Climate change - new view of the models?

[Michael Hardner]

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.

.

Huh ? I'm a skeptic ? Or is it a politician ?

I would expected more love from people for acknowledging that warming isn't as bad as thought. I'm not sure what you expected from me as a result of this news ...

[Sleipnir]

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.

Well deniers have been making conspiracy theories and still are

[Pliny]

Huh ? I'm a skeptic ? Or is it a politician ?

I would expected more love from people for acknowledging that warming isn't as bad as thought. I'm not sure what you expected from me as a result of this news ...

I was surprised at your acknowledgment. The reaction I would have expected from you is to wait for the "skeptic's" dismissal or refutation of the evidence before committing yourself to an acknowledgment.

As for being a skeptic or politician - no, You are a logician. Entirely logical. Not quite a skeptic but leaning that way. Skeptics are committed to forwarding scientific consensus as absolute truth while denying the possibility of absolute truth. I guess you would call them epistemological nihilists. Politicians are committed to forwarding scientific consensus as absolute truth when it is politically convenient to do so.

Anyway, congratulations on making a decision.

[gunrutz]

There has been some back tracking lately, including within the leaked new ipcc report, which is to be expected since temperatures havent changed much at all for the last couple decades, that isn't say global warming isn't occuring or that it isn't our fault, it still could be, but there are still a lot of variables we don't fully understand. What bothers me is the outright lies about how many more storms we have, or about the super storms like Sandy, its just bs, sandy was a moderate tropical storm that happened to hit a low lying heavily populated area where people built homes bascially at sea level, that area has been hit by stoms in the past, this is not something new. NOAA's own statistics show that there is no trend in the number or intensity of hurricaines, you would think that people who claim to be all about science would be able to objectively read a graph.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...l-and-major.gif

How about tornado's

http://www1.ncdc.noa...lim/EF3-EF5.png

No upward trend there either, in fact it was worse 60 years ago, and that is with MUCH better detection today, I don't know if they count Tornados seen on radar but you can often pick them out on radar without needing reports on the ground.

So i dont care if you choose to believe the sky is falling, i don't deny the possibility of agw, but the next time you hear someone claim that a weather event is worse because of agw, or we are getting more extreme weather because of agw, or that a trpoical storm hit New York because of agw, please remember that the records and the science contradict your opinion. If your opinion is not based in science than what is it? A religion?

Btw, i grew up in the east and people generally don't build their homes on the sea shore, they build on higher ground, my parents home is over 100 years old and has had withstood many storms that would make sandy look like an average windy day. Google Les Suetes if you want to see what wind looks like, if you build your home out of match sticks and place it on the beach in an area that ocaisonally gets hit by a hurricane..well, you shouldn't. The fact that they got away with it for so long only proves how rare it is.

Edited January 10, 2013 by gunrutz

[dre]

Seems like good news to me!

While climate change fans and zealots like you guys rehashing the same arguments over and over again, alledging conspiracies, and claiming victory with the frequency of a cheap ham radio, lots of smart people are actually doing real work on this stuff... monitoring temperatures, improving models, etc.

[waldo]

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.

huh! Based on a single model from a single organization? A model that is simply updating a 'prediction' for a short (within decadal range) 4-5 year period?... while not changing anything related to position/statements on its longer-term model findings? That's quite a bold statement/summation you're making.

[waldo]

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!

why yes! That thread does exist. Unfortunately... for you... it doesn't hold the finding you hold to/state. Resurrect it if you'd like.

[waldo]

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'.

uhhh... if one were to accept your premise/statement, does it imply that your favoured lower sensitivity model/findings are based on low aerosol forcing tuning?

[waldo]

Good job we didn't shut down the oil sands.

http://news.national...eather-service/

yours is such an... alarmist misinformed statement! And yes, another masterful cock-up from the lamestream media - but really, just par for the course from the National Post. As I stated earlier, this is simply a revision of one model from one organization - wow! More pointedly, most pointedly, this is model result that reflects upon something very experimental and in the most early stages of model development... and not being done significantly within the overall climate modeling 'community'; i.e., presuming to predict within a short term period. In this case, within the next five years of a decadal period.

as the UK Met Office stated in response to the widespread misinformation campaign emanating from its update:

The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction issued in December 2011. However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years.

This means temperatures will remain well above the long-term average and we will continue to see temperatures like those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in the instrumental record dating back to 1850.

Decadal predictions are specifically designed to predict fluctuations in the climate system through knowledge of the current climate state and multi-year variability of the oceans.

Small year to year fluctuations such as those that we are seeing in the shorter term five year predictions are expected due to natural variability in the climate system, and have no sustained impact on the long term warming.

[Guest]

[/size]

yours is such an... alarmist misinformed statement! And yes, another masterful cock-up from the lamestream media - but really, just par for the course from the National Post. As I stated earlier, this is simply a revision of one model from one organization - wow! More pointedly, most pointedly, this is model result that reflects upon something very experimental and in the most early stages of model development... and not being done significantly within the overall climate modeling 'community'; i.e., presuming to predict within a short term period. In this case, within the next five years of a decadal period.

as the UK Met Office stated in response to the widespread misinformation campaign emanating from its update:

[/size][/font][/color]

So, you think we should have shut down the oil sands? That would have solved the problem, right?

Edited January 14, 2013 by bcsapper

[waldo]

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.

no - this was an update to a single model! And it was updated in December as a routine update, one provided on a yearly basis... every December!

for clarity: as I stated in an earlier post, this was a model update to a decadal forecast for the most immediate next 5 years; specifically, the updated UK Met Office forecast:

"

Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period

2013-2017

, with values most likely to be about

0.43 °C higher than average

"

and just how much of an actual change was this model revision update for a most experimental and newly developed decadal forecast for the next most recent 5 years? From, '0.54 °C higher than average', to, '0.43 °C higher than average'. A change which reflects upon small year to year fluctuations in the shorter term five year predictions expected due to natural variability in the climate system... shorter term periods that are more susceptible to impacting natural variability... but have no sustained impact on the long term warming. And again, this short-term decadal model prediction is most experimental - few organizations engage in it... relatively few models include provision for it.

[waldo]

So, you think we should have shut down the oil sands? That would have solved the problem, right?

please Governor! Proceed!

[Michael Hardner]

huh! Based on a single model from a single organization? A model that is simply updating a 'prediction' for a short (within decadal range) 4-5 year period?... while not changing anything related to position/statements on its longer-term model findings? That's quite a bold statement/summation you're making.

Welcome back Waldo ! What a great time to return - looking forward to reading your posts.

[TimG]

What a great time to return - looking forward to reading your posts.

It rather disappointing that you can't see his BS for what it is. If you want to understand the arguments being made you need to read the arguments and not let waldos endless attempts to rebut things that were not said. In this example, the context of the arguments presented made it clear that the models were held in contempt no matter what results they claim so whinging about whether it is one organization or 20 is irrelevant. On top of that the argument was also made that the 'long term' model findings would 'keep the faith' because these models are largely political exercises rather than scientific ones - again making waldos whining about the longer term results irrelevant. Edited January 14, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

TimG... nice recovery attempt! You talk of "context"... and yet, you completely muffed the context concerning (the highly experimental) decadal prediction of this single organization/single model revision - the UK Met Office model revision. Decadal context, right? Not multi-decadal, decadal! I'm sure you know the difference - right? You either purposely carried through parroting/jumping on the mainstream/OP disinformation... or you didn't bother to actually check the story through. For you, it was simply another avenue to trot out but one more of your standard ploys.

I really did get quite the chuckle over your vindication/apology blustering! Beauty!

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.

huh! Based on a single model from a single organization? A model that is simply updating a 'prediction' for a short (within decadal range) 4-5 year period?... while not changing anything related to position/statements on its longer-term model findings? That's quite a bold statement/summation you're making.

