“Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001. Further, NASA data shows that warming in the southern hemisphere has stopped, and that ocean temperatures also have stopped rising.”
The global average temperature had been rising until about 2000-2001.”
[...]
“Since CO2 has only a positive effect, the new trend indicates that natural changes are greater than the CO2 effect, as I have stated during the last several years.”

http://newsminer.com/news/2008/sep/27/global-warming-has-paused/?opinion

Sure looks to me like his intent is to correct, not to passively collect, “information”:

“The stopping of the rise in global average temperature after 2000-2001 indicates that the hypothesis and prediction made by the IPCC need serious revision.”

1. Dr. Meier is currently working on a second set of questions, based on comments here.

2. He is not avoiding the forum.

3. He has, and continues to, put a huge amount of his personal time into this effort – which he is under no obligation to do.

4. His offer to take this on is perhaps unique.

5. He knows a lot more detail about what is going on day to day in the Arctic than most of the rest of us.

Individuals may or may not agree with his view of the future of the Arctic, but please express your opinion in a scientific, non-personal manner. We don’t want to mimic the bad behavior which goes on at some well known global warming advocacy sites.

Overconfidence can also be a product of ignorance.

As an undergrad, I wrote a model for an early GCM. My module was the simulation of the various chemical reactions of SO2 in the atmosphere. The inputs were the various chemical components of the atmosphere and energy inputs – radiation mostly, as well as conductive heat and starting temperature. The outputs were the same. After validation by my professor, my module was added to a growing collection of models, each simulating an aspect of climate and creating a General Climate Model. Back then, we lacked the CPU power to even come close to what the modern GCMs are running on and the technology of computer programming is much more advanced, the fundamental concept remains more or less the same.

As counters seems to be much closer to the modern GCMs than I am, I am sure he will contribute constructively upon the foundation I have laid.

Regardless, the GCM are only part of the solution and are also part of the problem. IMHO, properly used, a GCM can help identify the areas where we need more ground data and better theory. The ubiquity of computers in our lives has given the impression that can be a replacement for ground truths. Hey, an Excel spreadsheet will always correctly add up a column of number, right? Animal Rights Extremists demand a halt to animal testing because we can model the biological system with computers, for example. In some cases, this is true, but would you want to trust your life on a drug that has never been tested in a living biological system?

Trusting our future to computers running GCMs which almost all agree are missing components of the climate is pretty much the same thing. Instead of pursuing a career in academics, I chose to work in computers. I have spent many years bailing out firms on Wall Street from projects that went sour. Some of the projects were attempts to model a system as complex and chaotic as the climate – the stock market. Those didn’t work that well either and I have seem them all, from neural networks to technical analysis. The technology is lacking. And so is the technology and science to model the climate as it stands. Forget the ability to make predictions for any significant point in the future.

I don’t think that’s what I said; at least it’s not what I intended. I am frequently impressed by the depth of knowledge of many of the posters here (you included). The ignorance I had in mind was not of science in general, or even of climate issues, but specifically of the internals of GCMs. I know that’s true for me at least. Conversely, the tendency I see from warmers’ posts is that they place a great deal of confidence that the GCMs correctly model the science. It is difficult to share that confidence without more knowledge of the internals of the models, so I’m willing to be open-minded that I am unfairly construing them as being overconfident.

Perhaps there is a skeptic in the audience with enough experience in the internals of modern GCMs to be able to field a general summary. What I’m looking for is a discussion of the science behind the GCMs, the strengths, weaknesses, inputs, assumptions, range of results, …. Ignorance is, after all, a curable fault.

Are all skeptics ignorant speculators and are all warmers overconfident? That seems to be a pretty big brush you are waving there.

Many people tell me I am overconfident in my results, but none would say that I speculate ignorantly.

Since counters seems to have a great deal of knowledge about GCMs, do you think you could induce him/her to do a guest posting that gives an overview of the various parts of a modern GCM (what are the CAM, the CLM, and CCSM’s flux coupler?), along with the types of computations (e.g., numerical solution to Navier-Stokes equation) and the assumptions/parameters that go into the models? Or point to some overview document that describes it? I’m interested in the science, but don’t have the time to investigate everything de novo, and since this is one of counters’ research areas, he/she should hopefully be able to give a high-level description without too much effort.

REPLY: I don’t know how much knowledge he really has and how much is youthful bluster, as far as I can gather, he’s an undergraduate. Perhaps a sophomore. Besides my policy is that anyone that would guest post here has to do it under a real name. We don’t accept web phantoms for guest articles any more than a scientific journal would. – Anthony

I wonder how soon they would have had a liberal government if we had just left them alone…”

I wonder how soon they would have had a liberal government if we had not given up after the war had been won?

“Still, Akasofu doesn’t completely deny the existence of climate change, so much as question what causes it. One culprit he suggested is the recent lack of sunspots

“‘Something is happening on the sun,’ he said. ‘There are no sunspots when there should be 50-100 right now, so people warn the sun has become warmer.’”

Sorry, but fewer sunspots means less solar radiation reaching the Earth. A lack of sunspots can’t be the cause of warming.

GODZILLA!!

GODZIRRA!

When I was visiting professor at the University of Nagoya, my name was Raifu Subarugardo. Interesting and befitting, Subaru is the Japanese word for the Pleiades [go look at a Subaru car's logo emblem]

Well, counters, in order for me to accept that comment on face value I need a little more information.

1. Who does pay you? How much do you make? How much does your project cost? Where does your funding come from exactly? I just want to make sure that I am not paying for it. You don’t pay my salary, of that I am quite sure. I am all for no swindling of anyone. Please explain to me how I am not being swindled.

2. What exactly is the agenda of your funding source? Please be specific. I don’t want to think that your benefactors have a socialist agenda, but just to make sure, name them, and I’ll check them out.

3. What is the guise you operate under? Does it have nothing to do with the environment? Nor with “environmentalism”? Please define those words and state your agenda vis a vis same.

I only ask because I would like some clarification. Your tone was rather accusatory. Perhaps you would feel better if you came clean about the matters at hand, and then you would not feel so defensive about them.

Again I wish to point out that the journalist has mangled the words. Akasofu is Japanese and the Japanese language does not have the ‘l’ sound. It sounds like an ‘r’ to them and they also pronounce the ‘l’ sound as ‘r’, so when Akasofu said:
“Retirement is good because I can spend the time to correct information,” he didn’t mean ‘correct’ but ‘collect’.

GODZILLA!!

Thanks for the tip on the Vancouver Sun article. A true example of hyperbolic alarmism. A truely chilling picture, not of the future, but of the glimpse at Weaver’s thinking.

Completely stop emissions of GHGs would cause the extinction of one species, homo sapiens.

“Drivers could face £20 fine for leaving engines running in traffic jams”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056633/Drivers-face-20-fine-leaving-engines-running-traffic-jams.html