http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/C...
Figure 16: Shows sea level rise within the bounds specified
Figure 13: Shows an underestimation of Arctic ice melt
Pat: If by 'water' you are claiming water vapour this is false. Water will always be a feedback as it's concentration is dependent on temperature. As an air parcel cools it has less of an ability to hold water vapour, if it reaches the maximum humidity and falls lower, that water condenses and forms clouds. This is basic high school science. Water vapour can not be a driver based on this.
If you are talking about ocean oscillations such as El nino, the PDO, and so on... the current warming trend is due to an imbalance of the energy budget of the planet. all those oscillatory cycles do is move energy and heat around. It does not have anything to do with the changing energy balance of the planet, as measured by satellites, and it has nothing to do with more energy retention occurring at specific frequencies. You, as well as others who think as you do, are basing your statements on a very incomplete understanding.
You have stated and restated that mathematics shows that CO2 is not the driver of the current changing climate. I asked you for the equation. You failed to produce this although you constantly bring up the 'mathematics' involved. I ask you again, produce the equation showing that CO@ can not be the driver of the current changing climate and produce the equation that shows water is the driver. Also include measurements.
Pat: Once again you show your scientific incompetence. Water vapour concentration is temperature dependent. It is impossible for a runaway greenhouse effect to occur due to water vapour alone. hot air rises, cold air sinks. As hot air rises it decrease in temperature forcing that water vapour to condense. Once again this is who clouds are formed. You, as well as the blog you post, have an amazing inability to misunderstand this.
Sagebrush: You, once again, demonstrate your scientific ignorance. How is that 10,000 year old Earth working out for you? I have told you about your 'cooling Earth for the last 10,15,17 years' many times over. Look up ENSO and PDO. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.
Sagebrush: If you want 'true science' look up the ENSO" cycle. I'll give you some links.
http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/bac...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
And the PDO
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/glob...
One or two failed predictions may not be a sign of anything. As has been pointed out, there are always those who will make outlandish claims and those claims aren't necessarily to be taken seriously. The key is to look at the meta rather than the details. First off is the question of the moving target fallacy. I'm sure most are familiar with the infamous "Newsweek" article from the '70s in which they predicted a looming ice age. That became "global warming" which then became "climate change". A slight discrepancy between prediction and fact might mean a hypothesis needs tweaking. But when you can't accurately predict whether to expect either fire or ice there has to be something fundamentally wrong. Settling on "climate change" allows them to point to literally any "change" as proof of what they are saying.
The next thing to ask is why are they not comparing today's climate with the climate of the last interglacial warm spell? In 1924 astronomer Milutin Milankovitch published the first part of his theory on how variations in Earth's orbit and inclination trigger the ice ages. The advent of deep-ocean core samples and other advancements led to his theory being confirmed in 1976. Milankovitch cycles are known, universally accepted science. But alarmists don't talk about them. Why? My suspicion is they don't talk about these cycles because they can't show that our current warm spell is different from what it "should" be. They cherry-pick their data and ignore what must be the conflicting data provided by Mr. Milankovitch. I say they must be ignoring it because if their data showed we were far from what Milankovitch predicts then they would be waving that information around like a victory banner.
There are other facts they don't mention. One is that the warmest period in human history was thousands of years ago. Humans didn't even have written history yet, much less industrialization. Another inconvenient truth is that the warmest time in Earth's history was long before humans existed.
Just ask yourself why they ignore what they ignore. If they could point to the fact that this is the warmest the Earth has ever been, wouldn't they? If they could point to the fact that the climate never changed before humans came along, wouldn't they? Why are all their claims devoid of context? Why do they not compare this warm spell to the last one? Why do they not compare this warm spell to what is predicted by Milankovitch? The fatal flaw in the AGW theory lies in what is known as confirmation bias.
The real problem is that it's politicized and proponents of opposing theories are demonized and type cast and made into "others". Everyone is overthinking it. There are natural forces at work which are probably bigger and stronger and going to have an effect regardless of the human contribution. HOWEVER. Anyone who went from being out in the country in cold snowy weather to into the hub bub of the city in the same weather will notice a dramatic difference in everything...quality of snow, of air, the temperature, all kinds of things. I'm far more worried about pollution and habitat infringement, and the total inability of people to live holistically any more. Insisting global warming is man made is a gross exaggeration. And in addition, nothing and I mean nothing can be predicted with absolute certainty. So for people who advocate global warming to be sooo certain they can predict that thing or another thing...well it makes them look foolish.
Depends on if the predictions are based on statistical probabilities given a specific data set. Seems that the media loves to quote various proponents of AGW who predict catastrophic or damaging effects of climate change but overlook or bury the statistical probabilities and/or conditions that the predictions are based on. Ottawa Mike makes a point about playing darts and setting parameters that favor the outcomes predicted or claimed, but for the most part the contingencies and probabilities are published somewhere, just not always in the media reports, or way down at the bottom there might be a reference to the study that was conducted, then you look up the study and can see the contingencies. It's often time-consuming or hard for a non-scientist to track down and interpret, but the information is usually out there someplace if a person cares to look for it and is analytical enough to be curious how the prediction was arrived at. The biggest issue is who has the time to do all the research? I've gotten caught several times by predictions-the one discussed elsewhere about the Greenpeace 2030 prediction is a good example, where I kind of folded that into my general understanding about the probabilities related to near-term outcomes rather than checking it out. That's a little too easy to do...just as is taking a lot of the criticisms about climate change and climate science is probably easy to do judging from many of the questions and comments here. But no, failed predictions, whether arrived at based on certain parameters or so crackpot they lead to big screen sci fi blockbusters, are not a sign of a fatal flaw in the science itself. However, if those predictions, based on models that reflect what end up being real world realities, fall too far outside of the range of statistical probability, then whomever predicted them needs to re-evaluate their work. Let's say, for example, that someone predicts outcomes ranging from1 through 5 if A, B, C and D occur in a given time frame, then A, B, C and D actually do occur and the outcome is...well, let's say 8 happens, well outside of the ranges expressed as 1-5. At that juncture I'd look at the predictions and say well, there was something obviously wrong there. But there seems to be an expectation that the range of outcomes expressed as 1-5 in terms of statistical probability, should be a perfect 2.5-and if it isn't that is some kind of proof that everything is incorrect right down to the theory itself.
That usually seems to be expressed by people who have some sort of vested interest in the theory or outcomes, and most often appears to be based in political ideologies. I could be reading too much into how some folks are reacting to this sort of stuff, but it's kind of like well, if so and so was touting moral principles in the senate and then was caught taking a wide stance in the Minneapolis airport men's room, that means everything the Republican Party stands for is WRONG. Or vice versa, when a Democrat is caught with his fingers in...uhh...the cookie jar. Naw...not necessarily. But people are going to get their gums in an uproar about it if their passions are aroused. Ooh...that was an awkward way to put it considering the moral turpitude I just used as an example. Ouch.
In science, a failed prediction is a sign that your hypothesis is incorrect. It might need a minor adjustment or it might need to be discarded.
As far as some predictions being "high" and some "low", consider this. I throw a hundred darts at a dartboard trying to hit the bullseye but I'm a bad player. Several throws completely miss the board and the rest are basically randomly all over the place.
But let's say I do a statistical analysis. I exclude a few select shots where I think I may have been distracted. I can show that my median shot is a bullseye. I don't release my method of excluding certain shots or giving some shots a higher weighting. What do you think of my conclusions?
The fact is AGW is a hypothesis that needs to be proven by empirical evidence, and the onus on proving is up to Climate change groups.
You would not design and build a new aeroplane and put it into service without extensive flight testing.
Flossie's been touting that "ice-free in 2013" as a failed prediction for at least 3 years now, misquoting in the process. Scientifically, it is is generally a good idea to wait until at least the time of the prediction to discuss the significance of its failure. As propaganda, though, it seems to have worked.
Not if AGW is a religion.
Just be thankful your religion isn't one of those ones that requires human sacrafice or killing yourself when your leaders realize they've been wrong.
Sounds like the sort of logic a gambling addict would prescribe to. E.g I've predicted the winner of the last 20 horse races incorrectly but I'll carry on because my betting system is spot on !!!!!
Jim Hansen predicted in a interview in the 1980s that parts of a Manhattan Highway
would be under water by now . Its not. Its all scare tactics and a religion like the
2012 Mayan end of world folks .
The World and Climate is to complex for a computer model . Computers are not made for all that information and probability's . You would have to measure every building
in the world and the wind reaction , highways , farms all the shade from trees to
make a prediction .
Predicting the weather... that's ALWAYS been easy, right?
...
This is sarcasm.
Certain parties are making much of the fact that there were predictions, in 2007, that the Arctic may be ice-free by 2013, and at present that appears not to be the case--it's too early to tell for sure, of course, but as far as I know present rates of melt suggest we have at least a few more years of Arctic ice left. More generally, there have been various predictions, model projections, and the like that have proven to be higher than actual resulting temperatures, and other specific predictions, some by scientists and some not, that have not come true at the time they were projected to do so.
But, especially considering that there have been (I'm fairly certain) at least as many projections and predictions that *underestimated* future warming, are these failed predictions really a sign of something seriously or dramatically wrong, or are they just a sign that scientists don't always get all of the right answers? Are they any real threat to the general scientific consensus on AGW (which I think can be accurately characterized as "Global warming is happening, it's mostly or entirely due to human activity, and it's likely to cause significant harm if we don't take action")? Are they, in short, anything more general, or more significant, than specific predictions that failed?
As supporting evidence, feel free to mention specific AGW predictions that either were correct, or that underestimated warming or its effects.
Part of the problem is that the media focus on the most extreme forecasts and Deniers focus exclusively on those – regardless of long ago they were made or whether they were made by scientists or non-scientists..
Each model run is just one of thousands of individual experiments that are constantly being evaluated and corrected in order to improve model accuracy in replicating and forecasting climate. Collectively, these models all point in the same general direction – and you are correct that more models have tended to under- rather than over-estimate the effects of AGW.
Deniers deliberately ignore any result they do not like and continually refuse to inform themselves on both the models and the science behind them. They are called Deniers because the deny reality. They lack both the intellectual honesty and personal integrity necessary to do science and to evaluate the results of scientific research.
As OM correctly stated, "It might need a minor adjustment or it might need to be discarded."
No one said, "If my hypothesis that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared is correct, the Arctic will by ice free by 2013." When or IF the Arctic will be ice free depends on a number of factors, including how much oil, gas and coal is left in the ground, the rate they are burnt, climate sensitivity, other ways which humans effect climate, such as aerosols, and don't forget volcanic activity and the yellow ball in the sky.
At the beginning of the 20th century, humans were releasing about 1% of the carbon dioxide which we are releasing today. If we had continued to produce carbon dioxide at that rate, assuming that that carbon dioxide would not just have been absorbed by the ocean and that its effects would not have been cancelled out by the Milankovich Cycles, it would have taken many thousands of years for the Arctic to be ice free.
And, here is a prediction about carbon dioxide that has proven to be correct; other things being EQUAL, adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would lead to warming. In fact, Earth has been warming even though solar activity has been declining.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
LOL! Look at how the carbon dioxide trend matches the temperature trend.
As much as failed stock market predictions constitute a "fatal flaw" in economics, or Jimmy the Greek's lack of perfect prediction of NFL game outcomes were due to a "fatal flaw" in football.
Anti-science deniers who claim "it's cooling" one week, it's warming and it's good for us the next, and it's warming and bad but too minor to be worth acting against, the following, have, of course, no problem with the sort of "logic" that says that because a home-run slugger went 0 for 4 one night therefore baseball is a Yogi-Berrian, Pastimer-mon, Southpawist hoax.
It's been stated several times that "we are dealing with a chaotic and non-linear system" from the majority of advocates of AGW. It just takes quite a few bashes in the head to get it through thick skulls.
---------------------------------------
You can find a large list of failed predictions from the anti-AGW websites (i.e. C3 : Climate Change, Watts Up With That, etc ...). Skeptics aren't that bold and usually don't jump to conclusions based on allegations. The only thing that AGW proponents have going for them is a warming trend that was attached to increased CO2 by humans. Eventually, AGW proponents will understand that CO2 doesn't drive temperatures as they think they do. Water is the main driver of temperatures.
---------------------------------------
Does your head hurt yet Jeff M? You have (at the least) reached the point of being a delusional propagandist?
---------------------------------------
The mathematics of CO2 is a better source : http://climateclash.com/the-limits-of-ca...
"The elevated temperatures claimed by AGW proponents depend on positive feedback. Water vapor’s greenhouse effect frequently increases more in a day than CO2 can increase in decades. Thus, if positive feedback were possible the world cataclysm that AGW proponents predict would have occurred centuries ago due to water alone. And nature’s feedbacks are predominantly negative. Both history and physics are aligned against the assumption of positive feedback."
---------------------------------------...
Jeff M - What is the best pain reliever for a head-ache of your size? I recommend a better understanding of what you think you are talking about.
---------------------------------------...
Sagebrush - This website is suffering from LOFT! LOL!
---------------------------------------...
Gary F - Models are run to show the possible results based on what the research has given them. Unfortunately for modeling, it is based on a false pretense to begin with. Climate science is still trying to prove that humans are causing planetary warming. That's the idea behind modeling. AGW is assumed by climate science. That's why they are looking for evidence to prove it.
---------------------------------------...
Jeff M - Incompetence and ignorance seem to be your favorite words. Our planet fights to stay warm. Have you ever read temperature readings from outer space? Water and greenhouse gases work together to keep our atmosphere moist and warm. They fight for it! Somehow the complexities of this planet maintain a certain temperature variance. Why you think we should "cool it" is beyond me. 30-some years ago people were worried about warming the planet. Give me some more of your brilliant statements!
---------------------------------------...
Water uses carbon to heat the planet. Not the other way around!
They are little more than accidents. Models are very unpredictable so I personally have no use for them. The fact that a human makes a bad prediction makes some think if they are wrong the all of GW is wrong.
It is juvenile and ridiculous to think that
It is more than that. That surely is important, but the main reason is that there is no scientific evidence of AGW. AGW bases its whole theory on the more CO2 the higher the temperature. During the last decade the Earth's temperature has declined.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Yet during the same decade the CO2 level has risen. This is proof positive that the AGW theory is just wrong. Yet you have people like Jeff M, who can't understand that simple. and I mean VERY simple, concept. Jeff says, " I ask you again, produce the equation showing that CO@ can not be the driver of the current changing climate and produce the equation that shows water is the driver." So dear old Jeff is not convinced with THE REAL THING, but wants an equation. Ha! Ha! The whole laboratory in the form of the EARTH staring him in the face and yet he would be satisfied with an equation. Wake up Jeff and all you other scientifically handicapped people, there is a REAL world out there and has flattened your worthless theory. Ha! Ha! Yes he blames it on the chaotic nature of the problem. All that means is that he doesn't understand the problem and is admitting it. Well we true scientist do understand the situation. The Earth has cooled during the last decade, yet the CO2 level has gone up. Repeat after me, " The Earth has cooled during the last decade, yet the CO2 level has gone up." Do you get that Jeffy? The Earth has cooled during the last decade, yet the CO2 level has gone up. Do you want for me to take your hand and spell it out for you? Ha! Ha! Some people never learn.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Jeff M:
< I have told you about your 'cooling Earth for the last 10,15,17 years' many times over. Look up ENSO and PDO. > When will you ever learn? You don't just say 'look up' to provide proof. A true scientist will explain his findings in a rational manner. "Look up' does not even come close to rationality. It just shows you are faking it. Where did you get your PHD from, Sesame Street?
< Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.> Other than the fact that we aren't 'talking', we are corresponding or communicating (But I know what you mean and I won't hold a minor point against you), I know it must be frustrating to come up against the truth. The truth is the truth and it will eventually come out. You greenies have had your way so long in bluffing and lying you don't know what to do when confronted with the facts. You change the argument. For example, when your charts were proven wrong, you just came out with a new set. When that set was proven wrong you came out with another set. (I'm sure you see the progression.) That is not science, that is akin to voodoo. It is clear to see you have an agenda and you won;t let facts or science get in your way. That brick wall is not me, it is true science.
PRICO:
Besides, who would listen to you, a person who misquotes other people for his crooked and vile agenda? A person who clearly supports another person's death, because he understands the truth. A person who acts in accord with the teachings of Goebbels and yet points the finger towards a person who despises Nazism, accusing them of loving Hitler. A person who doesn't know enough about logic and thinks if you quote someone you must adore that person. Well you quote me often (actually misquote is more like it it truly taken in the context.) does that mean you like me and stand for what I say? Definitely not! Use logic, not blind hatred. Science has nothing to do with agendas or blind hatred, which you so abundantly display.
Yes.
“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
--Richard Feynman, PhD, Nobel Laureate
Chem, AGW predictions haven't been MERELY wrong, they have in fact been WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG -- WAY WRONG !!
And yes, that without doubt means your hypothesis is WRONG.
