Warming Forecasts

Forecasting

456 Comments

One of the defenses often used by climate modelers against charges that climate is simple to complex to model accurately is that “they do it all the time in finance and economics.”  This comes today from Megan McArdle on economic forecasting:

I find this pretty underwhelming, since private forecasters also unanimously think they can make forecasts, a belief which turns out to be not very well supported.  More than one analysis of these sorts of forecasts has found them not much better than random chance, and especially prone to miss major structural changes in the economy.   Just because toggling a given variable in their model means that you produce a given outcome, does not mean you can assume that these results will be replicated in the real world.  The poor history of forecasting definitionally means that these models are missing a lot of information, and poorly understood feedback effects.

Sounds familiar, huh?  I echoed these sentiments in a comparison of economic and climate forecasting here.

456 thoughts on “Forecasting”

  1. Well, Miriam, I am always a little flummoxed when people come on here in the midst of the internet age of information and demand someone supply them with “data” or “evidence.”

    But okay, here’s the IPCC data distribution center:

    http://www.ipcc-data.org/

  6. Or, Miriam, go to any EbscoHost or Academic Premier database and click the box on “peer-review” and key in global warming or climate change; go to LexusNexus for the journalism database.

    If you want more than that you’ll have to go fishing yourself. It really only takes a couple of minutes.

    Otherwise I am not sure what you want–are you seriously unaware of the mass of stuff out there? I mean, I know that we are rhetorically jousting here, but do you seriously think that we’ve come this far only because of computer science? If you have the requisite knowledge to challenge these papers, then fine, but I would suggest you do it where the big kids play and take it to the scientific journals, peer-review your ideas, instead of playing here in the shallow end.

    Granted, this is thick stuff and would take a good deal of time to go through, but I am pretty sure that the good people here, as smart as they are, do not actually read or evaluate this stuff. Even Russ R with his statistical modeling prefers a blogsite (Woodfortrees.org) over the actual scientific data.

    Perhaps after you read through the primary evidence you will be unconvinced, but it is silly to suggest it is not there. A typical denialist tactic is to demand evidence but refuse to read it once it is posted.

  8. And I like Ted’s post, but this is more of the typical hyperbole– “It is proposed to destroy the world economy based on this uncertain science”–that seems to define the conversation. Destroy the world’s economy? Do you believe that for real? A “messianic message”? Is that a bit of an overstatement?

    And thanks, Kreo, for the paraphrase. You left out a few things, but you’re not getting paid so I guess that’s okay. But you didn’t answer an honest question: why would you believe Wally and Russ with their outdated statistical model over, say, NASA and its with its vast resources, experts, and cutting edge technology?

  9. Thanks for the links Waldo. They’ll come in handy for future reference.

    Unfortunately, exactly none of them constitute evidence of looming catastrophe without being reliant on models. (The type of models which I’ve already shown you have significantly overstated their predictions of warming).

    So, thanks for trying… and failing. Again. Good to see that repeated failure doesn’t get you down. Keep reaching for that rainbow.

    ” Even Russ R with his statistical modeling prefers a blogsite (Woodfortrees.org) over the actual scientific data.”

    Is your reading comprehension really that weak, or are you just being ignorant? I already explained that WFT simply compiles data from GISS, HADCRUT, UAH & RSS, and presents them in a standardized format.
    I provided you the original data from both GISS and UAH. So your attempt to discredit the analysis by attacking the data source is really weak… like the rest of your arguments.

    So, do you still believe that “the models are accurate”? Do you still believe that without the models, there is any evidence for catastrophic AGW?

  10. Waldo, really. I asked you to be exact. As I said, please, don’t, for example, say that there is ‘evidence from satellite, land, and sea temp measurements’. Instead, show a paper which would use these measurements to make a case for catastrophic global warming, without using models.

    All you managed in response is more vague pointers with no specifics, and in the end you are asking me to search for information backing your side by myself. “It’s out there on the Internet. It really only takes a couple of minutes to find it.” Yeah, right, we’ve all heard that line of argument before. If it only takes a couple of minutes, why don’t you point me to one specific paper and say how exactly it makes the case for catastrophic warming without using models (or just say that it does and we’ll try to figure out how from the paper)? Maybe because you can’t?

  11. Miriam Says:

    ‘Without numbers quantifying the effect of that on the climate, no.’

    Well, I thought it was obvious: practically all the warming of the climate.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

    This one supports how unnatural the levels are:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296

    And this one supports the idea that the Co2 is man-derived:

    http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

    This one is a review of lit. on ocean acidification which is catastrophic at current rates. Not all the papers are non-model ones I think:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VJ1-4YRBW6C-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d547111bb974aa3564538de9411e6d72&searchtype=a

    Some papers on the risk to biodiversity and the like:

    http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(08)00195-X

    http://www.pnas.org/content/102/42/15144.full?ck=nck

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/full/nature06777.html

    This one is non-model support of the models on sea level rise:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;321/5894/1340

    Health risks:

    http://www.decvar.org/documents/epstein.pdf

    But I think the best source would be the IPCC WG2 stuff. My articles could be a biased sample after all.

  12. Of course, he can’t. Waldo’d love it if Kreo answered his “honest question” framed as believing X over Y so that he could go back to discussing who is more worthy of believing. It’s rather obvious.

  13. …But that derails it already.

    OK, now, Waldo and Shills, please say aloud and clear – do you have any papers which make the case for catastrophic global warming without using models?

    Links or GTFO.

  24. Due to the limitations of this blog site, that amount will do. Besides, according to Russ’s standards, this amount is ample to call it ‘pretty well substantiated’. Other than that, I think the best source would be the IPCC WG2 stuff on observations. My articles could be a biased sample after all.

    And just to clarify. There is nothing seriously wrong with the models. I am not saying ‘there is non-model evidence’ to steer away from model frailties. I’m only showing that the modellers aren’t alone in their findings.

  25. “You little summary implied that new models cannot be verified but that is not true. Hindcasting is used for that.”

    I can say with confidence that anyone who believes that hindcasting can verify a model has never worked with models and knows little about them.

    How is it that all the IPCC models can hindcast reasonable well, but show climate sensitivities for a doubling of CO2 that range from 1.5Cto 4.5 C? For the answer, see this peer-reviewed article by a mainstream climate modeler: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, 2007. Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007 The article’s text can be found on google. It is discussed here: http://climateaudit.org/2007/12/01/tuning-gcms/

  26. Shill it is going to take us awhile to sort through your links, but I can get things started:

    1) “This one is a review of lit. on ocean acidification which is fairly catastrophic at current rates. Not all the papers are non-model ones I think” Ocean acidification is not related to catastrophic warming. The concern about ocean acidification exists whether or not CO2 contributes significantly to warming. It is an interesting topic in itself, but it is a different subject that can be discussed another day on another thread.

    2) “This one is non-model support of the models on sea level rise”. From the first sentence of the linked abstract : “On the basis of climate modeling and analogies with past conditions, the potential for multimeter increases in sea level by the end of the 21st century has been proposed.”

  27. Thanks Shills for contributing something substantive. I sincerely mean that. Specific citations are much better than general, unsubstantiated assertions. The onus is now on us to go through the materials you’ve provided and objectively evaluate whether they support your claim that even without models there’s evidence for catastrophic predictions.

    I’ll also thank pauld for getting the ball rolling on this, and I’ll continue from where (s)he left off.

    First, a couple of question for Shills, who wrote: “You little summary implied that new models cannot be verified but that is not true. Hindcasting is used for that.” How is ‘hindcasting’ any different from ‘tuning’? You can play around with any of the models’ inputs to find some combination that will reproduce the past data, but that doesn’t mean you’ve found the correct combination.

    Also “And just to clarify. There is nothing seriously wrong with the models.” If you judge models by the accuracy of their predictions, you have to absolutely dismiss Hansen (1988) and IPCC (1990) as shown above. You could dismiss IPCC (1995) with 85% to 98% confidence depending on which data set you test it against. You probably haven’t got enough real world data to test IPCC (2001) or (2007). So, how do you conclude “there is nothing seriously wrong with the models”? Because the people who build the models say so? Investment banks said there was nothing wrong with their risk models. Oil companies said there was nothing wrong with their safety practices. Tobacco companies said there was nothing wrong with their products. Real world evidence showed otherwise. I’ll believe the models when I see evidence that they can successfully predict future warming. Both your attempts and mine to find such evidence have been unsuccessful.

    Back to the papers/links:

    3) “And this one supports the idea that the Co2 is man-derived:
    http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf “

    and

    4) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

    I’ve grouped these two together because they’re making the same point, recent high CO2 concentrations are man-made, which is entirely valid but of little relevance.

