Love him or hate him, it is worthwhile to understand where he is coming from, so I present this video: The emergent patterns of climate change
According to TED:
You can’t understand climate change in pieces, says climate scientist Gavin Schmidt. It’s the whole, or it’s nothing. In this illuminating talk, he explains how he studies the big picture of climate change with mesmerizing models that illustrate the endlessly complex interactions of small-scale environmental events.
Video follows, comments welcome.
The transcript is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change/transcript
Tom you are right, it was a cleverly constructed lecture. Some things he said were correct, but the conclusion mentioned increased CO2 and that’s when it lost me. There are many variables in weather predictions, and a few .Cs increase will not be terrible.
Australia on the Northern Tablelands are recording some of the lowest temps ever recorded and we are only mid Autumn? Snow in parts Inverell. But non in Armidale just a bit of sleet yesterday and one or two snow flakes for a few minutes.
TED = Technology, Entertainment, and Design
Those of you who are actually interested in how climate codes are developed and what languages are used, may like to read this:
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2010/03/what-makes-software-engineering-for-climate-models-different/
He’s mesmerized by models.
Or blinded by (his)science.
I shook my head immediately when I read Mosher’s comment. I would suspect that most “skeptics”, if asked about future climate in 1938, would immediately ask what was gong to happen with the sun. If strong solar cycles were likely then the “skeptics” would have concluded the climate would warm. Seems like they would have been right.
The eminent scholars of the climate modeling community constantly update (tweak) their models with fresh data and coefficients to adjust an ensembled output to match adjusted data. Then they smugly point out how well the fresh output blodge matches history. They will never understand how corrupt and stupid this scheme is. It’s not science, it’s nonsense.
kencoffman says:
“The eminent scholars of the climate modeling community constantly update (tweak) their models with fresh data and coefficients to adjust an ensembled output to match adjusted data.”
They adjust the models to match the data?
Really?
I thought all the evidence showed that they did it the other way around and “adjusted” the data to match the models.
Climate modeler Gavin Schmidt is defensive about CGMs in his TED talk.
Research money has gotten significantly scarcer in recent years and climate modeling has been very expensive in prior years.
Given that Schmidt is a salesman for his climate modeling profession, my assessment of his GCM sales advertisement (sales pitch) in his TED talk is that he was not effective enough to make Joe Public give more cash.
Climate modeling was unjustifiably and myopically prioritized by the IPCC process, so it was overfunded. Models have a much reduced role in the current developing mix of climate research / assessment, but they still have a role of a very reduced and limited scope.
John
tl;dw
Gavin conveniently neglects to even mention the near-18-year halt in global warming, which blows his CO2-obsessed bogus climate models out of the water. True to form though.
@Bruce Cobb
Actually, it is not a pause.
It is globally cooling from the around the new millennium
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
so there is some climate change coming
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
@Henry, I agree that we are most likely already in a cooling period. It may take a few more years to say for sure though, at least without a claim of cherry-picking from the Warmists. The beauty of the halt (not pause) is that there is no cherry-picking since the period goes from today backwards in time.
That’s the end of TED. They started nice with sane subjects but now this organization has been assimilated together with all the other hubris selling entities in the world.
Foxtrot Oscar to all of them.
R.de, it took me a few minutes to work that out. Gud one, must remember Foxtrot Oscar to some when I get a chance.
I don’t know about some of you, maybe all, but when I studied archaeology and palaeoanthropology at UNE (Oz) we studied the evolution of humans. When Al Gore got the Nobel Prize I nearly spewed. But it is very interesting that when there is a extreme climate change, i.e., from glacial, interglacial, humans have adapted. During the MIA the wine industry slumped in UK and some parts of Europe. They changed the wine presses into the early printing presses, and we got books. For those who could afford them and could read. And that goes back millennium. The presents as changes in technology too and the type of tools they made.It affects body mass too. Like the Neanderthals were thick and stocky, like Inuits to combat colder weather. Yet Africans were more slender and lithe.
jim Steele says:
May 3, 2014 at 3:31 pm
Most likely, just as the ancient modelers added imaginary epicycles to match contradictory observations to advocate and protect their intellectual status, Gavin et al have simply added climate epicycles but failed to model global climate from 1900 to 1970.
There’s a big difference: The astronomers’ epicycles worked. That’s because the motions of celestial objects are very regular and therefore can be matched by introducing epicycles into the models. The same is not true of climate.
The epicycles were not introduced for the purpose of protecting anyone’s status. There was nothing to protect them against.
Moreover, AFAIK, no one ever claimed that the epicycles were real. It’s possible I’m wrong about that, but the reason the Church was initially confused about Galileo was that they didn’t think he was claiming that heliocentrism was true as matter of fact.
The models skilfully present whatever conclusions they’re told to.