New Study shows the Climate Models the U.N. used "fundamentally wrong".

[HAL 9000 96]

You're kinda contradicting yourself Gary - if as is asserted in the OP, the article you posted the abstract to actually does prove what is claimed in the op-ed piece at the start of the thread, then how were those scientists publish it?

The gag isn't ironclad but I would be willing to bet that those that published it will pay a price for doing so. When the hysterical GW nuts can't stop someone they will impune and marginalize.

Pay what price Gary? The article clearly doesn't support that the Climate Models the UN used are 'fundamentally wrong.' See tmma's previous posts- particularly that which is highlighted in red in my reply.

Really? Then why would one of the co-authors say this?

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

I would say he was quite clear on that point. The models are wrong in a fundamental way.

Umm... because the modeled behavior they analyze has to do with the Pleistocene-Eocine shift, not the modern shift in progress? Two very different phenomena.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary's complains a lot about a (nonexistent, as far as I can tell) conspiracy to keep "climate skeptics" whatever they are out of the scientific journals. The top post is about an article in Nature Geoscience, probably the preeminent journal in that field.

Now, the fact that Gary apparently cannot read it well and has not engaged the only scientifically based comments on that article posted in this thread, about 3 pages back, tells us something ... could it be that Gary cannot make comments himself about anything having to do with science?

Exactly the point - we aren't talking about politics or matters of discourse that lend themselves to unsubtantiated opinion, but about a subject that assumes some required knowledge.

Its pretty pointless to address scientific topics without actually referring to the science itself; and very few here (if any) can do more than post opinion articles or links to strange websites of dubious provenance.

[HAL 9000 96]

Pike-

The funny thing is, I don't think Al Gore is particularly influential outside of the US.

Gore is an easy target for the skeptics, because he's a political figure (and part of that eternal partisan bickering that Americans can't seem to get enough of) but to my memory he's never been quoted as a reputable or influential figure on this topic in the UK.

The idea that the entire thing has been fabricated so that a few people could make money from green technologies seems entirely spurious, given that it would be in the interests of most governments and do a Philip Morris with climate research - so that they could continue aggressive expansion of industrialisation.

I was being comedic. I'm sure the rest of the world has other things more pressing on their minds.

I could care less for Al Gore. He doesn't make me lose any sleep.

real scientists have better tools to search actual journals... they dont use google.

Well there IS Google Scholar.

I sometimes use Google Scholar. But SCIFINDER is way better.

I can even get climate papers at PubMed. Go figure.

Gary's complains a lot about a (nonexistent, as far as I can tell) conspiracy to keep "climate skeptics" whatever they are out of the scientific journals. The top post is about an article in Nature Geoscience, probably the preeminent journal in that field.

Now, the fact that Gary apparently cannot read it well and has not engaged the only scientifically based comments on that article posted in this thread, about 3 pages back, tells us something ... could it be that Gary cannot make comments himself about anything having to do with science?

There were particular comments about that paper weren't there? It would be great if they could be discussed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're kinda contradicting yourself Gary - if as is asserted in the OP, the article you posted the abstract to actually does prove what is claimed in the op-ed piece at the start of the thread, then how were those scientists publish it?

The gag isn't ironclad but I would be willing to bet that those that published it will pay a price for doing so. When the hysterical GW nuts can't stop someone they will impune and marginalize.

Pay what price Gary? The article clearly doesn't support that the Climate Models the UN used are 'fundamentally wrong.' See tmma's previous posts- particularly that which is highlighted in red in my reply.

Really? Then why would one of the co-authors say this?

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

I would say he was quite clear on that point. The models are wrong in a fundamental way.

Umm... because the modeled behavior they analyze has to do with the Pleistocene-Eocine shift, not the modern shift in progress? Two very different phenomena.

Pleistocene-Eocene - was in the tens of millions of years ago right?

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah I think the particular phenomenon in question is stated in the 50 000 000 year ago range. You know... when Raquel Welch was hiding from dinosaurs.

[GaryC 7]

You're kinda contradicting yourself Gary - if as is asserted in the OP, the article you posted the abstract to actually does prove what is claimed in the op-ed piece at the start of the thread, then how were those scientists publish it?

The gag isn't ironclad but I would be willing to bet that those that published it will pay a price for doing so. When the hysterical GW nuts can't stop someone they will impune and marginalize.

Pay what price Gary? The article clearly doesn't support that the Climate Models the UN used are 'fundamentally wrong.' See tmma's previous posts- particularly that which is highlighted in red in my reply.

Really? Then why would one of the co-authors say this?

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

I would say he was quite clear on that point. The models are wrong in a fundamental way.

Umm... because the modeled behavior they analyze has to do with the Pleistocene-Eocine shift, not the modern shift in progress? Two very different phenomena.

But the IPCC used the same model to come up with the conclusion that man made CO2 is warming us today. That model has been shown to be flawed so the conclusion that man made CO2 is causing todays warming is also flawed. That was the whole point to the OP.

[HAL 9000 96]

You're kinda contradicting yourself Gary - if as is asserted in the OP, the article you posted the abstract to actually does prove what is claimed in the op-ed piece at the start of the thread, then how were those scientists publish it?

The gag isn't ironclad but I would be willing to bet that those that published it will pay a price for doing so. When the hysterical GW nuts can't stop someone they will impune and marginalize.

Pay what price Gary? The article clearly doesn't support that the Climate Models the UN used are 'fundamentally wrong.' See tmma's previous posts- particularly that which is highlighted in red in my reply.

Really? Then why would one of the co-authors say this?

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

I would say he was quite clear on that point. The models are wrong in a fundamental way.

Umm... because the modeled behavior they analyze has to do with the Pleistocene-Eocine shift, not the modern shift in progress? Two very different phenomena.

But the IPCC used the same model to come up with the conclusion that man made CO2 is warming us today. That model has been shown to be flawed so the conclusion that man made CO2 is causing todays warming is also flawed. That was the whole point to the OP.

Only if you base one model that incorrectly correlates the article's analysis with the modern one you're trying to push on modern shift- which it doesn't- as your whole reason for concluding what you conclude. And there are more models out there, that are not accounted for in this Pleistocene-Eocene paper, that are part of the IPCC.

BTW... I invite you to learn more from the authors:

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe.html

http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/Professor%...20Sciences.html

Time to stop getting duped by the Moranos of the naysayers.

[HAL 9000 96]

And basing one incorrect assumption on one misread paper... ain't science.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is however obvious to see how people can be hoodwinked by these op-ed types.

[tmma 467]

One of the 'scientists' in the OP, Robert W. Endlich, I believe is a IMETS (intergrated mobile meteorological system) system trainer/developer for the US Army. He ( like I did at the beginning of my weather career moons ago ) studied meteorological effects on weapons systems in the military theater and designed a mobile facility to obtain point weather analysis in the field.

He is a learned man-----BUT-----He is basically now a software engineer [to use the term the OP used to describe their dismay that software engineers were in control of climate models] who yes, has had work published ( mainly training manuals for the IMETS)-and he has written various letters to newspapers highlighting his POV on GW, however-he LIKE ANYONE else understands the flaws of numeric data and always will have done throughout his career; as this is always taken into account in any climatological reasoning discussion.

The seeming 'shock and horror' from the scientists in the OP is extremely suprising to me because in short Robert W. Endlich as much as I or anyone who has had to use computer generated prognostic models KNOWS that there is a high probability of error due to the fluid nature of the atmosphere.

On top of that all I want to say is CO2 may not be the primary 'driver' [ of GW]----but---CO2 has a known effect on water vapor which is affected by incoming and out going solar radiation and a contributor to the warming of the atmosphere. Can we all at least agree on that?

[sorry to go on and on, but I recognized the name up there and had to dive back in].

ttfn!

Edited July 16, 2009 by tmma

[HAL 9000 96]

Thanks for those nuggets tmma. A trigger is a small piece of a gun, but it sure has a large effect on a bullet's ability to exit the gun's barrel once pulled.

More so... wouldn't you think it odd to make modeled data based on finite samples from said time periods, subject to more mass transfers over that time elapse, and even try to parallel the obtained data on modern models complete with readily available variables??

[tmma 467]

Thanks for those nuggets tmma. A trigger is a small piece of a gun, but it sure has a large effect on a bullet's ability to exit the gun's barrel once pulled.

More so... wouldn't you think it odd to make modeled data based on finite samples from said time periods, subject to more mass transfers over that time elapse, and even try to parallel the obtained data on modern models complete with readily available variables??

absolutly-and seeing as I am a mere meteorologist and understand such things, I am more than imagining the climate scientists charged with interpolating and interpreting the data do as well. Maybe it's me, but honestly I cannot help but think that the OP is much ado about an already known, dressed up in an op-ed piece, given an alarmist title and sold as some sort of ground breaking discovery.

But what do I know?....Well, I know it's time to go. It's been fun.

[HAL 9000 96]

Thanks for those nuggets tmma. A trigger is a small piece of a gun, but it sure has a large effect on a bullet's ability to exit the gun's barrel once pulled.

More so... wouldn't you think it odd to make modeled data based on finite samples from said time periods, subject to more mass transfers over that time elapse, and even try to parallel the obtained data on modern models complete with readily available variables??

absolutly-and seeing as I am a mere meteorologist and understand such things, I am more than imagining the climate scientists charged with interpolating and interpreting the data do as well. Maybe it's me, but honestly I cannot help but think that the OP is much ado about an already known, dressed up in an op-ed piece, given an alarmist title and sold as some sort of ground breaking discovery.

But what do I know?....Well, I know it's time to go. It's been fun.

Its a Marc Morano rant being channeled by Dannologic sister tmma. Truly... not the best combination available for any viewing public.

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

meanwhile, in kansas during july, it's currently 72 degrees outside.........

[HAL 9000 96]

meanwhile, in kansas during july, it's currently 72 degrees outside.........

and its raining in Chicago.