Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Check the IPCC reports-or are these your "warmists"?

If it is there then you find it since you made the claim that global warming causes more cold weather.

Alarmists constantly make claims of "facts" which are not in fact true and make silly appeals to authority when confronted.

This is one of those.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not get that from reading it. They appear to offer multiple scenarios where technology is fixed or assume people buy the most efficient option regardless of price.

As I stated above - regulations where the government works with industry to set standards that are achievable are a good thing. Education programs like Energuide are also helpful (i.e. forcing energy consumption to be a clearly reported feature when buying appliances). What does not work are when the government starts subsidizing energy saving efforts that are not economic on their own. What also does not work are the complex fuel economy rules which force car makers to buy "credits" to meet standards that cannot be met.

OK, I agree and have always believed that some government energy saving schemes are failures that should be buried and not repeated.

Still there are plenty of things governments, individuals and companies can do to save energy (and reduce CO2 emissions) without reducing our quality of life. Here is some additional support:

http://vaclavsmil.com/uploads/smil-article-hummer-in-every-driveway-fp-201111.pdf

"simply switching all Canadian furnaces to the most efficient natural gas ones could cut that country’s (growing) greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent, according to energy expert Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/01/24/does-increased-energy-efficiency-just-spark-us-to-use-more/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=overconsumption-consumer-green

***

[if you have not done so already, I highly recommend you Czech out other writtings of Smil, he is very informative: http://vaclavsmil.com/publications/ , http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/smil-article-ieee-20120700.pdf]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

simply switching all Canadian furnaces to the most efficient natural gas ones could cut that country’s (growing) greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent, according to energy expert Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba.

An interesting example because I had to replace my furnace and I went with an efficient one but not the most efficient because the installation costs (not the costs of the furnace itself) for the most efficient were not justified given the potential monetary savings. Now maybe simply buying a high efficiency furnace (>88%) is all that Smil meant. If he meant that everyone needed to install the top of line efficient furnace (>98%) then this is an example of an academic calculation that has no connection to the real world. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

An interesting example because I had to replace my furnace and I went with an efficient one but not the most efficient because the installation costs (not the costs of the furnace itself) for the most efficient were not justified given the potential monetary savings. Now maybe simply buying a high efficiency furnace (>88%) is all that Smil meant. If he meant that everyone needed to install the top of line efficient furnace (>98%) then this is an example of an academic calculation that has no connection to the real world.

 

One has to live within ones means, noone knows that more than I. I know as well that nature doesn't really care. I'm not pointing a finger, I have a fairly hefty carbon footprint myself. Ignoring things won't help, but maybe it doesn't matter. There was a long time we weren't here and there will be a long time after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this post: a movement of two posts from another thread... intended to not further deflect/distract from the intent of that other thread.

Ah yes, contradictory data. It has been attempted:
Global Warming Models Obsolete

The two most important things that CERN has found are:


1. Cosmic rays can make clouds form up to ten times faster, strictly by acting on sulfuric acid and ammonia vapor. This works most strongly at altitudes of five miles and higher, where the air is cool.
2. Within a mile of the ground, something more must be happening. Sulfuric acid and water alone cannot account for all the cloud formation at this level.


On the second basis alone, the lead investigator, Jasper Kirkby, said that climate scientists would have to revise their models. At issue: these models assume that water, sulfuric acid, and ammonia vapors are the only vapors that form clouds. This is not correct. Other vapors take part—and whether they come from the wild or from human activity, even CERN does not know yet.


However, it appears the threat was quickly contained:
Scientists Gagged From Interpreting Study Linking Climate Change To Cosmic Rays

The real issue here is why are scientist being ordered not to give interpretations of data that would suggest a theory that is contradicts the politically popular view? Is science not allowed to suggest an alternate hypothesis to the man-made Global warming theory even when the data shows otherwise?

Science needs to be factually unbiased and provide information that is independent of politics.


Lorne Gunter seems to have hit the nail on the head:

It’s hard to imagine, though, the CERN scientists being similarly gagged if their experiment had supported the politically correct belief that human activity is the main cause of climate change. Scientists whose work backs the alleged scientific consensus feel free to interpret their results all the time. They frequently claim their findings prove the need for urgent, expensive and intrusive government regulation of private decisions and actions. So why the muzzle on the CERN crew?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/01/lorne-gunter-the-sun-shines-some-light-on-global-warming-orthodoxy/

Is this thread not about an over the hill hippie rocker talking out of his ass about shit he knows nothing about?


no - this thread is not about you! :lol: Your sources are not legitimate and short of the only point of relative 'accuracy' (re: model impacts), there is nothing of substance/legitimacy in your linked articles.

as I said, the only accurate point within your earlier post was in regards to climate model revisions... the "obsolete" reference was clearly over the top. CERN/CLOUD experiments have been eagerly waited on by legitimate climate/atmospheric scientists. The present state of atmospheric aerosol modeling is known, recognized and acknowledged to be lacking/uncertain... hence, the long-standing desire for a vehicle, like CERN/CLOUD, to help bring forward new learnings/understandings relative to atmospheric aerosols... to, in turn, better aerosol modeling within existing models.

your linked reference to "scientists gagged" is equally over the top. The CERN director was quoted as saying he wanted his scientists to present the findings... and not to rise to the politicization level of interpretations. Of course, as is the way of the denialsphere, those findings were spun most improperly, most incorrectly and with such rigour they, as oft happens, punched up into the mainstream press. It's the Sun! It's Cosmic Rays! Ah yes, denialists had finally found that ever elusive "AGW killer silver bullet"! Uhhh, no, sorry denialists. In any case, in the interim 2.5 years since the initial experiments, related papers have been published and CERN scientists have been speaking openly... nothing has come forward to suggest any reason behind some presumed early "forced gagging of scientists". Nothing has come forward to support the denialist claims of a conspiracy.

perhaps you might answer a simple question. You speak of a "threat being contained"... you clearly infer there was something in the CERN/CLOUD findings that was a threat to the consensus scientific understanding. Care to step beyond your dubious "journalist" sources, state what findings you believe have been contained and provide legitimate source/citation for your interpretations. While you're doing that, perhaps you could advise on just how something so monumental (so contained)... could remain... contained. Given the ramifications of such (claimed) findings, why has nothing percolated beyond those initial experiments and the most egregious and false denier interpretations of those findings. After all, this is... this would be... huge! It would rock the very foundations of scientific understanding. And yet... 'crickets'! Why so quiet, hey?

as for the whole 'cosmic ray (GCR)->cloud seeding premise' as an alternate theory to attribute warming to, we've touched upon the fallacy of GCR impact many times over through an assortment of previous MLW threads. Again, if there was any legitimacy to a feedback impact of GCRs driving significant climate change, that feedback would be two-fold:


- either, greater solar activity -> stronger solar magnetic field -> fewer GCRs reaching Earth -> fewer clouds -> more warming;
- or, less solar activity -> weaker solar magnetic field -> more GCRs reaching Earth -> more clouds -> less warming.


observations show that GCRs can't explain the relatively recent warming... show that the level of solar activity and the amount of GCRs reaching the Earth's surface have remained flat, on average, over the past 60 years. Again, the sun/GCRs could only be causing global warming if there were a longer-term rising solar activity trend coupled with a decreasing trend in the number of GCRs reaching earth. In actuality... the number of GCRs reaching earth has increased since 1990, reaching record levels in 2009.

GCRsvsTemps.jpg


from a recent study: A review of the relevance of the ‘CLOUD’ results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate

Abstract: The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ’sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as I said, the only accurate point within your earlier post was in regards to climate model revisions... the "obsolete" reference was clearly over the top.

Climate models are dubious by their very nature. They are an important tool, yes, but cannot be relied upon as static. As I know your fondness for colourful graphs, here’s one of the IPCC’s own predictions and comparative real world observations.

0916graphic.jpg?w=620&h=507

The above graphic is Figure 1.4 from Chapter 1 of a draft of the Fifth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The initials at the top represent the First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, the Second (SAR) in 1995. Shaded banks show range of predictions from each of the four climate models used for all four reports since 1990. That last report, AR4, was issued in 2007. Model runs after 1992 were tuned to track temporary cooling due to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in The Philippines. The black squares, show with uncertainty bars, measure the observed average surface temperatures over the same interval. The range of model runs is syndicated by the vertical bars. The light grey area above and below is not part of the model prediction range. The final version of the new IPCC report, AR5, will be issued later this month.

The IPCC graph shows that climate models over estimated temperature change by between 100 and 900% compared actual observed temperatures.

your linked reference to "scientists gagged" is equally over the top. The CERN director was quoted as saying he wanted his scientists to present the findings... and not to rise to the politicization level of interpretations.

