The Great Green Con #1 GW Forecasts Wrong Again

[bush_cheney2004]

is this your best comeback for wildly failing in the two posts of yours I've just addressed? This is gold, Jerry... real gold!

Methinks you are under the false impression that everyone here takes the time (or even cares) to digest such minutiae, true or false. I pay NASA to do that. Some free advice.....sometimes less is more.

of course, your cut&paste magic from denier blogs is simply a grander extension on scribblet's nonsense within this thread. Denier blog science rules!

It's copy and paste...not cut and paste. Personal attacks against members / user names is against forum rules.

[waldo]

Methinks you are under the false impression that everyone here takes the time (or even cares) to digest such minutiae, true or false. I pay NASA to do that. Some free advice.....sometimes less is more.

minutiae!!! Interesting that it only settles in as minutia when you get caught with your pants down!

you really, really liked that minutiae... before you didn't! I suggest you take your "less is more" to heart - why continue to embarrass yourself further!

as for you, "paying NASA to do that"... NASA is telling you something relative to AGW/CC - apparently, you don't like/accept what your money is paying for! Whaa!!!

Edited March 28, 2013 by waldo

[bush_cheney2004]

minutiae!!! Interesting that it only settles in as minutia when you get caught with your pants down!

No, in this case, as before, it's the IPCC with pants on the ground, as well as their devout AGW faithful.

you really, really liked that minutiae... before you didn't! I suggest you take your "less is more" to heart - why continue to embarrass yourself further!

I just did...see below.

as for you, "paying NASA to do that"... NASA is telling you something relative to AGW/CC - apparently, you don't like/accept what your money is paying for! Whaa!!!

NASA is ours...not yours...ditto Goddard.....financed by/for the hydrocarbon economy.. See how easy it was for me to work that in ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Here is another irrefutable IPCC FAIL...this time it's the absence of the much feared tropical hotspot caused by human CO2 emissions and resultant positive feedback loop......didn't happen as predicted:

Conclusions from the chart:

#1.The IPCC's tropical "hotspot" does not exist.

#2. Atmospheric CO2 levels over 350ppm do not cause a hotspot to occur.

#3. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is lower than expert assumptions.

#4. Temporary natural El Nino events do cause a spike in upper troposphere
temperatures but then return to a lower temperature state (no positive
feedback loop).

#5. The IPCC, its experts and climate models have been wrong about the mythical hotspot since the UN created the IPCC (1988).

#6. The continuing abysmal failure of climate models is likely associated with the lack of the mythical, hypothesized hotspot.

#7. The AGW hypothesis of tipping point, climate positive feedback is proven
false after decades of zero empirical evidence supporting it.

#8. Despite all empirical evidence, IPCC scientists and bureaucrats will keep pushing the hotspot, positive feedback hypothesis in order to continue their lucrative taxpayer funding.

[waldo]

Here is another irrefutable IPCC FAIL...this time it's the absence of the much feared tropical hotspot caused by human CO2 emissions and resultant positive feedback loop......didn't happen as predicted:

wow! From your same denier blogger guy! You're doubling down after having been trounced twice previously! You're 3 for 3 now!!!

again, you know absolutely nothing about what you're presuming to puff-up over. You (and your denier blogger guy) should really give credit where credit is due - this chestnut originates directly from charlatan nutbar extraordinaire, Monckton! Oh my!

the models predict that if and only if Man is the cause of warming, the tropical upper air, six miles above the ground, should warm up to thrice as fast as the surface, but this tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot” has not been observed...

of course, there is no such formal model prediction by the IPCC... there is no such formal attribution of global warming to mankind dependent on anything to do with a tropospheric "tropical hotspot"... short-term or long-term. The so-called hotspot does appear seasonally, annually, less so on decadal scales of time... interpreting that to a narrowed "tropical" latitude reference... interpreting anything to do with the upper troposphere is a most active area of ongoing scientific investigation; a key aspect of which deals with concerns over data quality and the merging of longer-term radiosonde network data with newer satellite based data.

by the by... do you even know the difference between atmosphere, troposphere and stratosphere?

