Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 117

Thread: Global warming.

  1. #61
    Harry Clague
    Guest

    Re: Global warming.

    Right lets put one thing straight, global warming is not real, it is a fallacy made by politions to get innocent tax payers money.
    The earth stopped warming in 1997/1998. The Earth has natural cycles which determines its weather patterns, we at the moment are in cycle 24, scientists recon that when cycle 25 comes around, which is meant to happen soon it will be relatively colder than all the others

    Allot of people believe global warming because of a certain someone called, Al Gor.
    This man is not even a scientist he is a senator.
    From his film " An inconviennant truth". 2,500 scientists have sued Al Gor because of false information, now that makes you think what else is false!

  2. #62
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Clague View Post
    Allot of people believe global warming because of a certain someone called, Al Gor.
    This man is not even a scientist he is a senator.
    From his film " An inconviennant truth". 2,500 scientists have sued Al Gor because of false information, now that makes you think what else is false!


    Well, first... 2,500, that's the amount of scientist, specialist that support the IPCC statement... not that have sued against the film for false information.

    Second, there was indeed a law suit to prevent the movie to play in schools in the UK... The ruling?

    High Court Judge Michael Burton, deciding a lawsuit that questioned the film's suitability for showing in British classrooms, said Wednesday that the movie builds a "powerful" case that global warming is caused by humans and that urgent means are needed to counter it.
    But he also said Gore makes nine statements in the film that are not supported by current mainstream scientific consensus. Teachers, Burton concluded, could show the film but must alert students to what the judge called errors.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101102134.html

    Finally of course, Al Gore is just a spokesperson... the movie could have been narrated by Captain Crunch... it's the content, and support behind the statements that matters.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  3. #63
    Harry Clague
    Guest

    Re: Global warming.

    Hmm.
    I know about that ruling because i followed the story carefully, but my place of education still plays the certain film,
    Also did you know that 31,000 scientists two years ago signed a statement saying the global warming was not man-made.
    Now you could say that the IPCC have just released a new statement that wasn't around two years back, but you see i read this statement and it seems like they are trying to water down quite allot of things.
    They changed it from global warming to ( climate change ). Allot of the previous graphs that they have shown have either been changed or not shown at all.
    The dates in which climate change started and will be a problem have also been changed.

    They are backtracking on themselves! This clearly shows that you cannot believe everything they say.
    I also believe that C02 is good for the planet as more trees will take it in, thus more Oxygen will be produced, thus more life.
    The Media are trying to brain wash people into thinking global warming is real. Don't believe everything you read!

    ---------- Post added at 10:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 AM ----------

    [QUOTE=Vandaler;527529]

    Well, first... 2,500, that's the amount of scientist, specialist that support the IPCC statement... not that have sued against the film for false information.

    Well your wrong there they did sue him, intact people are still suing him today!

  4. #64
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Clague View Post
    The Earth has natural cycles which determines its weather patterns, we at the moment are in cycle 24, scientists recon that when cycle 25 comes around, which is meant to happen soon it will be relatively colder than all the others
    Hi Harry, welcome to ODN. I'm curious if you have an supporting material for this claim? Specifically that the next climactic cycle will be colder than all the others.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #65
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Clague
    Well your wrong there they did sue him, intact people are still suing him today!
    What exactly do you mean when you describe these people as "intact"?....
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  6. #66
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Interesting post on Circle Bastiat concerning a Peer-Reviewed paper on this subject:

    A paper published in the peer-reviewed Climate Dynamics ”amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.” Researchers Professor Judith Curry and Dr. Marcia Wyatt find that a natural cycle is responsible for the 17-year pause in climate change–as well as the previous period of warming–during which there has been no statistically significant rise in the earth’s temperature since 1997. As it stands today, the earth’s temperature is below almost all the predictions made by the 138 computer models relied upon by the enforcers of climate change orthodoxy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The natural “stadium wave” cycle of climate change discovered by Curry and Wyatt predicts that the pause in climate change will extend into the 2030s, in sharp contrast to the 0.3 to 0.7 C warming forecast by the IPCC earlier this year.

    http://bastiat.mises.org/2013/11/eco...rs-take-heart/
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #67
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Interesting post on Circle Bastiat concerning a Peer-Reviewed paper on this subject:

    A paper published in the peer-reviewed Climate Dynamics ”amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.” Researchers Professor Judith Curry and Dr. Marcia Wyatt find that a natural cycle is responsible for the 17-year pause in climate change–as well as the previous period of warming–during which there has been no statistically significant rise in the earth’s temperature since 1997. As it stands today, the earth’s temperature is below almost all the predictions made by the 138 computer models relied upon by the enforcers of climate change orthodoxy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The natural “stadium wave” cycle of climate change discovered by Curry and Wyatt predicts that the pause in climate change will extend into the 2030s, in sharp contrast to the 0.3 to 0.7 C warming forecast by the IPCC earlier this year.

    http://bastiat.mises.org/2013/11/eco...rs-take-heart/

    Have they discovered a mechanism for that "natural cycle"?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #68
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Have they discovered a mechanism for that "natural cycle"?
    The article I linked contains a link to a more full explanation of the paper, here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-recover.html


    Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.



