The Models are Unproven

Having had a look at the GRIDA page, I am stunned that anybody would consider it a vindication of any hypothesis (except perhaps that the parameters were estimated with the same data as was fed to the model).

Think of it like this: you use a set of exogenous data to estimate the parameters in a dynamic model, and you then plot the estimated values of the endogenous variables. That is all that's been done in that chart.

So if, in other words, the model is a good fit AND the exogenous variables fed into forecasts are EXACTLY WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS, the future is likely to look like the model forecast.

How many exogenous variables are there in a climate model and what is their joint distribution? How are they forecast?

I can make a dynamic macro-econometric model tell me anything I want it to - without deviating any of the parameters from plausible values, and using absolutely cast-iron numbers for exogenous variables: if you know the model, you know what things to tweak to give a specific set of answers. And if you want funding, you provide the answers the client wants. If your client is the government, that goes double.

I like your site - it is a very handy resource that shows that there is massive hand-waving and appeal to authority underlying virtually all arguments which 'counter' the questions raised by 'denialists' (did the ADL advise you on how to smear?).

Cheers

GT

"And if you want funding, you provide the answers the client wants. If your client is the government, that goes double."

Right, the US gov't wants there to be global warming. That's why they suppress reports and muzzle their scientists.

"except perhaps that the parameters were estimated with the same data as was fed to the model"

What parameters are you talking about?

the global climate models encapsulate our current understanding of atmospheric dynamics. of course the output is based on the input, what else would be expected??? the denialists attack the models by focusing on the uncertaintities due to gaps in our knowledge. they do not, however, attack the underlying scientific bases that form the foundation of the global climate models. their shallow attacks do nothing to counter the two overlying issues: 1) the earth is warming and 2) greenhouse gas emissions are a principal cause.

Lets take a closer look shall we Coby,

Here are a couple of model predictions that you forgot, Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is at record levels (link needs to be updated).

When sats showed no warming in defiance of the models you simply invalidated near 30 years of data WTF!!!!

But hey if you can predict a volcanoe eruption then who am i to judge.

But enough of this frivolity, lets get down to the real issue.

Firstly if we can prove the IPCC predictions of C02 are over cooked then nothing else matters so lets start there shall we.

The IPCC report of 2000 guessed (using some hidden exponential method)the levels of C02 in the atmoshpere in 2100 would be 836 ppmv with an upper and lower level of 1040 and 720 respectively.

However since Jan 2001 C02 has increased at near linear levels of 200ppmv/century and as usual after seven years the IPCC guesstimate is completely wrong so much so that real world data is way below IPCC projections, so it is safe to say that by 2100 levels of C02 will be around 580ppmv.

Then there is the question of sensitivty,

So now lets apply the formula to these figures and for those math minded of us the formula is:Delta Ts=c1n(C/Co)

Using the IPCC guess of 836ppmv this equates to a rise of 3.6c by 2100 , using the figure of 580ppmv it is only 1.9c.

Upon reading the IPCC reports here is my evaluation of the facts or lack of them to be found:

Were labs experiments conducted?, we are not told
By what method?, we are not told

What steps were taken to replicate the original experiments?, We are not told

What are the methods by which each of the 3 key variables whose product is final climate sensitivity are evaluated? again we are not told.

How did the IPCC evaluate these methods theoretically or evaluated them empirically? We are not told

This is after all the central question to the entire debate and yet the IPCC offers no evidence of how it has come to this conclusion. How does one evaluate the magnitude of the imagined effect of changes in C02 levels on temperature.

For instance the 2001 report says a typical value of the final climate sensitivity parameter is Lambda= 0.5 yet the central estimate of Lambda implicit in the 2007 report is nearly double this value, and there is no explanation for this discrepency.

You make this correct statement, "The climate is a very complex system and our observations of it are by no means complete, even insofar as what is going on today."

But despite this admission of a lack of knowledge and understanding you make the startling claim that we have the knowledge to accurately predict the future climate. On what grounds? Guesswork?

If we do not have enough knowledge as you put it "even insofar as what is going on today." Then how can we construct a model accurate enough to make such predictions?

Hi Coby,

This will be my last post here, but before i go i would like to say it has been fun and somewhat entertaining. I believe sites like this are very important as it allows people to read the opinions of others so that they can become educated rather than indoctrinated. So good luck with the site, before i go i would like to leave you with a link to a story which i assume you have already read but here it is anyway.

I will not make comment on the story as it says it all (re models)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Conten…

Cheers

Crakar14

[replies inline]

Some basic points:

(1) If you don't include error bars, I cannot judge how accurate your predictions are. And I contend that if you don't KNOW the error bars, you don't know how accurate your predictions are, either. Example: stated solar radiation imbalance of 0.85 W/m2. No error bars. Is the result consistent with zero? No way to tell. Maybe the error bar is +/-0.01 W/m2. But I seriously doubt you could arrive at an answer with 1.1% uncertainty using the methods of this study. (See (2)). Maybe the uncertainty is +/-1.0 W/m2. No way to tell.

[What are you talking about? There are no measurements presented in this post, it is a very general overview - coby]

(2) You need to make sure your headline and the study match. Example: the solar imbalance story, in which the headline (and your summary) are extremely misleading, to the point of being marginally unethical. A careful reading of the text tells us that the parameter that was measured in the "solar radiation imbalance" study was actually ocean thermal energy content growth over the past decade (i.e. 1995-2005). What was NOT measured over the past decade was the actual solar radiation imbalance (as a quick glance at the nice CG earth might suggest). That is, the reflected and absorbed radiation rates were not the object of the study. And in point of fact the ocean thermal energy content was not even measured -- the sea surface and top layer temperatures were measured by buoys and satellites and these results were extrapolated into the ocean depth by a process not revealed in the article, other than to say it was a form of computer model. So saying "models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected..." only annoys a real scientist.

[Granted, that study was about indirect measurements and I did not describe it well. Ironically, the best hope for getting that measurement directly was put on mothballs by the Bush admin. Goggle "Goresat", it is a multi 100 million dollar satellite that is ready for launch and just sitting in storage - coby]

(3) Eyeball fits are not acceptable. You simply cannot choose a model and a dataset and say, "See, they kind of rise and fall the same way." There are any number of ways the eye can be tricked into believing there is agreement when there is in fact significant discrepancy. Example: the IPCC GMST measurements. Tell me what goodness-of-fit test you applied (chi-squared? spectral test?) and what p value you derived. DON'T TELL ME, "judge for yourself how they did." This is amateur hour. If I were your referee, I would kick your ass.

[no threats of violence please. For the statistical details please refer to the cited studies. If you can be more specific about which studies you are concerned about, I might have a link handy - coby]

(4) Averaging (or worse, bracketing) several runs to get something that eyeball-agrees with your bias is unacceptable. Example: IPCC study. Why did they show a band of four runs? What does a single run look like? What p value resulted from each of the four runs? Did any of the four runs agree with the historic record, according to an agreed pre-test alpha? What would a band of twenty runs look like? Again, this is the kind of thing first-year grad students get whipped over -- why is this showing up in "authoritative" publications?

[Again, not clear what you are referring to. "IPCC study" could mean any of dozens if not hundreds. But (if this is what you are talking about) the reason multiple runs of GCM's are averaged together is because of the large natural variability in the system. A single run, like the single realization of climate trajectory that is the observed planet earth, contains a lot of randomness. Combining many runs simply gets you a "most likely" averaging. - coby]

(5) Read the abstract before concluding it supports your assertion. Example: 20th century SST trends. "Recent theoretical studies have predicted such a pattern as a response of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system to an exogenous heating of the tropical atmosphere. This pattern, however, is not reproduced by the complex ocean-atmosphere circulation models currently used to simulate the climatic response to increased greenhouse gases." Apparently it is not obvious to you that this study suggests that the models are NOT currently capable of retrodicting SSTs.

[I don't see a problem with this, it supports the general conclusions. Don't forget that as the saying goes, "all models are wrong, but some are useful". So the generation of models this study looked at is not useful for analyzing the PDO and other ocean dynamics, but it is useful for total heat content changes on decadal scales. - coby]

BTW the ghcc link is 404.

[Thanks, I'll try to fix that - coby]

Unlike you, Coby, I'm actually a scientist. So I'm a professional skeptic. Trying to talk down to me (like calling me a "denialist") when you don't know the first thing about scientific discourse only pisses me off. I don't care if you've been blogging about climate change for two years. I'm sorry if I sound self-important -- that's not my intent at all. I came here to learn something about the state of climate modeling. And I'm leaving disappointed.

[I have never encountered bbbeard before, so have never called you personally a denialist. If you want to learn the details of the science, I recommend RealClimate for current issues but you can not do better that starting with the IPCC report and following up with the cited studies, this is really not the place for a technical education, nor was it ever intended to be.

As for your self important tone, I accept your apology, but maybe you can work on that? Thanks for the comment.
- coby]

BBB

Hey Dr. Science,

No one really believes the only thing standing between you and a new Prius is a few error bars on a climate modeling chart. I've seen your right wing blog, and you demonstrate classic angry AGW denier symptoms...like rants against government health care and economic stimulus. Your denier agenda may be couched in technical complaints, but your political agenda is loud and clear.

Leaving disappointed Doc? I doubt it. You dropped by for some quick venting, so mission accomplished. No reason to be disappointed. Maybe if you head over to realclimate the real climate scientists will play this fun game with you... but I doubt it.

Mikatollah:

So... because I know something about economics, and criticize bad economic decisions... that invalidates my scientific criticism... or something. Drop the label-maker before you hurt something -- like your credibility.

Because I'm a scientist who is angry about the politicization of science, of which this blog entry is an example... my comments about the politicization of science must be demonized. Gee, because I'm "right-wing", I guess that means sloppy science is "left-wing".

I have a suggestion -- why don't you take a critical look at how climate change science is being done, instead of just trying to crib talking points. Science is about skepticism, not agendas.

BBB

Come on Doc, admit it... you are still angry about the election and you are scared to death of the climate legislation that will be coming out of the senate this summer.

You aren't angry about the politicization of science, you are angry because it is about to stop. The Republican war on science (good book by the way) has no more soldiers since the voters turned you out, so you think you can change minds here?

Unlikely...

BBB: please see my reply inline.

Hi Coby,

Okay, I'm calmer now after some spicy beef salad and eggrolls at Surin Madison. ;-)

Most of my comments were directed at links in your post, not at what you wrote in your text.

So, e.g. in the article you linked "Scientists Confirm Earth's Energy is Out Of Balance" the following sentence appears: "The current imbalance is 0.85 watts per meter squared (W/m2) and will cause an additional warming of 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) by the end of this century." My complaint about such pronouncements is that they are typically provided without an uncertainty estimate. It may be that the original technical article has an error bar, but my experience over the last ten years of chasing down such climatology articles is that most don't (many of the IPCC figures do, however!). If you have access to the original article could you please look up the uncertainty? What were the primary contributors to the uncertainty?

The IPCC GMST article I referred to was one of the ones you linked, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm. IIRC (the link won't open at the moment) the authors ran a total of 4 trajectories and provided a grey band that represented the spread of the trajectories. As I pointed out, providing a line that crosses a band multiple times is not a good way to capture goodness-of-fit.

My complaint about the SST abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/5302/957) was that it contradicted the assertion that GCMs have been validated for SSTs. Your text actually only claimed "models", not GCMs in particular. But this begs the question, doesn't it? Why do you trust GCMs to set policy when they don't agree with observations?

GCMs, for me, anyway, are at the root of my skepticism about global warming. I have pretty wideranging experience with numerical models, including everything from lattice gauge theory to computational fluid, thermal, and structural dynamics. Validation is absolutely crucial, and you have to be absolutely painstaking. The minimal test for a GCM, it seems to me, is that it must successfully retrodict a significant period of recent historical global climatology using unfitted historical inputs. And "successfully" in this case means that it must pass a standard goodness-of-fit test chosen a priori, with a significance level chosen a priori. (Eyeball fits do not meet this criterion.) I would not design an airplane with an unvalidated code, much less commit trillions of dollars of GDP to climate amelioration. (Of course, a trillion dollars ain't what it used to be.)

Even so, there are lots of ways system models can produce divergent output that doesn't correspond to real world behavior. Eliminating spurious phase transitions and capturing actual divergences is far from trivial. It's a real problem pushing models into unknown territory.

Best regards
BBB

This is an interesting story the title is "If you cant explain it, you cant model it"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/15/if-you-cant-explain-it-you-cant-m…

Now i have not read all 172 comments and do not subscribe to them so if you are going to pelt me with peanuts from the gallery please base your comments on the article alone.

Cheers

Crakar

If we ask the questions [models are] not capable of answering, we get unreliable answers.

That quote from one of the sources referenced by your linked article really tells the whole story. Climate models model climate. Climate is a 30 year average of weather conditions. If you ask a climate model what the temperature will do over the next 10, or 15 years, the answer will be unreliable. As you get closer and closer to lengths of time in the 30 year range, your answer gets more and more reliable.

The biggest reason to place confidence in the state of the art GCM's is their ability to hindcast the 20th century.

Hi there Coby, how long to go before your new arrival? Hope everything is going well.

In regards to your post the quote makes sense, is it relavent? probably not, why would you ask a model to do something outside of its abilities?

In regards to hindcasting i am not aware of any with this special ability. Even your statement does not make sense in regards to 30 year, 15 year etc.

How can a 30 year prediction be more accurate than a 10 year one. Small errors will become a lot bigger in 30 years than in ten. But i suppose the best thing about a 30 year prediction is that half the people you tell will be dead and the other half would have forgotten in that time frame, its called covering ones arse.

Here are some quotes to justify my POV

Thus IPCC lead author for the Working Group 1 science report, Kevin Trenberth, writes
on Natureâs Climate Feedback blog that âThe state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil
moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC
models. There is neither an El Nino sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that
replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific
rim countries and beyondâ. Accordingly â... there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC
at all. And there never have beenâ, but instead only ââwhat ifâ projections of future
climate that correspond to certain emissions scenariosâ.

This view is reinforced by
another WG1 lead author, Jim Renwick, Renwick, responding to an audit which showed
that the climate forecasts issued by New Zealandâs National Institute of Water and
Atmosphere (NIWA) were accurate only 48% of time. In other words, one can do just as
well by tossing a coin. Renwickâs comment was that âClimate prediction is hard, half of
the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we donât expect to do
terrifically wellâ.

A third blow to the credibility of IPCC GCM forecasts was delivered by Armstrong and
Green (2007) in an audit of Chapter 8 in the latest IPCC report. They find that âin
apparent contradiction to claims by some climate experts that the IPCC provides
âprojectionsâ and not âforecastsâ, the word âforecastâ and its derivatives occurred 37
times, and âpredictâ and its derivatives occur 90 times in the body of Chapter 8â. Having
analyzed the IPCCâs approach in detail, Armstrong and Kestenâs conclusion is that
âbecause the forecasting processes ..... overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the
IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientificâ.

I think i have made my point.

Cheers

mikatollah, February 25 2009, above, refers to the politicisation of science.

This is the inevitable consequence of the political funding of science. Given that virtually all climatology is politically funded, we cannot reasonably expect anything but a systemic skewing of such science such so as to favour political action over inaction, by providing a rationale for further expansion of the state, and thus also the power, wealth and status of climatology's political paymasters.

Reinforcing the political bias in today's science, is that grants for science are far more likely to go to those who come with apparent problems to solve, compared to those who say all is well, or at least question the basis for alarm.

It may of course turn out that climate alarmism is objectively rather than merely politically justified, but I cannot but wonder what the prevailing view would be if instead of the alarmist faction getting 99% of the funding, it was instead split 50-50.

Re: Crakar's references.
Kevin Trenberth's article
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate…

I don't think he's saying here what you think he's saying. Taking quotes out of the context of the post may make your argument seem good superficially, but reading the article gives you a very different sense than what you're trying to imply about it.

Audit of NIWA's data
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&
task=view&id=38&Itemid=34

EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT!! SCIENTISTS CAN'T PREDICT WEATHER! ALSO, WATER IS WET AND ANIMALS NEED TO EAT!
Seriously, he's making a claim about climate prediction, and here NZ Climate Science is grading him based on weather. And EVEN then, the predictions were right (according to NZ Climate Science's methodology, which I have issues with) half the time!!!

Couldn't find your last reference, can you provide a link?

BFJ Cricklewood -

It may of course turn out that climate alarmism is objectively rather than merely politically justified, but I cannot but wonder what the prevailing view would be if instead of the alarmist faction getting 99% of the funding, it was instead split 50-50.

This is an interesting claim. Funding is given to climate scientists, not 'alarmists' or 'skeptics'. And, in fact, climate scientists overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that the earth is warming, and humans are the likely cause. It's not some global conspiracy to levy more taxes so scientists can jet off to the Arctic for Aurora Borealis Gazing Parties. I'm especially confused by the tax claim (not that you're making it, but others are), because it seems governments are bending over backwards to avoid levying carbon taxes.

Crakar, it is hard to respond properly to your long comments, they contain too many assumptions and cover too many topics. I stopped reading the on above at this line:

How can a 30 year prediction be more accurate than a 10 year one. Small errors will become a lot bigger in 30 years than in ten.

Perhaps we can focus on this and try to have some points of understanding. This is a common misconception and the problem resides in the difference between weather and climate. For instance, can a 4 month prediction be more accurate than a 4 day one? The answer is yes. Yes, I can predict with a very high degree of confidence that the temperature here in Vancouver will be substantially higher in 4 months, but I can not say the same for four days from now. Weather prediction is about initial conditions and how they will evolve. In weather prediction the further out in time you go the less accuracy you can expect. Climate prediction, like seasons, is about the range of possible states a system can have given some general properties. The initial state does not matter, as time passes averages emerge more clearly. The NH of the earth will be leaning more towards the sun in 4 months so I know it will be warmer, it does not matter if it is 3oC, 5oC or 10oC today.

We are in a period dominated by short term weather phenomena, specifically La ninas, but there is no reason not to expect the average trend to be reestablished. The articel you referenced was casting doubt on climate models because they have failed to predict the current stasis of global temperatures. My quotation was making the point that climate models are not designed to make 10 year predictions, so don't ask them for that.

Can we agree on this? If not, please make a focused counter argument!

"...given the absence of a few duplicate planets and some really large time machines, how can we hope to test a 100 year temperature projection today?"

The answer to that is simple. Feed in the past 100 years worth of data into the model and see if it accurately predicts the actual climate we have today. If it doesn't, then it is a pretty good indication that the model leaves something to be desired. None of the models currently being used to predict the future are good enough to predict the past or the present. There is a scientific explanation for that state of affairs: garbage in-garbage out.

Tom, please continue reading to the bottom. Click the last link. The models do a very good job of reconstructing the 20th century.

Adam: Funding is given to climate scientists, not 'alarmists' or 'skeptics'.

Maybe in theory. In reality, state-funded employees will tend to favour the state, and thus skew their findings to promote the state. It's not objective science, it's politicised science; science funded by, and therefore primarily serving, the interests of the state. Rather like the tobacco scientists who came up with studies skewed against any cancer link.

And climate scientists overhwhelmingly conclude the same thing, because they're overwhelmingly funded from the same institution in society. No conspiracy is needed to explain anything here, it's just systemic bias. All the so-called peer-reviewing, is from other beneficiaries of the same skewed system.

Yes, governments are indeed balking at the ruinous levels of taxation and regulation being demanded (on top of the already huge financial system 'rescue' measures). But only because they fear for their popularity, not because they don't like the idea.

BFJ -

I'm not really sure how a government is put at an advantage for promoting global warming if it doesn't exist. What's the motivation of a politician to advocate for dealing with global warming if it's not actually a problem? Levying additional taxes? We've already seen (and you acknowledge) that they go to great lengths to avoid doing that.

It's not objective science, it's politicized science; science funded by, and therefore primarily serving, the interests of the state.

Do you also feel the same way about evolutionary biologists, astronomers, research oncologists, geologists and particle physicists? If not, why not? If so, maybe you will acknowledge that state-funded science can actually produce good results.

Adam:
Modern governments do not "go to great lengths to avoid levying taxes". They do the exact opposite. That there are some taxes they feel they cannot get away with, does not alter the point.

"What's the motivation of a politician to advocate for dealing with global warming if it's not actually a problem?"
It provides an excuse to impose more state control over society. When the state's paid lackeys come up with reasons for expansion of the state, you'd have to be nuts to credit them with objectivity.

Politically-funded science is defiled by politics to the extent the issues it deals with have political ramifications. Climatology clearly ranks high in this respect, the other disciplines you mention perhaps less so.

BFJ -
Modern governments do not "go to great lengths to avoid levying taxes". They do the exact opposite. That there are some taxes they feel they cannot get away with, does not alter the point.

I only meant that they have (thus far) avoided levying taxes specifically for dealing with climate change. I certainly didn't mean it as a general observation.

It provides an excuse to impose more state control over society. When the state's paid lackeys come up with reasons for expansion of the state, you'd have to be nuts to credit them with objectivity.

Okay, so, if the government was going to invent something to exert more state control over lives, why would it be something as complex, subtle, and long-term as global warming? There are far more things that are 'immediately' scary than climate change. If you want to scare people into accepting more state-control, you don't threaten them with something where the worst effects happen 50+ years from now.
We've seen the immense difficulty in actually getting climate change legislation passed (mostly, I'm talking about the US, I haven't followed other countries as much), and if government officials are as manipulative, sinister and intelligent as you think they are, I'm sure they would have tried to scare us with something else, if that was their intention. unless, of course, they KNEW I would think that, and therefore are doing it because it seems so difficult to accomplish (this is where paranoid thinking leads you, to these endless layers of conspiracy and double-secret motives and misdirections. But, thankfully, modern governments are not Adrian Veidt).

It really makes no sense for some government cabal to push the Global Warming 'myth' as a way to attain more power.

But, as with everyone else, if you have some specific qualm with the science (other than nebulous conspiracy theories), I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

Here is the link to the article from which i got the quotes;

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/the_myth_of_dangerous_…

It is a very good article written by one R.M. Carter Ph.D, he touches on several topics one being computer models. He talks about two types of models, one being GCM's (used by the IPCC) which project/predict a warming climate and a second which is considered the more accurate of the two which projects/predicts cooling. However they both suffer from the Kelvin fallacy or in other words if you cant explain it you cant model it. Now i dont expect us to agree on everything he says but i am sure on some topics we will.

To Adam, you can disagree with me when i say the models dont work thats fine, i except that it is only my unqualified view of things, however Messers Trenberth and Renwick have a qualified view you need to accept it. Your argument of "taking out of context" is very weak. Both links you supplied prove that nothing was taken out of context and the harsh reality is that the models DO NOT model climate very well.

Cheers

Hi Coby,

First of all make sure you get the Anti-colic teats for the baby bottles (i am very tired today).

In regards to models and projection/predictions i think i understand what you are trying to say.

We have weather models that give us a reasonably accurate 7 day forecast on the nightly news and we have climate models that project/predict the climate in 30, 50, 100 years? Am i right so far? If so then.........

If you produce a model that lets say predicts among other things a temp rise of 3C by 2039. Now this is a 30 year model so regardless of what happens in the next 29 years my model is still accurate because my model cannot predict El Nino, La Nina, PDO, AMO,IPO and i assume cloud formation etc. If the temp is below 3C the following year because you cannot predict previously mentioned drivers then you are wrong but who cares, you, i and everyone else we knew will be dead or suffering from dementia or just lost interest and forgotten about it.

Here is my view on this logically flawed approach if i produce a model using the same scenario and i cannot account for the climate drivers listed above then what hope have i got of producing an accurate result?

What in heavens name makes you think that a model does need to or cannot be accurate for 10, 15, 20, 25 years but somehow as if by magic it has the IPCC garantee that it is accurate at 30 years? How can this be?

You have two lead authors of the IPCC telling you the IPCC cannot predict climate but yet still here we are debating a moot point.

Cheers

The Science and Public Policy Institute are a couple of right wing political hacks who will say and do anything to deny the science of AGW. They carefully hide the sources of their funding out of fear they will be discredited when people discover their true agenda.

They conduct no climate science and are unqualified to be considered experts on computer modeling. What they are experts at is manipulating opinions of the uninformed.

Wait, I'm being too kind... they are dogfaced liars.

Of course they are Mikatollah, anything that opposes your views fits into this catagory.

I notice you made no attend to address the issues of the post, you just sat in the gallery and started throwing peanuts as usual. If you are serious about religion i here the bible is a good read, better than anything the IPCC has produced anyway.

"What in heavens name makes you think that a model does need to or cannot be accurate for 10, 15, 20, 25 years but somehow as if by magic it has the IPCC garantee that it is accurate at 30 years? How can this be?"

There is no magic guarantee, nor is it a sudden switch at 30 years. The more time that passes, the more confidence there is in the prediction, because the less influence natural variability will have.

ENSO, PDO etc are not long term climate drivers, they are weather patterns.

Coby is far more patient with deniers than I am Mr. Crakar. Your complaints about climate models have all been expressed before and I see nothing new here to comment on.

Give us one thing that we haven't all heard before...

You have two lead authors of the IPCC telling you the IPCC cannot predict climate but yet still here we are debating a moot point.

We've been over this already. You are either misrepresenting their statements that modeling is not a perfect science, or taking their comments out of context (also known as quote-mining, another denialist favorite).

Ok lets call this one a draw,

Although if you are interested we could continue. How about rather than me try to convince you the models are wrong, why dont you try and convince me the models are right.

You could show real world data (sea ice, temp trends etc)that have already been predicted by the models in the past.

Mikatollah,

I had a look at Hotberry, are you Mike? Nice pics.

Cheers

Crakar

Crakar -

It's probably useful to define what exactly a climate model is in this case. This is a useful guide
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-mo…

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/7062/ar4fig95lger2.jpg
The ability to hindcast the 20th century (as has been pointed out numerous times on this thread) is probably the
main reason to have some degree of trust in the models.

Coby also has some links in the main post that you can take a look at for model predictions.

Adam: Okay, so, if the government was going to invent something to exert more state control over lives, why would it be something as complex, subtle, and long-term as global warming?

Because complex things can be said to be comprehensible only by (our, state-paid) experts, so don't argue back, Mr Lay Citizen.

For anyone remotely interested in getting to the bottom of this, wilfully blinding oneself to the correlation between the facts that
* 99.9% of climatology is state-funded
* climatology is being used to justify expansion of the state
is just plain madness.

And one need not posit a conscious conspiracy here, one need merely consider how control over funding might translate into systemic control over findings and research agendas.

BFJ -

Yeah, all that pretty much sounds like boilerplate tinfoil hat stuff. And if, by some twist of fate, you are correct and its all true, then clearly the government is far smarter than I give it credit for (being able to orchestrate such an elaborate scheme) and I gladly bow before my new Climatological Overlords.

Adam-
As mentioned, you don't need to assume smartness or conspiracy. You just need to be realistic about what effect holding the climatology purse strings would tend to have, particularly as regards conclusions relating to the state's role and legitimacy.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mista…

Interesting reading, this guy lists 8 reasons why the models dont work. I would be interested in hearing other peoples thoughts on this.

Crakar

Crakar -

Statements like this:
CO2 HAS NO MEASURABLE EFFECT ON CLIMATE
are just so monumentally stupid that I didn't even bother to read the rest of his post.

Just typical of you Adam, anything which contradicts the AGW theory is ignored out of hand. This closed mind mentality of yours is based on what? An untested theory promoted by the IPCC?

I actually feel sorry for you, i cannot imagine what it would be like to go through life not questioning anything that is put in front of you, not having the capacity for free thought. It must be horrible.

Coby,

I have a few problems with the models:

First, the models call for polar amplification.

Polyakov shows that the Arctic warming trend is only slightly higher than the Northern Hemisphere trend. He also shows that the Arctic is cooler now than it has been in the 20th century.

Polyakov et al (2003) The composite temperature record shows that since 1875 the Arctic has warmed by 1.2°C, so that over the entire record the warming trend was 0.094°C decadeâ1, with stronger spring- and wintertime warming. The Arctic temperature trend for the twentieth century (0.05°C decadeâ1) was close to the Northern Hemispheric trend (0.06°C decadeâ1). The oscillatory behavior of Arctic trends results from incomplete sampling of the large-amplitude LFO. For example, the Arctic temperature was higher in the 1930sâ40s than in recent decades, and hence a trend calculated for the period 1920 to the present actually shows cooling. Enhancement of computed trends in recent decades can be partially attributed to the current positive LFO phase.

Serreze realized this problem with the climate models and attempted to show that ice loss would actually start the Polar amplification.

Serreze et al (2006) Rises in surface air temperature (SAT) in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are expected to be amplified in northern high latitudes, with warming most pronounced over the Arctic Ocean owing to the loss of sea ice. Observations document recent warming, but an enhanced Arctic Ocean signal is not readily evident. This disparity, combined with varying model projections of SAT change, and large variability in observed SAT over the 20th century, may lead one to question the concept of Arctic amplification.

Then we look at the Antarctic. Once again studies show that the Antarctic was the warmest in the 1930-1940s. Further, the Antarctic has been cooling for the last 40 years.

So there is currently no polar amplification. The only way to show one is to cherry pick your start date, as was done for the Antarctic to show warming.

Once you address this point I will be glad to talk about the others.

Coby,

No comments yet?

Sorry Vernon, to busy to answer properly. But lets see what discussion we can scare up here.

".. in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted that the temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption."

Yes but his prediction was remarkably WRONG by 300%, which is "scenario A". Scenario A was business as usual, which has been the case since then.

" 12 years later, he was proven remarkably correct,.." No he was proved remarkably wrong ... being 300% off is being remarkably wrong.

He later said "and the facts show that the world has warmed up more rapidly than scenario B, which was the main one I used..." Not so Mr Hansen you have backtracked from your original testimony.

And in any case even scenario B has since moved higher than reality and lets see over the next few years.

"another way to test a model's "predictive" power over a long time period and that is called hindcasting"

This statement is complete rubbish. If the models are built to take all available data into account, then feeding them just part of that data as input will inevitably see them spew out results that match. The ONLY valid test for a model is to have it predict now what is going to happen in the future.

Secondly, just having models predict 'warming' is not enough. To be valid, they have to predict a precise (within reason) change that can be measured in degrees per unit time. For example, James Hansen's 1988 models predicted temperature rises orders of magnitude greater than those actually observed.

If the models are built to take all available data into account, then feeding them just part of that data as input will inevitably see them spew out results that match.

Of course, that's not how climate models are built, therefore it's your comment that's rubbish.

For example, James Hansen's 1988 models predicted temperature rises orders of magnitude greater than those actually observed.

You've come to the wrong place to lie. This statement's simply false. All you've done is to publicize your ignorance.

As dhogaza says, simply false, James.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/hansen-has-been-wrong-bef…

James -

This statement is complete rubbish. If the models are built to take all available data into account, then feeding them just part of that data as input will inevitably see them spew out results that match.

It's always amazing to me how casually denialist trolls will accuse scientists of severe, serious fraud without a shred of evidence other than the results don't show what they [denialists] want. It's great that you're exercising your first Amendment rights, James, but it'd be nice if you used them for something other than libel.

The ONLY valid test for a model is to have it predict now what is going to happen in the future.

Considering we don't know what the inputs should be (volcanic eruptions, major storms, emissions, etc, etc) then, no, this isn't a good way to validate a model. Hindcasting, where we know both the inputs and the outputs, provides an excellent set of data to test models with. The fact that you are unable to accept the results, frankly, says more about you than it does about the models (and I certainly don't mean that it says something positive, just to be clear).

I donât know why everyone still praises Hansenâs model. To me it is a very poor model. Considering that he was able to âpredictâ effects of Pinatubo as described, I find it almost appalling that no indication of El Nino (1998) peaking is represented in his model outputs. A linear extrapolation of past 20 years of data would yield you much the same result well within noise and instrumental error to be as good of a match (but not a good model)

ThomsC, Hansen's model did a pretty good job of predicting the temperature rise. Note that the models feature forcings. That is why volcanoes are included since the sulphate aerosols emitted affect the forcing by reflecting SW radiation and thus preventing it from reaching the earth, being absorbed by the earth and being re-emitted as LW radiation (heat).

The El Nino, La Nina cycles do not involve forcing but are effects caused by rearrangement of the heat. During an El Nino the surface of the ocean is heated and thus heats the air. During this heating phase evaporation occurs and the water becomes more saline (higher density). A point is eventually reached where the surface water, though warmer than the water beneath it, sinks and removes ocean heat content from the surface to the abyssal depths of the ocean.

Cold abyssal water is displaced and makes its way to the surface where it cools the air. Note that during these cycles there is no real change in energy content of the ocean or the air only a rearrangement.

Since the models are based on forcings they cannot predict El Nino events. Hopefully, newer models will be able to include these events once they are better understood and measured.

Scenario A was not 300% wrong as Richard claims, this was a figure which featured in Crichton's work of fiction. Hansen also indicated that he felt that Scenario B was the most likely to be followed in the real world.

It is too bad that so many deniers try and distort the actual data and interpretations of the data that the scientists provide. It is much better to actually read the papers as printed in the scientific literature and discussed by the scientists actually working in the area.

Considering that he was able to âpredictâ effects of Pinatubo as described, I find it almost appalling that no indication of El Nino (1998) peaking is represented in his model outputs.

Individual model runs do give rise to ENSO-like phenomena, however they will never - no matter how good they are - be able to predict in which *years* in the future we'll see El Niño or La Niña events. Even if the physics were to be perfect, you're faced with the initial state problem.

The model output you've seen is almost undoubtably the averaging of many runs, as this approach better meets the needs of researchers trying to answer questions like "what's the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2?". Not "will the first El Niño of the 22nd century occur in 2110 or 2115?". The averaged output is typically what is plotted and presented in reports like those from the IPCC.

Aerodynamic models have exactly the same problem - yet airplanes fly.

Modeling the physics that goes on inside a hydrogen bomb has exactly the same problem - yet the bombs blow up.

Please don't be frightened away by the title of this video?
Please watch it right through?
To quote the youtube poster:
"David Evans worked for the Aust Greenhouse office as a modeller and established the worlds best method of carbon accounting. He also started to realise CO2 is not the cause of dangerous global warming. Here he explains why... "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTUDWy6T050&feature=channel

I doubt they watched it Michael, Evans is no doubt a liar and a nutjob like Monckton.

By the way i have just completed writing a computer program which predicts the winners of the AFL grand final and the super bowl 100 years (2109) from now, and the winners are.....drum roll....Geelong and the Seahawks.

It will be difficult to prove me wrong as 99.99% of the population will not be alive to see my predictions come true and the remaining 0.01% will not be aware of the milestone reached due to senility.

Now this program takes into account millions of different ever changing parameters of things that we dont fully understand and no i will not give you access to the source code.

However i challenge anyone to prove me wrong, and no calling me a liar and a nutjob does not prove me wrong OK.

So get to it then.

Cheers

Crakar

David Evans is an engineer, not a scientist, and has no credentials in climate science.

He famously claims to be a "rocket scientist" but has never worked in the aerospace industry, or with rockets, space program, etc.

When called on it, he gave this explanation:

In US academic and industry parlance, "rocket scientist" means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions. The term arose for people who *could* do rocket science, not those who literally build rockets.Thus the term "rocket scientist" means someone with a PhD in physics, electrical engineering, or mathematics (or perhaps a couple of other closely related disciplines), from MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and maybe a few other institutions.

I did a PhD in electrical engineering at Stanford in the 1980s. Electrical engineering is your basic high tech degree, because most high technology spawned from electrical information technology. I specialized in signal processing, maths, and statistics.

That's laughable.

So why should I believe what an electrical engineer says about the physics of CO2 rather than trust what physicists have learned over the last 150 years?

Should I also accept his views on evolution? Economics?

Rocket science?

Now this program takes into account millions of different ever changing parameters of things that we dont fully understand and no i will not give you access to the source code.

You can find the source code to GISS Model E linked to from this page. Why can't I see the source to yours? What's your point?

I find it, and the high-level documentation, very useful when countering claims that "the models don't include clouds", etc.

Some things are easier to predict than others. Your snarky sports prediction is an example of in essence weather prediction, and no one claims that models can do so.

On the other hand, I can predict with certainty that as long as the business structure of american major league baseball remains the same, that as of 2100 the New York Yankees will still have won more championships than any other team.

This is more similar to climate projections than your snarky one. Climate projections are about long term trends (as is my long-term prediction about the Yankees), not about individual weather events in a particular year. The projections are based on axiomatic preconditions (in my case, the business structure of MLB doesn't change; in the case of climate models, that CO2 emissions track a certain projection, no asteroid hits the earth, sun doesn't supernova, etc).

If you don't think models are useful - don't fly. Modern airliner design is heavily model-driven.

That's why they're so much safer than the old British Comet or Boeing 707.

Dogaza just when you start to show your humorous side you let me down, the only way you could have proven my model to be incorrect was by saying that the seahawks can never win the SB.

Here is what Evans has achieved

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:xe0KzSUKdX8J:sciencespeak.com/Davi…

Now just to clear up a few misnomers dogaza there is no such thing as a "rocket scientist" per se thats because there are many disciplines that are required to design, build and launch a rocket too much knowledge is required therefore no one man can ever call himself one.

The same goes for "climate scientist" they dont exist for the same reasons. If i have worked on rockets does this make me a rocket scientist? If so i better update my resume.

Now back to my model, if you honestly believe that the bought and paid for scientists of the IPCC dont act in any way other than with honesty and integrity then you are wrong (i dont like to call people liars like you do). Its funny but if you read the Monckton article this would be more clearer to you but alas he is a liar also. Take off your rose colored glasses for once and you will realise that many IPCC scientists do not allow others to view how they arrived at their results.

I am glad you mentioned models that design aircraft for i have a really good example i would like to share with, imagine a company that wants to design a plane that can travel at 4 times the speed of sound, how do they do this?

Well they take thier existing knowledge and a dollop or two of guess work and develope a program to design the plane. Now they know that this design will not be perfect but it will be enough for the scaled down test aircraft to fly. They can then bolt the test aircraft to a rocket and launch it high up into near space and on its return they can take thousands of measurements.

What do you think they will do with this data dogaza? Thats right they adjust the computer model, they use real life data to verify and adjust the model. As opposed to the IPCC which say "the oceans are cooling", "not if we ignore the sat data they aren't", "phew that was a close one".

mikatollah: In the months since you posted, the GOP has succeeded in stopping the Democrats' agenda in its tracks. There won't be any climate change legislation in 2009. It's uncertain whether there will even be health care reform legislation in 2009.

There won't be any climate change legislation in 2009. - Sinz54

How nice. Just as well the American southwest is going to one of the first to suffer the effects of AGW. Just desserts huh?.

Methinks someone's counting their chickens before they hatch, as the agenda hasn't been brought to a halt. What's been brought to a halt is the stupid notion of "bipartisanship", which we won't get and should stop caring about.

The EPA's drafting rules which will regulate the largest sources of CO2 in the US, and is putting into place new mileage standards for cars and trucks which will also move things in the right direction. The GOP and industry (hey, check out those big companies bailing on the US Chamber of Commerce) will have a choice: support a reasonable climate bill or let Obama and the EPA set the agenda without them.

Health care? A bill's coming out of the Finance Committee soon, and with Ted Kennedy's replacement sworn in, they no longer need Olivia Snowe's vote to break any filibuster effort.

Now, is either bill going to be as strong as progressives would like? No. But they'll both represent a very large step forward from the status quo.

I see you left the thread that you closed this one for out to die because it could no be answered and now we are back here.

Shall I post the stuff you could not answer there here?

I see you left the thread that you closed this one for out to die because it could no be answered and now we are back here.

And just think, English is this dude's native tongue ...

dhogaza said:

If you don't think models are useful - don't fly. Modern airliner design is heavily model-driven. That's why they're so much safer than the old British Comet or Boeing 707.

I noticed in the thread above that the only person who actually brought up the topic of model validation (bbbeard) was ridiculed for the politics on his blog, and his criticisms weren't actually answered. Your example of model use in aeronautical engineering is a good one. The important thing to understand about why they are so successful is the stringent verification / validation practices that groups like AIAA and ASME promulgate (and the significant amount of effort over the past few decades that's gone into the development of those best practices).

Pretending that model validation in climate science isn't an open research question, or belittling people who point out the gaps, is just advocacy not honest debate.

Let's see, I think a little issue has been over looked here

The FAA requires that flight testing be successfully completed prior to certification. And that testing will be done under the Independent eyes of FAA personnel in real time.

It's called Independent Validation.

Yet Another Naked Strawman ( YANS ) by dhogaza; short, thin, single-straw version.

What?

Let's see, I think a little issue has been over looked here

The FAA requires that flight testing be successfully completed prior to certification. And that testing will be done under the Independent eyes of FAA personnel in real time.

Yes. Before certification. Not before flight testing (d'oh). When two test pilots are trained on a simulator built in parallel with the airplane, and the plane flies the first time exactly as they were led to expect by their training in that simulator, I think the model underlying the design and implementation of both the airplane and simulator may be deemed successful.

Thats not quite correct Dhogaza and if there was any subject i could speak on with some authority it would be this one.

Let me explain further, aeronautical engineers have a very good understanding of the physics of flight or aerodynamics.

So lets say they want to design a new plane a little bit bigger and a little heavier and maybe a litle bit faster than the old one. They can simply use a model as you said to simulate the aerodynamic forces placed on the structures of the plane because in the end not much has changed.

But lets say you wanted to design a plane that could travel at 4 times the speed of sound, at this speed the stresses could not be calculated in a model because we would not know what those stresses would be at this speed. Of course we could still model it but we would have to make some assumptions.

Now rather than just accept the model assumptions as they are and go right ahead and build a plane and hope the wings dont come off in its first flight we can build a scaled down version of our plane, bolt it to a rocket blast it high up into the atmosphere, explode the bolts and let the plane glide (at 4 X the speed of sound) back to the ground taking measurements as we go, its called empirical evidence.

We then use this empirical evidence to get rid of any assumptions in our model, this way we can have confidence in our model results. I will leave the reader to draw any comparisons between this example of a model and the climate version.

Oh and Dhogaza before you go saying this is all made up bull dust, it has already been done.

dhogaza said:

If you don't think models are useful - don't fly. Modern airliner design is heavily model-driven. That's why they're so much safer than the old British Comet or Boeing 707.

And then he said:

Not before flight testing (d'oh).

And I had assumed, perhaps foolishly, that the former comment referred to, you know, a member of the general public and scheduled commercial air travel. An excellent assumption on my part as I'm certain that no member of the general public has ever been invited along during initial flight testing, not even in a simulator.

It's all testing and it's all validation. Testing is conducted on materials and components and complete assemblies from the mine mouth to the final finished product. The materials that make a wing are tested, the assembled wing is tested, and then the wing plus aircraft is tested and so on to test flights.

It is all validation prior to allowing the product to be put into use by the general public.

Even in my work, I have found that the computer-language compilers which have been independently tested and validated and certified against the language reference specifications are among the more useful.

A question about hindcasting results shown in references. BBB's comments some time ago to the effect that building a model and tweaking it for a sample period (say the last 20 or 30 years) to get good results potentially plays havoc with any measure of reliability with regard to the sample period. This would be the case if data from the whole of the 20th century was used to estimate the model(s) in question. If on the other hand, estimating values beyond the time period used for input data would seem to be kosher.

But there would appear to be a further difficulty in that the variables in question, i.e. CO2 concentration and temperature, don't vary much compared to the last 20 to 30 years. Which would seem to say that only the more recent data upon which, unfortunately, the models were built can give us useful measures.

Having analyzed the IPCCâs approach in detail, Armstrong and Kestenâs conclusion is that âbecause the forecasting processes ..... overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientificâ.

It looks to me as if Kesten and Armstrong ignore all the science, and look for some magic forecasting model. It's as if they wish to see whether meteorologists have a model for forecasting that matches what Armstrong and Kesten think is an elegant model, but without paying any attention to surface temperature. In other words, they can't tell whether a forecast for snow in July in Tucson, Arizona, is good or bad, because they ignore the science of snow.

It's not the science they carp about, at least, not that I can tell. It appears to me they don't understand what science is. In their recent plan for a diatribe using DDT's ban in the U.S. as a model, for example, they assume much that simply is not true -- that there is no evidence to show DDT harmful, that U.S. law would allow an agency to ban a pesticide on a whim and could not be challenged in court, and that a ban in the U.S. automatically means African nations can't get DDT.

I don't care how good you are at math or how elegant your model, if you ignore the facts, you're sunk.

@Ed,
Brrrrr....that link you gave....

It's riddled with long-debunked denialist talking points and loads of questionable claims.

Funniest idiocy in the paper:
"This lack of scientific forecasts is no surprise to climate scientists: our conclusion is in agreement with the conclusions of the more than 31,000 U.S. climate scientists who signed the Robinson petition."

31,000 climate scientists? Oh dear...

I think we have two more people we can add to a long list of manipulators. People who are willing to distort the facts as much as Green & Armstrong do cannot be called deluded, or wrong, they are deliberately manipulating. Ignorance is no excuse, they should know better.

I could have put this anywhere really but i thought i would put it here as the only evidence they have to make such claims resides in the bowels of a computer model whilst real world evidence shows the exact opposite. So here it is read and enjoy.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/amazone…

Couple of interesting papers:

".....Relative to pre-2005 conditions, forest subjected to a 100-millimeter increase in water deficit lost 5.3 megagrams of aboveground biomass of carbon per hectare. The drought had a total biomass carbon impact of 1.2 to 1.6 petagrams (1.2 x 1015 to 1.6 x 1015 grams). Amazon forests therefore appear vulnerable to increasing moisture stress, with the potential for large carbon losses to exert feedback on climate change....."

source: Phillips et al, 2009, Drought Sensitivity of the Amazon Rainforest, Science, Vol 323(5919), pp. 1344 - 1347.

ââ¦We observed a widespread, significant increase in tree mortality across our plots. Tree recruitment also rose significantly over time but lagged behind mortality. Tree growth generally accelerated but varied considerably among census intervals, and was lowest when mortality was highest. Tree basal area rose 4% overall, but stem number exhibited no clear trend. In terms of climate variation, annual maximum and minimum temperatures increased significantly during our study. Rainfall anomalies were strongly and positively associated with ENSO eventsâ¦.The increasing forest dynamics, growth, and basal area observed are broadly consistent with the CO2 fertilization hypothesis. However, pronounced shorter-term variability in stand dynamics might be associated with climatic vicissitudes. Tree mortality peaked, and tree recruitment and growth declined during atypically wet periodsâ¦â

Source: Laurance et al, 2009, Long-term variation in Amazon forest dynamics, Journal of Vegetation Science, Vol 20(2), pp 323 â 333.

ââ¦.We find that the loss of Amazonian rainforest is robust across the climate uncertainty explored by perturbed physics simulations covering a wide range of global climate sensitivity. â¦. The introduction of the more sophisticated dynamic vegetation model reduces but does not halt the rate of forest dieback. The potential for human-induced climate change to trigger the loss of Amazon rainforest appears robustâ¦â

Source: Huntingford et al, 2008, Towards quantifying uncertainty in predictions of Amazon âdiebackâ, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Vol 363(1498), pp 1857-1864

Its amazing what you can find if you read scientific papers, rather than opinion websites written by people who have no idea what they are talking about. I would highly recommend it to everyone!

The interesting thing about opinion websites is that they are not confined by any preconcieved ideas, for example.

ââ¦.We find that the loss of Amazonian rainforest is robust across the climate uncertainty explored by perturbed physics simulations covering a wide range of global climate sensitivity. â¦. The introduction of the more sophisticated dynamic vegetation model reduces but does not halt the rate of forest dieback. The potential for human-induced climate change to trigger the loss of Amazon rainforest appears robustâ¦â

So in a nutshell a model is used to show the forest die back *IF* there was a decrease in rain fall, which is all well and good however when we look at the yearly rain fall over the past 100 years we find rain fall has been very consistent therefore the models are not predicting anything of any
relevance or usefulness.

I am sure if you plugged in the real world rain fall records into the computer model rather than another output from a computer model that predicts or predicted drought that has not actually occurred yet the results of this model would be quite different.

So getting back to the original story, is a paper which bases its entire assumptions purely on the output of a computer model, an output that has absolutely no bearing on real world data good enough for the IPCC to use in its reports?

Has science been reduced so much that the output of a computer model is considered 100% correct regardless of what empirical measurements tell us? If so then i find this situation to be a very sad one indeed.

Cheers

".....The interesting thing about opinion websites is that they are not confined by any preconcieved ideas...."

That would have to be the singularly stupidest statement I have ever read in my entire life. But perhaps I misread, so can you elaborate please. Are you saying that opinion websites, particularly such gems of objective thought as the SPPI (an oxymoron if ever there was one), have no preconceived ideas and is not contrained by a particular ideology? Because if you are, then you will have lost whatever minimal degree of credibility that you ever held. Please say I misread, or that you accidentally mistyped, or something...... please!!!!

The IPCC make the claim that the Amazon *WILL* lose up to 40% of forest due to AGW.

Yet when we have a closer look we find the studies are not peer reviewed (WWF) in fact we cannot find where the 40% claim actually came from, digging a little deeper we find a computer model is the soul source of data being relied upon to make said claims.

As i have shown the real world data tells us that there is no drought nor has there ever been a drought in the Amazon and yet the IPCC claim that there is or at least will be a drought some time in the future.

Did the IPCC make the following disclaimers:

1, The study was not peer reviewed
2, They made up the 40% figure and
3, Did they disclose the 100 year rain fall record?

No they did none of the above but why? Why would the IPCC deliberately with hold this information? Could it be that they felt if this information was disclose along with the study the study itself would be considered useless and therefore the IPCC would not be able to claim the Amazon is going to turn into a savannah?

Why have you so far ignored the very same points listed above?

Now i have tried to be civil if you reply all i ask is the same in return.

crakar, don't believe everything you read in the newspapers, they are not known for accuracy and truth when they discuss science.

All your (wrong) points arose from a fraudulent and inaccurate column in the Sunday Times by that well known pseudo-journalist Jonathan Leake.

The Sunday Times recently had to write an apology for their mistakes:

The article âUN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claimâ (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an âunsubstantiated claimâ that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as âgreen campaignersâ with âlittle scientific expertise.â The article also stated that the authorsâ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.

In fact, the IPCCâs Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCCâs use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reportsâ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change.

In addition, the article stated that Dr Lewisâ concern at the IPCCâs use of reports by environmental campaign groups related to the prospect of those reports being biased in their conclusions. We accept that Dr Lewis holds no such view â rather, he was concerned that the use of non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the publicâs understanding of the science of climate change. A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.

There is a lesson in this for you Crakar if you are prepared to learn. That is, do not believe what you read in shoddy sources but read what the scientists themselves have to say.

Ian,

Just a small point, but I see the claim that this is based on a peer reviewed study, but I do not see the study listed. Can you cite it since you are citing someone saying the study exists rather than the study?

Thanks Ian,

I take your point and consider it a valid one in an overall perspective however in this case i think the IPCC may have erred.

Here is the quote from the IPCC

"Up to 40%of theAmazonian forests could react drastically to
even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the
tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South
America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not
necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and
the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more
probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have
more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature
increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas."

Here is what DR Lewis had to say.

"The 40% claim is not actually referenced in the Rowell & Moore 2000 report (they use Nepstad to reference the specific figures in the next sentence). The Nepstad Nature paper is about the interactions of logging damage, fire, and periodic droughts, all extremely important in understanding the vulnerability of Amazon forest to drought, but is not related to the vulnerability of these forests to reductions in rainfall. I donât see how that can be the source of Rowellâs 40% claim. Its more likely an unreferenced statement by Rowell"

All this and more is in the original article i posted, so in the end as Vernon alluded to there is no peer reviewed study to base the IPCC claims on.

Now onto that small matter of actual rain fall data as opposed to the computer model predictions, if the last 100 years shows no trend of any significance then how can we put all our faith into the predictions of said model?

If we are to put our faith into this model would it be too much to ask when is the drought going to begin? I would expect if a model can predict a drought will happen it should be able to predict when/where and how severe it will be.

While we are at it i would also expect there to be some kind of explanation as to the rationale behind the prediction. I should be a little more explicit here and say is the input into this data based on real world observations ie actual rain fall figures or is the input to this model based on the output of another model?

If the original model used as the input to the second model has an error wouldnt we just be compounding the error? Our reliance on computer models to view the world we can see through our windows is beginning to be quite disturbing.

crakar

Perhaps people would take you a little more seriously if you did a modicum of research and didn't make catastrophically stupid statements like this one at post #74 (it rivals your assertion about the objectiveness of the SPPI for the stupidest of all time):

".....As i have shown the real world data tells us that there is no drought nor has there ever been a drought in the Amazon and yet the IPCC claim that there is or at least will be a drought some time in the future...."

How about you go to Google and type "Amazon drought" or something similar. You will be amazed what you find. (hint - the papers I provided in post #71 referred to the Amazon drought of 2005).

Jesus Crakar. Couldn't you respect our Independence day before posting this? Mandas and IPF did the main work here (I was still busy celebrating the end of British Tyranny in North America), but there are a a couple of fallacies in your argument in addition to the reliance on a pseudo-science web source who lists Chris Monckton as a climate authority. Incredible.

Now onto that small matter of actual rain fall data as opposed to the computer model predictions, if the last 100 years shows no trend of any significance then how can we put all our faith into the predictions of said model? --Crakar

Yeah Mandas beat me to this one, and saying an opinion piece does not suffer from preconceptions is right up there with some of your other really, really dodgy statements over the past couple of years. But I'm becoming inured, mate.

The reasonable point is that the 40 percent figure was cavalier and poorly cited, but to infer from this as you did in your original gloating email:

the only evidence they have to make such claims resides in the bowels of a computer model whilst real world evidence shows the exact opposite.

Because, Crakar, projection of increased risk of drought is about the *future*, where model projections based on the basic science of what *increasing* CO2 levels can do is all we have.

But waive all of this.

Lets suppose for the sake of argument that the IPCC totally botched this, that there is no scientific basis for fearing the effects of drought in the Amazon. It would only expose a flaw in IPCC professionalism; it has *nothing* to do with the *overall science of global warming*.

Do you understand this?

Your logic requires us to assume, "Well, we can't prove the Amazon isn't safe, therefore we can assume the whole planet *is* safe! AGW is not a problem!"

Its just another version of the linearity fallacy all over again.

Taken seriously? Me? On this website? Surely you jest.

However you do raise an important point which rolls over into comments made by Skip.

The IPCC are the self proclaimed gurus of climatology the gold standard if you will therefore the claims made by the IPCC should be taken seriously. Most if not all claims made by the IPCC compel the reader to generate images of death, doom and destruction so therefore it is important for us to examine each and every one of their claims.

The claims surrounding the Amazon are just that claims, they are not backed up by peer review and there is no citation for the 40% figure. So what are we to make of this?

Some people will simply ignore this and state "well that was just one mistake, but the rest is solid....i guess"

And yet the more people dig the more they find, anecdotal evidence from mountineering magazines, a students musings, typos (2035, 2350) and the list goes on.

PS It appears that Mandas has a character flaw in which he finds it impossible to have a conversation without resorting to throwing darts, so if he truly wishes to be taken seriously he will stick to the topic and provide a study that supports the 40% claim made by the IPCC.

crakar

First of all, there is no such thing as 'anecdotal evidence'. They are contradictory terms which should never be used together.

Secondly, the reason I throw darts is because some people continue to make the most ludicrous statements and expect to get away with it. Anyone who claims the IPCC is an objective organisation is either a complete moron, is being disengenuous, or is being deliberately provocative. I know its not the latter, so which one of the first two is it crakar? Then there is the idiotic statement that the Amazon has never experienced drought. That speaks volumes about the credibility of its writer - when even the most miniscule amount of research will reveal that it is patently false. Did you really think you would get away with such stupidity without it being pointed out to you? Or are you really that stupid that you believe it to be true? Are you just spectacularly lazy and so embroiled in your own prejudices that you believe such nonsense?

Finally, how many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the information on a potential reduction in the Amazon rainforest is valid and is based on peer reviewed work? How about we do it one more time for your benefit:

ââ¦Claims that a large proportion of the Amazon rainforest is vulnerable to forest fires from even small reductions in rainfall are not 'bogus' but are in fact a widely held scientific viewâ¦.The Sunday Times had published an article in January this year saying it was 'an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise'â¦.However, in a complaint settled by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the newspaper has now admitted the claims in a WWF report, used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 report, were supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidenceâ¦.up to 40 per cent of the Amazon was 'extremely sensitive' to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. This was based on evidence from the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM)â¦â

Source: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/516261/amazon_rainforest…

Now I can't read Portugese, and I suspect neither can anyone else here. But you can go to their website and have a look at their research program if you like. And here are a just a couple of supporting papers from other sources:

ââ¦..Severe drought in moist tropical forests provokes large carbon emissions by increasing forest flammability and tree mortality, and by suppressing tree growth.â¦..During the severe drought of 2001, PAW10âm fell to below 25% of PAWmax in 31% of the region's forests and fell below 50% PAWmax in half of the forests. Field measurements and experimental forest fires indicate that soil moisture depletion below 25% PAWmax corresponds to a reduction in leaf area index of approximately 25%, increasing forest flammability. Hence, approximately one-third of Amazon forests became susceptible to fire during the 2001 ENSO period. Field measurements also suggest that the ENSO drought of 2001 reduced carbon storage by approximately 0.2âPg relative to years without severe soil moisture deficitsâ¦.â

Source: Nepstad et al, 2004, Amazon drought and its implications for forest flammability and tree growth: a basin-wide analysis, Global Change Biology, Vol 10(5), pp 704-717

ââ¦.The Amazon is surprisingly sensitive to drought, according to new research conducted throughout the world's largest tropical forest. The 30-year study, published in Science, provides the first solid evidence that drought causes massive carbon loss in tropical forests, mainly through killing treesâ¦.â

Source: Phillips et al, 2009, Drought Sensitivity of the Amazon Rainforest, Science, Vol 323(5919), pp. 1344 â 1347 (referenced in post #71)

So crakar, its well past the time when you should admit that you have got it wrong. You have made incorrect statement after incorrect statement. You have failed to do even basic research. You link to websites and articles which are not based on evidence, and which are ALWAYS shown to be wrong. You rely on people with no credibility like Anthony Watts, Jo Nova and Christopher Monckton, when there are REAL scientists who write REAL papers with REAL evidence which demonstrate time and time and time again the climate change is real, and it is anthropogenic in nature.

Go away, grow up, take a basic course in science, do some reading, and stop acting like a complete moron.

And of course I meant the SPPI - not the IPCC - in the second paragraph of my previous post (I admit my mistakes)

Mandas,

The statement made by the IPCC can be found in post 77. Do you believe this statement by the IPCC is 100% accurate and was it based on peer reviewed studies?

That was the original question but as always you trawl the internet and find some obscure study in a vain hope of steering the conversation in another direction for the sole purpose of trying to win an argument.

I thank IPF for his relevant post but like Vernon i sit here patiently waiting for the citation.

(bangs head against wall - wonders if this guy will EVER get it!!!!!!)

I will answer your questions - then demand that you apologise and admit your error in firstly asserting that the SPPI is objective, and secondly that there has been no drought in the Amazon.

To answer your questions: No and Yes (But the ONLY error the IPCC made was that Rowell and Moore was a secondary reference. The referenced information was used in Rowell and Moore, but Rowell and Moore had quoted from the primary source, which is Nepstad et al. So the only error in the IPCC report was to reference Rowell and Moore when they should have refenced Nepstad et al - the information itself is correct). Go away and read them for yourself.

Here is Dr Lewis's statement once again

"The 40% claim is not actually referenced in the Rowell & Moore 2000 report (they use Nepstad to reference the specific figures in the next sentence). The Nepstad Nature paper is about the interactions of logging damage, fire, and periodic droughts, all extremely important in understanding the vulnerability of Amazon forest to drought, but is not related to the vulnerability of these forests to reductions in rainfall. I donât see how that can be the source of Rowellâs 40% claim. Its more likely an unreferenced statement by Rowell."

In other words he is saying that Rowell and Moore referenced the Napsted paper as you say however he goes onto say "I donât see how that can be the source of Rowellâs 40% claim. Its more likely an unreferenced statement by Rowell."

So i ask again where is the citation that the IPCC used to claim 40% of the Amazon will perish by drought?

In regards to droughts in general i accept that there will be certain areas that recieve less rain fall from year to year but what does the rain fall stats i showed you tell us?

The actual statement you reference to was "The interesting thing about opinion websites is that they are not confined by any preconcieved ideas, for example."

This is a very broad statement but essentially it means or was meant to be interpreted as a website can express opinions based on the authors point of view. For example an independant news source such as SBS will express views that are unhindered (in theory) by external influences whereas the ABC being gov owned will more than likely be influenced by the gov of the day.

In regards to AGW websites you consistently lambast certain websites for their impartiality some examples would be Jo Nova, Watts, SPPI and CO2science to name but a few and what is the one thing these websites have in common? None of them agree with you, thats it, they just dont agree with you. Based on this one common thread you reject anything that they produce.

And yet i am sure you could list a whole bunch of AGW websites that get your nod of approval (realclimate etc).

But what is this rejection and approval based on? Are you an expert in the field of climatology? No you are not so how do you know who is right and who is wrong.

For example if Watts posts a peer reviewed study by a scientist showing a correlation between the length of solar cycle and the climate, that correlation being the longer the cycle the colder the Earth will get you will instantly dismiss it.

On what grounds would you dismiss the study?

Because it was on Watts website or would you reject the science, i would assume that you know very little about solar physics so it must be because it appears on Watts.

What if it appeared in an IPCC report (humour me) would you accept the study then? Do you know the number of studies the IPCC used to conclude the sun (outside of TSI) has no effect on climate? The answer is 1, one study was used to refute all the studies that says otherwise.

This is why you are called a believer.

Now i have posed a lot of questions here but of course they are all rhetorical so by all means keep banging that head of yours.

Cheers

I would like to get a hold of the Nepsted paper but isn't this statement on its face kind of silly?

The Nepstad Nature paper is about the interactions of logging damage, fire, and periodic droughts, all extremely important in understanding the vulnerability of Amazon forest to drought, but is not related to the vulnerability of these forests to reductions in rainfall.

What?

How is "reduction in rainfall" not related to "drought"? If Lewis means that the Nepstad paper does not say carbon is the *cause* of reductions in rainfall then ok I can buy that, but if IPCC is only saying, "Here is what can happen if reductions in rainfall get worse," then the Nepstad paper is absolutely legitimate as a source.

Do you understand what I'm saying, Crakar? If the 40 percent figure was pulled out of an ass then ok that was botched, but the principle argument was sound. And if the effect of reduced rainfall (leading to more frequent drought) would only have the 40 percent effect in *concert* with those other forces (logging, etc.) then that was admittedly misleading.

Someone link this study and we can resolve this.

Do you know the number of studies the IPCC used to conclude the sun (outside of TSI) has no effect on climate? The answer is 1, one study was used to refute all the studies that says otherwise.

Please go back to Its the Sun, Stupid, Crakar, and list those "studies." (Cut and paste from Denier blogs is your specialty; have at.) Here comes the IPCC "ignoring peer reviewed literature" again.

Anyone remember CO2 residence time?

what is the one thing these websites have in common? None of them agree with you, thats it, they just dont agree with you.

No, its because they use Monckton as an authority. Its a fatal credibility drain. There's no way around it, Crakar. Your man's a quack--even if he fooled you so well that you thought yourself shrewd in plagiarizing him.

Now if you would disavow the fop we could move on.

crakar

I love answering your questions:

"....In regards to AGW websites you consistently lambast certain websites for their impartiality some examples would be Jo Nova, Watts, SPPI and CO2science to name but a few and what is the one thing these websites have in common?..."

They are both produced by, and read by, morons.

crakar,

Can you read? Or do you just refuse to do so because you are afraid that if you read a science paper then you might discover that your whole world is based on false assumptions. Here is a direct cut and paste from the Rowell and Moore paper:

"....Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A
further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.46...."

Now, you will note that the quote has a number 46 at the end? That is referring to a footnote, which is the source of the material. If you then go to the end of the paper, you will find this:

46 D. C. Nepstad, A. VerÃssimo, A. Alencar, C. Nobre, E. Lima, P. Lefebvre, P.Schlesinger, C. Potter, P. Mountinho, E. Mendoza, M. Cochrane, V. Brooks, Large-scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire, Nature, 1999, Vol 398, 8 April, pp505

What that means is that the source of the material related to the "40% of the Brazilian forest being extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall" is the Nepstad et al paper. This is what I was explaining to you in post 84. The IPCC incorrectly referenced Rowell and Moore as the source of their information on the 40% figure (yes - 40% is the actual number used!!!!!) because Rowell and Moore were not the PRIMARY source - they were a secondary source, because the primary source was actually Nepstad (as referenced in Rowell and Moore).

So........ The IPCC did make a mistake in using a secondary source (as I have indicated). So.... Lets go back to your original points shall we....

In post 72 you said this:

"....So getting back to the original story, is a paper which bases its entire assumptions purely on the output of a computer model, an output that has absolutely no bearing on real world data good enough for the IPCC to use in its reports?..."

And in post 74 you said this"

".....Did the IPCC make the following disclaimers:
1, The study was not peer reviewed
2, They made up the 40% figure and
3, Did they disclose the 100 year rain fall record?
No, they did none of the above but why? Why would the IPCC deliberately with hold this information?...."

So what we have seen - and has been pointed out to you time and time and time and time and time again, you are WRONG as usual, and as usual, you refuse to admit your error.

The paper is NOT based purely on computer models - it is based on actual field trials and observations. The study WAS peer reviewed, and was published in 'Nature'. The IPCC did NOT make up the 40% number - it is a direct quote from the Nepstad paper.

And of course, you get worse with your idiocy. In post 77
you quote the IPCC (correctly fortunately):

"...Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation..."

Please tell me how this is incorrect. And while you are at it, could you please tell me how you managed to turn "...COULD react drastically....", to your asssertion at post 74 where you state "....The IPCC make the claim that the Amazon *WILL* lose up to 40% of forest due to AGW....".

There is a very big difference in scientific circles (and the rest of the world I might add), between COULD and WILL. Do you know the difference, or are you just being a disengenuous denier by trying to turn one into the other?

So - once again, go away, grow up, do a science course, learn to read, do some research, stop reading the opinions of no-nothing morons who have been demonstrated to both have agendas and be wrong with depressing regularity, admit when you are wrong, apologise for your repeated errors, and stop acting like a complete moron.

Ian Patrick Forrester go to your room!

Oh, wait. That was Mandas . . . sorry.

admit when you are wrong, apologise for your repeated errors, and stop acting like a complete moron.

Just so no one thinks I interact on this forum to *avoid* conversing with my wife . . .

That being said . . .

Thanks for doing the leg work on this, Mandas. I was actually getting interested enough to slog through and look it up myself.

I didn't want this thread to slip away without the answers to my questions (after all, I answered as demanded), the admission of error and apology.

Of course this is where we were talking, i will re post the link here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7883372…

Post 86, thanks for taking the time Skip but my questions were posed to Mandas so unless you have your hand firmly planted up his arse i suggest you let him answer in his own words.

Post 87, gibberish

Post 88, Mandas you still dont get it do you go read the story in the link above.

Post 89, more gibberish

Post 86, "Anyone remember CO2 residence time?" Give it your best shot Skip.

I thought you had lost the plot before crakar, but your latest is by far and away the most ludicrous ever. How many times do we have to tell you to read science papers, not the opinions of morons with agendas?

You can rant and rave all you like about ad-hominon attacks, and you can say 'gibberish' etc to you are blue in the face, but its about time you actually read what is being said to you, and go to the primary source.

I continually criticse the sources of your material - for good reason. The people who you quote from are just idiots. How about you give us a credible source of information for a change? And your latest - Christopher Booker from the UK Telegraph - is probably the worst of the worst. Here are just some of the things he is into:

"....Booker, a prominent global warming sceptic, has claimed in his long-running column in the Sunday Telegraph that 2008 was "the year man-made global warming was disproved", amid "a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warmingand that government policy aimed at dealing with this issue will be ruinously expensive. Booker has also claimed that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health, stating that "HSE studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton in 2000, concluded that the risk from the substance is "virtually zero". Booker has also claimed that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist"; there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans".
Darwinists "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions". BBC Radio 4's Today Programme "crudely distorted" the debate between defenders of the theory of Intelligent Design and Darwinians and "went out of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents of "intelligent design" are scientists".

Wow crakar - even for you that's scraping the bottom of the barrel (what's next - Andrew Bolt??)

I do get it crakar. You posed a question (more like made an assertion) about a claim by the IPCC and the source of their material. In response, I have given you the sources of the IPPC information on the Amazon rainforest, and I have shown the quote that was used. And you respond with a newspaper article from probably the greatest fool of all time.

crakar = credibility zero

Hey Crakar, whilst we're talking about getting questions answered how are you getting on referencing the IPCC projections for temp & CO2 for 2010?

"Will look closer 2morrow as it is getting late here." You said on May 17...

You're getting raked over the coals pretty savagely at the moment, my dear Crakar; I'll "give my best shot" on CO2 residence time after the smoke clears.

I would go a little farther than Mandas on the importance of Roy Spencer's creationism/ID from the other thread: it shows mindset. He believes things that make him happy, which is understandable human nature, but not science. I cannot trust someone so cavalier.

One thing I am pretty sure folks like yourself really struggle with is that most of us who believe in AGW do *not* take pleasure in it. You can't fathom believe not driven by preference so you invent these fantasies about AGW "religion", and so forth. It is truly the pot calling the kettle black but I'll save this for Narratives, which is ripe for an entry.

Im back again after a few days absence so onto my rebuttals.

Post 93, not much to respond to here just Mandas banging away on the keyboard venting steam.

Post 94, Chris if you can find my quote then you would understand at the time i said i cannot answer your question (or words to that effect). I said i would look closer at it which i did but not much has changed. I seem to recall you asked me to justify the math behind the IPCC projections or at least the projections i quoted. I also seem to recall that i stated that this was not my area of expertise so i could not comment any further.

As far as i am concerned this situation has not changed though i think it is an issue worthy of further discussion.

Post 95, Skip the only smoke i can see is that associated with all the mirrors (post 93 not 94)but no matter take your time.

In regards to Spencer do your thoughts on this issue reside simply with him? What if Hansen, Trenberth and all the CRU scientists, IPCC members etc believed in God? Therefore they believe God made the Earth in 6 days only a few thousand years ago. All human inhabitants originated from Adam and Eve, evolution is nothing more than a heathen idea.

Would you still stand by this statement "He believes things that make him happy, which is understandable human nature, but not science. I cannot trust someone so cavalier."

Whilst i am here (finding it tough to find the time of late)let me ask you something. You stated above that you do not take pleasure in believing in AGW so i assume you have taken steps to reduce *your* contribution to the problem. Would i be asking too much for you to describe what steps *you* have taken?

Post 93, not much to respond to here just Mandas banging away on the keyboard venting steam.

I am afraid this is a blatant dodge my good Crakar. Anyone who reads what transpired in that series of posts knows the truth: You (again) linked us to a quack and Mandas savaged it.

Post 94, I seem to recall you asked me to justify the math behind the IPCC projections or at least the projections i quoted. I also seem to recall that i stated that this was not my area of expertise so i could not comment any further.

This is an answer?

Translation: "I can't document that they said it, but thats not my fault because they're the ones that said it."

What if Hansen, Trenberth and all the CRU scientists, IPCC members etc believed in God? Therefore they believe God made the Earth in 6 days only a few thousand years ago.

The latter does not necessarily follow from the former. I suspect most climate scientists are secularists. Even if they believe in a vague "God" they didn't get it out of Genesis. But if they did I would definitely question them as sources. But even then it would make no difference because I don't base my AGW believe on just Hansen et al, but an overwhelming scientific consensus.

>em>Would you still stand by this statement "He believes things that make him happy, which is understandable human nature, but not science. I cannot trust someone so cavalier."

Fair question. I will upon reflection, retract and alter it to: "He is on the make for rationalizations for preferred dogmas." He has done, Crakar, exactly what you do: He doesn't want to believe in a scientific principle because it conflicts with his ideology, and it makes him vulnerable to believing anything, no matter how absurd, that is contrary to that scientific principle. The difference between you and him is that you, a godless heathen (and spot on for that, mate), only do it with AGW. He does it with biological origins as well. You're right that it, strictly speaking, "proves" nothing in and of itself. But in a complex world where we have to decide which experts we believe and why . . . biblical literalism is a flag for intellectual dishonesty.

Its also no coincidental overlap of dogmas. Spencer is part of a right-wing fundamentalist faction in the US for whom global warming denial and other environmental backwardness goes hand in hand with creationism/intelligent design. Its not just guilt by example ("anyone simple enough to take the Bible literally obviously does not have their shit together") but also, admittedly, guilt by association ("this is one of the guys that thinks driving a 3-ton 4x4 is how we show dominion over God's earth"). Trust me, Crakar. I used to be one of these people until literacy and logic saved me. I know how they think.

Whilst i am here (finding it tough to find the time of late)let me ask you something. You stated above that you do not take pleasure in believing in AGW so i assume you have taken steps to reduce *your* contribution to the problem.

Doesn't follow logically (a person could be convinced of AGW because of the evidence but be rationally indifferent to her individual contribution, which is of course negligible no matter what she does) but I'll bite.

Would i be asking too much for you to describe what steps *you* have taken?

1. My wife and I live close to work by design.
2. I ride my shitty bike; she drives one of our two shitty cars.
3. We purchased a house with a radiant solar panel, and not air-con, so our power consumption and bills are minimal in both winter and summer.
4. We air dry our clothes (very easy in hot, dry Reno).
5. We purchase local food when available and grow our own victory garden.
6. After my wife gives birth to my twin brats I'll have my potent tubes snipped to minimize our population impact.
7. I get online and rip new ones for people who plagiarize Chris Monckton's nonsensical commentary about CO2 residence time.

All in all I'm doing my bit.

In post #96, crakar said:

".....I seem to recall you asked me to justify the math behind the IPCC projections or at least the projections i quoted. I also seem to recall that i stated that this was not my area of expertise so i could not comment any further..."

So crakar, does this mean you will not comment any further on anything which is outside your field of expertise? Or is this just a dodge in this case?

Speaking of dodges, still waiting for you to retract the following statements:

"...there is no drought nor has there ever been a drought in the Amazon..." (post #74)
"...they made up the 40% figure..." (post #74)

There are lots of others, but since these two form the main issue here they will do for now.

Are we all having fun? I am so i hope you are as well.

Post 97. Firstly, TWINS!!!!!! This news really comes comes as no surprise as you dont seem like the kind of guy to do anything by halves. You better get the doctor to put in a double knot just to be sure.

Now onto less important matters.

Post 93 via post 97

We have a study talking about the *Brazilian* rain forest and the effects of logging, drought etc. Yet the IPCC is talking about the Amazon as a whole and yes i showed a rain fall graph of the AMAZON not just the bit in Brazil. You need to read the links i have posted rather than just gloss over them (if you indeed went that far). Like you said Skip there is a lot of smoke (& mirrors) around at the moment.

Post 94 via post 97.

The correct translation is:

I made a statement along the lines of "the IPCC projections of CO2 have been overstated and therefore so have their projections of temp".

Chris (legitimately)asked what mathematical principles was this based on and i clearly stated that i do not know how they calculated these figures.

Not much of a dodge there so far as i can tell, now what we could do is Chris could come up with the figures based on the IPCC reports (if that is possible) and we can compare what the IPCC says and what we see in the real world. Of course he does not need to do this and i would think no less of him if he did not but it would be an interesting experiment.

In regards to spencer et al, i am a little confused with what you have said. Am i right in saying if Spencer believes in ID in some form or another then he is effectively blinded by his beliefs and therefore his views on AGW are tainted?

If a scientist gets his/her belief from Genesis then you would treat them the same as Spencer but if they were more secular then that would be ok?

You then go on to say this has no effect on your belief in AGW because you accept the consensus view not just Hansen et al. I assume you are banking on the law of averages here and thinking that most of the consensus would have to be non religious types therefore you can trust what they say.

Is this correct?

Does this train of thought spread into other areas? Do you think a religious person should be the leader of a country? We here in Oz will vote soon, one leader is a resolute catholic and the other a non believer, polar opposites some might say. If you where an Australian, God forbid, would this information influence your vote?

Cheers

Post 98,

Mandas you said "So crakar, does this mean you will not comment any further on anything which is outside your field of expertise? Or is this just a dodge in this case?"

Mandas i have seen you review a peer reviewed and published study in less than 24 hours and describe it as junk. If anyone here is commenting on areas outside their field it is you my friend.

You then said this, Speaking of dodges, still waiting for you to retract the following statements:

"...there is no drought nor has there ever been a drought in the Amazon..." (post #74)

Hows this, why dont you go back to my original post and have a look at the rain fall chart of the Amazon, study this chart and then show me when there has been a decrease in Amazonian rain fall (enough to cause a drought)in the past 100 years.

Then compare this information with the statement made by the IPCC seen here "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to
even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the
tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South
America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not
necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and
the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more
probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have
more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature
increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas."

and explain how this rain fall chart can show how 40% of the Amazon will be a savannah in some distant time frame.

I have no doubt the removal of trees by either logging or controlled burning of the forests is a bad thing and will lead to the destruction maybe even up to 40% of the Amazon but we are talkin about what the IPCC have said, remember that.

crakar

"......Hows this, why dont you go back to my original post and have a look at the rain fall chart of the Amazon, study this chart and then show me when there has been a decrease in Amazonian rain fall (enough to cause a drought)in the past 100 years....."

Its official. You are so deluded that it beggars belief. You really STILL deny that there has ever been a drought in the Amazon rainforest????????

You have just shown to the world that nothing you say or write can be taken seriously. You need treatment.

For the rest of you out there who like to read (or can read) science papers, here is an absolutely fascinating one entitled:

Spatio-temporal rainfall variability in the Amazon basin countries (Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador)

Link as follows:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121544226/abstract?CRETRY=1&…

Importantly, the authors find the rainfall variation across the basin varies from location to location, with some sites experiencing an increase in rainfall, while others experience a decrease. However, the paper investigates the variability for the basin as a whole, using 756 sites (listed in the paper). For those of you who find it far too difficult to read things which have words with more than one syllable, here is the relevant sections from the abstract:

"...Rainfall variability in the Amazon basin (AB) is analysed for the 1964-2003 period. It is based on 756 pluviometric stations distributed throughout the AB countries. For the first time it includes data from Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia. In particular, the recent availability of rainfall data from the Andean countries makes it possible to complete previous studies...... Mean rainfall in the basin decreases during the 1975-2003 period at an annual rate estimated to be - 0.32%. Break tests show that this decrease has been particularly important since 1982. Further insights into this phenomenon will permit to identify the impact of climate on the hydrology of the AB..."

For those of you who like to know a little more than is stated in the abstract, here are a couple of quotes from the paper itself:

"....At a quarterly time scale, it clearly appears that rainfall decreases in DJF, JJA, and SON during the 1975â2003
period, with trends being significant at the 95, 90, and 99% level, respectively (Figure 17(b)). In other words annual rainfall decrease is due to the strong negative trend
observed in JJA and SON (Figure 10)..."

"...Trend tests evidence a rainfall decrease during the 1975â2003 period (significant at the 95% level). The Pearsonâs, Spearmanâs and Kendallâs coefficient values are -0.47, â0.50, â0.33, respectively. This is consistent with the negative trend reported by Marengo (2004) in Brazil. The annual rainfall decrease percentage is â0.30%/year (â30% rainfall in 100 years). This is lower than the average calculated in the Peruvian and Ecuadorian Amazon: â0.83%/year for the 1970â1997 period (Espinoza et al., 2006). All break tests applied to the mean annual rainfall agree with a change in 1982 (Table I), related to the time evolution of the JJA and SON rainfall PC1s (Figure 10) that shows lower rainfall values since 1983 in the north of the
basin...."

"...Rainfall decrease is related to changes in the ocean and atmosphere as seen before. However, it may also be associated with deforestation. Unlike what could have been expected, a strong 1975â2003 rainfall decrease is observed during the dry season in the north of the basin, very rainy and undeforested, whereas it is weak in the south which is the most deforested region. To conclude, the assumed deforestation impact on rainfall does not seem to have taken place as expected in the most deforested areas. Nevertheless, this issue will have to be further addressed in the future...."

Fascinating stuff. Would anyone like to comment?

"Chris (legitimately)asked what mathematical principles was this based on and i clearly stated that i do not know how they calculated these figures."

WRONG!

I asked how you came up with the figures as you showed no evidence for the IPCC giving figures for 2010. You still haven't despite you claiming they were wrong.

"now what we could do is Chris could come up with the figures based on the IPCC reports (if that is possible) and we can compare what the IPCC says and what we see in the real world."

This is just beautiful, you're now suggesting I should do what I asked you to do (you being the one making claims about these figures and all) forgetting (ignoring?) the fact that I've shown you exactly where those figures are - it took me 20 minutes apparently - post #69 here
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/04/falsifying_theories.php

Just to be clear - here's the substance of the argument from that thread (also from post #69:

"Beyond that Chris i cannot answer your questions in any more detail. To put it in its most simplist form both the IPCC CO2 and Temp projections are both overstated after 10 years."

Again, you don't tell me how you work this out. Let's remind you what you said above:

"3, The IPCC predicts temp rises from 1980 to be (per century in degrees celsius) +2.4, +3, +3.9, +4.7 & +5.3C depending on the chosen scenario. Whereas the current trend since 1980 is a mere 1.5C per century."

In answer to my probing you produce a graph with a baseline set at 2000 - this seems rather strange. An eyeball estimate says 1980 was between 0.1 and 0.25 degrees C below 2000 and that 2010 was predicted to be 0.15 and 0.6 degrees C above 2000. Leading to an estimate of a 0.25 to 0.85 degree C change over 30 years. A simple linear extrapolation would say this translates to a (roughly) 0.8 - 2.8 degree change per century. Your 1.5 falls very comfortably in that range.

Post 102,

Are any of these studies you list used by the IPCC to support their incorrect statement?....No i did not think so, its not like you Mandas to stray off topic in a pathetic childish way to *win an argument at all costs* is it. My thoughts wander back to that story you told about how you once took your family to the beach and spent the time arguing with a religious person.

Post 103,

It is quite a simple question "are the current levels of CO2 and temp as the IPCC predicted?"

I have stated i do not believe they are and after all your huffing and puffing all you have been able to produce in response is the piss poor excuse that the IPCC error bars are so wide that no matter what the trend was (barring a massive cooling or warmer never before seen) encompass the current levels uising your calibrated eyeball.

By the way do the IPCC use a simple linear extrapolation to predict the CO2 and temp levels out to 2100?

"....its not like you Mandas to stray off topic in a pathetic childish way to *win an argument at all costs* is it...."

No - that would be your job.

Pity I provided you with the information about the IPCC and the 40% claim. Pity I provided you with the information about the droughts in the Amazon. And pity I have now provided you with a study which shows rainfall in the Amazon basin declining at 30%/century.

So - on the subject of huffing and puffing.......I would hope that you act like an adult and acknowledge that the information has been given to you, and that you were wrong. But what I expect is that you will ignore the evidence, proclaim that I am attempting to deceive you, and change the subject to something like CO2 residence times or just provide another cut and paste from www.flatearthmoronsociety.com

Its a pity indeed Mandas that you have not replied in detail about the IPCC and their statement but i expect no less from you.

Skip introduced the suspended talk on co2 residency not me so please get your facts straight before you cast apsersions in future.

As for cut & pastes better coming from www.flatearthmoronsociety.com than www.iwanttobelieveCO2isnastyandevilbutihavenoproofsoimustresorttowishfu…

"....Its a pity indeed Mandas that you have not replied in detail about the IPCC and their statement but i expect no less from you...."

Was post #88 not enough detail for you? You know, where I provide you with the EXACT source of the 40% claim.

So - explain what was wrong with it and what more you need. That way, when I give you EXACTLY what you ask for, you will admit your error - you know, a falsifiable and verifiable hypothesis.

We all know that crakar will never put himself in a position where he has to nail his colours to the wall and make a definitive and falsifiable statement of his position. So my post #107 was a bit of a stretch. However, lets just put this issue to bed shall we so that we can all move on (crakar wonât â but those of us who accept evidence will probably do so:

In Chapter 13, section 4.1 â Natural Ecoosystems of the IPCC Report: Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability, we can find this quote:

ââ¦.Tropical plant species may be sensitive to small variations of climate, since biological systems respond slowly to relatively rapid changes of climate. This fact might lead to a decrease of species diversity. Based on Hadley Centre Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model (AOGCM) projections for A2 emissions scenarios, there is the potential for extinction of 24% of 138 tree species of the central Brazil savannas (Cerrados) by 2050 for a projected increase of 2°C in surface temperature (Siqueira and Peterson, 2003; Thomas et al., 2004). By the end of the century, 43% of 69 tree plant species studied could become extinct in Amazonia (Miles et al., 2004). In terms of species and biome redistributions, larger impacts would occur over north-east Amazonia than over western Amazonia. Several AOGCM scenarios indicate a tendency towards âsavannisationâ of eastern Amazonia (Nobre et al., 2005) and the tropical forests of central and south Mexico (Peterson et al., 2002; Arriaga and Gómez, 2004). In north-east Brazil the semi-arid vegetation would be replaced by the vegetation of arid regions (Nobre et al., 2005), as in most of central and northern Mexico (Villers and Trejo, 2004).

Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas.â¦..â

For the purposes of carkar (and other deniers) claims, it is the second paragraph which is relevant; notwithstanding the important information in the first paragraph. In the paragraph, the source which is referenced for the information is Rowell and Moore, 2000. So, we go to the reference list and discover that the full source is this:

Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf.

They are good enough to provide a full link, which is to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a reputable UN body which

Unfortunately, the link appears broken, but it is a simple matter to do a google search for the correct one, which is this:

http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2000-047.pdf

This report was prepared by Dr. Peter F. Moore and Andy Rowell. Dr Moore holds a PhD in Forest Fire Policy from Australian National University, has over 20 years experience in the field, and has published extensively on the subject. So we can pretty confidently claim he is an expert in the field. So, we go to the document, and a simple word search reveals this quote in section 6.1:

ââ¦Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.46â¦â

From this it is pretty clear that the IPCC did not âmake upâ the 40% figure â it is clearly quoted in the source which is also clearly referenced in the IPCC report. However, the IPCC may be open to criticism for sourcing material from a secondary source ie not the original source of the material. Nonetheless, letâs press on. We can note from this that the source of the information in the Rowell and Moore paper is:

46. D. C. Nepstad, A. VerÃssimo, A. Alencar, C. Nobre, E. Lima, P. Lefebvre, P. Schlesinger, C. Potter, P. Mountinho, E. Mendoza, M. Cochrane, V. Brooks, Large-scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire, Nature, 1999, Vol 398, 8 April, pp505

Unfortunately for the non-scientists among us, you need access to the on-line Nature site to access the full paper. Fortunately, I have access, so I can provide some information from the paper, and this would appear to be the relevant section of the paper:

ââ¦.ENSO-related drought can desiccate large areas of Amazonian forest, creating the potential for large-scale forest fires. Because of the severe drought of 1997 and 1998, we calculate that approximately 270,000 km2 of Amazonian forest had completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil by the end of the 1998 dry season. In addition, 360,000 km2 of forest had less than 250mm of plant-available soil water left by this time (Fig. 1b).⦠Large-scale burning of tropical forest during severe ENSO episodes may impoverish vast areas of these species- and carbon-rich ecosystems; such episodes are increasing in frequency, possibly in response to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphereâ¦â

So, even thought the source paper is related to forest fires and logging, the paper discusses the impact of reduced rainfall and drought and the likely impact on the environment of increasing ENSO events resulting from climate change.

So, in summaryâ¦..

The IPCC did NOT make up the 40% number â and they provided a reference for the source.
The information is from a peer-reviewed and published paper â although the IPCC erred by sourcing it from a secondary rather than primary source.

Crakar also tried to make a claim about rainfall in the Amazon basin over the past 100 years, and how there had never been a drought in the region. To address these two points, we can see quite clearly from the Nepstad paper that there WAS a drought in 1998/98. A simple Google search for âAmazon droughtâ will reveal a multitude of hits, the majority of the most popular referring to another MORE SERIOUS drought which occurred in 2005 (the worst in 100 years). How crakar can continually claim there has ânever been a drought in the Amazonâ beggars belief.

Of course, crakar was trying to make the point that the IPCC could not make predictions about the future of the Amazon, when the past 100 years worth of records had shown no change in rainfall over the period. I responded to this at post #102, by providing a link to, and information from, a paper which showed that rainfall in the Amazon basin has been declining at the rate of 30%/century over the past 30 years. I am not sure what part of that is hard to understand.

Observations and studies show declining rainfall. Droughts have occurred which increase the vulnerability of the forest to fire. Fire can and have devastated the region and changed the characteristics of the ecosystem and biodiversity, and all the indications are that climate change will result in less rainfall and more fires.

What could be more plain?

"It is quite a simple question "are the current levels of CO2 and temp as the IPCC predicted?"

I have stated i do not believe they are"

And yet despite continued probing you still haven't provided any evidence for what the IPCC predicted the current temperature & CO2 to be. All your huffing and puffing doesn't disguise this fact.

You do not believe some figures you've apparently pulled out of your fundament and claimed are IPCC figures are comparable to current levels. Big surprise. Given your well documented penchant for misrepresentation (ref: the above thread & every other thread you've ever posted on here) this is no surprise.

Crakar - you made up some numbers (or had them fed to you) and claimed they were the IPCC projections. This is the point I am pushing. Let's remind you AGAIN what you said:

"3, The IPCC predicts temp rises from 1980 to be (per century in degrees celsius) +2.4, +3, +3.9, +4.7 & +5.3C depending on the chosen scenario. Whereas the current trend since 1980 is a mere 1.5C per century."

In answer to my probing you produce a graph with a baseline set at 2000 as your justification. They don't support your claim and yet to accuse me of presenting a piss-poor excuse. I could make a joke about the only piss-poor excuse around here but instead I'll ask you again: Where did your figures for the IPCC projections come from if it wasn't your ass?

There's a realclimate.org post about IPCC models vs. observations.

@crakar: Your witness.

Are the models proving to be accruate:

Well, there have been multiple analysis done on "The Blackboard" site to show that the instrumented record and IPCC models are not in agreement. Once such analysis was:

rankexploits.com/musings/2010/hadcrut-compared-to-ipcc-simulations-ending-dec-2009/

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the link Joseph.

I read the story and quite a few comments and found it very interesting. I beleive only time will tell just how accurate the models are.

Mandas,

In the end the question is "does the IPCC statement accurately reflect the information presented in the WWF story or associated study?"

I beleive the IPCC exaggerated what was said in a pathetic attempt to oversell the message (a bit like 2035...no sorry we meant 2350). Of course you can have your own opinions on the issue.

Chris in Oz we spell ass...arse dont know why but that is what we do. Are you disputing these figures [+2.4, +3, +3.9, +4.7 & +5.3C]

Or are you disputing this figure [1980 is a mere 1.5C per century] if so why? Are these figures correct or incorrect. Lets start here and work our way forward OK.

"Chris in Oz we spell ass...arse dont know why but that is what we do. Are you disputing these figures [+2.4, +3, +3.9, +4.7 & +5.3C]

Or are you disputing this figure [1980 is a mere 1.5C per century] if so why? Are these figures correct or incorrect. Lets start here and work our way forward OK"

I was referring to your donkey.

I'm not (yet) disputing any figures - I'm asking where you got them ... Still waiting ...

Well, there is a new study that shows that the models "In data spanning 1979 to 2009 the observed trends are significant in some cases but tend to differ significantly from modeled trends."

See McKitrick, Ross R., Stephen McIntyre and Chad Herman (2010) "Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series" in press at Atmospheric Science Letters.

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf

It would appear that the models are not all they were cracked up to be.

Vernon

So what you are saying is that some models are accurate, and some aren't? And......???

Do you find the paper credible? If so, could you tell us what you think about the last paragraph, which includes this statement:

"......Since the satellite data are unavailable prior to 1979 we cannot extend these series earlier. Interpretation of trend comparisons should therefore make reference to the time period analysed, which, ideally, should have some intrinsic interest. In this case the 1979-2009 interval is a 31-year span during which the upward trend in surface data strongly suggests a climate-scale warming process...."

mandas,

Yes I do find the paper credible.

As to the quote, what has that to do with the issue of models? The paper shows that the ensemble has 2 to 4 times more warming than has actually happened. This is statistically significant and not in a good way for the models.

It appears that you cannot accept the paper, yet you cannot refute it either, so your dragging the old red herring out. Shame on you.

Vernon

And what red herring would that be? And could you answer my question please.

I am neither saying the paper is accurate or inaccurate. It is you who is suggesting it proves something. So since you find it credible, I guess you agree with all its findings then - or do you only accept the ones that you already agreed with?

Mandas,

The study clearly shows the models have got it wrong but rather than accept the findings you challenge them based on nothing more than your biased opinions hoping to hold out long enough until "the team" can put together a rebuttal.

Your attempts to rebut the study yourself is nothing short of pathetic.

Essentially what we have here is a computer model or models that predicted future warming in the upper atmosphere but when we compare this to empirical evidence we find the warming predicted by the models cannot be found and you have the audacity to claim the study is not credible.

Of course i fully understand why you have to rebut this study because as we all know if the upper atmosphere is not warming as the models predict then where is all that extra water vapour to cause catastrophic AGW?

mandas,

Your attempt to redirect from the models to "is it warming" is injecting a red herring (unrelated) into a discussion about models.

Your reply to my answer is yet another redirection from the finding that the ensemble suite of models show 2-4 times more warming than what has actually been measured.

Do you want to discuss the paper and how it affects this talking point, or keep trying to move the discussion off topic?

This is just a heads up so you get your wagons circled in time, there are reports NOAA sat data has been shown to be erroneous more info to follow as it comes to hand.

Cheers

crakar/Vernon

Wow - can I get some of that stuff you guys are smoking. It must be seriously good stuff.

Now, let's go back to my post #117. You will note that I stated - quite clearly in my view - that I neither supported nor opposed the findings of the paper. Who knows, the information in it about models may be 100% accurate. I am not even attempting to dispute that, and if you read my post you would be well aware of that. So your assertion at post #118 is just disengenuous nonsence. I will say this very clearly again so you understand it. I have no views either way on whether the paper is accurate or not.

But I am attempting to understand whether Vernon thinks the paper is 100% accurate. So, is it Vernon? You posted the link here, so I have to assume you agree with the findings of the paper. Do you?

It's not a hard question to answer. So go ahead, give it a shot. Do you accept the findings and conlusion of the paper - the one that you linked to - as accurate?

Crakar @120, c'mon you're so easily sucked in, the Great Lakes Coastwatch data is infra red imaging, and not part of any global temperature data set. It's got nothing to do with the MSU record.

What next?, faulty rectal thermometers call the ground based station network into doubt?.

mandas,

You are being less than honest. You asked if I find the paper "credible", which I answered. Now your pretending that I did not answer your question. When you want to discuss the topic of this thread let me know, otherwise I am not going play your word games.

Vernon

So in what way am I being dishonest? I stated that I neither agreed or disagreed with the paper - which is an honest statement of my position.

I also asked you if you found the paper credible - which you said you did. On that basis I guess I would ask two things:

Firstly, you must therefore understand the science and mathematics that is being used in the paper. If you do, great. Could you give us a summary please. If you don't understand it, on what basis do you find it credible?

And secondly, I provided you with a quote from the conclusion to the paper, and asked if you agreed with it. That should not be too difficult to address. So I will ask again, do you agree with the finding of the paper that I quoted at post #115?

That is not an attempt to redirect, or to throw in a 'red herring'. It is a quote - a finding - from a paper that you linked to and which you have stated that you find credible. So I guess you agree with it then. If not, why not?

Post 124,

Now hang on just one god damn cotton pickin minute here Mandas, the study shows the models are in error by up to 400%. Suddenly you have lost your ability to peer review studies in a matter of minutes, now you claim not to know if it is correct or not.

Why do you accept with blind faith a study that supports armageddon but you refuse to accept one that does not. How does it feel to be a denier?

Vernon dont waste your time with him i have given up as well.

crakar

Ok. We will go with your view. The study is perfect. Everything it says is 100% accurate.

Now - answer the question. Do you agree with the findings and conclusion that I quoted at post 115?

Mandas,

Firstly "my view" is that this study has been put through the rigours of peer review, does this mean it is 100% accurate i do not know but this is obviously your opinion so i fail to see why you are in such a tither to dismiss it.

What the study finds is the models have an error of up to 400%, now lets think about that for a moment.

We have a model which claims the atmosphere will warm by X degrees, these models without verification have been used extensively by the IPCC to promote all manner of dooms day scenarios. Whats more the same model predictions have been used by scientists in related and non related fields to predict futuristic catastrophe.

So now here we are comparing 31 years of sat data to the model predictions and we find the models are out by 200% in the lower troposphere and 400% in the upper troposphere.

You of all people know the significance of the findings which is why you refuse to accept the results even though you have no way of disputing them, which i find rather strange as i thought this would be good news.

In regards to the statement you cut and pasted out of the study, i fail to see the relevance. The intention of the study was not to discuss wether the atmosphere has warmed in the past 30 years but to compare/verify the model predictions to empirical data.

So what does all this mean? Why are the models predicting warming that does not exist?

Here are a few thoughts:

a, Are they so much in error because the sensitivity figures are over exaggerated?

b, Does this answer Trenberths missing heat problem.

c, If the atmosphere is not warming as predicted does this mean the amount of water vapour accumulating in the atmosphere is also not as predicted ie the positive feedback is well and truly over exaggerated?

d, Does this mean the vilification of carbon pollution better known as carbon dioxide by real scientists can finally end?

crakar (and Vernon)

Once again you fail to read anything I have written, so I will try and use short words.

I AM NOT TRYING TO DISMISS THE STUDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(do you get that now?????)
I do not understand the mathematics involved, and I do not have access to the data. So therefore I have no rational basis to reject the study, nor do I have any rational basis to confirm it either (and I might add - neither do you).

I am seeking to understand if you accept it and why. That's it.

Mind you, I find your hypocracy on this issue breathtaking. You are so fond of berating us for accepting studies that agree with our views, while supposedly rejecting others that don't, and here you are doing exactly what you are always criticising us for.

This study appears to confirm your view that the models are flawed (you don't accept any models, so why would that be an issue for you?). So therefore you grasp the study with both hands and attempt to hit us over the head with it.

Interestingly, you have NO RATIONAL BASIS TO ACCEPT THIS STUDY AS CREDIBLE. You do not understand the mathematics, so you can't read it and know what it is saying is true based on your own knowledge. Apart from the fact that it confirms your own bias, the only reason you give for accepting the study is that it has been peer reviewed. If that is the case, why are you so quick to reject the thousands of peer reviewed studies which suggest that AGW is occurring? (tell us again what you think about peer review)

Oh, and by the way - go back and read the study again. It only refers to the tropical troposphere, not to any other part of the climate system. Do you think that is meaningful in any way, and if so, why?

Finally, the relevance of my 'cut and paste' quote was to seek to understand your perspective on the study, and your level of credibility. The quote was from the study - I did not make it up. Therefore, if you accept the study, then I have to assume that you accept the quote as well. Do you? You consistently refuse to answer the question, which speaks volumes for your credibility. You desperately want to believe the study is accurate and be able to use it to prove how right you are and how wrong we all are on the issue of AGW, but right there in the conclusion to the study is this statement which suggests that the climate is warming. Oh bugger!!! I will ask you once more - DO YOU ACCEPT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY? Do you, crakar, accept that ".....the 1979-2009 interval is a 31-year span during which the upward trend in surface data strongly suggests a climate-scale warming process...."??

Come on. Give it a shot. I know you can do it.

Mandas you did give me entertainment if nothing else.

If i followed your rant correctly you are now saying you are not qualified to peer review this study therefore you do not accept nor reject it. It is a shame you cannot apply this mode of thought to all of Spencers studies as you reject his work based on his opinions of ID.

In fact i would have to say that you are not qualified to peer review 99% of all scientific studies published and yet you seem to have the uncanny knack of doing just that when it suits.

Therefore if you cannot review this latest study based on your knowledge within the field then you must accept it or are you now saying you neither accept nor reject the work of the IPCC?

If so what is your revised position on AGW and how did you come to this new found conclusion.

In regards to your cut and paste i did answer your question but of course you already knew that, you needed to respond but without any relevance. If you did then you would be exposed for the hypocrite you are.

My opinion of the peer review process is no secret so dont try and redirect your retreat down that path.

In summary you have no option but to accept this study as accurate but the ramifications of this are too earth shattering for you to comprehend. In time it will sink in and you will see things much more clearly.

crakar

Your evasion when asked a question is incredible to witness. I guess you don't like to admit that you have been hoisted on your own petard. Nevermind, I will just summarise your (and my) position then. And you have no need to respond - you have already admitted all of these in your last few posts (desite your best attempts to dodge the issue):

You - crakar - accept the finding of the study that Vernon linked to that stated:"...the 1979-2009 interval is a 31-year span during which the upward trend in surface data strongly suggests a climate-scale warming process...". This means that you - crakar - admit the climate is warming.

I - mandas - have stated that I do not understand the mathematics used in the study, and have admitted that I am not qualified to comment. That is why I am did not, and have not, expressed an opinion on the study.

You - crakar - do not understand the mathematics of the study that vernon linked to, but have no problem accepting it as accurate. You also have no idea what the study is about, but believe it proves that climate change is all a crock - in flagrant contradiction of your already stated view that the climate IS warming (see paragraph above).

You - crakar - do not accept the peer review process as valid, but have no problem using it to suggest the credibility of the study that vernon linked to and that you do not understand.

I - mandas - have no idea of the implications of the study that vernon linked to. As a consequence, I will reserve judgement until I have studied the issue more thoroughly. However, if it demonstrates that climate change is not occuring (despite the finding in the conclusion that you - crakar - agree with, that climate change IS occuring), I will be extremely happy and admit my error to all here and elsewhere.

I will conclude by stating that I am perplexed by your concluding paragraph. On what basis do you suggest that 'I have no option but to accept (the) study as accurate?' Is it because I do not understand it, therefore have to accept it is true (and interesting position I must admit)? Is it because you say it is true, therefore I have to accept it (another interesting position)? is it because it was peer reviewed, therefore it I must accept it (not a position you normally adopt, therefore it would perplex me why it should apply to me and not to you)?

So thanks for all that crakar. I now understand your views a lot better than before. If you could just let me know the answer to my final question I would appreciate it.

Mandas,

Another disjointed rant however once again you brighten my day with a bit of comedy, thankyou very much.

Only a moron would disagree with a statement that says the planet has warmed since the 1979. The question of course is what is causing the warming, now you and i both know that so lets get back on track.

This statement is worthy of closer inspection.

"You - crakar - do not understand the mathematics of the study that vernon linked to, but have no problem accepting it as accurate. You also have no idea what the study is about, but believe it proves that climate change is all a crock - in flagrant contradiction of your already stated view that the climate IS warming (see paragraph above)."

I like yourself do not have the mathematical wisdom to review the study so i like you cannot reject the study on these grounds. Your comment on how i do not understand what the study is about is nothing more than a cheap shot from an idiot and nothing more needs to be said.

The study shows the models that predicted atmospheric warming have an error of 200 to 400%, that is the issue at hand Mandas. Do not attempt to redirect this debate into another flat earth bashing exercises. Has the thought "why are the models so wrong" ever crossed your mind or do you simply repeat "AGW is real so the study must be wrong, even though i cant prove it".

Yes Mandas the climate is indeed changing it has been changing since time began, long before man ever graced the Earth. You are of the belief that man is changing the climate and one of the pivitol pieces of evidence you often point to is what the models predict. Well this study shows the models are of error so it is no wonder why you are having such a hissy fit. Have you noticed how none of your buddies are here to back you up like they usually do? Thats because they know when to keep their mouths shut, but not you Mandas you dont care if you are right or wrong you just love to have an argument.

I accept that you lack the math to review the studies merits which raises two points.

1, The study has been peer reviewed by people who have far superior mathematical abilities than yours and yet you are reluctant to accept their word that the study is valid, Whatever happened to consensus?

2, I find it astonishing that you make such claims now even though you have consistently reviewed and rejected studies of similar nature in the past, one study that springs to mind is from Spencer although your rejection was based on his opinions of intelligent design. Another was by M&M in relation to Manns hockey stick study.

I am beginning to suspect that you got all your rejecting material from another source, that is to say you have no idea what you are talking about but are simply parroting the words of another.

As yet your burning bush of rejection has failed to produce a debunking so now you are limited to saying "i reject this study because i have no idea what they are talking about".

"So thanks for all that crakar. I now understand your views a lot better than before. If you could just let me know the answer to my final question I would appreciate it."

Ummmmm, amongst all your childish ranting and raving i have no idea what your final question is. Could you please ask me again in a coherent and concise manner.

This st

Does these mean i have to accept it? No of course not, but on these grounds we must also reject ALL studies in every field because we do not understand it.

Dont know where this crap came from

"This st

Does these mean i have to accept it? No of course not, but on these grounds we must also reject ALL studies in every field because we do not understand it."

Just ignore this bit.

I am beginning to suspect that you got all your rejecting material from another source, that is to say you have no idea what you are talking about but are simply parroting the words of another.

Who, between you and Mandas, ever plagiarized something that was incorrect? Oh, right. Only you.

Again, Crakar, you can never escape it. Once you do something that irresponsible it will haunt you as long as my fingers can move. You long ago relinquished the right to accuse others of "parroting". Long, long ago.

Skip,

Have you got anything worthy to add to this debate? It would appear not.

You are no different to Mandas, you state you do not understand the science but yet possess the ability to differentiate between valid scientific study and rubbish.

You claim you are correct by virtue of a consensus but yet have no understanding of what that consensus is saying, how do *YOU* know the consensus is correct?

Let us delve deeper into this issue.

Lets say we have two studies, one study can be summarised by saying "We have developed a computer model which can predict futuristic temperatures in the lower and upper troposphers above the tropics".

The second study can be summarised by saying "We compared the empirical data of temperatures gained from sats in the lower and upper tropospheres with the futuristic predictions of the models and found the models have a warming bias of 200% in the lower troposphere and a warming bias of 400% in the upper troposphere".

Now Mandas claims he cannot accept nor reject study #2 because he does not understand the mathematics used to make such claims using this logic he therefore cannot accept nor reject study #1 either as the math would be well beyond him as well not to mention the software programming.

Therefore he cannot accept nor reject 99% of all studies published because he does not understand them (i say 99% because i acknowledge his environmental back ground).

Therefore if Mandas has an opinion on AGW he must have arrived at this opinion based on what he believes and not based on any scientific understanding which explains why he rejected a paper by Spencer based purely on his opinions of intelligent design.

And now to you Skip, you have never once voiced an opinion of a scientific nature preferring to claim the moral high ground by hiding behind the consensus view and often question me as to why i do not accept the same.

I wont bother to ask you your opinions of this study because i know you dont have one all you will do is simply parrot the words of the consensus.

Both you and Mandas are pathetic you berate people on this site because they have a differing view of yours and yet neither of you have the knowledge nor the ability to justify your own position.

Before i go let me ask you one question, if this study is peer reviewed then does it now form part of the consensus?

Surely the consensus must now take the results from this study on board and change its view appropriately, or is the consensus a group of people with the same belief and any published study that does not conform to such beliefs are ignored?

you berate people on this site because they have a differing view of yours and yet neither of you have the knowledge nor the ability to justify your own position.

And are you saying you do?

I can only say it again, Crakar: *You're* the one that plagiarizes faulty arguments--the blindest form of belief conceivable.

The rest of us accept the prevailing scientific consensus because it is precisely that--prevalent and scientific. You just don't want to believe in global warming, and will accept *any* argument--to the point of cutting and pasting even absurd ones--that comfort you otherwise.

Its something I am quite sure you can never get your mind around: believing something for a reason other than preference. We don't "hide behind" the consensus, Crakar. We acknowledge it for what it is and face the gloomy truth.

Wow crakar. That time of month is it?

I was honest with everyone - I stated that I had no grounds to accept or reject the paper because it was outside my area of expertise. And you correctly point out, 99% of papers ARE outside my area of expertise, which I freely admit. Bu then again, ANY scientist would do the same, because it is a simple fact. But at least that puts me 1% ahead of you.

On the other hand, you seem to have accepted this particular paper as being accurate, but I am wondering on what basis that is. Could you do us all the honour of telling us why that is?

I know it cannot possibly be because you have read and understood it. Your mathematical knowledge is barely high school level, let alone having an understanding of statistics sufficient to evaluate whether the paper is accurate or not. So why do you think it is accurate?

Actually, there is no need to answer, because we know why it is. It's exactly the same as always. Its because someone has told you that the paper proves the science of AGW is flawed, and that just happens to coincide with your predetermined position. You have not evaluated the paper - in fact I doubt very much whether you have even read it. You have adopted the same position that you do with every single link or paper you provide here. You have read on some blog site or in a newspaper that some piece of information - which you never read or understand - proves that you are right and we are all wrong.

You made a very interesting statement in your last post:

".....Both you and Mandas are pathetic you berate people on this site because they have a differing view of yours and yet neither of you have the knowledge nor the ability to justify your own position....."

So tell us crakar, how does that make us different to you? It would seem that you are just as pathetic as skip and I, because you are berating us over this issue, yet you possess even LESS scientific knowledge than skip and I. We, at least, have science educations beyond that of high school. So in one way skip and I ARE different to you. We understand science and the scientific method, whereas you do not.

My opinion of AGW was reached from reading 100s of studies, and listening to the opinions of experts on the subject. And while I may not be an expert in every field, I do know how to logically and rationally evaluate a science paper, and if I do not have the knowledge then I reserve judgement, or ask someone who does know what they are talking about. And, I hazard to guess, so does skip, coby, chris, dapple, dhogoza, and just about every other poster here who possesses a tertiary education in some science discipline. And when we are wrong or when we do not understand something, we admit it.

This stands in stark contrast to you. I do not know for a fact what your science education is, but I am willing to bet my house that you never progressed beyond high school in any science field (TAFE maybe? Some form of apprenticeship in an engineering related field?). You hardly ever glance at a science paper, and when you do you do not understand what you read. All of your opinions on AGW come from reading the blogs of others with similar views, and every one of the links and papers that you have provided here has been lifted from a denialist blog site. In doing so, you never read the paper concerned, and the small amount of information that you do read, you do not understand. This could be very easily demonstrated by asking you to explain the information, which you never do, because you can't. Skip ALWAYS calls you on this, and you ALWAYS evade his questions.

This case about the paper by McKitrick and McIntyre is a classic case in point. I freely admit I do not understand it, so I will not pass judgement. You also do not understand it, but you have gleefully declared it to be credible and accurate, without the slightest level of knowledge which would permit you to do so.

IF this paper proves to be accurate, then it should be incorporated in the science of climate change, and all the models etc should be modified appropriately. No-one with any credibility would suggest otherwise. But it is a long way short of that just yet. Peer review is only the first step in the process (I say this because you have no idea what peer review means - obvious from your last two paragraphs).

I will close by asking a related question. It would appear that you now think peer review is an appropriate process, based on your statements about this paper being peer reviewed and how it should now form part of the consensus (but see my previous paragraphs). If you are going to take that line, don't you think that for the sake of consistency, and to avoid appearing as a complete hypocrite, you should now accept EVERY paper that is peer reviewed, in exactly the same manner as you have obviously accepted this one? Or are you just doing what you accuse us of, picking and choosing which paper to accept based on your own, preconceived, bias?

Skip,

When i said "Have you got anything worthy to add to this debate? It would appear not"

That was me trying to get you to enlighten us on your thoughts about this study. Obviously i have failed but i have not given up on you just yet. Here is my last ditch effort.

You talk of consensus as being the prevailing scientific view but what do they use to form this view? They use peer reviewed studies correct?

So if the consensus view is that the increase in CO2 will produce a small warming which will be amplified into potentially catastrophic warming. A warming produced by the increase of water vapour in the Troposphere mainly in the tropics, then how did they come to such a conclusion?

They came to such a conclusion based on a study which used computer models which predicted this result. This peer reviewed study told the consensus increased levels of CO2 will produce extra water vapour to accumulate in the troposphere in the tropics. This increase in water vapour will potentially lead to a catastrophic GW.

You still with me Skip?

But know we have a peer reviewed study which shows the very same models to be in error by up to 400%. Therefore the models that helped shape the consensus view have been shown to be in error by a very large amount so one would understandably expect the consensus view to change somewhat. After all peer review is peer review or does the consensus have its own set of guide lines of what peer reviewed study to acept and what peer reviewed study to ignore? Tell me is there any reason why this study should not appear in AR5 and a toning down of doomsday scenarios to go with it?

What are your guidelines when it comes to peer review Skip? or do you just simply parrot what the consensus says without given it any thought what so ever.

What are your guidelines when it comes to peer review Skip?

When I engage in it, I recommend the rejection of crap and recommend the acceptance and/or revision of quality work. (And for the record, I was once asked to review a piece that was, I quickly determined, a blatant act of plagiarism. I'll let you guess what my recommendation to the editor was.)

This is exactly the process which has led to the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is both real and anthropogenic. The "standard" in question is not about peer review per se, but what I accept as legitimate science.

Furthermore I already know that I know more about the McKitrick et al work than you do. I know for instance, that they do not question the reality of warming. (Their backhanded argument, in essence, is that "the models" diverge from observations, and since the models include a presumptive effect of CO2 forcing, we should question the reality of CO2 forcing. This is an illogical argument in which the desired conclusion does not follow from the premise, which is why they are clever enough not to state it directly. If you doubt me re-read the concluding paragraph)

I also know that the figures for "the models" is an average of the models' predictions; it tells us nothing about the variation of accuracy *across* models, which I suspect is quite substantial. Some models are undoubtedly better than others; determining which ones are and why is the whole point of science. I also, like Mandas, confess to not completely following the quantitative methodology. I could have handled it 14 years ago when I was both taking my stats sequence, teaching undergraduate stats, and actually understood matrix algebra, but alas those days are gone and those brain cells long departed.

And let us say in the end that Mckitrick et al holds water, that even our best models have overstated the effect of anthropogenic warming, that it is not happening at the long term rate we previously. What does this mean in terms of the larger AGW debate? On the one hand it will be GREAT NEWS, Crakar, but not that great. It simply means the problems associated with AGW will forestalled longer than we thought, that the people we're screwing over will be alive in say, 2200 instead of 2100. Is that really a consolation?

or do you just simply parrot what the consensus says without given it any thought what so ever.

As opposed to plagiarizing faulty work? Quite right. I know what the consensus says about anthropogenic global warming. But the "consensus"--get this very, very clear Crakar--is neither exclusively nor primarily about "the models". The models are *not* the consensus. The models are an effort to forecast *what will happen* given what our current level of *knowledge* about the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. Everything we currently know tells us our carbon is making the planet warmer. How much warmer and how fast is certainly open to further inquiry, but that is no threat to the consensus, which, yes, I will continually "parrot" as long as it remains what it is.

I see crakar has comprehensively answered one of the questions I left him with ("This of course shows Santer etal to be wrong" Is this your own personal view based on years of study in this field or are you simply parroting the climateaudit teams view?)

But I can't be arsed to read through everything so can anyone point to where crakar has answered this one?

Can you, crakar, demonstrate where MacLean et al. deal with the Foster et al. critiscisms?

Still not holding my breath...

Mandas,

Firstly i will not bother to respond to your attempts to smear my credibility.

So a science education in wildlife means you know more about atmospheric science then me? Stop kidding yourself.

Do you accept the models used by the IPCC which also form the bedrock of the concensus view are accurate in thier prediction of warming in the troposphere?

If you do then what do you base this on, i am sure you cannot understand them well enough to critique them. How where the models verified? How do you know they can accurately predict the warming?

You cannot simply pick and choose which peer review study you accept or reject. Anyway in the end nobody of importance really gives a shit whether you accept or reject this latest study, your opinions do not count which is one saving grace i suppose.

Skip,

Are you just prentending to be ignorant of what i say in my posts? For the love of God no one here is questioning if the planet has warmed McKitrick et al are not saying the planet has not warmed. What they are saying is the models used by the IPCC to form their opinion of AGW an opinion agreed to by peripheral bodies to form a consensus have over stated how much warming there is and or will be by up to 400%.

This study is peer reviewed exactly the same way all the studies referenced in the IPCC reports are (well not WWF articles but you get my drift here).

You then prattle on saying that the models are not accurate, well we know that because this study tells us but yet thats OK because eventually the models will be right whether it be in 2100 or 2200.

Skip if the models are in error by 200 to 400% then there is something wrong with the models and your prediction of 2200 is no more credible than Al Gore and his no more Arctic ice claim. If the models are in error then it would be a good idea to understand why, not simply shift the date of the apocolypse.

The models are the result of our knowledge if our knowledge is incorrect then our models will be incorrect, its like that old saying if you cant explain it then you cant model it.

Chris,

So one whos name escapes me had shown the tropics not to be warming as the models predicted, Santer came to the teams rescue by claiming that study to be wrong and even suggested we use wind speed indicators rather than sonde thermometer data. All up a pretty dodgy effort but then again they were desperate so now along comes another study to show Santer was wrong in his thoughts.

Sorry Chris but i dont recall saying Mclean answered the teams criticisms. I was questioning the peer review process as in 3 reviewers and 1 editor agreed with the study then suddenly the team launched into action and the study was shit canned. If the study was so badly flawed as claimed by the team then how did it get through peer review intially?

crakar

".....Firstly i will not bother to respond to your attempts to smear my credibility...."

Not possible, you don't have any. But I note you did not dispute my statements about your level of science and mathematics education. All of use (including me) have declared our qualifications in this area - how about you do that same?

"....So a science education in wildlife means you know more about atmospheric science then me?..."

No-one claimed it did (but it is likely). What I said was that we are all better placed to understand and review science and the scientific method than you because we have studied science and you have not - and no-one other than you would dispute that.

".....Do you accept the models used by the IPCC which also form the bedrock of the concensus view are accurate in thier prediction of warming in the troposphere? ...."

The IPCC uses numerous models, and therefore produces a range of scenarios and a range of conditions and results. Some are more accurate than others. You should actually read the IPCC report sometime for yourself rather than simply relying on what others tell you it says.

"....You cannot simply pick and choose which peer review study you accept or reject..."

Agree with you 100%. That is the point of all my posts to you so far. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS ELECTED TO ACCEPT THIS PAPER AND REJECT THE THOUSANDS OF OTHERS THAT SUGGEST THAT AGW IS REAL. WHY IS THAT? AND HOW ABOUT YOU FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE?

"...Anyway in the end nobody of importance really gives a shit whether you accept or reject this latest study, your opinions do not count which is one saving grace i suppose...."

Looked in the mirror lately?

Yeah, Crak that really is the key issue here.

Notice Mandas and I et al are *not* picking and choosing this peer reviewed study either way. We are *withholding judgment pending future inquiry.*

You have blindly accepted this study for the obvious reason that it concludes something you think helps your side even though don't understand shit about it. Now THAT's cherry picking.

That being said, I it would pain me much less to concede the point in the end to you than to find out what precedent suggests will be the case. McKitrick et al are not climate scientists, do not understand climate modeling, are ideologues with a bone to pick.

But I still hope they are right--and even you too, you gruesome blighter.

141,

"Not possible, you don't have any. But I note you did not dispute my statements about your level of science and mathematics education. All of use (including me) have declared our qualifications in this area - how about you do that same?"

I did not dispute your statement because i did not respond you need to read posts a bit better.

"No-one claimed it did (but it is likely). What I said was that we are all better placed to understand and review science and the scientific method than you because we have studied science and you have not - and no-one other than you would dispute that".

You know we do use the peer review process here where i work granted it is not exactly the same as in science because it is used in the field of engineering and design like trying to fit a machine gun to a helicopter that was not originally designed to have one but it is still peer review. If you think you can review a study about the climate beyond a spell check then you are full of it.

"The IPCC uses numerous models, and therefore produces a range of scenarios and a range of conditions and results. Some are more accurate than others. You should actually read the IPCC report sometime for yourself rather than simply relying on what others tell you it says."

There you go again forming opinions of people you have never met, this is i believe your greatest weakness. Moving on why are some more accurate than others? If they are not accurate then how do we know how inaccurate they are? The bottom line is we dont know because they have never been verified then along comes a study which shows these particular models to be very much inaccurate. But you, sitting amongst your caged animals and hydroponic plants reserve judgment on something you know nothing about.

Once again i will say you are full of it.

"Agree with you 100%. That is the point of all my posts to you so far. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS ELECTED TO ACCEPT THIS PAPER AND REJECT THE THOUSANDS OF OTHERS THAT SUGGEST THAT AGW IS REAL. WHY IS THAT? AND HOW ABOUT YOU FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE?"

Check your caps lock button it may be a bit sticky, seriously Mandas there are many studies out there that suggest CO2 is the root cause of all our problems and there are also many out there that suggest the opposite. All these studies have been reviewed and published. This is nothing unusual we are watching the scientific process unfold albeit at break neck speed (which is probably part of the problem).I do not think anyone here has the ability regardless of qualifications to honestly and objectively dismiss any of them.

So how do we as individuals decide on who is right and who is wrong? I can tell you Skip will ignore any study that does not get the consensus nod of approval and i have said many times that i see no problem with that if that is his wish. However i dont see things the same as he does as i am sure you.

Based on the amount of conflicting studies out there i fail to see how there could be a serious consensus let alone a 95% confidence level in our abilities to predict any future climate with any degree of relevant accuracy.

"Looked in the mirror lately?"

every morning when i brush my teeth.

crakar

Maybe skip and I have not made ourselves clear.

On what basis did you elect to accept this study as valid?

Skip has made himself quite clear Mandas,

He stated "That being said, it would pain me much less to concede the point in the end to you than to find out what precedent suggests will be the case. McKitrick et al are not climate scientists, do not understand climate modeling, are ideologues with a bone to pick."

With emphasis on "are ideologues with a bone to pick" so much for "withholding judgment pending future inquiry".

Anyway Skip most climate scientists have a very basic knowledge of statistics so what now those other studies that use stats to produce a result must be suspect as well? (Re Vernons latest posts in MWP thread.)

Mandas, i like you was not asked to review this study because i could not do it. Therefore if you are asking me "on what basis did you elect to accept this study as valid?" i would not say because i have reviewed it on any scientific grounds. Having said that i should make mention i have not reviewed the study that produced the models this latest study shows to be in error.

So on those grounds i cannot say if either study is correct for all i know both studies could be wrong.

The only reason i would favour this study is that i am not aware if/how or when the models have been verified. What was the verification methodology used in support of these models? How do you/we know these models are accurate?

Do we accept these models on face value or as Skip put blindly accept them? If so then is this study some form of verification?

This may not be very scientific of me Mandas but i would rather put my faith in empirical measurement than the output of an unverified computer model.

I hope this answer will suffice.

crakar

Yes thank you. Your answer speaks volumes.

The only reason i would favour this study is that i am not aware if/how or when the models have been verified. What was the verification methodology used in support of these models?

And thus does your ignorance of the matter become a *justification* for ideological cherry picking. Blind acceptance indeed . . .

Crakar, you're just plain amazing at times. I just got through telling you I am withholding judgment, which is the responsible thing to do, which you have *not* done, and then you say *I'm* blindly accepting.

Crakar, you don't even *understand* this study. You have no idea how regression works, what Brownian random error is, or whether the methodology is or is not fraught with glaring weaknesses or is the Next Great Advance in climate studies. And neither do I, which is *why I am withholding judgment*--for now.

You have *no idea*. None. The only thing about this study you think you know is that it tells you "the models" are inaccurate, and you *want* to believe it. Thats it. Its obvious.

Now lets wait and see what the experts have to say about the matter.

By the way, Crakar, I'm calling you on your straw man: No one is claiming the consensus on AGW is that CO2 is the "cause of all our problems."

Which experts Skip? The reviewers and or editor that allowed the study to be published or are you waiting for the team's response to allow or disallow its inclusion in AR5? And yes Ok i might of added a little artistic license to the "cause of all our problems" statement i will withdraw it post haste.

Now to both of you, you both claim that you cannot pass judgment on this study therefore logically neither of you can pass judgment on the study that claimed the models work.

So my question is do you accept, reject or are still withholding judgment on that study? and why have you come to this conclusion?

So my question is do you accept, reject or are still withholding judgment on that study? and why have you come to this conclusion?

Answered. I am withholding judgment for the very reason you should have but didn't: I am not qualified to comment on its technical merits.

Quid Pro Quo, Crakar: Now my question:

What, if *anything* of this analysis do you claim you understand?

We both know the answer.

Crakar, I understand why you're trying to gloat; you have nothing to lose and you think this new study is your ace. You've already botched CO2 residence time (your great plagiarism debacle), the "missing hot spot" (you once called it "*the* issue" that AGW science must resolve . . . groan), and the logged relationship between CO2 and temperature increases. You latched on to these losers with the exact same ferocity and misplaced hubris as this McKitrick study. As in all those cases, you have read next to nothing, understand less, and the volume of your declarations is the perfect inverse of your grasp of the issues at hand.

I'll admit this though: It would be hilarious as hell if this study caused a paradigm shift in climate science. Don't worry, if it happens I won't pack my waltzing Matilda and bail on you then. I'll still be here to eat my crow. I'll even send you a cigar when my twins are born.

But my fear is that these guys, like you Crakar, are men on an ideological mission. And I'm not going to accept wholesale their radical claims until they've been independently verified and replicated.

You did not answer my question though maybe it was the way i asked it.

This study claims to show the models are in error.

In regards to the study which produced the models: do you accept, reject or are still withholding judgment and why?

Your question: I have said in an earlier post to Mandas that i am not qualified to comment in any scientific way on this study.

What i do find irritating Skip is that you are quite prepared to accept what the IPCC say so if "they" do not include a study in their ARx then you deem it not worthy of consideration.

As i said this is not a criticism but it does irritate me a little.

As far as cigars go i wil take you up on that deal in fact i was given a cigar from an American sailor, i am no expert on cigars either but it does not look like a cheap one. I will send it to you if the study does not cause a paradigm shift OK.

Forgot one thing in regards to gloating, not sure what you mean by this but if it appears as i am i can tell you that it is not my intention to appear that way

There is no one "study" which produced the models. When I say I "accept" the IPCCs range of estimates I do so on the understanding that these are the *best guesses* we have. No one is claiming they are certainties. No one, Crakar. If you read AR-whatever you would know this.

And this is the fundamental issue we *all* have to confront. A person who, like you, is "not qualified to comment in any scientific way on this study" *must* decide whether (s)he accepts or rejects a scientific consensus--or more accurately, accepts that policy recommendations be based on it given what it says about our state of knowledge.

What i do find irritating Skip is that you are quite prepared to accept what the IPCC say so if "they" do not include a study in their ARx then you deem it not worthy of consideration.

And what study are you saying they wrongly rejected? Do you think *you're* qualified to scientifically to defend that study--whatever it is? The honest answer to this puts you in a terrible quandery, Crakar, and you bally well know it.

This, again, is the issue. If you admit you're not qualified, then how can you with such aplomb declare the IPCC is fundamentally *wrong* when it chooses and rejects studies based on a prevailing scientific consensus?

Here is another study about the accuracy of the models for Mandas to read whilst the debate about the benefits of excell spreadsheets continues.

http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/369699__928051726.pdf

There seems as though the reviewer(s) had a problem with the methodology so the paper was expanded to justify the method used. Basically the paper says the models cannot reproduce past climate and ergo cannot predict future climates etc.

happy reading

Sorry crakar, can't access the document. Link appears to be down (maybe temporarily).

Does not work for me now either, oh well back to the wonders of excell

Still down at 11ish PST.