Climate change

[Zelandakh]

I'm M.Sc. in chemistry.

 

So I guess I must have insulted myself :)

I am a maths graduate but I would not take it on myself to engage and insult Helene in her area of statistics. Having a scientific qualification is not the same as being a scientist. More than that, different areas of science require different knowledge so the idea that having a chemistry qualification would make you a climate scientist or astronomer is laughable and would never be put forward by any genuine scientist.

 

Your initial post on this subject was:-

Climate change is preordained and has nothing to do with human activity. It's the orbiting planets, mainly Jupiter, that cause tides in the sun,s plasma, just like the moon causes tides in the earth's oceans. These tides increase or decrease the sun's actibity therebye temperatures on earth. See Vukcevic, R.J. Salvador and Nicola Scafetta on Google.

 

Not "I think the evidence suggests that..." or "I think it likely that..." but as a definite fact. This alone marked you out as a non-scientist before even read what your pet hypothesis happened to be. Upon reading the evidence supporting the idea, even more so. The truth is that neither you nor I can say for certain what the whole truth of the matter is. The difference is that I do not claim to have that knowledge but rather try to keep an open mind and analyse evidence as it comes in. No doubt you can tell us why your application of the scientific method is more valid.

[Daniel1960]

I am a maths graduate but I would not take it on myself to engage and insult Helene in her area of statistics. Having a scientific qualification is not the same as being a scientist. More than that, different areas of science require different knowledge so the idea that having a chemistry qualification would make you a climate scientist or astronomer is laughable and would never be put forward by any genuine scientist.

 

Your initial post on this subject was:-

 

 

Not "I think the evidence suggests that..." or "I think it likely that..." but as a definite fact. This alone marked you out as a non-scientist before even read what your pet hypothesis happened to be. Upon reading the evidence supporting the idea, even more so. The truth is that neither you nor I can say for certain what the whole truth of the matter is. The difference is that I do not claim to have that knowledge but rather try to keep an open mind and analyse evidence as it comes in. No doubt you can tell us why your application of the scientific method is more valid.

 

I have to agree. That initial post sounded quite definitive. As a scientist, I am quite skeptical on most topics, as most others are. However, I have come across many a scientist who feels that they are certain about various topics, climate change being one of them.

 

Regarding qualifications, the so-called experts in climate science encompass a rather broad range of disciplines including: physics, chemistry, meteorology, geology, oceanography, paleontology, and several sub-disciplines within them. Each contribute a different aspect to climate science. Also, there exists an entire field of modelers, who are largely mathematicians, using data gleaned from other disciplines.

[baraka]

I am a maths graduate but I would not take it on myself to engage and insult Helene in her area of statistics.

 

I would not want to look pretencious indeed and the last thing I want is to insult anyone, which was done to me. So, if you and Helene are math graduates then surely you can appreciate what correllation and lack of correlation means...

 

http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.gif

 

No correlation with CO2. High correlation with geomagnetic field.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image0022.jpg

 

High correlation between sunspots and temperature anomalies.

 

So, what is your conclusion in your humble opinion may I dare to ask Sir ?

[hrothgar]

I would not want to look pretencious indeed and the last thing I want is to insult anyone, which was done to me. So, if you and Helene are math graduates then surely you can appreciate what correllation and lack of correlation means...

 

We also have strong enough maths backgrounds to understand concepts like overfitting and the perils of modeling anything using 5th order polynomials.

[baraka]

We also have strong enough maths backgrounds to understand concepts like overfitting and the perils of modeling anything using 5th order polynomials.

 

Ever red that before...

 

You were rude to me in a Forum message in mid-November, stating I had no profile. At the time, I did not realize there was such a thing. I since have learned you are naturally rude and vulgar, so therefore I am not surprised by what you said. I had expected an apology, but only gentlemen do that. With sincerest wishes, I hope I never see your name again. Miranda Miles (Meliora2)

 

And this...

 

Remember the good old days, when *****tards like Al_U_Card and Lukewarm were isolated on AOL?

 

It's in your profile !

[Zelandakh]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image0022.jpg

Maybe a good idea to post what this actually shows since it bears little to no resemblance to the Sunspot Number Version 2.0, currently recognized as the most accurate measure of sunspot activity over the last 400 years. If, as seems likely, it mixes in additional series then hrothgar's criticism is more than justified - I can show a correlation between dog poo and temperature with enough series in the mix. Note that this was within the criticisms of the first link I provided to you, so I would suggest you go back and read that as I really cannot be bothered to type exactly the same things out time after time. This is, sadly, also a feature of "discussions" with AIU.

[Al_U_Card]

Over the past several years, the "discussions" have gone from:

 

"The science is settled and there is no need to discuss such certainty, therefore you are ..... "

 

"The science is supposed to be settled and contrarian ideas or skepticism is neither appreciated nor tolerated, therefore you are ...."

 

"The science may not be totally settled but skepticism is wrong so therefore different opinions and contrarian ideas are of no interest, therefore you are...."

 

While all the while, this is our last chance to save humanity from a fate that is so horrible we must not look at it too closely. So, just what will CoP kowtowing save us from?

 

Lomborg's latest analysis, using IPCC information (as exaggerated as it is...) shows us that:

 

if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

 

Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

 

Oh, the humanity! (Or should I say, inanity?)

 

The proof of any theory (by the only scientific method that I know of and have used) lies in its predictive ability. Thus far, [CO2] as a control knob for global climate has been shown to be woefully inadequate (the IPCC's ONLY gambit).

Do we really want to waste our resources on this folly?

[Daniel1960]

Maybe a good idea to post what this actually shows since it bears little to no resemblance to the Sunspot Number Version 2.0, currently recognized as the most accurate measure of sunspot activity over the last 400 years. If, as seems likely, it mixes in additional series then hrothgar's criticism is more than justified - I can show a correlation between dog poo and temperature with enough series in the mix. Note that this was within the criticisms of the first link I provided to you, so I would suggest you go back and read that as I really cannot be bothered to type exactly the same things out time after time. This is, sadly, also a feature of "discussions" with AIU.

 

Yes, it would be a good idea to indicate what is indicated on that graph. A better illustration can be found here:

 

http://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/files/2014/07/sunspot1.png

 

Comparing that data to global temperatures results in the following:

 

https://cbdakota.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/evanstotal-solar-irradiance-1-1.gif

 

One must remember that the further back in time, the higher the uncertainty in either measurement. That said, there is a historic correlation between sunspot number and temperature. Looking at the graph, the decline in sunspots at the beginning of the 20th century was not great enough to result in long-term cooling temperatures, rather it resulted in a flattening. Granted, these temperatures have been smoothed over 25 years, masking any short-term effect. Sunspots would need to continue declining, and remain at these lower levels for decades, in order to significantly decrease global temperatures.

 

A recent comparison can be viewed here:

 

https://cbdakota.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/sunspotsandhadcruttempsmonthlynoaa-and-hadcrut4-globalmonthlytempsince1960.gif

 

The 1980 and 1990 peak were two of the highest on record, making the recent maximum appear lower in comparison. However, this maximum was similar to those around 1900, and still much higher than those of the Dalton or Maunder minima. Whether this is the start of a new minimum or just a one-cycle decline is yet to be played out.

[Zelandakh]

Yes, it would be a good idea to indicate what is indicated on that graph. A better illustration can be found here:

These graphs seem to suggest the "orthodox" opinion, that sunspot activity is a fairly good proxy for temperature in the historical record but a poor one over the last 30-40 years, is quite reasonable. The extremely high (>0.8) correlation present in the WUWT graph seems to have disappeared here. Presumably that is because WUWT uses additional parameters that successfully transform the actual data to the "correct" shape, which matches to the criticism hrothgar posted.

[baraka]

Maybe a good idea to post what this actually shows since it bears little to no resemblance to the Sunspot Number Version 2.0, currently recognized as the most accurate measure of sunspot activity over the last 400 years. If, as seems likely, it mixes in additional series then hrothgar's criticism is more than justified - I can show a correlation between dog poo and temperature with enough series in the mix. Note that this was within the criticisms of the first link I provided to you, so I would suggest you go back and read that as I really cannot be bothered to type exactly the same things out time after time. This is, sadly, also a feature of "discussions" with AIU.

 

You did not answer my question. So, lets start again. When you have a set of data and want to figure out what they are you start by elaborating a theory. From that theory you elaborate a mathematical formula from which you can generate data. If the generated data has no correlation with the observed data the theory is rejected as false. If the 2 sets of data has a high degree of correlation then you accept that the theory is right. Mind you I said accept, not proven. There is a difference between accepting a theory because you cant disprove it and saying that it is proven.

 

 

Now, as for the correlation between SSN and temperature anomalies…

 

TA= the predicted Temperature Anomaly

 

Cos = the cosine in radians, * = multiplication, ^ = exponent operator, Σ = summation, a,b,c,d,e = constants

 

TA= d*[Σcos(a*SN)-Σb*SN^c]+e

 

From month 1 to the present. The calculation starts in January of 1880.

 

The correlation was made using a non-linear time series least squares optimization over the entire data range from January of 1880 to February of 2013. The Proportion of variance explained (R^2) = 0.8212 (82.12%)

The Parameters for the equation are:

 

a= 148.425811533409

b= 0.00022670169089817989

c= 1.3299372454954419

e= -0.011857962851469542

f= -0.25878555224841393

 

The summations were made over 1598 data months therefore use all the digits in the constants to ensure the correlation is maintained over the data set.

 

 

Now contrary to what has been said, this is not a fly in the wind 5th degree polynomial fit and it follows exactly what was said before, the scientific protocol.

 

So I ask you again…

 

As a math graduate, knowing the meaning of correlation, what is you professional take on these correlations ?

[Zelandakh]

There are many data sets that have a high correlation but nothing to do with each other. It is not enough to show a correlation, you typically also have to formulate some link between the data. When you are using artificial boundaries you also have to look outside of the limits of the model to see whether that correlation continues and, if not, give reasons why that might not be the case.

 

I am not going to go through the data in detail because, quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time but it appears on the surface to be a simpler form of what we have already discussed in the previously linked papers. And in keeping with that, why not provide us with a graph covering the past 2000 years against the global temperature record? I am well aware that that temperature record is disputed so you will probably want to use more than one comparison line.

 

Unfortunately it is difficult to compare degrees of fit against models that take not only solar activity into account but also greenhouse gases, aerosols, etc, as none of us here have the latest versions but perhaps it will be possible to see the differences merely from inspection. Indeed I am quietly confident in this - why? because if this hypothesis was able to recreate the historical record it would have been published by now. The problem is this - SSN is an excellent fit for the historical temperature record but a poor fit for the modern climate. Modified SSN can be made into a good fit for the modern temperature record but in doing so loses its fit for the historical numbers. It is of course possible to overcome this by adding additional series but that merely shows the effects that we have been telling you about for 3-4 pages now.

[Winstonm]

There are many data sets that have a high correlation but nothing to do with each other. It is not enough to show a correlation, you typically also have to formulate some link between the data.

 

I am shocked, shocked to find out correlation is not causation!

[baraka]

why? because if this hypothesis was able to recreate the historical record it would have been published by now.

 

Still you haven’t answered my questions. All you are doing is throwing around red herrings to distract everyone. I’ve explained the scientific process and that a non disproved model should be accepted until a better model can be found. Any statistics major will confirm that.

 

Describing something with SINES and COSINES will work fine if what you are trying to model is circular and has constant radial speed. Unfortunately, that is not the case with our planets circling the sun (I’ll leave the explanations to astronomers). Nonetheless, let’s try…

 

One of the simplest of simplest models out there is Vukcevic’s, using only Jupiter’s sideral and Jupiter/Saturn synodic periods…

 

http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GrandMinima.gif

 

You’ll notice that the highs don’t always fit exactly in height and intensity with the actual SSN. That is to be expected from a so simple model. But, what you can notice is that the time frame of the lows in the model match perfectly well with known cold spells this earth has known. They were so evident that people even gave them names ! Historians have written about them and here comes the good part… Carbon14 activity analysis (by chemists) prove that these cold spells have really existed…

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

 

And have a pretty good correlation with Vukcevic model.

 

So, given that the correlation of the arctic temperatures have no correlation whatsoever with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere (see previous post), that SSN seem to be related to temperature anomalies on earth (see previous post) and that a so simple planetary mathematical model can explain the periodic low SSNs and the cold spells our planet has known, I’ll accept the theory of the movement of the planets around our sun to be the cause of our temperature anomalies, until proven wrong of course.

 

So… I ask you again… What is you take on all these correlations, in your professional math major opinion of course ?

 

By the way... <if this hypothesis was able to recreate the historical record it would have been published by now.> It was in the carbon14 analysis.

[Al_U_Card]

Vukevic's theory is attacked vigorously at WUWT (I am shocked, shocked I tell you that WUWT actually discusses science...) by solar scientist Leif Svalgaard. Piers Corbyn actually sells his weather predictions (with some success) and they are partially based on planetary movements.

 

Either way, the climate system appears to be chaotic and non-linear so that most of the modelling and fitting done by everyone is subject to considerable error bars. (The IPCC says this and also that prediction of future climate states is therefore impossible.) This we have seen by all of the models, thus far.

 

As ECS continues to drop, the use of [CO2] as target and lever to pry ever more money out of our hands, is getting less and less viable. Even the stooping to comparison of current "investigations" of Exxon to Tobacco is pretty much a "coup monté" as this analysis from Curry's site attests:

 

 

 

Misinformation: In the case of tobacco, one might be able to argue that misinformation causes people to be potentially misled and make decisions they would not have made had they been properly informed. In the case of climate change, as noted below, the public opinion has been dominated for a long time by the IPCC science and doom scenarios of potential catastrophes. Any information that fossil fuel might have provided would not contribute anything to this narrative and thus not be able to affect public risk perception.

 

Causal link between information and damage: In the case of tobacco, the argument can be made that smokers, had they been properly informed, would have ceased smoking. With respect to fossil fuels, on the other hand, no credible claim can be made that consumers would have ceased using fossil fuels had they received information about climate-related hazards from a fuel company. For one, research has demonstrated that people’s belief in climate doom scenarios is a function of their cultural predispositions, not their level of understanding of the science or information on hazards.[8] In addition, the abundance of exaggerated ‘climate alarmist’ information from sources such as government agencies and NGOs[9] does not suggest that any objective information that could possibly be provided by companies could change anything, except in the direction of less alarmism and more balance.[10] Thus, any corporate climate-related information that might be deemed required would make it even less likely that the public would either change its habits or demand (or at least support) more stringent regulation.

 

Ability to prevent harm: Arguably, tobacco companies might in some cases have prevented harm by providing full information on the risks associated with smoking. Fossil fuel companies, however, cannot provide any information that would help the public in avoiding possible harms; the public has been extensively informed about the risks of climate change through the public media, NGO campaigns, and government-supported awareness-raising, and these campaigns have gone beyond the science to exaggerate the risks. Any information that a court might find a fossil fuel company was required to provide could only create more balance, making it less, not more, likely that consumption would be reduced or more stringent regulations be put into place. The only theory that could possibly result in liability would have to hinge on a claim that, given what was known about climate change, fossil fuel companies should have ceased selling their products. But that, of course, would have imposed such enormous costs on society that any climate-related benefits would be wiped out many times over.

 

In short, a careful comparison of the nature of the risks, the related potential harms, and the possibilities for prevention by corporations demonstrates that the theories developed by plaintiff lawyers in the tobacco litigation are irrelevant to possible climate change litigation against corporations. This explains also why the climate action movement does not engage in any such analysis. Instead, it focuses on arousing “public outrage” to “mobilize the public.” And it does not attempt to hide the political objective of its “narrative,” i.e. “to illuminate the collusion and fraudulent activities that prevent us from building the sustainable future we need and our children deserve.”[11] Reality shows a different picture, however: they have been prevented from imposing their view of ‘climate justice’ on all of us, not due to any fraudulent activities, but because politicians have rejected some of their more extreme demands.[12]

 

Even if they are successful in mobilizing the public, their propaganda will likely not persuade courts of law to ignore their legal mandate and distort the law to establish a new liability program draining resources from corporations. As one participant at the 2012 Workshop commented, “[e]ven if your ultimate goal might be to shut down a company, you still might be wise to start out by asking for compensation for injured parties.”[13] One might begin to wonder who is being injured, who is engaging in collusion, and who distorts legal and political processes.

 

*****

 

[baraka]

Either way, the climate system appears to be chaotic and non-linear so that most of the modelling and fitting done by everyone is subject to considerable error bars. (The IPCC says this and also that prediction of future climate states is therefore impossible.)

 

Right you are. But let's not forget this...

 

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

 

From this graphic of the temperature records at the GISP2 ice core in Greenland, we know we had hot spells in the past.

 

In the Minoan period, some 3300 years ago, temperatures shot up at some –28,7C. In the Roman period, 2000 years ago, they shot up at some –29,5C, and in the medieval period, they shot up at some –30,5C. During the little ice age, some 350 years ago, they were down at about –32,0C. So, approximately, the temperatures at the GISP2 core historically vary from –28C to –32C.

 

So…

 

If today we can get temperature records from 10000 years ago and beyond from those ice cores, then those glaciers never melted away, despite those hot spells.

 

If the temperatures during those hot spells were in the region of –30C, then it would take a lot more then a mere 5C increase, which never happened since the last ice age, to melt them away and inundate everything.

 

The summit of the GISP2 ice core is right smack in the middle of Greenland at an altitude of 3027m. It will never melt away unless temperatures rise some 30C degrees.

 

Besides, all the global climate change fuss is about that little red line in the lower right hand corner of the graph. We are way below what it used to be, and we're not talking 65 million years ago !

 

Plus, that green downward sploping line seems to be a second order least square fit of the temperature data. We are going down.

 

What a useless fuss !

[hrothgar]

Right you are. But let's not forget this...

 

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

 

Plus, that green downward sploping line seems to be a second order least square fit of the temperature data. We are going down.

 

What a useless fuss !

 

Yes, the green curve is going down.

That's why everyone is so concerned that the red curve - the one showing the actual temperature - is going up so very very quickly.

[baraka]

Yes, the green curve is going down.

That's why everyone is so concerned that the red curve - the one showing the actual temperature - is going up so very very quickly.

 

Well, well, well, Another gratuitous comment ! As if it never went up quikly before. Geez. Please open up your eyes if not your mind !

[Zelandakh]

Still you haven’t answered my questions. All you are doing is throwing around red herrings to distract everyone. I’ve explained the scientific process and that a non disproved model should be accepted until a better model can be found. Any statistics major will confirm that.

So you accept that the climate models should be accepted until a better model can be found? Well that is good as it is what is currently happening within the scientific community. That seems to be different from what you have advocated up to this point. Those models are able to recreate the historical climate much more effectively than the simple model you are suggesting. That is not a red herring, it is simply a fact.

 

Your other points are simply confirming what I have already written - SSNs show a decent correlation with the historical record. The grand minima are the most obvious examples of that and were the origin of the connection being made. But this correlation breaks down for the recent period. If you believe the most popular theory that is because the solar signal becomes dominated by other factors, primarily aerosols and greenhouse gases. Hence the climate models take those factors into account in addition to solar activity.

 

The modified SSN formula may well show a correlation for the modern record but then loses the historical correlation. What any statistician would tell you is that the most likely cause for this data pattern would be that there is a new influence on the modern data that was not present in the historical record. The best current models use this approach and that will most likely remain the "accepted" view unless and until something better is found. Now it might well be that the weightings within the current models get adjusted over time and it might be that solar activity becomes more important....or perhaps less important. What I am reasonably confident of is that the correct model will not include only solar activity and it is difficult not to be more critical of someone that holds such a view given the evidence.

[Al_U_Card]

So you accept that the climate models should be accepted until a better model can be found? Well that is good as it is what is currently happening within the scientific community. That seems to be different from what you have advocated up to this point. Those models are able to recreate the historical climate much more effectively than the simple model you are suggesting. That is not a red herring, it is simply a fact.

 

Your other points are simply confirming what I have already written - SSNs show a decent correlation with the historical record. The grand minima are the most obvious examples of that and were the origin of the connection being made. But this correlation breaks down for the recent period. If you believe the most popular theory that is because the solar signal becomes dominated by other factors, primarily aerosols and greenhouse gases. Hence the climate models take those factors into account in addition to solar activity.

 

The modified SSN formula may well show a correlation for the modern record but then loses the historical correlation. What any statistician would tell you is that the most likely cause for this data pattern would be that there is a new influence on the modern data that was not present in the historical record. The best current models use this approach and that will most likely remain the "accepted" view unless and until something better is found. Now it might well be that the weightings within the current models get adjusted over time and it might be that solar activity becomes more important....or perhaps less important. What I am reasonably confident of is that the correct model will not include only solar activity and it is difficult not to be more critical of someone that holds such a view given the evidence.

Are you sure about the models ability to "reproduce" past climate? My understanding is that they have no skill in predicting "out of sample" values (ie demonstrating skill) but are indeed only able to "reproduce" values within the ranges for which they are "tuned" by parameterization.

[baraka]

So you accept that the climate models should be accepted until a better model can be found?

 

Still you're swirling around the pot. I asked you a specific question and you still did not answer.

 

Given that there is a strong correlation between arctic temperature anomalies and the arctic geomagnetic field, and none with the CO2 level in the atmosphere,

what is you professional math graduate opinion on these correlations ?

[Zelandakh]

Are you sure about the models ability to "reproduce" past climate? My understanding is that they have no skill in predicting "out of sample" values (ie demonstrating skill) but are indeed only able to "reproduce" values within the ranges for which they are "tuned" by parameterization.

I am not absolutely sure having not seen them spewing out figures or the like but my understanding is that they do indeed do a reasonable job on the historical data, largely because the dominant factor becomes solar activity with greenhouse gas levels lower.

 

 

Still you're swirling around the pot. I asked you a specific question and you still did not answer.

 

Given that there is a strong correlation between arctic temperature anomalies and the arctic geomagnetic field, and none with the CO2 level in the atmosphere,

what is you professional math graduate opinion on these correlations ?

I answered you. You may not like the answer but that is not my issue. On the other hand, you are yet to answer any of those that were set to you.

 

One final point, I already explained to you that having a science qualification does not make one a professional scientist. The same is true of mathematics, I am a maths graduate but not a professional mathematician, so the obnoxious "professional opinion" that you have already given more than once is as misplaced as it is unappreciated.

 

Please show us now that you are not simply the latest in a long line of trolls visiting this thread. It really does get tiresome after a while.

[baraka]

Please show us now that you are not simply the latest in a long line of trolls visiting this thread. It really does get tiresome after a while.

 

I think I have done so more then once by expaining in full details the scientific thaught process. Accepted until proven false, no if's or but's, much like the statistitian's process.

[baraka]

Oh my God, were spewing way too much CO2 in the atmosphere. The temperatures will rise to an intolerable height !

 

No they wont. Doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperatures only logarithmically, half of what it would normally be if linear.

 

Yes but we are expelling more CO2 at an exponential rate. Isnt that going to make the temperatures go up linearly ?

 

It would but we have sinks on earth that absorb both CO2 and heat exponentially. They are increased vegetation and oceans. So, the increase will still be logarithmic !

 

Yes but isnt that bad just the same ?

 

Yes but anything real growing exponentially cant go on for ever. At some point they either plateau, like all economies, or they come crashing down before reaching infinity.

 

But will that point in time come too late ?

 

Not shure !

 

Is there anything we can do to stop it ?

 

Yes ! Let all the governments make it so hard and costly to burn Carbon that all economies will have crashed. Then, nobody will burn carbon and everything will return to normal !

 

 

In case somebody did not notice... It's a satire !

[Al_U_Card]

I am not absolutely sure having not seen them spewing out figures or the like but my understanding is that they do indeed do a reasonable job on the historical data, largely because the dominant factor becomes solar activity with greenhouse gas levels lower.

 

Please show us now that you are not simply the latest in a long line of trolls visiting this thread. It really does get tiresome after a while.

 

Interestingly, parameterization will ALWAYS give reasonably good results, just like curve-fitting, after the fact. We have seen just how poorly the models perform over the last 15 years or so (95% of them outside of 95% confidence limits for the ACTUAL global temps) The reason? It is likely that their reliance on [CO2] being THE climate driver are inaccurate, since this is the only part of their equations that is not "proven" physics. Models are all the IPCC has and ALL of the scary scenarios relate to RCP8.5 and its end-of-the-world (as opposed to Business as Usual) propositions.

 

As for the denigration of contributors to this thread. We are all members of this community and have reasonable disagreements on many subjects, be they bridge, science or (anti)-social behavior. Reasonable dialogue is only possible when we respect the right of others to their opinions and the expression thereof. Science is a field of endeavor that involves repeated refutation of current paradigms. Once we forget that, hope to advance is lost because we remain in place, turning in circles of self-congratulation or auto-flagellation depending on the aspect of the situation being described.

 

Minds are like parachutes, they only work well when open.

[baraka]

international bankers profiting from fears about global warming.

 

 

Why do I have that funny feeling that you are spewing out all that rage and hate because you are being payed by those same bankers ?