Climate Scientists Struggling...

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Really, a link to a far right wing tea party blog? I do note that since the first Earth Day, mankind has intervened to clean up the environment through the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, creation of the EPA, and many other actions to save the environment. Just think what it would be like today if mankind had not intervened and taken action.

So since reasonable pollution control worked, we now need to amp it up to unreasonable levels, right?

How has "reasonalbe pollution control" prevented the rapid increase in greenhouse emissions in the atmosphere? What we have learned is that man can intervene to correct the damage that he has caused to the environment. We now have cleaner air, cleaner water, through such intervention. We have found that cap and trade does work in a market economy to reduce emissions such as sulphur in the air. Just think what else we can accomplish.

You forgot to answer what do you intend to do with the real polluters like India and China. Ban imports?

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Really, a link to a far right wing tea party blog? I do note that since the first Earth Day, mankind has intervened to clean up the environment through the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, creation of the EPA, and many other actions to save the environment. Just think what it would be like today if mankind had not intervened and taken action.

Er... less warming than we haven't had over the last 15 years?

What are you babbling about? The warming has certainly been occurring the past 15 years, which is even more alarming since this is typically a cooling period.[/i]

[snip]

Link please?

Since when are links required? I thought the new policy of this forum, or at least the conservatives here, are that links or demonstrably facts are discouraged. I mean you even refuse to provide attribution when you copy the intellectual property of others, so why demand a link from me. Talk about hypocrisy. However, I can provide you with a plethora of links if you do not have the skills to do a simple browser search. For example:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 012-0668-1

Per the front page of the Denver Post sports section today, coldest game ever in recorded MLB history and the Libs are worried about global warming.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Since when are links required? I thought the new policy of this forum, or at least the conservatives here, are that links or demonstrably facts are discouraged. I mean you even refuse to provide attribution when you copy the intellectual property of others, so why demand a link from me. Talk about hypocrisy. However, I can provide you with a plethora of links if you do not have the skills to do a simple browser search. For example:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 012-0668-1

I'll continue to ignore you personal attacks... anyway... would info from the CRU be good enough?

'The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/15/a-16- ... al-warming

Get back to me.

(P.S... make note about the "output of the sun" in the comments above)

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Since when are links required? I thought the new policy of this forum, or at least the conservatives here, are that links or demonstrably facts are discouraged. I mean you even refuse to provide attribution when you copy the intellectual property of others, so why demand a link from me. Talk about hypocrisy. However, I can provide you with a plethora of links if you do not have the skills to do a simple browser search. For example:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 012-0668-1

I'll continue to ignore you personal attacks... anyway... would info from the CRU be good enough?

'The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/15/a-16- ... al-warming

Get back to me.

(P.S... make note about the "output of the sun" in the comments above)

From your quoted "source":
"But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’"

"Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’"

And of course if you review other sources, you will find my link (which you chose not to address) is supported by a myriad of other data.

For example:
Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows.

The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.

The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.

The forecast, published in 1999 by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, was one of the first to combine complex computer simulations of the climate system with adjustments based on historical observations to produce both a most likely global mean warming and a range of uncertainty. It predicted that the decade ending in December 2012 would be a quarter of degree warmer than the decade ending in August 1996 – and this proved almost precisely correct.

The study is the first of its kind because reviewing a climate forecast meaningfully requires at least 15 years of observations to compare against. Assessments based on shorter periods are prone to being misleading due to natural short-term variability in the climate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... al-warming

A study of the actual climate reports:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n ... o1788.html

proves that the early forecasts are accurate.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Since when are links required? I thought the new policy of this forum, or at least the conservatives here, are that links or demonstrably facts are discouraged. I mean you even refuse to provide attribution when you copy the intellectual property of others, so why demand a link from me. Talk about hypocrisy. However, I can provide you with a plethora of links if you do not have the skills to do a simple browser search. For example:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 012-0668-1

I'll continue to ignore you personal attacks... anyway... would info from the CRU be good enough?

'The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/15/a-16- ... al-warming

Get back to me.

(P.S... make note about the "output of the sun" in the comments above)

From your quoted "source":
"But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’"

"Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’"

And of course if you review other sources, you will find my link (which you chose not to address) is supported by a myriad of other data.

For example:
Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows.

The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.

The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.

The forecast, published in 1999 by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, was one of the first to combine complex computer simulations of the climate system with adjustments based on historical observations to produce both a most likely global mean warming and a range of uncertainty. It predicted that the decade ending in December 2012 would be a quarter of degree warmer than the decade ending in August 1996 – and this proved almost precisely correct.

The study is the first of its kind because reviewing a climate forecast meaningfully requires at least 15 years of observations to compare against. Assessments based on shorter periods are prone to being misleading due to natural short-term variability in the climate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... al-warming

A study of the actual climate reports:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n ... o1788.html

proves that the early forecasts are accurate.

So... all the dire predictions about things that will be happening in 10-20 years were miscalculated?

"Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading..." so... their own office has been misleading over the last 20 years...

"The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree... " which means nothing, since that is relatively normal.

"climate forecast meaningfully requires at least 15 years of observations..." When did they make that up? I've been following this for years and I've never seen that datapoint mentioned?

"Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns..." Well... that's terribly scientific... although I'll give them a pass on editorializing.

"due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far..." well... they have been exaggerated "so far" (I love that new qualifier).

"But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change...." Wow... absolutely WOW... "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic..." these guys have studied their "1984."

Thanks for the good laugh :rofllol

I loved when rockdoc weighed in on these threads awhile ago. A man who looks at the world in eons of times as opposed to these chicken littles who base everything on 200 years of unreliable info.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Since when are links required? I thought the new policy of this forum, or at least the conservatives here, are that links or demonstrably facts are discouraged. I mean you even refuse to provide attribution when you copy the intellectual property of others, so why demand a link from me. Talk about hypocrisy. However, I can provide you with a plethora of links if you do not have the skills to do a simple browser search. For example:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 012-0668-1

I'll continue to ignore you personal attacks... anyway... would info from the CRU be good enough?

'The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/15/a-16- ... al-warming

Get back to me.

(P.S... make note about the "output of the sun" in the comments above)

From your quoted "source":
"But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’"

"Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’"

And of course if you review other sources, you will find my link (which you chose not to address) is supported by a myriad of other data.

For example:
Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows.

The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.

The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.

The forecast, published in 1999 by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, was one of the first to combine complex computer simulations of the climate system with adjustments based on historical observations to produce both a most likely global mean warming and a range of uncertainty. It predicted that the decade ending in December 2012 would be a quarter of degree warmer than the decade ending in August 1996 – and this proved almost precisely correct.

The study is the first of its kind because reviewing a climate forecast meaningfully requires at least 15 years of observations to compare against. Assessments based on shorter periods are prone to being misleading due to natural short-term variability in the climate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... al-warming

A study of the actual climate reports:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n ... o1788.html

proves that the early forecasts are accurate.

So... all the dire predictions about things that will be happening in 10-20 years were miscalculated?

"Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading..." so... there own office has been misleading over the last 20 years...

"The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree... " which means nothing, since that is relatively normal.

"climate forecast meaningfully requires at least 15 years of observations..." When did they make that up? I've been following this for years and I've never seen that datapoint mentioned?

"Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns..." Well... that's terribly scientific... although I'll give them a pass on editorializing.

"due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far..." well... they have been exaggerated "so far" (I love that new qualifier).

"But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change...." Wow... absolutely WOW... "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic..." these guys have studied their "1984."

Thanks for the good laugh :rofllol

:pop