Hate to beat a dead horse but, that's not how I read the Abstract:
They're not JUST talking about forcing brought about by aerosols but, how their findings on aerosol forcing brings the whole body of work on forcing into question."...our results suggest that the aerosol cloud-albedo effect was likely positive (0.006 to 0.028 Wm-2) in the recent decade, making it harder to explain the temperature hiatus as a forced response. Proportional contributions to forcing variance from aerosol processes and natural and anthropogenic emissions are found to be period dependent. To better constrain forcing estimates, the processes that dominate uncertainty on the timescale of interest must be better understood.
That's how I read that.
Great, so you concede there are different ideas on what caused the hiatus...you just refuse to allow that it could be due to the fact the IPCC is wrong about anthropogenic global climate change.
Why is it bull ? The IPCC models don't, in fact, agree with observation. That some come closer than others is true but, still the variance does not straddle the observation (as would a margin of error) but, in all cases, the model overestimates the amount of negative climate change (which, in itself is a question worth exploring -- why is a warmer planet such a bad thing?).
I'm not separating the two (it is, after all, where I found the paper) but, I have since chosen to concentrate on what the paper itself is claiming. Since you seem to have a blind bias against that blog, I've chosen not to pursue its claims but those in the paper itself.
Same reason I said days ago. Hand wave at the highends all you like but it is obvious that they fall on the high and low end and have a degree of expected error particularly in the short term.they
I have rising sea levels and increased storm claims from the insurance industry. I don't gaf about polar bears and again you are ing because they don't see short term trends.
Errata FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...-figure-1.html
Again I am not denying that aerosols may be a positive forcing. Multidecadal cycles and a whole slew of other causes are presented and laid out in the BEST work.
You want me to read your but you apparently have no interest in what in what BEST or the National Academy of Science and the Royal Academy of Science.
What do confirmation bias mean?
They made one declaration. That was regarding aerosol forcing. They plead ignorance regarding the short term and thus uncertainty. They are talking about multidecadal variation like I said. It gets tiring dealing with a willfully ignorant neophyte that insists on a conclusion that is not made.
Being able to fine tune 14 different climate models to track historical records isn't the same as modeling future climate behavior.
Models are "tunable" which helps to ensure they adequately model known history. That doesn't mean they will adequately forecast the future. I don't believe your climate scientists adequately understand the complexities of our climate well enough to model it. If they did the IPCC wouldn't need to use an ensemble of many models to try to forecast future warming -- they could just use the one that did it right.
I think it's very illuminating that you chose to use a graph the IPCC used to answer a question in an FAQ do ent but, wasn't actually a part of any IPCC report. It would be in their interest to come up with a pretty impressive example, wouldn't it?
Why don't you show me a model for surface temperatures produced in 1970, predicting surface temperatures over the next 40 years and then, lay actual observations over the top of it. That'd be more convincing than showing me a graph where the IPCC was able to tune their models to kind of, sort of, agree with observation.
If 90% of the doctors I consulted recommended that I undergo $500,000 worth of treatment in order to potentially prevent some disease that a computer model predicted I may get in 30 years I'd probably pass on their recommendation even though they have a consensus.
No one is forcing you to engage me on this topic, Fuzzy.
You are accusing me of cherry picking when I post IPCC's answer to your accusation. You don't even argue what it says. Of course the variables chosen in a model are adjustable. These are the adjustments they used to model the climate. You are making the case that models are completely inaccurate as a blanket statement. That clearly is not the case. If you are going to complain because they choose the most accurate models to present then you are missing the entire point.
Fuzzy, I read it differently too.
Making a "cloud albedo effect" more positive means more reflectivity, and less solar warming the surface. This could actually explain the hiatus, but I don't think it is the cause. I think that climatologists have the H2O feedback effect backwards. Sure, the extra water vapor holds more heat in, of which happens, but also increases the earths albedo with increased cloud cover. I think three factors contribute to the hiatus.
1) solar decreases
2) more cloud cover
3) more reflective aerosols
Now I'm open to other ideas, but the explain them rather than just linking scripture please.
Now here is a graph that suits what I think is happening:
I made it using exponential charge and discharge to the heat system of the oceans based on solar TSI changes. The data I used is from SORCE and the reconstruction data at the site.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/...nstruction.txt
What you fail to grasp is your sources have engaged in various deceptions, over the years, that have pretty much destroyed their credibility.
The planet isn't experiencing any catastrophic global climate change due to man's activities and the general public is, thank God, finally realizing they've been flim-flammed by the IPCC and your consensus of climate scientists.
Let me guess emails, Hansen, and Al Gore is a hypocrite so all climate science but the stuff I want to be true is false! We should discount IPCC, the National Academy, the Royal Society and BEST but go with your Exxon and Koch funded endeavors!
I have a better timeline of history. I am talking about the history of corporate propaganda. Perhaps you have heard of the tobacco lobby or the mining lobby. Tobacco and lead are safe! Acid rain is a lie! harmless too!
And it doesn't need to be armageddon for it to be wise to limit emissions. again the insurance industry has been doing a much better job in quantifying costs. It's been fun watching coastal states turn on the GOP over the issue.
It's a good start but, there's also the misrepresentation of the consensus, lying about the the polar ice caps melting, continuing the ruse that the Earth was warming after it was known it stopped in the last century, falsely connecting the frequency and severity of weather with the AGCC agenda, falsely linking AGCC to an increased incidence of asthma, the "Hockey Stick" graph (on which much of the current hysteria was based), and the persistent ruse that CO2 (a chemical necessary for life) is somehow ing up the planet.
Let me guess emails, Hansen, and Al Gore is a hypocrite...
Actually, I don't look at the associations as much as the claims they make. You, on the other hand, discount information based simply on your prejudices against the messengers. You act as though the Consensus has no financial interest in continuing the ruse.
And, you can add Climate Alarmists to your list. They continue to conflate the effects of pollution with their Global Climate Change message - latest example:
Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate Talks
And, yet, the alarmist crowd continues to become more strident in their warnings of Armageddon. Just read the article.
I'm glad the destruction of our economy over something that's, at best an exaggeration, and at worst, a blatant attempt to force the redistribution of wealth, is fun for you.
"destruction of our economy"
BigCarboon shill pussy eater spreading FUD
renewable energy now employs MORE people in Canada than tar sands fiasco
renewable energy now employs MORE people in USA than BigCoal
destruction of our economy
VRWC attacks!
Conservative lobby group Alec plans anti-environmental onslaught
The corporate lobbying network American Legislative Exchange Council, commonly known as Alec, is planning a new onslaught on a number of environmental protections next year when Republicans take control of Congress and a number of state legislatures.
The battle lines of Alec’s newest attack on environmental and climate measures will be formally unveiled on Wednesday, when the group begins three days of meetings in Washington DC.
Alec, described by its opponents as a corporate bill mill, has suffered an exodus of tech companies from its ranks recently because of its extreme positions – especially its promotion of climate denial.
Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo and Yelp have all left Alec. Google flatly accused Alec of lying about climate change, when it severed its connections with the group last September.
Despite the setbacks, Alec remains focused on pushing back government regulation and blocking efforts to fight climate change in 2015, according to do ents posted on its website in preparation for Wednesday’s gathering.
On the agenda for its environment and energy task force are draft model bills that will seek to disband the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), expand offshore oil drilling, and weaken environmental protections for smog and other air pollutants, as well as roll back protections for endangered species.
The top priority appears to be rolling back the main pillar of Obama’s climate action plan: new rules to limit carbon pollution from power plants now being rolled out by the EPA.
Under the most extreme proposal, Alec would urge Congress to gut the EPA entirely, cutting its environmental protection budget by 75%, and delegating its powers to 300 state agency employees.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...climate-change
There is no conspiracy on the AGW scientific side, but there is an OBVIOUS UNDENIABLE AGW-denying conspiracy on the corporate/BigCarbon side, eg, ALEC, stink tanks, etc.
Profits trump ALL human and environmental health.
