The NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) has updated its Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data (0-700Meters) for the first quarter of 2011. 
The oceans are not warming as the experts predicted.
This is another good reason for governments across the Western world to start reassess the advice they have been receiving on climate change and to start seeking out the opinions of the many meteorologist, climatologists, paleoclimatologists and hydrologists who are sceptical of anthropogenic global warming.
Via Anthony Watts
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/08/the-new-giss-divergence-problem-ocean-heat-content/#more-39512
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It puts Lomborg’s request for nations to hold off on AGW mitigation in true perspective.
We don’t know if we’ve actually got a problem.
If we have a problem we currently can’t solve it anyway.
More knowledge and technology will be a big advantage.
In the meantime AGW [if it is happening] is not getting out of hand and may be to our advantage.
Spangles, we have a problem. I would like to hear more form our own resident Aussie experts – time to go xenophobic and flush them out, go with Jen and ” start seeking out the opinions of the many meteorologist, climatologists, paleoclimatologists and hydrologists who are sceptical of anthropogenic global warming.” Where are they hidiing. ? Which phone box do they meet in ? Maybe they all have “heads in the sand”. Better pull them out, that is not just the tide coming in. Go spangles, get on the scent, .
what planet are you on bazza?
“Better pull them out, that is not just the tide coming in.”
Bazza,
That’s not EVEN the tide comming in.
Your problem is easily solved.
Panty liners!
More utter tripe and disinformation from Wattsy bug. What hooey.
http://www.agu.org/journals/jc/jc1103/2010JC006464/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
says that there is no observed acceleration in sea levels, as the models predicted. This is consistent with minimal increase in ocean heat.
The CO2 hypothesis is looking very sick, Luke. And anyone who promotes CO2 mitigation over adaptation is talking politics, not science.
Pielke Snr is a luke warmer!
I didn’t know they were arguing about the veracity of the Argo system.
“More utter tripe and disinformation” [not just average tripe, you’ll notice]
Louder, Luke, LOUDER!
http://thepoliticalclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/world_graph_sm1.jpg
Bazza and Luke,
You now have official permission to wet yourselves as much [or as little] as you wish.
“One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), so you may notice that the rate of sea level rise is now 0.3 mm/year higher than earlier releases. This is a correction to account for the fact that the global ocean basins are getting slightly larger over time as mantle material moves from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. Simply subtract 0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction.”
Makes you feel all warm and involved don’t it?
Whoa, spangled, you are out of your depth, stay in your shallows and bottom feed. You had better call in one of the many resident paleo experts on this one.
Bazza,
I thought it was the warmers who liked the shallow water. That deep stuff is too cool and mysterious.
luke, do you read your own links; go to Cook’s site, and credit to him, he does allow critical comments, and read Berényi Péter’s comments on the ARGO floats and OHC measurement. About the 2003, pre-ARGO jump David Stockwell has done a good analysis which sums up OHC measurement:
http://landshape.org/enm/possible-error-in-ohc/#more-3180
It appears they are concerned because there is no global warming signal in the Argo system. Damn!
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=8926a1d3-f43f-4f8b-811d-0a0daa3e1012&k=39580
Of course, you shouldn’t automatically believe everything you read in the Post. Right Luke?
eg, also from the NP:
That CO2 is better than hot dinners:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/08/lawrence-solomon-are-high-co2-levels-once-again-saving-the-amazon-forest/
Jen’s main point here is that we should probably be listening to and factoring in more information.
Why?
Because the predictive models are not passing the test of reality.
That doesn’t mean that all the raw data was incorrect.
It does indicate however that all the raw data we have so far is not complete. We haven’t got all the pieces of the puzzle. The projections were correct as far as the models were concerned but emerging reality is indicating that perhaps we don’t have enough information yet to make accurate predictions.
If everything had stayed the same and we truly had cracked the puzzle then the dire predictions that indicated we urgently needed desalination plants and we urgently needed a plan to save the dying M D B and we urgently need to implement a carbon tax etcetera, would have seemed reasonable.
As this post points out, there is definitely something going on with the climate but the projections are off.
Looks like we need to go back to the drawing board and factor in the new raw data and reassess the theory.
In the meantime it would be wonderful if the Government would stop trying to use this incomplete science to scare us into believing they need to socially re engineer us!
…’the projections are off’ by a wide mark, it’s the irony of climate change science.
If the Argo system shows cooling the warmists say it must be a technical fault, just as they did in with the balloon and satellite data more than a decade ago.
Well this “evidence” starts off with sloppy data analysis, and ends up with something that would be hard to describe as anything other than scientific fraud. Tamino’s post demonstrating Tisdale’s appalling standards of data analysis demonstrate this nicely. Precis: Tisdale has offset the intercept on the Y axis of his own extrapolation in a way that is totally invalid. He’s also truncated the X
(and maybe Y) axis to hide what he’s done.
Look if this is the best you’ve got, then your argument is still in deep deep trouble.
Sorry kdkd,
You have missed the point.
Doesn’t matter which models we use or which theory we try to project, none of them are accurate enough to start making myopic social re rengineering decisions.
No one is arguing that there aren’t some patterns developing.
The point is, that raw data and those patterns can be used to prove and disprove several different theories all at the same time.
Even your link does the same.
There is a pattern. So?
None of the prevailing theories are accurately predictive yet. Yours or anyone else.
I’m sorry, but predictive models get hijacked by politics and used for purposes other than what they were originally intended.
If they were used scientifically, to test theories, I wouldn’t be complaining.
I am completely sick of looking at and listening to numerous political lobby groups and politicians waving around these models as if they were magic crystal balls.
Jen is clearly saying that they are not.
Good for her.
It is even more infuriating when these models get used to scare us into believing we need our all benevolent government to step in and socially re engineer us.
Jen clearly says that is not an appropriate or scientific way to use this information.
Good for her.
That’s the point!
Tamino didn’t snip me, a victory of sorts.
Debbie,
No, you’re missing the point. Tisdale’s conclusions are invalid because he has handled the data in a fradulent way. If you look at an honest presentation of the data, the conclusions that he draws are clearly incorrect.
So what?
The other models aren’t perfect either.
None of them are.
The problem with all the models is that they can only recognise patterns. They are not magic crystal balls. We do not know enough about all the competing variables to confidently predict next week let alone 2030. We are however getting better at it. That’s good.
Instead of arguing about who has the least imperfect model let’s start listening to Jen’s actual message.
Our govt is in the process of making some really stupid decisions and they’re using your models to do it. Your models have been hijacked and now you’re in the unenviable position where you have to keep defending them FOR THE WRONG REASONS!!!!
How about you pull your head out of computer model world and have a good look around?
Still not sure?
Go to Jen’s new post re the Murray. There is a perfect example of the point.
AGW , climate change, computer projections are being used to support a highly questionable political agenda.
kdkd, no offence, but you are an idiot; tammy posts this:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/resid.jpg
And rabbits on about reliable measurements of OHC and extrapolations; no explanation about the huge increase in the 2003, the time of the transition to the ARGO floats; that increase is gigantic, runs counter to SSTs and is inconsistent with atmospheric temperature and TSI; where did that heat, which represents about 1/2 of the accumulated OHC, come from? Tammy will know; in the meantime David Stockwell has a few ideas:
http://landshape.org/enm/possible-error-in-ohc/#more-3180
cohenite:
“kdkd, no offence, but you are an idiot”
Sorry, offense taken. Do try to be civil.
The fact that the 2003 residual is so large is a very good reason not to use it as a starting point. Or is this some variant of the so-called-sceptic argument that incomplete knowledge should be treated as equivalent to zero knowledge.
The rest of your post is a scattergun attempt to distract from the invalid analysis applied by Tisdale. If the evidence is strongly in your favour you would be able to show solid evidence that you’re right, not this dodging and weaving around the crux of the issue.
“…the so-called-sceptic argument that incomplete knowledge should be treated as equivalent to zero knowledge.”
No. Incomplete knowledge is incomplete knowledge, and is quite distinct from zero knowledge. It is worse than zero knowledge when used to model things that are far too variable and complex, since it better cloaks the absurdity of the undertaking.
“The fact that the 2003 residual is so large is a very good reason not to use it as a starting point”
What nonsense; 2003 is the starting point because that is when the supposedly accurate ARGO floats commenced; that commencement is also when the huge and statistically ridiculous spike in OHC occurred; if that ‘residual’ is removed, as it should be, then OHC is well below IPCC predictions as tammy’s graph would properly show:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ohc10.jpg
The “crux” of the issue is that OHC measurement is riven with problems which AGW believers can’t accept; this sums some of them quite well:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/20/ocean-heat-content-adjustments-follow-up-and-more-missing-heat/
Cohenite,
you doing pretty good on the numbers side of things as a lawyer.
One point I want to make is that numbers are simply numerical transoformations of otherwise arcane arguments expressed in words. That so, and so, argues that this and that, equals another thing, is no different to an argument that 2 + 2 = 5.
Limited to the rhetoric, it is possible to argue, correctly, that 2 + 2 =5, and with more rhetoric that it should be obvious to all.
But doing this in the physical domain results in the conclusion that the proponents of the previous assertion are simply stupid.
It’s that simple.
