Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes Rose

[Deuce]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

If you're talking about the Hansen Scenarios from the 1988 testimony, then the Scenario closest to the one defined was A and the actual performance of the climate was exceeded by the projection of C. That was a miss of about a 150%.

It was actually scenario B, and emissions ended up about 15% less than scenario B. Hansen also had too high a value for climate sensitivity. Current research puts climate sensitivity at around 3C for a doubling of CO2. Hansen's model used 4.2. If you rerun the model with a sensitivity of 3C and using actual emissions, it actually does quite well.

It's a complicated science. It's not enough to just scratch the surface, to just look at something and say "See, it's wrong!" Ask why.

 

[longview]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

It was actually scenario B, and emissions ended up about 15% less than scenario B. Hansen also had too high a value for climate sensitivity. Current research puts climate sensitivity at around 3C for a doubling of CO2. Hansen's model used 4.2. If you rerun the model with a sensitivity of 3C and using actual emissions, it actually does quite well.

It's a complicated science. It's not enough to just scratch the surface, to just look at something and say "See, it's wrong!" Ask why.

When trying to model something, we try predict all of the known inputs and outputs,
we make educated assumptions about what should happen, and then test.
Sometimes the models line up well, sometimes they go completely off the tracks.
At some point the model is so bad it should be scrapped,
but the time invested and hubris, say it could be fixed.
Richard Feynman said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself,
and you are the easiest person to fool."
I suspect the Hanson model did not account for all of the variables.
I also remember one of the main AGW people fighting with congress not to release the code from his model.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

When trying to model something, we try predict all of the known inputs and outputs,
we make educated assumptions about what should happen, and then test.
Sometimes the models line up well, sometimes they go completely off the tracks.
At some point the model is so bad it should be scrapped,
but the time invested and hubris, say it could be fixed.
Richard Feynman said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself,
and you are the easiest person to fool."
I suspect the Hanson model did not account for all of the variables.
I also remember one of the main AGW people fighting with congress not to release the code from his model.

So you wont define what variables you think are missing or how they might account for the error, and you have a vague recollection of some unidentified person who you think fought the release of his code. (which is information probably told to you by some right-wing blog in the first place, but you don't recall the source so that part disappears)

Compelling argument you make there.

 

[longview]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

So you wont define what variables you think are missing or how they might account for the error, and you have a vague recollection of some unidentified person who you think fought the release of his code. (which is information probably told to you by some right-wing blog in the first place, but you don't recall the source so that part disappears)

Compelling argument you make there.

I was actually trying to be more general about any type of model.
To be more specific many of the AGW models do not include clouds (might be important).
None describe the actual mechanism that would lead to positive feedback.
Dr Mann of hockey stick fame argued before Congress that he should not be required to release
the source code that created the hockey stick.
Subsequent tests of his code reveled it always produced a hockey stick,
regardless of data input.
The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick

 

[Deuce]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

I was actually trying to be more general about any type of model.
To be more specific many of the AGW models do not include clouds (might be important).
None describe the actual mechanism that would lead to positive feedback.
Dr Mann of hockey stick fame argued before Congress that he should not be required to release
the source code that created the hockey stick.
Subsequent tests of his code reveled it always produced a hockey stick,
regardless of data input.
The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick

You should run down the original source on that graph the climate scientists supposedly had to get rid of.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Comparison-charts.jpg

The one on the left, I'm talking about.

Skeptic blogs like the one you linked try to portray it as some blinding truth that the scientists are trying to hide. But did you notice how the Y-axis isn't even labeled and the graph almost seems like it was drawn by hand?

The data in that chart is regional, not global. Very regional, almost entirely from England. Worse, the part helpfully labeled "present day?" It's referring to the baseline period that geology and paleoclimatology use: 1950, not "today." This isn't immediately obvious from the graph itself, which is why its been such great fuel for the tinfoil hat crowd. But if you'd read the original paper it was published in, that would be easy to figure out.

