Gates : ultimately the net long term climate forcing and those dynamics will provide the longer-term accuracy of climate models
Your reasoning of late seems to be that since it is <b>possible</b> that models may well show an underlying long-term warming, despite short term noise (?) fluctuations, therefore they <b>will</b>.
Blindly ruling out any possibility of being wrong, and that just maybe there are factors at play not captured by the models.
Classic IPCC / Consensus conceit ?
Comment on Can we trust climate models? by Tuppence
↧
↧
Comment on Can we trust climate models? by JamesG
You are not being scientific at all! Realclimate.org had told us to expect a lot of warming by now – it’s right there in their own archives. A little humility because reality did not match their models it seems is beyond them!
If you actually believed in classical physics then you would not hide from the results of the experiment. ie If you add CO2 in large amounts and then predict large temperature rises from it (because man was supposed to be dominating climate) you have to recognise that if it didn’t happen your theory is invalid. Man does not dominate the climate! It really is that simple.
And of course you should know, because Judith has told you often enough, that there is not enough data to say that the deep ocean is warming or cooling and even if the ocean is absorbing it then basic physics also says that it is never coming back! Note that I didn’t say it was impossible – I was reminding you that sometimes nature does the opposite of what basic physics predicts and basic physics undeniably says that the deep ocean cannot accept warmth without it being detected in the top 700m. Now ok If you want to consider more complex thermodynamics that does the opposite of the basics then do not seek to lecture the rest of us on sticking to the basics. That is the only lesson I am trying to get through to any scientific thinkers!
In any event any postulated ocean uptake is merely natural variation by another name (or unexpected negative feedback if you prefer) and is yet another thing that tells us climate physics is not so simple as has been previously assumed. Further, I don’t believe Gavin believes the ocean warming hypothesis anyway – certainly his old boss wanted to push aerosols as the cause for the pause.
Finally, there is actually a very good correlation between Solanki’s solar reconstruction and temperatures in the Arctic and the US48; the only two datasets we know for sure have been either free of, or corrected for, the urban heat island effect. Seek and ye shall find!
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Eli Rabett
There are any number of markers of our current era that will be visible in 100K years, for example, thin layers of lead from tetra ethyl lead, massive extinctions, various stable isotope ratios disturbed, layers of ores displaced, etc.
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/explain-universe-give-two-examples.html
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by andywest2012
“Even if the Anthropocene doesn’t make it as a geological epoch, it seems here to stay as an environmental meme. As an environmental meme, it has some promise –”
Memes prosper in the direction of narrative success, not veracity. And with a term for which the absolute truth, as noted above, in the strict geological sense, can only be determined a million years hence, this term is highly fluid and hence at high risk of simply falling into alignment with the dominant apocalyptic narrative as established by the ‘traditional’ Greens. To have a more positive counter-narrative that can successfully challenge the environmental apocalypse story, I guess one needs a whole bunch of allied positive memes, some at least of which are less easy to hi-jack, and all of which must hit emotive hot-buttons, but of the optimistic not pessimistic kind.
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Aynsley Kellow
I’m with Peter Lang on this. In addition to the extensive use of fire which transformed the Australian environment can be added the role of plains Indians in maintaining and expanding the American prairie, and others. Stephen Budiansky has a good account of this in his ‘Nature’s Keepers’. The date from which ‘The Fall’ commences is usually 1492 in America or 1788 in Australia, because the the Apocalypticism is all about the sins of industrial society. After the Apocalypse, of course, comes the unchanging utopia of the Millennium – or the ‘Sustainable Society’ when the virtuous are saved. We’ve had a substantial impact on the environment when we domesticated wild emmer wheat (and before).
↧
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Eli Rabett
Kloor, once again, confuses his prosperity with that of others and the future. But then again, he always was oblivious.
↧
Comment on Can we trust climate models? by Tanglewood
> Skepticism with loud voices also leads to more funding to try to resolve differences.
In an honest-science environment it would. But government-funded climate science takes every effort to suppress, ignore and ostrasize, so as to prop up the politically-motivated ‘consensus’ it serves.
↧
Comment on Can we trust climate models? by Punksta
> clearly the system is out of control and deaf to reality.
This stems from its political funding. Reality must needs give way to political correctness.
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
JCH,
The Chef will be aggrieved even more. I am working on fitting the ENSO paleo data collected at Palmyra by one GaTech professor and the preliminary results to my ENSO model are outstanding.
We have a group at the Azimuth Project that will be working on an open-source project to improve ENSO predictions. Will aggrieve the Chef further.
↧
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
FAN is warning the economists not to get involved in a “hard” science.
They tend to make a mess of things, kind of like a diaper-less baby wandering around a dinner-party.
As I noted elsewhere in this comment thread, I am verifying the SOI model against coral proxy records from 1100, 1300, and 1600 and the fit is appearing outstanding. CSALT + SOI = MNFTIU.
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by phatboy
Why do you need scare stories?
Who are you trying to scare?
The sceptics? Why should you care what they think?
The Government? Do they care what you think?
Or are you trying to scare yourselves?
Or perhaps convince yourselves?
Have you stopped to think that your scare stories may be the cause of much of the scepticism which you complain about?
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Faustino
We don’t need to ask that question; it will emerge in the fullness of time. If there is any insurmountable constraints to further growth of human population at any stage, then humanity en masse will adapt without central direction. In short, don’t worry, be happy, you won’t live to see any limit which might (or might not) be reached.
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Faustino
kim. I’d appreciate it if you could direct some of that untapped energy to me.
↧
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Faustino
jim2, unfortunately “that guy” has some influence in Australia, and is part of the gang seeking (fairly successfully) to thwart the government’s electoral mandate to wind back CAGW-related expenditure.
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Faustino
Tom, I was on the corner of the stage at the Middle Earth basement club when Arthur Brown’s roadie managed to set the place (starting with a speaker cabinet) on fire. Not normally part of the act, the fire was usually contained.
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Rob Ellison
Here’s someone with some actual credibility – http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd//RESEARCH/enso_regrfcst.html – as opposed to incredible twits doing unbelievable spin.
What are we actually expecting here? An end to the pause from a moderate El Nino?
‘Specifically, it was shown that when these modes of climate variability are synchronized, and the coupling between those modes simultaneously increases, the climate system becomes unstable and appears
to be thrown into a new state. This chain of events is identical to that found in regime
transitions in synchronized chaotic dynamical systems [Pecora et al. 1997]. This new
state is marked by a break in the global mean temperature trend and in the character of
ENSO variability. Synchronization followed by an increase in coupling coincided with all the major climate shifts of the 20th century, and was also shown to mark climate shifts in coupled ocean-atmosphere simulations. While in the observations such breaks in temperature trend are clearly superimposed upon a century time-scale warming presumably due to anthropogenic forcing, those breaks result in significant departures from that warming
60 over time periods spanning multiple decades. Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of
roughly constant global mean temperature.’ https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
Unless they have some more serious science than webby and JCH – I suggest they are in trouble.
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Faustino
Well, having just commented on an Arthur Brown gig, I must say that I saw Dylan at Gerdie’s Folkhouse (approx) in 1962, put perhaps that wasn’t the Karen Allen coffee house.
↧
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Robert I Ellison
So has gatesy given up calling being snide and noxious? The endless insults and belittlement? I shouldn’t think that’s part of the game plan.
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Robert I Ellison
So has gatesy given up being snide and noxious? The endless insults and belittlement? That would be a major shift. I shouldn’t think that’s part of the game plan.
↧
Comment on Pondering the anthropocene by Faustino
About 799,500 years later, we invented football, which we codified in the 19thC. Now we don’t know how to win a World Cup game. Everything changes.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
