Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Simply Uncertain

Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 07:10 GMT le 21 février 2012

+11

Simply Uncertain

This past week I had a short letter published in Scientific American. The letter concerned a statement made in an article that climate models do not include clouds. This is an incorrect statement that has been around for many years, and it shows up, in my experience, in more science-focused publications. I remember an exchange of letters in Physics Today in 2005. As best as I can tell, the statement is traced to a historical document that stated the first climate models written in the late 1960s contained specified clouds – meaning that they did not change as the climate changed. By the end of the 1970s, cloud parameterizations were becoming standard in climate models, and the interplay between clouds and solar radiation emerged in the 1980s as one of the most important metrics of model performance.

My letter goes on to state that the uncertainty in climate projections associated with the physical climate model is smaller than the uncertainty associated with the models of emission scenarios that are used to project carbon dioxide emissions. This statement is worthy of more discussion. Let me start with a couple of reminders. In all of these endeavors looking to the future we use models. Models are constructed based on observed behavior and are tools for projecting future outcomes. By “physical climate model” I mean a mathematical representation based on the laws of physics. Most simply, in this case, how is solar energy absorbed by the Earth, redistributed, and then emitted back to space? More generally, laws that govern physics, chemistry and biology are incorporated into climate models.

Another important ingredient in making climate projections is what is our future emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? “Emission scenario” models are based on assumptions of population growth, economic development and sources of energy to drive the economy. Historically, one type of scenario is called “business as usual” and simply extrapolates curves of past energy use into the future. If we take emission curves that, for example, stop in 2005 and project them forward, we see that in the last couple of years we are ahead of those emissions. Generally, business as usual is assumed to be the worst case. We have several emission models based on various assumptions about development and deployment of technology. Current efforts in climate science are striving to make emission models and physical climate models talk to each other – to interact.

Physical climate models are based on the laws of physics and that does provide strategies for determining cause and effect. If cause and effect can be determined to a high degree of certainty, then we can be quite certain about predictions. The economic models, that I know, are based on observations of economic systems that are then represented through a set of mathematical relationships. These relationships are often represented by statistical methods, strive to represent human behavior, and include measures of value that rely on how much humans value something. In atmospheric science, for example, there are a set of “primitive equations” which all agree describe the motion of the atmosphere. Such a set of physically derived equations do not sit at the basis of economic projections. I hope I have stayed out of trouble here. As in a number of previous entries, I draw your attention to Daniel Farber’s Climate Models: A User’s Guide. Farber is neither climate scientist or economist, a fact that I always view as providing a measure of objective evaluation. He evaluates model robustness.

I want to discuss this uncertainty issue a little bit more, and will rely on an old standard figure from the 2001 IPCC Report. This figure has a lot of information about uncertainty.

Figure 1: From 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report Variations of the Earth’s surface temperature: year 1000 to year 2100

The figure shows the temperature since the year 1000 forward to year 2100. The temperatures from the past are from observations of different types. The temperatures in the future are from model projections. There are a set of different physical climate models all using a standard set of emission scenarios. I have marked three types of uncertainty on the figure.

In light blue I point to a measure of observational uncertainty. This is the gray spread around the bold red temperature line. This gets smaller as more and more observations become available over time. Going into the future there are the individual colored lines of different models and on the right of the figure are the ranges associated with those models for the set of emission scenarios. The envelope of all of the models with all of the emission scenarios is pointed out by the green arrows. A simple estimate of uncertainty is the spread of the models. This uncertainty grows with time, and the spread when all of the scenarios are included is larger than the spread of any individual model. If one were to look at the individual models, you would see much the same thing. In the absence of different scenarios the models would have a significantly more narrow spread.

There are a number of important points in this simple approach to thinking about uncertainty. Looking at the spread of all models with all scenarios, the spread at, say, 30 years in the future is quite well defined by the lines of the individual models. It takes 30 or 40 years before the difference in the scenarios makes a difference. As a rule of thumb a simple description of uncertainty is that in the next couple of decades “internal variability,” that is, the spread is mostly due to things like El Nino and La Nina is most important. Then there is a length of time where the spread is due mostly to model differences. And as time approaches a century or longer, the spread due to emission scenarios begins to dominate. I note that model differences are always important, and that this difference is strongly related to details of the treatment of clouds. This uncertainty is expressed in how fast does it warm?

