Has the AGW "consensus" come to an end?

[code1211]

But right at this moment we are discussing whether the current pause is a reasonable expectation, given the existing historical data. If it is, then criticism of AGW on the basis of the pause is specious, whether AGW is real or not.

The pause is predictable is right on schedule. I'm not sure why you say that if the pause is a reasonable expectation then criticism of AGW is specious.

The pause is predicted by a cycle that has been at work for more than 400 years. This pre dates the cause of AGW. If anything, this provides a very good basis for the criticism of AGW as being nothing more than a shiny distraction from the actual causes.

 

[code1211]

I don't think you understand what "consensus" means.




Oh look, sawyer still thinks AGW is based on an assumption that CO2 is the only variable involved. Man, he sure has trouble understanding climate science.

What is the prime driver of Climate Change according to Anthropgenic Global Warming Diehards?

Hint: The word Anthropogenic means caused by Man.

Definition of ANTHROPOGENIC

: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature <anthropogenic pollutants>

 

[BmanMcfly]

Well, do I listen to McFly or NOAA?

Ill stick with NOAA. I'm guessing they have a good angle on the stats.

My questions are not statements that require a judgement call to determine.

The question again was "what is the timeframe that is within the confidence?"

The fact that you use this smug arrogance as a shield tells me that you have no idea what you are really talking about and are unable to defend your talking points logically.

 

[Dezaad]

The pause is predictable is right on schedule. I'm not sure why you say that if the pause is a reasonable expectation then criticism of AGW is specious.

The pause is predicted by a cycle that has been at work for more than 400 years. This pre dates the cause of AGW. If anything, this provides a very good basis for the criticism of AGW as being nothing more than a shiny distraction from the actual causes.

This is a different thing than what the OP asserts. While what you are presenting here may or may not have merit, the claim that this pause does not fit into the AGW model is flat out wrong. I am sure a discussion about your model would be quite interesting, and it might our might not cast doubt on AGW, but it is irrelevant to the claim that the OP makes.

We are not discussing all doubts about AGW in general. We are discussing a specific criticism. I think it is odd that people believe that bringing new (supposed) criticisms somehow bolsters the case for the OP criticism. It doesn't. It actually weakens that case, because it makes it look like there was no substance behind it, and that critics are trying to change the subject in order to seem to win.

 

[Threegoofs]

My questions are not statements that require a judgement call to determine.

The question again was "what is the timeframe that is within the confidence?"

The fact that you use this smug arrogance as a shield tells me that you have no idea what you are really talking about and are unable to defend your talking points logically.

I have done so earlier.

I don't have time to hold your hand constantly.

Based upon your posts here, I think smug arrogance is an appropriate response, though.

 

[code1211]

This is a different thing than what the OP asserts. While what you are presenting here may or may not have merit, the claim that this pause does not fit into the AGW model is flat out wrong. I am sure a discussion about your model would be quite interesting, and it might our might not cast doubt on AGW, but it is irrelevant to the claim that the OP makes.

We are not discussing all doubts about AGW in general. We are discussing a specific criticism. I think it is odd that people believe that bringing new (supposed) criticisms somehow bolsters the case for the OP criticism. It doesn't. It actually weakens that case, because it makes it look like there was no substance behind it, and that critics are trying to change the subject in order to seem to win.

The OP Said:

"With no warming for the last sixteen years, and observed climate data diverging from climate model projections, has the AGW "consensus" been defeated by reality?"

I don't see how presenting actual data and proposing a historically founded and researched record to support an assertion of a justifiable causal alternative is in conflict with this. If anything, this is in concert with the OP.

He said there is a pause in progress. This paper to which I linked Predicts that this pause should have occurred and is in fact a reflection of a 60 year cycle that has been operating since at least 1700 which predate the industrial Revolution. This cycle operates outside of the effect of CO2 and operates quite predictably, unlike AGW Science's predictions.

 

[Dezaad]

The OP Said:

"With no warming for the last sixteen years, and observed climate data diverging from climate model projections, has the AGW "consensus" been defeated by reality?"

I don't see how presenting actual data and proposing a historically founded and researched record to support an assertion of a justifiable causal alternative is in conflict with this. If anything, this is in concert with the OP.

He said there is a pause in progress. This paper to which I linked Predicts that this pause should have occurred and is in fact a reflection of a 60 year cycle that has been operating since at least 1700 which predate the industrial Revolution. This cycle operates outside of the effect of CO2 and operates quite predictably, unlike AGW Science's predictions.

An explanation for the pause lends no credence to the notion that AGW can't include the pause in its models.

There could be 40 explanations that are capable of explaining the pause. The fact that you have presented one doesn't support the OP.

Your explanation might or might not have the most evidence for the whole set of data for 400 years. Let us suppose for a moment that it is the best explanation for that data. Even that would not change the fact that the AGW models are capable to explain pauses, or even temporary reversals. You are trying to discuss whether your model is the best one, and then tie it back to the OP to say that this necessarily supports the notion that AGW can't explain the pause. It doesn't, not even one iota.

So, your posts amount to a change of subject, that new subject being a discussion between which model explain the evidence better.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I have done so earlier.

I don't have time to hold your hand constantly.

Based upon your posts here, I think smug arrogance is an appropriate response, though.

Maybe that was your intention, but

1- you misuse the term confidence interval (since the projections already have a high and low confidence range, you want to add another +/- meaning that you have a p value that makes that shows the projections as worse than chance)
2- you did not specify exactly what the confidence interval was, simply made that claim, and I'm pretty sure you never even really backed it up

Aka what is the "confidence interval" thresholds?

3- we keep cutting some slack over the dozens of other related scandals that get pushed aside by new scandals, there has not been a single claim from the AGW crowd that has not been shown to be either an exaggeration, a manipulation of the data or an outright fabrication.

 

[code1211]

An explanation for the pause lends no credence to the notion that AGW can't include the pause in its models.

There could be 40 explanations that are capable of explaining the pause. The fact that you have presented one doesn't support the OP.

Your explanation might or might not have the most evidence for the whole set of data for 400 years. Let us suppose for a moment that it is the best explanation for that data. Even that would not change the fact that the AGW models are capable to explain pauses, or even temporary reversals. You are trying to discuss whether your model is the best one, and then tie it back to the OP to say that this necessarily supports the notion that AGW can't explain the pause. It doesn't, not even one iota.

So, your posts amount to a change of subject, that new subject being a discussion between which model explain the evidence better.

Can you link to a model based in AGW Science that predicts the cooling which started in about the year 2000?

Here are 73 that don't seem to do so. The link goes to the original and is much easier to read.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

 

[Mr X]

The debate has never been about the physics, but rather about climate sensitivity to physics. It remains undemonstrated that there is a causal link between CO2 and observed climate trends. Meanwhile, Svensmark has put forward an alternative paradigm.

ore recently, Laken et al (2012) found that new high quality satellite data show that the El_Niño–Southern_Oscillation is responsible for most changes in cloud cover at the global and regional levels. They also found that Galactic Cosmic Rays, and total solar irradiance did not have any statistically-significant influence on changes in cloud cover whatsoever.
Lockwood (2012) conducted a thorough review of the scientific literature on the "solar influence" on climate. It was found that when this influence is included appropriately into climate models causal climate change claims such as those made by Svensmark are shown to have been exaggerated.

 

[Jack Hays]

ore recently, Laken et al (2012) found that new high quality satellite data show that the El_Niño–Southern_Oscillation is responsible for most changes in cloud cover at the global and regional levels. They also found that Galactic Cosmic Rays, and total solar irradiance did not have any statistically-significant influence on changes in cloud cover whatsoever.
Lockwood (2012) conducted a thorough review of the scientific literature on the "solar influence" on climate. It was found that when this influence is included appropriately into climate models causal climate change claims such as those made by Svensmark are shown to have been exaggerated.

Please check with the Royal Astronomical Society.

[h=3]Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive? - Royal Astronomical ...[/h]www.ras.org.uk › News & Press › News 2012‎

:mrgreen:

 

[Dezaad]

Can you link to a model based in AGW Science that predicts the cooling which started in about the year 2000?

Here are 73 that don't seem to do so. The link goes to the original and is much easier to read.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

You are mistaken that climate scientists are compelled to predict short term fluctuations (15 years is short term) in weather in order for their longer term predictions about the climate to hold. Their models never were meant to predict what the temperature would be in any given year, but rather are concerned with what the trend line will be that describes the trajectory around which the fluctuations will move.

They will be proven right or wrong about those long term predictions when the long term arrives.

The mistake you all make, constantly, is that you listen to the popular press, and what THEY think AGW science predicts. Sometimes this mistake is encouraged by lay people who support the notion of AGW, because they too misunderstand the science. But, AGW science does not typically make predictions about short term trends. In fact, I see them avoiding it, and they try to emphasize this.

That you misunderstand what they mean by what they do predict does not make them wrong, or their models wrong. That the popular press is encouraging you to do so is unfortunate, but only of consequence because you will win the argument with the ignorant multitudes. At least for a time.

But before you seek to win that argument on ignorant terms, wouldn't you rather understand what AGW science really does predict, and what it really does mean, instead of beating up on all these straw men?

Don Sutherland has been doing an awesome job in this thread describing the physics/ mechanisms at play. I cannot do it better. Reviewing what he has said shows that there is strong evidence that heat is indeed accumulating in the biosphere, of which the atmosphere is but a part. This is predicted by AGW science and it is verified that it is occurring. The capacity of CO2 to trap heat is undisputed. The fact that less and less heat is being reradiated back into space is undisputed. The heat must be going somewhere.

If the oceanic part of the biosphere takes on the part of storing more heat, as it seems to be doing, it will inevitably reach a new equilibrium. Once this happens, the atmosphere will take on a greater share of heat storage. The trend line shows the prediction that the atmosphere must eventually store heat, but it does not predict that each year the atmosphere will be storing more heat than last year.

 

[Mr X]

Please check with the Royal Astronomical Society.

[h=3]Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive? - Royal Astronomical ...[/h]www.ras.org.uk › News & Press › News 2012‎

:mrgreen:

?? That has nothing to do with with anything I said. I was talking about ACC, not evolution.

You don't want to believe in ACC? fine, but you're disagreeing with over 90% of climatologists.

 

[Mr X]

I have posted many times that Svensmark does not debunk AGW, but rather bypasses it with a much larger conception. I believe that we are in agreement to at least some extent.:mrgreen:

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

The body of scientific research has determined that GCRs are actually not very effective at seeding clouds. However, the hypothesis is also disproven just by examining the data. Over the past five decades, the number of GCRs reaching Earth has increased, and in recent years reached record high numbers. This means that if the GCR-warming hypothesis is correct, this increase in GCRs should actually be causing global cooling over the past five decades, and particularly cold temperatures in recent years.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There could be 40 explanations that are capable of explaining the pause. The fact that you have presented one doesn't support the OP.

So is it possible these other 40 causes just align and appeared as AGW?

 

[Dezaad]

So is it possible these other 40 causes just align and appeared as AGW?

I should have said "there could be 40 alternative explanations" for the pause, and it wouldn't mean that the AGW explanation was incapable to explain the pause as well.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I should have said "there could be 40 alternative explanations" for the pause, and it wouldn't mean that the AGW explanation was incapable to explain the pause as well.

I had to laugh though. You acknowledge other causes can make the upward trend effectively come to a halt. Can't you take that next step and see that maybe CO2 isn't as potent as advertised?

 

[Dezaad]

I had to laugh though. You acknowledge other causes can make the upward trend effectively come to a halt. Can't you take that next step and see that maybe CO2 isn't as potent as advertised?

I could easily do so. However, I see absolutely zero reason to, and myriad reasons not to. One such reason is that the march of temperatures upward has had pauses and reversals in the past. Why should this one not give way as the others have, given the physics of the situation plus the ubiquitous other scientific support? Wait, don't answer that.

The subject of this thread is the notion that the AGW science excludes the possibility of short term variability in the overall upward trend in global average temperatures. It doesn't. Should we all take the virtual silence of the skeptics on that subject as a concession of the point? Answer that question instead.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I could easily do so. However, I see absolutely zero reason to, and myriad reasons not to. One such reason is that the march of temperatures upward has had pauses and reversals in the past. Why should this one not give way as the others have, given the physics of the situation plus the ubiquitous other scientific support? Wait, don't answer that.

This is still based on the supposition that CO2 is the cause of the warming we have seen.

The subject of this thread is the notion that the AGW science excludes the possibility of short term variability in the overall upward trend in global average temperatures. It doesn't. Should we all take the virtual silence of the skeptics on that subject as a concession of the point? Answer that question instead.

I don't read it that way. I see it as written, a question being asked if the consensus of AGW being the primary driver of climate change, is losing consensus.

I'd say it clearly is. Slowly, but it is.

Remember. The "A" in "AGW" is antropogenic, which means of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature.

 

[code1211]

You are mistaken that climate scientists are compelled to predict short term fluctuations (15 years is short term) in weather in order for their longer term predictions about the climate to hold. Their models never were meant to predict what the temperature would be in any given year, but rather are concerned with what the trend line will be that describes the trajectory around which the fluctuations will move.

They will be proven right or wrong about those long term predictions when the long term arrives.

The mistake you all make, constantly, is that you listen to the popular press, and what THEY think AGW science predicts. Sometimes this mistake is encouraged by lay people who support the notion of AGW, because they too misunderstand the science. But, AGW science does not typically make predictions about short term trends. In fact, I see them avoiding it, and they try to emphasize this.

That you misunderstand what they mean by what they do predict does not make them wrong, or their models wrong. That the popular press is encouraging you to do so is unfortunate, but only of consequence because you will win the argument with the ignorant multitudes. At least for a time.

But before you seek to win that argument on ignorant terms, wouldn't you rather understand what AGW science really does predict, and what it really does mean, instead of beating up on all these straw men?

Don Sutherland has been doing an awesome job in this thread describing the physics/ mechanisms at play. I cannot do it better. Reviewing what he has said shows that there is strong evidence that heat is indeed accumulating in the biosphere, of which the atmosphere is but a part. This is predicted by AGW science and it is verified that it is occurring. The capacity of CO2 to trap heat is undisputed. The fact that less and less heat is being reradiated back into space is undisputed. The heat must be going somewhere.

If the oceanic part of the biosphere takes on the part of storing more heat, as it seems to be doing, it will inevitably reach a new equilibrium. Once this happens, the atmosphere will take on a greater share of heat storage. The trend line shows the prediction that the atmosphere must eventually store heat, but it does not predict that each year the atmosphere will be storing more heat than last year.

Your assumptions are not correct. There is more heat radiating into space than the experts of Global warming had thought there to be. This is one of many areas in which they lack understanding. They are trying to deduce a theory where the evidence does not support it.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

<snip>
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.
<snip>

The heat you say is being trapped is being released and it is released in the real world and trapped only in the Models. That is the major and most consistent problem with AGW Science. It works fine unless you are talking about the real world.

The simple FACT of the matter is that the experts claim they know what they are doing and claim that their expertise allows them to predict what will happen with the climate. They have not and presumable cannot. We can assume that they are all just idiots or that they are employing a faulty premise. i prefer to think the latter.

Unless you know something that they don't, this science is empty and unable to make a prediction.

I have asked for an accurate 30 year old prediction. Arrhenius wrote his paper more than a century ago. One might suppose that this would be sufficient time to have figured this out. This science is not capable of making a prediction because they simply do not understand what they are doing. Maybe when they get better at it... Right now, they are trainee apprentices with no master to show the way.

 

[Jack Hays]

?? That has nothing to do with with anything I said. I was talking about ACC, not evolution.

You don't want to believe in ACC? fine, but you're disagreeing with over 90% of climatologists.

If you didn't see the connection then you did not read the post. Here's another summary.

Key paragraph: An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.


A stellar revision of the story of ...

Visible to the naked eye as the Seven Sisters, the Pleiades ...eace

 

[Jack Hays]

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

The body of scientific research has determined that GCRs are actually not very effective at seeding clouds. However, the hypothesis is also disproven just by examining the data. Over the past five decades, the number of GCRs reaching Earth has increased, and in recent years reached record high numbers. This means that if the GCR-warming hypothesis is correct, this increase in GCRs should actually be causing global cooling over the past five decades, and particularly cold temperatures in recent years.

Since all that work predates Svensmark's latest publication (2012), and CERN's 2011 results gave Svensmark powerful support, I'm afraid you're supporting a view on its way to being obsolete.:mrgreen:

 

[Lord of Planar]

For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.

Anyone who understands these multiple disciplines of the geosciences knows this to be a fact.

 

[Dezaad]

This is still based on the supposition that CO2 is the cause of the warming we have seen.



I don't read it that way. I see it as written, a question being asked if the consensus of AGW being the primary driver of climate change, is losing consensus.

I'd say it clearly is. Slowly, but it is.

Remember. The "A" in "AGW" is antropogenic, which means of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature.

As to the topic, it was stated as: "With no warming for the last sixteen years, and observed climate data diverging from climate model projections, has the AGW "consensus" been defeated by reality?" My read of that is that the last 16 years is somehow evidence which contradicts AGW science. You are saying that the subject was 'as written', that being is the last 16 years going to erode confidence in AGW science. If you are right, the thread topic was even more stupid than I thought. And more dishonest. Because I refuse to believe that the author actually meant to discuss that supposed topic. In any case, the topic did become the former, and then AGW skeptics repeatedly did try to change the subject without any forthright and honest communication. Nothing like, "Well, we will have to agree to disagree on that, but what about X". The changes of subject were presented as evidence in support of the claim that the last 16 years were some kind of evidence about AGW.

I have no idea why you have concluded that I didn't somehow know what the A stands for in AGW, or what the definition of that word is. Strange that you would feel the need to define it. Perhaps you think I am saying that some other explanation (non-"A") of the temperature record has some significant evidence. I am not, and I don't think that. AGW has by far the most evidence behind it.

Back to the topic as you perceive it: Who the **** cares? In fact I already stated that the last 16 years will be used to convince the ignorant, so we agree that it will weaken support for AGW. I am almost certain that the majority of AGW science supporters would agree with me on that, so now we basically all agree that the last 16 years will erode support for AGW science. Boring topic over I guess. End thread.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Sorry for any misunderstandings Dezaad. In the various forums I have visited over the years, I am used to things drifting off topic. I am also used to people confusing any global warming as human caused. I am also, often guilty of participating in too many like threads at once, and getting people's arguments confused.