    The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.

    The graph shown above, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.

    The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.

    According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.

    Curry and Wyatt say they have identified a climatic ‘stadium wave’ – the phenomenon known in Britain as a Mexican wave, in which the crowd at a stadium stand and sit so that a wave seems to circle the audience.

    In similar fashion, a number of cycles in the temperature of air and oceans, and the level of Arctic ice, take place across the Northern hemisphere over decades. Curry and Wyatt say there is evidence of this going back at least 300 years.

    According to Curry and Wyatt, the theory may explain both the warming pause and why the computer models did not forecast it.

    It also means that a large proportion of the warming that did occur in the years before the pause was due not to greenhouse gas emissions, but to the same cyclical wave.

    ‘The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,’ said Wyatt. This is in sharp contrast with the IPCC’s report, which predicts warming of between 0.3 and 0.7C by 2035.

    Wyatt added: ‘The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum.’ The record low seen in 2012, followed by the large increase in 2013, is consistent with the theory, she said.

    Even IPCC report co-authors such as Dr Hawkins admit some of the models are ‘too hot’.

    He said: ‘The upper end of the latest climate model projections is inconsistent’ with observed temperatures, though he added even the lower predictions could have ‘negative impacts’ if true.

    But if the pause lasted another ten years, and there were no large volcanic eruptions, ‘then global surface temperatures would be outside the IPCC’s indicative likely range’.

    Professor Curry went much further. ‘The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways,’ she said.

    If the pause continued, this would suggest that the models were not ‘fit for purpose’.


    Dr Curry has generously republished the paper here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/


    To answer your question, Curry and Wyatt are hypothesizing a "stadium wave" which is essentially a grouped set of correlated seasonal cycles (I say seasonal because it is a forecasting term, it doesn't correspond to the common usage of the word), where a cycle in one aspect of the climate drags others with it, such that the overall climate picture seems to have long cycles that are dramatically more explanatory than the random noise or random walk variables currently used.

    Building upon Wyatt’s Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado, Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signal’s tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of ‘braking,’ in which positive and negative feedbacks interact to support reversals of the circulation regimes. As a result, climate regimes — multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling — evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular — the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent. Wyatt’s thesis found that the stadium wave signal has existed for at least 300 years.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/1...ain-the-pause/
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #69
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Climate change debate really gets me. There are a lot of folks doing hard science, and a lot more spinning the hell out of everything that gets published. I suppose that is the way of things but this issue has become far too political for anyone to really make good judgements.

    On one side the drumbeat of doom and gloom, on the other the a kind of head in the sand mentality. Frankly both raise great suspicion for me. I feel like the best approach is one of modest caution. Don't go whole hog yet, take prudent steps to defend yourself against risk. Politically speaking despite the rancor that seems to be the course we have mostly steered on.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  10. #70
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Climate change debate really gets me. There are a lot of folks doing hard science, and a lot more spinning the hell out of everything that gets published. I suppose that is the way of things but this issue has become far too political for anyone to really make good judgements.
    I would definitely agree with this in general, but I'm not sure this specific article was related to that. This was more a technical modeling issue. What is the best method for accounting for variance from a trendline (more or less), most IPCC models use a random walk process (amongst others), this author is suggesting a seasonal oscillation instead.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #71
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I would definitely agree with this in general, but I'm not sure this specific article was related to that. This was more a technical modeling issue. What is the best method for accounting for variance from a trendline (more or less), most IPCC models use a random walk process (amongst others), this author is suggesting a seasonal oscillation instead.
    What set me off here was the line "amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy" It's not really stunning from what I can tell. Its a theory that has some legs and seeks to explain the difference in prior models with what we are observing. Perhaps someone finds it stunning out there, I certainly don't. It is interesting, curious perhaps, thought provoking I hope, but not "stunning."

    That language sounds like hyperbole from a website dedicated to challenging the idea of climate change and that is what it is. The actual article comes from someone who challenges the urgency of climate change but is not a flat out denier of it. I did some research and she seems the kind of person that honestly seeks to be critical of other science by doing more science. Exactly the sort of person I want out there doing research and articles. But the noise from the cheerleaders on both sides is irksome.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #72
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The graph shown above, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.

    You sure they got that right, Hawkins says he only used 42 simulations for his graph.

    Besides, he offers a few explanations of why and where the heat is, for example, in the deep oceans:


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	grl50382-fig-0001.png 
Views:	19 
Size:	93.4 KB 
ID:	3759


    He also states that "there are simulations which are consistent with the observations."
    Last edited by CowboyX; July 8th, 2015 at 08:14 PM.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #73
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    That language sounds like hyperbole from a website dedicated to challenging the idea of climate change and that is what it is.
    The Daily Mail? A simple search of recent articles would seem to indicate otherwise.

    Regardless, my point wasn't that it was "stunning" (though from a modelers perspective it kinda is, we are talking about changing the most basic step in making a predictive model, which is about as fundamental a change as you can get) it was that it was an interesting development in the debate.



    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You sure they got that right, Hawkins says he only used 42 simulations for his graph.
    First, I should point out that there is a difference between a simulation and a model. One is a trial of a model, the other represents a proposed relationship. You could have a 1000 simulations of one model, or 1 simulation of a thousand models. I would interpret your comment as someone saying they ran 42 simulations of a set of models to obtain the graph offered. You often run multiple simulations because either input dynamics or relationships are probability based rather than absolute numbers, hence you use something like crystal ball to get a more accurate output by running the model(s) repeatedly.


    Second, I should note you are quoting an article, not me, you know that as well right?






    Side note as a staff member. Your introduction of other comments by Hawkins, without offering either their source, not an easy way to reference them runs afoul of our plagiarism rules.

    Plagiarism
    It is unacceptable for a poster to copy and paste material written by others without acknowledgment. If you wish to use another person's work in your post, make sure you clearly distinguish the quoted parts from the rest of your post (e.g using the quote/indent function), and provide a citation or link to the source you took it from.
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/index.php?page=odnrules

    Please keep that in mind when referencing external material here.







    Now, setting that aside, after a couple of minutes I was able to track down the posts you are referencing thanks to Google Image Search.


    You are referring to references here and here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Besides, he offers a few explanations of why and where the heat is, for example, in the deep oceans:
    Except he doesn't actually say that, he offers an update saying that two papers note that deep ocean warming might be the issue. The majority of his explanations focus around model inconsistencies that mute possible warming outcomes:


    Why has the globe warmed less than projected in the last decade?

    So, why might the simulations appear too warm? One possibility is that aerosol emissions have not declined as rapidly as assumed since 2005, causing the simulations to appear too warm. However, observations of aerosol emissions are somewhat uncertain. Also, no volcanic eruptions are present in the post-2005 simulations, although it is possible that recent moderate eruptions have had a cooling influence. In addition, solar activity post-2005 has been weaker than the simulations assume. All of these effects would make the simulations appear too warm.

    There is also some recent evidence that the models with the very highest climate sensitivities may be inconsistent with the observations. Uncertainty in the observations of global temperatures is also not negligible, as shown by the red lines.

    The final possible explanation is that internal climate variability has reduced the rate of warming this decade, and that some of the additional energy may be in the deep ocean instead of the atmosphere.


    You'll notice that three of those are related to articles I've posted in the last year here.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    He also states that "there are simulations which are consistent with the observations."

    Why don't we offer the full quote?

    The two figures below compare observed global temperature changes with the latest projections from 42 different climate models (CMIP5) for the 1950-2050 period, using a common reference period of 1961-1990. One figure shows the individual simulations, and the other shows an estimate of the 50% and 90% confidence intervals.

    What can be learnt from this comparison? Simply, global temperatures have not warmed as much as the mean of the model projections in the past decade or so and are currently at the lower edge of the ensemble of simulations. However, there are simulations which are consistent with the observations.


    IE, he is saying that observed data falls outside the 90% confidence interval for the possible model simulations. Now, there were individual runs of the simulations that did comport with observed evidence, but theses are the tails of the possible range of outcomes.


    It would be like flipping a quarter 50 times, getting only heads and saying "well that is possible" rather than concluding the quarter is unbalanced.


    Remember, you run multiple simulations of a model to get a likely range of possible outcomes. That does not mean there are models that are consistent with the observed data.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #74
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Now, setting that aside, after a couple of minutes I was able to track down the posts you are referencing thanks to Google Image Search.

    The point I was making was about your source, which references the Hawkins article. The Daily Caller said Hawkins used 138 models, Hawkins said 42 models (not simulations, it doesn't say how many simulations he ran.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #75
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    It would be like flipping a quarter 50 times, getting only heads and saying "well that is possible" rather than concluding the quarter is unbalanced.
    I get what you're saying, but you also have the multiple-testing problem: with enough people flipping fair coins, someone's probably gonna get a huge run of heads.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  16. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  17. #76
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The point I was making was about your source, which references the Hawkins article. The Daily Caller said Hawkins used 138 models, Hawkins said 42 models (not simulations, it doesn't say how many simulations he ran.

    Do you mean the Daily Mail?

    I based that initial reply on the wording you used, since you didn't provide a quote or a link.

    You do realize that the graph the Daily Mail is referring to is different than the one Hawkins is referring to in that section? I think you need to read that quote again:

    The graph shown above, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.


    This difference should be clear in the confidence bands. You'll notice the Mail one (which relies on a larger number of models) has a band of about 1 degree celsius for its 5%-95% confidence interval, while the Hawkins graph only spans about .6c in its range (both figures for present date).


    But regardless, Hawkins agrees with the essential claim made here, and elsewhere. The models contained in the IPCC's reports lack sufficient explanatory accuracy to be reliable in their future predictions. The fact that we are seeing temperatures well outside the standard deviation of the models should be a sign that they aren't good models to use.




    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I get what you're saying, but you also have the multiple-testing problem: with enough people flipping fair coins, someone's probably gonna get a huge run of heads.

    This is a great point. And this is a pretty big issue in the replication community. There was a great example 4 or 5 years ago of a replication retraction that occurred where the researcher said, "we had to run the simulation 52 times before we were able to match the original result." Well no kidding, eventually you'll get significant results if you run it enough.

    I think what is different here is that he is using the multiple simulations to create a probability curve of outputs rather than running it multiple times until he gets the result he wants.

    To continue the analogy, he is conducting an experiment where he flips a quarter ten times and records the number of heads and tails. Then does that experiment again, and again, and again, each time writing down the respective numbers, then using those trials to plot a probability graph of what you should expect if you were to do it (say 90% of the time you should get between 4 and 7 heads results). Compare that with what happened in the example above, or in what you are saying, which would be to flip the quarter until you got a set of ten heads in a row.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. Likes Lukecash12 liked this post
  19. #77
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    But regardless, Hawkins agrees with the essential claim made here, and elsewhere. The models contained in the IPCC's reports lack sufficient explanatory accuracy to be reliable in their future predictions. The fact that we are seeing temperatures well outside the standard deviation of the models should be a sign that they aren't good models to use.
    Where does he say that?

    and if that isn't Hawkins' graph then where did it come from?

    Hansen, around 2:00 explains it better: "no reason to change any forecast for the long term" - a forecast being different than a model, of course.

    https://youtu.be/geS6mtY0XsQ
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #78
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    and if that isn't Hawkins' graph then where did it come from?
    Cowboy, I’ve now quoted the relevant section of the article for you three times. At what point are you simply ignoring it?

    The graph shown above, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Hansen, around 2:00 explains it better: "no reason to change any forecast for the long term" - a forecast being different than a model, of course.
    A couple of issues with that. Hansen isn’t really that reputable here, he is making a political statement, which is what he does, not a scientific statement. To the extent that he is making the latter, he is doing so against the consensus opinion, which is that the current IPCC forecasts are unreliable, and against the data, which show that we can state, with a 95% statistical confidence level, that they are incorrect.

    Second issue is that a forecast is a prediction made by a model. The whole point of this article, and the others posted here, is that the forecast made by the models are wrong. The observational data is so different from the forecast that we can say, with a 95% confidence level that the future forecast does not represent what will actually occur. That is what Hawkins is saying when he says: “What can be learnt from this comparison? Simply, global temperatures have not warmed as much as the mean of the model projections in the past decade or so…”

    Hawkins, correctly, says that it doesn’t prove the model is wrong necessarily. This is true, the model assumes a range of inputs, which could be different from what actually occurred. The problem with Hawkins’ hedge is that the actual inputs (as noted in his real climate link) are higher than were assumed and as such, should have produced more warming. That is why he relies on forcing value changes as the best explanation, in his opinion. Those changes represent relational changes in the model itself, not changes to the input data, hence the models are almost certainly incorrect, rather than just that the simulations differed from reality.


    Imagine this as an analogy:

    X+Y=Z. That is our model.

    X could be 1,2, or 3.

    Y could be 2,5, or 10.

    So Z could be in a range of 3 to 13, right?


    So what happens if z= 30? Well there could be a couple of possible explanations.

