Climate predictions

[tolbiny]

Ten years ago when I was interested in climate and ecology in high school it was just plain accepted that long range forecasting was out of our reach. The complexity of weather patterns, not fully understanding how variables interact (or even if all the most important variables were known) gave my teachers an aura of confidence when describing how little we knew about the weather.

What has so fundementally changed? I routinely hear about predictions of the the long term climate effects of global warming with little or no mention of caveats about these difficulties in predictions. Have the past ten years of satellites, ice cores and computer modeling taught us enough to be confident in these predictions (confident enough to encourage action to change the path)? I really have no understanding of how to treat these predictions from a probabilistic view or a scientific accuracy view.

I guess the question is, how well can we fordcast the next 30 years?

[ApeAttack]

I'm a graduate student at UC Irvine and have read a lot of papers and heard a lot of lectures on the issue of global climate change (GCC).

Scientists DO recognize that there is still great uncertainty in the extent global climate change (GCC) will occur over the next century. If you read the IPCC report, different models can vary significantly in their predictions of the average temperature increase in the future and this uncertainty increases as they look further in time. The uncertainty is due to different assumptions used in the models. For example, there is still a HUGE uncertainty in the effect aerosols (not those from hairspray cans) play in GCC.

However, the models all predict the same general trends: there will be a rise in the average global temperature, the arctic will get hotter, etc. This is in part because greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as CO2, CH4, N2O, etc... have relatively well-defined chemistry and absorption spectra (although there is still uncertainty in the emission budgets of GHGs). The radiative forcing from GHGs play a huge role in the radiative forcing budget of earth.

Scientists now have more confidence in predicting that GCC will occur because,
1) Computers have become a lot faster, allowing for models to include more data.
2) The science has become better (the input data has become more accurate).
3) More data has been gathered over the last decade that shows GCC is beginning to occur.

In short, scientists DO recognize there is still great uncertainty in the precision of model predictions, but there is little uncertainty in the idea that there is a general trend toward an increase in the average global temperature.

Here are links from the 2001 IPCC report.

Avg global temp. increase (http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.24.jpg)

Other graphics from the IPCC report (http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics.htm)

CO2 concentrations - current + predictions (http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.21.jpg)

[Woolygimp]

I hear Global Warming advocates cite information saying the temperature is the highest it's been in 400,000 years.

Then I heard skeptics saying, the temperature is following a natural 1,500 year pattern and the temperature is well within normal means.

These are dealing with facts, events that have already happened and this isn't theorycrafting. They can't both be right...

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]
I hear Global Warming advocates cite information saying the temperature is the highest it's been in 400,000 years.

Then I heard skeptics saying, the temperature is following a natural 1,500 year pattern and the temperature is well within normal means.

These are dealing with facts, events that have already happened and this isn't theorycrafting. They can't both be right...

[/ QUOTE ]


Two points...
1) I think that most scientists who advocate GCC is occuring will say that man's role is only part of the story. Non-anthropogenic (man-made) sources of GCC are influencing the earth's climate as well. However, keep in mind that it only takes a few degree increase in the average global temperatures to make massive changes in the climate. Almost every numerical model predicts that a few degree increase is a very strong possibility in the next decade if emissions are left unchecked.

2) The world's TOP scientists in the field are almost unanamous in their belief that humans are significantly impacting earth's climate. This includes almost every noble prize winner as well. The question is how severely will man impact the climate in the future. These 'skeptics' you speak of most likes either (a) don't understand the basic physics and chemistry behind GCC and/or (b) have political motives.


I must once again state that among the top scientists in the field (people who have spent their entire academic careers studying this topic), almost every one believes that man's contribution to GCC is occuring and will get more severe if left unchecked. Their beliefs are based on fundamental principles of chemistry and physics, not political.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Ten years ago when I was interested in climate and ecology in high school it was just plain accepted that long range forecasting was out of our reach. The complexity of weather patterns, not fully understanding how variables interact (or even if all the most important variables were known) gave my teachers an aura of confidence when describing how little we knew about the weather.

What has so fundementally changed? I routinely hear about predictions of the the long term climate effects of global warming with little or no mention of caveats about these difficulties in predictions. Have the past ten years of satellites, ice cores and computer modeling taught us enough to be confident in these predictions (confident enough to encourage action to change the path)? I really have no understanding of how to treat these predictions from a probabilistic view or a scientific accuracy view.

I guess the question is, how well can we fordcast the next 30 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

First lesson you need to learn:

Climate and weather are not the same thing.

Weather means specific conditions at a particular point at a particular time. It is inherently impossible to predict accurately, especially more than a week or so into the future.

Climate refers to average conitions, over several decades, of a relatively large area on a monthly, seasonal, or annual basis. It's still hard to predict, but it's not inherently impossible.

[surftheiop]

"I must once again state that among the top scientists in the field (people who have spent their entire academic careers studying this topic), almost every one believes "that man's contribution to GCC is occuring and will get more severe if left unchecked. Their beliefs are based on fundamental principles of chemistry and physics, not political."

Even if not political wouldnt you say these top scientists would have huge economic incentives (ie. sell books, get governments to fund their research, have jobs,etc) to make global warming seem urgent?

[latefordinner]

No, I think that selling out to XOM and other companies to be a paid shill for the no such thing as global warming crowd would be much more lucrative.

[Rearden]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if not political wouldnt you say these top scientists would have huge economic incentives (ie. sell books, get governments to fund their research, have jobs,etc) to make global warming seem urgent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to the myriad of other fields of scientific research... no. I think most serious statements on global warming suggest that the damage has been done and is being done. I have no idea what direct economic impact would go to particular science groups in the sense that any acclaim would cast doubt. Your statement is phrased as if to say the more noise a certain idea or policy gets the more we should ignore it; thats not how mainstream scientific consensus is formed. If however youre looking for examples of "science" motivated by money and belief and not actual data "The Republican War on Science" is your book (rest assured though it also attacks insane "science" claims on the left as well)

I would state that global warming is urgent. Simply because it still snowed in most of the US this year and because most weather patterns were normal does not discount documented long term trends that when properly applied to form theories of future system behavior... it all looks pretty bleak and damn serious. If it was just (somehow) an issue of minor global temperature increase... ok. But its not nearly as isolated. Imagine the impact of global climate change on everything from malaria and west nile virus spreads to changing currents and populations in global fisheries or weather patterns changing to damage regional crop yeilds, etc. Geology shows us that the world was at times decidedly unfriendly toward life...maybe the future is just as negative.

I believe fully that based on the data avaliable today that the world climate will be altered dramatically in the next 25 years resulting in different weather patterns (more severe storms, droughts in previously moderate areas, also farming in greenland as a minor plus) and shifts in natural systems (currents, insects, etc) and that such alterations if they occur will negatively impact human beings as a species..... I do still hope that I am somehow wrong in this

[latefordinner]

also I am so tired of hearing conservative talk radio show hosts talk about snow storms as evidence against global warming - it shows a complete lack of understanding of what the global warming phenomenon is all about (I have long contended that the phrase should be "catastrophic climate change")

"global warming" isn't about a slightly longer growing season in canada and needing to turn on the AC a little earlier in Florida, it's about massive and irreversible shifts in habitats (precipitation changes, weather patterns, sea levels, sea pH, etc) that could lead to the collapse of large ecosystems

[ApeAttack]

Even if not political wouldnt you say these top scientists would have huge economic incentives (ie. sell books, get governments to fund their research, have jobs,etc) to make global warming seem urgent?

[/ QUOTE ]


At the university, I am surrounded by professors and researchers who will never publish a book. Only a small fraction of scientists will ever publish anything more than journal articles (and they don't directly get money for that).

It is true that many scientists must write research proposals to get funding and this could bias the proposals toward studying topics that are more accepted among the scientific community. However, this is generally not the case. These people genuinely want to do a good job. Researchers put their reputation on the line every time they publish something in an peer-reviewed journal. If they turn out to be wrong later, they stand to lose a lot of respect (which could lead to loss of funding, etc.). In general, researchers are very conservative in making large claims. In my classes, professors sometimes joke about ridiculous claims made by some lone scientists in the past.

The idea that humans are playing a significant role in GCC did not suddenly popup overnight. It has been evolving slowly over the decades. During this time, many scientific papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals (not an easy thing to do, trust me), evidence has been gathered, and many different researchers have come to the same conclusion regarding this issue.

The reason for the urgency is because the planet's atmosphere takes a long time to recover and the rate of greenhouse gas output is rising at a ridiculous rate. It took a long time for the ozone layer to even begin recovering from CFC emissions (although it still has a long way to go).

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]
(I have long contended that the phrase should be "catastrophic climate change")


[/ QUOTE ]

The phrase I hear most often now is 'Global Climate Change' and not 'Global Warming'. I think that GCC is technically a better way to phrase the situation than your phrase, but I like it.

I think it would be hilarious if the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) changed its name to the IPCCC (intergovernmental panel on catastrophic climate change).

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the question is, how well can we fordcast the next 30 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at James Hansens 20 year predictions and tell me

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

It's pretty foolish to bet against them.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at James Hansens 20 year predictions and tell me

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

It's pretty foolish to bet against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

His results are in dispute. There is technical analysis/criticism here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=796

A very simple question: why doesn't Hansen sync up his starting scenarios with the actual observed temperature? Could he be too busy bitterly complaining about the Bush administration's censoring of him or too busy conducting one of the 1400 interviews he gives a year?