[Michael Hardner]

It rather disappointing that you can't see his BS for what it is. If you want to understand the arguments being made you need to read the arguments and not let waldos endless attempts to rebut things that were not said.

Waldo has excellent deep knowledge of the issues, and I value the ability to summarize and respond to issues that he brings here.

I have read the original arguments and do not agree with Waldo every time.

In this example, the context of the arguments presented made it clear that the models were held in contempt no matter what results they claim so whinging about whether it is one organization or 20 is irrelevant. On top of that the argument was also made that the 'long term' model findings would 'keep the faith' because these models are largely political exercises rather than scientific ones - again making waldos whining about the longer term results irrelevant.

The MET themselves have indicated that warming will continue after 5 years so why are we splitting hairs.

[TimG]

The MET themselves have indicated that warming will continue after 5 years so why are we splitting hairs.

The real issue is whether one believes the models are remotely credible. The fact that the models can be 'adjusted' to account for adverse data yet result in no change to the long term projections is pretty compelling evidence that the models are easily manipulated to produce whatever results the makers need. In fact, what basis do you have to believe they are credible given these kinds of ad hoc adjustments? Edited January 14, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The real issue is whether one believes the models are remotely credible. The fact that the models can be 'adjusted' to account for adverse data yet result in no change to the long term projections is pretty compelling evidence that the models are easily manipulated to produce whatever results the makers need. In fact, what basis do you have to believe they are credible given these kinds of ad hoc adjustments?

You're still harping on some kind of conspiracy.

"Manipulated" is a charged word. Of course if you adjust the warming factor downwards based on evidence you are 'manipulating' the model.

The adjustments are based on data and they always have been. That's how multivatiate analysis works.

"Based on what the makers need" - did the makers need warming to be discounted for 5 years for some reason ?

This pretty much takes the air out of the conspiracy once and for all in my mind.

[TimG]

The adjustments are based on data and they always have been. That's how multivatiate analysis works.

The fact is complex model makes it extremely easy for people to fool themselves because it is possible to get the almost any result if you tweek enough parameters. That is why proper modelling requires are very strict procedure to protect against these kinds of mistakes (e.g. keep part of the of data hidden from the model developers and use that to verify). Climate modellers do not follow such procedures.

"Based on what the makers need" - did the makers need warming to be discounted for 5 years for some reason ?

Yes - because they could not deny the data. So they tweek the model parameters to match the recent data but do it in a way to make sure they do not invalidate their conclusions. If they wanted to they could easily tweek their model to suggest lower climate sensitivity the could have but that is not what they wanted.

This pretty much takes the air out of the conspiracy once and for all in my mind.

I am really getting sick of your "conspiracy" meme. I do not think that anyone is "conspiring" to do anything. I DO think that most climate scientists are incompetent buffoons drowning an sea of group think. They simply do not know how to follow a rigorous scientific process that prevents them from fooling themselves. Edited January 14, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

"Based on what the makers need" - did the makers need warming to be discounted for 5 years for some reason ?

This pretty much takes the air out of the conspiracy once and for all in my mind.

Michael... to your earlier welcoming - thanks. I had a, uhhh... slight time-out (thanks to the playing-the-ref gang)... and then a doubly longer self-imposed stay-away. Seeing the new MLW version/digs is a nice change. In any case, I see TimG hasn't changed his tune, not one bit! Anyway.............

ever consistent TimG would have us believe the Met Office "schemed" to (very slightly) "adjust" down the warming prediction for those first most recent 5 years of the decadal ensemble. Perhaps they didn't adjust it down enough for him!!! He then shows his agenda by clouding the discussion to suggest a further "scheme" by the Met Office to not, in kind, change the longer term predictions. And he does all this even though I point out his purposeful clouding the distinction between decadal and multi-decadal processing within the models and their respective short-term versus longer-term focus. He is not this obtuse! He full well knows the short-term nature of decadal predictions and their relatively new/experimental nature. This is simply another avenue for him to cast doubt/uncertainty... and disinform. Same ole, same ole!

