Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Little Fish

No warming for 15 years

91 posts in this topic

you avoided the question with your appeal to complexity.

The question was: Are climate models reliable? The answer is: it depends. Categorical answers don't work in all cases.

btw the ipcc does not do any research.

It sponsors research. And some scientists work with it cooperatively. Example: the growth-and-yield study I work on is about to be updated through a grant from the USFS, which in turn, received funds from IPCC, which got part of its funding from Uncle Sam, and around we go.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current hiatus in global warming (whether that's a total halt, or just a reduction in the rate of increase) has lasted 14 years. The 1950s hiatus lasted from 1951 to 1976, 26 years, during which global temps actually declined slightly. The 1950s one turned out to be a temporary lapse in a 92-year run. It's a little early to decide that global warming has ceased.

Doug

:tu:

The question was: Are climate models reliable? The answer is: it depends. Categorical answers don't work in all cases.

Doug

You know exactly which climate models little fish is thinking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just let me know when both ice caps have regained their formal glory and then I will feel that just maybe there is no global warming going on...Of course if the ice caps are shifting due to the change in the earths axis I will understand if it takes a while to come about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just let me know when both ice caps have regained their formal glory and then I will feel that just maybe there is no global warming going on...Of course if the ice caps are shifting due to the change in the earths axis I will understand if it takes a while to come about.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know exactly which climate models little fish is thinking about.

No I don't. Little Fish used the scattergun approach, branding all climate models as unreliable.

I might add that the models used by the IPCC in 1991 were none-too-accurate by today's standards. Things have improved a lot. But that's what climate modelers do: they improve their models.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just let me know when both ice caps have regained their formal glory and then I will feel that just maybe there is no global warming going on...Of course if the ice caps are shifting due to the change in the earths axis I will understand if it takes a while to come about.

the icecaps don't cover the globe. they cover very small regions of the globe. is it good idea to select a very small region of the globe and extrapolate a gobal temperature? wouldn't your result rely on which region you chose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me why for three days in a row it was above seventy degrees when it was almost February, in Virginia.

Or why it's February 4th, and my window is open and it's nice outside for the most part.

Edited by Drayno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the icecaps don't cover the globe. they cover very small regions of the globe. is it good idea to select a very small region of the globe and extrapolate a gobal temperature? wouldn't your result rely on which region you chose?

I figure that the reason the ice caps areice caps is because they are the areas where the sun shines the lease, they are furthest from the son, maybe even something to do with the EMF of the planet. If the earth has shifted on its axis I would expect over a few hundred years the ice caps will shift accordingly. So lets just wait a few hundred years and see if I am right, okay?

edit:

Pardon all the typos

Edited by james1951

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me why for three days in a row it was above seventy degrees when it was almost February, in Virginia.

Or why it's February 4th, and my window is open and it's nice outside for the most part.

I am in the same type of situation, but climate does vary.. I would consider things like the trans atlantic drift for example if the earth has shifted on its axis,, just an idea I am not a meteorologist , i just throw out spaghetti to see if it sticks to the frig.

Please tell me why for three days in a row it was above seventy degrees when it was almost February, in Virginia.

Or why it's February 4th, and my window is open and it's nice outside for the most part.

I am in the same type of situation, but climate does vary.. I would consider things like the trans atlantic drift or gulf stream or whatever, for example if the earth has shifted on its axis,, just an idea I am not a meteorologist , i just throw out spaghetti to see if it sticks to the frig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might add that the models used by the IPCC in 1991 were none-too-accurate by today's standards. Things have improved a lot. But that's what climate modelers do: they improve their models.

Doug

And in 1995, 2001 and in 2007 they were still ****. It was not until last year before a carbon dioxide emission model with a satisfying level was produced.

But still the new model should be taken with a grain of salt. As long as models only use Data from 1850 til now they are no were near a high standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sponsors research. And some scientists work with it cooperatively. Example: the growth-and-yield study I work on is about to be updated through a grant from the USFS, which in turn, received funds from IPCC, which got part of its funding from Uncle Sam, and around we go.

Doug

the ipcc does not sponsor research, nor does it do research.

it is a body whose remit is to collate and publish the current status of the published science and report back to governments so governments can effect policy. unfortunately many of the lead authors have been proven to promote their own work whilst not including work contray to "our cause", sex-up conclusions by editing words to tone down contrary views and exaggerate view that support their cause, include advocates such as greenpeace activists as lead authors, take snippets from green propaganda magazines and try to pass it off as science. fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the ipcc does not sponsor research, nor does it do research.

it is a body whose remit is to collate and publish the current status of the published science and report back to governments so governments can effect policy. unfortunately many of the lead authors have been proven to promote their own work whilst not including work contray to "our cause", sex-up conclusions by editing words to tone down contrary views and exaggerate view that support their cause, include advocates such as greenpeace activists as lead authors, take snippets from green propaganda magazines and try to pass it off as science. fail.

Perhaps I misspoke: a lot of work is done cooperatively. And some agencies try to do work on issues affecting IPCC topics - my own, for example. We are adapting our growth-and-yield study to include carbon sequestration experiments. Funding for the growth-and-yield part comes from the USFS McIntire-Stennis Program. The additional expense for carbon studies will come through NEON, which is a US-government initiative that cooperates with IPCC. As I understand it, some of NEON's higher-ups work on some of IPCC's subcommittees.

I quite agree that some of IPCC's output is politically-oriented and that politicians, rather than scientists, have a great deal of weight in what it does. For that reason, one has to take their pronouncements skeptically - you are quite right to do that.

But one thing IPCC does well: it publishes a good bibliography. Most of its publications contain one. Use that to look up THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE (I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, here.). It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Anthony Watts or the IPCC - don't trust either of them. Look up the research that supports (or fails to support) their contentions.

Doug

P.S.: One of IPCC's favorite ideas is cap-and-trade. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that it doesn't work. But it is quite popular among the political types because it is easy to understand and they can pretend to do something while avoiding the tough issues.

Politicians wish scientists would provide information and then just disappear. But when one's discoveries point at potential disaster, is not saying anything an ethical choice? Sometimes scientists are morally obligated to become activists.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Computer ****ing.

Edited by BFB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

globalno-zatupljenje-odnos-sunceve-aktivnosti-i-tempreature.jpg

Is there a connection between sunspots and temperature on Earth? It seems that - yes. Most vividly about the fact that in the 17 century, sunspots disappeared - the 1645 and 1715 were rare, observed only 50 of them, and they should be 50 000 In the 17th century the Earth's northern hemisphere has cooled to the extent that this has had tragic consequences, this time called "Little Ice Age",

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Club of Rome founder Aurelio Peccei said in 1991:

'Looking for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit ... All these are caused by human intervention ... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself. "

Edited by Melo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

globalno-zatupljenje-odnos-sunceve-aktivnosti-i-tempreature.jpg

Is there a connection between sunspots and temperature on Earth? It seems that - yes. Most vividly about the fact that in the 17 century, sunspots disappeared - the 1645 and 1715 were rare, observed only 50 of them, and they should be 50 000 In the 17th century the Earth's northern hemisphere has cooled to the extent that this has had tragic consequences, this time called "Little Ice Age",

Notice that the two lines aren't exact matches. That says there's something else going on, too. There are a lot of things that affect global mean temperatures. You've come across one. You could make a similar graph for CO2 concentrations. On the Ouachita, I can do it with rainfall.

The question no one here wants to answer is: Is this natural, or are humans affecting that graph so that temperature doesn't exactly match sunspot counts?

Doug

Where did you find that graph? I just noticed that most of those lows in temps match up with droughts in central North America. That's something that needs checking out.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I misspoke: a lot of work is done cooperatively.

the ipcc does not do any research, does not fund any research, does not sponsor any research, does not cooperate with any research. it is indpendent of research. it is a body which assesses the state of published research and issues reports primarily aimed at communicating the research to governments. some lead authors spin the reports in a certain direction to promote their "cause" (and their own published research) which makes it a political body, not a scientific one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the ipcc does not do any research, does not fund any research, does not sponsor any research, does not cooperate with any research. it is indpendent of research. it is a body which assesses the state of published research and issues reports primarily aimed at communicating the research to governments. some lead authors spin the reports in a certain direction to promote their "cause" (and their own published research) which makes it a political body, not a scientific one.

Two scientists meet at a conference (or over the officee water cooler). They are working on similar projects. One sees an opportunity to advance his own project if he can use the other's data. They work out an agreement to share data. That's cooperation. There are an awful lot of joint projects that orginate this way.

And there are some scientists on IPCC's boards, Vincent Grey to name one whom I know. So, yes: the IPCC (or at least, some of its board members) cooperate in scientific research.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

globalno-zatupljenje-odnos-sunceve-aktivnosti-i-tempreature.jpg

Is there a connection between sunspots and temperature on Earth? It seems that - yes. Most vividly about the fact that in the 17 century, sunspots disappeared - the 1645 and 1715 were rare, observed only 50 of them, and they should be 50 000 In the 17th century the Earth's northern hemisphere has cooled to the extent that this has had tragic consequences, this time called "Little Ice Age",

The graph you have shown is incorrect. Why?

Incorrect(Outdated) data have been used.

Use the TSI reconstruction from either Steinhilber et al or Viera et al, and you will get a different result.

Hoyt's TSI reconstruction have been outdated for years.

So the question would be why do people still use Hoyt's TSI reconstruction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two scientists meet at a conference (or over the officee water cooler). They are working on similar projects. One sees an opportunity to advance his own project if he can use the other's data. They work out an agreement to share data. That's cooperation. There are an awful lot of joint projects that orginate this way.

the ipcc does not do research, does not sponsor or fund research, does not cooperate with research, it is an organisation that acts as a communication go-between, between published science and government. unfortunately many of the lead authors of the reports push their own political agenda and "the cause" misrepresenting the true status of the publshed science, thus misleading policymakers. many scientists contribute to the reports, but only a few get to cherry pick (dictate) and edit (sex-up) the final reports.

I understand that newt gingrich has had a number of affairs, this does not mean that the US government promotes, sponsors, funds or cooperates with having affairs.

And there are some scientists on IPCC's boards, Vincent Grey to name one whom I know. So, yes: the IPCC (or at least, some of its board members) cooperate in scientific research.

Doug

you spelt his name wrong:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32&p=1

you know him personally? or did you mean you "know of".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the ipcc does not do research,

Agreed.

does not sponsor or fund research,

It does ask research organizations to address issues of interest to it.

does not cooperate with research,

There are two kinds of cooperative effort in research: the kind that has a formal agreement and the kind that doesn't. Many people work on things the IPCC is ineterested in because they are also interested in them: you scratch my back and I'll scrath yours.

it is an organisation that acts as a communication go-between, between published science and government.

Agreed, again.

unfortunately many of the lead authors of the reports push their own political agenda and "the cause" misrepresenting the true status of the publshed science, thus misleading policymakers. many scientists contribute to the reports, but only a few get to cherry pick (dictate) and edit (sex-up) the final reports.

I don't think it's as bad as you imply, BUT these are all pitfalls to be aware of in IPCC material. Maybe you didn't catch it when I said GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. Don't take the IPCC's word for it; don't take Anthony Watts' word for it. As much as possible, DO YOUR OWN WORK.

And, like I said, the IPCC is pretty good with bibliographies. Check those out.

I understand that newt gingrich has had a number of affairs, this does not mean that the US government promotes, sponsors, funds or cooperates with having affairs.

Judging by what I'm seeing on Republican ads, I'm not too sure of that.

you spelt his name wrong:

Never said I could spell. BTW: I had it spelled right, then changed it. Oh, well.

I met him at a conference. We had lunch together.

Did you read your own post? Dr. Grey is quite critical of the IPCC. He was when I met him (2003). I didn't know he had left IPCC. The article exagerates, but it has the basic story right.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the question would be why do people still use Hoyt's TSI reconstruction?

Thanks for the observation. Don't think I need that dataset. The peaks and valleys in the data will be pretty much the same in any climate dataset. Hansen's should work as well for what I'm doing.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The graph you have shown is incorrect. Why?

Incorrect(Outdated) data have been used.

Use the TSI reconstruction from either Steinhilber et al or Viera et al, and you will get a different result.

Hoyt's TSI reconstruction have been outdated for years.

So the question would be why do people still use Hoyt's TSI reconstruction?

we did go over this and the other TSI reconstructions, the peaks and troughs of the varying charts in the post below show the same thing, a rise up to 1940, a decline to 1970 followed by a rise, this is the exact pattern of the arctic temperature, so we should still conclude the arctic temperature, and probably the artcic sea ice (leaving aside ocean currents) are more influenced by solar activity than by co2.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=220554&st=45&p=4170170entry4170170

whilst there are slightly differing TSI reconstructions I would not say those TSI reconstructions differences make much of a difference in terms of what is being shown. there is a clear strong correlation between TSI and temperature (in the arctic) whichever reconstruction you use, and clearly very low correlation of co2 against temperature.

the reason Melo used that graph is not because the Hoyt data is biased against co2 hypothesis, it is because it is the only study (that i know) that directly compares TSI with arctic temperature. if it can be agreed that TSI has much stronger correlation with temperature than co2 (in the arctic), and can be agreed that correlation likely means causation in this case, then what we have is an obvious solar influence on arctic ice changes, and a testable hypothesis that the arctic ice will recover with a fall in TSI in the forthcoming solar cycles. you could argue that both have an effect, but the question is which one is the bigger influence and by how much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does ask research organizations to address issues of interest to it.
the ipcc is a UN organisation that assesses and communicates climate research to national governments. it merely performs a review process of the current science, unfortunately it has been caught using incorrect and unscientific statements from unscientific advocacy groups, and cherry picking studies to overstate the case for co2, and its not surprising since doing so underscores the validity of the UN, to state it simply the UN is not unbiased on climate change and by extension nor is the ipcc.
There are two kinds of cooperative effort in research: the kind that has a formal agreement and the kind that doesn't. Many people work on things the IPCC is ineterested in because they are also interested in them: you scratch my back and I'll scrath yours.

the ipcc has no remit to be scratching backs.

I don't think it's as bad as you imply
I did not quantify or imply a quantify of badness. I said it is not a scientifc report because it uses political methods to overstate things and understate things which it should be explicitely quantifying. taking a snippet out of a greenpeace brochure and putting it into its report is misleading policymakers about what the science says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've heard the saying: "There's no free lunch."

You might want to consider the environmental consequences if solar output should drop to the levels of the Maunder Minimum.

The general rule for climate is: warmer/wetter; colder/dryer. Precip seems to be correlated with solar output (sunspot count). In some places, the correlation is strong; in others it is weak, or non-existent. In oklahoma, the worst drought we know of occurred in the late 17th century (Maunder Minimum). It lasted 40 years and was severe, a tree-killing drought. It ended with a sever freeze during the growing season. Few trees survive from before this time; dendrochronologists call it "The Wall."

During this drought, sand dunes along our major rivers became active. The Sand Hills of Nebraska lost their grass cover and started to move. In much of eastern Colorado and western Kansas, the desert returned.

North of Winnemucka, Nevada along US-95 is a gigantic, active dune. US-95 was cut through it because it was easy digging. The dune keeps trying to fill the gap. NDOT keeps a front-end loader there to deal with this one dune. How many front end loaders will it take to deal with 300 miles of dunes along I-70 (or I-176, or I-80, or I-90, or any of several dozen other highways through the plains)?

Most US wheat is grown under dryland farming - no irrigation. How does the world deal with the loss of this production?

But do not despair: temperatures are not likely to get as low as they did during the Maunder Minimum - remember global warming? It isn't going away just because solar activity goes down. It will probably keep temperatures (and precip) a little above what it would be if CO2 weren't playing a part.

And then there's the fact that some parts of the globe are not as sensitive to solar output as other parts. Here in OK, the effect is minimal - 4.5% correlation at the eastern end, slightly higher in the west. I don't think the solar people are considering that solar output is highly-variable in its effects on ecosystems.

Temperature alone is not the problem. There are a lot of other things tied in here that are going to complicate the picture.

And we've had short, low-output solar cycles before. Current projections don't go beyond the end of this one which will peak out in 2013, ending about 2017/2018.

At any rate, there's no one factor that is going to dictate future climate. We might want to consider some other variables, as well.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.