• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent [W:437]

Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. Move the goalposts far enough apart and anything can be made to fit
Yes, and the greater the number of climatology models you run, the greater the likelihood that one will be "right" (i.e. consistent with observations) simply due to chance.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Yes, and the greater the number of climatology models you run, the greater the likelihood that one will be "right" (i.e. consistent with observations) simply due to chance.


Given we cannot model the two most important elements involved water vapour and CO2 climate sensitivity you would be better off consulting a crystal ball frankly :lol:
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

whats to debate? we are discussing the liberal agenda of it... "weather changes"... whats to debate?

Well perhaps you could do it elsewhere and leave people to actually debate the content of the OP instead :roll:
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Well perhaps you could do it elsewhere and leave people to actually debate the content of the OP instead :roll:


My advise to you is put people on ignore if your going to whine about them openly..
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD



We know phases of warming or cooling often last for many centuries. This is clearly indicated by the paleoclimatic record. The surface record is patchy unreliable and of too short a duration to be making determinations about anything. The satellite record is accurate but even more meaningless due to its much shorter duration.



Here is why they are worthless and why they will always fail

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

That's actually not bad at all, and his push back against the more extreme global warming models is important. Though he misses some obvious points.


First, even his data shows an increase in temperature that is very much on par with the median climate models.

Second, arguing that this is an unexplained natural warming trend misses the obvious issue that it is just as likely that we're in an unexplained natural cooling trend. That means that it is essentially equally likely that the more extreme global warming predictions are right, but we're encountering a natural cooling cycle.

Third, this is by far the best explanation for the data we've seen.
StepFnv2.gif


And finally, limiting yourself to only reading stuff which supports your point of view means that you'll always agree with yourself.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

yeah, no doubt. And I should say that I am not smart enough to know, or even understand fully what goes into the AGW debate, but I do know that once they injected a political goal, ie; social justice, and wealth redistribution into the argument, they completely took away from any real science....Now it is what it is, a scam.

So because some ideologues have their own agenda, you ignore what scientists are reporting?
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

lmfao, wow.

advise is spelled correctly by the way..

wow...LMFAO...
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

those weren't "typos"


thsi si a tpyo (multiple actually)

actually advise is spelled correctly...

LMFAO!!!!!

bother me one more time and I will report you..id take my ADVISE

between you and the other liberal Solletica you both are not familiar with TOS.. I will help you become more familiar
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

That's actually not bad at all, and his push back against the more extreme global warming models is important. Though he misses some obvious points.


First, even his data shows an increase in temperature that is very much on par with the median climate models.

Second, arguing that this is an unexplained natural warming trend misses the obvious issue that it is just as likely that we're in an unexplained natural cooling trend. That means that it is essentially equally likely that the more extreme global warming predictions are right, but we're encountering a natural cooling cycle.

Third, this is by far the best explanation for the data we've seen.
StepFnv2.gif


And finally, limiting yourself to only reading stuff which supports your point of view means that you'll always agree with yourself.

That graph, from the non-skeptical 'skeptical science', is a bit of a strawman. Skeptics have a variety of views, including that the "natural climate variability" occurs over many centuries...not just decades. Hence, they note that the Holocene, the era of Rome, and the MWP were as or more warm than today. And then there are other skeptics (myself included) that believe there is man-enhanced global warming, but such warming is very modest and likely beneficial.

Pointing out a linear trend upwards from 1950 to 2010 is mainly undisputed. The real question is how much of the trend since the end of the little ice age is 'natural' and how much of it is man induced.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

actually advise is spelled correctly...

LMFAO!!!!!

bother me one more time and I will report you..id take my ADVISE

case in point, you claimed it was a typo


advise: verb
advice: noun


phrase "My advise is"
wrong.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

those weren't "typos"


thsi si a tpyo (multiple actually)

do you know English or is your second language? since you are harassing me on CORRECT spelling..
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

That's actually not bad at all, and his push back against the more extreme global warming models is important. Though he misses some obvious points.
First, even his data shows an increase in temperature that is very much on par with the median climate models.

Not really. The current observed temperature is on course to depart even the very lowest range of modelled predictions. I'm guessing they'll have to widen the goalposts again pretty soon in order to allow for this.

Second, arguing that this is an unexplained natural warming trend misses the obvious issue that it is just as likely that we're in an unexplained natural cooling trend. That means that it is essentially equally likely that the more extreme global warming predictions are right, but we're encountering a natural cooling cycle.

A natural warming cycle needs no explanation given we have had literally dozens of them since the last glaciation. Explaining why todays very modest warming cycle is somehow unprecedented or unnatural has yet to be established.

Third, this is by far the best explanation for the data we've seen.
StepFnv2.gif

You do realise that this schematic is from a rabidly alarmist blog run by a cartoonist and non scientist I hope ? You really should check your sources

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about Skeptical Science

And finally, limiting yourself to only reading stuff which supports your point of view means that you'll always agree with yourself.

I don't. Its because of a careful analysis of both sides of the argument that I currently hold a skeptical view
 
Last edited:
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

case in point, you claimed it was a typo


advise: verb
advice: noun


phrase "My advise is"
wrong.


continue to harass me and I will report you.. I want to be very clear here since spelling and semantics are your game
 
Last edited:
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

This pretty simple stuff.

global temperature = T(year) + [T] where T(year) is the global trend and [T] is a stochastic process overlayed on top.
Yes, probably too simple to be of much use.

The goal is to find some function of temperature per year which best explains the data.
Then why in the world would your approach be to fit a straight line equation with some random variation "overlayed on top"?

Anyone taking a look at that dataset would immediately begin investigating a linearly increasing function for global temperature. This is clearly a better explanation than a steady state system as the probability for a random process to show such clear trendlines is borderline impossible.
I see, so your idea of statistically significant is not whether or not the model predicts the actual data, but whether or not there is any sort of positive correlation between temperature and year. Um, lol?
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Mithros,

For a far more accurate and nuanced understantind of climate skeptics, I suggest you read this: I am a climate skeptic who believes in global warming | Watts Up With That?


How the climate reacts to the initial warming is the main area where most skeptics have problems with the IPCC and others. These reactions are called “feedbacks”. Positive ones amplify any temperature change (warming or cooling from any cause, not just from CO2). Negative ones diminish a change. There are general agreements on the equations used to define the feedback strengths and how they are combined into one net temperature change multiplier that can be either greater or less than one. The major disagreements are the magnitudes of the feedback values and for clouds, even if it is positive or negative. The final IPCC warming estimates for doubling CO2 range from 1.5 to 4.5 C. The skeptics have no common voice, but their values range from about 0.5 to 1.2 C, a significant reduction. IPCC also uses a 1% annual growth of the CO2 content in the atmosphere, while data shows only about 0.55%. This increases CO2 doubling time from about 70 years to 140.

And...
We believe the complex computer models overestimation of warming is mostly based on a combinations of three factors: overestimating positive water vapor feedback, underestimating negative feedback from increased sea surface evaporation and treating cloud feedback as positive feedback while it is very likely negative. ...

A skeptics summary

About 1 C warming in the next 140 years does not seem to be a problem. (It will actually take longer because the ocean heat storage will delay the warming). Furthermore, both simple models and data show that most of the warming will be in winter nights in the colder latitudes. Less water vapor here reduces its competition with CO2. An example is in Minneapolis, Minnesota at 45 degrees latitude. About half of July record highs were set in the 1930s, with only 3 since 2000. However 80% of the record January lows were from 1875 to 1950. This winter warming is a benefit. And what makes people think the climate around 1900 represents the ideal? In 2014 we just saw a very cold winter, typical of that era. Finally, warmer temperatures increase evaporation and precipitation and since CO2 is a plant food, food crop production will increase, contrary to some other estimates. And any climate model that estimates a small, slowly increasing temperature will “disrupt” the climate should be looked at with great skepticism. ...
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

So because some ideologues have their own agenda, you ignore what scientists are reporting?

The difference between what some think scientists are reporting can be altered when reading what scientists on both sides of the debate are reporting instead of only one side.

Most of us who fall into the 'skeptic' camp read what scientists on both sides of the debate are reporting.

And when you read again and again and again that the computer models used to promote AGW are wrong, and when you see multiple reports of the data being manipulated by those promoting AGW, I think any person who thinks is reasonable in questioning the motives behind it all.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Yes, probably too simple to be of much use.


Then why in the world would your approach be to fit a straight line equation with some random variation "overlayed on top"?


I see, so your idea of statistically significant is not whether or not the model predicts the actual data, but whether or not there is any sort of positive correlation between temperature and year. Um, lol?

I also noticed that - if the "the goal is to find some function of temperature per year which best explains the data." then why would you compute a trend line as "the best explanation"? A trend line is not an explanation, its merely showing a slope of the data. Mithros is confusing correlation as some kind of explanatory causation - forgetting that a trend can happen in even random data (e.g. "the lucky streak" in rolling dice).
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

That is absolutely and entirely not what the study says. What it says is that the most extreme models are probably not accurate and more moderate models likely, which is not what you would call unexpected. It does not create any doubt about man made effects on climate change. Here is the actual study: Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group
This is common. Misrepresent what the study says and then ignore what it really says.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

So because some ideologues have their own agenda, you ignore what scientists are reporting?

I doubt j-mac or anybody else in the 'skeptic' camp ignore what scientists are reporting. Most of us are paying very close attention to it. But ignoring something and not swallowing hook, line, and sinker data, charts, and graphs suspected of being manipulated for self-serving reasons are very different things.
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

As for reading what scientists are saying, I wonder if the AGW proponents bother to read things like this?:

J Patrick Moore, PhD, is one scientist who thinks CO2 levels are at dangerous lows and we should encourage pumping more of it into the atmosphere:
Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic | Heartlander Magazine

And there was this released just this week and the panel includes some high powered scientists:

London: 26 April 2015. The London-based think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation is today launching a major inquiry into the integrity of the official global surface temperature records.

An international team of eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians has been assembled under the chairmanship of Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham.

Questions have been raised about the reliability of the surface temperature data and the extent to which apparent warming trends may be artefacts of adjustments made after the data are collected. The inquiry will review the technical challenges in accurately measuring surface temperature, and will assess the extent of adjustments to the data, their integrity and whether they tend to increase or decrease the warming trend. . .

Inquiry Launched Into Global Temperature Data Integrity | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

It will no doubt be some time before the panel issues any kind of report, but if it should report a firm conclusion that data has been manipulated, I wonder:

1. Will any of the pro-AGW people consider what they report as a reason to question the AGW promoting scientists?

2. And if not, why not?
 
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

Nothing that is occurring with the climate is inconsistent with normal natural variability either. We have had many modest warming phases like this one since the last ice age. Today's is nothing special compared to some

C02 is rising and solar output is falling, yet the trend is still rising temps and that is inconsistent with what we've seen in the past.

600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png


Source: Stanford University

Global Warming -- Research Issues

Little more accurate sun spot activity graph

1280px-Solar_Cycle_Prediction.gif
 
Last edited:
Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

C02 is rising and solar output is falling, yet the trend is still rising temps and that is inconsistent with what we've seen in the past.

Given the short duration of our monitoring of these sort of phenomena how do we know what is or isn't consistent ? We have scant knowledge of what has driven other natural post glacial temperature trends so whats to say this very modest one isn't also natural ? It did after all begin long before human activity could ever have played a significant part .

One thing which is true though is that CO2 levels are the highest we have seen since the last ice age. If the hypothesis that CO2 levels were driving temperatures were correct then we should also be seeing the highest temperatures too but they aren't even close. Over the last 10,000 years temps have been up to 3 C warmer than today minus human industrial activity.

Did you know that the human CO2 fingerprint on temperature has never even been detected much less quantified against normal natural background variation ?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom