Climate Science Is Not Settled

[fskimospy]

One could say the same for you. There has been terribly shoddy work done on the AGW side as well.

There has been sometimes, that's why we rely on science to correct it.

This paper appears to be well done clearly identifying assumptions and sources of data and the open access journal also seems legitimate. If you have factual data to refute either or both, I would be interested in hearing it.

The assumptions of a two layer atmosphere are poor, this has been talked about before actually when the last paper by this guy was written.

What makes you think the journal is legitimate? It is somewhere around 1 year old and only seems to have sporadically published climate denier articles. It is not present in any standard lists of open access journals either. What was your basis for determining its legitimacy?

 

[OverVolt]

Reading the words climate deniers makes me laugh. The scientists are the ones who politicized the science, then promptly sucked at politics in the following years. Its their own fault its turned into this. They should have just kept researching the actual climate instead of getting into politics.

Look... its just computer models. The measurement errors being carried through the model have got to be enormous when you start plugging one variable with huge error into equations with other variables with huge errors and doing computations with them. Some variables are so messy they are dropped altogether, like the volcanic activity I mentioned earlier. They have variables in their computer models that entire branches of science can't really pin down (like the effects of weather on climate) then they plug them into complex equations. Do you have any idea of the methodological errors that are going to be in the result? I'm 0% surprised the models have to keep being revised. Then they spit out a confidence interval like 95% certain of a 3C rise by 2020 and so far they aren't even close. They aren't doing the error calculations properly and if they did they would realize overnight climate science is useless.

Take the variability in sun output. The variability in CO2 and methane output. The variability of volcanic effects. The variability of ocean currents and cycles. Predict those variables for the next 50 years and compound all their inherent measured error in complex equations, get garbage data. Based on garbage data, try and convince the world its going to end. Thats climate science in a nutshell. No better than the world is ending homeless men in NYC.

Its bad science. They really do have 30+ theories on why their models have so far been wrong. Thats one reason there are so many articles you guys can link online trying to explain one theory or another "The heat went into the ocean" but the only place trying to make it into one cohesive argument are your one-stop shop for unbiased climate science, skeptical science dot com. :awe:

 

[fskimospy]

now if that is not obfuscation I do not know what is. Among scientists, I am not aware of any who deny climate changes, that our climate since the end of the LIA has in fact warmed. None. If you know of any list them.

I am aware of many who do want to do additional research before implementing wealth transfer programs amounting to trillions over the coming decades. I think that is prudent. There is so much we do not understand about how the variables that make up climate interact.

I will admit there has been a gradual retreat by deniers as the science around climate change has become stronger. It is much less common to deny global warming outright today than it once was. That being said, they have simply changed justifications for arriving at the same answer: do nothing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Nope. There are many types of climate change deniers that run a spectrum from "it's not changing at all" to "it's changing but we shouldn't do anything", to more. This type of obfuscation is fairly typical of deniers, but it's all part of the same general movement.

So no more lying from you about this, ok?

He's not a climate change denier....and to call him one is a bald-faced lie. And if anyone here is attempting to "obfuscate", it's you.

 

[shira]

One could say the same for you. There has been terribly shoddy work done on the AGW side as well.

This paper appears to be well done clearly identifying assumptions and sources of data and the open access journal also seems legitimate. If you have factual data to refute either or both, I would be interested in hearing it.

Tellingly, the "Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change" doesn't even appear on the ranked list of Atmospheric Science journals here:

http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1902&area=0&year=2013&country=&order=sjr&min=0&min_type=cd

One wonders why - if the methodology of the author is so exemplary - the paper wasn't submitted to a more prestigious Atmospheric Science journal.

 

[xBiffx]

To date, because of the lack of an accurate model, the AGW argument is nothing but a giant counterfactual.

We know what has transpired based on data. How in the hell are we supposed to know what would have happened if man wasn't part of that data? You can't compare what you know/can observe without what you don't know/can't observe. Not only that, how do you take that a step further and try and predict what hasn't even happened yet?

Such BS.

 

[OverVolt]

I will admit there has been a gradual retreat by deniers as the science around climate change has become stronger. It is much less common to deny global warming outright today than it once was. That being said, they have simply changed justifications for arriving at the same answer: do nothing.