    X or Y or both, could have been higher than the numbers listed. Say, X could have been 20, rather than 3.

    If that was the case, then X+Y=Z is still a totally valid model.

    But if X=3, and Y=10, all we can conclude is that our model is wrong. In this case it should by XY=Z, rather than X+Y=Z.

    That first explanation represents input changes. The second indicates an incorrect model. Hawkins’ reliance on forcing values is the second explanation, not the first.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #79
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Cowboy, I’ve now quoted the relevant section of the article for you three times. At what point are you simply ignoring it?

    The graph shown above, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.
    Just trying to be clear. It's not Hawkins' graph, you don't have a source from where the graph comes from (right?), so am I correct in assuming that the Daily Caller made the graph?

    ---------- Post added at 12:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    he is doing so against the consensus opinion
    Who's consensus opinion?

    From what Hawkins' mentions where do you see a relational problem?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  22. #80
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Just trying to be clear. It's not Hawkins' graph, you don't have a source from where the graph comes from (right?), so am I correct in assuming that the Daily Caller made the graph?
    First, you've made this mistake twice now, why do you keep saying Daily Caller?


    Second, the Daily [/i]Mail[/i] recreated a color version of a graph Hawkins used:



    Ibid.

    The only concern I think you noted was the difference between reported number of models used. Hawkins notes he used 42 models to develop his output range. The Daily Mail author says that Hawkins used a portion of the 138 from the IPCC (Hawkins doesn't use the models that predict more dramatic warming because he has ruled them out as reliable: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/20...-observations/, and IBID).


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Who's consensus opinion?
    The IPCC's at this point. The IPCC (mentioned in Hawkins' post) has convened a new working group (AR 5, and 6 since Hansen's comments) specifically due to the insufficiency of predictive results.

    Additionally the consensus opinion noted in Hawkins' post ("Constraining, linked above), where he notes the significant rejection of the more severe outcome predictions by the IPCC, and hence why he doesn't include nearly 100 models.

    More importantly, Hansen's comments run counter to the data, which makes him uncredible. Hawkins' post, Curry's work, and about a dozen other studies referenced here show that we are more than 3 standard deviations away from the more extreme predictions, and outside the 95% confidence level for the more moderate predictions. Hansen can't, with any scientific credibility claim that observing data outside a confidence interval doesn't indicate something in the model went wrong. Nor does he try to, Hansen's claim is that "we know its a problem and need to act" not "the data agrees with predictions."


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    From what Hawkins' mentions where do you see a relational problem?
    To directly quote him (explanation below quote):


    One of the key uncertainties is in the role of aerosols (small particles emitted through fossil fuel burning which tend to reflect sunlight, interact with clouds and cool the climate).
    ...

    There is also some recent evidence that the models with the very highest climate sensitivities may be inconsistent with the observations. Uncertainty in the observations of global temperatures is also not negligible, as shown by the red lines.

    The final possible explanation is that internal climate variability has reduced the rate of warming this decade, and that some of the additional energy may be in the deep ocean instead of the atmosphere.

    Some more technical considerations:
    Although the broad qualitative picture is fairly robust, note that there is also sensitivity of the quantitative results to:

    (1) choice of reference period (1961-1990 is used here)
    (2) choice of observational datatset (HadCRUT4 is used here)
    (3) choice of ensemble members I have picked 1 ensemble member per model, but note that significant differences are possible in different ensemble members

    with (1) being perhaps the most important.


    Specifically, Hawkins' is making a couple of major points here. One is that the affect of aerosol forcing has been incorrectly estimated (I posted another thread on this btw). This would mean that the estimated contribution numbers for each greenhouse gas are incorrect, and so, as the model predicts changing ratios, the actual contributions to climate are different than expected.

    Another refers to yet another thread I've posted on here, about climate sensitivity. There are quite a few factors that go into that particular relationship, but to sum it up, Hawkins' thinks there is a possibility that they are wrong, and that the climate's reaction to exogenous input (be it CO2, increased solar radiation, etc) is less severe than was thought.

    The final one represents technical modeling considerations. I won't bore you with the details, but essentially they are, did we use the correct reference timeline when building the underlying data set used to build the model, and is the observational data capable of being compared to the simulation outputs given relevant conversion factors.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming...hoax after all?
    By Apokalupsis in forum General Debate
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: December 27th, 2010, 08:06 AM
  2. Global Warming III
    By Zorak in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 7th, 2008, 11:33 AM
  3. Global Warming
    By Firewing in forum Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2008, 09:44 AM
  4. Replies: 35
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2007, 11:22 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •