Comments for Climate Etc.

You can take an average of all models, but it is probably not a valid approach as models fall into groups that handle dynamics differently. Probably some of those groups will be more accurate or complete, so taking an average of that group is going to yield a better result. Only continued research will tell us which groups have the most accurate dynamics,

…or a feather in a vacuum

Too much of the skeptical community are devoted to “in the weeds” topical points and thereby enable the green political monolith to advance or even survive. For example; While Lima was toothless and pointless in substance the dog and pony show never the less rewards the agenda and continues the propaganda offensive. That in a past time everything (advocacy wise) was bet on “models” predicting “warming” and has failed for so long illustrates the importance of controlling the goal posts and measures. If academia and media are ideologically corrupt….and they are….you will never get a reasoned consensus of the same people.

Instead of focusing on failed model predictions the actual consensus should be on the political corruption that has always driven the green movement and AGW advocacy specifically. A better summary of where the debate is found here and by similar voices;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/12/gruber-thinking-in-climate-science-disconnect-between-academia-and-the-real-world/

Arguing over temperature stats and spaghetti charts, as a main point, enables the underlying political goals of the AGW culture to fly under the radar.

You are wrong. Use raw data. The answer doesn’t change.

Thanks in part to the protracted debate over Climategate emails, even the most basic models of physics are now being re-examined:

See: “How Today’s Top Scientists are gambling away scientific credibility”:

http://www.thehiggsfake.com/bankruptingphysics.html

Well, before the pause, you guys were harping that CO2 was <i>the</i> driver of warming and would swamp any natural variability. What changed?

Why do you post a chart that isn’t even relevant any more.

If you remove all urban stations.. The answer doesn’t change

My concern is that the answers do seem to change as you add and subtract stations; HADCRUT is showing some significant differences between new and previous versions

Don’t be troubled by provocateurs – their words are banderillas and their posts have little content.

Global paleotemp can be approximated in different ways, here are some:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/

Sorry, but linking to opponent. Don’t shoot at the messenger.

Don (Morton), thanks for a simply wonderful essay. I enjoyed everything about it.

You make a very clear well reasoned case for the irrationality of using current numerical climate models fitted to past average temperature data to predict or project future average temperatures let alone temperature distributions or extreme weather events. Anyone with a reasonable understanding of statistics and data analysis should be able to follow your arguments.

Section 9 on “What Should We Do Now” is right on the money. Unfortunately there are too many scientists who believe that their political goals justify obfuscation and taking short cuts.

Thank you for adding another voice of reason to the debate. Clearly you have had a long and gloried career as respected member of the science community. Brace yourself for the ad hominem attacks that will likely come your way.

I am with gatesy on this one. Averaging is usually always the way to go. I coach basketball and I make sure that my players with average skill sets get the most playing time.

Carry this foolishness to it’s logical conclusion and you can do away with the models and save a lot of money. Just have each group draw their little charts reflecting where they think the climate is headed and take the average.

See comments of Dr. Brown on wattsup for an elegant explanation on why averaging models is goofy.

It’s the same poster. He just changed the title. Just kidding, doc.

So what does the current LOD indicate for the future of the AMO?

Pinky – “models have at their core…”

Great post, well worth scrolling past the provocateur in order to read. Thanks for the links. James C. McWilliams is a credible source, the kind of specialist I have been looking for to shed some light on the AOS models.

See his background in applied mathematics here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._McWilliams

Thanks again.

That it will continue to follow while others lead!

Morton claimed that models failed to predict a pause in global warming and therefore are not reliable. In fact, the statistics show there is no pause.

The claim of a pause is noise made by global warming deniers who are misinforming themselves and others. Then they claim that the models should have predicted this non existent pause.

There are no models that can predict ENSO, volcanoes and solar intensity, In addition economic development in China has produced a large amount of sulfate aerosals. There are no functions in climate models that can cover these phenonena. It is unreasonable to claim that models are useless because of this. These fluctuations will eventually average out.

All real life economic decisions involve uncertainty. There is no way to avoid uncertainty in a decision about how to tackle climate change which is an economic decision which has huge implications for the planet earth and future generations

I can see, by your name, that you are a person of extinction. :)
h/t Jackie Mason

Hugh,

All messengers are safe with me. :) I selected that Scotese graph for the CO2 line. I am not qualified to judge whether the CO2 levels or temps are accurate, but I am fascinated by the discussion. Thanks for the link.

Latest Images