« Previous | Main | Next »

Some (climate) models aren't worth the flirt, new research shows

Post categories:

Shanta Barley | 13:35 UK time, Tuesday, 21 July 2009

Climate change scientists have models coming out of their ears. (Not the leggy variety, alas, but complex mathematical equations which try to project future temperature change.)

So how does a boffin decide which ones to use? Many scientists place their trust in models which accurately mimic past climate change, in the hope that they will continue to 'tell the truth' in the future.

But a new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters shows that this trust could be misplaced. The ability of a model to faithfully simulate past climate change is 'no guarantee of future skill', according to research by Catherine Reifen and Ralf Toumi at Imperial College .

Reifen and Toumi played around with the models of temperature change in the 20th century. To their surprise, they found that models which painted a faithful picture of climate change between 1900 and 1919 failed miserably between 1920 and 1939. The same applied between 1901-1920 and 1921-1940, and so on up until 1999.

Why's that? Simply put, models aren't very good at multi-tasking. A model may be very good at simulating the effect of El Nino on temperatures in the tropics, but isn't as good at everything else. But because El Nino and other 'strengths' like sea-ice come and go, no single model can consistently hit the nail on the head all the time.

That's why it's important that we include as many models as possible in our climate change projections, the study concludes. 'We do not know which feedbacks will dominate in the future', warn Reifen and Toumi, 'and the inclusion of the largest possible number of models could increase the range of predictions.'

So where does this leave us? You'll be glad to hear that the IPCC hasn't fallen into the trap flagged up by this report: it gives equal weighting to all models.

Less pleasing is its own admission of fallibility on the subject of models. 'What does the accuracy of a climate model's simulation of past or contemporary climate say about the accuracy of its projections of climate change?' mulls the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment. 'This question is just beginning to be addressed...'

Follow up: 'Unpredictable weather: why the climate is not a model citizen'

Comments

  • 1. At 2:19pm on 21 Jul 2009, Alan-Fresco wrote:

    As we seem unable, as a species, to alter our impact on the world, what does it matter if we can predict climate change or not? Sunspot activity, Milankovitch cycles, changing atmosphere and the randomness of nature, most beyond our control, probably militate against prediction anyway.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 2:36pm on 21 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Sunspot activity, Milankovitch cycles, changing atmosphere and the randomness of nature, most beyond our control, probably militate against prediction anyway."

    Can't be sunspot since sunspot activity is at a lowest ebb for decades, but temperature isn't at that lower level.

    Can't be Milankovich because that is based on the orbital characteristics and they are not conducive either to warming at this time or warming at this speed at any time.

    Randomness can be harnessed. Like in betting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 4:00pm on 21 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Mind you I can't see what he's saying, really.

    The models are not reality, but include realistic physics. Small errors can make the climate modelled travel a different path, but the forcings will constrain them.

    Therefore to counter this effect, since there is no known consistent factor wrong, collect all the outputs together. Where one falls low of reality, another will fall high.

    And the paper seems to say that some models will produce a match to records for one period but not another later one, whereas a model that didn't match records as well for the earlier period but DID manage to get the latter one right.

    This does seem to me to be exactly what is expected and why it is an ensembles of models that is used.

    Further, the paper seems to indicate that including fewer than a certain number of models makes predictability worse and that if you picked the worst ones (pre-selecting for bad values) you get a number that makes the accuracy worse. Picking the best ones (pre-selecting for good values) you get a good agreement earlier.

    Again I wonder "so what?".

    That's why models are included based on their ability to get general trends right and any deviations will be countered by the deviation in a different direction by others.

    The only take-home message here seems to be "if you want to make the models look good, take a subset of the best models at any one time. If you want to make the models look bad, take a subset of the worst models at any one time".

    However, that selection can only be made after reality has decided where it goes.

    And that is usually closer to the average trend of all models chosen without a priori knowledge of what reality will do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 5:34pm on 21 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    and finally they catch up with what sceptics have been saying about the models

    even Gavin Schmidt agrees with this and tells us the only way the models give the right answer (whatever that is supposed to mean) is if we take the average of 20 different models

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 5:41pm on 21 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    No, they only say that in the fevered egos of denialists.

    Note how the paper says that a single model that is "wrong" over a 20year period is later right over a different 20-year period.

    How can that be when you need 20 models to be right according to Chutney?

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 6:31pm on 21 Jul 2009, eumenydes wrote:

    yeah_whatever wrote:

    "This does seem to me to be exactly what is expected and why it is an ensembles of models that is used.
    ...
    Again I wonder "so what?". "

    You're right that this paper basically confirms the status quo. I think the motivation is that there is a sort of intuitive assumption that a model that does better at past temperature might do better in future, so maybe we should be giving greater weight to that model's predictions. As the authors remark:

    "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) combines the results of the available models to form an ensemble average, giving all models equal weight. Other studies argue in favor of treating some models as more reliable than others [Shukla et al., 2006; Giorgi and Mearns, 2002]."

    That last part is what the study is about - they're warning that choosing models for better past performance, as some studies are suggesting, will not necessarily yield more accurate predictions. Instead, they endorse a continuation of the IPCC's current approach, treating all models equally.

    The take home message seems to be "all models do well, and the ensemble average does even better, so don't start trying to pick and choose between them".

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 6:58pm on 21 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    OK, that makes sense.

    It's the monoculture programming that makes Windows problems (trivially exploitable as they are) a worldwide problem. Windows would still be easily hosed if the share was 20% or less, but with 80%+ the fallout affects everyone else as well.

    For that reason alone, I would regard a move towards "one model" as disastrous as "one program" used in a fly-by-wire system.

    I guess the denialist "take home" message will be something more like Chutney's knee-jerk, mind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 00:50am on 22 Jul 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    'Two wrongs don't make a right' except in climate science where twenty wrongs make a near certainty?

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 06:04am on 22 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    #4 @Mango

    If you review my previous posts going back a month or so, you will find I have made the same assertions as Gavin Schmidt.

    While models of Earth's climate system do provide value - it is not in what they have been sensationalized for (projections and predictions) - but rather to help highlight areas where we need to focus more effort on developing a better understand - where we need to invest more in the real, "hard" science of field work, to truly develop a better understanding.

    I also disagree (in part) with the conclusion that we need more models - to "put the pieces together and have a better picture". The interrelations of the processes modeled as well as lack of understanding of those processes, mechanisms and interations are just to complex to derive value from such an exercise - execpt perhaps to identify additional areas for study.

    While I am not a "climate scientist" - I am a scientist who has spent his entire career building models for dynamic systems - as well as control systems. I agree completely (see previous posts) with Gavin Schmidt's assertions - we will never be able to make any kind of meaningful predictions beyond two weeks. Heck - the "Farmer's Almanac" has done better than the IPCC and all the other "Climate Scientists" combined. (LOL).

    Instead of "carbon markets" and more "cap and trade" - we should be building coal plants in Africa (with current western technology) and developing the third world, allowing them the opportunity to enjoy a much better standard of living as well as preserving and restoring the natural environments, habitats and ecosystems.

    but, what do I know? I am just a dang "denier"

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 06:32am on 22 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Alan

    I disagree with your assertion - that we are "unable" to alter our impacts on the world. While I am what many here would consider a "denier" - I do believe that if we invested in the third world and strong economies (as opposed to cap and trade and other carbon taxation schemes) - we could effect real progress in dealing with not only the humanistic issues of the third world - but also the environmental issues.

    The same issues which have existed for the entirety of my life. Yet, if this is where we focused our efforts, our gains would be many fold - for both the underdeveloped and the West. Its a shame, we could even do this profitably, much more so than today's practices, over the longer term. At the same time, increase the standard of living of those who so desperately need it and create new markets at the same time.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 08:46am on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "you will find I have made the same assertions as Gavin Schmidt."

    No, you've misrepresented what he said to further your dogma.

    And what you "read" said that models couldn't be used to predict more than 2 weeks ahead. This doesn't gel with the idea that 20 models can be used to predict 20 years, though.

    Does it.

    Seems what you think Gavin says changes on a weekly basis...

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 08:51am on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "I disagree with your assertion - that we are "unable" to alter our impacts on the world. While I am what many here would consider a "denier" -"

    You do deny that CO2 we release will do it. Hence, "denier".

    Which has nothing at all to do with "we are unable to alter our impacts".

    Can you say "non-sequitor"?

    And prove your assertions that our gains would be manifold. Our gains in moving away from a carbon-fuel-industry to a renewables one would be manifold. But you deny that this is possible.

    Prove your assertion we could do such work profitable and not if we worked anywhere else (like on moving away from Carbon burning).

    And renewables will at the same time as our economies of scale kick in on manufacturing, will increase the standard of living of those who so desperately need it and will create new markets at the same time.

    Yet you deny that could happen.

    Why?

