here comes the next ice age

[TheDeamon]

Even early models from the 1970s have been surprisingly consistent with observed future temperatures.

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.

The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics covers most of these. The IPCC reports are good ones to cross check on this.

Out of the dozens, and actually hundreds of models that are out there on this topic, only a small number of them are within a fraction of degree of reality. Many others happens to barely scrape by on the outer fringe of their considerable error bars, with reality consistently running at the bottom of said error bar.  I think you could probably count on one hand the number of IPCC models that have a "centerline" prediction below the temperatures being reported and still have fingers to spare.

The Models have a warm bias. Their "error bars" may have got it right, but the actual predicted value is consistently warmer than what happened.

[DonaldD]

So... when presented with evidence counter to your beliefs, your response is - hand waving?

The Models have a warm bias. Their "error bars" may have got it right, but the actual predicted value is consistently warmer than what happened.

Not according to the linked analysis. Let me repeat that particular excerpt:

The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.

[TheDeamon]

So... when presented with evidence counter to your beliefs, your response is - hand waving?

The Models have a warm bias. Their "error bars" may have got it right, but the actual predicted value is consistently warmer than what happened.

Not according to the linked analysis. Let me repeat that particular excerpt:

The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.

Then they must have picked the handful of decent models that run very conservatively, and those are the exception, not the rule. I've seen the charts, I don't need a study to interpret the predictions for me. The charts tell a different story than they're claiming--unless you decide to also make heavy use of their error bars.

[DonaldD]

So, more hand-waving.

[Crunch]

The world ends in about 11 years according to AGW theory. What's it matter anyway?

[TheDeamon]

The world ends in about 11 years according to AGW alarmist theory. What's it matter anyway?

That did require a slight fix, the larger science bodies do seem to walking back from the hysteria, but otherwise you're correct that they popular media continues to declare that the climate armageddon is just 10 years away. Like they mainstream media has been predicting since the early 1990's and some of the alarmists have been doing since the 1980's.

[fizz]

Lies, damned lies and statistics works when you're talking about statistics served by politicians or pundits to the general public.
Statistics *can* be used to lie, but only by the quite simple trick of showing statistics to somebody that don't understand them, and using their lacks of understanding to confuse them.

I've seen the charts, I don't need a study to interpret the predictions for me.

Unless you're either a climate scientist or a statistician, this very sentence does exactly prove you're the perfect target for being lied to by the pundits you choose to follow. And if you instead are on of those two things, you should instead publish a refutation of those other studies. I hear the oil industry is always happy to pay big premiums to scientists that do similar researches.

The trick of peer reviewed science in the scientific method is exactly to avoid this by working with people that knows the topic, knows statistics, have a vested interested in making their name by slaying some sacred cows and are eager to gleefully shred to pieces any shoddy paper incautiously published by a colleague.

Oh, from time to time some iffy study, especially in marginal or very new fields may still sneak in, especially if instead of a proper per reviewed magazine you read one of those pat-to-publish paper-mills... but sooner or later it will be found, and in a topic as hot as climate science? Very very hard.

[DonaldD]

Here's a link to the Hausfather paper, TheDaemon, with an excerpt of the inclusion criteria for papers/models being evaluated.Evaluating the performance of past  climate model projections

We conducted a literature search to identify papers published prior to the early‐1990s that include climate model outputs containing both a time series of projected future GMST (with a minimum of two points in time) and future forcings (including both a publication date and future projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations, at a minimum). Eleven papers with 14 distinct projections were identified that fit these criteria

Feel free to link to papers that meet these pretty basic criteria and which were excluded from the study.

And note that, notwithstanding your claim, the IPCC assessment reports did include the results from a number of these models in their analyses.

[Seriati]

So... when presented with evidence counter to your beliefs, your response is - hand waving?

The Models have a warm bias. Their "error bars" may have got it right, but the actual predicted value is consistently warmer than what happened.

Not according to the linked analysis. Let me repeat that particular excerpt:

The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.

I think you're confused about what "hand waving" means.  He's disputing that he's trusts the results.

I don't know if you read the study or even looked at the synopsis, but as I read it, the study author's recalculated the models using observed results from 2018 on certain forcing concepts (that's section is technical, but it looks like it's the rate that increases in certain factors directly increase/decrease temperature).  They viewed this as fair because the rate of forcing was unknown when the models were generated and they had a number of them now calculated in 2018.  Based on the recalculation there was no over or under bias - I think if you looked at the actual predictions of the models (figure 2) you see the models are mostly on the high end of the observed trend.  Prior to recalculation, they seem to have done some kind of averaging exercise over the time period (which ignores that some of the models showed extreme back end climbs) for their "range" comparison.  They absolutely did use the margin of error, and in some cases the recalculated range of error for their conclusions.

I read that roughly to say, if you knew the future, the models would be within their margin of error a bit over half the time "on average" increase over decades.  Feel free to read the synopsis yourself and tell me if I'm misreading it.  https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

I think one could just as easily read this a demonstrating the exact principal that models fail at predictions because of what the modellers don't actually understand and that their biases get incorporated in place of that understanding.  I mean take a look at the "hockey stick" reformulation - they call it H88 - and what you don't see is a hockey stick.  Is that a fair "test" of that model's prediction?

That said, it is interesting as a result, it just doesn't stand for the idea that the models made correct predictions.

[DonaldD]

So... when presented with evidence counter to your beliefs, your response is - hand waving?

The Models have a warm bias. Their "error bars" may have got it right, but the actual predicted value is consistently warmer than what happened.

Not according to the linked analysis. Let me repeat that particular excerpt:

The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.

as I read it, the study author's recalculated the models using observed results from 2018 on certain forcing concepts (that's section is technical, but it looks like it's the rate that increases in certain factors directly increase/decrease temperature).  They viewed this as fair because the rate of forcing was unknown when the models were generated and they had a number of them now calculated in 2018.  Based on the recalculation there was no over or under bias - I think if you looked at the actual predictions of the models (figure 2) you see the models are mostly on the high end of the observed trend. 

Yes - that was the point of the study - using actual emission rates of CO2 and other GHGs, as opposed to estimated future emissions, how accurate are the models.  Some of the papers in fact used a number of different scenarios, e.g., CO2 increases by 100ppm in scenario X, 75ppm in scenario Y and 50 in scenario Z, but the actual CO2 increase was, for argument's sake, 60ppm.  Rerunning 4 of the models where actual forcing were significantly different than the estimates yielded significantly improved results.  Here's the thing - the models never were meant as predictors of forcing - forcings are always inputs to the models.

Changes in technology, economies and natural processes like volcanoes and even solar irradiance were always going to introduce potential divergence from the models - but this should not be confused with error margins.  This is pretty basic.

I think one could just as easily read this a demonstrating the exact principal that models fail at predictions because of what the modellers don't actually understand and that their biases get incorporated in place of that understanding.  I mean take a look at the "hockey stick" reformulation - they call it H88 - and what you don't see is a hockey stick.  Is that a fair "test" of that model's prediction?

This would be a complete misunderstanding of what the models are designed to do - the models are completely dependent on literally hundreds of variables, and the forcing variables are not an output of the models; nobody ever claimed they were - quite the opposite.  That you think the "hockey stick" is somehow inherent in the model, as opposed to a result of both the model and the estimated forcing, is a challenge with your understanding.

I suppose you could blame climate scientists for not being able to read the future of economies and fossil fuel usage accurately enough, but again, that has nothing to do with the models.

[TheDeamon]

I don't know if you read the study or even looked at the synopsis, but as I read it, the study author's recalculated the models using observed results from 2018 on certain forcing concepts (that's section is technical, but it looks like it's the rate that increases in certain factors directly increase/decrease temperature).  They viewed this as fair because the rate of forcing was unknown when the models were generated and they had a number of them now calculated in 2018.  Based on the recalculation there was no over or under bias - I think if you looked at the actual predictions of the models (figure 2) you see the models are mostly on the high end of the observed trend.  Prior to recalculation, they seem to have done some kind of averaging exercise over the time period (which ignores that some of the models showed extreme back end climbs) for their "range" comparison.  They absolutely did use the margin of error, and in some cases the recalculated range of error for their conclusions.

Oh man, that even better. "yeah, they got it wrong the first time, but that's because we didn't have the math for modeling it then. Once we adjust the models to reflect the math we now have, they match up closely with what happened."

So, the data didn't work when compared against reality, so they changed the data, then declared victory. Awesome work on their part, and good work on yours to find what their "secret sauce" was for achieving it. And he wonders why I'm skeptical about claims being made.

The unaltered models were wildly wrong, and almost universally ran hot(as I said, a scant handful came close to the ballpark out of dozens). From what Serati is reporting, the "corrected" models still run warm, but are lurking within their error bars, so victory can be claimed by them, for now.

[DonaldD]

I have to assume you are still incapable of understanding what the models are, as opposed to being purposefully dense.

You claim that the models are wrong because a number of them have reality at the very low end of the 'range' of 'projected' warming, but then ignore the point that the 'range' spans a number of forcing input sets, and you don't exclude those ranges that do not match what eventually happened with the input forcings.

[DonaldD]

Two examples - the Montreal Protocol on (CFCs and other gases) was signed in 1987.  The resulting reduction in CFC emissions (CFC being a GHG) had the result of reducing effective GHG warming by the equivalent of all CO2 emissions associated to burning fossil fuels in 2006.

The Kyoto agreement had a similar effect on emissions.  The Montreal Protocol and Its Implications for Climate Change

With little new production, CFC banks alone are estimated to decline from 16 Gigatons CO2‐equivalent (GtCO2‐eq) in 2002 to 8 GtCO2‐eq in 2015, with most of the decline in the BAU scenario accounted for by emissions rather than controlled recovery. This cumulative decline is broadly equivalent to the entire global CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels in 2006.

Was the signing and implementation of GHG treaties a 'mistake' of the models ("yeah, they got it wrong the first time, but that's because we didn't have the math for modeling it then")?

This is the same argument we are seeing with COVID-19, where top line numbers are being quoted ("They said 2 MILLION PEOPLES WERE GOING TO DIE!!  It's only been 100,000!") while completely ignoring the context of the numbers. Changing the inputs is necessarily going to change the outputs of the models.

[Crunch]

I have to assume you are still incapable of understanding what the models are, as opposed to being purposefully dense.

Everyone not agreeing with your every utterance is just do dumb. That such a tiresome and dishonest argument.

[Seriati]

The unaltered models were wildly wrong, and almost universally ran hot(as I said, a scant handful came close to the ballpark out of dozens). From what Serati is reporting, the "corrected" models still run warm, but are lurking within their error bars, so victory can be claimed by them, for now.

TheDeamon, the report is a bit too technical for me to say that with certainty.  It appears to me that they re-ran the models based on new data, and then re-ran them again with a further forcing correction, but its possible that they only adjusted it once and made claims about both contexts (I don't think so, but not clear).

I do think it's interesting that they (and apparently DonaldD) discount that most of what was replaced by the new study were assumptions of the original modellers that caused the models to run hotter than reality.  That those assumptions caused that direction bias (which the study reduced/removed) to me is the essence of a demonstration of perhaps unconscious bias in the original modellers or deliberate advocacy.  We can't rely on models if they are presented as what will happen, but instead reflect what the creators fear could happen. 

DonaldD, I was reacting to this claim that you made:  "Even early models from the 1970s have been surprisingly consistent with observed future temperatures," when citing to the study.

That was false, if you don't qualify it - which you did not.  When TheDeamon quite accurately speculated about what they must have done, based on having seen the original studies, you claimed it was handwaiving.  Now after I reviewed what the study seems to say and it does appear it was modifying the studies the original claim you made is clearly misleading without qualification and the implication of your hand waiving comment is literally false.  And yet you come back with a "revised" statement that seems to imply that it would be crazy to believe that you were claiming that the original studies were generally correct.

I don't know if that's goal post moving or just a mistake, but it's definitely a good ways from what you appeared to claim.

[TheDeamon]

I do think it's interesting that they (and apparently DonaldD) discount that most of what was replaced by the new study were assumptions of the original modellers that caused the models to run hotter than reality.  That those assumptions caused that direction bias (which the study reduced/removed) to me is the essence of a demonstration of perhaps unconscious bias in the original modellers or deliberate advocacy.  We can't rely on models if they are presented as what will happen, but instead reflect what the creators fear could happen.

I will grant one of the goal post movements he did. Rerunning the models with actual observational data rather than predicted data is a valid enough correction to make, in either direction. If the model assumed the future value for ___ would be 90, and it turned out to be 65, that's fair(likewise if it'd been the reverse scenario).

What should be out of bounds is inserting other information which wasn't present in the models at the time they were run. "Hey models are more correct when you insert corrections to their erroneous/incomplete code" is kind of a "no duh" type conclusion to draw. It still doesn't change that the models, as they were initially run and used, were wrong. And not just about predicted values for variables that were known to them(like how much CO2 was going to be in atmo).

I am also getting a mild laugh about how Donald's talking about forcings and various other external inputs and using pretty much the skeptics arguments about why the models have problems predicting the future as a justification for why correcting the older models should be considered permissible.

So, it seems that modeling isn't as perfect as they'd like it to be, but don't mind the man behind the curtain, he's got your best interests at heart and the models have always been right, even when they were wrong. Because they simply couldn't know what was going to happen with any number of various factors.

Obviously, the models are becoming more advanced, more of the complex system interactions are becoming understood and properly applied in the models, but the tech still isn't "there" yet for me to find it particularly trustworthy, and that so many of the people working in the field seem to love to constantly revise history without acknowledging any shortcomings exist in their work gives more reasons to not trust either the models, or the people creating them.

[DonaldD]

The unaltered models were wildly wrong, and almost universally ran hot(as I said, a scant handful came close to the ballpark out of dozens). From what Serati is reporting, the "corrected" models still run warm, but are lurking within their error bars, so victory can be claimed by them, for now.

DonaldD, I was reacting to this claim that you made:  "Even early models from the 1970s have been surprisingly consistent with observed future temperatures," when citing to the study.

That was false, if you don't qualify it - which you did not.  When TheDeamon quite accurately speculated about what they must have done, based on having seen the original studies, you claimed it was handwaiving. 

I think you are misreading the paper.

The models from the early 70s were very consistent with observed future temperatures.  Of the 17 models compared, 10 were already consistent with future observed temperatures, and all of the models from the early 70s fall into that category (well, with one exception, where the model under-predicted temperatures - and not coincidentally, the forecasted CO2 forcings for that paper/model were 'too' low.) The models that most benefitted from the corrected forcings were released in 1977, 1981 and 1988 - not the early 1970s.

Using the temperature versus time metric, 10 of the 17 model projections show results consistent with observations. Of the remaining seven model projections, four project more warming than observed—N77, ST81, and H88 Scenarios A and B—while three project less warming than observed—RS71, H81 Scenario 2a, and H88 Scenario C.

So 10 were consistent, 4 ran high, and 3 ran low.  And that changes to 14 consistent after using the corrected forcing values.

So no, the claim about the models from the early 1970s was not, in fact, false.

[DonaldD]

I am also getting a mild laugh about how Donald's talking about forcings and various other external inputs and using pretty much the skeptics arguments about why the models have problems predicting the future as a justification for why correcting the older models should be considered permissible.

Again, you misunderstand - the models are not being changed - what you referred to as the 'math' earlier.  The GHG forcing input values are being changed.  That is not the same thing.  Also, the older models actually did not need input corrections to be consistent with actual GHG forcings, and were consistent with observed temperature increases (with the exception of the one model that ran cool due to, yes, predicted GHG levels being lower than actuals.

Basically, everything in that statement was off the mark.

[wmLambert]

Everything about Global Warming is a crock. Models popularized by bureaucrats is hardly lucid.

The big claim now is that Global Warming has caused the fires in the West. We know the foresters and ecology experts say the neglect of maintenance of controllable forestation is to blame. NASA has officially noted that fires are generally down by 25% - not burning out of control because of man-made Global Warming: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/16/irrefutable-nasa-data-global-wildfire-down-by-25-percent/

That's right. In September 19, 2020, NASA says fires are down by 25% even counting the poor conservation efforts.

[DonaldD]

Everything about Global Warming is a crock.

You realize you are on an ever-shrinking island of knowledge atheists, right?  It's basically Fortnight for climate change denial.

[wmLambert]

Everything about Global Warming is a crock.

You realize you are on an ever-shrinking island of knowledge atheists, right?  It's basically Fortnight for climate change denial.

No. "Climate Change" was coined because Anthropomorphic Global Warming was proven to be a crock. The stable and majority huge group of real climatology scientists say we are in a short-term lull in terrible, damaging cooling that is coming all too quickly. The only deniers are those who profess that debunked models are believable. We could increase the global warming and still profit by it, because warm equals crops, and cold equals death and starvation. What is so hard to understand?

[yossarian22c]

Everything about Global Warming is a crock.

You realize you are on an ever-shrinking island of knowledge atheists, right?  It's basically Fortnight for climate change denial.

No. "Climate Change" was coined because Anthropomorphic Global Warming was proven to be a crock. The stable and majority huge group of real climatology scientists say we are in a short-term lull in terrible, damaging cooling that is coming all too quickly. The only deniers are those who profess that debunked models are believable. We could increase the global warming and still profit by it, because warm equals crops, and cold equals death and starvation. What is so hard to understand?

When should we expect our current warming trend to reverse?

[NobleHunter]

No. "Climate Change" was coined because Anthropomorphic Global Warming was proven to be a crock. The stable and majority huge group of real climatology scientists say we are in a short-term lull in terrible, damaging cooling that is coming all too quickly. The only deniers are those who profess that debunked models are believable. We could increase the global warming and still profit by it, because warm equals crops, and cold equals death and starvation. What is so hard to understand?

Which would be why the hottest places on Earth are also the most fertile.

[DonaldD]

The stable and majority huge group of real climatology scientists say we are in a short-term lull in terrible, damaging cooling that is coming all too quickly.

I fear you my have been listening to (and worse - believing) a particular stable genius for too long.

[yossarian22c]

Everything about Global Warming is a crock.

You realize you are on an ever-shrinking island of knowledge atheists, right?  It's basically Fortnight for climate change denial.

No. "Climate Change" was coined because Anthropomorphic Global Warming was proven to be a crock.
....
We could increase the global warming and still profit by it, because warm equals crops, and cold equals death and starvation. What is so hard to understand?

If AGW is a complete crock, what would we do to increase the global warming? If pumping out greenhouse gasses as a byproduct of almost every industrial and agricultural activity on the planet isn't enough to move the needle then what would?

[rightleft22]

No. "Climate Change" was coined because Anthropomorphic Global Warming was proven to be a crock

No people were to stupid to put their head around the idea that Global Warming didn't mean that everyone would experience local weather as being warming. "Oh look it winter and its cold... so much for Global warming" 

[Wayward Son]

No. "Climate Change" was coined because Anthropomorphic Global Warming was proven to be a crock.

No.  According to this article, "climatic change" has been around since 1956 when the problem was first noticed.  "Climate change" was then suggested as being "less frightening than 'global warming.'" (See page 12 of the link.)

As one focus group participant noted, climate change "sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale."  While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

Whichever is true, it was definitely not coined because AGW was disproven. (This is especially true since AGW has not been disproven so far, no matter how hard scientists have tried, and is by far the most likely explanation for the warming trend we see, according to over 90 percent of the world's climatologists ).

[wmLambert]

The IPCC stated: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipcceports/tar/wg1/501.htm

[yossarian22c]

The IPCC stated: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipcceports/tar/wg1/501.htm

Yeah, I understand chaos and the susceptibility of future predictions diverging based on small changes in the initial conditions. However, long term, here really means centuries out. The average climate over decades is within the ability of models to predict. That's why the use ensemble models and vary initial conditions on multiple runs. Its why the error bars grow significantly with time and why they typically don't put out any predictions beyond 100 years.

Weather is a coupled non-linear chaotic system as well. Yet the weather forecast for up to a week in the future is pretty good. Looking out in the second week its iffy, after that you're just as well off going with the average weather at that time of year.

So I'll ask again, you made the specific prediction of catastrophic cooling. When should we expect that to begin.

[Wayward Son]

You got to learn more about chaotic systems, Lambert.  I studied some in college.  They are not exactly predictable because they are dependent on the initial conditions, which we obviously cannot know for our climate.  Different initial conditions result in different "paths," if you will, that the system will follow.  And these paths can and do vary wildly.

But that does not mean they are completely random.  They actually follow very specific laws, and if you knew the precise initial conditions, you could make exact predictions.  They also follow general patterns, called attractor states (depending on the system).  The chaotic system will stay in the vicinity of these attractor states and not vary wildly from it.  Of course, there can be two or more attractor states in a system, and sometimes the system will jump from one attractor state to another, seemingly at random.  (But, of course, it is not random.  We just don't know when it will occur because of initial conditions.)  So general patterns can be found.

Also, they are subject to forcing.  In a climate system, if you increase the heat in the system, overall things will get hotter.   They cannot get colder, like in a completely random system.  And they will increase the dynamics of the system, which is one way to get a chaotic system to jump from one attractor state to another.

So while some long-term predictions of future climate, as in "July 2022 will be hotter than July 2020" are not possible, others are quite possible, as in "overall temperature of the Earth will increase in 20 years, and weather events like hurricanes, flooding, droughts, and wildfires will increase in frequency and severity" can be.  It really comes down to how much variation you allow for the predictions.  But even in a chaotic system, you can be certain of the trends the system will follow.  Like global warming.

[wmLambert]

...You got to learn more about chaotic systems, Lambert.

Not me. That quote was from the IPCC.

Here is a video that AOC and her cohorts tried to block, because they are science deniers: https://youtu.be/gcIWrFHcTDw

Here is the Powerpoint presentation that AOC tried to block: http://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/LibertyCon-Rossiter-Presentation-final_6-16-20.pptx)

[DonaldD]

AOC failed in her attempt to censor the internets?  But she is all-powerful!

[wmLambert]

AOC failed in her attempt to censor the internets?  But she is all-powerful!

No, She is not all powerful, although she expects to be treated that way, and especially from the complicit MSM and bureaucrats. It is not a conspiracy theory for you to laugh about, but the way she interacts. If you don't know this you are a very sheltered apologist.

[wmLambert]

...if you knew the precise initial conditions, you could make exact predictions.

But the precise initial conditions have been dishonestly reported. Moreover, attractor states are also moot. When political operators pay bureaucrats to pretend to be scientists, all bets are off. Math does not save corruption of facts.

[yossarian22c]

No. "Climate Change" was coined because Anthropomorphic Global Warming was proven to be a crock. The stable and majority huge group of real climatology scientists say we are in a short-term lull in terrible, damaging cooling that is coming all too quickly.

Who are these stable majority huge group of real climatology scientists?

As scientists they will propose models or theories can are falsifiable. Can you tell me when to expect this "damaging cooling that is coming all too quickly?"

[TheDrake]

No. "Climate Change" was coined because Anthropomorphic Global Warming was proven to be a crock. The stable and majority huge group of real climatology scientists say we are in a short-term lull in terrible, damaging cooling that is coming all too quickly.

Who are these stable majority huge group of real climatology scientists?

As scientists they will propose models or theories can are falsifiable. Can you tell me when to expect this "damaging cooling that is coming all too quickly?"

He won't be able to answer that until the Orange God elaborates on his statement that "things are going to get cooler". Or perhaps the My Pillow guy can elaborate, or a wild eyed retired statistician, or perhaps an oddball religious figure. What won't be happening is an actual person with training in climate science backing up that BS.

[rightleft22]

He won't be able to answer that until the Orange God elaborates on his statement that "things are going to get cooler"

I suspect he was cheer-leading, protecting his followers from the truth and panicking. They apparently can't handle the truth at least not in their fearful leaders eyes

[Wayward Son]

...You got to learn more about chaotic systems, Lambert.

Not me. That quote was from the IPCC.

My explanation was to help you get a better understanding of exactly what they meant.

Here is a video that AOC and her cohorts tried to block, because they are science deniers: https://youtu.be/gcIWrFHcTDw

Here is the Powerpoint presentation that AOC tried to block: http://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/LibertyCon-Rossiter-Presentation-final_6-16-20.pptx)

Oooh.  A statistician explains to climatologists why all their models are "damned lies."  Because statisticians are so much smarter and knowledgeable about climatology than actual climatologists!  And he's the head of an organization of a whole 50 scientists!  And will soon be replaced by a geologist, who also is smarter and more knowledgeable about climatology than actual climatologists!  Amazing! 

Sorry, but that is about as far as I got on that video. 

BTW, he did acknowledge that climate models are to disprove AGW, right?  Because the basic facts are undeniable (except by denialists):  CO2 is a greenhouse gas; CO2 levels are rising; higher concentrations of greenhouse gases cause more heat to be retained on Earth.  So without looking at anything else, we can say that the rising CO2 levels should be warming the Earth, unless there are some other mechanisms that counteract it.

By creating models, we have a chance of identifying these mechanisms and seeing how well they work.

By comparing the models to past temperatures, we check our work.

But the models don't "prove" global warming.  They only help our understanding of the basic science, and see if there is something more complex that mitigates or modifies the basic science.  And, so far, we haven't found a model that shows that something is mitigating global warming.

He can mess around with the graphs and statistics all he wants.  But here's one for you to check:  when was the last 10 hottest days where you live?  When was the last 10 hottest months?  And why aren't those evenly distributed over the last 150 years, but instead have mostly occurred in the last 20 years?  What are the odds of that happening by chance?

...if you knew the precise initial conditions, you could make exact predictions.

But the precise initial conditions have been dishonestly reported. Moreover, attractor states are also moot. When political operators pay bureaucrats to pretend to be scientists, all bets are off. Math does not save corruption of facts.

Anyone who reports the precise initial condition is a despicable liar.

Likewise, anyone who reports that the IIPC or any major climate model works from the precise initial conditions is a despicable liar, too! 

Because NO ONE know the initial conditions.  I'm surprised you didn't realize that.  Those are lost in the annals of time, and probably were unmeasurable in the first place, since it would have taken a gargantuan effort to get all the data (if anyone was there at the time, which they weren't).

This is one of the reasons climate models run multiple runs.  They start the runs with different initial conditions, to see how it varies the models.  That gives them a range of possible temperatures the actual climate would be in.  I'm sure they also try different values for other factors, within the reasonable ranges for those factors, to see how those also vary the output.  But any good climate model must take the different possible initial conditions into account.

Yes, when political operative try to corrupt facts, all bets are off.  But that is what climate change deniers are doing far, far, far more than those who acknowledge  that CO2 and other greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere are changing our climate.

[DonaldD]

WS, you're kinda missing the point: humans simply cannot take actions that affect climate on a global scale.  And the warming that humans are creating is good anyway, because more heat is better for all agriculture, plus we should be in an ice age, so more human generated CO2 is saving us from ice death. Plus, there has been no warming for 18 years.

[Wayward Son]

Hmm.  I thought it was global warming isn't happening, and it isn't our fault, and it's completely natural so there isn't anything we can do about it anyway.

Sorta like Bart Simpson's "I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, you can't prove anything."

[wmLambert]

WS, you're kinda missing the point: humans simply cannot take actions that affect climate on a global scale.  And the warming that humans are creating is good anyway, because more heat is better for all agriculture, plus we should be in an ice age, so more human generated CO2 is saving us from ice death. Plus, there has been no warming for 18 years.

Still mocking science? No one said there isn't occasional warming, but that it is not the end of the world. All the rabid predictions of doom have not come to pass. We still have polar bears and ice shelves. The sun may be approaching a new cycle of sun spots that may interact with climate after two decades of almost no sunspots at all. In all that time of screaming doom, there have been fewer hurricanes and less forest fires. No new Atlantises falling into the sea, although China has built a few new islands.

Science does show that we still in an ice age, although happily in a short warming phase between glaciations.

Science does not say we have ten years before the end of the world, like AOC says.

[yossarian22c]

Still mocking science? No one said there isn't occasional warming, but that it is not the end of the world. All the rabid predictions of doom have not come to pass. We still have polar bears and ice shelves. The sun may be approaching a new cycle of sun spots that may interact with climate after two decades of almost no sunspots at all. In all that time of screaming doom, there have been fewer hurricanes and less forest fires. No new Atlantises falling into the sea, although China has built a few new islands.

Science does show that we still in an ice age, although happily in a short warming phase between glaciations.

Science does not say we have ten years before the end of the world, like AOC says.

Define "short warming phase". Decades, centuries, millennium? And what mechanism will transition us from warming to cooling?

Also address the rate of change. We are currently seeing warming at a rate of change in climate that is typically associated with mass extinction events.

[DonaldD]

We are currently seeing warming at a rate of change in climate that is typically associated with mass extinction events.

Not coincidentally, one of which (a mass extinction event) we are observing as we speak.

[yossarian22c]

Tropical Storm Delta, which formed in the Caribbean Sea Monday morning, is expected to strengthen into a hurricane before reaching the northern Gulf Coast on Friday, the National Hurricane Center says.

I'm sure the warming waters in the gulf have absolutely nothing to do with the increased number of hurricanes  .

[DonaldD]

From Nature: Multi-Decadal Rate of Greenland Ice Loss Greatest in 12,000 years.

The largest pre-industrial rates of mass loss (up to 6,000 billion tonnes per century) occurred in the early Holocene, and were similar to the contemporary (2000–2018) rate of around 6,100 billion tonnes per century⁵. Simulations of future mass loss from southwestern GIS, based on Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios corresponding to low (RCP2.6) and high (RCP8.5) greenhouse gas concentration trajectories⁶, predict mass loss of between 8,800 and 35,900 billion tonnes over the twenty-first century. These rates of GIS mass loss exceed the maximum rates over the past 12,000 years. Because rates of mass loss from the southwestern GIS scale linearly⁵ with the GIS as a whole, our results indicate, with high confidence, that the rate of mass loss from the GIS will exceed Holocene rates this century.

[Seriati]

I find it funny the way you guys keep posting the equivalent of soundbites on this thread to bump it.  Are you making an actual argument?  If so please make the argument.

I mean in the prior post DonaldD links to a study as if it's making a point.  What is your point?

The study flags that during the Holocene period the Greenland Ice Sheet may be retreating at its fastest rate.  Okay.  But why do you think that is significant?  The Holocene is defined as beginning at the end of the last Ice Age.  So pretty much from about 120k years ago to about 12k years ago (the beginning of the Holocene), Ice was increasing everywhere.  For the last 12k years (generally) it's been melting.  I say generally, because we know that in the last 750 years there was a 550-600 year period of reversal where Greenland re-glaciated (killing off it's early Viking settlers). 

Do you think this current ice trend is clearly proving something bad?  Could it be "proving" that the Medieval cold period (from 1300 to 1850) was itself the aberration and that the Holocene's base temperature (based on what it's been that's forced significant global warming over the past 12,000 years, was always going to be higher than it is now (Holocene's top temperature is lower than other recent warm periods, at least so far)?  In other words, did you prove or disprove whether the current rate is a correction to the trend or a departure from one?  The way I read the charts the Holocene has been acting funny the whole time, the temperature never got as high as it has peaked in the most recent inter-glacials.  Then the Holocene flattened out, which hasn't been the most common pattern, but not totally unusual.  Based on how the charts read (with the precision being unclear), it's entirely possible that the Medieval cold period was "supposed" to be the literal beginning of end of the world as we know it and plunge the Earth back into 120,000 years of new glaciation, or that it was an aberration and the trend line is still in self correction  mode to respond to whatever the primary motivators of deglaciation are (and, unless I've missed something "new" there is zero consensus or even real understanding on what forces the glaciation cycle). 

It seems like it was linked to because it sounded alarming, and expressing a feeling of alarm as an argument seems to be the new norm.  Maybe I'm wrong, please feel free to walk through your theory on our ever changing glaciation cycle and where the Earth is going (it's not going to be static no matter what we do), and tell us why you think feeling alarm over this is relevant to your theory on what's going on.

I feel very similarly on the debate about Hurricanes.  Weather is more complicated than we understand, and you can't assume that, for example, warming water in the Gulf will generate more Hurricanes.  We reached that idea when a warming gulf was an aberration that was measured against a steady state of a cooler climate around it.  Hot and cold cause a storm.  However, if the Gulf is warming, but so is the background around it?  Do you still get an increase in storms?  By what mechanic?  In fact, it may be that if there is global warming, the warming of the Gulf at the same time would reduce the frequency of storms.  So don't just throw out a sound bite, make your case.

[DonaldD]

You are posting in a thread literally titled "Here comes the next ice age".

The study is interesting on its own merits, but it is also evidence (not proof) that the next ice age is not actually on the horizon.

[Seriati]

That's your argument?  That's exactly what I mean.  You're posting sound bites not arguments.  If you have a problem with the thread why do you personally keep bumping it?

[DonaldD]

No, I'm posting evidence.  Sound bites are things like "the Holocene has been acting funny" or "the Medieval cold period was 'supposed' to be the literal beginning of end of the world as we know it".  Those are characterizations based on somebody's interpretation of unknown evidence.

If you want to debate the accuracy of the study, knock yourself out.

[yossarian22c]

That's your argument?  That's exactly what I mean.  You're posting sound bites not arguments.  If you have a problem with the thread why do you personally keep bumping it?

Make a case for what? That increased ocean and air temperatures increases the rate and amount of water vapor going into the air?

There are two types of conservatives who don't believe in global warming. The crazies like wm who are saying we're about to see catastrophic cooling, but he still won't answer me to a time frame or any type of mechanism that would cause such cooling. The second is like you who respond to any argument or data with comments that equate to systems of non-linear differential equations are chaotic and weather/climate is complex and we don't know enough to say anything.

With either version spending the time to research and present a coherent causal case for any particular fact is a waste of time. At this point we're just documenting individual facts that counter the either no warming/climate change is happening case.

How about you, put forth a case as to why rising CO2 levels would not lead to an increase in global temperatures. I think we've discussed the limits of effectiveness of rising CO2 (log scale) and I spent time doing the calculations that show that the increased levels of CO2, with no other feedback would lead to warming at about 1.5 degrees per 100 years. It didn't convince anyone. If anyone bothered to respond it was just to say that what if there's some other mechanism that would counteract the increases in CO2 without providing any details or analysis.