It is refreshing, however is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination. The media tends to pay much more attention to interpretation of data than the data itself and this has been a very useful tool for those on the side of HIGW. That said, interpretation of data is important and I fail to see why it should be discouraged on either side of the debate simply because it may not fit within a particular consensus.

perhaps you might answer a simple question. You speak of a "threat being contained"... you clearly infer there was something in the CERN/CLOUD findings that was a threat to the consensus scientific understanding.

As I stated above, Dr. Kirby’s interpretation of the data was clearly not appreciated or requested, motivating the CERN director to offer his advice to "refrain from interpretation." One has to wonder what his reaction would have been if the interpretation had supported the consensus. Many scientific organizations (possibly all of them) including the IPCC itself is not opposed to offering their interpretation of data and political ramifications that result. What’s different here that would motivate such a request by the CERN director?

Edited by Spiderfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiderfish - the narrative under the graph states that this is a draft......I find it difficult to believe that the IPCC would permit it's inclusion (in its current form) in the final version. Do you know if indeed it was included in the published version?

It was not. True to its activist agenda the IPCC buried the discrepancy with noise. See:

http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiderfish - the narrative under the graph states that this is a draft......I find it difficult to believe that the IPCC would permit it's inclusion (in its current form) in the final version. Do you know if indeed it was included in the published version?

My intention of including the graph was to illustrate the sketchy reliability of climate models and risk associated with depending on the results to show definitive proof. Climate models are not static and can be considered obsolete by their very nature, as any new or more detailed information requires revision of the model. This concept is considered "over the top" for some, especially those who believe the debate is over. However when stakes are so high, it seems to only make practical sense to treat any prediction with a degree of skepticism and welcome new information instead of trying to make new data fit within existing models.

It was not. True to its activist agenda the IPCC buried the discrepancy with noise. See:

http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

Thanks for providing the additional information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Your sources are not legitimate and short of the only point of relative 'accuracy' (re: model impacts), there is nothing of substance/legitimacy in your linked articles.

as I said, the only accurate point within your earlier post was in regards to climate model revisions... the "obsolete" reference was clearly over the top. CERN/CLOUD experiments have been eagerly waited on by legitimate climate/atmospheric scientists. The present state of atmospheric aerosol modeling is known, recognized and acknowledged to be lacking/uncertain... hence, the long-standing desire for a vehicle, like CERN/CLOUD, to help bring forward new learnings/understandings relative to atmospheric aerosols... to, in turn, better aerosol modeling within existing models.

Climate models are dubious by their very nature. They are an important tool, yes, but cannot be relied upon as static. As I know your fondness for colourful graphs, here’s one of the IPCC’s own predictions and comparative real world observations.

The IPCC graph shows that climate models over estimated temperature change by between 100 and 900% compared actual observed temperatures.

My intention of including the graph was to illustrate the sketchy reliability of climate models and risk associated with depending on the results to show definitive proof. Climate models are not static and can be considered obsolete by their very nature, as any new or more detailed information requires revision of the model. This concept is considered "over the top" for some, especially those who believe the debate is over. However when stakes are so high, it seems to only make practical sense to treat any prediction with a degree of skepticism and welcome new information instead of trying to make new data fit within existing models.

your linked reference, your wording/implication was that there was some monumental finding within those initial CLOUD experiments that... rendered existing models obsolete. Yes, models are always under revision... always being refined/bettered... per formal initiatives and organizations dedicated to that end. In past posts I've detailed some of those initiatives/organizations and spoken of the natural progression of (climate) models.

as I stated, "CERN/CLOUD experiments have been eagerly waited on by legitimate climate/atmospheric scientists. The present state of atmospheric aerosol modeling is known, recognized and acknowledged to be lacking/uncertain... hence, the long-standing desire for a vehicle, like CERN/CLOUD, to help bring forward new learnings/understandings relative to atmospheric aerosols... to, in turn, better aerosol modeling within existing models."

would you like to extend on your "obsolete" claim given "some manner of monumental finding within those initial CERN/CLOUD experiments"... versus a more natural progression of new learnings working to enhance/improve on the existing models. Across the myriad of components, couplings and parameterizations, perhaps use the latest IPCC AR5 reference to aerosol modeling if you'd like... I've bold highlighted the uncertainty aspects, those that I alluded to in my comment. Perhaps just extend upon this to advise on the basis for your "obsolete" claim as pertains to those initial CERN/CLOUD experiments:

