At What Point Will You Accept the Existence/Non-Existence of AGW?

[AvantHiatus]

Why on earth would you "rip" from a denier's blog?

 

Bob Tisdale is a small step above Steve Goddard. Surely you can do better.

 

Terry

Terry, I would of thought you would of been more objective. Coastal waters around Antarctica are really cooling or stable (not warming), however this does not disprove AGW. See my post above...

 

Infact, that area of the world is an increasingly closed system and the regional jet streams have changed quite a bit due to AGW and natural oscillations.

[ORH_wxman]

Why on earth would you "rip" from a denier's blog?

 

Bob Tisdale is a small step above Steve Goddard. Surely you can do better.

 

Terry

 

 

I gave you the link where you can reproduce the numbers yourself.

 

 

The fact you completely ignored that and instead attacked the creator of the graph shows just how unobjective you are. It doesn't matter where the actual graph came from if it is made with real data and can be reproduced.

 

 

Fact: Southern Ocean has cooled in the past 30 years

Fact: Anarctic sea ice has increased in that same period

Fact: Southern Ocean had warmed from the 1950s-1970s

Fact: Sea ice was declining during that time

 

 

 

These are facts, not opinions. At least based on the data we have available.

[TerryM]

[Jonger]

 

Am I supposed to believe extent plunged in the SH and then flat-lined when the satellites launched?

[ORH_wxman]

Am I supposed to believe extent plunged in the SH and then flat-lined when the satellites launched?

 

 

No, that graph actually makes a good case against the inferred values.

 

 

But regardless of the exact values, we have good evidence that anarctic sea ice was in steady decline during the period the southern ocean was warming...and it has halted and increased slightly while the southern ocean has cooled.

[The_Global_Warmer]

blinders

 

You finally admitting you are extremely bias and contribute nothing here?

 

 

how do you explain the record antarctic sea ice?  Why do people ignore this fact. 

 

No one is ignoring it.  See Sundogs post.  Secondly the actual volume increase is less than 1000km3. 

 

 

Do we see such a phenomenon around the often hyped Greenland meltdown??

 

I am very surprised you would say this.  You have to be trolling.

[LakeEffectKing]

You finally admitting you are extremely bias and contribute nothing here?

 

 

 

No one is ignoring it.  See Sundogs post.  Secondly the actual volume increase is less than 1000km3. 

 

 

 

I am very surprised you would say this.  You have to be trolling.

Read Will's response...you are becoming increasingly combative and insecure in your posts.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Read Will's response...you are becoming increasingly combative and insecure in your posts.

 

 

I just think that is extremely lazy to say because it's not happening at GIS then it's not plausible around Antarctica?

 

 

They are not even close to being comparable. 

 

 

This is the latest Ice mass loss data that goes to Summer of 2013.  Land ice loss is accelerating.  But it's not warming? 

 

[skierinvermont]

I agree with Friv.. it's lazy to say that just because you don't see it around GIS it wouldn't happen around Antarctica. Antarctica is surrounded by ice year round while Greenland is not and has strong coastal currents that quickly whisk any meltwater and ice into the Atlantic.

 

I do agree with ORH though that (as I understood it) the primary reason for steady sea ice around Antarctica is a strengthening of the AAO (which is possibly related to AGW and likely related to ozone destruction). 

[sokolow]

I thought Hans Custers had a pretty good post on observations & outcomes that would demand we revise the array of theories bundled into AGW in a paradigm-altering way.

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/

A decrease in global temperatures or sea level on 30-50yr climate timescales are two of them, so that's my vote.

[PhillipS]

I thought Hans Custers had a pretty good post on observations & outcomes that would demand we revise the array of theories bundled into AGW in a paradigm-altering way.

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/

A decrease in global temperatures or sea level on 30-50yr climate timescales are two of them, so that's my vote.

 

That is an excellent post.  Thank you for sharing that.

[LakeEffectKing]

I just think that is extremely lazy to say because it's not happening at GIS then it's not plausible around Antarctica?

 

 

They are not even close to being comparable. 

 

 

This is the latest Ice mass loss data that goes to Summer of 2013.  Land ice loss is accelerating.  But it's not warming? 

 

I didn't "say" anything....I asked a question that I thought someone might know the answer to....not everyone can dedicate as much time as you do for your hobby.

[TerryM]

I thought Hans Custers had a pretty good post on observations & outcomes that would demand we revise the array of theories bundled into AGW in a paradigm-altering way.

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/

A decrease in global temperatures or sea level on 30-50yr climate timescales are two of them, so that's my vote.

Thanks so much for the link!

"As a matter of fact, the ‘AGW-hypothesis’ is not a hypothesis in the Popperian sense. The human impact on climate is a theory, supported by many hypotheses, each of them tested according to widely accepted scientific standards. Just as Popper and his successors in the philosophy of science would have wanted."

Disproving AGW theory would require such an unlikely chain of observations & would necessitate the re-thinking of so much established science that validating Velikovsky's visions of a young Venus is more likely.

Terry

BTW Re. Antarctic sea ice:

http://www.thewire.org.au/audio/TWseaice.mp3  

[dabize]

Thanks so much for the link!

"As a matter of fact, the ‘AGW-hypothesis’ is not a hypothesis in the Popperian sense. The human impact on climate is a theory, supported by many hypotheses, each of them tested according to widely accepted scientific standards. Just as Popper and his successors in the philosophy of science would have wanted."

Disproving AGW theory would require such an unlikely chain of observations & would necessitate the re-thinking of so much established science that validating Velikovsky's visions of a young Venus is more likely.

Terry

BTW Re. Antarctic sea ice:

http://www.thewire.org.au/audio/TWseaice.mp3  

I teach a course in Biology for non-science students (among other courses).

 

It is useful for making one step back and ask WHY we as scientists are so sure about things like evolution and AGW.

 

Of course, the source of this certainty is just what you suggest here - that the internal consistency of the observations and underlying basic principles is such that we would have to be radically wrong about almost everything in biology for evolution by natural selection to be "wrong".

 

AGW is the same - the observations and underlying science are showing too much internal consistency to be negated by short term  deviations from the expected changes.

 

The chance of AGW being "wrong" is about the same as the chance of all the air molecules in the room you are in just happening (by chance) to move to one corner all at once, leaving you to suffocate in your chair.

 

It could happen, but the negative exponent describing the P value for this event is somewhere WAY on the other side of Avogadro's number...............

[blizzard1024]

I teach a course in Biology for non-science students (among other courses).

 

It is useful for making one step back and ask WHY we as scientists are so sure about things like evolution and AGW.

 

Of course, the source of this certainty is just what you suggest here - that the internal consistency of the observations and underlying basic principles is such that we would have to be radically wrong about almost everything in biology for evolution by natural selection to be "wrong".

 

AGW is the same - the observations and underlying science are showing too much internal consistency to be negated by short term  deviations from the expected changes.

 

The chance of AGW being "wrong" is about the same as the chance of all the air molecules in the room you are in just happening (by chance) to move to one corner all at once, leaving you to suffocate in your chair.

 

It could happen, but the negative exponent describing the P value for this event is somewhere WAY on the other side of Avogadro's number...............

 

These types of statements really make me cringe. Most of you have no idea how complex the atmosphere and Earth system is. I forecast the weather everyday and I KNOW the complexities of the atmosphere. Most on this forum don't by agreeing with statements of the above. 

 

Here are the known scientific facts that are irrefutable like Avogadro's number, gravity etc:

 

1) carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere and it is related to human's activities. Burning fossil fuels, deforestation etc. 

2) The Earth has warmed since the 1800s which was the end of the Little Ice Age based on historical data and reasonably reliable climate proxy data (uncertainties are increasing here...). 

3) The additional CO2 and other GHGs are leading to some ( most think close to 2 w/m2) extra external top of atmosphere forcing. 

Some uncertainty here because it is based on radiation code. But it is likely close to what is being observed. 

