Slashdot Mirror

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

• The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
• Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
• Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
• In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
• In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
• The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
• The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

While Jane is reading those papers, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example

No,no. Global cooling. Haven't you read the scientific papers from top agencies and researchers from the 70's. Sheesh

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

• The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
• Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
• Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
• In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
• In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
• The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
• The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

Yup. They didn't like it when I showed the example they claimed didn't exist. Here it is again: http://www.realclimate.org/ima...

Actually, much worse than predicted: http://www.realclimate.org/ima...

You simply aren't reading my posts. It's not "CO2 emissions aren't a concern"; it's "CO2 emissions aren't a concern if all you use is high school physics". It's all explained above.

Nobody here is only using high school physics. I just showed that my explanations of the greenhouse effect match that of Ray Pierrehumbert, author of Principles of Planetary Climate. (Just in case you've never heard of this textbook, it isn't a high school textbook.)

It's disappointing (but sadly not surprising after meeting Sky Dragon Slayers like Jane) to find that lgw can't or won't cite even a single peer-reviewed study of equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that he actually accepts. And, frankly, ocean acidification is pretty close to being high school chemistry. Does lgw dismiss ocean acidification like Jane and the Sky Dragon Slayers do?

At combustion-chamber temperatures, CO2 actually reflects infrared, vs absorbing it, which is a much more dramatic effect.

There are two way in which CO2 interacts with IR radiation:

1) It can absorb IR, becoming warmer, and in turn emit IR as a blackbody.
2) It can reflect IR.

The energy transferred by effect 1 depends on the temp of the CO2. The energy transferred by effect 2 depends instead on the temp of what's being reflected. As these are "4th power of temp" effects, the difference is critical.

If this is such a critical and dramatic effect, you should easily be able to cite peer-reviewed articles (other than G&T) supporting and quantifying it. Right?

Saying "but what about Venus" gets the physics wrong (and also implies that the Earth could somehow one day become like Venus, when there's no mechanism for that).

No, I've actually emphasized that:

"I'm not saying that the Earth will turn into Venus. That would be absurd. We have no reason to think that the 'runaway greenhouse' on Venus is even possible on Earth."

Rasmus Benestad and Ray Pierrehumbert agree:

"The Earth may well succumb to a runaway greenhouse as the Sun continues to brighten over the next billion years or so, but the amount of CO2 we could add to the atmosphere by burning all available fossil fuel reserves would not move us significantly closer to the runaway greenhouse threshold. There are plenty of nightmares lurking in anthropogenic global warming, but the runaway greenhouse is not among them."

CO2 plays a role in absorbing a small percentage of the IR that is not reflected (which is itself a small percentage of the heat loss from the surface), and becoming warmer. The increase in blackbody radiation from the warmer CO2 is trivial. Thinking of this as "look, simple physics at work here" gets it wrong.

I've already explained complex factors like pressure broadening, which don't change the fact that CO2 warms the surface. For instance, how would surface temperatures change if all the CO2 in the atmosphere suddenly vanished? Sky Dragon Slayers have a simple (and wrong) answer: it wouldn't. What's yours?

Most of the heat transfer away from the surface of the Earth is by convection - radiative heat loss is a small effect by comparison.

I've explained that to a first approximation, convection establishes the lapse rate (the rate at which temperature drops with altitude in the troposphere). That estab

You're only making yourself look foolish here, by oversimplifying the issue so much that you're actually wrong.

Oversimplifying the issue would be claiming there's "nothing to worry about" while over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

Put in the simplest terms: if CO2 in Venus's atmosphere acted like it does in Earth's atmosphere, Venus would be quite a bit cooler. If the direct blackbody effect of CO2 being warmed by IR, and in term warming the Earth via IR, was the primary warming concern in Earth's atmosphere it would not be a concern.

What scientific literature supports your opinion that CO2 emissions aren't a concern? When atmospheric CO2 is doubled, what equilibrium temperature rise results? Please cite peer-reviewed papers with equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that you actually accept. Otherwise it's not clear what sensitivity study prompted you to claim "it would not be a concern."

Also, please cite peer-reviewed papers showing that CO2 emissions don't result in ocean acidification. That's also necessary before claiming "it would not be a concern."

These High School Physics explanations of why CO2 causes warming of the Earth's surface are wrong, because the simple effect supports the "nothing to worry about" argument. The truth is more complex, vastly harder to model, and the results are not so obvious as you seem to think.

High school physics explanations? I've explained: greenhouse gases re-emit some of the upwelling long-wave IR, and it bounces around the troposphere until it gets to a height known as the "effective radiating level". Above this height (roughly 7km), there aren’t enough greenhouse gases to keep "most" of the IR from escaping to space altogether. This effective radiating level controls the outflow of heat from the Earth. Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that power radiated is proportional to temperature^4, and temperature decreases with height in the troposphere. Adding greenhouse gases raises the height of this effective radiating level, where it is cooler, which therefore decreases the outflow of heat from the Earth. This is the greenhouse effect, and it isn’t saturated because the effective radiating level can just keep getting higher (e.g. Venus).

I've also repeatedly noted complex factors like pressure broadening, which makes the greenhouse effect different on Venus, Earth and Mars.

I've also told the Sky Dragon Slayers that anyone who wants a more in-depth explanation should watch this video. Note that my explanations are similar to those from Rasmus Benestad and Ray Pierrehumbert:

"Despite the fact that Venus has vastly more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth, the same basic principles govern the operation of the greenhouse effect for both planets: the fact that air cools by expansion as it rises means that the upper parts of the atmosphere are colder than the surface, while the opacity of greenhouse gases to infrared means that infrared radiation can only escape from

Are you sure? Here's the usual solar activity / climate graph and there's no clear correlation between the Sun's activity and temperature, but a very obvious link to CO2.

The article you link shows how cosmic rays can seed cloud formation, which may well be correct, but I don't think there's any evidence of the next step, increased temperature.

we've seen about 120 meters of sea level rise

Not over 20,000 years. That ended 8000 years ago. It rose 120 meters over a period of 5000 years. That's about 8 feet/century on average. Over the last 8000 years sea level has been stable. Now again it is rising at an accelerated rate.

Any storm is going to bring in swells of several meters at least.

Yes. Add 3-6 feet to the several meter swells from "any storm" and you have reason to be concerned. Add it on top of a moderately impressive storm and you start to have very expensive problems. .

As far as the potential for flooding is concerned, every foot of sea level rise is equivalent to a substantial increase in storm intensity. Under the old Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Intensity Scale the step from category one to two, or the step from two to three, carried a three-foot increase in surge. By 2100 however, we are likely to see a permanent three-foot increase in sea level, and even six feet is not at all out of the question. That’s roughly equivalent to an increase of either one or two categories in hurricane intensity. - http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

CO2 hasn't proven to increase temperatures.

The greenhouse effect?

Remember that "hockey stick" graph. The only part of that we haven't seen is the increase in temperature.

Some of these ones? It looks like an increase to me.

NO, IT'S ALL LIES. Look this is Eric Steig a well known member of "The Team." He's even a regular contributor to realclimate. It's just OBVIOUSLY another ploy in the vast CONSPIRACY to grab ever more research FUNDING and impose a global socialist dictatorship on the unsuspecting public. WAKE UP!!!!

Please understand, if a climatologist tells you that there were 3 abrupt pulses, LOGIC means there were not 3 abrupt pulses. Besides which, the world hadn't even been created 10,000 years ago, duh!

We're losing polar ice and there are other changes too. How much will that affect the albedo?

Albedo is currently 30%. Losing ice cuts the albedo (this is known as the "ice-albedo feedback"), but not anywhere like from 30% to 7%. Clouds provide a lot of albedo and they're not going anywhere.

55 million years ago, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal maximum, the sun was almost as bright as today, there was about 4 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as today (basically, there was a carbon infusion into the atmosphere roughly equivalent to us burning all known coal reserves), and there was no permanent ice on Antarctica or Greenland, but there was no runaway greenhouse effect. We can also calibrate the strength of the ice-albedo feedback from its contribution to Pleistocene ice age cycles, during which as much as 30% of the earth's land mass was covered with ice and snow.

Don't get me wrong: Global warming is a very real and serious threat. But there is no plausible way it could possibly produce a boil-the-oceans-dry runaway greenhouse effect like we see on Venus. If you're looking for a good scientific treatment, see David Archer's textbook "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast" for an introductory-level treatment or Raymond Pierrehumbert's book, "Principles of Planetary Climate" for a very rigorous calculus-based Ph.D. level treatment. Also, Andrew Ingersoll, who discovered the runaway greenhouse effect, has a good primer, "Planetary Climates." Realclimate.org also has a good short and clear treatment.

The problem here is that AGW supporters loved to toss Hurricanes out as "proof" of global warming AND evidence that GW makes Hurricanes worse. The problem is neither is factual, and neither is even remotely accurate. Making falsifiable claims is one reason why I don't listen to AGW proponents any longer. They are just Religious nutjobs, using quasi-science to foist their belief systems on to others. Here is more detailed and significant analysis that basically makes "hurricanes" a non-issue and why the AGW proponents should stop using hurricanes as "proof" of anything.

Here is a good outline of the problem :http://www.growth-dynamics.com/news/DEC27_04.htm

Here is an outline that proves my point ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Or here: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

Or here: http://climateaudit.org/2007/0...

Or here (pay attention to Fig 3-6) https://coaps.fsu.edu/papers/r...

Not sure what you mean by few references...All these were on that page.

http://www.grida.no/publicatio...
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncli...
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/...
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis...
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/...
http://www.aip.org/history/cli...
http://www.aip.org/history/cli...
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://web.archive.org/web/201...

As for Dyson...two imporat words you dont find in his biography are "climate scientist".
In fact, he rather quite well falls into the science trope of the phsycist who insits on talking about things outside his realm of expertise.
(There's even an XKCD for that, though I am missing the link atm)

Not sure what you mean by few references...All these were on that page.

http://www.grida.no/publicatio...
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncli...
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/...
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis...
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/...
http://www.aip.org/history/cli...
http://www.aip.org/history/cli...
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://web.archive.org/web/201...

As for Dyson...two imporat words you dont find in his biography are "climate scientist".
In fact, he rather quite well falls into the science trope of the phsycist who insits on talking about things outside his realm of expertise.
(There's even an XKCD for that, though I am missing the link atm)

Climate models are exercises in curve fitting. They're programmed to fit the data. They are adjusted to fit actual reality, not predict it in advance. This is the pea under the thimble.

You couldn't be more wrong.

FAQ on Climate Models
FAQ on Climate Models: Part 2

Climate models are exercises in curve fitting. They're programmed to fit the data. They are adjusted to fit actual reality, not predict it in advance. This is the pea under the thimble.

You couldn't be more wrong.

FAQ on Climate Models
FAQ on Climate Models: Part 2

Regrettably, there has been little to no efforts made from the scientific community to distance itself from Gore's extreme proclamations and warnings.

Sigh, the scientific community almost unanimously came out of the lab to praise the documentary because they felt it was a "bloody accurate" representation of their work.

Yes, I know scientists don't appreciate having to come out of their research labs where they are doing actual real work to do stuff like that, but it's important. It's all the more important the more impact you believe your research has to society as a whole.

Agree, now if you do some fact checking you will find the vast majority of climate scientists have already come out of their labs to loudly defend Gore's work, I'm not sure what your reading/viewing habits are, but you obviously missed the last 10yrs of debate, so the question is now - what will you tell your kids? - Can you set a good example by demonstrating a true skeptic changes his mind when confronted with inconvenient facts, or will misplaced pride take you down the creationist road?

I agree with your basic premise but most AGW advocates ignore and will not address contrary evidence, preferring instead to ridicule and cast aspersions, as you do.

Increasing seasonal sea ice in Antarctica is not "contra-evidence", it's a prediction that most models have been making for over 20yrs now, the mechanism that causes the counter intuitive result is well understood. So called "skeptics" are flogging a dead horse in their attempts to cite it as some sort of "smoking gun" that climate scientists are attempting to hide. The often intentionally misleading claim is ranked at #10 on skeptical sciences list of most popular climate myths.

As for Al Gore, any internet idiot can play "gottcha science" by taking words out of context and deliberately misinterpreting them. However the scientists who were lead authors of the IPCC reports that Gore's documentary was based on gave it a good review for it's representation of the report. Of course there were minor errors, and yes, the scientists pointed them out. The reason Gore shared the Nobel prize with the IPCC is that he put the IPCC's monumental lit-review effort squarely at the center of public policy debate.

Useful idiots? - As someone who has followed climate science with interest since the late 70's, Gore's documentary was an excellent (but imperfect) explanation of the science and it's real world consequences. It's a shame so many slashdotters mindlessly join in when the Gore bashing starts, he's the only well educated geek that has come close to sitting in the whitehouse for a very long time. History will admire his charitable public education efforts, even if most american's currently do not.

Disclaimer: I've been well known on slashdot for commenting on climate related stories for around 15yrs now, I'm not and have never been an "AGW advocate", I'm a science advocate.

You don't know shit. When the results were announced people thought they were flawed. In a few years this was proven definitively.

Your favorite hobby horse of climate science, though, has held up after 200 years of study. Also, it had to overcome the null hypothesis, that humans can't affect the climate. You just haven't bothered to find out what the actual science is, because you're convinced that no one can know it. You are intellectually dishonest. Climate science is not that hard. The concept of AGW comes from a very small set of unequivocally proven facts, mostly the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide.

You just want to believe that you know something the rest of us don't. Your complete ignorance of science does not help this. If you really want to troll, you have to be more subtle about it. First, accept the general principles of AGW: that a higher partial pressure of CO2 extends the opaque region further into space, effectively trapping heat, and that the increase in CO2 is due to human industry. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence (not consensus) for these things, and the first part is simple enough that you can probably test it yourself experimentally. The trolling part (or the "real" skepticism, if you prefer) comes from suggesting that tail-wagging-the-dog feedbacks with the H2O cycle are net negative. This is on the edge of plausibility, because while a tabletop experimental setup would show a positive feedback (at STP), the Earth as a whole is more complicated, and your claim that the models are inaccurate is more persuasive. More specifically, you can point to studies which show that e.g. increased cloud formation will increase the Earth's albedo enough to offset the CO2-induced warming. Another good one would be Arctic glaciation as a result of the Gulf Stream shutting down, although that may still leave you the issues of [a] climate change, and [b] the fundamental theory still being correct, in that the atmosphere as a whole would retain more energy. Another good troll is that the lower atmosphere is already opaque to IR and that increased CO2 will have no (additional) effect. This is true, but irrelevant, but not many people are aware of it, so you can catch those slimy lieberals and make them look dumb. Take that! Where is your 'science' now?!

Ahem. It's not enough to just say "You're wrong! You can't prove anything!" without accounting for the observations (that CO2 absorbs OLR). Doing that means there's millions of laymen who can tell you you're an idiot. Proposing a subtle flaw (and being explicit about it) means that there's far fewer people who can refute your arguments. If you continue to research and refine your arguments, you will eventually be doing real science, or at least actual scientific skepticism. Just trolling is fine too, but don't settle for this sort of second-rate stuff.

The hiatus still continues.
And yes there is a hiatus nowdays even in the mainstream pro-agw camp, saying otherwise makes you a denier.

Turns out that this is a misleading talking point. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

from your link

Unfortunately, however, the hiatus looks likely to be temporary, with projections suggesting that when the trade winds return to normal strength, - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

If the hiatus is a misleading talking point, why are the warmistas trying so hard to spin it into a supposedly temporary event? There been something like 38 different hypotheses as to why the warming has stopped for eighteen years.

The hiatus still continues.
And yes there is a hiatus nowdays even in the mainstream pro-agw camp, saying otherwise makes you a denier.

Turns out that this is a misleading talking point. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

from your link

Unfortunately, however, the hiatus looks likely to be temporary, with projections suggesting that when the trade winds return to normal strength, - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

If the hiatus is a misleading talking point, why are the warmistas trying so hard to spin it into a supposedly temporary event? There been something like 38 different hypotheses as to why the warming has stopped for eighteen years.

The best estimate is that 110% of warming since the 1950's is owing to human activity. http://www.realclimate.org/ind... There are a lot of people out there trying to confuse you on that point. Don't be a chump.

You haven't reviewed the data, you can't, its not public, so stop acting like you know any better than I do what the truth is.

This data?

http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

Looks public to me.

Turns out that this is a misleading talking point. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

If there is no way to set up a test to and verify the results it falls more into the field of pseudoscience rather than science.
If there is a way to test and verify but the data to do so isn't provided then it is more likely that it falls into the category of scam rather than science. (e-cat anyone?)

Climate science is given as an example. I don't see any reason to why results based on a model can't be backed up by providing said model or even the source code for verification.

Me neither:

http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

GameboyRMH, that's too subtle for /.
You'll probably have to explain.

The global warming people haven't shown us the value of anything, so far as I can see.

Then you are simply not paying attention. That's just one site, and 10 seconds of typing to get to it. Make an effort to read the data, don't bitch because you aren't getting spoon fed.

Now - where can we find the layman's textbooks on manmade global warming?

You could start here.

Me neither:

http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

Most likely 110% since 1950. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

The report is getting slammed by sloppy thinkers. Judith Curry's conceptual difficulties are detailed here: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

Methane is big. A huge greenhouse gas. It knocks the socks of carbon in all ways except that there's not that much of it(yet). It also doesn't "clean up" nearly as nicely after a couple of centuries of forest expansion/ocean calcification.

Actually, I believe the the lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is a lot less than that of CO2. So, although it's a more "potent" greenhouse gas, the long term effects of CO2 are worse because of CO2's longer lifetime.
See e.g. this article on the effects of methane compared to CO2.
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
When methane is released chronically, over decades, the concentration in the atmosphere will rise to a new equilibrium value. It won’t keep rising indefinitely, like CO2 would, because methane degrades while CO2 essentially just accumulates. Methane degrades into CO2, in fact...

Because there was no actual "hiatus". The poles were warming (on the surface, as opposed to 1,500m down) when the rest of the Earth wasn't. So this means global warming is actually accelerating by quite a bit.

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/...
"It’s important to note, Roy Spencer is MOST famous for being wrong – wrong in the the very areas that should be his area of greatest strength and expertise."
http://ourchangingclimate.word...
John Christy, Richard McNider and Roy Spencer trying to overturn mainstream science by rewriting history and re-baselining graphs
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
"So here’s what Roy did. He took two indices of interannual variability: the Southern Oscillation (SOI) index, which is a proxy for El Nino, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index (PDOI). He formed an ad-hoc weighted sum of these indices,and then multiplied by an ad-hoc scaling factor to turn the resulting time series into a time series of radiative forcing in Watts per square meter. Then he used that time series to drive a simple linear globally averaged mixed layer ocean model incorporating a linearized term representing heat loss to space. And voila, look what comes out of the oven!"

Here you go, raw climate data.

Here you go, raw climate data.

Not to mention the isotopic ratios of carbon in atmospheric carbon dioxide show that the extra carbon comes from fossil fuels.

No, you are oversimplifying with misleading handwaving about absorption spectra, without providing any comprehensive explanation or reference on the subject. The fact that water quickly precipitates out of the air, for instance, is a crucial aspect of the sub-topic that your handwaving conveniently omitted. The GP was far more justified in omitting water vapor than you were in omitting its role.

In fact, even the RealClimate site has presented AGW in (count 'em...) six steps!

Water creates a positive temperature feedback in the Earth's climate, but not a forcing. You're trying to suggest it may be the latter. This subject was beaten to death last decade and its settled.

If I were the GP my list might be seven deep instead of six, to account for the fact that feedbacks exist although positive ones are stronger than negative ones. It would still only be a caveat to what is a pretty decent overview.

Citatation prove and says exactly what I said, we have not exceeded those past peak temperatures.

Uh no. What you actually said is the following:

there is no way any "climate change" in the next hundred years will be anywhere as near severe as has occurred in earth's past

And then, you said

the temperatures have not exceeded those values, nor is there any reason to believe they will

I am taking exception with your entire first statement ("there is no way any "climate change" in the next hundred years will be anywhere as near severe as has occurred in earth's past") and the latter part of your second statement, which is similar ("nor is there any reason to believe they will [exceed those values]").

First, what I said first: This statement is [...] obviously false as written. It is obvious that during the next hundred years, climate change will occur which is as severe as climate change which has occurred in Earth's past. Not all of the climate change which occurred in Earth's past was severe at all. Next, what I said second, and obviously false as you [...] intended it. You offered as evidence a citation with no link, which I guess happens, and then cited from the citation a paragraph which did not support your argument. Assuming that the entire study probably did [not do] the same, I tracked down a commentary by the authors of the cited study, and they in fact disagree with you completely. Not only do they say that they "compare the Holocene paleotemperature distribution with published temperature projections for 2100 CE, and find that these projections exceed the range of Holocene global average temperatures under all plausible emissions scenarios" but they also go on to provide this entire and entirely damning paragraph:

For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study.

The authors of the paper you cited drew precisely the exact opposite of the conclusion that you drew from reading their paper — they expect temperatures to exceed the holocene maximum in less than one hundred years. If there was ever any clearer evidence that someone failed at reading comprehension, I don't know what it is. You just completely destroyed your own argument by insisting that I check your citation, as the authors of that very paper believe that a moderate estimate of temperature increase will lead to outstripping the temperatures of the holocene.

Thanks, you just proved that you are a complete fucking tool, and illiterate too. That saves me a lot of trouble.

I think I can do better than Judith Curry too. Comment on “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” J. A. Curry and P. J. Webster [PDF] published in the American Meteorological Society Journal, December 2011.

I think you misunderstand the differences in chaos in climate and chaos in weather. Climate describes the boundaries of weather. It contains all of the chaos of weather. Here is a post on the subject.

Imagine a pot of boiling water. A weather forecast is like the attempt to predict where the next bubble is going to rise (physically this is an initial value problem). A climate statement would be that the average temperature of the boiling water is 100C at normal pressure, while it is only 90C at 2,500 meters altitude in the mountains, due to the lower pressure (that is a boundary value problem).

It's worth pointing out that the increased geothermal heat estimate only contributes a few per cent to the melting of the Thwaites glacier. It's predominately AGW and natural calving. I'm not saying this paper isn't important (we all know about the straw that broke the camel's back), just pointing out that it doesn't provide an alternate explanation to AGW for the melting of the Thwaite glacier.

Claims need to accurate. So far not one AGW model has been shown to be correct by actual climate. No one needs to prove them wrong, the fact that their predictions aren't accurate prove them wrong.

Is the problem inaccurate projections by climate models or is it poor understanding by people like you of what climate models are capable of in the first place? I really doubt you know enough about how climate models work and what they are expected to do to make a useful judgement about their accuracy.

Here is a comparison of model output to observations to help you understand the situation a little better.

There is so much confirmation bias in that site (you could have picked something more rational than a shrill propaganda site like Real Climate), I don't even know where to start with it. Instead of pointing out the clear inability of the models to predict anything that someone would be able to rely on, they just sum up with "hey, it's all going along as predicted." WUT?

Let's just start with this, then:

"As discussed in Hargreaves (2010), while this simulation was not perfect, it has shown skill in that it has out-performed any reasonable naive hypothesis that people put forward in 1988 (the most obvious being a forecast of no-change)."

Regarding McKintrick, here are responses from the Mann himself:

False claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et. al. 1998 reconstruction
On yet another false claim by McIntyre and McKitrick

I'm not going to waste my time with the NIPCC report. I did too much of that with the first one.

Regarding McKintrick, here are responses from the Mann himself:

False claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et. al. 1998 reconstruction
On yet another false claim by McIntyre and McKitrick

I'm not going to waste my time with the NIPCC report. I did too much of that with the first one.

Because "the huge deviations" do not actually exist?

Often the claims that the models don't match reality are based on incompetence or worse.

As a bonus here are some simpe trend comparison graphs.

You mean the visible shrill climate alarmists, Michael Mann included.

They are all scientists who are well respected in their fields. Despite all of the vilification of Michael Mann no one has found any scientific misconduct by him. His original hockey stick graph still holds up as shown by around a dozen similar studies done by different scientists using different proxies and techniques. If you think the past 17 years disproves the graph it's more like a nick in the blade of the hockey stick than anything significant.

You might do better not to trust anyone, and look at everything with a critical eye.

I could say the same thing to you. I'll admit that after over 25 years of following this issue I may tend to give climate scientists the benefit of the doubt but over the years I've found very little evidence that they haven't earned that trust. I've also read papers by such noted climate science contrarians as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Even they admit that more CO2 means more warming. They just disagree on how much. They nibble around the edges but don't get much traction.

I seem to have a pretty good understanding, for a layman, anyway. And there are major problems with the inputs and assumptions in the prevalent models. You should look into that. It's pointed out in the peer-reviewed literature every month where the issues are, but the shrill alarmist nutjobs seem to want to put more effort into shutting those people up and controlling the mainstream messages than they are addressing those issues.

Perhaps you can be more specific about what some of those major problem with inputs and assumptions are so I know what to look for. Climate models are far from perfect but we don't have anything better to do the job. As the Real Climate post pointed out the temperature observations are still within the range predicted by climate models. Climate modelers are well aware of the problems and limitations of their models, no doubt far better than you or I. Here's some more posts from the "shrill alarmist nutjobs" at Real Climate about climate models and some of the issues with them. You may dismiss it as a propaganda site but how can you effectively argue against them if you don't know what they're saying in the first place?

FAQ on Climate Models
FAQ on Climate Models: Part II
On mismatches between models and observations

The point is they don't do what they are claiming they do - which is predict climate changes and the (all bad, disastrous, something-must-be-done-think-of-the-children) effects of those changes. That makes them BAD science, and screaming for politicians to make expensive and damaging policy changes based on those untenable predictions with major deviations from observation make them REALLY BAD scientists.

So far the climate has been changing within the bounds projected by those models or in the case of ice loss faster than most model projections. Just because you want them to predict something other than what they're capable of predicting doesn't make them wrong. If you think it's too costly to respond to the threats of climate change just wait until you see what it's going to cost to not do anything. If you're young enough you certainly will experience that.

You mean the visible shrill climate alarmists, Michael Mann included.

They are all scientists who are well respected in their fields. Despite all of the vilification of Michael Mann no one has found any scientific misconduct by him. His original hockey stick graph still holds up as shown by around a dozen similar studies done by different scientists using different proxies and techniques. If you think the past 17 years disproves the graph it's more like a nick in the blade of the hockey stick than anything significant.

You might do better not to trust anyone, and look at everything with a critical eye.

I could say the same thing to you. I'll admit that after over 25 years of following this issue I may tend to give climate scientists the benefit of the doubt but over the years I've found very little evidence that they haven't earned that trust. I've also read papers by such noted climate science contrarians as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Even they admit that more CO2 means more warming. They just disagree on how much. They nibble around the edges but don't get much traction.

I seem to have a pretty good understanding, for a layman, anyway. And there are major problems with the inputs and assumptions in the prevalent models. You should look into that. It's pointed out in the peer-reviewed literature every month where the issues are, but the shrill alarmist nutjobs seem to want to put more effort into shutting those people up and controlling the mainstream messages than they are addressing those issues.

Perhaps you can be more specific about what some of those major problem with inputs and assumptions are so I know what to look for. Climate models are far from perfect but we don't have anything better to do the job. As the Real Climate post pointed out the temperature observations are still within the range predicted by climate models. Climate modelers are well aware of the problems and limitations of their models, no doubt far better than you or I. Here's some more posts from the "shrill alarmist nutjobs" at Real Climate about climate models and some of the issues with them. You may dismiss it as a propaganda site but how can you effectively argue against them if you don't know what they're saying in the first place?

FAQ on Climate Models
FAQ on Climate Models: Part II
On mismatches between models and observations

The point is they don't do what they are claiming they do - which is predict climate changes and the (all bad, disastrous, something-must-be-done-think-of-the-children) effects of those changes. That makes them BAD science, and screaming for politicians to make expensive and damaging policy changes based on those untenable predictions with major deviations from observation make them REALLY BAD scientists.

So far the climate has been changing within the bounds projected by those models or in the case of ice loss faster than most model projections. Just because you want them to predict something other than what they're capable of predicting doesn't make them wrong. If you think it's too costly to respond to the threats of climate change just wait until you see what it's going to cost to not do anything. If you're young enough you certainly will experience that.

You mean the visible shrill climate alarmists, Michael Mann included.

They are all scientists who are well respected in their fields. Despite all of the vilification of Michael Mann no one has found any scientific misconduct by him. His original hockey stick graph still holds up as shown by around a dozen similar studies done by different scientists using different proxies and techniques. If you think the past 17 years disproves the graph it's more like a nick in the blade of the hockey stick than anything significant.

You might do better not to trust anyone, and look at everything with a critical eye.

I could say the same thing to you. I'll admit that after over 25 years of following this issue I may tend to give climate scientists the benefit of the doubt but over the years I've found very little evidence that they haven't earned that trust. I've also read papers by such noted climate science contrarians as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Even they admit that more CO2 means more warming. They just disagree on how much. They nibble around the edges but don't get much traction.

I seem to have a pretty good understanding, for a layman, anyway. And there are major problems with the inputs and assumptions in the prevalent models. You should look into that. It's pointed out in the peer-reviewed literature every month where the issues are, but the shrill alarmist nutjobs seem to want to put more effort into shutting those people up and controlling the mainstream messages than they are addressing those issues.

Perhaps you can be more specific about what some of those major problem with inputs and assumptions are so I know what to look for. Climate models are far from perfect but we don't have anything better to do the job. As the Real Climate post pointed out the temperature observations are still within the range predicted by climate models. Climate modelers are well aware of the problems and limitations of their models, no doubt far better than you or I. Here's some more posts from the "shrill alarmist nutjobs" at Real Climate about climate models and some of the issues with them. You may dismiss it as a propaganda site but how can you effectively argue against them if you don't know what they're saying in the first place?

FAQ on Climate Models
FAQ on Climate Models: Part II
On mismatches between models and observations

The point is they don't do what they are claiming they do - which is predict climate changes and the (all bad, disastrous, something-must-be-done-think-of-the-children) effects of those changes. That makes them BAD science, and screaming for politicians to make expensive and damaging policy changes based on those untenable predictions with major deviations from observation make them REALLY BAD scientists.

So far the climate has been changing within the bounds projected by those models or in the case of ice loss faster than most model projections. Just because you want them to predict something other than what they're capable of predicting doesn't make them wrong. If you think it's too costly to respond to the threats of climate change just wait until you see what it's going to cost to not do anything. If you're young enough you certainly will experience that.

Claims need to accurate. So far not one AGW model has been shown to be correct by actual climate. No one needs to prove them wrong, the fact that their predictions aren't accurate prove them wrong.

Is the problem inaccurate projections by climate models or is it poor understanding by people like you of what climate models are capable of in the first place? I really doubt you know enough about how climate models work and what they are expected to do to make a useful judgement about their accuracy.

Here is a comparison of model output to observations to help you understand the situation a little better.

There is so much confirmation bias in that site (you could have picked something more rational than a shrill propaganda site like Real Climate), I don't even know where to start with it. Instead of pointing out the clear inability of the models to predict anything that someone would be able to rely on, they just sum up with "hey, it's all going along as predicted." WUT?

Claims need to accurate. So far not one AGW model has been shown to be correct by actual climate. No one needs to prove them wrong, the fact that their predictions aren't accurate prove them wrong.

Is the problem inaccurate projections by climate models or is it poor understanding by people like you of what climate models are capable of in the first place? I really doubt you know enough about how climate models work and what they are expected to do to make a useful judgement about their accuracy.

Here is a comparison of model output to observations to help you understand the situation a little better.

Do you realize that the 700-2000 m depth is nearly twice as deep therefore nearly twice as much water and nearly twice as much potential for storing heat as the 0-700 m depth? The heat it is gaining has to come from somewhere. It is being convected down from the surface in places like the Western Pacific because of the water that's been piling up there in the La Nina dominated past decade.

If you look at the first and third chart in the first cite the 0-2000 m heat content lines have hardly leveled off at all. Only the 0-700 m chart shows a leveling off of the heat content. Since that is included in the 0-2000 m chart the lower 1300 m must have gained even more heat to compensate for the leveling off of the 0-700 m heat content gain. Since air temperatures over the oceans are coupled to ocean surface temperatures it's not surprising that since the upper 700 m of ocean have not warmed as much lately that air temperatures would follow. But the rate of rise of total heat content of the 0-2000 m depth has hardly slowed at all.