Global Warming Concensus Broken

[djolds1]

GCMs are getting more able to model the medium-scale everns that shape climate like PDO etc. They now combine ocean circulation, atmoshere, & ice modelling. They are starting to have sioshere CO2 exchange modls but these are not very good - the ice sheet modelling is still partly deficient.

The models are getting better, will go on doing this. They can model quite a lot, but not everything.

That's fallacious reasoning tom.

"Our models are getting better. Now, obviously the ones we've used for the last 20 years have been egregiously wrong, being unable to predict gross trends. But our new models are much better, and we're confident that the predictions they give for the next 20 years will be accurate. Just wait 20 years and we'll prove it.

"Oh, and our new accurate predictions are the same as the old inaccurate predictions, but don't worry, that's just detail."

FWIW a EU official recently admitted that whether or not AGW is provable, what is important is that Kyoto helps achieve industrial/economic levelling globally. Totally. Proving. My. Point.

Time to move to Mars.

Oh - and do you have a cite/link?

Duane

[tomclarke]

Duane -

I am going to post a long considered opinion on how accurate are the GC models. It interests me, and I have the (independent of climatology, so I am not one of the corrupt coven) background to get to grips with the science. But it will take some time so not for a day or two.

The trouble is, saying they are accurate, inaccurate, wrong means very little until these terms are defined.

One of the misunderstandings is that most people see them as defined and validated by global temperature predictions. This is only one way to validate them - and in view of temp record & temp forcing uncertainties not a terribly good one.

This is a topic that cannot be seriously debated on a right/wrong principle. The models have some predictive power, and some errors. Also they are modelling a system which has some unknown inputs (solar radiation, CO2 emmissions). And finally they have in the past omitted significant aspects (like ocean currents) that affect mesoscale temperature variations.

Why are they still worth something even if they omit ocean currents? Because these cancel out. If you stop being political (where an ocean current inflated NH warming or the reverse can seem important) and consider the science you will agree that it is the sensitivity to CO2 and other anthropogenic changes that is the key issue and ocean currents will modulate climate as they have done in the past.

For me, it is not a political question. There are political consequences, maybe. But that involves a whole load of other issues. Let us first try to understand the science properly. So by all means argue about the political machinations of pro-GW or anti-GW people - but don't let that cloud a careful analysis of the science.

Best wishes, Tom

[TallDave]

sea-ice levels - look at the graphs either that I posted or that were in Talldaves article (that I reposted). The trend is clear and high recent variability does not break it. You are good enough engineer not to misuse single data points I know.

The anomaly trend is clearly flat or very close to it over 30 years, falling then rising over 10 years, and rising over the last five. If you want to ignore these trends and talk nonsense about only using two data points (which is incredibly silly given that we only have 30 data points to work with for minimum and maximum extent) then you could at least stop pattting yourself on the back for being a better scientist while doing it.

This is a topic that cannot be seriously debated on a right/wrong principle. The models have some predictive power, and some errors.

IPCC and their ilk are making a prediction that has very serious political consequences: that sea levels could rise significantly over the next 100 years due to temperature increase due to CO2 forcing. Here's the problem:

1) CO2 does not have a cause-effect relationship to temperature historically

2) The global warming models being used have never correctly predicted the average temperature over any future period, large or small.

As I've noted, they haven't even been right about minor predictions like sea ice decreasing. At this point, a rational and objective scientist would ask if maybe there was a problem with the theory. Yet they want us to accept trillions in taxes and lost economic growth.

[TallDave]

The point is that CO2 is a forcing input to GCMs, not a prediction from them.

More accurately, they are an assumption. They assume Man will increase CO2. the also assume an increase in Earth's trace levels of CO2 causes significant warming, but there's little historical proof of a cause/effect relationship (unless one stipulates that CO2 can travel back in time).

If in fact the reverse is true, i.e. warming causes CO2 increase as historical records seem to indicate, that matches the current data better and explains why their predictions have never worked -- and should be ignored.

I have no idea whether total ice mass is increasing or decreasing. But why is this relevant?

Because the IPCC is claiming melting ice at the polar caps will raise sea levels, and that we need to spend trillions of dollars to prevent this from happening. It's their most important and most relevant prediction.

[TallDave]

PPS - when I look at anti-AGW arguments I get noddy description of possible effect followed by argument from one example

Shrug. The burden of proof isn't on the skeptic, and AGW is an extremely weak theory. All those examples of wrong predictions and bad data add up.

PPPS - interesting discussion of Watts efforts. "Even the skeptics are getting the same result as the mainstream."

Heh, that's certainly some selective reading. The conclusion from the analysis was:

Simply, 25% of the warming is due to 15% of the stations

Anyways, it's well-known that Hansen has been running algorithms against the raw data that make reported older temperatures colder (we have always been at war with Eastasia!), so it's hard to do anything useful with GISS anymore.

[TallDave]

And here is a careful analysis of the recent Nature paper suggesting decadal factors will slow down warming over next 10 years. You will understand, if you read it carefully, that it in no way supports the skeptics.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/02/n ... d-warming/

Again, this is exactly the opposite of science. Science invites skepticism and criticism of theories; science does not label skeptics "deniers" and demand they stop criticizing a theory.

A cynic might suggest the main purpose of this new wrinkle in the AGW theory is to ensure that a flat or falling trend over 2005-2015 doesn't translate to too much criticism or lost funding. By the time 2025 rolls around and temperatures haven't skyrocketed, they'll have a new explanation of why temperatures will remain flat for the next funding cycle.

[IntLibber]

GCMs are getting more able to model the medium-scale everns that shape climate like PDO etc. They now combine ocean circulation, atmoshere, & ice modelling. They are starting to have sioshere CO2 exchange modls but these are not very good - the ice sheet modelling is still partly deficient.

The models are getting better, will go on doing this. They can model quite a lot, but not everything.

That's fallacious reasoning tom.

"Our models are getting better. Now, obviously the ones we've used for the last 20 years have been egregiously wrong, being unable to predict gross trends. But our new models are much better, and we're confident that the predictions they give for the next 20 years will be accurate. Just wait 20 years and we'll prove it.

"Oh, and our new accurate predictions are the same as the old inaccurate predictions, but don't worry, that's just detail."

FWIW a EU official recently admitted that whether or not AGW is provable, what is important is that Kyoto helps achieve industrial/economic levelling globally. Totally. Proving. My. Point.

Time to move to Mars.

Oh - and do you have a cite/link?

Duane

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... overnment/

LETTER TO EDITOR: Global government

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Australian Environment Minister Peter Garrett (left) is sworn in by Governor-General Michael Jeffrey. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (center) is one leader who has promised to sign the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. (Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)

I was in the room in The Hague in November 2000 when then-French President Jacques Chirac hailed the Kyoto Protocol, or "global warming" treaty, as "the first component of an authentic global governance." Then-European Union Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom seconded the sentiment when she told London's Independent that Kyoto was "not about whether scientists agree" but instead "about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide."

In truth, and as Europe is proving, its rhetorical bluster notwithstanding, no free society would do to itself what the Kyoto agenda requires. Hence the increased claims that this issue "is too important to be left to democracy." Once a group of our betters is empowered to determine our energy - and therefore economic, sovereignty and national security - concerns, this crowd get its way.

Kyoto, of course, was negotiated while Carol M. Browner led the Environmental Protection Agency - and with her participation despite unanimous Senate instruction against doing so. Her position with Socialist International reminds us precisely why a radical like Mrs. Browner has had a position created for her, so as to avoid disclosure and Senate scrutiny, to lord over actual, Senate-confirmed Cabinet officials. Taxpayer representatives should not approve funds for such a position unless and until they receive an honest accounting of the agenda and its champions' activities.

CHRIS HORNER

Senior fellow
Competitive Enterprise
Institute
Washington

http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/pillar.htm
"It is not surprising that alarmists want to fabricate the perception that there is consensus about climate change. We know the costs of this would be enormous. Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates estimates that the costs of implementing Kyoto would cost an American family of four $2,700 annually. Acknowledging a full-fledged debate over global warming would undermine their agenda. And what is that agenda. Two international leaders have said it best. Margot Wallstrom, the EU's Environment Commisioner states that Kyoto is "about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." French President Jacques Chirac said during a speech at the Hague in November 2000 that represents "the first component of authentic global governance." "

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19739

"Other people, particularly in economically troubled Europe, see Kyoto as described by their then-environment commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, as “about leveling the playing field for big businesses.” That is, socialism has failed and the merely market-socialist economies in Europe are also sclerotic, but abandoning that failure is the last option as it means turning to the dreaded U.S.-style capitalism."

[MSimon]

Tom says:

One of the misunderstandings is that most people see them as defined and validated by global temperature predictions. This is only one way to validate them - and in view of temp record & temp forcing uncertainties not a terribly good one.

Tom if I built my circuits and software on a model that will not control the process I am trying to control I will soon be out of credibility and work.

So let me see - as you admit the models have no useful predictive ability. (and thank you for that). So why base decisions to spend trillions on them?

So there is a consensus - of what? That CO2 is forcing in the models but not reality?

The models are calibrated based on - CO2 is forcing. If that is a misattribution then what do we have in reality?

An example - suppose cars are designed based on fuel flow into the engine and since we know fuel flow goes up as engine output increases all we have to do to double the maximum engine output (assuming the mechanicals can handle it) is to double the fuel flow. Of course in the real world what happens is that the engine floods out. Power actually goes down with increased fuel flow.

