Are AGW climate models a failure

No, that's just the way it works. Hot goes to cold.

 

That makes no sense. Please try to explain to me how a new hypothesis on the missing heat that AGW predicted is not a new hypothesis

 

What is an "AGW Climate Model"? ... and how does that differ from a regular old plain "Climate Model"?

Two incorrect but nevertheless consistent denial arguments are that the Earth isn’t warming and that climate models are inaccurate.

 

What kind of an argument is "calling people names"?

 

Ad hominen.

 

I just needed to keep it simple because some of these folks don't even understand what a logical fallacy is.

 

There isn't just one "AGW hypothesis". There is an enormous collection of science regarding how various systems work. AGW is more of a combination of that work, which is in the form of hypotheses. That is, its much more than that there is something called "the AGW Hypothesis".

Your assumption of failure isn't supportable.

There isn't a government payroll issue you can point to. First of all, there are scientists all over the world, and they certainly aren't paid for by the US. And, they are in competition (as science is designed), so you don't have a justification for thinking there is some sort of conspiracy.

The use of ship based temperature readings differed from buoy based temperature readings.

Are you really going to suggest it made no sense to investigate why and to figure out what the actual temperatures are?

 

- wiki [with references]

 

So now the land/ocean record deviates even further from the satellite records. Since nothing in the past stays the same in that record because it is massively manipulated, you trust that instead of the more accurate satellite record.

 

You do realize you just admitted there is no AGW hypothesis don't you? How can you test a hypothesis that doesn't even exist and worse yet how can you make policy on a hodgepodge of random predictions without even a hypothesis to back them up.

Now on the government funding of scientist issue I never said strictly the US government. Governments world wide have good reason to propagate this quasi hypothesis so they can blame America for anything and everything and make us fiscally responsible. Who else but governments or their proxy funders as in universities would fund this and why? Ask yourself that. By the way expect this money spigot to dry up in America when Trump gets in office.

 

The point is that there isn't one single hypothesis involved here. There are many. The massive amount of scientific progress all points in the same direction. I just want you to recognize that there isn't just one hypothesis involved here.

And, "make us fiscally responsible" is absolute nonsense. There is no method for making us responsible. And, all other first world nations are advancing our understanding of climate. Even if one nation could try to charge some other nation, the case here is that there is broad agreement - it isn't a US issue.

In fact, we're not leading this. The US population is not very good at accepting the evidence of science. And, our legislature is absolutely horrible at that.

 

A GCM that incorrectly assumes high CO2 sensitivity based on large positive water vapor feedback.

An AGW model incorrectly predicts rapid temperature increases in tandem with CO2 increases. A real climate model doesn't, because it doesn't incorrectly assume high positive water vapor feedback and resultant high CO2 sensitivity.

It's not incorrect. It's a fact. The earth isn't warming. It warmed quite a bit in the ~30 years up to 1998, but has not warmed beyond the limits of measurement error in the 18 years since then.

That is also a fact. AGW climate models can't even predict the past very well, and have failed utterly to predict the future.

 

There is one single relevant hypothesis: that global climate is so sensitive to CO2 that people must dramatically reduce their consumption of fossil fuels or risk catastrophic warming in our lifetimes. All the other AGW hypotheses are to paper over the evident falsity of that hypothesis.

 

Well, that's a public policy recommendation. It doesn't have the elements that a scientific hypothesis would have.

 

Of course not. AGW screaming is not science.

 

Well, in three cases you added a level of hyperbole:
"so sensitive that"
"dramatically reduce"
"risk catastrophic warming"

Some folks want to pitch climate change in extreme terms so they can make arguments where they quote themselves as their principle argument! But, I'm not too worried - climate change is a serious issue.

And, that is still a public policy recommendation. Hypotheses don't state anything about what people "must" do.

 

How much CO2 emissions must be reduced ?? If that goal is met what will be the reduction in temperature in the year 2100 ?? What will be the economic cost of this reduction ?? And what is the cost/benefit ratio of a reduction of each ppm of CO2 atmospheric reduction ??

You will nowhere find the answers to these questions by those who insist on the great importance of reducing CO2 emissions.

You claim the climate change is a serious issue ?? Please then quantify the seriousness of the issue.

 

Global climate models are not a failure, they are just wrong.

Prospects for a Prolonged Slowdown in Global Warming in the Early 21st Century

 

I only know of the one called AGW. What are these other hypothesis and what are their titles?

 

The Dr. Curry provides a nice summary:

Also there is an interesting chapter 20 in the book "Evidence Based Climate Science" by Evans who proposes a Feedback Rerouting.which has to do with the lack of tropospheric hot spot and the water vapor emission layer (WVEL).

 

There is currently a fury going on about the claim of the largest drop in temperature in the satellite recorded history of 1C (1.8F). The Pacific Warm Blob has turned into a Cold Blob and the El Nino has turned into a La Nina. The temperature has dropped to pre El Nino levels.

 

But... but.... but... the cold spot cannot be there. Didn't we use the condom of AlGore prophylactics and gentlemanly warmth??

 

No, I did not add any hyperbole. That is the relevant hypothesis. That is literally what AGW screamers are claiming.

It is indeed. We are due for an Ice Age. There is a risk that with their phony positive water vapor feedback warming nonsense, AGW screamers will convince governments to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where a natural cooling that CO2 might have alleviated will pass a tipping point, and the real positive feedback effect -- the ice albedo cooling effect -- will take over, and cover most of the northern latitudes with kilometers-thick ice.

The truth is, we don't know how climate is going to change. It would be better to prepare for change, and adapt to it, rather than try to stop it, because we can't actually predict the effects of our interventions when combined with natural variations.

AGW screamers are fond of asking, "What if you're wrong?" Well, what if YOU'RE wrong? What if the policies demanded by AGW screamers combine with natural variation to produce an Ice Age that CO2 emissions as usual might have prevented? An Ice Age would be orders of magnitude more disruptive and harmful than any plausible global warming scenario.

You are incorrect. Hypotheses can undoubtedly make claims about what people must do or face the consequences, and that is the form my statement of it took.

 

I, too, wish there was more direct study of this question of what the opportunity is for reducing the impact of climate change.

Whatever it is, anything meaningful is going to require global commitment. And, having a global commitment such as Paris in place is a significant asset. It means we can't point to others as an excuse. It means there is a goal that our capitalist system can address. It means that individuals will become more aware and will start taking advantage of the cost savings that can be made today.

Today there are companies that will put solar collectors on homes for free, taking their profit from electricity sold back onto the grid, splitting the total savings with the homeowner. There are all sorts of other moves that people can take to reduce consumption, usually requiring some sort of up front investment that today seems unattractive.

Those of us who remember the ecology movement saw the US put in place regulations that had a snowballing effect, causing us all to make the millions of small decisions that probably combined to have more impact than even the regulations did as people became more aware and as private enterprise provided cost effective solutions.

In the end, I think this can be a win-win situation, and I think changes in regulation can cause the advent of major opportunities for industry.


But, today we are just ceding this whole area to China, as they are making rapid high tech progress in this area which, regardless of warming, is going to be important across the world.

 

However, if you are listening to "screamers" then THAT is YOUR problem, not mine.

You need to find an actual "relevant hypothesis" as you put it.

We can work together to bring the "screamers" toward reality, and the way to do that is to look to the information that we are getting from those who are experts in the field.

I've done this in the past by pointing out that Gore was presenting the worst case scenario of that era, and that "worst case" is the case that scientists believe WON'T happen. He's not a scientist, and happened to believe that it would help if people knew how serious the problem could possibly get - which is not the same thing as working to find solutions to what is most likely to happen.

And, the down side of that was that people could easily disprove what Gore said, as it is what science said wouldn't happen!!

Let's identify what is science and keep that differentiated from what is not science.