Are We Doomed To Arctic Winters In America?

here is a good link on that subject if you have not seen it

http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/climate_model_clouds.pdf

 

I asked for a model, and all I got was Nick Scafetta's curve-fitting exercise: no physics, no causes, no serious attempt at hindcasting. If you want to see what Scafetta's "model" looks like after a few centuries, take a look at this:

 

Speaking of serious attempts at hind casting, only the solar models accomplish that. None of the CO2 models do.

 

You've been misinformed again. Every CMIP5 model hindcasts into the mid-19th century. The data is publicly available here, and it has been for years.

 

My ocean temperature graph goes from 1957-2012, yours from 2003-2008. What is it about long term averages that denialists can't seem to get?

 

Yes, I understand that clouds do carry a major degree of uncertainty(Relative in-out reflectivity) as to their day time effects on global warming. During the night time, however, I can't see how more clouds from warming due to increased CO2 can't be anything other than a positive contributor to global warming. Water vapor is a ghg and the only source of heat in the night is from the earth.

 

I think it boils down to not being able to tax the sun. CO2 however...

 

Sorry, but it is well known that the CO2 models do not hind cast very well at all.

 

I think global warming is happening and I think it is man made but...we have a large division between rich and poor so the solution is to raise utility rates (in the form of taxes) so those that can least afford it have to suffer even more?

I mean really...it sounds good in theory for scientists and politicians that can afford it to make utilities skyrocket but the poor folks that are "on the edge" it will cause an undue burden. Lets face it...every time the government becomes involved it turns into a pork barrel.

I am barely scraping by myself and I just want one thing from my government...get off my back and out of my pocket! well...maybe two things.

 

Shows just how little you know. Climate models are very accurate at projecting long-term trends at global and continental scales, and are even more accurate when they simulate unpredictable natural variability like PDO. The AGW deniers haven't even produced a climate model, much less an accurate one.

 

You really need to read the thread before commenting, Windy. LP himself has admitted his error in this case.

 

And by "well known", you mean you read it on a blog somewhere? Or do you have a citation for that?

 

sure they are, that is why they saw the current 18 year flat trend in global temps. Oh wait they didn't

 

You don't read much, do you?

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2357.html

 

Good lord, you don't even know that the CO2 models can't model PDO.

 

Actually, yes they did. Of the 101 models in CMIP5 RCP6.5, 81 of them have 17 year periods in the 21st century with trends equal to or less than the most recent 17 year trend. And since there is no statistically significant change between the trend over the past 17 years and the trend before then, it seems clear that this is nothing more than natural variability.

 

You and jackdog need to get together and read some more. No, climate models don't model PDO, but they do simulate it based on different assumptions, and when those simulations happen to be right, the climate models predict the hiatus.

 

which one ? Looks like maybe 3 of these were less inaccurate than the others

 

LOL, you now are arguing that temperature is driven by natural variability. Guess what, that has only come about because the models were wrong in the first place.

Kundzewicz, Z. W., and E.Z. Stakhiv (2010) Are climate models “ready for prime time” in water resources managementapplications, or is more research needed? Editorial. Hydrol. Sci. J. 55(7), 1085–1089.

 

agree, we know man is contributing to climate change, but much much more research is needed to know what the long term effects will be

for all we know, we will postpone the next ice age

 

In part because no one has apparently taught climate "scientists" about dependent, and independent, variables. I went to check the professional organizations that had verified the validity of their models and statistical aggregations but...well...because they don't submit their work to core professionals in other fields for basic fact checking, there wasn't anything to find. Funny thing, that. I guess some science is still science, and some science is..something...different.

 

Not allowing others to use the data that some have used is a good sign that it is not open science. Good science means being able to verify findings. For instance, widely repeated Parmesan's butterfly study supposedly showing global warming. She will not allow others to use the data she used to verify her findings.

 

just trust them, no scientist has ever been wrong or used massaged data

 

Did I read that right?

They found ten of their models that they could tweak entered values to have the hiatus?

 

I didn't know they had a 6.5, and where do you get 81 from?

Looks like you're making it up.