BethesdaWX Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 When you remove Tree ring Proxies Peer reviewed, 1.6C temperature change at the top percentile. Eliminates Tree Rings COMPLETELY http://www.ncasi.org...il.aspx?id=3025 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The poll of 200 climate experts, which averaged a prediction of 3-4C warming by 2100, seems to suggest that most in the field of climatology lean towards the higher numbers, thus nearly .3C/decade being necessary to reach this amount of warming in 89 years. If it were linear, which you know it is not (but you know but obviously don't care you're just going to continue lying to try and win an argument) Plus... a poll by a newspaper is hardly scientific. The IPCC process is scientific. The IPCC mean is .18C/decade. This is the standard. This is a casual survey by a newspaper.. most likely the scientists surveyed answered 3-4C because the IPCC mean is 3C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The Hadley Center doesn't get to update the work of all the other thousands of contributors to the IPCC. They might like to, but they can't. The IPCC mean is .18C/decade. To claim that the "standard" is .2-.3C/decade is just lying. Straight up. Straightforward. Lying. LOL, you're a joke. When the Hadley Center, 200 independent climatologists, and two of the major IPCC models show near .3C of warming/decade, I think it's fair to say this is part of the standard. Of course the Hadley Center can't reverse what was written in IPCC 2007, but it can amend its own stance on climate change, which it is clearly doing in the direction of the higher estimates of global warming. Also, .2C/decade is a good estimate of the mean of IPCC models which is below most of the more extreme global warming predictions which are going to be in trouble if we see no significant warming this decade, and that was the topic of conversation here. Anyway, I gave an approximate range, and it's clearly supported by many including Hadley and hundreds of climatologists. No need to get nitpicky again, Skier, just because you feel bad that AGW theory isn't working out well and want to mitigate the appearance of damage to its image by suggesting that most of these people/models didn't actually expect .2-.3C/decade. It's just sad that you waste your time challenging these points, either contribute something real to the discussion or find something meaningful to do outside of nitpicking everything I say on a weather forum. It's really tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The fact is .2-.3C/decade is not the standard for the past decade. The IPCC mean is .18C/decade. This is just another classic case of zucker coming up with every manipulation of data possible to refrain from admitting he was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 If it were linear, which you know it is not (but you know but obviously don't care you're just going to continue lying to try and win an argument) Plus... a poll by a newspaper is hardly scientific. The IPCC process is scientific. The IPCC mean is .18C/decade. This is the standard. This is a casual survey by a newspaper.. most likely the scientists surveyed answered 3-4C because the IPCC mean is 3C. I am taking into account the fact that it's not linear. Even if the warming accelerates significantly, you're going to need at least .3C/decade now to get to the Hadley updated estimate of 4C by 2070, or presumably 6C by the end of the century. You'd probably need like .25C/decade to verify the higher IPCC models. And most climatologists and climate agencies are clearly leaning higher than the official IPCC mean, which is old information now anyway, so I think it's correct to take into account the fact that most human predictions are significantly higher than what the models spit out as average warming rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The fact is .2-.3C/decade is not the standard for the past decade. The IPCC mean is .18C/decade. This is just another classic case of zucker coming up with every manipulation of data possible to refrain from admitting he was wrong. Dude can you f'cking stop? It was a general offhand comment anyway, doesn't need to be scrutinized by mathematical means and such. It's just an estimate of what climatologists think. Most would not reject the idea of .2-.3C warming being an acceptable estimate for the 2000s/2010s. Hadley says 4C highly possible by 2070. Most climatologists say 3-4 warming this century. Seems like .2-.3C is a reasonable range allowing for some acceleration later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I am taking into account the fact that it's not linear. Even if the warming accelerates significantly, you're going to need at least .3C/decade now to get to the Hadley updated estimate of 4C by 2070, or presumably 6C by the end of the century. You'd probably need like .25C/decade to verify the higher IPCC models. And most climatologists and climate agencies are clearly leaning higher than the official IPCC mean, which is old information now anyway, so I think it's correct to take into account the fact that most human predictions are significantly higher than what the models spit out as average warming rates. No, they are not. If you had any familiarity with the field you would know this. You are picking a few select scientists and pretending they are representative of the entire field of climatology, because you have no actual familiarity with the rest of the field. The IPCC remains the best consensus of the field. The IPCC mean warming rate for the past decade was ~.18C/decade, not .2-.3C/decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The fact is .2-.3C/decade is not the standard for the past decade. The IPCC mean is .18C/decade. We're not talking about the past decade, we're talking about the 2010s. Stop acting like an ass on here dude, it's really annoying and tiresome. No one wants to hear you spilling your condescending and argumentative BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 When you remove Tree ring Proxies Peer reviewed, 1.6C temperature change at the top percentile. Eliminates Tree Rings COMPLETELY http://www.ncasi.org...il.aspx?id=3025 I can see why this is "ignored", Skier, your BS "no peer reviewed temperature reconstructions show more than 0.8C of warming" has been officially debunked! You need tree rings and their crappy measurements to get "unprecedented warming". Thus, IPCC models do not reconstruct the past correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Dude can you f'cking stop? It was a general offhand comment anyway, doesn't need to