    Cos you're a Texan.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 08:52am on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And Rob displays yet again proof that he doesn't know what statistics is or what "random" means.

    Big shock.

    Glad I'm sitting down.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 08:54am on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    PS read this, Laz:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm

    Chapter 8.

    Climate Models and their Evaluation

    You have no clue what goes in to a climate model. Your inability to understand doesn't make you right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 08:57am on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And aren't posts 10 onwards Off Topic???

    It was all a vehicle for Larry to spread his politically inspired dogma and spout his ignorance yet again in front of people he hopes are too dumb to know it's all a pack of lies and misinformation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 09:33am on 22 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:

    @Mango

    I think ignoring the ignorant is unfortunately the way to go in this instance. While it may not be so for many in the world, ignorance in the West is a choice for most.

    Until the ignorant can become civilized and polite in their discourse and debate upon the subject at hand, it makes no sense to me to respond. Why dignify the abusive nature with a response? It only provides further encouragement for such behavior.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 09:58am on 22 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    How to judge a good model ?

    It's got to make verifiable predictions over a short timescale. Anything else is bubblegum.

    The timescale matters a lot. 5 years ahead is the maximum. A good model should make a decent stab at next year and 2011. Predictions for the year 2050 are no way to verify today's machine.

    And the predictions must be verifiable. That is definite predictions that we can measure when the time comes - not vague ramblings about "alterations in disturbance regimes of forests".

    Maybe something like "the average temperature for June in the UK will be X and the average June rainfall in the UK will be Y".

    Otherwise how would we judge a good model ? It's name ? Programming elegance ? Feng shui ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 09:59am on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    eumenydes has never given Larry an excuse to ignore. Yet he ignores him.

    The lying about what Gavin said was answered by eumenydes in this post:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/06/the_unpredictable_weather.html#P83104240

    But Larry ignores it.

    It's "off message". This is what makes Lazzer a denialist. Anything he can't miscontrue or twist gets ignored unless it says "AGW is false".

    Here it is again.

    ++++++++++++
    Nor does Gavin Schmidt's quote mean that the climate is unpredictable after two weeks - he's talking about the chaotic component only, which is why you need to look at long-term averages over 20 years. At that kind of timescale you're no longer looking at the chaotic component, but at the more stable component of the climate, which is predictable.
    To explain it simplistically: weather forecasts answer the question "will I need my umbrella tomorrow?", whereas climate predictions answer the question "how many times will I need my umbrella between 2040 and 2060?". You can't produce reliable weather forecasts for the year 2050 (obviously!), but you can produce reliable climate predictions for the decades around 2050. That's what Gavin Schmidt was saying.
    It seems various blogs and commenters are taking both the GRL paper you cited and Dr Schmidt's quote out of context (or just misunderstanding their meaning), which is a shame.
    +++++++++++++++

    Now hands up everyone who thinks that ignoring the work done above to explain is polite?

    Anyone?

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 10:02am on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Until the ignorant can become civilized and polite"

    Until the civilised and polite (though see the above post) can become less ignorant, pointing out that they are ignorant is not impolite or uncivilised.

    "in their discourse and debate"

    And debate requires that you listen to the other debaters. Not ignore them (see above post).

    "upon the subject at hand"

    Well, yes, but the subject at hand isn't third-world WHO/RedCross style voluntary work.

    It's about "Some (climate) models aren't worth the flirt, new research shows"

    But you ignored that too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 10:32am on 22 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:



    @Jack,

    I would agree with you to a point. The simple fact is that because of the nature of the system which is attempting to be modeled, there is no hope of consistant accurate models providing predictions.

    I found a re-reading of ch 8 of FAR to be interesting. In particular, the IPCC points to "vast" improvements in their modeling capabilities since TAR. Additionally, I read into it that a great deal of uncetainties remain. Herein lies a contractiion: if we were to "buy into TAR" 100% - the very source has just told us that they have made many signficant changes to the models assessed in TAR (Third Assessment Report) - "improvements".

    So, should we now "throw away" the Third Assessment Report? Will the Fifth Assessment report "vast improvements" over the models used for the FAR (Fourth Assessment Report) - IF so, why should we even bother with the Fourth report?

    Typically, models are assessed (judged) by their accuracy over time. Unfortunately, with models of this nature - the timescales are quite large - making it impossible to assess the value of these models until it is "too late" - according to the believers. This leaves us in a bit of a quandry - what to believe? For the time being (and I fear the rest of my time) I am skeptical.

    Although, I think in this case, Feng shui sounds about as good as anything proposed to date. Cheers for that.

    With the Trillions of pounds or dollars or euros or whatever on the table, I think we should consider other alternatives before making rash, far reaching decisions.

    The kind of predictive quality you are looking for (i.e. next year, the rainfall for June shall be X and temp Y - or whatever) will never be achievable through climate models. In my view, the models provide value in helping to identify specific areas to focus our efforts in developing a better understanding. Unfortunately, they are sensationalised and used for predictive capabilities. Just because of the nature of the dynamic system we call Earth's climate - I don't believe it will ever be the case.

    Well, it is late here - so I shall retire and cease to bore you.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 10:50am on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "The simple fact is that because of the nature of the system which is attempting to be modeled, there is no hope of consistant accurate models providing predictions."

    It's simple, but it isn't a fact.

    At best it's a statement.

    Prove it.

    "The kind of predictive quality you are looking for (i.e. next year, the rainfall for June shall be X and temp Y - or whatever) will never be achievable through climate models."

    And that's because that isn't climate.

    Which you've been told is determined on a 30-year averaging period.

    You even ASKED what period it was. Jack went all Rita Hayworth over it and Chutney then harped on about how Spencer's data was 30 years therefore the end of the graph showed there was no trend because it was nearly 0.

    But you pass all that by, don't you, if it would get in the way of your "message" that climate cannot be determined. For which you have no facts to lead you to that conclusion, so you merely state it as if self-evident truth.

    "In my view, the models provide value in helping to identify specific areas to focus our efforts in developing a better understanding."

    Well now you're saying something I can agree with. They will tell us what level of CO2 will result if we reduce human-sourced CO2 pollution by 80%. Or 50%. What will happen if we do 40% by 2020, 80% by 2050, or all 80% by 2040.

    "Unfortunately, they are sensationalised and used for predictive capabilities."

    Watch this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&feature=channel

    Hansen's model predicted the effect of a large volcanic event on global temperatures.

    1981 that paper was produced. The model would have been 1980, maybe, when run. Maybe earlier if it garnered many comments.

    Your dogmatic insistence that climate models cannot predict future changes is false and easily disproved if you look at the facts.

    So denialists ignore the facts and just keep repeating the same refuted arguments, hoping that someone would say "well, there's no smoke without fire..." and not realise there's not even smoke there.

    "so I shall retire and cease to bore you."

    Why not read up on the IPCC. Most of your questions would be answered and at least you could be skeptical of something you've learned, rather than something you've been told to be skeptical of.

    "I don't believe it will ever be the case."

    And people believed that a good smell kept the demons of ill-health away.

    But some people checked the FACTS and were enlightened.

    Others decided that their belief was far more comfortable than washing and burned the heretics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 10:57am on 22 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @yeah_whatever,

    When you are serious about engaging in polite and intelligent discourse and debate upon the subject, I will consider it. Until such a time, I will leave you on 'ignore'.

    It is Mark, right? Well Mark, I really have no desire to put up with the abuse, nor your (lack of) logic. As for the post by @eumenydes, I missed it - if it was polite I would have responded. I read Gavin Schmidt's speech in detail, multiple times. It made sense to me and I interpreted it (I believe) the way he intended.

    I would probably enjoy debating the issues with you, both science and policy - if you could engage in civilized debate and do away with all the abuse and name calling. Unfortunately, I do not believe that is possible. Even @Mango seems to have pretty much given up on you, and he has a great deal of patience. (@Mango, please correct me if I am wrong - I do not mean to speak for you).

    Does it make you feel somehow "superior" or "better" to make such abusive, personal attacks - or is that all you can manage? Somehow, I really doubt you would be so abusive in person, but you are more than welcome to prove me wrong...

    Prove yourself worthy of debate by engaging in a polite manner. Or don't. Your choice.

    Hey, I respect those who are passionate in their views - I am one of them - I also respect their views, even if I don't agree. Your behaviour only serves to stifle debate. No give no respect whatsoever to anyone who disagrees with you.

    Kindest Regards.

    Kealey

    PS - Please call me Larry, LarryKealey or Kealey, you can even call me "CrazyLarry" if you wish (which is usually reserved for friends)- my nickname (call sign).

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 11:32am on 22 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    #21 yeah_whatever

    I stand corrected, I should not have used the phrase "The simple fact is...", but rather something more along the lines of: "The nature of the science and current theories suggest...".

