How have the IPCC's computer models performed?

[Kosh]

Because I place the truth above politics

Were politics not involved this travesty of a "theory" would have died its well deserved death 15 years ago.

Not without someone making a viable case it wouldn't.

And no one made a viable case 15 years ago, just political partisan hacks.

James Hansen is a Hack scientist and always has been.

He is one of the reasons why tenure should be abolished.

 

[Crick]

James Hansen was the top of his field. You, however, are a AAAAA Moron.

 

[Andylusion]

That's an impressive bunch of numbers, but you missed one.

Isotopic analysis indicate that human emissions are responsible for 100% of the increase since 1870.

All those natural sources are very steady. Our emissions have grown dramatically.

I'd have thought that would have occurred to you as you were writing all that stuff. No, huh.

That's nifty, but the main point of the thread is that the only thing truly consistent about the models, is that they are consistently wrong.

Computer models, at their most sophisticated level, are still just guys punching in random 'educated guesses' into a computer, and having it spit out a graph based on a formula. No matter how much they play it up, that's really all it is.

In reality, the real factor the computer models never include, is variation in sun energy output. All the computer models assume that sun energy output is the same over time. This is of course completely logical, because we have absolutely no possible way of determining what the sun is going to do.

But this is fatal lack of information for any model, because the largest possible swings in the greenhouse effect, positive or negative, are all absolutely meaningless compared to the least, most tiny change in sun energy output.

The most tiny fraction increase in sun energy, will offset any decrease in greenhouse effect. The temp will rise.

The most tiny fraction decrease in sun energy, will offset any increase in greenhouse effect. The temp will fall.

All that said.... I have to ask, how can you possibly suggest that CO2 natural production, and natural absorption, is in equilibrium?

Even if we limited our information to only the ice core samples, they still suggest that CO2 has increased and decreased in Earths past. CO2 levels have been higher, and lower, in the past. Suggesting that CO2 levels are not in a perfect state of equilibrium.

UC Berkeley recently did research on fossilized plants, and the information suggests that CO2 levels in the past, are much higher than the Ice Core samples show. They also show that there was wider variation of CO2 levels over shorter time spans than the Ice Core samples show.

You can glance over the information they uncovered here.
Using plant stomata to determine carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 15,000 years

Of course this isn't concrete proof, but neither is the Ice Core samples. At least skeptics of global warming are honest about the limitations of their research, unlike the global alarmists which pretend they have divine words on golden tablets.

But regardless of which data set you wish to examine, none show a perfect equilibrium. None do.

So based on what do you make the claim that they are in equilibrium?

 

[Kosh]

James Hansen was the top of his field. You, however, are a AAAAA Moron.

Hansen has always been a hack.

You just showed how much of a moron you are with your comments.

Hansen manipulated his data to push his neo Nazi environmentalism.

 

[Crick]

Crick is a new nick for poster Abraham3

That's an impressive bunch of numbers, but you missed one.

Isotopic analysis indicate that human emissions are responsible for 100% of the increase since 1870.

All those natural sources are very steady. Our emissions have grown dramatically.

I'd have thought that would have occurred to you as you were writing all that stuff. No, huh.

That's nifty, but the main point of the thread is that the only thing truly consistent about the models, is that they are consistently wrong.

And you base that on what? Denier blogs? This link will take you to a page with 16 links to peer reviewed STUDIES of the performance of GCM models versus observations. Those studies do not claim that models are perfect. No one does. But they do not support the common, unsupported denier contention that the majority of models are consistently wrong. https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/papers-on-models-vs-observations/

Computer models, at their most sophisticated level, are still just guys punching in random 'educated guesses' into a computer, and having it spit out a graph based on a formula. No matter how much they play it up, that's really all it is.

Really? Educated guesses? A formula? Surely you already know that you don't know what you're talking about... cause, based on that comment, everyone else does.

In reality, the real factor the computer models never include, is variation in sun energy output. All the computer models assume that sun energy output is the same over time. This is of course completely logical, because we have absolutely no possible way of determining what the sun is going to do.