be scrutinized by mathematical means and such. It's just an estimate of what climatologists think. Most would not reject the idea of .2-.3C warming being an acceptable estimate for the 2000s/2010s. Hadley says 4C highly possible by 2070. Most climatologists say 3-4 warming this century. Seems like .2-.3C is a reasonable range allowing for some acceleration later on. If it was a general offhand comment, then just admit it was wrong, which it obviously is to anybody with familiarity with the field. The mean expectation of climatologists is ~.18C/decade for the 2000s, not .2-.3C/decade which is extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 No, they are not. If you had any familiarity with the field you would know this. You are picking a few select scientists and pretending they are representative of the entire field of climatology, because you have no actual familiarity with the rest of the field. The IPCC remains the best consensus of the field. The IPCC mean warming rate for the past decade was ~.18C/decade, not .2-.3C/decade. The IPCC study was released in 2007 so you're talking about models/studies put together in 2005/2006. I think Hadley is plenty representative of the field, it's one of the four sources of accurate global temperatures and a major national organization that informs a lot of policy on climate change. I also think 200 climatologists going a bit higher than the IPCC says something, that was the whole point of the Guardian article, estimates are being revised up (why I have no idea)... You have no familiarity with the field either, Skier, you're just some kid on the Internet who thinks he's smart, like me. I never said "The IPCC warming rate is .2-.3C/decade." I said a general standard would be .2-.3C/decade, which is entirely fair given the recent revisions upward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 All I was making was a very simple straightforward correction to the claim that .2-.3C/decade is the "standard" expectation of climatologists. What turned it into a big deal is your refusal to accept this very simple no big deal correction. The IPCC mean is .18C/decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 If it was a general offhand comment, then just admit it was wrong, which it obviously is to anybody with familiarity with the field. The mean expectation of climatologists is ~.18C/decade for the 2000s, not .2-.3C/decade which is extreme. LOL, then why does the Hadley Center seem to be touting so much more warming? Why do 200 climatologists seem to be leaning towards more than .18C/decade, which is only going to end up producing about 2.5C warming by 2100 if you follow the curve? They are clearly thinking something in the .2C-.3C range for the next decade if they don't believe the 2010s are an exception. You never answer any of my questions/comments, you just go on criticizing. You skip over everything which is what I mean about being a terrible debater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 All I was making was a very simple straightforward correction to the claim that .2-.3C/decade is the "standard" expectation of climatologists. What turned it into a big deal is your refusal to accept this very simple no big deal correction. The past decade has failed miserably then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 You have no familiarity with the field either, Skier, you're just some kid on the Internet who thinks he's smart, like me. Except unlike you, I actually read the scientific sources in depth instead of picking up on a few things here and there mostly from places like WUWT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 All I was making was a very simple straightforward correction to the claim that .2-.3C/decade is the "standard" expectation of climatologists. What turned it into a big deal is your refusal to accept this very simple no big deal correction. The IPCC mean is .18C/decade. I was not saying what the IPCC mean was. Do you see me write anywhere, "The IPCC mean is .2-.3C/decade." No! The global expectation among climatologists is a little higher which allows for a .2C-.3C range for the 2010s as a standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The past decade has failed miserably then. No it has not, we are on the lower edge of IPCC confidence intervals, which is not surprising given the solar minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Except unlike you, I actually read the scientific sources in depth instead of picking up on a few things here and there mostly from places like WUWT. no you read hansen data, make sh*t up out of your mind, and ignore evidence that goes against you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I was not saying what the IPCC mean was. Do you see me write anywhere, "The IPCC mean is .2-.3C/decade." No! The global expectation among climatologists is a little higher which allows for a .2C-.3C range for the 2010s as a standard. The "global expectation among climatologists" is not a little higher. You are basing this off the extremist Hadley Center and a casual newspaper survey which doesn't even support your claims since the range of 3-4C overlaps with the IPCC mean of 3.1C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 No it has not, we are on the lower edge of IPCC confidence intervals, which is not surprising given the solar minimum. read my previous post, you were incorrect regarding the MWP peer reviewed analysis, now admit it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Except unlike you, I actually read the scientific sources in depth instead of picking up on a few things here and there mostly from places like WUWT. I've read a lot of these papers that you have, or at least excerpts on them. I've also read plenty of books about global warming such as Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers, Elizabeth Colbert's Field Notes from a Catastrophe, and Bjorn Lomberg's Cool It...so don't pretend that you're the only one with knowledge in here. I've also read sections of IPCC 2007 such as where they discuss solar variation and climate modeling. I hardly ever use WUWT except for updates on sea ice/global temps/ENSO, don't really follow the articles. Interesting how you assume I'm a typical blogger skeptic when in reality I was a very staunch mainstream believer in AGW until a couple years ago when I began questioning it, and I still am well to the mainstream of many people on WUWT, as well as probably more convinced of AGW than Bethesda or Isotherm. Also, some of us actually have things to do besides reading a ton of boring journal articles on climate change. It's great you bring the knowledge to the forum, but you have to realize most people are just going to be using popular media articles like the New York Times, the Guardian, etc. These sources sometimes exaggerate the amount of global warming that climatologists believe in, to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 There are plenty of other estimates of climate sensitivity that were published after the IPCC inclusion deadline which show lower than the IPCC mean of 3C. If you are interested in reading these newer estimates, I can provide the citations. I provided one such estimate earlier today. Or you can go on pretending that the standard has risen in the past 5 years and is now .2-.3C/decade... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The "global expectation among climatologists" is not a little higher. You are basing this off the extremist Hadley Center and a casual newspaper survey which doesn't even support your claims since the range of 3-4C overlaps with the IPCC mean of 3.1C. The Hadley Center is not considered extremist, it's the same as NASA's GISS only on the other side of the pond. Very mainstream and with ample contributions to IPCC. They admit that they're leaning towards the higher side of the IPCC estimates as well, which means they fall into the .2C-.3C range. Hansen also has stated publicly that he finds the higher estimates better, though he doesn't really say what he means by "the longer run": Thus climate models with 3°C sensitivity for doubled CO2, incorporating only the fast feedbacks, are able to achieve good agreement with observed warming of the past century. We suggest, however, that these models provide only a lower limit on the expected warming on century time scales due to the assumed forcings. The real world will be aiming on the longer run at a warming corresponding to the higher climate sensitivity. (Hansen 2007, bold original) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 And plenty of other respectable sources continue to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 There are plenty of other estimates of climate sensitivity that were published after the IPCC inclusion deadline which show lower than the IPCC mean of 3C. If you are interested in reading these newer estimates, I can provide the citations. I provided one such estimate earlier today. Or you can go on pretending that the standard has risen in the past 5 years and is now .2-.3C/decade... I'm sure there are lower estimates...but the ones most people are going to hear about (like me) are Hansen, Hadley, IPCC. And those all confirm that .2-.3C is a reasonable standard for the warming expected in the next decade. Perhaps .15C-.4C would be better to encompass all the opinions out there, but my figure was an estimate. You can't just cast off Hadley as irrelevant and extremist since they're one of the biggest and more influential climate organizations in the world. Their 4C by the 2060s is a prediction that's been disseminated all over the popular press and certainly informs the debate, so it's part of the standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I'm sure there are lower estimates...but the ones most people are going to hear about (like me) are Hansen, Hadley, IPCC. And those all confirm that .2-.3C is a reasonable standard for the warming expected in the next decade. Perhaps .15C-.4C would be better to encompass all the opinions out there, but my figure was an estimate. You can't just cast off Hadley as irrelevant and extremist since they're one of the biggest and more influential climate organizations in the world. Their 4C by the 2060s is a prediction that's been disseminated all over the popular press and certainly informs the debate, so it's part of the standard. I wasn't saying that what you "hear" is the consensus is less than .2-.3C. What I have said is that the consensus is lower than .2-.3C. The consensus was and remains around .18C/decade (probably like .1-.26 as a range). Forgive me, I thought we were discussing the actual science not popular media representations of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 No it has not, we are on the lower edge of IPCC confidence intervals, which is not surprising given the solar minimum. If the lack of solar activity recently can contribute to such an observable "down tick" in the hypothetical AGW conclusion of unrelenting warming, why is the counter argument of the preceding decades abundance of solar activity "down played" as a potential factor in the "up tick" of the previous decadal temp record, in the AGW camps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I wasn't saying that what you "hear" is the consensus is less than .2-.3C. What I have said is that the consensus is lower than .2-.3C. The consensus was and remains around .18C/decade (probably like .1-.26 as a range). Forgive me, I thought we were discussing the actual science not popular media representations of it. I think "standard" is a pretty ambiguous word and could mean anything from IPCC reports to the media. But the Hadley Center's 4C by 2060 is NOT a media representation...that's what they found when they tweaked with the IPCC's more aggressive models to allow for some more positive feedback loops. So I definitely think that can be considered part of the consensus/standard. Also, the quote from Hansen is from a 2007 paper he wrote, has nothing to do with the popular press. He clearly seems to be leaning higher on the scale of centuries than the IPCC, though he doesn't explicitly give a range for the next decade obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 If the lack of solar activity recently can contribute to such an observable "down tick" in the hypothetical AGW conclusion of unrelenting warming, why is the counter argument of the preceding decades of an abundance of solar activity "down played" as a potential factor in the "up tick" of the previous decadal temp record in the AGW camps? Maybe in the media it is downplayed but an understanding that the 11-yr solar cycle amplifies and depresses the warming has been understood for a while in the scientific literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I think "standard" is a pretty ambiguous word and could mean anything from IPCC reports to the media. Except you specifically said .2-.3C was the standard of climatologists. Nice try though. Which it isn't. Numerous studies in the last 5 years peg the equilibrium sensitivity and transient climate response lower than the IPCC mean of 3C. And the IPCC mean was around .18C/decade at the start of the 21st century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.