The treatment of aerosol particles has advanced since the AR4. Many AOGCMs and ESMs now include the basic features of the sulphur cycle and so represent both the direct effect of sulphate aerosol, along with some of the more complex indirect effects involving cloud droplet number and size. Further, several AOGCMs and ESMs are currently capable of simulating the mass, number, size distribution, and mixing state of interacting multi-component aerosol particles (Bauer et al., 2008b; Liu et al., 2012b). The incorporation of more physically complete representations of aerosol often improves the simulated climate under historical and present-day conditions, including the mean pattern and interannual variability in continental rainfall (Rotstayn et al., 2010; Rotstayn et al., 2011). However, despite the addition of aerosol–cloud interactions to many AOGCMs and ESMs since the AR4, the representation of aerosol particles and their interaction with clouds and radiative transfer remains an important source of uncertainty (see Sections 7.3.5 and 7.4). Additional aerosol related topics that have received attention include the connection between dust aerosol and ocean biogeochemistry, the production of oceanic dimethyl sulfide (DMS) (a natural source of sulphate aerosol), and vegetation interactions with organic atmospheric chemistry (Collins et al., 2011).

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is refreshing, however is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination. The media tends to pay much more attention to interpretation of data than the data itself and this has been a very useful tool for those on the side of HIGW. That said, interpretation of data is important and I fail to see why it should be discouraged on either side of the debate simply because it may not fit within a particular consensus.

As I stated above, Dr. Kirby’s interpretation of the data was clearly not appreciated or requested, motivating the CERN director to offer his advice to "refrain from interpretation." One has to wonder what his reaction would have been if the interpretation had supported the consensus. Many scientific organizations (possibly all of them) including the IPCC itself is not opposed to offering their interpretation of data and political ramifications that result. What’s different here that would motivate such a request by the CERN director?

you're dancing around a lot of puffery... and conspiracy! Put up those initial statement(s) from scientist Kirkby that you interpret/parrot as being, as you say/imply, "unsupportive of the consensus".

I note you've gone silent... very silent... over the manufactured denialsphere silver-bullet AGW killer crapola concerning galactic cosmic rays/cloud seeding and the sun. Is there a problem? I note you conspicuously avoid commenting on that part of my latest reply. Is there a problem?

.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate models are dubious by their very nature. They are an important tool, yes, but cannot be relied upon as static. As I know your fondness for colourful graphs, here’s one of the IPCC’s own predictions and comparative real world observations.

The IPCC graph shows that climate models over estimated temperature change by between 100 and 900% compared actual observed temperatures.

aside from your apparent unwillingness to link to and quote directly from your graph's Financial Post opinion article source, please provide your direct source for your stated claim... as you state, "The IPCC graph shows that climate models over estimated temperature change by between 100 and 900% compared actual observed temperatures."

.

Spiderfish - the narrative under the graph states that this is a draft......I find it difficult to believe that the IPCC would permit it's inclusion (in its current form) in the final version. Do you know if indeed it was included in the published version?

It was not. True to its activist agenda the IPCC buried the discrepancy with noise. See:

http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

of course! True to your denier agenda, you parrot your tried & true go-to charlatan McIntyre... and, of course, MLW member 'Spiderfish' is simply grabbing his unattributed graphic from McIntyre's "buddy-in-arms", McKitrick (M&M). As per the standard M&M modus-operandi, they rigourously pursue their, "IPCC's veiled deceitful agenda of manipulation... and burying the discrepancy". Of course, that's what they do; that's what they live for... it's what you, one of the most fervent M&M soldiers, absolutely relishes!

of course, why should one ever expect M&M to actually look at the data (the graph) and attempt to interpret if there might be a reason why the early draft... again early draft, version of the graph was changed... over the 10+ month period between the "leak" of the early draft and the final draft and this manufactured M&M BS. Of course, the "leak" itself is worthy of additional comment, particularly its origin... care to dance over that aspect, hey TimG? Notwithstanding, apparently, denialists have a most skewed point of recognizing what draft means... and "how dare the IPCC make changes for accuracy sake through iterative drafts". :lol:

in any case TimG, as a follower of the blog exchanges, you clearly knew I would come back with the following... are you simply looking for another outlet to push your loyalty to the M&M cause? As I mentioned, apparently M&M couldn't be bothered to actually look at the early draft data/graph... particularly the improper baseline associated with the early draft version:

- IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think --- Global warming since 1990 has fallen within the range of IPCC climate model projections

- Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy

- Fake skeptic draws fake picture of Global Temperature

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not. True to its activist agenda the IPCC buried the discrepancy with noise. See:

http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

As I thought. Amazing how convoluted the final chart is......if indeed there were some minor adjustments (there's that word again), why not still retain the original, simple, clear format of the original graph instead of the indecipherable spaghetti?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I thought. Amazing how convoluted the final chart is......if indeed there were some minor adjustments (there's that word again), why not still retain the original, simple, clear format of the original graph instead of the indecipherable spaghetti?

