Global Warming Predictions

[skierinvermont]

Pretty dumb exaggeration and directly at odds with what he has published.

Here's just one of many times I have called Hansen's comments stupid. Right here in this thread.

[WeatherRusty]

As explained, it's not at all hypocritical you are simply taking statements out of context. In terms of learning more about the actual science, no I don't think off-the cuff poorly thought out comments to the media are very relevant compared to what a scientist publishes in a peer-reviewed journal, especially when they are in direct contradiction to what the given scientist has published in peer-reviewed journals. Sure we can criticize them and agree they were poorly thought out. What I object to is using those same comments to try and undermine good peer-reviewed science.

The predictions in question in my thread represent deeply held opinions about how the climate works for the people that made the comments. And I'm not using these comments to try and discredit peer-reviewed literature. Those are two fundamental differences between my thread and the comment you have quoted.

All you're doing now is trying to play semantic "gotcha games" because you're an apologist for climate stupidity and disinformation and there's no other way to try and defend the stupidity and disinformation on display in the thread than to attack my motives.

Why is that the skeptics are allowed to throw everything but the kitchen sink at AGW science, yet when someone creates a thread which points out the non-scientific nature in much of the skeptical arguments they get the thread closed down for being "pointless".

Skeptics/deniers are treated as if they occupy equal ground with the body of peer-reviewed science. They do not, and unless or until media outlets understand that, the whole enterprise of science is imperiled by obfuscation tactics from those with an interest in undermining that science. Free speech is a right to speak your mind or opinion which can easily be abused.

Shutting down a thread which points out the abuse of free speech and lack of scientific integrity by skeptics/deniers of AGW is nothing less than taking sides by a media outlet in a misguided attempt at fairness.

[tacoman25]

Why is that the skeptics are allowed to throw everything but the kitchen sink at AGW science, yet when someone creates a thread which points out the non-scientific nature in much of the skeptical arguments they get the thread closed down for being "pointless".

Skeptics/deniers are treated as if they occupy equal ground with the body of peer-reviewed science. They do not, and unless or until media outlets understand that, the whole enterprise of science is imperiled by obfuscation tactics from those with an interest in undermining that science. Free speech is a right to speak your mind or opinion which can easily be abused.

Shutting down a thread which points out the abuse of free speech and lack of scientific integrity by skeptics/deniers of AGW is nothing less than taking sides by a media outlet in a misguided attempt at fairness.

You do realize that skiier's thread was focused primarily on statements made by posters on here, while this thread is about predictions actually published various places, from various professional sources? A bit of a difference. The other thread was a meanspirited criticism of forum members. This thread is not.

In addition, this thread doesn't start by calling those who made the predictions "fantastically stupid".

[LakeEffectKing]

Why is that the skeptics are allowed to throw everything but the kitchen sink at AGW science, yet when someone creates a thread which points out the non-scientific nature in much of the skeptical arguments they get the thread closed down for being "pointless".

Skeptics/deniers are treated as if they occupy equal ground with the body of peer-reviewed science. They do not, and unless or until media outlets understand that, the whole enterprise of science is imperiled by obfuscation tactics from those with an interest in undermining that science. Free speech is a right to speak your mind or opinion which can easily be abused.

Shutting down a thread which points out the abuse of free speech and lack of scientific integrity by skeptics/deniers of AGW is nothing less than taking sides by a media outlet in a misguided attempt at fairness.

Nice irrelevant rant.

[skierinvermont]

You do realize that skiier's thread was focused primarily on statements made by posters on here, while this thread is about predictions actually published various places, from various professional sources? A bit of a difference. The other thread was a meanspirited criticism of forum members. This thread is not.

In addition, this thread doesn't start by calling those who made the predictions "fantastically stupid".

I didn't call the posters fantastically stupid, I called the predictions fantastically stupid. Which they are. I can't call a spade a spade?

Oh well I guess when people make up utterly inane drivel on here we should coddle it and nobody should ever criticize it.

[tacoman25]

I didn't call the posters fantastically stupid, I called the predictions fantastically stupid. Which they are. I can't call a spade a spade?

Oh well I guess when people make up utterly inane drivel on here we should coddle it and nobody should ever criticize it.

1) If you say someone made a fantastically stupid prediction, you are pretty much calling them stupid. A prediction doesn't have intelligence, a person does.

2) None of the predictions you listed as FAILS were "utterly inane drivel". They were simply predictions that were wrong. Just like some of the ones in this thread. Except they were made by amateurs on a weather forum.

Anyway, that thread is dead, as it should be. And no, in case you were wondering, I didn't even say anything to the mods about it.

[skierinvermont]

1) If you say someone made a fantastically stupid prediction, you are pretty much calling them stupid. A prediction doesn't have intelligence, a person does.

2) None of the predictions you listed as FAILS were "utterly inane drivel". They were simply predictions that were wrong.

Anyway, that thread is dead, as it should be. And no, in case you were wondering, I didn't even say anything to the mods about it.

No but you adequately derailed it, along with Bethesda's name calling, that it needed to be shut down. I would have shut it down too if I was a mod.. obviously the skeptics on here can't take the heat when their unscientific garbage is called out for what it really is.

1) Not true at all. Some of the most brilliant people in history have also done some of the stupidest and worst things.

2) Yes they were inane drivel. They are completely implausible and directly contradictory to a rudimentary understanding of climate.

[tacoman25]

No but you adequately derailed it, along with Bethesda's name calling, that it needed to be shut down. I would have shut it down too if I was a mod.. obviously the skeptics on here can't take the heat when their unscientific garbage is called out for what it really is.

1) Not true at all. Some of the most brilliant people in history have also done some of the stupidest and worst things.

2) Yes they were inane drivel. They are completely implausible and directly contradictory to a rudimentary understanding of climate.

Oh, it's my fault your thread got shut down huh? Nice try. The mod said the thread was "pointless", which was exactly what I called it. And since just about every thread on here gets "derailed" by arguing, there was nothing unusual about that one in that respect.

1) It's still meanspirited to call being wrong "fantastically stupid". Semantic it away all you want, but it's obviously an insult to someone when you say they did something "fantastically stupid".

2) So Goddard's sea ice prediction was inane drivel...I guess all other sea ice predictions that have missed were also. Just because a prediction turns out wrong doesn't prove one thing about the logic behind it. Again, to be fair, you would have to judge all missed scientific predictions this way....which you clearly don't. Only the ones made by skeptics are "inane drivel" and "completely implausible".

DOUBLE STANDARD.

[tacoman25]

1) If you say someone made a fantastically stupid prediction, you are pretty much calling them stupid. A prediction doesn't have intelligence, a person does.

2) None of the predictions you listed as FAILS were "utterly inane drivel". They were simply predictions that were wrong. Just like some of the ones in this thread. Except they were made by amateurs on a weather forum.

Anyway, that thread is dead, as it should be. And no, in case you were wondering, I didn't even say anything to the mods about it.

[Snow_Miser]

^Taco, the Global Warming Proponents are really starting to become this desperate it seems... attacking amateurs whose forecasts have been wrong and right, and when their own forecasts have had epic fails as well... LOL they have now become the perfect definition of a "Double Standard."

[WeatherRusty]

You do realize that skiier's thread was focused primarily on statements made by posters on here, while this thread is about predictions actually published various places, from various professional sources? A bit of a difference. The other thread was a meanspirited criticism of forum members. This thread is not.

In addition, this thread doesn't start by calling those who made the predictions "fantastically stupid".

Yes, and I am addressing the posters on here. Not everyone obviously, and not even some of the skeptics, but in general the name calling is pervasive and intended to be hurtful. What is implied in calling someone an alarmist? How many times have I been the object of derision and scornful comments, brushed off as simplistic and close minded, even only because I align my thinking with mainstream thinking.

I am told that radiative forcing of climate is way to simple an approach to take when accessing climate change. Yet the science has found that this factor is the one that is changing the most profoundly. Given adequate time it is the difference maker. What adequate time is may be somewhat uncertain, but that doesn't change the final outcome much.

Radiate forcing is the bull in the china closet. The temperature of the Earth can be computed exactly from a knowledge of TSI and albedo alone. Yet, I am told that PDO, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, Dalton like minimums and the like could be overwhelming factors when the science says no such thing. Numbers don't add up, mechanisms are unknown but these whatevers are potentially all powerful in the skeptic community thinking. Climate sensitivity to a little warming is claimed by skeptics to be low, yet small and large climate shifts in the past have happened very quickly with very little provocation.

These are some of the things I have discussed here. They are not my original ideas, but they resonate with my base of scientific understanding so I accept them as likely true until proven otherwise. If that makes me an alarmist then I proudly wear that label.

[nzucker]

I am told that radiative forcing of climate is way to simple an approach to take when accessing climate change. Yet the science has found that this factor is the one that is changing the most profoundly. Given adequate time it is the difference maker. What adequate time is may be somewhat uncertain, but that doesn't change the final outcome much.

Radiate forcing is the bull in the china closet. The temperature of the Earth can be computed exactly from a knowledge of TSI and albedo alone. Yet, I am told that PDO, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, Dalton like minimums and the like could be overwhelming factors when the science says no such thing. Numbers don't add up, mechanisms are unknown but these whatevers are potentially all powerful in the skeptic community thinking. Climate sensitivity to a little warming is claimed by skeptics to be low, yet small and large climate shifts in the past have happened very quickly with very little provocation.

If radiative forcing should be overwhelming everything and the PDO is unimportant, then how do you explain this lack of temperature trend since 1998?

[skierinvermont]

Oh, it's my fault your thread got shut down huh? Nice try. The mod said the thread was "pointless", which was exactly what I called it. And since just about every thread on here gets "derailed" by arguing, there was nothing unusual about that one in that respect.

1) It's still meanspirited to call being wrong "fantastically stupid". Semantic it away all you want, but it's obviously an insult to someone when you say they did something "fantastically stupid".

2) So Goddard's sea ice prediction was inane drivel...I guess all other sea ice predictions that have missed were also. Just because a prediction turns out wrong doesn't prove one thing about the logic behind it. Again, to be fair, you would have to judge all missed scientific predictions this way....which you clearly don't. Only the ones made by skeptics are "inane drivel" and "completely implausible".

DOUBLE STANDARD.

No.. all the predictions of 3.8-4.2 etc. back in 08 and 09 were also completely implausible

[WeatherRusty]

^Taco, the Global Warming Proponents are really starting to become this desperate it seems... attacking amateurs whose forecasts have been wrong and right, and when their own forecasts have had epic fails as well... LOL they have now become the perfect definition of a "Double Standard."

No one has any basis for make short term (a decade or less) "forecasts" based on the science of climatology. Most of these forecasts are little better than educated guesses. There are to many uncertainties due to several variables which have strong impact over their relatively short periods .

[skierinvermont]

If radiative forcing should be overwhelming everything and the PDO is unimportant, then how do you explain this lack of temperature trend since 1998?

I don't know about you but I see a pretty clear temperature trend since 1998. When the calculations are done it comes out to about .1C/decade.

The disinformation and manipulation machine goes on.

[nzucker]

I don't know about you but I see a pretty clear temperature trend since 1998. When the calculations are done it comes out to about .1C/decade.

The disinformation and manipulation machine goes on.

I meant relative to expected increases. The recent rate of warming of .07C/decade on satellites and .1C/decade on surface is well below IPCC projections, and even further below the extremist Hadley Center worst-case scenarios that are somehow "becoming more likely." 2011 is only going to reinforce the lack of a significant warming trend since 1998. My post was in response to Rusty saying that TSI and PDO aren't important, because they clearly are in explaining why the temperature trend has been reduced, and why predictions based on the warming in 80s/90s are likely to be falsified, since they don't account for the flip side of the cycle.

So stop with your BS, Andrew. You know very well what I was saying, and yet you once again went on attack mode. You seem to have this paranoid vision of skeptics conniving to destroy the AGW consensus, when in reality their influence is super limited anyway. Calm down. You used to be a skeptic yourself until you once again couldn't handle being outside the establishment, the perpetual source of comfort in your life.

