Who do you believe on global warming?

[Little Fish]

By Dr David M.W. Evans

"We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message – here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention....."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/

[godnodog]

I believe in data, but I also believe that simulation models for future climate are grossly incomplete, they don´t take in consideration the sun, cosmic radiation etc.

I also think that global warming is real, or should I say weather pattern changing, but not for the reasons currently mainstream, for the reasons I stated before.

But I´m also in favor with cutting emissions of greenhouse gases only if to prevent further damage to our ecosystem.

[Flibbertigibbet]

Why is an earth that is hotter and wetter a bad thing? Those are precisely the two conditions conducive to life.

[Von Bismarck]

I believe in data, but I also believe that simulation models for future climate are grossly incomplete, they don´t take in consideration the sun, cosmic radiation etc.

I also think that global warming is real, or should I say weather pattern changing, but not for the reasons currently mainstream, for the reasons I stated before.

But I´m also in favor with cutting emissions of greenhouse gases only if to prevent further damage to our ecosystem..

Well said. Our current prediction models are laughable.

[Doug1029]

By Dr David M.W. Evans

"We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message – here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention....."

Nobody ever said climate models were perfect.

If your watch doesn't work, it will be "right" twice a day, but if it gains two minutes a day, it will be "right" only once every 360 days. Which would you rather have?

That's the situation with climate models. They aren't exact and they never will be, but they are close enough for some purposes. Are they close enough for yours? And how close is that?

Doug

[Little Fish]

Nobody ever said climate models were perfect.

If your watch doesn't work, it will be "right" twice a day, but if it gains two minutes a day, it will be "right" only once every 360 days. Which would you rather have?

That's the situation with climate models. They aren't exact and they never will be, but they are close enough for some purposes. Are they close enough for yours? And how close is that?

Doug

read the WHOLE article, it explains why global warming is not an issue.

why did you cut out the link from my quote?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/

here's another by richard Lindzen. it also explains why global warming is not an issue.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

Edited February 29, 2012 by Little Fish

[Von Bismarck]

That's the situation with climate models. They aren't exact and they never will be, but they are close enough for some purposes.

Which are?

Are they close enough for yours?

There so many problems with our current models but if we could overcome the below problems i would believe we would be able to get closer to a better level of predictions.

1. Current uncertainties in the TSI and aerosol forcings are huge, even Hansen agress with this.

2. Data used for climate models only goes back to 1850.

3. Most of our climate models are done in Fortran!

Btw climate models are full of fudge factors so they agree with the observed data, so there is no reason to believe they would indicate the correct behavior in a world with different chemistry.

And how close is that?

A level of accuracy around 60-90% would be perfect. Its funny that atmospheric scientists has to be able to predict weather with high level of accuracy, but when comes to climatologist predicting future climate at an extremly low accuracy is okay in the eyes of the public. Why the **** dont they use some of their HUGE funding to overcome this problem. A first step would be not to use Fortran!

[lightly]

Two obvious indicators of a currently warming earth, at least portions and altitudes of, are the facts that Arctic sea ice is retreating, and Glaciers are melting all over the earth at accelerating rates. Glaciers are now melting much faster than they are being replenished. Glacier melt is troubling because many of the earth's major rivers, and the people whose well being depend on those rivers, rely on glacier melt, and mountain snows which are also diminishing, as their main sources of water.

[Doug1029]

why did you cut out the link from my quote?

I wasn't replying to your link. No point in wasting space.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Which are?

Whether a model is accurate enough depends on the person who is proposing to use it. I spend my time looking at past climates, mostly the 20th century. I have little need for climate models.

There so many problems with our current models but if we could overcome the below problems i would believe we would be able to get closer to a better level of predictions.

1. Current uncertainties in the TSI and aerosol forcings are huge, even Hansen agress with this.

2. Data used for climate models only goes back to 1850.

3. Most of our climate models are done in Fortran!

Btw climate models are full of fudge factors so they agree with the observed data, so there is no reason to believe they would indicate the correct behavior in a world with different chemistry.

A level of accuracy around 60-90% would be perfect. Its funny that atmospheric scientists has to be able to predict weather with high level of accuracy, but when comes to climatologist predicting future climate at an extremly low accuracy is okay in the eyes of the public. Why the **** dont they use some of their HUGE funding to overcome this problem. A first step would be not to use Fortran!

Climate modeling is very much a developing art/science. It has a ways to go. I note that models now in use don't give the same extreme forecasts as those in use in the early 1990s.

I expect it will be another ten years before models get good enough to actually be useful outside of the science, itself, before they are good enough to make reasonable forecasts at a local level.

Most of my work produces accuracies around 30 to 50%. I did get an 86% yesterday on whether droughts and ice storms are correlated. I'm wondering whether that's good enough to publish. BTW: the number of ice storms in the central US took a nosedive in 1997. It's about half of what it was in the 1980s. There were a lot of ice storms from 1963-1970, matching up with a slump in global temps. And there were a lot in the 1930s, same time-frame as the Dust Bowl. So the climate is changing, but at least in regard to ice storms, I'm not sure exactly how it is changing.