No, none.

But this is fatal lack of information for any model, because the largest possible swings in the greenhouse effect, positive or negative, are all absolutely meaningless compared to the least, most tiny change in sun energy output.

WOW!!! For god's sake, TELL THE SCIENTISTS ! ! ! They have to know this! I can't believe ALL those climate scientists wasting ALL that time and ALL those TRILLIONS of research dollars and getting the entire world's population all worried and everything... how could they have made such a stupid mistake?!?!? I'll tell you how Mr Androw. They didn't. This comment of yours tells us - all of us - that you're even more clueless than the first comment revealed you to be.

The most tiny fraction increase in sun energy, will offset any decrease in greenhouse effect. The temp will rise.

The most tiny fraction decrease in sun energy, will offset any increase in greenhouse effect. The temp will fall.

Let's see your numbers whizbrain. Or let's just see a link to a qualified source giving that same message.

All that said.... I have to ask, how can you possibly suggest that CO2 natural production, and natural absorption, is in equilibrium?

I'm quite sure they are not. That would be a result of the almost unprecedented rise in temperatures over the last 150 years due to anthropogenic global warming, due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, driving a host of temperature-dependent processes away from equilibrium.

Even if we limited our information to only the ice core samples, they still suggest that CO2 has increased and decreased in Earths past. CO2 levels have been higher, and lower, in the past. Suggesting that CO2 levels are not in a perfect state of equilibrium.

Of course CO2 levels have varied in the past and like all natural systems are virtually NEVER in "a perfect state of equilibrium". So what? The point I was making was that isotopic analysis indicates that 120 or the 400 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere came from the combustion of fossil fuel. Humans are responsible for damn near every molecule of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere since 1750. That added CO2 is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced since that time (and not any changes in TSI).

UC Berkeley recently did research on fossilized plants, and the information suggests that CO2 levels in the past, are much higher than the Ice Core samples show. They also show that there was wider variation of CO2 levels over shorter time spans than the Ice Core samples show.

Again, so what? Do you have both some 'natural' reason for CO2 levels to be shooting up like a rocket (events require causes dude) and some suggestion where the CO2 humans HAVE emitted (currently at a rate of 29 billion tons/year) might have gone?

You can glance over the information they uncovered here.
Using plant stomata to determine carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 15,000 years

But I don't really care about CO2 levels over the last 15,000 years. I care about CO2 levels NOW.

Of course this isn't concrete proof, but neither is the Ice Core samples.

Proof of what?

At least skeptics of global warming are honest about the limitations of their research, unlike the global alarmists which pretend they have divine words on golden tablets.

You REALLY need to broaden your horizons. It seems quite obvious that your experience with science is thin in the extreme.

But regardless of which data set you wish to examine, none show a perfect equilibrium. None do.

So based on what do you make the claim that they are in equilibrium?

I never said they were. What I said and what I hold is that isotopic analysis indicates that very close to 100% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution was produced by the human combustion of fossil fuels. Natural processes are not in equilibrium and have changed radically throughout geologic history, but they have not changed significantly in the last 150 years and are irrelevant to any discussion of AGW.

 

[Andylusion]

But regardless of which data set you wish to examine, none show a perfect equilibrium. None do.

So based on what do you make the claim that they are in equilibrium?

I never said they were. What I said and what I hold is that isotopic analysis indicates that very close to 100% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution was produced by the human combustion of fossil fuels. Natural processes are not in equilibrium and have changed radically throughout geologic history, but they have not changed significantly in the last 150 years and are irrelevant to any discussion of AGW.

The rest of your post was far too ignorant for me to comment on.

So let's just focus on this claim.

Natural processes are not in equilibrium and have changed radically throughout geologic history, but they have not changed significantly in the last 150 years and are irrelevant to any discussion of AGW

Now back up that claim. Provide your evidence.

 

[Crick]

In 1750, atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm. Today it is 400 ppm, an increase of 120 ppm. Isotopic analysis shows that of the CO2 in today's atmosphere, 280 ppm is from natural sources and 120 ppm is from the combustion of fossil fuel.