Because the IPCC does not want to clearly provide information that would detract from its mission to support the UN treaty process. This graph change really illustrates how pathetically biased the organization is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're dancing around a lot of puffery... and conspiracy! Put up those initial statement(s) from scientist Kirkby that you interpret/parrot as being, as you say/imply, "unsupportive of the consensus".

I have included a link to a source which you yourself have used previous since all of my links to this point have not met your threshold of acceptability/credibility

.

"If they come from human activities, it raises the prospect of a new climate impact from humans. Alternatively, if they have a natural origin, we have the potential for a new climate feedback. What is clear is that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models has to be substantially revised."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/aug/24/cloud-formation-study-climate-models

I note you've gone silent... very silent... over the manufactured denialsphere silver-bullet AGW killer crapola concerning galactic cosmic rays/cloud seeding and the sun. Is there a problem? I note you conspicuously avoid commenting on that part of my latest reply. Is there a problem?

.

No problem...I work.

Your source is incredible, and seems to dwell in the interpretation of data, to which there is no link. However you yourself said earlier that:

the present state of atmospheric aerosol modeling is known, recognized and acknowledged to be lacking/uncertain... hence, the long-standing desire for a vehicle, like CERN/CLOUD, to help bring forward new learnings/understandings relative to atmospheric aerosols... to, in turn, better aerosol modeling within existing models.

We can certainly both agree that more understanding of the implications of these studies can only be positive to our knowledge and the accuracy/revisions that may be required to the models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day though what remains is that a vast vast majority of experts and scientists are still, after all these decades, convinced we must change the course we're on or face certain catastrophe.

That's what I want politicians and governments to pay attention to. I don't expect politicians to understand the complexities of the science anymore than I do, but what I do expect them to understand is that when they are out of their depth that they pay heed to what people who do understand it are saying.

When the vast vast majority have all been saying for decades now to do something and are still saying it to this day...I expect politicians to pay a commensurate amount of attention to what skeptics are saying which, is to say, virtually no attention at all..

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the IPCC does not want to clearly provide information that would detract from its mission to support the UN treaty process. This graph change really illustrates how pathetically biased the organization is.

My question was rhetorical......but I could not have answered it any better. It all reverts back to their original mandate and the preceding biased mindset that defined such a narrow mandate:

The role of the IPCC is to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate related data. It bases its assessment mainly on published and peer reviewed scientific technical literature.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the vast vast majority have all been saying for decades now to do something and are still saying it to this day...I expect politicians to pay a commensurate amount of attention to what skeptics are saying which, is to say, virtually no attention at all..

that is to say all but 1 study last year supported the global warming position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, TimG & others will seize upon that one as proof that all of the others are just part of a vast conspiracy to convince us all to spend more money on research.

The Americans and Europeans already spend billions on climate change research and data collection....the Canadians...not so/as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have included a link to a source which you yourself have used previous since all of my links to this point have not met your threshold of acceptability/credibility

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/aug/24/cloud-formation-study-climate-models

However you yourself said earlier that:

CERN/CLOUD experiments have been eagerly waited on by legitimate climate/atmospheric scientists. The present state of atmospheric aerosol modeling is known, recognized and acknowledged to be lacking/uncertain... hence, the long-standing desire for a vehicle, like CERN/CLOUD, to help bring forward new learnings/understandings relative to atmospheric aerosols... to, in turn, better aerosol modeling within existing models.

We can certainly both agree that more understanding of the implications of these studies can only be positive to our knowledge and the accuracy/revisions that may be required to the models.

my source critique was more aimed at the respective authors versus the hosts... as much as the National Post is heavily skewed with it's stable of denier journalists (Gunter being one of those), it occasionally prints a legitimate account. Same applies for the Financial Post (as it simply, typically, runs the same denier crap originating in the NP)... in that regard, your linked FP article was simply an opinion piece written by the prolific denier extraordinaire, McKitrick.

