Climate-gate

[milkweed]

The models and the data have to share a starting point. Otherwise they are useless. The first draft did NOT share the right starting point. The second draft did.

By the way, I am glad you backed down from your earlier claims that the two graphs are completely different, and that your graph represented the latest IPCC models.

You posted the misrepresentation of my img and claimed it was from the leaked draft. It was NOT.

I followed up with YOUR image and show the controversy surrounding the IPCC trick of moving the model output to match observations. The models had the right starting point, the IPCC moved the goddamn model output. You link to Taminos blog and I am amazed at why people would even read that. In his own words:

Response: I think you greatly overestimate the necessity of getting the absolute temperature right — in both models and real-world observations.

A hypothetical case: imagine building a model of sea level rise. There are a lot of factors that can change sea level, including thermal expansion of seawater, melting of landfast ice, the hydrological cycle transferring water from ocean to land, the biosphere, water storage by human technology, etc. So we build computer models of the total volume of water in the oceans. Then we find that they all agree on how sea level changes, giving outstanding predictions over long periods of time.

But we also find out that *we don’t know* the actual average absolute depth of the ocean that precisely. Our models don’t agree with each other, and the observations we have aren’t that good either. While we’re very good at measuring *changes* in the depth of the ocean with an accuracy of a millimeter or so, we really don’t know how deep it is on average, not even within 100 meters. But — that doesn’t negate our observational knowledge of how it’s *changing* nor does it invalidate the ability of our computer models to explain its changes.]

your Kidding me Right?!! This is your source?!

They want to change energy policy and dont think its Necessary to get the absolute temperature Right in models or Real World!! Man made global warming indeed... eh close enough.. within .02 of a degree (c) globally (well +/- .1 degree c) ... yeah right....

And you think I am a nutter.... LOL....

 

[iceaura]

They simply moved the projections to match observational data at 1990 and get a better fit. It is basically an arbitrary change with, as you say, no justification. Amazing.

They moved the starting point and calculations of the projections to align with the ending point of likewise calculated data. That way, their projections begin where their data leave off, and represent the same calculations. That's not arbitrary, that's correct projection. Anything else would have been error.

You are insisting on arguing from a graphical presentation error the IPCC corrected before publication of the graph. You are doing that because you can't screen denialist sources such as Judith Curry's blog on your own - you are unable to recognize when you are being conned.

They want to change energy policy and dont think its Necessary to get the absolute temperature Right in models or Real World!!

And you have no idea why they think that. Therefore, because you are confused, they are wrong.

So you are an ideal target for the people financing the Currys of this world. They pay professionals who know how to talk to you without confusing you. They know that the notion of hundreds of scientists cooperatively fudging their data all together for decades to agree with what government grant money sources want to see makes sense to you. They know that government research grants look to you like gravy train moola, and that you think of the private sector as better, harder, more honest work for less money because competition. They have your number, and there is nothing you can do about it now except pay attention to those sources you have chosen to trust. Refuse to forget what they say or overlook what they've said - keep track of what these people were saying twenty years ago, ten years ago, five years ago, last year: compare and contrast with physical event.

Nature bats last. There was about 8 feet of CO2 over your grandmother's head when she was born, there's more than 12 feet over your head now - it doesn't care about your conspiracy theories or suspicions of big government.

 

[billvon]

I followed up with YOUR image and show the controversy surrounding the IPCC trick of moving the model output to match observations.

Do you understand what the term 'draft' means?

 

[milkweed]

Do you understand what the term 'draft' means?

yes I do. The draft used the actual model vs observations which showed divergence (model failure). We cant have that so we will adjust (corrupt) model output graphs to send the message the science is settled and catastrophe awaits mankind. And I repeat the quote from Climate Audit (people who rightly cross check and verify claims for accuracy).

~~For the envelopes from the first three assessments, although they cite the same sources as the predecessor Second Draft Figure 1.4, the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations, so that the observations are now within the earlier projection envelopes. You can see this relatively clearly with the Second Assessment Report envelope: compare the two versions. At present, I have no idea how they purport to justify this.

None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.~~

One way to safeguard credibility, the Dutch panel said, is for the climate panel leadership, as it gets busy on its fifth assessment, to provide clearer explanations of the approaches it uses to craft summaries.[/b]

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/dutch-agency-seeks-clarity-from-climate-panel/?_r=0

Well we have that (well kinda, no thanks to the IPCC report itself) and I repeat the quote with my comments in ( ):

Earlier projections (model outputs) have been shifted downwards relative to observations...(they altered the model output graph to make the models appear more accurate).

It is expected that some of the scientific questions that arose during preparation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) will through CMIP5 be addressed in time for evaluation in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, scheduled for publication in late 2013).

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/

A new generation of more complex models running scenarios for the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5) is widely, and perhaps naively, expected to provide more detailed and more certain projections. Here we show that projected global temperature change from the new models is remarkably similar to that from those used in IPCC AR4 after accounting for the different underlying scenarios.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1716.html

So why didnt they use CMIP5 model output in IPCC v5? Well because when you impose observations on model projections we see divergence.

James Annan ‏@jamesannan 6 Feb 2013
@ed_hawkins please replot normalised to 1961-90

Ed Complies with request.

Not only does he comply with request (note the person asking him to do so) He runs another at 1986 - 2005

Who is Ed??
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/users/users/870

Twitter original source. Note Gavin Schmitts appearance (no wonder real climate has not updated their model vs observation pages).

https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/299161479268139009

 

[billvon]

yes I do. The draft used the actual model vs observations which showed divergence (model failure).

OK, so you don't know what draft means. If you learned what it meant, it might be instructive.

 

[Billy T]

How many of the AGW deniers posting here live in US's SW?

The nation's largest reservoir, Lake Mead near Las Vegas, is at about 40 percent of capacity, the lowest it's been since it was built in the 1930s. The levels have dropped 140 feet over the past 15 years ... The level is forecast to fall an additional 10 feet by this summer.* The snowpack in the Rocky Mountains, where the Colorado and much of the Southwest gets most of its water, is again at less than half of normal this year. ... On a walkway next to the Hoover Dam, Rose Davis, spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, points out the 10-story-high towers that used to be mostly underwater, {and said} "There are a lot of people, entities and critters that rely on this Colorado River water."

The lake's levels are nearing a critical trigger where the Bureau of Reclamation will start rationing water deliveries to Nevada, Arizona and parts of California. Conservation can go only so far when your supply is shrinking fast. So the water authority is currently spending $1.5 billion to burrow a new tunnel even deeper down into Lake Mead: The old tunnels that suck water over to Las Vegas will dry up if the lake's level sinks below 1,000 feet. Today, it's at about 1,080 feet — and falling.

* I.e. the rate of water level fall is accelerating - Lets hope that they can complete that 1.5 billion dollar tunnel in less than 6 years.
(If at 1070 feet on 1 November 2015 as forecast, and the average of the accelerating fall is 12 feet / year, then Las Vegas dies in < 6 years.)

 

[Photizo]

Do you understand what the term 'draft' means?

 

[Kristoffer]

That's a draught, Photizo.

 

[Billy T]

testing to see if copies

 

[Billy T]

Here is link that shows relative water use in CA by various farm products (would not display in post 2309, and time to delet is past) http://www.businessinsider.com/real...nia-drought-isnt-almonds--its-red-meat-2015-4

Top three are alfalfa (more than 5 million Acre Feet annually), forage (also used for animal feed) and rice. Most of the animals are cows - CA produces more milk than any other US state! Beef requires (including processing plant water) 106 gallons of water for every OUNCE produced !

 

[Syne]

Yet California allows billions of gallons of rain water to flow out to sea. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/...-of-fresh-water-flow-straight-into-the-ocean/

 

[brucep]

Yet California allows billions of gallons of rain water to flow out to sea. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/...-of-fresh-water-flow-straight-into-the-ocean/

That's not exclusive to CA. Nobody wants to roll out the capital to build such a system. My expectation for my home base Oceanside CA is to wind up part of the Borrego desert along with the rest of San Diego County.

 

[milkweed]

That's a draught, Photizo.

Depends on source.

"Draft" is the usual spelling in North America,[3] although it may be spelt both ways in Canada and Australia, depending on the origin of the beer. ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draught_beer

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/grammar-nazi
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Association-of-Grammar-and-Spelling-Nazis/101219329958155
Spelling nazi's... yawn...

 

[Quantum Quack]

news report today :

Rising temperatures across the planet have set more records as the US government announced the globe experienced its hottest month of March since record keeping began in 1880.

"US president Barack Obama has used his weekly address to urge action on climate change, saying it posed the world's biggest single threat.

"Today, there's no greater threat to our planet than climate change," Mr Obama said in his weekly address, which had an environmental theme to mark Earth Day on April 22."

src: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-...says-march-hottest-globally-on-record/6403600

 

[sculptor]

draft
(for me) =
conscription into an armed force

In this country, designated by the "U.S." at the start of the military identification number also known as the serial number.
Enlistees number started with R.A. for "regular army"

The draft (selective service-----who in hell made those selections?) notification started with "Greetings from the president and people of the United States"
So, I thought: "Gee, all of them?"
.......................
Currently, my wife, the only full professor in her department, runs the writing center.
For her, a "draft" is a work in progress, oft revised before the final paper.

.........................
on another note:
I do wish that politicians would stay the hell out of science. (Ain't a single one of them that is any good at it).

 

[Kristoffer]

I'm a spelling nazi for writing British English?

Edit: I am however a beer nazi that don't consider Miller beer.

 

[Billy T]

... "US president Barack Obama has used his weekly address to urge action on climate change, saying it posed the world's biggest single threat. "Today, there's no greater threat to our planet than climate change," Mr Obama said in his weekly address, which had an environmental theme to mark Earth Day on April 22." ...

The planet will do just fine, thank you. It is most of the life on it that is at risk.
Watch this:

At end of it, click on the "Soil Video" keeping in mind the photo below. In case it is not one of the "after end choices" I put it below the photo.

There are more choices too. - All under 2 minutes and worth watching.
The soil video notes it is a thin layer, and in the last 100 years, more than half of the vital soil we depend on has been destroyed, by "smart" man.

The tiny mice*, who will inherit the Earth, thank you. There will be plenty of soil left to grow their needs.
* High surface to volume ratio for cooling and we send the hot days in our burros.

 

[milkweed]

and so it goes..

What?

“My job,” Mr. Stevens said, “isn’t to convince the public more” about the reality of climate change. “I have a naïve faith the truth will win out.”

Curry quote:
In my quest to objectively evaluate the IPCC’s attribution argument and stand up for research integrity post Climategate, I was not ‘pulled’ away from the establishment community by ‘deniers'; rather I was ‘pushed’ away by scientists who were IPCC ideologues and advocates.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/22/bjorn-stevens-in-the-cross-fire/#more-18403

 

[Quantum Quack]

Uhm... so what happens , do you think, when climate scientists tell the world it has only 50-100 years of human habitation remaining? ( and there is not a lot we can do about it)
What can the global population do, except go into denial?

 

[origin]

Uhm... so what happens , do you think, when climate scientists tell the world it has only 50-100 years of human habitation remaining? ( and there is not a lot we can do about it)
What can the global population do, except go into denial?

That is not what climatologists are saying. You may find a few that say that, but that is certainly NOT the consensus. There are dire consequences but the earth is not going to become uninhabitable.