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.”

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

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.

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:
  Yep 

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'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?

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.

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


Where did you get that piece of wisdom from?

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

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.

Tell me something I don't know.

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

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.

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



Life - you are standing in it.

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


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

toodles

Meanwhile back to reality...

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

Quote:

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

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



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

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?



You are such a hypocrite.

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,

"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.  

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

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

Quote:


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:


Ditto.

Quote:


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.

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


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.

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


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.

Soren - would you please get on the pole too.

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


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.

Quote:



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

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



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.

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'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.

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



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.



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.

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



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."

VAGUE...  yep that's you fd.

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

DWMT

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

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.)

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



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

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!

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


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

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

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

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

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...

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.

DWMT Mozzy........

Nice flame for a moderator BTW.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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



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.

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


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.

If it was...  it'd be yours.
Quote:


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

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.

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



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-o...

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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


Quote:


Quote:

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

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.