I trust you've appreciated the fabricated nonsense over the graph you linked... the distinction between an early iterative draft, the final draft and the final report... in fact, the final report is not yet formally published as it is now undergoing the rigours of proof-reading, error corrections, attempting to ensure continuity across all of the respective IPCC reports, etc.

as for this your latest linked article, it is a somewhat limited and high-level account of those experiments that led to the most presumptive... and false denier claims concerning the sun, galactic cosmic rays and cloud seeding. As for the aerosol reference, as you correctly quote me, yes... most certainly, here and through an assortment of past MLW posts in other threads, I've spoken about uncertainties related to aerosol modeling. I also trust you've captured my raised concern over the other completely unfounded claims and related hyperbole that those experiments "suddenly made all climate models obsolete". The closing paragraph in this your latest linked article about sums up this point:

Philip Stier, who heads the Climate Processes Group at Oxford University, said the study was "an experimental leap forward" but that it was too early to speculate on the implications for climate models or the climate in general. He added that the study would inspire more research in this area.

which is a related quote to suggest you would have been hard-pressed to answer/respond to the following request/challenge put to you... which you didn't do:

would you like to extend on your "obsolete" claim given "some manner of monumental finding within those initial CERN/CLOUD experiments"... versus a more natural progression of new learnings working to enhance/improve on the existing models. Across the myriad of components, couplings and parameterizations, perhaps use the latest IPCC AR5 reference to aerosol modeling if you'd like... I've bold highlighted the uncertainty aspects, those that I alluded to in my comment. Perhaps just extend upon this to advise on the basis for your "obsolete" claim as pertains to those initial CERN/CLOUD experiments:

The treatment of aerosol particles has advanced since the AR4. Many AOGCMs and ESMs now include the basic features of the sulphur cycle and so represent both the direct effect of sulphate aerosol, along with some of the more complex indirect effects involving cloud droplet number and size. Further, several AOGCMs and ESMs are currently capable of simulating the mass, number, size distribution, and mixing state of interacting multi-component aerosol particles (Bauer et al., 2008b; Liu et al., 2012b). The incorporation of more physically complete representations of aerosol often improves the simulated climate under historical and present-day conditions, including the mean pattern and interannual variability in continental rainfall (Rotstayn et al., 2010; Rotstayn et al., 2011). However, despite the addition of aerosol–cloud interactions to many AOGCMs and ESMs since the AR4, the representation of aerosol particles and their interaction with clouds and radiative transfer remains an important source of uncertainty (see Sections 7.3.5 and 7.4). Additional aerosol related topics that have received attention include the connection between dust aerosol and ocean biogeochemistry, the production of oceanic dimethyl sulfide (DMS) (a natural source of sulphate aerosol), and vegetation interactions with organic atmospheric chemistry (Collins et al., 2011).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I thought. Amazing how convoluted the final chart is......if indeed there were some minor adjustments (there's that word again), why not still retain the original, simple, clear format of the original graph instead of the indecipherable spaghetti?

indecipherable spaghetti!!! Well, of course, when you fail (big-time) with your presumptive alignment to TimG's manufactured BS, try for something new, hey? I guess it's "indecipherable spaghetti" to you... since you clearly haven't the inclination to pursue the matter for yourself. In any case, we still don't know the final look of that graph. Right now, if you pull up the final draft version of the WG1 report, you won't find a single graph or table in the hundreds of pages of that report... they haven't been placed/inserted yet. As I said in my preceding post, the published version hasn't been released yet... and won't be released until final proof-reading, error correction, continuity across other reports is reviewed, etc. The actual graphic being circulated is one drawn from a completely different report, the TS report. Basically what you're whining about is that within the graph (the draft graph... from a different report), for only the AR4 component within the graph, confidence interval bars have been replaced with the actual individual CMIP3 model ensemble simulations (i.e., the 'spaghetti'). And clearly, you're either outright ignoring the side-bars or the graph version you're looking at might not include them (since wunderkid bloggers have managed to crop them out in many cases).

of course, it would be too much to ask deniers not to leak draft reports (as they did), or pull pieces from early draft reports (as they did), or for that matter, not to ignore the request appearing on every single page of every draft report - "Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute". Yes, clearly... waiting for the final report... the final published report, that just gets in the way of manufacturing BS, hey TimG?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...