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
A very simple question: why doesn't Hansen sync up his starting scenarios with the actual observed temperature? Could he be too busy bitterly complaining about the Bush administration's censoring of him or too busy conducting one of the 1400 interviews he gives a year?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding me? These aren't deterministic, initial-value models.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A very simple question: why doesn't Hansen sync up his starting scenarios with the actual observed temperature? Could he be too busy bitterly complaining about the Bush administration's censoring of him or too busy conducting one of the 1400 interviews he gives a year?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? These aren't deterministic, initial-value models.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not kidding you. I know nothing of such things so I am only thinknig/speaking intuitively. (The second part of my comment was simply a shot at Hansen because I think he is a whiny ahole and it was not a direct comment on the quality of his work. He seems to be fairly well regarded even by the skeptics). I would assume that when one makes such a model there is a lot of assumptions and given that, the models would be better for trending that for absolutes. Given the complexity of such models and the inherent assumptions, could it not be easy for the entire model to be off by some factor that shifts the chart vertically? As such, why not baseline to some frame?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the question is, how well can we fordcast the next 30 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at James Hansens 20 year predictions and tell me

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

It's pretty foolish to bet against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something funny is going on. This guy Hansen's models have not changed in 20 years?

I don't believe it. I'm obviously missing something.

Edit: Ok, it looks like he's simply updated his graph of 20 year old model predictions with new observational data. Do you have any links to actual modern models?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at James Hansens 20 year predictions and tell me

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

It's pretty foolish to bet against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

His results are in dispute. There is technical analysis/criticism here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=796

A very simple question: why doesn't Hansen sync up his starting scenarios with the actual observed temperature?

[/ QUOTE ]

Google "climate fraudit" and click on the first link. Since you claim to understand statistics you should understand why your link is misrepresenting the data.

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]

His results are in dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of models predict that temperatures will rise significantly in this century due to anthropogenic emissions. I put a link to the 2001 IPCC report in a link earlier. There is a graph that compares many different models.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
A very simple question: why doesn't Hansen sync up his starting scenarios with the actual observed temperature?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's standard in global climate studies to use the average condition from 1961-1990 as a baseline for future climate changes. What climate scientsts are most interested in is long-term average temperature (among other variables, esp. precipitation) not the average temperature of any given year.

This all goes back to understanding what "climate" means. It represents the distribution of conditions (e.g. average, annual variablility, and trend - to keep it relatively simple) over several decades (the standard is generally 30 years).

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at James Hansens 20 year predictions and tell me

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

It's pretty foolish to bet against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

His results are in dispute. There is technical analysis/criticism here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=796

A very simple question: why doesn't Hansen sync up his starting scenarios with the actual observed temperature?

[/ QUOTE ]

Google "climate fraudit" and click on the first link. Since you claim to understand statistics you should understand why your link is misrepresenting the data.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read your link and it has interesting comments. I will leave it to you to nitpick the data as I have no time for a detailed discussion. The shift of the hadcrut3 data down, if I understand what it is correctly, is problematic. I think I understand why they shifted it down. But, if you shift hadcrut3 then you have to also shift the observed. Whatever the reason, climateaudit does not appear to misrepresent anything. The author clearly pointed out exactly what he was doing and why and even goes a bit out of his way not to criticize Hansen.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A very simple question: why doesn't Hansen sync up his starting scenarios with the actual observed temperature?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's standard in global climate studies to use the average condition from 1961-1990 as a baseline for future climate changes. What climate scientsts are most interested in is long-term average temperature (among other variables, esp. precipitation) not the average temperature of any given year.

This all goes back to understanding what "climate" means. It represents the distribution of conditions (e.g. average, annual variablility, and trend - to keep it relatively simple) over several decades (the standard is generally 30 years).

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the explanation. A 30 year average seems a better approach but it is also problematic.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever the reason, climateaudit does not appear to misrepresent anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing a 30 year baseline/averages to yearly averages is comparing two different scales. It's like comparing apples to oranges. It's an honest mistake (that they fail/choose not to admit) at best and a blatant attempt to mislead through incorrectly executed math at worst. The average person won't be able to pick up on these kind of tactics and failures to admit to mistakes which are all too common in the skeptic world. Still, the fact that the shape of the lines fit like a jigsaw puzzle should make it obvious that the model was correct.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever the reason, climateaudit does not appear to misrepresent anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing a 30 year baseline/averages to yearly averages is comparing two different scales. It's like comparing apples to oranges. It's an honest mistake (that they fail/choose not to admit) at best and a blatant attempt to mislead through incorrectly executed math at worst. The average person won't be able to pick up on these kind of tactics and failures to admit to mistakes which are all too common in the skeptic world. Still, the fact that the shape of the lines fit like a jigsaw puzzle should make it obvious that the model was correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, climateaudit.org is not a propaganda site and it is certainly not meant for the average reader on climate. It is a site where technical nits can argue about such things. I don't know if their model or analysis is correct. Intuitively, I don't like how they baselined. However, they clearly outlined their approach and what they did. To me, that is always the most important part.

To the actual data, if I understand it correctly, the 2 lines that fit like a glove are the two interpretations of actual data and not projections. One would hope that they fit very accurately. The important question is whether Hansen's predictions fit the actual data. Hansen makes 3 predictions: A,B,C. Clearly A is wildly off. B seems to be moderately off. C seems to fit someone but the underlying assumptions of C, that emissions cap in 2000, did not hold true.

I am not saying Hansen in wrong or that climateaudit is correct. I am simply suggesting that there is room for discussion on this.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
To the actual data, if I understand it correctly, the 2 lines that fit like a glove are the two interpretations of actual data and not projections. One would hope that they fit very accurately. The important question is whether Hansen's predictions fit the actual data. Hansen makes 3 predictions: A,B,C. Clearly A is wildly off. B seems to be moderately off. C seems to fit someone but the underlying assumptions of C, that emissions cap in 2000, did not hold true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's much too early to determine which scenario (B or C) fits better because the two scenarios don't really diverge until after 2006. It would be unwise to try and evaluate the scenarios until at least 2010, if not 2015.

Also, this is just one model (does anyone know which one? I want to know the model name) and these scenarios don't appear to be standard anymore (if they ever were). I work regularily with the results of 7 climate models for 4 scenarios from the SRES scenarios from 2001 that ApeAttack referenced earlier. These studies project to 2100 and they all predict significant warming by the end of the century even for the most optimistic scenarios.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
I work regularily with the results of 7 climate models for 4 scenarios from the SRES scenarios from 2001 that ApeAttack referenced earlier. These studies project to 2100 and they all predict significant warming by the end of the century even for the most optimistic scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a different issue than the narrow one I was addressing, but it is interesting.

What is one to make from the fact that all models show warming? Is it possible for all of them to be way off base? If we are to trust such models as being given then why such changes from IPCC 3 to IPCC 4? If the models differ greatly in 3 years should we reject them because we have such high faith in current models?

How much "inbreeding" existed in the creation of these 7 climate models? How much cross-collaboration exists among the authors?

[Silent A]

Ok, I found the Hansen paper online and he was using an old (obviously) Goddard Institute for Space Studies model (the Goddard Fluid Dynamics Laborartory model circa 2000, GFDLR30, is one of the SRES models - I don't know if these two institutions work together or not).

It's interesting to note that the GISS model operates at a resolution of 8x10 degrees. This is extremely crude by modern standards (which were approx 2 degrees by 2000 - not sure what they are now but I assume they're all aiming for 1 degree). Plus, there have been a lot of improvements to how these models handle not just the atmosphere but also the oceans and the land surface.

Hansen's study really is so out of date that it should only be of historical interest. You could probably run his model on your laptop without straining it much. The fact that it was accurate at all should tell you a lot about the quality of the current generation of models.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that it was accurate at all should tell you a lot about the quality of the current generation of models.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think it tells you anything really.

What model exists today, that has accurately predicted yearly temperatures from the last 50 or so years? I am not talking about a upward general trend. That is too subject to manipulation and fitting. I mean model that has a year by year high level of accuracy.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
If we are to trust such models as being given then why such changes from IPCC 3 to IPCC 4? If the models differ greatly in 3 years should we reject them because we have such high faith in current models?

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. My understanding is that the range of predicted temperature changes by 2100 went from 1.4-5.8 deg C to 1.8-4.0 deg C. Also, it was 6 years (2001 to 2007).

[ QUOTE ]
How much "inbreeding" existed in the creation of these 7 climate models? How much cross-collaboration exists among the authors?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is starting to sound like paranoia. There is a phyisical basis for the common trend: CO2 absorbs far more light in the visible spectrum (i.e. incoming solar radiation) than it does in the infra-red spectrum (i.e. outgoing radiation from the Earth). This means that as CO2 increases, the earth will warm more until the energy it emits in infrared equals the energy it receives from solar radiation. Other trace gases, like methane, do the same thing and some do the opposite but CO2 domaintes them all because it is so abundant.

Still, the exact amount of warming will depend on the complex interaction of all these gases with each other, as well as the interaction between the land, atmosphere, and oceans. This is where the inter-model variation comes from.

As to "inbreeding" they all use their own sub-models for each process (there are a lot of them). For example, there are dozens of different land surface models that each use different formulations for the treatment of snow (for example). In a full GCM there are literally hundreds (probably thousands) of sub-sub-models.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that it was accurate at all should tell you a lot about the quality of the current generation of models.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think it tells you anything really.

What model exists today, that has accurately predicted yearly temperatures from the last 50 or so years? I am not talking about a upward general trend. That is too subject to manipulation and fitting. I mean model that has a year by year high level of accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're asking for the impossible. We don't have enough data of a high enough quality about the conditions (atmosphere, ocean, or land) of the past to ever do this (at least until we invent time machines so we could go back and put super advanced intruments to measure them).

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. My understanding is that the range of predicted temperature changes by 2100 went from 1.4-5.8 deg C to 1.8-4.0 deg C. Also, it was 6 years (2001 to 2007)

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry, 6 years. I would have to look up the number but assuming you are accurate that is a about a 30% increase on the low and a 30% decrease on the high. That is a huge change. How can anyone put much faith in such numbers or even the direction of such numbers? I would be willing to bet big money that the next report shows at least a 30% change in one of those numbers.

[ QUOTE ]
This is starting to sound like paranoia

[/ QUOTE ]I think this is a legitimate question. Every time I see, "this model has matches that model" or "this has been independently verified by so and so" I check the sources and they are all tightly linked - work together, publish together, etc.

Now, it certainly may be that the underlying base assumptions of common models may be correct and that the models themselves are correct. However, it does not provide for cross-validation. Because, if a key assumption is wrong, and all the models rely on it, then all the models are wrong.

Again, my comment wasn't to challenge the models but to challenge the cross-validity they provide. Basically, it doesn't provide support to the direction of the models by saying so many models predict the same direction simply because the models are just derivatives of each other.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
You're asking for the impossible. We don't have enough data of a high enough quality about the conditions (atmosphere, ocean, or land) of the past to ever do this (at least until we invent time machines so we could go back and put super advanced intruments to measure them).

[/ QUOTE ]

So, is it fair to say that:

1) We have incredibly complex models trying to understand an incredibly complex environment
2) We do not even fully understand the current environment as it exists today. There are a tremendous amount of factors that affect one another in ways we don't always understand
3) Currently, we can not even predict some subsets of the environment even 1 year out - eg, hurricane predictions last year
4) We do not have the historical data to validate these models
5) The models are still evolving and in their infancy

Yet, given all this, we are going to somehow predict the global temperature 100 years from now with any reliable degree of certainty?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, 6 years. I would have to look up the number but assuming you are accurate that is a about a 30% increase on the low and a 30% decrease on the high. That is a huge change. How can anyone put much faith in such numbers or even the direction of such numbers? I would be willing to bet big money that the next report shows at least a 30% change in one of those numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. How can you say this seriously? The most obvious way to interpret this is that the range of possabilities has decreased as the models are closing in on what is really happening. If a narrowing of the range is a bad sign to you, what would you make of it if the range became wider?

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a legitimate question. Every time I see, "this model has matches that model" or "this has been independently verified by so and so" I check the sources and they are all tightly linked - work together, publish together, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everytime? This can't be true. The 7 IPCC models, for example, were from Germany, UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, and two from the US. They are the work of entire institutions, not individuals. They all use different models for just about every sub-process and all these sub-models have been thouroughly tested in their own right when they were developed by (usually) other scientists working at completely different institutions/universities.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, it certainly may be that the underlying base assumptions of common models may be correct and that the models themselves are correct. However, it does not provide for cross-validation. Because, if a key assumption is wrong, and all the models rely on it, then all the models are wrong.

Again, my comment wasn't to challenge the models but to challenge the cross-validity they provide. Basically, it doesn't provide support to the direction of the models by saying so many models predict the same direction simply because the models are just derivatives of each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

The underlying assumption has been thouroughly tested under laboratory conditions (CO2 absorbs more energy from visible light than infra-red) and the rest follows from the the law of conservation of energy. Venus is a beautiful example of what can happen on a planetary scale. If you want to deny this "underlying assumption" or the law of conservation of energy you're beyond reasonable.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're asking for the impossible. We don't have enough data of a high enough quality about the conditions (atmosphere, ocean, or land) of the past to ever do this (at least until we invent time machines so we could go back and put super advanced intruments to measure them).

[/ QUOTE ]

So, is it fair to say that:

1) We have incredibly complex models trying to understand an incredibly complex environment
2) We do not even fully understand the current environment as it exists today. There are a tremendous amount of factors that affect one another in ways we don't always understand
3) Currently, we can not even predict some subsets of the environment even 1 year out - eg, hurricane predictions last year
4) We do not have the historical data to validate these models
5) The models are still evolving and in their infancy

Yet, given all this, we are going to somehow predict the global temperature 100 years from now with any reliable degree of certainty?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) obviously this is true.

2) "fully"? of course not. but we understand it a lot better than your selective wording suggests.

3) This is irrelevent. I've already explained why. Climate is not the same thing as weather.

4) Completely false. We do not have enough data to produce a year-by-year perfect match. We have more than enough to validate the models. Hansen's work from 20 years ago was more than enough to demonstrate this.

5) Obviously evolving, but I would never say infancy. Infancy was what we had in the 1960s.

So your last statment is moot.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. How can you say this seriously? The most obvious way to interpret this is that the range of possabilities has decreased as the models are closing in on what is really happening. If a narrowing of the range is a bad sign to you, what would you make of it if the range became wider?

[/ QUOTE ]hmmmm...... I was wrong. You are correct. A narrowing is the most likely explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
Everytime? This can't be true. The 7 IPCC models, for example, were from Germany, UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, and two from the US. They are the work of entire institutions, not individuals. They all use different models for just about every sub-process and all these sub-models have been thouroughly tested in their own right when they were developed by (usually) other scientists working at completely different institutions/universities.

[/ QUOTE ]
I said, "every time I have checked". My sample size is small but it is alarming to me that every time I check there is heavy cross pollination. Can you give me an example of two independent teams who studies cross validate each other. Have the details of the 7 models been released? If so, can you point me to the relevant sites?

[ QUOTE ]
The underlying assumption has been thouroughly tested under laboratory conditions (CO2 absorbs more energy from visible light than infra-red) and the rest follows from the the law of conservation of energy. Venus is a beautiful example of what can happen on a planetary scale. If you want to deny this "underlying assumption" or the law of conservation of energy you're beyond reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]You miss my point completely. I made no comment on the validity of the assumptions. It does not matter if all assumptions are likely to be 99.9999999999% correct. I simply said if they all rely on the same assumption then more copies with the same underlying assumptions provide no additional validation. The two ideas are independent.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
2)"fully"? of course not. but we understand it a lot better than your selective wording suggests.

[/ QUOTE ]Okay. How well do we understand it? What are we sure of? What don't we know?

[ QUOTE ]
3) This is irrelevent. I've already explained why. Climate is not the same thing as weather.

[/ QUOTE ]they are tangentally related. Either way, are you suggesting that it is easier to predict the global climate 100 years out than it is to predict regional hurricanes 1 year out?

[ QUOTE ]
4) Completely false. We do not have enough data to produce a year-by-year perfect match. We have more than enough to validate the models. Hansen's work from 20 years ago was more than enough to demonstrate this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you not just say, "You're asking for the impossible." and that "We don't have enough data of a high enough quality about the conditions (atmosphere, ocean, or land) of the past to ever do this".

How do you reconcile these two comments? How can we validate if we don't have the data, as you say?

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I think that selling out to XOM and other companies to be a paid shill for the no such thing as global warming crowd would be much more lucrative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Govt grants of the sky is falling global warming crowd far outweigh any private enterprise donations to find the truth. Scientists who research global warming and find that man has little to nothing to do with it will not be getting grant money.
Must be nice going thru life having only one enemy latefordinner, too bad capitalism will outlive you.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
I have long contended that the phrase should be "catastrophic climate change"

"global warming" isn't about a slightly longer growing season in canada and needing to turn on the AC a little earlier in Florida, it's about massive and irreversible shifts in habitats (precipitation changes, weather patterns, sea levels, sea pH, etc) that could lead to the collapse of large ecosystems

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean all the things that have been going on here on Earth for billions of years? Wow...I'm scared now. Where is the sierra club and greenpeace sign up sheet.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I said, "every time I have checked". My sample size is small but it is alarming to me that every time I check there is heavy cross pollination. Can you give me an example of two independent teams who studies cross validate each other. Have the details of the 7 models been released? If so, can you point me to the relevant sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what studies you're talking about so it's hard to comment. As far as I'm concerned, you're bringing this "cross-pollination" issue out of nowhere, and it's your responsaibilty to show it exists, not mine to disprove it. All these models are giant combinations of a great deal of sub models each dealing with each individual physical process in the atmosphere-land-ocean system. The creators of each GCM do not generally develop these sub-models, rather they choose them from the sea of sub-models produced from universities and research institutes around the world over the decades and combine them into a single giant model.

Obviously, some aspects of the models are universal (e.g. they all use the Navier-Stokes equations for the dynamics of atmosphere) but this is only the case for extremely well grounded theories (trust me, you don't want to waste your time trying to be skeptical about Navier-Stokes). Either way, all the sub-models used in all these GCM's have been tested, evaluated, and compared with other similar models using the same input data.

For an example from my field of study, there was a project called PILPs (Project for the Inter-comparisson on Land surface Processes). This was a project over 10 years, in at least 4 phases, to take land surface models and cross validate them under common conditions. Land surface models are complex models in their own right and are themselves amalgamations from the sea of sub-sub-models that have been produced over the last 40 years.

There are similar projects at every conceivable level of a GCM (for example, there is an ongoing project, similar to PILPs, that focusses on how snow is treated in land surface models). Each underlying process is as rigorously studied as any other field of science, the idea that the underlying "assumptions" aren't properly evaluated is laughable.

Of course, at the grand GCM scale, only a handful of institutions have the resources to develop and run these models. And there's certainly plenty of room to debate how to choose the individual sub-models and how these should be linked together into a GCM. These GCMs all use different techniques to do this.

If you want to know the details of each model all you have to do is read the IPCC reports and the appropriate reference material. It's all there for the reading. If you actually find a real issue (rather than just talk about the possability that there might be a problem), please get back to me.

[ QUOTE ]
You miss my point completely. I made no comment on the validity of the assumptions. It does not matter if all assumptions are likely to be 99.9999999999% correct. I simply said if they all rely on the same assumption then more copies with the same underlying assumptions provide no additional validation. The two ideas are independent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, but you're being so vague about what these supposed "assumptions" might be that it's really hard to comment because GCMs are so big that we can't talk about them in the detail you seem to be after, at least not on a forum like this.

Again, all the individual assumptions of model structure (physics and chemistry) used in all the models have been thouroughly validated. Linking them all up is horrifically complex and results in significant variation in the results from model to model. However, the general trend is universal, the variation is declining, and the historical validations are getting better. In any other field of science you'd (hopefully) see this as real progress, but instead you start to worry that the models are all wrong at a fundamental level.

I really can't comment much more on this because I'm not a climate model expert, I'm an engineering hydrologist. My PhD, however, was funded by another one of these climate research projects (GEWEX) and deals, in part, with the results of the IPCC-3. Because of this, I've interacted with many of the people who do work on climate and weather models and so I know what they do and how they do it.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay. How well do we understand it? What are we sure of? What don't we know?

[/ QUOTE ]

See the post above. We understand almost all the underlying processes extremely well. The problem is mostly one of the interaction of the processes and data and computation limitations.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) This is irrelevent. I've already explained why. Climate is not the same thing as weather.

[/ QUOTE ]they are tangentally related. Either way, are you suggesting that it is easier to predict the global climate 100 years out than it is to predict regional hurricanes 1 year out?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care if they're "tangentially" related, it's still irrelevant. Maybe it will help is I use a sports analogy, I'm going to assume that since your name is "Utah" you're familiar with the NBA (probably a lot more than I am).

Let's say that I predicted before the season started that Dallas would have the most wins at the end of the season (analogous to a future climate prediction). One could counter with, "but you can't predict the score of a single game, or even who will win tomorrow's game consistently" (analogous to weather predictions). Hopefully, it's clear that this "counter" point is irrelevant. It's much easier to predict climates then it is to predict weather for the same reason that it's easier to predict seasonal standings than individual games.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4) Completely false. We do not have enough data to produce a year-by-year perfect match. We have more than enough to validate the models. Hansen's work from 20 years ago was more than enough to demonstrate this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you not just say, "You're asking for the impossible." and that "We don't have enough data of a high enough quality about the conditions (atmosphere, ocean, or land) of the past to ever do this".

How do you reconcile these two comments? How can we validate if we don't have the data, as you say?

[/ QUOTE ]

You talked about lock-step year-to-year perfect validation over the last 50 years (at least, that's how I interpreted you). This kind of accuracy will probably never happen because the data requirements to initialize the models and the temporal boundary condutions (for example, the details of every volcanic eruption) simply don't exist and thus never will.

However, we don't need to have this level of accuracy to validate the models. Hansen's graph is an example of this. It does not provide a year-to-year match but it consistently predicts most of the significant trends. Given the inherent uncertainties involved (both in the model set-up and the observed data itself) this is an excellent performance from what is now an antiquated model. Modern models would almost certainly do better.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, are you suggesting that it is easier to predict the global climate 100 years out than it is to predict regional hurricanes 1 year out?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not enough of an expert on these matters to give a definitive anwer, but predicting the average global temperature from 2070-2099 is probably easier. The severity of a hurricane season, from what I understand, can't be predicted mre than 6 months out because the conditions that form them don't form until then.

Really, you shouldn't be so focussed on the 1 year vs. 100 year thing. It's more important to comapre the time scale of what you're predicting with how far in the future it is and the time scale of the key physical processes.

For example, a huricane season lasts a couple months, and the ocean conditions that generate them operate over similar time scales.

Climate, however, deals with conditions over sevreal decades and the processes involved operate on similar, if not longer, time scales. The average CO2 molecule will stay in the atmosphere 200 to 500 years before returning to the surface. This means that we can be fairly certain that CO2 concentrations will not decline anytime soon and that their effects will be relatively predictable.

Water vapor, however, only lasts about a week in the atmosphere, on average. It's no coincidence that our ability to predict weather goes virtually to zero after about 1 week.

[Rearden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have long contended that the phrase should be "catastrophic climate change"

"global warming" isn't about a slightly longer growing season in canada and needing to turn on the AC a little earlier in Florida, it's about massive and irreversible shifts in habitats (precipitation changes, weather patterns, sea levels, sea pH, etc) that could lead to the collapse of large ecosystems

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean all the things that have been going on here on Earth for billions of years? Wow...I'm scared now. Where is the sierra club and greenpeace sign up sheet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post shows astounding ignorance.

The systems and patterns currently in place have not functioned the same for billions of years (ice ages anyone?). Modern Humanity has not had to face such a changed system; if global climate change is a fact we will.

Your post takes the incorrect tone that average rainfall at all points on the globe, ocean currents, weather patterns in general, animal migrations, plant germination cycles have all remained unchanged since inception... that is obviously not true in geological history. Imagine the impact (and this is a highly isolated and limited example) of a cut of 50% in average rainfall to the American midwest... thats a single environmental factor in a single region... expand that worldwide to include consequences on human systems (crop growth, fishing, habitable land) and you may be able to grasp the concept and its severity

[Rearden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I think that selling out to XOM and other companies to be a paid shill for the no such thing as global warming crowd would be much more lucrative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Govt grants of the sky is falling global warming crowd far outweigh any private enterprise donations to find the truth. Scientists who research global warming and find that man has little to nothing to do with it will not be getting grant money.
Must be nice going thru life having only one enemy latefordinner, too bad capitalism will outlive you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide data for this...

The US government supplies large amounts of funding to science as a whole however much of it is limitted to medical science or technological development. Most federal agencies dealing with weather/climate are limitted in scope (national weather service cares more, as its name would imply, about conditions as opposed to decades or perhaps centuries long trends). Add in the fact that global climate change as a whole has had a much shorter life as a concept than say... the national institute of health grant program, etc.

Also factor in the creation of various institutes by corporate interests (I mention a book above: Republican War on Science). The gist of it is that lobbyists create "scientific" organizations with paid "scientists" to lend credibility to their debates by providing blurbs that support the organizations already stated position. Science, as anyone should be able to tell you, is about finding the answer not approaching the problem with a conclusion already decided upon.

Your statement that federal grants could be cut for scientists who disagree with global warming.... do you read the news? The problem with global warming information is getting it accepted as fact in Washington. Your statement has more truth if flipped the other way to apply to a government that in some cases still refuses to acknowledge the problem (man made or otherwise).

But please, prove yourself wrong, research federal climatology grants vs. corporate funding and shadow institutes (which by the way are not isolated to global warming, there are lobbyists paid and posing as scientists on virtually every political issue from intelligent design vs evolution to bio engineered crops)

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to know the details of each model all you have to do is read the IPCC reports and the appropriate reference material. It's all there for the reading. If you actually find a real issue (rather than just talk about the possability that there might be a problem), please get back to me.

[/ QUOTE ]I am not sure why you are taking a hostile tone with me???

Has the IPCC actually released the final report on anything yet? I checked their site and I all I see are the silly and inappropriate Summary for Policymaker documents. However, I could have missed it.

[Silent A]

OK, I'm sorry, but your resistance to certain basic facts was starting to wear on me. The fact that it took multi-paragraph responses to just loosely answer your seemingly simple questions also didn't help.

If you want details, I found THIS WEB PAGE (http://www.mad.zmaw.de/IPCC_DDC/html/SRES_TAR/index.html) for IPCC 3 and THIS WEB PAGE (http://www.mad.zmaw.de/IPCC_DDC/html/SRES_AR4/index.html) for IPCC 4. Just click on the model names under the column "Model". They'll send you to the home pages of the individual modelling centres which will give you all the references you could ever dream of. Of course some of thesites are more exaustive than others.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I'm sorry, but your resistance to certain basic facts was starting to wear on me.

[/ QUOTE ]The problem is that those basic facts often don't exist in the shady world of climate study.

I will throw an incredibly simple one at you?
What was the global temperature in 1950?

That seems like a very innocent silly question doesn't it? But, when one digs into such things they find out it is not so simple.

I thought the absolute best evidence of global warming, regardless of the causes, was the recorded temperature history. Facts are facts. It doesn't matter if people like Mann concocted results for the temperature for the last 1000 years, because, at the end of the day, we have actual readings. That evidence is indisputable.

The problem is that the PAST is a moving target. The temperature in 1950 in 2007 is different than the temperature in 1950 in 2006.

As crazy as it sounds, you can't tell me what the temperature is going to be in 1950 one year from now. If you can't tell me the temperature in 1950 in 2008, how are you going to predict the temperature in 2100?

Nothing ever seems to pass the smell test in global warming science. And, worse, when someone tries to ask a simple question people attempt to beat them down.

Thanks for the link to the groups and I will definitely look at them.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

I am not saying Hansen in wrong or that climateaudit is correct. I am simply suggesting that there is room for discussion on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

No there isn't room for discussion as to whether or not Hansen's predictions were accurate. Hansen's models are very clear. Given X amount of CO2 and Y amount of methane there will be Z amount of temperature increase. He outlined several scenarios cuz you can't predict human activity but you can predict how the environment will react to X amount of pollution. It's really not that difficult to understand. The only 'debate' is one which is misleadingly fabricated from people using different temperature scales to do the comparisons. If the model is in Celsius you don't compare it to Fahrenheit readings. While this is an oversimplification, this is pretty much what climateaudit is doing. It's not that hard to do the conversions and check Hansen's models. If you are having difficulty read the link I provided and click on "Well lookee that...." for a more detailed analysis. Arguing about this is like arguing whether or not 4 pounds weighs more than 3.8 kilograms.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am not saying Hansen in wrong or that climateaudit is correct. I am simply suggesting that there is room for discussion on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

No there isn't room for discussion as to whether or not Hansen's predictions were accurate. Hansen's models are very clear. Given X amount of CO2 and Y amount of methane there will be Z amount of temperature increase. He outlined several scenarios cuz you can't predict human activity but you can predict how the environment will react to X amount of pollution. It's really not that difficult to understand. The only 'debate' is one which is misleadingly fabricated from people using different temperature scales to do the comparisons. If the model is in Celsius you don't compare it to Fahrenheit readings. While this is an oversimplification, this is pretty much what climateaudit is doing. It's not that hard to do the conversions and check Hansen's models. If you are having difficulty read the link I provided and click on "Well lookee that...." for a more detailed analysis. Arguing about this is like arguing whether or not 4 pounds weighs more than 3.8 kilograms.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really can't be that dense can you as to think there is no room for debate can you? Do you think that if you keep screaming loud enough that people will start believing you?

[ QUOTE ]
Hansen's models are very clear. Given X amount of CO2 and Y amount of methane there will be Z amount of temperature increase. He outlined several scenarios cuz you can't predict human activity but you can predict how the environment will react to X amount of pollution. It's really not that difficult to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]Nope. You are flat wrong. Are you suggesting that in 1988 that Hansen predicted in 2017 and 2018 that humans would slow their pollution output only to increase again in 2019? Else, if you are correct, why would Hansen predict a decrease? Why is the graph not smooth 30 years out if your simple to understand little model is correct.

Oh, and we will just kinda ignore that in no time stretch does Hansen's predictions come anywhere close to the observed reality. How is it that all 3 models predict an increase in 1998 and yet the observed shows a decrease? Is Hansen himself too dim to understand his own model of, "Given X amount of CO2 and Y amount of methane there will be Z amount of temperature increase."? What about the sharp decrease from 1990-1992? All his 3 models show an increase in that period. Strange isnt it? How about the sharp peak in 1998 and followed by the sharp decrease in 1999?

It appears that in no time period was Hansen even close to accurate. If you disagree point out the time period his predictions were accurate? Too tough? Well, lets look at the historical years. Opps. Same problem. The fact that he trends in the correct general direction tells us absolutely nothing about the strength of his model, especially when he made 3 predictions.

But hey, this guy is really accurate because the cult of global warming says so. How dare anyone question the faith!


edit: also, if this little nugget by you is correct - "He outlined several scenarios cuz you can't predict human activity but you can predict how the environment will react to X amount of pollution. It's really not that difficult to understand." - then why are the scenarios different for the historical period? If your silly argument is correct they would all be the same.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You really can't be that dense can you as to think there is no room for debate can you?

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to comparing temperatures no there isn't room for debate.

[ QUOTE ]
What about the sharp decrease from 1990-1992? All his 3 models show an increase in that period. Strange isnt it? How about the sharp peak in 1998 and followed by the sharp decrease in 1999?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) the models are about global averages over multiyear periods. This is a pretty basic concept that has been explained several times in this thread already.
2) If you read the link provided it explains what occured during 1991. (Mount pinatubo eruption) In 1998 there was the largest El Nino in history. These are short term spikes that are pretty much irrelevant to the overall long term trend.

[ QUOTE ]
It appears that in no time period was Hansen even close to accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should calculate the average deviation from the prediction. Give me a break.



http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/2910/hansen2006uk6.png


[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he trends in the correct general direction tells us absolutely nothing about the strength of his model, especially when he made 3 predictions.
......
then why are the scenarios different for the historical period?

[/ QUOTE ]

From my last post:

He outlined several scenarios cuz you can't predict human activity but you can predict how the environment will react to X amount of pollution.

The 3 scenarios are based off of different rates of industrialization and economic growth. I'm finding it difficult to believe you don't understand this, especially given our discussion in other threads, and suspect you are being difficult just to be difficult.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
then why are the scenarios different for the historical period? If your silly argument is correct they would all be the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2006/06/hansenfig2.png

The three scenarios do not have identical trace gas concentrations, even from 1960 to 1988. Hansen was speculating about some some trace gas changes. Scenarios B and C also have different future aerosol values. These were meant to represent volcanic eruptions.

Here is a brief overview of his paper: HERE (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/hansen_et_al_global_climate_ch.php)

[Silent A]

BTW, scenario A was meant to be a worst case scenario. He never expected it to be representative of what might actually happen. To quote his paper:

[ QUOTE ]
Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in scenario A (=1.5% yr-1) is less than the rate typical of the past century (=4% yr-1).

[/ QUOTE ]

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
2) If you read the link provided it explains what occured during 1991. (Mount pinatubo eruption)

[/ QUOTE ]

Also note that Hansen inserted a major volcanic eruption in 1995 in scenarios B and C, identical to the 1982 El Chichon eruption. Note that the temp decrease in B and C after 1995 is similar to the observed drop after Pinatubo.

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, all the sub-models used in all these GCM's have been tested, evaluated, and compared with other similar models using the same input data.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has the cloud formation sub-process been accurately modeled yet?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either way, all the sub-models used in all these GCM's have been tested, evaluated, and compared with other similar models using the same input data.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has the cloud formation sub-process been accurately modeled yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to this question depends on what you're trying to simulate. For example, are you just talking about cloud formation, or the precipitation?. It also depends on what kind of clouds you're talking about.

When it comes to precipitation, the real problem is at the middle scale (meso-scale), grid sizes of 10 to 50 km. This is the typical scale of weather models for the last decade or so. If you want a detailed answer of why this is a problem more than bigger (GCM scale) and smaller (individual cloud scale) I could tell you - I've published one paper in a peer-reviewed journal in this area - but it'll get at least a little technical.

Precipitation is incredibly hard to simulate, for a wide variety of reasons, and it's defintely an issue. Anyone who says it's a big enough issue that it seriously invalidates long term global temperature predictions is either lying, or doesn't know what they're talking about.

Either way, they've all been thouroughly tested. And while we definitely want them to be a lot better it's not like they're completely useless either.

[Jcrew]

What do you make of this comment by Isaac Held:

[ QUOTE ]
I would also like to thank readers #1,#4, and #5 for pointing out this error in the figure. It is interesting how these things get through the review process!

Another way of stating the results from this paper is that the feedbacks that we are moderately confident about (water vapor, lapse rate, and snow/sea ice albedo) seem to generate a sensitivity near the low end of the canonical range, with the more uncertain cloud feedbacks then providing the positive push, in these models, to generate all of the higher sensitivities. I think the picture that many of us had, speaking for myself at least, was that the first set of feedbacks brought us with moderate confidence to the middle of the canonical range, with cloud feedbacks, both positive and negative, then providing the spread about this midpoint. One evidently has to argue for a signficantly positive cloud feedback to get to the 3K sensitivity that various empirical studies seem to be pointing towards.

We needed to make a lot of approximations in this analysis, especially for the cloud feedback term, because of the limitations of what we could do with the model results that have been archived, so it will be interesting to see if this picture holds up. If, in fact, this is an accurate diagnosis of what the models are doing, why is it that they all have positive cloud feedbacks? This is in itself a bit surprising given the diverse schemes used to predict clouds in these models.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Silent A]

Please provide a link because i have no idea what the context of this is.

[Silent A]

OK, I found it.

I'm not really sure what you're asking about. This appears to be about whether or not clouds represent a positive or negative feedback effect as temperatures rise due to increasing CO2. This quote is basically questioning why the models appear to all indicate that coulds represent a positive feedback (while at the same time questioning whether their method of analysis is even valid - suggesting that the models might not actually all predict a positive feedback).

The feedback effect of clouds in general is definitely outside my specialty area (I'm mostly interested in severe precipitation which is mostly due to a single type of cloud). From what I understand, whether or not clouds represent a postive or negative feedback is fairly uncertain.

The harshest way to interpret this quote, IMHO, is that GCMs (as a group) may, on average, be on the order of about 1 deg C too warm. On the flipside, you could argue that this argue is merely pointing out an interesting issue for future research and doesn't tell us much one way or the other.

[Woolygimp]

Can someone summarize this thread?

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
"global warming" isn't about a slightly longer growing season in canada and needing to turn on the AC a little earlier in Florida, it's about massive and irreversible shifts in habitats (precipitation changes, weather patterns, sea levels, sea pH, etc) that could lead to the collapse of large ecosystems

[/ QUOTE ]
So -- did all these "massive, irreversible shifts" in precipitation, weather, seal levels, sea pH, collapse of ecosystems, etc. occur during the Holocene maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum) ? How did polar bears survive, given that the average arctic temps were far warmer than present?

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"global warming" isn't about a slightly longer growing season in canada and needing to turn on the AC a little earlier in Florida, it's about massive and irreversible shifts in habitats (precipitation changes, weather patterns, sea levels, sea pH, etc) that could lead to the collapse of large ecosystems

[/ QUOTE ]
So -- did all these "massive, irreversible shifts" in precipitation, weather, seal levels, sea pH, collapse of ecosystems, etc. occur during the Holocene maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum) ? How did polar bears survive, given that the average arctic temps were far warmer than present?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know very little about global warming, but Polar bears don't need the 'Polar' to survive. They are capable of living in the same climate as Grizzlies.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
So -- did all these "massive, irreversible shifts" in precipitation, weather, seal levels, sea pH, collapse of ecosystems, etc. occur during the Holocene maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum) ? How did polar bears survive, given that the average arctic temps were far warmer than present?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope it's fairly obvious that there is a big difference between 0.5 deg C temperature increase over 2 or 3 thousand years and 1 deg C temperature incerease over 30 to 50 years - let alone 2 or 3 deg over less than 100 years.

Plus, ecosystms are about a lot more than just big predators.

[BobK]

It would seem to me that if any of the models were considered reliable by the modeling community, there wouldn't be a couple dozen groups using different models. Instead there would be very few models, with two dozen or so groups concentrating on perfecting them. Surely some of those groups must now be backing a dead horse. All the models can't be right. If they can't all be right, why do the modellers using the wrong ones continue to use them? Is the understanding of the subject so up in the air that everyone thinks the other models aren't right and their's is the most accurate?

IPCC chart (http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg)

According to this chart there is high understanding of only one category of forcing. With very low understanding concerning 7/11 of them. That doesn't exactly make me all warm and fuzzy with confidence in the models.

I seem to remember something about aerosols being used to explain the cooling during the mid 20th century. Aerosols have the biggest error bars of all and a very low level of understanding. I'm curious as to how the correct value used for aerosols was derived. Plugging in some figure for aerosols and tweaking it to show cooling, indicates to me an attempt by modellers to fit the models to what happened rather than actually simulate it by way of mathematically concrete reasoning. Not very confidence building.

Don't think I'll buy their story until they're willing to put a accuracy rating on the individual models e. g. this model is known to be accurate to within .1% per year. Giving a range among a suite of different models without knowledge of the accuracy of any of them isn't acceptable. They could all be very wrong, with the range simply representing different amounts of wrong.

Why should we expend effort and expense for people 100 years from now, when there are 100's of millions living in subsistence conditions today that we haven't helped adequately? Will the schooling the people of the future get make them too dumb to adapt?

[Utah]

I looked at the links and tried to get data pulled to look at but it going slowly - still trying though.

However, I want to step back first.

My simple question - is there a temperature recording system for actual temperatures AND that is widely available with all the original data including station readings AND where everyone can get at it? Twice now, I appear to see big issues with data availability. I have looked at 2 systems and both times it appears the data is not fully available:

NOAA - they have constantly made revisions to old data without keeping the records of the original data. So, they are making revisions on revisions.

Hadcrut3 - If I understand correctly, they refuse to show the stations used and that Jones stated, "We have 25 years invested in this, why should we let you see the data when your only objective is to find something wrong with it?” {from climateaudit.org}

Is this correct? If not, what mistake did I make in my review. note: there is a highly likelihood of this.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So -- did all these "massive, irreversible shifts" in precipitation, weather, seal levels, sea pH, collapse of ecosystems, etc. occur during the Holocene maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum) ? How did polar bears survive, given that the average arctic temps were far warmer than present?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope it's fairly obvious that there is a big difference between 0.5 deg C temperature increase over 2 or 3 thousand years and 1 deg C temperature incerease over 30 to 50 years - let alone 2 or 3 deg over less than 100 years.

Plus, ecosystms are about a lot more than just big predators.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, you're ignoring the wikipedia article or assuming the cited studies are bunk? I mean, 3 to 9 degrees centigrade warmer in the arctic seems rather dramatic compared to current predictions, don't you think?

With regard to polar bears -- but they're sooo cute! Anyway, it seems like a good question, given that the Al Gore types like to tell us that if we don't stop with the CO2 emissions, there will be no more polar bears...

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you're ignoring the wikipedia article or assuming the cited studies are bunk? I mean, 3 to 9 degrees centigrade warmer in the arctic seems rather dramatic compared to current predictions, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]


I wasn't ignoring the article, I was comparing global averages with global averages.

GCMs predict significantly more warming in the arctic. 9 degrees is a lot, but still consistent with the high range of what models are predicting in the arctic. Three degrees is positiely pedestrian for arctic warming. In fact, it wouldn't suprise me if we're closing in on that already.

I've been in contact with aboriginals of the Canadian arctic. Perhaps the most telling anecdote is that thunderstorms are becoming annual events in regions where they have no oral history of them.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I looked at the links and tried to get data pulled to look at but it going slowly - still trying though.

However, I want to step back first.

My simple question - is there a temperature recording system for actual temperatures AND that is widely available with all the original data including station readings AND where everyone can get at it? Twice now, I appear to see big issues with data availability. I have looked at 2 systems and both times it appears the data is not fully available:

NOAA - they have constantly made revisions to old data without keeping the records of the original data. So, they are making revisions on revisions.

Hadcrut3 - If I understand correctly, they refuse to show the stations used and that Jones stated, "We have 25 years invested in this, why should we let you see the data when your only objective is to find something wrong with it?” {from climateaudit.org}

Is this correct? If not, what mistake did I make in my review. note: there is a highly likelihood of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

About NOAA, I can't be sure but it sounds like they're using historical re-analysis data. Re-analysis is the process where you take all the available data from isolated stations at various, effectively random, locations and convert them to a regular gridded format (ideally, the same grid that your model runs at). This is a science in its own right and, yes, the data sets are continuously updated as more data and better analysis techniques become available. Any old analyses become worthless. The original, observed data is protected like gold.

The most important reason for doing this is that it is best to compare gridded predictions with gridded historical data. Otherwise, you'd end up comparing model predictions at one point with observed data from a different (although relatively nearby - maybe) point. Another problem is that historical observations aren't evenly distributed around the globe. We have far more data from rich, highly populated areas than poor, sparsely populated areas (or unpoulated areas like the oceans) but all areas are equally important for comparisson purposes. This can create biases in our analysis if we don't correct for them and one way to correct for them is to convert the observed data to a gridded format.

I can't say anything about the Hadley thing.

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]
The original, observed data is protected like gold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it protected like gold? Self-interest of the scientist?

[Silent A]

I meant, they don't throw it away.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant, they don't throw it away.

[/ QUOTE ]The question I am trying to figure out is whether that is true or whether the data is freely available. What I have seen so far is that the data is not available for whatever reason. Again, I could be wrong but I cannot locate it anywhere and the comments on climateaudit.org suggest that the data is missing.

Certainly, adjustments make sense and scientists can debate over the validity of such adjustments. But, you have nothing without the original data being available.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I could be wrong but I cannot locate it anywhere and the comments on climateaudit.org suggest that the data is missing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Climateaudit.org deletes a lot of comments and it's not exactly the best place to go to find the most reliable information. Here's an idea, have you ever thought about writing NOAA and asking them? That would certainly be the first step before claiming conspiracy.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, I could be wrong but I cannot locate it anywhere and the comments on climateaudit.org suggest that the data is missing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Climateaudit.org deletes a lot of comments and it's not exactly the best place to go to find the most reliable information. Here's an idea, have you ever thought about writing NOAA and asking them? That would certainly be the first step before claiming conspiracy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah wacki. You are always good for a few laughs. It is hilarious how you get so bent out of shape when anyone even asks a question about global warming. Do you really have that much emotionally invested in what the clowns at realclimate tell you that your head would explode if you found out they were wrong?

You should really read my comments more carefully. It is not exactly claiming conspiracy when I use phrases like, "I could be wrong" and "Is this correct? If not, what mistake did I make in my review. note: there is a highly likelihood of this." Also, I said of climateaudit.org that they "suggest". I view them with skepticism as well.

To the question of the data, I think anyone (like you) who has a religious belief in global warming would instantly be able to answer my very simple question.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]

To the question of the data, I think anyone (like you) who has a religious belief in global warming would instantly be able to answer my very simple question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the question was so preposterously conspiracy-minded that the answer seemed obvious.

But, here you go: All data kept by NOAA is available through a FOI request. They even have a website for you Here (http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~foia/)

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To the question of the data, I think anyone (like you) who has a religious belief in global warming would instantly be able to answer my very simple question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the question was so preposterously conspiracy-minded that the answer seemed obvious.

But, here you go: All data kept by NOAA is available through a FOI request. They even have a website for you Here (http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~foia/)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks sparky. But that is not what I asked. I asked if the data exists and is available. I did not ask if I could request the data they do have. Again, the answer should be so easy for the global warming as religion crowd. Or, does this crowd not wanted to be bothered with silly little facts that get in the way of their glorious belief?

As to your "so preposterously conspiracy-minded" comment - you should really know more about the subject before you go spouting off. My question is both fair and reasonable and I qualified my knowledge. But, let me ask you, if my comment is so preposterously conspiracy-minded, how do you explain the following:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf

"The historical surface temperature dataset (Jones, 1994, Jones and Moberg, 2003, have been extensively used as a source of information trends and variability"

"For some stations both the adjusted and unadjusted time-series are available are archived at CRU so the adjustments that have been made are known (Jones et al., 1985, Jones et al., 1986. Vincent and Gullet, 1999), but for MOST stations, only a single series is archived, so any adjustments that might have been made (e.g., by National Met, services or individual scientists) are unknown"

Whoops. So much for preposterously conspiracy-minded questions. The original data does not appear to exist. Do you dispute this? Am I reading this incorrectly?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To the question of the data, I think anyone (like you) who has a religious belief in global warming would instantly be able to answer my very simple question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the question was so preposterously conspiracy-minded that the answer seemed obvious.

But, here you go: All data kept by NOAA is available through a FOI request. They even have a website for you Here (http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~foia/)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks sparky. But that is not what I asked. I asked if the data exists and is available. I did not ask if I could request the data they do have.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll bite. My answer is 'yes, the data exists'.
You were right. That WAS easy!

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To the question of the data, I think anyone (like you) who has a religious belief in global warming would instantly be able to answer my very simple question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the question was so preposterously conspiracy-minded that the answer seemed obvious.

But, here you go: All data kept by NOAA is available through a FOI request. They even have a website for you Here (http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~foia/)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks sparky. But that is not what I asked. I asked if the data exists and is available. I did not ask if I could request the data they do have.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll bite. My answer is 'yes, the data exists'.
You were right. That WAS easy!

[/ QUOTE ]Very clever. It is certainly a smart tack on your part to rely on smartass responses after you have been blown out of the water. But, in reality, you had nothing else /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, I could be wrong but I cannot locate it anywhere and the comments on climateaudit.org suggest that the data is missing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Climateaudit.org deletes a lot of comments and it's not exactly the best place to go to find the most reliable information. Here's an idea, have you ever thought about writing NOAA and asking them? That would certainly be the first step before claiming conspiracy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah wacki. You are always good for a few laughs. It is hilarious how you get so bent out of shape when anyone even asks a question about global warming. Do you really have that much emotionally invested in what the clowns at realclimate tell you that your head would explode if you found out they were wrong?

You should really read my comments more carefully. It is not exactly claiming conspiracy when I use phrases like, "I could be wrong" and "Is this correct? If not, what mistake did I make in my review. note: there is a highly likelihood of this." Also, I said of climateaudit.org that they "suggest". I view them with skepticism as well.

To the question of the data, I think anyone (like you) who has a religious belief in global warming would instantly be able to answer my very simple question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just say "the cult of global warming."?
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=10021336&page=0&vc=1

As far as I know cults and conspiracies are pretty closely related.

Feel free to check his data. But to call the entire scientific community a "cult" before you've even emailed NOAA for the original data is a bit presumptuous.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To the question of the data, I think anyone (like you) who has a religious belief in global warming would instantly be able to answer my very simple question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the question was so preposterously conspiracy-minded that the answer seemed obvious.

But, here you go: All data kept by NOAA is available through a FOI request. They even have a website for you Here (http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~foia/)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks sparky. But that is not what I asked. I asked if the data exists and is available. I did not ask if I could request the data they do have.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll bite. My answer is 'yes, the data exists'.
You were right. That WAS easy!

[/ QUOTE ]Very clever. It is certainly a smart tack on your part to rely on smartass responses after you have been blown out of the water. But, in reality, you had nothing else /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so much that I didn't have anything else, as:
1) My answer is probably correct.
2) I don't care whether it is or not, because I trust the thousands of people working on this problem to sort out what is important and what isn't. People like you who don't spend 10+ hours a day thinking about this just aren't qualified to point out flaws in the arguments. Flaws are routinely pointed out in the discussions that take place in published forums by researchers working in the field.

What am I supposed to do, exactly? Every time some random person says "look, i found a flaw in this", should I spend 5 years learning the fundamental issues and science surrounding the subject? Or should I maybe just put a little trust in the overwhelming consensus of people who have devoted their lives to the subject?

You go calling this a cult, but global warming, in one degree or another, is pretty damn near indisputable. The only cult is the dissenters. It seems like every well-established theory has some group of idiots who argue it, and they always pull one or two pieces of evidence out of their [censored] and say "look! it all falls apart!".

I sometimes wonder why they aren't the same people. I mean, evolution, global warming, relativity, QM, etc...I can give you 20 unexplained peer-reviewed results in each...hell, maybe NONE of it is true, and you are just way the [censored] smarter than all these people!

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I sometimes wonder why they aren't the same people. I mean, evolution, global warming, relativity, QM, etc...I can give you 20 unexplained peer-reviewed results in each...hell, maybe NONE of it is true, and you are just way the [censored] smarter than all these people!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually a lot of them are the same people. Fred Singer doubts Global warming, cancer-tobacco link, and ozone. The same with the Idso brothers and Fredrick Seitz. Fredrick Seitz doesn't think the HIV virus causes aids. Roy Spencer doubts evolution and global warming. Most of the skeptics are skeptics on more topics than just climate change.

The majority of skeptics that are left tend to screw up basic physics equations that are often taught in highschool. The most recent of these was climateaudits own paper which claimed there is no such thing as global avg temp. He used standard thermodynamics equations but screwed them up by using Celsius instead of Kelvin for the temp scales. This is a pretty big screwup. It's like using Einsteins E=mc^2 but confusing the speed of light with the speed of sound. Another analogy would to be driving on the highway and following the speedlimit in mph by reading your dashboards Km/h without doing any conversions.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
My answer is probably correct

[/ QUOTE ]Apparently you missed the....."but for MOST stations, only a single series is archived, so any adjustments that might have been made (e.g., by National Met, services or individual scientists) are unknown". Hey, but when you believe in a religion you don't need to be bothered with troublesome little facts as you can so simply brush aside such issues with, "I have faith and damn those who don't believe!"

[ QUOTE ]
because I trust the thousands of people working on this problem to sort out what is important and what isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]You shouldn't as they are not always correct. Just look at the world of nutrition and health to see how many times the overwhelming consensus is wrong. How about the Iraq war. Team Bush probably has more people working on this than there are climate scientists. Should we assume that whatever course of action Bush takes is correct?

[ QUOTE ]
People like you who don't spend 10+ hours a day thinking about this just aren't qualified to point out flaws in the arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, people like me are often ideal for pointing out flaws because 1) spending 10 hours a day on something does not in any way make you a genius on something and 2) I believe spending too much time on something is detrimental and it hurts the ability to actually think. Neural systems stop "thinking" when it is feed too much of the same information over and over again.

Also, let me ask, do you ever criticize the Bush administration or the government? Or do you simply say, "hey, Team Bush has a huge team of guys working on this 10 hours a day. They must know what they are doing. I am not qualified to point out and flaws"


[ QUOTE ]
What am I supposed to do, exactly? Every time some random person says "look, i found a flaw in this", should I spend 5 years learning the fundamental issues and science surrounding the subject? Or should I maybe just put a little trust in the overwhelming consensus of people who have devoted their lives to the subject?

[/ QUOTE ]Do whatever you want. You realize this is a discussion board don't you? If you simply want to believe and you don't want to discuss then what are you doing here?

[ QUOTE ]
You go calling this a cult, but global warming, in one degree or another, is pretty damn near indisputable. The only cult is the dissenters. It seems like every well-established theory has some group of idiots who argue it, and they always pull one or two pieces of evidence out of their [censored] and say "look! it all falls apart!".

[/ QUOTE ]It is a cult in the sense that the believers don't want to look at any data that doesn't fit their preconceived notion of the world. It is a cult in that it lashes out with furious anger over anyone who challenges their belief system. I can't think of another scientific issue where a side in the debate shows such incredible vitriol to anyone who doesn't believe them. The only types of groups that act that way are religious.

btw - to say global warming is occurring says very little about anything. I could also say, "the sun is dying and there is no dispute about that". But, that wouldn't mean anything either. However, lets pretend "the sun is dying" crowd acted like the global warming crowd.

Sun is Dying Cult - "The sun is dying because of human activity! The end of the world is coming! Armageddon is near!"
Skeptic - "Hey. Maybe the sun is dying but isn't this natural and isn't it going to take millions of years?"
Sun is Dying Cult - "Heretic! The science is INDISPUTABLE that the sun is dying. Anyone who doubts this is an idiot"
Skeptic - "No. I am not doubting the sun is dying I am just saying that the sun dying is natural for a star and why are we to be believe that the end is near. Isn't it still millions of years out? I am not expert in this? Is there new information we should know about. Otherwise, it seems to be a big leap to say the end is near"
Sun is Dying Cult - Silence! Didn't you hear when we said the science is indisputable! There is not a single serious scientist that doesn't think the sun is dying. Are you smarter than all the scientists?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My answer is probably correct

[/ QUOTE ]Apparently you missed the....."but for MOST stations, only a single series is archived, so any adjustments that might have been made (e.g., by National Met, services or individual scientists) are unknown". Hey, but when you believe in a religion you don't need to be bothered with troublesome little facts as you can so simply brush aside such issues with, "I have faith and damn those who don't believe!"

[ QUOTE ]
because I trust the thousands of people working on this problem to sort out what is important and what isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]You shouldn't as they are not always correct. Just look at the world of nutrition and health to see how many times the overwhelming consensus is wrong. How about the Iraq war. Team Bush probably has more people working on this than there are climate scientists. Should we assume that whatever course of action Bush takes is correct?

[ QUOTE ]
People like you who don't spend 10+ hours a day thinking about this just aren't qualified to point out flaws in the arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, people like me are often ideal for pointing out flaws because 1) spending 10 hours a day on something does not in any way make you a genius on something and 2) I believe spending too much time on something is detrimental and it hurts the ability to actually think. Neural systems stop "thinking" when it is feed too much of the same information over and over again.

Also, let me ask, do you ever criticize the Bush administration or the government? Or do you simply say, "hey, Team Bush has a huge team of guys working on this 10 hours a day. They must know what they are doing. I am not qualified to point out and flaws"


[ QUOTE ]
What am I supposed to do, exactly? Every time some random person says "look, i found a flaw in this", should I spend 5 years learning the fundamental issues and science surrounding the subject? Or should I maybe just put a little trust in the overwhelming consensus of people who have devoted their lives to the subject?

[/ QUOTE ]Do whatever you want. You realize this is a discussion board don't you? If you simply want to believe and you don't want to discuss then what are you doing here?

[ QUOTE ]
You go calling this a cult, but global warming, in one degree or another, is pretty damn near indisputable. The only cult is the dissenters. It seems like every well-established theory has some group of idiots who argue it, and they always pull one or two pieces of evidence out of their [censored] and say "look! it all falls apart!".

