My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[modest]

Ok, Sir, no need to get excited. We're just discussing the finer points of trendlines is all. Let's see if we can track down our differences here.

 

I don't object to your method of drawing a trend (except that you should also draw a line on the bottom points and you've accidentally put one on the error bars). But, it's not as accurate as my computer generated trend. The top and bottom 4 points don't and can't represent all the data like a computer can. That's not to say there's anything abnormal about what you're doing - people have been doing it for a long time. It's just not as accurate.

 

So, would you object to the trend excel puts on the last 50 years of data:

 

 

~modest

[Grains]

Ok, Sir, no need to get excited. We're just discussing the finer points of trendlines is all. Let's see if we can track down our differences here.

 

I don't object to your method of drawing a trend (except that you should also draw a line on the bottom points and you've accidentally put one on the error bars). But, it's not as accurate as my computer generated trend. The top and bottom 4 points don't and can't represent all the data like a computer can. That's not to say there's anything abnormal about what you're doing - people have been doing it for a long time. It's just not as accurate.

 

So, would you object to the trend excel puts on the last 50 years of data:

 

 

~modest

 

no i would not argue with that...:)

 

i have enclosed a chart showing an increasing trend as well just different than excel...

 

on this chart yes the trendline is increasing...

 

I have never argued that it would not increase over different time periods.... in fact I have viewed a 100 yr chart as well and the trendline is increasing.

 

Regardless, from the 1998-2008 period the trendline is decreasing...your absolutely correct...there is nothing abnormal about what i am doing...thats why i am so confused on why it has been so hard to get that across :)

 

and your also correct on that spot trendlines are not as accurate but they still move in the same direction regardless..you mentioned i should have drawn trend lines on the bottom of my last chart and i did and they continue to show downward trend...would be impossible otherwise....

 

my sincerest thank you to you...i finally feel like someone is actually reading what i am saying and working with it....there is life on the other side of the forum...:)

[Overdog]

And they successfully model past climates, how exactly? Did they just throw a bunch of garbage into a bin, shake it up, and wind up with successful reconstructions of past climates by chance?

 

Show me which model specifically is wrong and where. Until then, you are waving your hands about and expecting the rest of us to take you seriously.

 

I'm not picking out specific models, again, I question all of them.

 

Global climate model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

According to the IPCC, the majority of climatologists agree that important climate processes are imperfectly accounted for by the climate models. Scientists point out that there are specific flaws in the models, such as albedo errors, and external factors not taken into consideration that could change the conclusion above. GCMs are capable of reproducing the general features of the observed global temperature over the past century

 

And

 

Dr. David Wojick, an expert in climate science, recently wrote in Canadaʼs National Post, “The computer models cannot decide among the variable drivers, like solar versus lunar change, or chaos versus ocean circulation versus greenhouse gas increases. Unless and until they can explain these things, the models cannot be taken seriously as a basis for public policy.”

 

In short, these general circulation models, or GCMs as theyʼre known, create simulations that must track over 5 million parameters. These simulations require accurate information on two natural greenhouse gas factors - water vapor and clouds - the effects of which scientists still do not understand.

Even the IPCC conceded as much: “The single largest uncertainty in determining the climate sensitivity to either natural or anthropogenic changes are clouds and their effects on radiation and their role in the hydrological cycle...at the present time, weaknesses in the parameterization of cloud formation and dissipation are probably the main impediment to improvements in the simulation of cloud effects on climate.”

 

Because of these and other uncertainties, climate modelers from four separate climate modeling centers wrote in the October 2000 edition of Nature that, “Forecasts of climate change are inevitably uncertain.” They go on to explain that, “A basic problem with all such predictions to date has been the difficulty of providing any systematic estimate of uncertainty,” a problem that stems from the fact that “these [climate] models do not necessarily span the full range of known climate system behavior.”

 

This means the models do not account for key variables that influence the climate system.

http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/ClimateChange.pdf

 

And from the wiki link:

All models have shortcomings in their simulations of the present day climate of the stratosphere, which might limit the accuracy of predictions of future climate change.

There is a tendency for the models to show a global mean cold bias at all levels.

There is a large scatter in the tropical temperatures.

The polar night jets in most models are inclined poleward with height, in noticeable contrast to an equatorward inclination of the observed jet.

There is a differing degree of separation in the models between the winter sub-tropical jet and the polar night jet.

For nearly all models the r.m.s. error in zonal- and annual-mean surface air temperature is small compared with its natural variability.

There are problems in simulating natural seasonal variability.( 2000)

In flux-adjusted models, seasonal variations are simulated to within 2 K of observed values over the oceans. The corresponding average over non-flux-adjusted models shows errors up to about 6 K in extensive ocean areas.

Near-surface land temperature errors are substantial in the average over flux-adjusted models, which systematically underestimates (by about 5 K) temperature in areas of elevated terrain. The corresponding average over non-flux-adjusted models forms a similar error pattern (with somewhat increased amplitude) over land.

In Southern Ocean mid-latitudes, the non-flux-adjusted models overestimate the magnitude of January-minus-July temperature differences by ~5 K due to an overestimate of summer (January) near-surface temperature. This error is common to five of the eight non-flux-adjusted models.

Over Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude land areas, zonal mean differences between July and January temperatures simulated by the non-flux-adjusted models show a greater spread (positive and negative) about observed values than results from the flux-adjusted models.

The ability of coupled GCMs to simulate a reasonable seasonal cycle is a necessary condition for confidence in their prediction of long-term climatic changes (such as global warming), but it is not a sufficient condition unless the seasonal cycle and long-term changes involve similar climatic processes.

 

Coupled climate models do not simulate with reasonable accuracy clouds and some related hydrological processes (in particular those involving upper tropospheric humidity). Problems in the simulation of clouds and upper tropospheric humidity, remain worrisome because the associated processes account for most of the uncertainty in climate model simulations of anthropogenic change.

 

Temperature predictions from some climate models assuming the SRES A2 emissions scenario.The precise magnitude of future changes in climate is still uncertain [20]; for the end of the 21st century (2071 to 2100), for SRES scenario A2, the change of global average SAT change from AOGCMs compared with 1961 to 1990 is +3.0 °C (4.8 °F) and the range is +1.3 to +4.5 °C (+2 to +7.2 °F).

 

Forecasts of climate change are inevitably uncertain. Even the degree of uncertainty is uncertain, a problem that stems from the fact that these climate models do not necessarily span the full range of known climate system behavior

 

But this is from your post:

Information about climate and how it responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations depends heavily on insight gained from numerical simulations by coupled climate models. The confidence placed in quantitative estimates of the rate and magnitude of future climate change is therefore strongly related to the quality of these models.

 

So these are problems with ALL the models.

 

Further, you are making a strawman by suggesting that the ONLY thing we have to go on for these conclusions is computer models. I think we can all pretty well reject that assertion on its face.

 

What conclusions? I'm not sure what I said about any conclusions...sorry if I wasn't clear, my intent was to question the predictive accuracy of the computer models.

 

Your assertion that the models work is unconvincing. I ask again, which ones predicted the current cooling trend?

[InfiniteNow]

I'm not picking out specific models, again, I question all of them.

And this is precisely why I'm not taking your challenge seriously, and choosing not to address your points.

 

 

You're simply trying to sow the seeds of doubt using broad sweeping and unsupported claims. You'll notice that earlier in this very thread Turtle did the same exact thing, and he failed too. If you want to make a challenge, then you must be specific. That's just science. Until you do, you're no better than a creationist challenging evolution. If you've got a problem with a study or a model, show which one, where, and why. Simple really.

 

 

I don't take your challenges seriously because you clearly haven't even looked at a single climate model, models which have very accurately and successfully reconstructed past climates (which is how you prove that they work for features moving foward), and yet you expect me to accept your blanket comments that "all models are wrong."

 

That's just not good enough, it is academically dishonest, and intellectually weak. You need to be specific. Until then, you're wasting everyones time.

[Grains]

This article is great!

 

It discusses the effects of carbon dioxide emmissions and that of solar activity.

 

RIA Novosti - Opinion & analysis - A cold spell soon to replace global warming

[InfiniteNow]

Grains,

 

For what it's worth, take a look at the graph below. Find 1998. Now, try to figure out why I said you were arbitrarily choosing your start and end points to demonstrate what you wanted to show (aka, cherry picking to show a cooling).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, for what it's worth, I must say you look really silly arguing with Modest that your placement of a trend line by hand is more accurate than Excel, which calculates the trend from the raw data itself. But, that's beside the point.

 

 

 

 

 

Overdog - The above graph also serves as a response to your call for a model which "predicted the cooling." There hasn't been cooling, so your question rests on an invalid premise.

 

Local short-term variations do not negate the long-term average which is accurately represented by the models.

 

 

 

 

 

The above looks pretty accurate to me, and also demonstrates the importance of adding human CO₂ contributions to the atmosphere for our model to match the observed temperatures.

 

 

Let me give an example that may put this into better context.

 

You are at the beach, and the waves coming off the choppy waters hit a wall on the shore at that beach. None of us would be able to place a line on that wall that predicts the exact height or surface level of the next incoming wave at any specific point on the wall 30 seconds in advance. This is akin to predicting the weather of the coming week.

 

However, we could absolutely place a line on the wall that accurately predicts the mean surface level (+/- chop) four hours in advance as long as we knew know the state of the tide when we'd arrived. That is akin to predicting the future state of the climate, and it is based on measurable trends.

 

Here's another.

Just because I cannot tell you the exact outcome of a specific coin flip does not mean I cannot tell you what the average outcome of coin flips will be over 1,000 tosses (and that includes allowing for the possibility that the coin lands on it's edge).

 

 

 

They are two very different measurements, and I hope you realize why.

 

Even if you don't realize why, or even if you think I'm wrong in my analogy, your request for a model that predicted "cooling" still rests on an invalid premise since the overall trend has been upward (warming).

 

:)

[Grains]

Grains,

 

For what it's worth, take a look at the graph below. Find 1998. Now, try to figure out why I said you were arbitrarily choosing your start and end points to demonstrate what you wanted to show (aka, cherry picking).

 

 

You obviously have no interest in reading my post and understanding what I am saying..and it is very evident...I can't put it any other way.

[InfiniteNow]

If I had no interest, I wouldn't be responding and I wouldn't be correcting your errors. Try again.

[Grains]

If I had no interest, I wouldn't be responding and I wouldn't be correcting your errors. Try again.

 

Then stop posting things that have nothing to do with what I am saying. It just doesn't make since. I say something and you come back with something so totally obscure and off-topic from what I said that I feel like its no use even commenting on it anymore...**epiphany**

[Zythryn]

Grains, first, I owe you an apology. I saw a chart with a trend line that covered the range of 1988 to 2008 and was 'stuck' on that one. The chart you posted from 1998-2008 does indeed show a downward trend.

 

However, the point about short term fluctuations still hold. 1998 was an incredible one year jump in temp. You scew your position if you base it upon that one time frame.

 

As for your last response to Infi which had no specifics... Perhaps if you concisely restate what it is you are saying we can then move forward again.

So instead of saying 'I say something' post 'This is what I am saying [spell it out here]'.

 

As for models, certainly none of them arer 100% accurate. Does that mean they are not useful?

They have been very accurate, just not 100%. If you refuse to base any decisions on less than 100% certainty I don't think you will ever do anything;)

[REASON]

Then stop posting things that have nothing to do with what I am saying. It just doesn't make since. I say something and you come back with something so totally obscure and off-topic from what I said that I feel like its no use even commenting on it anymore...**epiphany**

 

Then what is it that you are trying to convey? That because average temperatures have come down a bit since 1998 that climate change is a red herring? Even though the correlation between the overall trend of warming over the past 75 years is consistent with the increased use of fossil fuels and the increase in deforrestation?

 

How can we sit here and rapidly pull stored carbon out of the Earth and convert it into atmospheric gases that are known to produce a greenhous effect, produce data that demonstrates a simultaneous increase in average global temperatures over the same time period, observe the rapid decrease in the polar ice caps and glaciers, and then deny that they are related?

 

What, alternatively, is causing the temperature to rise so fast? Climate change denialist never offer a supported theory or alternative explanation for the observable effects of temperature increase. They just reject the current science.

 

I can't help but think that this is just resistance to change and the spread of misconceptions.

[Overdog]

And this is precisely why I'm not taking your challenge seriously, and choosing not to address your points.

 

I must say the vehemence of your response to a posting of legitimate concerns with the accuracy of climate models is rather surprising.

Among the things in the post, was this:

 

"According to the IPCC, the majority of climatologists agree that important climate processes are imperfectly accounted for by the climate models."

 

I suppose if you are not willing to take my post seriously and would rather respond with emotional charges of acdemic dishonesty, then perhaps you are right, further discussion is just a waste of time.

[modest]

Grains, first, I owe you an apology. I saw a chart with a trend line that covered the range of 1988 to 2008 and was 'stuck' on that one. The chart you posted from 1998-2008 does indeed show a downward trend.

 

Not really.

 

And, I should have been more clear when talking to Grains. This is the most accurate linear trend line that can be put on the last 10 years of data:

 

 

The reason this trend is flat and Grains' trends down is because, quite frankly, his is less accurate. The large spike to the left that jumps up and the large spike that jumps down to the right shouldn't overshadow the overall trend, but with a mechanical approximation it does. When all the points are considered, the last 10 years make a pretty much flat trend - especially when you force the trend to be a line as above (if you don't force a line you get the one I posted earlier which is almost flat). The spikes shouldn't matter as much as the overall data, but there is no way to avoid that in the manual way of drawing a trend. That's actually the whole reason I put the computer generated trend up in the first place.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

I suppose if you are not willing to take my post seriously and would rather respond with emotional charges of acdemic dishonesty, then perhaps you are right, further discussion is just a waste of time.

 

Name a specific model which has problems and then we can discuss this like mature human beings.

 

We can discuss the margins of error and where that error resides. We can discuss problems in the models inputs, and to what extent those problems cause issues in the results (the outputs). We can even discuss ways to improve the models.

 

However, we cannot do any of that if you continue with your blanket claims and handwaving that ALL models are not to be trusted.

 

I've shared data which counters that assumption, and which demonstrates that the models are incredibly good at what they do.

 

Name a specific model and we can talk. Until then, you're no better than a creationist challenging evolution.

 

The emotive charges are intented to appeal to your sense of pride and motivate you to action, to inspire you to actually find a model for discussion. You may not like the charges which I've levied at you, but they are still quite accurate, so man up and deal with it.

 

Until you name a specific model which has faults (shouldn't be hard if they are all wrong, eh?), then you are not doing science and you are wasting everyone's time.

[InfiniteNow]

You obviously have no interest in reading my post and understanding what I am saying..and it is very evident...I can't put it any other way.

 

Oh please. You came into this thread saying, "Look! A cooling trend! Global warming is a crock of ****."

 

I called you out on it, showed where your assumptions and sources were false, and hopefully educated you some in the process.

 

You're just back peddling now and trying to suggest I "have no interest in reading" your posts because you got spanked.

 

 

I am very willing to engage in conversation with you. What I will be looking to see, however, is if there is any change in your tone (asking of questions as opposed to stating false conclusions/conjectures), and if you have actually learned from these brief few exchanges we've already shared.

 

I'm just saying, quit whining. You came in with some pretty false comments, and you were corrected. If you're genuine in your desire to learn, then what has transpired here in response to your posts can only be seen as a good thing.

[Grains]

Grains, first, I owe you an apology. I saw a chart with a trend line that covered the range of 1988 to 2008 and was 'stuck' on that one. The chart you posted from 1998-2008 does indeed show a downward trend.

 

However, the point about short term fluctuations still hold. 1998 was an incredible one year jump in temp. You scew your position if you base it upon that one time frame.

 

As for your last response to Infi which had no specifics... Perhaps if you concisely restate what it is you are saying we can then move forward again.

So instead of saying 'I say something' post 'This is what I am saying [spell it out here]'.

 

As for models, certainly none of them arer 100% accurate. Does that mean they are not useful?

They have been very accurate, just not 100%. If you refuse to base any decisions on less than 100% certainty I don't think you will ever do anything;)

 

Thank you for the post and I agree with everything you are saying. The chart from 1998 - 2008 does indeed show a trend downward. I completely agree with your analysis of short term fluctuations....it absolutely is not a good indicator compared to a longer term chart. I was not trying to skew a position I simply drew a trend-line and look at the monster I have created! A simple response would have been "Grains, we need to look at longer data" and I would have said "You are correct" But the response was "Your trendline is wrong and it is not in a downward trend"

 

I understand the argument of others to say I am skewing my position. This chart is not my argument. Again, I was not trying to skew its just a chart..nothing more. I thought I would draw a trendline just to a show a decline in recent years. It meant nothing. Just a trend. If I draw a trendline on Microsoft stock and it is in a downtrend it does not mean the next day it cannot shoot above that and continue in an uptrend for the next 20 years. Let me take a step back though....at this point it has nothing to do with global warming, but charting. I am not saying global warming does not exist because of this chart. I was simply pointing out a downward trend. Nothing more. Take what you want from it. It does not mean they are continuing to go down and it does not mean they are going to go up....it simply is just a trend from that specific chart. The reason I am so adamant about this point is because I think somewhere in the mess of all this I think others think I am saying this chart is in a downward trend which means global warming dosn't exist and they think that is the basis of my whole argument which simply is not true. It was just something I charted and one person commented on the trend line being incorrect and I have been fighting that ever since. Which at this point hurts the thread because I feel like at this point I am talking about charting and has nothing to do with global warming. If you review my post you will find that my stance has not changed on the charting and I have brought it up many times and others overlook it.

 

I don't know how else to reinstate what I have ben saying. There is a post that I posted last night that I labeled what I was saying in 6 steps and still they continue to challenege the validity of the time horizon of the chart which had nothing to do with the 6 steps I outlined. It really is very frusturating.

 

Again!!! I am not saying the chart's trend lines is the end all be all and global warming does not exist. I am simply stating that this chart is in a downward trend. If pull a chart from 50 years or 100 years it is in an upward trend. I am a chartist and enjoy doing this. Its what I do for a living. And again, the downward trend mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

Modest...you made a comment after this talking about your chart being more accurate but your trend line cannot be straight...again it is your average...i have reviewed your excel sheet and chart data and confirmed it. The chart is still in a downtrend. Others have confirmed. Again, at this point it has nothing to do with GW.....just simple charting.

 

Maybe if I post this same chart will shirt sales and not temperature and draw the trend line it would passover fine.

 

For the past 8 pages on this thread I have simply been trying to explain charting...nothing more...nothing to do with global warming...just the fact that the chart is in a downward trend which others had acknowledged. IT DOES NOT MEAN GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST!!!! JUST A TRENDLINE!

[Grains]

Oh please. You came into this thread saying, "Look! A cooling trend! Global warming is a crock of ****."

 

please show me where i said this it never happened. This is a challenge to me and I am challenging you back!!! Show me where I said this..you are a liar sir...

 

I called you out on it, showed where your assumptions and sources were false, and hopefully educated you some in the process.

 

Another challenge to you....show me which assumption and sources of mine regarding charting were false.

 

You're just back peddling now and trying to suggest I "have no interest in reading" your posts because you got spanked.

I am back peddling because you cant understand what I am saying!

 

I am very willing to engage in conversation with you. What I will be looking to see, however, is if there is any change in your tone (asking of questions as opposed to stating false conclusions/conjectures), and if you have actually learned from these brief few exchanges we've already shared.

i am new to this forum and already i am already sick of you and about to hang it up which would probably please you...you have been nothing more than rude, belligerent, and very condesending and not trying to see another point or even see what I am saying about charting.....if you dont like the fact that I don't believe in global warming fine beat me up all day....but for christ sake the chart is in a downward trend....i have been looking around this forum for weeks and i by far i know 1/10 of what most people know on this forum (including you...ive seen some remarkable post from you)....but i do know how to read and follow ones point.

 

I'm just saying, quit whining. You came in with some pretty false comments, and you were corrected. If you're genuine in your desire to learn, then what has transpired here in response to your posts can only be seen as a good thing.

 

not whining...just very frustrated and tired....