You know me Louis, I just pretend the numbers represent my fee and everything falls into place; pity I can’t say the same about that little mining stock you did some work on.
robert:
“No. Incomplete knowledge is incomplete knowledge, and is quite distinct from zero knowledge. It is worse than zero knowledge when used to model things that are far too variable and complex, since it better cloaks the absurdity of the undertaking”
Now you’re just denying that estimates of uncertainty have any validity. Well there goes much of the science of medicine, agronomics, ecology and so on and so forth. I will write a letter to our civilisation telling it to stop as it is running on invalid premises.
cohenite:
“What nonsense; 2003 is the starting point because that is when the supposedly accurate ARGO floats commenced”
Not quite, it’s when the population of floats became dominant in the measurements. And the graph, when extrapolated correctly suggests that this may have had a small effect on the OHC measurement, but you can’t estimate the effect, or decide if it’s statistically significant from this graph.
No kd, estimates of uncertainty can always have validity, just as incomplete knowledge can have great value.
And it all turns to pure muck when used for “modelling” rather than for the furtherance of knowledge.
The problem is not that climate models are wrong. Climate models HAVE to be wrong. They are mere geek-play, and anti-scientific in the extreme.
kd,
…Well there goes much of the science of medicine, agronomics, ecology and so on and so forth. I will write a letter to our civilisation telling it to stop as it is running on invalid premises.
That is a quantum leap of logic if I ever saw one!
No one is arguing that science and research is not important.
They are very important.
The hard work that scientists have done to collect and collate climate data is commendable. The information is very useful and helps us to gain a better understanding of our world.
You need to at least stay on the same page.
My annoyance with climate science is the way it is being unscientifically used.
I absolutely believe that we should keep investigating climate and we should keep updating the raw data and we should keep testing theories.
There will be no one happier than farmers like me when we do finally crack the mystery of climate prediction.
We’re not there yet kd. We are getting better but the science is most definitely ‘not settled’.
The branch of climate science that you are defending has allowed itself to be hijacked by politicians and therefore used for purposes other than the original intention.
By all means defend the people who have put in all the work and have definitely got us closer to understanding climate.
However, if you then start claiming that they have all the answers and we have to fundamentally change our society because we are doomed to fry if we don’t ????????
That is completely non scientific logic.
The models are not crystal balls and they cannot accurately project.
The reason is because there are too many competing variables that we still don’t fully understand.
The branch of science you are defending is systematically ignoring evidence that does not fall in line with its theory.
That is not good science.
The whole point of developing a theory is to ultimately test it against reality.
If the theory does not stack up correctly, then there is something wrong with the theory or there is something wrong with the calculations of the raw data.
None of the models have cracked the puzzle yet kd. Some may be closer than others but even that is still theoretical.
“And the graph, when extrapolated correctly suggests that this may have had a small effect on the OHC measurement, but you can’t estimate the effect, or decide if it’s statistically significant from this graph.”
“small effect”; look at tammy’s graph:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ohc1yr.jpg
Look at the dot 10 from the right; that’s when the ARGO comes into play; there is an immediate jump in OHC of about 7^22 Joules; did someone let off 10,000 nuclear explosions, was there a meteorite strike, enormous volcanic explosion? Ask your mate tammy to explain that, “small effect”, what a joke.
“Climate models HAVE to be wrong. They are mere geek-play, and anti-scientific in the extreme.”
Amazing comments from the uninformed … geek play and anti-scientific eh? hmmmmmm
real meaning: “I don’t like them. Shoot everything that looks evenly vaguely AGW-ish. Poison the well”.
Luke,
If they’re being used as if they’re some type of magic crystal ball then Robert has made a valid observation.
It likely is geek play and it is unscientific.
If they were used for their intended purpose then all would be hunky dory.
Unfortunately for you, the geek play and the unscientific usage is highly prevalent in AGW- ish modelling.
You guys are poisoning your own well.
Jen has been trying to remove the source of the poison.
You seem to want to keep tipping more in.
No Debs – not a scintilla of a notion how physicists use state-of-the-art representations of physical knowledge to understand complex systems. This is probably one of the most demanding science disciplines – why would anyone think these people are “playing games”. That sort of comment is rhetorical twaddle.
“If they were used for their intended purpose” – meaning purposes you formally approve of.
I’d be interested to know how anyone would propose to study climate systems that have multiple complex interacting drivers with global spatial variability, seasonality and time scales from minutes to centuries.
“I’d be interested to know how anyone would propose to study climate systems that have multiple complex interacting drivers with global spatial variability, seasonality and time scales from minutes to centuries.”
That’s actually a fair summary of the scale and difficulty of the task. Add some commonsense and humility and you’ve got the makings of a science.
cohenite:
I said: “but you can’t estimate the effect, or decide if it’s statistically significant from this graph.”
Then you tried to estimate that from the graph. You can’t do that. You have to use other data to crossvalidate the signal differences between the new system and the old system. To my eye (and substantial experience using linear modeling), it looks like the offset (y axis intercept) may be significantly, different but that given the amount of data presented in the graph that the gradients of the slopes are not statistically significantly different. This refinement of the conclusion still points to the fact that Tisdale’s presentation is sufficiently bad that it should be used as fradulent.
Robert:
In that case you’re arguing that climate is a special case – we can develop good understanding of other complex/chaotic systems, but that with the specific example of climate this is not possible. Despite 150 years of incremental scientific work on the topic.
Debbie:
Everything that you said is hollow rhetoric poorly disguised as commentary on the science.
Anyway I know there’s no point in trying to educate you people on the actual quality of the evidence, as I know that political views and the need to feel like you’re part of a group with shared values trumps the actual facts every time.
kd, I admire your tenacious attempt to excuse the inexcusable, that is, the measurement of OHC and to distract from the real “fraud’ by denigrating Tisdale; you seem reasonably informed so let’s go back to basics; the graph shows a spike of about 7^22 Joules; since heat storage capacity of all other components of the climate system are negligible compared to the oceans, this energy could only come from an abrupt 3-4 W m-2 increase of radiative imbalance at TOA (Top of Atmosphere); where is that increase:
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html
There was a sharp decrease of some 4 W m-2 in net incoming flux at TOA between 2000 and 2002. Since then it is practically flat. Therefore reconstruction of OHC history before ARGO is suspect; or is the ISCCP data suspect.
It is not Tisdale doing the fibbing but tammy.
cohenite:
“distract from the real “fraud’ by denigrating Tisdale”
You can only “demonstrate” this with a bunch of rhetorical tricks designed to denigrate the science by going out of scope of the initial set of propositions.
Anyway this brief forray into the deniersphere has just confirmed that there’s no point in discussing this stuff on these types of forums as the real evidence is sidelined by cheap illogical rhetoric. Having said that, I guess you’re not as bad as WUWTF here. It’s like when Jennifer Marohasy was on Q&A. She could only maintain her argument by shouting down/talking over other people, ignoring key questions for which a correct answer would show her argument to be incorrect and so on and so forth. Never mind.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/10/the-ipcc-on-renewable-energy/
Well kdkd, for as long as the so called climate scientists want to engage in this brand of blatant manipulation to get their message across, then the public and tax payers are not going to ever believe what they say.
If the Railway Engineer in charge of Shonkademia Central and his masters havnt got the wits to change the way they work, then what hope is there. ?
Further if you think you are so smart at spotting illogical rhetoric why dont you put your skills towards peruading people in the IPCC of the simple propostion that if it didnt work last time, why is it more likely that its going to work this time around.
Only idiots repeat the same mistakes, but then I guess they are in good company.
“cheap illogical rhetoric”!! What rhetoric? I’ve given you the TOA measurements, how is that rhetoric?
cohenite:
A typical denalist’s attempt at distraction. Think about it – even if TOA figures were directly relevant to your argument which they’re not, if more heat is being stored in the ocean, less of it will reach the top of the atmosphere to be released as infrared into space. So if OHC was increasing, all other things being equal, we’d except to see a decline or plateau in the TOA irradiance estimates about the same time. The time period you talk about also corresponds to a short time period of global temperatures remaining level as well. Maybe you’re onto something, even if it is the opposite of what you claim.
Plus you’re making assumptions that there’s no noise in these datasets, and that precise measures are available.
See, there’s no point in having a rational discussion with you guys.
kdkd
What would you call these comments?
“Well there goes much of the science of medicine, agronomics, ecology and so on and so forth. I will write a letter to our civilisation telling it to stop as it is running on invalid premises.”
“Anyway this brief forray into the deniersphere has just confirmed that there’s no point in discussing this stuff on these types of forums as the real evidence is sidelined by cheap illogical rhetoric. Having said that, I guess you’re not as bad as WUWTF here. It’s like when Jennifer Marohasy was on Q&A. She could only maintain her argument by shouting down/talking over other people, ignoring key questions for which a correct answer would show her argument to be incorrect and so on and so forth. Never mind.”
“Anyway I know there’s no point in trying to educate you people on the actual quality of the evidence, as I know that political views and the need to feel like you’re part of a group with shared values trumps the actual facts every time.”
I would call those comments hollow rhetoric poorly disguised as a defence of the science. Wouldn’t you?
I would even go far as to call them ‘cheap illogical rhetoric’.
Wouldn’t you?
You’re actually doing the same thing you’re accusing everyone else of doing.
The problem is that the argument in the end is not about the science. (which BTW I am not attacking).
We are aguing about the ‘political science’.
How about that for an oxymoron?
I think someone recently posted here an amusing defintion of that term:
something like?
Political rhetoric + Science = Political Science 🙂
I agree with the point Luke made about the complexity of the science, (which BTW he made by using rhetoric 🙂 )
“I’d be interested to know how anyone would propose to study climate systems that have multiple complex interacting drivers with global spatial variability, seasonality and time scales from minutes to centuries.”
