Looks the same to me, what do you think my original position was regarding models?
That is where you are wrong, I was actually looking for more information, but **wolfpup **got ahead.
Accusing others of not knowing something when by your own admission you have not checked how Tremberth worked with his model or others confirmed his work shows that there is a problem indeed, but I don’t think it is mostly mine.
And again, you are much better than FX, it is just that I don’t think defending someone that does indeed looks at denier sources is a good idea to get respect around here.
Yes, and that is why I rely on people like Tremberth that do continue to report that what the OP reported was really foolish.
Missing the point and the subject, what is enough here is to point out that you do not agree with FX regarding models (yes they do have value so not all are useless or wrong as he reported, and you disagree with the OP as there has been warming as you replied to DMC, and that was what was needed here.
Then I apologize and retract my statement.
I’m not sure I follow this statement.
I think both things can be valid at the same time.
You seem to take the models as accurate when they reproduce some scenario. But when I try to explain that isn’t enough to validate them, because it’s very possible to a model that is accurate under one set of circumstances and not accurate under another, you seem to close your mind to that idea and resist any discussion about that fact.
I freely admit I don’t know how accurate Tremberth’s model is and I haven’t checked into the details, but I know right from the start that it requires so much effort that one single paper is a far cry from being enough to validate it.
One person could work for 50 years and still not get it right - it takes a lot of people expending a lot of energy over a long time.
Why are you talking about “respect”. Either the data in a post is accurate or not (and most of FX’s posts link to data).
When you read a post, either the analysis is good or it isn’t. You seem to imply all kinds of motives and attach emotional baggage to posts.
This is just facts, opinions and analysis, it’s that easy.
I didn’t see anywhere in the OP that there has been no warming.
FX has repeatedly stated that anyone that thinks there hasn’t been warming since 1900 is not paying attention. The OP said cooling since 2002, not since 1900.
Why do you think he said otherwise?
If you aren’t able to provide a cite or post where he said that, then I would suggest that you are misinterpreting something.
I did not think that, the last I said was that he is wrong anyhow. One could make a weak point that there is a “pause” but in reality there was a slight warming on the surface and once one looks at the oceans the point from the OP is a wrong one.
Utter fantasy. In his paper An apparent hiatus in global warming?, which appears the new scientific journal Earth Futures, Trenberth states “Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways.”
This is his way of “explaining” that the surface temperatures, the troposphere temperatures, the ocean temperatures, and pretty much every other indicator of “global warming” somehow stopped. Or as he says " For the past decade, more than 30% of the heat has apparently penetrated below 700 m depth that is traceable to changes in surface winds mainly over the Pacific in association with a switch to a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in 1999."
Which is his reasoning to explain why the globe earth, as measured by all the ways we measure temperature, has cooled since 2000.
An apparent hiatus in global warming?
Kevin E. Trenberth*, John T. Fasullo
Article first published online: 5 DEC 2013
DOI: 10.1002/2013EF000165
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/abstract
Forgot the source.
Which brings us back to the climate and the OP.
How do we look at the ocean data? It sounds like that data is substantially limited.
Creating a model to try to figure out what’s up is certainly a valid part of the process, but just because one person did this doesn’t mean we can assume he is right.
A valid question would be:
What can be done to determine if that model is accurate or not?
I go for history and past experience, Kevin Trenberth is the one that got fame for being one of the scientists quoted out of context in “climategate” he was actually one of the critics of not having a better understanding of where all the heat was going; his research, and from others, shows that it is likely that if there are issues they are not going to show a different trend.
So even if we grant a lot of uncertainty the overall point has a lot of value. It is not just this research but others that allow the scientists to tell us that indeed the OP is wrong.
It is, and Trenberth lamented in one the emails about it.
Trenberth’s email says this: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
skepticalscience says he meant
“Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren’t able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can’t definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That’s a travesty!”
Notice he is clear that surface temperatures went down. So did the ocean SSTs
If the “missing heat” is indeed being buried miles deep at sea, it’s gone for good. It will be hundreds of years, if ever, before it shows up.
In any case, no climate model predicted this. They can’t even explain it still.
Well, as he is still researching and reporting advances on that front and that he contributed to the latest IPCC report; I recommend that you need to acknowledge the march of time and science.
And they report on what has been happening nowadays after that quote was made:
:rolleyes:
Sure, the 70’s never happened, and Latif and many others did not expect the variations.
