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

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-29, 4:01 pm

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:Snowdog, while you are focused on that zoomed in chart, I'm going to take a step back and show you the big picture.

I'm not trying to be a prick but before we step back and move the goalposts can you answer the discrepancy in the models?

So it is YOU that are missing the point by focusing pretty much only on global average temperature and only one small subsection of a cherry picked data set.

None of the data is cherry picked. It's based on IPCC numbers, models and current climate data. You are dodging the question.

I'm not calling you crazy, but I have to say that this thread surprises me. You have proven that you are a smart guy. You have been a wiz all winter analyzing weather, I respect you a great deal. But the blatant ignoring of evidence by you on this is startling.

I appreciate the kind words. I respect you as well but people can look at data and see 2 totally different things.

LOL I'm not dodging your question. You can't build a climate trend using 5 years of weather data. And you certainly can't prove a model is invalid by it. If you are so hung up on that chart, link me the source and I'll go look up exactly which model scenario they were using there, and make sure we are comparing apples to apples. If you want to wallow around in this chart then sure I'll play that game even though it's absolutely farking pointless.

In regards to the big picture, are you also disputing the entire Copenhagen Diagnosis? What do you think is causing all that ice to melt and sea levels to rise? Unicorn farts?

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-29, 4:58 pm

Ok Snowdog, here is another chart for ya. This one has three scenarios:

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 4 Rm041w

Figure 2: Global surface temperature computed for scenarios A, B, and C, compared with two analyses of observational data (Hansen 2006).

Hansen's Scenario B (described as the most likely option and most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures. Hansen overestimated future CO2 levels by 5 to 10% so if his model were given the correct forcing levels, the match would be even closer. There are deviations from year to year but this is to be expected. The chaotic nature of weather will add noise to the signal but the overall trend is predictable.

So this is exactly what I meant by cherry picking. It's not a slam against you it's just we need to be comparing apples to apples. If I wanted to tell a story about how the model's predictions were wildly off, I'd choose scenario A. See what I mean? You need to take all of this into account if you are going to use this as your main talking point. The scientists involved in the IPCC research have done this.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-29, 9:23 pm

snowdog wrote:
How much spent over 15 years? A tiny speck under the fingernail of a much larger being, that's how much.

What does that even mean? Is $5 Billion dollars in one year not a lot of money? Will $20 Billion in one year get us any close to finding an answer to this theory? Where does the money pit stop or is it a black hole?

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 4 Vdh111

by **Toot** 2012-03-29, 9:30 pm

lmfao

by **snowdog** 2012-03-30, 9:08 am

Stovepipe wrote:LOL I'm not dodging your question. You can't build a climate trend using 5 years of weather data. And you certainly can't prove a model is invalid by it.

You can prove the validity of a model based on 5 years of data. You can't build a climate trend however and I'm not trying to do that.

You still haven't answered the question and instead posted a new graph. I don't know where the author of my posted graph got the 2007 IPCC model data (I've had a hard time finding it) but it looks to contain the ensemble data as it has a delta of about 0.4C with a cone of variability, much like the 100 year IPCC ensemble model you posted.

You state 2 things, 1) the 100 year model data hasn't been "messaged" and 2) I can't use my graph that shows the last 5 years as a way to invalidate the model because there is meteorological weather variation. So, was there not meteorological weather variation in the 100 year model? How did the 100 year model nail all those Nino/Nina's, PDO's, Sun spot relation, etc and keep the ensemble mean close to the global temp? Yet on the 2007 IPCC projection, 5 years into the run the ensemble mean and actual global temps is way off. Did something dramatic happen in 2008 that hasn't happened over the last 100 years?

What it tells me is that a) the 100 year model data was messaged to fit the global temp (this wouldn't be a huge surprise after Climategate) or b) the IPCC really fooked up it's new model and needs to go back to the old one.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-30, 12:04 pm

Until you can tell me what scenario your chart is using, it is meaningless in this discussion.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-30, 10:02 pm

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:LOL I'm not dodging your question. You can't build a climate trend using 5 years of weather data. And you certainly can't prove a model is invalid by it.

