|
Post by ignorantianescia on Dec 4, 2012 21:48:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by himself on Dec 24, 2012 0:36:35 GMT
The current models cannot account for the decreasing temperatures between the 1940s (the last time the Arctic was ice-free) and the 1970s (when there were world conferences on the problem of global cooling), nor for the similar pattern developing today, as the solar max appears to have passed and we have had an unprecedentedly dead sun for several years now and no net increase in terrestrial temperatures since the 1998 El Nino. Evidence please. There was no scientific consensus on global cooling in the 1970s; on the contrary, the evidence for anthropogenic global warming was already in, and was becoming increasingly recognized within the scientific community. Dude, I was alive then. You're only supposed to rewrite the past after everyone's dead. Books, articles, global conferences. Granted, there was then no UN-organized organization to promote it. In the 1970s temperatures had been dropping for three decades, which made a warming trend difficult to support with data. That's why most discussions and charts these days always start with the 1980s. Evidence for the dead sun is all over the astrophysics blogs: magnetic field strength is virtually vanished, an unprecedented occurrence in the measured age; sunspots (as a marker for the activity) is lower than at any time since the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age. This is worrisome because while higher temperatures during the Medieval Optimum and the Roman Optimum led to lusher harvests, longer growing seasons, and more benign living conditions, colder temperatures kill. That said, the world was getting warmer in general. In the 18th century, the Hudson and Thames routinely froze solid in winter, as did the brackish canals of Holland. And it seemed that this was even warmer than the 17th century, which was the end of the Little Ice Age. As solar activity ramped up to a Grand Solar Max, the Earth grew warmer. They [astrophysicists] are not climatologists. That's the correct term to use by the way, 'climatologists' not 'computer modelers'; astrophysicists use computer models too, but that doesn't make them 'computer modelers'. That's because astrophysicists often refer their models to actual measured data. You use the model to make predictions. If the data does not conform to the predictions, then the model is re-assessed. A good example is the original forecasts of the current solar cycle, which were considerably more robust that the actual performance. Among climate scientists, those who work directly with data are more doubtful than those who work with models. Those models are not validated against empirical facts but against other models. Here's on from Russia: nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/abduss_apr.pdfnextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/global-warming-it-was-the-sun/Sane voices may be found at Curry judithcurry.com/2012/12/22/the-goldilocks-principle/#more-10681and Pielke Jr rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/03/handy-bullnuts-button-on-disasters-and.htmlas well as Pielke Sr pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/Here is a graph from the recently-leaked AR5 report comparing various past projections of temperature versus the actual record: 2012 is already stacking up to be one of the coldest in a long time. Personally, I would have been astonished if these first few cuts at a mathematical model had been very accurate. They rely on mathematical computer models, but the Team members are not mathematicians nor computer scientists, as the critiques from both camps would seem to indicate.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 24, 2012 10:34:13 GMT
Here is a graph from the recently-leaked AR5 report comparing various past projections of temperature versus the actual record Himself, I don't want to come on all patronising or earnest university lecturer, but really, if you are going to post graphs like this you need to first learn, or re-learn, a few things about climate data. Whatever the merits of the rest of your case, presenting this graph just destroys it because it cannot possibly demonstrate what you are trying to demonstrate. Climate is very variable, for a whole range of reasons. Statistically, if what you are measuring is very variable, you need a lot of data before you can draw a valid conclusion. Trends are especially difficult to assess (compared, say, to means). To demonstrate that the world's climate isn't following an expected trend, you need a whole lot more than the 20 years shown here. Check out this graph of temperature date for the past 130 years: Notice there are two flat periods, of about 20-30 years long, but the long term trend is clearly upwards. With that degree of variation in the past, there is statistically no way to say the warming has slowed down yet. It may have, but it will take a lot longer to know. That is why climate change prediction is largely based on modelling. It is a better way of predicting the future than eying up a graph! So I suggest it is better to leave aside graphs like that and unsafe conclusion based on it, and either learn some serious statistics and climate modelling or trust the scientists who do understand those things. Best wishes on Christmas Eve.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Dec 24, 2012 14:58:49 GMT
It seems the image comes from an article by David Whitehouse, a member of the GWPF, but it only contains an imprecise reference to the AR5 (Fifth Assessment Report. I couldn't find the image among the figures from Chapter 2 in the Second-Order Draft I accessed (from this hysterical site), so I wonder where it's from. Is it their own product? This quote from the GWPF article was quite endearing though: "I can’t help but conclude that the pages of the GWPF contain a better analysis than is present in AR5, which is a mess written from a point of view that wants to reference the recent standstill in global temperatures but not impartially consider its implications."
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Dec 25, 2012 4:46:21 GMT
Then I'm sure you'll be able to cite plenty of primary sources indicating there was a scholarly consensus on global cooling. I find the scholarship was saying something very different; ' The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2'. Nevertheless, that was the prediction made by 42 papers from 1965 to 1975. Evidence please; does't look like it. That's what climatologists do with their models as well. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean; the models were more accurate than what actually happened? Evidence please. Climatology models are checked, updated, revised, and validated against empirical facts. A number of long range predictions have been made with a high degree of accuracy. In the 1950s, Gilbert Plass made three predictions; a warming of 3.6 degrees C, CO2 rise of 37% throughout the 20th century, and a warming trend of 1 degree C. The actual values according to IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, were 2 to 4.5 degrees C, a CO2 rise of 30%, and a warming trend of 0.7 degrees C. This is incredible accuracy for a scientist working in the 1950s. The idea that the models are unreliable is simply untrue. Comparing the AR4 average to the actual data, we find a very close correlation; in fact the models are conservative if anything. We find the same with IPCC sea level predictions. We find the same with the Pinatubo climate impact models. We find the same with annual mean global temperate change models, where Hansen's 'Scenario B' proves the most accurate. We find the same with the Arctic sea ice extent models, where again the observational data showed the model was conservative; Arctic sea ice extent reduction has been greater than the 'worst case' scenario predicted by the models. Apparently it isn't. Edit: correction, it is and the conclusion was 'Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short time scale, the observations through 2010 generally fall well within the projections made in all of the past assessments'. The observational data obviously confirms the warming trend.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Dec 25, 2012 13:13:42 GMT
It seems the image is from chapter 1 of the AR5 draft. This is the label that belongs to the image: Figure 1.4: [PLACEHOLDER FOR FINAL DRAFT: Observational datasets will be updated as soon as they become available] Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.From the leaked AR5 draft, chapter 1, page 39. This is the discussion of Figure 1.4: Observed changes in surface temperature since 1990 (as anomalies relative to 1961-1990) are shown in Figure 1.4. The globally and annually averaged surface temperatures are the average of the analyses of the land- and ocean-based measurements made by NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley Centre (updated from Morice et al., 2012; data available at www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/). These observations are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. The black line is the observed temperature change smoothed with a 13-point binomial filter with ends reflected; this line is intended only as a rough indication of the long term trend. Uncertainties in the observed dataset are included from the analyses in Chapter 2. Also shown are the projected changes in temperature from the previous IPCC assessments out to 2015. Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short time scale, the observations through 2010 generally fall well within the projections made in all of the past assessments. Note that before TAR the climate models did not include natural forcing, and even in AR4 some models did not have volcanic and solar forcing, and some also did not have aerosols. The projections are all scaled to give the same value for 1990. The scenarios considered for the projections from the earlier reports (FAR, SAR) had a much simpler basis than the SRES scenarios used in the later assessments. In addition, the scenarios were designed to span a broad range of plausible futures, but are not aimed at predicting the most likely outcome. There are several additional points to consider about Figure 1.4: (1) the model projections account for different emissions scenarios but do not fully account for natural variability; (2) the AR4 results for 1990–2000 account for the Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption, while the earlier assessments do not; (3) the TAR and AR4 results are based on MAGICC, a simple climate model that attempts to represent the results from more complex models, rather than the actual results from the full three-dimensional climate models; and (4) the bars on the side represent the range of results for the scenarios at the end of the time period and are not error bars. The AR4 model results that include effects of the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption agree better with the observed temperatures than the previous assessments that did not include those effects. Analyses by Rahmstorf et al.(2012; submitted) show that accounting for ENSO events and solar cycle changes would enhance the comparison with the AR4 and earlier projections. In summary, the globally-averaged surface temperatures are well within the uncertainty range of all previous IPCC projections, and generally are in the middle of the scenario ranges. However, natural variability is likely the dominating effect in evaluating these early times in the scenario evaluations as noted by Hawkins and Sutton 35 (2009).Chapter 1, page 9.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Jan 1, 2013 5:23:48 GMT
I just noticed this in The Age, a normally somewhat left-leaning Melbourne newspaper. It seems the sceptics are beginning to gain ground, with sceptical scientists defying the politics to make their case. www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/sceptics-weather-the-storm-to-put-their-case-on-climate-20121228-2bz91.htmlAs I've said before, I think the case for AGW is plausible but the evidence remains unconvincing. However, the number of lies, coverups and dirty tricks from the warmist camp makes me concerned for academic freedom. People like George Monbiot and Richard Parncutt even call for "deniers" to be tried and executed (respectively). That is why I cheer on the sceptics; they have a case that needs to be debated without name-calling. The right to question orthodoxy must be sacrosanct. After all, it has been wrong before. Oh, and happy new year everybody!
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jan 1, 2013 5:55:19 GMT
However, the number of lies, coverups and dirty tricks from the warmist camp makes me concerned for academic freedom. Can you provide examples please? I'll take your first half dozen for starters. Where does Monbiot call for AGW deniers to be tried? I don't find this anywhere in the excerpt referred to. As for Richard Parncutt—an irrelevant academic whose qualifications lie in the field of music, and cannot be cited as representative of AGW science—this is what he actually said: It is utterly dishonest to characterise this as 'Richard Parncutt believes AGW deniers should be executed.' Even if that was true, so what? He's just some idiotic little lecturer with no scientific qualifications.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jan 1, 2013 7:37:14 GMT
That is why I cheer on the sceptics; they have a case that needs to be debated without name-calling. The right to question orthodoxy must be sacrosanct. After all, it has been wrong before.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Jan 1, 2013 12:22:38 GMT
Thanks Fortigurn, mocking images are ever the cornerstones of scientific debate. Sankari, as for dishonesty and dirty tricks, here's half a dozen in no particular order. 1. Climategate: a hacker broke into the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and posted emails between climate scientists online. One reads, for example “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” There may have been statistical justification for smoothing a curve, or perhaps it could be explained, but researchers should not “hide” data. 2. Bogus claims of death threats by Australian climate researchers: ”CLAIMS that some of Australia's leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign have been debunked by the Privacy Commissioner.” www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-scientists-claims-of-email-death-threats-go-up-in-smoke/story-e6frgcjx-12263452248163. TV science presenters face professional repercussions for questioning orthodoxy.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1359350/Zoe-Balls-father-Johnny-vilified-questioning-global-warming.html#ixzz1Ei2wlX2t 4. Scientists who question AGW appear to be removed from posts, apparently for that reason. wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/11/climate-skeptic-instructor-fired-from-oregon-state-university/5. The 97% consensus: actually from a non-peer reviewed article based on an online poll. Among the respondents, only 79 individuals were climate scientists. 76 answered that there had been warming and 75 of 77 thought human activity was a significant factor. The poll itself is OK as far as it goes, but reporting that consensus as though it were a fact and is if it trumped all arguments is highly misleading. www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/09/08/global-warming-a-98-consensus-of-nothing/ and the original paper tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf6. Conflicts of interest: people like Tim Yeo (UK Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change select committee) who promotes green energy in his government job while profiting from it. order-order.com/tag/tim-yeo/You’re quite right about Monbiot: Roberts himself said that, commenting on Monbiot’s book about the “denial industry”. Somewhat less lucrative than the green industry’s subsidies.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jan 1, 2013 15:07:31 GMT
Sankari, as for dishonesty and dirty tricks, here's half a dozen in no particular order. 1. Climategate: a hacker broke into the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and posted emails between climate scientists online. One reads, for example “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” There may have been statistical justification for smoothing a curve, or perhaps it could be explained, but researchers should not “hide” data. You are uncritically citing material you've copy/pasted off the internet without bothering to scrutinise it. The 'Climategate' nonsense has been comprehensively debunked. For details (including the example you cite above), click here. For more, click here.As usual, a tabloid headline does not tell the full story or even represent it accurately (see the article here). What professional repercussions did David Bellamy face? The article does not specify. There is no evidence here. Additionally: ( Source). He was not fired. He was on contract, and his contract was not renewed. At Oregon State University's 'professor rating' page, a student commented:Another said: This sheds some light on the university's decision, as does the fact that Drapela's entire publication record consists of a single co-authored paper from 2000.The university itself has denied that Drapela's contract was not renewed as a result of his views on climate change. Nobody has produced any evidence to refute this. False. Firstly, Doran's figure was not achieved via 'a non-peer reviewed article based on an online poll.' It was achieved via scientific survey: ( Source). Secondly, the figure of 97.5% refers to the number of climatologists who actively publish research and agree that AGW is true: Details here. More details here.Tim Yeo's business affairs are openly declared and not considered a conflict of interest under Parliamentary rules drafted by David Cameron's Conservative government. Well, that was easy. Got anything better?
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jan 1, 2013 16:43:17 GMT
Thanks Fortigurn, mocking images are ever the cornerstones of scientific debate. Nobody claimed that they were. However, mocking images are an entirely appropriate response to idiotic, irrational, unscientific nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jan 1, 2013 17:28:45 GMT
Thanks Fortigurn, mocking images are ever the cornerstones of scientific debate. It's not a mocking image, it's an appropriate response to the idea that scientific consensus should always be challenged and never accepted. And found nothing remotely incriminating. The EACR was completely vindicated by several independent investigations. The fact is that their results are independently verifiable; the science of AGW is not dependent simply on the EACR, it is dependent on a vast network of independent data sources which all arrive at the same fundamental conclusions, validating each other. To suggest that all of them are wrong would require providing evidence for global conspiracy among the majority of scientists contributing to the consensus on AGW. Those were claims made by media outlets; utterly irrelevant to the science of AGW. No, the article is an opinion piece in a right wing rag by an AGW denialist ranting against the scientific consensus. There is no evidence there that 'TV science presenters face professional repercussions for questioning orthodoxy.'. Another unsubstantiated claim from an openly biased source; the only evidence here is the removal of a university instructor (not 'scientists removed from posts'), with no evidence he was removed for questioning AGW. The overwhelming consensus has been confirmed by several other studies.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 1, 2013 21:32:42 GMT
Well, that was easy. Got anything better? I accept the reality of climate change just as much as you do, but I don't see why we should turn this discussion into some adversarial and competitive debate. Eckadimmock has been on this forum a long time and has always been sensible, thoughtful and courteous (to my memory). Making comments like this deter discussion and raise the heat. Perhaps it's just my personal opinion, but I think you should have given all the info and left it to the rest of us to respond in good faith. But thanks to both of you for the references.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jan 1, 2013 23:40:47 GMT
Well, that was easy. Got anything better? I accept the reality of climate change just as much as you do, but I don't see why we should turn this discussion into some adversarial and competitive debate. Eckadimmock has been on this forum a long time and has always been sensible, thoughtful and courteous (to my memory). Making comments like this deter discussion and raise the heat. Perhaps it's just my personal opinion, but I think you should have given all the info and left it to the rest of us to respond in good faith. I have a short fuse with denialists. My pleasure.
|
|