Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says

snowdog wrote:

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

Until you can show me that the numerous successes that the models have had reproducing climate are somehow flawed, you are talking out your ass big time. And I don't mean show me with one of your conspiracy theories, I mean show me some scientific evidence. I provided you a list a page or two back, refute it or STFU about there not being a working model.

I like how "Climate" is all the warmer years and "weather" are all the colder years in this thread

Toot wrote:I like how "Climate" is all the warmer years and "weather" are all the colder years in this thread

I like how you can't see the difference between a 5 year span of "weather" and larger time scale of "climate". It's lollsy.

LMAO!! @ the pic, Toot.

Love the avatar, btw. The crusty look suits you.

For the chuckle heads that can't grasp the concept of temperature trends, here is a detailed assessment of the current situation by NASA. They very much acknowledge the apparent slowing of the warming during the La Nina period. I linked this before but neither of you read it obviously.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

Summary:

2011 was only the ninth warmest year in the GISS analysis of global temperature change, yet nine of the ten warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1880) have occurred in the 21st century. The past year has been cooled by a moderately strong La Niña. The 5-year (60-month) running mean global temperature hints at a slowdown in the global warming rate during the past few years. However, the cool La Niña phase of the cyclically variable Southern Oscillation of tropical temperatures has been dominant in the past three years, and the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data occurred over the past half dozen years. We conclude that the slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years.

Now go ahead and discount that as being written by "circle jerk" scientists.

Stovepipe wrote: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.

I mentioned A1B because you had originally mentioned it and most AGW proponents mention it as being the closest fit to actual data. Only reason I mentioned scenario B is because current temp data actually fits it better (due to the continued cooling). However I can't find a graph for just scenario B and it's ensembles like I did for A1B so you have to use the crude graphing of all scenarios to see scenario B.

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 conclusion I am drawing is logical and backed by data. The conclusion you are drawing isn't backed up with data and only the hope that with more time we will significantly warm which would put us back on the IPCC projections path. You should really go check into the effect the PDO has on weather. There is a reason the globe has started to cool. There is a reason it will continue to cool over the next 25 to 30 years. There is a reason things like sea level and global ice are starting to show signs of a cooling globe.

Or you could turn your back, plug your ears, hide your eyes and stick you head in the sand...which seems to be your current protocol.

Until you can show me that the numerous successes that the models have had reproducing climate are somehow flawed, you are talking out your ass big time.

Whatever. Why don't you read up on the difference between hindcasting and forecasting. The only success your side has had is with the hindcasting portion. The projection portion has been a failure. I know, it is an inconvenient truth.

And I don't mean show me with one of your conspiracy theories, I mean show me some scientific evidence. I provided you a list a page or two back, refute it or STFU about there not being a working model.

Ohh he mad now. Let's see we have one STFU and one strawman created (more conspiracy ramblings by Stove). You have backed yourself into a corner and it sucks. Don't worry, you arent the 1st AGW proponent to be in that corner and you won't be the last. They all find themselves there but they can always fall back on their consensus and unprovable theory.

As for scientific evidence, all the scientific evidence is found in the failure of the projections. This is no different that any other testable hypothesis that has failed. It is found by the projections vastly overrating the influence of CO2 and the positive feedback mechanism. That shows that your science is flawed and your assumptions are flawed.

Homemommy wrote:LMAO!! @ the pic, Toot.

Love the avatar, btw. The crusty look suits you.

thanks....youre so sweeeeet!!

[quote="snowdog"]

Stovepipe wrote:

And I don't mean show me with one of your conspiracy theories, I mean show me some scientific evidence. I provided you a list a page or two back, refute it or STFU about there not being a working model.

Ohh he mad now. Let's see we have one STFU and one strawman created (more conspiracy ramblings by Stove). You have backed yourself into a corner and it sucks. Don't worry, you arent the 1st AGW proponent to be in that corner and you won't be the last. They all find themselves there but they can always fall back on their consensus and unprovable theory.

As for scientific evidence, all the scientific evidence is found in the failure of the projections. This is no different that any other testable hypothesis that has failed. It is found by the projections vastly overrating the influence of CO2 and the positive feedback mechanism. That shows that your science is flawed and your assumptions are flawed.

Oh I ain't mad and I didn't literally mean shut your mouth, on the contrary I hope you continue to run it despite your embarrassing lack of basic data analysis skills. I'm quite comfortable with where I'm sitting here and the evidence I've put forward. Any reasonable person can read this thread and see that I've more than backed up every statement I've made on the science.

Once again (now I feel like Bill Murry) you've yet to provide any evidence that the process of plugging known forcing data into the models and observing their performance is an illegitimate exercise. Until you do, you do not have a leg to stand on with the hind-casting argument. It really doesn't matter how you "feel" about it, what matters is whether or not you can objectively show it's flawed. You tell me (scientifically) how you can plug known forcing into the models and get accurate climate simulations and then somehow not have any confidence on their future projections. You absolutely can not establish that observed data, even the past 2 or 3 years, is way off base with the climate projections. You. Can't. Do. It.

