Guest Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Good job we didn't shut down the oil sands. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/08/global-warming-hasnt-stopped-but-it-has-stalled-says-new-prediction-from-british-national-weather-service/ “This does not mean that there is no man-made global warming,” said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish academic and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. “But it does mean that we perhaps should not be quite as scared as some people might have been from the mid ’70s to about 2000, when temperatures rose dramatically, because they were probably at least partially rising dramatically because of natural variation, just like they are now stalling because of natural variation.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Wow. This is indeed encouraging. It's the Met Office, and reported in the Times as well: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article3651191.ece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) Take a National Post article on climate change with a grain of salt since that news source wears its bias on its sleeve. I can't read The Times article, it cuts off and wants me to pay to read it. http://www.dailymail...heating-up.html After reading the articles. what the Met Office is really saying is that they're previous models were wrong, and they're updating the models. They released the news on Xmas eve likely to bury the admitance that they were wrong. In other words, I still really don't put much faith in these climate models because they clearly don't have all the mind-boggling number of variables figured out yet. Edited January 9, 2013 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 So let me get this straight - now that climate science is saying warming isn't happening, you will now believe in warming ? Great. The idea that releasing this at Christmas would bury the news is funny - isn't it just released now ? Don't think this is big enough news that it will travel anyway ? Anyway, there will be lots of gloating about this one but we should be happy this is happening. And I guess it proves that there wasn't a conspiracy after all. Or maybe it means nothing. Who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) Anyway, there will be lots of gloating about this one but we should be happy this is happening. And I guess it proves that there wasn't a conspiracy after all. Or maybe it means nothing. Who knows.What it means is every skeptic who claimed that the models overstate warming is vindicated and deserve an apology from alarmists who accused us of making conspiracy theories. Edited January 9, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 What it means is every skeptic who claimed that the models overstate warming is vindicated and deserve an apology from alarmists who accused us of making conspiracy theories. An apology ! Sure... right after all of the deniers who claimed there was no warming give their apologies. I don't think apologies are necessary either way - maybe a toast, though. At the very least it seems to mean that warming will take much (?) longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) At the very least it seems to mean that warming will take much (?) longer.The effect of CO2 is logarithmic - if the real sensitivity is low enough we will could see no serious side effects until long after the global population enters into a long term decline.That said, I think it will take another 20 years to kill the CAGW beast. I expect the updated models will be specially tuned with new fudge factors to explain the 'lull' followed by a rapid return to Armageddon in 15-20 years. There are simply too many people with careers and financial interests that depend on the CAGW meme to allow it to simply die because the real world is not cooperating with their theories. Edited January 9, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 That said, I think it will take another 20 years to kill the CAGW beast. Don't get ahead of yourself. And remind yourself - that the people who listen to the Met believe in *science* so they should be easier to convince than the Alex Jones of this world. There are simply too many people with careers and financial interests that depend on the CAGW meme to allow it to simply die because the real world is not cooperating with their theories. Still with the conspiracy theory ? Isn't the reversal proof that that world view is poppycock ? Celebrate it - everybody can say ' I told you so ' now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 And remind yourself - that the people who listen to the Met believe in *science* so they should be easier to convince than the Alex Jones of this world.Sorry - I have seen too much crap emitted from the Met to have any confidence in their "belief" in science. Perhaps there has been some honest soul searching going on and finally an acknowledgement of how they lost their way. I will believe it when I see it.Still with the conspiracy theory ?But it is not a conspiracy theory - it is a simple statement of fact that they are many people who's careers and financial interests are heavily vested in the CAGW meme. It would be irrational to expect them to give up. The only real question is if they will be successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Panic over maybe? Not when the movement is so agenda-driven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 What it means is every skeptic who claimed that the models overstate warming is vindicated and deserve an apology from alarmists who accused us of making conspiracy theories. No it doesn't. All it means is a UK science joint said their old models were wrong and that their new models predict less warming. It just basically proves their models are crap so we shouldn't even believe the updated models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 So let me get this straight - now that climate science is saying warming isn't happening, you will now believe in warming ? Great. What? Where did you get that? My point is that models are crap. This entire story proves my point, and we shouldn't even believe Met Office's new models. Also, they're not saying it isn't warming, they're predicting it isn't going to warm as much as thought before. You're also confusing a prediction with a fact. We only have models, not proof, of what global temps will do in the next 5 years. The idea that releasing this at Christmas would bury the news is funny - isn't it just released now ? No, the news articles talking about it have been written and published now. The actual report by the Met Office was released Xmas Eve. The news is actually 2 weeks old and is only being reported on now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) edited in later post. Edited January 9, 2013 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 What it means is absolutely nothing. It's one set of models from one office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) It proves a model is a model and nothing more. It predicts or projects (depending upon your word preference) a probability not an actuality. All possible variables in a model would have to be known and included; an impossibility in itself without knowing the future, to project or predict an actuality. Edited January 9, 2013 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 I vaguely remember a thread about having to update climate models......hmmm...something about lack of warming in the past 16 years....I believe it was a release by the MET as well.....hmmmm! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) What it means is absolutely nothing. It's one set of models from one office.All climate models mean absolutely nothing because they are mathematical constructs tuned to produce a desired outcome. The MET model simply got so bad that they could not tune it further without setting parameters to values that were so unrealistic as to make the tuning painfully obvious. Edited January 9, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 All climate models mean absolutely nothing because they are mathematical constructs tuned to produce a desired outcome. The MET model simply got so bad that they could not tune it further without setting parameters to unrealistic values that would make the tuning too obvious. I don't know about all climate models being tuned to produce a desired outcome. A model should be used to predict or project an outcome that is not predetermined. It sounds backwards to start with wanting to produce a desired outcome and then feeding in the data to get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Perhaps there has been some honest soul searching going on and finally an acknowledgement of how they lost their way. It's science ! You're characterizing the process as a matter of personal development of some kind - very strange. But it is not a conspiracy theory - it is a simple statement of fact that they are many people who's careers and financial interests are heavily vested in the CAGW meme. It would be irrational to expect them to give up. Well it isn't conspiracy theory any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 I vaguely remember a thread about having to update climate models......hmmm...something about lack of warming in the past 16 years....I believe it was a release by the MET as well.....hmmmm! Well, yes. They adjusted the temperature factors down one other time, recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 No, the news articles talking about it have been written and published now. The actual report by the Met Office was released Xmas Eve. The news is actually 2 weeks old and is only being reported on now. Ah, I think I see what is happening. I do believe this is breaking news from yesterday. You're referring to another adjustment that happened in December, I think. Why would all of the UK papers wait 2 weeks to report the news on the same day ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) I don't know about all climate models being tuned to produce a desired outcome. A model should be used to predict or project an outcome that is not predetermined. It sounds backwards to start with wanting to produce a desired outcome and then feeding in the data to get it.There are many different models with very different numbers for climate sensitivity that all manage to match the 20th century record - this is an extremely implausible outcome. When you look into why you will find that models with highest sensitivity tend to use large estimates for aerosol forcing in the 20th century - those with the lowest sensitivity use smaller estimates for aerosol forcing. IOW - the aerosol forcing appears to have been chosen to allow the model to match historical temperatures. This process of picking estimates for unknown parameters that allow you to match the historical record is called 'tuning'.There are limits to tuning - they can't pick any number for the various parameters but there is enough uncertainty on enough parameters that modelers don't have a lot of problems tuning their model to achieve the expected outcome. Edited January 9, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 So the breaking news yesterday about 2012 being the hottest year on record following the hottest decade is...meh? I'm into meh these days, it's just sooo much easier on the head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 So the breaking news yesterday about 2012 being the hottest year on record following the hottest decade is...meh? No - separate 'hot' and 'warming' in your mind. The former refers to absolute value of the temperature, the second refers to change in temperature. We are around the hottest point in the last 1000 years or so, but the warming has slowed apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 There are many different models with very different numbers for climate sensitivity that all manage to match the 20th century record - this is an extremely implausible outcome. When you look into why you will find that models with highest sensitivity tend to use large estimates for aerosol forcing in the 20th century - those with the lowest sensitivity use smaller estimates for aerosol forcing. IOW - the aerosol forcing appears to have been chosen to allow the model to match historical temperatures. This process of picking estimates for unknown parameters that allow you to match the historical record is called 'tuning'. There are limits to tuning - they can't pick any number for the various parameters but there is enough uncertainty on enough parameters that modelers don't have a lot of problems tuning their model to achieve the expected outcome. OK, Thanks for that. I can see that happening. A lot of them probably also start off with some of the same data that has already been "tuned" eventually time will out the errors but until then we have to live with fear-mongering politicians and skeptics who will blindly follow and promote a "consensus" as though it were an absolute truth yet, of course, holding a position of existential nihilism denying a position of absolute truth. Michael Hardner demonstrates this concept with this comment: "It's science ! You're characterizing the process as a matter of personal development of some kind - very strange." As though science were devoid of human error and there have been no consequences from any error, e.g. political fear-mongering and the marketing of "green", over the last couple of decades. We will likely have to live with those consequences for some time yet. Not that moving toward less pollution and more energy efficiency isn't beneficial but we can live without the political and chicken little fear-mongering. Oh well, some positives have come about such as more fuel efficient vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.