[bush_cheney2004]

wow! From your same denier blogger guy! You're doubling down after having been trounced twice previously! You're 3 for 3 now!!!

again, you know absolutely nothing about what you're presuming to puff-up over. You (and your denier blogger guy) should really give credit where credit is due - this chestnut originates directly from charlatan nutbar extraordinaire, Monckton! Oh my!

I know, and it really send alarmists into a heated tizzy....enjoy !!

.....by the by... do you even know the difference between atmosphere, troposphere and stratosphere?

Ummmm...yea...I think so...we had to learn that kinda stuff for ballistic missile launches, boost phase, and RB deployment on the Rooskie homeland.

[waldo]

I know, and it really send alarmists into a heated tizzy....enjoy !!

I am so enjoying your meltdown and (now) 3-for-3 big-time fails!

in all seriousness, bro - you profess to be all about pursuing 'a greater dynamic'.

- what does it say about someone (you), choosing a dynamic that categorically refuses to accept science.

- what does it say about someone (you), who will blindly gravitate to some unknown internet blog, created by some unknown person, and just openly accept anything/everything hosted on that website... and put it forward as factual with such absolute certainty? What does it say about someone (you) who will do this, while at the same time knowing nothing whatsoever about the underlying issues and supporting framework?

- what does it say about someone (you), who will do all of the above while at the same time posturing (from ignorance)?

[bush_cheney2004]

I am so enjoying your meltdown and (now) 3-for-3 big-time fails!

in all seriousness, bro - you profess to be all about pursuing 'a greater dynamic'.

- what does it say about someone (you), choosing a dynamic that categorically refuses to accept science.

Son, my very life is/was dependent on science and engineering, not Googling American sources.

- what does it say about someone (you), who will blindly gravitate to some unknown internet blog, created by some unknown person, and just openly accept anything/everything hosted on that website... and put it forward as factual with such absolute certainty?

It says that I am open to all views, except for people who refuse to do the same (alarmist faithful).

What does it say about someone (you) who will do this, while at the same time knowing nothing whatsoever about the underlying issues and supporting framework?

It says that (you) abhor opposing views from a real NASA taxpayer.

- what does it say about someone (you), who will do all of the above while at the same time posturing (from ignorance)?

It says that my five year mission to seek out and mock stupidity is not yet complete.

[Michael Hardner]

Except he has spent his entire career using statistics to evaluate the potential of mining sites - something which makes him more qualified that any PhD in physics that dabbles in stats because if he got answers that turned out to be wrong he would no longer be able to work.

Using applied statistics as part of your job does not make you an expert in statistics as used in other areas.

IOW - people who use mathematics to solve real world problems are often more qualified than their purely academic peers because they get feedback that tells them when they are wrong. i.e. the plane crashes or the bridge falls or investors lose millions because there was not actually any metal in the ground.

I disagree completely.

I'm thinking of a technician who used to tell us that he knew his machines better than the engineers that designed them. Which was true until we asked him questions outside his focus of work, ie. capacity, specifications and so on.

In any case, the fact that people like you that can look at this simple black and white issue and *still* not understand the mistake Mann made simply re-enforces my view that climate science is rotten to the core.

And yet, you're the one who is wrong here. You're wrong, and rather than realize the limits of your knowledge compared to an entire field of science, you prefer to indict an entire DISCIPLINE, including accusations of corruption, conspiracy, what have you.

It is clear that your ideological desire to defend the climate science establishment has made you willing to twist information in any way you need to in order to preserve your faith. The real trouble is there are many many more people like you sitting in universities.

And I'm part of it too. Sorry, but I arrived at this issue with an open mind, and I still have one. Even the science itself has indicated that warming may be slowing - but that just (somehow) reinforces the corruption to you.

It's you and me against the world, as the song says - but in this case it's actually just you against the world.