    I’m already familiar with carbon isotope concentrations and have long ago concluded that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is largely man-made. I wouldn’t say “entirely” man-made because ocean warming (which was underway before any significant fossil fuel use) also increases atmospheric CO2 concentrations as gas solubility decreases. This is likely the same mechanism that caused CO2 fluctuations recorded in ice cores, long before “man-made” amounted to anything beyond stone tools.

    So, out of C+A+GW, these two references only support the “A”, and by extension from other well-established science, the GW (with certainty in direction, but not in magnitude). However, we’re not asking for evidence of AGW, we asked you to focus on the “C”. If there is any evidence of looming catastrophe to be found in these references please do point it out.

  28. One more:

    3) http://www.pnas.org/content/102/42/15144.full?ck=nck

    The article is named “Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought”. The operative phrase connecting the article to global warming is: “if temperatures continue to warm, vegetation die-off in response to future drought may be further amplified”. In other words, if it gets warmer, more trees will die.

    Excuse me, Shills, but we were asking about the case for catastrophic global warming. Where exactly does the article predict that it will get warmer? If you want to say that more dead trees means more carbon in the atmosphere, please go ahead, but unless you supplement your argument with actual numbers you aren’t making the case for catastrophic global warming. This article does not even attempt to make this case, so please stop pretending that it does.

  29. Shill:

    Most of the papers you cite deal with potential effects of significant global warming, not with whether significant, let alone catastrophic, warming is likely to occur. We’re are not looking to speculations about what might occur if significant warming occurs. We are looking for evidence apart from the models that significant warming is likely to occur.

    Take a look at the titles of most of your articles:

    Synergies among extinction drivers under global change

    Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought

    Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change

    Biological and Physical Signs
    of Climate Change: Focus on
    Mosquito-borne Diseases

    As far as I can see, only one article is on point: “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition” The article is on point in that it attempts to estimate climate sensitivity independently from the global climate computer models. The abstract indicates that based on evidence from paleoclimatology studies, the authors suggests “a 95% likelihood of warming between 1.3 and 2.3 K due to doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2.”
    It will take awhile to read the article, although I would note: 1) the range of climate sensitivities estimated by the authors would be at the low end of the estimates of the IPCC. Some people argue that a climate sensitivity above 2 degrees would be difficult to manage so the high-end of the estimated range might be consistent with catastrophic AGW. 2) that the low-end of the estimated range is certainly consistent with the “luke warm” position I think is advocated by most people here.

  30. I find the paper by Breshears et al “Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought”, very interesting, but probably for a different reason than the authors intended.

    Summary: The paper assesses mortality in a specific type of tree, in the western US, during a period of drought that was relatively warm. The die-off was principally due to infestation of a particular type of beetle, which is said to have a propensity to proliferate during dry periods. The paper concludes that “if temperatures continue to warm, vegetation die-off in response to future drought may be further amplified”.

    What I find fascinating is that, while the author’s conclusion is a bit of a stretch of reasoning, it arrives at exactly the opposite of one of the premises that climate scientists expect us to accept as gospel, namely warmer temperatures are a positive factor for vegetation resulting in wider annual tree rings.

  31. Nice catch, Russ.

    I’d like to elaborate on notes made by PaulD in regards to “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition”.

    As it has been said, the paper arrives at an estimate of climate sensitivity in the range of 1.3 to 2.3. The estimate of climate sensitivity characterizing catastrophic global warming used by IPCC is much higher, 2.0 to 4.5. Saying that the range of 1.3 to 2.3 also suggests catastrophic global warming is a bit disingenuous, the argument that warming with a climate sensitivity in that range will be catastrophic has not been made.

  32. At eh start of the reformation when Catholic mysticism and superstition was challenged, Catholics would convene boards of priests and clerics to discuss the reformation challenges and quesitons.
    Not suprisingly they found that the relics really did have miraculous powers, and that everything they believed was true.
    Sort of like the studies done by AGW true believers that conlude that by golly AGW is really true.

  33. So, a summary of Shills’ links:

    1. [realclimate] How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
    “Most of increase in CO2 is man-made” – OK. Where’s the case for catastrophic global warming?

    2. [sciencemag] Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years
    “There was a time during last 20 million years when CO2 was as high as now, and it was 3 to 6 degrees warmer then.” – So? There has been plenty of time when CO2 levels were higher than now, sometimes it was colder and sometimes warmer. Where’s the case?

    3. [bgc] Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research
    “Did we say already that most of increase in CO2 is man-made?” – Yep. So, where’s the case, Shills?

    4. [agu] Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition
    “Climate sensitivity is between 1.3 and 2.3” – Good. IPCC’s case for catastrophic global warming uses much higher values. Where’s the case with these values?

    5. [sciencedirect] Paleo-perspectives on ocean acidification
    “CO2 leads to ocean acidification, which is bad” – OK. Shills, we were talking about global warming, remember?

    6. [cell] Synergies among extinction drivers under global change
    “Global warming can make some species go extinct” – All right. Where’s the case for catastrophic global warming?

    7. [pnas] Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought
    “Warming might cause more plants to die” – Uh, OK. Shills? You promised us papers showing that there will be warming in the first place. Where are these papers?

    8. [nature] Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change
    “Climate change contributed to the unprecedented extent and severity of this …” – Shills! Where’s the case for catastrophic global warming??!

    9. [sciencemag] Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise
    “On the basis of climate modeling …” – Argh! You said there was plenty of evidence to make the case for catastrophic global warming *without the use of models*. This papers *does use* models. Where’re papers that don’t use models and still make the case, which you said there were plenty of?

    10. [decvar] Biological and Physical Signs of Climate Change: Focus on Mosquito-borne Diseases
    “Climate change has biological implications” – All right. Still no case for catastrophic global warming.

    Rolling on…

  34. Bravo, Kreo. I was on my 6th link and was going to post the same summary. This saves me the effort.

    The only links that were at all relevant to the question posed to Shills are #4 and maybe #9, but all graphs and estimates demo’ed for catastrophic global warming use numbers much higher than those derived in #4 (and it is not at all apparent that numbers in #4 could produce catastrophic predictions) and #9 is spoiled by use of models.

  35. Sometimes it is helpful in debate to clarify areas of agreement so that time can be focused on areas of dispute. I don’t want to put words in other people’s mouths, but I suspect that nearly everyone on this forum could agree with the following propositions:
    1) During the period in which instrument records exisit, there has been an observed increase in average global temperatures. The extent of that increase is subject to debate due to the effects of land-use changes, urban heat island effects, and a variety of issues with siting of temperature stations and their number.
    2) There has been a significant increase in the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere and human-caused CO2 emissions play a significant role in the increase.
    3) CO2, along with other gases such as methane, are greenhouse gases. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have likely contributed to the global warming that has been observed.
    4) Changes in temperatures and CO2 concentrations have a wide variety of effects on eco-systems and the environment. Some of those effects are negative and some are positive.
    Here is an additional proposition that I think are well-established by the scientific literature, but may be disputed by some people here:
    1) Climate scientists have attempted to estimate the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations. Despite a rather intense effort using a computer models, estimates from paleoclimatology and estimates from current observations, scientists have not reached any meaningful consensus on the issue and are not likely to reach such a consensus in the foreseeable future. There remains a wide range climate sensitivity estimates that cannot be ruled out. The possible range suggests anything from inconsequential warming to catastrophic warming.

  36. I wouldn’t dismiss #9 (Pfeffer et al, “Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise”) for being model-based… the abstract is ambiguous in that regard. By my reading, the authors are refuting predictions of “multimeter” SLR by 2100:

    The abstract states: “On the basis of climate modeling and analogies with past conditions, the potential for multimeter increases in sea level by the end of the 21st century has been proposed. We consider glaciological conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude that increases in excess of 2 meters are physically untenable. We find that a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters by 2100 could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly accelerated to extremely high limits. More plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to total sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8 meter.”

    A very insightful discussion (including a response from the authors) can be found here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/on-straw-men-and-greenland-tad-pfeffer-responds/

    Conclusion (from both sides of the discussion): You can safely disregard anyone who claims multi-meter increases in sea-level by 2100. Centimeters is the more appropriate unit of measure.

  37. PaulD:

    Good call on clarifying points of agreement.

    I’d completely agree with all four of your propositions, and I imagine that the others here will agree as well.

    As for your 1 additional proposition, I’d accept the first half as true “limate scientists have attempted to estimate the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations. Despite a rather intense effort using a computer models, estimates from paleoclimatology and estimates from current observations, scientists have not reached any meaningful consensus on the issue”. The last bit I have a problem with, specifically “…and are not likely to reach such a consensus in the foreseeable future. There remains a wide range climate sensitivity estimates that cannot be ruled out. The possible range suggests anything from inconsequential warming to catastrophic warming.”

    There does remain a wide range of estimates, but those at the high end (>2.5 deg C per doubling of CO2) CAN be ruled out, in two ways. First, through observing the CO2 / temperature relationship in the past (as shown in #4 above by Chylek and Lohmann), and second, by the repeated failure of models that assume high values of climate sensitivity to predict real-world temperature increases (as statistically tested above).

    So, when the possible range for climate sensitivity estimates is reduced from 2.0-4.5 to a range of 1.0-2.5, the case for catastrophic warming becomes substantially weaker.

  38. Just a note to clarify my position on my last proposition. I am quite sqarely in the “luke warming” camp (i.e. I think range of climate sensitivities is in the low range rather than the high range).

    I may, however, have a view different from your view of the evidence required to rule out the high climate sensitivities estimates. There are climate models with high sensitivities that are able to model the relatively low increase in observed global average temperatures. How this can be is hinted at in my ealier post where I wrote:

    “How is it that all the IPCC models can hindcast reasonable well, but show climate sensitivities for a doubling of CO2 that range from 1.5Cto 4.5 C? For the answer, see this peer-reviewed article by a mainstream climate modeler: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, 2007. Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007 The article’s text can be found on google. It is discussed here: http://climateaudit.org/2007/12/01/tuning-gcms/”

    The answer as explained in the article by Mr. Kiehl is that the amount and effect of aerosols is not well understood. Models with high climate sensitivities assume that there are high levels of aerosols in the atmosphere that are exerting a significant dampering effect on current temperatures. Because the amount of aeresols and their effect are poorly understood and poorly documented, I don’t think this dampering effect of aerosols in the high sensitivity models can be ruled out as completely implausible.
    I agree that the high sensitivity models have not made good predictions and their ability to hindcast is a reflection of “tuning” so I don’t put much stock in them. I am not, however, certain at the point that I can say the assumptions they incorporate have been empirically ruled out.
    As to paleoclimatology estimates of climate sensitivities, my recollection is that there are some that would support high climate sensitivities. For a variety of reasons, I don’t find them very convincing. Among other things, they require assumptions about past climates that cannot be empirically verified. Nevertheless, the high climate senstivities exist in the paleoclimatology literature and I don’t feel qualified to outright dismiss them.

  39. Waldomuse: I assume from your disdainful comment about destroying the world economy that you know of viable alternative energy schemes to replace transportation fuels on a large scale. I would be interested to hear about them. I have not found anything that is viable on a large scale. Small scale wind and solar are only OK as long as the huge existing thermal power system backs it up. If large scale wind/solar are carried out, dedicated backup must be built and kept on standby, rendering the whole idea economically absurd.

    Biofuels are limited by land area and the fuel consumption of growing and converting the material to fuel. Note the corn ethanol fiasco. Deisel from palm oil, ethanol from cellulose, algae, etc. all have serious problems similar to corn ethanol. Most consume more energy than they produce. There are serious technical and enviro problems as well.

    Similarly, if you run the numbers, hydrogen is a joke. If the natural gas used to make H2 was simply burned in an engine in the first place, you would be better off.

    Electric cars are also very questionable. Are you willing to pay $40,000 for a car that saves 0.8 gallons of gasoline at the start of each trip? It uses about $1.50 worth of electricity to do this.

    I can go on and on, but you get the idea.

    Perhaps you or someone else has a scheme that will pass engineering and economic examination. In the meantime, it is reckless to push ahead with any cap of fossil fuel production and wreck the economy.

    Also, do you have some idea on how to convince the Indians and Chinese to get on board the carbon cap idea?

    I am serious with these questions, and not just trying to be argumentive.

  40. Great Gravy! Look at the thread go! We have certainly reinvigorated Mr. Meyer’s waning blog. Forgive me if I miss your response to something–there’s a lot here to go over.

    ****”I assume from your disdainful comment about destroying the world economy that you know of viable alternative energy schemes to replace transportation fuels on a large scale.”

    Huh? Never said anything of the sort. But it does seem to me that you have exaggerated just a wee bit there, Ted. If you, like many, feel that the cost of fighting climate change is better spent elsewhere (on AIDS or famine or Mew Orleans or alternate fuels or whatever), then fine–I might actually be on board. But “destroying the world economy”? Your serious questions are excellent and ones which I have no answer for and which probably no one does.

    We do not need to tip off the deep end however, which seems to be a tenet of this kind of commentary.

  41. @ Kreo Sept 7, 8:41am

    Mass man-made CO2, ocean acidification, some species go extinct, warming might cause more plants to die, Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback contribute to the unprecedented extent and severity of this, Climate change has biological implications

    And there’s no evidence of catastrophic global warming here?

    How catastrophic does it need to be to make a denialist happy these days?

  42. Miriam, what is not “exact” in the links I posted? You asked for evidence that is not the product of modeling and there it is. Even if modeling is a mainstay of climate science, which it is (probably because no one has invented a crystal ball to determine what will happen in the future, so one must model), I fail to see what the problem with models is…oh wait, Russ R proved unequivocally that models cannot be trusted.

    Interestingly, I re-posted his equations above on Real Climate and they were not as impressed with Russ’ T Stats as the good people here are.

    Interesting.

  43. Re. Ocean acidification. Wow, I didn’t know we were being so literal. ocean acidification is generally clumped in with the whole climate change thing. That is why the IPCC includes it.

    You still doubt that we are the ones warming the planet, Kreo?

    We know that Co2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that the energy is being absorbed at the wavelength of our emissions. We know the radiation from these sources are warming the earth.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

  45. Miriam. So an estimate of 2. or more degrees constitute ‘catastrophic’? Fine. For some other non-model papers that support climate sensitivity over the 2 degrees mark:

    http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1993/1993_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

    You guys don’t think extinction, mosquito/health threats and are catastrophic? What exactly do you mean by catastrophic?

    Now, I know Russ only needs 2 examples to call something substantiated so I think that is available for him, but if I haven’t addressed all your issues you can remind me later.

    And again, you guys have not shown how hindcasting is flawed, you just say it is. Tuning of the sought you guys imply does not happen because it is blatantly unscientific. Any additions to models are made on the basis of the physics understood, not whether it might simply make the fit closer.

  47. “Miriam, what is not ‘exact’ in the links I posted? You asked for evidence that is not the product of modeling and there it is.”

    I and others asked for non-model evidence that the Earth is going to warm to catastrophic levels. Where is it?

    You keep pretending that you don’t understand what is being asked of you. Perhaps it is not apparent to you that anybody who cares to read what is written in this thread can easily see through that pretense.

  48. “Miriam. So an estimate of 2. or more degrees constitute ‘catastrophic’? Fine.”

    No. Not fine. This is the exact opposite of what I said. I said that nobody made the case for catastrophic global warming using the estimates of climate sensitivity that are as low as in the paper you brought. Predictions from IPCC use much higher values. If you think that IPCC or someone else could have made the case for catastrophic global warming (eg, paint all those scary graphs) using low values cited in the paper, be my guest, but please point me to a paper which does it.

    Stop playing games and putting words into my mouth.

  49. I know this was aimed at Kreo, but that’s just too amusing to pass up.

    Waldo:

    “@Kreo Sept 7, 8:41am

    Mass man-made CO2, ocean acidification, some species go extinct, warming might cause more plants to die, Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback contribute to the unprecedented extent and severity of this, Climate change has biological implications

    And there’s no evidence of catastrophic global warming here?”

    Where? I was asking you to be specific for more than a day now. Which of the papers you mention above provides evidence that we are going to have catastrophic global warming? The one that tells us that if it warms, some species might go extinct? Or the one that tells us that if it warms, the outbreaks of mountain pine beetles will get more severe?

    To borrow a phrase from Shills, LOL.

  50. I will mention once again that Shills and Waldo are here not to have a meaningful debate, but to mince words. They will say that there is a lot of evidence that the climate is going to warm to unprecedented levels without models, then cite papers describing how bad such warming would be as evidence that this warming is going to occur, all with a straight face. The next hundred posts will be on how Shills and Waldo offered a plethora of links in favor of their argument but the people in the “deniers” camp just couldn’t decipher these papers and made their flawed conclusions, and how this all is really unsurprising because the “deniers” are not experts. Shills and Waldo are a waste of time, plain and simple.

Comments are closed.