 

What we don't know and is uncertain.... UNLIKE basic scientific facts such as gravity etc...

1) how much has the Earth warmed since the 1800s?  how can we possibly know it is .8C when the instrumental error is at least .8C or possibly more. 70% of the Earth is ocean. Plus we have moved stations, changed the types of thermometers several times, time of observation adjustments, urbanization etc. These all have to be adjusted for which adds more uncertainty much more so than basic facts like  Avogadro's number!  We could go into sea ice coverage here too...but again satellite data vs. ship data?? really??? come on. there is no way these datasets can reliably be meshed without very large error bars.

 

2) what is the response of the Global climate system to a slight increase in TOA external forcing? The total greenhouse gas energy flow to the Earth is about 340 w/m2.  So we have changed this maybe 2 w/m2? Ok that is more than 100 times less. There are many factors that can stabilize this small amount of forcing. ( lots of uncertainty here). I don't believe a climate model is nearly as on rock solid ground as the theory of gravitation, or relativity which have been confirmed by precise experimental data.  

 

3) The climate system through the ice age cycles. There is a lot of uncertainty here. Tons. What caused Younger Dryas? There are theories that describes this.  No one knows for sure. 

 

4) The fact that CO2 did not begin the climate change of the ice age cycles but then somehow dominated the temperature swings in the ice core data even though CO2 lags temperature data? Again, the change in CO2 was only 100 ppm from glacial to interglacial. That is a forcing less than 2 w/m2....which again is very small relative to the total greenhouse forcing. Another point that is often not stated. If you look at how closely CO2 and temperature are correlated in ice core data it is almost 1 to 1. There is no way that the Earth's complex climate system can display such a simple correlation unless CO2 literally is the thermostat and all feedbacks and complexities act in concert exactly with CO2 levels. The other explanation which is  based on something more more simple (and likely) is that the oceans when they are cold absorb CO2 and when they are warmer they outgas CO2. This easily explains this one to one relationship and blows a hole in the entire "CO2 dominating our climate" theory.  CO2 passively follows temperature....that is what it looks like. Ask many geologists that are not into the climate change "business". 

 

5) This also assumes that it is a total coincidence that the LIA was a time when few sunspots were observed and the 20th century saw some of the largest numbers of sunspots based on BE isotopes in ice cores. This is one heck of a coincidence. I don't think we understand how the sun's variations affect the climate system. Again, this is not on solid scientific ground. Anyone with common sense would think there is something going on here. 

 

Again, the complexities of the climate system are enormous and not well understand. Climate scientists think they have it figured out enough to say that we will ruin our climate system by increasing a small component of the greenhouse effect. They bank on positive feedbacks that are modeled by climate models and focus on one small component of the climate system.... CO2. This is not on rock solid ground compared to gravity.  

 

I am NOT saying that increasing GHG will not warm the climate. It could to some extent...but to say with any certainty that we will disrupt our climate system to a point of danger is very premature.  

[skierinvermont]

Stop pretending you are qualified to speak authoritatively on this subject. You are not. Also, nothing you said refutes the fact that the existence of AGW is a very concrete theory, as dabize said. In fact, everything you said supports what he said. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

The fact that CO2 did not begin the climate change of the ice age cycles but then somehow dominated the temperature swings in the ice core data even though CO2 lags temperature data? Again, the change in CO2 was only 100 ppm from glacial to interglacial. That is a forcing less than 2 w/m2....which again is very small relative to the total greenhouse forcing. Another point that is often not stated. If you look at how closely CO2 and temperature are correlated in ice core data it is almost 1 to 1. There is no way that the Earth's complex climate system can display such a simple correlation unless CO2 literally is the thermostat and all feedbacks and complexities act in concert exactly with CO2 levels. The other explanation which is based on something more more simple (and likely) is that the oceans when they are cold absorb CO2 and when they are warmer they outgas CO2. This easily explains this one to one relationship and blows a hole in the entire "CO2 dominating our climate" theory. CO2 passively follows temperature....that is what it looks like. Ask many geologists that are not into the climate change "business".

Just FYI, no one here is arguing that CO2 controls the ice age cycle..but it amplifies the temperature response.

Also, the ice age-interglacial cycle seems to be strictly governed by obliquity and precession. The idea involving peak insolation above 65N is a BS fairytale, as the data below shows.

Changes to the thermal gradient via obliquity/precession probably alters the Hadley Cells, thus poleward heat transport and tropical convection/ENSO activity. This would explain why both poles warm/cool simultaneously at the beginning/end of ice ages despite one pole receiving more summer insolation, and another experiencing less, and why ENSO activity has gradually gotten more intense since the Holocene warm period 5-9kyrs ago..it also explains the sharp Warmings/coolings within ice age periods (Heinrich cycles)..see, no big mystery!

If you rely on peak insolation above 65N, you end up with a trash correlation. In fact, 700K years ago we fell into an ice age while peak insolation was over 500W/m^2.

[Msalgado]

These types of statements really make me cringe. Most of you have no idea how complex the atmosphere and Earth system is. I forecast the weather everyday and I KNOW the complexities of the atmosphere. Most on this forum don't by agreeing with statements of the above. 

 

Here are the known scientific facts that are irrefutable like Avogadro's number, gravity etc:

 

1) carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere and it is related to human's activities. Burning fossil fuels, deforestation etc. 

2) The Earth has warmed since the 1800s which was the end of the Little Ice Age based on historical data and reasonably reliable climate proxy data (uncertainties are increasing here...). 

3) The additional CO2 and other GHGs are leading to some ( most think close to 2 w/m2) extra external top of atmosphere forcing. 

Some uncertainty here because it is based on radiation code. But it is likely close to what is being observed. 

 

What we don't know and is uncertain.... UNLIKE basic scientific facts such as gravity etc...

1) how much has the Earth warmed since the 1800s?  how can we possibly know it is .8C when the instrumental error is at least .8C or possibly more. 70% of the Earth is ocean. Plus we have moved stations, changed the types of thermometers several times, time of observation adjustments, urbanization etc. These all have to be adjusted for which adds more uncertainty much more so than basic facts like  Avogadro's number!  We could go into sea ice coverage here too...but again satellite data vs. ship data?? really??? come on. there is no way these datasets can reliably be meshed without very large error bars.

 

2) what is the response of the Global climate system to a slight increase in TOA external forcing? The total greenhouse gas energy flow to the Earth is about 340 w/m2.  So we have changed this maybe 2 w/m2? Ok that is more than 100 times less. There are many factors that can stabilize this small amount of forcing. ( lots of uncertainty here). I don't believe a climate model is nearly as on rock solid ground as the theory of gravitation, or relativity which have been confirmed by precise experimental data.  

 

3) The climate system through the ice age cycles. There is a lot of uncertainty here. Tons. What caused Younger Dryas? There are theories that describes this.  No one knows for sure. 

 

4) The fact that CO2 did not begin the climate change of the ice age cycles but then somehow dominated the temperature swings in the ice core data even though CO2 lags temperature data? Again, the change in CO2 was only 100 ppm from glacial to interglacial. That is a forcing less than 2 w/m2....which again is very small relative to the total greenhouse forcing. Another point that is often not stated. If you look at how closely CO2 and temperature are correlated in ice core data it is almost 1 to 1. There is no way that the Earth's complex climate system can display such a simple correlation unless CO2 literally is the thermostat and all feedbacks and complexities act in concert exactly with CO2 levels. The other explanation which is  based on something more more simple (and likely) is that the oceans when they are cold absorb CO2 and when they are warmer they outgas CO2. This easily explains this one to one relationship and blows a hole in the entire "CO2 dominating our climate" theory.  CO2 passively follows temperature....that is what it looks like. Ask many geologists that are not into the climate change "business". 

 

5) This also assumes that it is a total coincidence that the LIA was a time when few sunspots were observed and the 20th century saw some of the largest numbers of sunspots based on BE isotopes in ice cores. This is one heck of a coincidence. I don't think we understand how the sun's variations affect the climate system. Again, this is not on solid scientific ground. Anyone with common sense would think there is something going on here. 

 

Again, the complexities of the climate system are enormous and not well understand. Climate scientists think they have it figured out enough to say that we will ruin our climate system by increasing a small component of the greenhouse effect. They bank on positive feedbacks that are modeled by climate models and focus on one small component of the climate system.... CO2. This is not on rock solid ground compared to gravity.  

 

I am NOT saying that increasing GHG will not warm the climate. It could to some extent...but to say with any certainty that we will disrupt our climate system to a point of danger is very premature.  

 

Its becoming increasingly clear that all you do is extrapolate uncertainty and "complexity" to mean we can't figure things out.  You completely ignore the mountains of scientific literature that contradicts this - which is also very clear because the vast amount of inaccurate information in this post - in favor of "if we can't explain every event that happened with incomplete information we can't possibly understand how the atmosphere works".  Its simply ridiculous.

 

1.  We do know how much the earth has warmed since the 1800s as evidenced by the many scientific studies that have looked at this time and time again.  You would do well to familiarize yourself with at the very lest the work of BEST.

 

2.  No one has said that climate models are on that level.  But Climate models seek to show things at a much finer level than simply what the changes are to the overall energy budget of the earth.  They seek to show spatial and temporal distribution.  Simplify them in order to get a coarser picture of whats going to happen overall over the next few millenia and they'll function much better.  In any case, none of our understanding is showing a lack of warming or a cooling under any modeled scenario.  Taking uncertainty about the magnitude of the short term warming and its distribution does NOTHING to disprove AGW theory.  Thats the point.  You fail to see the forest for the trees here.

 

3.  There's uncertainty here because we don't have complete information necessary to decode the past at such a fine scale.  However, we know how the earth has reacted to both CO2 and insolation changes due to orbital variation quite well.  We've learned about the bipolar seesaw and how that affects entering and leaving the ice ages.  We know how regional wind patterns change and how water vapor content in the atmosphere is affected. And none of this information changes AGW theory.  Once again, you're missing the forest for the trees here and trying to assert that our inability to explain events that occurred in the past somehow change what we DO know even if the lack of an explanation fails to provide a contradiction.

 

its simply ridiculous and instead of pointing out how much more of the glaciation information we have provides THE context for AGW theory you actually try to use conflicting theories explaining the younger dryas as what to make a stand on.  

 

4.  Of course CO2 lags temperature.  There weren't billions of humans around to place it into the atmosphere without a temperature increase as we have now.  However, good luck explaining the further warming that CO2 caused if you ignore it.  I get so frustrated having to respond to this from a degreed atmospheric scientist because its so fundamental and basic.  For the record, I got my BS from a geology department and I spoke with numerous geologists doing paleocliamte reconstructions at length about these scenarios as well as geologists with tons of oil and gas funding.  Want to know how many agreed with you or your characterization of the way CO2 worked?  Zero.  

 

5.  Of course you don't think we understand the sun.  Why would you?  You don't think we understand anything.  Yet somehow, experts on the subject and the scientific literature disagree with you.  

[Msalgado]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

 

Absolutely essential reading.

[blizzard1024]

Its becoming increasingly clear that all you do is extrapolate uncertainty and "complexity" to mean we can't figure things out.  You completely ignore the mountains of scientific literature that contradicts this - which is also very clear because the vast amount of inaccurate information in this post - in favor of "if we can't explain every event that happened with incomplete information we can't possibly understand how the atmosphere works".  Its simply ridiculous.

 

1.  We do know how much the earth has warmed since the 1800s as evidenced by the many scientific studies that have looked at this time and time again.  You would do well to familiarize yourself with at the very lest the work of BEST.

 

2.  No one has said that climate models are on that level.  But Climate models seek to show things at a much finer level than simply what the changes are to the overall energy budget of the earth.  They seek to show spatial and temporal distribution.  Simplify them in order to get a coarser picture of whats going to happen overall over the next few millenia and they'll function much better.  In any case, none of our understanding is showing a lack of warming or a cooling under any modeled scenario.  Taking uncertainty about the magnitude of the short term warming and its distribution does NOTHING to disprove AGW theory.  Thats the point.  You fail to see the forest for the trees here.