You can prove the validity of a model based on 5 years of data. You can't build a climate trend however and I'm not trying to do that.

You still haven't answered the question and instead posted a new graph. I don't know where the author of my posted graph got the 2007 IPCC model data (I've had a hard time finding it) but it looks to contain the ensemble data as it has a delta of about 0.4C with a cone of variability, much like the 100 year IPCC ensemble model you posted.

You state 2 things, 1) the 100 year model data hasn't been "messaged" and 2) I can't use my graph that shows the last 5 years as a way to invalidate the model because there is meteorological weather variation. So, was there not meteorological weather variation in the 100 year model? How did the 100 year model nail all those Nino/Nina's, PDO's, Sun spot relation, etc and keep the ensemble mean close to the global temp? Yet on the 2007 IPCC projection, 5 years into the run the ensemble mean and actual global temps is way off. Did something dramatic happen in 2008 that hasn't happened over the last 100 years?

What it tells me is that a) the 100 year model data was messaged to fit the global temp (this wouldn't be a huge surprise after Climategate) or b) the IPCC really fooked up it's new model and needs to go back to the old one.

Ok snowdog, I did your homework for you.

Let's start by putting your chart in context.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 4 Gw410

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 4 Gw410

This graphic, that is quite popular with deniers, came from a study done by Nichola Scafetta a research scientist at Duke University Physics Department. He isn't a climate scientist but his study in question was entitled "Climate Change and its Causes, a Discussion about some Key Issues". In it he makes claims that at least 60% of the warming of the earth since 1970 was due to natural cycles in the solar system. He built a relatively simple model that attempts to forecast global temperature using these solar cycles. That is the "empirical forecast" line on your chart. Now I know your beef isn't with his model, but bear with me. Scafetta's claims are not at all accepted in the scientific mainstream and he has been involved in some controversy by refusing to show the model's code that produced his research.

Stripping out Scafetta's stuff from your chart and looking at IPCC 2007 model data with the accurate range of ensemble runs we have this:

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 4 N4dae

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 4 N4dae

Now don't throw a hissy fit, yes it's another chart, but it is the exact same data. The scenario is A1B which is what it appears Scafetta used (I have no problem with the scenario). A second temperature dataset (GISSTEMP) is added here as well for your convenience. Notice the gray shaded area, 95% of the ensemble members were within this range. The delta is about .4 C like you mentioned.

Now, as much as you would like to argue otherwise, those two dips in temperature (weather noise) that stray away from the ensemble mean don't in any way shape or form invalidate the model runs. Observed global temp is well within delta range and those La Nina lows do not affect the trend. ENSO is flat in the long run anyway (like 30 year climate scale). There is nothing here that suggests, as you do, that the models are way out of line. Scafetta can spray paint day glow green all day long on his chart but it doesn't change the facts of the data.

Every year when new global temp data is released, the vocal minority of skeptics jump on it and say "neener neener see climate models are junk because they didn't predict this little peak or trough". To do this just shows an embarrassing misunderstanding of how the models work or even how science works. Here are some useful points to keep in mind each year when new data is released:

Short term (15 years or less) trends in global temperature are not usefully predictable as a function of current forcings. This means you can’t use such short periods to ‘prove’ that global warming has or hasn’t stopped, or that we are really cooling despite this being the warmest decade in centuries.

The AR4 model simulations were an ‘ensemble of opportunity’ and vary substantially among themselves with the forcings imposed, the magnitude of the internal variability and of course, the sensitivity. Thus while they do span a large range of possible situations, the average of these simulations is not ‘truth’.

The model simulations use observed forcings up until 2000 (or 2003 in a couple of cases) and use a business-as-usual scenario subsequently (A1B). The models are not tuned to temperature trends pre-2000.

Differences between the temperature anomaly products is related to: different selections of input data, different methods for assessing urban heating effects, and (most important) different methodologies for estimating temperatures in data-poor regions like the Arctic. GISTEMP assumes that the Arctic is warming as fast as the stations around the Arctic, while HadCRUT3v and NCDC assume the Arctic is warming as fast as the global mean. The former assumption is more in line with the sea ice results and independent measures from buoys and the reanalysis products.

Model-data comparisons are best when the metric being compared is calculated the same way in both the models and data. In the comparisons here, that isn’t quite true (mainly related to spatial coverage), and so this adds a little extra structural uncertainty to any conclusions one might draw.

G. Foster, and S. Rahmstorf, "Global temperature evolution 1979–2010", Environmental Research Letters, vol. 6, 2011, pp. 044022-. DOI.
P.D. Jones, D.H. Lister, T.J. Osborn, C. Harpham, M. Salmon, and C.P. Morice, "Hemispheric and large-scale land-surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2010", Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 117, 2012. DOI.
J.C. Hargreaves, "Skill and uncertainty in climate models", Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 1, 2010, pp. 556-564. DOI.

I have linked you a study, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, that is an updated assessment of current climate research. I'm sure you haven't botherd to thumb through it, but it clearly shows that these models do simulate climate quite well and in fact are often times conservative in their forecasts. That study isn't fringe science, it's an overwhelming consensus of experts in the field and contains over 275 strongly peer reviewed references. You on the other hand have linked me one chart that was created by a guy that isn't even a climate scientist, that doesn't even make a sound scientific point in favor of your argument that the science is bunk.

Snowdog your main beef argument is weak sauce. You're going to have to do more digging over on Glen Beck's or Sarah Palin's site and get some better talking points because it's you against the world here.

by **Math/Met** 2012-03-30, 10:44 pm

For the record, I completely agree with you about not looking at short term trends to make any assumptions about the accuracy of climate models. With that said, if the recent trend of a decreased warming rate continues for a few more years, then that might suggest something is wrong with respect to our understanding of feedbacks and sensitivity. It is just too early to make those assumptions right now.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-30, 11:06 pm

Math/Met wrote:For the record, I completely agree with you about not looking at short term trends to make any assumptions about the accuracy of climate models. With that said, if the recent trend of a decreased warming rate continues for a few more years, then that might suggest something is wrong with respect to our understanding of feedbacks and sensitivity. It is just too early to make those assumptions right now.

Good to have some agreement on this, thanks.

by **snowdog** 2012-03-30, 11:54 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Ok snowdog, I did your homework for you. Snowdog your main beef argument is weak sauce. You're going to have to do more digging over on Glen Beck's or Sarah Palin's site and get some better talking points because it's you against the world here.

Thanks for doing my homework. I gave it a college try to find IPCC model data but it isn't all that easy to find. Another classic debate technique to associate me with Beck or Palin, neither of which I agree with. As for Scafetta, I have no idea what his views are/were. I was just using his graph.

Maybe it is because it is late and it's been a long day but I'm not getting where you say the data came from on both charts. You say they both use the exact same data but the graphs look much different. Is Scafetta chart only using 1 ensemble run and yours is showing all? I'm lost.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-31, 7:57 am

The Beck/Palin comment was tongue in cheek but it is my understanding that they deny the science on this as well so it's not that much of a stretch to lump you into their camp.

You can read the Scarfetta documents yourself here on his site: http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/

I read over the paper the chart came from several times and he doesn't go into much detail on the IPCC data he uses. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was using all of the ensemble members. If he didn't then that is rather shady and cherry pickish and would explain his green cone.

The chart I posted uses all ensemble members and the gray cone does in fact represent the 95% spread. The only other difference in the charts is the axis scale used as the second one is relative to 1980-1999. You'll notice the magnitude of the data points are the same.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-31, 9:32 am

If you want to download the raw IPCC data and construct your own chart here is the link:

http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_gcm_intro.html

and the temperature data:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-31, 11:07 am

Just realized I misspelled Scafetta's name as Scarfetta up there. That is unintentionally funny!

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 4 29wo5cz

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 4 29wo5cz

by **snowdog** 2012-03-31, 5:02 pm

I found this while searching around today. Graphs, graphs and more graphs. Looks like Say Hello to my little friend Scarface Scarfetta more than likely had the chart right. It looks like current temps are barely staying within the IPCC 95% ensemble range. I'm guessing if you took those few IPCC ensembles current temps line up with, those models would be nowhere close on their CO2 projection. Meaning the IPCC models that have current temps "right" or close to "right" probably have CO2 way too low vs actual. I trust the IPCC models about as much as I do Jared losing all that weight by eating Subway everyday.

LINK

by **Stovepipe** 2012-03-31, 7:49 pm

Why guess? Why don't you look at the actual ensemble members before taking a stand against the consensus? The data is available for anyone to freely download.

Or not, whatever. Trust what you want to trust.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-01, 1:16 am

Stovepipe wrote:Why guess? Why don't you look at the actual ensemble members before taking a stand against the consensus? The data is available for anyone to freely download.

Or not, whatever. Trust what you want to trust.

I did look at it. The zipped file contained .dat files. I have no idea how to begin to open those.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-01, 5:10 am

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:Why guess? Why don't you look at the actual ensemble members before taking a stand against the consensus? The data is available for anyone to freely download.

Or not, whatever. Trust what you want to trust.

I did look at it. The zipped file contained .dat files. I have no idea how to begin to open those.

I find it funny that you've formed this little hypothesis based on a hunch but have no data to back it up whatsoever. That leaves you with an argument that is as strong as a wet Kleenex. I know you don't like for me use the word conspiracy here but that is exactly what we have. This is tinfoil hat material.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-01, 9:18 am

Stovepipe wrote:I find it funny that you've formed this little hypothesis based on a hunch but have no data to back it up whatsoever. That leaves you with an argument that is as strong as a wet Kleenex. I know you don't like for me use the word conspiracy here but that is exactly what we have. This is tinfoil hat material.

So how many peer reviewed papers have you written on this topic? Tinfoil hat material comes from your side my friend. They took a natural warming cycle and took advantage of it by making wild assumptions and predicting future doom and gloom. Well the natural warming cycle looks to be ending and their house of cards is falling down around them. The doom and gloom alarmists who use conspiracy like techniques to bolster their wild ass assumptions are starting to look like idiots. The biggest of which is blowhard Hansen.

by **Adam2014** 2012-04-01, 9:23 am

I have no proof on this, I am just telling you how I feel. I feel as if weather goes in cycles. I am very concerned about Global Warming but I don't think man can make it. Although I am concerned with the record temperatures we are seeing right now!

by **snowdog** 2012-04-01, 3:02 pm

Worry not Adam, it has happened before (March torch). Also while we are baking the rest of the world is not Feb. global temp. departure was -.12 degrees C. January was -.09 C.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-01, 3:18 pm

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:I find it funny that you've formed this little hypothesis based on a hunch but have no data to back it up whatsoever. That leaves you with an argument that is as strong as a wet Kleenex. I know you don't like for me use the word conspiracy here but that is exactly what we have. This is tinfoil hat material.

So how many peer reviewed papers have you written on this topic? Tinfoil hat material comes from your side my friend. They took a natural warming cycle and took advantage of it by making wild assumptions and predicting future doom and gloom. Well the natural warming cycle looks to be ending and their house of cards is falling down around them. The doom and gloom alarmists who use conspiracy like techniques to bolster their wild ass assumptions are starting to look like idiots. The biggest of which is blowhard Hansen.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 4 A14ius

Now I know you're trolling. Keep spewing more crap you have no prayer of backing up. Starting to get rather hilarious!

by **snowdog** 2012-04-01, 4:59 pm

Keep spewing more crap you have no prayer of backing up.

No really, keep posting the Hansen type graphs. Can we see the hockey stick again or the one were the oceans were going to to rise a few feet.

As for the rest, here is a recent post by Joe Bastardi laying into the one of the warming clowns...

I get a kick out of you telling me I am wrong. Look at the sea ice, even the northern hemisphere is on top of normal 20 years before I thought it would get back there.. oops too slow, you were right. The global temp is doing exactly what I said in 2008 on the Oreilly factor, when the first fits were thrown be Media matters and romm cause I had the triple crown of cooling up, stating the obvious, that oceans, the sun, and volcanic activity control the climate, not a gas that is HEAVIER THAN AIR, HEATS AND COOLS FASTER THAN AIR, HAS DIFFERENT RADIATION RATES THAN AIR, is 1/400th of the greenhouse gasses ( I guess Gore figured he couldnt cap and trade water vapor) and is only .04% of the air. So what exactly in the data, that I didnt make up, but simply used from objective sources, do you deny? Thats right deny, its you guys in denial, cause alot of you know your little charade is up over the next 20 years,cause I suspect alot of the people supporting this need this rushed to a close cause they see what is coming as well as I do. .cooling and more cooling.. Just what in those links, which I didnt make up, but are factual from objective sources, are you in denial over. How do you simply attack me for a forecast that is right, the earths temp is clearly at least leveled off and the last 3 years is falling, and you tell me I dont know what I am talking about.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 4 Hockey10

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 4 Algore10

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-01, 7:58 pm

Ah so it really is a political beef you have. You've shown yourself to be completely ignorant on the science. That wouldn't be so bad in and of itself but you've also shown that you have no real interest in learning about it beyond a 5 minute google search. You're like an old man yelling at a cloud and it gets funnier and funnier as you're backed into a corner.

And Joe Bastardi? That's who you're quoting now? The guy hasn't shown that he can forecast his way out of a paper bag much less years into the future. Keep em coming snowdog.

Fear and Loathing in Libertarian Land!

by **Stovepipe** 2012-04-01, 8:18 pm

Let me also say that people have a right to feel however they want on a topic such as this. I respect peoples views and feelings. What gets me fired up is the spreading of misinformation and misrepresenting the state of the science. Especially from someone that is trying to act like they are strongly in the know but has put forth not a shred of evidence to support their view. This is political axe grinding from you, not a science debate.

by **snowdog** 2012-04-01, 9:58 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Ah so it really is a political beef you have. You've shown yourself to be completely ignorant on the science. That wouldn't be so bad in and of itself but you've also shown that you have no real interest in learning about it beyond a 5 minute google search. You're like an old man yelling at a cloud and it gets funnier and funnier as you're backed into a corner.

And Joe Bastardi? That's who you're quoting now? The guy hasn't shown that he can forecast his way out of a paper bag much less years into the future. Keep em coming snowdog.

Fear and Loathing in Libertarian Land!

Ohh dear Lord Stove. Do you have a political axe to grind? You mentioned Beck and Palin a few posts back. But I guess it is ok when you do it, kind of like the AGW crowd wanting to control the debate and they get to choose what is warming and they got to choose what is cooling. Heaven forbid I post a picture mocking saint Gore. No I have no political axe to grind as I am politically homeless (I lean Libertarian but I dont consider myself to be Libertarian). I try and find the truth, wherever it may lead. Although you may disagree, there is nothing proving CO2 as driving the past warming cycle.

If you want to get into science I am more than willing. So far in this thread you haven't done anything but throw up a few graphs from the IPCC (which you still don't understand) and claim you have the consensus. As for Bastardi, of course he is going to get forecasts wrong from time to time but he also hits quite a bit as well. He does pose some really interesting counterarguments to the AGW crowd and provides a good bit of info and detail to back it up. He is nailing it right now. He called for the cooling cycle a few years ago...did anyone on the AGW side see it coming?

by Sponsored content