Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
36 out of 38 of the models heavily used predicted much higher average temperatures than reality. That's called "wrong."
I thought you had some training in science.
How many parameters are available in the output of these models? One? Two? It's thousands and you know it. You could come up with some sort of scoring system to measure how well they do (and the modelers most certainly do just that), but "right" and "wrong" just don't cut it. For instance, a model's output might closely mimic the trend of observed temperature, but with a 5C bias. Is that right or wrong? A model might dance around the observed value, never matching the temperature for more than an instant but match the observed average temperature and standard deviation over some specific time span. Is that right or wrong? A model could match the average temperature and deviation but make large errors in regional predictions. And could you quantify the undefined terms we've both used such as "much higher", "closely mimic", "some specific", "match", "large errors", "right" and "wrong"? The expression that they are "wrong" is meaningless.
I am certain that the people who have developed these models are not happy with their performance at predicting the current hiatus. But, even now, 15 years into the thing, we do not have a solid understanding of its cause. It should not surprise us that the models do not include the processes that could have predicted it. The failure is not of the model-makers and it is not the in the idea that models have some value. The failure is in the lack of completeness of our climate knowledge and the improper value some people assign to model outputs.
The far more significant point is our immature understanding of the current hiatus' cause and what it means to our future. The radiative imbalance at TOA is unchanged: the Earth is still accumulating heat. Whatever the process that has caused the hiatus, it does not involve reduced incident solar radiation nor increased reradiation to space. These are demonstrable facts. Nothing has overturned the Greenhouse Effect: CO2, methane and water vapor still absorb infrared radiation. And no one has found any natural source for the increased levels of GHGs in our atmosphere. They are all still ours.
So what is it that we should make of all this? Should we claim that climate models have no value? Obviously not. Should we claim that AGW is proven wrong? No, as it has not. Should we accuse climatologists of incompetence? Not until someone can find the obvious clue(s) they overlooked. What we should make of this is that we are still in danger but there is a small chance that we may have a little more time than we anticipated to both mend our ways and to make preparations. What we should make of this is that the climate is a very complex system that requires more study. What we should make of this is that before we select our villain and pin him to the wall, we'd best understand exactly what he's made of and why he actually did what he did.
Why are carbon dioxide and methane (among other elements) constantly cited as the major cause for warming but natural occurrences such as El Nino and La Nina are cites as the cause for why warming has slowed down or stopped?
Because they are different classes of elements.
ENSO is a pseudo-cyclical process that significantly affects the transport of heat on Earth. The changes they make as to where the heat goes has direct effects (droughts, storms, weather pattern changes, ocean temperature profiles, etc) and may possibly affect the amount of heat that radiates to space. For example, suppose one phase of the cycle moved heat from the deep ocean to the upper atmosphere. More of that energy could find its way to space. On the other hand, suppose another phase of that cycle was doing the opposite: moving heat energy from the atmosphere to the deep ocean. Less of that energy would get the chance to reradiate away from the planet. If, as BTK 2013 suggests, thermal energy is being sequestered in the deep ocean and thus the temperature of atmosphere is not rising as quickly as it formerly had done, the net result may be WORSE for us in the long run. But I have wandered off the point.
GHGs are responsible for trapping solar energy in the Earth's atmosphere. That would happen whether the Earth's atmosphere was utterly motionless or was boiling like a forgotten pot on the stove. ENSO is one of the multiple processes that move the climate's energy about. It will effect some control over where that trapped heat goes. If it puts it in the ocean and makes it unavailable (for the nonce) to heat the atmosphere, we will not feel it getting warmer. Thus, when I say we will have to wait for the LaNina/negative PDO to cease, I do not say that those processes are the source or the sink of our warming. They are just one of the dealers shuffling the deck.
Tell us SiD, what is it that you think the tens of thousands of people researching the climate DO every day? Do they just sit down with pad and paper and make it up? Don't be a fool (despite your proclivities).
Tell us SiD, what is it that you think the tens of thousands of people researching the climate DO every day? Do they just sit down with pad and paper and make it up? Don't be a fool (despite your proclivities).
They certainly don't program accurate models.