 

3.  There's uncertainty here because we don't have complete information necessary to decode the past at such a fine scale.  However, we know how the earth has reacted to both CO2 and insolation changes due to orbital variation quite well.  We've learned about the bipolar seesaw and how that affects entering and leaving the ice ages.  We know how regional wind patterns change and how water vapor content in the atmosphere is affected. And none of this information changes AGW theory.  Once again, you're missing the forest for the trees here and trying to assert that our inability to explain events that occurred in the past somehow change what we DO know even if the lack of an explanation fails to provide a contradiction.

 

its simply ridiculous and instead of pointing out how much more of the glaciation information we have provides THE context for AGW theory you actually try to use conflicting theories explaining the younger dryas as what to make a stand on.  

 

4.  Of course CO2 lags temperature.  There weren't billions of humans around to place it into the atmosphere without a temperature increase as we have now.  However, good luck explaining the further warming that CO2 caused if you ignore it.  I get so frustrated having to respond to this from a degreed atmospheric scientist because its so fundamental and basic.  For the record, I got my BS from a geology department and I spoke with numerous geologists doing paleocliamte reconstructions at length about these scenarios as well as geologists with tons of oil and gas funding.  Want to know how many agreed with you or your characterization of the way CO2 worked?  Zero.  

 

5.  Of course you don't think we understand the sun.  Why would you?  You don't think we understand anything.  Yet somehow, experts on the subject and the scientific literature disagree with you.  

 

I get so frustrated with people who don't understand the complexities of atmospheric science and equate this all to something definitive and measurable as theory of relativity, gravitational force etc. That's all. I was pointing out the obvious uncertainties which are very numerous and that despite all the mountains of literature in the end, we are still banking on climate models. It is like a weather forecaster banking on ensemble model predictions of a big snowstorm before the atmospheric waves that will come together to form the storm are over the poorly sampled Pacific Ocean. How many times did this happen this past winter??? Most degreed METs do not believe in all the hype related to climate change especially CAGW. Most of us understand that the lack of the ability to model tropical convection and clouds are serious enough flaws in climate models that make most of us very skeptical on this whole issue.  I believe it is 80% of degreed Mets that are on my "luke warm" side of the argument. Of course, if you are open about this you could lose your job...especially the folks who work in TV. So many keep their mouth shut on this issue or go party-line at work because they have mouths to feed.   I know many many degreed METS in this situation.  

 

I can say this... in the next 10-20 years (if i am still alive),  if the Earth's temperatures based on satellite data are rapidly rising (like more than +1C over the 1981-2010 normals consistently) and clearly rising and Arctic sea ice does vanish in late summer and Antarctic sea ice also goes below normal, I would change my views. Or if someone clearly can measure the global variations in high altitude water vapor and it shows a clear rising trend (not related to ENSO!!)...then I would change my views.

 

Of course, it does not matter what any of us think. The world is not going to do anything about this anytime soon. That is the real issue. Who is going to tell China and India and other 3rd world nations to cut emissions?? Nobody. They are going crazy over there in India and China. The U.S. is lowering emissions from conversion of power plants to cleaner burning natural gas. I like this idea until we can finally realize renewable energies down the road when it is marketable. I would like to see solar panels marketable and I do believe that oil companies would stifle any research in this for their own profit gains even if they knew for sure disaster was coming to the Earth.  Nothing is going to be done about it world-wide, especially in the developing nations. 

[LakeEffectKing]

Blizzard's opinion/view, as stated above, are similar to mine. Uncertainty doesn't mean we discount AGW...it means we would like to be "more certain"....and is the same drive that fuels current climate studies.

[TerryM]

Blizzard's opinion/view, as stated above, are similar to mine. Uncertainty doesn't mean we discount AGW...it means we would like to be "more certain"....and is the same drive that fuels current climate studies.

More certain of what exactly?

 

Blizzard claims that "Most degreed METs do not believe in all the hype related to climate change especially CAGW"

also that " 80% of degreed Mets that are on my "luke warm" side of the argument"

and further that " if you are open about this you could lose your job"

 

This conspiracy of silence is as believable as those that say the moon landings were staged and yet you say that your views and opinions agree. It doesn't do much to further your credibility.

 

Terry

[ORH_wxman]

More certain of what exactly?

 

Blizzard claims that "Most degreed METs do not believe in all the hype related to climate change especially CAGW"

also that " 80% of degreed Mets that are on my "luke warm" side of the argument"

and further that " if you are open about this you could lose your job"

 

This conspiracy of silence is as believable as those that say the moon landings were staged and yet you say that your views and opinions agree. It doesn't do much to further your credibility.

 

Terry

 

 

The magnitude of the warming to affect us in the 21st century. That is where most of the uncertainty lies in the climate debate if you ignore attribution studies of which many have even more uncertainty.

[AvantHiatus]

The magnitude of the warming to affect us in the 21st century. That is where most of the uncertainty lies in the climate debate if you ignore attribution studies of which many have even more uncertainty.

The uncertainties are equally biased towards higher-end and lower-end scenarios. Hopefully people realize that they cannot extrapolate decadal trends deep into the future.

[ORH_wxman]

The uncertainties are equally biased towards higher-end and lower-end scenarios. Hopefully people realize that they cannot extrapolate decadal trends deep into the future.

 

 

Yes...some climate scientists have figured this out the hard way by extrapolating 1975-2000 warming right on out when a chunk of that warming is natural. Some foolish projections have been made too extrapolating out only temperatures since 2000.

 

And no, the uncertainties are not biased in the same directions. The highest clustering of TCR/ECS is lower than the mean values because the uncertainty is greater out towards the higher values. The long narrow tail on the distribution curves for ECS/TCR show this.

 

 

an example

 

[AvantHiatus]

I know that the lower values are less uncertain, was testing to see if you were biased. Thanks for being honest and dedicated to science.

[LakeEffectKing]

 

I know that the lower values are less uncertain, was testing to see if you were biased. Thanks for being honest and dedicated to science.

Testing Will??? Nice! Any tests for me?

[chrisf97212]

As a layman trying to get a basic understanding, I appreciate everyone's input on this subject.  Having said that, it would be nice if the sarcasm and mocking were toned down.

[Mallow]

... I was pointing out the obvious uncertainties which are very numerous and that despite all the mountains of literature in the end, we are still banking on climate models. It is like a weather forecaster banking on ensemble model predictions of a big snowstorm before the atmospheric waves that will come together to form the storm are over the poorly sampled Pacific Ocean....

 

Ugh... no it's not. It's really not at all like that.

 

As a meteorologist, it bothers me that so many other meteorologists try to extrapolate their ideas of "uncertainty" in weather forecasting to the science of climatology. A weather forecast is a forecast of the variability, the "noise". A climate forecast is a forecast of the trends, the "mean". The uncertainties in the two aspects are not comparable.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Ugh... no it's not. It's really not at all like that.

As a meteorologist, it bothers me that so many other meteorologists try to extrapolate their ideas of "uncertainty" in weather forecasting to the science of climatology. A weather forecast is a forecast of the variability, the "noise". A climate forecast is a forecast of the trends, the "mean". The uncertainties in the two aspects are not comparable.

I agree . We're looking at two totally different behavioral domains. There is no "uncertainty" in the radiative forcing increase via increasing CO2/CH4....the system must heat up to a significant degree. At least initially.

That said, I'm sure there are additional forcings and feedback loops that we have yet to uncover. My studies are mostly in paleoclimate, and there are a number of large historical climate swings that still need explaining. We can track these swings to the precession and obliquity harmonics, but their very abrupt nature suggests an amplifying mechanism that is very sensitive to the equator-to-pole thermal gradient/distribution of insolation.

As Shakespeare said, the past is prologue. I think that applies here very well.