The physical climate model is like a telescope into the future; it provides actionable knowledge the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. As the models improve, that future comes into more and more focus. There are physical relationships that allow a high degree of confidence to be attributed to some aspects of climate projections. For example, the surface of the globe will warm, in any carbon dioxide emission scenario. On this global scale, both model uncertainty and emission scenario uncertainty address the issue of how fast the surface will warm. Neither suggest any plausible scenario where the Earth does not warm. And simply to make the point, this plot does not suggest that the warming stops at 2100; that's just as far as the information is plotted. At local spatial scales, scales for which the models were not designed, the uncertainty analysis follows a much different logic than presented here.

r

Old Entry on Uncertainty and Definition of Model Types

Categories: Climate Models

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 51 - 101

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 — Blog Index

51. JupiterKen 23:40 GMT le 23 février 2012
Quoting spbloom: Sadly, I did. This is pathetic. A bunch of mostly-elderly guys with little in the way of science education arguing against working PhD physicists. "Tallbloke," his commenters, and you, Jupiter Ken, are quite insane. But you can take solace in having lots of company. Specifics please. Member Since: 3 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

52. JupiterKen 23:59 GMT le 23 février 2012
Tell me spbloom, is this a snip of a "quite insane" comment? "As far as GHGs are concerned Joel suggests that an increase causes a rise in the effective radiating height (lets assume he is right on that) but in that situation no more energy is being added to the system from the sun so in theory that should cause overall cooling due to a decline in total system energy content.%u201D You are running yourself in circles here. Let me describe the process by which warming occurs in more detail. For simplicity, imagine an instantaneous increase in GHGs (say, a doubling of CO2 levels). Before this increase, the Earth was in radiative balance (emitting and absorbing 240 W/m^2). After this increase, the Earth will no longer be in radiative balance because the effective emission layer (i.e., the layer from which radiation can successfully escape to space without being re-absorbed again) is higher in the atmosphere and thus colder. Since this layer is colder, it emits less radiation to space, so that the Earth is now emitting 236 W/m^2 while still absorbing 240 W/m^2 from the sun. Since the Earth atmosphere is now receiving 4 W/m^2 more than it is emitting, it will warm up. As it warms, the amount that it emits back into space increases until the average temperature at the new effective radiating level is equal to the average temperature at the old effective radiating level (255 K) before the CO2 increase occurred. At this point, radiative balance has been restored but the temperature throughout the troposphere has increased (to the first approximation in a way that maintains the same lapse rate it had before)." What in particular makes you say so? Added: Maybe you can go to Tallbloke's blog and straighten them out? Member Since: 3 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

53. nymore 00:52 GMT le 24 février 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: Lots of facts, lots of truth. You may disagree--and I thought you might--but the facts are: 1) Heartland is an organization--one of many--that exists for the sole purpose of obfuscating the truth about CO2-induced warming. 2) Heartland is funded in large part by fossil fuel interests, interests that will rake in continued hundreds of billions of dollars in profit for every year the scientific truth about warming is kept obfuscated. Aside from that, my analysis/synopsis of the WUWT post was dead on. So how about you tell me where I lied? Heartland is Funded in large part by fossil fuel interests? Can you back up that allegation. From the papers released by Gleick this would not seem to be the case. What is the problem with companies making profits. No profit, no business I'm not calling you a liar but lets just say you lie a lot. Member Since: 6 juillet 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2048

55. Neapolitan 03:11 GMT le 24 février 2012
Quoting nymore: Heartland is Funded in large part by fossil fuel interests? Can you back up that allegation. From the papers released by Gleick this would not seem to be the case. What is the problem with companies making profits. No profit, no business I'm not calling you a liar but lets just say you lie a lot. For the hundredth--thousandth?--time, there's nothing wrong with a company making a profit; that's part of the free enterprise system. However, there is something profoundly wrong with a company--or an industry--lying and manipulating and hiding evidence of the destruction they're causing. That's not free enterprise; that's cheating, and it's wrong. Is there some part of that you don't/can't/won't understand? Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11157

56. Neapolitan 03:19 GMT le 24 février 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4: I plus that up every time you post it, I'm consistent. I'm glad to see we're all in agreement that subsidies and central economic planning and the neoliberal economic cronyism of bureaucrats picking the winners and losers is totally unfair - whether it be the Big 5 oil companies or Solyndra or SunPower, wrong is wrong no matter who the perpetrators. I'm glad to see you all coming around and agreeing that the merger of State and corporate interests that by definition is fascism or more appropriately called Corporatism as Mussolini put it, is not the direction we want to see this world headed and that genuine free markets with voluntary exchanges of what the markets bear for products and services, of which this country has never really seen-would be the fairest socioeconmic system we humans that are inherently selfish could ever really hope for, or is the centrally planned top down crony-collectivist Neoliberal(in the economic sense of the word) feudalist public-private-partnership fascist model alright only if the guys whom you believe to be on your team the ones perpetuating it? Solyndra again, huh? Every time I hear someone equate the Solyndra loan guarantee with Big Energy's constant gifts of enormous bags o'cash, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Even if the amounts involved were the same--which they most certainly are not--there's no denying the fact that one bit if financial aid goes to an industry that's trying to clean up the planet, while the other goes to one trying to destroy it. Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11157