[Michael Hardner]

.We have been over this many times and issue remains the same: you do not understand the issues involved but you seem to think you do. Part of the problem is you think it is some mathematical exercise and you don't understand that proxies are real world physical processes and that places constraints on what "coefficients" can be considered correct. Claiming Mann got a different coefficient is like saying he calculated the gravitational constant to be -9.8 instead of +9.8 (a sentence may sound reasonable until you realize that it implies that we should all be floating into space...).

I don't know if I missed this, or you were editing the post after I quoted it.

You are making a philosophical error here - proxies are MODELS of real world processes. Humans can't understand them, an the process takes care of that by way of regression analysis. It's statistical modeling, which is why they say things like 95% confidence, rather than 100%. You should know this.

[bush_cheney2004]

...You are making a philosophical error here - proxies are MODELS of real world processes. Humans can't understand them, an the process takes care of that by way of regression analysis. It's statistical modeling, which is why they say things like 95% confidence, rather than 100%. You should know this.

Yet, recall that is was a battle just to get the raw data, proxies or not. In God We trust...all others bring data. Every ANOVA that I have ever completed required that I provide the RAW data as well. No "hiding the decline" allowed.....

[waldo]

in all seriousness, bro - you profess to be all about pursuing 'a greater dynamic'.

- what does it say about someone (you), choosing a dynamic that categorically refuses to accept science.

- what does it say about someone (you), who will blindly gravitate to some unknown internet blog, created by some unknown person, and just openly accept anything/everything hosted on that website... and put it forward as factual with such absolute certainty? What does it say about someone (you) who will do this, while at the same time knowing nothing whatsoever about the underlying issues and supporting framework?

- what does it say about someone (you), who will do all of the above while at the same time posturing (from ignorance)?

It says that I am open to all views, except for people who refuse to do the same (alarmist faithful).

openness? All views? How does your going to a website associated with a nameless/faceless blogger express your openness? How does your blindly accepting "whatever" from a nameless/faceless blogger express your openness... to all views?

this is a most meaningful exchange here, one that really reflects on the greater mindset and predilection of the denier! We know you have no personal knowledge base to work from. Why would you so brazenly throw a blanket googly out, pursue the googly and gravitate to a website that you know nothing about and where you can't check out the personal veracity of the related blogger(s). Who is he/are they? Your selected denier blog gives you no clue, none whatsoever. You're like a sponge willingly sopping up unsubstantiated "whatever" and posturing with it (all from a position of ignorance).

clearly, a rhetorical question here: what is in the mindset of a naive denier, one with no knowledge foundation to support the related denial? What is in that mindset that would have the naivety expressed through someone willing to accept something/anything from an unknown person(s) and present it as factual certitude?... while at the same choosing to exclude scientists... subject matter experts... consensus science? What is in that mindset of denial?

.

It says that my five year mission to seek out and mock stupidity is not yet complete.

oh my! You're on a mission? From the 'lord'? Your 30,000+ posts is a testament to your... mission? Clearly, per these last exchanges where you've failed big time, 3 big times in fronting denial nonsense, clearly, you're mocking stupidity? Yours!!!

[bush_cheney2004]

...oh my! You're on a mission? From the 'lord'? Your 30,000+ posts is a testament to your... mission? Clearly, per these last exchanges where you've failed big time, 3 big times in fronting denial nonsense, clearly, you're mocking stupidity? Yours!!!

Thank you, as I cherish these tender exchanges and opportunity to expose the seething alarmist rage. Jam on....

[Michael Hardner]

Yet, recall that is was a battle just to get the raw data, proxies or not. In God We trust...all others bring data. Every ANOVA that I have ever completed required that I provide the RAW data as well. No "hiding the decline" allowed.....

I don't think that was an issue in the example being discussed. It was that some of the same data was used and produced a different coefficient, as I recall. It's pretty microscopic stuff, but in the end it doesn't matter.

[waldo]

openness? All views? How does your going to a website associated with a nameless/faceless blogger express your openness? How does your blindly accepting "whatever" from a nameless/faceless blogger express your openness... to all views?

this is a most meaningful exchange here, one that really reflects on the greater mindset and predilection of the denier! We know you have no personal knowledge base to work from. Why would you so brazenly throw a blanket googly out, pursue the googly and gravitate to a website that you know nothing about and where you can't check out the personal veracity of the related blogger(s). Who is he/are they? Your selected denier blog gives you no clue, none whatsoever. You're like a sponge willingly sopping up unsubstantiated "whatever" and posturing with it (all from a position of ignorance).

clearly, a rhetorical question here: what is in the mindset of a naive denier, one with no knowledge foundation to support the related denial? What is in that mindset that would have the naivety expressed through someone willing to accept something/anything from an unknown person(s) and present it as factual certitude?... while at the same choosing to exclude scientists... subject matter experts... consensus science? What is in that mindset of denial?

It says that my five year mission to seek out and mock stupidity is not yet complete.

oh my! You're on a mission? From the 'lord'? Your 30,000+ posts is a testament to your... mission? Clearly, per these last exchanges where you've failed big time, 3 big times in fronting denial nonsense, clearly, you're mocking stupidity? Yours!!!

Thank you, as I cherish these tender exchanges and opportunity to expose the seething alarmist rage. Jam on....

alarmist rage? Exposing your charade... exposing you for what you are... is alarmist rage? So now, in this your latest, you blindly drop a graphic (again from your same go-to denier blogger)... any graphic will do!!!

let's move the earlier posed questions beyond the aforementioned rhetorical... let's have you address it directly:

"clearly, a rhetorical question here: what is in the mindset of a naive denier, one with no knowledge foundation to support the related denial? What is in that mindset that would have the naivety expressed through someone willing to accept something/anything from an unknown person(s) and present it as factual certitude?... while at the same choosing to exclude scientists... subject matter experts... consensus science? What is in that mindset of denial?"

.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think that was an issue in the example being discussed. It was that some of the same data was used and produced a different coefficient, as I recall. It's pretty microscopic stuff, but in the end it doesn't matter.

This is exactly the same kind of dismissive attitude that invites closer and sometimes harsher criticism. Provide the raw data...straight up...every time...no games !!

I can post all the charts I want but without the underlying data they are not substantiated. Wonder where I can find some ?

Edited March 28, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Let's go back and look at one of the first IPCC model fails.....so called GHG emissions were actually higher since 1990, but the predicted warming was far less than alarmist doom scenarios. Predictably (pun intended), the alarmist faithful have now gone silent on such bold "predictions" in the face of such a laughable outcome.

Edited March 28, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[TimG]

You are making a philosophical error here - proxies are MODELS of real world processes. Humans can't understand them, an the process takes care of that by way of regression analysis. It's statistical modeling, which is why they say things like 95% confidence, rather than 100%. You should know this.

It it partially a quibble about terminology. The paper in question presented measurements of the x-ray density of lake sediments over time and presented an explanation for the relationship between the x-ray density and temperature. This explanation is rooted in an understanding the physics that govern the creation of these sediments. This explanation, based on physics, constrains any subsequent analysis. An analysis that ignores these physical constraints is a bogus analysis. Mann produced a bogus analysis because he produced coefficients that contradict the basic physics of these sediments. That is your problem too. You think that physics can be ignored and any number that pops out of a statistical meat-grinder is as acceptable as any other number. You are wrong. Physics matters. Edited March 28, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

It it partially a quibble about terminology. The paper in question presented measurements of the x-ray density of lake sediments over time and presented an explanation for the relationship between the x-ray density and temperature. This explanation is rooted in an understanding the physics that govern the creation of these sediments. This explanation, based on physics, constrains any subsequent analysis. An analysis that ignores these physical constraints is a bogus analysis. Mann produced a bogus analysis because he produced coefficients that contradict the basic physics of these sediments. That is your problem too. You think that physics can be ignored and any number that pops out of a statistical meat-grinder is as acceptable as any other number. You are wrong. Physics matters.

bullshyte! But nice to see you 2 guys resurrecting this nonsense... yet again... in another thread! What's this now... are we at a dozen threads yet?

