Climate Modeling Nonsense - a view on AGW and the 'science' of climate modeling

[Diarmuid]

Re: Climate Modeling Nonsense - a view on AGW and the 'science' of climate modeling

I realize that most of you deniers aren't interested in sound science, but whaddya know... Associated Press, of all companies, actually took a shot at doing some actual research and taking an independent look at one of the most pernicious and nonsensical GW denier arguments:

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world...ct-174088.html

I am not sure this piece passes as science - I think if a "denier" posted this type of post as science there would be an uproar.

[c1ue]

Re: Climate Modeling Nonsense - a view on AGW and the 'science' of climate modeling

As the article in question notes: is the cooler now than previously?

The answer is obviously yes.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008...redictions-do/

More importantly, "A super El Nino is required to get us back to Scenario B"

1. It’s quite clear Scenario A has been over predicting warming for several years. No one disputes this anymore. Moreover, the 1990 IPCC projection of 3.0 C/century which may have been influenced by papers written circa 1988 has been largely abandoned.
2. Currently, Scenario B over predicts the trends that occurred. But, given weather variability, a super-El Nino might get us back on the Scenario B track.
3. Scenario C is currently over predicting the warming that occurred by a small amount.
4. A naive person using linear extrapolation would have under predicted warming. There have been distinct excursions. So, the eyeball test suggests warming has been a bit faster than one might have expected based on the 1900-June 1988 empirical trend.
5. If we compare the graphs to Climate Skeptic’s, we see we get more or less the same results using land based or satellite data. So, as far as I can tell, his graph seems to fall within the range of “fair comparison”.

No matter how you slice it - 'Sky is falling/warming' Hansen talk has been wrong thus far.

Even the scenario C of 'do everything' is very possibly overly pessimistic.

This is why urgent, immediate, and radical action is not called for.

Edit: In case you think I'm exaggerating what Hansen said, here's the paper in question on GISS' own web site:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/...ansen_etal.pdf

Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely…

Scenario B has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level.

Scenario C drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000.

I think it is clear that we're much closer to 'A' than 'B' or 'C' since CO2 levels are still rising...

[doom&gloom]

Re: Climate Modeling Nonsense - a view on AGW and the 'science' of climate modeling

the differential between federal climate change funding and 'denier' funding is thousands to one: $70B+ vs. $23M

This differential also can explain the reluctance to dispute: how many scientists are willing to risk their livelihoods when 99.9% of the grant money is on one side?

It would not be surprising to me that many might not display moral courage in this situation.

Like I always say...

FOLLOW THE MONEY

there is too much money for AGW people to NOT want to keep up the
charade, and there is certainly much too much money for big goobernmint
to fleece off the people thru various carbon and trading schemes to not
want to keep up the charade.