The Triumph of Science

[Sheaf Saint]

And this highlights perfectly what is so wrong with people like GM.

They would rather get their information about climate science from baseless op-ed pieces in notoriously biased, agenda-driven publications like the WSJ than from people who actually work in it. And still expect to be taken seriously.

[Guided Missile]

46 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

And this highlights perfectly what is so wrong with people like GM.

They would rather get their information about climate science from baseless op-ed pieces in notoriously biased, agenda-driven publications like the WSJ than from people who actually work in it. And still expect to be taken seriously.

I'd rather get my facts from scientific papers, like the one's I quoted above and draw my own conclusions. Obviously you didn't read the two I linked. My original view on climate change and the role of CO2 in any observed global warming, was based on the original IPCC report published in 1990. Two of the chapters are worth reading, if your mind is open enough. Chapter 7 here and Chapter 11 here. I will make it easy for you and post the most salient extract below:

Quote

For some greenhouse gases, the current rates of release which are directly attributable to human activities are small percentages of large natural fluxes between the atmosphere the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems while for others human activities result in dominant emissions The atmospheric carbon content is a very small fraction of existing reservoirs of carbon in ocean waters and sediments. Relatively minor adjustments in the world ocean circulation and chemistry, or in the life cycle of terrestrial vegetation, could significantly affect the amount of CO2 or CH4 in the atmosphere, even were anthropogenic emissions to be stabilized In particular, global warming is likely to decrease the absorption of carbon dioxide by sea water and lead to widespread melting of methane gas hydrates in and under the permafrost and also release CH4. Conversely, positive changes in the biogenic storage of carbon in the ocean could increase the oceanic CO2 uptake and ameliorate the greenhouse effect
A central question being addressed relates to the role of the ocean and its circulation in the uptake of CO2 produced from the burning of fossil fuels This uptake occurs via both physical and biological processes Neither is well quantified on a global scale, and the regulation of the biological processes is at present only poorly understood In particular the biogeochemical processes responsible for the long-term storage of a portion of the total primary production cannot at this time be resolved sufficiently in time and space to say how they might be affected by climate change.

What has changed since this fairly benign IPCC summary of the role of CO2 in climate change? Well, millions of research dollars has spawned a climate science industry doing nothing but playing with data and torturing it to make it say what they want. What hasn't changed much is the global temperature, but then apparently, the last 30 years of not much changing was just an "anomaly". Surprisingly the original global temperature graph I remember so well from this first report has changed beyond all recognition, to a version that so frightens autistic children:

 

[Sheaf Saint]

2 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

What has changed since this fairly benign IPCC summary of the role of CO2 in climate change? Well, millions of research dollars has spawned a climate science industry doing nothing but playing with data and torturing it to make it say what they want. 

You've posted some delusional nonsense over the years, but this is right up there with the very worst of it. 

2 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

 What hasn't changed much is the global temperature, but then apparently, the last 30 years of not much changing was just an "anomaly". 

 

As usual GM, you're talking total codswallop.

[CB Fry]

Baffles me why anyone is even bothering to rise to his pointless baiting.

[badgerx16]

6 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

..... both the origin of covid 19 and climate change:

 

Why not bring Cressida Dick into the thread and you can claim a full house.

[whelk]

57 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Baffles me why anyone is even bothering to rise to his pointless baiting.

This is the first thread in a while that I haven’t bothered reading. Was solely as saw who made the opening post and thought nah

[Guided Missile]

3 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

You've posted some delusional nonsense over the years, but this is right up there with the very worst of it. 

As usual GM, you're talking total codswallop.

Tree rings combined with digital measurements, so completely unscientific and not a clue about how any small increase has been caused by an increase in CO2. Must try harder.

[Guided Missile]

Just now, Guided Missile said:

Tree rings combined with digital measurements, so completely unscientific and not a clue about how any small increase has been caused by an increase in CO2. Must try harder.

I call a 0.8C increase in the last 30 years, "not much".

[Guided Missile]

The 1998–2012 hiatus shows a rise of 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade, compared with a longer term rise of 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade over the period from 1951 to 2012. The appearance of hiatus is sensitive to the start and end years chosen: a 15-year period starting in 1996 shows a rate of increase of 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] °C per decade, but taking 15 years from 1997 the rate reduces to 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade.

[Fan The Flames]

[Guided Missile]

In its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the IPCC used the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models to project future warming and the associated climate impacts. In the interests of science, I thought it may worthwhile for the curious to take a look at the accuracy of these models versus digital measurements via weather balloons and satellites, taken in the period since Saints won the FA cup, i.e. a long time ago: 

Solid red line—average of all the CMIP-5 climate models; Thin colored lines—individual CMIP-5 models; solid figures—weather balloon, satellite, and reanalysis data for the tropical troposphere.

 

A careful look at the figure above reveals that only one of the 102 model runs correctly simulates what has been observed. This is the Russian climate model INM-CM4, which also has the least prospective warming of all of them, with an ECS of 2.05°C, compared to the CMIP5 average of 3.4°C.  

The literature drawing attention to an upward bias in climate model warming responses in the tropical troposphere extends back at least 15 years now (Karl et al., 2006). Rather than being resolved, the problem has become worse, since now every member of the CMIP6 generation of climate models exhibits an upward bias in the entire global troposphere as well as in the tropics. 

