quote:

No you won't they'll be under 60 foot of water or are you now a sealevel rise denier?

LOL

To add insult to injury, last nights (monday the 7th April) Newsnight showed the head of the Science Museum agreeing with Nigel Lawson that no warming had occured this century!

BBC Newsnight

Alarm yourselves about this attack upon alarmism!!! Alarmists of the world unite!!!

quote:

Is there an empirical falsification for anthropogenic global warming?

I found this reference which at least goes to falsify that model predictions and hence the models must be wrong that predict AGW. You need to read the PDF which is found by following the link at the end of the referenced preamble.
Gerritt Van der Lingen article

It makes interesting reading about historical CO2 levels and heating (or lack of it) in the troposphere.

Oh c'mon SoM.

"International Climate Science Coalition"? Gee - must be important! That prosaic self description's a dead giveaway.

If I have the time I'll read the pdf just to rekindle my fire (cynicism's getting in the way)

BTW - they'll always be a sea level!

Come on Realprimate

quote:

If I have the time I'll read the pdf just to rekindle my fire (cynicism's getting in the way)

Rekindle that fire and criticise the article not the name of the organisation.

How is this report from the Daily Telegraph for GW falsification? OK, perhaps just the start?

quote:

Last April was the warmest since records began 350 years ago. There was also only 39 per cent of the usual rain.

However, this year, the showers are back and spring rainfall is already 25 per cent above average.

Last spring, the average 24-hour temperature was 48F (9C) but this year it has plummeted to 41F (5C).

Mr Britton said present conditions were not consistent with the warmer temperatures predicted by global warming models. But he added: "One year on its own cannot prove or disprove climate change."

Return to good old British weather

quote:

Mr Britton said present conditions were not consistent with the warmer temperatures predicted by global warming models. But he added: "One year on its own cannot prove or disprove climate change."

Present temperatures are entirely consistent with global warming models. Even models contain weather. Temperatures do go down as well as up in models - it's just more up than down. Most of this year so far, the UK has been warmer than the 1960-1991 average.

Globally, after the rather cold January and February temperatures (due to snow cover), the March temperature is 0.43C above average according to HadCRUT3:

hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly

which is about the same as 2004, the 5th warmest year on record:

hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

This is despite the strengthening of the La Nina last month according to the "Multivariate ENSO Index":

www.cdc.noaa.gov/ENSO/enso.mei_index.html

Steve_M

Please produce a graph produced by the climate models that accurately reflects what has been measured over the last 10 years.

Thanks

engineerer,

That's easy.

Table 10.5 on page 763 of Chapter 10 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of Working Group 1 is a good illustration of the climate variability of most models which accurately reflect what happened in the last ten years in that they have many periods of steady or falling surface temperatures sometimes lasting a decade, but superimposed on an inexorable long-term upward trend.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Steve_M

quote:

Table 10.5 on page 763 of Chapter 10 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of Working Group 1 is a good illustration of the climate variability of most models which accurately reflect what happened in the last ten years in that they have many periods of steady or falling surface temperatures sometimes lasting a decade, but superimposed on an inexorable long-term upward trend.

Using the magnifyer, none of them look like the Hadcrut Average Global

Chart. Chap 10 shows lots of different projections, all disagreeing with each other so clearly some initial conditions and/or parameters have been changed for each of the 26 runs. What's the point of a multi-model run. At most only one of them is correct. Which run is correct, if any? Which run is your money on and why?

If they are mixing runs showing different anthropogenic input scenarios then they certainly shouldn't be bundling those together.

If they are bundling together different feedback scenarios then so what? Only one feedback scenario will be correct and all the rest will be wrong and the average of wrong is wrong.

quote:

Chart. Chap 10 shows lots of different projections, all disagreeing with each other so clearly some initial conditions and/or parameters have been changed for each of the 26 runs. What's the point of a multi-model run. At most only one of them is correct. Which run is correct, if any? Which run is your money on and why?

For long climate runs, the exact initial conditions are not important. The reason is that we know it is impossible to get perfect initial conditions matching the state of the earth and we know that even if we could, the models aren't perfect or complete. This is why forecasts (which run at higher resolution and with more detailed conditions) only provide reasonable results up to a few days out.

What you are looking for in a good climate model is a climate that is similar to the earth. ie. similar temperatures, similar precipitation, similar climate variability etc. The models are tested with constant inputs to ensure this, then they are run with gradually increasing CO2 to estimate changes in climate. Most show the same sort of variability (ie. periods of stable temperatures) as has been observed in the earth system.

So you cannot say the period from 1998 to now is an empirical disproof of AGW. Especially when there is a pretty good reason why 1998 was so warm and when we have not seen a significant drop in temperatures. Further ocean temperatures are now significantly warmer than 1998 (even if they appear to have been stable for 3-4 years).

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Come on Realprimate

quote:

If I have the time I'll read the pdf just to rekindle my fire (cynicism's getting in the way)

Rekindle that fire and criticise the article not the name of the organisation.

Have printed it off. In the meantime time to vote...

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?op...ults&id=15&Itemid=49

RP - Not going too well for the climate crisis at the moment.

Having raised the question a number of times, I have been following this thread with considerable interest. I must confess I am not a lot wiser now than I was at the start as to what AGW theorists would consider to constitute a falsification. A fall in temperature does NOT seem to fit the bill - so what does?

quote:

A fall in temperature does NOT seem to fit the bill - so what does?

A fall in temperatures would certainly help the case.

But there hasn't been a fall in temperatures.

Anyway, as stated in my first post, it's not really about disproving the warming effect of CO2 (only the extreme sceptics don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas), but deciding whether the impact of CO2 is significant enough such that action should be taken.

So if we find that current warming has another significant cause, or if we find that current warming is less than we're measuring, or if we find that current warming falls out of the boundaries of what is to be expected (eg. from the models) then we can start to reduce our estimates of the impacts of CO2.

At the moment the observations of warming over the past 30 years are comfortably in line with the models when uncertainty and variability are taken into account.

Now that the scientists have gone out on a limb and started to publish decadal forecasts, cooling over the next 2-3 years or temperatures remaining steady over the next 5-6 years (in both ocean and atmosphere) would start to indicate that the climate is at the low end of the sensitivity spectrum.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
But there hasn't been a fall in temperatures.........

Anyway, as stated in my first post, it's not really about disproving the warming effect of CO2 (only the extreme sceptics don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas),....

Firstly, there is at the least an argument that temperatures have decreased since 1998 (for whatever reason)

Secondly, I thought there was some disagreement as to the AMOUNT which CO2 could absorb?

quote:

Firstly, there is at the least an argument that temperatures have decreased since 1998 (for whatever reason)

Surface temperatures are not as high as 1998, but ocean heat content is higher and more than makes up for atmospheric temperatures. That said, ocean heat content appears to have been steady for 3-4 years.

quote:

Secondly, I thought there was some disagreement as to the AMOUNT which CO2 could absorb?

As far as I'm aware the scientific sceptics like Lindzen doubt the feedbacks rather than the actual CO2 forcing.

Steve_M.

quote:

Surface temperatures are not as high as 1998, but ocean heat content is higher and more than makes up for atmospheric temperatures. That said, ocean heat content appears to have been steady for 3-4 years.

I think this is a good estimation Steve. I think most people underestimate the situation, just because land temperatures in the NH (where I live) seem cooler as of late. We are still at UV low insolation period and sea temps continue at a steady level notwithstanding La Niña's influence.

I think that UV aside, the hydrosphere is responsible for the 'steady state' of sea surface temps and 'some' of the low surface temps on land. When the sea 'cools' there is an increase of precipitation, so it's quite understandable that any of the 'precipitation' from this that falls upon the land shall cool the land areas.

quote:

As far as I'm aware the scientific sceptics like Lindzen doubt the feedbacks rather than the actual CO2 forcing.

It's a 'negative feedback' that I'm suggesting here Steve!

Best regards, suricat.

BTW. Welcome back and hope you had a good break.

Yet more news from the Times casts yet more doubts on the phenomenom of man-made global warming. There has been record snowfalls in Scotland. If La Nina has been effectively masking global warming temperature rises for the last ten years, the question is, why should anyone be concerned about global warming - when no one ever experiences any effects of it?

quote:

Only a year after experiencing its worst season, the CairnGorm Mountain resort near Aviemore is defying the doomsayers of global warming and predictions of its demise.

The car park is full and the slopes busy. When the sun comes out, it is almost warm. After several weeks of decent snowfalls, the spring skiing conditions are, according to everyone who knows, the best in living memory. The resort has even run out of up-to-date piste maps, and has had to advertise for extra staff because many of its seasonal workers have already left.

The snow in Scotland is so good that at least two of its five resorts are expecting to extend the season into May. It may be just temporary, but for the moment the Great British Ski Resort is back in business.

Global warming? Scotland sees its best snow in a decade

quote:

Originally posted by M Batchelor:
Yet more news from the Times casts yet more doubts on the phenomenom of man-made global warming.

Some snow in Scotland doesn't cast doubt on global warming.

"Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said."


BBC

Legjoints

quote:

"Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said."

So where has last year's heat gone? If it's not in the sea and it's not in the air, I'm intrigued to know.

If the effects of man-made Global Warming are so easily masked by La Nina giving us record cold and snow everywhere in the northern hemisphere? Why should we care about the miniscule effects of man-made Global Warming?

quote:

"Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said."

AAHH!! the now world famous ever changing(the BBC is now a joke in the US)article.
Nice one Legjoints(you were being ironic weren't you?)

Would be nice if some-one has a prediction from 10 years ago for 2007/08