Cause of Pause in Global Warming

[longknife]

I'm not at all qualified to discuss the scientific merits of this piece. But, it seems to make a great deal of sense to me. I points out that there has essentially been no global warming since 1988. And, here's his conclusion:

Regardless of any unsettled science details, it seems sure that current climate models cannot represent what is actually happening in the atmosphere—and therefore one should not rely on predictions from such unvalidated models that are based simply on increases of carbon dioxide. It should be obvious that this discussion has important policy consequences since so many politicians are wedded to the idea that CO2 needs to be controlled in order to avoid “dangerous changes of the global climate.”

Read the article for yourself @ Cause of Pause in Global Warming Newsroom The Independent Institute

 

[Crick]

A better quote from Dr Singer:

So after all, the global warming pause still remains somewhat of a puzzle. The simplest description is that the climate sensitivity is close to zero—as demonstrated empirically. But why? How then to explain the reported surface warming from 1975 to 2000?

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Regardless of any unsettled science details, it seems sure that current climate models cannot represent what is actually happening in the atmosphere"

This is the point that needs to be stressed.. The models (the predictive stage of all hypothesis) have all failed. The hypothesis is therefore false.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The models failed BEKUZ of manmade Global Warming, just as predicted by the models

 

[Crick]

Where do you guys get the idea that the models are perfect embodiments of AGW and the nearly-infinite processes of the Earth's climate?

Let's take the hypothesis that animal life turns O2 into CO2 and that plants turn it back. Now let's make a model of the Earth's atmosphere and biota with which we will attempt to verify that hypothesis. Because of limitation of our understanding of the Earth's atmosphere and biota and the limitations of our computing power, our models will not be perfect. Models of chaotic systems never match observations. Do we throw out our hypothesis?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Where do you guys get the idea that the models are perfect embodiments of AGW and the nearly-infinite processes of the Earth's climate?

Let's take the hypothesis that animal life turns O2 into CO2 and that plants turn it back. Now let's make a model of the Earth's atmosphere and biota with which we will attempt to verify that hypothesis. Because of limitation of our understanding of the Earth's atmosphere and biota and the limitations of our computing power, our models will not be perfect. Models of chaotic systems never match observations. Do we throw out our hypothesis?

YES!

is it predictive of anything empirically? NO

it is of no use and should not be used to make or drive policy.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Latest Global Temps


See the number of times that the temps have gone up, then down? Then look since 1998. Pretty much a platue, not a deep dip since '98.

 

[Old Rocks]

As one learns quickly in stastitics, models are not accurate representations of nature. But they are useful.

 

[Crick]

Models of chaotic systems never match observations. Do we throw out our hypothesis?

YES!
is it predictive of anything empirically? NO
it is of no use and should not be used to make or drive policy.

So you think we should throw out the O2/CO2 cycle and severe weather forecasts? Gotcha.

Now then, please explain how ANYTHING can be PREDICTED EMPIRICALLY

 

[Billy_Bob]

Models of chaotic systems never match observations. Do we throw out our hypothesis?

YES!
is it predictive of anything empirically? NO
it is of no use and should not be used to make or drive policy.

So you think we should throw out the O2/CO2 cycle and severe weather forecasts? Gotcha.

Now then, please explain how ANYTHING can be PREDICTED EMPIRICALLY

Storm energy is way down. Storm severity is way down. Cyclonic events are way down. The process we use today to try and be predictive has failed. NOAA is less than 5% correct in forecasts beyond 24 hrs. The Farmers Almanac has a long term success rate of over 80% because they look at empirical cycles.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Speaking of the pause... now 18 years 3 months...

Source

 

[IanC]

As one learns quickly in stastitics, models are not accurate representations of nature. But they are useful.

I totally agree. models help to give feedback on whether our assumptions are right, and whether we are capturing the right parameters. the projections from models should not be thought of as predictions but just as a measure of how well the models are doing.

the climate models are not doing very well at all. it would seem like the climate sensitivity figures should be cut in half. they would then be much closer in line with reality. of course then the temperature predictions would be much lower and there would be no claims for catastrophe which are necessary to blackmail billions and trillions of dollars from the industrialized world.

 

[Kosh]

I'm not at all qualified to discuss the scientific merits of this piece. But, it seems to make a great deal of sense to me. I points out that there has essentially been no global warming since 1988. And, here's his conclusion:

Regardless of any unsettled science details, it seems sure that current climate models cannot represent what is actually happening in the atmosphere—and therefore one should not rely on predictions from such unvalidated models that are based simply on increases of carbon dioxide. It should be obvious that this discussion has important policy consequences since so many politicians are wedded to the idea that CO2 needs to be controlled in order to avoid “dangerous changes of the global climate.”

Read the article for yourself @ Cause of Pause in Global Warming Newsroom The Independent Institute

Yes the entire basis for AGW comes form computer models that have shown they do not work.

 

[Crick]

Only when Spencer lies about them.

HotWhopper Roy Spencer s latest deceit and deception

This must be the fifth time I've posted a link to this article. Not one of you has attempted a single word of rebuttal yet you all keep posting Spencer's lies.

Very, very few models predicted the hiatus, so you would think it wasn't necessary for Spencer to do what he did, but there you go. If you'd like to see a more representative graphic on the performance of these models, try:

or

 

[Kosh]

Only when Spencer lies about them.

HotWhopper Roy Spencer s latest deceit and deception

This must be the fifth time I've posted a link to this article. Not one of you has attempted a single word of rebuttal yet you all keep posting Spencer's lies.

Very, very few models predicted the hiatus, so you would think it wasn't necessary for Spencer to do what he did, but there you go. If you'd like to see a more representative graphic on the performance of these models, try:

or

And once again more proof that AGW religious dogma trumps real science.

 

[Crick]

Care to explain that comment?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Only when Spencer lies about them.

HotWhopper Roy Spencer s latest deceit and deception

This must be the fifth time I've posted a link to this article. Not one of you has attempted a single word of rebuttal yet you all keep posting Spencer's lies.

Very, very few models predicted the hiatus, so you would think it wasn't necessary for Spencer to do what he did, but there you go. If you'd like to see a more representative graphic on the performance of these models, try:

or

Miriam's site is total fabrications and bull shit... she tells some whopper lies.. this one is over the top and the facts do not support her lies. There is nothing to discredit as she has done an excellent job of that all by herself.

 

[Crick]

Then you should have no problem identifying some of them, specifically.

 

[IanC]

Only when Spencer lies about them.

HotWhopper Roy Spencer s latest deceit and deception

This must be the fifth time I've posted a link to this article. Not one of you has attempted a single word of rebuttal yet you all keep posting Spencer's lies.

Very, very few models predicted the hiatus, so you would think it wasn't necessary for Spencer to do what he did, but there you go.

I have often pondered starting a thread on Hotwhopprer's criticism. every time I do I find it hard to simplify the case to a few graphs and a clear statement that will be easily understood.

I will certainly respond to your restatement, in your own words, of Sou's tirade against Spencer.


here is the original graph by Christy, Spencer's boss.

it is clear and concise, with no noise to distract from his point that climate models are running too hot. is 1979 a 'cherrypicked' year to start? perhaps, but any year will show the same example of higher trends for the models compared to the trend of satellite/radiosonde when a base year is used to start the comparison.

in response to criticisms Spencer made a new graph with five year averages, to make the starting date offsets 'more fair'.

the critics still complained so he added a surface temperature dataset and offset every thing to 0 at 1983.

why did he use the second five year avg? (eg 1980-1985 rather than 1979-1984). I dont know. perhaps it had something to do with baseline periods.

I think I will leave it there until I hear back from crick. perhaps we can compare Spencer's cherrypicking to SkepticalScience's cherrypicking at a future time.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Al Gore shut his far mouth