[/ QUOTE ]It is a cult in the sense that the believers don't want to look at any data that doesn't fit their preconceived notion of the world. It is a cult in that it lashes out with furious anger over anyone who challenges their belief system. I can't think of another scientific issue where a side in the debate shows such incredible vitriol to anyone who doesn't believe them. The only types of groups that act that way are religious.

btw - to say global warming is occurring says very little about anything. I could also say, "the sun is dying and there is no dispute about that". But, that wouldn't mean anything either. However, lets pretend "the sun is dying" crowd acted like the global warming crowd.

Sun is Dying Cult - "The sun is dying because of human activity! The end of the world is coming! Armageddon is near!"
Skeptic - "Hey. Maybe the sun is dying but isn't this natural and isn't it going to take millions of years?"
Sun is Dying Cult - "Heretic! The science is INDISPUTABLE that the sun is dying. Anyone who doubts this is an idiot"
Skeptic - "No. I am not doubting the sun is dying I am just saying that the sun dying is natural for a star and why are we to be believe that the end is near. Isn't it still millions of years out? I am not expert in this? Is there new information we should know about. Otherwise, it seems to be a big leap to say the end is near"
Sun is Dying Cult - Silence! Didn't you hear when we said the science is indisputable! There is not a single serious scientist that doesn't think the sun is dying. Are you smarter than all the scientists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, you've been reasonable. I was being particularly argumentative and dismissive because I've been transferring my annoyance around freely. Your question is fair.

I can't answer it, but I do believe that the scientific consensus on this matter is very well-informed.

Your question, of course, goes to the actual fact of global warming, not it's cause, so your analogy isn't exactly apropos.

And I wouldn't say nutritionists have been grossly wrong for a LONG time.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
"For some stations both the adjusted and unadjusted time-series are available are archived at CRU so the adjustments that have been made are known (Jones et al., 1985, Jones et al., 1986. Vincent and Gullet, 1999), but for MOST stations, only a single series is archived, so any adjustments that might have been made (e.g., by National Met, services or individual scientists) are unknown"

Whoops. So much for preposterously conspiracy-minded questions. The original data does not appear to exist. Do you dispute this? Am I reading this incorrectly?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is still ridiculously conspiracy minded. We're talking about adjustments made because a station was moved (by definition, not very far) or because new instruments were brought in to replace old ones. On a global scale, these adjustments simply cannot be significant (although they would be important if you were trying to use this data at a very local scale).

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"For some stations both the adjusted and unadjusted time-series are available are archived at CRU so the adjustments that have been made are known (Jones et al., 1985, Jones et al., 1986. Vincent and Gullet, 1999), but for MOST stations, only a single series is archived, so any adjustments that might have been made (e.g., by National Met, services or individual scientists) are unknown"

Whoops. So much for preposterously conspiracy-minded questions. The original data does not appear to exist. Do you dispute this? Am I reading this incorrectly?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is still ridiculously conspiracy minded. We're talking about adjustments made because a station was moved (by definition, not very far) or because new instruments were brought in to replace old ones. On a global scale, these adjustments simply cannot be significant (although they would be important if you were trying to use this data at a very local scale).

[/ QUOTE ]My point is that the ORIGINAL data is not available. If data is adjusted and the original data is lost then you have a data integrity problem. It is that simple. I make no claims as to the significance of this problem, only that it appears to exist. I am merely trying to get to the facts. And the fact appears to be that the ORIGINAL temperature data does NOT exist (I can say it 5 more times for you as you seem unable to grasp this). The damn documentation says this. Do you think I made up the quote above? Now, if pointing out a matter of fact that seems indisputable is ridiculously conspiracy minded then there is no point is discuss anything with you as you lack the basic requirements of logic regardless of whatever expertise you think you have on anything.

Or, maybe I am being too harsh as you may simply not now what a fact is? Does the term need to be defined for you since you are clearly not getting it?

[durrrr]

large scale climate change over a 30yr period really shouldnt be considered weather imo.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"For some stations both the adjusted and unadjusted time-series are available are archived at CRU so the adjustments that have been made are known (Jones et al., 1985, Jones et al., 1986. Vincent and Gullet, 1999), but for MOST stations, only a single series is archived, so any adjustments that might have been made (e.g., by National Met, services or individual scientists) are unknown"

Whoops. So much for preposterously conspiracy-minded questions. The original data does not appear to exist. Do you dispute this? Am I reading this incorrectly?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is still ridiculously conspiracy minded. We're talking about adjustments made because a station was moved (by definition, not very far) or because new instruments were brought in to replace old ones. On a global scale, these adjustments simply cannot be significant (although they would be important if you were trying to use this data at a very local scale).

[/ QUOTE ]My point is that the ORIGINAL data is not available. If data is adjusted and the original data is lost then you have a data integrity problem. It is that simple. I make no claims as to the significance of this problem, only that it appears to exist. I am merely trying to get to the facts. And the fact appears to be that the ORIGINAL temperature data does NOT exist (I can say it 5 more times for you as you seem unable to grasp this). The damn documentation says this. Do you think I made up the quote above? Now, if pointing out a matter of fact that seems indisputable is ridiculously conspiracy minded then there is no point is discuss anything with you as you lack the basic requirements of logic regardless of whatever expertise you think you have on anything.

Or, maybe I am being too harsh as you may simply not now what a fact is? Does the term need to be defined for you since you are clearly not getting it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez, relax.

To quote you from your earlier post:

[ QUOTE ]
Whoops. So much for preposterously conspiracy-minded questions. The original data does not appear to exist. Do you dispute this? Am I reading this incorrectly?

[/ QUOTE ]

To address any significance to this issue, w.r.t. the validaty of these studies, is conspiracy-minded. To say "the data does not exist" is a gross exaggeration. What they're saying is that most stations don't explicitly account for any adjustments they may or may not have made. Some data may no longer exist in its original form (but then again, it might, since this paper is only saying that the authors don't know if adjustments were made). We're talking about stations from all over the world going back more than 150 years.

Finally, to repeat my earlier post, any adjustments made are small and average out to zero for the global average temperature.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that the ORIGINAL data is not available. ..... It is that simple. ...... I am merely trying to get to the facts. And the fact appears to be that the ORIGINAL temperature data does NOT exist (I can say it 5 more times for you as you seem unable to grasp this). The damn documentation says this. Do you think I made up the quote above?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were trying to get to the facts then you would have e-mailed them like I told you to. And if you had e-mailed them they would have pointed you toward the National Met Services (NMSs) and the Global Telecommunications System (GTS). The raw data is not only available but directions on how to find it are outlined in the IPCC report. The only exception is Russia snow (precipitation) data which is adjusted via the Roshydromet method.

Just because the raw data is not available in one database (CRU) does not mean it's not available from somewhere else.(NMS)

I am wondering why you prefer to spend so much time debating that the data doesn't exist when a 10 second e-mail (which I told you to send) could have easily solved the missing data crisis you seem to be having.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
To address any significance to this issue, w.r.t. the validaty of these studies, is conspiracy-minded. To say "the data does not exist" is a gross exaggeration. What they're saying is that most stations don't explicitly account for any adjustments they may or may not have made. Some data may no longer exist in its original form (but then again, it might, since this paper is only saying that the authors don't know if adjustments were made). We're talking about stations from all over the world going back more than 150 years.

Finally, to repeat my earlier post, any adjustments made are small and average out to zero for the global average temperature.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you are just making stuff up. Nowhere does it say the adjustments are small or average out to zero. (But, even if they did, it would be and impossible statement because they do not know the adjustments). Also, it does not say "some" stations. It says MOST. You do realize there is a difference between some and most?

[ QUOTE ]
Some data may no longer exist in its original form (but then again, it might, since this paper is only saying that the authors don't know if adjustments were made).

[/ QUOTE ]ummmm.....no. This paper was produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre. They are directly say that the data doesn't exist in no uncertain terms. There is no ambiguity in their statement. How do you get that the data may exist somewhere out of "only a single series is archived, so any adjustments that might have been made (e.g., by National Met, services or individual scientists) are unknown". They produced the freakin data and they are telling you it doesn't exist. How much more strongly worded statement would you need from them?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Now you are just making stuff up. Nowhere does it say the adjustments are small or average out to zero. (But, even if they did, it would be and impossible statement because they do not know the adjustments). Also, it does not say "some" stations. It says MOST. You do realize there is a difference between some and most?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not making this up. I can say it because I know what kind of adjustments they're talking about. They should be approximately normally distributed about a mean of zero.

As for some vs. most, it says they know what adjustments were made at some stations and that they don't know about the rest (including the possability that no adjustments were made). These adjustments, by definition, would have been made to some of the data from these stations, not all of it.

[ QUOTE ]
ummmm.....no. This paper was produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre. They are directly say that the data doesn't exist in no uncertain terms. There is no ambiguity in their statement. How do you get that the data may exist somewhere out of "only a single series is archived, so any adjustments that might have been made (e.g., by National Met, services or individual scientists) are unknown". They produced the freakin data and they are telling you it doesn't exist. How much more strongly worded statement would you need from them?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way they produced all the data, from the whole world, going back to 1850. They may well have produced the UK data, but they sure didn't produce the data from Mali, for example.

The authors are saying that the authors don't know what adjustments, if any, were made.

Either way, the issue is trivial at the global scale.

[Utah]

The temperature on Mars has risen .5c since the 70s, which roughly matches the rise in the earth's temperature over the same period. Now, I don't trust the readings from either planet. But, assuming the readings are accurate, we know the following as fact:

1) Rapid warming can take place on other planets in this solar system
2) Such warming is natural and can happen without human intervention
3) Two close planets in this solar system warmed the same amount over the same period.

Now, if one wanted to move beyond facts one could speculate that there is a common cause.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece