Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Simply Uncertain

Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 7:10 AM GMT on February 21, 2012

+11

Simply Uncertain

This past week I had a short letter published in Scientific American. The letter concerned a statement made in an article that climate models do not include clouds. This is an incorrect statement that has been around for many years, and it shows up, in my experience, in more science-focused publications. I remember an exchange of letters in Physics Today in 2005. As best as I can tell, the statement is traced to a historical document that stated the first climate models written in the late 1960s contained specified clouds – meaning that they did not change as the climate changed. By the end of the 1970s, cloud parameterizations were becoming standard in climate models, and the interplay between clouds and solar radiation emerged in the 1980s as one of the most important metrics of model performance.

My letter goes on to state that the uncertainty in climate projections associated with the physical climate model is smaller than the uncertainty associated with the models of emission scenarios that are used to project carbon dioxide emissions. This statement is worthy of more discussion. Let me start with a couple of reminders. In all of these endeavors looking to the future we use models. Models are constructed based on observed behavior and are tools for projecting future outcomes. By “physical climate model” I mean a mathematical representation based on the laws of physics. Most simply, in this case, how is solar energy absorbed by the Earth, redistributed, and then emitted back to space? More generally, laws that govern physics, chemistry and biology are incorporated into climate models.

Another important ingredient in making climate projections is what is our future emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? “Emission scenario” models are based on assumptions of population growth, economic development and sources of energy to drive the economy. Historically, one type of scenario is called “business as usual” and simply extrapolates curves of past energy use into the future. If we take emission curves that, for example, stop in 2005 and project them forward, we see that in the last couple of years we are ahead of those emissions. Generally, business as usual is assumed to be the worst case. We have several emission models based on various assumptions about development and deployment of technology. Current efforts in climate science are striving to make emission models and physical climate models talk to each other – to interact.

Physical climate models are based on the laws of physics and that does provide strategies for determining cause and effect. If cause and effect can be determined to a high degree of certainty, then we can be quite certain about predictions. The economic models, that I know, are based on observations of economic systems that are then represented through a set of mathematical relationships. These relationships are often represented by statistical methods, strive to represent human behavior, and include measures of value that rely on how much humans value something. In atmospheric science, for example, there are a set of “primitive equations” which all agree describe the motion of the atmosphere. Such a set of physically derived equations do not sit at the basis of economic projections. I hope I have stayed out of trouble here. As in a number of previous entries, I draw your attention to Daniel Farber’s Climate Models: A User’s Guide. Farber is neither climate scientist or economist, a fact that I always view as providing a measure of objective evaluation. He evaluates model robustness.

I want to discuss this uncertainty issue a little bit more, and will rely on an old standard figure from the 2001 IPCC Report. This figure has a lot of information about uncertainty.

Figure 1: From 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report Variations of the Earth’s surface temperature: year 1000 to year 2100

The figure shows the temperature since the year 1000 forward to year 2100. The temperatures from the past are from observations of different types. The temperatures in the future are from model projections. There are a set of different physical climate models all using a standard set of emission scenarios. I have marked three types of uncertainty on the figure.

In light blue I point to a measure of observational uncertainty. This is the gray spread around the bold red temperature line. This gets smaller as more and more observations become available over time. Going into the future there are the individual colored lines of different models and on the right of the figure are the ranges associated with those models for the set of emission scenarios. The envelope of all of the models with all of the emission scenarios is pointed out by the green arrows. A simple estimate of uncertainty is the spread of the models. This uncertainty grows with time, and the spread when all of the scenarios are included is larger than the spread of any individual model. If one were to look at the individual models, you would see much the same thing. In the absence of different scenarios the models would have a significantly more narrow spread.

There are a number of important points in this simple approach to thinking about uncertainty. Looking at the spread of all models with all scenarios, the spread at, say, 30 years in the future is quite well defined by the lines of the individual models. It takes 30 or 40 years before the difference in the scenarios makes a difference. As a rule of thumb a simple description of uncertainty is that in the next couple of decades “internal variability,” that is, the spread is mostly due to things like El Nino and La Nina is most important. Then there is a length of time where the spread is due mostly to model differences. And as time approaches a century or longer, the spread due to emission scenarios begins to dominate. I note that model differences are always important, and that this difference is strongly related to details of the treatment of clouds. This uncertainty is expressed in how fast does it warm?

The physical climate model is like a telescope into the future; it provides actionable knowledge the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. As the models improve, that future comes into more and more focus. There are physical relationships that allow a high degree of confidence to be attributed to some aspects of climate projections. For example, the surface of the globe will warm, in any carbon dioxide emission scenario. On this global scale, both model uncertainty and emission scenario uncertainty address the issue of how fast the surface will warm. Neither suggest any plausible scenario where the Earth does not warm. And simply to make the point, this plot does not suggest that the warming stops at 2100; that's just as far as the information is plotted. At local spatial scales, scales for which the models were not designed, the uncertainty analysis follows a much different logic than presented here.

r

Old Entry on Uncertainty and Definition of Model Types

Categories: Climate Models

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 151 - 201

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 — Blog Index

151. nymore 12:10 PM GMT on February 27, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: Why would Dr. Masters possibly retract his post on Heartland? He said absolutely nothing about the organization that wasn't verifiably true. No, as I said a few days ago, the only way for Heartland to salvage even a shred of credibility is for it to announce its mysterious "Anonymous Donor", the person or group who's funded them to the tune of $14,000,000. Gee, I wonder who it could be... (P.S. -- Denialist calls for everyone to retract their articles on Heartland would have a heck of a lot more credibility if those denialists would retract every single thing they said on the debunked "climategate" claptrap. Absent of that, they have no moral, ethical, legal, or scientific ground on which to stand.) The Anonymous Donor is allegedly George Soros Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2048

152. greentortuloni 2:41 PM GMT on February 27, 2012
Quoting nymore: The Anonymous Donor is allegedly George Soros If Soros is funding Heartland, I may have to rethink all that paranoid gibberish about Soros trying to destroy America. Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1188

153. Neapolitan 3:30 PM GMT on February 27, 2012
Quoting nymore: The Anonymous Donor is allegedly George Soros Sounds like Glen Beck slept in his car again last night. With the engine running. And with a hose running from the tailpipe directly into his mouth... Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11156

154. Some1Has2BtheRookie 5:17 PM GMT on February 27, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Rookie keeps asking this same question, repeatedly. I suggest he googles that exact phrase and reads the first ten or so responses to see if his question is adequately answered. You can get all the responses you want. Some may even respond that CO2 gives Coca-Cola its flavor and others may say that it is not a gas at all. They may say that it is just a clump of molecules. This does not change the Laws of Physics! Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102

155. overwash12 5:49 PM GMT on February 27, 2012
Watched the video Ossqss put up,pretty sad the way man is destroying the planet,especially the Amazon rain forests! Maybe God will throw a rock at us to get our attention! Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1049

156. RevElvis 8:16 PM GMT on February 27, 2012
Lawyers For Mining Companies Threaten Scientific Journals Slashdot.org Link PDF of Notice "451 degrees Fahrenheit is the temperature at which paper ignites" I don't brake for trolls ! Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 20 Comments: 397

157. cyclonebuster 8:42 PM GMT on February 27, 2012
Quoting overwash12: Watched the video Ossqss put up,pretty sad the way man is destroying the planet,especially the Amazon rain forests! Maybe God will throw a rock at us to get our attention! Perhaps,so!!! Big Asteroid 2011 AG5 Could Pose Threat to Earth in 2040 Link Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18774

158. JupiterKen 9:59 PM GMT on February 27, 2012
Congratulations to the blog winners! Link Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

159. Neapolitan 10:45 PM GMT on February 27, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: Congratulations to the blog winners! Link I don't know if "congratulations" is the right term. Maybe: "For a bunch of anti-science tools who repeatedly claim consensus means nothing, you sure did spend an awful lot of time stuffing the ballot box, but you get a nifty little banner for your website, so I guess it paid off for those impressed by such things." Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11156

160. JupiterKen 10:59 PM GMT on February 27, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: I don't know if "congratulations" is the right term. Maybe: "For a bunch of anti-science tools who repeatedly claim consensus means nothing, you sure did spend an awful lot of time stuffing the ballot box, but you get a nifty little banner for your website, so I guess it paid off for those impressed by such things." One blogger stated the winners are known for their truth, honesty, ethics and even-handed moderation. I see your response is the usual name-calling. Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

161. NeapolitanFan 11:37 PM GMT on February 27, 2012
So desperate are the warmists that, not only do they steal documents, but they also fabricate false documents: Link Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

162. Neapolitan 1:01 AM GMT on February 28, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: One blogger stated the winners are known for their truth, honesty, ethics and even-handed moderation. I see your response is the usual name-calling. "Truth"? "Honesty"? "Ethics"? "Even-handed moderation"? I'm not sure who this "blogger" was, but I suggest he not use such words, since he clearly has no idea what they mean. Say, a question for you: Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11156

163. Neapolitan 1:15 AM GMT on February 28, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan: So desperate are the warmists that, not only do they steal documents, but they also fabricate false documents: Link The more Heartland denies the memo, the more obvious it becomes that it is, indeed, genuine. Heartland has absolutely no credibility whatsoever--and that was the case before Gleick further exposed them for the manipulative, anti-science charlatans they are. I'm still unhappy with Gleick going about things the way he did. But I think history will smile kindly upon him, and mankind will eventually come around to appreciate the truth he exposed more that they chastise him for the deed he performed. Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11156

165. Ossqss 4:02 AM GMT on February 28, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan: "Truth"? "Honesty"? "Ethics"? "Even-handed moderation"? I'm not sure who this "blogger" was, but I suggest he not use such words, since he clearly has no idea what they mean. Say, a question for you: Your post just made me think of it Clark. I just can't resist :) Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8154

166. greentortuloni 6:11 AM GMT on February 28, 2012
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4: They're not mutually exclusive- there should be a picture of a puppet master pulling the strings of both sides at the top of your diagram, House of Rothschild/Queen Beatrix owned Royal Dutch Shell were among the original architects of the global carbon trading ponzi scheme, along with Occidental Petroleum heir Al Gore and Enron in the 90s, with assistance from B.P.'s "Lord" John Browne(B.P. is of course a remnant of the Standard Oil trust-still part of the same cartel) and former CEO of Petro Canada, Ajax Petroleum, and Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas and one of the chief profiteers of the Chicago Climate Exchange scam- Maurice Strong, the Rockefeller family, of course heirs of the Standard Oil monopoly, are pushing the Carbon Disclosure Project, the Rockefeller/Rothschild dynasty that have for decades suppressed alternatives that they couldn't profit from such as Nikola Tesla's work, they have always planned to milk the hydrocarbon game as long as possible, but seeing the writing on the wall of dwindling non-renewable resources, want to keep their control over the global economy. It is simply not true that it is equal, I mean that it is not true that both sides are funded equally and out for profit. There may be exceptions: I am sure that some, at least, of the bloggers on this site really believe that the dangers of global warming have been exagerrated. I don't think they work for big oil, even though they believe a lot fo big oil's publicity, they are doing it with an honest heart. But more to the point, the people who are against oil pollution may include a few who have a vested interest or just irrationally hate anything corporate/big/etc.. - but most of the people who are fighting global warming are doing so because they care about the earth and see the results of pollution and the problems of a big oil economy and/or are tired of America performing fellatio at the oil pump to countries against us. Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1188

167. JupiterKen 3:24 PM GMT on February 28, 2012
In case you missed Lindzen's comments: Link Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

168. Neapolitan 6:33 PM GMT on February 28, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: In case you missed Lindzen's comments: Link How could anyone miss them? Lindzen has been spouting the same nonsense for many years now. The planet hasn't warmed since 1998? CO2 isn't causing the heating? Ice isn't melting, the ocean's not acidifying, sea levels aren't rising, weather's not becoming more extreme? I'll check back in when (if) Lindzen comes up with a new line. In the meantime, I award him the seal: Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11156

169. Some1Has2BtheRookie 7:55 PM GMT on February 28, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: In case you missed Lindzen's comments: Link The very first sentence - "I wish to thank the Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act for the opportunity to present my views on the issue of climate change – or as it was once referred to: global warming." - The emphasis is mine. Read page 4 of the PDF file. Lindzen does not dispute the facts, concerning climate change, but does offer his own views beyond that. Would you like see my views? I can save them as a PDF file and link to it. I suggest that you and Lindzen take a closer look at Venus for an atmosphere that has run amok due to greenhouse gases. Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102

170. Neapolitan 10:18 PM GMT on February 28, 2012
Police Make Arrest In 'The Senator' Fire The Division of Forestry said Tuesday that an arrest has been made in relation to the fire of "The Senator." Sara Barnes, 26, said she regularly went to the tree site to use drugs and lit a fire the night of the fire so she could see but that it got out of control, according to authorities. The 3,500-year-old bald cypress burned down last month in a fire. Officials said they found images of the fire being started on Barnes' laptop and on her cellphone. Link... Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11156

171. atmoaggie 10:25 PM GMT on February 28, 2012
Swinging by for the moment... Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie: take a closer look at Venus for an atmosphere that has run amok due to greenhouse gases. ?!?!?!? Studies of the how and why Venus is what it is have been published since the mid to late 60s and the effect is shown to fully depend on an entirely adiabatic lapse rate (not moist). Nothing like Earth, nor is it remotely possible for Earth to get there. Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461

172. Patrap 10:55 PM GMT on February 28, 2012
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 371 Comments: 111457

173. Xandra 12:00 AM GMT on February 29, 2012
Quoting atmoaggie: Studies of the how and why Venus is what it is have been published since the mid to late 60s and the effect is shown to fully depend on an entirely adiabatic lapse rate (not moist). WUWT?! Goddard?! Show us those peer-reviewed scientific papers that support your "adiabatic lapse rate" theory. Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 758

174. Ossqss 4:22 AM GMT on February 29, 2012
Quoting Xandra: WUWT?! Goddard?! Show us those pre-reviewed scientific papers that support your "adiabatic lapse rate" theory. Ok, http://atmos.nmsu.edu/education_and_outreach/ency clopedia/adiabatic_lapse_rate.htm or as a pre....... http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520- 0469%281970%290270219%3ATALRIT2.0.CO%3B2 Your point? Mandated :) Just in case some can't figure out how to use my posts. Play the tune, click the link, and then read and listen simultaneously... It's all good,,,, Just sayin,> Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8154

175. cyclonebuster 1:41 PM GMT on February 29, 2012
Dr. Rood these will prove your statement as true!!! No uncertainty about it! "In A Formula for Economic Calamity, by David H. Freedman, David Colander of Middlebury College asserts that climate models often have no terms to account for the effects of clouds. This is not true." Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18774

176. atmoaggie 3:44 PM GMT on February 29, 2012
Quoting Xandra: WUWT?! Goddard?! Show us those pre-reviewed scientific papers that support your "adiabatic lapse rate" theory. I do not understand your 2 one word questions. Rephrase, please? As to published works on the subject (not my theory), here are 30 of them: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=venus gree nhouse adiabatic&num=30&btnG=Search Scholar&as_epq =&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_public ation=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdt f=&as_sdts=44&hl=en No, I'll not re-read some (and read for the first time, right now) for you. Surprised that some of the other folks in here, regardless of leanings haven't commented by now. They know Venus' atmospheric conditions are unattainable here, no matter what. In spite of other stated opinions to the contrary, I guess they are fine with allowing impossible hand waving as long as it generates alarm. One reason I haven't been here much and probably will not stick around for long. Also, could you please post some peer-reviewed blog droppings to support otherwise? (Sorry, sarcasm is certainly one of my faults.) Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461

177. atmoaggie 4:00 PM GMT on February 29, 2012
Quoting Ossqss: Ok, http://atmos.nmsu.edu/education_and_outreach/ency clopedia/adiabatic_lapse_rate.htm or as a pre....... http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520- 0469%281970%290270219%3ATALRIT2.0.CO%3B2 Your point? Mandated :) Just in case some can't figure out how to use my posts. Play the tune, click the link, and then read and listen simultaneously... It's all good,,,, Just sayin,> Hey, Oss. Yep, that J. Atmo Sci. article is one I had in mind. Not a new discovery, published in 1970. I think that was one I read in my physical climatology course. We had a fair bit of baseline climatological work in that class that we tended to use conditions such as insolation, lapse rate, etc. to figure out expected climates on other planets (sans greenhouse effects, was a sophomore course). Was certainly interesting. Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461

178. NeapolitanFan 4:51 PM GMT on February 29, 2012
If the sun has a significant effect on precipitation, then why would it not have a similar effect on temperature. I think the warmists see the handwriting on the wall. Link Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

179. greentortuloni 5:04 PM GMT on February 29, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan: If the sun has a significant effect on precipitation, then why would it not have a similar effect on temperature. I think the warmists see the handwriting on the wall. Link i would love to be wrong about global warming. I root for the ice to recover and to find out i am a fool. But nothing you have shown gives any reason to be happy. A few articles, some of dubious nature, aren't changing my mind. Look at all the indicators, the big global macrovariables: ice, water temps, etc. then read Dr Roods post again. If we are all wrong, big deal. If you are wrong, we are all dead. Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1188

180. NeapolitanFan 7:00 PM GMT on February 29, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni: i would love to be wrong about global warming. I root for the ice to recover and to find out i am a fool. But nothing you have shown gives any reason to be happy. A few articles, some of dubious nature, aren't changing my mind. Look at all the indicators, the big global macrovariables: ice, water temps, etc. then read Dr Roods post again. If we are all wrong, big deal. If you are wrong, we are all dead. We're all dead? Give me a break. Another typical alarmist statement. Many scientists believe that a small amount of global temperature increase could be very beneficial for the planet even if it isn't occurring. Cooling temperatures would have have a much greater harmful effect on the planet, and that is probably what's in store for the future with the decrease in solar activity. It's the sun.... Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

181. Xandra 7:22 PM GMT on February 29, 2012
"The blog Watts up with That is famous for its attempt to reinvent climate physics on Earth, and now they want to reinvent astrophysics as well. Steve Goddard, a frequent poster at WUWT, has a couple of posts as well as write ups by Lubos Motl, about how the extreme temperatures on Venus are not caused by the greenhouse effect, but rather the 90 bar atmospheric pressure on Venus. It essentially argues that the “extra warming” by that we see on Venus is mostly due to the adiabatic lapse rate. As with many posts at WUWT, this radical idea which contradicts any textbook on planetary climate has been accepted without question by most commenters.Unfortunately for the massive attempt at a paradigm shift that is underway, they are all wrong." Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 758

182. atmoaggie 8:15 PM GMT on February 29, 2012
Quoting Xandra: "The blog Watts up with That is famous for its attempt to reinvent climate physics on Earth, and now they want to reinvent astrophysics as well. Steve Goddard, a frequent poster at WUWT, has a couple of posts as well as write ups by Lubos Motl, about how the extreme temperatures on Venus are not caused by the greenhouse effect, but rather the 90 bar atmospheric pressure on Venus. It essentially argues that the “extra warming” by that we see on Venus is mostly due to the adiabatic lapse rate. As with many posts at WUWT, this radical idea which contradicts any textbook on planetary climate has been accepted without question by most commenters.Unfortunately for the massive attempt at a paradigm shift that is underway, they are all wrong." sigh You should read the second link Oss posted or any of the results of the google search I linked. Those are the things that are included in those textbooks. Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461

184. NavarreMark 9:43 PM GMT on February 29, 2012
Quoting misanthrope: sigh You should read the second link Oss posted or any of the results of the google search you linked. None of those actually support your contention that the lapse rate is somehow the cause of the high temps on Venus. I'm thinking maybe you should just head back to the Bunker, Sport. Folks there are a lot more receptive to the BS that you're so fond of spouting. Sensing a little hostility here. Take a deep breath and think pleasant thoughts Mr Wilson. Member Since: September 2, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3789

186. spathy 11:06 PM GMT on February 29, 2012
Mr Wilson does seem a bit cranky as usual. Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10480

187. atmoaggie 11:09 PM GMT on February 29, 2012
The experiment has reached it's logical conclusion and with great success. I knew that if I came in here and started posting relevant info concerning claims as absurd as the notion that Earth's atmosphere could conceivably resemble that of Venus based on CO2, alone, that someone would soon (un?)contribute an attacking, snide response. And that with nothing else to contribute. I wondered whom would plus a snide response to what was an honest attempt to review some of the science (not even the primary science) of AGW and, thus, be exposed for pretending that they are here for anything but preaching. Now we know. At least Some1, Neap, and Xandra did. They must favor asininity. True colors? Y'all should be embarrassed, but I know you're not. Once upon a time, everyone in these blogs would have minussed any post containing such attitude. And, like then, I'll not return the serve, just point and laugh. Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461

188. JupiterKen 11:09 PM GMT on February 29, 2012
Quoting misanthrope: sigh You should read the second link Oss posted or any of the results of the google search you linked. None of those actually support your contention that the lapse rate is somehow the cause of the high temps on Venus. I'm thinking maybe you should just head back to the Bunker, Sport. Folks there are a lot more receptive to the BS that you're so fond of spouting. Uhh...yes they do Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 295

189. misanthrope 11:54 PM GMT on February 29, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen: Uhh...yes they do Really? Please do be specific. Which paper do you think best supports Atmo's thesis and why? Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 449

194. Barefootontherocks 1:57 AM GMT on March 01, 2012
Quoting atmoaggie: The experiment has reached it's logical conclusion and with great success. I knew that if I came in here and started posting relevant info concerning claims as absurd as the notion that Earth's atmosphere could conceivably resemble that of Venus based on CO2, alone, that someone would soon (un?)contribute an attacking, snide response. And that with nothing else to contribute. I wondered whom would plus a snide response to what was an honest attempt to review some of the science (not even the primary science) of AGW and, thus, be exposed for pretending that they are here for anything but preaching. Now we know. At least Some1, Neap, and Xandra did. They must favor asininity. True colors? Y'all should be embarrassed, but I know you're not. Once upon a time, everyone in these blogs would have minussed any post containing such attitude. And, like then, I'll not return the serve, just point and laugh. Well, I enjoyed reading your comments, atmo. I miss seeing your comments here at wu. Sad to see you treated in this fashion when you came here to comment today. (Add: Some of) Your back-up singers do bother me, as they have come here before, mostly at Masters' blog, not to make a scientific statement but to deride this entire blogging community - undeservedly. For them I have no sympathy. Hope life's treating you well, man. Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 135 Comments: 16320

195. Ossqss 4:20 AM GMT on March 01, 2012
Quoting misanthrope: sigh You should read the second link Oss posted or any of the results of the google search you linked. None of those actually support your contention that the lapse rate is somehow the cause of the high temps on Venus. I'm thinking maybe you should just head back to the Bunker, Sport. Folks there are a lot more receptive to the BS that you're so fond of spouting. Now this is worth evaluation. Take a peek at the communication. What do you actually see that tends to purvey the root posters alternates? LOL You people spend too much time on character assassination as opposed to logical persuasion. Ya know, we are all on the same side in the end! I guess that is just the way it is. Sad really....... Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8154

196. Ossqss 4:33 AM GMT on March 01, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster: Dr. Rood these will prove your statement as true!!! No uncertainty about it! "In A Formula for Economic Calamity, by David H. Freedman, David Colander of Middlebury College asserts that climate models often have no terms to account for the effects of clouds. This is not true." Sorry, but this perpetually failed "sales pitch" is just SPAM and does not belong !\ Do you like SPAM? Gnight>>>> Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8154

198. RevElvis 9:30 AM GMT on March 01, 2012
TED 2012 Talk: "The Earth Is Full" - Paul Gilding TED Talk Link Interesting talk about why our current "consumer economy" is unsustainable. Simple fact - it would take 1.5 earths to sustain it. Paul is the author of "The Great Disruption: Why the Climate Crisis Will Bring On the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World". The title of his book is both sobering & optimistic at the same time. I don't brake for trolls ! Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 20 Comments: 397

200. PompanoDonna 2:42 PM GMT on March 01, 2012
Nea, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. First I would just like to say there was no conspiracy to "Let us all go to Dr. Rood's blog forum and frantically mash the report and minus buttons on that comment made by Neapolitan until it disappears! Because that will prove beyond all doubt that climate change isn't happening!" What really happened was a respected member of our community made a post and in a show of respect other members plussed his comment. Although this may be a foreign idea, you don't have to agree with, or even like, what someone has to say, it is possible to just like the way it is written. As far as minusing your comments. Did it ever occur to you that it's not what you say, but how you say it that could be the cause of other's disdain? And as far as your last statement, you're right. The bunker is the best place for us. A place where you can voice your opinion, ask questions, and learn, while at the same time having fun, without the fear of ridicule or condescension. Member Since: August 1, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5

201. overwash12 4:13 PM GMT on March 01, 2012
Who loves ya baby? Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1049

Viewing: 151 - 201

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About RickyRood