New Research

[jethro]

Jethro, I have explained. You do understand what these shocks are and you understand that these cannot be mathematically modelled because we cannot predict them. Can you predict when the next large scale volcanic erruption will take place and it's magnitude? Do you think that the IPCC has modelled this into there theoretics?

Yes, the IPCC have included an approximate average for annual/decade volcanic activity. Barring something like Yellowstone going up, an approximation is adequate information to feed into the models. Volcanic activity varies but the impact is a short term one, even the biggest ones in history (like Tambora) have only had a short term effect and would not change climate predictions over time scales even as short as 10 years.

Using volcanic activity to support your views on this demonstrates (to me) that you don't have a correct grasp of how climate models work.

I do find it slightly amusing that the two folk you've come up against most frequently on here are myself and Boar - two of the biggest sceptics on here. If you can't get us on board in support of your views......

[Methuselah]

Did you miss the IPCC change in prediction or something?

No. Why? Would that destroy the link between human emissions of CO₂ and CO₂? Or what?

You really should take note of what Jethro's been trying to explain to you, you know?

[jethro]

Jethro, I have explained. You do understand what these shocks are and you understand that these cannot be mathematically modelled because we cannot predict them. Can you predict when the next large scale volcanic erruption will take place and it's magnitude? Do you think that the IPCC has modelled this into there theoretics?

But you had faith in the models before they made the change didnt you? And yet you are maintaining that you know that the predictions will change as they get updated? You cant have it both ways...either the model predictions are a useful representation of the future or they are not because they will be changed. Whats it to be?

Faith doesn't enter into the equation.

I expect change, I do not expect pin-point accuracy. Anyone who does expect that degree of accuracy or expects the current day models to have all the information they need really hasn't bothered to try to understand both climate science and how models work. Your expectations are simply wrong and in no way support your views on climate models or the findings of the IPCC.

[Devonian]

You keep saying that I am maintaining this Jethro, but I havent said that.

I do understand how climate models work and if you read back you will find where I have outlined where the problem is with these models. We know that the climate models are most likely to be wrong because as each decade passes, the predictions change.

The changes are not small changes either, they are wild changes. As you know, a change of 2centigrade in global climate is huge. But thats how much the IPCC has downgraded their assesment based on models.

Village, I'd like to see the evidence for this '2C' claim. And don't try and brush me off with a 'you know all this Dev' type reply, I don't know it, you claim you do, so back up your claim with figures.

[Village]

Yes, the IPCC have included an approximate average for annual/decade volcanic activity. Barring something like Yellowstone going up, an approximation is adequate information to feed into the models. Volcanic activity varies but the impact is a short term one, even the biggest ones in history (like Tambora) have only had a short term effect and would not change climate predictions over time scales even as short as 10 years.

Using volcanic activity to support your views on this demonstrates (to me) that you don't have a correct grasp of how climate models work.

I do find it slightly amusing that the two folk you've come up against most frequently on here are myself and Boar - two of the biggest sceptics on here. If you can't get us on board in support of your views......

I am not looking to bend your ear on this, you have your views, but so far you are being ambiguous in what you say. You have been saying that the synthetic models are a useful representation of our climate 100 years forth. But you havent explained what went so very wrong when the IPCC downgraded their prediction by a staggering 2 Centigrade. You say volcanism is factored in....so what was the huge shift based on? Can you trust the models to be even close when you have already stated that you expect them to change over and over again as they get updated?

My view is a clear one....I would like you to clarify yours please Jethro because I am confused with your stance.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Village

[Village]

Village, I'd like to see the evidence for this '2C' claim. And don't try and brush me off with a 'you know all this Dev' type reply, I don't know it, you claim you do, so back up your claim with figures.

OK I will willingly respond to that if I know who it is I am conversing with. So can I call you Dev here without you changing your name and complaining as you did on another website? Edited January 23, 2012 by Village

[Devonian]

OK I will willingly respond to that if I know who it is I am conversing with. So can I call you Dev here without you changing your name and complaining as you did on another website?

No distractions please Village, just answer the question will do fine..

Edited January 23, 2012 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

I am not looking to bend your ear on this, you have your views, but so far you are being ambiguous in what you say. You have been saying that the synthetic models are a useful representation of our climate 100 years forth. But you havent explained what went so very wrong when the IPCC downgraded their prediction by a staggering 2 Centigrade. You say volcanism is factored in....so what was the huge shift based on? Can you trust the models to be even close when you have already stated that you expect them to change over and over again as they get updated?

My view is a clear one.....

Yes. But what is it?

[songster]

OK I will willingly respond to that if I know who it is I am conversing with.

*shrug* Is that aimed at Devonian in particular, or will anyone do? My name is Peter Ellis, I'm a molecular biologist with an amateur interest in following climate change debate, and Arctic ice changes in particular. I would like to know your grounds for saying the IPCC have changed their predictions by 2C. In particular, can you confirm whether the claimed change is due to changes in the climate model, changing timescales of the prediction, or changing scenarios for future emissions. Clearly comparing a scenario where emissions continue to grow with one where emission stabilise at some future date is an unfair comparison.

You may call me songster, or Peter, or "Oi Dick'ead" - whichever you please.

[Village]

Climate models are not weather models run forward into the future.

Thats not strictly true Jethro. You are maintaining this, however the data that is input is weather data. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Climate models are modelled using past weather data. Then as a test they are fiddled with to reproduce the present using past weather data. The new model is then rolled out and projected forward and we are told that this is a meaningful representation of the future based on the past. My stance is that the future world can never be projected simply by using data from the past. But its all we have unfirtunately. But this doesnt make it any good or useful. Edited January 23, 2012 by Village

[John Mason]

Hi all,

Just dropping by to say hello to Vill and to suggest that he might enjoy reading the following recent guest-post on SkS, by Kate from Climatesight:

http://www.skeptical...odels-work.html

Cheers - John

Edited January 23, 2012 by John Mason

[Gray-Wolf]

"My stance is that the future world can never be projected simply by using data from the past. But its all we have unfortunately. But this doesn't make it any good or useful."

Yes V. I'm sure we all agree that we cannot say things like '2017 will be the first seasonal pack in the Arctic' but we can 'model' the demise of the ice pack and confidently predict that within this and that decade we will see polar ice become a seasonal event.

Now of course there are massively extreme events that occasionally affect the planet and ,because of there rarity we do not include them yet you seem hell bent on warning that such events should be modelled or the models are pooh?

Can you really tell me (100% sure) that the sun will rise tomorrow? Life means accepting extremes but living ,and planning ,in the 'average'. I'm sure the climate modellers are within the 'ballpark' as far as the way our AGW impacted climate is evolving.

[BornFromTheVoid]

This is quite interesting

http://www.esa.int/e...XG_index_0.html

ESA satellites show that a large dome of fresh water has been building up in the Arctic Ocean over the last 15 years. A change in wind direction could cause the water to spill into the north Atlantic, cooling Europe.

The results are remarkable: since 2002, the sea surface in the studied area has risen by about 15 cm, and the volume of fresh water has increased by some 8000 cubic km – around 10% of all the fresh water in the Arctic Ocean.

Researchers from the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM) at University College London and the UK’s National Oceanography Centre used data from ESA’s ERS-2 and Envisat satellites to measure sea-surface height over the western Arctic from 1995 to 2010.

The results were published yesterday in the online version of the scientific journal, Nature Geoscience.

[loafer]

Very interesting - thanks.

[Village]

"My stance is that the future world can never be projected simply by using data from the past. But its all we have unfortunately. But this doesn't make it any good or useful."

Yes V. I'm sure we all agree that we cannot say things like '2017 will be the first seasonal pack in the Arctic' but we can 'model' the demise of the ice pack and confidently predict that within this and that decade we will see polar ice become a seasonal event.

Now of course there are massively extreme events that occasionally affect the planet and ,because of there rarity we do not include them yet you seem hell bent on warning that such events should be modelled or the models are pooh?

Can you really tell me (100% sure) that the sun will rise tomorrow? Life means accepting extremes but living ,and planning ,in the 'average'. I'm sure the climate modellers are within the 'ballpark' as far as the way our AGW impacted climate is evolving.

Thanks GW, thanks for what I concider a pretty ballanced post. However the climate models are not even opting for a ball park figure anymore.....the spread has now widened out to a range of 6.00 degrees C of change in global temps. The IPCC has widened their assesment of the spread out to a range of between +1.1C to an upper of as high as +7.1C . Thats almost a 2 degree Centigrade worsening (downgrade) of what they predicted two decades ago.

Now I dont know about you, but I dont agree that anybody can claim that this is an example of models becoming more accurate.

It simply demonstrates that they are even less sure now than they were in 1990 when they first used synthetic models as support to their theory of AGW.

Further, I would add that the IPCC has missed its target again because the actual global temps are outside of their extreme lower temperature rise that they predicted using synthetic models in 1990. They were absolutely wrong in their assesment. So again, the models were wrong.

Here is the link to the graph that shows how far out they are compared to the official statistics from last year. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/

Hi all,

Just dropping by to say hello to Vill and to suggest that he might enjoy reading the following recent guest-post on SkS, by Kate from Climatesight:

http://www.skeptical...odels-work.html

Cheers - John

thanks John, I guess now that you have tracked me down we can say that I have been Dev'd again right!

Edited January 23, 2012 by Village

[knocker]

Unprecedented, man-made trends in ocean's acidity

Nearly one-third of CO₂ emissions due to human activities enters the world's oceans. By reacting with seawater, CO₂ increases the water's acidity, which may significantly reduce the calcification rate of such marine organisms as corals and mollusks. The extent to which human activities have raised the surface level of acidity, however, has been difficult to detect on regional scales because it varies naturally from one season and one year to the next, and between regions, and direct observations go back only 30 years.

Combining computer modeling with observations, an international team of scientists concluded that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions over the last 100 to 200 years have already raised ocean acidity far beyond the range of natural variations. The study is published in the January 22 online issue of Nature Climate Change.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/uoh-umt011912.php

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks BFTP!

I've just been 'elsewhere' and had this brought to my attention.

The positive AO this winter may well be in the process of delivering some of that 'Dome' into the trans polar Current as we speak! As to it's impacts across Europe? I'm not quite clear on how this 'cooling' would occur? Are we looking at the swamping of the N.A.D.? is that really possible with such a long timeframe 'flood' of fresh water (not exactly going to be like the last 'surge' to stop the transport?) I find it a far more likely scenario that this water will just become part of the Artcis ocean as it travels toward Fram?

Seems that a lot is going on 'up North' these days with Methane plumes, Fresh water run off from Siberia on the Alaskan side of the Basin, and now a 'dome' of 'Fresh' water in the middle of the beaufort Gyre?

Only another 8 weeks and the summer melt will be upon us! Who says it's boring watching the ice.

EDIT: It would be very interesting if, like the end of the N.A.D., the water descended in that area and served to speed up the current dragging ever warm waters by our shores???

Edited January 23, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[John Mason]

John Mason, on 23 January 2012 - 13:21 , said:

Hi all,

Just dropping by to say hello to Vill and to suggest that he might enjoy reading the following recent guest-post on SkS, by Kate from Climatesight:

http://www.skeptical...odels-work.html

Cheers - John

Vill said: "thanks John, I guess now that you have tracked me down we can say that I have been Dev'd again right!"

My advice is to follow the link I provided, because it would help you to understand climate models, which you clearly do not, having confused them with economic models, which are far more fail-prone because, despite its myriad complexities, the climate is rather more straightforward than a bunch of panicking financiers!

I've known you are on here for ages, but thought I might be able to offer some guidance that would help you see the difference in computer models as developed for completely different situations - climatology vs. economics. Hence posting the link to where I mostly hang out these days, with those scurrilous Antipodean pro-science types! I rather like them because the arena is - mostly - science.

Cheers - John

[loafer]

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research

That the 20th century saw a "solar maximum" and the 21st will see the reverse is interesting. Of course the nasty CO2 makes it largely irrelevant. Apparently. Thank goodness the models are so accurate.

[Devonian]

http://www.metoffice...output-research

That the 20th century saw a "solar maximum" and the 21st will see the reverse is interesting. Of course the nasty CO2 makes it largely irrelevant. Apparently. Thank goodness the models are so accurate.

Indeed, so far the models are doing well.

[Gowon]

http://www.metoffice...output-research

That the 20th century saw a "solar maximum" and the 21st will see the reverse is interesting. Of course the nasty CO2 makes it largely irrelevant. Apparently. Thank goodness the models are so accurate.

"It's important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system."

In other words GIGO!

I can see the tabloids getting hold of this and blowing it right out of proportion.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Higrade

[Gray-Wolf]

I still wonder if we have 'modelled' the loss of the Arctic sea ice with enough clarity to be sure of it's impacts alone never mind all the other impacts associated with such a 'Rapid' (relatively) warming?

The 0.08c decline dies not seem the stuff of 'ice ages ' now does it?

[pottyprof]

I rather like them because the arena is - mostly - science.

Cheers - John

Hi John. There is a huge difference between questioning the science and rubbishing the science and those that question the science are still tarred with the same brush as those who rubbish it. The climate models are throwing out questionable data at times and there are a million and one excuses why they get it wrong. Solar influence is one such mechanism that we have modelled wrongly for years and then there is the rounding of figures which can cause huge amounts of differences in the output. These have been ignored in the past by people who wouldn't accept they were wrong but yet claimed "the science was settled". When this happens, is there any wonder why there is so much scepticism?

[loafer]

Indeed, so far the models are doing well.

Do you mean the models which predicted rising global temperatures which even the IPCC say will not happen for the forseeable?

Or do you mean the other models they could have used which will come out with different results?

[John Mason]

Hi John. There is a huge difference between questioning the science and rubbishing the science and those that question the science are still tarred with the same brush as those who rubbish it. The climate models are throwing out questionable data at times and there are a million and one excuses why they get it wrong. Solar influence is one such mechanism that we have modelled wrongly for years and then there is the rounding of figures which can cause huge amounts of differences in the output. These have been ignored in the past by people who wouldn't accept they were wrong but yet claimed "the science was settled". When this happens, is there any wonder why there is so much scepticism?

Hi Prof,

There sure is! At Skeptical Science we soon spot those out simply to rubbish science - quite a few are "known operatives" in any case. Questions on the other hand are always welcome - provided they are posted in the right thread where they are on-topic, they will usually be answered.

Sure the climate models are far from perfect. They improve as time goes by, but don't confuse excuses with reasons - if they underperform either way (and for example they grossly underestimated Arctic sea-ice loss) we need to and do try and work out the reasons for that, rather than saying the dog ate the homework.

Is science ever settled? I don't think so, at least in terms of details. Certain principles have withstood the test of time in all of the scientific disciplines, but there are always uncertainties to clear up, and climatology is no exception to this. It requires scepticism to identify and attempt to address uncertainties - without it we would still be wondering how to make wheels!

Cheers - John