Climate guesses...  otherwise known as modelling carries at all times disclaimers.

The confidence that can be placed on GCM climate projections is indicated by the disclaimers that the CSIRO always includes in its climate consultancy reports.

For example:“This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO ... for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report.”

It's a bit like the human brain. We don't fully understand it, but we know a lot about it.

If we continue to drink alcohol, we're going to get drunk  and we're not going to think too clearly.

If we continue to burn fossil fuels, we're going to have a wide range of unwanted consequences, including global warming and ocean acidification. Blind Freddy can see that.

We have a choice, and most of the world is at least starting to make the intelligent choice to limit emissions.  

There are at least two clear paths ahead.

---

Pretty colours....  bout all its good for considering the computer models are all crap and the theory is unproven and as you said we don't understand everything yet and considering climate is vastly more complex than anyone here on your side seems to admit

One more time...

“This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO ... for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report.”

OH BTW that would include YOURS...  ;D ;D ;D

SCIENTIFIC COMPUTER MODELING METHOD 101

I'm a bit dismayed about how computer models have come to be more important than actual observations and so I offer a formal statement of the Scientific Computer Modeling Method.

The Scientific Method

1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.

2. Develop a hypothesis that possibly explains the phenomenon.

3. Perform a test in an attempt to disprove or invalidate the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is disproven, return to steps 1 and 2.

4. A hypothesis that stubbornly refuses to be invalidated may be correct. Continue testing.

The Scientific Computer Modeling Method

1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.

2. Develop a computer model that mimics the behavior of the phenomenon.

3. Select observations that conform to the model predictions and dismiss observations as of inadequate quality that conflict with the computer model.

4. In instances where all of the observations conflict with the model, "refine" the model with fudge factors to give a better match with pesky facts. Assert that these factors reveal fundamental processes previously unknown in association with the phenomenon. Under no circumstances willingly reveal your complete data sets, methods, or computer codes.

5. Upon achieving a model of incomprehensible complexity that still somewhat resembles the phenomenon, begin to issue to the popular media dire predictions of catastrophe that will occur as far in the future as possible, at least beyond your professional lifetime.

6. Continue to "refine" the model in order to maximize funding and the awarding of Nobel Prizes.

7. Dismiss as unqualified, ignorant, and conspiracy theorists all who offer criticisms of the model.

Repeat steps 3 through 7 indefinitely.

Do you think everything hinges on computer models ? It doesn't.

You think that just because there is some error (tolerance) in the predictions, that somehow, the future is going to be a bed of roses?

Get your heads out of the sand.

The science behind AGW is very basic, but of course the general population doesn't even understand basic science. Idiocracy is alive and well.  Computers models designed in the late 80's successfully predicted the temperature variations encountered to date.

Modern computer models are much more accurate than that. They are now in their 4th generation.

You'll find a lot of total nonsense being spouted about computer models in your favourite sites.

These sites that you enjoy reading are deliberate attempts to mislead people, and the gullible and non-scientific are being misled in droves if the state of the blogosphere is any gauge.

For example - there is the claim that models are old - that they do not account for water vapour, that they rely on an iterative approach (what pjb was alluding to) or the biggest clanger of all:

"These models fail because they rely on ONLY selecting CO2 as the cause of climate change."

All of this is bunkum of course. The very first general circulation climate model that combined both oceanic and atmospheric processes was developed in the late 1960s at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - even that took into account water vapour feedbacks.  

I'm no expert in modern climate modelling, but I recognise bs when I see it. My experience in climate modelling comes from the 90's, and even then , they had an enormous level of sophistication.

I'm sorry the IPCCCCCCCCCCC changed their predictions based on the fact that the original modelling was hmmmm  how can we be nice about this.... UPDATED.  guess what they are still wrong.

Sounds to me like you're the one visiting the same incorrect sites.  


Quote:

I'm no expert in modern climate modelling,

 Yep  ;D

muso wrote on May 22^nd, 2009 at 8:53am:

... All of this is bunkum of course. The very first general circulation climate model that combined both oceanic and atmospheric processes was developed in the late 1960s at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - even that took into account water vapour feedbacks.   ...

Speaking of water vapour, Hydrologists came to conclusion that every second 7 cubic metres of water leaves Earth’s gravitational influence and is “lost in space”.

Not much, but every little bit counts:
25,200 m3 an hour,
604,800 m3 a day,
220,903,200 m3 almost 221 cub. Km in an average year (365.25 days) and so on.

At some stage expanding water due to warming will be met with water lost to space and from there it will be all downhill.

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/fatal-errors-in-ipccs-global-climate-models/

scroll down to....  

PCC’S FATAL ERRORS

INTERNAL MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC ARE SUFFICIENT

TO REJECT ITS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING CONJECTURE

ALBEDO REGULATES CLIMATE, NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

CO2 HAS NO MEASURABLE EFFECT ON CLIMATE.

i hope commander rudd reads that.

Oh, too late, the egotistical dweeb has already padlocked kyoto to our necks.

I'm not sure why uncertainty is such a difficult concept for some people to handle. If you shoot a gun, can you ever predict exactly what is going to happen? Does this mean we don't know enough about guns to manage the risks involved? None of the global warming policy that has been implemented hinges on being able to make accurate predictions. It is all about risk management. Less than perfect understanding of global climate systems is not a good reason to continue releasing GHG's on an industrial scale. In fact, the opposite is the case. There are appears to be some basic logical errors undermining Grendel's argument, assuming he is still pushing the same old barrow.

What exactly is your point Grendel?

Uncertainty does not equal error.

Basing a theory on a flawed premise is doomed to failure.

Manipulation of parameters to achieve a desired result is not science.

GiGo

need I go on?

So you still think a mysterious cabal of evil scientists is coercing the overwhelming majority of scientists, statisticians, and even politicians into endorsing their theory on climate change Grendel.
To what end is this conspiracy supposed to be working?
How do they achieve the compliance, and secrecy of so many who have the knowledge to unmask their evil plot?

Too many reputable people accept the facts as presented for your contentions to appear as anything more than the churlish rants of a denialist who cannot accept they may have chosen the wrong side, for political reasons.

If you were honestly concerned about just seeing better science done, and greater understanding achieved, then that would be admirable, but you just are hoping for a chance to say, NYAH NYAH, I told you so, and you are so desperate for that chance that you latch onto every charlatan who has a new line of bull to spin.

It is getting tiresome Grendel, unless you have some new information which will illuminate, rather than confuse, then you are just acting as a mindless spoiler.

Fingers in your ears wont change things Mozz...  I'm not into conspiracies...  just facts and there is no proof...  just; theory, flawed models and Gore.

post your proof...  meanwhile I'm a bit chilly, gonna get me an extra blanket.