Actually almost everyone denies global warming circa 2001 style since the warming stopped (albeit likely temporarily but the climate scientists have yet to put their foot in their mouth) and they have renamed it climate change as global warming is now too politically charged. So the ones retreating are the climate scientists. I wonder what drugs you're on sometimes.

Then the global warming types are like THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED

Which is super lulz and one of the red flags that this is turning into some kind of cult thing.

 

[fskimospy]

He's not a climate change denier....and to call him one is a bald-faced lie. And if anyone here is attempting to "obfuscate", it's you.

Sorry, doubling down on it isn't going to help you. In fact I'm pretty sure this isn't even the first time you've tried this tack. Please stop, it's dishonest.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sorry, doubling down on it isn't going to help you. In fact I'm pretty sure this isn't even the first time you've tried this tack. Please stop, it's dishonest.

Then I'll triple down....calling him a "climate change denier" is a blatant lie. Words have meaning.

 

[piasabird]

http://phys.org/news/2014-09-arctic-sea-ice-co2-atmosphere.html#nRlv

When the arctic ice melts and refreezes, the Ocean has the capacity to absorb more CO2. That makes for some interesting reading. Also vegetation is capable of absorbing about 17% of CO2.

 

[fskimospy]

Then I'll triple down....calling him a "climate change denier" is a blatant lie. Words have meaning.

Words most certainly do have meaning.

You think that when someone only denies climate science partially instead of totally that they should be immune from being criticized for that and called a climate denier. I understand your motivation for trying to convince yourself and others of this as that's basically your position.

The truth hurts.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Words most certainly do have meaning.

You think that when someone only denies climate science partially instead of totally that they should be immune from being criticized for that and called a climate denier. I understand your motivation for trying to convince yourself and others of this as that's basically your position.

The truth hurts.

What area of climate science is he denying partially? Be specific...let's get to the bottom of this.

 

[Jaskalas]

What area of climate science is he denying partially? Be specific...let's get to the bottom of this.

Climate Sensitivity. The part where the IPCC "estimates" the exact effect of CO2.

Scientists are presently working to refine that estimate, to make it more accurate.

 

[fskimospy]

What area of climate science is he denying partially? Be specific...let's get to the bottom of this.

Harde is an individual who has repeatedly created papers on CO2 sensitivity that use incredibly poor atmospheric models and then publishes conclusions that show much lower sensitivity. He does so in open access journals which appear to only publish denier based literature, presumably because nowhere else will accept them.

I will admit that he may just be utterly incompetent and is therefore unaware of the deficiencies of his work, but barring that and in viewing how this has happened repeatedly the only reasonable conclusion is that he is attempting to deny the established research on CO2 sensitivity.

I am willing to acknowledge the possibility that he is simply stupid, so I feel like that's meeting you partway. Fair enough?

 

[fskimospy]

Climate Sensitivity. The part where the IPCC "estimates" the exact effect of CO2.

Scientists are presently working to refine that estimate, to make it more accurate.

It's not that his estimates differ, it's that they are based on obviously absurd atmospheric models. If that's not purposeful just how bad a scientist is he?

 

[dphantom]

What makes you think the journal is legitimate? It is somewhere around 1 year old and only seems to have sporadically published climate denier articles. It is not present in any standard lists of open access journals either. What was your basis for determining its legitimacy?

Why do u assume it is not legitimate? And what exactly is being denied about climate change? I saw nothing about that in his paper I posted.

 

[dphantom]

he is attempting to deny the established research on CO2 sensitivity

BINGO!!!! We now know without question that anyone who does not accede to the "man is the cause of global warming because CO2 is almost completely the reason temperatures are going up because man is producing the CO2" is a denier. The science is SETTLED! lulz

you sir are a joke. you've latched on to old science that is slowly being superseded by new and you cannot let go of your belief system.

 

[Paratus]

Why do u assume it is not legitimate? And what exactly is being denied about climate change? I saw nothing about that in his paper I posted.

Well I'll tell you his solar modeling sucks. Cutting the Earth into 12 facets to calculate solar energy is very crude.

From what I've read so far it seems relatively simplistic

On another front I read this today:

NASA: Earth Just Experienced the Warmest Six Months Ever Recorded

As I wrote last November, a trend toward El Niño may be helping to spark a massive heat release from the tropical Pacific Ocean, boosting 2014 into front-runner position for the hottest year ever measured—a phenomenon that may stretch into 2015 as well.

