climate models do not predict observational reality
Models are projections, not predictions. They project what would happen under specific circumstances. They cannot predict when a volcano will erupt, but can help us understand how the climate will respond if one does. In reality, we cannot predict how much CO2 we will emit, or how much aerosols, or whether La Ninas will dominate the next decade. But we can project what will happen for each scenario. You shouldn't presuming that the model for one scenario should give the same results as a model for another, but investigating how and why they differ would be useful. That was the reviewers point.
You can't have an inconsistency if no consistency was to be expected. His paper was comparing apples to oranges and then implying that there was some inconsistency because the apples were not like the oranges. That is not an inconsistency, although the reviewer pointed out that it would be interesting to investigate why the apples are not like oranges.
The GWPF didn't kick him out. It looks like he was not really ready to jump from science to politics. He is certainly old enough that he could happily cash in and ignore the fact that his colleagues stopped taking him seriously.
How about these guys who suggest that there is a big liberal conspiracy promoting heliocentrism while (they say) the science has shown it to be false for over 100 years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... . Are they modern day "Galileo's" fighting the good fight or are they deniers?
There were no errors. The authors were saying "This apple is not like this orange!", even though such a comparison is meaningless. But you do prove the reviewers right. They predicted that "Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side."
He joined the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" - and anti climate policy advocacy group known to spread falsehoods about the science in order to further their political objectives. He quit one week later when colleagues started distancing themselves from him. Well - what did he expect?
From the reviewers: "The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.
The finding of differences between the three “assessments” and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.
The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of “errors” being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.
What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of “reasons” and “causes” for the differences." - http://andthentheresphysics.wo...
"Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.
A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.
You are better off with science. Your gut will betray you. If you are interested you should read:
Bar-Sever, Y. E., Kroger, P. M. & Borjesson, J. A. Estimating horizontal gradients of tropospheric path delay with a single GPS receiver. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 5019–5035 (1998)
Blewitt, G. Carrier phase ambiguity resolution for the Global Positioning System applied to geodetic baselines up to 2000 km. J. Geophys. Res. 94, 10187–10283 (1989)
Bertiger, W. et al. Single receiver phase ambiguity resolution with GPS data. J. Geod. 84, 327–337 (2010)
Rebischung, P. et al. IGS08: The IGS realization of ITRF2008. GPS Solut. 16, 483–494 (2012)
and of course Amos, C. et al. Uplift and seismicity driven by groundwater depletion in central California. Nature doi:10.1038/nature13275 (2014)
Why, so they could find out that although it was supposed that hydrologyinduced stresses may be the cause, no one had yet shown it? They might have then performed the very experiment that they did in order to test the hypothesis? But why do you assume they weren't aware of the previous literature?
As the snow accumulates in the winter the mountain compresses. As it melts in the summer it rises. That is what they found when they measured it. It is a surprising result, and may make your head hurt, but it is what they found.
So what data are they using to compare to the current data to determine this is caused by man's actions?
They looked at seasonal variations. If seasonal variations are causing a change in elevation, why wouldn't the volume of groundwater lost over the past century and a half also cause a change in elevation? In fact, when they compared the expected changes in elevation with the observed changes they got a pretty good match.
The University of Colorado shows that sea level rose 2 cm between 1870 and 1930. In the following 60 year period it rose 4 cm. So it looks like it is doubling about every 60 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.
While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.
The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.
Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.
This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.
The main point however is that... cities do die over time due to environmental changes
Wait - the GP's point is that we should expect massive impacts from anthropogenic climate change? Including losing entire cities? Seems like we should do something about that.
Slashdot Mirror
climate models do not predict observational reality
Models are projections, not predictions. They project what would happen under specific circumstances. They cannot predict when a volcano will erupt, but can help us understand how the climate will respond if one does. In reality, we cannot predict how much CO2 we will emit, or how much aerosols, or whether La Ninas will dominate the next decade. But we can project what will happen for each scenario. You shouldn't presuming that the model for one scenario should give the same results as a model for another, but investigating how and why they differ would be useful. That was the reviewers point.
You can't have an inconsistency if no consistency was to be expected. His paper was comparing apples to oranges and then implying that there was some inconsistency because the apples were not like the oranges. That is not an inconsistency, although the reviewer pointed out that it would be interesting to investigate why the apples are not like oranges.
The GWPF didn't kick him out. It looks like he was not really ready to jump from science to politics. He is certainly old enough that he could happily cash in and ignore the fact that his colleagues stopped taking him seriously.
So you are suggesting that there is a global conspiracy among all journals to exclude contrary evidence?
Incidentally, those papers were in the next IPCC report. So what exclusionary tactics?
How about these guys who suggest that there is a big liberal conspiracy promoting heliocentrism while (they say) the science has shown it to be false for over 100 years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... . Are they modern day "Galileo's" fighting the good fight or are they deniers?
There were no errors. The authors were saying "This apple is not like this orange!", even though such a comparison is meaningless. But you do prove the reviewers right. They predicted that "Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side."
He joined the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" - and anti climate policy advocacy group known to spread falsehoods about the science in order to further their political objectives. He quit one week later when colleagues started distancing themselves from him. Well - what did he expect?
From the reviewers: "The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.
The finding of differences between the three “assessments” and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.
The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of “errors” being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.
What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of “reasons” and “causes” for the differences." - http://andthentheresphysics.wo...
I wouldn't call the Daily Telegraph a tabloid.
Of course not. It's my go to source for the REAL truth on bigfoot, aliens, and the Loch Ness monster.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... - Hikers-capture-bigfoot-on-film
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.... - have-aliens-hijacked-voyager-2-spacecraft
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... - Mystery-alien-like-creature-seen-in-Bristol-harbour
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... - Has-Apple-maps-found-the-Loch-Ness-Monster
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... - Has-the-Loch-Ness-monster-finally-been-caught-on-camera
"Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.
A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.
Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form." - http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2...
Bar-Sever, Y. E., Kroger, P. M. & Borjesson, J. A. Estimating horizontal gradients of tropospheric path delay with a single GPS receiver. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 5019–5035 (1998)
Blewitt, G. Carrier phase ambiguity resolution for the Global Positioning System applied to geodetic baselines up to 2000 km. J. Geophys. Res. 94, 10187–10283 (1989)
Bertiger, W. et al. Single receiver phase ambiguity resolution with GPS data. J. Geod. 84, 327–337 (2010) Rebischung, P. et al. IGS08: The IGS realization of ITRF2008. GPS Solut. 16, 483–494 (2012)
and of course Amos, C. et al. Uplift and seismicity driven by groundwater depletion in central California. Nature doi:10.1038/nature13275 (2014)
Why, so they could find out that although it was supposed that hydrologyinduced stresses may be the cause, no one had yet shown it? They might have then performed the very experiment that they did in order to test the hypothesis? But why do you assume they weren't aware of the previous literature?
As the snow accumulates in the winter the mountain compresses. As it melts in the summer it rises. That is what they found when they measured it. It is a surprising result, and may make your head hurt, but it is what they found.
Unpublished? It's published right here: http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
So what data are they using to compare to the current data to determine this is caused by man's actions?
They looked at seasonal variations. If seasonal variations are causing a change in elevation, why wouldn't the volume of groundwater lost over the past century and a half also cause a change in elevation? In fact, when they compared the expected changes in elevation with the observed changes they got a pretty good match.
No. The impacts will be felt during floods. The seas will rise gradually but the impacts will be felt suddenly.
The University of Colorado shows that sea level rose 2 cm between 1870 and 1930. In the following 60 year period it rose 4 cm. So it looks like it is doubling about every 60 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.
While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.
The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.
Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.
This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.
Gotcha. So climate change is something we ought to be concerned about.
Let's see how well sunspot activity correlates to climate: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/b...
Pretty good prior to 1980 or so, but wildly divergent since (temps up while sunspots down). I wonder why?
Of the five mass extinctions to have ever occurred in the past 600 million years, four were associated with global warming.
the climate change described in this article coincides with a massive extinction event.
The main point however is that ... cities do die over time due to environmental changes
Wait - the GP's point is that we should expect massive impacts from anthropogenic climate change? Including losing entire cities? Seems like we should do something about that.
Nope. Not even close. Closer to 1C since 1940: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . Where on Earth did you get 0.2C since 1940? That's just crazy! We've had almost 0.2C warming during the "pause" of the last 17 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
It has raised almost 0.2C in the last 17 years - a period you claim that we've seen no warming: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...