Nick, I can't help you want to have it both ways. It sounds like you're mad at something and are wanting to shunt your anger to me. I'm not angry man, I pollute like crazy, because I know there are no laws against me doing so and thus I have no affect on the environment. It's like...you're mad that city lifestyle is so polluting, you're duhverting to me. Why is that? :biggrin:
I distinctly remember studying global cooling in the 7th grade. We spent a great deal of time discussing the coming ice age and what it would do to modern society. So while "global cooling" might never have been a main stream opinion, it was certainly in our text books.
It's odd that way back then it was presented not as a pending disaster, but as an event that we would have to deal with.
Climate Science Is Not Settled
One of the most well balanced articles I have read on the climate science debate. Views that closely approximate my own.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories
"Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself."
Indeed, failing to recognize what we do not know is a great disservice to our exploration into a very complex topic.
The problem is that not only can't you punch your way out of a paper bag but that your brain defect doesn't allow you to notice you're in one. You endlessly rationalize away reality with you're invented take on it and nothing can make you see it. You have a need to believe as you do so there's no cure for it. You simply exits warm and fuzzy in your bubble. You are simply a part of the problem of global warming thinking people will need to find a way around.
He really should have elaborated that he was the Chief Scientist for British Petroleum for 5 years, in the interest of full disclosure and transparency.My training as a computational physicisttogether with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sectorhas afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science.
I distinctly remember studying global cooling in the 7th grade. We spent a great deal of time discussing the coming ice age and what it would do to modern society. So while "global cooling" might never have been a main stream opinion, it was certainly in our text books.
It's odd that way back then it was presented not as a pending disaster, but as an event that we would have to deal with.
Nick, I can't help you want to have it both ways. It sounds like you're mad at something and are wanting to shunt your anger to me. I'm not angry man, I pollute like crazy, because I know there are no laws against me doing so and thus I have no affect on the environment. It's like...you're mad that city lifestyle is so polluting, you're duhverting to me. Why is that? :biggrin:
Haha, it's inportant not to mistake my contempt for the stupidity of what you're saying for anger at you. Like I said before it's unlikely that you're actually dumb enough to think you're making a logical argument. It is pretty funny to watch you repeatedly try to do a nehalem impression though.
Hey man, I'm simply using your own logic, don't get all bent at me. If you can't understand yourself, how do you expect the rest of us to? :\
Well this is interesting.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/09/16/1318371111.abstract
"An ensemble of climate model simulations run under the same historical radiative forcings fails to reproduce the observed regional circulation trends. These results suggest that natural internally generated changes in atmospheric circulation were the primary cause of coastal NE Pacific warming from 1900 to 2012 and demonstrate more generally that regional mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also extend to century time scales."
If you're interested in how the models behave over a specific part of the historic record, that mismatch can be a problem, but there are several approaches to dealing with it. You can, for example, subtract out the influence of things like volcanoes and ocean circulation to see what the climate is doing without them. Or, rather than letting your model generate its own ENSO, you can force it to replay historic events in order to see what those do to the temperatures.
The new paper adds an additional approach to handling the problem: simply run a bunch of models and pick those that, by accident, accurately reproduced the ocean's chaotic behavior. The authors started with the CMIP5 collection of climate models and selected the 18 models that include an ocean simulation that's sophisticated enough to provide data on the state of ENSO and other ocean behavior. They started these 18 models in 1880 and used historical forcings (solar activity, greenhouse gas concentrations, etc.) up until 2005, then switched to a standard emission scenario until stopping the models in 2012.
If you look at the four models that were the worst at reproducing ENSO behavior, then you'd think climate modelers were incompetent, as these models all showed rapid warming from 1990 onward. But, if you picked the four that had the best match to real-world ENSO data, then you see exactly what reality produced: a relatively slow rate of warming starting at about the beginning of the century.
The match isn't perfect, as the models leave out other forcings, like volcanoes, and they don't get all the details of the ENSO exactly right. But it's certainly another piece of evidence that ENSO activity has been critical for the recent behavior of our climate system.
Ars talked to climate scientists Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, who both emphasized that the new paper is in keeping with a variety of other studies that have come out in the recent past, with Mann saying, "This looks like a thoughtful and careful analysis that adds further weight to other recent studies (including our own recent GRL Frontier article) confirming that the temperature trends of the past decade do not, as some have claimed, contradict model-predicted global warming. The so-called 'speed bump' in global warming is consistent with the expected random fluctuations associated with natural, internal climate variability."
Just because I can't tell you the temperature and the flow at every point in time in your glass of ice water, doesn't me your ice won't melt when you leave it in the sun.
Well except for the models that do catch the over all trends.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...got-el-nino-right-also-show-warming-slowdown/
Every time they learn something new the models are updated with our new understanding.
Just because I can't tell you the temperature and the flow at every point in time in your glass of ice water, doesn't me your ice won't melt when you leave it in the sun.
This paper has committed heresy and will be burned at the stake shortly.Obviously. This new study provides additional reasons why AGW may not be much of a factor in warming. rather, natural forcings could be the primary cause. So the models will need to change to ensure natural oscillations have greater weight than the weight currently given to CO2 emissions by man.
Obviously. This new study provides additional reasons why AGW may not be much of a factor in warming. rather, natural forcings could be the primary cause. So the models will need to change to ensure natural oscillations have greater weight than the weight currently given to CO2 emissions by man.
You seem to not understand what was done. If they were to add more influence from ENSO it would make it less reliable over the short term, and change nothing in the long term. If the models get the timing correct they do a good job with the short term trends. Overtime the ENSO cycles even out, so increasing it's influence long term wouldn't change anything. But this means that short term, it will under forecast temperatures during el nino dominated, and over forecast during la nina dominated as it is doing now.
I understand precisely what was done.
Then explain your reasoning, as I explained why it is incorrect.
Yes, taxing pollutants IS in fact a good solution. One that has a proven track record of success! So glad you're onboard with common sense answers.
This paper has committed heresy and will be burned at the stake shortly.
Of course it's not settled, if it was settled many scientist would be out of grant money and a job.