So if the Climate is paused and insensitive to CO2 some one may want to inform Mother Nature.

 

[OverVolt]

Climate Sensitivity. The part where the IPCC "estimates" the exact effect of CO2.

Scientists are presently working to refine that estimate, to make it more accurate.

Then plug it into a 15 variable equation simulate 100 years and viola accurate down to 0.01C

Except its garbage.

 

[Paratus]

Then plug it into a 15 variable equation simulate 100 years and viola accurate down to 0.01C

Except its garbage.

Those models sure are shit!


Except for the ones that aren't.


Study: (In a real peer reviewed journal no less!)
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html

Abstract
The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

Article on the study:
http://m.phys.org/news/2014-07-vindicates-climate-accused.html

Choosing only those ones with accurate settings for Pacific Ocean temperatures for each 15-year period meant they did a better job of recreating temperature trends during those periods, Risbey explained.

Unfortunately these accurate short term climate models that include ocean effects aren't good for 100 years.

But that's ok because the existing models are accurate for the long term:

But for longer-term projections, such as the expected warming by the end of the century, this approach will not work because the dominant influence on temperature will be greenhouse gases, rather than natural cycles such as El Niño.

"If you want to do a forecast for next year then you can neglect the forcing, meaning the change in greenhouse gases, because greenhouse gases hardly change the climate from this year to next year relative to natural variations," he said.

"But over 100 years, it doesn't really matter what phase of PDO we're in – whether it's El Niño-dominated or La Niña-dominated. The main thing that's going to determine where our temperatures are in 100 years time is going to be the response to the forcing: the greenhouse bit."

So if I was climate change denying scientist I'd be like

Climate Pause. - Reality: Ocean thermal energy is increasing and larger than originally reported, hottest six months on record - Shit!

Climate change is just cause by ENSO/ANSO and the models are crap. - Reality: the models that predict ANSO/ENSO are accurate. - SHIT!

I know climate sensitivty!

So now we know why we have sloppy climate sensitivity analyses done by climate skeptics like this guy and Judith Curry coming out of the woodwork. It's the only FUD they have left.

(Of course Judith came up with a sensitivity 3 times higher so I guess you can throw hers out too)

 

[fskimospy]

BINGO!!!! We now know without question that anyone who does not accede to the "man is the cause of global warming because CO2 is almost completely the reason temperatures are going up because man is producing the CO2" is a denier. The science is SETTLED! lulz

you sir are a joke. you've latched on to old science that is slowly being superseded by new and you cannot let go of your belief system.

It's very odd to watch you guys retreat further and further every year as climate science continues to be vindicated while still claiming victory the whole way.

I think I found a picture of you guys:

 

[Paratus]

It's very odd to watch you guys retreat further and further every year as climate science continues to be vindicated while still claiming victory the whole way.

I think I found a picture of you guys:

Arthur: This new learning amazes me Sir Bedevere. Explain to me again how sheep’s bladders may be employed to change climate sensitivity.

 

[dphantom]

It's very odd to watch you guys retreat further and further every year as climate science continues to be vindicated while still claiming victory the whole way.

I think I found a picture of you guys:

ah yes, you must be the black knight lol

 

[glenn1]

It's very odd to watch you guys retreat further and further every year as climate science continues to be vindicated while still claiming victory the whole way.

Says the person whose side's crowning achievement over the last 50 years is the glorious failure of Kyoto, abandoned and ignored even by its greatest supporters. Here's to another few decades of losing huge in elections, fuck all "accomplishments" on reducing CO2, no carbon taxes, and more emissions every year. Maybe you can adopt this as your mascot:

 

[Paratus]

Says the person whose side's crowning achievement over the last 50 years is the glorious failure of Kyoto, abandoned and ignored even by its greatest supporters. Here's to another few decades of losing huge in elections, fuck all "accomplishments" on reducing CO2, no carbon taxes, and more emissions every year. Maybe you can adopt this as your mascot:

Well I'd say the Montreal Protocol did a lot of good. It's helping heal the ozone hole and removed a shit ton of greenhouse causing chlorofluorocarbons.

Sorry that pisses you off.