Because the climate system is chaotic if a model can't do short term predictions well it can't be trusted for long term predictions. Because every following state can be very sensitive to the previous state. It is entirely possible that the climate will shift to a new strange attractor while the models are stuck in another or an entirely different one. Or vice versa. i.e. the models will shift one way and the climate will stick or shift another way.
It is an absolutely incontrovertible fact that the climate models did not predict the current flattening of the trend of at least seven and possibly ten or more years of duration depending on when you wish to take the starting point. Therefor one can say with out fear of contradiction except from the faithful that the models have no predictive skill.
Dim Sun Anyone?
BTW: AGW alarmists seem to have this "heart on the sleeve" faux emotional fragility that is intended to be a sort of jumping in front of the bus defense against an unassailable argument. They also completely misconstrue what is and is not ad hominem:
http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2006 ... minem.html
Ad hom: "you are an idiot, therefore your argument is faulty"
Not ad hom: "your argument is faulty because x, y, z, and by the way you are an idiot".
The second is not ad hom, but is rude and insulting.
Hockey team members have taken the jump in front of the bus routine to new levels as skeptics request they do what scientists should do, i.e. disclose their raw data and complete methods (particularly those on public funding), since McIntyre has taken to posting every time he requests data and doesnt get any response, and posts when he does get responses (such as Stieg's now famous "btw do not ever communicate with me again") the new approach to dealing with skeptics requests for disclosure is to whine that the skeptic asked in a rude and insulting manner.
As can clearly be seen in the McIntyre - Stieg interactions, Stieg purposely took on an unjustifiably offended tone as an excuse for refusing to cooperate, despite the fact that his work IS on the public dole and he and his collaborators are legally obligated by the laws of several countries to disclose their data and methods.
Thus, if, for instance, McIntyre were to respond, "Hey, you broke law X, Y, and Z, now give me the data, you dirty felon", his only error would be that Stieg has yet to be prosecuted for breaking the law, never mind convicted of violating FOI regulations. McIntyre would not be committing ad hom to make such a statement, and thus wouldn't be giving Stieg justification to refuse to cooperate.
http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2006 ... minem.html
Ad hom: "you are an idiot, therefore your argument is faulty"
Not ad hom: "your argument is faulty because x, y, z, and by the way you are an idiot".
The second is not ad hom, but is rude and insulting.
Hockey team members have taken the jump in front of the bus routine to new levels as skeptics request they do what scientists should do, i.e. disclose their raw data and complete methods (particularly those on public funding), since McIntyre has taken to posting every time he requests data and doesnt get any response, and posts when he does get responses (such as Stieg's now famous "btw do not ever communicate with me again") the new approach to dealing with skeptics requests for disclosure is to whine that the skeptic asked in a rude and insulting manner.
As can clearly be seen in the McIntyre - Stieg interactions, Stieg purposely took on an unjustifiably offended tone as an excuse for refusing to cooperate, despite the fact that his work IS on the public dole and he and his collaborators are legally obligated by the laws of several countries to disclose their data and methods.
Thus, if, for instance, McIntyre were to respond, "Hey, you broke law X, Y, and Z, now give me the data, you dirty felon", his only error would be that Stieg has yet to be prosecuted for breaking the law, never mind convicted of violating FOI regulations. McIntyre would not be committing ad hom to make such a statement, and thus wouldn't be giving Stieg justification to refuse to cooperate.
For those wishing to verify (or refute) intlibber's post:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -and-spin/
state of play post with wide-ranging comments. Maybe 20% of fans, but a lot of informed and independent discussion. This is typical.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/22/l ... l-warming/
A similar summary from a skeptical site. Makes classic errors (as do the comments):
In forgetting that forcing effect of GHGs is logarithmic in concentration => the pre-1940 GHG emmissions are still significant
In ignoring the dimming effect of volcanoes
In ignoring decadal climate variability (thought the AGW people were supposed to do that?)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -and-spin/
state of play post with wide-ranging comments. Maybe 20% of fans, but a lot of informed and independent discussion. This is typical.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/22/l ... l-warming/
A similar summary from a skeptical site. Makes classic errors (as do the comments):
In forgetting that forcing effect of GHGs is logarithmic in concentration => the pre-1940 GHG emmissions are still significant
In ignoring the dimming effect of volcanoes
In ignoring decadal climate variability (thought the AGW people were supposed to do that?)
This is the most crucial point: As GCMs are based on weather prediction software, GCMs *should* be most accurate at predicting the weather and short term climate variability, far more accurate than in predicting long term trends. If they cannot do the first two, then their ability to accurately predict long term trends *for valid scientific reasons* fails miserably.MSimon wrote:Because the climate system is chaotic if a model can't do short term predictions well it can't be trusted for long term predictions.
NOTE: Just because a piece of software can draw a line approximately the same as a set of observational data doesnt make that softwares math a valid model. This is akin to the proverbial chimpanzee typing out shakespeare: just because he typed out Romeo and Juliet doesnt make him Shakespeare.
The map is not the territory.
Oh I admit WUWT tends to be more boisterous in its comments. Anthony tolerates a bit more of people making conclusions about the political agendas of the hockey team, while McIntyre generally refuses to allow posts of that sort.tomclarke wrote:For those wishing to verify (or refute) intlibber's post:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -and-spin/
state of play post with wide-ranging comments. Maybe 20% of fans, but a lot of informed and independent discussion. This is typical.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/22/l ... l-warming/
A similar summary from a skeptical site. Makes classic errors (as do the comments):
In forgetting that forcing effect of GHGs is logarithmic in concentration => the pre-1940 GHG emmissions are still significant
In ignoring the dimming effect of volcanoes
In ignoring decadal climate variability (thought the AGW people were supposed to do that?)
Now lets look at your cited RC posting's comments:
# Alder Fuller Says:
16 December 2008 at 7:50 PM
Well done here. Continued thanks.
I’ll add my vote for & interest in hearing more about construction of an “index variable” that captures the variability of multiple components.
“Anyone who expresses shock at this is either naive or … well, you know.”
Sad thing is, those voices seem to be getting more shrill. Intellectual death throes? One can hope …
A~
Just one example.
However, you are cherry picking from two periods 6 months apart. In december it wasnt so clear what we are now seeing much more clearly: that ice extent in the arctic is the highest of the century to date and antarctic ice is 1.5 million km above mean. In december we were all still eating the SSR/M dog food of the failing ice sensor data and didnt know any better that it was garbage that biased in favor of the alarmists.
This sort of cherry picking is what is so typical of alarmists and why skeptics have lost a lot of respect for most of them.
Last edited by IntLibber on Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ah, so the modelers now have skill in predicting volcanic eruptions?In ignoring the dimming effect of volcanoes
Who knew?
And let us not forget that because climate is chaotic and not linear that predicting a volcano eruption in 2011 (place, magnitude, type of ejecta) may have a significantly different effect on climate than the actual the eruption in 2012.
BTW not even geologist are that good at prediction. And they will tell you so.
Now what can be expected volcanically in 2051? 2039? 2073? 2015? And all the other years until 2100?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
LOL this is rather contrarian to the hockey team assertions that GHG emissions and effects were minimal to nil. Even Gavin Schmidt seems willing (in the post you cited from December no less, Tom) that the pre 1940 warming was primarily due to solar and PDO.MSimon wrote:FIFYIn forgetting that forcing effect of GHGs is logarithmic in concentration => the pre-1940 GHG emmissions are still the MOST significant.
What i still haven't seen any replies on is anybody on the AGW side talking about how the CO2 levels are going up pretty steadily, but fossil fuel consumption is not. For instance, since last summer oil consumption has dropped 5% globally. We should have seen a 5% drop in the CO2 but we didnt. This tells me its not due to fossil fuel use.
CO2 increases historically have been 100-200 years lagging behind warming. For instance, the warming of the 18th and 19th centuries attributable to coming out of the LIA SHOULD be producing significant CO2 level increases in a steady manner like we are seeing because the increases are not due to fossil fuel consumption, but from long term ocean warming increasing the outgassing of dissolved CO2. This is why CO2 always lags behind warming, it isn't the cause.
If CO2 is not due to fossil fuels where is all that CO2 going?, and why the exponential increase in CO2 concentration?
If I knew nothing od the science the extraordinary contorted logic of the skeptics does their cause no good. There may be some strong arguments against AGW hypothesis. But all this (easily refuted) flak? And arguing with every tiny bit of data? Why? Seems political, to me!
If I knew nothing od the science the extraordinary contorted logic of the skeptics does their cause no good. There may be some strong arguments against AGW hypothesis. But all this (easily refuted) flak? And arguing with every tiny bit of data? Why? Seems political, to me!
Let me see. The earth started warming at the end of the Little Ice Age. The heating of the oceans lags the land heating. So maybe the CO2 we are seeing is just the lagged evolution of CO2 from the oceans?tomclarke wrote:If CO2 is not due to fossil fuels where is all that CO2 going?, and why the exponential increase in CO2 concentration?
If I knew nothing od the science the extraordinary contorted logic of the skeptics does their cause no good. There may be some strong arguments against AGW hypothesis. But all this (easily refuted) flak? And arguing with every tiny bit of data? Why? Seems political, to me!
Dude - easily refuted? I'm not so sure. From what I have seen easily dismissed is more like it. There is a new generation of climatologists coming out of the Universities and they are not quite as sold on AGW as the previous generation. I expect more papers countering AGW as time goes on.
Patience my man. Science grinds slowly but it does grind exceedingly fine.
For now all that is required is enough evidence to sway the masses so that industrial civilization is not destroyed in the interim. And we do have that much. The masses are losing faith. And when the scientist do as well my work on the matter will be complete.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I'm sure they taught you partial pressures in school. Think about it. CO2 is evolving from the oceans. Add man made CO2 to the atmosphere. What is the final system going to look like assuming you could identify the man made molecules. And don't forget there is 50X as much CO2 in the oceans as the atmosphere.tomclarke wrote:If CO2 is not due to fossil fuels where is all that CO2 going?, and why the exponential increase in CO2 concentration?
If I knew nothing od the science the extraordinary contorted logic of the skeptics does their cause no good. There may be some strong arguments against AGW hypothesis. But all this (easily refuted) flak? And arguing with every tiny bit of data? Why? Seems political, to me!
BTW Man's contribution to the total carbon flux is estimated at around 4%. It wouldn't take much of a shift to make that disappear. Trees.
Contorted logic? Evolution of CO2 from the oceans due to lagged heating from the warm up since the little ice age? That sounds pretty standard to me.
Models don't match reality? Happens all the time?
In any case the contortionists are currently on the ascendancy politically in America. So at least we have gotten to the point of "not settled".
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Seems like denial to me, to see CO2 go up and up and up without any drops, yet fossil fuel consumption has dropped by 5% since last summer with no change in CO2 increase rates. Something stinks in denmark. Y'know, I believe in science, eh? Cause and effect, cause follows effect, it doesnt precede it, and cause does not cause both the effect and the opposite of the effect.tomclarke wrote:If CO2 is not due to fossil fuels where is all that CO2 going?, and why the exponential increase in CO2 concentration?
If I knew nothing od the science the extraordinary contorted logic of the skeptics does their cause no good. There may be some strong arguments against AGW hypothesis. But all this (easily refuted) flak? And arguing with every tiny bit of data? Why? Seems political, to me!
Anybody who believes otherwise is guilty of magical thinking.
Were seeing more and more dirty tricks by the AGW crowd:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6203
HadCrut data and methods are required by UK LAW to be FOI compliant, yet the guy running it has the unmitigated gall to refuse to disclose his data or methods, and the UK Met Office is covering up for him. Sounds like a repeat of the MP expense accounts scandal to me. HadCrut is no longer science, it is anecdote fraudulently purporting to be science.
Additionally, GISS temps come from a satellite with a decaying orbit, they adjust the data based on nothing but WAG, which explains why its numbers have been diverging from UAH data.
Oh, btw, total temp anomaly according to UAH data at present is 0.02 C. Dats sum warmin!
Last edited by IntLibber on Sat Jun 06, 2009 8:13 am, edited 3 times in total.
Not at all, just your objectivity. Lots of people manage to reconcile irreconciliable beliefs without any intention of dishonesty. It's a problem we all share.tomclarke wrote:You impugn my integrity.
One future decade that moves the overall trend in line with predictions would be enough for me for take the problem seriously. Two would have me leaning heavily in its direction, three would almost totally convince me. (I would remain very skeptical of the claimed consequences, however.)How many more decades of increasing temperatures would you need to convince you that GW is happenning?
I was almost a believer in 1998. Since then, I've been given reason to be skeptical. It's easy to forget that the AGW crowd was not viewing 1998 as any kind of outlier at the time, though they now get very upset when anyone uses it as a baseline. It was supposed to be the first in a long string of ever-rising record temperatures. Instead it turned out to be an anomaly.
The biggest problem is we really have only three decades of uncorrupted data (and in those decades the trend is close to flat). The proxies are a mess, and tend to start from the end of the Little Ice Age anyway, while the GISS dataset is just FUBAR.
Lindzen wrote:What was done, was to take a large number of models that could not reasonably simulate known patterns of natural behavior (such as ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), claim that such models nonetheless accurately depicted natural internal climate variability, and use the fact that these models could not replicate the warming episode from the mid seventies through the mid nineties, to argue that forcing was necessary and that the forcing must have been due to man.
This is what I mean, btw, when I say the models assume CO2 is driving climate. This kind of "not B, therefore A" reasoning is almost the opposite of science. You could use the same argument to claim anything caused the warming, even something as ridiculous as, say, God being angered by modern society's acceptance of homosexuals.