Happy wrote on May 22^nd, 2009 at 1:33pm:

muso wrote on May 22nd, 2009 at 8:53am: ... All of this is bunkum of course. The very first general circulation climate model that combined both oceanic and atmospheric processes was developed in the late 1960s at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - even that took into account water vapour feedbacks.   ... Speaking of water vapour, Hydrologists came to conclusion that every second 7 cubic metres of water leaves Earth’s gravitational influence and is “lost in space”. Not much, but every little bit counts: 25,200 m3 an hour, 604,800 m3 a day, 220,903,200 m3 almost 221 cub. Km in an average year (365.25 days) and so on. At some stage expanding water due to warming will be met with water lost to space and from there it will be all downhill.

Where did you get that piece of wisdom from?

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2009 at 1:39pm:

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/fatal-errors-in-ipccs-global-climate-models/ scroll down to....

Wow! - and this takes as its source "Rocket Scientist's Journal"

You don't have to go too far into that article to find inconsistencies:

A computer run, for example, that assumes the natural forces are in equilibrium, and then calculates the effects of a slug of manmade CO2 that dissolves over the years is not valid. The run needs to be made with the natural outgassing process and anthropogenic emissions entering the atmosphere simultaneously to be circulated and absorbed through the process of the solubility of CO2 in water.

Here he's demonstrating that he has absolutely no idea how computer models work.

Total bunkum.

That would not have a hope of getting past peer review because it is unadulterated twaddle.

The worst part is that the author probably knows this but has an agenda, so he works on the premise that bs baffles brains.

The last paragraph is about Cosmic Rays. Work done in 2007 proved that the Cosmic Ray activity has not shown any marked peaks.

In short, this is deliberately obfuscating techno-twaddle. No serious journal would accept it for publication, which is probably why it can only be found in the "Rocket Scientist's Journal" (shades of Wayne's World)

Treat it with the same respect as 'The moon landing was a hoax'  or "Elvis is alive" sites.

Talking about water ... ~ 80% of a human brain is water.

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2009 at 1:27pm:

I'm sorry the IPCCCCCCCCCCC changed their predictions based on the fact that the original modelling was hmmmm  how can we be nice about this.... UPDATED.  guess what they are still wrong. Sounds to me like you're the one visiting the same incorrect sites.

The predictions changed due to new data that showed that the situation was even worse than anticipated.

Guess what? There is work going on right now that will appear in AR5. It's based on the fact that increasing methane emissions from Arctic Tundra are much higher than anticipated due to accelerated thawing.

AR5 will find that AR4 was optimistic. That's how the scientific method works. As you get new information, you apply the new learnings and data.

The basic hypothesis has always been sound. However, it's not like creative accounting where you make contingencies for things you don't know yet.

The basic contention of that site that 'water feedbacks are negative' is farcical. It's the stuff that April Fools jokes are made of.

Oh...  the predictions changed due to NEW DATA...  guess what?
They'll keep changing till one day maybe in a few decades maybe much longer they know enough about climate.

OMG...  now its Methane...   as well as CO2?  Stop farting everyone.

Grendel wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 9:32pm:

Oh...  the predictions changed due to NEW DATA...  guess what? They'll keep changing till one day maybe in a few decades maybe much longer they know enough about climate. OMG...  now its Methane...   as well as CO2?  Stop farting everyone.

Grendel - What? You didn't realise that methane was an important Greenhouse gas? You seriously need to study the basics. Here's an easy to understand site designed for kids. It has nice pictures and easy to understand text in many different primary colours.

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/air/global.htm

The greenhouse gases

The main gases that cause the greenhouse effect are:

   * water vapor
   * carbon dioxide, or CO2
   * methane (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG !!!!!!!says Grendel)
   * nitrous oxide

Some "greenhouse gases" occur naturally in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Mate - The computer you're using now is a refinement of the computer you had previously (I'm guessing that you went for a newer model). The old one worked well perhaps, but the way of the world is to improve as we find out more. It's the same with everything in the world of science.

The IPCC 4th Annual Report did not say that AR3 was invalid. It simply built on it with new data that was available. It did not change the basic conclusion. As we learn more about the magnitude of methane feedbacks, the original predictions will change - for the worse.

It was expected, but you just can't invent data that isn't there yet.

Climate modelling, like any science based discipline is continually adapting.

Contrast that with the Climate Prognosticators like Richard Lindzen.
He has held on to his Iris Effect model despite many studies that demonstrated time and time again that global water feedbacks are positive. There may be localised events which work the other way around, but the data indicates a climate sensitivity of 3 +/- 1.5 Celsius degrees for a doubling of CO2 concentration. The vast majority of papers fall well within that range. Where does Lindzen put it? He doesn't. No published paper on climate sensitivity.

That's not science. It's pure advocacy, and an advocate will generally  adopt a static unchangeable position.

Tell me something I don't know.

Like you have proof that man made CO2 is driving the climate.

Grendel wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 5:45pm:

Tell me something I don't know. Like you have proof that man made CO2 is driving the climate.

Tell you something you don't know?

ok - methane is a greenhouse gas.  
Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas.

and the actual meaning of the word climate - because if you come out with a simplistic statement like that, you obviously don't know that either.

All you are doing...  is showing me and others that you are not worth talking to.

I gather you can't make that statement.
hence apart from the lies or ignorance about me you keep writing...  I gather it would be an incorrect statement.  yet one you fanatically defend.

Grendel wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 9:32pm:

Oh...  the predictions changed due to NEW DATA...  guess what? They'll keep changing till one day maybe in a few decades maybe much longer they know enough about climate. OMG...  now its Methane...   as well as CO2?  Stop farting everyone.

Don't exhale, fart, warm yourself, cool yourself, travel, farm, fish, hunt, reproduce. I can see the headline:

Life - it's killing the planet

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 7:18pm:

I can see the headline: Life - it's killing the planet

Life - you are standing in it.

muso wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 7:12pm:

Grendel wrote on May 26th, 2009 at 5:45pm: Tell me something I don't know. Like you have proof that man made CO2 is driving the climate. Tell you something you don't know? ok - methane is a greenhouse gas.   Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas. and the actual meaning of the word climate - because if you come out with a simplistic statement like that, you obviously don't know that either.

"Beethoven liked trees. My dog also likes trees. By your logic, it is obvious that my dog is Beethoven. " (c) muso

;)

Grendel wrote on May 24^th, 2009 at 10:44pm:

Uncertainty does not equal error.

Grendel, I thought you were the one claiming it does. Can you explain your position, beyond vaque waffle?

If you are confused and don't understand etc...  that's just your normal state FD.

DWMT

toodles

You know you have always been a total prick...

Meanwhile back to reality...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html


Quote:

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports. Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –


The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;

CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;

Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;

The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;

The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;

“Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;

Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;

The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;

It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;

Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;

In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

Grendel, how about instead of feverishly gathering evidence to support your argument, you figure out what your argument actually is?

You are still an idiot I see fd.
I know what I believe...  said it often enough.
Oh and I know what my argument is.  the fact you keep being either disingenuous or stupid says much more about you.

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 7:18pm:

Grendel wrote on May 25th, 2009 at 9:32pm: Oh...  the predictions changed due to NEW DATA...  guess what? They'll keep changing till one day maybe in a few decades maybe much longer they know enough about climate. OMG...  now its Methane...   as well as CO2?  Stop farting everyone. Don't exhale, fart, warm yourself, cool yourself, travel, farm, fish, hunt, reproduce. I can see the headline: Life - it's killing the planet

Soren,

Are you saying that you didn't know that methane was a greenhouse gas either? Perhaps Grendel is not alone.

I wonder how many other people are blissfully ignorant of the fact that methane is a greenhouse gas with roughly 20 times the greenhouse gas potential of CO2?  Some figures show 8 times, but it depends on the time scale - methane slowly breaks down in the atmosphere.

Grendel,

I can't stay on this forum every waking hour, so don't always expect instant replies.

It's an ongoing 'problem'. You see, I have a life.

muso

Grendel wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 9:55am:

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that – ......... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed; .......

Note - Christopher Monckton has never carried out any climate research in his life. He's just a mouth for the right wing lobby - and yes - Al Gore's a mouth too, but he doesn't attempt to write scientific papers.

The third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is not qualified to comment on any of these things, except perhaps the reference to Mars, Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto.

- but that's by virtue of his only qualifications - a degree in classics and ancient history and by the way, a diploma in journalism.

There is no science in that report. He is not even a scientist.

I shudder to think what advice he gave Margaret Thatcher as her Science Advisor. (Although to be honest, we're not much better off with Peter Garret. )

By the way, he's another cohort of the Magnificient Seven previously mentioned. What a fine team they make  ;D  

Oh dear being hypocritical again.

All those scientists etc  that back climate change etc that aren't published or climate scientists are obviously all scientific dunderheads...  we'll just have to stop quoting them and giving their support weight then won't we?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are such a hypocrite.

Grendel wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 8:29am:

Oh dear being hypocritical again. All those scientists etc  that back climate change etc that aren't published or climate scientists are obviously all scientific dunderheads...  we'll just have to stop quoting them and giving their support weight then won't we? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You are such a hypocrite.

Grendel - It's quite simple. If you had a toothache, would you go to a dentist or a plumber?

2 things Muso...
1/ don't lie about what I know or don't know.
2/ dont infer I'm impatient about your responses...  the timing of which I have never even mentioned.

Oh dear a liar and a hypocrite....  credibility heading south at a rapid rate.


As for simplicity...  just stop ignoring the facts and shooting messengers,

muso wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 8:33am:

Grendel - It's quite simple. If you had a toothache, would you go to a dentist or a plumber?

So what is a 'climate scientist' Muso? The subject covers so many diverse fields: physics, biology, chemistry, oceanography, geology to name a few. How many so called climate scientists are really on top of all these fields and how many are really just going along with the bandwagon?

"Climate Scientists" are obviously only those people who agree with anthropogenic causes for; global warming...  global cooling...  global dimming...  ah...  global warming....  ahhhhh...  climate change.  :D

I'm just wondering if Muso should stop listening to himself, since his qualifications might not hold weight...  unless he uses the above definition.

muso wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 8:24am:

Grendel wrote on May 27th, 2009 at 9:55am: Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that – ......... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed; ....... Note - Christopher Monckton has never carried out any climate research in his life. He's just a mouth for the right wing lobby - and yes - Al Gore's a mouth too, but he doesn't attempt to write scientific papers. The third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is not qualified to comment on any of these things, except perhaps the reference to Mars, Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto. - but that's by virtue of his only qualifications - a degree in classics and ancient history and by the way, a diploma in journalism. There is no science in that report. He is not even a scientist. I shudder to think what advice he gave Margaret Thatcher as her Science Advisor. (Although to be honest, we're not much better off with Peter Garret. ) By the way, he's another cohort of the Magnificient Seven previously mentioned. What a fine team they make  ;D

Arr, it seems most of what boofy posts is questionable at best but in most cases unsubstantiated bunkum that is put out there by the oil companies in order to peddle their agenda. I wonder why the world is flat brigade are sooooooooo gullible.
Tho I suspect many people like boofy have an alternate agenda, they probably earn a living from one of these companies and see it in their interest to spread the lies, luckily most aussies are far too smart for their lies.

Plumbers and dentists are useful while "climate scientists" are not. It is that simple really.

wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 9:37am:

Arr, it seems most of what boofy posts is questionable at best but in most cases unsubstantiated bunkum that is put out there by the oil companies in order to peddle their agenda. I wonder why the world is flat brigade are sooooooooo gullible. Tho I suspect many people like boofy have an alternate agenda, they probably earn a living from one of these companies and see it in their interest to spread the lies, luckily most aussies are far too smart for their lies.

You are very conformist,  intellectuallly, for a little red devil. You always seem to be running with the herd. Do you feel any tension there?

Quote:

I know what I believe...  said it often enough.

Grendel, it's great that you know what you believe. The next step is to be able to communicate it effectively. You could have mumbled it to yourself a million times, but you stumble every time I ask you to say it. The genuine test of your understand is being able to explain it to others such that they aslo understand. So far, you are failing at that. You have substituted accumulating evidence for being able to explain the argument the evidence is supposed to support. It may be easier and less challenging, but it wastes your time and mine.


Quote:

Oh and I know what my argument is.

Ditto.


Quote:

the fact you keep being either disingenuous or stupid says much more about you.

I am highlighting genuine flaws in your argument. Or at least, what I think your argument is, as you don't seem very keen to explain it now. Maybe you expect us to read your mind? Maybe you just don't want to confirm that the evidence you provide does not actually support your position.

DWMT fd...  :D

Your petty pricking is soooo boring.

Your inability to understand well known.

Soren wrote on May 29^th, 2009 at 12:57am:

wrote on May 28th, 2009 at 9:37am: Arr, it seems most of what boofy posts is questionable at best but in most cases unsubstantiated bunkum that is put out there by the oil companies in order to peddle their agenda. I wonder why the world is flat brigade are sooooooooo gullible. Tho I suspect many people like boofy have an alternate agenda, they probably earn a living from one of these companies and see it in their interest to spread the lies, luckily most aussies are far too smart for their lies. You are very conformist,  intellectuallly, for a little red devil. You always seem to be running with the herd. Do you feel any tension there?

On the contrary, I would say someone who believed in god was a conformist, herd dweller and all round insecure individual.
As for intellect, dont flatter yourself soren, anybody as sheeple  as you in their belief is far from intellectual.

wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 4:18pm:

Soren wrote on May 29th, 2009 at 12:57am: wrote on May 28th, 2009 at 9:37am: Arr, it seems most of what boofy posts is questionable at best but in most cases unsubstantiated bunkum that is put out there by the oil companies in order to peddle their agenda. I wonder why the world is flat brigade are sooooooooo gullible. Tho I suspect many people like boofy have an alternate agenda, they probably earn a living from one of these companies and see it in their interest to spread the lies, luckily most aussies are far too smart for their lies. You are very conformist,  intellectuallly, for a little red devil. You always seem to be running with the herd. Do you feel any tension there? On the contrary, I would say someone who believed in god was a conformist, herd dweller and all round insecure individual. As for intellect, dont flatter yourself soren, anybody as sheeple  as you in their belief is far from intellectual.

Skippy - Let's ease off on the personal attacks and stick to the topic?
Grendel - you too.

Thanks,

muso

Grendel wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 2:37pm:

DWMT fd...  :D Your petty pricking is soooo boring. Your inability to understand well known.

Grendel,

Actually FD has a point. You're playing your cards very close to the chest.

What are you actually saying? Greenhouse Gases cause warming due to radiative forcing, but water vapour had a negative feedback (The Richard Lindzen view) or Greenhouse Gases actually cause atmospheric cooling (The Christopher Monkton view) or you choose.

Go on - Which one is your particular idol?

Bob Carter (aka Global warming - what Global warming?) ?
Richard Lindzen?
Ian Plimer (The rock king) ?
Dave (we are not worthy) Evans ?
Bjørn Lomborg (Global Warming is happening, but it's good for you)
or maybe
Lord Christopher Monkton

Of course Jennifer Marohasy, the pin-up girl of the right wing  is probably more your style. Which view does she subscribe to? She's anybody's - She'll settle for any position (on Climate Change) - as long as they don't conform to the majority position of course.

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Reef%20April06%200021%20blog.JPG

muso wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 5:16pm:

wrote on May 30th, 2009 at 4:18pm: Soren wrote on May 29th, 2009 at 12:57am: wrote on May 28th, 2009 at 9:37am: Arr, it seems most of what boofy posts is questionable at best but in most cases unsubstantiated bunkum that is put out there by the oil companies in order to peddle their agenda. I wonder why the world is flat brigade are sooooooooo gullible. Tho I suspect many people like boofy have an alternate agenda, they probably earn a living from one of these companies and see it in their interest to spread the lies, luckily most aussies are far too smart for their lies. You are very conformist,  intellectuallly, for a little red devil. You always seem to be running with the herd. Do you feel any tension there? On the contrary, I would say someone who believed in god was a conformist, herd dweller and all round insecure individual. As for intellect, dont flatter yourself soren, anybody as sheeple  as you in their belief is far from intellectual. Skippy - Let's ease off on the personal attacks and stick to the topic? Grendel - you too. Thanks, muso

Fair enough, but as you see I was addressing soren and addressed each point he made about me, doesn't he get to stand on the pole too?

Soren - would you please get on the pole too. ::)

Man-made climate change is hubristic bullsh!t.

Can I say that?

muso wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 6:07pm:

Soren - would you please get on the pole too. ::)

Thanks muso, it gets lonely on the pole when the other bloke wont speak to me, now soren and I can have a good ol chat.

Soren wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 6:07pm:

Man-made climate change is hubristic bullsh!t. Can I say that?

If you can back it up with facts you can.

wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 6:14pm:

Soren wrote on May 30th, 2009 at 6:07pm: Man-made climate change is hubristic bullsh!t. Can I say that? If you can back it up with facts you can.

There have been ice ages wth much greater CO2 levels in the atmosphere than now.

Soren...  how dare you spout facts which seem to scream the obvious.

CO2 is continuing to keep going up yet temperatures have stopped climbing or are going down.

muso wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 5:32pm:

Grendel wrote on May 30th, 2009 at 2:37pm: DWMT fd...  :D Your petty pricking is soooo boring. Your inability to understand well known. Grendel, Actually FD has a point. You're playing your cards very close to the chest. What are you actually saying? Greenhouse Gases cause warming due to radiative forcing, but water vapour had a negative feedback (The Richard Lindzen view) or Greenhouse Gases actually cause atmospheric cooling (The Christopher Monkton view) or you choose. Go on - Which one is your particular idol? Bob Carter (aka Global warming - what Global warming?) ? Richard Lindzen? Ian Plimer (The rock king) ? Dave (we are not worthy) Evans ? Bjørn Lomborg (Global Warming is happening, but it's good for you) or maybe Lord Christopher Monkton Of course Jennifer Marohasy, the pin-up girl of the right wing  is probably more your style. Which view does she subscribe to? She's anybody's - She'll settle for any position (on Climate Change) - as long as they don't conform to the majority position of course. http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Reef%20April06%200021%20blog.JPG

Grendel has been playing them close to his chest for a long time now. He cannot come up with a rational argument any more. For some reason he thinks that posting 'evidence' is a substitute, even if that evidence does not support the arguments he used to make. Maybe he has just learnt, through some kind of Pavlovian process, that it is a lot easier on his ego to copy and paste articles, than to try to make sense of what he posts.

hey fd...  shut up.
If you can't state the truth about someone best you just shut up.
I'm sorry if you failed to understand those 2 short sentences or any implications that flow from them.

Grendel, it is not for me to state what your argument is. It is for you to say. Come up with a point, try to make it, and move on from there. Otherwise all your discussions here are just pointless. Is that what you want?

I just want you to shut up and stop your mindless carping.

I have made my position very clear on quite a few occasions... if you didn't suffer from memory loss and total comprehension failure you might remember that.

I'm sure you have Grendel, but that is not what interests me. What interests me is why you have suddenly become so shy about it. Is it simply because you cannot respond to the criticism that the evidence you posted does not support your position? Muso also picked up on it, so maybe there is more to it. It simply does not make sense for someone who believes in themself to go to such effort to avoid giving a simple explanation of their position, while posting so much else.

Not shy about it at all...  why bug me if you know my position.
I'm sure anyone here who has read anything I've said... which according to Muso is totally irrelevant due to my lack of expertise and papers...  would be quite aware of my position on climate change.

Unlike yourself if I remember correctly you took 2 bob each way.  Your support for the "cause" is risk assessment.  Better to be safe just in case they are right.  An insurance policy.

The evidence does support my position...  Muso is being a tad disingenuous as usual.  The fact you don't understand is also completely understandable.

I'm not and I'll repeat that in case it still hasn't sunk in...  making any effort here to avoid anything, this topic is not one I'm very interested in, due to the lack of honesty from one side of the debate, but it does avoid the muslim crap.

Soren wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 6:31pm:

wrote on May 30th, 2009 at 6:14pm: Soren wrote on May 30th, 2009 at 6:07pm: Man-made climate change is hubristic bullsh!t. Can I say that? If you can back it up with facts you can. There have been ice ages wth much greater CO2 levels in the atmosphere than now.

Well done Soren, you at least made a good point, although you have not supplied any data to support this yet. I'll try to answer you as well as I can.


The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and temperature are interdependent. Arrhenius demonstrated that increasing CO2 levels would increase temperature via the greenhouse effect way back at the beginning of the 20th century.

This plot of CO2 versus temperature shows that current atmospheric CO2 levels are higher than they have been for 800,000 years:

So something tells me we're not in Kansas any more, to quote Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/720px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png

To go much beyond that requires the use of proxies that are increasingly unreliable.

However, work carried out in 2006-2007 show that the climate sensitivity has actually remained roughly about the same as far back as 420 Million years.

Climate sensitivity constrained by CO concentrations over the past 420 million years

Ref: Robert A. Berner, Jeffrey Park, Dana L. Royer
Nature 446, 530-532 (29 March 2007) doi:10.1038/nature05699 Letter

Here's an abstract of that study:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/full/nature05699.html

I think what you are probably referring to is the end of the Ordovician period,  443 Million years ago, at which stage there was a period of glaciation. We really don't have enough reliable data on that period to conclude anything.

While we have a reasonably good measure of solar activity over fairly recent times, we have very little idea of how 'hot' the sun was during that period. For all we know, the solar irradiance may have dropped resulting in glaciation.

Ah, but you say - so how could this be when CO2 levels were so high?
During geological time, CO2 levels have fluctuated enormously. Prior to the blooming of photosynthesising cyanobacteria (blue green algae), the atmospheric CO2 was in the two figure percent range, but of course, the sun was not as luminous back then.

The main thing about these geological periods was that other conditions were different from today. With greater 'buffers' such as ocean life and in some cases, vast areas of rainforest, the actual CO2 to temperature relationship has varied somwhat.

There have been periods within the last 420 million years where CO2 levels have changed sharply for different reasons, but generally these have been coincident with species extinction.

Our best guide to climate sensitibity is the most recent geological periods. The main change in the last 150 years or so has been the dramatic reduction in tropical rainforest, which acts as a buffer, effectively removing excess CO2 and smoothing out any spikes.  

So it's important to compare apples with apples.

OMG...  more cutting and pasting...

ROTFLMAO  ;D ;D ;D

Lol...  having trouble reading your graph Muso?

muso wrote on May 31^st, 2009 at 8:45am:

Soren wrote on May 30th, 2009 at 6:31pm: wrote on May 30th, 2009 at 6:14pm: Soren wrote on May 30th, 2009 at 6:07pm: Man-made climate change is hubristic bullsh!t. Can I say that? If you can back it up with facts you can. There have been ice ages wth much greater CO2 levels in the atmosphere than now. Well done Soren, you at least made a good point, although you have not supplied any data to support this yet. I'll try to answer you as well as I can. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and temperature are interdependent. Arrhenius demonstrated that increasing CO2 levels would increase temperature via the greenhouse effect way back at the beginning of the 20th century. This plot of CO2 versus temperature shows that current atmospheric CO2 levels are higher than they have been for 800,000 years: So something tells me we're not in Kansas any more, to quote Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/720px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png To go much beyond that requires the use of proxies that are increasingly unreliable. However, work carried out in 2006-2007 show that the climate sensitivity has actually remained roughly about the same as far back as 420 Million years. Climate sensitivity constrained by CO concentrations over the past 420 million years Ref: Robert A. Berner, Jeffrey Park, Dana L. Royer Nature 446, 530-532 (29 March 2007) doi:10.1038/nature05699 Letter Here's an abstract of that study: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/full/nature05699.html I think what you are probably referring to is the end of the Ordovician period,  443 Million years ago, at which stage there was a period of glaciation. We really don't have enough reliable data on that period to conclude anything. While we have a reasonably good measure of solar activity over fairly recent times, we have very little idea of how 'hot' the sun was during that period. For all we know, the solar irradiance may have dropped resulting in glaciation. Ah, but you say - so how could this be when CO2 levels were so high? During geological time, CO2 levels have fluctuated enormously. Prior to the blooming of photosynthesising cyanobacteria (blue green algae), the atmospheric CO2 was in the two figure percent range, but of course, the sun was not as luminous back then. The main thing about these geological periods was that other conditions were different from today. With greater 'buffers' such as ocean life and in some cases, vast areas of rainforest, the actual CO2 to temperature relationship has varied somwhat. There have been periods within the last 420 million years where CO2 levels have changed sharply for different reasons, but generally these have been coincident with species extinction. Our best guide to climate sensitibity is the most recent geological periods. The main change in the last 150 years or so has been the dramatic reduction in tropical rainforest, which acts as a buffer, effectively removing excess CO2 and smoothing out any spikes.   So it's important to compare apples with apples.

So that is the long version of the answer, which is " well, yes, but long term data is not supportive of man made climate change so it's best not to look at it for some reason or another."

Quote:

Not shy about it at all...  why bug me if you know my position.

This may surprise you Grendel, but I do not keep tabs on all the member's views on everything. I have a vague recollection that are opposed to reducing emissions, but it has been so long since you were brave enough to say what you think that I am not going to make any assumptions about it. The fact that you are so coy about it makes me highly suspicious. I have never come across someone posting so much crap on a politics forum who is so reluctant to actually give their views. You can't expect us to just brush over this.


Quote:

Unlike yourself if I remember correctly you took 2 bob each way.  Your support for the "cause" is risk assessment

.

See what I mean about the risks involved in relying on your memory? It makes much more sense to just ask people. In fact I think it is just stupid to debate a topic with someone without making sure you know what their position is. It always leads to a pointless, timewasting debate. That is the only possible outcome I see in your threads.


Quote:

I'm not and I'll repeat that in case it still hasn't sunk in...  making any effort here to avoid anything

Repeating it doesn't make it true Grendel. You are going to great lengths to avoid saying what you think. Why will you repeat that, but not state your position? What are you so afraid of?

VAGUE...  yep that's you fd.

And wrong and idiotic.  but hey, no ones perfect right.

DWMT

toodles

funnily enough that has no effect on me and only makes me wish you would.  ;D ;D ;D

Soren wrote on May 31^st, 2009 at 6:00pm:

Quote: However, work carried out in 2006-2007 show that the climate sensitivity has actually remained roughly about the same as far back as 420 Million years. Climate sensitivity constrained by CO concentrations over the past 420 million years Ref: Robert A. Berner, Jeffrey Park, Dana L. Royer Nature 446, 530-532 (29 March 2007) doi:10.1038/nature05699 Letter Here's an abstract of that study: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/full/nature05699.html I think what you are probably referring to is the end of the Ordovician period,  443 Million years ago, at which stage there was a period of glaciation. We really don't have enough reliable data on that period to conclude anything. So that is the long version of the answer, which is " well, yes, but long term data is not supportive of man made climate change so it's best not to look at it for some reason or another."

I've provided an abstract of a study that shows consistent climate sensitivity over the last 420 Million years.

In case you missed the connection, that implies a climate sensitivity of approximately 3 C deg for a doubling of CO2 concentration.

The last 50 years at least has shown a 30% increase in CO2, and isotope ratios confirm that the source of the excess is substantially related to fossil fuel burning. On current projections, we're going to achieve doubling by around 2040, depending on how quickly the world reacts.

I dunno - 420 Million years  sounds pretty long-term to me.


As far as the Ordivician glaciation is concerned - who knows ? All kinds of things can cause temperatures to plummet, including impact by a large meteorite, significant emissions of sulphur gases and particulates by extensive volcanic activity, some kind of glitch in solar output as I mentioned in the original post - and the list goes on.

It makes more sense to attribute the glaciation to one of those causes that say 'let's just chuck 420 million years of data out the window because it doesn't support our case'. Don't you think?

In fact, here's quite an old paper that may have some answers:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PalOc..14..542P

The analysis of the geologic record has revealed a question concerning how the Late Ordovician glaciation could have occurred simultaneously with high CO2 levels (10-18x). Sensitivity studies using a coupled atmosphere-ocean-sea ice model show that it is possible to maintain a permanent snow cover (which corresponds to 60% of all the glacial deposits found on Gondwana) under 10x CO2 levels, warm fall/cool spring orbital parameters, a 4.5% reduction in solar luminosity, a length of day of 21.5 hours, and an enhanced snow/sea ice albedo of 0.3. A cold summer orbit experiment with 10x CO2 and a reduced snow/sea ice albedo of 0.1 also sustains a permanent (albeit less extensive) snow cover. The geographic configuration of the Late Ordovician results in an up to ~42% increase in the global ocean poleward heat transport in the Southern Hemisphere relative to present-day and a significant asymmetry relative to the equator.

In summary - the glaciation was probably driven mostly by the movements of continents toward the poles.

So all you need to do is to shuffle the positions of the continents around - and hey presto! - Global Warming solved.  ;)

(If you speak to somebody regularly who is into the rapid migration of continental landmasses, maybe you could suggest it if He is willing to intervene.)

ROTFLMAO

You are kidding  :D

Grendel wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 8:23pm:

ROTFLMAO You are kidding  :D

About moving continental landmasses - yes I was - That was 'irony' Grendel. You were not meant to take it literally.

Nothing you do or say surprises me Muso...  :D :D :D

You ever watch the Vicar of Dibley? Especially where the vicar tells the dumb blonde woman a joke and she just doesn't get it. The actress (Emma Chambers) plays that part that very well.

But you'd do it even better!

name-calling, ridicule, messenger-shooting. hypocrisy, lies,....  ad hom...  ah yes the list just keeps getting bigger doesn't it.  :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on May 31^st, 2009 at 8:26pm:

VAGUE...  yep that's you fd. And wrong and idiotic.  but hey, no ones perfect right. DWMT

Talk about hypocrite,
name calling,ridicule, messenger shooting,hypocrisy,lies, the hypocrisy just keeps getting bigger.

Unfortunately the constant lies, flaming and crap from fd can illicit such responses.  Muso however doesn't have such excuses.

Don't make me reply to your libel again squibbly one.

I note all you seem to do is target people... me in particular for abuse, even when you know I'm not inclined to respond to you.

If you actually included all the crap i was reponding to you'd see it was actually factual.

there's no hypocrisy here goober...  I don't claim to be a forum saint.

Grendel wrote on Jun 4^th, 2009 at 9:19am:

Unfortunately the constant lies, flaming and crap from fd can illicit such responses.  Muso however doesn't have such excuses. Don't make me reply to your libel again squibbly one. I note all you seem to do is target people... me in particular for abuse, even when you know I'm not inclined to respond to you. If you actually included all the crap i was reponding to you'd see it was actually factual. there's no hypocrisy here goober...  I don't claim to be a forum saint.

I don't target anybody, I expose the liars and hypocrites.
Now, dwmt.

wrote on Jun 4^th, 2009 at 8:49am:

Grendel wrote on May 31st, 2009 at 8:26pm: VAGUE...  yep that's you fd. And wrong and idiotic.  but hey, no ones perfect right. DWMT Talk about hypocrite, name calling,ridicule, messenger shooting,hypocrisy,lies, the hypocrisy just keeps getting bigger.

You forgot one - deliberate smoke-screening because he really doesn't have any valid counter argument.  It's a diversionary tactic.

talking about yourself again Muso...  how egotistical of you. ::)

I know that this is several years old now, but the facts are unlikey to have changed.

When science magazine examined ALL, the published papers written on climate change in the previous 10 years, that is papers by real scientists, crackpots and non peer reviewed works were not counted, there were 928 of them.

Out of those 75% agreed that man was having an impact on the changes, and the other 25% did not state an opinion about man's influence, but not one, zero, zip, nada, none, offered the opinion pushed by the denialists, that man has no impact on climate change.

I suppose they must all have been apart of that secret cabal of evil scientists that the denialists keep alluding to.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Well gee...  unfortunately for your argument there are many more now dissenting from that opinion Mozz.  As well as people who were part of the original IPCC reports.  Etc, etc, etc...

32,000! See the other thread.  ;D You should sign up, Grendel. You'd easily qualify as an eminent scientist on that list.

I'd probably qualify as an eminent scientist more than you would Muso.
On IQ alone.
Certainly on the ability to hold a balanced view and not jump to conclusions or on a bandwagon.

Quote:

I'd probably qualify as an eminent scientist more than you would Muso. On IQ alone

Yes Grendel, but in your case would the
"I"  stand for Idiot? Ignnoramus?  or Imbecile?

Certainly not Intelligence, not from the closed minded obsessiveness with which you champion the denialist arguments.


Also, your assertion that there are "many more" now, well considering they were starting from ZERO, I suppose even one would be an exponential increase, if that one happens to be a climate scientist who has published his study in a reputable journal for peer review, do you have any of those on the denialist team yet?

DWMT Mozzy........

Nice flame for a moderator BTW. :D

You can request to have it removed if you are offended Grendel.

That post was from Mozza the member.

If you want to complain to Mozza the mod, about it, I am sure he would agree with you, and remove the post if you were offended by it.

I am not unaware of what I am doing, but I had to decide whether or not to let being a mod, change my behaviour as a poster, and I decided I did not want that to happen, I like being a bit infammatory at times, but if anyone is offended by that, they can complain to me as a mod, and I would then objectively assess it from that position, or they could ask FD, or Locutious to intervene if they didn't trust me to be fair about it.

Mind you Grendel that I am not unaware of the very many insults we have traded over the years, so try not to appear too shocked by my little digs, we have traded far worse, and kept on smiling. :)

Oh no...  I didn't realise you were schizo Mozz.  
Otherwise I'd just call you a hypocrite.

You know me Mozz I give as good as I get...  even the bile Skippy fires at me and others.  I rarely complain and never let it bother me.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 10:47am:

You can request to have it removed if you are offended Grendel. That post was from Mozza the member. If you want to complain to Mozza the mod, about it, I am sure he would agree with you, and remove the post if you were offended by it. I am not unaware of what I am doing, but I had to decide whether or not to let being a mod, change my behaviour as a poster, and I decided I did not want that to happen, I like being a bit infammatory at times, but if anyone is offended by that, they can complain to me as a mod, and I would then objectively assess it from that position, or they could ask FD, or Locutious to intervene if they didn't trust me to be fair about it. Mind you Grendel that I am not unaware of the very many insults we have traded over the years, so try not to appear too shocked by my little digs, we have traded far worse, and kept on smiling. :)

If telling the truth offends someone, so be it. :'(

I know Grendel, and if I didn't think you would take it with a grain of salt, and a smile on your face, I would not have posted it.

As far as schizo goes, it is a bit like that, initially I tried to temper my responses because I did not want to be hypocritical, and post things which I may have to mod out, but I found it restricted me from being myself, and that was no fun for me, and devalued my ability to post my own opinions, so I have chosen to just go back to being myself, and if any are offended then I wil look at it, or ask Locutious or FD to, or whoever is Mod on the member run boards.

Would you be interested in modding this board?

Muso does not want to do it any more, so we need a mod for this board now, and then you could delete my offending post, or edit it, or even ban me for flaming you.

The good thing is I know you would not do any of those things, you would just give back as good as you get, which is why I reckon you would be a good mod for this board, so please consider giving it a go.

You don't have to follow me around and comment on everything I say Skippy...  you know I'm not bothering with most of your crap these days.

Yet you keep flaming and trying to engage me.

Why?

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 11:25am:

You don't have to follow me around and comment on everything I say Skippy...  you know I'm not bothering with most of your crap these days. Yet you keep flaming and trying to engage me. Why?

1-
I'm not following you around, I've been posting on this board for a couple of months now, this and the multi cult board, the fact you choose to post on both of those boards is just bad luck on my behalf.
2- If I see an obvious mistake or intentional misleading statement I will comment, its not just you ask yadda, soren, calanen and others, when they do what you do I make comment. That's what forums are for, commenting.
3-I am entitled to comment on posts I agree or disagree with, the fact you make so many posts that are inaccurate is not my fault.
4-I'm not trying to engage you, but I will not just let you post articles that are clearly wrong, if you don't like me commenting don't post lies.
5- From where I'm sitting you are trying to engage me, you've just asked me a question, I never ask you questions , I comment about inaccurate posts you make, there is a difference. :-X

ROTFLMAO

sure Skippi your obsessed you even said as much yesterday.

hey Skipp...  pull someone elses leg buddy.

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 11:44am:

ROTFLMAO sure Skippi your obsessed you even said as much yesterday. hey Skipp...  pull someone elses leg buddy.

looks like you're trying to engage me again boofster. ::)

hey I've given up trying to ignore you...  you keep trolling and flaming so since you have no ability to control yourself or not comment like I did even just out of a sense of fair play or courtesy...  I've now decided not to give you any more free shots..

So flame on squibbly lets see how many topics you can ruin by starting flame wars.

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 11:59am:

hey I've given up trying to ignore you...  you keep trolling and flaming so since you have no ability to control yourself or not comment like I did even just out of a sense of fair play or courtesy...  I've now decided not to give you any more free shots.. So flame on squibbly lets see how many topics you can ruin by starting flame wars.

God boofy, you flip flop more than the rodent did, your not engaging me in one post then you are in the next.
Pointing out your mistakes is not flaming boof, it is simply pointing out your mistakes.
It seems you have a problem with anyone who highlights your inaccuracies, thats not my fault but yours.
Get a grip on yourself and realise the world does not revolve around you.
Now, have you got a comment on my cut and paste that counters  your assertion on global warming? I wont hold my breath. ::)

want me to go back and cut and past your bile and flames skipp?

keep it up as usual you ruin topics
pardon me whilst I opt out of this inane pointless boring  banter

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 12:23pm:

keep it up as usual you ruin topics

If you want to engage with me boof comment on the topic. ::)

I have to concede that Grendel does make a valid point here Skippy, but I cannot fairly criticise you for flaming Grendel, being guilty of it myself, but it is just so bloody tempting to do, I find I can't help myself sometimes.

I think we should try and be fair though, and try and contain our replies to the topic at hand, and stick to discussing that.

The point about modelling being an imprecise system does have some merit, but to take that fact, and then try and use it to assert that we should ignore what we have learned from climate modelling, is a big stretch to make, even for denialists who only ever seem keen to add to confusing the issue, rather than offering any real contribution to the accumulated works and commonly accepted theories that climate scientists have developed.

just balancing the ledger Mozz...  a theory based on a false premise is a waste of time.

garbage In...  garbage Out  GIGO

The models are seriously flawed.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 6^th, 2009 at 9:40pm:

The point about modelling being an imprecise system does have some merit, but to take that fact, and then try and use it to assert that we should ignore what we have learned from climate modelling, is a big stretch to make, even for denialists who only ever seem keen to add to confusing the issue, rather than offering any real contribution to the accumulated works and commonly accepted theories that climate scientists have developed.

Models should be in support of primary, empirical evidence to illustrate that evidence. But in the political debate that sometimes goes under name of climate change debate, models are the sticks to beat sceptics over the head with. It is forever about some curve of annualised average or other.

A model is always incomplete AND is always constructed with an answer or tendency in mind. Selecting what is 'relevant' is also deselecting what is irrelevant, so it is always already constructed with a mind already leaning towards a preconceived answer or trend.

A sceptic like me is amused and irritated by the obliviousness of the model-toting doom-mongers to this inevitable epistemological bias that hangs around them and, like the smell of their own fart, repels everyone but themselves.

The simple truth is so hard for denialists to swallow Soren.

Soren wrote on Jun 7^th, 2009 at 9:31pm:

Models should be in support of primary, empirical evidence to illustrate that evidence. But in the political debate that sometimes goes under name of climate change debate, models are the sticks to beat sceptics over the head with. It is forever about some curve of annualised average or other. A model is always incomplete AND is always constructed with an answer or tendency in mind. Selecting what is 'relevant' is also deselecting what is irrelevant, so it is always already constructed with a mind already leaning towards a preconceived answer or trend. A sceptic like me is amused and irritated by the obliviousness of the model-toting doom-mongers to this inevitable epistemological bias that hangs around them and, like the smell of their own fart, repels everyone but themselves.

It's either a strawman or a misconception on your part Soren, but models are not the be-all and end-all. Not everything is based on models, and that graph which I posted showing models and global temperature data sets together demonstrate that they are pretty darned close to the mark.  

- and I'll say this once and for all - Climate models do not employ iterative techniques.

Grendel wrote on Jun 7^th, 2009 at 9:53pm:

The simple truth is so hard for denialists to swallow Soren.

That sounds almost like a benediction.

If it was...  it'd be yours.

Quote:

Scientists from Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the University of Virginia compared the climate change "forecasts" from the 22 most widely-cited global circulation models with tropical temperature data collected by surface, satellite and balloon sensors. The models predicted that the lower atmosphere should warm significantly more than it actually did. "Models are very consistent in forecasting a significant difference between climate trends at the surface and in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere," said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH's Earth System Science Center. "The models forecast that the troposphere should be warming more than the surface and that this trend should be especially pronounced in the tropics. "When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere. Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface. For those layers of the atmosphere, the warming trend we see in the tropics is typically less than half of what the models forecast." The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which recently shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

One day that Nobel prize is gonna be seen for what it is...  a complete joke.

Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions

COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200906014991/energy-and-environment/climate-modesl-are-wrong-explanation-of-why.html

suggested reading...

Fortunately, the most serious problem the climate models have (in my view) is one which is easily understood by the public. So, I'm going to make yet another attempt at explaining why the computerized climate models tracked by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - all 23 of them - predict too much warming for our future. The basic problem I am talking about has been peer reviewed and published by us, and so cannot be dismissed lightly.

But this time I will use no graphs (!), and I will use only a single number (!!) which I promise will be a small one. Smile

I will do this in three steps. First, I will use the example of a pot of water on the stove to demonstrate why the temperature of things (like the Earth) rises or falls.

Secondly, I will describe why so many climate model "experts" believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the climate system to warm by a large, possibly catastrophic amount.

Finally, I will show how Mother Nature has fooled those climate experts into programming climate models to behave incorrectly.

Go for it boof,if you can convince me you are right I'll post your findings on every forum I use.
I'm not holding my breath tho.

Grendel wrote on Jun 12^th, 2009 at 11:06am:

If it was...  it'd be yours. Quote: Scientists from Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the University of Virginia compared the climate change "forecasts" from the 22 most widely-cited global circulation models with tropical temperature data collected by surface, satellite and balloon sensors. The models predicted that the lower atmosphere should warm significantly more than it actually did. "Models are very consistent in forecasting a significant difference between climate trends at the surface and in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere," said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH's Earth System Science Center. "The models forecast that the troposphere should be warming more than the surface and that this trend should be especially pronounced in the tropics. "When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere. Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface. For those layers of the atmosphere, the warming trend we see in the tropics is typically less than half of what the models forecast." The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which recently shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. One day that Nobel prize is gonna be seen for what it is...  a complete joke.

Huntsville Alabama eh? Those wouldn't be the same 'Good ol boys' who falsified the satellite temperature records now? I suspect they are. Hmmmm.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/

The deniers are winning, especially with the GOP” can’t seem to get enough of the analyses by these two scientists University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) who famously screwed up the satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere.

Yee ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D

If'n you want data that show's Global Warming ain't happening, wha' it wd be our pleasure to manufacture it for y'all.

That hilarious gem in reply 108 is brought to you by Roy Spencer.

Grendel wrote on Jun 12^th, 2009 at 11:39am:

Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

Well - partly right. East Antarctica would be the last place on Earth you'd expect to find significant increases in temperature right now, because it's a landmass located on the pole.

Remember my previous post on Continental Drift during the late Ordovician?  The "as predicted by many global climate models" bit is an exaggeration. Most of the new climate models (fourth generation) are better now at polar latitudes than they were in the past.

The Antarctic peninsula however, has shown some of the biggest increases in temperature in the world.  

Remember April this year? The Larsen Iceshelf?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=2288

Over the last five years, the shelf has lost a total of 5,700 square kilometers and is now about 40 percent the size of its previous minimum stable extent.

http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO3120916131781

Quote:

Even as we struggle with serious global financial and economic difficulties, some people believe manmade global warming is a real problem of urgent concern. Perhaps this is because, almost every day, media outlets quote “experts” who predict that soaring temperatures, rising sea levels, increasing storms, prolonged droughts and other disasters will result from human activity.

Quote:

If it makes sense to enact measures to reduce CO2 emissions when experts forecast warming, then surely it also makes sense to emit extra CO2 when experts forecast cooling. Or perhaps not. Perhaps any link between climate change and carbon dioxide is not so strong or important. Consider the historical record. The tiny fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased through the twentieth century. And yet, during that time, global average temperatures rose till about 1940, fell till about 1975, rose again till 1998, and then dropped away again. It is not surprising, then, that despite claims “the science is settled,” thousands of scientists disagree with forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming.

Quote:

The models employed by James Hansen and the IPCC are not based on scientific forecasting principles. There is no empirical evidence that they provide long-term forecasts that are as accurate as forecasting that global average temperatures won’t change. Hansen’s, and the IPCC’s, forecasts, and the recommendations based on them, should be ignored.

The tiny fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased through the twentieth century. And yet, during that time, global average temperatures rose till about 1940, fell till about 1975, rose again till 1998, and then dropped away again. It is not surprising, then, that despite claims “the science is settled,” thousands of scientists disagree with forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming.
History again provides useful guidance.

We've already covered the very imaginative interpretation of this particular chestnut.

Why would global temperatures rise and fall???

Have a think about it.

While you're thinking about it, take a look at this site. It might just give you a hint. Look carefully of the graph of solar irradiance.

If you're actually going to listen this time, Grendel, I'll even explain how it was derived - but I doubt if you're interested.

Yes - when the "sun" is hot, the temperatures go up. When the "sun" is not and the temperatures still go up - that's the time you need to sit up and take notice.

Why do you think the red curve follows the blue curve so well ?

http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/

Hey - and I'll tell you something else - It's colder at night than it is during the day. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is pretty much the same during day and night, so why do you suppose that might be????

hmmm?

yawn your are a patronising ratbag aren't you...  
must be that ego.

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 1:24pm:

.. Hey - and I'll tell you something else - It's colder at night than it is during the day. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is pretty much the same during day and night, so why do you suppose that might be???? hmmm?

I know that you are not really asking, but if you do it is Sun effect, cloud cover or not some energy makes through.

As to CO2, suppose not much change means that almost every living organism using O2 at night do not exhale that much CO2 to be measurable.

Good news should we hit the complete dust cover for prolonged time when O2 producers would not be able to perform.

I wander how long would oxygen last?
Humans must have more than 16% O2 to be able to live so there is only about 5% of usable Oxygen for us.

Happy - yes, atmospheric oxygen is slowly depleting, but we have far more imminent problems than that.

People can go on about geological time and climate variations until the cows come home.

The whole issue about sorting out this mess is not really about trees and whales and endangered species and all the feel-good deep green environmental issues.

It's more about the fact that we have a precariously high global population, and that we don't have enough time to adapt to higher temperatures, decreased calcification rates in major food chain ocean species, reduced water supply from non-polar glaciers, impact on crops yields from higher average temperatures and the rest.

The imminent crisis is about averting human catastrophe on a major scale. It's not really about saving nice fluffy polar bears.  

You might say - ok let's reduce world population. Good idea - how?

The main carbon emitters are in the developed world. The main victims will initially be in poorer countries.