That hockey stick was a result of expanding the methodology of the first graph to the whole northern hemisphere. Now, there is some legitimate criticism of that data - it stems from tree ring proxies which have some known issues in the recent period. (a subject of much discussion in the research, one can hardly consider it hidden when it is freaking published)

This guy has a well-sourced video on the topic, provides a good discussion. Bottom line: The MWP is not as big a deal as the skeptics like to tell you, and nobody is trying to make it disappear because there's no reason to do so.
23 -- Medieval Warm Period -- fact vs. fiction - YouTube



The National Academy of Science agrees with the analysis of the "hockey stick" paper. And now there's an entire hockey team anyway. Numerous proxies all show the same thing.

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

It was actually scenario B, and emissions ended up about 15% less than scenario B. Hansen also had too high a value for climate sensitivity. Current research puts climate sensitivity at around 3C for a doubling of CO2. Hansen's model used 4.2. If you rerun the model with a sensitivity of 3C and using actual emissions, it actually does quite well.

It's a complicated science. It's not enough to just scratch the surface, to just look at something and say "See, it's wrong!" Ask why.

This is a good summary of all of the predictions made in the recent past from the best in the field. About half way down the link is a portion referring to "Hanson 1988" that shows the variation of temperature within a trend since 1900. We are still in that same variation range and Hansen's predictions all go wildly above that range.

The variation range is very similar to what one might find charting a history of monthly sales.

Unless something wildly different from the causes in the past is foreseen, there is no reason to expect that a wildly different future awaits us after a very consistent past.

Temperature Projections for the 21st Century

 

[Deuce]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

This is a good summary of all of the predictions made in the recent past from the best in the field. About half way down the link is a portion referring to "Hanson 1988" that shows the variation of temperature within a trend since 1900. We are still in that same variation range and Hansen's predictions all go wildly above that range.

The variation range is very similar to what one might find charting a history of monthly sales.

Unless something wildly different from the causes in the past is foreseen, there is no reason to expect that a wildly different future awaits us after a very consistent past.

Temperature Projections for the 21st Century

How about a rapid increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

 

[longview]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

You should run down the original source on that graph the climate scientists supposedly had to get rid of.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Comparison-charts.jpg

The one on the left, I'm talking about.

Skeptic blogs like the one you linked try to portray it as some blinding truth that the scientists are trying to hide. But did you notice how the Y-axis isn't even labeled and the graph almost seems like it was drawn by hand?

The data in that chart is regional, not global. Very regional, almost entirely from England. Worse, the part helpfully labeled "present day?" It's referring to the baseline period that geology and paleoclimatology use: 1950, not "today." This isn't immediately obvious from the graph itself, which is why its been such great fuel for the tinfoil hat crowd. But if you'd read the original paper it was published in, that would be easy to figure out.

That hockey stick was a result of expanding the methodology of the first graph to the whole northern hemisphere. Now, there is some legitimate criticism of that data - it stems from tree ring proxies which have some known issues in the recent period. (a subject of much discussion in the research, one can hardly consider it hidden when it is freaking published)

This guy has a well-sourced video on the topic, provides a good discussion. Bottom line: The MWP is not as big a deal as the skeptics like to tell you, and nobody is trying to make it disappear because there's no reason to do so.
23 -- Medieval Warm Period -- fact vs. fiction - YouTube



The National Academy of Science agrees with the analysis of the "hockey stick" paper. And now there's an entire hockey team anyway. Numerous proxies all show the same thing.

You are getting caught up in the details of the discussion, My real issue,
is they have never describe the actual mechanism that would lead to positive feedback.
There may be one(or more), but if Co2 was as guilty as they say, it should be easy.

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

How about a rapid increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

Apparently the impact of rising CO2 is far less than those who would call this a prime driver would have expected.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

You are getting caught up in the details of the discussion, My real issue,
is they have never describe the actual mechanism that would lead to positive feedback.
There may be one(or more), but if Co2 was as guilty as they say, it should be easy.

If even one photon reflects back to the ground, the temperature of the ground ends up higher than it would have without that reflection. I'm not sure what your issue is with this. Maybe you can clarify. The mechanism is that the ground absorbs that extra energy and warms up, and this keeps the lower air layers warmer. You keep saying "they never describe it." That's an unwise thing to assume about a scientific issue. They have described it, you just haven't personally seen that information.

As for "getting caught up in the details," look, it's a complicated scientific issue and you have some of the details wrong. Don't you want bad information corrected?