• 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!

The Intolerant Zealotry of AGW Advocates

How often do models work right?

I am a left winger.

I understand how the models don't work.

You are in denial of the empirical data.
Deuce's 2017-18 Season Football Model:
If Aaron Rogers plays in the Super Bowl, the Packers will win.

Outcome:
Aaron Rogers did not play in the Super Bowl due to injury.

Was my model wrong?
 
I get tired of explaining myself. Are you that forgetful, or have yo never understood to begin with?

I understand perfectly. It is just that your explanations don't reflect reality.

I don't go t blogs unless someone posts one as a reference.

Except when you cite the the Rocket Scientist’s Journal. I think you referred to it as your exception to the rule. And then you are completely hypocritical about other people citing blogs. You have no problem with blogs that push the denialist position but pretty much ignore any that don't. You don't even look at contrary blogs to see what they say and just disregard them automatically.

I have only supported Watts because he almost always has well linked source material. I only approve of Watts because I have easy access to good source material through his blog.

Really? Do you remember that thread Lowdown started that had a video of a denialist declaring all the models wrong? It was based on a paper that had been rejected by ALL the scientific journals? And it was soundly refuted both by people on this forum and real climate scientists as well. Do you really think that is good source material? Most people who live in the real world would say no.

And then there are times when Watts does use good source material but it is frequently mischaracterized or misused. Like Jack's recent cut and paste about the sea level not rising for two years. Lots of well-sourced graphs and data. Problem is that there is no good reason to post about a two-year trend other than misinforming the ignorant.

Can you say the blogs you support have well sourced information?

I don't need blogs nor do I cite them very often. But if and when I do they are much better sourced than most of the stuff you denialist cite.

I don't need blogs. I have subscriptions to actual science journal.

Yeah... you don't need blogs because there are plenty of people like Jack who post all this forum needs. And you often not only defend these blogs but you also frequently 'like' them. And it seems to me that your supposed subscriptions to actual science journals do more to inflate your misguided sense of superiority then add to the discussions on this forum.
 
I choose to look at the studies based on the empirical data, If the studies are based on predictive models,
their value is limited to the assumptions made in the models. The empirical data is showing that
the assumed feedbacks in the models is too high, so the model results would also be high.

Do you realize that these studies based on the empirical data also use models? And they are simple models that can't really predict the changes in feedbacks. I don't know why you can't accept this fact.

P.S, 14 of the co-authors of the Otto article were also IPCC Lead Authors.

Yeah... so what?

If you disagree with my assessment on sea level please find a place where the sea level is rising
rapidly that is not caused from some other reason. There is very good data out there.
PSMSL Catalogue Viewer
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

You want me to pick 'a place'?? No thanks, that's called cherry-picking and that's what you do.

I use the NOAA T-Max and T-Min for the US, because I do not have the T-Max or the T-Min for the globe,
but can demonstrate that there has been marginal increases in maximum temperatures in the US in the last 80 years or so.

So you are making arguments based on incomplete data. Unless the debate is about just the U.S. then you may as well be cherry picking.

You can exclude the 1998 El Nino all you want, but in so doing the warming that occurred between 1978 and 1998
would be much lower, and the models would have to be adjusted down.

I'm not the one who wants to exclude any El Nino. That would be you.

Remember that article in Nature trying to justify the hiatus?
They inadvertently described that the models were expecting the warming to continue at the 1978 to 1998 rate.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment

How could I forget it when you link to it on a regular basis. And I would remind you that it was correct in predicting the next El Nino would be along soon and help start the more rapid warming back up again.

It is about time that you faced the facts. The catastrophic predictions of the IPCC are not manifesting themselves in the empirical data!

Of course, they aren't because the IPCC predictions for anything close to catastrophic are not supposed to happen for decades.
 
Do you realize that these studies based on the empirical data also use models? And they are simple models that can't really predict the changes in feedbacks. I don't know why you can't accept this fact.
The observed data contains all the changes, including the feedbacks. The longer latency feedbacks, could be from earlier warming, but they are present.

Yeah... so what?
Your statement was ,
"There were only 3(if I remember correctly) of the lead authors of the IPCC that were co-authors of Otto et al."
I pointed out there were 14 IPCC lead authors who co authored the Otto article.



You want me to pick 'a place'?? No thanks, that's called cherry-picking and that's what you do.
You claim I am cherry picking the sea level location, fine pick one of your own, the places with high sea level change records, mostly have other non
sea level related events occurring.


So you are making arguments based on incomplete data. Unless the debate is about just the U.S. then you may as well be cherry picking.
If you have a link for global temperature records which include the T-Min and T-Max, I would like to see it.
For now,I only have the US data, and it shows minimal T-max changes, with most of the warming being within T-Min.

I'm not the one who wants to exclude any El Nino. That would be you.
The El Nino's should be excluded as they are weather, not climate.



How could I forget it when you link to it on a regular basis. And I would remind you that it was correct in predicting the next El Nino would be along soon and help start the more rapid warming back up again.
The article in nature states in fairly plane text why the assumptions in the models were incorrect.
Also predicting an El Nino, sometime soon, is not a big deal when they have a 500 year cycle record.


Of course, they aren't because the IPCC predictions for anything close to catastrophic are not supposed to happen for decades.
Those predictions are also predicated on the mid to high end of the IPCC's range being accurate, and it is not.
 
I understand perfectly. It is just that your explanations don't reflect reality.
Well, at least accept that I have addressed such points, repeatedly, even if you don't agree.

It really would help if you comprehended science better, rather than believing what ever you read that fits your confirmation bias.

Except when you cite the the Rocket Scientist’s Journal. I think you referred to it as your exception to the rule. And then you are completely hypocritical about other people citing blogs. You have no problem with blogs that push the denialist position but pretty much ignore any that don't. You don't even look at contrary blogs to see what they say and just disregard them automatically.
Am I hypocritical or is it another failure to understand on your part?

Thank-You for acknowledging that I make that one the exception when it comes to blogs. However, I am not hypocritical because you left out one key thing I also constantly say...

Sourcing!

Watts is good because he almost always has very well sourced material. It is rare to see any good sourcing from the alarmists angle.

Really? Do you remember that thread Lowdown started that had a video of a denialist declaring all the models wrong? It was based on a paper that had been rejected by ALL the scientific journals? And it was soundly refuted both by people on this forum and real climate scientists as well. Do you really think that is good source material? Most people who live in the real world would say no.
I really don't remember very many of these threads well. This internet forum is something I just waste free time on. I do care about our world and economy, so I spend a small portion of my free time here, trying to show rational reasons why we shouldn't spend too much of our limited resources on it. We have greater threats to spend tax dollars on.

And then there are times when Watts does use good source material but it is frequently mischaracterized or misused. Like Jack's recent cut and paste about the sea level not rising for two years. Lots of well-sourced graphs and data. Problem is that there is no good reason to post about a two-year trend other than misinforming the ignorant.
In agree two years is insignificant. I agree Watts is not always presenting great evidence. However, most the time, he does. For you guys to just dismiss him shows just how ignorant you are.

Probably good cherry picking, I don't know, because like I said. I seldom actually read Watts. Instead I usually go to the source material. But... I didn't with this one, because I believe two years is insignificant.

There probably are several blogs he posts that he doesn't have significant and accurate information to post, so he posts the best irrelevant stuff he has at hand.

Just the same...

Bottom line is, he almost always sources well.

I don't need blogs nor do I cite them very often. But if and when I do they are much better sourced than most of the stuff you denialist cite.
First off, I am no "denialist." I do acknowledge that we have an effect on our planet. When will you ever get that right? Just how F'n daft are you to "deny" that I have repeatedly agreed we have an effect?

I simply do not agree our effect with greenhouse gasses are as much as claimed!

Yeah... you don't need blogs because there are plenty of people like Jack who post all this forum needs. And you often not only defend these blogs but you also frequently 'like' them. And it seems to me that your supposed subscriptions to actual science journals do more to inflate your misguided sense of superiority then add to the discussions on this forum.
Yes, I frequently "like them" because they have great source material listed that I often read! Material that I might not have seen without scrolling to the "source" area.

In all honesty, I never read the whole blog entry. I go to the source material and read it!
 
OOOH! Dr. Lindzen was a consultant for an oil company at a normal expert rate $300/hr.
He also was the lead author on one of the IPCC reports, is that report now tainted also.
What about Otto and many of the lead authors on IPCC AR5, who found a
best estimate of ECS of 2 C? They still fit into the supposed 97% (As do I),
yet an ECS of 2C for a doubling of CO2 is neither alarming, or of much concern.
What the AGW true believers cannot seem to get their head around is that a person can know
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but also believe it's aggregate climate sensitivity is low.
The modelers try their best, but are required to make assumptions, which may not be accurate.
A simple analogy, two cities 120 miles apart connected by an interstate without any traffic signals.
speed limit is 60 mph. Several groups model how long the trip will take, and all the models average 2 hours.
The last group does 100 physical trips at various times of the day and week, and comes up with an average of 2.25 hours.
Whose data is better?

It's easy to say that "sensitivity is low", because it's just a relative statement. It's the ultimate form of denial - I believe the science, but I don't believe the scientists. Temperatures are up 1.2 deg F. That's not much, if you're just walking between your house and your air conditioned car, is it?

According to models, at present, hurricanes have the capacity to hold 2% more water today, and that number will be 4% in another decade. That's a small increase, isn't it? However, if there is a 24-hour storm, and it lasts 30 minutes longer (2%), and that 30 minutes is just enough time to flood your home, you might sing a different tune.

I just returned from Houston, from a job, and I also visited a friend. He pointed out to me, all the work and expense involved, if just 1" of water comes into your home. All the floor gets torn up, the baseboard trim is removed and discarded, and the lower sections of drywall and insulation has to be removed. The above mentioned 30 minutes can cause that 1" of water.
 
OOOH! Dr. Lindzen was a consultant for an oil company at a normal expert rate $300/hr.
He also was the lead author on one of the IPCC reports, is that report now tainted also.
What about Otto and many of the lead authors on IPCC AR5, who found a
best estimate of ECS of 2 C? They still fit into the supposed 97% (As do I),
yet an ECS of 2C for a doubling of CO2 is neither alarming, or of much concern.
What the AGW true believers cannot seem to get their head around is that a person can know
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but also believe it's aggregate climate sensitivity is low.
The modelers try their best, but are required to make assumptions, which may not be accurate.
A simple analogy, two cities 120 miles apart connected by an interstate without any traffic signals.
speed limit is 60 mph. Several groups model how long the trip will take, and all the models average 2 hours.
The last group does 100 physical trips at various times of the day and week, and comes up with an average of 2.25 hours.
Whose data is better?

And it doesn't bother you that Lindzen sold out to the oil industry?

Regardless, your premise is that the IPCC is now misguided, but that it was on target when Lindzen was involved? You're way further Right with your denial than even that.
 
It's easy to say that "sensitivity is low", because it's just a relative statement. It's the ultimate form of denial - I believe the science, but I don't believe the scientists. Temperatures are up 1.2 deg F. That's not much, if you're just walking between your house and your air conditioned car, is it?

According to models, at present, hurricanes have the capacity to hold 2% more water today, and that number will be 4% in another decade. That's a small increase, isn't it? However, if there is a 24-hour storm, and it lasts 30 minutes longer (2%), and that 30 minutes is just enough time to flood your home, you might sing a different tune.

I just returned from Houston, from a job, and I also visited a friend. He pointed out to me, all the work and expense involved, if just 1" of water comes into your home. All the floor gets torn up, the baseboard trim is removed and discarded, and the lower sections of drywall and insulation has to be removed. The above mentioned 30 minutes can cause that 1" of water.
It is not that I am saying the climates sensitivity to added CO2 is low, but the scientific results of the measured data.
When they look at how the actual temperatures are responding to the CO2, the sensitivity is at the low end of the IPCC's
enormous range. (1.5 to 4.5 C).
Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero
The more we learn about CO2 interaction in the atmosphere, the lower our estimates get.
If the majority of ECS estimates from the observed data are centered around 2C, would you call that the
low end of the 1.5 to 4.5 C range?
With that in mind, add in the likely time to double the CO2 level would be about 180 years.
Also,the vast majority of the increase in average temperature is in evening lows in the cooler months.


As to Hurricane Harvey, I live in Houston, we get Hurricanes and tropical storms and it rains more than our very good drainage
system can keep up with. A stalled tropical system can, and will drop significant rainfall amounts.
Harvey's only difference was it is usually smaller storms that stall, but the rainfall estimates for Harvey fell into
the same range they have been using for Hurricanes for about 80 years. (100/storm speed=amount of rain in inches)
FYI, the highest 24 hour rainfall in the US was in the Houston Area(Alvin) but not during Harvey.
Alvin, south of Houston, still holds U.S. record for most rain in one day - Houston Chronicle
In 1979 Tropical Storm Claudette stalled over SE Texas, and dumped 43 inches of rain in 24 hours.
The area affected was less, but the flooding in the affected area was worse. the only saving grace, was the
Houston area was much less developed in 1979, so the flooding covered mostly farmland.
 
And it doesn't bother you that Lindzen sold out to the oil industry?

Regardless, your premise is that the IPCC is now misguided, but that it was on target when Lindzen was involved? You're way further Right with your denial than even that.

If you understood how research grants work, it would would not bother you ether.
Universities like MIT where Dr. Lindzen worked, have a sponsored programs office,
who scour the RFP's (Request For Proposals).
They try to match up grants with principal investigators.
A winning grant brings in research dollars, equipment purchases, pays research assistants, and buys course release time.
From the Universities perspective, the money is all green, it is a legal activity
that benefits the university.
 
It is not that I am saying the climates sensitivity to added CO2 is low, but the scientific results of the measured data.
When they look at how the actual temperatures are responding to the CO2, the sensitivity is at the low end of the IPCC's
enormous range. (1.5 to 4.5 C).
Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero
The more we learn about CO2 interaction in the atmosphere, the lower our estimates get.
If the majority of ECS estimates from the observed data are centered around 2C, would you call that the
low end of the 1.5 to 4.5 C range?
With that in mind, add in the likely time to double the CO2 level would be about 180 years.
Also,the vast majority of the increase in average temperature is in evening lows in the cooler months.


As to Hurricane Harvey, I live in Houston, we get Hurricanes and tropical storms and it rains more than our very good drainage
system can keep up with. A stalled tropical system can, and will drop significant rainfall amounts.
Harvey's only difference was it is usually smaller storms that stall, but the rainfall estimates for Harvey fell into
the same range they have been using for Hurricanes for about 80 years. (100/storm speed=amount of rain in inches)
FYI, the highest 24 hour rainfall in the US was in the Houston Area(Alvin) but not during Harvey.
Alvin, south of Houston, still holds U.S. record for most rain in one day - Houston Chronicle
In 1979 Tropical Storm Claudette stalled over SE Texas, and dumped 43 inches of rain in 24 hours.
The area affected was less, but the flooding in the affected area was worse. the only saving grace, was the
Houston area was much less developed in 1979, so the flooding covered mostly farmland.

NoTricksZone is nothing but a Climate Denial blog. It's so strange how you people pick this garbage up, while the true science is supported by groups like the National Academy of Science, NASA, and other very large, and very thorough scientific organizations. Why haven't major scientific organizations taken up denialism??? - because the scientific evidence of AGW is overwhelming!

You don't need to rehash the Houston history and weather of this tornado. I'm well aware of it. And if models are correct, 98% of the flooding would have occurred without AGW, and 2% is due to AGW. In 10 years, that will be 4.5% more flooding. In 20 years - 7% more.
 
NoTricksZone is nothing but a Climate Denial blog. It's so strange how you people pick this garbage up, while the true science is supported by groups like the National Academy of Science, NASA, and other very large, and very thorough scientific organizations. Why haven't major scientific organizations taken up denialism??? - because the scientific evidence of AGW is overwhelming!

You don't need to rehash the Houston history and weather of this tornado. I'm well aware of it. And if models are correct, 98% of the flooding would have occurred without AGW, and 2% is due to AGW. In 10 years, that will be 4.5% more flooding. In 20 years - 7% more.
The source of the data is irrelevant as they were citing the declining ECS over time in peer reviewed published papers.
You use the term "denialism" like it means something, I would ask what is being denied,
when a scientist finds ECS to be at the low end of the published range?

I assume your advancing percentages of flooding as based on the same models that predicted higher levels of ECS,
which has not been validated in the data.
 
The source of the data is irrelevant as they were citing the declining ECS over time in peer reviewed published papers.
You use the term "denialism" like it means something, I would ask what is being denied,
when a scientist finds ECS to be at the low end of the published range?

I assume your advancing percentages of flooding as based on the same models that predicted higher levels of ECS,
which has not been validated in the data.
You talk about "low-end" data, while 2017 is the 2nd hottest year on record. This was just released by the NOAA, for the first-9-month data. That's what I call "denialism".
 
You talk about "low-end" data, while 2017 is the 2nd hottest year on record. This was just released by the NOAA, for the first-9-month data. That's what I call "denialism".
The ECS of a doubling of CO2 and the current annual average temperature, are somewhat unrelated ideas.
We have been in a generally warming world for 12,000 years, and have been warming fairly quickly since the
end of the little ice age in the early 1800's, so seeing ongoing warmer years is not a surprise.
Isolating out the Human contribution from the background warming is a bit trickier.
Do you deny that the majority of the observed average warming, has occurred in the Minimum temperatures
rather than the maximum temperatures?
 
The ECS of a doubling of CO2 and the current annual average temperature, are somewhat unrelated ideas.
We have been in a generally warming world for 12,000 years, and have been warming fairly quickly since the
end of the little ice age in the early 1800's, so seeing ongoing warmer years is not a surprise.
Isolating out the Human contribution from the background warming is a bit trickier.
Do you deny that the majority of the observed average warming, has occurred in the Minimum temperatures
rather than the maximum temperatures?

We don't know that for certain, but we do know about recent historry, and it is much more relevant...

global_Change_temp_Chart.jpg

Chart doesn't show 2017, which is currently at 1.6 deg F.
 
We don't know that for certain, but we do know about recent historry, and it is much more relevant...
Actually we do know for certain that 12,000 years ago it was much colder than the current conditions,
and warmed rapidly.
We could in fact use the past sea levels as a rough thermometer.
post-glacial_sea_level.png

From 12,000 to 8,000 year ago, it warmed vary rapidly,
The last 8,000 years have been a noisy but steady increase.
 
There is a large error factor associated with historical temperature data. For example, ice core data can have an error of +/- 1000-2000 years, according to some Geologists. It's good information, but not only does it not pinpoint events, but we also don't know what other external factors may have influenced the data.

To use this kind of study as a pretext for a conclusion that the rising temperatures shown in my posted chart above are of little concern, is wreckless and irresponsible.
 
There is a large error factor associated with historical temperature data. For example, ice core data can have an error of +/- 1000-2000 years, according to some Geologists. It's good information, but not only does it not pinpoint events, but we also don't know what other external factors may have influenced the data.

To use this kind of study as a pretext for a conclusion that the rising temperatures shown in my posted chart above are of little concern, is wreckless and irresponsible.
Do you have any doubt that the 20,000 year rise in sea level is mirrored by a raise in temperature?
Yes, the temporal resolution is low, but that only means we have no way to determine is recent activity is unusual.
One of the main complaints of scientist who do not toe the IPCC line, is that the IPCC fails to address the high
level of uncertainty.
Why is it wreckless and irresponsible, to point out, that our level of uncertainty is high?
Anyone who works with data understands that if the direct effect 2XCO2 change is 1.1 C,
and the ECS range is 1.5 to 4.5 C, that the uncertainty level is very high.
 
To use this kind of study as a pretext for a conclusion that the rising temperatures shown in my posted chart above are of little concern, is wreckless and irresponsible.

My good deed for the day.

reck·less
ˈrekləs/
adjective
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

  • (of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action.
    [COLOR=#878787 !important]"reckless driving"[/COLOR]
    synonyms:rash, careless, thoughtless, heedless, unheeding, hasty, overhasty, precipitate, precipitous, impetuous, impulsive, daredevil, devil-may-care; More


  • If it were a word, it would actually mean the opposite of reckless, which is an adjective that describes something that is dangerously careless or unconcerned with consequences. Reckless is the correct spelling. Wreckless is a common misspelling of reckless.




 
Do you have any doubt that the 20,000 year rise in sea level is mirrored by a raise in temperature?
Yes, the temporal resolution is low, but that only means we have no way to determine is recent activity is unusual.
One of the main complaints of scientist who do not toe the IPCC line, is that the IPCC fails to address the high
level of uncertainty.
Why is it wreckless and irresponsible, to point out, that our level of uncertainty is high?
Anyone who works with data understands that if the direct effect 2XCO2 change is 1.1 C,
and the ECS range is 1.5 to 4.5 C, that the uncertainty level is very high.

And yet 98% of Climatologists agreed to the wording of "significant" evidence of AGW. That's not a "high" level of uncertainty. You are resorting to blogs and extreme minorities to gather your data and evidence, while the AGW theories are postulated by the National Academy of Science, the NOAA, and the IPCC.
 
And yet 98% of Climatologists agreed to the wording of "significant" evidence of AGW. That's not a "high" level of uncertainty. You are resorting to blogs and extreme minorities to gather your data and evidence, while the AGW theories are postulated by the National Academy of Science, the NOAA, and the IPCC.
The significance is attached to the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, not the level of uncertainty
of ECS prediction.
The empirical data is still pointing to the low end of the IPCC's range,
why are you denying the measured data?
No matter who says what, all AGW concepts must start with how much top of atmosphere energy imbalance
does doubling the CO2 level cause?
Since 2000 we have had the CERES satellite measuring the TOA flux (Top Of Atmosphere energy imbalance).
Considerable time has been spent evaluating the data.
CERES_to_CO2.png
A simple method is to add a DC offset to show the CO2 level and the TOA flux on the same scale.
We could also average out the 12 month cycle, and look for a change in the flux,
CERES.jpg
It does appear that any correlation between CO2 and TOA flux is limited,
but this could be caused by atmospheric feedbacks.
There is a good peer reviewed published paper on this subject.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf
The numbers the IPCC uses says the 2XCO2 energy imbalance should be 3.71 Wm-2,
So between 2005 and the start of 2017 CO2 increased from 378 ppm to 405 ppm.
The TOA flux should be 5.35 X ln(405/371) or .369 Wm-2.
The measured 5 year average was .1705 Wm-2.
This means that the measured top of atmosphere energy imbalance is less that half of what the supposedly
well established physics says it must be.
 
Alarmism
[h=1]Bill Nye: “I am a Failure”[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Bill Nye seems to think he has failed to reach people with his demand for urgent action on climate change, but he blames others for creating the conditions which led to his failure. Bill Nye on his climate change education efforts: “I am a failure” “The Science Guy” looks back…
 
Climate News
[h=1]We should have seen it coming[/h]The Global Warming Thought Police Want Climate Skeptics In ‘Jail’ Guest opinion by Kerry Jackson Conform or else! That’s the message of the global warming alarmists. Those who don’t buy into the man-made climate change narrative should be prosecuted as criminals. “Put officials who reject science in jail,” someone named Brad Johnson who says he’s…
 
Climate News
[h=1]We should have seen it coming[/h]The Global Warming Thought Police Want Climate Skeptics In ‘Jail’ Guest opinion by Kerry Jackson Conform or else! That’s the message of the global warming alarmists. Those who don’t buy into the man-made climate change narrative should be prosecuted as criminals. “Put officials who reject science in jail,” someone named Brad Johnson who says he’s…

Damn Borg mentality of the alarmists...

"You will comply!"
 
Back
Top Bottom