[LakeEffectKing]

Yes, and I am addressing the posters on here. Not everyone obviously, and not even some of the skeptics, but in general the name calling is pervasive and intended to be hurtful. What is implied in calling someone an alarmist? How many times have I been the object of derision and scornful comments, brushed off as simplistic and close minded, even only because I align my thinking with mainstream thinking.

I am told that radiative forcing of climate is way to simple an approach to take when accessing climate change. Yet the science has found that this factor is the one that is changing the most profoundly. Given adequate time it is the difference maker. What adequate time is may be somewhat uncertain, but that doesn't change the final outcome much.

Radiate forcing is the bull in the china closet. The temperature of the Earth can be computed exactly from a knowledge of TSI and albedo alone. Yet, I am told that PDO, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, Dalton like minimums and the like could be overwhelming factors when the science says no such thing. Numbers don't add up, mechanisms are unknown but these whatevers are potentially all powerful in the skeptic community thinking. Climate sensitivity to a little warming is claimed by skeptics to be low, yet small and large climate shifts in the past have happened very quickly with very little provocation.

These are some of the things I have discussed here. They are not my original ideas, but they resonate with my base of scientific understanding so I accept them as likely true until proven otherwise. If that makes me an alarmist then I proudly wear that label.

Understand that you are as suseptible to ideological bias as any of us.....and you will NOT be able to percieve it due to human's natural tendency to self center themselves amongst their percieved "normality" and it is the EXACT reason the Sci. Method was derived......it is why the extreme sides both think the other side are "fantastically stupid"....

[skierinvermont]

I meant relative to expected increases.

Perhaps you should have said that then.

[tacoman25]

Yes, and I am addressing the posters on here. Not everyone obviously, and not even some of the skeptics, but in general the name calling is pervasive and intended to be hurtful. What is implied in calling someone an alarmist? How many times have I been the object of derision and scornful comments, brushed off as simplistic and close minded, even only because I align my thinking with mainstream thinking.

I am told that radiative forcing of climate is way to simple an approach to take when accessing climate change. Yet the science has found that this factor is the one that is changing the most profoundly. Given adequate time it is the difference maker. What adequate time is may be somewhat uncertain, but that doesn't change the final outcome much.

Radiate forcing is the bull in the china closet. The temperature of the Earth can be computed exactly from a knowledge of TSI and albedo alone. Yet, I am told that PDO, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, Dalton like minimums and the like could be overwhelming factors when the science says no such thing. Numbers don't add up, mechanisms are unknown but these whatevers are potentially all powerful in the skeptic community thinking. Climate sensitivity to a little warming is claimed by skeptics to be low, yet small and large climate shifts in the past have happened very quickly with very little provocation.

These are some of the things I have discussed here. They are not my original ideas, but they resonate with my base of scientific understanding so I accept them as likely true until proven otherwise. If that makes me an alarmist then I proudly wear that label.

Ok...just not sure what all of this has to do with the topic at hand. There is obviously name-calling that goes on on both sides, but that is more of an individual issue.

[WeatherRusty]

If radiative forcing should be overwhelming everything and the PDO is unimportant, then how do you explain this lack of temperature trend since 1998?

Radiative forcing and albedo are what determines Earth's overall temperature at 255K. The lack of trend is some combination of factors such as TSI, aerosols, coupled atmospheric / oceanic cycles etc. you name it. The amplitude of these factors is on a decadal basis about the equal of increased radiative forcing by anthropogenic agents.

So, PDO is important on the short term, but it's effect is limited and averages out to zero impact over the period of it's cycle. It can't add to long term heat gain.

I disagree that there has been no warming trend. High global temperature may not have been surpassed since 1998 (except on GISS), but the averaged global temperature has warmed unambiguously on a decadal basis as is clearly evident on your chart..

[tacoman25]

No.. all the predictions of 3.8-4.2 etc. back in 08 and 09 were also completely implausible

And so those non-skeptic "experts" were also making predictions based on faulty science?

[nzucker]

Perhaps you should have said that then.

Context clues buddy.

Reading comprehension FTL.

Go back to first grade, do not pass go, do not collect $200. "See ya!"

[skierinvermont]

Context clues buddy.

Reading comprehension FTL.

Go back to first grade, do not pass go, do not collect $200. "See ya!"

You simply said "How do you explain the lack of temperature trend since 1998?"

Were you speaking in code? Guess I'm just too stupid to understand that what you really meant the exact opposite of what you said.

[ORH_wxman]

And so those non-skeptic "experts" were also making predictions based on faulty science?

There's double standards on both sides. I think the media sensationalizing AGW doomsday scenarios over the past decade or so is what started the ball rolling. When skeptics started calling out a lot of the B.S. being thrown around, then there is the natural feeling to need to retaliate with some of the same stuff.

Arctic sea ice has often been the poster child for AGW, so when the director of NSIDC starts talking to the media about death spirals after 2007, and then predicting minimums going even lower than 2007 two of the past 3 years, then there is going to be some reaction. His words were not often matching the "official" NSIDC forecasts, but he should know better than to blab to the media if its a different stance.

[ORH_wxman]

You simply said "How do you explain the lack of temperature trend since 1998?"

Were you speaking in code? Guess I'm just too stupid to understand that what you really meant the exact opposite of what you said.

Its hyperbole, which is dangerous in this debate.

But after 2011 is done, we will have had no warming (and slight cooling on some sources) for 1 decade. That certainly flies in the face of anyone claiming CO2 can overwhelm ocean cycles and/or other natural cycles on a decadal scale that may contribute to global temps.

[WeatherRusty]

Understand that you are as suseptible to ideological bias as any of us.....and you will NOT be able to percieve it due to human's natural tendency to self center themselves amongst their percieved "normality" and it is the EXACT reason the Sci. Method was derived......it is why the extreme sides both think the other side are "fantastically stupid"....

I agree with you. I profess to being a liberal and accept that fact biases my thinking. I definitely would prefer to see world politics converge on a vision of the future which moves us toward a sustainable, environmentally friendly economic model. We have a long way to go to meet such a standard and about half of the populating seems not to share my vision.

My bias is that I see humans systematically destroying the natural environment and I support that recognition in others and oppose those who persist in denial of the negative impact human activities are have on the environment.

Those who favor my vision tend to accept AGW science as good science, while those who do not tend doubt the science and the motivations of those who produce it.

As for assessing the science, I can't for the life of me understand how people find deep flaws in the physical basis. It fits so well and follows naturally from what is known about how the world works.

[nzucker]

Those who favor my vision tend to accept AGW science as good science, while those who do not tend doubt the science and the motivations of those who produce it.

Not always...I favor your vision for a more sustainable society and am quite environmentalist in my own practices...eating vegetarian, trying to grow a vegetable garden, recycling, picking up litter, donating to environmental groups, etc.

But I think the extremist AGW stance is actually hurting the environmental movement. By promoting frightening predictions that don't verify, there's an inherent loss of credibility.

[WeatherRusty]

Its hyperbole, which is dangerous in this debate.

But after 2011 is done, we will have had no warming (and slight cooling on some sources) for 1 decade. That certainly flies in the face of anyone claiming CO2 can overwhelm ocean cycles and/or other natural cycles on a decadal scale that may contribute to global temps.

No one claims CO2 dominates on a decadal scale. It obviously does not.

On a decadal scale global temp has not flat-lined. The trend is slightly positive. The global 10 year average of the 2000's was easily the warmest in the instrument record. 10 of the 12 warmest years all occurred during the 2000's.

[nzucker]

On a decadal scale global temp has not flat-lined. The trend is slightly positive. The global 10 year average of the 2000's was easily the warmest in the instrument record. 10 of the 12 warmest years all occurred during the 2000's.

Yes, but this is not a good argument...the temperature could stay the same for the next 100 years and yet all the years would be the top warmest. Doesn't mean the IPCC warming trend is being realized.

[ORH_wxman]

No one claims CO2 dominates on a decadal scale. It obviously does not.

On a decadal scale global temp has not flat-lined. The trend is slightly positive. The global 10 year average of the 2000's was easily the warmest in the instrument record. 10 of the 12 warmest years all occurred during the 2000's.

2002-2011 10 year period will be flat or slightly negative. Who knows what it will look like by 2015 or 2020, but I was pointing out that we have indeed entered a flat 10 year period.