When is doubling NOT doubling?

[CrusaderFrank]

The rest of the world recognizes the IPCC and the studies they assess as being perfectly valid science. You (particularly YOU) saying it isn't doesn't carry a great deal of weight.

Those were not scientists and they were not affilitated with the IPCC. I am almost certain that you knew that and thus I am almost certain that you just willfully lied.

What they knew was that cars produce CO2 and CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the greenhouse effect is warming the planet. What did they get wrong?

I know that it is and that you are astoundingly ignorant about all of this, even after your years of exposure to these conversations. It makes me think that you and jc WANT to remain ignorant. As I said, it's your call.

The rest of the world thought, was convinced! had 97% consensus!! that the Earth was a flat plane suspended on the backs of many turtles. I'm not impressed that so many people were fooled by IPCC

The scientists who contribute "studies" to IPCC are all paid to propagate the AGW narrative, again, I'm not moved

CO2 has no impact on temperatures at these de minimus levels

I refuse to believe that you are sincere about these wrong in the trillion column beliefs. I understand you have to keep up the façade, but I'm not buying it

 

[jc456]

Natural phenomena rarely follow such a linear course

Agreed, but if scientists have experimented with the data, they are expected to produce the results of their experiments. There are none in any IPCC documents. Zippola.

 

[jc456]

The IPCC can regurgitate the same non-science a quadrillion times, it does not make it true or science!

Look at how ignorant the panel was in another thread, they had NO IDEA that CO2 was less than an atmospheric rounding error. I hope that at least one of them will start to question their AGW Cult beliefs

You're somewhat smart, so I have to believe that you're being compensated to promote this nonsense, because it sure ain't science. You know it's not science

From what I recall from another thread, the IPCC does not have any scientific experimenting capabilities. Therefore, their predictions are at best, poopie!!! I flush all poopies down the toilet. Which is what I do every time ole slick posts their insignificant report. ad nausea.

 

[para bellum]

Natural phenomena rarely follow such a linear course

No, but computer models do. And the models do not permit a decade long pause while CO2 continues to rise.

In science, empirical evidence (experiment and observation) is king. When the empirical evidence contradicts the hypothesis you have to adjust the hypothesis, not the evidence...

Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus

This article is also cross posted at Judith Curry’s ClimateEtc. # # # In previous posts at WattsUpWithThat and at my blog ClimateObservations, I’ve discussed the new NOAA “pause-buster” sea s…

bobtisdale.wordpress.com

 

[Crick]

No, but computer models do. And the models do not permit a decade long pause while CO2 continues to rise.

In science, empirical evidence (experiment and observation) is king. When the empirical evidence contradicts the hypothesis you have to adjust the hypothesis, not the evidence...

Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus

This article is also cross posted at Judith Curry’s ClimateEtc. # # # In previous posts at WattsUpWithThat and at my blog ClimateObservations, I’ve discussed the new NOAA “pause-buster” sea s…

bobtisdale.wordpress.com

You seem to have no familiarity with climate models whatsoever. They are not limited to linear outputs.

 

[para bellum]

You seem to have no familiarity with climate models whatsoever. They are not limited to linear outputs.

They are as it relates to CO2. The variability is baked into other relationships. They can't even model water vapor, because it depends on how it's arranged whether it warms or cools.

You can't have a ten-year pause while CO2 rises at an increasing rate, which is exactly what has happened. The modelers recognize that.

NOAA had to fudge the SST data (which is in itself a result of a model) to "correct" out the pause. UAH satellite data (the longest continuous and genuinely empirical dataset) does not show the required corresponding stratospheric cooling.

But this is a pointless conversation. Empirical data will correct the bad science, as it always has. The only harm is the mis-allocated resources- i.e. the opportunity cost of the current policies.

The very best models we have for complex non-linear systems are the hurricane models. They receive gobs of hard data inputs, and still lose their accuracy very rapidly.

CO2 is not going to be the magic thermostat, sorry...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. CO2 at these levels does not raise temperature
2. The Global economy shut for 2 years, no impact on CO2. Therefore the vast majority of CO2 is natural
3. The OCO2 satellite shows that the rain forests are actually the “biggest emitter”of CO2 with the difference between big and small being 10 PARTS PER MILLION

 

[Crick]

They are as it relates to CO2.

They are not. The graph below shows modeled CO2 emissions. They are quite obviously NOT linear.

CMIP6: the next generation of climate models explained - Carbon Brief

Climate models are one of the primary means for scientists to understand how the climate has changed in the past and may change in the future. These models simulate the physics, chemistry and biology of the atmosphere, land and oceans in great detail, and require some of the largest...

www.carbonbrief.org

The variability is baked into other relationships. They can't even model water vapor, because it depends on how it's arranged whether it warms or cools.

That is complete nonsense. They DO model water vapor and clouds. You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

You can't have a ten-year pause while CO2 rises at an increasing rate, which is exactly what has happened. The modelers recognize that.

A ten year pause in what? Temperature?

From Wikipedia's article on the hiatus:
Publicity has surrounded claims of a global warming hiatus during the period 1998–2013. The exceptionally warm El Niño year of 1998 was an outlier from the continuing temperature trend, and so subsequent annual temperatures gave the appearance of a hiatus: by January 2006, it appeared to some that global warming had stopped or paused.[2] A 2009 study showed that decades without warming were not exceptional,[6] and in 2011 a study showed that if allowances were made for known variability, the rising temperature trend continued unabated.[6] There was increased public interest in 2013 in the run-up to publication of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, and despite concerns that a 15-year period was too short to determine a meaningful trend, the IPCC included a section on a hiatus,[7] which it defined as a much smaller increasing linear trend over the 15 years from 1998 to 2012, than over the 60 years from 1951 to 2012.[8] Various studies examined possible causes of the short-term slowdown. Even though the overall climate system has continued to accumulate energy due to Earth's positive energy budget,[4][9] the available temperature readings at the Earth's surface indicate slower rates of increase in surface warming than in the prior decade. Since measurements at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is receiving more energy than it is radiating back into space, the retained energy should be producing warming in the Earth's climate system.[4]
Research reported in July 2015 on an updated NOAA dataset[8][10] casts doubt on the existence of a hiatus, and it finds no indication of a slowdown even in earlier years.[11][12][13][14] Scientists working on other datasets welcomed this study, though they have expressed the view that the recent warming trend was less than in previous periods of the same length.[15][16] Subsequently, a detailed study supports the conclusion that warming is continuing, but it also find there was less warming between 2001 and 2010 than climate models had predicted, and that this slowdown might be attributed to short-term variations in the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO), which was negative during that period.[17][18][19] Another review finds "no substantive evidence" of a pause in global warming.[20][21] A statistical study of global temperature data since 1970 concludes that the term "hiatus" or "pause" is not justified.[22] Some climate scientists, however, have questioned the claim that the hiatus is not supported by evidence, arguing that the recent corrections in data do not negate the existence of a hiatus.[23]

REFERENCES

1. "Despite the robust multi-decadal warming, there exists substantial interannual to decadal variability in the rate of warming, with several periods exhibiting weaker trends (including the warming hiatus since 1998) ... Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series", "Box TS.3: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years", IPCC, Climate Change 2013: Technical Summary, p. 37 and pp. 61–63.
2. Mooney, Chris (7 October 2013). "Who Created the Global Warming "Pause"?". Mother Jones. Retrieved 26 February 2014.
3. McGrath, Matt (21 August 2014). "Global warming slowdown 'could last another decade'". BBC News. Retrieved 23 August 2014.
4. Meehl, Gerald A.; Julie M. Arblaster; John T. Fasullo; Aixue Hu; Kevin E. Trenberth (2011). "Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods" (PDF). Nature Climate Change. 1 (7): 360–364. Bibcode:2011NatCC...1..360M. doi:10.1038/nclimate1229.
5. Planton, Serge (2013). "Annex III. Glossary: IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (PDF). IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. p. 1450. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 May 2016. Retrieved 25 July 2016.
6. "The ups and downs of global warming". Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA. 21 September 2009. Retrieved 22 June 2015.
7. Morales, Alex (27 September 2013). "Global Warming Slowdown Seen as Emissions Rise to Record". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 19 June 2015.
   WGI AR5 Final Draft SPM Comments Archived 2014-12-02 at the Wayback Machine
8. Karl, Thomas R.; Arguez, Anthony; Huang, Boyin; Lawrimore, Jay H.; McMahon, James R.; Menne, Matthew J.; Peterson, Thomas C.; Vose, Russell S.; Zhang, Huai-Min (26 June 2015). "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus". Science. 348 (6242): 1469–1472. Bibcode:2015Sci...348.1469K. doi:10.1126/science.aaa5632. PMID 26044301.
9. Kollipara, Puneet (11 November 2014). "Where is Global Warming's Missing Heat?". AAAS. Retrieved 17 November 2014.
10. Johnson, Scott K. (24 January 2016). "Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data". Ars Technica UK. Retrieved 29 January 2016.
11. "The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus". NOAA. 4 June 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
12. "Scientists Cast Doubt On An Apparent 'Hiatus' In Global Warming". National Public Radio. 2015-06-04. Retrieved June 13, 2015.
13. "Global warming 'pause' didn't happen, study finds". The Guardian. 2015-06-04. Retrieved June 13, 2015.
14. Wendel, JoAnna (2015). "Global warming "hiatus" never happened, study says". Eos. 96. doi:10.1029/2015EO031147.
15. Vaidyanathan, Gayathri. "Did Global Warming Slow Down in the 2000s, or Not?", Scientific American (February 25, 2016): "Climate models, which are virtual representations of our planet, project that temperatures were much higher in the early 2000s than was the case in reality. ... Fyfe and his colleagues think the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a natural variance in the climate system that switches between positive, neutral and negative phases, explains the recent slowdown."
16. "US scientists: Global warming pause 'no longer valid'". BBC News. 2015-06-04. Retrieved June 13, 2015.
17. Dai, Aiguo; Fyfe, John C.; Xie, Shang-Ping; Dai, Xingang (2015). "Decadal modulation of global surface temperature by internal climate variability". Nature Climate Change. 5 (6): 555–559. Bibcode:2015NatCC...5..555D. doi:10.1038/nclimate2605.
18. Fyfe, John C.; Meehl, Gerald A.; England, Matthew H.; Mann, Michael E.; Santer, Benjamin D.; Flato, Gregory M.; Hawkins, Ed; Gillett, Nathan P.; Xie, Shang-Ping; Kosaka, Yu; Swart, Neil C. (2016). "Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown" (PDF). Nature Climate Change. 6 (3): 224–228. Bibcode:2016NatCC...6..224F. doi:10.1038/nclimate2938. S2CID 52474791.
19. Trenberth, Kevin E. (2015). "Has there been a hiatus? Internal climate variability masks climate-warming trends". Science. 349 (6249): 691–692. doi:10.1126/science.aac9225. PMID 26273042. S2CID 206640966.
20. "No substantive evidence for 'pause' in global warming". Bristol University. 24 November 2015. Retrieved 26 November 2015.
    Stephan Lewandowsky; James S. Risbey; Naomi Oreskes (2015). "On the definition and identifiability of the alleged "hiatus" in global warming : Scientific Reports". Nature. 5 (1): 16784. doi:10.1038/srep16784. PMC 4657026. PMID 26597713. S2CID 1562391.
21. "New study finds 'no substantive evidence' of a global warming 'pause'". The Washington Post. 24 November 2015. Retrieved 26 November 2015.
22. Cahill, Niamh; Rahmstorf, Stefan; Parnell, Andrew C (1 August 2015). "Change points of global temperature". Environmental Research Letters. 10 (8): 084002. Bibcode:2015ERL....10h4002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084002.
23. Fyfe, John C.; Meehl, Gerald A.; England, Matthew H.; Mann, Michael E.; Santer, Benjamin D.; Flato, Gregory M.; Hawkins, Ed; Gillett, Nathan P.; Xie, Shang-Ping; Kosaka, Yu; Swart, Neil C. (1 February 2016). "Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown" (PDF). Nature Climate Change. 6 (3): 224–228. Bibcode:2016NatCC...6..224F. doi:10.1038/nclimate2938. S2CID 52474791

NOAA had to fudge the SST data (which is in itself a result of a model) to "correct" out the pause.

As the italicized text above shows, no one fudged SST data.

UAH satellite data (the longest continuous and genuinely empirical dataset) does not show the required corresponding stratospheric cooling.

But this is a pointless conversation. Empirical data will correct the bad science, as it always has. The only harm is the mis-allocated resources- i.e. the opportunity cost of the current policies.

The very best models we have for complex non-linear systems are the hurricane models. They receive gobs of hard data inputs, and still lose their accuracy very rapidly.

CO2 is not going to be the magic thermostat, sorry...

It is not a pointless conversation if you were to actually learn something from it. Every single statement you have made here is false. I highly recommend you read one or both of the document at these two links.

AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023 — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

 

[para bellum]

It is not a pointless conversation if you were to actually learn something from it. Every single statement you have made here is false. I highly recommend you read one or both of the document at these two links.

Been there, done that. Not interested in exchanging studies or scripture, lol.

Computer models can only run iterations of themselves, over and over and over again. You cannot make an accurate, long-term predictive model of chaotic systems on a computer. You can simulate them, but it's just a simulation. It's full of artificial boundary conditions- it has to be, or each time it ran it would yield a different result.

 

[Crick]

Been there, done that. Not interested in exchanging studies or scripture, lol.

Why not?

Computer models can only run iterations of themselves, over and over and over again. You cannot make an accurate, long-term predictive model of chaotic systems on a computer. You can simulate them, but it's just a simulation. It's full of artificial boundary conditions- it has to be, or each time it ran it would yield a different result.

HAhahahaaaa... that's funny. Have you never seen a random number generator on a computer? Do you understand that there are numerous processes in fluid dynamics that are not calculable; not deterministic? Do you understand what an ensemble is in climate modeling?

 

[para bellum]

Have you never seen a random number generator on a computer?

Yes, and that's part of how climate is simulated on the computer.

Algorithms that use random number generators are used to mimic the natural variation in the real world.

At the end of the day, all you have is a simulation. The output from the last iteration is the input for the next. The farther away from the initial point, the greater the uncertainty.

Exactly like hurricane models.

 

[para bellum]

Do you understand that there are numerous processes in fluid dynamics that are not calculable; not deterministic?

Yes, and this is the crux of the problem with modeling the climate over the long-term.

It is one great big complex problem in fluid dynamics, and you can't predict turbulent flows with any precision. That's why you have to set artificial boundary conditions that don't exist in the real world, and why the models are really just simulations.

 

[para bellum]

Do you understand what an ensemble is in climate modeling?

I know what ensembles are, and averaging multiple models only gives you an average of your models. It does not speak to their accuracy.

You can create ensembles of models using different initial conditions, and that might help you identify outliers, but in the real world there is only one "initial condition".

 

[jc456]

I know what ensembles are, and averaging multiple models only gives you an average of your models. It does not speak to their accuracy.

You can create ensembles of models using different initial conditions, and that might help you identify outliers, but in the real world there is only one "initial condition".

Again, models aren’t empirical evidence

 

[para bellum]

Again, models aren’t empirical evidence

Exactly. I never claimed otherwise.

Empirical evidence is gathered by experimentation and observation.

In science, empirical evidence overrules everything else.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Exactly. I never claimed otherwise.

Empirical evidence is gathered by experimentation and observation.

In science, empirical evidence overrules everything else.

Well, except if you have "consensus" then all bets are off, the Scientific Method no longer applies.

Science = Settled!

 

[para bellum]

Well, except if you have "consensus" then all bets are off, the Scientific Method no longer allies.

Science = Settled!

Of course if that were true, we would still live in this solar system:

 

[jc456]

Exactly. I never claimed otherwise.

Empirical evidence is gathered by experimentation and observation.

In science, empirical evidence overrules everything else.

Correct, you never did, it’s been stated over and over by others the IPCC reports have it. Nope

 

[Crick]

Exactly. I never claimed otherwise.

Empirical evidence is gathered by experimentation and observation.

In science, empirical evidence overrules everything else.

Umm... not always. Look at all that Argo float data and Spencer's satellite data and NOAA's radiosonde data that all turned out to be biased for different reasons. Empirical data can still contain flaws. It was empirical data that said the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

 

[jc456]

Umm... not always. Look at all that Argo float data and Spencer's satellite data and NOAA's radiosonde data that all turned out to be biased for different reasons. Empirical data can still contain flaws.

Can’t make up this much phony shot