What Could Falsify Man Made Global Warming Theory?

[shunyadragon]

seer

I have cited this source several times in the previous Tweb and once in the prior thread on 'Climate Change.' Here is the post from the previous thread . . .

I offered a good academic source that explained the climate patterns over the past climate history over 100,000 years or more addressing the cause and the nature of the cycles. Here it is again: New Views on an Old Planet. A history of global change. by Tjeerd H. Van Andel. It is a good academic source that describes the consistent academic view of paleoclimate cycles and patterns from the 1980's to the present. The academic sources (important that they are academic and not lay publications) from the 1970s are not all that different. Please provide good academic sources when you make these confusing claims. No, good academic sources DO NOT deny older good academic sources, they update and add new information to improve models and knowledge of climate history.

This text shows graphs and descriptions of predictions our planet should be going into a cooling cycle based on long term ~100,000 year cycles, and shorter cycles (~100 to 200 year cycles). It also shows the effect of global climate change moderating with warming trends of these 'Natural' predicted cyclic cooling trends, but still predicts short term cooling possible. Did you ever even look at this text when I referenced it?

Other graphs in other references in the previous thread showed data reflecting this 100,000 year climate cycle, shorter cycles, and showed the projected cooling trends of the shorter cycles we should be in.

Avoid layman tunnel vision with an agenda when dealing with science. Do your homework and do not selectively reference sources that agree with. In the previous thread you referenced lay sources that selectively reference cooling trends of 10 to 20 years as evidence that global warming is false. When all these time periods are put into the context of longer periods of time the trends do reflect global warming.

[seer]

ETA: For the lurkers. If you actually read the paper the reference is given for that statement. It's from this paper

What are yo talking about HMS. Your first paper referenced the 21st century - so far. Not back to 1979 like this new reference.

the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming.


Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. ,but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity.

The temperature did rise - slightly - over that time. Exactly as all the other data being presented as shown.

Over which period of time? Again according to your first link said there was a hiatus in global warming in this century so far with no rise in mean global temperature. So which link is correct? Or what time period are we speaking of?

[shunyadragon]

What are yo talking about HMS. Your first paper referenced the 21st century - so far. Not back to 1979 like this new reference.


Over which period of time? Again according to your first link said there was a hiatus in global warming in this century so far with no rise in mean global temperature. So which link is correct? Or what time period are we speaking of?

You are still tunnel visioning on short periods of time in longer cycles, which does not reflect the reality of climate cycles.

[seer]

You are still tunnel visioning on short periods of time in longer cycles, which does not reflect the reality of climate cycles.

If we are speaking of AGW then we are only speaking of a short period of time - really just the last 100 years or so.

[shunyadragon]

If we are speaking of AGW then we are only speaking of a short period of time - really just the last 100 years or so.

Yes and no, you persist in referring to periods of time less than twenty years, which reflects a tunnel vision with an agenda. If you wish to use the hundred year data, then yes when compared to the overall data of paleoclimate and longer term climate, then yes we are indeed in a period of global warming above and beyond the normal climate predictive cycles. My reference still stands as predicting a modified cooling trend by human influence of global warming.

[seer]

My reference still stands as predicting a modified cooling trend by human influence of global warming.

Well you cherry pick a lot, but my point was why didn't the computer models that we are using to predict the rate of warming, predict this hiatus? Even if your reference is correct - why wasn't that that info taken into consideration with these computer models?

[oxmixmudd]

Well you cherry pick a lot, but my point was why didn't the computer models that we are using to predict the rate of warming, predict this hiatus? Even if your reference is correct - why wasn't that that info taken into consideration with these computer models?

I think one thing that has to be kept in mind is that the models themselves are simplifications of the system. The averages show the increases in temperature, and the models are used to try to understand what that might mean to the future climate on the Earth. But the reality is the models are just not sufficiently sophisticated to truly model what to expect, even though we can be sure that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and we are the most likely cause. That in turn ought to create an forcing that will drive temperatures up. But there are clearly other modeled factors, as the current Hiatus is not an expected outcome from any of them.


Jim

[shunyadragon]

Well you cherry pick a lot, but my point was why didn't the computer models that we are using to predict the rate of warming, predict this hiatus? Even if your reference is correct - why wasn't that that info taken into consideration with these computer models?

Well at present I may address other models shortly. You asked for a source and a model and I gave it to you.

[seer]

Well at present I may address other models shortly. You asked for a source and a model and I gave it to you.

That is fine Shuny, but it doesn't explain this absent of warming in this century, or more to the point, why climate models did not predict this hiatus? Do you really believe that they did not know about the variables you mentioned?

[seer]

I think one thing that has to be kept in mind is that the models themselves are simplifications of the system. The averages show the increases in temperature, and the models are used to try to understand what that might mean to the future climate on the Earth. But the reality is the models are just not sufficiently sophisticated to truly model what to expect, even though we can be sure that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and we are the most likely cause. That in turn ought to create an forcing that will drive temperatures up. But there are clearly other modeled factors, as the current Hiatus is not an expected outcome from any of them.


Jim

How are you James? Yes this is reasonable.

[shunyadragon]

That is fine Shuny, but it doesn't explain this absent of warming in this century, . . .

I already addressed this. You are dealing with a short period of time that will not reflect the prediction of models that base their prediction for longer periods of times. There are documented periodicity of short term cycles of ~7 to ~15 years which clearly include this variation. Just look at the graphs posted in the previous thread. I will post them again if you cannot access them,

. . . or more to the point, why climate models did not predict this hiatus? Do you really believe that they did not know about the variables you mentioned?

Yes they know the variables, and again the models graphs do show short term ~7 to ~15 year variations in the actual weather records. Actually the modeling shows chaos fractal variation as does weather predictions. Hint: the zig zag pattern in the actual weather records reflect this fractal pattern over time.

[HMS_Beagle]

Really? Let's try again - what does a "hiatus in global warming" mean? How is that willful ignorance?

Have you read the Kosaka / Xie paper yet? Or the referenced Foster / Rahmstorf one?

No?

Then you have nothing to discuss.

[oxmixmudd]

I already addressed this. You are dealing with a short period of time that will not reflect the prediction of models that base their prediction for longer periods of times. There are documented periodicity of short term cycles of ~7 to ~15 years which clearly include this variation. Just look at the graphs posted in the previous thread. I will post them again if you cannot access them,




Yes they know the variables, and again the models graphs do show short term ~7 to ~15 year variations in the actual weather records. Actually the modeling shows chaos fractal variation as does weather predictions. Hint: the zig zag pattern in the actual weather records reflect this fractal pattern over time.

The problem is that this hiatus has gone on almost that 15 years you are speaking of. I prefer to just point back to the fact that there is a similar leveling in the 50's -> 70's, during which time there was a documented shift in the atlantic oscillation (hope I have the name right) which actually resulted in about a 2 degrees F drop in average temp in the southeastern US for one (I learned about this because I was doing some averages of down east town data and the shift kept showing up in the averages, so I went searching for information on it). Since then, or course, there has been the same trend in warming seen everywhere else.

That shift, some think, was also AGW influence. But there are a lot of influences on local and even global temperature that have a much stronger short term signal than the CO2 forcing and without an extremely complex model they are impossible to capture (even if we knew what they all would be).

There are several factors that make the AGW topic difficult:

A) Media voices (both science and non-science) keep trying to define positively correlated short term weather with the short term effects of AGW on the one hand, while denying any possibility of correlation when the short term weather trends are negatively correlated. That erodes trust. Anyone can see that is not a logically consistent platform.
B) A lack of humility with the weather modeling community in terms of how poor their current models are at predicting and especially quantifying the real trend. While the model results may be within their error bars, they are way to high in general. We are not warming as fast as they think we should be. Probably because there are factors such as heat transfer to the oceans, changes in cloud albedo and so forth that create, at least in the short term, negative forcings. I also suspect there are as yet undiscovered elements with significant effect.
C) There is way, way, way too much politics involved. Politicians and Lawyers have about the lowest trust rating of any population on the planet.

Jim

[seer]

Have you read the Kosaka / Xie paper yet? Or the referenced Foster / Rahmstorf one?

No?

Then you have nothing to discuss.

Why? I went through your first link, and they made it clear, a number of times, that we have been in a warming hiatus this century so far. They expect that to change when the La Nina lifts. Of course we don't know that yet. Now if your second link contradicts this claim of a hiatus in this century so far then who am I to believe? And if there really was a hiatus this century then the question remains - what computer models predicted that? Can you name even one?

[seer]

The problem is that this hiatus has gone on almost that 15 years you are speaking of. I prefer to just point back to the fact that there is a similar leveling in the 50's -> 70's, during which time there was a documented shift in the atlantic oscillation (hope I have the name right) which actually resulted in about a 2 degrees F drop in average temp in the southeastern US for one (I learned about this because I was doing some averages of down east town data and the shift kept showing up in the averages, so I went searching for information on it). Since then, or course, there has been the same trend in warming seen everywhere else.

That shift, some think, was also AGW influence. But there are a lot of influences on local and even global temperature that have a much stronger short term signal than the CO2 forcing and without an extremely complex model they are impossible to capture (even if we knew what they all would be).

There are several factors that make the AGW topic difficult:

A) Media voices (both science and non-science) keep trying to define positively correlated short term weather with the short term effects of AGW on the one hand, while denying any possibility of correlation when the short term weather trends are negatively correlated. That erodes trust. Anyone can see that is not a logically consistent platform.
B) A lack of humility with the weather modeling community in terms of how poor their current models are at predicting and especially quantifying the real trend. While the model results may be within their error bars, they are way to high in general. We are not warming as fast as they think we should be. Probably because there are factors such as heat transfer to the oceans, changes in cloud albedo and so forth that create, at least in the short term, negative forcings. I also suspect there are as yet undiscovered elements with significant effect.
C) There is way, way, way too much politics involved. Politicians and Lawyers have about the lowest trust rating of any population on the planet.

Jim

Great points Jim!