Hansen/NASA created US warming?

Interesting to drop into the Rush Limbaugh proxy world ie everything is ideology. Only my ideology counts and only science that I can spin into that ideology is acceptable. The idea of objective truth simply doesn't exist. And of course always always always there is a dark conspiracy by the other side.

One wonders why this incredible effort to prove the earth is flat. Probably something in the vicinity of why the Genesis narrative is so vigorously defended by their millions of adherents. Their world view makes reality somehow unacceptable.

 

Certainly that isn't true, regardless of whether or not Rush said it, or you do. Science, the kind I am familiar with, doesn't give a rat's behind about idealogy, only the quality of an idea, the ability to verify it, doesn't matter if it is put forth by a self learned man of zero academic training or the world's best scientist. Now, that isn't EXACTLY true because the layman will have a tough time getting his idea laid out properly to be accepted by the scientists (primarily academics), but it is completely possible.

Fortunately, science doesn't care at all about your political orientation on all topics either. Science is science. Some have spoken out advocating its corruption. I object to that strenuously.

Any reason why your self learning has taught you that political orientation matters more than the science?

So you also confuse religious teachings with science? Again...religion doesn't have anything to do with science either.

I recommend getting some experience in the empirical,data and observational driven aspects of science, rather than focusing on the political and religious.

 

You've got the wrong guy. But nice spin anyway. Projecting isn't going to take away what's in the mirror.

 

For someone claiming a scientific basis for their beliefs on global warming I have seen very little scientific explanation for why it is not occurring or if occurring what is driving it

 

Yes... "in my world of science" I don't listen to scientists of the field either; instead, I hit the bong and look for things in the smoke.

 

That is only because you are disinterested in the science. Just as the failing CO2 centric sensitivity hypothesis, the hypothesis why it is not happening have to also be born out by observational science.

 

Requiring that models actually be able to...MODEL...dunno...sounds like a pretty high hurdle...amazing scientist types didn't think of it FIRST before declaring the science settled, etc etc.

 

Suggesting that climate scientists don't understand thermal inertia only tells me that you don't understand climate science as much as you are saying.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html

If an increase in TSI is responsible for warming in the first half of the 20th century, then shouldn't declining TSI over the last 50 years have produced more than just a "pause" in warming?

 

Really? Well how about this as a test then....if these scientists understood thermal inertia, why would they be using it NOW to explain why their temperature models are wrong? I mean, if they KNEW about it, then they would have accounted for it, and told everyone some years ago..."well, we know the temperature is going up, but because of thermal inertia, the oceans are going to be absorbing all this heat...and the air temperature will suddenly go flat".

Instead, something else happened. Climate "scientists" predicted that temperatures would go up, Up, and AWAY, and blamed it on CO2 emissions. And when CO2 emissions continued, and temperature didn't, they suddenly needed an excuse.

This is perfectly predictable when using models that don't actually model things correctly. It is why you bring in outsiders to review your models, you quantify the uncertainty in your models to make sure you aren't drawing conclusions with high levels of certainty where perhaps...no such certainty exists.

 

The only reasom why I say they don't take into account thermal lag of the solar heating the oceans is because every time I mention "lag", warmers laugh at me as if it doesn't exist. They you guys agree with thermal inertia when CO2 needs an excuse to lag...

What a joke. It works for CO2, but not solar?

That why I say climatologists don't get it. I'll bet it isn't part of that one extra course required to change a BS in meteorology to a BS in climatology.

Maybe thermal inertia isn't fully taught in climatology...

 

Are you implying that BS is a required course when getting a climatology degree!!! Amazing…so they teach BS right there before they even graduate? There must be a reason for that…because they know they need that particular skill I bet…..

Thermal inertia sounds way to close to an engineering course in phase behavior or something, maybe thermodynamics. I doubt such is standard for climate folks, I mean seriously, look at what Mann considered perfectly reasonable…combine various combinations of data until a given result is achieved. Stop there, and declare victory. Thermodynamics? Who needs some REAL science principle getting involved and screwing up the works?

 

LOL...

I almost went with the BS degree being BS, but decided to stay serious.

What really gets me is I have been talking about the lag of the solar heat in the ocean for years. Not once, until recently, have I ever heard of a climatologist recognize lag. I don't recall seeing any papers a few years old or more mentioning thermal inertia.

I wonder. Did they learn the simple concept from me?

 

Except that is not what climate scientists predicted. The "pause" is not caused by thermal inertia, but rather cyclical ENSO and reduced TSI. If it wasn't for the ocean's high thermal inertia, surface temperature might actually have declined instead of simply pausing.

You still don't understand what it is that GCMs are actually modeling and how accurate they really are.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD017765/abstract

And what you don't take into account is that a large ocean thermal inertia also means a large climate sensitivity, something the deniers have been trying to argue against. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/88/climate_sensitivity_and_thermal_2002.pdf

http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/documents/RoyceLam.pdf

How would you know if you haven't actually studied climatology?

 

They did. HANSEN did. He did some wild early work which was a precursor to what is happening now. He did one of those hysterical arm waving exercises, and said that if mankind stopped ALL CO2 emissions TOMORROW, temperature would go up X. Mankind ignored him, pumped out more CO2 then ever, and temperature moved maybe 0.25X. So it can be argued from the poor quality of his work that to keep temperatures below anything his ilk are claiming, we need to produce MORE CO2, not less. Debating silliness, but when you pull a boner on the scale he has, it makes for fun mind games.

The topic here isn't how bad Hansen and Co. have screwed the pooch globally, but why and how he decided to change fundamental data showing the US was non-warming to a warming condition by juggling some numbers, making sure no one else checked his math, the certainty of his trend as compared to the statistical noise, and presto! What was once non-warming, is now warming!!

The pause is something else altogether, and the thermal inertia is a very interesting idea that relates to how some people are now trying to hide warming that they claim is supposed to happen, but isn't, somewhere else. And doing it without thinking very hard...yet...about what THAT means. Sloppy science indeed.

I don't think you even understand the term "accurate". Significant digits and why they matter were taught in schools, back in the day when I was there anyway. Have they removed that teaching nowadays, because many of these issues of "accurate" relate EXACTLY to that problem. The amount of "accuracy" in any of these numbers thrown around CAN'T BE KNOWN because the scientists refuse to provide the uncertainty estimates within all of the data collection, the errors explicit within their sampling size routines, the very error within the devices used to measure the raw information itself.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm not the one who screwed the pooch on thinking that fitting time series data was a good idea, in the hopes that things would continue up.up and away. Someone else did that, someone who wanted to claim the science settled as fast as possible to stop EXACTLY the kind of questions being asked about the entire bloody mess, and the assumptions that went into it, that now, as it appears, because the RESULTS AREN'T MATCHING THE REALITY.

You'll have to explain that one. When I am talking of science fundamentals, or the language of science, they apply to ALL sciences. 2+2=4 in all of the sciences, if someone doesn't start with a common set of known information, it isn't science. So when Hansen decides to change the profile of the entire country, and doesn't provide even the most rudimentary explanation of the uncertainty of his estimate, it is just as possible that the data could have changed to a cooling profile, stayed the same, or increased all with equal probability. That has nothing to do with climatology, and everything to do with data handling, sample sizes, incorporating uncertainty properly to make sure that the answer has validity. I don't have to know ANYTHING about climatology to understand these issues, and it is why I am still looking for an independent review on EXACTLY these issues. If I have to endure these kinds of independent review to validate my scientific data collection, processes and systems, I find it stunning that this climate gang does not.

 

Just curious what you're afraid of? Why the need to continue to misrepresent the data? That isn't science, did you know that? Anyone can take a dataset and make different numbers. Explain how that is science?

 

When you start with such an easily falsifiable statement like this, it's really hard for me to take the rest of your post seriously. In Hansen et al 1981, the projected temperature rise for no energy growth was only slightly more than 1°C by 2100. Considering that we've already warmed about 0.5°C since 1980, your "0.25X" claim immediately fails. Looking a little closer in, the linear warming trends from 1981 through 2011 are approximately 0.17°C per decade for Hansen’s Fast Growth scenario and 0.13°C per decade for the Slow Growth scenario, compared to 0.17°C per decade for the observed global surface temperature from GISTEMP. If anything, Hansen's early work may have underestimated current warming trends.

If you need that one explained to you, then you're beyond my help.

 

When you keep going to (un)Skeptical Science for your information, it only proves how gullible you are. It is full of misinformation and misdirection since it is only a cartoonists CAGW alarmist blog.

 

Just looking at the graph is all.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/

That pause really puts the kibosh on his 1988 paper, don't you think? Good thing he retired before another couple years goes by, NASA does require an outside review of the statistical validity of this kind of work, and the backsplash covers you know who with you know what.

There is reason for independent review of the systems and models that the climate gang has apparently avoided. Amazingly easy to see why, don't you think?

 

What I need explained to me is why the temperature line on that graph doesn't match the temperature line accepted and recognized by the ClimateGate folks as being the great big pause in temperature that is causing all the current "OMG call everyone a denier until we figure out how to multiply all the raw data in such a way as to get our increasing temperature trend back!!".

I am concerned.

 

As opposed to the sources behind the post I was responding to? Oh, that's right, there weren't any.

You can't recognize a 2nd-order polynomial fit to the actual GISTEMP presented?

 

I recognize all sorts of things. And then I ask questions. One of them being why in the world would anyone mistake the value of showing a fit to make a point, as opposed to the actual data?

That disconnect appears to be part of the problem with climate "science", the modelers...who's models can't correctly model just run of the mill variability when it is KNOWN, would have us believe that their fits of the UNKNOWN (future) are valid when they can't even prove that their models work on the KNOWN (past). Hence the backcasting used in more empirical scientific endeavors where it is not good enough to say...."gee...my model said that bridge shouldn't have fallen down and killed people....it must be REALITY that is wrong and those people are just FAKING being squished to death"....yeah...that doesn't work so well. But it matters in the empirical sciences because otherwise people die. In climate "science", the "scientists" want everyone to be scared of the consequences, but they can't even demonstrate that they can design a bridge, let alone build it, let alone build it to handle anticipated loading for its expected lifespan.

Now...if we began executing, or garnishing the wages for life, or chopping off the fingers and toes of those who build bad models in the climate science world (analogous to how
civil and mechanical engineers might be crucified for doing a bad job)...maybe we would have BETTER climate science? Interesting thought that....how about we foreclose on the homes of all climate scientists who make bad temperature projections?

 

Because regression analysis is a common method used in science for identifying trends in noisy systems like weather.

 

And just happens to completely hide the empirical temperature break, you know, that one causing all the heartburn for those who wish to model without thought of consequence, reliability or validity?

Funny thing, that. Maybe a little independent outside statistical review might have helped them DODGE this little boner, don't you think?

 

That's exactly what Richard Muller set out to do at Berkeley Earth. Didn't turn out so well for the deniers, did it?

 

I don't even know what a "denier" is. Used in the context of the climate debate, it appears to be synonymous with 'those who dare to ask a question, don't THINK about that question, call them this name".

In science, there is no such thing as a denier. You put out an idea, people shoot at it, it survives, or it does not. Just because someone is able to put a hole in your favorite idea doesn't mean you stop trying to prove it, or call those who discovered the hole names.

That is just one of those forum/internet expert kind of things, and because actual scientists are now engaging in this kind of behavior, it is dinging the credibility of the very system that brought mankind out of the dark ages.

And all because some folks couldn't be bothered to do more of that science thing prior to pretending it was settled, in the hopes of getting past all those pesky questions that keep popping up as to why...exactly...the models weren't as prophetic as have been claimed.

The questions involved are really quite simple. It is the answers that are difficult. Those who can't answer them aren't deniers, on either side of the equation. But those who didn't do their homework prior to declaring the game over? Those are the folks who need to be called names, and held to account for what they have done. By subverting what is supposed to be a dispassionate examination of evidence, and turning it into a name calling contest when modelers can't model, systems aren't quite understood, and people want to jump to THEIR conclusion prior to answering the questions that need answering before drawing any conclusion.

You do realize that agreeing with the answers of others, doesn't make those answers right, correct? It just means they say something you agree with. And most people have no more ability to be dispassionate about their beliefs (in whatever) than they do of growing a third eye in the middle of their forehead. It isn't easy.