Reality of global warming

[sayak83]

Which IPCC CMIP is this based on?

Ipcc uses many of these models. You do understand that Ipcc itself does not do any research, but merely collects and summarizes them. This is in the 5th report, I am quoting the original paper of course.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Sure, but it hasn't risen a few degrees, only less than one, but that is not the point, there is no settled science as to the degree of human contribution relative to natural.

And that one degree has decimated the Northern Icecap and most of the worlds Glaciers.
And had a notable effect on the global weather patterns.
Killed off a large section of the great barrier reef and other corals.
Jut think what the prospect of a rise of Two degrees will do.... and that is the best we can hope for if our best efforts are achieved.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I do not know what you mean by settled science?
There is a mass of undeniable evidence that attributes human activity to global warming.
There is also a number of very vocal unscientific deniers. especially in the USA. Almost all of them led by Carbon industry publicists.

No one is disputing human activity is a contribution to the warming, it is to the degree that is the question. Some are saying that humans are the predominate cause, but the record so far does not confirm...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And that one degree has decimated the Northern Icecap and most of the worlds Glaciers.
And had a notable effect on the global weather patterns.
Killed off a large section of the great barrier reef and other corals.
Jut think what the prospect of a rise of Two degrees will do.... and that is the best we can hope for if our best efforts are achieved.

But if humans are not the primary cause, so what, fine the sun, the clouds the volcanoes, the oceans, atmospheric GHGs?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ipcc uses many of these models. You do understand that Ipcc itself does not do any research, but merely collects and summarizes them. This is in the 5th report, I am quoting the original paper of course.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html

Good, at last we come to the IPCC AR5 models. Here are the IPCC AR5 models against reality....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually the models have been quite accurate. The predictions have proved accurate in fitting past temperature and predicting this decades temperature rise. The links and figures I posted unambiguously demonstrate this

You do realize that all the IPCC research modellers would have used a definite figure for all the variables involved. This is what I've been driving at concerning your claims, what are the respective quantitative contributions, warming or cooling, for each factor responsible for climate change? Obviously most of the research models used on AR5 exaggerated the human CO2 contribution, else the predictions would have correlated with reality....Climate models versus climate reality

 

[sayak83]

So what do you think of this post....Climate models versus climate reality

That it's a blatant con job by dishonest deniers


The actual reality
Republicans' favorite climate chart has some serious problems | Dana Nuccitelli

I am appalled that you trust unverified hack jobs on data done on blogs rather than actual detailed data sets on which scientific plots are based on and are freely available
This cartoon is not a plot, it's a doodle.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That it's a blatant con job by dishonest deniers


The actual reality
Republicans' favorite climate chart has some serious problems | Dana Nuccitelli

I am appalled that you trust unverified hack jobs on data done on blogs rather than actual detailed data sets on which scientific plots are based on and are freely available
This cartoon is not a plot, it's a doodle.

Hmmm....the moment you go ad hom, it means you are lost I see you are new to this, satellite data sets are used by the IPCC. You have given no scientific reasons for the graph being in error, just a photo shopped job. Dr Curry is an actual scientist, and would never allow any obvious errors in presentations from guest bloggers, and fwiw her blog is an order of magnitude more credible than Dana. Here... Judith Curry - Wikipedia

What's more..if you want to disregard the evidence, i will just provide another, somewhere along the way you will have no comeback but to accept the truth.

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

 

[sayak83]

I see you are new to this, satellite data sets are used by the IPCC. And Dr Curry is an actual scientist, so her blog is an order of magnitude more credible than Dana. Here... Judith Curry - Wikipedia

What's more..if you want to disregard the evidence, i will just provide another, somewhere along the way you will have no comeback but to accept the truth.

I am perfectly aware of who Judith curry is and how wrong she is about climate modeling. As all her predictions about modeling inaccuracies have proven false she has now given up her scientific career and resigned from her professorship position. The plot you posted is an utter lie made up from thin air in a blog post and does not take a scientist to point it's flaws. Present the source of your figure and the method that was used to generate it. Who made it? Where has it been published? Clearly you are not interested in science when you post a deliberately distorted cartoon like plot as your argument.

Meanwhile the models continue to track with reality with excellent accuracy. Red is data, and black is the set of models.

Figure 1: NH (left) and Global (right) mean temperature observations (GISTEMP-red) vs. CMIP5 mean estimated forced component (black) using CMIP5 all-forcing experiments

The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth : Scientific Reports

From wiki

In climatology, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is a framework and the analog of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) for global coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models (GCMs). CMIP began in 1995 under the auspices of the Working Group on Coupled Modeling (WGCM), which is in turn under auspices of CLIVAR and the Joint Scientific Committee for the World Climate Research Program.

The Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory supports CMIP by helping WGCM to determine the scope of the project, by maintaining the project's data base and by participating in data analysis. CMIP has received model output from the pre-industrial climate simulations ("control runs") and 1% per year increasing-CO2simulations of about 30 coupled GCMs. More recent phases of the project (20C3M, ...) include more realistic scenarios of climate forcing for both historical, paleoclimate and future scenarios.

—------------------------

 

[sayak83]

Good, at last we come to the IPCC AR5 models. Here are the IPCC AR5 models against reality....

Source. Always post your source.

 

[sayak83]

Hmmm....the moment you go ad hom, it means you are lost I see you are new to this, satellite data sets are used by the IPCC. You have given no scientific reasons for the graph being in error, just a photo shopped job. Dr Curry is an actual scientist, and would never allow any obvious errors in presentations from guest bloggers, and fwiw her blog is an order of magnitude more credible than Dana. Here... Judith Curry - Wikipedia

What's more..if you want to disregard the evidence, i will just provide another, somewhere along the way you will have no comeback but to accept the truth.

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

No matter, I got it.
I want an explanation of how this is supposed to support your views.
Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25b with the HadCRUT4.5 global temperature time-series and uncertainty (black). The CMIP5 model projections are shown relative to 1986-2005 (light grey) and 2006-2012 (dark grey). The red hatching is the IPCC AR5 indicative likely range for global temperatures in the 2016-2035 period, with the black bar being the assessed 2016-2035 average. The blue lines represent other observational datasets (Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST). The green axis shows temperatures relative to 1850-1900 (a pseudo-pre-industrial period).

The black dots represent the observations.

What I am seeing is that the observations are going right through the center of the projected predictions of both AR4 and AR5. So this demonstrates that the models are extremely accurate.

 

[sayak83]

You do realize that all the IPCC research modellers would have used a definite figure for all the variables involved. This is what I've been driving at concerning your claims, what are the respective quantitative contributions, warming or cooling, for each factor responsible for climate change? Obviously most of the research models used on AR5 exaggerated the human CO2 contribution, else the predictions would have correlated with reality....Climate models versus climate reality

You wanted a scientifically I formed debunking? Here
Comparing models to the satellite datasets

 

[BSM1]

Extreme heat events are strongly correlated with heat deaths.
Global warming is responsible for 75% of extreme heat events as shown by science.
Proved.

There have always been heat related deaths since man started wearing fur underwear. No scientist in their right mind would substantiate your claim ( if so, cite him/her). Another swing and a miss; nice try, though.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But if humans are not the primary cause, so what, fine the sun, the clouds the volcanoes, the oceans, atmospheric GHGs?

The sun is a fairly constant source of heat that changes very little over historic time.
The oceans do not produce heat they are a heat sink.
The clouds react to heat or lack of it by taking up or releasing heat as precipitate.
If anything Volcanos are less active now than in the past.
The atmosphere is a mover of heat not a generator.
a majority of Greenhouse gasses are from human activity, or caused as a result of global warming releasing gas from previous permafrost tundra.
There is little if any natural rise in global warming at the present time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am perfectly aware of who Judith curry is and how wrong she is about climate modeling. As all her predictions about modeling inaccuracies have proven false she has now given up her scientific career and resigned from her professorship position. The plot you posted is an utter lie made up from thin air in a blog post and does not take a scientist to point it's flaws. Present the source of your figure and the method that was used to generate it. Who made it? Where has it been published? Clearly you are not interested in science when you post a deliberately distorted cartoon like plot as your argument.

Meanwhile the models continue to track with reality with excellent accuracy. Red is data, and black is the set of models.

Figure 1: NH (left) and Global (right) mean temperature observations (GISTEMP-red) vs. CMIP5 mean estimated forced component (black) using CMIP5 all-forcing experiments

The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth : Scientific Reports

From wiki

In climatology, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is a framework and the analog of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) for global coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models (GCMs). CMIP began in 1995 under the auspices of the Working Group on Coupled Modeling (WGCM), which is in turn under auspices of CLIVAR and the Joint Scientific Committee for the World Climate Research Program.

The Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory supports CMIP by helping WGCM to determine the scope of the project, by maintaining the project's data base and by participating in data analysis. CMIP has received model output from the pre-industrial climate simulations ("control runs") and 1% per year increasing-CO2simulations of about 30 coupled GCMs. More recent phases of the project (20C3M, ...) include more realistic scenarios of climate forcing for both historical, paleoclimate and future scenarios.

—------------------------

Science is not about huff and puff and appeal to authority, it is about the scientific method. Unfortunately quoting a paper from the discredited Michael Mann does not help your cause. So if you do not want to accept the evidence provided in the post, here is one based on IPCC AR5...

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No matter, I got it.
I want an explanation of how this is supposed to support your views.
Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25b with the HadCRUT4.5 global temperature time-series and uncertainty (black). The CMIP5 model projections are shown relative to 1986-2005 (light grey) and 2006-2012 (dark grey). The red hatching is the IPCC AR5 indicative likely range for global temperatures in the 2016-2035 period, with the black bar being the assessed 2016-2035 average. The blue lines represent other observational datasets (Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST). The green axis shows temperatures relative to 1850-1900 (a pseudo-pre-industrial period).

The black dots represent the observations.

What I am seeing is that the observations are going right through the center of the projected predictions of both AR4 and AR5. So this demonstrates that the models are extremely accurate.

The black dots are not going through the center, but on the lower side. And the point is that the majority erroneous models pointing to a 2 C plus prediction by the end of the century can be dismissed, and the minority models that can be said to be more reasonably tracking the measurements mean that the warming is no cause for concern, less than 0.5 C over a hundred years

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You wanted a scientifically I formed debunking? Here
Comparing models to the satellite datasets

Gavin and other alarmist scientists may not like the John Christy Satellite data sets, but they are used by the IPCC so they can not be dismissed. But in any event, you can't debunk the fact that the actual temperature is not correlating with the IPCC models that predict devastating warming.

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The sun is a fairly constant source of heat that changes very little over historic time.
The oceans do not produce heat they are a heat sink.
The clouds react to heat or lack of it by taking up or releasing heat as precipitate.
If anything Volcanos are less active now than in the past.
The atmosphere is a mover of heat not a generator.
a majority of Greenhouse gasses are from human activity, or caused as a result of global warming releasing gas from previous permafrost tundra.
There is little if any natural rise in global warming at the present time.

Sorry but that is a stupid post, time for you to just post on threads you have some knowledge about.

The sun's radiation is always changing.
The ocean oscillations are periodic and have a huge affect on planetary temperature.
Clouds do not take up heat, they reflect incoming solar radiation back into space so it does not heat up the lower atmospheres and surface.
The majority of GHG are not human derived, only about 4% of atmospheric CO2 is human derived, the rest is natural.

 

[sayak83]

Gavin and other alarmist scientists may not like the John Christy Satellite data sets, but they are used by the IPCC so they can not be dismissed. But in any event, you can't debunk the fact that the actual temperature is not correlating with the IPCC models that predict devastating warming.

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

You should get and eye surgeon. I see the temperature to be nicely progressing bang along the centerline of the projections. The figure confirms how well the projections are predicting the temperature rise.

 

[sayak83]

The black dots are not going through the center, but on the lower side. And the point is that the majority erroneous models pointing to a 2 C plus prediction by the end of the century can be dismissed, and the minority models that can be said to be more reasonably tracking the measurements mean that the warming is no cause for concern, less than 0.5 C over a hundred years

I am seeing the black dots going directly through the center. You are not looking at the last 4 dots. Magnify and see. The last black dot is actually above the centerline. Bottom line, predictions matching actual data brilliantly.