WTF, is it global warming, cooling, or pausing now? I can't keep track.

CR, I think you and the shill need to get a room.

kibitzer wrote:

CR, I think you and the shill need to get a room.

I disagree.

While the overall topic has spawned a great deal of BS here on LRC (notably from The Kid) the ratio of information to BS is probably higher on this thread than on the majority of LRC threads. Further, without CR the information content would asymptotically approach zero. The shill is also a useful fellow to have around as he is intelligent, does some homework and at least makes some attempt to be "unbiased".

So, invite The Kid and the rest of the sound-bite fools to go off to their room if you will. But I'm pleased to see whatever conversation/argument CR and the shill are going to make here.

Here is a quote from IPCC5, Summary for Policymakers, pg. 14

Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, and their interactions, than at the time of the AR4, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models. {7.3, 7.6, 9.4, 9.7}

fisky wrote:

Here is a quote from IPCC5, Summary for Policymakers, pg. 14

Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, and their interactions, than at the time of the AR4, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models. {7.3, 7.6, 9.4, 9.7}

I hit post before finishing. A while back, I read (and can't remember where) that the majority of warming over the past century could be explained by a very small increase in global cloud cover. By very small, I recall that global cloud cover is about 30%. A drop to 29% would explain the majority of warming in the post industrial age.

I can find that source... maybe. It's been a couple of years since I saw it. My point is that here is a variable that is not well understood, yet a relatively small change could greatly impact future climate changes.

Apparently my cloud/sunlight ratio was reversed. As I said, it's been a while since I read this. Satellite data shows 70% global cloud cover now. The skeptical article I saw assumed global cloud cover was higher in the middle ages.

The point remains the same. The net impact of changes in cloud coverage is not well understood nor is whether warming will result in more or less clouds on a global basis.

Self appointed arbiter? CR I've said before I think you've brought the most useful contributions to these LR discussions on AGW, but you're a little brittle and frankly more often than not a little snarky.

The opinions I express here are mine alone, I make no attempt to represent anyone else's views or be looked at as anyone's arbiter of anything. If something I write resonates with somebody, great, if not, that's great too.

I claim no expertise in climate science and I think I've been careful to state the opposite, that I am emphatically not expert in this area.

There are some things I've discussed in these threads where I do have legitimate expertise by education, experience or both. Judging the performance of a mathematical model in support of meaningful decisions related to natural phenomena is an area where I have considerable expertise, your opinion on my evident abilities notwithstanding.

Citizen Runner wrote:(1) To turn your earlier challenge around, try and name a single physical phenomena that is completely deterministic. There isn't one, so by your logic it follows that we can not predict anything about anything.

(2) ... by known natural forcings alone the global average temperature anomally trend would have been slightly negative.

(1) That leap in logic is yours, not mine... While I agree completely that no natural phenomenon is completely deterministic, a great many are well behaved to the point where deterministic mathematical models do great justice to their representation. And then there are some that are not. Weather and climate (and most natural processes, frankly) fall into the latter category. And while it may be possible to have good bounds on expected behaviour in real time or very near future, predicting (far, where "far" is a vague term, admittedly)into the future is NOT possible. If you disagree with this, there is either something I am not conveying to you clearly enough, or there is something fundamentally missing in your understanding of science and mathematics, or you are simply being obstinate and disagreeable.

(2) I contend that if we really knew all the key forcings, and their interrelationships with other forcings, and their relative imporatnce (which presumably, to me, vary as the other factors vary), then the "pause" from ~ 1997 to 2013-14 would have been entirely predictable, and we would be arguing about whether climate models have real meaning. If behaviour can vary wildly from expectations ffor ~ 17 years, then either our expectations are ill informed, or the behaviour has fundamentally changed. I imagine we both agree it's the former. If you are aware of a good mid-1990s model that predicted the 1997-2014 anomaly trends I would be very interested to see it.

*we would NOT be arguing...*

Citizen Runner wrote:

...

This is the IPCC summary attribution statement.

...

This would be the same IPCC of "Climate Gate" fame, who were caught cooking the data, admitting they couldn't explain the "lack of warming", undermining the careers of skeptics, shutting out any data which didn't support their conclusions, and corrupting the peer review process.

That group has no credibility.

Do I need to post those emails again? It seems you need constant reminding.

DG, I think we are all by now very aware of your conspiracy theories on the topic, and have seen your links to emails. We are each free to read critically anything and everything. Whether you are reading the IPCC reports or the local paper, you should know there is an inherent bias, and ought to consult other sources (in this case the primary science) when you have doubts about what you read. Dismissing everything in the IPCC reports sounds vaguely Trumpian... akin to what he's said about the free press. Farking lunacy if you ask me...

the shill wrote:

DG, I think we are all by now very aware of your conspiracy theories on the topic, and have seen your links to emails. We are each free to read critically anything and everything. Whether you are reading the IPCC reports or the local paper, you should know there is an inherent bias, and ought to consult other sources (in this case the primary science) when you have doubts about what you read. Dismissing everything in the IPCC reports sounds vaguely Trumpian... akin to what he's said about the free press. Farking lunacy if you ask me...

It's not a theory. The conspiracy is a proven fact.

Believing ANYTHING that comes out of an institution that has been proven to be corrupt to the core is worse than lunacy. It is a sign that those who continue to push their corrupt conclusions are themselves corrupt.

... and what is "primary science"? Who's conducting that? Once our respected scientific institutions have been proven to be corrupted, where do we go to find a source of reliable data? Is this the same as "settled science", where the High Priests of Global Warmism declare themselves to be irrefutably correct, that the debate is over, and that anyone disagreeing with the Global Warming orthodoxy is labelled a heretic and shunned from decent society?

DiscoGary wrote:... and what is "primary science"? Who's conducting that? Once our respected scientific institutions have been proven to be corrupted, where do we go to find a source of reliable data? Is this the same as "settled science", where the High Priests of Global Warmism declare themselves to be irrefutably correct, that the debate is over, and that anyone disagreeing with the Global Warming orthodoxy is labelled a heretic and shunned from decent society?

You know, I don't know what advice I can give you here, other than to say life isn't particularly enjoyable if you live it being mistrustful of everyone. A healthy dose of skepticism and willingness to question and debate strikes me as healthy. Owning an array of tinfoil hats, on the other hand, strikes me as being across the fine line that divides genius from insanity... :-)

the shill wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:... and what is "primary science"? Who's conducting that? Once our respected scientific institutions have been proven to be corrupted, where do we go to find a source of reliable data? Is this the same as "settled science", where the High Priests of Global Warmism declare themselves to be irrefutably correct, that the debate is over, and that anyone disagreeing with the Global Warming orthodoxy is labelled a heretic and shunned from decent society?

You know, I don't know what advice I can give you here, other than to say life isn't particularly enjoyable if you live it being mistrustful of everyone. A healthy dose of skepticism and willingness to question and debate strikes me as healthy. Owning an array of tinfoil hats, on the other hand, strikes me as being across the fine line that divides genius from insanity... :-)

"Lunace", "tin foil hats","insanity" That is how you see me as you gaze across that fine line.

But if I avert my eyes from the obvious corruption, denounce my skepticism, join you in mocking any who challenge us, and pledge my commitment to the cause of Global Warming no matter what ... then I will be declared a GENIUS!! I will have crossed that fine line dividing us and become one of you. How generous of you. I have to consider the offer.

It seems this is a test, not of my knowledge or analytic capability, but of my character. Do I take the easy route and join the cabal of bullies, or do I remain independent and suffer the slings and arrows that come with calling people out when they deserve it.

Hmmmmm....

I pass the test.

The DiscoGary Fan Club Union Local 109 would expect nothing less. I think that deserves another insult, don't you? Something new please, you know, to celebrate the occasion.

Sorry Gary, I shouldn't have called you names. That's sort of the way you come across though, a wee bit unhinged. BTW I'm not taking you to task for your opinion, just the way you present it and the basis you claim for holding it.

In the end, if you are somehow proven right (and I don't know how anyone in this topic is proven right or wrong), I for one will for sure acknowledge your genius... :-)

So we're excluding the possibility that your argument isn't as strong as you think?

This is old and some of the figure links are broken, but worth a read:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/

The so-called pause observed in surface air temperature anomaly data sets is mostly due to redistribution of energy within the system, there wasn't a significant change in the rate of ocean heat content increase, which is the largest energy sink. It's also an interval that starts with a warm period that is a particularly large outlier. The key point being that at the planetary level, there's no indication of a meaningful change in energy flux during that period, hence the total system behavior is still reasonably well constrained.

As an aside, there are analyses of the surface warming trend which show that there was no statistically significant change in trend over that period to which I could direct you if you were interested. That is, in a statistical sense, the interval is noise on the uninterrupted long term trend. Also I'd point you to the IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary document which discusses this issue in some detail ("Box TS.3 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years").

Again, it is the long term trend which is the primary metric of interest to long term policy and I've shown a projection which did well to match the observed trend over a longer period. The essence of your position, as I understand it, is that the long term trend projection can not be trusted because the models can not match short term variations. My point is that century scale warming projections are bounded by fundamental energy constraints and within those bounds, chaotic variability is not as important as you seem to think.

Citizen Runner wrote:So we're excluding the possibility that your argument isn't as strong as you think?

Not sure I can speak for all possible interpretations of who we mean by "we," but yes, "we" (meaning "me" as the universe of opinions I stand as arbiter for) are excluding the possibility that my statement in that specific context (and not my overall argument) is wrong. If you believe that all phenomena are equally well described by mathematical models, then you have missed a fundamental bit of learning in your scientific and/or mathematical training.

(1) It's easy to look for explanations after the fact.

(2) Yes that's fair comment and even a very hasty comparison of the average trend in that period with the overall trend since 1850 supports your statement, without the need for any particularly detailed statistical analyses. But "noise" that lasts 17 years has some particular significance, and as such needs understanding and not hand waving dismissal as noise. If we want to "solve" AGW, then we need to deeply understand the factors that influence it and their interrelations.

the shill wrote:

If we want to "solve" AGW, then we need to deeply understand the factors that influence it and their interrelations.

1) I asked earlier in the thread and I don't believe you replied, but specifically how well do we have to understand these factors and interrelations before acting on our best understanding?

2) What course of action do you propose to gain understanding these factors, particularly in light of the fact that you've apparently claimed earlier in the thread that attribution at a meaningful level is impossible?

3) Should society be doing anything different as a precautionary measure until we gain sufficient understanding per question 1 on the off chance that the greenhouse gas effect as proposed in 1824 is broadly correct?

Citizen Runner wrote:

the shill wrote:

If we want to "solve" AGW, then we need to deeply understand the factors that influence it and their interrelations.

1) I asked earlier in the thread and I don't believe you replied, but specifically how well do we have to understand these factors and interrelations before acting on our best understanding?

...

When a climate model can correctly predict future climate trends without being constantly adjusted and rewritten to conform to the latest unanticipated climate event. This will take decades at least, maybe centuries or even millennia considering that we still don't know what causes the ice ages.

Another sobering thought is that merely 40 years ago the climate "consensus" was that we had begun a new ice age and one of the recommended solutions to that was spreading soot over the polar ice caps to warm them up and melt them. It sure is a good thing we didn't listen to the "consensus" back then isn't it?!

When you add it all up:

1. The long history of climatologists getting it totally wrong.

2. The long list of apocalyptic predictions they make which never come true.

3. The current group-think going on in climate science (there, I've softened it up a bit for our more sensitive viewers)

4. ... and especially the tendency of climatologists to recommend radical solutions based on incomplete data, unproven theories, and models with no ability to predict outcomes.

With that kind of chaos going on there's no reason to be in a hurry to act. Let's give it another 40 years and see what it looks like then.