I’ll dial back on my snark too … I’m sorry I’ve strayed from magellan01’s beautiful thought here.
That is more accurate, I grant you that; you **did **declare, not implied, that “all the models are flat wrong.” Like your continuing refusal to acknowledge how in the past researchers noticed and recorded the “pauses” and expected to see more in the future, you are also wrong with this one.
Could you give the post #, I’ll have to read the context he said that and then I’m going to need to know which models we’re talking about. Otherwise I’ll stand on what I said at the time.
There were other declarations like that and on post #350 I replied to once again his ongoing theme that “The recent trend, most unexpected, predicted by no climate models”. Actually, the team that Latif belongs had models that expected that, and many others since the 70’s.
That is the topic of this debate thread … the debate about humans being benign is on another thread.
And he is still wrong about his use of cherry picks to claim that the recent trend is for cooling, even on that FX is wrong. That was also my point.
Thanks for your direct and honest response regarding the ocean data and it being a hypothesis. It sure makes it easier to discuss with this approach.
The obvious next questions are:
Are there weaknesses that other scientists have found that would reduce our confidence in that paper/model?
I’m going to do some googling on this particular topic.
I don’t usually use blogs as a source, but this entry is pretty damn sweet, concerning the ocean temps and Argo and such.
Why I suspected it was going to be Willis Eschenbach? (And lets not forget how using Watts Up With That is like using Answers in Genesis on a biology discussion)
Indeed, a blogessor with no expertise on the issue.
IIRC it came out that he also posted in the past in the SDMB but even a real scientist like **jshore **was not impressed at all; suffice to say, at first glance one can notice that Willis is not reporting what other measurements were done before Argo was there.
I told you I don’t like blogs, too much bias.
But that animation was sweet.
Makes me seasick [grin]
Wily Coyote vs. Road Runner animations are kind of sweet, too, but I don’t consider them a reliable demonstration of Newtonian physics. 
(Although they’re probably more accurate than the WUWT blog has ever been!)
-
Climate sensitivity isn’t based on a “time frame”, but rather based on climate response to CO2 increase at the point of equilibrium
-
I’m not “assuming” anything. I’m stating the outcome based on the most probable values of climate sensitivity.
How long this will take depends on the extent to which we’re able to curtail emissions, which are commonly described in terms of IPCC emissions scenarios. The former scenarios from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) have now been superceded by a new set called Representative Concentration Pathways, which are named in terms of net anthropogenic forcing in the year 2100, RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5 (W/m**2). The first represents a drastic curtailing of emissions, the last is business as usual; both are unlikely. Strangely enough the two most likely scenarios intersect in around the year 2060 before diverging, at around 550 ppm CO2.
So that’s your likely timeframe for the CO2 doubling. But since transient response of the climate takes decades and equilibrium many centuries, the temperature increase will lag, but the CO2 level basically commits the future temperature trajectory.
The former is the projected equilibrium global mean surface temperature increase from pre-industrial levels for a doubling of CO2. What you’re looking at in the ocean charts is the present differential in sea water temperature relative to the 1981-2009 mean! Every one one of the three emphasized points makes the comparison invalid!
If you mean the RCP projections, there are some good tutorials you can Google for – start with this one.
If you mean climate sensitivity, there’s no possible “algorithm” for that like there is for forcings; estimates are based on a combination of paleoclimate (observations of how the climate responded to CO2 increases in the past), present observations, and modeling. It’s usually represented as a probability density function with plausible values between about 1.5 and 4.5ºC, very tightly bounded on the low end but not on the high, with the highest probabilities centering around 3.
Well thanks, I guess. :dubious: I don’t know when I haven’t been honest and direct.
Are there weaknesses in Balmaseda et al.? I’m not aware that it’s ever been seriously challenged on any factual basis, though one or two of the usual skeptics have informally opined that there is insufficient evidence for the mechanisms of deep-ocean warming. On the contrary, the recent England et al. paper I mentioned provides more support for it and proposes just such a mechanism. Matthew England himself provides a good commentary about the paper here. Well worth a read.
I didn’t mean to imply you weren’t honest or direct.
That statement was due to the fact that GIGO presented the data in that paper as if it was based on pure data, no models filling in the gaps, etc., and then refused to respond when I questioned him about the raw data vs models other than to give one of those emoticons indicating something (not sure what) and point back to the same data.
You, on the other hand, were just straightforward with what was in the paper.
That’s what I appreciate. I don’t need spin from either side, just want to know what are facts, what are models, what are opinions, etc.
I’ll check it out.
Thank you, but I completely disagree with your comments about GIGO, who has been putting in a superhuman effort at countering the nonsensical bilge that tends to bloviate from some quarters around here (not you), and has been doing it for much longer than I’ve been around in this forum. And always with well-referenced citations, and often having to contend with grace against sometimes snarky and uninformed commentary from what appear to be scientific illiterates (again, not you). He deserves recognition for his patience, knowledge, and perseverance.
And with that, back to the topic at hand. Do read the England guest post, it gives some good background about the paper.
Of course then it follows that you are saying that I’m dishonest. In reality I noticed that **wolfpup **answered, I don’t have time for everything and I was also trying to figure out how far you have progressed from our previous encounters.
Of course previous encounters showed that you have a huge trouble of accepting what scientists are doing with models, one can make the point that there is a difference between models that could be used to make predictions from the ones that are used to deal or are based on empirical data.
IIUC one difference is that others can investigate if the techniques used are valid as others can check if the model that uses empirical data can recreate real readings from specific areas (making it more likely that other areas that are missing are recreated with very good accuracy). As **wolfpup **reported others have checked; so, one overall point stands, what Kevin Trenberth and other scientists report is indeed more than just their opinion.
From my first involvement in climate threads GIGO has accused me of being a “denier”, that my own personal analysis was taken from “denier” web sites, refuses to acknowledge any valid point that might lead somewhere counter to his pre-defined world view and consistently is unable to understand the implications of key points.
All of that because my position (supported by climate scientists) is that the climate is very complex and modeling it such that we can make predictions as it moves into new territory is very very difficult.
That’s my controversial position.
GIGO does not comprehend the level of complexity in the climate system and the difficulty in modeling it. This is not to say that models should not be used, it merely means that it is difficult to create one that is truly accurate, it takes a lot of time and energy.
Point of order, many times I explained that if that had been your original point I would not had complained much, but that was not how you started, your position against models was more absolutist, I can say that I have no issue with your modified position (from then) over here.
I’m not going to call it dishonest, just not straightforward like wolfpup.
I asked him to clarify and he responded openly immediately.
I asked you to clarify and you refused to respond.
I have repeatedly and patiently attempted to engage you in a rational open discussion, just like the one wolfpup and I are having.
I’ve built multiple computer models/simulations for complex systems. Given that I’ve done that, I think it’s safe to say I think they can be valuable.
But I also understand how difficult it can be to accurately simulate a complex system.
Do you?
Of course, there is value to the models.
Do you think that I think there is no value to using the models?
I don’t think you could even write out what my position is, you don’t even understand it.