    With regards to Hansen's Prediction of Climate Change (response) to a large volcanic eruption - Hansen was far from the first to note this response. In the case of a large volcanic eruption, billions of tons of particulate matter is ejected into the upper stratosphere (as I am sure you are aware) - causing much more energy from the sun to be reflected back into space.

    It is not a difficult process to measure nor model. When an eruption such as this occurs, for a period of time, it dominates climate forcing - that is, it is the only real "first order' forcing agent for a perioe which may last for several years (depending upon the scale of eruption). It is but one small piece in a very large and complex system - would you not agree?

    I believe you also may have mis-interpreted my comment regarding the value of models for helping to identify focus areas for study. The incorporation into the models is helpful (for pointing out the next problem), but in my mind it is about developing a better understanding at a fundamental level, not in building more models.

    I watched your video. Now do one for me, drop by a bookstore and get a copy of "Chaos (Making a New Science)" by James Gleick, 1987 and just read the first chapter. I think you would find it quite interesting. There is no "big political agenda" behind it - it just lays out Chaos Theory in easy to read terms with some excellent examples - which are quite thought provoking.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 11:50am on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "When you are serious about engaging in polite and intelligent discourse and debate upon the subject, I will consider it."

    Discourse requires you LISTEN.

    You don't.

    "I also respect their views, even if I don't agree."

    No you don't. You ignore them.

    "With regards to Hansen's Prediction of Climate Change (response) to a large volcanic eruption - Hansen was far from the first to note this response."

    But he modelled it. In a model created from the physics you think cannot be done and predict things.

    Yet his model didn't predict there would be "an effect" it predicted WHAT THE EFFECT WOULD BE.

    And it got it right.

    Thereby proving your thesis that climate models cannot predict wrong.

    "It is not a difficult process to measure nor model. "

    Because it's a climate effect. In a climate model.

    Are you now saying that climate effects CAN be modelled and accurately?

    "I watched your video. "

    The photons may have impacted your retina, but the brain didn't engage itself.

    Proof of this?

    Your statement:
    "With regards to Hansen's Prediction of Climate Change (response) to a large volcanic eruption - Hansen was far from the first to note this response."

    The video says that it wasn't a model that there would be a response. It was a model that predicted what the response would be.

    Yet that passed your cognitive abilities by, didn't it.

    And I've read about chaos theory and in the last pairing off in "discussion" you were wrong about chaos theory and I got it right. You asserted that it wasn't possible to predict chaos and didn't connect that the drawing of the Lorentz attractor showed you could predict it.

    If that book is thought provoking (and I may have read it already), it didn't seem to provoke thought in you when you read it. Maybe you only remember the highlights so you can use them to "prove" climate cannot be predicted.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 12:06pm on 22 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Can anyone explain and maybe show some other examples where lots of poor models can make a better model by working together ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 12:14pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    re #25

    1) This isn't a collection of 20 poor models
    2) Examples of poor models producing something better together:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 1:05pm on 22 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @LarryKealey

    Even @Mango seems to have pretty much given up on you, and he has a great deal of patience. (@Mango, please correct me if I am wrong - I do not mean to speak for you).

    No corrctions necessary, you are absolutely correct. Until I receive an apology, I will not be debating any subject with Yeah_whatever. He is still lying about the original accusation and trying to wriggle out of it

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 1:06pm on 22 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    and the other thing is, i'm very bored with him flooding all the BBC blogs with his vitriol

    doesn't the BBC have a policy against flooding blogs?

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 1:12pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    They don't seem to have any policy against you putting the same deceptions time and time again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 1:31pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Chutney avoids answers. So does Jack:

    " 75. At 11:27am on 21 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    #70. Jack, go back and read what I put on both posts.
    And you are avoiding my questions.
    I doubt this discussion can be resolved. Jack how would you statistically prove the IPCC is wrong (as you seem to have no doubts that they are), or that you are right?"

    In the deep sea heat thread.

    They avoid answering questions since that doesn't keep the "debate" going.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 1:32pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "He is still lying about the original accusation and trying to wriggle out of it"

    The accusation was you used a month's figures to prove a trend.

    That accusation has proven true.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 1:52pm on 22 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    not really sure what was wrong with asking if the BBC had a policy against flooding of blog posts, but it's their forum

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 5:35pm on 22 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    #32

    #Mango - the BBC only prevents you from posting more than every 20 seconds. At least that is all I have seen.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 5:45pm on 22 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @Larry Kealey

    As usual interesting posts.

    "IPCC lead author on Global Warming conclusions: were not scientifically there yet.

    This is relevant to matters in hand:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/17/ipcc-lead-author-on-global-warming-conclusions-were-not-scientifically-there-yet/

    Computer models for complex systems such as climate do not work it is as simple as that and the proof is the IPPC predict (guess) that in 50 years global temperature will be plus 2degrees or 6 degrees?

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 6:04pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Oh, look the CEO of a Manganese mining company writes to a small section as second author of one volume of the IPCC report where the section is about how manganese mining produces CO2 in operation and is therefore "a lead author" again.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/bbc_stifles_climate_change_deb.html#P83039772

    answered in

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/bbc_stifles_climate_change_deb.html#P83043163

    "But he does appear in

    Section 4.5 : Magnesium Production
    Gabriella Tranell (Norway) and Tom Tripp (USA)

    Now, how does reporting on how magnesium is produced get you to understand climate science?"

    And ignored.

    This is what denialists, sorry "skeptics" call debate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 6:07pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    He wasn't repeat WAS NOT a lead author of Volume 3 like Chutney said (though he hasn't admitted that at any point he lied). He wasn't even the lead author of Section 4.5 in that volume.

    And it was explaining how manganese operations go in industry.

    Now how does that make him know climate science?

    A question Chutney is rabidly trying to avoid answering.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 7:00pm on 22 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    I had no difficulty finding out Tom Tripp was listed as a LEAD author by the IPCC, perhaps I should be in IT?

    Volume 3 : Industrial Processes and Product Use
    Coordinating Lead Authors
    William Kojo Agyemang-Bonsu Environmental Protection Agency Ghana
    Jochen Harnisch ECOFYS GmbH Germany
    Lead Authors
    Ayite-Lo N. Ajavon Atmospheric Chemistry Laboratory, FDS/Universite de Lome Togo
    .....
    Gabriella Tranell SINTEF Materials and Chemistry Norway
    Tom Tripp US Magnesium USA
    Shigehiro Uemura Japan Industrial Conference for Ozone Layer and Japan
    Climate Protection (JICOP)
    .....


    I guess the IPCC thought his contribution was important enough to list him as a lead author and include him as a Nobel Prize winner

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 7:02pm on 22 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    i guess yw must think he knows better than the ipcc now ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 7:12pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "I had no difficulty finding out Tom Tripp was listed as a LEAD author by the IPCC, perhaps I should be in IT?"

    Leaving out that it was second author on section 4.5 of volume 3.

    Which had no need of any scientific ability to write.

    So how does he gain from his writing of a piece about his business (which he should know) to being able to discern the science of the climate and make authoritative statements on it?

    "i guess yw must think he knows better than the ipcc now ;)"

    I guess you'd include the janitor at the conference as an authoritative figure because he worked where the scientists did, as long as he said AGW was false.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 7:13pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    His job was explaining how manganese operations go in industry.

    Now how does that make him know climate science?

    A question Chutney is rabidly trying to avoid answering.

    STILL.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 7:25pm on 22 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    OK, here's your answer:

    the IPCC clearly thought he was qualified, If you need further information, ask the IPCC, they asked him to be lead author, not me

    And i repeat, because you clearly do not understand:

    LEAD AUTHOR

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 7:27pm on 22 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    and no, i wouldn't include the janitor, that is a stupid remark

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 8:27pm on 22 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:



    @yeah_whatever

    As I recall the discussion was about "predictibility" of chaotic systems. My argument (one of the tenets of chaos theory) is that while such systems can be highly deterministic, they are inheriently unpredictable. An argument which I still stand by. Tweek the initial conditions only slightly and the resulting output will diverge and differ dramatically. Try it yourself...

    I would also repeat another "discussion" we have had regarding the atmospheric feedback associated with CO2 forcing. While the video you sent shows that CO2 concentrations in a "glass bottle" demonstrate very clearly the GH affect of CO2 - they only apply to a glass bottle. It is also interesting to note that he does not mention the concentrations of CO2 used in the "experiment" - was it 400ppm or 40% or more?

    I would not argue that CO2 is a GHG, however - I would argue that the Earth is "not a glass bottle". It is much more complex and while the experiment does demonstrate the GH properties of CO2 quite nicely - it does not necessarily apply to the Earth's climate. There are a number of shortcomings of the "experiment" which I could also point out - such as the fact that light passing through the glass is refracted and the wavelength changes - toward the infrared. The infrared photons are then reflected by the glass - so light goes in, is converted to heat and then is bounced around the glass until absorbed by molecules within the glass bottle - for example.

    Many of the processes & mechanisms we find in nature are in-fact counter-intuitive. Spencer (even if you don't like the man of his beliefs) and others have shown that the feedback associated with CO2 could in fact be negative rather than the largely positive value of 5.54 used by the IPCC. The real $64,000 question in my mind (or actually, the $64 Trillion dollar question) is what is the feedback associated with CO2 forcing. Also keep in mind that this feedback is not a constant (as implied by IPCC) - it in fact would seem to depend upon a number of factors. Models developed with a slightly negative feedback actually appear to fit the historical data quite well. The reality is that we just don't know.

    If feedback associated with CO2 forcing is in fact negative, we have little to worry about with regards to emissions. The reality is that we just don't know with any level of certainty what the feedback really is, nor how to determine it for different conditions. It is just one of many "things" we must develop a much greater understand of, in order to reduce the climate (mathematical) models to their center manifold. (reducing a set of non-linear equations to their center manifold allows us to simiplify the equations whilst preserving the dynamics of the system).

    I am happy for you in that you are so certain of your beliefs. I am much more skeptical.

    But let us suppose that the you and the IPCC are 100% correct. It still begs the question: what is the right policy choice? I personally don't agree with the whole "cap and trade" or "carbon taxation schemes" - mainly because they represent highly regressive taxes as well as the simple fact that they don't work (witness the ETS). Building a whole economy around carbon trading will only make a few people richer, and all the rest of us poorer. While C&T has worked for SO2 and NOX's, CO2 is a different story. The SO2 and NOX cap and trade plan revolved around only a few hundred "sources" and was much easier to regulate, prevent fraud, corruption etc. Carbon, on the other hand is too pervasive within our economies to regulate effectively.

    I personally have a distain for politicians - the lot of them - on both sides of the aisle as we say here. Here, in America, since Obama has taken office, the House of Representatives has voted twice on major legislation (on the order of a Trillion dollars cost or more) - without even reading it. Now we should "trust them" to create this "carbon market" that is going to save us all? Not me. Not by a longshot.

    Lets say, for arguments sake that you are 100% correct with regards to CO2 forcings and feedbacks and fantasize for a moment that the models are reliable - what is the answer?

    Shutting off the power? I don't think that will go over so well. I also do not see windmills as being the answer - for most mainstream applications (needs) for electricity.

    Let me ask which is more realistic: reducing CO2 emissions by 87% in the next 40 years or increasing the ability of natural CO2 sinks to absorb CO2 by 3%? - both will have the same effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. By focusing on the "other side of the equation" - natural sinks, we have the added benefit of restoring and preserving natural environments the world over. Not only that, but in order to be effective in this endeavour, we must develop the third world. It seems to me like a much bigger "bang for the buck" to focus on something realistic that will have easily visible and measurable outcomes. As we have done great damage to these natural sinks (rainforests, forests, wetlands, bogs, and the like) it seems to me that this would be a much better approach to the problem - whether you believe its magnitude or not.

    While I am skeptical of the problem - in particular, our understanding of CO2's role in climate change - I am even more skeptical of the "solutions" and policies advocated by our politicians.

    The technology simply does not exist today to achieve the policy aims which have been suggested. We do have the technology and ability to effect CO2 atmospheric concentrations with other approaches - but they leave the "fat cats" on Wall Street without a new "carbon market" to exploit.

    I mean really, take a look at Kyoto and the ETS - both, by any measure, utter failures. Emissions have risen during the first trading period in both the UK as well as the EU as a whole. Why continue down the same failed path with the same failed policies? If we cannot achieve even the very modest reductions in emissions mandated by Kyoto phase I, what makes you think we will be able to achieve the outrageous cuts on the table now?

    Ethanol subsidies are an excellent example. In the US, over 9B a year is paid to subsidize ethanol production - over 11 million acres of prime farmland has been diverted from food production to corn for ethanol - and it HAS had a dramatic effect on food prices. (I might suggest you read a bit of Robert Bryce - a friend of mine - and some of his writings regarding the ethanol "scam"). For corn based ethanol - the energy equation does not even "add up" to a net savings of fossil fuels. Not to mention that ethanol has a much lower "energy content" than gasoline.

    Why not take that 9B in subsidies and fund a "Manhatten style" programme to develop nuclear fusion and other "next generation" energy sources?

    We can make a huge difference to the standard of living in the developing world as well as natural environments the world over - but cap and trade will not do this. What is really better or worse for CO2 emissions - destroying and burning a forest or building a coal plant with modern technology? Preserving biodiversity and natural environments - or trading complex carbon based derivatives?

    We need to look at productive and efficient ways to "bridge the gap" until things like fusion and other technologies become commerical realities. In order to do this - we will need to continue to rely upon fossil fuels. We also need to invest in developing the third world if we are to have any hope of saving (and restoring) natural environmentss there.

    As a final note, I would refer to the Vostok Ice cores - I am not even going to try and debate the 800 year lag between temperature and CO2 concentrations (although it does demonstrate our lack of understanding of the whole CO2 cycle) - but ask you to notice that prior to the onset of each of the last ice ages, CO2 concentrations reached their peak. Why did we not have run-away global warming? Why did the temperature drop so dramatically, with all the CO2 in the atmosphere. It does make a ( case for negative feedback associated with CO2 forcing, does it not?

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 8:28pm on 22 Jul 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    Guess we can add the concept of alphabetical order to YW's learning difficulties.

    He had no problem classing Tripp as an expert when his name and others were needed to make up the thousands of scientists claimed by the IPCC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 8:30pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "the IPCC clearly thought he was qualified,"

    To answer a question about manganese production.

    Yet you want to cede him greater expertise on the climate science than the rest of the IPCC.

    You aren't answering the question:

    Now how does that make him know climate science?

    Still you avoid answering.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 8:33pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And where do you get LEAD AUTHOR from?

    It's not on the paper as "lead author".

    He was mentioned SECOND.

    He isn't author of the IPCC report.

    Nor is he author of the 3rd Volume of the IPCC report.

    Neither is he author of the 4th section of the 3rd Volume of the IPCC report.

    So where do you get "LEAD AUTHOR" from?

    And why do you give him authority over sections he never wrote?

    PS I'll be remembering you were gobsmacked that someone could gainsay the entire IPCC...

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 8:34pm on 22 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    Reifeni & Toumi's paper (available online) concludes:

    "We therefore conclude that the multi-model ensemble mean of all available AR4 models provides the most accurate basis for making best estimate projections of future climate change. The common investment advice that ''past performance is no guarantee of future returns' and to 'own a portfolio' appears also to be relevant to climate projections."

    Essentially this paper is part of an ongoing process of refining and improving climate model results.

    The authors note that different models emphasize different feedback mechanisms but concludes: "On average all models have a significant signal to contribute.".

    Their study arrives at the conclusion that it reinforces the view of previous research, that it remains best to combine the results from a number of models: "Various studies have showed that multi-model ensembles produce more accurate results than single models."

    Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill? Reifeni & Toumi. 2009.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 8:36pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "and no, i wouldn't include the janitor"

    Why not?

    The janitor has as much input into the first and second reports as did Tom.

    As much as Tom did for the sections 1-3 of the 3rd volume.

    And so on.

    And you let Tom tell everyone that those sections he had nothing to do with (and you can become an author by asking too, you know) are wrong.

    And he had as much to do with those sections as the Janitor.

    So why the difference?

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 8:39pm on 22 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Mango,

    I find it interesting that your posts are quite often "referred to the moderators". I wonder who would be constantly "referring" you to the moderators?

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 8:46pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Guess we can add the concept of alphabetical order to YW's learning difficulties."

    Nope.

    Just prove that Tom is the lead author.

    Or maybe "in descending order" needs be added to Rob's lack of education...

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 8:48pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "My argument (one of the tenets of chaos theory) is that while such systems can be highly deterministic, they are inheriently unpredictable."

    And your argument is wrong.

    Brownian motion is inherently chaotic. Yet that chaos brings with it the predictability of the Ideal Gas Law.

    And you can predict when a chaotic system is more or less predictably.

    Ensemble weather models do this all the time.

    "He had no problem classing Tripp as an expert when his name and others were needed to make up the thousands of scientists claimed by the IPCC."

    Well, duh.

    I didn't know he was in the list. How could I class Tripp as an expert if I don't know he exists?

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 8:51pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "I am happy for you in that you are so certain of your beliefs. I am much more skeptical. "

    Except you're CERTAIN AGW is wrong. And show no skepticism over anything that avows that.

    Such as:

    "I personally don't agree with the whole "cap and trade" or "carbon taxation schemes" - mainly because they represent highly regressive taxes as well as the simple fact that they don't work (witness the ETS)."

    "Building a whole economy around carbon trading will only make a few people richer, and all the rest of us poorer."

    "While C&T has worked for SO2 and NOX's, CO2 is a different story. "

    All just thrown out there with no support, no evidence. As if they were self-evident truth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 8:54pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    " It is also interesting to note that he does not mention the concentrations of CO2 used in the "experiment" - was it 400ppm or 40% or more?"

    It demonstrates that CO2 blocks IR.

    Now why isn't it blocking our IR?

    And don't say "its saturated".

    Earth isn't a glass bottle and increasing CO2 concentrations increases the optical depth of the atmosphere, making it a more effective insulator.

    A problem a glass bottle doesn't have.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 8:56pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "what is the answer?

    Shutting off the power? "

    Stop with the alarmism.

    No.

    It's not even asked.

    But why MUST power only come with a CO2 output attached?

    Because as a good ole texas boy, power HAS to be Oil Power?

    "What is really better or worse for CO2 emissions - destroying and burning a forest or building a coal plant with modern technology?"

    How about a third way? Build renewable energy stations which don't require importing finite resources.

    Hmmm?

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 8:57pm on 22 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Tim,

    If I read your post correctly - basically we are back to "statistical analysis" - averaging (unweighted) models to determine projections. Sounds like another step backwards to me.

    A friend of mine who was fortunate enough to be granted a permit to climb Mt. Ararat had this to say:

    "Climbing Mt. Ararat is like climbing a gravel hill - for every three steps made in progressing up the mountain, one falls back (down) two..."

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 8:59pm on 22 Jul 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 57. At 9:01pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "We need to look at productive and efficient ways to "bridge the gap" until things like fusion and other technologies become commerical realities."

    Yes. We do. But why this?

    " In order to do this - we will need to continue to rely upon fossil fuels."

    No we don't.

    We can be less wasteful. Sweden does it. Switzerland does it. These are not third world countries living in huts like middle-ages serfs. And they use maybe 1/4 you USians do. So use power like a Swiss gent does.

    Then all that's needed is 5% more of your power needs to come from carbon-neutral Wind/Wave/Solar/etc power and you've got your 80% reduction right there.

    None of which require that coal fired power stations be used.

    China is building more PV and Wind Turbines than the US.

    Can you no longer keep up?

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 9:03pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    re 49.

    I wonder myself why so many of my posts get sent to the moderators.

    Who has the motive and opportunity to do that, I wonder...?

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 9:07pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "If I read your post correctly - basically we are back to "statistical analysis" - averaging (unweighted) models to determine projections. Sounds like another step backwards to me."

    Why?

    Does the use of three redundant systems in a FBW system seem like a "step backwards" to you?

    Or does it sound like a good way to reduce uncertainty?

    When you ask for a second opinion of your doctor, is that a step backward? And if the doctor gives you the same or very similar advice, does that make BOTH doctors wrong?

    "Climbing Mt. Ararat is like climbing a gravel hill - for every three steps made in progressing up the mountain, one falls back (down) two..."

    But he still got to the top of the hill, didn't he? Or did he fail because he kept taking a step back?

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 9:08pm on 22 Jul 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    YW's wilful ignorance continues.

    The IPCC states unambiguously that Tom Tripp is a lead author yet YW can't see it, no surprise there.
    He believes IPCC projections are facts yet is blind to actual facts. No surprise there either.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 9:10pm on 22 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @Larry Kealey

    I think the debate is getting too heated?

    When ignorance is bliss tis a folly to be wise.

    I trust the post was of interest and the comments to.

    The idea of a global temperature is an intellectual nonsense. Its a bit like taking Youngs modulii for all elastic materials and taking an average. The average of course is meaningless.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 9:26pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "When ignorance is bliss tis a folly to be wise."

    And you denialists are CERTAINLY blissful. As can be seen with this little denialist gem of "self-evident wisdom":

    "The idea of a global temperature is an intellectual nonsense. "

    Why?

    Is the temperature of a gas intellectual nonsense?

    Yet it is merely the average kinetic velocity of the constituent molecules of the gas.

    But there are velocities much, much higher.

    When a box of two separate liquids are kept apart by a wall and the wall removed, is the mixture to an average make-up of the two liquids intellectual nonsense?

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 9:28pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "The IPCC states unambiguously that Tom Tripp is a lead author yet "

    Where?

    wattsupwithtat has called him a lead author of the IPCC report.

    A hicksville news site called him a lead author of the IPCC report.

    But he wasn't a lead author of the IPCC report.

    He's not author of 99% of it.

    And STILL you avoid the question.

    How does that make him know climate science?

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 9:29pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "He believes IPCC projections are facts yet is blind to actual facts."

    Actual facts such as what?

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 9:32pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    ... we find that Gerlich and Tscheuschner obtain an absurd result by using a very unphysical assumption, that each part of the planet's surface immediately cools or heats to reach an equilibrium with the locally impinging solar radiation, thereby neglecting the thermal inertia of the oceans, atmosphere and ground and all other heat transfer processes within the atmosphere and surface. Were this to be the case, all parts of the Earth would immediately drop to almost absolute zero at night, and the discrepancy between Earths observed average temperature and the average on this hypothetical Earth would be very large, over 100 K.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 9:43pm on 22 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    YW

    you must live in a strange world where the IPCC list Tom Tripp as a LEAD AUTHOR and yet you cannot see it

    When did you start talking for the IPCC?

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 9:50pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    " LEAD AUTHOR and yet you cannot see it"

    Uh, that's because you're not the IPCC.

    Neither is warm. Or Lazzer. Or wimpy.

    That's the only place "LEAD AUTHOR" is mentioned.

    You aren't the IPCC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 9:50pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:


    And STILL you avoid the question.

    How does that make him know climate science?

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 9:55pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Computer models for complex systems such as climate do not work it is as simple as that"

    The IPCC say they do.

    Are you calling them liars?

    Jim Hansen says they do.

    Are you calling him a liar?

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 10:33pm on 22 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    #61 @wrapupwarm writes:

    "The idea of a global temperature is an intellectual nonsense. "

    I would agree that the idea of "global temperature" is nonsense...but I hardly find it intellectual.

    Why? one might ask...

    Well, for starters, temperature is essentially an (imperfect) measurement of heat content - when one says "global temperature" - what are we exactly measuring? The average lower trophospheric temperature? Average of temps in both upper and lower trophospheric regimes? Or should we include stratospheric temperatures? Do we weight temperatures by density and use a measure more akin to "heat content"? Do we give humid air more weight (as it takes more energy to raise 1 cm^3 of 90F with humidity of 85% by 1 degree than it does to raise 1 cm^3 of 35F with humidity of 10% by 1 degree). What about pressure? The same can be said regarding heat content of air with regards to pressure (like the difference between Houston and Denver).

    If we are saying "global temperature" - should we not include temperature measurements of the deep oceans? What about the temperature of the crust, mantle and core of the "globe"? Even if we are only considering the biosphere - does not that include the deep oceans and where do we define the "upper limit" of the atmosphere that "counts" when measuring "global temperature".

    At this point, the primary focus seems to be on measuring air temperatures at or near ground level, mainly on land. In my view, this does not represent a "true global temperature". It presents a very limited set of measurments related to air at ground level. While we have had satellite measurements for 30+ years, the instruments used by satellites have changed significantly over the years - as newer, "better", technologies are developed - adding to differences and uncertainties.

    What really is "global temperature"? I have yet to see a precise definition of what we are really measuring...

    @Tim - how would you define "global temperature" and what meaning would you assign to its value? What do you think would be a better measure?
    (I ask you as you usually have thoughtful responses related to questions such as this...cheers)

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 10:44pm on 22 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Mango,

    Perhaps you should re-check, you did not post the complete list of "lead authors" nor spokespersons - perhaps you should check to ensure "yeah_whatever" is not listed before making such assertions...

    It appears that the IPCC listed "Lead Authors" in alphabetical order (as opposed to "in order of contribution"). I would expect that "Lead Author" is only granted to those authors who are responsible for specific and important sections of the report.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 11:25pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Well, for starters, temperature is essentially an (imperfect) measurement of heat content - when one says "global temperature" - what are we exactly measuring? The average lower trophospheric temperature?"

    That is answered in the IPCC report.

    Ah, you haven't read that, have you.

    You both seem OK with the idea of temperature though. Why is it not possible to talk of average temperatures?

    If it was 20C today, 18C yesterday and 16C today, then the average temperature here is 18C.

    But the temperature here today is going to be no different really from the temperature just up the road. Or along main street.

    But a fair way away, it could be 20C there. Another place 18C. Another place 16C. Another place 16C.

    Average over the area covered would be 18C.

    Do you have problems with "sampling"???

    "Do we weight temperatures by density and use a measure more akin to "heat content"?"

    You don't use density for that. And heat content includes things that aren't temperature. And that doesn't change with density. He is more dense than H2, but H2 has more energy content at a given temperature.

    Ice is less dense than water at 0C but needs more heating to become water at 0C.

    Do you understand ANY science???

    It seems not.

    "In my view, this does not represent a "true global temperature". It presents a very limited set of measurments related to air at ground level."

    And your view is wrong.

    People who have more than just "their view" have proven it gives good indication of global temperature means.

    You're allowed your own opinions but you want to bring in your own facts.

    The facts are you CAN measure global temperature.

    The facts are you CAN calculate a global temperature from known inputs of energy and known effects going out.

    The facts are that you HAVE to have a greenhouse gas effect (which proves Gerlich's paper wrong).

    The facts are that you cannot explain the temperature differences with historical temperatures and current temperature changes without having a greenhouse gas effect from CO2.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 11:27pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Do we give humid air more weight (as it takes more energy to raise 1 cm^3 of 90F with humidity of 85% by 1 degree than it does to raise 1 cm^3 of 35F with humidity of 10% by 1 degree). What about pressure?"

    That's in the IPCC reports too. And the code used for even simple GCM programs.

    That you don't know the answers doesn't mean the answers are not unknown.

    You're insisting that because you don't know then AGW is wrong.

    That doesn't follow.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 11:28pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:


    And STILL you avoid the question.

    How does that make Tom know climate science?

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 11:29pm on 22 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @ Larry Kealey
    Someone once said that it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are an idiot than to open it and let them know you are an idiot. So here goes:-

    1 A global temperature is a nonsense.
    2 Temperature measurements through out the world exist going back many years and in the case of the CET to 1650.
    3 The graphs of temperature against time, given sensible scales will show from place to place whether there is a general trend. Also whether this trend is significant.
    4 What appears to have happened is that all of the limited data available has been played around with as if there is a defacto global temperature.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 11:30pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Maybe Larry et al are going for the Insanity Plea...

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 00:37am on 23 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    wrapup warm now states:

    "1 A global temperature is a nonsense."

    But how then can he say this:

    "All of the historical evidence shows that global warming has occurred in the past followed by a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/according_to_james_delingpole.html#P83224801

    ?

    Or this:

    "The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted."

    "CO2 emissions rising global temperatures in stasis/falling."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/anyone_seen_the_front_page.html#P82943593

    Or this:

    "Lets agree to disagree, because my view is that because global warming is not continuing as predicted, despite rising CO2 levels "

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/anyone_seen_the_front_page.html#P82947334

    (mind you, in

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/anyone_seen_the_front_page.html#P82943593

    he says this:


    A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.

    When in this post

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/some_climate_models_arent_wort.html#P83249069

    he says

    "Computer models for complex systems such as climate do not work it is as simple as that "

    It seems he really doesn't care what he says so long as it says "AGW is wrong".

    Denialist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 03:12am on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @wrapupwarm

    Cheers for that. I do think temperatures (lower trophosphere) have warmed somewhat over the last 150 years...best estimates, somewhere around 0.75C. I still have to wonder exactly what that really means and how accurate it is. I do KNOW from my own experience that temperatures have increased over the last 30 years in specific regions of the planet (as well as cooled prior to that).

    I believe a couple of posters have perhaps mis-interpreted my remarks, for that, my apologies, if I was unclear. With regards to temperature measurements, my whole point is that our concept of "average global temperature" comes from direct measurements over very limited regions of the earth - I base my assertions on where the temperature measurments since 1850 have come from. They have come from a limited number of measurment stations representing a very small part of the globe.

    I would also disagree with the assertion that the "IPCC" definition of "global temperature" is the only acceptable version. Although it is not very exciting, there is much debate about what "global temperature" really means.

    The purpose of my previous post was to provoke some thought with regards to the complexities involved in just defining "global temperature", much less all the other complexities involved. It would appear that I succeeded.

    Cheers.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 06:52am on 23 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    #67

    and neither are you

    Stephen Schneider tells us 20% at most of the IPCC know something about climate (500 people - less scientists than attended the last sceptic conference).

    Perhaps Tripp isn't a "climate scientist", but he is a LEAD author of the IPCC, which is exactly what i was saying.

    Hmmmm, let me see, if you do not consider Tripp to be a climate scientist, are you now saying that the IPCC's claim of 2500 scientists working on the AR4 is a lie?

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 06:55am on 23 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @larrykealey

    I believe a couple of posters have perhaps mis-interpreted my remarks, for that, my apologies, if I was unclear.

    not just yours, i think some posters mis-interpret remarks, because it suits their own beliefs

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 07:34am on 23 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    as far as i can tell, eli rabbit is an anonymous blogger, so who knows if he/she has any qualifications or published papers whatsoever

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 10:04am on 23 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 10:22am on 23 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @ EWE (Tup)

    I ignore you because I dislike aggressive posters however your post above could be taken as if I trolling.

    So, do you not know the difference between a global temperature and global warming/cooling.

    There is insufficient data to provide a global temperature, whatever that means. The best that can be done is to look at the temperature record at certain locations on the planet and other records and to say for instance:-

    1 Dartmoor used to be much warmer than at present because it was inhabited and cereals were grown.

    2 There was a little ice age

    3 There was a medieval warm period

    4 Historical levels of CO2 have been much higher in the past and life has survived.

    5 Large areas of the sahara desert used to be fertile.

    6 Global sea ice has increased over the last fifty years.

    Now I do not respond normally to your posts because you call me and other people Deniers well I trust this helps:-

    1 Fact There was a holocaust and millions of jews, other races and opponents of fascism were murdere.

    2 Fact: Group think due to propaganda took over in Germany resulting in 1 above.

    3 Fact: The hockey stick graph has been shown to be a statistical nonsense.

    4 Fact: The graphs used by those proposing the hypothesis that man made CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming are set out to show alarm, the vertical scale is deliberately distorted. A ponzi salesman would be proud of the result.

    5 Fact: People use abuse in an argument means they have lost the argument/plot.

    Please note any response by you to this or any other post will be ignored by me.



    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 10:47am on 23 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Hmmmm, let me see, if you do not consider Tripp to be a climate scientist, are you now saying that the IPCC's claim of 2500 scientists working on the AR4 is a lie?"

    Here is the broken brain of a denialist open for all to see.

    He states correctly that I do not consider Tripp to be a climate scientist. Even Tripp himself thinks he isn't.

    He then jumps straight to "scientist" and drops the "climate" bit.

    There's more science than climate science.

    So the answer is, Yes, he isn't a climate scientist and no, the 2500 scientists was approximately correct.

    Now, what gives Tripp in your estimation the power to say the other ~2499 scientists were wrong?

    He's not a climate scientist.

    He's a CEO of a manganese mining company.

    He co-wrote (and you still haven't shown where the IPCC calls Tripps a LEAD AUTHOR, so so far it's only the denialists who have called him such) a small section on how manganese is refined and mined.

    This doesn't require he know anything about climate science.

    Prove that he does.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 10:51am on 23 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    ""average global temperature" comes from direct measurements over very limited regions of the earth "

    And read up on statistics.

    It will tell you.

    And what happens when you select a subset of a greater group?

    You get an error on your estimation of what the REAL average is by equating it to the average you read from the subselection.

    If you'd done any maths and stats courses (funny how you didn't have to do that for your modelling work, then again, who knows whether you're telling the truth...), you may have heard of one way of quantifying this:

    The Student's T-distribution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student's_t-distribution

    Now are you going to say that centuries of mathematicians are wrong?

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 2:04pm on 23 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    YW #84 (changed your name have you?) claims that i have not shown where the IPCC say Tripp is a lead author, but conveniently forgets these posts, where I tell him exactly where the IPCC state Tripp is a lead author:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/bbc_stifles_climate_change_deb.html#P83039772

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/some_climate_models_arent_wort.html#P83252371

    If the moderorators would allow, I would give him the pdf link since he is unable to find the exact document entitled List of contributors and i thought he said he had read AR4, perhaps he is being economical with the truth again ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 3:12pm on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 88. At 3:16pm on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Mango,

    I think you are really just "beating a dead horse" with regards to whatever he calls himself now.

    I have admitted when I was mistaken or wrong on BBC as well as other sites. Usually with a statement along the lines of "I stand corrected, thank you for that...".

    I think you are wasting your time as "whatever he calls himself" has never (in any post I have read) even admitted the possibility that he has been mistaken or made any kind of error whatsoever.

    Why bother?

    Cheers Mate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 3:21pm on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    #86 @Mango, I had no trouble at all finding the list you refered to - without any links to guide me along the way...LOL

    According to what I read, you are quite correct. Mr. Tripp was indeed a "Lead Author" for the IPCC. (As opposed to a "(minor) contributor" as The Poster Formerly Known As yeah_whatever (TPFKAYW) has suggested/implied.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 3:40pm on 23 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    TPFKAYW

    lol!

    The .... artist formally known as yeah_whatever

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 5:47pm on 23 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @LarryKealey

    thanks for proving me right

    good to see any fool could follow the easy instructions ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 6:42pm on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Mango writes:

    "good to see any fool could follow the easy instructions ;)"

    "any fool..." Not exactly sure how to take that Mate (LOL)...but shall take it in the spirit in which I believe it was intended.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    PS: It is TPFKAYW - "The Poster Formerly Known As Yeah_Whatever"

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 8:54pm on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Mango,

    Interesting, TPFKAYW (its easier then trying to remember all those numbers) makes comments regarding my mathematics educations - I post some relevant examples of my education and ability - and it gets moderated. I wonder if it was referred?

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 9:04pm on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Mango,

    With regards to Mr. Tripp, his name was pretty far down on the list of IPCC "Lead Authors" and even though they are in alphabetical order, that could be coincidence.

    They could possibly be in order of "value" of contribution. The alphabetical thing could just be coincidence - but then again, I would probably assign a low probability to that possibility.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 9:45pm on 23 Jul 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    Perhaps this may give some idea of the probability:

    http://footblog.typepad.com/footblog/2007/06/the_odds_on_the.html

    Maybe Tripp should change his name to get noticed!

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 9:52pm on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Ron,

    I resent that - I may be a Texan, but I am also a Chelsea Fan - that would make them 7th. Does seem rather improbable doesn't it?

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 00:14am on 24 Jul 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 00:16am on 24 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @ MangoChutney

    Greetings I liked that hit you had in the seventies In the summer time when the weather is high.....

    @ Larry Kealey

    You support Chelsea? Bad luck. There is a major design fault with the stadium. All the seats face the football pitch:-]

    Lk are are you really a sky diver I hope you looked out for Stacey on the drop?

    Climate models are difficult to understand

    Now can we make life more simple for all.

    Sometimes we can think someone is wrong or shouting because of the way the post is structured?

    A suggestion to Yeah Whatever and the rest of us.
    When commenting on someone elses post
    Say @-----

    quote and end quote so there is no confusion.

    Take care and good night.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 00:53am on 24 Jul 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    Larry #96
    I can't comment. I quit the supporter habit many years ago which is just as well as the local team got relegated this year ;(

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 01:19am on 24 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @wrapupwarm

    My real team is Madrid...I was also a MU fan for a bit. I have a good friend here who is a Chelsea fanatic...so...

    Yes, I am really am a skydiver (827 skydives). My profile on the "other" newspaper comment section has my web page. My (skydiving) nickname is "CrazyLarry" - I won't get into why. I did get the nickname long before I started skydiving, a little over 4 years ago. I also started BASE jumping last May (08) and have 39 BASE jumps. Unfortunately, I have not been able to jump much for the last 9 months, but I should be back in the air much more next month.

    I spent two stints working on climate models - the first was more focused on Chaos Theory investigation rather than climate investigation, the second was developing a decision making model for "climate derivatives" - which became popular in the mid/late 90's. The first part of that was developing a historical database for the US. Just collecting and correcting the data was a much larger endeavour than expected. Keep in mind that we were not creating climate models for the sake of prediction, we were making market models which could be evaluated based upon a number of scenarios. Admitedly, much of it statistical in nature. However, the real game was to utilize complex derivatives (and even create new "financial products") To make money whether the temperature went up or went down - optimize the product mix in the market with adequate hedges. (some customers included natural gas distribution companies who wanted to purchase options at a fixed price - insurance against spikes in gas prices - like Southwest did with Jet fuel).

    I also agree completely with your suggestions on clarity. I try to quote other posters and use seperators like
    -----------------end of partial post------------------

    It makes it much easier to understand and follow.


    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 01:28am on 24 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:



    @Rob #99
    To be honest, Real Madrid is my team. I was a big fan (living in Madrid) in 2000 when they beat MU - the party lasted 3 days. Your car was where it was...cause it wasn't gonna move...LOL I do have a good friend here who is a major Chelsea fan - so I go with it...

    My real passion is skydiving. At my home Drop Zone, we will host the US Nationals in October (along with the world swoop tour). It should be a blast.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 07:01am on 24 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @wrapupwarm

    thanks, but i don't sing it anymore - social responsibility and drink driving laws

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 11:40am on 25 Jul 2009, DavidSRoss wrote:

    The key thing I noticed in this study was that models were selected in hindsight.
    The whole study basically seems to discover that breaking up the selection of the models into time periods and comparing successful examples and certain time periods with other time periods show that models are inconsistent over sustained time periods.
    I would be interested to know more about how they selected the original 17 models used for aggregating these tests. They say "using 17 of the IPCC AR4 models." but don't elaborate from what size of group they selected from, and what criteria they applied to select. In figure 1 of the paper there is an apparent error using the full ensemble of these models of only 0.02 degrees C to the real world base period mean.

    If any selection of models had this real accuracy and predictive ability, and had been chosen beforehand of the test, I think we would have heard about it. This whole meta-study seems strong on comparisons using hindsight knowledge, no matter how cleverly the aggregates are weighed and compared it does not seem to touch on the subject of future predictability and observing unknowns being revealed and confirmed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 02:22am on 26 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Given that the models are based on historical data, the fact that they cannot even model the same history very well says everything you need to know about the models.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 09:31am on 26 Jul 2009, DavidSRoss wrote:

    @Jack_Hughes_NZ

    Indeed, and the fact that the authors had the luxury of hindsight in selecting these models disturbs me. There never seems to be included a discussion of the risk of confirmation bias. James Randi famously showed confirmation bias occurred in even the most rigorous looking lab work and that this inevitably influenced the outcome to follow the pre-conceived hypothesis.

    So playing with a bunch of computer models and measuring them against past data in this way seems ripe for this risk.

    I guess I must be showing my layman naivety ;) But I dont know how modellers mange to sustain their interest in this subject. I would certainly prick up my ears if a study started by saying:

    "10 years ago we selected such-such ensembles with x reasoning and today we are proud to announce..."

    Otherwise these papers just remind me that I am observing the modern equivalent of a debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 7:13pm on 26 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Jack, @David

    With regards to the excercise (averaging 17 models with no weighting) - I see to very fundamental problems.

    First - regardless of whether they weighted out put for the models or not (BTW @David - I believe it was 17 of 24 models) - the first issue is that this does not represent a "scientific" study (nor did the Hadley Ctr "Projections") - it is a statistical exercie - and nothing more. There is no "predicitve capability here - nor should there be". This is statistics - nothing more. Take Hadley's projections for example - they took one model, made 300 runs with it average the results (which differed wildly) and averaged them. In my view, this does not represent a "good planning tool" for spending Trillions (GBP).

    The second is more fundamenatal. If you read some of the works of Dr. E Lorenz (famous for the Lorenz Attractor, amongst other things), in 1961, he made known his belief that we would "never" be able realiabley "predict the climate" with any modicum of accuracy. Dr. Lorenz (MIT) was a climatologies as well as one of the pioneers of Chaos theory and one of the first "computer climate modelers". That is not to say that we can't have an "effect" on the weather - but rather than while we can provide inputs (i.e., clearing forests, filling in wetlands, emitting CO2, etc) - we realy can't predict the outcome (i.e. the overall effects on climate from these inputs) Gavin Schmidt make the same statements a couple of weeks ago - he said that he believed that we would never have the ability to "predict" climate more than two weeks out - which is basically nothing. Mr. Schmidt is also hardly one would call a "denier".

    There are certainly patters on the weather due to climate factors which we can make some predictions around - for example, based upon climatictic conditions, we can reasonably guess that the El Nino will be weak or strong - but it is really only a guess. We also have observed changes in weather patters due to En Nino (ENSO) as well as the PDO and other processes - but we don't have the ability to "put them together".

    The "projections" we have seen, Particularly Hadley and IPCC - are more "statistics" exercies using averages, rather than anything else. Flipping coin will give you a 50-50 chance of heads or tails each time you flip it - regarless of whether the last 10 times it has been heads. These models are much more complicated with lots of "guess work" involved. The odds of "accuracy" are much lower than 50% - as with a coin.

    The models are useful in heling identify areas for further research and study and to focus - but that is all. They have no use is "predicting" future climate, nor as planning tools.

    The real issue I have is that while most models are paid for by government money - gaining access to the models themselves is all but impossible unless you are buddies with the modeler. We only get the "output" (results of model runs) - not the models themselves - and this is what is "peer reviewed". Before we spend trillions based upon computer games - should be not get to look at the code? GISS for example is Fourtran - developed in the 80 - with so many cluges and modifications that the code is just about unintelligable and crashes repeatedly - my understanding (from people at NASA) is that it is very difficult to get it to just run...

    The climate is a chaotic dynamic system - one which we understand very little about. We need do to do much more research to develop just a good fundamental understanding. Because of the nature of our climate system - I do not think we will ever be able to make accurate preductions - we will be able to use past observations and make qualitative predictions - such as "gee we just had a big volcano erupt - we sould expect cooling for a bit" - but we really cant go beyond that.

    We don't even understand Earth's carbon cycle well enough to make predictions about C02, much less the real effects on the climate from CO2. Why spend all this money creating "carbon markets" which we already know - won't solve the problem they are intended to - nor will trillions spent on wind.

    We need to go back to the drawing board. The new technologies will come for cheaper and cleaner energy - but its gonna take time. The more taxes you levie and the more madates while are made will only serve to stifle progress - not accelerate it.

    Been in hospital a couple of days - mind not quite clean - I hope this make sense. Probably be back in for a few days beginning tomorrow - but hope to be back before end of week.

    Take care

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 9:32pm on 26 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    Best wishes "Crazy Larry" !!

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 9:40pm on 26 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @touchNeilHyde

    Thank you very much.

    Kindest Regards

    -CL

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 9:44pm on 26 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @wrapupwarm writes:

    4 Fact: The graphs used by those proposing the hypothesis that man made CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming are set out to show alarm, the vertical scale is deliberately distorted. A ponzi salesman would be proud of the result.

    -------- end of excerpt from wrapupwarm--------------------

    I am afraid I must disagree with you assertion. I believe that a ponzi salesman would laugh his butt off and say something to the effect of "this was the best you could come up with?". But, then again P.T.Barnam's Axiom still holds true.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 1:33pm on 27 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    the MWP strikes back:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17516-hotter-weather-fed-growth-of-incan-empire.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

    The higher temperatures, starting around 1150, ended thousands of years of cold aridity, and enabled Incan farmers to build mountainside terraces for growing crops at altitudes previously too cold to support agriculture.

    The extra warmth, lasting around 400 years, also supplied extra water for irrigation in the shape of melt-water from Andean glaciers at higher altitudes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 9:02pm on 27 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @110

    Mango , come on stop spreading rumours !!! You know the MWP only had any effect in Europe !!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 00:40am on 28 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Mango (#110)

    The only error I see is that the MWP ended about 1000 years of cooler climate (as I read the history).

    @Neil (#111)

    I am assuming that you are making a joke about MWP. If not, then do a bit of research on Greenland - during the MWP, the Vikings established a colony there, it (the Viking Colony) lasted about 200 years until it turned cold again. The ruins from this agricultural community were uncovered from melting ice only in the last 10 years or so. This would seem to indicate that it was warmer in Greenland then (around 1000 AD) than now - as it is still not warm enough to farm in Greenland where the ruins lie. Additionally, you can find evidence in the form of proxies which suggest that temperature variations associated with the MWP in New Zealand were about the same as in Europe.

    There is also significant evidence to suggest that the Little Ice Age was also a global event.

    BTW: @Neil - thank you for your concerns, the doc visit went better than I expected, infection, pain, but no surgery and my last chemo is done (thank god)

    Cheers Mates.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 06:54am on 28 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    morning guys

    Larry, the article states the warming started around 1150AD, so i don't think it's not connected, especially when you consider the evidence from CO2science, which has many records, from many countries, collected by different scietists, showing the MWP was global.

    (neil was joking)

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 9:24pm on 28 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    .......I'll own up !!! My sarcastic humour sometimes fails to com across adequately in blog posts.

    There are some interesting snipits on this site:

    http://co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html

    ....now reinforced by this latest paper .

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 9:36pm on 28 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    ....ps Larry,

    Good news re the docs, hope things will look up for you from now on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 01:58am on 29 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Mango

    Here is a reconstruction using 18 non-tree ring proxies, you might find interesting:

    http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/

    the dates are off a bit, but the trend is clear

    Cheers

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 06:20am on 29 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Forget that barbecue summer says the Met Office

    Then we get this delphic forecast:

    "The Met Office also says temperatures have been around or above normal, and that the end of August might be better again."

    What does 'around normal' mean ? Well they also say 'above' so perhaps it means normal or below normal. So the temperatures have been below normal, normal, and above normal.

    And the end of August might be better. Or then again ....

    And these same people claim to forecast the weather right out to the year 2099.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 08:34am on 29 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    thanks larry, i've seen it before - i will try and root out the 6000 proxy study, which basically tells us that temperature varies

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 6:31pm on 29 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Jack (#117)

    Huh? LMAO

    I had a very difficult time understanding your post - about like the Met office reports...after a few reads, I think I got it.

    Enjoy the BBQ, but have the umbrella handy.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 04:00am on 30 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Larry,

    The background is that in April the BBC was proud to announce the Met Office's forecast of a "BBQ summer". The word 'barbecue' came from the Met Office - as discussed in the next thread on this very subject.

    This forecast has now been revised - but the wording is unclear.

    They say that temperatures have been around and above normal. The word 'around' includes the idea of being below and above. So they are saying that temperatures have been below normal, normal, and above normal. Who'da thunk it.

    Also note the word 'might' in there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 1:32pm on 30 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    hmmm, i can't find the 6000 proxy record study i thought i had seen, so i guess i will withdraw comment #118

    apologies ladies and gentlemen

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 11:54pm on 30 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Jack,

    Thanks - I got it. I have followed the Met Office. I also wonder why you keep paying them when they are wrong more often then right?

    @Mango (#118)

    No prob. I have seen a lot of the proxy studies - I think every one that I have seen showed the MWP and LIA - except of course, Mann's hockey stick.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 01:04am on 31 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @ Jack hughes

    Is it weather or is it climate? You need to get down in that sunny southern weather.

    I had forgotten until recently the contribution of NZ to science in the shape of Ernest Rutherford:-
    If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.

    One day the boys from the land my land of my fathers will beat you at rugby.

    Hey i also think Robert Carter is from NZ?

    Ikealey how are you doing, old Cold plays gone I see.

    Comment is free if you agree.

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 6:23pm on 02 Aug 2009, Gednorth wrote:

    Looks like CO2 is not the problem after all:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/warming_caused_by_soot_not_co2.html

    Good site by the way; it debunks a lot of the global warming myths currently around. I think the BBC should take alternative views on this subject a little more seriously than the couple of footnotes it currently provides.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 10:15pm on 04 Aug 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @wrapupwarm

    Thanks, doing better - finished chemo week ago monday, starting to "return to life"...started physical therapy this week, need to gain back the 50 lbs I lost (1/3 of my "normal" weight). Right now, thinks look good - but they are not "giving odds".

    regarding statistics, it might be useful to point out that the Met Office "Projections" for 2080 (as I understand it) was based upon 300 runs of their "climate prediction model" - they took the output of the 300 runs (which had wildly different resulting scenarios) and averaged them to create the "projection".

    It is also interesting to note that the "average" of 20 of the 24 models used by the IPCC produces a better "model" than any of the models themselves...again statistics.

    All our weather and climate stats are just that "statistics". What the "normal temp" for a specific location on a specific day on a month is just the average of the temperature readings to date. Same for precipitation.

    Cheers.



    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 12:57pm on 05 Aug 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @larry #125

    statistics v science: pretty much what i said here -

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/barbecue_summer_gets_roasting.html#P83747390

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 4:56pm on 23 Aug 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Whether the models are correct or not is not the important point. It is that the observed facts are that polar ice is melting and glaciers are receding at an alarming rate, far faster than the models predicted. To whatever degree this is due to human activity or not, it portends drastic changes to the world's ability to sustain human life as we have come to expect it for much longer. Whatever humans could do to mitigate the process whether they are causing some of it, all of it, or none of it is questionable as the odds that any changes in human behavior in a time frame that could slow or reverse the trend is unlikely. This is the result of political considerations which refuses to accept that the earth cannot sustain even the current level of human population at its present level of comfort and efficiency. Yet population continues to grow, the impovrished demand the same levels of comfort and freedom those in wealthier more developed nations enjoy, while so called environmentalists tell us that we in those more developed nations must sacrifice our own standard of living while those in poorer nations remain indifferent to the global problem. That is unacceptable to the majority in the developed world. Therefore, it is likely that the process whatever its cause will continue and it may already be beyond the power of the human species to reverse it. "Facts on the ground" don't care whether or not mathematical models could have predicted them or not or could predict what will happen. Personally, I've moved to higher ground than I used to live in. I expect to live to see sea levels rise, farmland and forests turn to deserts, severe tropical storms and climatic conditions become the norm in what have been the temperate zones, and hundreds of millions flee in panic with nowhere to go. I've never expected the world to end this way but with each passing day, its certainty becomes more apparent.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.