EXACTLY! Even though he employed rhetoric to make it.
It seems that perhaps ‘political scientists’ thinks it’s possible to capture something that complex, something that will continually change and develop as more information becomes available, and then use it as a magic political crystal ball.
They then get upset when we question the validity of doing that. (And the cost)
Then you get upset because you think we’re denigrating you for being a ‘scientist’ ?
We’re all using rhetoric because it is rhetorical!
debbie
The comments you quoted are my reaction to the general mistreatment of science I see in the deniersphere, and more specifically here. The comments you quoted were part of what’s called a reduto ad absurdam: a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion.
By the way, scientific method, and “political science” are generally totally separate things, except for the parts where political researchers apply techniques developed in the behavioural sciences.
I apologise for being rhetorical again but if this is correct:
By the way, scientific method, and “political science” are generally totally separate things, except for the parts where political researchers apply techniques developed in the behavioural sciences.
What the hell are they doing playing with the climate models?
BTW…
comments you quoted are my reaction to the general mistreatment of science I see in the deniersphere, and more specifically here. The comments you quoted were part of what’s called a reduto ad absurdam: a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion.
Is also rhetorical 🙂
Rhetorical: adj: expressed with a view to persuasive or impressive effect; artificial or extravagent in language.
Rhetoric: n: language designed to persuade or impress (often with an implication of insincerity or exaggeration etc…)
Source:
The Australian Oxford Dictionary
OXFORD
University Press
ISBN 0 19 550793 2
page: 1151.
“Think about it – even if TOA figures were directly relevant to your argument which they’re not, if more heat is being stored in the ocean, less of it will reach the top of the atmosphere to be released as infrared into space. So if OHC was increasing, all other things being equal, we’d except to see a decline or plateau in the TOA irradiance estimates about the same time. The time period you talk about also corresponds to a short time period of global temperatures remaining level as well.”
Mate, you are on another planet; during this period SSTs fell and OHC to 700 meters was practically flat; at least 90% of the earth’s variable heat content is in the upper ocean and this was falling at a time when the TOA net energy balance was also falling! How can the OHC be said to be increasing because of the TOA balance when the TOA figures are showing more energy is leaving?
cohenite
Yeah you’re right. I misread it, this is not my area of expertise. (Ooh, look a retraction. You never see them from denialists, even when there’s obviously fradulent data analysis like this Tisdale brouhahaha.)
Anyway, it’s curious how there’s a jump in TOA around the same time there’s a jump in the OHC measures. I’ll be interested to see if that’s a real effect, or just noise. Only time will tell – it’ll take 20 years of ARGO measures to get enough data in my opinion (time is another fudge factor used by denialists in cherry picking, truncating the x axis etc.).
I think it will take less than a decade of ARGO measures to prove conclusively that global warming has stopped. It has taken that long for the warmth in the oceans to dissipate, even with the effects of a cool IPO and a minimum of solar activity the lag time has been long.
The Denialti do not fudge factors or cherry-pick, unless extremely desperate to find an answer to a sticky question.
Actually EG, oceanic lags are no longer than a year, and that is straight from the alarmist’s mouth:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf
So much for pipeline climate effects and equilibrium climate sensitivity.
But this must be wrong according to Wong. She said the seas are warming and this is proof of AGW.
Oh well, for a politician she would make a great climate “scientist”. A new career maybe, after Labor is tossed out. Of course, going on form, she will say the cooling is caused by global warming. That’s also why we have snow in Victoria this early in the season.
“The Denialti do not fudge factors or cherry-pick” – hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
good one !
Hush your tea party mouths
Warmer scientists, Luke style:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/what-climate-science-has-come-to-a-rap-music-video-with-expletives/#more-39720
Luke, the IPCC woefully underestimates the impact of sol on climate change. There are ‘variable lags’ in a complex system involving the sun and oceans which is not fully understood.
The high solar activity of the early 20th century happened around the time of a positive Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) and there was little lag in the atmosphere.
By mid 20th century a sightly weaker solar cycle 20 combined with a negative IPO which gave a slight cooling.
The heat content in the oceans from late 20th century warming is now dissipating as the Argo system informs us.
EG: “The heat content in the oceans from late 20th century warming is now dissipating as the Argo system informs us” ?
Mate; thats hardly original rhetoric since a Google of your key words above only give us wuwt, wuwt, wuwt… etc
Now here is a link where you can see how a proper citation is done
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Bibliography.html
Deb; your rhetoric is I think at least a little more home grown but our friendly BT and graphs on wuwt show us clearly there is warming despite our slack driver Sol.
cohenite remains a just little guy to the end hey
NEWS FLASH!
Freeman resigns from MDB authority.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/12/3215027.htm
I’ll get back to you Gavin.
el gordo’s explanation is a fairly typical confabulated explanation of the observations that fails to pass occam’s razor given the context of the laws of thermodynamics and the theories of chemical bonds, and electromagnetic radiation.
and the spangled drongo’s linking to wutf shows that neither do the denialists have a sense of humour, nor understand context.
It’s profoundly depressing hanging around here with all these people with their ideological blinkers on.
“It’s profoundly depressing hanging around here with all these people with their ideological blinkers on.”
Well, off you go then, and have a bex and a good sook.
In the meantime I see after 24 years The GEWEX Surface Radiation Budget Project at
NASA Langley Research Center has released its findings and concluded:
“The multi-year variability of downward SW flux corresponds
to the variability of the cloud amount. The downward LW
variability also shows correspondence to long-term cloud
amount changes but more clearly corresponds to anomalies
in the surface temperatures.”
Who’ed thunk.
Gavin, I’ll only admit that Stephen Wilde made a big impression on me.
Professor Gert Venter, Agricultural Engineering, University of Pretoria –
“You know, that’s why all I can do is laugh when these global warming monkeys tell me that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is not, and I have live, precise experimental situations in over 30 sites around the world that prove that it is not. These guys create a model in their computers, based on arbitrary assumptions, and then ignore all the experimental evidence to the contrary. My experiments show that INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS CORRELLATED WITH A DECREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE in my agricultural environments.”
I need not go any further.
After seeing GEWEX news Feb 2011 and reading their 24.5 SRB release and the Trenbeth/IPCC comparison I don’t get what the little guy is on about.
El; you missed something, Stephen Wilde is either a Pro Wiggins Warrior or can’t rate a wiki
BTW seems our BT can’t fully agree with your SW.
Weak a,s compared to GEWEX folk
Why gav, I thought you knew everything; GEWEK shows that SW is moderated by clouds and causes surface temperature which determines backradiation; SW causes surface temperature not backradiation, or at least the LW signal is not discernible from the SW forcing or natural variability.
That’s Becks Cohers 🙂
Slightly off topic, the UK Transport Select Committee has come down with their findings after a hat trick of disastrous winters.
‘The committee said the current seasonal predictions from the Met Office “do not provide a firm basis on which decision-makers can act with confidence”.
‘It also said that Mr Hammond had put the £10m price tag on the additional computing power needed by the Met Office to provide more accurate 10-year predictions.’
BBC News Business 12 May, 2011
Well Sinkers Gert must be a gimp – what a load of unadulterated crap
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/images/FACE-temperature.jpg
” These guys create a model in their computers, based on arbitrary assumptions” well they don’t actually – what nongery – what amateurish dribble
And turn you back on the blog and the dogs return to their vomit – now El Gordo you norty boy – http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/five-years/
and http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/how-fast-is-earth-warming/
Is that all you’ve got?
http://climatechange.imva.info/cooling/cooling-oceans
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=%2Farticles%2Faa%2Fabs%2F2011%2F05%2Faa16173-10%2Faa16173-10.html
Hmmmm? Even peer reviewed I believe?
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/the%20methane%20misconceptions%20published%20version.pdf
So we have a blog paper using bogus data from El Gordo; a journal paper Debs hasn’t read nor understands, and bit of poorly written rubbish from unreviewed E&E. Sigh just look at the introduction – yech ! Do you think this is science Debs. Jeez.
So Debs you’d now like to believe in a radiation model would you. What happened to garbage in/garbage out? Pity the study ends in 1950 Debs … oh dear… and I thought our previous radiation expert had convinced you ….
Don’t come round here peddling your denier nonsense El Gordo http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/
Let’s have a look at a serious paper on OHC from a serious journal shall we….
http://climateknowledge.org:16080/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Lyman_Robust_Ocean_Warming_Nature_2010.pdf
A comment on Tamino from ‘thefordprefect’ encourages people to get out more, go to WUWT and risk being snipped in order to put the word out that Anthony’s version of science is not accurate. That’s a good idea, simply because the kitchen table scientist generally accepts the post as the last word on the subject.
Not that I’m backing away from my regional cooling stance, I visit zealot blogs constantly in the hope of creating a robust debate, but alas….
From the paper Luke put up.
‘The anthropogenic-warming signal is thought to be large in the Southern Ocean’….
What nonsense! Even Gavin knows there’s no large AGW signal in the southern ocean.
From Bob Tisdale: “…it is very obvious that ENSO and the distribution of warm and cool waters caused by ENSO are major components of Global Ocean Heat Content (OHC)…..OHC studies such as Hansen et al (2005), however, do not include ENSO in their models. They assume that Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases have a measurable impact on Ocean Heat Content. The impacts of the failure of GISS to include ENSO and other natural variables in their analysis was illustrated and discussed in detail in Why Are OHC Observations (0-700m) Diverging From GISS Projections?”
