"The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science"
Except it's not science. It's modeling.
"but nonetheless the new analysis is very reassuring"
It would be if it was science. But it's modeling.
A group of top NASA boffins says that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise. According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the …
From Wikipedia: "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world."
These testable explanations and predictions are also known as *models*.
A testable explanation may be a model, but for that model to remain scientific it must stand up to real world observations. The models used to "prove" the hypothesis that CO2 is the primary driver of climate fail to do this: they fail to stand up to the real world. Many of them cannot hindcast with even remote accuracy. They failed to predict the current cooling trend, for instance. So they added another epicycle.
See, models are not science. Not really. The model that described the ptolemaic universe was a very good one, it could accurately predict conjunctions, star positions, eclipses and even the odd comet. A model can be right in every single way and still be fundamentally wrong.
Your quoting of the wiki description misses one key element: a hypothesis must be rejected if it fails to predict events that fall within its scope, or if real-world observation contradicts it. So far real-world observations have contradicted just about every element of the CAGW hypothesis, and the models have failed to accurately represent the world. In order to remain scientific it must be rejected, not modified ad hoc to say "ahh but then this when that", as the old model of the universe was. That may bring the model back in line with observations, but it doesn't make it correct as long as the fundamental element of the hypothesis is incorrect. Clinging to a failed hypothesis is not scientific.
Therefore the models are not science.
Where I come from, we assess the truthiness based on media descriptions and then use our tax law to subsidise a scientific test of legal over physical laws. (More highways, anyone?) The results will be subject to the same wild variations in interpretation. Whilst others discuss their version of reality, I'm un-developing some river frontage in the Great White North.
If any of you had actually read the report being cited here and not just the malformed attempt at interpretation by this article you would know that this is all hogwash. The point of the report was not a climate projection, just an attempt at quantifying the negative feedback of plant transpiration, which they settled on 0.26 degrees Celsius. The 1.64 number is a result of subtracting 0.26 (well 0.3 which was rounded up in the NASA press release) from the LOWEST predicted temperature increase by CO2 of 1.94 degrees Celsius, when in fact the temperature increase ranges cited in the report are 1.94 to 4.5 degrees Celsius, so in fact this report says that if CO2 concentrations double, we should expect a temperature increase from 1.64 to 4.2 degrees celsius, down from 1.94 to 4.5 degrees Celsius when we account for plant transpiration.
A perfect example of people not reading past the headlines and doing zero critical thinking for themselves. This report doesn't debunk global warming. The so-called "cooling trend" you talk about is just as easily debunked and if you have any interest in knowing the actual science or in real skeptisism please feel free to let me know and I'll gladly oblige.
No... Modelling is PART of science. You still have to do the testing part.
I can produce all the models I want, but that doesn't mean that I'm doing science. The models should represent a part of the natural world that I'm interested in. But, there is nothing that forces a model to actually represent the world and if the model isn't compared to reality, then it isn't possible to show its validity. A model that has no relation to reality is ultimately useless (outside of religion) and a model who's validity cannot be proven is no better than an irrelevant model. Good science creates a hypothesis about something not fully understood, creates a model that will allow that hypothesis to be tested and then performs the test to see what happens, either substantiating the hypothesis or rejecting it.
Note, the hypothesis/expermentation strategy is only one method used in science. Many people prefer to collect sets of observations and then try to find underlying similarities and causes.
This why smart people don't quote Wikipedia. That section of the article reads like it was written by a philospher who never even set foot in a science class.
I could instead point out that your Wikipedia article states "testable explanations and predictions." There have been no tests performed on this stuff and indeed that is reasonable, given that the scientists cannot create a world to test on and they're using every bit of data they can find to generate the models, so there's nothing left to test against. So, since the models can't be tested, they can't be science.
In theory the climate models can be tested, in practice they fail those tests. The most obvious test is that a model should be able to predict future activity. Therefore you can use the model to predict a future point and compare the actual data of that future point against what the model predicted. The catch on this is "How far into the future do you need to go before you are sure you are measuring climate as opposed to measuring weather?"
The more obvious choice is to use the model to look at recorded data. In theory, if the model is accurate and there are sufficient data points from the historical record, you should be able to accurately predict the climate at a future point where you are far enough ahead do the question of weather vs climate is moot. The problem here is that at best we have 300 years of accurate data (being generous) to feed into the models.
So while your conclusion is correct in the sense that they have not been successfully tested, it isn't because they are inherently untestable. Otherwise, excellent post, including the bit about not quoting Wiki.
A model is just that, a model, a system for approximating reality (i.e. measured data) and making testable predictions.
Those of us in the science community who remember what a model really is and why it can never take primacy over measured data have a special word for a model whose predictions do not match measured reality. Such a model is, technical jargon here, "wrong". If a model is "wrong" then any decisions based on its predictions are also "wrong".
All of the models used by the IPCC fall into this category of "wrong" and thus must be discarded. Any decisions based on these models are "wrong" are thus baseless and have no value.
Let's feed the data gathered so far (without the data falsifying edits by the Hockey Team) until, say, 1970 into the new model. If the predictions it makes do not match the actual data for 1970 to the present then this new model is also "wrong"
AFAIK there is not one single model of climate that passes the above test.
The most obvious red herring is going on about "global warming" and how it's less degrees on average or not... That's not really the point, is it?
Somewhere around 2000 the consensus was reached that we're not so much worried about warming, but about climate change --- if the temperature stays the same on average, but in some regions it goes down others it goes up then there is indeed a big change. Especially because precipitation/rain is very sensitive to these changes... There again, if average rain stays the same but it all falls in autumn, you're not really going to survive with a foodless spring and summer, are you? And in most cases it's not going to be the same quantity of rain (so possible to store & ration) but a very different one...
Short version: global warming out, climate change in, get with the programme!
Under the structure you've outline, all models are not science because they are all wrong in an absolute sense (eg Newtonian physics fail at near light speeds and Einstein's model fail for certain observations although at the moment I don't recall exactly which ones). What it needs are the following corrective factors:
* a model is accepted for practical purposes if the data agree within the margin error
* the margin of error has to be small enough to produce an acceptable signal to noise ratio (that is, you can see a clear trend outside the variations introduced by error)
To date none of the climate models pass muster under these modified criteria either, so your conclusion stills stands, but we get to keep the Newtonian and Einsteinian models as science.
Then you can use statistics to see how good your theories are. The scientists have been rather careful with the amount of warming they predict so most models over the last 20 years have been calibrated to minimise the warming and they have been off by under predicting the warming that has happened. The temp is rising faster than predicted, icecaps and glaciers melting faster etc.
There will be feedback in any chaotic system so this is good news but not nearly good enough for the backward (that is the opposite of progressive isn't it) and politically incorrect to really take any hope from. We aer pushing a chaotic system and if it hits turbulance then I suspect we're in trouble.
And btw yanks, you live in a socialist country and should be proud. The constitution is based on post revolutionary France and you are not likely to go back even if you want to.
Although I have never heard any conservatives actually say, "please take away my property and tax me for whatever living I can scratch on your land, please take my daughter and do as you will, please take away my vote and all rights etc".
And yes they do indeed arrive en masse via their own eco-troll alerts
However the Register isn't the target today.
Perhaps Lewis just doesn't wind them up enough or their waiting to vent their eco-spleens on an Andrew Orlowski article :-P
The problem he'll have is explaining why companies should continue to buy "carbon credits" from his own private eco-venture. This whole thing has not-surprisingly turned into a money-making scheme that has the guise of science without the substance and the smoke of righteous indignation without the fire.
Why are people such sheep to continue to fall for this political rhetoric? I hate to sound like a conspiracy wacko, but there's little doubt in my mind that the politics involved are really just to secure Federal money and garner free publicity.
If you actually look at the article itself, you'll find that Bounoua actually says "By accelerating the water cycle, this feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming, reducing the land surface warming by 0.6°C"
What this means if that if CO2 doubled, the increase in temperature that it would cause would be reduced by 0.6°C. And that is only over land. The global effect is a reduction of 0.3 degrees. And what it also means is that if we increase CO2 by 20%, the reduction will be a fifth of 0.3 - ie around 0.05 degrees. It also assumes that plant growth is not affected by the increased temperatures that increased CO2 will bring - water shortages for instance.
The article actually concludes that this wont make much difference to the end result - more CO2 equals greater temperatures. IN the NASA press release, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cooling-plant-growth.html Bounoua stresses that this negative feedback is not enough to alter the global warming trend.
The article is also very careful to make the point that the feedbacks modeled would only have a significant effect after a stabilization of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, stating "This suggests that while increased LAI may not slow global warming significantly in the near term, its long term negative feedback could potentially reduce temperatures following a stabilization of CO2 concentration."
Page always shows horrendous selection bias. The same journal he took that article from has also published the following in the past two months, none of which he felt worthy of commenting on:
- Cryo-hydrologic warming - about meltwater within glaciers speeding ice sheet warming
- Winter 2010 in Europe: A cold extreme in a warming climate
- Intensification of hot extremes in the United States
- Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: The first human-induced global warming?
The latter of which actually shows how increased vegetation can have a warming effect.
... tell that to those people freezing their butts off in Europe.
Something is screwy with the "science" that an insignificant trace gas with virtually zero heat capacity has such a dramatic effect. I think there is more chance that the heat generated from so many people in the world running engines powered by hydrocarbon based fuels is the cause of warming. That heat has got to go somewhere - and there's a lot more of it generated that the CO2 molecule can "generate".
You could argue that *all* NASA boffins are top boffins because if they weren't they would still be at boffin school, working towards their "Top Boffin" qualification :)
Seriously though, I think this every time I hear BBC news announce "experts say..." or "experts agree that..."
Who are these experts and why do we never hear from their brethren the enthusiasts or hobbyists?
Being truly crap would probably mean getting your boffin badge withdrawn, but I'm sure there's a boffin hierarchy where boffins have underboffins, and report to overboffins. Right at the top there'll be a superboffin,or boffin-in-chief, or something. Time to redo the business cards, I think...
We often do, but the media label them experts because they don't understand the difference and wouldn't care if they did.
Recall the MRSA scares when newspapers were reporting finding it everywhere? The only "lab" finding it, which is the one the media used in their reports (some of them cheerfully admitting that they sent all their samples to him because he was the only "lab" they knew would come back with the result they wanted), was a one-man band operating out of a shed in his back garden. He was a hobbyist; he was reported to be an expert. There are many, many more examples.
Another day, another climate farce exposed.
I think it's well established now that the IPCC was one of the targets of this as they never check their work.
Which C is for corruption in IPCC? The first or last?
Bring on the red arrows IPCC Supporters!
"The IPCC got a paragraph wrong in a 1,000 page report."
Well if that one paragraph is detrimental to their whole argument then it's very important, then throw in the fact that this keeps happening and they continually overshoot projections of what will actually happen and make baseless claims without evidence.
Just use your brain, we've seen this happen enough times to know the IPCC is useless busybodies publishing as much as they can to get a big pension.
Climate taxes are just TAX, we already pay more in the UK than it would cost to offset any effects but it's not actually used on what they say it will.
will be one part of the scientific "puzzle", and is not the complete picture.
And it's all very well banding terms like "green agenda" about, but that neglects the counterposed "fossil agenda". Perhaps we should try to see past these cartoon agendae,
and look at the overall scientific consensus instead, and, whilst taking care to see how that consensus might evolve over time, nevertheless prudently adapt our behaviour in response to the existing consensus in the meantime.
Or just rant for a bit. If that's what you prefer.
..."agenda". It's Latin for "things to be done", and so is already plural. "*agendae" implies a Latin first-declension feminine singular noun. "agenda" is the plural of a neuter gerundive.
In modern English usage it perhaps means "a list of things to be done", so it needs a plural. That plural is "agendas".
There's only one icon for this sort of thing.
As far as I know, yes, "agendum" is a thing to be done. Not used in modern English, but "corrigendum" is sometimes used as the singular of "corrigenda" (things to be corrected), though neither is exactly in everyday usage. The part of speech is the same as "agenda".
Interestingly, depending on your viewpoint, "agendae" probably means "women to be done". See icon.
Perhaps WikiLeaks could redeem itself in the eyes of some by leaking what goes on in the minds of those planning the Green Agenda.
Whether the Green Agenda is based on actual plans, or as I suspect, just random 'Green' noise may have a bearing on whether this report is buried or not.
"The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64°C overall... International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently devoted to keeping global warming limited to 2°C or less"
Can we get back to working on real environmental issues now?
... but whether or not CO2 emissions increase global warming, kill plants, kill animals, melt the poles, the fact of the matter is that CO2 kills humans.
But most worrying of all, I feel that the emphasis on CO2 emissions is ridiculous, when cities are getting polluted by exotic carcinogenic particulates. CO2 is one of the least harmful pollutants, yet for many environmentalists it's the only thing that matters.
Just because a tree is big and old, does not mean it is absorbing more CO2 than a small, fast growing plant. In fact "rejuvenating" rain forests may result in more CO2 sequestration and liberate more oxygen. Palm oil or wheat grown on a short term rotation can result in more CO2 being taken up than leaving the senescent "lungs of the world" in tact.
Yes, and *that's* a real environmental issue, but in recent years it has been seen purely in terms of its effect on CO2 levels, rather than as a wicked thing to do to our grandchildren's natural environment. Future generations may well look back and conclude that the green movement was the worst thing to happen to Nature since the last Ice Age.
International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently devoted to keeping global climate change budgets as high as possible, on the grounds that it will prove to be "a nice little earner" in the long run.
That's unlikely to change anytime soon despite *any* kind of evidence.
The current climate models are far too simplistic in the approach that they take and the results from them must be viewed with the highest scepticism.
What is far more of an immediate concern to the human race (nature doesn't care it will bounce back) is the frightening explosion in world population growth and all the consequences that go with it.
Nuclear fusion better work or it's back to the stone age in a couple of centuries, ps3's made of flint won't be much fun to play on.
My neighbour is one of many in the UK who get paid ( approx £40/annum! ) to make daily recordings of local conditions (In his case Bucks) and send them on to the Met Office. His message to me today reads :-
This morning there was the years 161st ground frost beating last year’s new record of 160. Given the forecast available to 23rd December, it appears we shall reach at least 176. The possible of 184 looks attainable, taking frost frequency to just over 50%!
The big one is still outstanding, climate change from Temperate to Arctic Tundra. As at today this has a probability of 52%. Currently we have 21/30 days towards the change with 111 days during 2010 where the mean temperature has been below 6˚ C.
Makes you ponder, huh?
The Weather is Climate when we can make a political point with it.
After a hurricane, that hurricane will have be an example of manmade global warming
After a flood, that flood will have be an example of manmade global warming
After a drought, that drought will have be an example of manmade global warming
Do you get it, yet?
Just because one part of the world experiences cooling, doesnt mean that the rest hasnt warmed. And of course the temperature is an average throughout the whole year, day and night, summer and winter. So a few weeks of cold weather is easily offset by months of hotter than usual weather.
Remember that "medieval warm period" that denialists keep going on about? Turns out it was also quite localised as well - most of the rest of the planet wasnt anywhere near as hot.
There are thousands of people working on climate science. This is one modeling effort by one group. Just because it in some way agrees with what you want to believe doesn't make it the final word. In addition, there will be many people who reject the part that says AGW is true and their only take away will be, "See, those other trough-feeding scientists have been proven liars once again!"
Before any sceptic or denier uses this as evidence of a global warming scam, note that these scientists are still unequivocally confirming the connection between CO2 concentrations and global warming. This is also the position of the American Geophysical Union, which publishes the journal Geophysical Research Letters. They have stated:
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."
Note also that their paper has not been peer reviewed, so can only be considered as preliminary findings which further research may confirm or disprove.
These are clearly 3 different phenomena. Most of the stories in the press are primarily to do with the second, which will tend to flap more widely than the first. Science changes with time as new things are discovered. Whereas psychological flapping about whether the world is about to end or not is something any editor with a view to a saleable story will try to exacerbate. And for most readers, this is how the science will be presented, not based upon which set of stories present an accurate picture in any way faithful to what science can tell us and what it can't, but primarily to do with which human perceptions are more likely to sell stories about the subject.
The third factor, insurance, is something we should probably be watching perhaps as carefully as the science. That is because the insurance brokers and actuaries who set prices in this market are neither the pinko lefty Gaia worshippers nor the SUV driving denialist caricatures so beloved of the Lunchtime O'Boozes ; they are hard nosed money men operating within a competitive market environment where last year's claims are a fact which have to be covered by this year's premiums just enough to create a profit margin without driving away the customers.
So, if everything on the climate front were hunky dory, then why are climate related insurance claims going up so fast ?
I work for one of the money grubbing U/W’s, one of the main ones in the non-personal side of the market so dealing with lots of large climate/weather related risks, and while they certainly keep CC in their minds as a future concern it doesn’t even begin to factor in to the cost of policies today.
Weather events have been insured since Lloyds has existed but the number of insured risks against weather events has risen and the average policy cost has also risen. The rise started in 1992 in response to Hurricane Andrew, it was the first time in recent years where a weather event had a large enough area of impact for people to realize they were underinsured and for the U/W’s to realise that they were far more exposed then they thought. In addition the last 20 years have seen the models do much better job of predicting future conditions, rather than guessing or averaging across territories they can calculate exposure to a single risk.
Keep in mind that the industry has changed radically in the last 30 or 40 years, insurance used to be fairly localized with U/W’s focused on specific regions and with products that excluded weather related incidents (“Acts of god” used to be virtually unwritable). The last weather event the size of prior to Andrew of the same scope which impacted the west was in the 30’s.
Also other then two blips (Katrina & 2004 Tsunami) the claim % of policy revenue has actually dropped.
My plan is to reintroduce dinosaurs on the grounds they're likely to love crunching up delicious cockroaches and are uniquely adapted to high global temperatures. Cynics might say T-Rex is highly unlikely to have obtained many calories from bugs, but I think they should be brought back because they look great on T-shirts.
Mad? It's not madness - it's science! Now if you need me, I'll be at my secret volcano lair trying to crack the Earth like an egg.
"Who gives a shit when in a hundred years there'll just be concrete and barely anything interesting alive except humans, cockroaches, rats, and algae."
Yes! I would much rather give over £1000,000,000,000 of other people's money to establish no-development zones world-wide than spend £1 trying to get people to reduce CO2 emissions. Unfortunately the AGW meme has all but destroyed sources of funding for these other more important sustainable development objectives and that is why the whole scam has been so utterly idiotic. It's a truly dark period in our so called "rational" modern society.
Methane is significantly more effective at insulative effects, but it is only effective over a shorter time frame. CO2 stays around for ~100 years I think, methane for about ~10-20.
The real fun is the H2O, by far and away the biggest greenhouse gas. Fortunately it is static based on temperature and doesn't really change that much. We also aren't putting more of it into the air.
The problem is that H20 is the feedback loop waiting to happen. As CO2 and methane raise the temps 'somewhat', that 'somewhat' is multiplied many times over by the fact that H20 is far and away more plentiful in the atmosphere.
There is no significant (gain greater than 1) positive temperature feedback effect in the climate system. You don't need any research or computer models or to be very bright to know this.
If there were the temperature would already be pinned to some upper or lower limit or oscillating between the two. A single cow fart would be enough to trigger this "multiplied many times over" effect if it existed.
Warmingists would have us believe the climate system is like a pin balanced on its point and digging up some coal and burning it is knocking it over. If the climate system were that unstable it would never have got balanced on its point in the first place.
The climate system is pretty stable which indicates there must be overall negative feedback going on, IMO water vapour is a likely candidate its cloud forming albedo changing effect being more significant than its greenhouse gas effect.
This post has been deleted by its author
The article doesn't mention the root-shoot balance which I read about elsewhere. It is an even more potent stabilising factor.
Plants need CO2 from the atmosphere and water and minerals from the soil. Leaves (shoots) collect the former, roots the latter. Plants, like all living organisms, self-optimize. More CO2 in the atmosphere means same leaves can collect more CO2, and so the plant's optimization shifts it towards growing a greater proportion of roots compared to shoots.
When the plant dies, its roots are most likely to trap carbon in the soil. The deeper the roots, the more likely it is that the carbon will be trapped. And I think it's likely to be plants in arid places that need to grow deep roots in search of water, that will benefit most. from rising CO2.
One of the problems with the "climate change" debate is that people become completely hung up on global warming and forget all the other consequences of the crap we are throwing into the environment. Increasing CO2 levels lead to acidification of the oceans to the point where calcium carbonate can no longer be deposited to form shells or coral. Since the coral reefs are major nurseries for many fish and invertebrates this will have a devastating effect on the ocean ecology
Which is why it's pointless. There is absolutely no point whatsoever in sacrificing the entire western economy on the altar of CO2 emissions, when one big, fat burp from Yellowstone or similar would completely write off the entire effort overnight.
Far better to spend the money on living with the climate we have at the time (whatever the causes) than piss it up the wall on trying to engineer a climate we want.
Recall high shcool chemistry, where we learned that a pH of 7 is neutral. Well, the oceans' ph (depending on where it is measured) remains from 8.3 to 9.6. That's BASIC. Since pH is based on a log relationship it would take 100 times the concentration of CO2 to move water from basic to acid.
If you are a global warming denier, this one article is justification for your beliefs. The same organization accused of "cooking the books" on satellite warming data is perfectly believable when they say, "It won't be so bad after all." The same boffins accused of bias and grandstanding for funds when they say "It's gonna be hot" are completely trustworthy when they say, "Not so much, maybe."
C'mon deniers, can't you see the conspiracy to expose logical flaws in your beliefs, to further marginalize you and allow you to be ignored? Call it what it is. Rise up!
It is indeed important to get these things right. Actually, it's important to get them right BEFORE you start making alarmist claims and trying to change the way the world works.
Climate scientists haven't actually been doing science for quite a long time in my view. They're still way off really understanding the climate, as repeated revelations show, but always manage to convince themselves (if not others) that they do.
That's not science. Never has been. So I have little confidence that this NASA investigation is any more rigorous than all the other bunkum. At best they've made a minor improvement to a model. That's absolutely no proof the model is yet anywhere near correct.
To even start doing that scientifically, they'd have to make a significant prediction and see it borne out by events. As far as I'm aware, thats never happened and there's little prospect of it happening.
..... Im gonna slap this in with the whole does God exist, or Are we alone in teh Universe.
frankly i dont care what anyone says, there will always be someone else to say the opersite especially when money is involved but what i am going to say is this, and id love to hear some inteligent coments on it too.....
Tell me, would the people of this world like to keep our plants climate the same? i mean we are trying to cut back to keep temps down and that sounds an awful lot like trying to force the planet to work as we want it, just for a second remember the planet does go through its own changes to maintain balance, at what point do we let it, if temps drop too much we'll all complain and go on about an ice age and how bad that would be, if they go up we complain because of all the devistation that would wreck the world as sea levels rise... so I assume we want it to stay the same....never change....now Im not going to pretend i know what im talking about in any scientific means but im fairly sure the people of africa may like a wee bit more rain, im fairly sure the people in the arctic circles may like a week or two of wamer weather.... so do we have a right to stop the climate changing, to force the world to bend to our needs and ignore the others in less developed / remote nations.
I dunno the answers guys, im all up for not polluting the world and all that but seriously, do we want to keep things the same and inso doing defy nature?
Not sure i explained myself there properly so flame away.
I'm pleased someone is continuing to include more of the elements that exist in the *real* world.
It's only taken 4 decades to include it.
While this one knocks the overall likely temperature rise down it's equally possible the next one could push it *up*.
Do climate modelers do regression testing to find out if their models are getting better or worse?
We have *maybe* 30 years of satellite data to construct a fully *global* map of some climate variables. This is the sort of grid you need to populate a global general circulation model. I'd bet when this data is combined with that of the fixed sites (provided the satellite readings correlate with the ground ones) and are fed into *all* the models some come out *significantly* better than others.
Others have pointed out that "Climate is not weather" and 30 years is not much but it would be a start.
toss up between thumbs up (for the improvement) and flame (for taking so damm long to get round to it).
That's actually one of the science problems the AGW crowd sweep under the rug: the fix station record and the satellite data don't match up well, just like the tree rings abandoned them when they needed them most, so they just ignored them and substituted other data. The other one is that when you are talking climate change, you pretty much need at least 10,000 years of data before you cover even one cycle. On that scale, 300 years of data, even though it multiple generations of people, isn't even enough data to call "preliminary."
"the fix station record and the satellite data don't match up well, just like the tree rings abandoned them when they needed them most, so they just ignored them and substituted other data. "
Which is sort of where it stops being science and starts being a faith.
Scientist follow the evidence *wherever* it leads.
My gut feeling on the fixed station record is that it will need satellite photography (probably in the IR spectrum if available) of the sites to do year on year adjustment. I don't think some simple equation is going to cut it.
30 years is *practically* nothing on the Earth's timescale but I figure if you can't match up the last 30 years *pretty* closely you might as well go home.
OT I always admired Max Planc for his behaviour. Trained as a Newtonian he hated the idea that things depended on what way some "cosmic dice" had fallen. But he accepted it was the *only* model that explained the evidence.
I'd like to see a bit more of this. A model that fits the worlds wheather,but takes 25 hrs to run 24 hrs forward, can *always* be made faster. But let's get it right *first*.
NASA can provide all the data they want from their space-borne measurements, but let's not forget this is a space science agency, not a climate science body, and is an organisation entirely under control of the US government and completely in bed with the US military industrial system. You don't go to your local Vegan store to find out about the best way to cook chicken; you don't go to NASA to find out how much extra O2 we should expect to get from plants.
Having said that, the only meaningful debate over climate change is (and always has been) over whether or not there are cooling systems out there that will counter the CO2 warming effect that definitely is happening. We're in the position of hoping that what we're doing to the atmosphere will not result in the catastrophic climate change we expect to take place. The NASA presented model is almost certainly a best-case scenario, but it may prove correct. So is it sensible to run the world on the assumption that things won’t get worse than the best-case scenario? No, it’s not.
Keep in mind this is modeling about what will happen in the *future*. This does not change what already happened in the *past*. We have good evidence for that, and it's clear that if we continue to follow the trend that has emerged since industrialization, we will be occupying a planet that is warmer than it ever has been in recent geologic history (since the evolution of man).
Please note that no climate scientist will argue with you that it has not been warmer in the past--indeed, we know that is the case! But when it was warmer, it was *not* when we had a global human population of almost 7 billion individuals in very dense population centers. So it's not about the planet being warmer, it is about all the consequences that it will bring to resource availability and distribution to a global population that is expected to reach >9 billion people by 2050.
In sum, keep it in perspective.
It is the rate of change, in many systems there are mechanisms that will bring things back into balance. The problem with the current scenario is the rate of change of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) is faster than the correction mechanism based on plants can correct (especially if we are destroying them).
This means we will get a mother of a massive overshoot followed by a nearly as large over-correction followed by an other overshoot etc.
So in conclusion we may end up with twice the amount of CO2 and less than a 2 C temperature change. But how long will this take to settle down, 500, 1,000, 5,000 years? And in the mean time how much damage will be done by the massive swings in climate change?
Lewis Page is wrong in so many ways that a lengthy book would be required to enumerate all of them.
Just one of Mr. Page's errors is the notion that a further, global average temperature increase of 1.64 degrees Celsius will have no significant effect.
It happens that mosquito species are exquisitely sensitive to temperature. It further happens that mosquito species which serve as disease vectors for the West Nile virus have now established themselves as far north as Canada, because they can now survive over the winter in these previously lethal climates.
Worse, by far, is the fact that dengue fever, hitherto unknown in the United States, is now endemic in the Brownsville, Texas, area as a consequence of a slight increase in average annual temperatures, which allows the offending mosquito species vector to thrive in that area. An additional 1.64 degrees Celsius will result in the spread of this tropical disease to a far greater portion of the United States.
The foregoing are facts; Lewis Page's opinions are not.
That still leaves us with ocean acidity levels (not good for tasty oysters) and a host of other crud.
But it might give us a significantly bigger breathing space than expected and allow us to get our CO2 act together.
Remember, even as some of us are heavily whining about slow governments. We elect the governments and we engage in activities that emit CO2. There is no silver bullet until individuals, lots of them, change their behavior. Either willingly, through rules, through taxes, or through low-emission technology. All of those take time in free market democracies.
(Don't like capitalism? I'm so with you, the USSR was the environment's best friend after all)
Global warming has come a long way on the public awareness, rather quickly in fact. This finding is EXCELLENT news if it pans out.
Even better news if it turned there was no problem all along, but I somehow doubt it.
p.s. I suspect Lewis is having a good day today so the beer icon is for what he'll be buying for his mateys.
Only 1.64C? Well that's just fine, let's all chew as much fuel as we can until we die, I'm not having kids and TBH, couldn't care that yours will have to sort it out for me.
High power cars and endless electrical tech gadgets requiring more and more power FTW, just can't get enough of these power hungry computers and cars. Cheers!
knows what the right hand is doing http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200409_methane/
from which : " methane has gone from being a gas of no importance, to — in some researchers eyes, at least — possibly the most important greenhouse gas both for understanding climate change and as a cost-effective target for future emission reductions. "
Paris is l♥ft-handed
Sadly, the global warmers have turned Co2 into a deadly poison. Are they so stupid that they don't realise that it is life to all green growing stuff and that without it all greenstuff would die and we should all follow it?
Yes, I do know that if we breathe C02 in vast excess we too will die and in a similar fashion greenstuff would die without it.
One point that I have not seen mentioned is that heat travels only toward cold. The rate of travel is proportonate to the temperature differential. Therefore heat loss to space will increase with increased temperatures compared to the near absolute zero surrounding us. The AGW supporters would have us believe that there is an outermost layer of the atmosphere that is between 600 and 1500Cdeg. which traps heat intoward the earth. They need these temperatures because Co2 only becomes activated by high infra-red and without this the whole theory falls apart. The fact that it would be impossible to sustain these temperatures rubbing shoulders with near absolute zero is probably why, fairly, recently a leading climatologist ( one could hardly say scientist) claimed that the laws of thermodynamics ( a part of science more completely proved than any other) must be wrong because it did not tie in with the AGW theory.
The sooner we stop wasting truckloads of money chasing this particular will-o'-the-wisp and making people like Al Gore billionaires the better for everyone.
So you think you've suddenly thought of a problem that the climate scientists haven't? OK, fine, get it published in a scientific journal and wait for the Nobel committee to come knocking.
At this stage of the game, trying to pretend that CO2 *isn't* driving anthropogenic climate-change is pretty much on a par with creationism: you're denying that the evidence exists because you don't like the conclusions.
"recently a leading climatologist ( one could hardly say scientist) claimed that the laws of thermodynamics ( a part of science more completely proved than any other) must be wrong because it did not tie in with the AGW theory." In the immortal words of wikipedia... 
check the CO2 and temp records dating back as far as they go think you will find CO2 levels rise after temps do and temps drop as CO2 continues to increase at its peak.
now im not saying there isnt a link betweent he two because there is but are you so sure that increasing CO2 increases ttemps? because the data suggests otherwise, which actually makes sense as water doesnt trap CO2 as well when its warmer thus CO2 levels may rise. the planet is mostly water and i would think having a significantly larger surface area compared to trees may give it a larger influence.
Its also worth noting that no one agrees, leading scientist in both camps have different views, which is why i i said earlier that im gonna lump this one with does god exist because no one knows for sure and anyone that says they do is a lier.
Now, no one as answed my question i asked earlier.
At what point to we let the world change its natural cycle of temp changes? and do we have the right to force the planet to stick to a climate that suites us and sod anyone else that may want a cooler or warmer planet
...Because more and more evidence is being adduced that the basic claims surrounding historical temperatures are based on rampant fudging, convenient "smoothing", huge gaps in the records (both spacially and temporally) , and downright falsification of data.
The massive fraud has thus not just been exposed, it's been left slowly twisting, twisting in the wind.
And THAT's why the Chicago Exchange set up to capitalize on cap-and-trade has closed down, why AlGore has quietly let go a good percentage of his "climate team", why Japan says it will not sign any Kyoto II, why the US congress has dissolved the "Global Warming" subcommittee, why the chief Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrat/political appointee proposing draconian energy regulation has resigned, and why Cap-and-Trade legislation in the US congress is DEAD.
With the Republicans ready to take over Congress, and having added five seats in the Senate, there is NO WAY Obama will get through anything resembling the warmist wish-list. Without US action, and with China and India refusing to cripple their economies, the whole issue is quickly fading.
Other than that, you warmists really have a lot of momentum going for you!!!!
"Sadly, the global warmers have turned Co2 into a deadly poison. "
CO2 triggers the human bodies breathing response. Were you in a chamber with CO2 at possibly as little as 1% you'd be panting like you'd run a marathon. Up the level a bit more and your thought processes start to deteriorate badly.
"One point that I have not seen mentioned is that heat travels only toward cold. "
"The rate of travel is proportionate to the temperature differential. "
Therefore heat loss to space will increase with increased temperatures "
That would be your *opinion*. It depends on how much of that heat transfer is by conduction, convection or radiation. Hint. Space is very close to a *vacuum* so the first 2 don't work.
"The AGW supporters would have us believe that there is an outermost layer of the atmosphere that is between 600 and 1500Cdeg. which traps heat in toward the earth."
Did you know that for gases the temperature of a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules of that gas? If you did you would understand why the idea of a gas layer at 1600c is *not* impossible. You would also know that vacuums do *not* have a temperature as such.
You might find reading a Physics textbook at high school or first year undergraduate level to be a useful investment of your time.
What this proves is that Gaia is on our side, contrary to the beliefs that many Gaians and IPCC "scientists" and others have for reasons beyond science, as explained in articles such as this one at http://www.scienceheresy.com/2010_10/BadVibrations/index.html . . . .
And this "God is on our side" Gaian effect is in addition to a similarly negative, physical feedback effect being proved for H2O which, unlike the strongly positive effect assumed in the IPCC models, is consistent with real temperature data and real science, as explained in articles such as this one at http://www.scienceheresy.com/2010_09/iceages/index.html
"Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2°C"
The model they used gives warming of 1.94°C reducing to 1.64°C.
And the lead 'boffin' was very careful to state that this research does not undermine the current consensus on climate change:
""This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming," Bounoua said.
I know I shouldn't expect competent reporting of science in a magazine written by server-jockeys but really ... this is just a failure of basic comprehension. Whether that is due to illiteracy or dishonesty on the part of little Lewis is a moot point.
how many of the frothing green loony AC's are newly registered commentards, with their membership to this hallowed group dating to when Mr Orlowski's article made the green hitlist/blog.
Just a thought.
Yes climate change is real - it's a dynamic system.
Do we need to panic? - no.
Do we need to do something? -Jury is still out on that one.
Is taxing us back into the stone age the correct answer? - HELL NO.
Am I going to get more down votes than up votes for this? - probably :D
Poterholer seems to have taken your work apart, by actually doing science journalism correctly.
How about doing the decent thing and publish a correction/retraction of your story? Or is the science section on your site, shall we say "not science"?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020