The IPCC is nearing completion of an upcoming (2022) Sixth Assessment Report, and a new suite of models, designated CMIP6, is being released. Will those be an improvement?   
No. As shown by McKitrick and Christy (2020), the CMIP6 models are even worse. Of the two models that work, the Russian INM-CM4.8 has even less warming than its predecessor, with an ECS of 1.8°C, compared to the CMIP6 community value of around four degrees. The other one is also a very low ECS model from the same group, INM-CM5. The model mean warming rate exceeds observation by more than four times at altitude in the tropics.

As far as a climate emergency, caused by any extreme weather events allegedly due to the increase in CO2 concentrations, it is worth looking back further. Since the 1920s, global CO2 concentrations increased from about 305 parts per million to more than 410 ppm, and average global temperatures increased by about 1°C. Yet, globally, the individual risk of dying from weather-related disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and drought decreased by 99 percent.

There is an increasing body of evidence that global warming and increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are actually beneficial. In a recent paper by Dayaratna et al. (2020) three forms of evidence indicate that the CO2 fertilization effects are significant:

First, rice yields have been shown to exhibit strong positive responses to enhanced ambient CO2 levels. Kimball (2016) surveyed results from Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments, and drew particular attention to the large yield responses (about 34 percent) of hybrid rice in CO2 doubling experiments, describing these as the most exciting and important advances in the field. Experiments in both Japan and China showed that available cultivars respond very favourably to elevated ambient CO2. Furthermore, Challinor et al. (2014), Zhu et al. (2015) and Wu et al. (2018) all report evidence that hybrid rice varietals exist that are more heat-tolerant and therefore able to take advantage of CO2 enrichment even under warming conditions (2013). 

Second, satellite-based studies have yielded compelling evidence of stronger general growth effects than were anticipated in the 1990s. Zhu et al (2016) published a comprehensive study on greening and human activity from 1982 to 2009. The ratio of land areas that became greener, as opposed to browner, was approximately 9 to 1. The increase in atmospheric CO2 was just under 15 percent over the interval but was found to be responsible for approximately 70 percent of the observed greening, followed by the deposition of airborne nitrogen compounds (9 percent) from the combustion of coal and deflation of nitrate-containing agricultural fertilizers, lengthening growing seasons (8 percent) and land cover changes (4 percent), mainly reforestation of regions such as southeastern North America … 

Third, there has been an extensive amount of research since Tsingas et al. (1997) on adaptive agricultural practices under simultaneous warming and CO2 enrichment. Challinor et al. (2014) surveyed a large number of studies that examined responses to combinations of increased temperature, CO2 and precipitation, with and without adaptation. In their metanalysis, average yield gains increased 0.06 percent per ppm increase in CO2 and 0.5 percent per percentage point increase in precipitation, and adaptation added a further 7.2 percent yield gain, but warming decreased it by 4.9 percent per degree C. Based on Challinor et al.’s (2014) regression analysis, doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 pm, while allowing temperatures to rise by 3°C and precipitation to increase by 2 percent, would imply an average percent yield increase ranging from 2.1 to 12.1 percent increase.

For those that have read this far, I hope that a presentation of real science, rather than climate science, will provide a counter-balance to the hysterical utterings of politicians, pseudo scientists and untrained politicians.

 

[buctootim]

51 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

In its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the IPCC used the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models to project future warming and the associated climate impacts. In the interests of science, I thought it may worthwhile for the curious to take a look at the accuracy of these models versus digital measurements via weather balloons and satellites, taken in the period since Saints won the FA cup, i.e. a long time ago: 

Solid red line—average of all the CMIP-5 climate models; Thin colored lines—individual CMIP-5 models; solid figures—weather balloon, satellite, and reanalysis data for the tropical troposphere.

 

A careful look at the figure above reveals that only one of the 102 model runs correctly simulates what has been observed. This is the Russian climate model INM-CM4, which also has the least prospective warming of all of them, with an ECS of 2.05°C, compared to the CMIP5 average of 3.4°C.  

The literature drawing attention to an upward bias in climate model warming responses in the tropical troposphere extends back at least 15 years now (Karl et al., 2006). Rather than being resolved, the problem has become worse, since now every member of the CMIP6 generation of climate models exhibits an upward bias in the entire global troposphere as well as in the tropics. 

The IPCC is nearing completion of an upcoming (2022) Sixth Assessment Report, and a new suite of models, designated CMIP6, is being released. Will those be an improvement?   
No. As shown by McKitrick and Christy (2020), the CMIP6 models are even worse. Of the two models that work, the Russian INM-CM4.8 has even less warming than its predecessor, with an ECS of 1.8°C, compared to the CMIP6 community value of around four degrees. The other one is also a very low ECS model from the same group, INM-CM5. The model mean warming rate exceeds observation by more than four times at altitude in the tropics.

As far as a climate emergency, caused by any extreme weather events allegedly due to the increase in CO2 concentrations, it is worth looking back further. Since the 1920s, global CO2 concentrations increased from about 305 parts per million to more than 410 ppm, and average global temperatures increased by about 1°C. Yet, globally, the individual risk of dying from weather-related disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and drought decreased by 99 percent.