[WIP]

Good job we didn't shut down the oil sands.

http://news.national...eather-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.”

If we had any sense, we'd shut down the TAR sands and disregard payed hacks like Bjorn Lomborg, who just say people will just have to adapt to 2, 4, or 6 or more degrees warming in the coming decades. There are a lot of human-created crises converging on us now, and nothing other than a complete, total overhaul of our economic way of life will ensure a future for any of the coming generations.

As for this piece from England that tar sands official house organ is trumpeting as proof that global warming doesn't exist and we can dump whatever crap we want into the atmosphere, oceans and the land -- it would make a lot more sense to err on the side of caution. But, people motivated by greed and avarice are not noted for a cautious approach, even when required.....BP's last two chief executives would serve as case in point. And, as usual, the Corporate Post is misrepresenting findings, in this case the Met Office Report to claim that it means global warming has stalled....which is not in that report....just the NP headline!

So, what we have with the Met Office Report is a forecast that decadal temperature increases (air temps) may not be as high as previously forecast....so does that mean Open the Sluice Gates and go gonzo on tar sands? No....not if you have any sense! Because, we do know that the worst environmental damage being done by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels may be the effects of carbon being absorbed from the atmosphere by the world's oceans. Even if atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 and other greenhouse gases is less than expected, warming will continue, ocean acidification will continue, species die-offs will continue, and that should provide lots of reasons for recognizing that the planet is headed towards disaster.

And atmospheric sensitivity doesn't mean a whole hill of beans when more than 90% of the heat being absorbed on planet earth is in the oceans. This is why thermal expansion is starting to raise sea levels significantly in many regions, and sea ice is melting so fast in the Arctic that we might see ice-free summers by the end of this decade. It should be noted that the extreme, volatile weather we are experiencing with these dramatic temperature shifts, is also connected to the loss of sea ice in the arctic. My only question is do you have to sign a pact with satan to become a national post columnist?

[Michael Hardner]

I am really getting sick of your "conspiracy" meme.

I'm sorry but it's your meme not mine. They have changed the model due to the data and you say it's because they could no longer deny the data. Well why did they deny it before ?

[TimG]

They have changed the model due to the data and you say it's because they could no longer deny the data. Well why did they deny it before?

No its your meme. I have explained over and over again that I don't believe there is any conspiracy - just a collection of buffoons that let their desire to preserve a narrative trump their scientific good sense. You are the one who keeps slapping the conspiracy label on it.

A true scientist would have looked at the data over the last 10 years and acknowledged that they could be over estimating the warming but it would take a few more years to know for certain.

A buffoon pretending to be a scientist would insist that there is no possibility that the models are wrong and "deniers" that express doubts must be ignored.

Guess what the MET office has been doing for the last 5 years? They are buffoons.

Edited January 14, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

No its your meme. I have explained over and over again that I don't believe there is any conspiracy - just a collection of buffoons that let their desire to preserve a narrative trump their scientific good sense. You are the one who keeps slapping the conspiracy label on it.

You may not label it as such, but you are describing the effect and nothing less.

A true scientist would have looked at the data over the last 10 years and acknowledged that they could be over estimating the warming but it would take a few more years to know for certain.

You're actually participating in the 'True Scotsman' fallacy, I think. Scientists do debate warming in the literature. If you say that they don't agree with you then they're not a True Scientist in your eyes.

[TimG]

Scientists do debate warming in the literature. If you say that they don't agree with you then they're not a True Scientist in your eyes.

I don't really care what they think. If they lack the integrity to look at a criticism and judge it by its merits rather than its source then I consider them to be buffoons pretending to be a scientist and judge their scientific claims accordingly. At the end of the day models mean nothing - real data matters and the real data is saying that climate sensitivity could be at or below the low end of the previous estimates. Edited January 14, 2013 by TimG