[Bonam]

You are making a philosophical error here - proxies are MODELS of real

world processes. Humans can't understand them, an the process takes care

of that by way of regression analysis. It's statistical modeling, which

is why they say things like 95% confidence, rather than 100%.

It it partially a quibble about terminology.

Unfortunately I think Michael's quote there illustrates a much deeper lack of understanding of both science and statistics. First... the statement "humans can't understand them" is nonsense, since of course humans have to understand them, they are the ones that described and quantified the proxy, analyzed and understood the relevant physics, etc. Secondly, no, proxies are not "models of real world processes". Rather, a proxy is merely a set of data about any phenomenon, that, by way of physical understanding, a scientist can use as a stand-in (a proxy) for some other phenomenon of interest (like sediment density data or tree ring data standing in for temperature data). Lastly, a lack of understanding of the physical processes underlying various data series (such as the lake sediment densities in question) is most certainly NOT why statistical studies are quoted as having 95% (or other % values) confidence.

[bush_cheney2004]

We've all heard of Global Warming...now we have Global Worming:

Greenhouse-gas emissions from soils increased by earthworms

Earthworms play an essential part in determining the greenhouse-gas
balance of soils worldwide, and their influence is expected to grow over
the next decades. They are thought to stimulate carbon sequestration in
soil aggregates, but also to increase emissions of the main greenhouse
gases carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Hence, it remains highly
controversial whether earthworms predominantly affect soils to act as a
net source or sink of greenhouse gases.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1692.html

[TimG]

Unfortunately I think Michael's quote there illustrates a much deeper lack of understanding of both science and statistics.

Yep. According to Michael we can take any random data set we can find, check it for correlation to temperatures and claim it is a proxy if it correlates. There is absolutely no need to have any physics that explains why the phenomena should be correlated. It is really no different than the thinking that underpins astrology.

This cartoon perfectly illustrates the fallacy: http://xkcd.com/882/

I betting that many people will look at that cartoon and not understand its point.

[waldo]

Let's go back and look at one of the first IPCC model fails.....so called GHG emissions were actually higher since 1990, but the predicted warming was far less than alarmist doom scenarios. Predictably (pun intended), the alarmist faithful have now gone silent on such bold "predictions" in the face of such a laughable outcome.

clearly... another of your big time fails - you're now 5 for 5! Again, let's emphasize you haven't a clue what you're talking about/presuming to present. But really, nice to see you've moved away from your no-name denier blogger and upped your game to parrot a more profiled denier blogger! Of course, you haven't the basic chops to even attempt to articulate an argument around your linked graphic...

your earlier fails and this your latest gem begs the fundamental question: why are you attempting to presume on the performance of models-to-temperature observations, while referencing graphics that speak to how well the IPCC emission scenarios projected changes in GHG emissions? Aren't you interested in showing (supposed) failure for the models temperature projections? Maybe you could start your missing articulation with that one... oh wait, that would assume you could step beyond cut&paste parroting, hey?

how about a lil' perspective first: you're speaking of the state of models 23 years ago - a projection made in 1990... associated with the very first IPCC assessment. In terms of understanding and accompanying technological advancement, each and every iterative IPCC assessment... now coming up to the release of the 5th assessment this fall... has paralleled ongoing advances in modeling. One of those paralleled advances includes an increased understanding of radiative forcings and their associated global mean radiative forcings (RF) value estimates:

when the radiative forcing estimates of that first 1990 IPCC assessment are updated to reflect the latest GHG radiative forcing estimate values, the related temperature 'business as usual' projection as compared to observed temperature:

in terms of scientific papers supporting the reliability of climate projections, a most timely recent publication release occurred just a couple of days ago in support of a 1996 projection:

