Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Greenies and some Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.

Why is it that we can't go hog-wild and build more nuke plants? You can't go as green as that.
95 Percent of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.

These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):

Spoiler:

Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.

I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.

Yet, that is the direction we are heading.

And even if the extra energy is being stored in the deep ocean (if you have faith in long-term measured warming trends of thousandths or hundredths of a degree), I say “great!”. Because that extra heat is in the form of a tiny temperature change spread throughout an unimaginably large heat sink, which can never have an appreciable effect on future surface climate.

If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.

Doesn't believe in evolution over intelligent design -> Me disregarding his work

I know that isn't particularly tolerant, but meh.

From his wiki
Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".

Pretty much just chuckling at him now.

If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.

Sorry whembly but your source basically destroys his own argument right here. A change in temperature in that amount is a fairly significant thing not to be take lightly.

And maybe all the efforts we have put into reducing our global emissions slowed global warming, thus proving it?


The guy also doesn't source very well, but then again he also made the argument that the fact ocean temperatures rising isn't a big deal so he may as well have written Shakespeare but a statement of such puzzling insanity puts his whole thesis on that "Global warming totally isn't a big deal!" into question.

Well of course it isn't a big deal Alex, God can just fix it up if things start going south.

Then why is it so fething cold here in St. Louis.

Besides...

All I ever wanted is more nuke plants.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.

Sorry whembly but your source basically destroys his own argument right here. A change in temperature in that amount is a fairly significant thing not to be take lightly.

And maybe all the efforts we have put into reducing our global emissions slowed global warming, thus proving it?


The guy also doesn't source very well, but then again he also made the argument that the fact ocean temperatures rising isn't a big deal so he may as well have written Shakespeare but a statement of such puzzling insanity puts his whole thesis on that "Global warming totally isn't a big deal!" into question.

What efforts? Notice how China has more then doubled in a ten year span?

 whembly wrote:
Then why is it so fething cold here in St. Louis.

Besides...

All I ever wanted is more nuke plants.

I cannot believe a man like you who prides himself on "looking deeper into things" (bengazibengazibengazibengazi) would look outside his window, say "its cold" and that moves the climate is fine.

Global Warming is a greater part of what is called "Climate Change"

Look at it like this, part of the reason it's so cold down south is that the jet stream is literally starting to shut down, theirs nothing to stop arctic cold fronts from just flying across the United States from the north.

Fall and Spring are also getting shorter, so eventually one day you will wake up and it will be 94 degrees outside with 2 feet of snow because the transition from winter to summer is gone (or significantly shortened).

I would explain how Australia is literally on fire but I think out Aussie friends can speak for there very very hot selves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.

Sorry whembly but your source basically destroys his own argument right here. A change in temperature in that amount is a fairly significant thing not to be take lightly.

And maybe all the efforts we have put into reducing our global emissions slowed global warming, thus proving it?


The guy also doesn't source very well, but then again he also made the argument that the fact ocean temperatures rising isn't a big deal so he may as well have written Shakespeare but a statement of such puzzling insanity puts his whole thesis on that "Global warming totally isn't a big deal!" into question.

What efforts? Notice how China has more then doubled in a ten year span?

One countries lack of progress in preventing pollution does not prove everyone its polluting. Parts of China can't even work now the air is getting so bad, so yes China's pollution is causing problems which is part of a greater human impact on our climate over the years.

Global warming and climate change are more complicated than raw numbers of CO2 dumped in the air.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

snip.snip

Just a word of advice dude...

djones520 is actually a trained meteorogist, in the Airforce no less...

But back on OT. I believe in Climate Change. As in, it gets hot and cold. It rains or we can have dry spells.

It's it constant state of flux.

What I don't believe in... is the School of Al Gore Global Warming.

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

snip.snip

Just a word of advice dude...

djones520 is actually a trained meteorogist, in the Airforce no less...

But back on OT. I believe in Climate Change. As in, it gets hot and cold. It rains or we can have dry spells.

It's it constant state of flux.

What I don't believe in... is the School of Al Gore Global Warming.

I did not know that, so, I apologize Djones. You probably know way more of this than I do, I just know what I look up on my on.

 Alexzandvar wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.

Sorry whembly but your source basically destroys his own argument right here. A change in temperature in that amount is a fairly significant thing not to be take lightly.

And maybe all the efforts we have put into reducing our global emissions slowed global warming, thus proving it?


The guy also doesn't source very well, but then again he also made the argument that the fact ocean temperatures rising isn't a big deal so he may as well have written Shakespeare but a statement of such puzzling insanity puts his whole thesis on that "Global warming totally isn't a big deal!" into question.

What efforts? Notice how China has more then doubled in a ten year span?

Spoiler:

The School of Al Gore global warming is one based is stats and scientific theories with numerous evidence . So uh, sorry to say I don't really know what to say.

Your article is by a creationist who thinks sea temperatures rising is totally okay, hard to argue with crazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.

Sorry whembly but your source basically destroys his own argument right here. A change in temperature in that amount is a fairly significant thing not to be take lightly.

And maybe all the efforts we have put into reducing our global emissions slowed global warming, thus proving it?


The guy also doesn't source very well, but then again he also made the argument that the fact ocean temperatures rising isn't a big deal so he may as well have written Shakespeare but a statement of such puzzling insanity puts his whole thesis on that "Global warming totally isn't a big deal!" into question.

What efforts? Notice how China has more then doubled in a ten year span?

Spoiler:

I hate it when quote brackets get jacked up...

And honestly my background has nothing to do with emission levels... but ok.

 whembly wrote:
Then why is it so fething cold here in St. Louis.

Besides...

All I ever wanted is more nuke plants.

Right on D!

That comic used the words "polar" and "vortex" together.

It is false. Disregard anything it tries to say.

I actually just read an argument that claimed that global warming is less than predicted, therefore we should disregard it entirely.

Like if you were sitting at the beach and the tide coming in, and your friend said 'we should move in the next half hour or the water will be over our heads'... and then half an hour later its only at your toes, so you figure your friend can be ignored enitrely and you should keep sitting there.

It's also just completely weird to claim we should start doing less, when we're doing a fraction of what's needed even if we accept Spencer's reduced rate of heating.

What is the problem with polar vortexes... vortexs.... anyway, what's the problem with them?

The phrase, I mean. Not the phenomenon.



edit: Vortices! Right?

 sebster wrote:
I actually just read an argument that claimed that global warming is less than predicted, therefore we should disregard it entirely.

Like if you were sitting at the beach and the tide coming in, and your friend said 'we should move in the next half hour or the water will be over our heads'... and then half an hour later its only at your toes, so you figure your friend can be ignored enitrely and you should keep sitting there.

It's also just completely weird to claim we should start doing less, when we're doing a fraction of what's needed even if we accept Spencer's reduced rate of heating.

Or maybe, since all of the forecasts have basically been wrong, maybe we should thank our lucky stars that we had sane heads in place when folks where screaming that we should throw trillions of dollars at this non-existent problem.

 djones520 wrote:
That comic used the words "polar" and "vortex" together.

It is false. Disregard anything it tries to say.

Holy gak. You're like a parody of bad internet posting.

 Ouze wrote:
What is the problem with polar vortexes... vortexs.... anyway, what's the problem with them?

The phrase, I mean. Not the phenomenon.

It's a made up pop-phrase. It is not a real term. And if I ever had the chance to meet the guy who starting slinging it on TWC, I'd slap him so hard his teeth will land in Kenya.

Then I'd go to the guy who started naming frontal boundaries in the winter time...

Edit to clarify: Yes, Polar Vortexes are real things, they also go by many other names. Their recent use in the mainstream forecasting though are as I mentioned, meant as a "pop-phrase". In the meteorological world, we pretty much refer to them as semi-permanent lows.

 Ouze wrote:
What is the problem with polar vortexes... vortexs.... anyway, what's the problem with them?

The phrase, I mean. Not the phenomenon.



edit: Vortices! Right?

I liked those phrases too!

I think it stems from that fact that these winter storms are *named* now, like hurricanes. Somehow, naming them makes them more "ominous" except that, its something that always existed.

EDIT: ninja'ed.

Interesting, I read an article similar to this earlier today: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/11/global_warming_still_blowing_along.html

Here is the closing of the article:

This exemplifies the science of climatology, in my mind. No matter how you look at it, if you’re honest then you’ll see that this “pause” isn’t real. At best you can say that the models predict we should be getting hotter faster, though it’s a small effect. But even then, real climatologists have pounced on this, prying the idea apart, poking it, prodding it, and seeing what they can find. And they did in fact see that we need better Arctic coverage and a better understanding of wind patterns over the ocean.

Real science doesn’t deny an effect. It investigates it honestly and tries to pry out the root causes. And that’s precisely what’s happening.

The problem is quite different for people who want to communicate the reality of climate change. For one, these changes are subtle and slow, making it hard to convey urgency. The other is that the changes can be somewhat complex, making it easy to muddy the waters, which is what deniers do.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Interesting, I read an article similar to this earlier today: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/11/global_warming_still_blowing_along.html

Here is the closing of the article:

This exemplifies the science of climatology, in my mind. No matter how you look at it, if you’re honest then you’ll see that this “pause” isn’t real. At best you can say that the models predict we should be getting hotter faster, though it’s a small effect. But even then, real climatologists have pounced on this, prying the idea apart, poking it, prodding it, and seeing what they can find. And they did in fact see that we need better Arctic coverage and a better understanding of wind patterns over the ocean.

Real science doesn’t deny an effect. It investigates it honestly and tries to pry out the root causes. And that’s precisely what’s happening.

The problem is quite different for people who want to communicate the reality of climate change. For one, these changes are subtle and slow, making it hard to convey urgency. The other is that the changes can be somewhat complex, making it easy to muddy the waters, which is what deniers do.

See this is the meat of what I've been saying for years of the topic. We just do not understand enough of it yet. We don't know what is behind it all, how it is occuring. Yet despite the lack of knowledge, we've got all these half-cocked idea's being throw around on how to stop the apocalypse, when we don't even really know anything.

 djones520 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Interesting, I read an article similar to this earlier today: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/11/global_warming_still_blowing_along.html

Here is the closing of the article:

This exemplifies the science of climatology, in my mind. No matter how you look at it, if you’re honest then you’ll see that this “pause” isn’t real. At best you can say that the models predict we should be getting hotter faster, though it’s a small effect. But even then, real climatologists have pounced on this, prying the idea apart, poking it, prodding it, and seeing what they can find. And they did in fact see that we need better Arctic coverage and a better understanding of wind patterns over the ocean.

Real science doesn’t deny an effect. It investigates it honestly and tries to pry out the root causes. And that’s precisely what’s happening.

The problem is quite different for people who want to communicate the reality of climate change. For one, these changes are subtle and slow, making it hard to convey urgency. The other is that the changes can be somewhat complex, making it easy to muddy the waters, which is what deniers do.

See this is the meat of what I've been saying for years of the topic. We just do not understand enough of it yet. We don't know what is behind it all, how it is occuring. Yet despite the lack of knowledge, we've got all these half-cocked idea's being throw around on how to stop the apocalypse, when we don't even really know anything.

Exactamudo dude.

I actually don't really mind spending all this money/grants to research "Climate Change". What I object, is knee-jerk reactions to things like Carbon-Tax and anti-coal polices.

 djones520 wrote:
Or maybe, since all of the forecasts have basically been wrong, maybe we should thank our lucky stars that we had sane heads in place when folks where screaming that we should throw trillions of dollars at this non-existent problem.

Having a prediction that temperature should have increased by 0.6', and having seen it increase by 0.3' does not mean reject the models entirely, chuck them out, admit we don't know anything. That's fething bonkers.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Or maybe, since all of the forecasts have basically been wrong, maybe we should thank our lucky stars that we had sane heads in place when folks where screaming that we should throw trillions of dollars at this non-existent problem.

Having a prediction that temperature should have increased by 0.6', and having seen it increase by 0.3' does not mean reject the models entirely, chuck them out, admit we don't know anything. That's fething bonkers.

...

You didn't bother reading my post did you? It means we did not have all of the info we needed, and still do not, so it is a good thing that we did not act on all of doom-sayers predictions because we would have destroyed ourselves over something that never would have happened.

 djones520 wrote:
It's a made up pop-phrase. It is not a real term.

It's a popular comic strip. One that talks about science a bit, but still one that is mostly read by layman, most of whom couldn't give two gaks about the proper name for a weather event. The comic is just using the most recognised term to establish the set up to get on to making its actual point, that short term memory often leads us to reject long term trends in favour of our perception of recent weather trends.

You're like that guy who says Saving Private Ryan is a bad movie because the shoe laces in the movie were threaded in a fashion that didn't happen until three months after the Normandy landing.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
It's a made up pop-phrase. It is not a real term.

It's a popular comic strip. One that talks about science a bit, but still one that is mostly read by layman, most of whom couldn't give two gaks about the proper name for a weather event. The comic is just using the most recognised term to establish the set up to get on to making its actual point, that short term memory often leads us to reject long term trends in favour of our perception of recent weather trends.

You're like that guy who says Saving Private Ryan is a bad movie because the shoe laces in the movie were threaded in a fashion that didn't happen until three months after the Normandy landing.

I was joking in that post Seb...

*sigh*

 djones520 wrote:
See this is the meat of what I've been saying for years of the topic. We just do not understand enough of it yet. We don't know what is behind it all, how it is occuring.

That is not what the article says.

"One is that 1998 was an unusually warm year, so by starting there you’re bound to see temperatures slowing their rise a bit. That’s called cherry-picking and is a favorite technique among those who deny global warming is occurring. It’s a no-no."

"The lion’s share of the extra heat from warming is being stored in deeper ocean water. We can measure that, and it’s seen."

"Another is that we see fluctuations over a period of a few years in the historical temperature record all the time."

"Far northern latitudes are much more affected by global warming than midlatitudes, and if you leave those temperatures out, then you don’t see as fast a rise as you should. That study shows that when you account for this, warming rates in the surface temperatures go up, closer to what the models predict."

"Either way, no matter how you slice it, this “pause” is nothing of the sort. At best, the warming is continuing apace, but just not affecting surface temperatures as much. Once things return to normal—whatever that is these days— we can expect surface temperatures to start rising at the same rate once again."



The only point made by the article is that the so-called pause is a myth, and that if you look beyond surface temperature, or even just include arctic measures, then this becomes clear. The only way you could think it resulted in your conclusion is if you never bothered to read the article.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Exactamudo dude.

That's not what the article said at all. Don't fall for this bs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
You didn't bother reading my post did you? It means we did not have all of the info we needed, and still do not, so it is a good thing that we did not act on all of doom-sayers predictions because we would have destroyed ourselves over something that never would have happened.

I read your post. Every word of it. And then I just read it again, just to make sure. Still says the same stuff it did when I read it the first time.

It still claims global warming is a non-existant problem. And it is still thinking that the OP's article supports that, because for some reason you think 'an increase of about half the estimates of the models' is the same thing as no increase. Which is fething bonkers.

And they did in fact see that we need better Arctic coverage and a better understanding of wind patterns over the ocean.

And better understanding of solar effects on our climate. And yes, better understanding of Carbon emissions on the world as a whole.

If we had all the understanding we needed, the models would have been correct. They wouldn't have been off as drastically as they are.