Global temperatures in 90 years to be 10.8F above pre-industrial levels

[TerryM]

LEK

Thought you preferred to be in the skeptic's corner - these arguments are from the Koch brothers playbook for denying global warming.

[WeatherRusty]

Well, why was there a mention of "missing heat", and the "travesty" of not being able to know where it is? Certainly takes a spin master to NOT see that such statements support my opinion about the last decade or so.

Your reaction is very well predicted via the 7 stages of handling grief. If you were the least bit objective, many red flags would be raised about all facets of the science performed. Confirmation bias is screened out via the Sci Method, which has been trampled on....and the insight gained by the emails is very supportive of that.

The best scientific conclusions are drawn when multiple lines of evidence all point to the same general result. Many studies existing on their own would engender a weak scientific argument, yet when considered along with other closely aligned lines of research they become supportive of a growing body of evidence.

The following link is a great example of what I am talking about, in particular as to how it applies to the evidence that the world is warming due to human activities.

SEE HERE

The "Missing heat" argument is another mis-characterization of the science being referred to by Kevin Trenberth. You are relying on the reasonable ignorance of an arcane issue by the general public to essentially tell a lie.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Well, why was there a mention of "missing heat", and the "travesty" of not being able to know where it is? Certainly takes a spin master to NOT see that such statements support my opinion about the last decade or so.

Your reaction is very well predicted via the 7 stages of handling grief. If you were the least bit objective, many red flags would be raised about all facets of the science performed. Confirmation bias is screened out via the Sci Method, which has been trampled on....and the insight gained by the emails is very supportive of that.

How much heat is Missing? The last decade is the warmest on record. the sun had a solar grand min. There is a lot of work out about heat being transferred to the poles. Coincidentally with a solar grand min, weakening amo, negative AO the arctic sea ice is getting ran over while the arctic is warming faster and faster than the rest of the globe. You talk as if we cooled off and are having the 45th warmest year on record or the 66th. This year will be near the top 10 at the surface or in it by multiple sources and is supposed to be much cooler because we are in a cooling phase.

Why have you stop practicing science and adopted whatever your doing?

[Jonger]

I know that as countries modernize, they naturally reduce their population. That's why allowing the rest of the world to modernize, which will require continued heavy use of fossil fuels or nuclear power, is important. More important than the negative consequences of global warming.

Fact is, none of the predictions people have made about how we're doomed have come to pass. There is no evidence of predictive skill by anyone that's wanting to make drastic policy changes.

I think I read that the native born American population is predicted to begin to decline within 25 years. Most major 1st world countries all have stable or falling population.

[PhillipS]

Go tell your adorned "real" scientist:

Phil Jones...2010.... ".....for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming."

Spin it all you want, the temperature trends are NOT behaving as exptected (or hoped for) by the team back a decade or so ago.....I suspect oceanic cycles and negative feedbacks are playing a role. But remember, the new meme really has nothing to do with warming now.....it's all about climate disruption and extreme events.....CO2 working it's magic iin other ways beside global temps., as we sit near +.3- +.5 for the better part of the decade....

Interesting that you would use that out of context quote since it is a standard denialist argument. Here are several excerpts from the Sceptical Science column on that:

n February of 2010, Phil Jones was asked some loaded questions in an interview with the BBC. Several of the questions were gathered from "climate sceptics", and Jones' answer to the second one has been widely re-published and distorted:

"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

Another year has passed since the original BBC interview, and in a new BBC article, Jones notes that the HadCRUT warming trend since 1995 is now statistically significant.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.

"It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."

LEK, you often mention Confirmation Bias, and you're right that everybody should be aware of it - but can't you see that your putting the worst possible interpretation on old emails, your dredging up outdated quotes, and your reluctance to believe any data that corroborates mainstream AGW are all examples of confirmation bias, too? You are obviously very intelligent, and I feel you have a great deal to contribute to the discussions on this forum, but you're moving yourself onto the denialist fringe with these sorts of posts and eroding your credibility. Is that your intention?

[LakeEffectKing]

Interesting that you would use that out of context quote since it is a standard denialist argument. Here are several excerpts from the Sceptical Science column on that:

n February of 2010, Phil Jones was asked some loaded questions in an interview with the BBC. Several of the questions were gathered from "climate sceptics", and Jones' answer to the second one has been widely re-published and distorted:

"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

Another year has passed since the original BBC interview, and in a new BBC article, Jones notes that the HadCRUT warming trend since 1995 is now statistically significant.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.

"It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."