Or this: we know that water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas by a factor of 20 to 1. Why don't we regulate water vapor emissions?

[IntLibber]

Or this: we know that water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas by a factor of 20 to 1. Why don't we regulate water vapor emissions?

Everybody knows dihydrogen monoxide is a deadly toxin and pollutant.

[TallDave]

Meanwhile, billions of people in China, India, and Africa could care less and are happily building cars and coal plants all over the place.

Not only is the theory highly suspect, the proposed exorbitantly expensive actions have virtually no effect on the alleged problem.

[djolds1]

The trouble is, saying they are accurate, inaccurate, wrong means very little until these terms are defined.

One of the misunderstandings is that most people see them as defined and validated by global temperature predictions. This is only one way to validate them - and in view of temp record & temp forcing uncertainties not a terribly good one.

This is a topic that cannot be seriously debated on a right/wrong principle. The models have some predictive power, and some errors.

?????????

Science is very simple. Propose hypothesis. Test hypothesis. Hypothesis is either substantiated or shown to be mistaken. Right or wrong, testable in the real world. Now. If a "process" cannot be tested, it is not science, it is conjecture or metaphysics. And saying "we can't test it because validation will require centuries" is just that. Conjecture at best, metaphysics at worst.

Also they are modeling a system which has some unknown inputs (solar radiation, CO2 emmissions). And finally they have in the past omitted significant aspects (like ocean currents) that affect mesoscale temperature variations.

Why are they still worth something even if they omit ocean currents? Because these cancel out.

That is unsubstantiated assumption.

consider the science you will agree that it is the sensitivity to CO2 and other anthropogenic changes that is the key issue and ocean currents will modulate climate as they have done in the past.

That is not borne out by the evidence.

1) hard data shows that CO2 temperature multiplier values are far below those conjectured by the models. Lower multiplier values lead to far lower projected temperature changes over time, even using the accepted models. Far lower warming is inconsequential.

2) human release of CO2 pales in comparison to CO2 locked up in various reservoirs such as the sea. Effects such as solar energy and PDO cycles that you dismiss as "canceling out" can easily release huge quantities of CO2 from these reservoirs.

do you have a cite/link?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... overnment/

Gracias.

Everybody knows dihydrogen monoxide is a deadly toxin and pollutant.

Ah yes. DHMO. One of the most grievous threats facing mankind. Instantly addictive, and any attempt to go off it is fatal. Present in virtually all toxins. Fatal to breathe.

Duane

[IntLibber]

Meanwhile, billions of people in China, India, and Africa could care less and are happily building cars and coal plants all over the place.

Not only is the theory highly suspect, the proposed exorbitantly expensive actions have virtually no effect on the alleged problem.

The only countries that have ratified Kyoto are the ones whose productivity is lower and average labor costs are higher than the US. Kyoto is about global economic levelling, not the environment.

Fact is, the only way to get the CO2 emissions back to 1990's levels is to lower standards of livings in developing nations back to 1990's levels. If all the chinese and indians live like Americans and Europeans, CO2 levels will quadruple.

Even with polywell fusion and other renewables, don't forget that petroleum is also needed for the chemicals, plastics, and other industries other than energy. When we stop using oil for energy, the price will drop, resulting in increased consumption of it for other uses.

[tomclarke]

The trouble is, saying they are accurate, inaccurate, wrong means very little until these terms are defined.

One of the misunderstandings is that most people see them as defined and validated by global temperature predictions. This is only one way to validate them - and in view of temp record & temp forcing uncertainties not a terribly good one.

This is a topic that cannot be seriously debated on a right/wrong principle. The models have some predictive power, and some errors.

?????????

Science is very simple. Propose hypothesis. Test hypothesis. Hypothesis is either substantiated or shown to be mistaken. Right or wrong, testable in the real world. Now. If a "process" cannot be tested, it is not science, it is conjecture or metaphysics. And saying "we can't test it because validation will require centuries" is just that. Conjecture at best, metaphysics at worst.

Also they are modeling a system which has some unknown inputs (solar radiation, CO2 emmissions). And finally they have in the past omitted significant aspects (like ocean currents) that affect mesoscale temperature variations.

Why are they still worth something even if they omit ocean currents? Because these cancel out.

That is unsubstantiated assumption.

consider the science you will agree that it is the sensitivity to CO2 and other anthropogenic changes that is the key issue and ocean currents will modulate climate as they have done in the past.

That is not borne out by the evidence.

1) hard data shows that CO2 temperature multiplier values are far below those conjectured by the models. Lower multiplier values lead to far lower projected temperature changes over time, even using the accepted models. Far lower warming is inconsequential.

