Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 Next
Comments 42251 to 42300:
-
Albatross at 02:53 AM on 20 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
Bob Ward's article is a must read! His conclusion:
"However, these latest howlers are likely to cause most embarassment, not just for Rose, but also for Geordie Greig and Gerard Greaves.
And it should also provide a sobering lesson for other editors and reporters who have been treating the ‘The Mail on Sunday’ is a credible source of ‘sceptical’ stories about climate change."
Amazing that people like Rose can repeatedily misrepresent, distort and worse, and get off Scott free. IMHO, Greig and Greaves should step down, or they can stay but Rose is made to leave. Eithe rway, someone at The DAily MAil and The Telegraph out to pay dearly for this.
PS: I too calculated the August-August change in sea ice, but I went to the actual data provided by NSIDC and cross-referenced it with data from JAXA. That is what Rose should have done, or at least what a credible journo would have done.
-
Tristan at 01:35 AM on 20 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
@Rob
Jo's no dummy, but ideological blinkers can turn anyone into a crank.
@John
I don't have a precise answer for that but as far as I understand, Australian opinion on climate change is much like that found in the USA.
-
John Hartz at 01:11 AM on 20 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
@ Doug Hutcheson #18:
There seems to be a dsconnect between Astralian public opinion about climate change and Tony Abbott's election as Prime Minister. Why is that?
-
Jubble at 23:28 PM on 19 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Jim @ 19 - impressive site. A useful starting point.
I was wondering whether a site could be set up (or part of this site) that could be used for any biased, misleading or inaccurate newpaper article, which would contain:
- Guidance as to how to raise a complaint. (you've given this a shot on your excellent website).
- For each article nominated by users, an expert-written example of complaint text that would have a chance of success. There would be one of these written for each article - not a great extention from what is already posted on this site.
- Step-by-step instructions as to how to take the example, personalise it and submit it to the relevant body (including to the editor of the newspaper if that would make sense in the first instance).
- Ability for people to sign-up to hear about each article as it appears.
This could be part of or link to the Reality Drop, possibly.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:39 PM on 19 September 2013Models are unreliable
kishoreragi, you only need to model every conceivable input if you need to know every conceivable output... which isn't the case. To take your forest example, if the goal of the model is to determine how the forest will grow then the actions of deer and bears are largely irrelevant... they might impact a tree here and there, but they are not going to change the overall growth pattern of the forest. Instead, you are going to look at weather, human logging, beavers, and other factors which can actually have a significant impact.
Ditto climate models. No, they cannot possibly model every individual cloud and gust of wind... but there is absolutely no reason they would need to, because those things are not going to impact the overall climate trends.
Again, you do understand that climate models already work, right? They can successfully model the past and even the relatively primitive climate models in use 30 years ago produced results consistent with the past 30 years. You are arguing that something which has been done, cannot be done. You're wrong before you even get started.
-
BojanD at 21:38 PM on 19 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
I've had an argument the other day with some die-hard contrarians. They were claiming SkS is not credible. After asking for an example of 'deception', Arctic escalator was chosen. So called deception was a missing data point for a 2013 minimum. I kid you not!
So I pointed out that Arctic sea ice extent minimum was yet to be reached and promised them not to link any of your articles until you update the escalator by the middle of October. Looks like you beat my deadline by almost one month. :)
-
chriskoz at 21:17 PM on 19 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
When Lord Monckton was preaching here in AU, his Arctic Ice "recovery" of 2008-2009, he was cherry-picking the two-year "trend" as the basis for his teachings. Note, that he was teaching his rubbish confidently in the middle of 2011, when data of 2010 melt season was available, contradicting him. Apparently he could afford that, likely vause his prefered audience did not know the facts.
Today, David Rose, incidentally Monckton's compatriot, is not waiting for 2 year of "recoveries", but jumping at a single 2013 straight on. He's beaten his lord on that. Likely reason: "report it until hot, don't wait the news to be spoiled by the uncertain future!". Amazing, what an extraordinary race of ignorance. Honestly, I thought Monckton would not be beaten on that subject. But he's just been!
Meanwhile, I think Wieslaw Maslowski's prediction of ice free Arctic (2016 +/- 3y)* is still on track, given the PIOMAS volume models This year Sept volume was marginaly higher than last year, with pretty much the same thinkness. So, the ice in as vulnerable as it's been, no real recovery. That's what you conclude when you look at the data rather than "Rosy" race of ignorance.
* "Rosy" media reported it as if Maslowski's said "ice free Arctic in 2013" reporting only the lower uncertainty range, in an effort to portray him as "alarmist".
-
Martin Lack at 20:19 PM on 19 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
If I was a famous climate scientist, people who like to hack into email servers and selectively quote from their contents would, of course, quote me as admitted that, "ongoing change is not due to the exponential growth of CO2 emissions".
-
Martin Lack at 20:16 PM on 19 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
Thanks for this, Dana. I had overlooked it before, but now I notice the outlier in about 1940 - one of the lowest summer minimums in the entire record. I presume this is why we hear so much about a US submarine that surfaced at the North Pole in the 1930s.
Personally, I am really sick and tired of willfully blind and/or ideologically-prejudiced people cherry-picking the only single data point that can support the belief that ongoing change is not due to the exponential growth of CO2 emissions in the last 250 years.
-
Jim Hunt at 20:03 PM on 19 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Jubble @ 7 - OK. Here's a very quick first draft:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/press-complaints-commission/
Anything essential I should add in the first instance? -
shoyemore at 18:53 PM on 19 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
I pressed submit a bit prematurely, but the above graphic suggest that Arctic Ice is perhaps taking a "break" or pause (sarc/ irony).
-
Doug Hutcheson at 16:13 PM on 19 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
I become discouraged by questions such as how many lay people believe whatever. When a population has been saturation-bombed by biased media, asking who still believes in AGW does not determine what is true. Truth is a casualty of propaganda.
Having got that off my chest, Most Australians think the Government should do more to tackle climate change
-
r.pauli at 15:51 PM on 19 September 2013The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report
One more great statement:
"Of all the adaptation schemes, the least effective is denial."
- Psychotherapist Dr. Betty Merton -
cloud_counter at 15:14 PM on 19 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
The 'recovery' reminds me of an addict. Every time they go straight for a day, they're 'recovered'
-
kishoreragi at 14:48 PM on 19 September 2013Models are unreliable
Roger D
I don't want to go predict big things right away with incomplete models, but I want to eloborate what I wanted to inform here.
I have given this analogy because there is a need to understand each and every animal (here it is physical process) is related (friendly/hostile, here for climate, how processes are intricately mixed- diminishing/strengthening) on forest variables (We can choose any variable here) on specific part of forest(Any region of the world). So that little by little, we can understand about the comple forest and their inter-relation.
My main point is that the science has progressed much further, but in wrong path. The simple fix for this is to make the system simple and see the intricacies among the processes, leaving the comparision with observations, on regional climate variables so that in the FAR future, we may be in a position to see the BIG picture like AGW without hesitation from anybody (skeptics/supporters) and with clear understanding. As far as I understand(ofcourse I am still reseach student), there is no other way as climate system super complex !!!
-
r.pauli at 14:10 PM on 19 September 2013The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report
I am reminded of the word 'confabulation'. Tremendously rich and useful - important in abnormal psychology..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation
The phrase "climate confabulation" Explains much nicely.
-
John Hartz at 14:03 PM on 19 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
@hank #15:
Do you happen to know what percent of Australians currently believe that AGW is happening now?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:50 PM on 19 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Now that one is disturbing. But it's going to bite them in the butt long term, I think.
-
hank_ at 13:35 PM on 19 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
@ Rob #14
Joe Nova's perceived "sea change" has alot to do with the major changes in the Aussie governments. Labor was defeated in a historice rout. The new leadership is promising to dismantle the hugely unpopular Carbon Tax and are already closing down Climate related departments everywhere.
It's not just a push ahead of AR5.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:59 AM on 19 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
John... My point was more that, these are people who have continually received lots of exposure in the media. Nova seems to think this is some sort of sea change. The sea change is her wishful thinking. It's merely a coordinated effort ahead of AR5.
What Nova sees as a sea change is likely to get clipped pretty severely with the release of AR5.
-
Hockey stick is broken
Phronesis - "McIntyre and McKitrick purported to refute/debunk a specific paper -- the Mann 1998 paper... as far as I can tell, McIntyre and McKitrick were right in their criticism of that particular Mann paper" Unfortunately for your argument, they utterly failed to make their case.
M&M's several papers on the subject have been at the center of numerous peer-reviewed refutations (five of them listed here), with numerous errors and erroneous claims pointed out at RealClimate, including critical failures to apply PCA selection rules to identify significant components; an error that alone invalidates their work. Similar errors in PCA selection (which would have distinguished invalid noise-generated hockey sticks as insignificant) and a rather amazing amount of cherry-picking in their 'red-noise' model are discussed on Deep Climate, notably with an unconventional 'red-noise' model that actually was derived from the proxies (rather than a theoretic red-noise spectra), and therefore included the 'hockey-stick' - no surprise that they found it in their 'noise'.
The M&M critcisms of Mann's work are completely invalid, on various methodological grounds.
Is MBH1998 without flaw? Hardly - it's the initial paper in the field applying PCA and machine learning techniques to multi-proxy climate data, and as such is rather rough around the edges. Their centering method is arguably not the best available, additional proxies and further clarification of then-existing proxies have improved the data, and there are reasonable arguments for different combinatorial and statistical techniques.
But methodological issues with MBH1998 don't invalidate the general conclusions, that recent temperatures are the warmest in the last 1000 years. And many papers, many reconstructions, looking at the issue come to the same conclusions.
At this point I see (IMO) unsupported objections raised against MBH1998 to be a clear identifying marker of someone in climate science denial.
-
John Hartz at 11:04 AM on 19 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
@Rob Honeycutt #12:
The "major push" by climate deniers is not a figment of our imagination. The international propaganda campaign is documented in detail in:
Ahead of IPCC Climate Report, Skeptic Groups Launch Global Anti-Science Campaign by Katherine Bagley, InsideClimate News, Sep 18, 2013
-
michael sweet at 10:47 AM on 19 September 2013Hockey stick is broken
Phronesis,
Are you talking about science or public relations? I will grant you than Mann and McIntyre disagreed about how to do the analysis. Mann thinks he was correct and McIntyre thinks Mann was incorrect. This issue has been resolved by collecting more data and redoing the analysis in a way that everyone agrees is correct. When that was done it was found that Mann was correct in his interpretation of the data. How does the noise that McIntyre continues to make relate to the data proving that Mann was correct all along? When extensive reanalysis and massive amounts of new data confirm the original finding that means Mann was right and McIntyre was incorrect all along.
-
Phronesis at 10:02 AM on 19 September 2013Hockey stick is broken
Hi all. The framing of this page is erroneous. The "skeptic argument" and "what the science says" do not refer to the same issue.
McIntyre and McKitrick purported to refute/debunk a specific paper -- the Mann 1998 paper. That is all. Their debunking (if it was truly a debunking, which it appears to be) stands. It's not refuted by all the other, later research that reaches similar conlcusions as Mann.
If the point here is to say that the hockey-stick-is-bogus argument is wrong because of all the other evidence, that's fine. But as far as I can tell, McIntyre and McKitrick were right in their criticism of that particular Mann paper, on various methodological grounds.
-
supak at 08:55 AM on 19 September 2013Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong
OK, I've managed to get Michaels to publicly bet with me. I basically had to call him out in the comments at Roy Spencer's blog to do it, but...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/pat-michaels-bets-on-25-years-of-no-warming
-
Roger D at 07:35 AM on 19 September 2013Models are unreliable
kishoreragi at 17:00 PM on 18 September 2013 9 (found in What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints)
Your “a forest is like a climate model” analogy would benefit if you could identify the critical variables omitted from the models or issues with how climate models utilize them.
Yes, there are a lot of different animals moving around in a forest. Yes, modeling everything going on in a forest would require understanding how sensitive each thing is to changes in each other thing. But it’s not a valid analogy to just list some of the different things going on in a forest, and then jumping straight to the insinuation that climate models omit critical features. In short, you don’t provide any solid rational that climate models are not useful with respect to predicting changes in climate.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for responding to kishoreragi on this thread.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:03 AM on 19 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Actually, I think JoNova is engaging in a bit of wishful thinking. It's not like they're getting any more airtime than they have for the past decade. These are all people who have published hundreds of OpEd and articles trying to reject AGW.
They're currently in a major push in advance of AR5, essentially because they know the key phrase is going to say that AGW is now "extremely likely." And that's coming from a body that is, by design, presenting a watered down version of the science.
It's interesting to read through the comments on her site. I'm sorry but they're (like her) just not a very bright bunch.
-
Esop at 04:35 AM on 19 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
The deniers could not resist painting themselves into a corner with regards to this years uptick in minimum extent. The great thing about that is that the mainstream media will be all over them, exposing their failed 2013 predictions of lasting recovery when we break the 2012 record (likely some time before 2016). Then pigs will fly.
-
John Hartz at 03:10 AM on 19 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
@ hank #8:
On the other side of the coin, there are many MSM outlets who stive for objectivity when reporting on climate change matters -- see recent postings of the SkS Weekly News Roundup for a sampling.
What goes on inside the bubble world of Jo Nova and her ilk matters little in the real world where the vast majority of people live.
At the end of the say, it's pulbic opinion that matters the most. That is the metric we need to focus on.
-
Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
hank_ - It's my impression that 'skeptics' (aka climate science denialists) are currently blitzing every venue they can reach in anticipation of the IPCC AR5 report. I would consider this due to their (quite justified) fears of being dismissed.
A rather significant difference between the current situation and, for example, the 2007 AR4 release is that there are now many in the media who recognize issues of false balance and lobbyists (see, for example, Fareed Zakaria pushing Pat Michaels to admit that 40% of his income is supplied by the petroleum industry). Five years ago that kind of reporting clarity was not to be seen.
We'll have to see how things play out, but it is my perception that the 'skeptics' and their myths are losing media traction no matter how hard they pedal (or peddle)...
-
hank_ at 01:25 AM on 19 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Here's the thing, IMHO. We might have won this small battle, here, (with a video that many will not see), but we may be losing the mainstream media war.
See this article from Joe Nova (prominent Aussie skeptic).
joannenova.com.au/2013/09/skepticism-goes-mainstream-a-tipping-point/
Many may not like what she is saying but she has a valid point. Skeptics are getting airtime on 'big stages' so to speak, WSJ, Washington Times, Finacial Post, Daily Mail, etc. We can laugh at them and call them deniers but is the "rebuttal" message really getting out there as strongly as the skeptic talking points?
-
Jubble at 00:36 AM on 19 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Jim @ 5 - I'll give it a go. "Some" experience with the PCC would be strictly true but a little misleading, ironically.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:52 PM on 18 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Jim & Jubble, anything which can be done to hold reporters accountable for false reporting should be pursued.
I have long felt that this is the biggest problem facing the world today. The strength of the global warming denial bloc is just one of the many problems caused by the fact that there are 'journalists' reporting from alternate realities and no way to stop them. What is 'true' has become a matter of personal opinion because there are no consequences for vigorously promoting fiction as 'fact'. People follow the 'news' they want to believe and reject contrary reporting as 'biased'. Without some final arbitration of actual truth this can go on indefinitely and prevent any kind of real progress... because large portions of the population are making decisions about the 'best course of action' based on fiction.
I wish there were ways to get more of these issues into court. Michael Mann's defamation suit is going well precisely because lies don't usually work in the legal system (poltical rulings of the SCOTUS and some other higher courts notwithstanding). If there were a way to sue Rose and the like for 'false reporting' they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but usually it seems like all you can do is complain to the 'news' organizations that hired them to lie in the first place. Even where things like the UK Press Complaints Commission exist, they always seem to be nearly toothless self-regulation. The very real need for 'freedom of the press' to print unpopular opinions has unfortunately been perverted into 'freedom to lie'.
-
Jim Hunt at 23:40 PM on 18 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Jubble @4 - If you have some experience with the PCC would you mind getting in touch? We're in the throes of making such a complaint as we speak! There's a contact form on the site linked to @2. Perhaps we might compare notes and then mutually develop such a resource? TIA
In the meantime here's our very own video hot off the presses down here in not so sunny South West England. We rather hope it will prove to be music to the ears of David Rose and his ilk!
The Great White Con - Episode 1 -
CBDunkerson at 23:26 PM on 18 September 2013Models are unreliable
Given that climate models can closely approximate past climate, I'd think the onus is on 'skeptics' to show some reason why we should assume that they will not be equally accurate for future climate.
Just saying, 'there are too many factors involved to ever model climate' doesn't cut it given the established reality of models which already do successfully match past climate. Heck, we even know most of the causes of short term variation... such that if you plug major volcanic eruptions, variations in solar output, ocean cycles, and other such 'unpredictable' factors into model runs of past climate they then match not only the long term trends, but even the short term fluctuations around the trends. That's shockingly accurate for something which is supposedly 'impossible'.
-
Models are unreliable
Kishoreragi, to add to Michael's comment: that is the way general circulation modeling is done. The Earth itself is one big experiment, and it has been well-demonstrated that the minor variables vary within certain ranges and rarely, if ever, end up leading global or even regional climate by the nose long enough to significantly alter major elements of general circulation. There is a strong tendency to regress to the mean, and the mean is driven by the major elements of the climate: continental drift, orbital variation, vulcanism, solar output, collision with significant extra-terrestrial objects, and, now, artificial enhancement of the greenhouse effect. Everything else is a feedback: something that reacts but is unlikely to change on its own -- biosphere (with rare exceptions), snow/ice albedo, ocean carbon cycle, clouds, water vapor, natural greenhouse effect, etc. Feedbacks vary and are integrated in different ways, but they regress to the mean of net forcing, with minor temporal variations driven primarily by ocean thermal capacity.
Thus it's a little inaccurate to describe the climate system as comprised of components that vary but are all of equal or near-equal power in shaping the future of the system. And, in addition to the major forcings, modeling does take into account many of the major and minor feedbacks. Of course, in the short-term (months to years), the interplay of major and minor feedbacks can produce significant but temporary anomalies, but the resonance of those anomalies across the long-term trend is ultimately insignificant. Arctic sea ice (ASI) is a great example. ASI is never, with all forcings stabilized, going to vary strongly and consistently to the extent that a glacial cycle is initiated. Only orbital or solar variation (or a one-timer) can do that (partially through the mechanism of snow/ice albedo feedback).
-
What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints
Ok, JH - copying the comment over now.
Moderator Response:[JH] Muchas gracias.
-
What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints
Kishoreragi, to add to Michael's comment: that is the way general circulation modeling is done. The Earth itself is one big experiment, and it has been well-demonstrated that the minor variables vary within certain ranges and rarely, if ever, end up leading global or even regional climate by the nose long enough to significantly alter major elements of general circulation. There is a strong tendency to regress to the mean, and the mean is driven by the major elements of the climate: continental drift, orbital variation, vulcanism, solar output, collision with significant extra-terrestrial objects, and, now, artificial enhancement of the greenhouse effect. Everything else is a feedback: something that reacts but is unlikely to change on its own -- biosphere (with rare exceptions), snow/ice albedo, ocean carbon cycle, clouds, water vapor, natural greenhouse effect, etc. Feedbacks vary and are integrated in different ways, but they regress to the mean of net forcing, with minor temporal variations driven primarily by ocean thermal capacity.
Thus it's a little inaccurate to describe the climate system as comprised of components that vary but are all of equal or near-equal power in shaping the future of the system. And, in addition to the major forcings, modeling does take into account many of the major and minor feedbacks. Of course, in the short-term (months to years), the interplay of major and minor feedbacks can produce significant but temporary anomalies, but the resonance of those anomalies across the long-term trend is ultimately insignificant. Arctic sea ice (ASI) is a great example. ASI is never, with all forcings stabilized, going to vary strongly and consistently to the extent that a glacial cycle is initiated. Only orbital or solar variation (or a one-timer) can do that (partially through the mechanism of snow/ice albedo feedback).
-
franklefkin at 22:52 PM on 18 September 20132013 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
While the max extent in the spring is not as important as the min, it would still be interesting to see people's predictions for that. Is SkS going to do something like that? Is there any chance of Mr. Robinson updating his spiral graph?
-
Jubble at 21:42 PM on 18 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
I have an idea. Would it be a goer if this website or another provided the easy where-with-all for people (including myself) to make an official complaint each time a factually inaccurate, misleading and/or biased article appears in a national newspaper (whichever nation)? I've made a few complaints to editors and to the UK Press Complaints Commission (as a UK national) and would find it much easier if there was a set of text available in the appropriate language for me to use.
That way the number of complaints could be increased, the complaints would be more effective, they could be tracked for success ratios (e.g. better to make a lot of complaints about different specific issues relating to an article, or to make a single complaint about the whole article describing each error?).
If this sounds like a good idea, I'd be happy to help set it up, including contacting other organisations such as the Climate Reality Project, to help make it happen.
-
michael sweet at 19:36 PM on 18 September 2013What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints
Kishoreragi,
Since you are a novice why do you suppose professoinal scientists who dedicate their lives to making climate models would overlook such basic steps as your example? The models are adjusted so that different processes are modeled appropriately. Your analogy to a forrest is simply a way to avoid having to point to a specific problem with the climate models. Please provide an example of a problem with resolution in a climate model. If an example cannot be provided, with all the "auditing" that skeptics do, that suggests that your objection is simply an argument from ignorance. Just because you do not know how to model climate does not mean no-one knows how to make suitable models. Read some of the modeling threads here or at Real Climate and you will be more informed.
Moderator Response:[JH] Let's move this discussion to a more appropriate thread, i.e., How reliable are climate models? Thank you.
-
John Mason at 18:09 PM on 18 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Superb - I liked the London temperatures analogy!
-
Jim Hunt at 18:02 PM on 18 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Please forgive me for continuing to flog this particular dead horse, but an interview with Wieslaw Maslowski from December 2007 which reveals the sort of things he was actually saying at that time can be heard here:
http://greatwhitecon.info/2013/09/shock-news-why-isnt-the-arctic-ice-free/
Needless to say Prof. Maslowski's views were not accurately reported by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday. Hence we are attempting to persuade the Mail to recant this and the many other inaccuracies they have recently put into physical and virtual print with the aid of the UK's Press Complaints Commission. How far we'll get remains to be seen, but please feel free to inform any of your friends and acquaintances who might be interested in following the developing story. -
kishoreragi at 17:00 PM on 18 September 2013What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints
This is my recent comment at http://jrstalker.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/the-difficulty-in-quantifying-the-extent-of-global-warming-or-cooling in agreement with Dr. James Stalker. Here I want to report ...
Simple example to explain James Stalker’s thought of how erroneously climate models are built.
Lets assume a forest is analogous to a climate model. Like forest has many living things from insects to wild animals, climate models have many physical processes having local scale to global scale, and time scales of fraction of seconds to centuries.
Some insects have foot-steps of a fraction of micro-meter and other animals have of few meters. Moreover, few animals are brisk and other are slow. That means, different animals have different temporal and spatial steps. For example, if we are to model a forest with all kinds of living things in the forest, we need to take all these steps (temporal and spatial) of all living things into account. For example, first lets assume we have chosen spatial resolution of 10 meters and time step of 2 sec. Lets imagine how reliable these resolutions for all living things in a forest. It may be right for deer but, can an ant jump 10 m in 2 sec? In the same way, each climate process analogous to each living thing in a forest, has different temporal and spatial time step. Hence, if we are to model climate, we need to take all these steps ( temporal and spatial) of all physical processes of climate into account.
If we don’t take these suitable resolutions(temporal and spatial) for various variables, we are going to ask an ant to jump few meters in second or two, and a deer to rolling on the floor and many more clearly visible blunders with animals. At the present situation, climate community is asking the models to do mistake as this forest model example, and artistic science is saying 97 % community is in agreement with anthropogenic global warming !!!
I am a novice in climate research. So, lease let me know if any climate model takes care of such things in building model so that we can rely on them. But, from my perspective, the utility of such model are only to understand better about climate system intrecacies with a lot of uncertainty ...
Moderator Response:[JH] Let's move this discussion to a more appropriate thread, i.e., How reliable are climate models? Thank you.
-
Deco79 at 16:16 PM on 18 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Staggering stupidity. I bet Mr Rose will be the first to write an article on the "infinite" recovery of ice once we do have an ice free summer.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 13:42 PM on 18 September 2013Global Warming’s Missing Heat: Look Back In Anger (and considerable disbelief)…
And so far, we’ve only experienced 0.8 degrees C of warming. Who in his right mind would dare suggest that 1.5 degrees of warming is safe?
Which is why I puzzle over the much-touted 2°C 'target' set by politicians. That amount of warming averaged across the biosphere means some places will get even warmer, some will be more static and some will cool. I have yet to read a credible argument showing how 2°C average warming will be an improvement over current temperatures, let alone how ocean acidification, due to concomitant CO₂e level increases in the atmosphere, will be a boon to terrestrial life.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 13:15 PM on 18 September 2013Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
As a simple soul, I am constantly discouraged by the egregious disinformation presented by opinion-leaders who obviouslt know better. David Rose is of that ilk, as is Tony (Climate Change Is Crap) Abbott. Being a Rhodes scholar, Abbott is smart enough to understand the evidence, leaving me to surmise he knows perfectly well we are facing a climate crisis and is deliberately following a contrarian path.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:18 AM on 18 September 2013What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints
GFW @8, we should distinguish between fingerprinting the rise in CO2 levels as anthropogenic (which can be done by carbon isotopes), and fingerprinting the rise in temperatures as being caused by increased greenhouse warming which cannot). I will grant you that SkS discussions of the topic often fail to distinguish this point, but never-the-less we shoud do so.
Further, the fingerprinting above is not "model based" in any except the most trivial sense. Any scientific theory is a model. It specifies certain empirical relationships between some measurable quantities and some other measurable quantities. In some theories, the models are very simple, and can be solved algebraicly with linear equations. Others are more complex. As it happens, the subject matter of climate science is so complex that detailed predictions can only be made by large, complex computer programs. Use of such programs to determine what the theory predicts, however, is no different in principle than using Newton's second law of motion to determing the force applied to an accelerating body.
The denier objection to computer models is, fundamentally, an insistence that the predictions of climate science be kept to the level of handwaving, ie, the only level at which their "predictions" can appear to survive empirical tests.
-
K.a.r.S.t.e.N at 09:44 AM on 18 September 2013The Pacific Ocean fills in another piece of the global warming puzzle, and puzzles Curry
Icarus, the constant aerosol forcing ramp up is extremely unlikely. In fact, this is reflected in the Meinshausen-Forcing which is more or less the basis for the upcoming AR5. So yes, with GISS aerosol forcing, the sensitivity might be too high. On the other hand, the GHG forcing is on the high(er) side in the GISS forcing data. Some counterbalancing here, but I am afraid we are going to run into the next issue right away: The so-called effective radiative forcing concept. Way beyond what I can explain right now, but maybe something we get to hear more often very soon (see Forster et al. 2013 for more).
You are absolutely right regarding Hansen et al. 2011. It is certainly an interesting effort, a very interesting one to be sure, but I am inclined to think that the models have more trouble to get the ocean response right, rather than they are wrong regarding the aerosol forcing. My argument is mainly based on the latest developments on the "OHC-front", i.e. the results presented in Balmaseda et al. 2013. If true, they contradict Hansens assumption of a lower planetary imbalance in the last decade, which in turn suggests that the slow response function (effective deep ocean mixing) is closer to the truth (corresponding with a more plausible aerosol forcing). Given the current ENSO state, I'm hardly pressed to think that his notion of "[too] excessive deep ocean uptake of heat" (with respect to GISS modelE-R) might be wrong after all. What I heard from (some) ocean modellers recently, seems to point in a similar direction ... corroborated by the simple fact that the model response to the forcing over land is surprisingly good, while all the discrepancies are restricted to the ENSO region as well as the circumpolar southern oceans. Hoprefully, Fig. 2 from van Oldenborgh et al. 2013 helps to illustrate what I just said:
-
scaddenp at 09:39 AM on 18 September 2013Medieval Warm Period was warmer
"My interpretation of D'Anrea's studies is that he believes in present day CO2 induced global warming."
Meaning what? That therefore his data must be wrong?
Prev 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 Next
