Global warming... real or make believe? - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#14682641
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, the ability to hindcast shows that they can forecast climate, as that is what the models are doing when they forecast the climate of 1980 when given the 1910 data.

No, that is incorrect, as I already explained. Hindcasting is how they make sure a model at least could be right -- if it can't hindcast, it's wrong -- but does not provide a test of forecasting. That can only be done by predicting future observations that are not known at the time of the prediction.
#14682687
Not really, no.

I already explained how twice, so feel free to reread my last few posts.

--------------

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e2310.html

    The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

.....and.....

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 12534.html

    Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century1, 2, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming3, 4, 5, 6, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations. We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model. Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r = 0.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming). Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA. Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

So, the climate models are constantly being improved, to the point where they can even account for short term behaviour, such as a hiatus lasting about a decade.

In fact, any objective analysis of the evidence seems to show that the climate models are generally correct.
#14682746
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not really, no.

Yes.
I already explained how twice, so feel free to reread my last few posts.

I already explained why you are wrong twice, so feel free to reread my last few posts.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html

A journal totally and explicitly devoted to promotion of AGW nonscience...
The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution.

Which is correct and honest.
Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations.
Which is false and dishonest, as it assumes actual empirical observations are "only one realization" -- as if empirical observations are of no more scientific import than another model run.
We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

IOW, they took models that couldn't forecast, and at least made them hindcast.

Sorry, but that's not empirical science. It's just model tweaking.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

Nature is totally in thrall to AGW screamers.
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century1, 2, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming3, 4, 5, 6, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations.

IOW, they have added a tweak to a model that couldn't forecast, and at least made it hindcast.
We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model.

"Novel"? There's nothing novel about correcting an incorrect forecast by substituting actual observations for incorrect predictions ex post facto.
Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r = 0.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming). Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA. Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling.

So when temperature rises, that's CO2, but when it stops rising despite continued exponential increase in CO2 concentration, that's natural variability...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...
Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

Assuming solar activity stays near multi-millennial highs...
So, the climate models are constantly being improved, to the point where they can even account for short term behaviour, such as a hiatus lasting about a decade.

At least when tweaked for hindcasting....
In fact, any objective analysis of the evidence seems to show that the climate models are generally correct.

They're obviously wildly wrong. No amount of tweaked hindcasting can make up for their uniform record of failed forecasting.
#14682755
Please note the lack of any links to evidence in the previous post.

Back to the topic:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/publi ... l53276.pdf

    The level of agreement between climate model simulations and observed surface temperature change is a topic of scientific and policy concern. While the Earth system continues to accumulate energy due to anthropogenic and other radiative forcings, estimates of recent surface temperature evolution fall at the lower end of climate model projections. Global mean temperatures from climate model simulations are typically calculated using surface air temperatures, while the corresponding observations are based on a blend of air and sea surface temperatures. This work quantifies a systematic bias in model-observation comparisons arising from differential warming rates between sea surface temperatures and surface air temperatures over oceans. A further bias arises from the treatment of temperatures in regions where the sea ice boundary has changed. Applying the methodology of the HadCRUT4 record to climate model temperature fields accounts for 38% of the discrepancy in trend between models and observations over the period 1975–2014.

In other words, most comparisons between model temperatures and observed temperatures were measuring two different things. Model temperatures were measuring the temperature of the air at the surface of the planet, while observed temperatures were a mixture of air temperatures at the surface and sea surface temperatures.

They were comparing apples to oranges.

If you compare the same two things in both the models and the observations, the discrepancy between the two is reduced by 38%.
#14683456
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note the lack of any links to evidence in the previous post.

Please note the false equation of links with evidence. PoD believes that whenever he provides a link, that is evidence, whether the link supports the claim or not. He also believes there is no such thing as a factual or logical argument except in the form of a link.
Applying the methodology of the HadCRUT4 record to climate model temperature fields accounts for 38% of the discrepancy in trend between models and observations over the period 1975–2014.

I.e., assuming the HADCRUT methodology is correct, you can (surprise!) reconcile the discrepancy.
In other words, most comparisons between model temperatures and observed temperatures were measuring two different things. Model temperatures were measuring the temperature of the air at the surface of the planet, while observed temperatures were a mixture of air temperatures at the surface and sea surface temperatures.

They were comparing apples to oranges.

But the comparison was between apples and oranges in all the relevant cases, so the "correction" was spurious. I.e., the models were using the same temperature methodologies over time, so the fact that the methodologies didn't match is irrelevant: they matched for purposes of hindcasting, and only diverged when forecasting.
#14683485
Truth To Power wrote:Please note the false equation of links with evidence. PoD believes that whenever he provides a link, that is evidence, whether the link supports the claim or not. He also believes there is no such thing as a factual or logical argument except in the form of a link.


When I provide links, it is so that other people can judge the evidence for themselves. You should focus less on my supposed behaviour flaws and focus more on providing links to verified studies that corroborate your claims.

When I provide a link, I often also provide a section of quoted text. That part of the text that supports my claim is bolded. The reason I provide the text around the bolded phrase(s) is so that people can read the context and verify that I am not taking terms out of context.

While it is possible to make an argument that relies solely on facts and logic, that is not science. That is, at best, the very minimum required to put together a decent hypothesis. The next necessary step is to use that hypothesis to generate falfiable predictions, and then use experiment to try and falsify them. Your arguments are only that first step. The argument for anthropogenic climate change also includes testing through experiment.

I.e., assuming the HADCRUT methodology is correct, you can (surprise!) reconcile the discrepancy.


Yes, this is part of the process of improving the models.

But the comparison was between apples and oranges in all the relevant cases, so the "correction" was spurious. I.e., the models were using the same temperature methodologies over time, so the fact that the methodologies didn't match is irrelevant: they matched for purposes of hindcasting, and only diverged when forecasting.


The fact that they diverged slightly about something that was not studied at the time they were first hindcast does not invalidate them. Now that those divergences are understood, the models are refined and then even that slight divergence is gone.
#14685434
Truth To Power wrote:Please note the false equation of links with evidence. PoD believes that whenever he provides a link, that is evidence, whether the link supports the claim or not. He also believes there is no such thing as a factual or logical argument except in the form of a link.

Pants-of-dog wrote:When I provide links, it is so that other people can judge the evidence for themselves.

No. It is to create a spurious impression that you have provided evidence supporting your claim when you have not.
You should focus less on my supposed behaviour flaws and focus more on providing links to verified studies that corroborate your claims.

I do not share your conviction that only links can provide facts.
While it is possible to make an argument that relies solely on facts and logic, that is not science.

It is if it is falsifiable.
The argument for anthropogenic climate change also includes testing through experiment.

More accurately, it includes revision of experimental results to agree with the theory.
I.e., assuming the HADCRUT methodology is correct, you can (surprise!) reconcile the discrepancy.

Yes, this is part of the process of improving the models.

No, it's part of the process of contriving rationalizations for never revising the models in any way that would no longer predict catastrophic warming caused by using fossil fuels.
But the comparison was between apples and oranges in all the relevant cases, so the "correction" was spurious. I.e., the models were using the same temperature methodologies over time, so the fact that the methodologies didn't match is irrelevant: they matched for purposes of hindcasting, and only diverged when forecasting.

The fact that they diverged slightly about something that was not studied at the time they were first hindcast does not invalidate them.

The divergence was more than slight, and yes, it does invalidate them.
Now that those divergences are understood,

I.e., rationalized away.
the models are refined and then even that slight divergence is gone.

... until the next batch of inconvenient data come in.
#14685676
Truth To Power wrote:Please note the false equation of links with evidence. PoD believes that whenever he provides a link, that is evidence, whether the link supports the claim or not. He also believes there is no such thing as a factual or logical argument except in the form of a link.

Pants-of-dog wrote:When I provide links, it is so that other people can judge the evidence for themselves. You should focus less on my supposed behaviour flaws and focus more on providing links to verified studies that corroborate your claims.

When I provide a link, I often also provide a section of quoted text. That part of the text that supports my claim is bolded. The reason I provide the text around the bolded phrase(s) is so that people can read the context and verify that I am not taking terms out of context.

While it is possible to make an argument that relies solely on facts and logic, that is not science. That is, at best, the very minimum required to put together a decent hypothesis. The next necessary step is to use that hypothesis to generate falfiable predictions, and then use experiment to try and falsify them. Your arguments are only that first step. The argument for anthropogenic climate change also includes testing through experiment.

I.e., assuming the HADCRUT methodology is correct, you can (surprise!) reconcile the discrepancy.

Yes, this is part of the process of improving the models.

But the comparison was between apples and oranges in all the relevant cases, so the "correction" was spurious. I.e., the models were using the same temperature methodologies over time, so the fact that the methodologies didn't match is irrelevant: they matched for purposes of hindcasting, and only diverged when forecasting.

The fact that they diverged slightly about something that was not studied at the time they were first hindcast does not invalidate them. Now that those divergences are understood, the models are refined and then even that slight divergence is gone.

Look at this! Not a single link to support anything you have said! Why would you even bother posting when you can't provide any sort of evidence to back up your claims?
#14685679
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. No, the rcp8.5 is not business as usual, as it would not have taken into account things that actually happened, like the slowdown in emissions due to the global financial crisis.

2. Yes, you did cite his words, specifically a list of supposed wrong models. The RCP8.5 models, to be precise. See point 1.

3. You seem to be confusing quantity of emissions (your Mauna Loa graph) with the rate of emissions (what the RCP scenarios look at). It is possible for the latter to fluctuate while the former more or less rises steadily.

4. Yeah, the solar activity hypothesis has been falsified. I have no idea why are you still clinging to that.

The above is another example of you posting claims but no links to support them. Not surprising in this case, as I proved you flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective fact on all four claims.

Why do you post claims without supporting links? Don't you know you have to support every statement with links, no matter how well known and indisputable the facts identified therein might be?
#14687319
Truth To Power wrote:That's pretty funny, coming from a guy whose science howlers I've had to correct so often.


Thanks, I also think I am hilarious. Back to the topic:

This is the chart you cited by the creationist:

Image

Can you tell what is missing?
#14687406
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is the chart you cited by the creationist:

Image

Can you tell what is missing?

There's always more you can put on a chart, but this one's pretty crowded as it is.

I'm guessing you are referring to the mandatory genuflection to the doctrine of catastrophic global warming caused by human CO2 emissions, which is now a required component in all papers published in peer-reviewed climate journals.
#14687409
Pants-of-dog wrote:Nope, you guessed wrong!

Want to try again?

OK, then it must be the required disclaimer stipulating that empirical observations that disprove the doctrine of catastrophic global warming caused by human CO2 emissions do not actually imply there is anything wrong with the doctrine.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 21

Confessions extracted under torture...seems legit.[…]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]