Climate Change - the big debate

[pishwish]

Guam said:

The real Apache said:

have to agree with plunkers there guam, ff has even admitted it'd made him think a bit more about it.....wait, did I just agree with plunkers?!!

BRB


Cheers

1317 this

turbobloke said:
[TB's post]
Welcome, once again.
Very interesting, I'll post that over in the Bad Science forum and see what they make of it if that's OK.

Cheers.


Response follows

[report] [news] 13:28
Facefirst said:
Guam said:
look not being contentious here but can you stop doing that and tell us what YOU think of what we say, as I said earlier I am not into debating by proxy.

If that is all you are going to do then I will cease to respond to you (even though I think you are a decent guy).

If they want to argue with what TB and I say they should come in here and do it.


Cheers
Fine, fair enough.
Thank you.

Those responses took place between 1317 and 1328 mine being at 1325, time of his post on there?

Edited by Guam on Friday 11th February 20:35

Edited by Guam on Friday 11th February 20:43

Hi, I'm a semi-lurker on the badscience forum and read this thread. I'm sure FF can defend himself, but I'd just like to point out that the clock on the BS forum is an hour ahead and that posts cannot be edited after about ten minutes or so.

Nothing to contribute regarding the debate as it's not my area, but I have recently read a book about the doomed Franklin expedition, so I will make a point about TB's post on http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

According to http://www.thelantern.com/campus/osu-researchers-a...
[quote]the trees are believed to be 2 to 8 million years old.

As for early 19th century knowledge of the Arctic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Polar_Sea was a popular theory at the time.

[The Excession]

Guam said:

Excession if you think I have broached the rules please feel free to delete or moderate the content.

Nope... You're bang on message... Carry on.

[Diderot]

Blimey, I go away for a few days ...

[pishwish]

Guam said:

That would mean FF posted this before TB had written it, Rock on I will have to join your merry throng (especially in time for the lottery)!! Or is this some Kind of Heysenberg problem?

Any more "Advanced" specimens want to come in here?

Edited by Guam on Saturday 12th February 00:45

Huh? This is the timeline as far as I make out:

1:14 pm TB's post
1:15 pm FF post
1:17 pm FF's " I'll post that over in the Bad Science forum" post
1:19 pm FF posts TB's 1:14 post on Bad Science (where the clock is 2:19 pm)
1:21 pm Guam posts
1:25 TB posts
1:25 pm Guam's "stop doing that post"
1:27 pm FF's post agreeing not to.

[pishwish]

[quote]Thank you for some clarification

Either way I dont see how that helps him?

Also why would their clock be out by an hour?

Didnt seem to be when I was in there in fairness??

Even if this is correct (not doubting you at this stage) then the deletion could have been achieved directly (within the 10 minutes or By requesting such from the moderators if the 10 minute edit rule does apply) Either way the point still stands, notwithstanding that are you comfortable with the excercise he undertook here??

Did he inform TB or I that he had already done so?? Not likely, that would have given TB (or myself had it been one of mine) the opportunity to request it be taken down.

ETA can you clarify further, the post he made at the time I reviewed it showed a Forum timestamp of 1317 PM so if the forum clock was an hour ahead as you contend does that not make the actual time of posting 1217? Which brings me back to my Quantum point, or are you saying it was actually 2.17 but the timestamp shows as 1317pm?

Or do you mean the clock is behind??

Regards

Edited by Guam on Saturday 12th February 01:25

[/quote]

I don't know why the clock is ahead, I don't know anything about timestamps or bbcode. I did remember something about the clock being fast a while back, but I can't find the thread. I posted because your own forum regulars were calling you out on stuff like this [quote] Incidentaly having agreed not to post our comments on the thread and instead invite those (no more credible Scientists than my Quantum singularity on there) to come over here, you ignored a direct request from Tb And myself not to cross post and did anyway, you know this is why we give the faithful a hard time in here because you have no integrity.
[/quote] and worse. If the BS clock was an hour ahead, then FF did not post there after you asked him not to, ergo he is not two-faced, lacking integrity, etc.

