Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what flac says is how he was focused on one specialty, and thus assumes a totally different specialty has to work exactly the same way.

It's often called "The engineer's fallacy".

EAT ME....

I've worked with marine mammals.
I've helped blind people to "see".
I've sat in on 30 or more cardiac cath lab procedures.
I've worked with many of Americas three letter spy agencies.
I've developed biometric ID and RFID techniques.
I've done optical computing, Neural Network classifiers/detectors, and radar/sonar processing.
I've got equipment in almost every major hospital and medical research facility.
I've got clients for my services around the world.
I've got papers in image, signal, and display processing journals.
I've worked at Kennedy Space Center.
I've done more oceanography related projects than TrenBerth.
I've processed and enhanced almost every type of signal and image on earth.
I have advanced degrees in Biomedical, and Electrical Engineering.
I've taken all the pre-med reqs PLUS advanced courses in chemistry, biology and physics.

Tell me about "the engineer's fallacy".
I've been blessed with an extraordinary career. I'm not scared of a temperature graph.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The model B,T and K used was reset with measured values every ten days. How far do you think it could have wandered from reality with that arrangement?

And just for a bit of a reality check, what's the average distance between Argos floats?

Who cares. Models ARE NOT DATA! Never have been, never will be.

Models are small facsimiles of the real thing. Models are used in weather forecasting every day with great success. Are they perfect? No, and no one has said that they are. But every scientific discipline uses them. I've conducted ground water modeling to determine flow direction, contaminant dispersal, and the heterogeneity of permeability of an aquifer in order to make predictions on the fate of those contaminants. The are useful tools that can provide valuable insights that can't otherwise be obtained in complex systems. And until you actually use one, I suggest you keep your uninformed criticisms to yourself.

The are useful tools that can provide valuable insights that can't otherwise be obtained in complex systems.

if you can not obtain the data through the complex system

the model certainly is not a facsimile

 

[RollingThunder]

So what flac says is how he was focused on one specialty, and thus assumes a totally different specialty has to work exactly the same way.

It's often called "The engineer's fallacy".

EAT ME....

Brilliant response.....if you happen to be in the fourth grade.

I've worked with marine mammals.
I've helped blind people to "see".
I've sat in on 30 or more cardiac cath lab procedures.
I've worked with many of Americas three letter spy agencies.
I've developed biometric ID and RFID techniques.
I've done optical computing, Neural Network classifiers/detectors, and radar/sonar processing.
I've got equipment in almost every major hospital and medical research facility.
I've got clients for my services around the world.
I've got papers in image, signal, and display processing journals.
I've worked at Kennedy Space Center.
I've done more oceanography related projects than TrenBerth.
I've processed and enhanced almost every type of signal and image on earth.
I have advanced degrees in Biomedical, and Electrical Engineering.
I've taken all the pre-med reqs PLUS advanced courses in chemistry, biology and physics.

Tell me about "the engineer's fallacy".
I've been blessed with an extraordinary career. I'm not scared of a temperature graph.

But.....if you've done all that, why do you still come across as a scientifically ignorant and very clueless nitwit? Why do you post misinformation and pseudo-science? Why do you lie about the facts so often?

On an anonymous forum like this one, it is easy to claim great expertise but it is a lot harder to actually demonstrate some depth of knowledge on a scientific topic. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you actually know very little about AGW/CC but rather that you are filled with an enormous amount of misinformation and fossil fuel industry propaganda. If the rest of what you post is anti-science nonsense, why on Earth would anyone believe your very dubious claims about your career and expertise in science? You're just another phony and another denier cult poseur.

 

[flacaltenn]

So what flac says is how he was focused on one specialty, and thus assumes a totally different specialty has to work exactly the same way.

It's often called "The engineer's fallacy".

EAT ME....

Brilliant response.....if you happen to be in the fourth grade.

I've worked with marine mammals.
I've helped blind people to "see".
I've sat in on 30 or more cardiac cath lab procedures.
I've worked with many of Americas three letter spy agencies.
I've developed biometric ID and RFID techniques.
I've done optical computing, Neural Network classifiers/detectors, and radar/sonar processing.
I've got equipment in almost every major hospital and medical research facility.
I've got clients for my services around the world.
I've got papers in image, signal, and display processing journals.
I've worked at Kennedy Space Center.
I've done more oceanography related projects than TrenBerth.
I've processed and enhanced almost every type of signal and image on earth.
I have advanced degrees in Biomedical, and Electrical Engineering.
I've taken all the pre-med reqs PLUS advanced courses in chemistry, biology and physics.

Tell me about "the engineer's fallacy".
I've been blessed with an extraordinary career. I'm not scared of a temperature graph.

But.....if you've done all that, why do you still come across as a scientifically ignorant and very clueless nitwit? Why do you post misinformation and pseudo-science? Why do you lie about the facts so often?

On an anonymous forum like this one, it is easy to claim great expertise but it is a lot harder to actually demonstrate some depth of knowledge on a scientific topic. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you actually know very little about AGW/CC but rather that you are filled with an enormous amount of misinformation and fossil fuel industry propaganda. If the rest of what you post is anti-science nonsense, why on Earth would anyone believe your very dubious claims about your career and expertise in science? You're just another phony and another denier cult poseur.

Good question. I guess you're right.. I should listen to YOU more often TinkerBelle. After all it's CLEAR that you are the more qualified to interpret scientific press releases and critically assess their worth..

I am now a Warmer.. A VEHEMENT warmer and I want revenge on all those who duped me.. Where do I start Tink?

PM me on ANY of those topics I listed on my career.. We'll chat..

BTW princess ---- I just spent about 30 hours over on other threads trying to defend the Atmos physics behind basic GreenHouse theory against some REAL DENIERS.. Should I stop supporting science there also ???

In that 30 hours --- I didn't project "ANY" knowledge relevent to AGW/CC theory? Hmmm.. I guess I'm a worthless hack..

 

[Abraham3]

I guess I'm a worthless hack..

It's good that you can be honest about yourself... ;-)

 

[westwall]

Computer models are a great tool to test current understanding. They are a failure for predicting the future of chaotic systems.

If they can't do a hindcast they are simply useless, period.

 

[westwall]

Computer models are a great tool to test current understanding. They are a failure for predicting the future of chaotic systems.

Chaos, by definition, cannot be modeled. However, sometimes, science mistakes systems that are too complex, with true chaos.

As I've said, the only way for the dynamic response to be predicted would require multi year weather forecasts involving land, water, ice and atmosphere. Decades away. Maybe forever away.

But, no more science is required to know that the action of GHGs of increasing atmospheric concentration requires the earth system to warm, and that history gives good clues as to what will happen when conditions of the past are recreated.

And yet that's what the climate fraudsters are trying to do. So nice of you to admit that they are puruing that which is unobtainable. And they want us to spend trillions of dollars on models of the impossible.

Good to know!

 

[mamooth]

Tell me about "the engineer's fallacy".

Sure. It happens when some logic-deficient crank declares that he knows every single thing about every topic, and that all must bow down and kiss his ass without question, solely because he's skilled in some area unrelated to the topic at hand.

You can see that fallacy displayed by many of the denialists here. It's kind of humorous, how cranky they get when the expected asskissing doesn't materialize.

 

[RollingThunder]

Computer models are a great tool to test current understanding. They are a failure for predicting the future of chaotic systems.

If they can't do a hindcast they are simply useless, period.

That's glaringly obvious, walleyed. Unfortunately for your denier cult myths and fantasies, climate models do successfully hindcast twentieth century temperatures and climate.

Climate Models: How Good Are They?
Environmental Defense Fund
By Lisa Moore - a scientist in the Climate and Air Program
July 18, 2007
(excerpts)
Weather is a short-term, local phenomenon. Climate is the average weather pattern of a region over many years. I may not be able to predict the weather in New York City on December 15, but I can predict with confidence that it will be colder than it is today, in mid-July. A climate model could make the same prediction without a single past temperature reading. Basic orbital mechanics tell us that the northern hemisphere is colder in winter than summer. As I explained in my previous post, a climate model is a mathematical description of the physics and chemistry of the climate system – for example, how heat is transferred from one place to another. The inputs to the model are things like solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, and human-produced greenhouse gas emissions. Based on these inputs and the laws of physics, the model predicts temperature, precipitation, and other aspects of climate.

Which brings me to how we know the models are credible. What if the model inputs were actual observations from a time period in the past where we have full climate measurements? If the model is any good, it should accurately "hindcast" what we know the climate conditions were. In fact, hindcasting is the technique scientists use to evaluate models. If a model can accurately hindcast, we can have some confidence in its forecasts of the future. In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.

Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]

 

[skookerasbil]

So what flac says is how he was focused on one specialty, and thus assumes a totally different specialty has to work exactly the same way.

It's often called "The engineer's fallacy".

EAT ME....

Brilliant response.....if you happen to be in the fourth grade.

I've worked with marine mammals.
I've helped blind people to "see".
I've sat in on 30 or more cardiac cath lab procedures.
I've worked with many of Americas three letter spy agencies.
I've developed biometric ID and RFID techniques.
I've done optical computing, Neural Network classifiers/detectors, and radar/sonar processing.
I've got equipment in almost every major hospital and medical research facility.
I've got clients for my services around the world.
I've got papers in image, signal, and display processing journals.
I've worked at Kennedy Space Center.
I've done more oceanography related projects than TrenBerth.
I've processed and enhanced almost every type of signal and image on earth.
I have advanced degrees in Biomedical, and Electrical Engineering.
I've taken all the pre-med reqs PLUS advanced courses in chemistry, biology and physics.

Tell me about "the engineer's fallacy".
I've been blessed with an extraordinary career. I'm not scared of a temperature graph.

But.....if you've done all that, why do you still come across as a scientifically ignorant and very clueless nitwit? Why do you post misinformation and pseudo-science? Why do you lie about the facts so often?

On an anonymous forum like this one, it is easy to claim great expertise but it is a lot harder to actually demonstrate some depth of knowledge on a scientific topic. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you actually know very little about AGW/CC but rather that you are filled with an enormous amount of misinformation and fossil fuel industry propaganda. If the rest of what you post is anti-science nonsense, why on Earth would anyone believe your very dubious claims about your career and expertise in science? You're just another phony and another denier cult poseur.

Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather & Climate: Record Cold in the Northern Interior

 

[skookerasbil]

The models are a fucking joke.........


The models are wrong | Behind The Black

 

[PMZ]

Perhaps if I was ignorant about science, I too would have more faith in politics than in science. But I'm not. So I know that science is based on available evidence. Politics is only what different groups wish was true. Not much competition.

 

[RollingThunder]

Another study showing that global warming/climate change is still accelerating.

Climate Changing Faster Than Expected
Discovery.com News
FEB 11, 2013
(excerpts)
As climate change exceeds the worst projections, scientists underscore the urgency of reducing emissions. By just about any measure, global warming is matching or exceeding experts' worst projections, and could bring drastic change to our planet, including a 19-foot sea level rise and the extinction of many species, according to a new report released today. The study was published by 26 climate scientists, the majority of whom were authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007. The researchers point to a gloomy slate of evidence: Carbon dioxide emissions are 40 percent higher than in 1990. Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting at an accelerated pace. Sea level crept 80 percent higher over the last 15 years than projected in 2001. It is on track to rise twice as much by 2100 as the IPCC projected in 2007. Arctic sea ice melted 40 percent more than the average prediction in the IPCC report. "This stunned the scientific community because it was far greater than any projection," said climate scientist and study co-author Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada's British Columbia. "Things are happening faster and with greater magnitude than when the IPCC was published in 2007," Weaver said.

"We are in the lead-up to an historic climate summit -- the Copenhagen climate summit -- and it is absolutely essential that any policy making regarding climate change be based on the best and most up-to-date science," said co-author Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University in State College. Scientists have learned a lot since summer 2006 -- the cutoff for publication of research considered in the 2007 IPCC report. "What this report is an attempt to do is to provide an update of the current scientific understanding," Mann said. "We are all concerned that we are basically on target for changes that are in general larger than what was projected from the IPCC report," he continued. "The observations are telling us that changes in many respects are happening faster than models projected." To avoid a 3.6 degree increase, immediate action is needed, the researchers said. Global emissions must peak within the coming decade and they most drop off rapidly after that. "Among the things we've learned that we were not so sure of three years ago is that there is an urgency to this problem that isn't a political issue," said report author Richard Somerville of Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. "It's Mother Nature herself." The science that has emerged since the 2007 IPCC report appears to point to accelerating climate change, said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford, Calif., who was not a part of the study.

 

[Abraham3]

Two researchers have created an advanced model that, when fed information about water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, is able to recreate the surface warming hiatus of the last 15 years.

The Pacific Ocean fills in another piece of the global warming puzzle, and puzzles Curry

Note the purple line that keeps climbing. That's what happens when you just work with surface and air temps. The red line is the new model and note how well it tracks the black - observations - line.

 

[flacaltenn]

SkepticalScience?? Not worth the time to vet.. Models that finally INCLUDE all those "NATURAL" variations? How clever... Shows how bad the science has been to date..

You're smart enough to be embarrassed that well-known effects like ENSO were not INCLUDED in those models and conclusions you worshipped. But you wont adopt any humility..

Bad news for you is --- before the excuses stop flowing --- there's gonna be a MUCH REDUCED role of CO2 forcing, a few mighty powerful NEGATIVE feedbacks realized, and a lot less Global Hysteria..

 

[Abraham3]

ENSO runs on a pseudo-cycle. This is only a backcast. No one has yet figured out how to do long range ENSO forecasts. And I see NO reduction in the significance of CO2 in the atmosphere. AGW is simply overlain on a complex system of significant natural variability. The long term trend is still upward at an accelerating pace.

 

[ScienceRocks]

ENSO runs on a pseudo-cycle. This is only a backcast. No one has yet figured out how to do long range ENSO forecasts. And I see NO reduction in the significance of CO2 in the atmosphere. AGW is simply overlain on a complex system of significant natural variability. The long term trend is still upward at an accelerating pace.

I think its the PDO that they're talking about....
1915-1940= warm phase
1940-1975= cold phase
1975-2000= warm phase
2000-2030=cold phase

What happens is during a
Warm phase the heat is near the atmosphere
but during the cold phase it is pushed deeper(700+ meters) into the ocean...AWAY from the atmosphere.

Remember...This movement of heat doesn't add or subject from the system. Either does a enso cycle.

By 2030-2070 we will likely see the global temp catch up with where it was suppose to be. A big shock.

Research led by Gerald Meehl has similarly focused on the importance of the Pacific Ocean in short-term global surface temperature changes. His climate model predicts that there will be decades when surface temperature changes are relatively flat because more heat is transferred to the deep oceans, precisely as we have observed over the past decade. Meehl discussed the Kosaka & Xie study with Carbon Brief,


"This paper basically confirms, with a novel methodology, what we originally documented in our Nature Climate Change paper in 2011 and followed up with in our Journal of Climate paper ... We went beyond [the new paper] to show that when the tropical Pacific was cool for a decade ... more heat is mixed into the deeper ocean, something the new paper doesn't address."

This period is acting like 1940-1975....

 

[ScienceRocks]

I just put the PDO on the bottom on the temperature chart since 1850.

Blue = cold phase
red = warm phase

The up an down turns model it perfectly... If more energy wasn't going into the system the warming since around 1915 wouldn't be happening as mid term climate charge within the pacific doesn't add energy into the system.

It would be a flat sin wave.

 

[Abraham3]

SkepticalScience?? Not worth the time to vet.. Models that finally INCLUDE all those "NATURAL" variations? How clever... Shows how bad the science has been to date..

You're smart enough to be embarrassed that well-known effects like ENSO were not INCLUDED in those models and conclusions you worshipped. But you wont adopt any humility..

Bad news for you is --- before the excuses stop flowing --- there's gonna be a MUCH REDUCED role of CO2 forcing, a few mighty powerful NEGATIVE feedbacks realized, and a lot less Global Hysteria..

The study itself has been published in Nature. Is that worth the time to vet? Christ, such a convenient out.

Many thanks to Matthew for the ENSO-PDO correction.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Two researchers have created an advanced model that, when fed information about water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, is able to recreate the surface warming hiatus of the last 15 years.

The Pacific Ocean fills in another piece of the global warming puzzle, and puzzles Curry

Note the purplke line that keeps climbing. That's what happens when you just work with surface and air temps. The red line is the new model and note how well it tracks the black - observations - line.

Bernie Madoff accounting

My models show a 10% after tax ROI

Bernie, your models don't account for the 50% tax.

Hmm, OK, fixed. My models show a 10% after tax ROI

Bernie! You genius! Where can I sign up?