magnitude of changes they insist there is nothing wrong with their hypothesis and they just need to fiddle with their fudge factors.

This endless fiddling with fudge factors to protect a politically desired hypotheses is why climate science is psuedo-science.

ah yes, we haven't heard from your "fudge factors" for a while now. Chance warming? But again, because you can't seem to find your absolute sensitivity number (a number with 100% certainty, a number with no underlying uncertainties), you simply can't live with a range... and a probable most likely within that range! It's all "pseudo-science" unless, and until, you get that absolute number!

.

[Michael Hardner]

You don't seem to understand the issues at all. Warming happening is NOT a vindication of the claims since there are many possible reasons for the warming. It could be just chance.

Really. What is the chance that this is random ? You seem to have more conviction to argue points that you don't believe in (eg. warming isn't happening) for some reason. In any case, of course it "could" be just chance but academic discussions like this are not interesting.

[waldo]

Scientists were "surprised" at the lack of warming of the last almost 20 years - so the theory was raised that all the heat was building up in the oceans.

no - this same fallacy was put forward previously in another MLW thread... that "all of a sudden" ocean heating was "raised" to deal with a so-called "pause" in surface temperature warming. Ocean Heat Content has been a serious study area for at least 15 years:

... Ocean warming has been significantly studied for over a decade+... changes in observed ocean heat content (OHC) are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing. If you're interpreting a higher profile for ocean warming, it's only because, wait for it, wait for it... scientists have heightened their study focus, principally to account for why the rate of surface temperature warming is lower in recent years... and found the increased rates of OHC warming I mentioned earlier.

since you're all about models, here's a most dated 2001 study speaking to both your continued unsubstantiated claims concerning models as well as OHC:

DETECTION OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE WORLD'S OCEANS

Large-scale increases in the heat content of the world's oceans have been observed to occur over the last 45 years. The horizontal and temporal character of these changes has been closely replicated by the state-of-the-art Parallel Climate Model (PCM) forced by observed and estimated anthropogenic gases. Application of optimal detection methodology shows that the model-produced signals are indistinguishable from the observations at the 0.05 confidence level. Further, the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed signals being produced by the PCM as a result of natural, internal forcing alone are less than 5%. This suggests that the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system. Additionally, the requirement that modeled ocean heat uptakes match observations puts a strong, new constraint on anthropogenically forced climate models

another dated study... 2005... also a model/ocean heat transfer focus! I trust this one will (also) meet your astute scrutiny - yes? Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications

Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

[waldo]

.....but lets not forget that over 100 AGW models - with the exception of two - overstated the warming.

citation request

[Keepitsimple]

no - this same fallacy was put forward previously in another MLW thread... that "all of a sudden" ocean heating was "raised" to deal with a so-called "pause" in surface temperature warming. Ocean Heat Content has been a serious study area for at least 15 years:

Couldn't help it - I had to take a peek and it just confirms yet again why I keep you on ignore.You'll notice in my previous post that I used one of your "approved" websites - "Skeptical Science".

From your 2001 study - wonder where they were getting their data - buckets off boats? The ARGO project - which started in 2000 has determined that there has been no warming - maybe even some cooling in the oceans down to 700 meters.

"Large-scale increases in the heat content of the world's oceans have been observed to occur over the last 45 years".

Now - from your 2005 study.....based on a single Climate Model. Again where do these "precise measurements" come from?

This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.

To sum up - as I posted previously, it was only in 2011 that a study was presented that said:

but a recent climate modeling study, Palmer (2011), suggests another possible cause - that heat is able to be buried into deeper ocean layers, something the observations seem to support.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Simple... in your reference to SkS you forgot the following graphic:



Simple, it's always refreshing to read an avowed 'fake skeptic' quoting from SkS! Of course, your study reference is speaking to deep ocean warming no matter how hard you work to highlight words like 'suggests', 'possible' or 'seem'. Of course, it's only one study... surely your intended point isn't one you're attempting to make with a single study! A single study, Simple? Here, have another single study (Levitus et al - 2012):

We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth's surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.

.

[bleeding heart]

Keepitsimple, you seem to post a lot--both about and directly to--a fellow poster whom you've got on "ignore."

It begs the question of why you have him on ignore, doesn't it?

[waldo]

To sum up - as I posted previously, it was only in 2011 that a study was presented that said:

like I said, it's always refreshing to read an avowed 'fake-skeptic' referencing from SkS! I could quote exactly what I responded to... your exact words, but clearly your reading comprehension has failed you, once again! Ah what the hey... your exact words to which I replied:

Scientists were "surprised" at the lack of warming of the last almost 20 years - so the theory was raised that all the heat was building up in the oceans.

my reply spoke directly to your quote; spoke directly to the point that ocean study, Ocean Heat Content study, is nothing new... it is not something, as deniers are quick to trot out, that was "suddenly invented" to help manage some perceived (and incorrect) claim of a pause in warming.

[Keepitsimple]

Keepitsimple, you seem to post a lot--both about and directly to--a fellow poster whom you've got on "ignore."

It begs the question of why you have him on ignore, doesn't it?

Just for the record - when someone is on IGNORE, it saves putting up with the clutter of their original posts - and with Waldo, that's a lot of clutter.....but you can see some of their comments when other posters reply to them......so I get a general idea as to what's going on.....and every once in a while - like today, I'll actaully click open a Waldo post if I'm feeling playful.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Keepitsimple, you seem to post a lot--both about and directly to--a fellow poster whom you've got on "ignore."

It begs the question of why you have him on ignore, doesn't it?

of course... as you correctly interpret, he doesn't have me on ignore. But it allows him, every week or so, to pronounce he has me ignore, just before he posts on something I've stated. At least this time, he held back on attaching a narcissist labeling to me! I'm still analyzing data to better determine the frequency on when he pulls that labeling.

[TimG]

In any case, of course it "could" be just chance but academic discussions like this are not interesting.

Failing to honestly report the unknowns and uncertainties is why the climate science establishment has failed. Given the data to date I would expect true scientists to:

1) Acknowledge that the models failed to predict the recent warming trends.

2) Acknowledge that no one knows why at this time.

3) Acknowledge that a lower CO2 sensitivity is one possible explanation.

But they did not do that. They reflexively denigrate people who suggest the models failed or that CO2 sensitivity could be lower. They grab onto any talking point, no matter how dubious, that allows them to argue that they were right all along.

In short: the climate science establishment is acting like activists with an agenda instead of like scientists. If they acted like scientists I would be less inclined to assume they are exaggerating and the whatever the truth is it is less of a problem than claimed.

Edited February 4, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

Honestly reporting the unknowns and uncertainties is why the climate science establishment has failed. Given the data to date I would expect true scientists to:

1) Acknowledge that the models failed to predict the recent warming trends.

2) Acknowledge that no one knows why at this time.

3) Acknowledge that a lower CO2 sensitivity is one possible explanation.

But they did not do that. They reflexively denigrate people who suggest the models failed or that CO2 sensitivity could be lower. The grab onto any talking point, no matter how dubious, that allows them to argue that they were right all along.

In short: the climate science establishment is acting like activists with an agenda instead of like scientists. If they acted like scientists I would be more willing to consider their views.

utter bunk/nonsense. You don't attach a short-term trend result (whatever that result is) to climate sensitivity. I know you've failed miserably in the past in trying to understand climate sensitivity... one would think you might at some point grasp the basics!

[bjre]

Simple... in your reference to SkS you forgot the following graphic:

...

.

Your image is somewhat misleading because the data range is too short compare to the following ones.

I just wonder why so many politicians and midia and scientists keep focus on the period in the above image, why they try so hard to hide the complete data? what is the interest they can take from doing so?

http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/principles-of-general-chemistry-v1.0m/s09-05-energy-sources-and-the-environ.html

The increase in CO2 levels is only one of many trends that can affect Earth’s temperature. In fact, geologic evidence shows that the average temperature of Earth has fluctuated significantly over the past 400,000 years, with a series of glacial periods (during which the temperature was 10°C–15°C lower than it is now and large glaciers covered much of the globe) interspersed with relatively short, warm interglacial periods (Figure 5.24 "Average Surface Temperature of Earth over the Past 400,000 Years"). Although average temperatures appear to have increased by 0.5°C in the last century, the statistical significance of this increase is open to question, as is the existence of a cause-and-effect relationship between the temperature change and CO2 levels.

http://www.technologyreview.com/article/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/

Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age

Will the greenhouse effect prevent the return of glaciers?

But even that warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not.In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed.Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals. Such processes won’t be offset by the industrial emissions we see today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide will slowly decline toward preindustrial levels. In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory.

[waldo]

Your image is somewhat misleading because the data range is too short compare to the following ones.

I just wonder why so many politicians and midia and scientists keep focus on the period in the above image, why they try so hard to hide the complete data? what is the interest they can take from doing so?

the image represents ocean warming within the relatively recent period of warming, particularly that period where observational data exists. Looking at the past proxy data from 100K-400K years ago does not speak to the relatively recent period of warming... or its attributions.

[Keepitsimple]

Simple, it's always refreshing to read an avowed 'fake skeptic' quoting from SkS! Of course, your study reference is speaking to deep ocean warming no matter how hard you work to highlight words like 'suggests', 'possible' or 'seem'. Of course, it's only one study... surely your intended point isn't one you're attempting to make with a single study! A single study, Simple? Here, have another single study (Levitus et al - 2012):

No Waldo, my intended point as you well know - was to focus on "the missing heat" and the fact that regardless of your puffery, it has only been very recently that a limited number of models/studies have started to put some level of validation to the theory that you say has been "studied" for quite a few years. As recently as 2009, Kevin Trenberth said it was a travesty that his alarmist clique could not account for the lack of warming. At that time (2009), the deep ocean was only one area that they thought might hold the answer - but even that theory was under duress (at the time) because their data showed no warming in the 700 meter range. Your own quoted studies - the first two were dubious models based on questionable data and the last was from 2012. So - do you dispute that validation of deep ocean heat is only occurring now - and there is still a lot of work to do? Or is the science settled, yet once again?

Edited February 6, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

no Simple - if you follow the back-link on the re-quote I posted, you will see it is a response to another member claiming ocean study as a new study pursuit... that member specifically references models, and in that model focus, I provided him 2 model based studies. Your opinion on those 2 referenced studies holds no substance/weight.

your big 'ta da' was to go find and throw down a 2011 study, emphasize its modelling basis, and focus on/highlight 3 words used by the paper authors ('suggests, possible & seems'). Of course, I made the point that you were, once again, following a standard "fake skeptic" ploy in taking a single study and drawing out definitive claims/implications... from a single study. As you can read, I emphasized the single study aspect and made a point of highlighting that my response was, in kind, also a reference to a single study. The point being, and one I've repeatedly emphasized in many past MLW posts, is no single study is a definitive and absolute reference. I offered you up a current study. I could have easily put forward a half-dozen others... including this one from 2000. Does this ~15 year old study meet your personal measure of 'datedness'... does it showcase your own, as you state, "puffery", in presuming on claiming OHC study of ocean layers (300-1000, >1000) is, as you state, "only occurring now"?

is there a more renewed and concentrated focus on ocean warming? Of course. Given the reduced rate of warming shown in global surface temperatures, the obvious challenge is to "find where known warming is going". You can certainly attempt to dispute that ocean warming is occurring... you can either show your interpretations of study disputing ocean warming... or you can put forward alternatives on your interpretations of studies that may suggest other area(s) where warming is going (or also going). You could do that, put your interpreted challenges forward... or you could continue a silly charade you're now playing again, one you've thrown around in the past; i.e., "the settled science meme". Your choice.