Re: Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says

by **snowdog** 2012-04-02, 3:08 pm

Stovepipe wrote:It shows that the climate has not really warmed or cooled. We're both wrong.

So does my 15 year graph. Maybe weather is just weather and there really aren't boogie man involved in us warming since the last ice age. Naaah, that can't be.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-02, 3:17 pm

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:It shows that the climate has not really warmed or cooled. We're both wrong.

So does my 15 year graph. Maybe weather is just weather and there really aren't boogie man involved in us warming since the last ice age. Naaah, that can't be.

Well considering mine was ONE DAY'S worth of weather....

Anyways, if this is your proof that mountains and mountains of scientific evidence is bunk then you're grasping for straws. You have to zoom into a 10 year period of weather (that contains extremes) to show a trend going negative. That's real scientific of you. Good luck with that.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-02, 3:55 pm

I still want an explanation from you on sea level snowdog. Let's look at these charts again:

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 6 1jq907

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 6 1jq907

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 6 Sl_ns_global

(Thanks Math/Met for the updated chart)

How in the Sam Hill is sea level not rising? I can haz explanashon?

And I swear to GOD if you say "but but your chart only goes to November 2011, sea level has fallen the past few months" my head is going to explode all over my monitor.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-02, 4:04 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Anyways, if this is your proof that mountains and mountains of scientific evidence is bunk then you're grasping for straws. You have to zoom into a 10 year period of weather to show a trend going negative. That's real scientific of you. Good luck with that.

No grasping here. Just giving the facts. I can't help it that they are contrary to your theory. Again, you keep spouting this mountain of scientific evidence, yet with this mountain of scientific evidence your great scientists can't even get close to a working model (or I should state projection as the IPCC likes to call it). How can a group that claims victory in this debate, which has 97% of the scientists on board and mountains of literature in hand be so wrong on their projections? No other theory I know of has been so coddled and protected like this one. Any other theory that produced such low results would have been rejected.

My showing the last 15 years isn't proof in and of itself to disprove the theory. It combined with other factors (like modeling which shows the error in understanding) though put the theory in serious jeopardy. Over the next 5 to 10 years (combined with the last 15), the theory will probably have disproven itself.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-02, 4:12 pm

Stovepipe wrote:I still want an explanation from you on sea level snowdog. And I swear to GOD if you say "but but your chart only goes to November 2011, sea level has fallen the past few months" my head is going to explode all over my monitor.

Well we wouldn't want that. I gave you an explanation already. How many times do you want me to say it? The sea level is falling but it doesn't have a long enough trend...yet. If you took a trendline from 2008 to now you would have a slight increase. If you took it from 2009 you would have a decreasing trend. Obviously this isn't enough to warrant a change in thinking just yet but if we are heading into a colder type climate over the next 20 to 30 years with the PDO flipping I could see the sea level continuing to slowly fall. Especially when you account for the rise in global ice. Of course there are other factors that go into it as well and we might just see a leveling off or slowing of the increase factor.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-02, 4:27 pm

Round Up of Today's Conclusions:

- Observed climate warming trends clearly shown in graph form from both NASA and CRU. FALSE according to snowdog
- Observed sea level rise trend from 1800s to November 2011 from multiple sources. FALSE according to snowdog
- List of model successes in predicting climate with citations. FALSE according to snowdog
- Claim by snowdog that A1B ensemble members that match observed weather have wrong CO2 levels. NOT BACKED UP by snowdog
- Chart of 10 year span of weather containing extreme anomalies by snowdog to prove cooling climate trend... DERP
- Something about a decoder ring.

This is what happens when we try to do science in this thread. Shall we go back to posting funny pictures?

by **snowdog** 2012-04-02, 7:00 pm

A good way to know when you have someone backed in a corner is when they start making up strawmen to claim victory.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-02, 7:09 pm

snowdog wrote:A good way to know when you have someone backed in a corner is when they start making up strawmen to claim victory.

Backed in a corner. LOL. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. You've had your ass handed to you today by the data.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-02, 7:30 pm

Your intellectual dishonesty is quite astonishing. Other posters on this board can read over the discussion today and make their own minds up. I clearly stated we are in a warming cycle overall. I clearly stated oceans have been rising but recent data is slowing the rise and starting to lower.

Here is the A1B ensemble data vs current hadcrut data. Why don't you give us some more circle jerk citations about how good the model data is. The proof is in the pudding. Incorrect CO2 assumptions, stagnant temps over the last 15 years and cooling over the last 10 years lead up to some serious model errors. It can't forecast for shit but it sure can hindcast. LOL. Enjoy.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 6 Ipccmo12

by **Homemommy** 2012-04-02, 7:35 pm

I just want to say I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. I just love the piss and vinegar of the both of ya.

Carry on. popcorn

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-02, 7:37 pm

Oh he mad now. You know what? Your pudding taste like shit snowdog AND it isn't proof of anything.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 6 Mls9g

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 6 Mls9g

I agree, let the other posters decide.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-02, 7:50 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Oh he mad now. You know what? Your pudding taste like shit snowdog AND it isn't proof of anything.

Sometimes the truth can taste like shit to those who fear it. Tell us how the models are closely accurate when CO2 is worse than the worst case scenario yet the global temp is pacing below the "coldest" ensemble that uses only moderate CO2 forcing.

by **Toot** 2012-04-02, 8:37 pm

I had some Mcdonalds today and it taste like shit also Smile

by **snowdog** 2012-04-02, 8:43 pm

Homemommy wrote:I just want to say I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. I just love the piss and vinegar of the both of ya.

Carry on.

LOL. This was actually a staged debate. We were just doing it to draw attention to the site. I'm awaiting my check Toot. popcorn

Joking, joking.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-02, 8:45 pm

Toot wrote:I had some Mcdonalds today and it taste like shit also

McDonalds lost me a loooong time ago. If I need a fast food burger I grab the new Wendy's burger. That dude is good. Also their Asiago Spicy Chicken sandwich is pretty damn good too.

by **Toot** 2012-04-02, 8:56 pm

Agreed on Wendy's...has to be some of the best fast food going...I was knocked out and dragged against my will into Mcdonalds today

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-02, 9:12 pm

snowdog wrote:Your intellectual dishonesty is quite astonishing. Other posters on this board can read over the discussion today and make their own minds up. I clearly stated we are in a warming cycle overall. I clearly stated oceans have been rising but recent data is slowing the rise and starting to lower.

Here is the A1B ensemble data vs current hadcrut data. Why don't you give us some more circle jerk citations about how good the model data is. The proof is in the pudding. Incorrect CO2 assumptions, stagnant temps over the last 15 years and cooling over the last 10 years lead up to some serious model errors. It can't forecast for shit but it sure can hindcast. LOL. Enjoy.

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:Oh he mad now. You know what? Your pudding taste like shit snowdog AND it isn't proof of anything.

Sometimes the truth can taste like shit to those who fear it. Tell us how the models are closely accurate when CO2 is worse than the worst case scenario yet the global temp is pacing below the "coldest" ensemble that uses only moderate CO2 forcing.

Poor snowdog. I'm no climate expert but I do have reading comprehension skills. Listen very carefully, I'm going to type veeerrrryyy slowly so that these words can sink in. What follows is an objective review of the situation.

Scenario AB1 is the "business as usual" case, it does not take into account surges of emissions that happen for unknown reasons, it does not take into account savings of emissions via carbon sequestration or other means. It is simply an "if we keep doing what we're doing this is generally what we can expect" scenario. Now bear with me.

This scenario was turned loose on all of the various global climate models from around the world (along with many other scenarios), across various organizations and countries. Much data resulted from these runs but one of the more famous visualizations that came from that was the ensemble mean graphic. The more useful versions of that chart show the spread of the ensembles, the one I posted that you hate shows the area that includes 95% of the members. Now keep bearing with me as I know I'm stating the obvious so far.

The observed temperatures that have been recorded and plotted since the 2007 IPCC analysis fall within the range of ensembles. This isn't disputable. Granted, during the past handful of years observed temps were at the very very low end of those ensemble members. This is notable, thank you for pointing it out, but this isn't significant IN TERMS OF CLIMATE. Now keep following me.

In addition to the observed temperatures, it is also notable that observed CO2 levels have exceeded predictions for the forecast years since the 2007 analysis. This isn't that unexpected since the scenario we are talking about is the "business as usual" scenario, any number of things could have caused those levels to be higher. Now, let's turn our attention to your hunch.

You have hypothesized that of the ensemble members in the AB1 scenario that most closely matched the observed temperatures are also the ones that assumed the lowest levels of CO2. You are attempting to suggest that if this were the case that would mean the models are faulty and that if the models are faulty then the entire theory of man made global warming is faulty. I think we can agree on what you are hypothesizing, can we not?

There are just a few problems with this. First of all, you've not provided a single shred of evidence that that shows that those ensemble members that projected the colder temps (closer to observed) actually had lower (more inaccurate) CO2 levels. You linked a wiki article (this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios) but all that explains is that fact that CO2 emissions exceeded what the business as usual scenario assumed. It does not, and correct me if I've overlooked anything, mention anything at all about a correlation between colder members and lower CO2.

Now, putting even those things aside, we have to look at the real deal meat of your claim. You have, more times than I can even count in this thread, attempted to prove that AGW is flawed because observed data isn't matching up closely with climate model projected forecasts. Now you don't have to believe me, you don't have to believe the "circle jerk" scientific community, but the fact of the matter is that small scale weather fluctuations that happen over the course of 2, 3, 5 or even 10 years do not invalidate a climate model forecast or suggest a climate trend. It may in your mind, but in the real world it does not.

So again, I'm not a climate expert and neither are you. The best you or I can do if we are going to try to talk intelligently about the topic is read as much information as we can and make rational sense of it. As it turns out, I happen to have exponentially more facts, data, and scientific evidence on my side (the science side). Even with that I'm very much open to hearing about the skeptical point of view. But in order to have a discussion that is in any way scientific, there will have to be some basic agreement in regards to the interpretation of things like trends, the terms climate and weather, and statistical significance. You have not shown yet that you can use these terms correctly in the discussion as shown by your insistence that there is a significant climate trend that shows a cooling period and a fall in sea levels.

Saying the proof is in the pudding and saying I'm building strawmen is dodging reality. We can keep this thread going for two more years if you like. I promise you that if you can eventually show me some science that pokes holds in the AGW theory I will acknowledge it, yes I will. This isn't my religion, this isn't faith, this is balancing the evidence before me. Right now the scale is overwhelmingly tipped in the theory's favor. If that changes I will embrace it. Based on what I've seen from you in this discussion, I don't think you'll ever get anything that doesn't agree with your world view through that thick head of yours. Whatever suits you my friend.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-02, 9:19 pm

Is there statistically significant correlation between this thread and the number of new members we've gotten over the past week? That is the real question here.

Very Happy

by **snowdog** 2012-04-02, 11:06 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Poor snowdog. I'm no climate expert but I do have reading comprehension skills. Listen very carefully, I'm going to type veeerrrryyy slowly so that these words can sink in. What follows is an objective review of the situation.

Scenario AB1 is the "business as usual" case, it does not take into account surges of emissions that happen for unknown reasons, it does not take into account savings of emissions via carbon sequestration or other means. It is simply an "if we keep doing what we're doing this is generally what we can expect" scenario. Now bear with me.

This scenario was turned loose on all of the various global climate models from around the world (along with many other scenarios), across various organizations and countries. Much data resulted from these runs but one of the more famous visualizations that came from that was the ensemble mean graphic. The more useful versions of that chart show the spread of the ensembles, the one I posted that you hate shows the area that includes 95% of the members. Now keep bearing with me as I know I'm stating the obvious so far.

I'll take it piece by piece. First off it is scenario A1B, but I know that was a typo on your part. Just clarifying for those scoring at home. slap

To get the scenario's on the table...

--the A group of climate scenario's is basically the alarmist variety. This is the ohhh my god we are all going to be swimming and baking in 100 years.
--Then you have the B scenarios which is the "in a perfect world" you have a green society where carbon emissions are lowering each year.
--There is also a commitment baseline which takes the carbon value from year 2000 and keeps it the same throughout the forecast period.
--Then you have your hybrid models which is where the A1B falls. There are a couple other hybrids as well. Most of these models have varying degrees of increasing CO2. Most of the AGW crowd say the A1B is the most closely matched climate scenario with real world data. I think that was the case a few years ago although now real climate is starting to track closer to the B scenario.

You have hypothesized that of the ensemble members in the AB1 scenario that most closely matched the observed temperatures are also the ones that assumed the lowest levels of CO2.

No I never said that. The B group assumes lowest CO2 levels. I said the A1B grouping isn't the worst case scenario. That would be the A grouping as well as one or two of the hybrid types mentioned above.

You are attempting to suggest that if this were the case that would mean the models are faulty and that if the models are faulty then the entire theory of man made global warming is faulty.

What I said was that, according to the wiki site, greenhouse gas emissions are worse than the worst case scenario. A1B is not the worst case scenario, so that model is assuming significantly less greenhouse gasses than current data is showing. So when AGW folks say hey look, current climate is close to our A1B model. It is disengenious because the assumptions made by the model are incorrect. So while the model seems to be correct it is actual incorrect. Kind of like the broken clock being right twice a day. Now a year or two later the A1B model isn't even close and the actual data has fallen out of even the coldest A1B ensemble. So now actual climate is tracking closer to the B scenario, which is the best case scenario regarding CO2 emissions.

You linked a wiki article (this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios) but all that explains is that fact that CO2 emissions exceeded what the business as usual scenario assumed. It does not, and correct me if I've overlooked anything, mention anything at all about a correlation between colder members and lower CO2.

Wiki stated that current emissions are worse than the worst case scenario by the IPCC. Which would be the A group of scenarios. Since the A grouping has the most CO2 loading and finishes by far with the most warming I can only assume that the model scenarios are mostly the same just with varying degrees of CO2 loading. Also the B scenario uses the lowest CO2 loading and has the least amount of warming. This is also how the IPCC explains the different groupings as well. I think my assumptions are correct on the CO2 loading of the different scenarios.

Now you don't have to believe me, you don't have to believe the "circle jerk" scientific community, but the fact of the matter is that small scale weather fluctuations that happen over the course of 2, 3, 5 or even 10 years do not invalidate a climate model forecast or suggest a climate trend. It may in your mind, but in the real world it does not.

What invalidas the climate model is the assumed greater CO2 loading = greater warming. Obviously they have way overestimated the positive feedback mechanism. Which I also provided a study on which showed why the postive feedback was overestimated.

You have not shown yet that you can use these terms correctly in the discussion as shown by your insistence that there is a significant climate trend that shows a cooling period and a fall in sea levels.

The only trend I have shown is that of global temps. I hope I have made myself clear in that the global sea decrease is currently only a short term trend. As for Global Temps, last 15 years shows a trendline of stagnation. Last 10 years shows a trendline of cooling. This according to Hadcrut3 data. The recent global sea level lowering and global ice gains are only response mechanisms to the fact that global temps have been falling for the past few years.

by **Toot** 2012-04-02, 11:12 pm

snowdog wrote:
I'll take it piece by piece. First off it is scenario A1B, but I know that was a typo on your part. Just clarifying for those scoring at home.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-02, 11:21 pm

Toot wrote:
snowdog wrote:
I'll take it piece by piece. First off it is scenario A1B, but I know that was a typo on your part. Just clarifying for those scoring at home.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 6 Aw2cub

by **snowdog** 2012-04-02, 11:34 pm

Also let me state, since the A group (A2 to be more exact) is the one most closely related to our current co2 state we should really be comparing todays temp to that of the A grouping ensemble mean (even then probably closer to the upper ensemble range of the A grouping). If we were to do this I'm guessing the delta between the two would be quite large.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-03, 12:06 am

snowdog wrote:I'll take it piece by piece. First off it is scenario A1B, but I know that was a typo on your part. Just clarifying for those scoring at home. To get the scenario's on the table...

First of all, thanks so much for the clarification. I'm sure the folks at home appreciate it.

Moving on. All of the scenarios are possible outcomes (CO2 levels) and all of the outcomes show the climate warming to some degree. It's really just the magnitude of the warming that is in question at this point. Just because 2 or 3 years have noisy data doesn't mean jack. Ignore reality all you want, but climate models have been very successful reproducing climate with known data. To just wildly say that you don't believe those results are valid is to put something else out there that you can't back up.

facepalm

by **snowdog** 2012-04-03, 8:49 am

Stovepipe wrote:Just because 2 or 3 years have noisy data doesn't mean jack. Ignore reality all you want, but climate models have been very successful reproducing climate with known data. To just wildly say that you don't believe those results are valid is to put something else out there that you can't back up.

I feel like I am Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. You can say the above till you are blue in the face, the bottom line is it isn't true. You are the one ignoring reality. You are the one who can't produce a shred of evidence that shows these projections are worth anything more than used toilet paper. I am the one SHOWING YOU WITH ACTUAL DATA that they are wildly wrong. Please show me something, show me anything, that proves these projections are even remotely close to being right. I've have provided the data and backed up my argument. You have not. It's your turn to defend your unrealistic opinion.

Also please stop with the 2 or 3 years of noisy data crap. Again, it has been proven in this thread 15 years of stagnant temps and 10 years of decline.

All of the scenarios are possible outcomes (CO2 levels) and all of the outcomes show the climate warming to some degree.

Buuuuuut.....?? Lol. Worst case (CO2) scenario A is still behind current greenhouse emissions, yet actual global temp data lines up with the best case (Co2) scenario B. You remember your quote a few pages back about a man yelling at clouds...that is you right now.

If the facts are contrary to any predictions, then the hypothesis is wrong no matter how appealing. -- David Douglass

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-03, 8:50 am

A few posts ago you were still talking about the individual ensemble members of A1B, now you've moved on to the different scenarios. That's fine but you'll have to pardon me as I attempt to keep up with your ever evolving argument. Earlier you weren't even clear on what scenario your chart was based on and were referring to "the IPCC 2007 model" as if there was one branded model showing all of this. I'll give you credit, I can tell that you've now actually done some reading on the subject beyond denier talking points. That is a good thing.

As far as the conclusions you are drawing from the scenarios, there is no way that you can say any of these aren't simulating correctly based on a 3 or 4 years worth of temp data and CO2 levels. For all we know the most aggressive warming scenario could end up being conservative (several of the the other past projections have certainly been). All it would take is one or two significant temperature spikes in the next year or so and the short term trend line would shoot upwards. The weather noise will have to smooth out in order to draw any conclusions like what you are trying to do.

by Sponsored content