Doug

[questionmark]

Believing is for religion. In science only the data is relevant.

[Little Fish]

Believing is for religion. In science only the data is relevant.

the line "who are you going to believe" is the subtitle of the article.

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/skeptics-case.pdf

the data does not support what the government climate scientists say.

the data supports what the skeptics say.

so who do you believe on global warming? the skeptics or the government paid climate scientists?

Edited February 29, 2012 by Little Fish

[questionmark]

the line "who are you going to believe" is the subtitle of the article.

http://jonova.s3.ama...eptics-case.pdf

the data does not support what the government climate scientists say.

the data supports what the skeptics say.

so who do you believe on global warming? the skeptics or the government paid climate scientists?

The data does not support some of their predictions, which is why they are called that. But the data confirms that this planet bis heating up, lately with an accelerated tendency.

No wonder you have problems understanding this if you don';t know the difference between a measurement and a trend predicted based on those figures.

We don't know exactly how it will end because we never had the chance before to be out in the numbers we are causing changes to the atmosphere and the micro climate in the extend we do now.

And, besides a few sectarians, there is not a single climatologist (even those hired by Exxon defected) who will say that the data does not support that the planet is warming and that the peak is not yet reached.

But, I can say that the skeptics predictions (i.e. the hottest year was 2004 and after that it would cool off, etc.) have been met much less than the predictions of where we could be now, as in 2006, 2007 2008, and 2010 the temperatures of 2004 were matched or surpassed. The biggest joke so far in all this is the Monkton Mission where he was sent into the world with a partial data compilation to prove that the temperature increase had peaked off, just to be beaten the next year.

If there is somebody working on believe and hope it is the so-called skeptics because once you check their "assertions" you always find the three articles of believe instead of hard data. And anybody filtering out a subset of data of a complex to prove his point (which is exactly the skeptic's modus operandi) has as much chance of being right as winning the lotto jackpot. Where skeptics is certainly not the right adjective. Ghost hunter sounds more adequate.

What I wonder is what type of following they have, because so far they have been proven wrong many more times than the climatologists and more times than that they have been picking on something totally irrelevant to discuss the problem away (indicating that their field of expertise is politics, not climate).

So, I'll stick with the temperature records and the simple fact that if all other can be discarded as cause (geothermia, sun activity and whathaveyou) the remaining ones, no matter how improbable is it. And that points to human activity and overpopulation.

[Doug1029]

the line "who are you going to believe" is the subtitle of the article.

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/skeptics-case.pdf

the data does not support what the government climate scientists say.

the data supports what the skeptics say.

so who do you believe on global warming? the skeptics or the government paid climate scientists?

I believe the data. But then, I AM a government paid climate scientist.

Actually, I don't need to use those temperature profiles constructed by Hansen et al. I can look at my own data. I haven't checked for changing temps yet, but that's coming. I can see climate changes in such things as decreased numbers of ice storms since 1997 and increasing precip since about that same time. That's from data I collected. Something is changing the climate.

Doug

[Little Fish]

besides a few sectarians, there is not a single climatologist (even those hired by Exxon defected) who will say that the data does not support that the planet is warming and that the peak is not yet reached.

the following points are not controversial among serious climate scientists. None of the points implies alarm. Indeed the actual warming is consistent with less than 1C warming for a doubling.

1. Carbon Dioxide has been increasing

2. There is a greenhouse effect

3. There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years

4. There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years

5. Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

[Little Fish]

I believe the data. But then, I AM a government paid climate scientist.

Actually, I don't need to use those temperature profiles constructed by Hansen et al. I can look at my own data. I haven't checked for changing temps yet, but that's coming. I can see climate changes in such things as decreased numbers of ice storms since 1997 and increasing precip since about that same time. That's from data I collected. Something is changing the climate.

Doug

the following points are not controversial among serious climate scientists. None of the points implies alarm. Indeed the actual warming is consistent with less than 1C warming for a doubling.

1. Carbon Dioxide has been increasing

2. There is a greenhouse effect

3. There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years

4. There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years

5. Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

Edited February 29, 2012 by Little Fish

[Michelle]

I tend to think more along these lines...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070309103123.htm

We should, of course, be good stewards of the earth...to preserve and conserve as much as possible. I think it is arrogant to think we can control the climate to serve our needs. Mother nature shows us how unimportant we are, on a regular basis, by scratching her back and sloughing us off.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Michelle

[questionmark]

the following points are not controversial among serious climate scientists. None of the points implies alarm. Indeed the actual warming is consistent with less than 1C warming for a doubling.

1. Carbon Dioxide has been increasing

2. There is a greenhouse effect

3. There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years

4. There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years

5. Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

http://i.telegraph.c...ns_2148505a.pdf

Which just goes to show that you don't understand what average means. Average in this case means drought in Africa, flooding in the Himalayan region and the melting of the North pole, which in itself would be good if the permafrost tundra would not be affected with it making those region uninhabitable. And to compensate the South pole got cooler by more than 0.8 (in fact by 1.5):

Then we have raising sea levels, changes in weather patterns and and estimated several hundred million people affected by it. But some don't seem to care about others, they just start to squeal when it is their turn to pay instead of consume. And the turn to pay will come (either by all those displaced coming to their secure areas or by being displaced themselves).

And don't think that those who are hiring the likes of Monkton nowadays to pull the wool over the public's eye are going to share with you when the **** hits the fan. As I sezz: just gawking at a subset of figures tells you nothing

[Little Fish]

Two obvious indicators of a currently warming earth, at least portions and altitudes of, are the facts that Arctic sea ice is retreating, and Glaciers are melting all over the earth at accelerating rates. Glaciers are now melting much faster than they are being replenished. Glacier melt is troubling because many of the earth's major rivers, and the people whose well being depend on those rivers, rely on glacier melt, and mountain snows which are also diminishing, as their main sources of water.

the following points are not controversial among serious climate scientists. None of the points implies alarm. Indeed the actual warming is consistent with less than 1C warming for a doubling.

1. Carbon Dioxide has been increasing

2. There is a greenhouse effect

3. There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years

4. There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years

5. Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

[Michelle]

I have to ask...if humans were suddenly wiped off the face of the earth 50, or even a 100 years ago, do you think this would this still be happening?

[Little Fish]

I tend to think more along these lines...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070309103123.htm

"The global warming we experience presently will cause a temperature increase of perhaps 2-5 degrees in the next century if greenhouse gas emissions continue, researchers claim"

the quote from the article is based on computer models.

the computer models get that increase by amplifying feedbacks. the quantity of amplifying feedback is assumed in the model. in other words the models are programmed to produce a large warming. the models do not match the empirical data (reality).

skeptics dispute the feedback assumptions of the models. the data (reality) supports the skeptics position.

the following points are not controversial among serious climate scientists. None of the points implies alarm. Indeed the actual warming is consistent with less than 1C warming for a doubling.

1. Carbon Dioxide has been increasing

2. There is a greenhouse effect

3. There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years

4. There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years

5. Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

[Little Fish]

Which just goes to show that you don't understand what average means. Average in this case means drought in Africa, flooding in the Himalayan region and the melting of the North pole, which in itself would be good if the permafrost tundra would not be affected with it making those region uninhabitable. And to compensate the South pole got cooler by more than 0.8 (in fact by 1.5):

Then we have raising sea levels, changes in weather patterns and and estimated several hundred million people affected by it. But some don't seem to care about others, they just start to squeal when it is their turn to pay instead of consume. And the turn to pay will come (either by all those displaced coming to their secure areas or by being displaced themselves).

And don't think that those who are hiring the likes of Monkton nowadays to pull the wool over the public's eye are going to share with you when the **** hits the fan. As I sezz: just gawking at a subset of figures tells you nothing

the data does not support that position. worry is not data.

[Doug1029]

the following points are not controversial among serious climate scientists. None of the points implies alarm. Indeed the actual warming is consistent with less than 1C warming for a doubling.

1. Carbon Dioxide has been increasing

2. There is a greenhouse effect

3. There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years

4. There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years

5. Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

I see you're coming around. This is what I have been trying to tell you for some time, now.

Hansen's data show more like a degree in the last 130 years (and most of that since 1907), but that's splitting hairs when we're not sure exactly what a degree's change in temperature means, especially when the next degree will have more profound effects than the last one. Hadley shows a little less, but about the same.

Practically every scientific article you have posted amounts to little more than adding a nuance or two to climate theory. Nothing has been refuted, but a few adjustments have been made.

Mann's "hockey stick" paper showed that the handle of the hockey stick had a lesser rate of slope than previously believed, an assertion that has since been borne out by other researchers. That's not exactly earth-shattering, yet you fought tooth-and-nail over it. Why?

Hansen's data show a slight increase in temps during the last six years. The Hadley dataset doesn't. The differences are minor and could be nothing more than sampling error. Again, the important issue (the dramatic increase in temps since 1907) hasn't been affected by this minor wiggle in the graph.

So exactly what is it that you're objecting to?

Doug

[Little Fish]

So exactly what is it that you're objecting to?

the only point you made was that the climate was changing by an appeal to your own authority. why should I care that the climate changes?

[Little Fish]

I have to ask...if humans were suddenly wiped off the face of the earth 50, or even a 100 years ago, do you think this would this still be happening?

"‘Global Warming’ refers to an obscure statistical quantity, globally averaged temperature anomaly, the small residue of far larger and mostly uncorrelated local anomalies. This quantity is highly uncertain, but may be on the order of 0.7C over the past 150 years. This quantity is always varying at this level and there have been periods of both warming and cooling on virtually all time scales. On the time scale of from 1 year to 100 years, there is no need for any externally specified forcing. The climate system is never in equilibrium because, among other things, the ocean transports heat between the surface and the depths. To be sure, however, there are other sources of internal variability as well.

Because the quantity we are speaking of is so small, and the error bars are so large, the quantity is easy to abuse in a variety of ways."

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf