Originally Posted by Trainwreck

Come on, don't be obtuse.


The paper contains a table. In that table is a predicted temperature anomally for 1970, 1980, 1990 etc. up to 2010. The increase over the 30 years to 2010 is there is black and white. It is 0.8 dregrees. The actual increase measured over that time is 0.5 (using HADCRUT3)

We don't use predictions in science to crow about how precient were wer, we use them to see how we might correct our original thinking.

What's this "we" business, paleface? Is that "We, the pseudo-science crowd"?

If the predicted temperature nicrease was too large, then what needs to be adjusted? The CO2 assumption? No that was close to the actual amount forcing the climate. Not as much aerosol blocking effect? No, we now understand that aerosols had less cooling effect than previosly thought.

That leaves us with the climate sensitivity assumption - the most likely explanation is that has been overstated. By how much? Easy, by 0.8/0.5 = 60% overstated. Not 2.4 assumed but 2.4/1.6 = 1.5.

A scientist would summise the the climate sentivity was less than though and a figure of around 1.5 is more consistent with the data.

I have now concluded that you are no scientist.

Funny, it is absolutely obvious that you are not. A scientist usually cites a few sources for sweeping statements like yours.

brine at least can refer to what he has learned from his own work.

PS Your critique is laughable. Broecker's model is now no more than a back-of-the-envelope calculation much like Steve's. Did you even read his paper before you shot from the lip about a chart? You protest too much.

Climate Change is Real Despite Fox News – Greg Laden's Blog

Originally Posted by Steve Case

You guys are trying to tell us you know the outcome of a Chess
game after the first two moves.

After I posted that I thought of the flaws in the analogy but
this isn't it:


And the late Bobby Fischer couldn't predict how the game would
go after the first move either.

You could perhaps predict who would win. If I played Fischer,
bet on Fischer. You don't need to have played 100 games to
know that. But you won't know any details of the win.

You guys are telling me you know where it will rain and where it
won't 100 years from now. You're claiming you know the general
weather patterns for that date, but you guys can't even predict
La Niña and El Niño years.

Never heard of Deep Blue, then? Deep Blue (chess computer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deep Blue beat Kasparov, and all it was was a machine programmed by software engineers and mathematicians.

La Nina and El Nino years cannot be predicted to the exact year, but the number within a certain period can be estimated fairly reliably. Better prediction would be desirable, and may come in time.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Funny, it is absolutely obvious that you are not. A scientist usually cites a few sources for sweeping statements like yours.

A selection of my "sweeping statements":

Broeker predicted temperatures would rise by 0.8 degrees in the 30 years to 2010.
In his prediction Broecker assumed climate sensitivity was 2.4 degrees for doubling of CO2
Actual temperature increase over the 30 years to 2010 was 0.5 degrees.

You micro analysis:

"97% of climate experts agree...."


There must be a good few confused and bewildered lurking readers here. I know I certainly am.





But thanks again for that poll result. The headline should of course read:


75 out of 10,000 academics in earth science polled agreed that CO2 has had some (even miniscue) effect on climate.


Nice.

Originally Posted by brine

You don't understand the difference between short-term data and a long-term trend. Or, rather, you do, but you are pretending you don't when it suits you.

Broecker's blue line is a long-term trend. The red line is based on observations and is influenced by both the long-term trend and short-term fluctuations. If we had been having the same discussion in 1991 then the red line would be above the blue line and, based on your logic, you'd be bound to say that Broecker underestimated CO2 sensitivity. But would you have siad that? No, of course not, you'd be arguing that it's just a short-term fluctuation.

When short-term data shows a very large warming in a single year, such as 1991, you'd say it is only short-term observed data (and you'd be right, and I'd say the same thing). When short-term data shows cooling, you say it disproves a long-term trend (and suddenly you are not interested in being right any more). This is why people like you are cherry pickers.

The thing is that people like you can only be convinced if we have a time machine, go to the year 2200 and measure the temperature. You are not interested in scientific process at all, only observed data - and only when it suits you.

I'm a marine geologist, I sometimes reconstruct ocean temperature changes from tens of thousands of years ago. There were no satellites then, or thermometers. So we have to rely on proxies and science. Similarly, our satellites cannot yet tell us future temperature, because we have not invented time machines yet. So we have to rely on science and our understanding of long-term trends.

I mean really, people like you have to be consistent and also not trust weather reports. If the weather report says 13 mm of rain will fall tomorrow, but only 9 mm of rain falls tomorrow, do you never trust a single weather report again and be convinced that Met Eireann has a hidden agenda to overestimate rain? Maybe they are in cahoots with umbrella producers...

Broecker was amazingly accurate for his day. Hats off.

Broecker anticipated the actual increase in CO2 very closely, predicting 373 ppm in 2000 and 403 ppm in 2010 (actual values were 369 and 390 ppm, respectively).
Broecker also used an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2; however, his model's transient climate sensitivity worked out to be 2.4°C for doubled CO2. Current climate models put equilibrium sensitivty at 1.5 times transient sensitivty, so Broecker effectively underestimated the thermal lag of the climate system, and the equilibrium sensitivity in his calculations was approximately equivalent to 3.6°C for doubled CO2 - a bit higher than today's best estimates of 2°C transient sensitivity, 3°C equilibrium sensitivity.

Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Wallace Broecker

Originally Posted by Trainwreck

75 out of 10,000 academics in earth science polled agreed that CO2 has had some (even miniscue) effect on climate.


Nice.

I should have explicitly cited the PNAS paper by Anderegg et al, which surveyed 1,373 climate researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...87107.abstract

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

Attempts to find denialist scientists have completely failed, beyond the usual handful of suspects. You are left with cranks, politicians, media spin doctors, college dropouts, journalists and publicists.

Go to the website of the American Geophysical Union Fall meeting, and fine me a single presentation, lecture or poster session out of hundreds that presented your brand of pseudo-ecience.

Originally Posted by trainwreck

Come on, don't be obtuse.

The paper contains a table. In that table is a predicted temperature anomally for 1970, 1980, 1990 etc. up to 2010. The increase over the 30 years to 2010 is there is black and white. It is 0.8 dregrees. The actual increase measured over that time is 0.5 (using HADCRUT3)

Yes, 0.8 is the value for 2010 according to the blue line in the figure I showed. Now go back and read my post again, maybe it won't appear as obtuse to you now.

And why do you cite HadCRUT? I thought you didn't believe those guys because of the "climate gate" spoof?

Originally Posted by brine

Yes, 0.8 is the value for 2010 according to the blue line in the figure I showed. Now go back and read my post again, maybe it won't appear as obtuse to you now.

And why do you cite HadCRUT? I thought you didn't believe those guys because of the "climate gate" spoof?

HADCRUT is fine because its Thursday and he is wearing a red sweater.

Every other day, it's UAH, unless he had a blue sweater. Then they are all liars.

By accident (because I rarely read it) I came across a definition on Watts UP With That of the position usually know as Lukewarmer. It is by Steve Mosher.

Ok,

back in 2007 or 2008 we did a poll on Climate audit asking the question
How much of the warming we see today is due to GHG.
There was a distinct group of us that said ‘some, but not all ” heck even Willis said 30%

We called ourselves Lukewarmers.

Over the years a few of us have worked to define what we mean by Lukewarmer and what defines the position.

1. Acceptance of radiative physics.
2. Acceptance of a lower bound to sensitivity. basically the no feedback estimate is 1.2C per
doubling. We think that the true sensitivity will be above 1.
3. over/under line. The over under line is 3C. That is, if offered a bet that the climate sensitivity
is either ‘between 1 and 3 or over 3, we take the under bet.

ballpark:
[Estimate] [Probability]
.....< 1.2 5%
1.2 to 3 50%
3 to 4.5 45%
.....4.5+ 5%

So if you believe that GHG can warm the planet and not cool it, and you think that the mean estimate of the IPCC of 3.2 is more likely high than low, then you are a lukewarmer. But you have to drop the crazy refusals over radiative physics.

Note: lukewarmers dont have to attack the surface record, its probably correct to within .2C
We also dont have to slam models, or invent kook theories about the sun.
Everything we believe is well within the consensus and we think that you can change the consensus from inside the tent rather than attacking everything and everyone. Focus on sensitivity, work to refine that. You see there is a debate in climate science, its a debate about sensitivity. When folks start putting their effort into that ( instead of frittering away time on tangents) then you will see changes.

Scientists like Richard Tol, Roger Pielke Jnr, Judith Curry as usually considered as "Lukewarmers" because they avoid the zany antics of the deniers.

BREAKING: an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a ‘hockey team’ scientist, along with new problems for the IPCC | Watts Up With That?

Are deniers becoming Lukewarmers, or are Lukewarmers rejoining the main stream? I can see little or nothing to argue with in Mosher's comments. But the fact is that further refinement of climate sensitivity is probably not achievable in the short term. The current GISS model uses 2.4 - 2.7, and I have no problem with that.

Originally Posted by Trainwreck

A quick search shows that in Australia it is unpopular as a bacon at a bar mitzva. What is your point?


And what of the relative price versus income effects on fossil fuel consumption of a policy that is "revenue neutral"?

The reason for public opposition in Australia is the same as in the US and a couple of other that are run by dittoheads. Money and propaganda of the deniers and their owned media.

Australians have been peppered with the untruth that their Tax (it is not really a true tax in Australia) is too high by international standards. It is not and this year, for one, British Colimbia's tax will be incresing again to one that is substantially higher than the Australian price.