Perfect illustration of how you are wildly missing the point:



To focus on the little peaks and troughs rather than the trend and say that invalidates the models is ignorant as all get out.

Stovepipe wrote:For the chuckle heads that can't grasp the concept of temperature trends, here is a detailed assessment of the current situation by NASA. They very much acknowledge the apparent slowing of the warming during the La Nina period. I linked this before but neither of you read it obviously.

LOL. You are using NASA to speak on meteorological issues? Now you are really digging deep. In the last 15 years we have had a strong El Nino, 2 Nina's, a Nino and a strong Nina. So a good variation overall. Yet over the last 15 years global temps have stagnated. Why don't we look at the PDO trend? See the time period between 1940 and 1970? What happened? Now add 30 years to 1970 and what do you get? 2000. What did my 10 year trendline graph show? What do you think is going to happen to temps over the next 20 to 25 years? I'll let Johnny Cash answer..."It's going down down down..."

snowdog wrote:LOL. You are using NASA to speak on meteorological issues? Now you are really digging deep.

LOLWUT

Where do you think the temperature data comes from? They generated that dataset, I think they can speak with authority on what it shows. There is nothing ground breaking in their write up, just basic observations.

Stovepipe wrote:Once again (now I feel like Bill Murry) you've yet to provide any evidence that the process of plugging known forcing data into the models and observing their performance is an illegitimate exercise. Until you do, you do not have a leg to stand on with the hind-casting argument. It really doesn't matter how you "feel" about it, what matters is whether or not you can objectively show it's flawed. You tell me (scientifically) how you can plug known forcing into the models and get accurate climate simulations and then somehow not have any confidence on their future projections. You absolutely can not establish that observed data, even the past 2 or 3 years, is way off base with the climate projections. You. Can't. Do. It.

You keep digging your head further into the sand. I've already shown the projections are flawed. That is undeniable...by those who don't poke their head in the sand. As for proving or disproving a hindcast model, that is an exercise in futility. Hindcast models don't mean shit unless they can be turned into reliable forecast models. One of the steps in turning a hypothesis into theory is having testable results. The AGW crowd doesn't have that. The AGW folks have been making projections since what..the late 80's with Hansen's nonsense projections (that also crashed and burned)...and to this date have had no verifiable data. They were closer in the 90's than their current projections, likely because we were in a warming phase of the PDO. There still has been no evidence in their projections that increasing CO2 causes warming...thus their hypothesis isn't a theory.

Perfect illustration of how you are wildly missing the point:

That illustration has nothing to do with my point. Instead of copying in meaningless stairstep graphs showing warming during a +PDO phase (duh!) why don't you copy in a graph showing the validity of IPCC projections.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:Once again (now I feel like Bill Murry) you've yet to provide any evidence that the process of plugging known forcing data into the models and observing their performance is an illegitimate exercise. Until you do, you do not have a leg to stand on with the hind-casting argument. It really doesn't matter how you "feel" about it, what matters is whether or not you can objectively show it's flawed. You tell me (scientifically) how you can plug known forcing into the models and get accurate climate simulations and then somehow not have any confidence on their future projections. You absolutely can not establish that observed data, even the past 2 or 3 years, is way off base with the climate projections. You. Can't. Do. It.

You keep digging your head further into the sand. I've already shown the projections are flawed. That is undeniable...by those who don't poke their head in the sand. As for proving or disproving a hindcast model, that is an exercise in futility. Hindcast models don't mean shit unless they can be turned into reliable forecast models. One of the steps in turning a hypothesis into theory is having testable results. The AGW crowd doesn't have that. The AGW folks have been making projections since what..the late 80's with Hansen's nonsense projections (that also crashed and burned)...and to this date have had no verifiable data. They were closer in the 90's than their current projections, likely because we were in a warming phase of the PDO. There still has been no evidence in their projections that increasing CO2 causes warming...thus their hypothesis isn't a theory.

Perfect illustration of how you are wildly missing the point:

That illustration has nothing to do with my point. Instead of copying in meaningless stairstep graphs showing warming during a +PDO phase (duh!) why don't you copy in a graph showing the validity of IPCC projections.

Very funny that YOU are accusing ME of having my head in the sand. The only flaw that you've tried to show with the projections is that they don't match short term weather, something they don't attempt to do. That proves absolutely nothing. That stair step graphic DOES have much to do with your point because your entire argument hinges on the fact that there is a cooling trend. The only way you can show there is a cooling trend is to only focus on short term weather.

Stovepipe wrote:LOLWUT

Where do you think the temperature data comes from? They generated that dataset, I think they can speak with authority on what it shows. There is nothing ground breaking in their write up, just basic observations.

So a nurse who can check blood pressure can also perform heart surgery? I think I will let the meteorologists speak on what NASA finds.

You want to beat the PDO drum now? Show me the money because I'm not seeing it.

Stovepipe wrote:Very funny that YOU are accusing ME of having my head in the sand. The only flaw that you've tried to show with the projections is that they don't match short term weather, something they don't attempt to do. That proves absolutely nothing.

The projections haven't done anything correct. Temp, Co2, making coffee, etc. Again you can't prove they have done anything correct, you just claim we need more time. Of course the problem with that is we have entered a -PDO regime and temps are responding accordingly.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:LOLWUT

Where do you think the temperature data comes from? They generated that dataset, I think they can speak with authority on what it shows. There is nothing ground breaking in their write up, just basic observations.

So a nurse who can check blood pressure can also perform heart surgery? I think I will let the meteorologists speak on what NASA finds.

You know how I know you didn't read what was at that NASA link? It was a statistical analysis of the temp data. You don't have to be a meteorologist to do stats, although I'm sure they have plenty on staff. Another very weak assertion from you.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:Very funny that YOU are accusing ME of having my head in the sand. The only flaw that you've tried to show with the projections is that they don't match short term weather, something they don't attempt to do. That proves absolutely nothing.

The projections haven't done anything correct. Temp, Co2, making coffee, etc. Again you can't prove they have done anything correct, you just claim we need more time. Of course the problem with that is we have entered a -PDO regime and temps are responding accordingly.

You going to explain how PDO is affecting climate or are you going to make coffee?

Here ya go Stove

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PDO_and_AMO_Are_the_Real_Pacemakers_for_Climate.pdf

Another good post. The correlation between temps and the PDO/AMO measurement is quite telling imho.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2952

Stovepipe wrote:You want to beat the PDO drum now? Show me the money because I'm not seeing it.

Uhh, you do understand the PDO yes? The PDO generally runs in 30 year increments (give or take a few years).

1910-1940 +PDO followed by 1940-1970 -PDO cycle. Plotted against global temps vs Hadcrut3 data.


1970-2000 +PDO followed by 2000 to current -PDO cycle. Plotted same as above.


Of course if you take a trend line from 1900 to now it will be positive. This isn't some great discovery. I have said from the beginning we are warming and will continue to slowly warm until the onset of the next ice age. Now your job is to prove that the reason we are warming is due to CO2 and not natural cycles. So far your projections and testable hypothesis has failed.

Sorry - meant to link to the actual study. Not the blog post with the bad rebuttal

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/multidecadal_tendencies.pdf

Not saying PDO doesn't affect weather. But how can PDO explain the warming temperature trend since it is flat over the past 100 years? I'm genuinely interested in learning about this apparent link to climate.

Stovepipe wrote:Not saying PDO doesn't affect weather. But how can PDO explain the warming temperature trend since it is flat over the past 100 years? I'm genuinely interested in learning about this apparent link to climate.

Because we're coming out of an ice age?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

I'm not willing to say that man doesn't have some sort of effect on the climate. I'm sure we do. But it bothers me that the powers that be in climate change advocacy seem to a: ignore the impacts of the sun, cyclical nature of climate, urban heat island effect and b: focus exclusively on an anticapitalist/globalist agenda as the solution to the menace of AGW and c: dismiss anyone who disagrees with their position. This whole "skeptic" stuff is nonsense. If we didn't have people who disbelieved group opinions in science, we'd be stuck in the stone age.

jmundie wrote:I'm not willing to say that man doesn't have some sort of effect on the climate. I'm sure we do. But it bothers me that the powers that be in climate change advocacy seem to a: ignore the impacts of the sun, cyclical nature of climate, urban heat island effect and b: focus exclusively on an anticapitalist/globalist agenda as the solution to the menace of AGW and c: dismiss anyone who disagrees with their position. This whole "skeptic" stuff is nonsense. If we didn't have people who disbelieved group opinions in science, we'd be stuck in the stone age.

Ohhh no Mundie, you better batten down the hatches. Stove's head is going to explode. I'll save you some time Stove...I got this.

jmundie wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:Not saying PDO doesn't affect weather. But how can PDO explain the warming temperature trend since it is flat over the past 100 years? I'm genuinely interested in learning about this apparent link to climate.

Because we're coming out of an ice age?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

I'm not willing to say that man doesn't have some sort of effect on the climate. I'm sure we do. But it bothers me that the powers that be in climate change advocacy seem to a: ignore the impacts of the sun, cyclical nature of climate, urban heat island effect and b: focus exclusively on an anticapitalist/globalist agenda as the solution to the menace of AGW and c: dismiss anyone who disagrees with their position. This whole "skeptic" stuff is nonsense. If we didn't have people who disbelieved group opinions in science, we'd be stuck in the stone age.

I'm still trying to resolve the question of how PDO is related to the warming trend. By its very definition it "oscillates" between positive and negative. It is flat over time. The Little Ice age link doesnt even mention PDO that I saw. Before we move on, I'd like this explained to me.