Nah, you are ignoring what he reported recently, as he said:
That’s a scientific attitude you got there buddy. With your facts and your logic and reason. Usually, reality and facts and figures trump belief. Usually.
Yep. But the other thing is also ignored, and that is the hypothesis that it is the decline in arctic sea ice that is the forcing leading to the brutal much colder winters, which is also a matter of numbers. For decades parts of the NH winters have been trending colder, some times much much colder, With an incredible amount of snow. While this was not predicted by any model, currently some researchers are creating new models, trying to show this could be a real mechanism. If this is so, extreme cold is the new warming.
No moel predicts a 17 year “pause”, thats the real problem for tyhe alarmists who predicted even more rapid warming, based on CO2 levels rising, arctic feedbacks, water vapor feedbacks, both of which are part of the climate models that were used to try and alarm people a decade ago.
Nobody is saying that. What the reasonable person doesn’t like, is a model that flat out doesn’t predict anything even close to reality. And the moronic stand that “the models are right”, when they clearly are not.
If any model, any model at all, could hindcast all the changes we know occurred, we would be discussing that model, rather than “why” the current cooling period is happening.
You can keep saying that, but most people are smart enough to be able to judge for themselves what the OP is. It’s not scientific to just say something, you have to show why, and provide evidence to support your claim.
You have done neither so far.
So, we have hundreds and hundreds of years to work on this. Do we have information about the equilibrium, one that includes all the climate change components? You second point is confusing to me, don’t you have to assume these probabilities, or which are most likely to change climate?
Are these estimates or are these models? I did a little poking around and found that the climate models do use algorithms, the simplest being:
T = (((1-a)S)/4e[sub]e[/sub]o[sub]sb[/sub])[sup]1/4[/sup]
where T=temperature, a=albedo, S=the solar constant, e[sub]e[/sub] (epsilon)=emissivity and o[sub]sb[/sub] (sigma)=Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
The various climate models get more complicated from here. It would be very helpful in the future if you could specify which model or models are being used to generate your data and of special importance is the margin of error. In reality, we need to see the spaghetti maps and have a clear idea of what components are assumed to be negligible for each of the model runs. We can all see that by decreasing emissivity (by increasing CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations) we would increase temperature, but that assumes both the solar constant and albedo remain the same. Those are bad assumptions, as neither has shown to be constant over the time periods in question.
Models are very useful to point us in the right direction for our research, but they themselves do not produce hard data, just estimates … and they’re prone to be full of error especially the longer the run is and/or the larger the unit volume is.
You’re lucky, RaftPeople, you only got called a dirty rotten denialist. Gigo called me ignorant first thing. Whether his intent, he only succeeds in killing every thread about climate change. I’ve noticed this is the last one, so that’s why he’s here, looking for the bogey man denying global warming. On a regular basis, his are fully half the postings whenever this subject comes up. Frankly, I’m sick of having to scroll through pages and pages just to keep a single topic in discussion.
Even cats know when to quit (except mine, stupid fuckers).
As Latif and others showed, pauses were not unexpected. You are not being listened to by the scientists.
You are not even listening to what you said before, or here, you are only missing the point, the same science and technology you are disparaging is the one that will be used and accepted by smart people everywhere as the best way to deal with the issue if , they will not listen to people like you.
We know already that you refuse to discuss what Latif and others found.
We already know that even the sources you use at woodfortress.ord and NASA GISS do not support what you claim.
The smart people not only follow what the scientists conclude, they also follow academics, people who debunk pseudoscience for a living, philosophers that deal with logic, and even smart people in business know who to listen to.
They also will not listen to people that mislead themselves as woodfortrees.org said.
What you have here is just poisoning the well, if you want to bring issues from the pit be my guest over here.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17158205&postcount=180
And everyone else is invited as it is clear that you are only being selective on what was discussed, your attempt at making RaftPeople to be at the same level as FX is really silly:
I realize you’re hyperbolizing for (snarky) effect, but that last sentence is factually incorrect. In this thread alone, he and FXM are running about neck and neck, each around 25% of the total posts. You’re in for a solid third place.
(Not trying to JM here, but do you honestly think this sort of personal snark helps your point? He drives you nuts, ok. He frustrates you, ok. But he’s absolutely right that poisoning the well doesn’t show your arguments–or you–in the best of light.)