25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Really? He quite clearly says that there may be other factors affecting the temperature increase (then goes on to discount them) or the sensitivity of the models may be off but nowhere does he deny that anthro-CO2 is THE major factor.
He discusses the possibility of unknown factors in his actual paper.
Volcanic eruptions and variations in solar insolation are frequently proposed candidates. However, while both explanations have supporters, a significant increase in recent volcanic activity has not been recorded, while variations in solar insolation or activity still require rather speculative amplification mechanisms that could contribute to the observed recent decrease in global warming
http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming
He also discusses the mathematics behind how the models are developed but does not deny AGW.
p.s. There is no 98% number in his work. The number 2% comes up but that is confidence levels - a statistical analysis tool - not a failure rate.
Ok, I'm tired of having to rant and give you extreme answers, because you don't seem to hear any legit answers or to be able to comprehend the full arguments.
But because I'm tired of yelling, I'll give you a more serious look at your cherry picked 'flattening' dates.
Its another paper thats another theory to cover your cherry picked dates, 1998-2012 (since we know that the last couple of years the temperature is clearly rising again and quickly). Now if you ignore the super El Nino year (a statistical anomaly from one extreme climate event) and look at the dates 2003-2012 there is a statistically minimal 'flattening' for those 9 years (statistically minor because the models are designed to give predictions that are accurate over a century, not for the weather each day or even for the weather for a few years). The amount of CO2 that has been pumped into the climate means a certain amount of heat is added to the system (its been estimated that climate change is adding the heat equivalent of 4 Hiroshima sized nuclear bombs every second), so this article looks to see where that heat went. It posits that maybe during those 9 years that large amount of heat went into the oceans, driven by a La Nina event that stirred up the Indian ocean. But that heat is still going into the system, it didn't disappear and climate change didn't 'stop' or even 'pause', it just shifted into heating the oceans more. Likewise we see now that the La Nino is done, we're back into a minor El Nino and temperatures are again breaking records every month and year.
The argument that this equals a 'pause' and therefore climate change isn't happening or that the predictions are therefore 'spectacularly wrong' are ridiculous. What's happening now is becoming quite a bit more drastic, even at the still relatively minor heating the planet has experienced.
The last two winters of cold for us here, while the rest of the planet has had record warmth growth, for instance, are the result of the massive, massive melts of Greenland glaciers. That fresh water is changing the thermohaline current, which is the only reason that the East coast and Britain have been relatively mild climates for thousands of years. If that change in the thermohaline is permanent or gets worse, we will see even more severe winters here even while the rest of the planet sees record warmth.
However, the IPCC predictions are still proving very accurate, while your fossil fuel funded lobbyists and cranks (who used to try to tell us cigarettes were good for us) are still spending the millions and millions available through the ultra rich and the big oil companies.
The big question for me about someone like you is, what would it take to prove that climate change is real and you've been duped?
Clearly the latest readings show we are back into record heat, glaciers are disappearing throughout the world, California's drought is only really beginning, the thermohaline is slowing....But none of those ever seem to even register to you.
What would it take for you to accept that climate change is real?
I suspect that you'd even make up some excuse when you lose the bet at the end of the year.
NASA - Images of Change
http://climate.nasa.gov/state_of_flux#Columbia_Glacier_930x312.jpg
In the previous picture they mention that they have to keep moving the parking lot used by tourists there to see the shrinking glacier.
Something is going on. Would think that cutting down the trees to make way for cities and agriculture would also make some difference in the climate.
http://climate.nasa.gov/state_of_flux#Columbia_Glacier_930x312.jpg
In the previous picture they mention that they have to keep moving the parking lot used by tourists there to see the shrinking glacier.
Something is going on. Would think that cutting down the trees to make way for cities and agriculture would also make some difference in the climate.
Hey,...lets not mention that deforestation through out the world has reduced c02 conversion to oxygen,...I'm sure the none biased scientists have thought about that,...but just don't want to complicate things for all the stupid none scientists out there.
I mean it is only responsible for 1/3 of the increase in c02 in the world,...so no big deal,...not worth mentioning.
FAST
I find it pretty amusing that a guy who openly admits to believing in imaginary things would accuse me of believing in god and magic.
Let's be clear. The climate changes. It always has. I do believe that climate change is real.
I think what you meant to ask is what would it take for me to accept the hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are the primary driver of warming.
Evidence. It would take evidence for me to believe the hypothesis of man-made global warming is valid.
What evidence will it take?
CO2 levels?
Arctic and glacial melts?
Global temperature rising?
Or are you waiting until its some kind of climate change armaggedon before you accept its happening?
I'm really curious exactly what type of evidence it would take.
We've got statements from every legit scientific organization, really great and serious work through the IPCC, Obama has called it, and now even some oil company CEO's are calling for carbon taxes as they accept climate change.
What exactly are you waiting for in the form of evidence?
I'm waiting for evidence that supports the hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are a primary driver of warming.
For example, if predictions were made based on that hypothesis and the predictions proved to be correct, that would count as evidence. At this point in time, no such evidence exists.
Here are some of the things that don't count as evidence:
-- Propaganda claims about a mythical "consensus."
-- Dishonest news releases that claim 2014 was the warmest year on record (it is impossible to determine if 2005, 2010 or 2014 was the warmest year).
-- Misleading statements about 14 of the 15 years since the turn of the century being the warmest on record. While it may be true that temperatures in the 21st century are consistent with the plateau at the end of the 20th century, it isn't evidence of increasing warming.
-- Idiotic assertions that the IPCC has "95 per cent confidence" in its predictions. Given the enormous uncertainties in the models and the spectacularly wrong predictions in past reports, that is simply ludicrous.
-- Posers who don't know what they're talking about trying to pass themselves off as experts (eg., Dr. David Suzuki).
-- Dishonest attempts to claim that extreme weather events are evidence of man-made global warming (even the IPCC says there is no evidence of a connection).
-- The demonizing of legitimate scientists who stray from the politically driven storyline. Someone who is skeptical of the hypothesis is not akin to a Holocaust denier.
Political advocacy is not science. Environmental radicalism is not science.
I want to see evidence.
Last edited:
Its on the NASA site and its reputable.
In fact, I would challenge you to find one reputable scientific organization that disagrees.
Its on the NASA site, again are you accusing NASA of propaganda?
And even if its not the warmest, the fact that the two other years are also in the last decade doesn't indicate to you that the globe is now warmer?
Misleading?
Its fucking accurate.
Accept it, its a fucking fact.
Nope.
That's their findings and its born out by the real research.
Your only claim so far is from a shoddy mathematician who's work is seriously questionable.
Your total confidence in the work of a shoddy mathematician shows only that you can't tell good work from crap.
He is an expert, with the training and degrees to show it.
You are not.
False, their are quite a few more recent papers linking extreme weather to climate change.
Demonizing?
If they were serious scientists they would release papers to peer assessment journals.
But they don't, and when they do (like your shoddy 98% wrong mathematician) they are found to be seriously fucked up.
What has that to do with anything?
I get the feeling that you are a faith based idiot.
You don't understand what the evidence is and if more is presented you'll use the same, wrong, arguments to claim it doesn't count.
Just the same way you refuse to accept that 2014 was the warmest year on record and 2015 is on track to break that record.
I'm not wasting my time responding to all of Frankfooter's junk. It would be nothing more than a waste of time.
For example, the bogus propaganda about the "97% consensus" has been thoroughly debunked numerous times. In fact, there have only been two studies that I know of that actually asked climate researchers whether they believe man-made CO2 emissions are a primary driver of warming -- a 2012 survey of the American Meteorological Society and a 2012 survey of the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Neither one found a consensus -- and both of those surveys were done before the "pause" was officially confirmed by scientific bodies.
More to the point, I told Frank that I want to see evidence.
He responded in the usual alarmist way with nothing but rhetoric, propaganda and insults.
So be it.
For example, the bogus propaganda about the "97% consensus" has been thoroughly debunked numerous times. In fact, there have only been two studies that I know of that actually asked climate researchers whether they believe man-made CO2 emissions are a primary driver of warming -- a 2012 survey of the American Meteorological Society and a 2012 survey of the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Neither one found a consensus -- and both of those surveys were done before the "pause" was officially confirmed by scientific bodies.
More to the point, I told Frank that I want to see evidence.
He responded in the usual alarmist way with nothing but rhetoric, propaganda and insults.
So be it.
Actually you did.
You have refused to suggest a cause for the current warming, instead suggesting it is 'natural'. Any natural change has a cause yet you opt to ignore the science and instead believe in some supernatural explanation for how the climate is changing without there being a cause.
So do you care to explain how the Storch paper says there is a 98% failure rate?
So you did lie.
I didn't say anything like what you posted -- you simply made that nutty extrapolation based on a stunning combination of stupidity and ignorance.
Hmm.
I think it's hopeless, but let's see if it's possible for you to get this.
There is a belief -- widely held by thousands of scientists throughout the world -- that natural causes play a significant role in temperature changes. Indeed, the IPCC only claims that man-made factors were a primary cause of warming after 1950. Yet there was a warming trend in the early part of the 20th century that was as significant as the warming from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. If everyone is agreed that human activity wasn't the primary cause of warming in the early part of the last century, that pretty much leaves natural causes.
And, as we all should know, there was nothing unprecedented in the warming that occurred in any part of the 20th century.
Believing that natural causes are the predominant factor does not mean I think the warming wasn't caused by something. What I have said is the climate researchers don't know enough about how climate works to accurately predict what causes warming and cooling (note the current search for the "missing" heat, as NASA and the American Geophysical Union describe it: https://eos.org/articles/tracking-the-missing-heat-from-the-global-warming-hiatus). The fact that we don't know what the causes are doesn't mean they don't exist.
Furthermore, you really should be careful when you suggest that anyone who thinks natural factors affect the Earth's temperature must be a religious nut. In case you've forgotten, fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann is a believer in natural variants:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...cillations-and-the-global-warming-faux-pause/
Sure. The models made predictions about what would happen to the Earth's temperature if certain levels of man-made CO2 were emitted into the atmosphere.
Less than two per cent of the model projections correctly predicted the results that were actually observed. More than 98 per cent of the projections failed to predict what occurred.
It has nothing to do with "confidence" levels. :biggrin1:
Lets take a look at this claim in a way that ties in with your other claim about inaccuracies at the IPCC.
Its really quite easy to run the models under a few different scenarios. In fact, that's what they do all the time to check which models are most accurate.
One of the very common runs of the models is to do it under different CO2 inputs, for instance its quite easy to run a model that doesn't include the vast amount of CO2 we've put in the atmosphere with models that have the present amounts of CO2.
In other words, you run the model as if there was no anthropogenic influences and one with the amount of CO2 humans are putting into the air.
Then you compare them.
(this graphic is 4 years old, from 2011, haven't found an updated one.
You can see by the models that they do include 'natural variations' in the calculations as well as quite a few things you haven't thought about (by the fact that the blue, no man made CO2 line, is still quite 'wiggly'). They include solar actions, cloud and dust (aerosols), major ocean currents and changes as well as tracking a few other gases then just CO2. This gives you a good idea of the temperatures we'd be experiencing without adding CO2, and its quite different.
As well, there have been recent studies that figured out how much of the changes we've seen are directly attributed to climate change.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...rgy-balance-points-to-man-made-climate-change
And as an aside, I'd also like to note that this claim is also false.
There are not thousands of scientists who hold that opinion.
At one time there was a letter or petition going around with 500 signatures, but that was shown to be faked, and that's the largest number of 'denier' scientists I've ever heard about. I would suspect there are really only a 100 or so that are really deniers and legit scientists.
I'm not sure why the words "also false" were used in the post above, as there is nothing in the entire post that demonstrates that anything I said is false.
As for the thousands of scientists who believe natural causes are a significant factor, it is an entirely reasonable extrapolation based on the two surveys that actually tested the percentages of climate researchers who hold such views.
For example, the American Meteorological Society survey showed about 15 per cent of respondents said natural causes are a significant factor and another 20 per cent said they don't know what is causing the warming (that's a large number that apparently believes in gods and magic). Assuming the results are reasonably consistent among all international bodies, my calculation is reasonable.
As for the thousands of scientists who believe natural causes are a significant factor, it is an entirely reasonable extrapolation based on the two surveys that actually tested the percentages of climate researchers who hold such views.
For example, the American Meteorological Society survey showed about 15 per cent of respondents said natural causes are a significant factor and another 20 per cent said they don't know what is causing the warming (that's a large number that apparently believes in gods and magic). Assuming the results are reasonably consistent among all international bodies, my calculation is reasonable.
Also false applies to your AMS survey and the representation of its findings.
Its not really surprising that a survey of TV weathermen (and women) has different views then those of scientists trained in climatology.
TV weatherfolk are not generally looked upon as beacons of intelligence, after all.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/27/no-daily-caller-a-meteorologist-survey-does-not/197080
Apparently Heartland (a right wing, anti-climate change propaganda outfit) misused this survey, which is probably the info you've been reading.
(from the same link above).
So far your evidence has been a very shoddy mathematician and a misrepresented survey of TV weatherpeople.
You really can't tell a legit source from total bullshit, can you?
So this never before mentioned cause of the increase in C02,... 1/3 of the overall increase in C02 is caused by deforestation, plus the obvious natural causes.
Goes a long way to explain why the RANDOM temp increases over the last 150 years do NOT correlate with any large increase in fosil fuel burning.
Of coarse that would not go well with a profession that relies blaming burning of fossil fuels, to fuel their lively hood,...sorry bout that,...
.Think about it,...lets assume that all of the recent and past temp rises,... which have yet to be correlated to burning fossil fuels,...were in fact totally natural,...there goes a whole chunk of cushy jobs,...since I don't believe even this bunch could, with a straight face create another scenario to justify their existence.
But you never know,...they had to change their battle cry from global warming to climate change to keep their jobs.
FAST