Global temperatures relative to the pre-industrial era under a version of the IS92a scenario of relatively high greenhouse gas and anthropogenic sulphate forcing. The solid line shows the original ensemble mean. The grey shaded region indicates the 5–95% uncertainty interval in forecast anthropogenic warming after scaling the model-simulated spatiotemporal patterns of response to greenhouse gas and sulphate forcing to give the best fit (dashed line) to observations over 1946–1996. Large diamonds are decadal means of the observations: open black, used in calibration; solid red, first- and last-available out-of-sample forecast decades. Vertical bars on the black and red diamonds show 5–95% ranges on decadal mean temperatures to be expected from internal variability as simulated by the HadCM2 model, which is also used for uncertainty estimates. It is consistent with more recent models and with residuals of the fit. The red line is a running decadal mean through the updated observations. Yellow diamonds are annual temperatures for the forecast period.

Edited March 29, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

Yep. According to Michael we can take any random data set we can find, check it for correlation to temperatures and claim it is a proxy if it correlates. There is absolutely no need to have any physics that explains why the phenomena should be correlated. It is really no different than the thinking that underpins astrology.

This cartoon perfectly illustrates the fallacy: http://xkcd.com/882/

I betting that many people will look at that cartoon and not understand its point.

hey... that's the same toon you keep flogging - over and over and over, again - bookmarked, hey! I'm still waiting for you to respond to one of the other times you threw it down: care to address it - now?

Waldo, please explain the point being made by the cartoon. http://xkcd.com/882/

you keep flogging that toon - perhaps you... you... should take some time and explain exactly what you interpret it to say. While you're doing that, why not relate practical examples... most particularly within the physical sciences - you know, the elephant in the room you keep dancing around.

ok, ok... in anticipation of you actually responding and giving your toon interpretation, I believe your linked toon is a fine example of cherry jelly bean picking!

no, wait... is the toon highlighting the disproportionate media frenzy... perhaps the failure of the lamestream media to report science properly? Is that it?

no, wait... is the toon showcasing the Multiple Comparisons Fallacy. Oh look, my reference link even draws an origination tie to the science of epidemiology... why that even parallels the OP link's Nature Journal opinion piece's emphasis, hey?

don't forget... the elephant in the room! (Try to) apply your toon... there, with real-world legitimate practical examples. Let's have some real fun, hey?

.

note to Michael: this is not me getting sucked back into this again!!!

now TimG, as for your proxy nonsense, your problem... your forever problem... is that you made the paper (the author) your declared authoritative source - the "end all, be all". As before, as ever, your declared authoritative source categorically states the proxy in question - can be used: the same question stands waiting for you to answer... the same question you refuse to acknowledge, to answer, as appears below within this handy extract (I have bookmarked).

just answer the question as to what you think the words of your declared authoritative source mean, when she states:

"However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated."

The author's own words speak directly to her recommendation on how to calibrate her proxies.

Why don't you step-up and state how you interpret the proxy author was making that statement, what it means and what it applies to... other than towards a calibration approach/method for her proxies. You endlessly ignoring it shows that you don't understand the issues and that you have nothing useful to contribute.

...the proxy author, Tiljander, from your declared authoritative source paper, summarily states:

However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated.

yes... from your declared authoritative source: difficult... but could be estimated; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible.

your whole premise continues to fall back on the graduate student's paper... your eyeballing a 2-dimensional graphic, your calling the paper the definitive authoritative source. Unfortunately for you, as I will continue to remind you, that relatively inexperienced graduate student, in her own words extracted from the very paper you declare the definitive authoritative source... in her own words, suggests a possible route for calibrating her proxies. Again, she states: "However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated".

Standard proxy calibration technique involves normalizing a series to an annual resolved variance level... I expect Mann might have extended upon your declared authority to estimate calibrations, "averaged over a few years".

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a good thing there are more than alarmists working on planet Jiffy-Pop's future.....the modeling business is booming ! These folks like the 'harmonic' approach to explain (and predict) temperature fluctuation: