One of the dependable knee-jerk comments one can expect when trying to discuss humanity’s impact on our planet’s climate,
is that climate model’s have been shown to be wrong when compared to observations.
Details are never really offered, it’s just a point of faith since the meme has been repeated so often.
Here I offer up a couple articles that go into some detail, though keeping it to the simple to understand
rather than the mind bending details scientists discuss among themselves.
The author is Dana Nuccitelli, who is an environmental systems scientist with a long established interest in climate science.
He has written many articles for Skeptical Science and has been writing for the Guardian for a while now.
IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Dana Nuccitelli | Tuesday 1 October 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate
Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. As the IPCC notes,
"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."
What about the Naysayers?
In the weeks and months leading up to the publication of the final 2013 IPCC report, there has been a flood of opinion articles in blogs and the mainstream media claiming that the models used by the IPCC have dramatically over-predicted global warming and thus are a failure. This narrative clearly conflicts with the IPCC model-data comparison figure shown above, so what's going on?
These mistaken climate contrarian articles have all suffered from some combination of the following errors.
1) Publicizing the flawed draft IPCC model-data comparison figure …
2) Ignoring the range of model simulations …
3) Cherry Picking …
IPCC models have been accurate
For 1992–2006, the natural variability of the climate amplified human-caused global surface warming, while it dampened the surface warming for 1997–2012. Over the full period, the overall warming rate has remained within the range of IPCC model projections, as the 2013 IPCC report notes.
"The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)."
Climate models are even more accurate than you thought
The difference between modeled and observed global surface temperature changes is 38% smaller than previously thought
Dana Nuccitelli | Friday 31 July 2015
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought
Global climate models aren’t given nearly enough credit for their accurate global temperature change projections. As the 2014 IPCC report showed, observed global surface temperature changes have been within the range of climate model simulations.
Now a new study shows that the models were even more accurate than previously thought. In previous evaluations like the one done by the IPCC, climate model simulations of global surface air temperature were compared to global surface temperature observational records like HadCRUT4. However, over the oceans, HadCRUT4 uses sea surface temperatures rather than air temperatures. …
...
In reality, the comparisons weren’t quite correct. As lead author Kevin Cowtan told me,
We have highlighted the fact that the planet does not warm uniformly. Air temperatures warm faster than the oceans, air temperatures over land warm faster than global air temperatures. When you put a number on global warming, that number always depends on what you are measuring. And when you do a comparison, you need to ensure you are comparing the same things.
The model projections have generally reported global air temperatures. That’s quite helpful, because we generally live in the air rather than the water. The observations, by mixing air and water temperatures, are expected to slightly underestimate the warming of the atmosphere.
...
The new study (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/grl53276.pdf) addresses this problem by instead blending the modeled air temperatures over land with the modeled sea surface temperatures to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison. The authors also identified another challenging issue for these model-data comparisons in the Arctic. Over sea ice, surface air temperature measurements are used, but for open ocean, sea surface temperatures are used. ...
...
When accounting for these factors, the study finds that the difference between observed and modeled temperatures since 1975 is smaller than previously believed. The models had projected a 0.226°C per decade global surface air warming trend for 1975–2014 (and 0.212°C per decade over the geographic area covered by the HadCRUT4 record). However, when matching the HadCRUT4 methods for measuring sea surface temperatures, the modeled trend is reduced to 0.196°C per decade. The observed HadCRUT4 trend is 0.170°C per decade.
So when doing an apples-to-apples comparison, the difference between modeled global temperature simulations and observations is 38% smaller than previous estimates. Additionally, as noted in a 2014 paper led by NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt, less energy from the sun has reached the Earth’s surface than anticipated in these model simulations, both because solar activity declined more than expected, and volcanic activity was higher than expected. Ed Hawkins, another co-author of this study, wrote about this effect. ...
What Dana is talking about is that all the models are showing the earth is warming.
But when you look at the charts, the charts show the models disagree by 1.75. And when you are trying to keep warming under 2. That not a good enough system. Once you get the NASA, NOAA and UK Hadley Centre agreeing, then you got something.
What Dana is talking about is that all the models are showing the earth is warming.
But when you look at the charts, the charts show the models disagree by 1.75. And when you are trying to keep warming under 2. That not a good enough system. Once you get the NASA, NOAA and UK Hadley Centre agreeing, then you got something.
Ridiculous!
The issue is not about TRUST. It is about probability and NOT HAVING A SPARE PLANET.
Is a 1.75 degree warming REALLY OK? That would only be an average for the ENTIRE PLANET. No one can accurately predict what the effects of that would be. Is there any argument that the CO2 will be in the atmosphere for centuries? So if it is still under 2.0 in 2100 and 3.0 in 2200 is that OK?
Maybe we should just pump out CO2 like crazy to get rid of the humans. The planet will survive to start over. 10 degrees by 2500, who cares?
psik
Yup. Nice we agree on somethings psik. :coolsmile:
What Dana is talking about is that all the models are showing the earth is warming.
But when you look at the charts, the charts show the models disagree by 1.75. And when you are trying to keep warming under 2. That not a good enough system. Once you get the NASA, NOAA and UK Hadley Centre agreeing, then you got something.
What "charts" you are talking about? Have a link?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought
When accounting for these factors, the study finds that the difference between observed and modeled temperatures since 1975 is smaller than previously believed. The models had projected a 0.226°C per decade global surface air warming trend for 1975–2014 (and 0.212°C per decade over the geographic area covered by the HadCRUT4 record). However, when matching the HadCRUT4 methods for measuring sea surface temperatures, the modeled trend is reduced to 0.196°C per decade. The observed HadCRUT4 trend is 0.170°C per decade.
But even more important,
Why are you suggesting that absolute perfection in GCMs models is necessary to recognize that the path we are on is destructive to our way of life?
Please can you explain that rationale?
Like what saving difference do you think exists between 0.226°C or 0.196°C and 0.170°C?
Why isn't within 0.026°C plenty good for understanding the basics of what is going on upon our planet these days?
Please I do wish you could help me understand your logic.
What we have is the public, media, political, scientists and none-scientists all with a points of views. Who I am backing is the scientists. The ones working on the computer models. The political groups has gotten the public groups all worked up so they can start taxing them. The none-scientists and media are writing stories and trying to get a piece of the money pie. Meanwhile the scientists are working with the models and building the data gathering systems. I’m backing the scientists all the way.
Where we disagree is. Absolute perfection, I don’t see that. Destructive to our way of life. I do see that happening a little bit. Our way of life changes from generation to generation in the industrialized nations now.
Remember, the super volcano is much more dangerous to mankind’s existence and way of life than climate change. What are we doing to monitor the super volcanoes that we know of? How come we aren’t setting up computer models and taxing people for funding to build systems to handle the volcanoes? I bet if Al Gore and the carbon credit group could have figured out a way to make money on the volcanoes, we would be talking volcano instead of climate. We do know that mankind has survived the 20 climate changes. But the one super volcano in mankind’s existence just about wiped us out. One DNA result showed only 500 people left on earth.
The best we can do, will be done by the proper use of knowledge.
The political groups has gotten the public groups all worked up so they can start taxing them. The none-scientists and media are writing stories and trying to get a piece of the money pie.
You know that's just a diversion. What does it have to do with understanding what the experts are learning
Meanwhile the scientists are working with the models and building the data gathering systems. I’m backing the scientists all the way.
What's with of obsession about models? Climate models are just a few pieces of the puzzle. There's an awful lot of physics and Earth observations, independent lines of evidence, but you seem to feel comfortable ignoring that information. Why?
Here's an interesting short video that sums it up quite well
27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
Remember, the super volcano is much more dangerous to mankind’s existence and way of life than climate change. What are we doing to monitor the super volcanoes that we know of? How come we aren’t setting up computer models and taxing people for funding to build systems to handle the volcanoes? I bet if Al Gore and the carbon credit group could have figured out a way to make money on the volcanoes, we would be talking volcano instead of climate.
This is silly. There is actually a tremendous amount of money spent on studying volcanoes. As for your super-volcano, check out Yellowstone caldera
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories/yvo/
Perhaps the attention being paid to our atmosphere, what we are doing to is, how that will effect our biosphere and us is much more immediate and obviously happening - and just as obvious and to a certain extent within our control.
We do know that mankind has survived the 20 climate changes. But the one super volcano in mankind’s existence just about wiped us out. One DNA result showed only 500 people left on earth.
The best we can do, will be done by the proper use of knowledge.
there's the rub
I'm curious to understand why you feel comfortable ignoring so much information that is right out there :)
Mike an undercurrent of what you’re writing is that IPCC isn’t to be trusted.
But you never provide solid reasons for that.
In fact from the way you talk about them it seems you don’t even understand what they are and how they operate.
Can you explain why you seem to have a visceral rejection of all things IPCC (whatever that may be, though it’s certainly not creating climate models)
What’s the foundation that fuels your reject the current scientific consensus?
After all it is the collective considered learned opinion of actual experts in the field, globally built on well over a century of ever more detailed study.
Seems to me all you got is an inner conviction that,
Well, it’s the attitude you project, namely that scientists are every bit as money grubbing, self-interested, and short sighted as
business folks and wall-streeters, politicians and lawyers and such - but what if that simply ain’t so?
Ever consider that a drive for true understanding is what fuels scientists who’ve survived through years of exhaustive study and learning in their chosen fields.
Tell me have you listened to what Prof Alley has to say? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQimNeJn9D4
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/06/scientists-ethics-motivation.html
Richard Alley: "… The idea that we wouldn't want to be Einstein—if we could overturn global warming, if we could prove that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas, if we could prove that we can burn all we want and not worry about it, how exciting would that be? How wonderful? How many prizes? How many people would invite me out to give talks if I could prove that you didn't have to worry about this?
Is there any possibility that tens of thousands of scientist, there isn't one of them that's got the ego to do that? It's absurd. It's absolutely, unequivocally absurd. We're people. We've got it in us, the way people do.
The fact is that nature pushes us to the reality that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's real."
Citizen, sorry for not getting back right away. I need another day. Went to the U-tube to watch the video and spent 3 hours there. Mostly with the guy Pothole54 that you put in your post. What a great guy and the skills of communication are the greatest. Thank you, Mike
Citizen, sorry for not getting back right away. I need another day. Went to the U-tube to watch the video and spent 3 hours there. Mostly with the guy Pothole54 that you put in your post. What a great guy and the skills of communication are the greatest. Thank you, Mike
Cool.
Yeah, I think a lot of Potholer54 actually Peter Hadfield.
He's put together a first class series of videos on global warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hadfield_(journalist)
The green signifies blue-green algae (which are technically photosynthetic bacteria). In great abundance, they can wreak havoc on lake ecosystems. Harmful algal bloom, or HAB, crops up in the Great Lakes annually around this time, and for Lake Erie, pictured, this year is lining up to be one of the worst that Davis has seen in a decade.
MSN
Also check some of the other links on that page. Scary stuff.
The green signifies blue-green algae (which are technically photosynthetic bacteria). In great abundance, they can wreak havoc on lake ecosystems. Harmful algal bloom, or HAB, crops up in the Great Lakes annually around this time, and for Lake Erie, pictured, this year is lining up to be one of the worst that Davis has seen in a decade.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/this-blue-green-water-may-look-stunning-but-its-also-seriously-bad-news/ar-BBlLK4g
Also check some of the other links on that page. Scary stuff.
Yeah, but there's a bright side. . . well, at least down the road.
Crude - The Incredible Journey Of Oil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e44ydPIQGSc&t=59m45s
Pay close attention after 1:01:00, it get's interesting.
The conditions for oceanic oil formation.
The green signifies blue-green algae (which are technically photosynthetic bacteria). In great abundance, they can wreak havoc on lake ecosystems. Harmful algal bloom, or HAB, crops up in the Great Lakes annually around this time, and for Lake Erie, pictured, this year is lining up to be one of the worst that Davis has seen in a decade.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/this-blue-green-water-may-look-stunning-but-its-also-seriously-bad-news/ar-BBlLK4g
Also check some of the other links on that page. Scary stuff.
Farmers prefer fertilizer made with dissolved phosphorus, which helps crops grow better than particulate phosphorus. But blue-green algae thrive on it, too. “Since the mid-'90s, the amount of dissolved phosphorus going into Lake Erie [from the nearby Maumee River] has gone up 144 percent," says Reutter. And when the water warms up to around 60 degrees Fahrenheit, the algae blossoms.
Harmful algal blooms stop light from penetrating the water, preventing shallow, bottom-dwelling plants from photosynthesizing. Then, when the algae decay, bacteria that break them down consume oxygen in the process, imperiling fish. Plus, there’s evidence that a species of blue-green algae common in Lake Erie blooms—Microcystis aeruginosa—can be toxic to humans, potentially causing rashes, nausea and vomiting, and in extreme cases, liver damage. According to Reutter, this year’s lake bloom has already made several people sick.
Hmmm, god bless corporate super farms.
Perhaps it'll turn into a future oil reserve? :blank:
The green signifies blue-green algae (which are technically photosynthetic bacteria). In great abundance, they can wreak havoc on lake ecosystems. Harmful algal bloom, or HAB, crops up in the Great Lakes annually around this time, and for Lake Erie, pictured, this year is lining up to be one of the worst that Davis has seen in a decade.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/this-blue-green-water-may-look-stunning-but-its-also-seriously-bad-news/ar-BBlLK4g
Also check some of the other links on that page. Scary stuff.
Farmers prefer fertilizer made with dissolved phosphorus, which helps crops grow better than particulate phosphorus. But blue-green algae thrive on it, too. “Since the mid-'90s, the amount of dissolved phosphorus going into Lake Erie [from the nearby Maumee River] has gone up 144 percent," says Reutter. And when the water warms up to around 60 degrees Fahrenheit, the algae blossoms.
Harmful algal blooms stop light from penetrating the water, preventing shallow, bottom-dwelling plants from photosynthesizing. Then, when the algae decay, bacteria that break them down consume oxygen in the process, imperiling fish. Plus, there’s evidence that a species of blue-green algae common in Lake Erie blooms—Microcystis aeruginosa—can be toxic to humans, potentially causing rashes, nausea and vomiting, and in extreme cases, liver damage. According to Reutter, this year’s lake bloom has already made several people sick.
Hmmm, god bless corporate super farms.
Perhaps it'll turn into a future oil reserve? :blank:
Undoubtedly, in a few milion years, and if the algea doesn't kill all living ocean organisms in the mean time. No organic materials, no oil, or coal, or gas.
What Dana is talking about is that all the models are showing the earth is warming.
But when you look at the charts, the charts show the models disagree by 1.75. And when you are trying to keep warming under 2. That not a good enough system. Once you get the NASA, NOAA and UK Hadley Centre agreeing, then you got something.
Ridiculous!
The issue is not about TRUST. It is about probability and NOT HAVING A SPARE PLANET.
Is a 1.75 degree warming REALLY OK? That would only be an average for the ENTIRE PLANET. No one can accurately predict what the effects of that would be. Is there any argument that the CO2 will be in the atmosphere for centuries? So if it is still under 2.0 in 2100 and 3.0 in 2200 is that OK?
Maybe we should just pump out CO2 like crazy to get rid of the humans. The planet will survive to start over. 10 degrees by 2500, who cares?
psik
I agree, this is a life choice in which humans only have one crack at it. As Hellstrom said, when we are gone, the insect will rule the world. To the Earth itself, it makes no difference, it will outlive us all, regardless.
Why we don’t shift to Hemp farming is completely beyond my understanding. It is one of the few crops which is eco-friendly AND provides a remarkable versatility of practical uses as, a healthy foodsource, to fuel, to paper, to cloths, to building materials and as an EFFECTIVE CO2 sequestering method. If ever there was a sacred plant, it would be Hemp.
We can now buy and smoke Pot, but we can’t grow Hemp. It’s illegal! Go figure.
Why we don't shift to Hemp farming is completely beyond my understanding. It is one of the few crops which is eco-friendly AND provides a remarkable versatility of practical uses as, a healthy foodsource, to fuel, to paper, to cloths, to building materials and as an EFFECTIVE CO2 sequestering method. If ever there was a sacred plant, it would be Hemp.
We can now buy and smoke Pot, but we can't grow Hemp. It's illegal! Go figure.
This is particularly insane when you consider that hemp has no psychoactive effects that would promote its abuse, and that hemp is, among industrialized nations, only banned in the US, and that the US govt, actually, encouraged hemp to be grown during WWII when it was most desperately needed. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/hemp
More stuff to not trust:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/15/the-biggest-question-about-climate-change-isnt-if-or-when-its-how-abrupt/
psik
OK read it - now can you explain specifically what "More stuff (IS) to not trust" ?
More stuff to not trust:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/15/the-biggest-question-about-climate-change-isnt-if-or-when-its-how-abrupt/
psik
The priests who said God told them to tell us they're trustworthy. The CAM practitioners selling us all natural, chemical free, organic homeopathic tinctures to cure us with their assertions, emotional appeals, and testimonials. And the politicians. Because they'd never lie or use a PR team to manipulate our stupid, stupid brains.