2014 Headed Toward Hottest Year On Record
“The provisional information for 2014 means that fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “There is no standstill in global warming.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/03/3598698/2014-hottest-year-on-record/
A Huge Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Three Times Faster Than Previously Thought
A West Antarctic ice sheet that is roughly the size of Texas is losing the amount of ice equivalent to Mount Everest every two years, representing a melt rate that has tripled over the last decade, according to new research to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters on Friday.
To get their results, scientists from the University of California-Irvine and NASA analyzed more than 20 years worth of data representing what’s called the “mass balance” of glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment, an ice sheet that flows into the Amundsen sea. The “mass balance” measurement takes into account the fact that glaciers gain and lose ice over time, and measures the average.
What they found was staggering: The glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment are averaging a loss of 83 gigatons, or 91.5 billion U.S. tons, of ice per year — a rate that has accelerated by an average of 6.7 billion tons every year since 1992.
Antarctica contains two ice sheets: the East and West Antarctic Ice Sheets. The study released this week concerns the glaciers that flow into the Amundsen Sea, an embayment below the Antarctic Peninsula in West Antarctica.
CREDIT: NASA.GOV“The mass loss of these glaciers is increasing at an amazing rate,” said Isabella Velicogna, a co-author of a published paper explaining the findings, in a statement, noting uncertainty as to how the melt would eventually affect sea level rise.
Glaciers generally represent a type of land ice, meaning they impact sea level rise when they melt. But they also tend to gain back ice during the colder season, meaning it’s unclear how quickly the ice loss will be morph into sea level rise. If all the glaciers along West Antarctica’s Amundsen Sea melted, would raise sea levels by approximately four feet.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-sea-ice-melt/
LOL...
Think Progress...
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
OK, who cares if a very large ice river is flowing faster than normal. Maybe it had more precipitation than normal in past years, and gravity is why glaciers flow, especially one that exits into the ring of fire!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...855.5282060185
So the world is going to end because of data from only a 150 year span? What about the temps and precipitation during the 1700s and earlier? What was the weather like during the crusades? Or how about during the age of the Mayans and Aztecs? Or how Romans and Greeks? Isn't it more scientific and accurate to give a prediction on the future if you include a longer time span than 150 years?
Not necessarily but, you don't add a step or two to the scientific method just to produce the results you want to support your conclusion...
Scientific Method:
Step 1: Ask a Question
Step 2: Do Background Research
Step 3: Construct a Hypothesis
Step 4: Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Step 5: Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Step 6: Communicate Your Results
The Scientific Method for Global Coo..., Global Warm..., Global Climate Change (Who can keep up? I'll be interested to see what it's called next)
Step 1: Ask a Question.
Step 2: Do Background Research.
Step 3: Construct a Hypothesis.
Step 4: Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment.
Step 5: Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Step 6: Manipulate, Excise, Alter, and Lie About Your Data Until Your Able to Draw the Conclusion You Want.
Step 7: Communicate Your Results.
Step 8: Stifle All Criticism and Dissent by Vilifying those Who Disagree.
Step 9: Declare the Science Settled.
...
"world is going to end" ... shows how serious you right-wing assholes are.
due to planetary wobbling, the earth should be cooling, not dramatically warming.
150+ years just happens to be the era of the Industrial Revolution (coal burning) and enormous population growth (wood burning)
glacier, tree ring data answer the rest of your questions, not that actual DATA, rather than BigCarbon propaganda and LIES, would make any diff to your ideological AGW-denial.
AGCC opponents just take their cues from AGCC Alarmists...
Sounds to me like they're still preaching existential doom and gloom.
So, according to the models, when is it going to start warming again?
I agree, the time period isn't as important as the data. So, how many times during the past 150 years has the Earth's climate not cooperated with AGCC models? I mean, we're currently in a heating hiatus the AGCC crowd didn't anticipate. And, when is it going to start warming up again, boutons?
Glaciers have been receding for a lot longer than 150 years and tree ring data points to periods, before the industrial age, where greenhouse gases were more abundant and temperatures were cooler. Why is is only man made CO2 that seems to matter? Are the fundamental chemicals, produced by man, somehow different than the same fundamental chemicals produced by, say, Mount Pinatubo?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