There is an increasing body of evidence that global warming and increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are actually beneficial. In a recent paper by Dayaratna et al. (2020) three forms of evidence indicate that the CO2 fertilization effects are significant:

First, rice yields have been shown to exhibit strong positive responses to enhanced ambient CO2 levels. Kimball (2016) surveyed results from Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments, and drew particular attention to the large yield responses (about 34 percent) of hybrid rice in CO2 doubling experiments, describing these as the most exciting and important advances in the field. Experiments in both Japan and China showed that available cultivars respond very favourably to elevated ambient CO2. Furthermore, Challinor et al. (2014), Zhu et al. (2015) and Wu et al. (2018) all report evidence that hybrid rice varietals exist that are more heat-tolerant and therefore able to take advantage of CO2 enrichment even under warming conditions (2013). 

Second, satellite-based studies have yielded compelling evidence of stronger general growth effects than were anticipated in the 1990s. Zhu et al (2016) published a comprehensive study on greening and human activity from 1982 to 2009. The ratio of land areas that became greener, as opposed to browner, was approximately 9 to 1. The increase in atmospheric CO2 was just under 15 percent over the interval but was found to be responsible for approximately 70 percent of the observed greening, followed by the deposition of airborne nitrogen compounds (9 percent) from the combustion of coal and deflation of nitrate-containing agricultural fertilizers, lengthening growing seasons (8 percent) and land cover changes (4 percent), mainly reforestation of regions such as southeastern North America … 

Third, there has been an extensive amount of research since Tsingas et al. (1997) on adaptive agricultural practices under simultaneous warming and CO2 enrichment. Challinor et al. (2014) surveyed a large number of studies that examined responses to combinations of increased temperature, CO2 and precipitation, with and without adaptation. In their metanalysis, average yield gains increased 0.06 percent per ppm increase in CO2 and 0.5 percent per percentage point increase in precipitation, and adaptation added a further 7.2 percent yield gain, but warming decreased it by 4.9 percent per degree C. Based on Challinor et al.’s (2014) regression analysis, doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 pm, while allowing temperatures to rise by 3°C and precipitation to increase by 2 percent, would imply an average percent yield increase ranging from 2.1 to 12.1 percent increase.

For those that have read this far, I hope that a presentation of real science, rather than climate science, will provide a counter-balance to the hysterical utterings of politicians, pseudo scientists and untrained politicians.

 

Why don't you reference anything? Is it because you want to appear as though you know what you're talking about and obscure the fact that it's all copy and paste? 

[Sheaf Saint]

8 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Why don't you reference anything? Is it because you want to appear as though you know what you're talking about and obscure the fact that it's all copy and paste? 

Because then he would have to admit that he got it from somewhere like the Association of British Drivers' website (which he once did), and not from an actual reputable science journal.

This particular copy and paste job gives the veneer of authenticity, but is completely irrelevant because it's only talking about temperature variation in the troposphere and ignores the surface temperatures, which is the actually important bit.

I also love the bit where it says CO2 is actually beneficial because some studies have confirmed - get this - that some plant species grow better in higher temperatures with more atmospheric CO2. I mean, ground-breaking stuff or what!

[Guided Missile]

21 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Because then he would have to admit that he got it from somewhere like the Association of British Drivers' website (which he once did), and not from an actual reputable science journal.

This particular copy and paste job gives the veneer of authenticity, but is completely irrelevant because it's only talking about temperature variation in the troposphere and ignores the surface temperatures, which is the actually important bit.

I also love the bit where it says CO2 is actually beneficial because some studies have confirmed - get this - that some plant species grow better in higher temperatures with more atmospheric CO2. I mean, ground-breaking stuff or what!

Obviously I copied and pasted a lot of it. Rather like your misleading graph, numb nuts.  I'm surprised that there is anyone that who wanted a more detailed document, but if you insist, here it is, references and all.

I am willing to bet a pound to a pinch of shit that rather than discussing the content of the paper and it's references, posters replying to this thread will concentrate on ad-hominem attacks. They have nothing else besides that and blocking a motorway somewhere.

[Guided Missile]

Mind you, sometimes you need an ad hominem attack, when it calls for it:

Quote

Best scientific practice uses models that work and does not seriously consider those that do not. This is standard when formulating the daily weather forecast, and should be standard with regard to climate forecasts. There’s another problem with the CMIP5 suite that popped up in 2016 and continues to appear: The models are fudged. That’s plain English for “selective parameterization.” In the words of Frédéric Hourdin, the chief of the French climate modelling effort:  "One can imagine changing a parameter that is known to affect the sensitivity, keeping both this parameter and the ECS in the anticipated acceptable range"

 

[Guided Missile]

Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is an estimate of the eventual steady-state global warming at double CO₂.

[buctootim]

27 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Obviously I copied and pasted a lot of it. Rather like your misleading graph, numb nuts.  I'm surprised that there is anyone that who wanted a more detailed document, but if you insist, here it is, references and all.

I am willing to bet a pound to a pinch of shit that rather than discussing the content of the paper and it's references, posters replying to this thread will concentrate on ad-hominem attacks. They have nothing else besides that and blocking a motorway somewhere.

Not at all. I'm loving reading the report co-sponsored by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creationism and co-authored by Marlo Lewis whose recent other publications include  Are The Feds To Blame For Shark Attacks? ; The Benefits Plastics Products Provide Wildlife and the Environment and Washington’s War against the Incandescent Light Bulb Is Back

Edited 8 October, 2021 by buctootim

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

Obviously I copied and pasted a lot of it. Rather like your misleading graph, numb nuts.  I'm surprised that there is anyone that who wanted a more detailed document, but if you insist, here it is, references and all.

I am willing to bet a pound to a pinch of shit that rather than discussing the content of the paper and it's references, posters replying to this thread will concentrate on ad-hominem attacks. They have nothing else besides that and blocking a motorway somewhere.

Jesus Christ GM. The signatory and sponsor list on that is like a Who's who of some of the most notorious pseudo-scientific climate misinformation peddlers (ie - Conservative "think tanks" and oil industry stooges) you could possibly imagine.

Have a look at some of their funding in the links below and tell me if you can see a pattern...

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)

Heritage Foundation

CO2 Coalition

National Center for Public Policy Research

Patrick J Michaels (admits 40% of funding comes from big oil)

 

Oh and BTW - calling me 'numb nuts' and then going on to whinge about being subjected to ad hominem attacks from other posters really isn't a good look.

Edited 8 October, 2021 by Sheaf Saint

[Guided Missile]

1 minute ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Jesus Christ GM. The signatory and sponsor list on that is like a Who's who of some of the most notorious pseudo-scientific climate misinformation peddlers (ie - Conservative "think tanks" and oil industry stooges) you could possibly imagine.

 

Quote

I am willing to bet a pound to a pinch of shit that rather than discussing the content of the paper and it's references, posters replying to this thread will concentrate on ad-hominem attacks. 

 

[CB Fry]

2 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

I am willing to bet a pound to a pinch of shit that rather than discussing the content of the paper and it's references, posters replying to this thread will concentrate on ad-hominem attacks. They have nothing else besides that and blocking a motorway somewhere.

I know it's all an act, so I will just applaud this as a quintessential example of your forum "character" and its lack of self awareness. Beautifully crafted.

Bravo.

Edited 8 October, 2021 by CB Fry

[buctootim]

3 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

I know it's all an act, so I will just applaud this as a quintessential example of your forum "character" and its lack of self awareness. Beautifully crafted.

Bravo.

I wish it was. I genuinely think he's pickled his brain and what we see is all that's left. 

[Sheaf Saint]

This is the chief author of the article you posted GM. I won't call it a paper because it is nothing of the sort.

Quote

Pat Michaels was a “member scientist” and “individual supporter” at The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASCC), an organisation created and funded by the tobacco industry to fight anti-tobacco legislation. 

Michaels was also an “Academic Member” of the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), a group created by the tobacco industry to frame legitimate science as “junk science” on matters pertaining to health and environment, particularly secondhand smoke health impacts. Michaels was listed as an academic member on the ESEF‘s March 1998 working paper titled “Environmental Tobacco Smoke Revisited: The reliability of the evidence for risk of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.” 

If you honestly think this is somebody who can be trusted to provide sound scientific information on climate change, there is no hope for you.

[Guided Missile]

2 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

This is the chief author of the article you posted GM. I won't call it a paper because it is nothing of the sort.

If you honestly think this is somebody who can be trusted to provide sound scientific information on climate change, there is no hope for you.

Obviously the publication I cited is not a peer reviewed paper, it's a literature review. Reserve your comments to the data and papers cited, please. I am particularly interested in why you think the actual balloon and satellite data in the graph is unrepresentative and the IPCC models are representative, of the degree of observed global warming.  

[Sheaf Saint]

OK GM, I'll humour you this one last time.

The section of the 'paper' you cited is based predominantly on this study by Ross McKitrick (an economist and senior fellow of the Fraser Institute - another Koch-funded "think tank"), which attempts to describe a large discrepancy between the observed tropical tropospheric warming and that projected by models (specifically the CMIP6 models used by the IPCC), claiming there is a deliberate upward bias in the 38 models compared for the study.

However, a more recent study by a team of actual climate researchers (not economists), goes much further and explains the reasoning for the discrepancy between the models and the satellite observations, and also explains why McKitrick's study is flawed...

Quote

Other recent research analyzing tropical midtropospheric temperature trends in CMIP6 reported that every model simulation warmed more than the average satellite observed trend (across four observational datasets) (9). As noted above, we find greater model–observational agreement. There are three reasons for this. First, we consider the range of uncertainty arising from different observational TMT datasets, rather than the observational average. Second, we analyze a much larger set of CMIP6 output (482 simulations from 55 models compared to 38 simulations from 38 models). Third, we remove the influence of stratospheric cooling from TMT in both models and observations. Over the satellite era, stratospheric temperature trends are primarily driven by human-caused ozone depletion. Systematic model errors in specifying changes in stratospheric ozone or ozone-depleting substances can have substantial impact on lower stratospheric temperature, and hence on model-versus-observational comparisons of “raw” TMT trends (2).

I'll leave it up to you to decide who you think has more credibility in this field of science.

Edit: you also seem to be confusing observed tropical tropospheric warming with observed GMST. I'm sure with your vast knowledge on this subject you don't need me to explain the difference between them, do you?

Edited 8 October, 2021 by Sheaf Saint

[Sheaf Saint]

On 06/10/2021 at 22:23, Guided Missile said:

I call a 0.8C increase in the last 30 years, "not much".

Of course you do. To a simple layman with zero understanding of paleo-climatology, an increase of less than 1 would appear to be "not much", which demonstrates further how ill-informed you are on this topic.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

On 06/10/2021 at 22:23, Guided Missile said:

I call a 0.8C increase in the last 30 years, "not much".

Pleb.

[Guided Missile]

15 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

OK GM, I'll humour you this one last time.

I'll ignore your patronizing tone and focus on a couple of details. One is the main one from the study you referenced from Imperial in which it is admitted that:

Quote

A long-standing discrepancy exists between general circulation models (GCMs) and satellite observations: The multimodel mean temperature of the midtroposphere (TMT) in the tropics warms at approximately twice the rate of observations.

It appears the way this long standing discrepancy is dealt with, is to alter the data, as usual:

Quote

• First, we consider the range of uncertainty arising from different observational TMT datasets, rather than the observational average.
• Second, we analyze a much larger set of CMIP6 output (482 simulations from 55 models compared to 38 simulations from 38 models).
• Third, we remove the influence of stratospheric cooling from TMT in both models and observations. 

What this study hasn't done is removed "the long-standing discrepancy (that) exists between general circulation models (GCMs) and satellite observations".  

I know the difference between "tropical tropospheric warming with observed GMST". Compared to the difficulty I had with quantum mechanics, it's not that hard. Are you trying to say there is no connection between tropical tropospheric warming and observed GMST?

As far as 0.8C warming in the last 30 years, it may be a large increase to you, but it isn't to me. Sorry about that. As you are obviously a genius in this field, can you provide proof that this is down to the increase in CO2 concentrations from 0.03% to 0.04%, an increase I also happen to think is not much. No one has been able to prove to me this increase is causation, not correlation. 

I'd appreciate the patronizing tone to be dialled down a bit, mate. You're nowhere near as clever as you think you are and some humility may help you to learn, as would a more open mind to studies that may not agree with your mindset. 

Edited 9 October, 2021 by Guided Missile
Grammar

[Tamesaint]

17 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

 

I'd appreciate the patronizing tone to be dialled down a bit, mate. You're nowhere near as clever as you think you are and some humility may help you to learn, as would a more open mind to studies that may not agree with your mindset. 

.... and we have the winner of the Ironic post of the year award. 

Edited 9 October, 2021 by Tamesaint

[Tamesaint]

Just now, Tamesaint said:

 

Deleted

Edited 9 October, 2021 by Tamesaint

[Sheaf Saint]

50 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

It appears the way this long standing discrepancy is dealt with, is to alter the data, as usual:

 

You mean rightly correct for the influence of stratoshperic cooling effect in the MSU signal...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15129277/

Quote

Abstract

From 1979 to 2001, temperatures observed globally by the mid-tropospheric channel of the satellite-borne Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU channel 2), as well as the inferred temperatures in the lower troposphere, show only small warming trends of less than 0.1 K per decade (refs 1-3). Surface temperatures based on in situ observations however, exhibit a larger warming of approximately 0.17 K per decade (refs 4, 5), and global climate models forced by combined anthropogenic and natural factors project an increase in tropospheric temperatures that is somewhat larger than the surface temperature increase. Here we show that trends in MSU channel 2 temperatures are weak because the instrument partly records stratospheric temperatures whose large cooling trend offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming. We quantify the stratospheric contribution to MSU channel 2 temperatures using MSU channel 4, which records only stratospheric temperatures. The resulting trend of reconstructed tropospheric temperatures from satellite data is physically consistent with the observed surface temperature trend. For the tropics, the tropospheric warming is approximately 1.6 times the surface warming, as expected for a moist adiabatic lapse rate.

It's interesting isn't it. This study was published in 2004 and is widely available, yet McKitrick deliberately ignores it and cherry picks his model realisations so as to make the discrepancy look much larger than it actually is, while neglecting to offer any valid explanations for it.

I wonder what possible reason he would have to do that?

[Sheaf Saint]

40 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

.... and we have the winner of the Ironic post of the year award. 

Quite a spectacular lack of self-awareness isn't it.

[Guided Missile]

4 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

 

You mean rightly correct for the influence of stratoshperic cooling effect in the MSU signal...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15129277/

It's interesting isn't it. This study was published in 2004 and is widely available, yet McKitrick deliberately ignores it and cherry picks his model realisations so as to make the discrepancy look much larger than it actually is, while neglecting to offer any valid explanations for it.

I wonder what possible reason he would have to do that?

I notice you provide no comment on the observed temperatures from balloon and satellite data being much lower since 1975 than that predicted by every model apart from the Russian one. You have nowhere to go in respect to the observed data sources. It is not surprising that McKitrick deliberately ignores a study that doesn't form the basis of the IPCC data models. Those happen to be the models that inform governments globally on whether they spend $35 trillion to reach zero carbon. He's an economist, used to dealing with complex data sets and is well qualified to inform the taxpayers whether there is a cost benefit in spending this massive sum. I happen to think that no one has proven that an increase in CO2 causes, or is caused by, global warming. That is really the only question to answer and you have avoided that key point, but resorted to an arrogant approach whenever anyone challenges your view.

There is no way you will change your opinion on this matter, whatever the evidence, but I am willing to bet you have never owned an electric car, nor installed a heat pump. As a taxpayer, I'm not happy paying the bill for your theories, if you're not prepared to. 

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

.... and we have the winner of the Ironic post of the year award. 

I wonder whose DM to GM he's copied and pasted it from.

[badgerx16]

I can picture an historical version of GM stood on the stern of the sinking Titanic asking the people around him "Could somebody please show me how a simple block of ice could possibly sink 30 thousand tons of steel. Where is the scientific evidence ?".

[badgerx16]

40 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

 I happen to think that no one has proven that an increase in CO2 causes, or is caused by, global warming. 

It is all a conspiracy to defraud Global governments of $35 trillion, or GM is wrong.

Hmmmmm, difficult decision.

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

I happen to think that no one has proven that an increase in CO2 causes, or is caused by, global warming.

We all knew that before you started this thread, sweetheart. We know.

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

I notice you provide no comment on the observed temperatures from balloon and satellite data being much lower since 1975 than that predicted by every model apart from the Russian one.  

So despite quoting it, you clearly didn't bother to read, or didn't understand the content of the more recent study I shared. Why am I not surprised 🙄

For clarity - and I feel like I'm repeating myself here -the McKitrick study that shows this was flawed, using cherry picked data to deliberately create a false narrative.

And you accuse climate scientists of deliberately adjusting data to create a desired result. Astonishing that you are so blind to this practice when it comes to studies that feed your own confirmation bias.

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

I am willing to bet you have never owned an electric car, nor installed a heat pump. 

You're right, I haven't. Not yet anyway. Because until recently these things have been prohibitively expensive. Not that I have to justify my environmental credentials to you, but if it reassures you to know, I use an e-bike to get to work when I need to be in the office, rather than a car.

[Guided Missile]

55 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

56 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

So despite quoting it, you clearly didn't bother to read, or didn't understand the content of the more recent study I shared.

I read the study. Particularly this part:

Quote

While it is conceivable that model biases in climate sensitivity are the most important cause of disagreement between modeled and observed tropical TMT warming rates, it is also possible that internal variability is partly masking the substantial warming that would be expected if the Earth had a large climate sensitivity value

Not a ringing endorsement for climate modelling, nor is your refusal to cite a study that proves any increase in CO2 forces climate change. At the risk of repeating myself, the IPCC stated this:

Quote

Relatively minor adjustments in the world ocean circulation and chemistry, or in the life cycle of terrestrial vegetation, could significantly affect the amount of CO2 or CH4 in the atmosphere, even were anthropogenic emissions to be stabilized In particular, global warming is likely to decrease the absorption of carbon dioxide by sea water and lead to widespread melting of methane gas hydrates in and under the permafrost and also release CH4. Conversely, positive changes in the biogenic storage of carbon in the ocean could increase the oceanic CO2 uptake and ameliorate the greenhouse effect

The penny has dropped for me about the same time I sold my completely impractical electric car, what a complete load of bullshit this climate "emergency" is. It was re-enforced by the worlds elite listening to every word an uneducated and autistic girl has to say about our planet. "Rainman" was a movie, FFS.

All I can say is good luck with your profession and the money you earn from it. I promise I won't lose any sleep over the inaccurate modelling you guys come up with, nor a couple of degrees of warming we may face over the next 100 years. Personally, I think any increase in temperature and CO2 will be a good thing for our ecosystem. 

 

[badgerx16]

30 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

......an uneducated and autistic girl has to say about our planet. "Rainman" was a movie, FFS.

Just when we thought you could not get any more pathetic and out of touch with reality, you manage to lower your standards even further.

[Guided Missile]

On 08/10/2021 at 16:32, Sheaf Saint said:

OK GM, I'll humour you this one last time.

The section of the 'paper' you cited is based predominantly on this study by Ross McKitrick (an economist and senior fellow of the Fraser Institute - another Koch-funded "think tank"), which attempts to describe a large discrepancy between the observed tropical tropospheric warming and that projected by models (specifically the CMIP6 models used by the IPCC), claiming there is a deliberate upward bias in the 38 models compared for the study.

However, a more recent study by a team of actual climate researchers (not economists), goes much further and explains the reasoning for the discrepancy between the models and the satellite observations, and also explains why McKitrick's study is flawed...

I see our resident climate expert has fled this thread after leaving the above rabbit dropping. It's one thing patronising a village idiot like me, but it appears that he doesn't much like the opinion of experts in his field. The paper (McKitrick and Christy (2020), which was referenced in my post above, found a significant warming bias globally in the newest climate models and has been cited by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) as among the top 10% most downloaded papers in 2020 from its journal Earth and Space Science.

“Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers” was co-authored by Dr. John Christy, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science who is also Alabama’s state climatologist and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The article “helped raise the visibility of Earth and space sciences and inspired new research ideas,” according to AGU. Dr. Christy, was appointed to serve on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board.

“This was a pleasant surprise for Ross McKitrick and me,” he says. “Ross is an econometrician at the University of Guelph in Guelph, Ontario, Canada, with terrific statistical skills. I worked on assembling the observational datasets and converting the raw climate model output into a metric that matched what is observed from satellites and balloons.”

The scientists examined and updated historical data focusing on 1979-2014 from the newest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6 (CMIP6) climate model and found that what previously were excessive warming rates modeled only in the tropical troposphere are now being excessively modeled globally. All of their model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and mid-troposphere, both in the tropics and globally.

“Our work demonstrates clearly that these policies are based on exaggerated notions of climate change,” Dr. Christy says. “In other words, we show that the models are too sensitive to the extra greenhouse gases that humans are placing into the atmosphere as a result of enhanced economic development, and so are not dependable for major energy-policy initiatives.”

[badgerx16]

http://redgreenandblue.org/2020/09/23/deniers-double-crying-censorship-trick-people-paying-attention-stupidity/

"For those that don’t know, these guys are not exactly top notch scientists. Canadian economist Ross McKitrick’s work is so subpar he has been described as “shameless bullshit” and either “dumb or dishonest,” and has proven incapable of properly reading charts. He also once, in a study co-authored with Pat Michaels, made the elementary mistake of confusing radians and degrees (in such a way that, just like all his other supposed mistakes, led to him claiming that he’d debunked some aspect of climate science).

Meanwhile, University of Alabama-Hunstville’s John Christy has long been responsible for some of the field’s shoddiest satellite science, including an infamous graph purporting to show models drastically overestimating warming, that he’s paraded in front of Congress multiple times, but has somehow never gotten published in the actual peer-reviewed literature. (Because it’s wrong.)

Together, they’re not exactly much better than the sum of their parts. For example, after reading a study of theirs last year, blogger Tamino wrote that it “demonstrates to those who know what they’re doing, that McKitrick and Christy don’t. If you really don’t know what you’re doing you might think this paper is impressive. If you do know what you’re doing, this paper is a supreme embarrassment to its authors.”"

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

I see our resident climate expert has fled this thread after leaving the above rabbit dropping. It's one thing patronising a village idiot like me, but it appears that he doesn't much like the opinion of experts in his field. The paper (McKitrick and Christy (2020), which was referenced in my post above, found a significant warming bias globally in the newest climate models and has been cited by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) as among the top 10% most downloaded papers in 2020 from its journal Earth and Space Science.

“Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers” was co-authored by Dr. John Christy, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science who is also Alabama’s state climatologist and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The article “helped raise the visibility of Earth and space sciences and inspired new research ideas,” according to AGU. Dr. Christy, was appointed to serve on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board.

“This was a pleasant surprise for Ross McKitrick and me,” he says. “Ross is an econometrician at the University of Guelph in Guelph, Ontario, Canada, with terrific statistical skills. I worked on assembling the observational datasets and converting the raw climate model output into a metric that matched what is observed from satellites and balloons.”

The scientists examined and updated historical data focusing on 1979-2014 from the newest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6 (CMIP6) climate model and found that what previously were excessive warming rates modeled only in the tropical troposphere are now being excessively modeled globally. All of their model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and mid-troposphere, both in the tropics and globally.

“Our work demonstrates clearly that these policies are based on exaggerated notions of climate change,” Dr. Christy says. “In other words, we show that the models are too sensitive to the extra greenhouse gases that humans are placing into the atmosphere as a result of enhanced economic development, and so are not dependable for major energy-policy initiatives.”

"Fled the thread". LOL. Forgive me for having better things to do with my weekend than argue with people I don't know on the internet.

You do realise that just repeatedly sharing the same paper that has already been shown to be badly flawed isn't going to give you any more credibility, don't you? No, I expect you don't. Let's just look at this snippet from their conclusions...

Quote

every member of the CMIP6 generation of climate models exhibits an upward bias in the entire global troposphere as well as in the tropics

This statement is utterly false. As demonstrated in the study by Po-Chedley et. al. 

Quote

We begin by comparing model and observational tropical tropospheric temperature time series (Fig. 1A). Since standard midtropospheric temperature (i.e., TMT) products include a small contribution from the cooling of the stratosphere, the TMT data analyzed here are adjusted to remove stratospheric influence (Materials and Methods). The average observed tropical TMT anomaly time series is within the range of CMIP6 coupled atmosphere–ocean GCM simulations, but warms less than the multimodel mean in the early 21st century. This timing is consistent with research that shows a deceleration in observed warming in the early 21st century due to multidecadal variability (14, 20, 21).

We find that 13% of CMIP6 historical simulations are within the range of current observational tropical TMT trend estimates (61 of 482 simulations in 14 of the 55 CMIP6 coupled GCMs considered; SI Appendix, Table S2).

For models with an ECS value between 2 and 3 K, 23% of simulations are within the range of observed tropical tropospheric temperature trends.

 

So lo and behold, when you use 482 historical simulations, instead of just 38, and you correctly adjust for the stratospheric cooling effect (as shown by the 2004 study I linked to previously), the picture changes dramatically.

So ask yourself GM - what reason did McKitrick and Christy have to use such a small sample size and ignore the research which shows the influence of stratospheric cooling in the satellite data? Only two possibilities occur - they are either totally incompetent, or they were deliberately trying to create a false narrative. Either way, placing your faith in their work is erroneous.

On 09/10/2021 at 12:30, Guided Missile said:

Not a ringing endorsement for climate modelling, nor is your refusal to cite a study that proves any increase in CO2 forces climate change.

I mean, where do I even begin with this? If you had even the most basic understanding of science, you would know full well this isn't how it works. Claiming that a position must be false because nobody can offer 100% proof is the most absurd of logical fallacies that even a first year undergraduate student would know damn well to avoid.

So no, you are correct that I cannot cite a study that proves it. Nor would I even pretend to. All I can say is that study after study after study has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that natural forcings simply do not account for the observed warming since pre-industrial times, and the fingerprints of man-made warming are evident to such a degree that the chance of the correlation between them and observed warming being coincidental is vanishingly small. 

I'll share this but I know you won't bother watching it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9GjguTOqs4

 

 

[Sheaf Saint]

22 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

http://redgreenandblue.org/2020/09/23/deniers-double-crying-censorship-trick-people-paying-attention-stupidity/

"For those that don’t know, these guys are not exactly top notch scientists. Canadian economist Ross McKitrick’s work is so subpar he has been described as “shameless bullshit” and either “dumb or dishonest,” and has proven incapable of properly reading charts. He also once, in a study co-authored with Pat Michaels, made the elementary mistake of confusing radians and degrees (in such a way that, just like all his other supposed mistakes, led to him claiming that he’d debunked some aspect of climate science).

Meanwhile, University of Alabama-Hunstville’s John Christy has long been responsible for some of the field’s shoddiest satellite science, including an infamous graph purporting to show models drastically overestimating warming, that he’s paraded in front of Congress multiple times, but has somehow never gotten published in the actual peer-reviewed literature. (Because it’s wrong.)

Together, they’re not exactly much better than the sum of their parts. For example, after reading a study of theirs last year, blogger Tamino wrote that it “demonstrates to those who know what they’re doing, that McKitrick and Christy don’t. If you really don’t know what you’re doing you might think this paper is impressive. If you do know what you’re doing, this paper is a supreme embarrassment to its authors.”"

GM thinks it is impressive.

Says it all.

[Guided Missile]

3 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

GM thinks it is impressive.

Says it all.

Quote

I am willing to bet a pound to a pinch of shit that rather than discussing the content of the paper and it's references, posters replying to this thread will concentrate on ad-hominem attacks. 

 

[CB Fry]

3 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

 

I am willing to bet a pound to a pinch of shit that every time someone obliterates GMs bullshit with sourced, validated information he cries off about "ad hominem attacks".

Waaah waaaaah waaaaaaaaah they're picking on me waaaaaaah

Waaaaaaaaaaah

[Guided Missile]

17 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

GM thinks it is impressive.

Says it all.

Red, green & blue, really??? Impressive publication, mate.

You are really brainwashed, aren't you? I was looking for the peer review of the paper you referenced, but the website you quoted didn't even review it. Talk about your professional credibility being shot to hell. You thought Dr. Christy was an economist, then, after it is obvious you've never heard of him, you desperately try and shit on his reputation. Mate, you're a total fraud.

Edited 11 October, 2021 by Guided Missile

[Guided Missile]

6 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

I am willing to bet a pound to a pinch of shit that every time someone obliterates GMs bullshit with sourced, validated information he cries off about "ad hominem attacks".

Waaah waaaaah waaaaaaaaah they're picking on me waaaaaaah

Waaaaaaaaaaah

Ssourced, validated information? Yeah....

[Guided Missile]

22 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

GM thinks it is impressive.

Says it all.

Where do I start:

Quote

So there’s probably a very good reason that Rossiter and Michaels are promoting the study now, in the space of time when it’s been accepted by the relatively new journal Earth and Space Science, but has yet to actually be published for anyone to see.

Nice to see you've accepted a review of a paper the author hasn't even  read. Classy...

[Sheaf Saint]

15 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Red, green & blue, really??? Impressive publication, mate.

You are really brainwashed, aren't you? I was looking for the peer review of the paper you referenced, but the website you quoted didn't even review it. Talk about your professional credibility being shot to hell. You thought Dr. Christy was an economist, then, after it is obvious you've never heard of him, you desperately try and shit on his reputation. Mate, you're a total fraud.

Cripes, you really are tying yourself up in knots this morning aren't you.

It wasn't me who linked to that website, it was Badgerx16

I didn't say Christy was an economist. I have heard of him and I know he's not. Ross McKitirick, however, who I have also heard of before because of his notoriety in climate science denial, is an economist. Which is what I said.

And the peer review information for the Po-Chedley et. al. paper is here...

Quote

PNAS March 30, 2021 118 (13) e2020962118; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020962118

Edited by Brian John Hoskins, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, and approved January 25, 2021 (received for review October 6, 2020)

You whinge about ad hominem attacks yet you respond with a wanker emoji and call me a total fraud 

Stay classy.

Edited 11 October, 2021 by Sheaf Saint

[CB Fry]

13 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Ssourced, validated information? Yeah....

Waaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaah