Good to see that the religion of Environmentalism has been challenged.
The religion may have found its cause in Anthopogenic Global Warming (AGW).. but it is a hollow belief.
For the environmentalists, AGW is a faith cast in stone, there is no disputing it, otherwise you are a ‘denier’ of the ‘truth’…Soon, references to skeptics will change to ‘heretics’. We are not far removed from the time when we were burning ‘witches’ at the stake.
But their ignorance of science is their down fall. They have no understanding of the scientific process and do not understand the concept of falsifiability in science.
They do not understand that they have to show the compelling evidence that the NATURAL climate cycles have been overridden by humans to the extent that the climate will behave as they are claiming.
This is the challenge which must be constantly put in the face of the AGW alarmists, to highlight their stupidity:
WHERE IS THE COMPELLING EVIDENCE??!!
They have to provide the COMPELLING evidence for their ridiculous claims. They are demanding we spend trillions of dollars and fundamentally change our lives. These extraordinary claims require the extraordinary evidence, for us to undertake extraordinary actions….
WHERE IS THE COMPELLING EVIDENCE??!!
They must not hide behind their rhetoric. They must answer this question. But remember:
Flakey computer models are NOT evidence:
Not a single model has been shown to predict anything of significance. How can it? Even the IPCC recognizes that most of the known forcings (drivers of climate) we either have a ‘low’ or ‘very low’ understanding of. It’s a fundamental of modeling: you have significant unknowns in a chaotic system, therefore you are only going to produce JUNK in terms of prediction. Also, why won’t these modelers release ALL their code and assumptions for V&V and audit by INDEPENDENT reviews?? Why indeed….
A poor correlation over 50years (logarithmic at that) is NOT evidence:
The IPPC ‘evidence’ is a poor correlation of C02 levels with Temps over the last 50years. The planet has experienced several billions of years of climate change. From whatever proxy data we can build on past climate and gas compositions (about 500million years), C02 does not display any significant role; it’s more likely a LAG indicator in climate changes. Therefore how can you regard a data set which is less than 0.000000005% of the total phenomenon as significant?
Consensus is NOT evidence:
For highly complex phenomenon, where there are many significant uncertainties, ‘consensus’ for a view is only a consensus of opinions, it is NOT evidence. This is why the IPCC is aggressively pushes this line, because it knows the evidence cannot stand up on its own. Also the supposed ‘consensus’ is a sham anyway. Scientists with known opposing views and evidence are not invited to contribute to the IPCC assessments. Furthermore, even among the contributing scientists there is a variety of views ALL of which are couched in HIGH LEVELS of uncertainty.
Well AGW Alarmist, where is it?? Struggling to find it, under the above restrictions? Well, if you do, please pass it on to the IPCC, because they are struggling with the problem of evidence as well…
Reality Check AGW alarmists: Global climate is a highly complex system with many significant UNKNOWS. The point is we don’t know enough about the long term behaviour of the climate to make any compelling conclusions.
(PS. don’t bother with links to realcilmate that left-wing propaganda site have the most trouble understanding science…they carry on like a bunch of strict Benedictine Monks, who lash themselves and anyone who dares to question the AGW faith….the fools also have trouble understanding other branches of science (e.g. Physics) when they pathetically attempt to discredit opposing views.)
The highly respected retired Professor Henrick Tennekes I think provides a good summary of the situation.
I hope i'm not the only person here who is baffled by all this Science.
What I think watching The Global Warmong Swindle, and reading through this forum has proved to me, is that "scientific proof" can be produced for any claim you want to make, as long as you have money to pay for it.
So, which science is flawed? The fors or the againsts? Is there anyway of me ever knowing? I can, and will, read this argument, that one, and the other, but how can i ever be sure that what I'm reading is not fuelled by a larger agenda.
My conclusion to all this is, let's not look at the future, which in my opinion cannot be predicted accurately, anymore by our flimsy science than medieval monks or biblical soothsayers.
I'll stay in my present and immediate world, and invite you to join me.
So - did I drive my car to work this morning? No, because it is better for my body to be walking outside in the fresh air, and better for my mind to be amongst other human beings in the train carraige - my god, I could even have a conversation with a stranger and help build a stronger, friendlier, more accepting society.
Did I turn off the lights in the kitchen beofre i left? - Yes of course, why use and pay for things i dont's need.
Will I keep recycling? Absolutely. Whether the world ends or not, rubbish is unsightly and smelly and the less of it we produce as a race the better our immediate environment will be.
So, any lifestyle changes the government are urging us to make to save the planet may not have that effect. But I still believe they would have a hugely positive impact on our community and society. What we need in Britain today is to stop taking things for granted, to stop thinking we can have what we want whenever we want it. If the global warming scare makes us appreciate where things come from, how they're made, and the impact they have on other people, all the better.
So, to me, it's almost irrelevant whether we are causing global warming or not. It's happening. There it is. People will die, others won't. Let's use this incentive as a way to improve our society today, now.
Originally posted by The Skeptic: Flakey computer models are NOT evidence:
Not a single model has been shown to predict anything of significance. How can it? Even the IPCC recognizes that most of the known forcings (drivers of climate) we either have a ‘low’ or ‘very low’ understanding of. It’s a fundamental of modeling: you have significant unknowns in a chaotic system, therefore you are only going to produce JUNK in terms of prediction. Also, why won’t these modelers release ALL their code and assumptions for V&V and audit by INDEPENDENT reviews?? Why indeed….
Yes it is convenient isn't it that the software is protected by Intellectual Property laws.
We've all seen 'Jurassic Park' and 'Walking with Dinosaurs' but we also know that dinosaurs don’t exist being merely computer generated models – just like AGW .
The evidence clearly shows the success of the models. Even earlier ones, and as time goes on they are continually improved.
Hansen 1988 was misrepresented before the US Congress by Patrick Micheals. who will be featured in last nights shambles of a so called "science documentary" Global Warming Swindle.
And a quick precis of the results and the misrepresentation follows.
It's easier than the one on Hansen's page, and it takes us up to 2006.
The projections, green blue and purple were done in 1988 by Hansen and other researchers.
The green was for a larger CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere than actually happened.
The blue and purple projections were based on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that turned out to be pretty close to what happened. Except that in Hansen et al the concentration for the purple doesn't carry on rising after 2000 but levels out to flat.
Remember the study was done in 1988, so they couldn't have known what was going to happen. If you think it wasn't done in 1988 give a university a bell and see if their library has a copy of "Journal of Geophysics" from 1988 give them the citatation below and ask politely if you can arrange to see it.
"Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone 1988. Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res. 93, 9341-9364. "
Anyway lets look at how the model did.
Land Station (red) and ocean (black) data are plotted from the start of Hansen's model 1958, right through 1988 when the model was done to 2005, when Rabbett made the post.
You can see that the model runs match pretty closely to what really happened from 1958 to 2005. You can even see how when you feed the model with more CO2 forcings than actually happened, the agreement fails.
Where does Patrick Michaels come in?
Well what he presented to congress was Hansen's green projection as an example of whay the models don't work.
The moral of the story: Those who want you to believe that even early models in 1988 could not accurately project gross measures such as global average temperature have to 'be inventive with the truth'.
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: The evidence clearly shows the success of the models. Even earlier ones, and as time goes on they are continually improved.
This. It's easier than the one on Hansen's page, and it takes us up to 2006.
The projections, green blue and purple were done in 1988 by Hansen and other researchers.
The green was for a larger CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere than actually happened.
The blue and purple projections were based on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that turned out to be pretty close to what happened. Except that in Hansen et al the concentration for the purple doesn't carry on rising after 2000 but levels out to flat.
Just like "GW Swindle" was.
The model you show predicts the past pretty well! But predictions of things that have already happened is never especially impressive.
The pink line seems the closest. But that shows temperature levelling off? Cool!
The green line was also supposed to be a reasonable prediction in 1988. It diverges pretty fast.
This kind of modelling is fun, but it is not science. It's informed guesswork by computer. It is not scientific evidence but scientific opinion.
Humans cannot predict the outcome of any complex system. If we could we would be able to predict share prices, horse races, and tomorrow's weather.
With the climate, we are still at the point of trying to quantify individual factors. The idea of building a reliable predictive model seems as likely as building a spreadsheet to predict next week's lottery numbers.
May I say especially to CobbyWorlds that don’t rest your hat on models. I deals with teams of Geoscientists and Scientists every day who make wonderful 3D timelapse models of the subsurface for oil and gas extraction / development. Utilising 10’s and sometimes 100’s of millions of $ worth of data and most of the time we get it wrong. Yes wrong with a capital W.
Sometimes to fully understand an issue or a dynamic you need to come at things from all sides and not just modelling work.
Originally posted by chris africa: May I say especially to CobbyWorlds that don’t rest your hat on models. I deals with teams of Geoscientists and Scientists every day who make wonderful 3D timelapse models of the subsurface for oil and gas extraction / development. Utilising 10’s and sometimes 100’s of millions of $ worth of data and most of the time we get it wrong. Yes wrong with a capital W.
Sometimes to fully understand an issue or a dynamic you need to come at things from all sides and not just modelling work.
So you accept that Hansen 1988 correctly projected the warming that followed.
You cannot compare climate models to the sort you're talking about. Don't be afraid of talking technical I have a degree in electronics, I can write software demodulation routines to decode radio data off air. I use models a lot, every time a simulate a circuit. I program in C++.
It's not just modelling. The parametised factors in the models are rooted firmly in empirical observation.
More working models?
Try Soden et al's study of Mount Pinatubo which demonstrated the ability of models to model water vapour feedback. In this case that which happened in response to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Water vapour levels are generated virually within the models, epiphenominally of the model's function, they are not preset. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2002/soden0201.pdf
Or you could try the ability of the models to hindcast. After all the model doesn't know what year it is. So feeding it with forcing data from the last century and running it from 1900 forward is just as impressive a proof as Hansen 1988. In that respect you've got stacks of models because all GCM models must pass this sort of basic test.
The major area of doubt in the future is forcing uncertainty.
The model you show predicts the past pretty well! But predictions of things that have already happened is never especially impressive.
I think you missed the point. The original graph was produced in 1988 and predicted 1988-2007 very well. That was the future then!
quote:
The pink line seems the closest. But that shows temperature levelling off? Cool!
Read Cobbly's lips. That forecast assumed that CO2 stopped rising in 2000.
quote:
This kind of modelling is fun, but it is not science. It's informed guesswork by computer. It is not scientific evidence but scientific opinion.
Humans cannot predict the outcome of any complex system. If we could we would be able to predict share prices, horse races, and tomorrow's weather.
With the climate, we are still at the point of trying to quantify individual factors. The idea of building a reliable predictive model seems as likely as building a spreadsheet to predict next week's lottery numbers.
Ha ha! Nice joke about tomorrow's weather but what you write is anti-intellectual. How many A380 superjumbos crashed before they got one that worked. None, because the computer modelling of the design was right. The Eurofighter has got the aerodynamic charateristics of a swallow (carrying a large brick), but with the help of computers it stays in the air.
Of course computer models have a long way to go, but there is good evidence that they have predicted future changes to some degree of accuracy, and as they develop, they'll get better.
CORRECTION, Link to graph was missed off post above.
quote:
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: The evidence clearly shows the success of the models. Even earlier ones, and as time goes on they are continually improved.
Hansen 1988 was misrepresented before the US Congress by Patrick Micheals. who will be featured in last nights shambles of a so called "science documentary" Global Warming Swindle.
The projections, green blue and purple were done in 1988 by Hansen and other researchers.
The green was for a larger CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere than actually happened.
The blue and purple projections were based on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that turned out to be pretty close to what happened. Except that in Hansen et al the concentration for the purple doesn't carry on rising after 2000 but levels out to flat.
Remember the study was done in 1988, so they couldn't have known what was going to happen. If you think it wasn't done in 1988 give a university a bell and see if their library has a copy of "Journal of Geophysics" from 1988 give them the citatation below and ask politely if you can arrange to see it.
"Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone 1988. Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res. 93, 9341-9364. "
Anyway lets look at how the model did.
Land Station (red) and ocean (black) data are plotted from the start of Hansen's model 1958, right through 1988 when the model was done to 2005, when Rabbett made the post.
You can see that the model runs match pretty closely to what really happened from 1958 to 2005. You can even see how when you feed the model with more CO2 forcings than actually happened, the agreement fails.
Where does Patrick Michaels come in?
Well what he presented to congress was Hansen's green projection as an example of whay the models don't work.
The moral of the story: Those who want you to believe that even early models in 1988 could not accurately project gross measures such as global average temperature have to 'be inventive with the truth'.
Cobbly, predicting weather is just like my girlfriend trying to predict the share value in the UK market. That is actually what she is doing for her phd. Needless to say that I have been helping her too and I understand the limitation of computer modelling.
Well, shall I predict what the share would be in 50 yrs time? I can do that using our model, but I can tell you I am pretty confident that it will be wrong even it is based on the history. But we still have to hand the model in for her phd.
mizuno1: economics cannot be successfully modelled because as you change your model, the people affected by your model adapt. Thankfully, the laws of science aren't so influenced, though of course we need to make some assumptions about how humans will adapt to all the changes brought on by global warming.
"Yes it is convenient isn't it that the software is protected by Intellectual Property laws."
Then it is no longer science.
For the process to be scientific, their ‘evidence’ needs to be available for INDEPENDENT & detailed assessment.
I have a program that predicts what the stock price will be for the top 10 companies traded on the Dow in 10 years time. Its really good and I can show you some ‘results’ that shows how good it is at ‘predicting’ future prices.
...Whether the world ends or not, rubbish is unsightly and smelly and the less of it we produce as a race the better our immediate environment will be....
Isn't it true that there are more words for "smell" as a noun in the English language than in any other?
Of course, less rubbish all the way.
But why not say, using the same reasoning as above, the following: "Whether the world ends or not we could be responding more with more foresight to the energy crisis, and besides wastes produced by factories and automobiles is unsightly and smelly and the less of it we produce as a race the better."?
The really interesting part will be, 20 or 100 or whatever number of years from now, if humans look back and see that the Global Warming Deniers (GWD) were wrong and that there was much political arguing over data collected by scientists back then and where are the sweat de-salination tablets anyway?
- "The evidence clearly shows the success of the models. Even earlier ones, and as time goes on they are continually improved."
LOL!
If you regard that as ‘evidence’ of the predictive power of the s/w models, then see my post above…I have an offer for you to invest some money in my software system.
I could explain further, but I’d thought the words from scientists that still understand what science is about will be better (you will find more detail in my link above).
Hendrick Tennekes:
“I am more than a little bit worried about IPCC’s preoccupation with CO2. The scientific rationale behind this choice is obvious. Sophisticated climate models have been running for twenty years now. It has become evident that these models cannot be made to agree on anything except a possible relation between greenhouse gases and a slight increase in globally averaged temperatures.“
Tenneks goes on to discuss just one of the many key phenomenon (precipitation patterns) of climate which Global Circulation Models (GCM) are ignorant of:
“the models do not include feedbacks between changing farming and forest harvesting practices and the atmospheric circulation. Partly for that reason, they cannot seem to agree on precipitation patterns. It so happens that precipitation is far more relevant to the world’s food production than a slight increase in temperature.“
“Why is it so difficult to make precipitation forecasts fifty years into the future? Most precipitation in the middle latitudes is associated with low-pressure systems, which move along storm tracks carved out by the jet stream. The ever-shifting meanders in the jet stream occur at the edge of the slab of cold air over the poles. The specialists call this slab the Polar Vortex, and have christened the meandering behavior of the jet stream in the Northern hemisphere the Arctic Oscillation.“
How does this problem affect climate forecasts? If there is not even a rudimentary theory of the Polar Vortex, much less an established relation between rising greenhouse gas concentrations and systematic changes in the Arctic Oscillation, one cannot possibly make inferences about changes in precipitation patterns. We do not know, and for the time being cannot know anything about changing patterns of clouds, storms and rain.“
Forecasting model can make do with relatively crude parameterizations because the short-time evolution of the atmospheric circulation is primarily governed by its internal dynamics. Sloppy representations of boundary conditions, clouds, convection, evaporation and condensation do not mess weather forecasts up all that fast. But the long-term evolution of the general circulation is to a large extent determined by boundary conditions.“
Richard McNider commenting on Tennekes article:
“I applaud your stand. I got my introduction to boundary layers at a short-course you participated in teaching back in the 1970’s. I am embarassed by the lack of courage on the part of our profession for not standing up to the foolish confidence displayed in the IPCC, the over the top statements by ecologists, and the ingratiating comments of some of our peers fawning over Al Gore and his fantasy world. I don’t understand why real atmospheric scientists, who must have been humbled like I have been throughout my career on the complexity of the behavior of even simple atmospheric systems(e.g. McNider et al 1995 J.Atmos.Sci.) can tolerate this confidence.“
And finally a great comment by Philip Mulholland:
“My personal view is that every morning, before they start work, every climate modeller should take the time to spend a few minutes looking at the view of the earth from space. They should, for example, log onto the EUMETSAT website at http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Image_Gallery/Real-time_Images/index.htm and run the Image Gallery Real-time Images 24 frame, 3 hour time lapse movie. Here they can watch the vertical sun point “the solar pole” as it burns its way west though the atmosphere at supersonic speed, defining the seasonal locus of the ITCZ. Notice how the Andes, the world’s largest meridional barrier, blocks the westward progress of the afternoon cumulonimbus storms as they ceaselessly make their vain attempt to catch up with the speeding sun. Observe the bow shockwave tracks of the tropical jets as they define the upper-tropospheric exhaust trajectory emanating from the trapped storm systems in Amazonia. They should notice how the cold polar air acts like a dynamical atmospheric wall that blocks to northward progess of the mid-latitude cyclones. Observe too how this same cold polar air regularly bursts equatorward as a basal surface density current, generating a complementary pair of gyres, cyclonic on its eastern flank, and anticyclonic (the so called blocking high) on its western flank. Observe how in Eurasia the latitudinal mountain belts of the Alpine - Caucasus - Himalayan chain block this equatorward flow and accentuate the gyres in a positive feedback loop. Notice too the vigorous katabatic outflows from the icecap, freeze drying the Norwegian Sea and morphing into the polar maritime air mass that carries winter cumulus south into Europe. Then they should stop and think. This complex, dynamic variable system is the basis for all the world’s climates. Is my hubris really sustainable? Should I not do everyone a big favour and pull out the electrical plug?“
SteveM says: - economics cannot be successfully modelled because as you change your model, the people affected by your model adapt. Thankfully, the laws of science aren't so influenced, though of course we need to make some assumptions about how humans will adapt to all the changes brought on by global warming."
LOL!! Care to explain the 'LAWS' in the climate systems???
Once you have done that and collected your Noble prize, please pass them on to the climate modelers, so that their JUNK outputs can now have a closer approimation to reality.
Come back and explain in specific detail where this 'fiddle factor' is.
When bereft of argument in the face of clear evidence of model skill, contrary types often wave their hands about and mumble about 'fiddle factor' and garbage in garbage out. waving your hands around is not specific.
Don't come back and start going on about specific deviations between models and reality because this doesn't explain why the models are able to track gross metrics like global average temperature, total column water vapour, changes in trends with altitude etc.
I am not saying they're perfect. I am saying that they clearly do work on gross metrics.
You are full of hot air and not much else. Why don't you head over to Climate Audit and try this trick over there....
This is a GENERAL forum, and while your BS might scare a few people here, it won't work over there.
Lets see how far you get trying to mount an arguement that these models: 1) supply ALL the informattion and 2) actual have significnt predictive power....Go on, ask Steve McIntyre to look at it for you...
"You are full of hot air and not much else. Why don't you head over to Climate Audit and try this trick over there...."
No because I am having enough of my time wasted here.
"This is a GENERAL forum, and while your BS might scare a few people here, it won't work over there."
If people raise an issue it gets discussed with the relevant factors bought in.
"Lets see how far you get trying to mount an arguement that these models: 1) supply ALL the informattion and 2) actual have significnt predictive power....Go on, ask Steve McIntyre to look at it for you..."
1) Supply ALL the information. ???? What? Do you expect the models to predict the style of clothing in 2100?
2) Demonstrated re Hansen 1988 above. Sorry there aren't many other examples, it's a young technique and it takes time for projections to become old enough for use as projections. But as Hansen shows the genral principle stands if you
Your lengthy post is a nice try to re-direct attention. But Hansen 1988 is still a demonstration of a skillful projection.
You try to imply that it is not possible to independently check a climate model.
I show you it's not. I do this by providing evidence.
.