Do you understand? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere NOT of human origin, has not significantly changed.

I already stated this point. Perhaps it was in that part of my post you thought too ignorant to deserve comment.

 

[mamooth]

Now back up that claim. Provide your evidence.

Here's a fine overview.

Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research
Ghosh and Brand, 2003

http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

Isotope ratios don't lie. If you can refute that science, do so. You'd be the first, and there'd probably a Nobel Prize in it for you, given how doing so would rewrite so much of the science we know.

 

[Kosh]

So far zero science has been used to back up their claims, just random links to AGW scripture.

Proof that the real denialists are the AGW cult who deny science.

 

[Kosh]

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

 

[Andylusion]

In 1750, atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm. Today it is 400 ppm, an increase of 120 ppm. Isotopic analysis shows that of the CO2 in today's atmosphere, 280 ppm is from natural sources and 120 ppm is from the combustion of fossil fuel.

Do you understand? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere NOT of human origin, has not significantly changed.

I already stated this point. Perhaps it was in that part of my post you thought too ignorant to deserve comment.

Now back up that claim. Provide your evidence.

Here's a fine overview.

Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research
Ghosh and Brand, 2003

http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

Isotope ratios don't lie. If you can refute that science, do so. You'd be the first, and there'd probably a Nobel Prize in it for you, given how doing so would rewrite so much of the science we know.

I was humored by the fact Crick placed his approval on something that completely contradicted his claim.

Let's review what Crick claimed on his post.

He claimed that you could tell using Isotopic analysis of CO2, that 120 ppm of today's current 400 ppm (I'm taking that number at face value without looking it up), is from human origin.

You just posted a link showing that Isotopic analysis of carbon shows a decrease in the ratio of C13 to C12.

Isotopic analysis of carbon, can only determine what isotope of carbon it is, and absolutely nothing about where it came from. That's according to the research mamooth just posted.

So Crick just gave kudos to research that made him look stupid.... there is something to be said for consistency I guess.

Back to Mamooth and his cited research. I am going to (as best I can) give your claims and research a fair shake.

Let's review the entire claim for everyone on the thread, that cares to hear it. If there is anything I'm missing, by all means fill me in.

As everyone should know, there are different isotopes of various atoms. In this case, Carbon 12, and Carbon 13, are the two isotopes we are concerned with. Carbon 12 has six protons and six neutrons, hence C12. Carbon 13 has six protons and SEVEN neutrons..... hence C13.

Roughly 99% of all carbon in the Earth is C12. A small fraction of ~1% is C13.

With the background out of the way, plant life tends to prefer C12 over C13. Thus, plant life has a lower ratio of C13, than the atmosphere.

Thus, oil and fossil fuels also tend to have a lower ratio of C13 to C12, than the atmosphere.

Therefore, if we burn fossil fuels, we would expect that the atmospheric ratio of C13 to C12, to decline.

As it happens, we do in fact see a decline in the ratio of C13 to C12 in the atmosphere, thus proving man made CO2 is the cause of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Is this a fair summery of your position, and the position of the research linked?

So what is my response?

Let's recap real quick. We're burning fossil fuels which have a lower ratio of C13 to C12. The atmospheric ratio of C13 to C12 is getting lower. Therefore the burning of fossil fuels is causing the atmospheric ratio to lower.

Does anyone who knows the history of science not see a problem with this? Does any body see the glaring problem there? Doesn't that sound familiar?

A is true. B is true. Therefore A caused B.

See.... I could have sworn..... just sworn that the phrase "Correlation does not equal causation" was written back in the 1880s, and yet here we are 2014, and people are still boldly claiming that it really does.

We know that C12/C13 ratios are lower in fossil fuels, and that the ratios are getting lower in the atmosphere. I dispute neither of those 'facts'.

What I dispute is your assumptions that fact A being true, and fact B being true, means that fact A is causing fact B.

Counter Argument:

Report: Lecture by Prof Salby 7th Nov 2013 | ScottishSceptic

Professor Salby giving his presentation on 7th November 2013
to the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum.

He has written two textbooks, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics (1996), and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (2011).

In his research, Salby discovered that In areas where the soil conditions get warmer, and more moist, the natural processes of decay increase CO2, and Methane, released into the atmosphere.

The most obvious example would be the reduction in permafrost.

In other words, it would be natural that as Earth get's warmer, and the natural decay process is increased, the ratio of C12/C13 would change.

The point though, is that two different facts being declared true, does not mean the conclusion given is also true. There are alternative explanations for what those facts are true.

 

[mamooth]

In other words, it would be natural that as Earth get's warmer, and the natural decay process is increased, the ratio of C12/C13 would change.

Two things disprove that theory.

First, the fast isotope ratio change began long before the warming began, but only after we started burning the fossil fuels in quantity. Vegetation rotting from warming can't explain that, since there was no warming.

Second, the change in that ratio over the full glacial-to-interglacial range, thousands of years and a much bigger temperature rise, was only 0.03%. In recent times, there has been a 0.15% change, 5 times as much, but accompanied by a much smaller temperature rise. By your theory, a vastly bigger temperature rise would necessarily cause a vastly larger isotope ratio change. Since that didn't happen, your theory is refuted. A -> B means !B -> !A.

Needless to say, scientists looked at these things. The evidence indicated your theory was incorrect, so it was rejected.

 

[Zander]

So what if the models don't work? The science is settled!

 

[Kosh]

The entire AGW religion was built on these models which have been shown to be total bunk.

Yet the AGW cult insist on forcing their religion on everyone.

Stop forcing me to abide by your failed religion not based on any real science.

 

[Andylusion]

In other words, it would be natural that as Earth get's warmer, and the natural decay process is increased, the ratio of C12/C13 would change.

Two things disprove that theory.

First, the fast isotope ratio change began long before the warming began, but only after we started burning the fossil fuels in quantity. Vegetation rotting from warming can't explain that, since there was no warming.

Second, the change in that ratio over the full glacial-to-interglacial range, thousands of years and a much bigger temperature rise, was only 0.03%. In recent times, there has been a 0.15% change, 5 times as much, but accompanied by a much smaller temperature rise. By your theory, a vastly bigger temperature rise would necessarily cause a vastly larger isotope ratio change. Since that didn't happen, your theory is refuted. A -> B means !B -> !A.

Needless to say, scientists looked at these things. The evidence indicated your theory was incorrect, so it was rejected.

It's not my theory. Other people far smarter than me, came up with that.

Further, the claim was about soil conditions. I listed one example of a soil condition change, but that wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list.

Soil conditions can change without a global temperature change.

The main point was that there are thousands of factors that could account for changes in CO2 ratios, that are not limited exclusively to fossil fuel usage.

Again, you are simply saying that A is true, and B is true, therefore A caused B.

I am NOT make that claim. I'm not saying soil condition changes are true, and C12/C13 changes are true, therefore soil condition changes are the cause of C12/C13 changes.

That is NOT my claim.

My claim is we don't know. You can't make the claim that those assumptions in that research are all true. It's not a valid scientific claim. It's a correlation equals causation claim.

The difference between real scientists and eco-nutz, is that real scientists are honest about the limitations of their knowledge.

For you to claim you know, when you don't.... proves you are not operating on scientific principals, and more on a ideological drive.

 

[mamooth]

The main point was that there are thousands of factors that could account for changes in CO2 ratios, that are not limited exclusively to fossil fuel usage.

Then name them and quantify them, and show how they affect the isotope ratio. Like the scientists have done. Don't keep relying on your "you can't disprove my claim, so it must be true!" tactic.

Again, you are simply saying that A is true, and B is true, therefore A caused B.

That's your tactic. You're the one without any actual data, and who is saying that since those mystery factors exists, they must be the cause.

For you to claim you know, when you don't.... proves you are not operating on scientific principals, and more on a ideological drive.

But we do know. You can keep waving your hands around and pretending the data doesn't exist, but that lands you squarely in the camp of the other deniers, the ones who auto-deny any data that disagrees with their religion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can't argue science with a Fundamentalist Cult like the Warmers

There's more scientific evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus than there is for a 120PPM Increase in CO2 causing "Climate Disruption"

 

[Crick]

A wee bit more evidence for you Mr Androw:

http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

Abstract
Stable isotope ratios of the life science elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen vary slightly, but significantly in
major compartments of the earth. Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning,
the 13C/12C ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about
0.0111073 to 0.0110906). In between interglacial warm periods and glacial maxima, the 18O/16O ratio of precipitation in
Greenland has changed by as much as 5 parts per thousand (0.001935–0.001925). While seeming small, such changes are
detectable reliably with specialised mass spectrometric techniques. The small changes reflect natural fractionation processes
that have left their signature in natural archives. These enable us to investigate the climate of past times in order to understand
how the Earth’s climatic system works and how it can react to external forcing. In addition, studying contemporary isotopic
change of natural compartments can help to identify sources and sinks for atmospheric trace gases provided the respective
isotopic signatures are large enough for measurement and have not been obscured by unknown processes. This information
is vital within the framework of the Kyoto process for controlling CO2 emissions.
© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Full text available at link

 

[Andylusion]

A wee bit more evidence for you Mr Androw:

http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

Abstract
Stable isotope ratios of the life science elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen vary slightly, but significantly in
major compartments of the earth. Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning,
the 13C/12C ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about
0.0111073 to 0.0110906). In between interglacial warm periods and glacial maxima, the 18O/16O ratio of precipitation in
Greenland has changed by as much as 5 parts per thousand (0.001935–0.001925). While seeming small, such changes are
detectable reliably with specialised mass spectrometric techniques. The small changes reflect natural fractionation processes
that have left their signature in natural archives. These enable us to investigate the climate of past times in order to understand
how the Earth’s climatic system works and how it can react to external forcing. In addition, studying contemporary isotopic
change of natural compartments can help to identify sources and sinks for atmospheric trace gases provided the respective
isotopic signatures are large enough for measurement and have not been obscured by unknown processes. This information
is vital within the framework of the Kyoto process for controlling CO2 emissions.
© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Full text available at link

I've read the whole thing. You are not showing me anything I haven't seen numerous times before.

The difference is, you pick out what you want to see, and I read the whole thing.

Notice:

"Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning"

Mainly? That automatically means there are yet other activities that affect the C12/C13 ratio, as my other links suggests.

Based on what do they claim the majority of that change is do only to land use changes of humans, rather than natural changes?

If they have not yet identified every single source of C12/C13 changes, how do they know one of the sources of change not yet identified is a larger contributor?

Again.... my point is not that "I know". My point is, we don't know.

But go ahead, and post more information I've already read... I beginning to think you are less about science, and more about an ideology.

 

[Andylusion]

The main point was that there are thousands of factors that could account for changes in CO2 ratios, that are not limited exclusively to fossil fuel usage.

Then name them and quantify them, and show how they affect the isotope ratio. Like the scientists have done. Don't keep relying on your "you can't disprove my claim, so it must be true!" tactic.

Again, you are simply saying that A is true, and B is true, therefore A caused B.

That's your tactic. You're the one without any actual data, and who is saying that since those mystery factors exists, they must be the cause.

For you to claim you know, when you don't.... proves you are not operating on scientific principals, and more on a ideological drive.

But we do know. You can keep waving your hands around and pretending the data doesn't exist, but that lands you squarely in the camp of the other deniers, the ones who auto-deny any data that disagrees with their religion.

By asking the question, you proved you don't understand the point.

The whole point is.... we don't know. "Well proved documented evidence of all the stuff scientists don't know!"

Dur?

If we had documented evidence that I could give you of every source of C12/C13 change.... I wouldn't have said "we don't know".

But your own links say there are other sources. Go ask the scientists you quote what they all are? Well they don't know. Why don't they know?

Because they are not interested in natural changes, only man-made changes in the C12/C13 levels.

But that is hardly an excuse to suggest they don't exist.