Can you have a consensus if no one agrees what the consensus is?
Over at the Blackboard, Lucia has a post with a growing set of comments about anthropogenic warming and the tropical, mid-tropospheric hotspot. Unlike many who are commenting on the topic, I have actually read most of the IPCC AR4 (painful as that was), and came to the same conclusion as Lucia: that the IPCC said the climate models predicted a hot spot in the mid-troposphere, and that this hot spot was a unique fingerprint of global warming (”fingerprint” being a particularly popular word among climate scientists). Quoting Lucia:
I have circled the plates illustrating the results for well mixed GHG’s and those for all sources of warming combined. As you see, according to the AR4– a consensus document written for the UN’s IPCC and published in 2007 — models predict the effect of GHG’s as distinctly different from that of solar or volcanic forcings. In particular: The tropical tropospheric hotspots appears in the plate discussing heating by GHG’s and does not appear when the warming results from other causes.
OK, pretty straight-forward. The problem is that this hot spot has not really appeared. In fact, the pattern of warming by altitude and latitude over the last thirty years looks nothing like the circled prediction graphs. Steve McIntyre does some processing of RSS satellite data and produces this chart of actual temperature anomalies for the last 30 years by attitude and altitude (Altitude is measured in these graphs by atmospheric pressure, where 1000 millibars is the surface and 100 millibars is about 10 miles up.
The scientists at RealClimate (lead defenders of the climate orthodoxy) are not unaware that the hot spot is not appearing. They responded about a year ago that 1) The hot spot is not an anthropogentic-specific fingerprint at all, but will result from all new forcings
the pattern really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused). Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case - the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft). This is something seen in many observations and over many timescales, and is not something unique to climate models.
and they argued 2) that we have not had enough time for the hot spot to appear and they argued 3) all that satellite data really has a lot of error in it anyway.
Are the Real Climate guys right on this? I don’t know. That’s what they suck up all my tax money for, to figure this stuff out.
But here is what makes me crazy: It is quite normal in science for scientists to have a theory, make a prediction based on this theory, and then go back and tweak the theory when data from real physical processes does not match the predictions. There is certainly no shame in being wrong. The whole history of science is about lurching from failed hypothesis to the next, hopefully improving understanding with each iteration.
But the weird thing about climate science is the sort of Soviet-era need to rewrite history. Commenters on both Lucia’s site and at Climate Audit argue that the IPCC never said the hot spot was a unique fingerprint. The fingerprint has become an un-person.
Why would folks want to do this? After all, science is all about hypothesis - experimentation - new hypothesis. Well, most science. The problem is that climate science has been declared to be 1) A Consensus and 2) Settled. But settled consensus can’t, by definition, have disagreements and falsified forecasts. So history has to be rewritten to protect the infallibility of the Pope the Presidium the climate consensus. It’s a weird way to conduct science, but a logical outcome when phrases like “the science is settled” and “consensus” are used as clubs to silence criticism.
hunter:
Off topic, a bit, soplease accept my apology. Has anyone noticed that Cryosphere seems to be offline lately? I cannot get to the home page or the comparison tool.
January 5, 2009, 10:33 amIt is very likely a technical glitch, but I have tried from two different internet connections and get timed out everytime.
As to the topic, since AGW promoters are not selling science but policy, they do not give a hoot about the science. AGW has been a social/political movement using science when convenient to achive a social policy outcome.
Page48:
This kind of behavior is childish and feeds skepticism (and for a good reason - honest scientists just wouldn’t behave this way).
January 5, 2009, 12:30 pmjoshv:
Let’s follow their logic a baby step further. If such a hotspot is predicted to be the result of any warming, and there is no such hotspot, well then, doesn’t that tell you that: a) either the model is wrong or b) there has been no significant atmospheric warming? Pick your poison Gavin.
January 5, 2009, 2:01 pmPaulD:
I have frequently wondered how the so-called “consensus” is defined. I would agree that there is a consensus that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that other things being equal, increased CO2 in the atmosphere will increase global temperatures. However, Al Gore and company want people to believe that the consensus is that man-made CO2 will eventually catastrophic warming. I do not believe that there is any meaningful consensus regarding this proposition.
If the IPCC is supposed to represent the consensus, it is not very helpful as its range of scenarios include relatively benign warming to catastrophic warming.
January 5, 2009, 2:01 pmFred from Canuckistan . . .:
Well they thought if you can do it once, if you can re-write history and get away with, why not now. I refer of course to the re-writing of history wrt the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Their re-write was the ludicrous Hockey Stick produced by that famous team of Mann and the Scary Climate Hysterics.
History belongs to the biggest government organization with the wildest scary story that must be re-crisised over and over to keep the money and trips to Bali going.
January 5, 2009, 3:12 pmdearieme:
It’s an old saw that the enemy of science is not error, it is muddle. Muddle and fraud. The two enemies of science are muddle, fraud and appalling incompetence. The three enemies of science….
January 5, 2009, 6:08 pmstan:
All scientists are equal, but some scientists are more equal than others.
January 5, 2009, 7:02 pmdavidcobb:
NOBODY EXPECTS THE IPCC INQUIS… oh bugger
January 5, 2009, 7:28 pmPeteS:
joshv: But “and they argued 2) that we have not had enough time for the hot spot to appear..” Perhaps it will only appear just before the tipping point, or as Hansen continually says “in ten years time.” It’s rather like the mythical bar advert “free beer tomorrow.”