[kerplunk]

Guam said:

Thank you for some clarification

Either way I dont see how that helps him?

Also why would their clock be out by an hour?

Didnt seem to be when I was in there in fairness??

Even if this is correct (not doubting you at this stage) then the deletion could have been achieved directly (within the 10 minutes or By requesting such from the moderators if the 10 minute edit rule does apply) Either way the point still stands, notwithstanding that are you comfortable with the excercise he undertook here??

Did he inform TB or I that he had already done so?? Not likely, that would have given TB (or myself had it been one of mine) the opportunity to request it be taken down.

ETA can you clarify further, the post he made at the time I reviewed it showed a Forum timestamp of 1317 PM so if the forum clock was an hour ahead as you contend does that not make the actual time of posting 1217? Which brings me back to my Quantum point, or are you saying it was actually 2.17 but the timestamp shows as 1317pm?

Or do you mean the clock is behind??

Regards

Edited by Guam on Saturday 12th February 01:25

I'm guessing pishwish is trying to explain your erroneous accusation of a broken agreement and hasn't noticed you've since changed the nature of your complaint after it was found to be invalid. I see no +1hr in the clock times (just registered and posted to check) but I'm guessing he assumes something like that MUST have happened for you to make such a blunder - but you never actually checked the timings did you.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 12th February 02:48

[pishwish]

kerplunk said:

I'm guessing pishwish is trying to explain your erroneous accusation of a broken agreement and hasn't noticed you've since changed the nature of your complaint after it was found to be invalid. I see no +1hr in the clock times (just registered and posted to check) but I'm guessing he assumes something like that MUST have happened for you to make such a blunder - but you never actually checked the timings did you.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 12th February 02:48

That's weird: I get "It is currently Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:59 am" on the BS board index. Your post on BS says 2:49 am. If you just posted then I'm wrong about when FF posted, but if you posted an hour ago then I'm right. *checks*

Just posted on a different thread and the time for my post is "Sat Feb 12, 2011 4:04 am"

[Yankee Rose]

Thanks for replying Turbo, I'll admit I was a bit disappointed no-one else thought my post interesting enough to engage with.

I'm also a bit disappointed you didn't answer either of my questions. I thought they were simple enough. But first things first...

turbobloke said:

The IPCC say in IPCC AR that climate models cannot perdict future climate states.

Expressing caution at the early stages of research is both practical and expected. Yet five years before your favourite quote expressing that caution, they were still making temperature predictions that still ended up holding true.

turbobloke said:

Conseqently such 'models' are doomed to fail and can only be made to 'succeed' by refining one particular aspect at the expense of others, e.g. surface temperature at the expense of first derivative, or at the expense of vertical profile. They have no validity.
[snip]
To repeat, values and trends prove nothing. Matching with repeatedly adjusted gigo modelling proves nothing,

You know you do love chanting about GIGO. Yet this paper clearly shows that what came out of their predictions was not garbage, it was an accurate prediction of future temperatures. Which is not just evidence but proof that their predictions were, in fact, valid at the time and continue to be so.

turbobloke said:

The temperature plot is strange, as it doesn't match the satellite record or the near-surface record as usually seen and stops in 2005 at a point when significant cooling was underway. I'm sure the cherry picking was really an accidental artifact.

If you'd read my post more carefully, you would notice the paper was published in 2007. Considering how long it takes academic papers to be written and published, they probably wrote it in 2006 when temperatures up to 2005 were available. And although temperatures dipped slightly after 2005 (only to match that record in 2010), you'll note they haven't dipped nearly enough to fall below the gray area of the original 1990 prediction.

turbobloke said:

The sea level plot is showing only half the story. Putting to one side the issue of any adjustments made around 2003, if the trend is accepted then it should be accelerating...

The paper (and this discussion) isn't about what you think they should have predicted would happen after 1990, it's what the IPCC predicted would happen. Turns out their predictions were actually a bit too low!

turbobloke said:

Longer-term, the sea level trend is levelling off after the recovery from the last ice age.

Interesting that you accept some un-referenced modelling that's convinced you that climates spontaneously "recover" from past temperatures, in the same post you so categorically reject climate modelling as fundamentally invalid.

turbobloke said:

And with similar historical data - note the longer timescale but inevitably identical profile from 8k yrs bp onward - with the hysterical adjusted trend line added, presumably for humorous effect not to propagandise lay readers.

I also note with interest that you trust the complicated reconstruction and modelling required to make a graph like this, in the same post you dismiss modelling as invalid. In any case, thank you for that own-goal. Perhaps you didn't notice the thin diagonal line labelled "3 mm/year?" That's how fast the sea level is currently rising. Notice how much sharper a 3mm/year rise is compared to the completely flat line for the previous 2,000 years? Here's a version that emphasises it a bit more.


(p.s. you might want to stop posting that graph in future, it's a bit embarrassing for you)

After all that, though, you didn’t answer my questions. Are they really that complicated? I tried to make them as simple as possible. Here they are again in case you forgot.

1) Why did the IPCC scientists get this long-term prediction right? – if you truly believe climate modelling is fundamentally invalid, perhaps you think it’s just dumb luck that they got it right?
2) How many more years does this warming trend have to continue before you, personally, would believe that the IPCC may actually know what they're doing? 10 more years of warming? 20? 50? Or perhaps never?

Edited by Yankee Rose on Saturday 12th February 06:52

[Yankee Rose]

Blib said:

Now, when's that Yankee whojamaflip coming back?

I warned you I'm on the other side of the planet, didn't I?

If you were so eagerly awaiting my return, perhaps you could have a go at answering my two questions?

[turbobloke]

Yankee Rose said:

Thanks for replying...

You're welcome.

However you are incorrect in your own reply.

The respose to your post was given, and amplified in subsequent posts.

There is no visible human signal in global clinate data with established cause and effect to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Any model which assumes that carbon dioxide is causing climate change cannot be getting the result it does for the right reasons. I've already explained in full how climate modelling is totally inadequate. Complex and expesnsive yes, accurate and valid no. You appear to lack an appreciation of what goes on in the modelling process and remain wedded to the outcome which ireflects, as I say and as you notice, gigo.

So your point about modelling isn't valid. There are methods of climate modelling certainly on a regional basis that are less complex, less expensive and more accurate.

random numbers

More if you're interested: 'Climate Prediction as an Initial Value Problem' (Pielke, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society); "Models that simulate and forecast global climate don’t produce the right wobbles, a new study concludes. Despite immense complexity and sophistication, these computer models fail to capture the fluctuations of atmospheric temperatures over months and years." Nature July 2002); the rigid paramaterisation problem in Mölders and Kramm (Atmos Res, 2009) "This paper confirms that the accurate parameterisation of the temperatures at 2m is a challenge." The abstract has this “Simulated near-surface air temperatures as well as dew-point temperatures differ about 4 deg C on average depending on the physical packages used. All simulations have difficulties in capturing the full strength of the surface temperature inversion and in simulating strong variations of dew-point temperature profiles” the same type of inaccurate parameterisations gets used in multi-decadal global climate models as used in the 2007 IPCC report (these three get to the heart of some major problems and if you check back through my posts over time you'll see all of them and more).

More problems as posted on here before:

• The models systematically underestimate the magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport. As a consequence, there is erroneous warming of the model troposphere. Deep equatorial convective clouds and the overturning atmospheric circulation of the Hadley Cells are critical processes necessary to distribute excess tropical solar radiation through the troposphere.

• The models systematically underestimate the poleward transport of energy by the ocean circulations. Although the ocean circulations transport only between 10 and 15 percent of the excess energy of the tropics, the spatial sea surface temperature distribution is dependent on the energy budget in the surface mixed layer and is a crucial determinant of the intensity of the atmospheric circulation.

• The models are inconsistent in their representation of longwave radiation at the earth's surface and, on average, overestimate the exchange in the tropics and underestimate the exchange over high latitudes. Net longwave radiation at the surface is the crucial interaction between greenhouse gases and the energetics of the climate system. The magnitudes of the differences between models and the systemic biases, when compared to the expected radiative forcing from increased greenhouse gas concentrations, make nonsense of computer projections of future climate.

• The evidence is that the projections of more extreme global warming from increased greenhouse gas concentrations emanates from those models that contrive 'positive feedback' processes to amplify the impact.

On that last point note IPCC Feedback Inflation as required to keep the myth alive in the face of 'no visible signal' and climate cooling in the face of carbon dioxide emissions and levels rising inexorably.



In the face of insurmountable problems what's a modeller to do?

Quote from Richard Kerr discussing adjustments in climate models in 'Science' (1997): "The climate modellers have been cheating for so long it's almost become respectable".

And as a BadScience interloper pointed out 'things have moved on since then'...how apt!

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 12th February 10:14

[turbobloke]

More on model failure, mentioning another of the fundamental problems I've listed many times.

---

Climate Models A Fundamental Failure

Reference: Chase, T.N., Pielke Sr., R.A., Herman, B. and Zeng, X. 2004. Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface temperatures unaccompanied by strong warming in the free troposphere. Climate Research 25: 185-190.

Background The authors note that "an important test of model predictive ability and usefulness for impact studies is how well models simulate the observed vertical temperature structure of the troposphere under anthropogenically-induced-change scenarios."

Why is this so? It is because one of the most fundamental features of current climate-model simulations is "a larger warming in the free troposphere than at the surface when forced by increasing atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and the direct effect of sulfate aerosols."(IPCC 1996, 2001).

This predicted feature of global warming is not evident in the real world, there is little reason to believe anything else the models predict, including both the cause and (or) magnitude of the observed surface warming.

What was done: Chase et al. assessed the likelihood "that such a disparity between model projection and observations could be generated by forcing uncertainties or chance model fluctuations, by comparing all possible 22 yr temperature trends [for the years 1979-2000, which were similarly studied by the IPCC and a special committee of the U.S. National Academy of Science] in a series of climate simulations."

What was learned: In the words of the authors no time, in any model realization, forced or unforced, did any model simulate the presently observed situation of a large and highly significant surface warming accompanied with no significant troposphere warming"

Such observations are openly acknowledged to represent the real world in both the IPCC (2001) report and the National Academy Report (2000).

Chase et al. conclude that these "significant errors in the simulations of globally averaged tropospheric temperature structure indicate likely errors in tropospheric water-vapor content and therefore total greenhouse-gas forcing, precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations," noting that "such errors argue for extreme caution in applying simulation results to future climate-change assessment activities and to attribution studies (e.g. Zwiers and Zhang, 2003) and call into question the predictive ability of recent generation model simulations."

References IPCC. 1996. Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995. The Science of Climate Change. Houghton,J.T., Meira Filho, L.G., Callender, B.A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A. and Maskell, K. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

IPCC. 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. The Scientific Basis. Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J. and Xiaosu, D. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

National Academy Report. 2000. Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Zwiers, F.W. and Zhang, X. 2003. Towards regional-scale climate change detection. Journal of Climate 16: 793-797.

[turbobloke]

Incidentally, Yankee Rose, what your predecessors have done - and which was illustrated clearly by Hairykrishna with a memory problem (or more likely the PH search function not doing its job well back then) was to ignore the substantive content of a post which wasn't fully understood anyway, and demand the reference. Even when this reference had been given already but couldn't be located on the thread. You'll see this in the screenshot I posted last night UK time. The basis of this tactic was to toddle over to RealClimate and other advocacy blogs and see whether the Hockey Team had managed to do a hatchet job they could cut and paste. As a result I would tend to select references that RealClimate had no angle on, this must have been frustrating for them. What you just got is a mix, best of luck if that's your strategy

[thinfourth2]

Guam said:

Wow great post off the watts thread on Okie

Global Warming claims a maritime victim

FF this is why Models should not be used as a substitute for the real wrold

"It is interesting to consider the practical consequences of such low temperatures. I had a large tanker in drydock in Sweden, in winter. The temperature was in the minus 30Œs (C). That was the air temperature. The river water was about minus 4C. So the yard informed me that they were going to flood the dock and float the ship out, onto a repair berth. I mentioned the temperature differential, which they ignored, after all they were Swedish, experts in this weather, whereas I was what? An Englishman, didnft know nothing about cold. True but I could imagine a huge temperature differential having a negative effect. So I wrote them a protest note, holding them responsible, copy to my boss, in Monaco. My boss, in temperatures of about 12C, considered I was a bit of a wimp, told me to trust the yardfs experience. Well, I didnft, but I was covered. So the flooding went ahead. The ship was 55000 tons, and the volume of the dock was perhaps 100,000 tons. So all this warm -4C water surged in (itfs quite exciting witnessing a large drydock flooding) the -35C dock, and suddenly with a loud bang, the ship split in two. So they had to insert a completely new midsection, at their own expense. You must be careful of cold in more ways than one.

Sorry i call bks on that one.

If you flood a drydock too quickly then you run a very real risk of knocking the blocks over or knocking the ship off the blocks. It normally takes a hour at least to flood a dock normally longer.

[Zed32]

thinfourth2 said:

Sorry i call bks on that one.

If you flood a drydock too quickly then you run a very real risk of knocking the blocks over or knocking the ship off the blocks. It normally takes a hour at least to flood a dock normally longer.

Not sure the chap actually mentioned the length of time taken in the original quote but it can take up to 4-5 hours depending on the size of the dock. Blocks would be unlikely to get knocked over with a ship of that sort of size already on them and are usually cribbed together (the main risk is usually getting them knocked over when the dock is first flooded before bringing the ship in, although with the newer concrete blocks this is less of an issue). We usually flood pretty slowly until she's off the blocks and then up the flow afterwards...can't comment on temperature differentials however!

[RedLCRB0b]

http://climateprediction.net/board/viewforum.php?f...

at the thread title, I can think of some very good reasons why their models might behave unexpectedly

[turbobloke]

RedLCRB0b said:

http://climateprediction.net/board/viewforum.php?f...

at the thread title, I can think of some very good reasons why their models might behave unexpectedly

Some light reading for any remaining model addicts. Included is the USNA random number 'success'. Clearly those supporting climate modellers as purveyors of reality will want to digest and respond in detail.

Computer climate models are at the heart of the problem of global warming predictions:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BALLComputerModels...

Computer climate models are still unreliable, new study warns

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15721/G...

A fundamental failure of current climate models

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091103/p...

The (lack of) validation of IPCC computer climate models

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/IPCCvalid.htm

Backcasting of climate models does not work

http://www.applet-magic.com/backcasting.htm

Santer et-17-al models fail to be confirmed by observations

http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/30/not-found-the-...

Both climate models used in the USNA were worse than no model at all, worse than random numbers

http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/energy/projectregionalc...

The models are the vehicles used to bamboozle the public and create the illusion they know what is going on

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20757

Under edit not by the hockey team to fix links that have moved

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 12th February 10:24

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 12th February 10:27

[Diderot]

TB - for feck's sake man, next time post some links to the articles you're citing

[turbobloke]

Trouble is, unless the Hockey Team were given divine (Gaia) editing rights, Believers will sense a threat to faith and avoid traumatisation.

[kerplunk]

pishwish said:

That's weird: I get "It is currently Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:59 am" on the BS board index. Your post on BS says 2:49 am. If you just posted then I'm wrong about when FF posted, but if you posted an hour ago then I'm right. *checks*

Just posted on a different thread and the time for my post is "Sat Feb 12, 2011 4:04 am"

Says 1:49 for me which was the correct uk time of posting and all the other post times have stayed the same as before I registered. You know on that type of forum s/w members can set the clock to their timezone/daylight saving time? I'm guessing you haven't got DST enabled.

[turbobloke]

Very interesting about DST enabling.



Anyway.

This (below) is required reading for those interested in IPCC climate modelling, and those with an interest in learning of the broken climate science peer review process. Worth a few minutes of anybody's time, since the two climatologist authors were themselves direct first-hand recipients.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatolo...

Then follow this second link for an illustration of an IPCC author reviewing their own work for an IPCC publication, and - amazingly - the amended IPCC version wasn't as likely to 'cause damage'. Well whoda thunkit.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-...