57. spbloom 05:11 GMT le 24 février 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: Tell me spbloom, is this a snip of a "quite insane" comment? "As far as GHGs are concerned Joel suggests that an increase causes a rise in the effective radiating height (lets assume he is right on that) but in that situation no more energy is being added to the system from the sun so in theory that should cause overall cooling due to a decline in total system energy content.%u201D You are running yourself in circles here. Let me describe the process by which warming occurs in more detail. For simplicity, imagine an instantaneous increase in GHGs (say, a doubling of CO2 levels). Before this increase, the Earth was in radiative balance (emitting and absorbing 240 W/m^2). After this increase, the Earth will no longer be in radiative balance because the effective emission layer (i.e., the layer from which radiation can successfully escape to space without being re-absorbed again) is higher in the atmosphere and thus colder. Since this layer is colder, it emits less radiation to space, so that the Earth is now emitting 236 W/m^2 while still absorbing 240 W/m^2 from the sun. Since the Earth atmosphere is now receiving 4 W/m^2 more than it is emitting, it will warm up. As it warms, the amount that it emits back into space increases until the average temperature at the new effective radiating level is equal to the average temperature at the old effective radiating level (255 K) before the CO2 increase occurred. At this point, radiative balance has been restored but the temperature throughout the troposphere has increased (to the first approximation in a way that maintains the same lapse rate it had before)." What in particular makes you say so? Added: Maybe you can go to Tallbloke's blog and straighten them out? JK, are you even reading your own links? The passage you quote is quite correct, but is from one of the two physicists participating (recall that I mentioned them), in response to a comment by Stephen Wilde. Note how Tallbloke, Wilde and everyone else there are in violent disagreement, and believe they are on the verge of some breakthrough completely overturning some pretty fundamental aspects of radiative and atmospheric physics that have been settled science for over a century. They are, in a word, crackpots. As for why I don't bother trying to set them straight, I believe I mentioned that they were already ignoring two PhD physicists. I wouldn't add much to that other than to just make fun of them, and Tallbloke, sadly, is a pretty heavy-handed censor for someone allegedly so devoted to the free flow of information. But at least I have you, here, so I don't fell entirely deprived. Member Since: 12 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 298

58. LowerCal 05:23 GMT le 24 février 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: I find it amazing the number of people that fail to understand the difference between a tax credit and a subsidy. It seems to be a disease of the whacko greens and alarmists. Which one is Chris Edwards, editor of a blog about government downsizing for the libertarian Cato Institute? Here's what he has to say about them: “Tax credits by definition are unjustified distortions from my point of view,” said Chris Edwards, editor of a Cato Institute blog about government downsizing. “They can be damaging subsidies, just like spending subsidies.” Member Since: 26 juillet 2006 Posts: 58 Comments: 8972

59. JupiterKen 10:40 GMT le 24 février 2012
Quoting spbloom: JK, are you even reading your own links? The passage you quote is quite correct, but is from one of the two physicists participating (recall that I mentioned them), in response to a comment by Stephen Wilde. Note how Tallbloke, Wilde and everyone else there are in violent disagreement, and believe they are on the verge of some breakthrough completely overturning some pretty fundamental aspects of radiative and atmospheric physics that have been settled science for over a century. They are, in a word, crackpots. As for why I don't bother trying to set them straight, I believe I mentioned that they were already ignoring two PhD physicists. I wouldn't add much to that other than to just make fun of them, and Tallbloke, sadly, is a pretty heavy-handed censor for someone allegedly so devoted to the free flow of information. But at least I have you, here, so I don't fell entirely deprived. If you cannot show them the errors in their statements without making fun of them, then I suppose you should not. It does trivialize your protestations. Your free flow is not so free or flowing is it? Added: Your insults and name-calling flows quite freely, however. Typical of your kind Member Since: 3 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

60. JupiterKen 10:52 GMT le 24 février 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: For the hundredth--thousandth?--time, there's nothing wrong with a company making a profit; that's part of the free enterprise system. However, there is something profoundly wrong with a company--or an industry--lying and manipulating and hiding evidence of the destruction they're causing. That's not free enterprise; that's cheating, and it's wrong. Is there some part of that you don't/can't/won't understand? So, you cannot actually back-up your claim of Heartland Institute funding? Saying things that are untrue is called lying. You extremists are good at that. Member Since: 3 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

61. Neapolitan 12:52 GMT le 24 février 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: So, you cannot actually back-up your claim of Heartland Institute funding? Saying things that are untrue is called lying. You extremists are good at that. I'm ignoring him because, as I've said in the past, his behavior is a bit too erratic, and I wasn't aware of the forum rule that said I was required to respond to every denialist rant or third-grade insult. So the issue: are you too now disputing what I wrote to Mr. Erratic? That is, "Heartland is funded in large part by fossil fuel interests"? Are you sure this is a road down which you'd like to travel? Now, before you answer, note that I didn't say "funded primarily by" or "funded for the largest part by" or "funded only by"; I specifically said, "in large part by". So, again I'll ask: are you sure this is a road you'd like to travel? Yeah, that's kinda what I thought. ;-) Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11157

62. JupiterKen 13:50 GMT le 24 février 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: I'm ignoring him because, as I've said in the past, his behavior is a bit too erratic, and I wasn't aware of the forum rule that said I was required to respond to every denialist rant or third-grade insult. So the issue: are you too now disputing what I wrote to Mr. Erratic? That is, "Heartland is funded in large part by fossil fuel interests"? Are you sure this is a road down which you'd like to travel? Now, before you answer, note that I didn't say "funded primarily by" or "funded for the largest part by" or "funded only by"; I specifically said, "in large part by". So, again I'll ask: are you sure this is a road you'd like to travel? Yeah, that's kinda what I thought. ;-) You thought wrong. Show us the data. Member Since: 3 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

63. NeapolitanFan 15:15 GMT le 24 février 2012
Another failed IPCC prediction. I'm not sure they've ever made a correct prediction: Link Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

64. Xandra 21:38 GMT le 24 février 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan: Another failed IPCC prediction. I'm not sure they've ever made a correct prediction: Link I guess you found the link at WUWT. Am I right? ;) The new paper does not support Miskolczi's theory of saturated greenhouse effect. More about his theory here The paper ”Surface Water Vapor Pressure and Temperature Trends in North America during 1948-2010” confirms the warming trend of 0.2 C/decade predicted by the IPCC: ”The temperature (water vapor pressure) trends averaged over all stations were 0.30 (0.07), 0.24 (0.06), 0.13 (0.11), 0.11 (0.07) C/decade (hPa/decade) in the winter, spring, summer and autumn seasons, respectively. The averages of these seasonal trends are 0.20 C/decade and 0.07 hPa/decade which correspond to a specific humidity increase of 0.04 g/kg per decade and a relative humidity reduction of 0.5%/decade.” Member Since: 22 novembre 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 758

65. KRT579 22:02 GMT le 24 février 2012
I try to remind people of these facts when ever I get an appropriate forum: Climate change is the norm for the earth; humans adapted most recently about 15K years ago during the last global big warming event when the sea level rose dramatically. (Here in Maine, the sea shore used to be up to 100 miles inland, as recently as 12K years ago). As documented in the book "Europe Between the Oceans", some people moved north to maintain the same climate (e.g., Eskimos, Laplanders), while others stayed put, eventually leading to farming (I know, I have simplified it here). I don't understand why everyone thinks that humans, with their technological advancements today, will be unable to adapt. Look at New Orleans, they have survived for hundreds of years being below sea level using rudimentary technology. Yes, that city's existence has been and will continue to be tenuous, but its funny how humans persevere, isn't it? Why is the affect of climate change on ecosystems always viewed as a loss? It is a zero sum game, with some ecosystems and their inhabitants expanding while others will decline, sometimes leading to extinction (remember the saber toothed tiger?). Why is the existing ecosystem somehow more valuable than the one that will takes its place? Wouldn't the boreal forest expand at the expense of the polar bear habitat, increasing song bird populations? Much of the fear seems predicated on the assumption that we are living in the best global climate for humans, when it is the other way around. We have adapted successfully to the current climate, and would have no matter what the climate was, and in fact occupy areas with a wide range of threatening conditions ranging from monsoons to tornadoes. Again, why the assumption that most people will suffer? We will not reduce our emissions in any meaningful time frame; our global society is too closely intertwined with emission-based energy whether we are talking about fire pits in Africa or power plants in the US. We need to talk more about adaptative strategies. Why are none of the climate scientists insisting that engineers and economists start studying methods to adapt to higher sea levels, more rain, etc., to reduce potential suffering? Finally, I never hear about what happens AFTER the climate changes. What, are we all going to go back to hunter-gatherer societies, or maybe the Planet of the Apes (love that scene where the Statue of Liberty is buried on the beach)? Seriously, NO ONE ever acknowledges that life will continue, we will adapt, and at some point the climate will change again, whether caused by us or natural. Guess I am just tired of hearing people pounding the table about the horrors of future climate change. Geologist Keith Taylor Member Since: 16 février 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 0

66. NeapolitanFan 22:33 GMT le 24 février 2012
A message from the world's greatest climatologist: Link Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

67. martinitony 22:36 GMT le 24 février 2012
I'm trying hard to understand. If temperatures are as cold as they have been in the last 10 years and Arctic ice extent is as high as it's been at this time in the last 5, WTF are you guys talking about? Is Dr. Rood concerned he will lose a source of income? Is that why this blog still exists? Really, this is just a joke. You even have guys fabricating stuff. See here: Link Temperature Link Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 928

68. Some1Has2BtheRookie 22:44 GMT le 24 février 2012
Quoting KRT579: I try to remind people of these facts when ever I get an appropriate forum: Climate change is the norm for the earth; humans adapted most recently about 15K years ago during the last global big warming event when the sea level rose dramatically. (Here in Maine, the sea shore used to be up to 100 miles inland, as recently as 12K years ago). As documented in the book "Europe Between the Oceans", some people moved north to maintain the same climate (e.g., Eskimos, Laplanders), while others stayed put, eventually leading to farming (I know, I have simplified it here). I don't understand why everyone thinks that humans, with their technological advancements today, will be unable to adapt. Look at New Orleans, they have survived for hundreds of years being below sea level using rudimentary technology. Yes, that city's existence has been and will continue to be tenuous, but its funny how humans persevere, isn't it? Why is the affect of climate change on ecosystems always viewed as a loss? It is a zero sum game, with some ecosystems and their inhabitants expanding while others will decline, sometimes leading to extinction (remember the saber toothed tiger?). Why is the existing ecosystem somehow more valuable than the one that will takes its place? Wouldn't the boreal forest expand at the expense of the polar bear habitat, increasing song bird populations? Much of the fear seems predicated on the assumption that we are living in the best global climate for humans, when it is the other way around. We have adapted successfully to the current climate, and would have no matter what the climate was, and in fact occupy areas with a wide range of threatening conditions ranging from monsoons to tornadoes. Again, why the assumption that most people will suffer? We will not reduce our emissions in any meaningful time frame; our global society is too closely intertwined with emission-based energy whether we are talking about fire pits in Africa or power plants in the US. We need to talk more about adaptative strategies. Why are none of the climate scientists insisting that engineers and economists start studying methods to adapt to higher sea levels, more rain, etc., to reduce potential suffering? Finally, I never hear about what happens AFTER the climate changes. What, are we all going to go back to hunter-gatherer societies, or maybe the Planet of the Apes (love that scene where the Statue of Liberty is buried on the beach)? Seriously, NO ONE ever acknowledges that life will continue, we will adapt, and at some point the climate will change again, whether caused by us or natural. Guess I am just tired of hearing people pounding the table about the horrors of future climate change. Geologist Keith Taylor Earth's global climate has changed several times before. Anytime the change has been gradual then life was able to adapt. Anytime the change was abrupt, there would be mass extinctions. We are forcing an abrupt change now and there is no assurance that we will be one of the species to survive. What is with all of the complacency towards our actions possibly destroying our future generations? I am totally amazed by this when we can simply ADAPT as to how we do business NOW to most assure that our future generations have a decent chance at survival! OH NO! Just let the future generations figure it for themselves, if they are able to do so, as to how to survive with a climate they have not had time to adapt to! A geologist, huh? I seriously believe you have spent too much time under a rock! Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102

69. Some1Has2BtheRookie 22:48 GMT le 24 février 2012
Quoting martinitony: I'm trying hard to understand. Obviously, you are NOT trying hard enough! I doubt that you are even TRYING at all! Success will come to you only when you apply reasoned thought. I am not expecting much success from you. Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102

70. martinitony 22:52 GMT le 24 février 2012
Dr. Rood, a challenge for you. Tell us what the high temperature at Myrtle Beach will be June 23, 2012. Okay, I'm kidding. Let's make it more reasonable. Let's talk about climate, not weather. You constantly talk models. You believe in them. I don't because ALL your models, so far, have failed to predict anything correctly. So, here's the challenge. Using any model you want, predict the average surface temperature of the Earth, give or take .25 degrees Celsius for the year 2014. The answer will be available in just three short years and many of us have been reading this blog for much longer. It's a reasonable request. If you are correct, no matter what model you use, you will be on the Jay Leno show. If you fail, no one but us will even know. C'mon Doc, take a shot at it. Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 928

71. Some1Has2BtheRookie 00:40 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting martinitony: Dr. Rood, a challenge for you. Tell us what the high temperature at Myrtle Beach will be June 23, 2012. Okay, I'm kidding. Let's make it more reasonable. Let's talk about climate, not weather. You constantly talk models. You believe in them. I don't because ALL your models, so far, have failed to predict anything correctly. So, here's the challenge. Using any model you want, predict the average surface temperature of the Earth, give or take .25 degrees Celsius for the year 2014. The answer will be available in just three short years and many of us have been reading this blog for much longer. It's a reasonable request. If you are correct, no matter what model you use, you will be on the Jay Leno show. If you fail, no one but us will even know. C'mon Doc, take a shot at it. I have a challenge for you. Why not use your brain? Pick a time of the day. Now decide what the outdoor temperature will be, on 15 foot arc, from your front door, 7 days from now. 7 days from now measure the outdoor temperature, from the predetermined point and time, and see if you are within .25 degrees. Should you be right, you can be on the Jay Leno show. Should you be wrong, no one else needs to know. ... Certainly you must be considerably smarter than any climate model simulation will be accurate in its prediction 3 years from now? ... Thanks, for playing! Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102

74. Ossqss 04:12 GMT le 25 février 2012
Hummm, community service message? This really kinda reflects what we see in the media, no? Absurd or not, this is what is predominantly being taught, conveyed, and forcibly injected into most lives as viewed from my seat. Is it right? Think about it :) Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8154

75. greentortuloni 12:19 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan: Ditto. Rookie and the rest of the gullible keep believing in their Gaia religion. Climate models can't, and will never predict future trends. They can't even predict past climate when we have all the data (although temp data is manipulated). Huh? Never explain anything? Keep believing in your right wing Tea Party 'anyone smarter than me is wrong' religion. Why not try this: put a serious bet on the climate. You are already betting that it won't change in words. Why not cover your bases and bet the same way with money. Scared? Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1188

76. Neapolitan 14:24 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting Xandra: I guess you found the link at WUWT. Am I right? ;) The new paper does not support Miskolczi's theory of saturated greenhouse effect. More about his theory here The paper ”Surface Water Vapor Pressure and Temperature Trends in North America during 1948-2010” confirms the warming trend of 0.2 C/decade predicted by the IPCC: ”The temperature (water vapor pressure) trends averaged over all stations were 0.30 (0.07), 0.24 (0.06), 0.13 (0.11), 0.11 (0.07) C/decade (hPa/decade) in the winter, spring, summer and autumn seasons, respectively. The averages of these seasonal trends are 0.20 C/decade and 0.07 hPa/decade which correspond to a specific humidity increase of 0.04 g/kg per decade and a relative humidity reduction of 0.5%/decade.” Oh, now, don't correct them; WUWT's sycophantic followers count on having access to just enough cherry-picked information to validate their anti-science stance. Further facts only serve to confuse them. Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11157

77. Neapolitan 14:35 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting martinitony: Dr. Rood, a challenge for you. Tell us what the high temperature at Myrtle Beach will be June 23, 2012. Okay, I'm kidding. Let's make it more reasonable. Let's talk about climate, not weather. You constantly talk models. You believe in them. I don't because ALL your models, so far, have failed to predict anything correctly. So, here's the challenge. Using any model you want, predict the average surface temperature of the Earth, give or take .25 degrees Celsius for the year 2014. The answer will be available in just three short years and many of us have been reading this blog for much longer. It's a reasonable request. If you are correct, no matter what model you use, you will be on the Jay Leno show. If you fail, no one but us will even know. C'mon Doc, take a shot at it. Parlor tricks. The answer is contingent upon the ENSO situation at the time; if we're in a La Nina by then, it'll be cooler globally than if we're in an El Nino, and vice versa. Here's a better bet: ask Dr. Rood--or any climatologist--whether global temps will continue their overall upwards trend for the next three years. Or six. Or ten. Absent a catastrophic (Mt. Pinatubo or larger) volcanic eruption, I'd put a million dollars on that. Or a billion, if you prefer. Follow the trendline in the image below, and use your imagination: Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11157

78. NeapolitanFan 15:07 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting greentortuloni: Huh? Never explain anything? Keep believing in your right wing Tea Party 'anyone smarter than me is wrong' religion. Why not try this: put a serious bet on the climate. You are already betting that it won't change in words. Why not cover your bases and bet the same way with money. Scared? Scientists can't even agree on the data. The people in charge manipulate, adjust, smooth, and otherwise compromise the results. Scientists with no preconceived bias state that global temperatures have been statistically flat for the past fifteen years. guess I already won the bet. Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

79. Some1Has2BtheRookie 15:42 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting martinitony: You're a moron. Worse than that, you pretend to actually have some sort of expertise in climate knowledge. You don't Should I take this as a an indication that you do not wish to take on the challenge I have presented to you? No, I am not a climatologist and I have always stated that I am not a scientist. I do exhibit some expertise in some things that you do not seem to exhibit any expertise at all. Common sense and logical thinking are two of these things! Should you know anything you should know that climate models were never set up to show absolutes. Climate models were set up to show probabilities of what would happen if this or this were to happen to our atmosphere. The probabilities are given a degree of confidence that are expressed in percentages. Should a climate model show a probability that our climate would increase the global temperature by 50 degrees Celsius, within the next 10 years, then you can rest assured that a 0% of confidence would be assigned to this probability. You already knew this, I would hope!, and you are simply trying to introduce an illogical degree of uncertainty in the reliability of the climate models. What you have actually shown is the degree of uncertainty in anything that can believed in what you say! I place this degree of uncertainty at near 100%! Anyone that believes anything of your challenge to Professor Rood would certainly show their propensity for the same spurious and specious arguments that you place. Should I be a moron, as you claim, and I already know all of this, WHAT DOES THAT MAKE OF YOU?????? Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102

80. JupiterKen 15:44 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie: Earth's global climate has changed several times before. Anytime the change has been gradual then life was able to adapt. Anytime the change was abrupt, there would be mass extinctions. We are forcing an abrupt change now and there is no assurance that we will be one of the species to survive. What is with all of the complacency towards our actions possibly destroying our future generations? I am totally amazed by this when we can simply ADAPT as to how we do business NOW to most assure that our future generations have a decent chance at survival! OH NO! Just let the future generations figure it for themselves, if they are able to do so, as to how to survive with a climate they have not had time to adapt to! A geologist, huh? I seriously believe you have spent too much time under a rock! This one of your poorer posts to date. Attacking someone for giving an opinion. All you plus monkeys should be ashamed of yourselves. Member Since: 3 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

81. Some1Has2BtheRookie 15:48 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting Ossqss: Hummm, community service message? This really kinda reflects what we see in the media, no? Absurd or not, this is what is predominantly being taught, conveyed, and forcibly injected into most lives as viewed from my seat. Is it right? Think about it :) Ossqss, may I suggest that you cease seeking the seat that is at the back of the class? Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102

82. Neapolitan 15:53 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan: Scientists can't even agree on the data. Well, 2% don't agree with the data corroborated by 98%, so that's true, I guess, in the way that saying, "Scientists can't even agree that the world is spherical" is true. Quoting NeapolitanFan: The people in charge manipulate, adjust, smooth, and otherwise compromise the results. "In charge"? Oh, you mean Big Energy and its do-boys in Congress? I agree. Quoting NeapolitanFan: Scientists with no preconceived bias state that global temperatures have been statistically flat for the past fifteen years. Right. And next year it will be 16 years. Then 17 years. Then 18 years. And however many years in the past the anomalously hot El Nino year of 1998 was. Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11157

83. Some1Has2BtheRookie 15:55 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: This one of your poorer posts to date. Attacking someone for giving an opinion. All you plus monkeys should be ashamed of yourselves. I agree, JupiterKen. I do my best to stay above the fray. I have discovered that I have gained a limited patience for those that would post such a ridiculous statement. I should not have included that last line. Still, I find it odd that you would focus so heavily on that last line. When you remove that last line, what do you read? Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102

84. Neapolitan 15:58 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: This one of your poorer posts to date. Quoting JupiterKen: Attacking someone for giving an opinion. Quoting JupiterKen: All you plus monkeys should be ashamed of yourselves. Oh, nice! You attacked Rookie for giving an opinion, then attacked those of us who gave an opinion by agreeing with him, all to make a point about being attacked for giving an opinion. Got it. Great existentialist humor, that! ;-) Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11157

85. JupiterKen 16:46 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: Oh, nice! You attacked Rookie for giving an opinion, then attacked those of us who gave an opinion by agreeing with him, all to make a point about being attacked for giving an opinion. Got it. Great existentialist humor, that! ;-) whoosh..."I seriously believe you have spent too much time under a rock!" would be the salient statement. As usual, all you do is attack the person. Too bad that's the best you have. No one could ever accuse you of open debate on the science. Why don't you go to WUWT and teach them the error of their ways? Because you cannot o' chief of the ad homs. What a gathering of no-knowledge wannabees. Member Since: 3 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

87. Patrap 17:28 GMT le 25 février 2012
Only the truly frightened and Low brow Humans reject Logic and truth. That is not the path to enlightenment, it is the road to perdition, easily. Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 371 Comments: 111503

88. JupiterKen 17:36 GMT le 25 février 2012
10:00AM 2/24 The EPA was shown yesterday to %u201Cdisappear%u201D $468,000 in Federal grants to Gleick%u2019s Pacific Institute. Now even more grants to Gleick have been scrubbed from EPA Grants Database. Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com reports: Link More cover-ups and lies. Where will it all end? Member Since: 3 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

89. JupiterKen 18:08 GMT le 25 février 2012
Good article on atmospheric heating: Link Member Since: 3 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

90. martinitony 18:12 GMT le 25 février 2012
More on climate models Doc. Pick it apart if you can. Reality Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 928

91. Neapolitan 18:24 GMT le 25 février 2012
I'd agree that, while it's probably too late, the only thing that can possibly salvage Heartland's shattered reputation is for them to reveal their oh-so-mysterious $14 million "Anonymous Donor". Someone dropping that kind of cash must have a really good reason for wanting to keep the scientific truth from reaching the public. Reveal yourself, charlatan! http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012- 02-25/think-tank-leaks/53235836/1 Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11157

92. misanthrope 18:26 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: 10:00AM 2/24 The EPA was shown yesterday to %u201Cdisappear%u201D $468,000 in Federal grants to Gleick%u2019s Pacific Institute. Now even more grants to Gleick have been scrubbed from EPA Grants Database. Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com reports: Link More cover-ups and lies. Where will it all end? Did you even spend 5 seconds attempting to verify this? I did and this is what I found - Link. Any comment? Member Since: 17 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 449

93. Neapolitan 18:26 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: Good article on atmospheric heating: Link Thanks, Ken! Say, do you think you can link to some real science next time? You know, something peer-reviwed? Or are blog posts written by quacks the best you can find to support your stance? Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11157

94. martinitony 18:28 GMT le 25 février 2012
NEO, is this responder describing the likes of you? '...the "debate" is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.' Yes, that is the case. The skeptics have shown the flaws in the: data on warming, explanations by CO2, harmful effects of heating, the curative power of regulations, etc. Yet the Anthropogenic Global Warmists have been immune to the evidence and logic of their refutations, because they are agenda driven. Their "arguments" include misrepresentation, denial, emotional appeals, fabrication, persecution, and all the practices of politicians. So it is more important to demonstrate the political realities of the advocates, than to go into those details of science which are generally too complicated to be understood by the layman. This is instructive for Austrian economists because their adversaries usually do the same thing, pretending they are concerned with science when they are agenda driven. Yes, Neo, it sure does sound like you and the rest of your ilk. Always ready to attack the skeptic, but never ready to refute the skepticism. How pathetic you are. Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 928

95. Neapolitan 18:40 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting martinitony: NEO, is this responder describing the likes of you? '...the "debate" is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.' Yes, that is the case. The skeptics have shown the flaws in the: data on warming, explanations by CO2, harmful effects of heating, the curative power of regulations, etc. Yet the Anthropogenic Global Warmists have been immune to the evidence and logic of their refutations, because they are agenda driven. Their "arguments" include misrepresentation, denial, emotional appeals, fabrication, persecution, and all the practices of politicians. So it is more important to demonstrate the political realities of the advocates, than to go into those details of science which are generally too complicated to be understood by the layman. This is instructive for Austrian economists because their adversaries usually do the same thing, pretending they are concerned with science when they are agenda driven. Yes, Neo, it sure does sound like you and the rest of your ilk. Always ready to attack the skeptic, but never ready to refute the skepticism. How pathetic you are. I do so wish you could discuss your point of view without resorting to personal insults. Anyway, no, I am never ready to attack the skeptic, though I am always ready to attack the denialist. The former bases his skepticism on the scientific data as he interprets it, but always has his mind open to a new way of thinking. The latter, on the other hand, has staked out a scientific position based on his political or theological ideology, and will never change no matter how much verified data that counteracts that stance is presented to him. Skeptics are worthy of respect; denialists are worthy of derision. Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11157

96. overwash12 18:48 GMT le 25 février 2012
The truth about global warming: As long as the Sun continues to shine the Earth will continue with it's historical ice ages and warm periods no matter what man does. Member Since: 24 juin 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1049

97. JupiterKen 19:00 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting misanthrope: Did you even spend 5 seconds attempting to verify this? I did and this is what I found - Link. Any comment? The $468,675 grant is the one scrubbed not the 2007 grant unless I'm reading it wrong. Member Since: 3 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

98. JupiterKen 19:11 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: Thanks, Ken! Say, do you think you can link to some real* science next time? You know, something peer-reviwed? Or are blog posts written by quacks the best you can find to support your stance?* This is a current discussion on the "science". I really didn't expect you to understand and you didn't let me down. As it doesn't come from the "anti-truth, catastrophic warmist cult", your closed mind cannot be expected to see. I shall not waste my time on the purposely blind. Good luck to you. Member Since: 3 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

99. misanthrope 19:11 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: The $468,675 grant is the one scrubbed not the 2007 grant unless I'm reading it wrong. Got it. And the evidence for this $468,675 grant being "scrubbed" is where? Member Since: 17 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 449

100. JupiterKen 19:42 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting misanthrope: Did you even spend 5 seconds attempting to verify this? I did and this is what I found - Link. Any comment? From the ref post these two lines are both links: "We broke the news of $468,675 worth of EPA grants to Gleick on Wednesday." and "By Thursday, the EPA had deleted those grants from its Grants Database." are both links from the original Link Link Member Since: 3 mai 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

101. Some1Has2BtheRookie 19:52 GMT le 25 février 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: 10:00AM 2/24 The EPA was shown yesterday to %u201Cdisappear%u201D $468,000 in Federal grants to Gleick%u2019s Pacific Institute. Now even more grants to Gleick have been scrubbed from EPA Grants Database. Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com reports: Link More cover-ups and lies. Where will it all end? JupiterKen, I believe you stare, with too much intensity, upon a single tree that is amongst all of the other trees contained within the forest. Let us say that the EPA is trying to "kill off" any associations it may have had with Gleick. How does this alter the fairly common knowledge in how The Heartland Institute conducts its business and for what purposes? I think you are missing the big picture here. What is your perspective when you take into view and consideration of all of the trees that make up this forest known as, "The Heartland Institute"? Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102

Viewing: 51 - 101

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About RickyRood