January 6, 2009, 2:18 amJennifer:
As always, we have here a strange mix of wilful misunderstanding and simple falsehoods. I think you actually have to try quite hard not to understand the figure you reproduce from the IPCC. It does not compare the pattern of warming expected from different sources of equal magnitude. It is a breakdown of the contributions to the observed warming from different sources. If only you’d read the caption.
“The problem is that this hot spot has not really appeared. In fact, the pattern of warming by altitude and latitude over the last thirty years looks nothing like the circled prediction graphs”
Actually it does. I wonder just how long it will be before you repeat your false claim though.
“they argued 2) that we have not had enough time for the hot spot to appear”, well, you’ve just made that up, haven’t you. They have said nothing of the sort.
January 6, 2009, 7:01 amcfdman:
Jennifer,
He has actually provided a plot of what the temps are. Either dispute the plot, provide you own data, or shut up. Your style of saying people lied, then providing positively no evidence of such is childish and stupid.
January 6, 2009, 7:14 amNeo:
I good to see that common sense is winning over the so-called “consensus” of those “natural climate cycle skeptics” like Al Gore.
January 6, 2009, 7:48 amJP:
Jennifer,
January 6, 2009, 8:48 amThis subject is not new. Lord Mockton and Ross McKitrick brought it up almost 2 years ago. So please, either refer to the actual data and hypothesis or go somewhere else. Gavin et. als. are muddying the waters. Remember, Dr Mann is also a founding member of RC, and to this day RC stands behind MBH9X. If the HS is correct, the amount of anthropogenic forcings due to GHGs have been so intense in recent decades that 30 years is quite long enough for the hot spot to appear (per the 2007 IPCC TAR). The IPCC I thought was quite clear on this. Also, Gavin failed to show any significant changes in the adiabatic lapse rate(s) of tropical tropesheric soundings over time. He as usual just hypothosized.
Andy:
Err Jenny, the post is quoting someone else, you appear to have missed that. Or do you think Lucia does not understand?
Oh if only you had read the post!
January 6, 2009, 9:17 amhunter:
When AGW promoters get busted by the failure of their predictions, they always claim there is not time sufficient for a trend, or simply lie and claim they never made the prediction.
January 6, 2009, 12:03 pmThe believers, as we see, are well trained and aggressively ad hom anyone who dares point out the failure of yet another AGW prediction.
What is striking in all of this is that *if* I actually thought an apocalypse was possibly at hand, and I found out that in fact it was not, I would be very happy to be wrong.
The AGW community, by contrast, clings to their failed apocalyptic predictions with a religious tenacity.
Mike Davis:
Jennifer:
January 7, 2009, 11:31 amI for one totally agree with your statement. Why would the Team at RC make such claims? Telling us that IPCC AR4 was missrepresenting the facts. You know I myself do not know what has become of these people. Sending out false information and denying normal climate change. The nerve of some people to think that they can see climate change on such short periods of time. Can they not see that 30 or 150 or 1000 years is to short of a period to determine climate patterns? Why can they not see that the globe has been coling for the last 5000 years since the HO and weather is constantly changing? And these people call themselfs Climate scientists. What is our educational institutes comming to?
Who to belive? Confusing is it not? Do not worry they will wake to reality some day!
kuhnkat:
joshv:
EXACTLY!!!!!
January 7, 2009, 9:32 pmMike:
JoshV:
January 8, 2009, 2:54 pmA couple more options available.
- The theory could be wrong
- The theory could be incomplete, (negative or positive).
No matter what, people have should be asking questions and NOT base extremely expensive policy on incorrect conclusions, no matter how strong that gut feeling is. Unless of course one has alterior motives. Hmmmm
maja:
Nice post
January 8, 2009, 3:24 pmDG:
Gavin Schmidt et al 2005
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/881407-xk2Sdg/881407.PDF
“Tropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven
by historical increases in greenhouse gases (1–3). Maximum warming is predicted
to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere.”
Remember that paper when the modelers backpedal.
January 10, 2009, 10:23 pmDG:
Apparently the spam cop intervened, will try again. Remove spaces appropriately.
Gavin Schmidt et al 2005
http: // http://www. osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/881407-xk2Sdg/881407.PDF
“Tropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven
January 10, 2009, 10:27 pmby historical increases in greenhouse gases (1–3). Maximum warming is predicted
to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere.”
Paul Maurice Martin:
Well, as a practical matter, as long as we don’t know for sure what’s going on, we may as well keep right on pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We can always move to another planet if there’s a problem.
January 11, 2009, 11:01 amkuhnkat:
OT
Mauna Loa posts .24 yearly rise in co2 for 2008, the smallest since recording began in 1959!!!
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Hopefully they fully checked these numbers before posting!!
January 11, 2009, 11:27 amJan:
Paul MM:
January 11, 2009, 11:47 amYou got that right. At present there is no alternative to fossil fuel. The only viable alternative for power generation is nuclear, and that will take decades to plan, build and commission. Even then, nuclear can only take up some of the growth in power consumption, not replace existing power generation to any degree. To ban CO2 emitting power sources, is to force loss of income, living standard, and ultimately life, onto the human population, predominantly on the poor. So yes, we may and must, continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The alternative is unacceptable. Get real and deal with it.
hunter:
If AGW promoters were rational, they would be glad that their prediciton of apocalyptic changes to the climate due to human generated CO2 has been falsified by this piece of good news on the troposphere.
January 12, 2009, 6:39 amThey are not glad about this because AGW is not rational.
They want their apocalypse.
We will see, as the veneer of science covering AGW continues to fall away, just how little about science this has been.
AGW is about an elite imposing a new order by way of carbon policy.
RPJ:
Ha ha, that’s quite funny. You misunderstood the figure, misinterpreted it as saying something it didn’t, and then rather than just admit you were wrong, you claim that there has been a ‘Soviet-era need to rewrite history’. I wonder if we’ll ever see the day when a denier admits they screwed up and didn’t understand the science.
January 12, 2009, 9:08 amkuhnkat:
RPJ,
exactly what is YOUR interpretation of the figure again??
January 12, 2009, 11:12 pmdicentra:
“They want their apocalypse.”
No, they want their POWER. The fear of an impending apocalypse is just a tool. Like Al Gore.
January 12, 2009, 11:47 pmvindsavfuktare för kallvindar och vindsutrymmen:
One wonder, if the satellite and radiosonde data is of too poor quality to falsify the models, what data have been used to validate the models in the first place? Ohh, they haven’t been validated, forgot….
January 13, 2009, 3:20 amavfuktare för vind:
Jennifer, you said “It does not compare the pattern of warming expected from different sources of equal magnitude. It is a breakdown of the contributions to the observed warming from different sources. If only you’d read the caption.” The caption says the it is the breakdown of the contributions of current warming according to the PCM model. The PCM model total is the “f” box. If measurment data does not support the results the PCM model predicted, box f, then obviously the PCM model is falsified. How can you come to a different conclusion?
January 13, 2009, 3:29 amRPJ:
kuhnkat - well if I really need to spell it out… it’s a graph about observations from 1890-1999, not a graph of an experiment to try to replicate the observed warming with different forcings. What the graph shows is the effect of volcanoes, solar changes, aerosols, greenhouse gases and ozone changes, individually and all together, on global temperatures from 1890-1999. Greenhouse gases dominated the climate forcings during that time, so the graph for them individually looks a lot like the graph of the sum of all forcings.
Anyone here have the integrity to admit they misunderstood?
January 13, 2009, 3:33 amhunter:
RPJ,
January 13, 2009, 6:29 amPlease identify the graph or graphs that show/s troposphere temp observations from the 1890’s.
kontrollerad ventilation vind:
RPJ. Read the caption: temperature change from 1890 to 1999 as simulated by the PCM model.
Reads clear to me: a model simulation that has failed to replicate the measured data. Do you have the integrity to admit that you misunderstood?
January 13, 2009, 2:08 pmAn Inquirer:
RPJ, I speak as someone who has read the IPCC report(s).* Misunderstanding is not something that is limited to skeptics. My understanding of Figure 9.1 is that it is not historical data – certainly we do not have records of temperature by latitude and altitude from 1890 – but rather the graph is an exercise in backcasting from the PCM model.
January 13, 2009, 3:18 pmAlthough I do not have citations handy, I do recall that John Christy published an article in which he pointed out that the tropospheric hot spot, predicted by GCMs, has not been observed in the real world. Subsequently, Global Warming Pessimists made a statement that went something like this: “Historical data has been corrected, and the inconsistency between observations and model outputs has now been resolved.”
__________________
* A couple of disclaimers: My eyes did grow weary at times in reading FAR and TAR, and although I am not inclined read the entire reports again, I am willing to revisit issues that others believe that I might have misunderstood or missed. Overall, I emerged from reading these reports with less concern of dire consequences from AGW than the level of concern I had before.
Raven:
Posters should keep in mind that RPJ is “Scientist the Troll” with another sock puppet.
January 13, 2009, 4:48 pmHorace:
Elmer Gantry:
“Give me your money and do as I say or you will go to hell.”
Al Gore:
“Give me your money and so as I say or the planet . . .”
January 13, 2009, 7:51 pmhunter:
RPJ has demonstrated a very common AGW believer fallacy- of mistaking models for observations.
January 14, 2009, 9:15 amThe models in this case were specific predictions made by AGW promoters. The models are wrong, when compared to the data.
Instead of welcoming the news that yet another predicted apocalypse is not happening, we see in RPJ the odd AGW response to prefer the climate apocalypse over reviewing why the predictions have failed.
RPJ:
An Inquirer - yep, the figures are hindcasts based on observed forcings over the time period. They show that unless our observations are way wrong, then greenhouse gases are the dominant forcing from 1890-1999. They do not show that a tropospheric hotspot is a unique fingerprint of greenhouse gas-related warming, and I’m still waiting for a single person to admit they misunderstood that point.
Who are “Global Warming Pessimists”? Are they the ones who seriously believe that all the world’s scientists are stupid and that random blog writers understand things better? That would be pretty pessimistic.
Posters should keep in mind that ‘Raven’ is some kind of fantasising busybody.
January 14, 2009, 9:49 amhunter:
RPJ,
January 14, 2009, 10:48 amPainting yourself into a corner over the use of model projections regarding the troposphere by calling them ‘observed forcings’ or ‘hindcasts’ does not make the corner any less of a dead end.
The global warming pessimists are those who claim that world’s climate is driven by CO2 and that the climate, despite billions of years of evidence tot he contrary, is poised for a runaway due to relatively small changes in CO2.
That scientists are human and can get caught up in stupid ideas is not new or news. It has happened before, and it will happen again.
The assertion you make of ‘all the world’s scientists’ believing in AGW is simply wrong, but you knew that.
RPJ:
Billions of years of evidence eh? Wow, you must have some data source the rest of the world hasn’t yet been told about. Nice try at dodging the point, but now how about you answer this simple question: the graphs in the original post do not show that a tropospheric hotspot is a unique fingerprint of greenhouse gas-related warming - true or false?
January 14, 2009, 11:40 amMike Davis:
Boy am I glad that I stopped by here today. This looks like fun!
RPJ: WOW! We now have GWA’s and GWP’s thats neat but alas I tend to dissagree. You see if I were to sepperate the sides and say there were two sides to this issue (which I absoluty do not). I would have to give the sides the discriptive names of Realists And Dreamers (Fantisisers). You see that some people on our globe live in a world of fantasy or non reality. Those people tend to belive in the conspiracy that human life is evil and technology is destroying the planet by realeasing the posioness CO2 into the atsmophere.
On the other hand the realists belive in actual real world effects and historical evedince of climatic fluctuations over long periods of time. Some even go so far as to belive that evidence has been provided to show that climate follows cycles due to atmosphere, ocean, and solar interactions that occure naturally.
This brings me to the point regarding your recent post. First I would like to recognize that for the graph the IPCC only ysed the output from one GCM as it was middle of the road to show what should have happened if GHG forcing was the cause of warming between 1890 and 1999. I really think they should have proofed what tey were stating for alas their statement was a work of fantasy not science unless you want to attach the discriptor of fantasy to it. The Ipcc also used 22 models to provide a reference to future scenerios. You see they had to use 22 because no signle one was able to back cast climate history but using 22 would allow a wide range into which any possible climate would fit. Really scientific!IMO!NOT!
January 14, 2009, 11:42 amOf course that brings us to one of my favorite topics. GWP! For your information (There really is a lot out about this)it seems that the bricks are falling out of the wall that GWA’s are trying to build showing the substance of their arguements. If you want to build a house out of toilet paper. You should do it where the wind of reality does not blow.
I personally enjoy science fiction and fantasy but know the difference between that and reality.
That sounds like a good book: Realizing the Reletivity of Reality! I wonder if someone wrote already?
hunter:
RPJ,
January 14, 2009, 11:57 amIt is irrelevant if a hotspot is a unique fingerprint.
What is relevant is that the AGW leadership predicted one and that they are wrong.
I am dodging nothing, and as much as you try, neither are you.
Since Hansen is the one making insane comparisons between Venus and Earth, and asserting that Earth will become like Venus if our wicked coal keeps getting sent to power plants, please talk to him about runaways. It is his delusion, and he can try to defend it.
If you are going to assert now that there were in fact CO2 driven runaways in the past, but that Earth recovered from them, please feel free to expand on your speculation.
And that you can’t admit the difference between models and data is simply trollish on your part.
RPJ:
Mike Davis - you write like a ten year old, and your outpouring seems quite unrelated to the point at hand.
hunter - “It is irrelevant if a hotspot is a unique fingerprint.” - no, it isn’t irrelevant, it’s the whole point of this post. Duh!
January 14, 2009, 1:05 pmhunter:
RPJ,
January 14, 2009, 1:28 pmNo, the point of the post is that once again AGW promoters have made a claim that has not been supported by facts. The AGW promoters used the troposphere hot spot prediction as proof of their impending apocalypse.
They are wrong.
Parse all you wish at whether or not it is unique. That is not relevant. Just as Hansen now embarrasses himself when talks about storms strengthening, this is yet another topic where the AGW community must spin away awkward results.
You seem to have trouble distinguishing between models and data. I wish you well in learning the difference.
cfdman:
RPJ:
As usual, we have reached the point in this topic where you deliver a post with all personal attacks and no actual arguments. Good job, you made it to over 40 comments this time.
Your getting better at this “logical argument” thing all the time. Next step is to actually read some of the posts that you dislike, and then we’ll move on to making rational arguments without flame spam.
I have faith in you, I know you can do it.
January 14, 2009, 2:02 pmjcbmack:
Get your facts straight, you are distorting the data and laughing in the face of meteorological facts.
January 14, 2009, 4:38 pmRPJ:
hunter - nope. You misunderstood the point of the post. Misunderstanding something that’s a misunderstanding in itself is quite impressive. And simply saying ‘they are wrong’ is woefully inadequate. Links? Evidence? Can you not even provide basic substance here?
cfdman - bad grammar + no science = pointless post.
January 14, 2009, 4:43 pmMike Davis:
RPJ:
January 14, 2009, 7:05 pmThe point of the post is that this graph from IPCC AR4 shows what was expected by back casting a model using assumed forcings. For the period 1890 to 1999. The IPCC claims that the graph in the lower rignt hand corner is the sum of all forcings and would be the signature/ fingerprint of AGW. The signature failed to develop. Ask someone who belives in AGW why it did not develop.
The facts speak for thier selfes.
Mike Davis:
RJP:
January 14, 2009, 7:15 pmOne more comment:
The history of the earths climate is known and recorded. Is it possible that you have not studied geology. My other observation is that you seem to doubt statements made by the IPCC. Therefore claiming that IPCC does not know what they are talking about. You have been telling people that are relating the IPCC’s point of view That that point if view is wrong.
hunter:
RJP,
January 14, 2009, 7:23 pmThank you for demonstrating what happens when an AGW believer loses an argument.
Will Nitschke:
RPJ:
Wrote:
“the figures are hindcasts based on observed forcings over the time period.”
You said the data was observational. A hindcast is a computer model. I think everyone knows that computer models do have observational data in them as a starting point. Claiming that it’s *all* observational as you did is plainly wrong isn’t it?
“They show that unless our observations are way wrong, then greenhouse gases are the dominant forcing from 1890-1999.”
Your logic is exactly back the front, isn’t it? The ‘observations’ don’t exist unless they are derived from a computer model run backward in time. So the model is correct and if it is not correct this is because the observations are wrong? Huh?
“They do not show that a tropospheric hotspot is a unique fingerprint of greenhouse gas-related warming, and I’m still waiting for a single person to admit they misunderstood that point.”
I’ll admit that it’s not. For example, if solar irradiance increased by some near impossible value never observed in the real world, then you might end up with the same sort of pattern. But so what? What does it being unique or not unique have to do with the fact that it was predicted but (at least so far) has not been observed?
“Mike Davis - you write like a ten year old, and your outpouring seems quite unrelated to the point at hand.”
I was sort of hoping you’d break from your normal pattern and respond logically, rather than get angry and commence the name calling… as you always do… sigh.
January 15, 2009, 2:05 amAn Inquirer:
I see that this thread has now degenerated into more name-calling and insult-throwing rather than an exercise in spreading understanding. So after this comment, I likely will go to other threads.
January 15, 2009, 2:26 pmI wanted to give a less pejorative definition of a global warming pessimist. Such a person believes that (1) increased CO2 induces temperature increases under laboratory conditions, (2) this reaction is duplicated in uncontrolled chaotic real atmosphere, (3) that humans are responsible for significant increases in atmospheric CO2, (4) that there are positive feedbacks that magnify the impact on temperature beyond the laboratory results, and (5) that the resulting temperature increases have dire environmental consequences.
I believe that “alarmist” – or “warmist” – is a pejorative term and so I use global warming pessimist as the term. I do not use the term advocate (because they are not advocating for AGW) nor do I use the term believer because virtually all skeptics believe points one and two and the vast majority of them also believe in point #3. However, skeptics do not believe that points 4 & 5 are scientifically established and in fact see contrary evidence.
I am noticing on several blogs that global warming pessimists are claiming that the tropospheric “hotspot” is not a signature of AGW. That claim would be similar to an Administration claim that they did not purport to invade Iraq over WMD. There is enough on the record that I could confuse and maybe convince those unaware of the overall record, but my integrity would not let me do so. (In this post I will not get into tropical tropospheric hot spot versus tropospheric hot spot.)
(BTW: RPJ, I am not at all convinced that you have solid understanding of the manner in which observational data are used in backcasting.)
Mike Davis:
Hunter and Will:
January 15, 2009, 2:37 pmIt seems that Logic and Reasoning are not strong points with the believers. I enjoy pointing out the lack to them.
hunter:
Mike Davis,
January 16, 2009, 5:40 amThe more I think about the specifics of AGW that have failed to materialize- Hansen’s 1988 prediction, the hot spot, ocean temps, storms, droughts, increase in temps- the more impressed I am at the mesmerizing sales ability of fear.
DG:
Please be aware of the backpedaling the fraudsters at RC are doing:
Gavin Schmidt et al 2005
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/881407-xk2Sdg/881407.PDF
“Tropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven by historical increases in greenhouse gases (1–3). Maximum warming is predicted to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere.”
January 16, 2009, 7:36 amDG:
Please be aware of the pedaling the fraudsters at RC are doing:
Gavin Schmidt et al 2005
www osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/881407-xk2Sdg/881407.PDF
“Tropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven by historical increases in greenhouse gases (1–3). Maximum warming is predicted to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere.”
January 16, 2009, 7:40 amDoug:
Good lord, Mike Davis: we’re probably on the same side of the argument, but you are in serious need of a spell checker and/or syntax checker. Your postings are almost to the point of being incomprehensible. belive ≠ believe. thier selfes ≠ themselves. dissagree ≠ disagree. sepperate ≠ separate. discriptive ≠ descriptive. posioness ≠ poisonous. proofed ≠ proved. tey ≠ they. occure ≠ occur. signle ≠ signal.
The list goes on and on. It hurts my eyes trying to read you, so I no longer bother. I suspect I am not alone. You make our side look bad. Either clean up your act or don’t post anymore. Please.
January 16, 2009, 1:11 pmRPJ:
Will Nitschke - please read carefully. I didn’t say anything was ‘all’ observational.
And what the hell are you talking about, yapping about backwards logic? Observations show that forcings due to greenhouse gases are much the strongest positive forcing. These observations are not anything to do with computer models.
And just like the never-ending claims that ‘global warming stopped in 1998′, it seems that deniers just can’t stop saying ‘there’s no hotspot!’ over and over and over again. You’re obviously not up to speed with the latest literature, which does not support your silly claim. Still, at least you were able to admit that a tropospheric hotspot is not unique to greenhouse gas positive forcing.
An Inquirer - your definition of ‘pessimist’ is quite bizarre. You’re saying that if science tells us something that you don’t like, then you’ll call the scientists who study the phenomenon pessimists? And you think that it was claimed that only greenhouse gases would produce a tropospheric ‘hotspot’, but your ‘integrity’ won’t allow you to show us where? Yeah, right! You think anyone believes you?
January 16, 2009, 3:11 pmhunter:
RPJ,
January 17, 2009, 9:39 amThe observational evidence does not support what you claim at all.
The models do.
The observational evidence does not support the models.
The fossils do not support your theory of creation, to put it in another context.
Your trollish clinging to failed predictions is like a millenialist starving on his roof waiting for the return of Jesus.
It is rather pitiful.
Glenn Haldane:
The Uk Met Office page on radio sonde temperatures says that the hot spot both exists and is typical of AGW. I quote:
‘The zonally averaged trends show that the maximum warming within the troposphere has occurred in the Northern Hemisphere over recent years. Above the troposphere the stratosphere has been cooling. This general pattern matches the expected results of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances, and this has been used to attribute recent climate change to human influences in work carried out at the Met Office Hadley Centre.’
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadat.html
January 17, 2009, 11:35 amRPJ:
hunter - you can say the words all you like, but they’ll never be true. Why would you think anyone would be persuaded by mere unbacked words from an anonymous internet idiot? Please, cite your sources. Oh, wait, you don’t have any.
January 18, 2009, 5:00 amhunter:
RPJ,
Ok, you are pitiable, not pitiful.
And your very words make you a liar.
You said:
“RPJ:
kuhnkat - well if I really need to spell it out… it’s a graph about observations from 1890-1999, not a graph of an experiment to try to replicate the observed warming with different forcings.”
January 18, 2009, 6:41 amThose graphs are not based on observations at all, except possibly in the post WWII era.
They are models, especially from the early years, are based on assumptions and inferences and conjecture.
I may be anonymous, but that does not mean I don’t know when some AGW fundie is yet again strutting around naked while telling everyone how well dressed he is.
And I do notice the total lack of links you provide, so perhaps you can think about how many people your approach is persuading as well.
Will Nitschke:
RPJ:
“please read carefully.”
I can only read what you write, if you mean something else, then that’s a literacy problem you have…
“I didn’t say anything was ‘all’ observational.”
So what?
“And what the hell are you talking about, yapping about backwards logic? Observations show that forcings due to greenhouse gases are much the strongest positive forcing. These observations are not anything to do with computer models.”
You just repeated your original claim as if repeating the same thing over and over again will make it become true. A hindcast is a computer model. Try to explain what you’re talking about without contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
“And just like the never-ending claims that ‘global warming stopped in 1998′…”
I love how you quickly change the subject as soon as you’re unable to respond to the points raised in any previous posts.
“You’re obviously not up to speed with the latest literature, which does not support your silly claim.”
The point is that the predictions turn out to be wrong. Yes the predictions that didn’t turn out to be true eventually have to change “in the latest literature”. However, the point about major previous predictions being wrong still stands. If you don’t have a good track record in the past, why do you think the track record in the future will be better?
January 18, 2009, 7:18 pmsf:
RPJ– As someone who has been in the position you seem to be in now, let me offer the following, non-critical forensic run-through:
Will you stipulate that the “Figure 9.1″ displayed with the above article is a reasonable facsimile of the one included in the IPCC AR4 report? (You are obviously welcome to withdraw this stipulation if you later find our host failed to reproduce this figure accurately.)
Do you agree that the caption to the figure reads, in relevant portion,
Noting the words between the asterisks in the above statement (”…as simulated by the PCM model…”), do you claim that the colored graphs in Figure 9.1 are an attempt to represent observations made in the years, altitudes and elevations stated?
Did you intend to claim, at any point in the above discussion, that the graphs in Figure 9.1 represented actual observations?
Here’s hoping that the dustup above is some sort of misunderstanding.
January 19, 2009, 2:58 pmRPJ:
Will Nitschke - no, if you don’t understand very simple, very clear english, that is your problem and not mine. Your interminable ramblings are not getting us anywhere. You admitted that the figure didn’t show what our ‘climate skeptic’ thought it did, but you still bleat on about predictions turning out wrong. You must be doing so either out of ignorance or stupidity. There is no discrepancy between models and observations of the atmosphere’s vertical temperature profile.
sf - I am sure you can understand that the graphs show the predicted response to observed forcings, taken in isolation and together, and that if you concluded that “models predict the effect of GHG’s as distinctly different from that of solar or volcanic forcings” you’d be wrong. But the deniers have no interest in learning, only in being noisy. It’s a game they play. It’s kind of like small children sticking their fingers in their ears and singing “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”. These people are obviously choosing not to understand. Why would they lobotomise themselves so? Who knows? No amount of explanation on my or anyone else’s part will get through to them.
January 19, 2009, 5:46 pmWill Nitschke:
RPJ:
AGW believers predicted the hotspot but it is not there. So doesn’t this suggest problems with the computer models?
You’ve offered two replies:
1. It’s not there but even if it was there, CO2 is not the only thing that might cause it. (For example, if solar irradiance increased to a degree never before observed in the real world, it might also cause a hot spot to form. You don’t mention that part.)
2. Yes we thought it was there, but we were wrong. The science (which was supposedly ’settled’) has since moved on.
3. You didn’t mention this one: “it is there but we can’t measure it yet…”
Response (1) is, frankly, insane. You’re attempting to claim that SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE might be caused by forcings other than CO2. Who cares in the slightest? IT’S NOT THERE.
Response (2) is of no help. You’re arguing AGW was wrong up to a couple of years ago but now it is right this time.
Non response (3) could be true.
And as usual, lots of insults and name calling and other childish behaviour intermixed with angry assertions about everyone being stupid except you.
January 19, 2009, 8:15 pmhunter:
RPJ,
January 20, 2009, 6:47 amNow that I see you are but a troll, please do get in the last word so we can all move on.
We know that you cannot imagine or admit to an AGW prediction being incorrect, so please vent some more spleen and get it over with.
RPJ:
Will, you really have some comprehension problems. I said none of the things you seem to think I said. There is no meaningful discrepancy at allbetween models and observations of vertical temperature profiles. Why are you so desperate to believe that there is?
January 20, 2009, 3:11 pmRPJ:
Will, you really have some comprehension problems. I said none of the things you seem to think I said. There is no meaningful discrepancy at all between models and observations of vertical temperature profiles. Why are you so desperate to believe that there is?
January 20, 2009, 3:18 pmRPJ:
It is apparently impossible to post links. Presumably the site owner does not like to be troubled by scientific papers. Well, you can do it the hard way then: look up Santer et al, International Journal of Climatology, October 2008; Lanzante & Free, Journal of Climate, Haimberger, Tavolato, Sperka, Journal of Climate, September 2008, Sherwood, Mayer, Allen & Titchner, Journal of Climate, October 2008.
“AGW believers predicted the hotspot but it is not there” - ha ha ha! Do you enjoy making yourself look like a complete tit?
January 20, 2009, 3:29 pmWill Nitschke:
RPJ wrote above:
“They do not show that a tropospheric hotspot is a unique fingerprint of greenhouse gas-related warming”
Then RPJ just wrote:
“ha ha ha!”
Probably one of your better logical arguments… but what are you saying now? That it is there? But if it is there, and it’s not a unique fingerprint of greenhouse gas related warming, it could be caused by other climatic effects, right? So it’s therefore not proof of AGW anyway?
OK, let me see.. if it doesn’t exist, it’s not important and was never proof of AGW. (Some re-writing of history happening here.) But if it does exist, it proves your point. Hmmm… you can’t loose the argument any way it goes? Impressive hedging…
As I said already, it may be there but could be difficult to measure. Time will tell. This at least makes more sense than the self contradictory spasms you loop around in.
January 20, 2009, 4:33 pmRPJ:
“but what are you saying now? That it is there? But if it is there, and it’s not a unique fingerprint of greenhouse gas related warming, it could be caused by other climatic effects, right? So it’s therefore not proof of AGW anyway?” - you’re amazingly hard of thinking, but you’re getting there. You’ve just about understood, finally, what I said right back at the beginning. Your use of ‘anyway’ implies that you think that someone, somewhere, claimed that a tropospheric hotspot could only be caused by greenhouse gases, but on this very thread you acknowledged that this was not the case.
Quoting you on January 19, 2009, 8:15 pm: “it is not there”. And you on January 20, 2009, 4:33 pm: “As I said already, it may be there”. Your self-contradictory spasms are getting quite violent now.
January 21, 2009, 2:51 amhunter:
RPJ,
January 21, 2009, 6:43 amMost excellent.
I have not seen an AGW believer demonstrate ‘non-falsifiable AGW theory’ so clearly in one thread.
Thanks,
Will Nitschke:
Hunter,
“RPJ” is his own worst enemy. Seldom do you see someone so confused that he manages to even logically contradict himself in the same sentence. (One more usually sees irrelevant links, firm opinions without arguments or facts provided, quotes taken out of context, etc.) But while this is suggestive of some of the fanaticism that underlies support for these particular ideas, it’s all perpendicular to the scientific debate.
January 21, 2009, 2:58 pmRPJ:
Will Nitschke - argue the science, or don’t say anything.
January 21, 2009, 4:32 pmhunter:
RPJ,
January 21, 2009, 9:20 pmTry taking your own advice.
Will Nitschke:
Here’s what’s outstanding from your posts RPJ:
(a) The blackboard posting (very first link in the above article) argues that the Realclimate assertion that the hot spot is caused by all kinds of warming is — nonsense. The Blackboard post quotes the IPCC report which does not agree with the Realclimate claim. You ignore all this and simply repeats the Realclimate claim… Is Realclimate correct or is the IPCC AR4 report correct? You seem to think that the IPCC is wrong and the Realclimate website is correct? Why? Rather than just repeat the Realclimate claim, which the Blackboard apparently demolished, you must at least show why the Blackboard’s argument is wrong.
(b) RPJ repeats the Realclimate claim without explaining why it matters in the slightest. If there’s been no warming, why is it even relevant to the discussion? Please explain. I.e., if the hotspot is not there or cannot be measured yet, why is arguing over the different things that might theoretically cause it (besides CO2) of any importance whatsoever?
(c) You say the science has moved on, and the hotspot is not considered important any more. The IPPC and even Realclimate authors stated only a few years ago that the hot spot was a “robust” prediction of the climate models. In scientific jargon, generally, “robust” means very likely to be true, or central to, a theory. Why doesn’t this sudden change of position not worry you? Why does this not diminish your confidence in the claims they make?
(d) You imply later that the hotspot does exist (contradicting your c statement) after all… Now if it does exist, but the hotspot can be caused by things other than CO2, why do you feel it can be used as evidence of anything? What exactly are you “laughing” about if you assert that the hotspot is not related to AGW but then use it as proof of AGW?
(e) You say that past climate is based on measurements but is also a “hindcast”. Which is a fancy word for “computer model”. It can’t be both, so which is it? You’ve been asked this question several times but have avoided responding to the apparent contradiction.
Please answer these questions. Every time you’re pressed you go off on an angry rant yelling abuse at those who point out the absurdities of what you write or try to change the subject.
To be honest I’m starting to get suspicious that you’re a ‘denier’ writing these posts on purpose to make AGW theory look intentionally stupid. Please demonstrate you are capable of rational thought, otherwise I think my suspicion is not unreasonable.
Thanks.
January 21, 2009, 11:33 pmRPJ:
You seem to be having a lovely conversation between yourself and some imaginary friend. It certainly wasn’t me who said the hotspot was ‘not considered important’, or that it was ‘proof of AGW’. You’ve misinterpreted most things I’ve said, and it’s way too tiresome to correct you when you do this with every single post I make. Your first point is particularly moronic. The ‘blackboard’ misunderstood the IPCC report, as you yourself admitted. Had you forgotten you did that? There is no contradiction between IPCC and realclimate, or between theory and observations of tropospheric temperatures. It really doesn’t take a lot of intelligence to understand that.
And talking of intelligence: why, when talking about the hotspot on January 19, 2009, 8:15 pm, did you say “it is not there”, but less than 24 hours later on January 20, 2009, 4:33 pm say “As I said already, it may be there”? Is your confusion simply stupidity, is it springing from a desperate desire simply to be contrary, or is it evidence of actual mental problems?
January 22, 2009, 1:28 amhunter:
RPJ,
January 22, 2009, 1:10 pmhere are your words:
“RPJ:
kuhnkat - well if I really need to spell it out… it’s a graph about AND
“observations from 1890-1999, not a graph of an experiment to try to replicate the observed warming with different forcings.”
An Inquirer - yep, the figures are hindcasts based on observed forcings over the time period. They show that unless our observations are way wrong, then greenhouse gases are the dominant forcing from 1890-1999. They do not show that a tropospheric hotspot is a unique fingerprint of greenhouse gas-related warming, and I’m still waiting for a single person to admit they misunderstood that point.”
Go ahead and admit it. You showed up a discussion of ideas with none.
You said what you said, and now you cannot just go away.
The AGW leadership said the hotspot was a predicted outcome of AGW.
The hotspot has not happened.
You may torture and water board the language all you want, but you are still an idiot. And wrong.
Will Nitschke:
RPJ:
“The ‘blackboard’ misunderstood the IPCC report, as you yourself admitted.”
I’ve read the blackboard article and the comments and discussions that follow, and I have no reason to disagree with the blackboard article, but if someone posted an intelligent counter argument I might change my mind. I’ve “admitted” that the Realclimate claim, even if true, is irrelevant. Your ignore the substance of my statement and twist it into something that somehow agrees with what you’re asserting, and I’m not even sure anyone can figure out what that is. You still don’t explain *why* the blackboard argument is wrong. That’s the key point. You just repeat the same assertion over and over again, now for the 3rd or 4th time.
“There is no contradiction between IPCC and realclimate, or between theory and observations of tropospheric temperatures. It really doesn’t take a lot of intelligence to understand that.”
This is a claim, not an argument. You have no argument. You just keep repeating your statement…
“Is your confusion simply stupidity, is it springing from a desperate desire simply to be contrary, or is it evidence of actual mental problems?”
I’m saying it’s either not there or can’t be measured yet. My opinion has not yet changed. It might change in the future, as more evidence comes to light of course. Now, pulling words out of the middle of sentences and chopping off the sentences before and after, and even the words before and after, shows a lack of intellectual integrity, doesn’t it?
Personally, I do not believe anyone in the real world could be as genuinely stupid as you. You seem to me to be an anti-AGW crank mascarading as a pro-AGW theory supporter, for the sole purpose of trying to make AGW look stupid. Why people engage is such childish behaviour, I have no idea.
January 22, 2009, 3:26 pmRPJ:
Here we go again!
Jan 22, 1.10pm: “The hotspot has not happened.”
Jan 22, 3.26pm: “it’s either not there or can’t be measured yet”
Jan 15, 2.05pm: “I’ll admit that it [a tropospheric hotspot] is not [a unique fingerprint of greenhouse gas-related warming]”
Jan 22, 3.26pm: “I have no reason to disagree with the blackboard article”
Are you two different people, or just a multiple personality? Are either of you ever going to post a link to the scientific papers backing your views, or do you imagine that mere words are enough to persuade?
“You still don’t explain *why* the blackboard argument is wrong.” - but on Jan 15 at 2.05pm, you yourself agreed that it was wrong. Are you just stupid, are you just being contrary, or are you seriously a little bit wrong in the head?
January 23, 2009, 2:09 amhunter:
RPJ,
January 23, 2009, 9:46 amIn the “Emperor’s New Clothes”, the emperor, once the honest child pointed out the problem with his wardrobe, had the sense to be shamed.
You, on the other hand, are seeking to blame the honest observer.
Sort of like Hansen & pals and their calls for trials for ‘crimes against humanity’.
This exchange shows how blind faith in AGW destroys the minds of its beleivers.
Kind of sad, really.
HasItBeen4YearsYet?:
Can you have a consensus if no one agrees?
I don’t think so, and posted on it here in my own inimitable style.
February 3, 2009, 8:05 pmhttp://www.floppingaces.net/2008/07/09/man-made-global-warming-debate-stifled-by-censorship-intimidation/#comment-95725
HasItBeen4YearsYet?:
AND, IN A RELATED TOPIC
February 3, 2009, 8:18 pm“What if everyone believes in global warmism only because everyone believes in global warmism?”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/hjenkins/