2) human release of CO2 pales in comparison to CO2 locked up in various reservoirs such as the sea. Effects such as solar energy and PDO cycles that you dismiss as "canceling out" can easily release huge quantities of CO2 from these reservoirs.

do you have a cite/link?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... overnment/

Gracias.

Everybody knows dihydrogen monoxide is a deadly toxin and pollutant.

Ah yes. DHMO. One of the most grievous threats facing mankind. Instantly addictive, and any attempt to go off it is fatal. Present in virtually all toxins. Fatal to breathe.

Duane

Duane,

there a few points you made above that need comment:

Science is not simple. Hypothesis are just that - they are neither right nor wrong but can be given a probability. For example the probability that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow is very high indeed. Other theories may be 90%/80% etc likely. Maths gives you right/wrong, not science which is empirical and never certain.

I have never said that theories should not be tested. Just that some tests may not be possible, or may give little evidence for or against. If there is no testing, no evidence, then the hypothesis is not good for much. Even then we may give considerable weight to a theory before it has any evidence just because it is elegant and ties together other known theories (particle physics has had such). we then look hard for evidence. i am not saying GCMs are in this category - far from it - just making a general point here.

Re some of my assumptions being unsubstantiated that is true of a lot of statements here but I will in a few days try to rectify this.

Here statement about anthropogenic CO2 being smaller than that in ocean reservoirs is disingenuous (why do I find myself using that word so much?). It is true that changes in temperature lead to CO2 emmission/absorption from the sea. There is a time lag here of a few 100 years (or is it 1000 years, I can't remember). It is a known long-term amplifying feedback.

Because of the time lag it is not likely that current CO2 levels will be much affected by a 10 year fluctuation in global temperature. Furthermore the ocean CO2 is in equilibrium over long timescale and therefore will be influenced by anthropogenic CO2 (in as far as this affects temperature) rather than the reverse. The causal links here are subtle but not difficult to understand if you think a little. And you can't understand the GC science without grasping them.

So the fact that there is vast quantities of ocean CO2 is irrelevant. we know BTW from gas bubble data that current CO2 levels are higher than they have been for 100s of thousands of years so it does not seem likely that they could have originated from the ocean - even if the physical mechanism allowed it, which it does not.

As for CO2 multiplier values - working out these is a key issue, and one that will take more than one or two posts to resolve. But your "hard data" for low multipliers has not yet been accepted as peer-reviewed & unrefuted papers. Quoting recent temperature etc data is not the point here (and also tendentious) the science to establish and validate CO2 multipliers is not simple, and must be carefully checked and scrutinsed before I for one would accept it.

Best wishes, Tom

[TallDave]

As for CO2 multiplier values - working out these is a key issue, and one that will take more than one or two posts to resolve

The amount of direct CO2 warming is small -- we can double CO2 concentration and see less than 1 degree Celsius in temperature change. It's the feedbacks that are unknown. But no one knows for sure if the feedbacks are positive or negative, let alone their magnitude. The AGW crowd generally assume large positive feedbacks.

And I do mean assume -- the history of the Earth records no runaway greenhouse effect, meaning it's more likely the feedbacks are increasingly negative as temperatures move higher.

The most likely explanation for the small observed warming is some combination of solar effects and the PDO, with CO2 levels playing a minor role.

I wonder how many people realize the current anomaly is less than .2 degrees. And January is looking like it may go negative. Another year or two like this and they won't be able to call it noise anymore.

So the fact that there is vast quantities of ocean CO2 is irrelevant. we know BTW from gas bubble data that current CO2 levels are higher than they have been for 100s of thousands of years so it does not seem likely that they could have originated from the ocean - even if the physical mechanism allowed it, which it does not.

That statement is hard to support. It may be true that current levels of CO2 are higher than any in the past 600,000 years, but the Earth is 4 billion years old -- CO2 levels have been higher without Man's help before.

And not only have CO2 levels been higher, we've had ice ages occur at concentrations of CO2 an order of magnitude higher than current levels in the atmosphere -- which once again argues CO2 forcing is weak and generally overwhelmed by other factors.

[MSimon]

Tom,

The effect of CO2 was "determined" by ignoring the PDO. Which means the effect of CO2 is overstated. Maybe by a lot. Maybe by a whole lot: i.e. CO2 may have an insignificant effect on the climate if you subtract out the PDO and then attribute the residual warming to CO2 and other minor GHGs.

What may have happened is something like this: there is an iron cantilever horizontal beam. A fly lands on the free end of the beam at the same time some one turns on a hidden electromagnet under the free end of the beam. The deflection is attributed to the fly until some one discovers the hidden electromagnet.

We discovered the hidden electromagnet of climate change in 1997 (PDO etc.). So far no one has adjusted the properties of the magic fly (CO2).

Now you have to ask yourself why the corrections have not been made.