My gods, Luke, Hansen left out ENSO in 2005. Probably just an oversight, the great man obviously knows that natural variability rules!
Deb; you are just hanging in by a thread with those links. Its’s a pity you can’t tell the difference between good work and a cop out.
Missing the meaning from the good stuff is also getting pretty common here. GEWEX had a mission re strategies for predicting the more extreme weather events associated with our extra surface heat short term and long term. The snips by our little folk here are side stepping the big issue of record breaking events so numerous they should be ashamed.
http://www.gewex.org/
“To see the final report on the Workshop on “Metrics and Methodologies of Estimation of Extreme Climate Events” sponsored by WCRP(GEWEX/CLIVAR) and UNESCO (IHP) (Paris, UNESCO headquarters, 27-29 September 2010), click here”
Luke,
What an interesting link you supply – a garish looking graph for which you offer zero explanation but only the opportunity that if I might gaze upon a part of your holy litany that I might see the light and be converted to the cause. Is this your equivalent of a religious icon perhaps?
“…record breaking events…”
Is it possible to find a less rational notion?
luke quotes the dreadful Lyman 2010 study; how grotesque; some snippets of where Lyman 2010 is off the rails:
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/1011-are-the-worlds-oceans-warming.html
Knox and Douglass 2010 really do the business on Lyman 2010 and as for OHC being consistent with AGW look at this little beauty:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/weak-warming-of-the-oceans-1955-2010-implies-low-climate-sensitivity/
gavin, you are a dope; you have missed the point completely about GEWEX.
Nope Luke,
I don’t necessarily think any of them are what I should or shouldn’t believe in.
The whole point is that we can use models to prove almost anything at all.
They can even get peer review.
If you notice, my point has always been that none of the models are ‘complete’ and none of them should be getting used for political purposes. (Actually I like Louis definition: religious icons)
If you want to know what I believe?
I believe we need to keep working on climate study and accept that we don’t understand all the competing variables yet.
I believe that governments should cease trying to frighten people with these models.
I could easily write a paper and use graphs and models to prove the reason that the ocean temperatures are changing is because we have stopped the wholesale slaughtering of whales and the inceased numbers have altered ocean temperatures.
The time frame fits perfectly.
What would I have actually proved?
That I can use models and graphs to demonstrate a pattern or a theory!
Not that I have cracked the puzzle of oceanic temperatures & their relationship to climate.
I would only know I have cracked the puzzle if my model projections came up trumps with real data. If they don’t, then there is something missing in my calculations. There is probably something missing from my theory.
I believe Jen’s main point at this post is sensible:
“This is another good reason for governments across the Western world to start reassess the advice they have been receiving on climate change and to start seeking out the opinions of the many meteorologist, climatologists, paleoclimatologists and hydrologists who are sceptical of anthropogenic global warming.”
And at the risk of sounding like I’m harping:
That’s because there are too many competeing variables that we don’t fully understand yet.
For me it does not matter which site or which journal or which peer review.
Mankind is not there yet!
We don’t control the weather and so far we’re only moderately successful in recognising patterns and some of the symptoms.
Is it CO2? Is it radiation? Is it the hole in the Ozone? Is it CFCs? Is it Methane? Is it too much ashpalt and concrete? etc etc etc. Or….are they just a few small pieces we have managed to place in a large and complicated puzlze?
We’re still asking questions and we should be. That would then be scientific behaviour.
Unfortunately we have a branch of climate science that is very loudly and very publicly crowing that it has the answer!!! It does not.
I’m not impressed with politicians hijacking this work and using it to prove the need to impose taxes and a whole other raft of legislation.
I’m also disappointed with scientists and academics who tacitly agree with this behaviour.
I actually do read and have good comprehension skills.
So do many of the others who contribute here.
For all you know they may be better qualified to assess this information than you.
That isn’t really the point Luke.
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm
And here is another one,
Yes I know it’s older and we’ve seen it before but, notice that it questions the accuracy of the data. It does not say that it has all the answers, it is saying that AGW models are not
‘complete’ and that in their effort to pretend they are, they have made some fundamental errors.
It questions some of the techniques used to measure temperatures and also the competing variables that influence the accuracy of these measurements. It also points out that some of these variables are political (surprise surprise!!!)
And Gav…it is also well referenced.
It is not an attempt to replace AGW modelling.
It is an attempt to point out that the ‘use of modelling’ is not appropriate for and on behalf of itself.
You need to look at the ‘cognitave dissonance’ Luke and Gav and kd and stop just falling hopelessly in love with the pretty models and graphs that appeal to you.
I think there may be a tad too much emotion attached to your analysis boys.
Try and listen to what Jen is actually saying here.
This Luke produced “serious paper on OHC” by Lyman etc.which of course is in Nature, opens with…
“A large multi-decadal globally averaged warming signal in the upper 300m of the world’s oceans was reported rougly a decade ago and is attributed to warming associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases ”
Aaahahahahahahahahahahaha.
I don’t need to read any further ! These brainwashed govt. paid servants have come to their conclusion before they even begin.
Compare this to the considered analysis of Whithouse and Spencer (thanks Cohenite)
At least Spencer,although probably having serious doubts about “greenhouse gases”, tries to accommodate Hansen’s garbage.
Mack’s comment above is a clear demonstration about how engaging with deniers is a waste of time.
1. Rejection of one of the foremost avenues for scientific publication.
2. Implicit rejection of the laws of physics, and the theories of chemical bonds.
3. A bunch of unsupported ad hominem attacks.
Never mind, please continue to damage your case in the eyes of policy makers etc.
kdkd’s comments above is a clear demonstration about how engaging with a religious warmist is a waste of time
1. Rejection of any scientific publication that is not aligned with their religion.
2.Implicit rejection of the laws of politics and the theories of social engineering
3. A bunch of personal ad hominem attackes with a heavy reliance on their ‘superior’ understanding of the world laced with rhetoric.
Never mind, please continue to damage your case in the eyes of the public.
Don’t be a nong kdkd, hang around and enjoy the fun, stop moaning and develop a sense of humor. We are all libertarians here, including Sir Luke.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/the-brutal-cold-of-the-maunder-minimum-and-the-great-irish-frost/#comments
Similar conversation developing here at Jonova.
Before you lose your cool kdkd and Luke and Gavin, I do not like the personal attacking comments that some make.
I do however agree that there is other evidence around that indicates that AGW is not as predictive as we may have thought a few years ago.
I also agree that even the AGW models can be interpreted differently…ie….it may not actually be CO2 that is having the major effect….it could actually be something else.
“damage your case in the eyes of policymakers etc ”
Aahahahahahahahahaha
I don’t give a rat’s cuss about policymakers KdKd.
Hadn’t you noticed it’s policymakers who are driving this crap “science” of yours.
Back to sooking and another Becks ?
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N15/EDIT.php
And just to throw another spanner in….
There is also plenty of evidence that uses modeling and cognitave dissonance and multiple references that theorises increases in CO2 could possibly be a good thing for all of us.
Particularly if we like eating 🙂
Wow…just imagine….you can use a computer model and cognitave dissonance to prove that even though mankind has inadvertantly increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere and even though it may result in warmer climate trends….it may be a good thing…maybe we’ll be better off because an unintended consequence is we can increase crop yields and even nutritional yields.
Damn it!
If it’s unintended the government can’t tax it!!!!
Damn it!
If it might actually be a positive outcome, then ‘policy makers’ can’t frighten us!!!
This is only one example….plenty of others around.
We can use computer models to plot any theory at all. That’s why they’re extremely useful tools.
They are not magic crystal balls however and it is extremely unscientific to use them that way.
Mack:
that’s the: implicit rejection of the laws of politics and the theories of social engineering 🙂
as opposed to:
the implicit rejection of the laws of physics and the theories of chemical bonds 🙂
kdkd seems to be clueless about who/whom/whomever is driving the ‘science’.
He also seems to lack a sense of humour.
He also is rather good at accusing people of certain ‘distasteful’ character traits and then immediately exhibit same ‘distasteful’ traits, usually in the very next sentence.
(Could be related to his lack of a sense of humour?)
Need to lighten up kdkd,
Maybe valium may be more useful than becks? You seem to find engaging on this blog highly stressful?
my apologies, I did not realise that this was a joke website. I’ll leave you alone for your chuckles now that I’ve been corrected. Personally my sense of humour is more in line with http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/ 😉
No need to apologise kdkd,
I wasn’t even trying to correct you,
Just observing the tactics you were employing.
You actually gave me permission as you commented on tactics first.
Just pointing out that was also a tactic….also pretty much the same one.
I guess I should apologise for the sarcastic comment at the end of my last post.
My bad.
Debbie:
no need to apologise. It makes so much more sense now that I understand that this is a joke website 😉
It’s been ages since I last visited Denialdepot and they are even drier than I remember.
kdkd, practice your satrical bent here in this relatively small shed and one day you might take on the Bolter’s mob with your stunning wit and intricate knowledge of the science.
See, there you go again.
you have pretended that I couldn’t possibly know the difference between the definition of ‘a sense of humour’ and a ‘joke website’.
You are trying to put people down by making judgemental comments about their intelligence (or lack thereof).
How about you get back to the actual point of the post and stop pretending that we must all be some type of unintelligent low life because we dare to question your intelligence straight after you question ours?
Or as el gordo suggested, stop being a nong.
You also seem to be more interested in having the last say rather than actually engaging in the discussion????
At least stay on topic kdkd;
Just to remind you:
The oceans are not warming as the experts predicted.
This is another good reason for governments across the Western world to start reassess the advice they have been receiving on climate change and to start seeking out the opinions of the many meteorologist, climatologists, paleoclimatologists and hydrologists who are sceptical of anthropogenic global warming.
The types of disorganised, often unscientific and overtly political arguments being floated around in here are thoroughly discredited elsewhere. There’s no point linking to them here as youse denialists will just denigrate them by assertion. I think the jaws review does a much better job of highlighting the quality of your arguments. http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2010/11/jaws-movie-review.html
Deb; the more you rattle on with you notion that climate science is driven by social engineers, the less likely you can convince anyone of your understanding on both scores. What authority do you have in either department?
It’s not about intelligence as experience is the key word in all risk management. Authorities have a a particular job to do in minding our environment and it starts with a keeping trained eye on the weather. Let’s say forecasting isn’t what it used to be as we try to maximize any opportunity with agriculture, business and travel to name a few.
“meteorologist, climatologists, paleoclimatologists and hydrologists who are sceptical of anthropogenic global warming” don’t get a look in once policy makers realize where most of our current energy needs are produced from
Well said gav; authentic blog gibberish; I believe this is you addressing the local chapter of the AGW alarmists:
Coor blimey – turn your back on blog and we’re inundated with sceptic bulldust. For trucks sake.
No warming in the Southern Ocean – oh yea
http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~sgille/pub_dir/i1520-0442-21-18-4749.pdf
Debs you’ll not Jen hasn’t gone with Lyman 2010 – for drongo Mack’s edification Lyman is Dr Argo. Get a job Mack and a haircut !
As for Spencer and greenhouse gases – of course he believes in the greenhouse effect and radiative forcing – Lindzen and Spencer actually write papers on it Macky boy – are you that ratshit as a sceptic. Do us a favour and put your Mum on for a while.
And Debs – deary me – I loved this – “Is it CO2? Is it radiation? Is it the hole in the Ozone? Is it CFCs? Is it Methane? Is it too much ashpalt and concrete? etc etc etc.’ Debbie dear – have you ever perused WG1 of the IPCC reports. What a stoopid assertion Debs.
ENSO and PDO are wiggles – the overall trend is up. And Debs – Cohenite will spew but try some other lines of evidence other than land surface record – e.g.
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/CJC/Parkeretal_2007.pdf Note the EOFs Debs – no models
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf – no models
Good one Cohenite! ROTFL.
Yes well it’s all rhetorical isn’t kdkd?
Back to the topic. There are some good links at Jonova’s that talk about all the alarmism in the 70s.
Despite kdkd’s assertation that we’re thoroughly discredited elsewhere (?) they are worth reading.
We should have all starved or choked by now according to the ‘leading’ scientists and ecologists of the 70s. We also should have had an ice age by now. That’s what the oft published climate models were predicting then. Of couse they weren’t as impressive then as computers weren’t able to produce endless graphs and models like they can now.
Alarmism and a need to frighten the masses into agreeing to extra taxes and extra government intervention is a repetitive theme.
As for crop yields – sheeesh – http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-is-plant-food-too-simple.html
Ice age from Debs – is this rope-a-dope week
hahahahahahaha
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-were-climate-scientists-predicting-in-the-1970s.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
From the global cooling myth.
‘Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.’
Ideally, I would like a start date. At Eemian’s end there was a small climate optimum, followed shortly after by a drop in temperatures and 400 years of aridity.
Luke,
“Lyman is Dr Argo”
No, Lyman is just a mutant Dr Strangelove….. Start worrying and start loving the hockey stick I’ve conjured out of the OHC.
Debbie:
thoroughly discredited elsewhere. However, because you’re deniers, you just … err … continue denying and carry on as if your arguments aren’t pathetic excuses.
Love the pie chart describing the 69 “studies” from ’65 to ’79. Instead of 60-30-10, we get 62-28-10. Perfect marketing: the rounding would seem less scientific, and overstate the already simplistic nature of the chart. Plus, the 62 is a modest but strong figure, while 28 is a lot weaker than 30.
To top it off, “69 studies”is heaps more scientific-sounding than “70 studies”.
It’s great work. Skeptics just can’t match warmists in the presentation of factoids…and it’s a travesty that they can’t.
KD, pull yourself together, here’s a recent paper co-authored by Nasif. He had guest posts here before your time, but you can dig up the debate in Jen Marohasy’s archives if interested. His views are heretical.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Greenhouse_Gases_Cool_Earth.pdf
It’s not generally known that Nasif was a warmist for eons until he had a revelation, I suspect you won’t be so lucky.
… “until he had a revelation” …
Quite. Global warming denialism is a religious as you so rightly point out. Anyway I will leave you to your denial. Of which that paper is an excellent example.
Well El Gordo – if I had known that the still unpublished on kooky greenhouse theories, Nasif, was a warmist I would have become a denialist immediately on instinct.
Gee Macky that’s soooo incisive. Just tell us – under 10 or over 60 and grade 7 education? Which?
Yes the FAMOUS John Lyman – and the real OHC trend
http://www.ioc-goos.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=277%3Aargo-data-show-16-year-ocean-warming-trend&catid=1&Itemid=48&lang=en
And you Mack are who – some denialist bottom dweller, whose skill in trade is to hide the incline.
kdkd says: “Well this ‘evidence’ starts off with sloppy data analysis, and ends up with something that would be hard to describe as anything other than scientific fraud. Tamino’s post demonstrating Tisdale’s appalling standards of data analysis demonstrate this nicely.”
Tamino’s analysis is as flawed as your comical echoes of it:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/on-taminos-post-favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/
Thanks Bob, that should put the nongs back in their place.
Bob, do you have a view about the 2002-2003 ‘spike’ which I noted previously in this thread:
Comment from: coheniteMay 11th, 2011 at 10:47 am
kd, I admire your tenacious attempt to excuse the inexcusable, that is, the measurement of OHC and to distract from the real “fraud’ by denigrating Tisdale; you seem reasonably informed so let’s go back to basics; the graph shows a spike of about 7^22 Joules; since heat storage capacity of all other components of the climate system are negligible compared to the oceans, this energy could only come from an abrupt 3-4 W m-2 increase of radiative imbalance at TOA (Top of Atmosphere); where is that increase:
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html
There was a sharp decrease of some 4 W m-2 in net incoming flux at TOA between 2000 and 2002. Since then it is practically flat. Therefore reconstruction of OHC history before ARGO is suspect; or is the ISCCP data suspect.
It is not Tisdale doing the fibbing but tammy.
Gee whiz Luke,
You truly are a master at missing the point.
I did not and would not say that any of these links have all the answers.
That’s the point!
And kdkd, the other part of the point is that it has become ‘overly political’.
That is the real shame.
You nongs (thanks el gordo) are arguing over who has the least imperfect model.
If you can prove that yours is definitely the right one, you then give permission for our government to introduce a raft of legislation that pretends it will be able to control and manage future (global???) climate because they know without any doubt whatsoever that they can do that.
That would be because the public perception is that your predictive AGW models are right!
Excuse me?
I do not believe that a centralised bureaucracy (and it doesn’t really matter of which political persuasion) has a single hope of controlling and managing the climate.
What an absurd idea.
Your models may be right.
They also may not be right.
Because of the way they’re being used, we have politicians arguing that if they tax us and if they shut down large tracts of agricultural land and if they sell out Australian industry, they can prevent the future global climate catstrophe that is predicted in your AGW models.
On the sidelines we have bureaucrats, bankers and brokers egging them on and slobbering over the killing they will make from a taxpayer funded global ETS.
And will any of this prevent a perceived future climate catastrophe?
Does Australia, stuck down here on the other side of the world, truly have any way of preventing a climate catastrophe?
So…here is my humble (and apparently thoroughly discredited) opinion.
No Australian Government can control and manage the global climate because they truly have little idea, little influence and don’t really care anyway.
Our climate has a nasty habit of doing unexpected and unpredicted stuff anyway.
All they can attempt to control and manage is the ‘public perception’ of the climate and they’re finding your predictive AGW models rather useful to achieve that goal.
Debbie you’re comments on modelling are juvenile. You raise points “what about this and that” like science doesn’t consider them. Get WG1 of IPCC and at least skim to have SOME idea what has been considered before spraying madly !! You’re all over the place conflating climate science, politics, greenhouse mitigation and denialist conspiracy theory. Try not to use all in the one sentence.
Pity for OHC devotees that nature provides multiple lines of evidence – damn those species
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n2/full/nclimate1084.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046474.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060106001018.htm
Meanwhile Bob and Cohenite are wiggle watching
Poor Debs – a died in the wool agrarian socialist who strangely doesn’t like “centralised bureaucracy” – The Ricegrowers Limited processes and markets all rice produced in NSW; and The primary function of the Rice Marketing Board (RMB) for the State of NSW is to obtain the best possible monetary return for rice farmers whilst maintaining an orderly marketing system.
Look out – it’s totalitarian state.
Debs – “controlling climate” is simply another denialist talking point. You can’t control climate in the sense you are saying and nobody except the denialiti are pretending anyone can or is even suggesting such.
Reducing CO2 growth such as we are affecting in a very short time (100 years) will seriously reduce the risk of the climate being bumped into a most unfavourable new mean state, replete with variability. Meaning a drying sub-tropics long term for yourself. Among many other global effects.
Those last two sentences may or may not be correct Luke.
The jury is still out on that.
Also…it’s not and has never been ‘the scientists’ and what they have and haven’t considered.
My point and it remains my point, is simply that a tax on CO2 and a global ETS will have little to no effect on reducing its production.
It will however be instrumental in gathering massive amounts of taxpayers money and funding an ever increasing bureaucracy to administer it.
Your AGW climate models are being used for the wrong reasons and you are in the unenviable position of trying to defend them for the wrong reasons.
I suggest you do some homework on your history, particularly political and economic history.
Here are some questions to help get you started.
1) Which political model has the better track record of raising living standards, conserving resources and protecting environmental assets?
2) Which economic model has the better track record of encouraging new technology and smarter uses of natural resources?
3) Which political and economic models have the better track record of allowing civil liberty and creating an environment for new and progressive ideas?
The questions said ‘better track record’ for a reason. A perfect track record does not exist. All systems are of course open to abuse. However that simple fact leads to the next question.
4) Which political system and which economic model has the better track record for tracking down and eliminating abuse?
Your comments about the rice industry are totally irrelevant to this post and also exhibit a glaring lack of knowledge about said industry.
Just for a start, check who actually owns Sunrice and who has the voting rights.
Bob:
“Tamino’s analysis is as flawed as your comical echoes of it”
Your “rebuttal” of Tamino’s considered analysis is the most long winded tedious yet comical set of “dog ate my homework” assertions I’ve come across in quite a while.
Hint: for your “analysis” to be valid, you should be able to demonstrate approximately the same result across multiple different years. And you shouldn’t need to truncate the starting point of your analysis arbitrarily. Besides, your shifting the intercept is plain wrong – you clearly don’t understand that a model projection (in this situation) is a line of best fit. The shifting of the intercept turns your argument from a pretty silly cherry pick into an analysis that gives an out and out fraudulent result.
But I know that for you deniers, this is just a waste of electrons, and decent standards of evidence be damned.
On the subject of wasting electrons:
kdkd, from his lofty lecturing podium, was at some pains to explain to us the meaning of “reduto ad absurdam”. There are only three Latin words there. How did he manage to get only one of them right?
And it was the short one!
Bunk Debbie – they said that same thing about cotton industry before they removed the co-ops exec powers and allowed in other ginners and merchants. You’re just market controlling socialists despite your assurance about your voting rights – you guys don’t even know you’re TOTALLY market controlled. Let other marketers and processors in – you won’t. You’re in your little agrarian socialist protected market niche.
Indeed free market without controls = global financial meltdown. You would rather let the Reserve Bank take its hands off the levers and let the economy flail around.
A global ETS will have a dramatic effect on new technologies. Remember the sky was going to fall in on acid rain controls and automobile pollution regulation too. It didn’t.
Farmers will even get a carbon dividend from improved soil carbon and growing trees again on your less productive country.
And you keep droning on about models – I’ve been quoting observations at you now for some time – but you can’t wean yourself off your pre-prepared talking points. Standard political denialist stuff.
Oh that’s good Luke.
You have made me feel so much better.
Good grief, how could poor little me stuck in my little agrarian socialist world possibly hope to know anything at all?
Silly me!
What was I thinking?
You must be right of course.
You have the models to prove it 🙂
Then when silly little agrarian types like me have the audacity to want to keep staying on topic and point out that maybe, just maybe, your grand plan for the world may perhaps have some flaws, you attempt to go straight for the personal jugular?
BTW, you misfired just a little.
You only nicked the collar bone 🙂
Political denialist stuff?
Well now….that looks like a very intelligent comment.
Are you trying to argue that politics have nothing to do with this?
Maybe you might need to widen the paradigms of your little world Luke.
BTW did you do your history homework?
BTW…if your looking for pure bunk…here’s an example:
A global ETS will have a dramatic effect on new technologies. Remember the sky was going to fall in on acid rain controls and automobile pollution regulation too. It didn’t.
Can you spot the flaw in this comment and the supposed supporting argument?
I’m sure if you can’t, there will be plenty who offer to help you out.
Many know and quote Eisenhower’s warning about the “military-industrial complex”. It was mentioned during his farewell address.
What he also said, in that same speech:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Eisenhower was no more opposed to science than he was to the military-industrial sector. But, unlike his Soviet counterparts, he could see and acknowledge the human factors prevailing, for good or bad, in all powerful systems.
The problem is not that science get things wrong sometimes. The problem is the opposite: science gets things so right, so often. Science has been ripe for a hijack.
And we are now witnessing that hijack.
Bob,
If your analysis was genuine what you would do is:
1. Perform a separate linear regression on the post 2003 data. That would give you the line of best fit. The way you’ve done the line of best fit is invalid to the point of fradulent.
2. Compare that to the pre-2003 data by:
a. establishing if the gradient of the line of best fit was statistically significantly different for your new model compared to the old one.
b. establishing if the intercept of the new line was different from the old one.
Until you’ve done this, your analysis has no merit and comes straight out of the old book “How to Lie with Statistics”. Which you can purchase here.
So here we have Debs worried about central control enjoying living in an industry of central control.
I enjoyed the machinations of change http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/finance/sunrice-heat-boils-over/2160082.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Tell you what Luke,
If Jen feels the need to post an article about this, I will gladly debate you then.
To do it here is completely off topic and disrespectful of the others who are trying to discuss this post’s main theme.
Otherwise I am also happy to repeat my offer to exchange emails via Jen and once again I will happily engage.
It is a topic that is close to my heart.
For now,
Just to remind you:
The oceans are not warming as the experts predicted.
This is another good reason for governments across the Western world to start reassess the advice they have been receiving on climate change and to start seeking out the opinions of the many meteorologist, climatologists, paleoclimatologists and hydrologists who are sceptical of anthropogenic global warming.
Aren’t we looking at the reasons why people are sceptical of global warming?
BTW, just in case you haven’t got it yet.
One of the reasons that people are sceptical is because of the politics.
Luke: Reducing CO2 growth over the coming century will not bump us into an ‘unfavorable new mean state, replete with variability.’
That is pure speculation based on models and your feeble mind… concerned that CO2 is a pollutant. It is not and the sub tropics will continue cycling wet and dry over the next 100 years.
Sorry Debs – don’t bring up any AGW politics yourself and stay purely on the EXACT specific climate science topic – you’re showing a glass jaw my dear. And lets see you policing that need for specificity with your colleagues too (which you never do) ! OR be a hypocrite.
You have not denied your industry is centrally controlled. Albeit democratically. That was my point. I don’t buy your rice anyway so I don’t care.
The oceans ARE warming, and at depth and species behaviour says so too. You have not addressed any of this so don’t try to pull rank girlie.
Claiming “no warming” from the data set provided and logic provided is pure denialist bullshit.
Debbie:
“The oceans are not warming as the experts predicted.”
And just to remind you that this conclusion is based on an invalid analysis. this comment concisely shows a valid methodology with which to test Bob’s hypothesis. However based on my own experience of data analysis, I wouldn’t hold up much hope that a valid methodology would support it. I’ll happily do the statistical tests and eat humble pie if someone gives me the spreadsheet data to run a correct analysis.
Oh yes, kd, linear regression, the indispensible tool of the climate scientist; have you got an explanation for the 2003 ‘spike’ in OHC yet?
From a paper by Trenberth (Science, 16 April 2010).
http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/missing_heat2_h.jpg
The OHC appears to be flat.
Cohenite
I daresay the change may be due to instrumental differences. I’d look at the scientific literature and then maybe the raw data if I thought it was especially useful.
However your rejection of objective regression models in favour of subjective wiggle watching speaks volumes. In a way that highlights the piss poor state of the denialist argument. Well done. I hope the gunshot wounds to your foot heal quickly.
Oh what tea party mouthed wiggle wagglers
– now looky here – it’s significant at 0.001 % level that deniers are a humourless, dour bunch, median age over 70, and definitely not hip.
This peer reviewed video proves it – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10
Careful both sides cop it in this epic !
P.S. The 28 factor polynomial – the indispensible curve fitting technique of the denialiti
‘…deniers are a humourless, dour bunch…’
Really? I think the Greens are a better fit.
Luke, you need to lay off the coolness thing. You – and that video – are about as hip as Maynard G. Krebs tapping his bongo drums, hoping to get laid before the century turns.
I don’t know if you’re uncomfortable about aging, and are given to wearing baseball caps the wrong way around, and calling people “dude”, and so on. But when you say things like “utter twaddle”, “what bunkum” and “what nongery”, you sound like one of those cranky old ladies with blue hair.
It’s okay. You probably weren’t meant to be cool. Just start liking yourself.
I didn’t reject regression smart guy, but for a data series, temperature, which has a unit root base, a regression tells you nothing; Stockwell has highlighted that here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
Bruesch, who featured in one of Garnaut’s reports, has had a shot at Stockwell to which Stockwell has partially replied here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/03/garnaut%e2%80%99s-second-update-sceptics-are-the-white-swans/
I apologise Robert – my parsing program puts those in – I really wanted to say what a fucking dickhead or I’d like to rip you a new arsehole. But that would be rude and crude and I’d get snipped. My Tourette’s medication normally holds up.
But having been at a few climate sceptic talks have you noticed that age and audience demographic?
Luke, anything is an improvement over “what hooey”, “utter tripe” “and “haaaaa”. But you’d be better off coming to terms with your age and just liking yourself. You’ve clearly got a good mind, and your intelligence exceeds mine in many ways.
I’m interested in what you have to say, however combative. But the posturing and self-loathing have to go.
Looking up very closely at your logo Luke, I think there was a day of missed Tourette’s medication?
‘….have you noticed that age and audience demographic?’
You mean the old folk, the wise ones who didn’t take the green pills?
cohenite
I looked at the abstract, introduction and conclusion of the xariv link you gave. And I thought “ok that looks like it could be interesting legitimate research – looking at better spatial and temporal resolution of the instrumental record”. Then I looked at the affiliation link and I discovered that it was to the thoroughly disgraced and discredited Monkton lab. Unfortunately being associated with such a joke of an individual, and his idiotic paranoid research programme means that I’ll just now ditch the paper as out of hand. Nice try but found wanting. Did the paper make it into a peer reviewed journal? If not would the author care to post the reviewers’ comments?
The paper was submitted to a prominent journal and was rejected by the dominant reviewer on the basis that “It is well known in time series analysis that stochastic modelling of deterministic effects is not the best way of proceeding”.
Given your behaviour and demeanor here, even if you do appreciate the utter hypocrisy of that comment, I’m sure that in best troll like fashion you will still gloat.
We’ll just add that to McLean et al. There’s always E&E.
Do you think Outgoing Longwave Radiation could be modulated with SOI? Chiefio thinks he’s discovered a link.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/all-about-the-o/#comments
“We’ll just add that to McLean et al. There’s always E&E”
And what have you done recently except stop cows from giving milk and scaring pensioners?
Luke,
I fail to see how the management of the rice industry has anything to do with AGW climate change or even the politics associated with it???
It is not controlled by a centralised govt bureaucracy and it never has been.
All the science and research has been funded mostly by the industry and none of it is related to A G W climate change.
There is another issue for us that is closely related however. That would be the MDBP. They are definitely using predictive climate and economic models. They are definitely funded by your tax money.
That one is definitely a centralised federal bureacracy muscling in.
Debs – it’s simple. You’re touting an efficient free market with pluralistic competition being the efficient way to supply goods and services.
And here you are residing in a centrally controlled non-competitive environment. Hilarious. How ironic.
Just to let you know that I did some objective analysis of Tisdale’s claims. It’s clear that they’re not justifiable. Details here: http://pastie.org/pastes/1901786/text
An F test would be appropriate if you regard the 2003 spike as a legitimate break in the data; David Stockwerll has done this here:
http://landshape.org/enm/possible-error-in-ohc/
You keep ignoring this point which makes your analysis irrelevant.
cohenite:
Tisdale’s claims are more irelevant than mine then. In any case, if that jump at 02-03 is an outlier, it certainly shouldn’t be used as a starting point for an analysis.
“it certainly shouldn’t be used as a starting point for an analysis”; that’s right, it should be removed and the anaylsis done on pre and post data after the removal; what Bob has done is a round-a-bout removal of using it as a starting point; but remove it and see what you get.
cohenite:
“what Bob has done is a round-a-bout removal of using it as a starting point”
WTF. That’s the delusions speaking boy. He’s introduced a massive bias by using the 2003 as the starting point, and shifting the intercept so that it passes though the 2003 point. You should have let your foot heal properly before you shot yourself in it a second time.
Oh, I see.
obviously what I should have done was taken you to task over these comments.
free market without controls = global financial meltdown. You would rather let the Reserve Bank take its hands off the levers and let the economy flail around.
Farmers will even get a carbon dividend from improved soil carbon and growing trees again on your less productive country.
The first one would be difficult to prove because it doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as ‘free market with no controls’ Neither is there a place where global banks take their hands off the levers. I also did not argue for either of those. You seem to think that because I don’t see a benefit for Australia in a carbon tax and thereafter a place in an artificially created Global ETS, that must mean I don’t believe in anything else but a free market.
It greatly amuses me how you accuse others of such absolutes.
The second one is the same sort of manufactured economic paper argument that leads people to believe that they can make money out of ‘negative gearing’ and ‘amortised leases’. Funny how when you do the figures for yourself it is only possible to make money if the capital value rises and even then only if you can claim a tax break from it. Those exercises lose money and so will the carbon sequestering plan, for exacly the same reasons.
Thirdly, the management of the Australian Rice Industry bears no resemblance to what you have been advocating here.
For starters, the rice industry markets a product with a measurable and marketable value.
You’re advocating the marketing of a product that we’re being told is a pollutant and the value will be measured by the controlling centralised bureaucracy.
Most of the science, research and development is funded by the industry and does not have anything at all to do with AGW climate change. It’s actually working on ways to make ricegrowing more efficient, more productive and more resilient. It bears no resemblance at all to the Tax payer funded climate research.
Despite the fact that it is far from perfect, the rice industry has mostly delivered positive benefits to Australia in the form of GDP, employment and several other related ways. In particular it has delivered positive benefits to the NSW State Govt and the NSW economy.
The rice industry is not funded by taxpayers money, in fact historically it provides a positive tax revenue the majority of the time. In case you don’t understand what that actually means, it produces way more tax revenue for the Australian Government than any tax revenue that has ever needed to come back towards the rice industry.
You then accused me again of: touting an efficient free market with pluralistic competition being the efficient way to supply goods and services.
I’m sorry if you believed that’s what I was saying. I’m quite sure I would have trouble proving that because as far as I know, it doesn’t exist.
I would still suggest you do some homework on economic history and figure out which working model seems to have the most success in achieving their stated goals.
None of them are perfect Luke, but some definitely work better than others.
None of them have ever been ‘completely free’ of market controls either, although Hong Kong came very, very close for a small moment in history.
Obviously that one isn’t sustainable either.
I think you will find that a centrally controlled bureacratic model that is funded by taxpayers is not the most successful one… actually far from it!
Also, if the seas are warming, the AGW climate change modelling is only looking from a fairly narrow assumption.
Cohenite is correct when he points out that figures can be skewed by taking into account only some variables or indeed even where the starting points are. Interestingly so is kdkd.
Do these models do that?
I’m not entirely convinced either way, but unfortunately I have seen it done so many times in other areas of science and economics that I do in fact remain sceptical.
Modeling is an extremely useful tool to identify patterns and to graph data and to help us understand what may have been contributing causes to whichever or whatever theory we are testing at whatever given time.
Their downfall is when they get used as predictive tools and are not flexible enough to factor in other variables that they were not able to predict.
They unfortunately usually assume a perfect start date and predict out from there. They also unfortunately assume that everything will stay balanced and everything will contribute at the same time as it always has. They actually assume way too much.
That is not the way our environment or our climate works.
It is rather conceited of us to even assume what a perfect level of CO2 or ocean temp or anything else is for that matter which has been done by these models.
They have varied considerably over millenium and despite the conceited view of some at the moment, I’m pretty sure that mankind had very little to do with it.
I’m also pretty sure mankind also doesn’t get to decide which was the perfect year, which was the perfect temperature or even what is the perfect level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
All of those are assumptions. They could be good they could be bad.
They are however not a good reason to start taxing people for CO2 production.
Oh Debs it would be so hard to measure all the fuel and coal. Gee whenever I fill my car up there’s so much error – they never know how much I take. And when we ship all that coal – well who knows how much is in the ship. We just don’t know. It’s just impossible to keep track of Debs.
And isn’t it strange that the central bureaucracy has taxed fuel for many years and the sky hasn’t fallen in.
Get real.
BTW the way Debs – you do need to immerse yourself in the modelling milieu to be convincing – the model output is taken from an ensemble mean. Do you understand? Have you seen an individual model output trace. A single instantiation. Doesn’t look like the mean. Lots of wiggles – and a number of trajectories. http://www.realclimate.org/images/runs.jpg
Why Debs – chaos is why. Chaos inherent in the real world physics and replicated/self deriving in the model mathematics. Not unbridled chaos mind you – but bounded chaos.
Yet in the real world there will only be one realisation. It won’t look like the mean output trajectory.
Depends on how much fuel and coal you may or may not use to run your business Luke.
If you work in a job in an office on a public budget then rising fuel and coal costs won’t affect you much.
Yes I do understand about modeling. I respect its usefulness and I understand its limitations. I understand trajectories and creating an ensemble mean. It doesn’t change the fact that to create those outputs some assumptions have to be made. Gotta do that or you can’t do the projection.
I fear you are not understanding that modeling has been hijacked and used for purposes that they were not intended.
The rest is obviously a philosophical difference of opinion.
Also, when did CO2 become a pollutant ? I thought it was an extremely important element in our atmosphere and in life cycle?
We actually exhale it after every breath we take. More than we inhaled.
Chaos masquerading as randomness?
Looking at the ENSO ensemble mean the odds are shortening for a double dip Nina.
Looks flat, no need for alarm, although we should be on guard against chaos unbounded.
http://www.weatherbell.com/jd/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/WWW.fingerprint5.jpg
Weatherbell goes in search of the ‘missing hot spot’.
Also have a look at this little gem that uses rhetoric and results in ‘reduto ad absurdism’!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/climate-action-has-clear-public-health-dividend/story-e6frgd0x-1226055577475
And they wonder why we become sceptical?
And here is another example of how we can use figures and computer modeling to explain things in different ways.
Once again it has more to do with the assumptions and where we choose to start and finish .
Before you lose your cool Luke, I am not saying I agree or disagree with this analyisis.
The point is that it’s very easy to do.
Too easy.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/delta-t/
So, yes the seas may be warming but the part that needs to be checked is:
Why are they warming?
AGW modeling is attempting to prove the theory that it is being influenced by man made CO2 emissions.
Well it appears with new data and new information that it may not be as significant as the theory first postulated.
That’s because the oceans aren’t warming as the theory predicted. It has nothing to do with ‘wiggle watching’ and everything to do with the assumptions that were made to enable the models to output trajectories.
Please note Jen’s new post regarding this.
As far as bounded chaos versus unbounded chaos goes….
I imagine that theory is sitting inside a computer model as well.
As far as I know, CO2 was not even considered a pollutant until AGW climate change got a foothold in public opinion.
The only way it could be proved a pollutant is if man made CO2 emissions can cause catastrophic harm to the climate patterns.
Otherwise it is just a necessary part of our atmosphere that we inhale and exhale (more of) and also contributes to the life cycle on our planet because we are largely carbon based on Earth.
To make huge economic changes because of it and arbitrary decisions about how much is and isn’t a danger and indeed who gets to shift their responsibility for producing it and who gets to make some paper profits by sequestering it, is something else entirely.
Yes of course CO2 is not a pollutant Debs. We all know that. It’s just Fed Govt spin. But get over it – it just provides more tedious sceptic talking points about nothing. Doesn’t change the climate science whether you refer to it as a pollutant or the elixir of youth.
kdkd says: “Just to let you know that I did some objective analysis of Tisdale’s claims. It’s clear that they’re not justifiable. Details here: http://pastie.org/pastes/1901786/text”
There have been a few recent comments on your “objective analysis” at my blog, kdkd. Lucia appears to disagree with what you’ve presented:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/on-taminos-post-favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to-hide-the-incline/#comment-1836
She’s even posted her own analysis of the OHC model versus observations from 1993 to 2010:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/ocean-heat-content-kerfuffle/
They contradict you.
If people were informed that CO2 encourages vegetable growth, it would be a more honest and positive. Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is negative political spin and will lead to a sticky end.
‘It doesn’t change the climate science’ which is badly flawed because of models which exaggerated the effect of global warming. The models will work fine if the AGW component is taken out.
Well the models don’t follow the temperature trend if the AGW bit is taken out. THE ENTIRE POINT.
But console yourself with some practical stuff El Gordo – Debs will also dig it
http://www.managingclimate.gov.au/http:/www.managingclimate.gov.au/category/publications/climag/
Bob. My analysis is still objective. Quick and dirty, yes, with the kinds of pitfalls associated with that. I’m still seeing nothing that suggests you’re justified in shifting the intersect the way that you did though.
So, kd is a behavioural scientist and is lecturing to the likes of lucia about statistical analysis; you’ve exceeded your pay scale matey!
Bob notes that the 2003 spike has been mitigated to some extent by the 2010 adjustment which further pulls the legs from under the great white hope of AGW, heat storage in the deep briny. It is isn’t happening; Still, the spike remains.
I thought with kd being revealed as the climate scientist ersatz that he is that it would be fun to check the SST trend focusing on 2003:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1993/to:2003/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend
LUKE!!!
Get it through your head that many of us are not criticising climate science as a whole.
The objection is that it is being hijacked and over funded through one branch in particular.
AGW climate change is a THEORY with some merit. It is still a relatively young theory but it has been seized upon as ‘settled’ and irrefutable by the likes of Tim Flannery, Bob Brown and other influencial politicians/academics in Australia plus WWF, ACF, IPPC etal.
It is ridiculous to argue that man has had no influence on local weather patterns and local environments. Of course he has, especially in high density urban areas and also in intensive argricultural areas. I haven’t noticed anyone attempting to do that even though you loudly accuse everyone of doing so.
Ever since mankind was living in caves he has been altering his environment. That’s a basic instinct and one of the main reasons we are such a successful species on planet earth. It doesn’t mean that we haven’t made some dreadful mistakes but on the whole our species has been rather successful. We have also managed to make totally inhospitable areas suitable for mankind and other species as well.
Whether this is measurable and highly significant on a GLOBAL scale and whether it is a good or a bad thing is still under question.Whether we should do anything about it or not on a GLOBAL scale is also highly questionable.
I would argue that for Australia, tucked down here on the other side of the world and perfectly capable of being self sufficient and also of supplying excess production to the rest of the world, it is not a sensible way to go.
It is being used AS AN EXCUSE for increasing taxation, shutting down large tracts of Agricultural land, shutting down or punishing certain industries and a whole other raft of legislation.
For a political reason and for a popular political agenda, we are now being made to feel guilty and responsible for our success as a species and our Australian success as a primary produce nation.
Also, whether you like it or not, because of an extremely successful propaganda like campaign, people have been led to believe that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.
You know that’s rubbish, but that doesn’t change what the campaign has done.
If we laid off the political claptrap and propagandist garbage I would not be complaining.
Climate study and improving abilities to predict weather events are highly valuable tools for my industry and they would also help with even the simplest things like town planning or even simpler like which way you should position your house on a block of land.
And finally, whether you like it or not, because of their complexity and the ability to re arrange variables ad infinitum, computer models can be used to prove just about anything at all.
You keep asking how people know this…it’s easy…anyone who runs a business uses computer modelling all the time. Depending on who a business owner is presenting to, the same information gets remodelled to emphasise whichever point we’re trying to make at that time. Even an itty bitty agrarian redneck like me has at least 3 different computer models as projective tools for each of the many varied agricultural programs we run on our properties. They take in as many different variables as we can think of and interestingly they are all quite different in their projections. We would never argue that one of them is definitely the right one. One of them will be closer to the truth AFTER the time period has expired, which means that one of them happened to match reality that season or that 5 year program or whatever it was that we were trying to plan for.
So your comment:
Well the models don’t follow the temperature trend if the AGW bit is taken out. THE ENTIRE POINT.
is entirely correct if we are referring to the models which are focusing on the influence of AGW.
The rest of THE ENTIRE POINT is that we can model with exactly the same information and emphasise something else and the model will agree with you then too.
At this point there are links to literally thousands of them on Jen’s blog that do exactly that!
The models are extremely useful tools to help us understand the world around us but they are not crystal balls because they are too complex and have way too many variables that can influence the projections.
Cohenite.
Your methodology is totally invalid with that graph.
here’s a better one. But an honest evaluation of that data set might look more like this. Which now gives you to haul out the old “the global warming signal should be monotonic” denialist talking point.
And kdkd just added 2 more!
Methodology as a single issue has very little to do with it.
It’s more about assumptions and how they will influence projections and will therefore influence the methodology.
kdkd you also accuse people of arguing from a black/white perspective.
That is not the point.
No one is trying to tell you that you are absolutely wrong.
We are trying to explain that you are likely not absolutely right.
The projection from that assumption is that we should not be trying to change the whole global economy on a might or a maybe.
Especially when some of us who study the physical and social world from a different perspective know that this scam has been tried before.
http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/climate-action-now/nda-sydney/national-day-of-action-sydney
Don’t believe me that there is a propaganda campaign trying to prove that CO2 is a pollutant?
Check this one out.
Also notice the slogan:
Say ‘Yes’ to cutting carbon pollution and a cleaner Australia!
Oh and look at at who stars on the you tube vid.
Luke this is from the Climag link.
Colin Creighton, Science Manager of Managing Climate Variability, notes the imperative for agriculture to get away from the concept of averages. He says: ‘As this last season has shown, it is the extremes of wet and dry that we need to be able to manage. Maximising profits in good times and minimising losses in the bad times are the imperatives of climate risk management.’
Sanity returns to the debate as the risk managers face reality.
Luke,
“Well the models don’t follow the temperature trend if the AGW bit is taken out. THE ENTIRE POINT.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Well little Luke, since they wrote the models they could assign values any way they want. They decided to use a couple basic physics equations, had to parameterize others as they don’t have enough processing power, and simply left out others. Finally they used aerosols as fudge factors. Check and see how many of the models use the same aerosol forcing or cloud/water vapor parameters. Nope, ain’t hard to see why their models don’t work without CO2. They don’t work if you take out Solar either, but, that says nothing about whether what they label solar is the right magnitude or not!!
If you ever hear a modeler claim their leaving out one of THEIR sized parameters changes things I give you permission to laugh at them as I laugh at you!!! You may also want to explain to them how stupid the statement makes them sound!!
KookyKat – hmmmm – wrong. what an amazingly stupid analysis but from you what would we expect. Pragmatic parameterizations of certain aspects are not an overall tuning. Are you actually daft matey ?
El Gordo “Sanity returns to the debate as the risk managers face reality.” not really getting away from the concept of climate averages is 20 years old in agricultural extension. Try to keep up – sanity my butt.
This from a 2007 CSIRO handout by Preston and Jones on CC impacts on Oz.
‘Globally, the World Meteorological Organization has claimed that extreme events are on the rise as a result of anthropogenic perturbation of the climate system, and climate models indicate the potential for increases in extremes of temperature, precipitation, droughts, storms, and floods.’
It is an exaggeration to say there is a ‘potential for an increase in extremes’ based on flawed models.
Stockwell and Cox get a guest post in the Newcastle Herald – climate computers (GCMs) are flawed.
http://landshape.org/enm/files/2011/05/NH-ScienceSaysNoTo-ClimateComput.pdf