+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 152
  1. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked
    808
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Okay, let's put Greenland and the actual article I referenced (by Heffernan) to one side for the moment. You say of the research paper by England, McGregor, Spence et al, which you seem to believe justifies the "skeptics":

    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    England also says the following in that paper:
    - the world might only warm by 2.1 degrees C this century (which is well below the original predictions)
    - there has been a pause in warming that 95% of models did not predict.

    But I guess you won't believe England on those statements because they are in line with what skeptics have been saying. ie. the models are wrong and they exaggerate the warming.

    Do you trust England with those comments?
    Since I cannot find either of those comments in the paper could you please provide quotations (with page numbers).

    Professor England himself had this to say:
    “Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don't rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures. Our work helps explain how this occurs," Professor England said.

    “We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort – we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures.”

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
    Since I cannot find either of those comments in the paper could you please provide quotations (with page numbers).

    Professor England himself had this to say:
    Opening sentence:

    Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001.
    Page 5.
    The model is equilibrated for more than 3,000 years with atmospheric CO2 fixed at pre-industrial and then integrated during 17802030 following historical CO2 forcing (17802000) and then the CMIP3 A2 emissions scenario from the year 2000 onwards. The model's overall climate sensitivity is at the low end range of CMIP3 models (reaching 2.1C warming by 20902099 relative to 1980-1999);

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked
    808
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    @Father, I'm afraid those two quotations do not say what you claim they say. It should be noted that all 6 projected means for 2020 generated by the experiments fall within the envelope of the IPCC multi-model range (Figure 5a).

    The second quotation is not a prediction but a description of the CMIP3 model they use for one set of experiments. And note that after the semicolon they say: "however, as our interest is on the cooling impact of the wind-perturbed experiments relative to the control, low climate sensitivity has little bearing on the results."

    That there has been a hiatus in SAT is hardly news, and is precisely what this research is explaining. It does not render 95% of models "wrong", as you asserted, since it is precisely those models that are used in these experiments.

    You are entitled to your scepticism about climate modelling but that does not give you licence to misrepresent published research.
    Last edited by JohnC; 20-03-2014 at 09:05.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JohnC For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (18-03-2014),BigRedV  (19-03-2014),delirium  (18-03-2014),HappyBovinexx  (19-03-2014),HollyGolightly81  (18-03-2014)

  5. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
    That there has been a hiatus in SAT is hardly news, and is precisely what this research is explaining. It does not render 95% of models "wrong", as you asserted, since it is precisely those models that are used in these experiments.
    Really???


    They don't look very good from where I am sitting. Maybe it's parallax.

    So according to England, increases in the Pacific trade winds are slowing down the warming. But just a few years ago the exact opposite was said to be happening:

    Observed Indo-Pacific sea level pressure reveals a weakening of the Walker circulation. The size of this trend is consistent with theoretical predictions, is accurately reproduced by climate model simulations and, within the climate models, is largely due to anthropogenic forcing. The climate model indicates that the weakened surface winds have altered the thermal structure and circulation of the tropical Pacific Ocean. These results support model projections of further weakening of tropical atmospheric circulation during the twenty-first century
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04744.html

    So if I understand correctly, anthropogenic global warming is responsible for the weakening of the Pacific trade winds, but then the subsequent increase in Pacific trade winds cause cooling.

    The science does not seem very settled here.

  6. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked
    808
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    So, @Father, you have shifted ground from falsely attributing statements to England, which you claimed were "in line with what skeptics have been saying", to now attacking his research because you are confused about how stronger trade winds might play a role in the observed hiatus in SAT.

    There are indeed many unanswered questions in climate research, as there are in all science, but they will not be answered from the paranoid starting point that scientists are engaged in some elaborate hoax.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JohnC For This Useful Post:

    BigRedV  (19-03-2014),HollyGolightly81  (18-03-2014),WorkingClassMum  (19-03-2014)

  8. #76
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
    The second quotation is not a prediction but a description of the CMIP3 model they use for one set of experiments.
    Not sure how you figure that. A model that suggests what the temperature would be in 2090-2099 is not a prediction?

  9. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
    So, @Father, you have shifted ground from falsely attributing statements to England, which you claimed were "in line with what skeptics have been saying", to now attacking his research because you are confused about how stronger trade winds might play a role in the observed hiatus in SAT.

    There are indeed many unanswered questions in climate research, as there are in all science, but they will not be answered from the paranoid starting point that scientists are engaged in some elaborate hoax.
    I did not quote England with my initial statements. But his paper did say that those statements were correct.
    ie. there has been a pause in warming, and his paper suggest that it will only warm by 2.1 degrees.

    His paper also goes directly against other papers that have been released which shows that the science clearly is not settled, despite that argument being used by many.

    England has also been a bit all over the place in recent years. In 2012, he repeatedly said that there had been no pause. His last paper in the opening sentence says that there has been. Here are some quotes for you.

    April 2012 Q&A
    What Nick just said is actually not true. The IPCC projections from 1990 have borne out very accurately.
    December 2012
    And so anybody out there lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements or that the observations haven’t kept pace with the projections is completely offline with this. The analysis is very clear that the IPCC projections are coming true.
    I'll provide the graph of predictions again.



    Now in Feb 2014
    Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001.
    At least he is now admitting what he couldn't 2 years ago. I guess he felt that he needed to based on the reason behind his research - to find a possible explanation as to why there has been no warming. It just so happens that his theory is in direct contradiction to previous theories of the exact same topic.

    Am I saying he is wrong? Not at all. It's just disappointing that he chose to ignore the pause years ago when more skeptical scientists were talking about it. It is also good to hear that scientists, including the IPCC, are now reducing their temperature predictions closer to what the skeptics have been suggesting for years.

    That is the basis of the skeptical scientists' arguments. That the threat has been overstated. CO2 will cause warming, but not to the extent that it was originally suggested. It that such a hard argument to accept?

  10. #78
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked
    808
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    I did not quote England with my initial statements. But his paper did say that those statements were correct.
    No it didn't. See my post #74. I see no point in re-arguing those points. (Hint: using a low-sensitivity model for an experiment is not making a prediction.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    CO2 will cause warming, but not to the extent that it was originally suggested.
    That's a start, except elevated CO2 levels have already caused climatogically significant warming. The IPCC is currently finalising its next report (parts of the draft have already been leaked). Given they are the body tasked with evaluating all the science being produced on this topic, I am inclined to go with their conclusions on the balance of evidence. I somehow doubt their findings will support a position of complacency.

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JohnC For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (19-03-2014),HappyBovinexx  (19-03-2014),HollyGolightly81  (19-03-2014)

  12. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
    The IPCC is currently finalising its next report (parts of the draft have already been leaked). Given they are the body tasked with evaluating all the science being produced on this topic, I am inclined to go with their conclusions on the balance of evidence. I somehow doubt their findings will support a position of complacency.
    Are you referring to AR5? Of which the summary for policymakers was released last year. Link here.
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima..._SPM_FINAL.pdf

    In regard to the accuracies of the models:

    The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012,is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is

    low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural

    internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols)
    Models overestimating the effect? Never!

    Increase of global mean surface temperatures for 2081–2100 relative to 1986–2005 is projected to likely be in the ranges derived from the concentration-driven CMIP5 model simulations, that is, 0.3°C to 1.7°C (RCP2.6), 1.1°C to 2.6°C (RCP4.5), 1.4°C to 3.1°C (RCP6.0), 2.6°C to 4.8°C (RCP8.5).
    When you look at those numbers, England's 'prediction' of 2.1 looks about right.

    Then we can look back at what they were saying in 2007 in their AR4.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4-wg1-spm.pdf

    for example, the best estimate for the low scenario (B1) is 1.8°C (likely
    range is 1.1°C to 2.9°C), and the best estimate for the high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0°C (likely range is 2.4°C to 6.4°C).
    So they reduced their predictions in that time and removed the 'best estimate'. But at least they are moving in the right direction. It just so happens that the observations are still well below IPCC projections, so it will be interesting to see how long they maintain their current predictions before, again, having to correct down.

    In 2007.
    Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.Best-estimate projections from models indicate

    that decadal average warming over each inhabited continent by 2030 is insensitive to the choice among SRES scenarios and is very likely to be at least twice

    as large as the corresponding model-estimated natural variability during the 20th century.
    That first part hasn't happened. We'll see what the next decade brings.

    The IPCC, just like Tim Flannery, is great at making predictions, but not very good at admitting when they get it wrong. They did at least admit that there was a pause in AR5 SPM:

    The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 201
    They could not avoid the obvious for ever, despite the best attempts by prominent 'experts' (England being one of them) to hide the pause.

  13. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked
    808
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Are you referring to AR5? Of which the summary for policymakers was released last year.
    No. I was referring to this:
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...318-34zpm.html


 

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming Debate is Obsolete
    By kw123 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2013, 07:07
  2. Warming formula in microwave??????
    By curiouschildcare in forum Mixed Breast & Bottle Feeding Support
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-07-2013, 21:16
  3. House warming gift
    By noopy in forum Gifts for Mums and Dads
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 16-05-2013, 11:35

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Einsteinz Music
Make music at Einsteinz Music in age-appropriate class in Sydney's Inner West, Eastern Suburbs or North Shore. For ages 6 mths - 4 yrs. All music is live! Christmas Gift certificates available for full term or casual classes. Call 0431 338 143
sales & new stuffsee all
Bub Hub Sales Listing
HAVING A SALE? Let parents know about it with a Bub Hub Sales listing. Listings are featured on our well trafficked Sales Page + selected randomly to appear on EVERY page
featured supporter
Billington Street
For stationery as unique as you are! ♥ Handmade, custom designed stationery for all of life's celebrations
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!