I'd have more respect for you if you lied a little less often. You've been told on numerous occasions that natural forcings could easily overcome AGW. And you will CERTAINLY NOT find anywhere in any of the IPCC's reports ANY STATEMENT EVEN RESEMBLING your comment above.
For decades now we skeptics have been told that CO2 is THE control knob for the climate. Effectively rewriting history is no longer possible in the internet age.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth?s Temperature
Climate: Why CO2 Is the ?Control Knob? for Global Climate Change | TIME.com
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g&feature=player_detailpage]Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube[/ame]
Atmospheric CO2: Climate's 'Control Knob' : Discovery News
Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Care to even take a guess as to how much the "control knob" meme has been thrown around here? It was just about all that crazies like rocks posted for a while. The fact is that for a very long time you guys claimed that CO2 was the main control knob and everything else was secondary...now that it is abundantly clear that it isn't, it is damned funny to watch you twist and turn trying to modify your position and your story.
Complete fail. Not one of your links (and the first two reference the same study) state or even suggest that warming from CO2 can not be overwhelmed by natural forcings. THAT was what you claimed had been said. I also note that not one of your links went to the IPCC website. That was ALSO what you said.
Complete fail. Not one of your links (and the first two reference the same study) state or even suggest that warming from CO2 can not be overwhelmed by natural forcings. THAT was what you claimed had been said. I also note that not one of your links went to the IPCC website. That was ALSO what you said.
Maybe illiteracy is at the root of your problem. Tell me, what do you think a "control knob" is? The dictionary defines it as a master control. A knob that controls volume, heat, etc. Do you know what control means?
We have been told that CO2 was THE control knob for climate....not one of many....not a means of fine tuning...or secondary modulation...but THE control knob. Learn what a control knob is. The very nomenclature "control knob" denotes the primary control.
And to further strengthen my claim of illiteracy on your part, perhaps you should have an adult read my posts to you and you will see that I have never mentioned the IPCC in reference to the claim that CO2 was the control knob.
I referenced the paper from multiple sources to show how prevalent the claim that CO2 was the control knob was. There you have NASA and the journal of the AAAS promoting the claim that CO2 is the control knob for the climate. I am sure that the people there are bright enough to know what the term control knob means. I wonder if they would now try and claim that control knob doesn't mean what it means. Definition of "is" anyone?
I find your quibbling and semantics funny in the face of assigning the name "control knob" to CO2.
You are full of shit and you know it. You failed to produce what you claimed. Show us a statement in any IPCC document that says CO2 cannot be ovewhelmed by natural forcings. It doesn't exist (as you know when you failed to find it) because it isn't true. CO2 warming dominates in the long run because it is constant. Natural forcings are either much more constant or are cyclical. When they're on the high side - as they are right now - CO2 warming is overwhelmed. Thus we have the current hiatus.
"Duh..."
You are full of shit and you know it. You failed to produce what you claimed. Show us a statement in any IPCC document that says CO2 cannot be ovewhelmed by natural forcings. It doesn't exist (as you know when you failed to find it) because it isn't true. CO2 warming dominates in the long run because it is constant. Natural forcings are either much more constant or are cyclical. When they're on the high side - as they are right now - CO2 warming is overwhelmed. Thus we have the current hiatus.
"Duh..."
I know that you are full of shit and the dance you are doing now proves it. Maybe you should have an adult read back my posts to you so that you can see that I never said that the IPCC called CO2 the control knob. Or feel free to provide a post by me stating that the IPCC called CO2 the control knob and prove that you aren't a liar.
Second, are you saying that the IPCC is the end all and be all in climate science? Are they the primary climate research body in your mind? Do you finally acknowledge that climate science is in the control of a political body....because there is no doubt that the IPCC is a political body. I mean really, what sort of actual scientific body would put a railroad engineeer in charge?
It is clear by now that CO2 isn't even a bit player in the climate. Atmospheric CO2 has increased by 40% during the pause in warming. If a 40% increase in the "control knob" can't induce warming, then the control knob is not important at all. If CO2 is even fractionally as important as you claim, then how could a 40% increase not induce warming when you claim that an increase of less than 40% was responsible for all of the observed 20th century warming?
Keep dancing, it is immensely entertaining. The wait for the wheels to fall off the AGW crazy train has been worth it. Such gyrations, contradictions to what you have previously said, outright lies, and the name callling...oooooohhhh....the name calling....that tells of your anger and frustration more than anything else. Keep it up.
CO2 isn't even a bit player. If the 40% increase during the lull couldn't induce any warming then it is clear that it isn't worthy of being considered. You guys are hilarious...all the warming of the previous century was blamed on an increase less than we have seen during the lull and yet, you still believe that CO2 is the control knob.
You are idiots.
36 out of 38 of the models heavily used predicted much higher average temperatures than reality. That's called "wrong."
I thought you had some training in science.
How many parameters are available in the output of these models? One? Two? It's thousands and you know it. You could come up with some sort of scoring system to measure how well they do (and the modelers most certainly do just that), but "right" and "wrong" just don't cut it. For instance, a model's output might closely mimic the trend of observed temperature, but with a 5C bias. Is that right or wrong? A model might dance around the observed value, never matching the temperature for more than an instant but match the observed average temperature and standard deviation over some specific time span. Is that right or wrong? A model could match the average temperature and deviation but make large errors in regional predictions. And could you quantify the undefined terms we've both used such as "much higher", "closely mimic", "some specific", "match", "large errors", "right" and "wrong"? The expression that they are "wrong" is meaningless.
I am certain that the people who have developed these models are not happy with their performance at predicting the current hiatus. But, even now, 15 years into the thing, we do not have a solid understanding of its cause. It should not surprise us that the models do not include the processes that could have predicted it. The failure is not of the model-makers and it is not the in the idea that models have some value. The failure is in the lack of completeness of our climate knowledge and the improper value some people assign to model outputs.
The far more significant point is our immature understanding of the current hiatus' cause and what it means to our future. The radiative imbalance at TOA is unchanged: the Earth is still accumulating heat. Whatever the process that has caused the hiatus, it does not involve reduced incident solar radiation nor increased reradiation to space. These are demonstrable facts. Nothing has overturned the Greenhouse Effect: CO2, methane and water vapor still absorb infrared radiation. And no one has found any natural source for the increased levels of GHGs in our atmosphere. They are all still ours.
So what is it that we should make of all this? Should we claim that climate models have no value? Obviously not. Should we claim that AGW is proven wrong? No, as it has not. Should we accuse climatologists of incompetence? Not until someone can find the obvious clue(s) they overlooked. What we should make of this is that we are still in danger but there is a small chance that we may have a little more time than we anticipated to both mend our ways and to make preparations. What we should make of this is that the climate is a very complex system that requires more study. What we should make of this is that before we select our villain and pin him to the wall, we'd best understand exactly what he's made of and why he actually did what he did.
In a scientific context, 36 out of 38 models predicting a higher than observed temperature is wrong. Wrong isn't bad necessarily, but it's not a set of predictions that should be used to make policy decisions.
So what should we do? Keep researching and stop prognosticating.
Why are carbon dioxide and methane (among other elements) constantly cited as the major cause for warming but natural occurrences such as El Nino and La Nina are cites as the cause for why warming has slowed down or stopped?
Because they are different classes of elements.
ENSO is a pseudo-cyclical process that significantly affects the transport of heat on Earth. The changes they make as to where the heat goes has direct effects (droughts, storms, weather pattern changes, ocean temperature profiles, etc) and may possibly affect the amount of heat that radiates to space. For example, suppose one phase of the cycle moved heat from the deep ocean to the upper atmosphere. More of that energy could find its way to space. On the other hand, suppose another phase of that cycle was doing the opposite: moving heat energy from the atmosphere to the deep ocean. Less of that energy would get the chance to reradiate away from the planet. If, as BTK 2013 suggests, thermal energy is being sequestered in the deep ocean and thus the temperature of atmosphere is not rising as quickly as it formerly had done, the net result may be WORSE for us in the long run. But I have wandered off the point.
GHGs are responsible for trapping solar energy in the Earth's atmosphere. That would happen whether the Earth's atmosphere was utterly motionless or was boiling like a forgotten pot on the stove. ENSO is one of the multiple processes that move the climate's energy about. It will effect some control over where that trapped heat goes. If it puts it in the ocean and makes it unavailable (for the nonce) to heat the atmosphere, we will not feel it getting warmer. Thus, when I say we will have to wait for the LaNina/negative PDO to cease, I do not say that those processes are the source or the sink of our warming. They are just one of the dealers shuffling the deck.
So it's not that the correlation is false, it's that there are other factors - but only when the temperature doesn't rise as much as predicted?
I call bullshit.
You are full of shit and you know it. You failed to produce what you claimed. Show us a statement in any IPCC document that says CO2 cannot be ovewhelmed by natural forcings. It doesn't exist (as you know when you failed to find it) because it isn't true. CO2 warming dominates in the long run because it is constant. Natural forcings are either much more constant or are cyclical. When they're on the high side - as they are right now - CO2 warming is overwhelmed. Thus we have the current hiatus.
"Duh..."
I know that you are full of shit and the dance you are doing now proves it. Maybe you should have an adult read back my posts to you so that you can see that I never said that the IPCC called CO2 the control knob. Or feel free to provide a post by me stating that the IPCC called CO2 the control knob and prove that you aren't a liar.
Second, are you saying that the IPCC is the end all and be all in climate science? Are they the primary climate research body in your mind? Do you finally acknowledge that climate science is in the control of a political body....because there is no doubt that the IPCC is a political body. I mean really, what sort of actual scientific body would put a railroad engineeer in charge?
It is clear by now that CO2 isn't even a bit player in the climate. Atmospheric CO2 has increased by 40% during the pause in warming. If a 40% increase in the "control knob" can't induce warming, then the control knob is not important at all. If CO2 is even fractionally as important as you claim, then how could a 40% increase not induce warming when you claim that an increase of less than 40% was responsible for all of the observed 20th century warming?
Keep dancing, it is immensely entertaining. The wait for the wheels to fall off the AGW crazy train has been worth it. Such gyrations, contradictions to what you have previously said, outright lies, and the name callling...oooooohhhh....the name calling....that tells of your anger and frustration more than anything else. Keep it up.
Well, CO2 is the primary control knob in the long run.
A23A
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12310.html
Evidence from Greenland ice cores shows that year-to-year temperature variability was probably higher in some past cold periods1, but there is considerable interest in determining whether global warming is increasing climate variability at present2, 3, 4, 5, 6. This interest is motivated by an understanding that increased variability and resulting extreme weather conditions may be more difficult for society to adapt to than altered mean conditions3. So far, however, in spite of suggestions of increased variability2, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether it is occurring7. Here we show that although fluctuations in annual temperature have indeed shown substantial geographical variation over the past few decades2, the time-evolving standard deviation of globally averaged temperature anomalies has been stable. A feature of the changes has been a tendency for many regions of low variability to experience increases, which might contribute to the perception of increased climate volatility. The normalization of temperature anomalies2 creates the impression of larger relative overall increases, but our use of absolute values, which we argue is a more appropriate approach, reveals little change. Regionally, greater year-to-year changes recently occurred in much of North America and Europe. Many climate models predict that total variability will ultimately decrease under high greenhouse gas concentrations, possibly associated with reductions in sea-ice cover. Our findings contradict the view that a warming world will automatically be one of more overall climatic variation.
Those areas of increasing variability just happen to be our food producing areas. And the areas most affected by increasing variability just happen to be the most productive parts of our planet. As for the future increase or decrease in weather variability, both are computer models, and should be viewed in the same jaundiced manner.
We have science, and we have what conservative whiners want to be true in order to dump the consequences of their energy glutiny on others. Simply politics vs truth.
It is more than clear by now that you are a clueless moron, SSoooDDuuumb. Atmospheric levels of CO2 have increased by about 40% over pre-industrial levels in the 1800s, not just in the last 15 years or so, you flaming nitwit.It is clear by now that CO2 isn't even a bit player in the climate. Atmospheric CO2 has increased by 40% during the pause in warming.
You are so incredibly misinformed and clueless, it is just too pathetic. You must be the poster-boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.If a 40% increase in the "control knob" can't induce warming, then the control knob is not important at all. If CO2 is even fractionally as important as you claim, then how could a 40% increase not induce warming when you claim that an increase of less than 40% was responsible for all of the observed 20th century warming?
When you have devoted your life to education and the practice of climate science, only then do you get a vote.
GHGs are the sole cause of AGW. And the only thing that mankind can control.