LEK, you often mention Confirmation Bias, and you're right that everybody should be aware of it - but can't you see that your putting the worst possible interpretation on old emails, your dredging up outdated quotes, and your reluctance to believe any data that corroborates mainstream AGW are all examples of confirmation bias, too? You are obviously very intelligent, and I feel you have a great deal to contribute to the discussions on this forum, but you're moving yourself onto the denialist fringe with these sorts of posts and eroding your credibility. Is that your intention?

See the problem with the wamists is that they are now too invested in their "belief"....I was there...some 22 years ago, as a diehard believer of AGW. It was tough, but I actually challenged my belief system, and realized that AGW was NOT the rock solid science it was meant to be....didn't mean it was wrong, but certainly meant I needed to reassess my opinion on the subject. The released emails viewed with an objective eye (and based on the reaction of the warmists after their release) raise red flags from my already skeptical view....You of course will have a different perspective.

As for my credibility? It's quite good, thank you! Outside of the AGW warmists on this board, I'm a rock star!

[tacoman25]

This was posted in the main forum, but I thought it brought up an interesting point on climate change and modeled predictions.

William Gray, a long-time hurricane researcher and scientist, has given up on releasing long range hurricane seasonal forecasts (more than 6 months in advance in December). The reason?

We are very disappointed that all three of these early December forecasts, although showing very substantial hindcast skill, did not show real-time forecast skill.

When defending global climate model forecasts, AGW proponents often point out their hindcasting skill. However, this statement from Dr. Gray demonstrates that just because a method has hindcast skill does not guarantee in future forecast skill.

[WeatherRusty]

This was posted in the main forum, but I thought it brought up an interesting point on climate change and modeled predictions.

William Gray, a long-time hurricane researcher and scientist, has given up on releasing long range hurricane seasonal forecasts (more than 6 months in advance in December). The reason?

We are very disappointed that all three of these early December forecasts, although showing very substantial hindcast skill, did not show real-time forecast skill.

When defending global climate model forecasts, AGW proponents often point out their hindcasting skill. However, this statement from Dr. Gray demonstrates that just because a method has hindcast skill does not guarantee in future forecast skill.

The difference though is that hurricane forecasts and weather forecasts rely on initial conditions being accurately represented in models. Climate projections do not. Climate modeling is a boundary condition problem where when fixed parameters are moved the whole system shifts. It's apples and oranges.

[tacoman25]

The difference though is that hurricane forecasts and weather forecasts rely on initial conditions being accurately represented in models. Climate projections do not. Climate modeling is a boundary condition problem where when fixed parameters are moved the whole system shifts. It's apples and oranges.

I am not sure it is.

You are correct for short term weather forecast/models, but those don't do hindcasting. I'm not sure how exactly the hurricane models work, but they are a lot different than short term computer forecast models. Regardless of the system, it's the same principle. Just because a model is able to recreate the past based on given parameters does not guarantee it will be able to accurately forecast future conditions.

Obviously, these hurricane forecasters thought that the hindcasting ability of their methods would lead to forecasting ability. Just as climate modelers believe the same thing. You are saying it is different given the parameters, but then why would the hurricane foreasters have been thinking along the same lines?

[dabize]

I am not sure it is.

You are correct for short term weather forecast/models, but those don't do hindcasting. I'm not sure how exactly the hurricane models work, but they are a lot different than short term computer forecast models. Regardless of the system, it's the same principle. Just because a model is able to recreate the past based on given parameters does not guarantee it will be able to accurately forecast future conditions.

Obviously, these hurricane forecasters thought that the hindcasting ability of their methods would lead to forecasting ability. Just as climate modelers believe the same thing. You are saying it is different given the parameters, but then why would the hurricane foreasters have been thinking along the same lines?

By that standard, you should be willing to jump into the crater at Kilauea next time it erupts, since nobody has any real outcome-based direct evidence that it is at all dangerous.

[NittanyWx]

By that standard, you should be willing to jump into the crater at Kilauea next time it erupts, since nobody has any real outcome-based direct evidence that it is at all dangerous.

Huh? That is nowhere near the same standard.

[TerryM]

David Wasdell is asking for feedback/corrections to a paper he is preparing. Each section is numbered making it easier to direct comments to specific claims.

His conclusion,

20.6 Finally, the high level of climate sensitivity, combined with rapid change and far-from

equilibrium dynamics, exposes us to a severe risk of triggering an episode of runaway

climate change.

​is arrived at after a through examination of the climate models currently and historically used, and each one is examined in some detail.

It might prove interesting to see where and why some of us may agree or disagree with his findings.

[TerryM]

Sorry 'bout that - I forgot the link

http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Climate%20Sensitivity.pdf