Surprise: sea water salinity matters to sea level on long time scales

LIVERMORE, California — Using ocean observations and a large suite of climate models, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists have found that long-term salinity changes have a stronger influence on regional sea level changes than previously thought.

“By using long-term observed estimates of ocean salinity and temperature changes across the globe, and contrasting these with model simulations, we have uncovered the unexpectedly large influence of salinity changes on ocean basin-scale sea level patterns,” said LLNL oceanographer Paul Durack, lead author of a paper appearing in the November issue of the journal Environmental Research Letters (link is external).

Sea level changes are one of the most pronounced effects of climate change impacts on the Earth and are primarily driven by warming of the global ocean along with added water from melting land-based glaciers and ice sheets. In addition to these effects, changes in ocean salinity also can affect the height of the sea, by changing its density structure from the surface to the bottom of the ocean.

The team found that there was a long-term (1950-2008) pattern in halosteric (salinity-driven) sea level changes in the global ocean, with sea level increases occurring in the Pacific Ocean and sea level decreases in the Atlantic. These salinity-driven sea level changes have not been thoroughly investigated in previous long-term estimates of sea level change. When the scientists contrasted these results with models, the team found that models also simulated these basin-scale patterns, and that the magnitude of these changes was surprisingly large, making up about 25 percent of the total sea level change.

“By contrasting two long-term estimates of sea level change to simulations provided from a large suite of climate model simulations, our results suggest that salinity has a profound effect on regional sea level change,” Durack said. “This conclusion suggests that future sea level change assessments must consider the regional impacts of salinity-driven changes; this effect is too large to continue to ignore.”

Other collaborators include LLNL’s Peter Gleckler, along with Susan Wijffels, an oceanographer from Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). The study was conducted as part of the Climate Research Program at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory through the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, which is funded by the Department of Energy’s Regional and Global Climate Modeling Program.

###

Long-term sea-level change revisited: the role of salinity

OPEN ACCESS

Paul J Durack, Susan E Wijffels and Peter J Gleckler

Abstract

Of the many processes contributing to long-term sea-level change, little attention has been paid to the large-scale contributions of salinity-driven halosteric changes. We evaluate observed and simulated estimates of long-term (1950-present) halosteric patterns and compare these to corresponding thermosteric changes. Spatially coherent halosteric patterns are visible in the historical record, and are consistent with estimates of long-term water cycle amplification. Our results suggest that long-term basin-scale halosteric changes in the Pacific and Atlantic are substantially larger than previously assumed, with observed estimates and coupled climate models suggesting magnitudes of ~25% of the corresponding thermosteric changes. In both observations and simulations, Pacific basin-scale freshening leads to a density reduction that augments coincident thermosteric expansion, whereas in the Atlantic halosteric changes partially compensate strong thermosteric expansion via a basin-scale enhanced salinity density increase. Although regional differences are apparent, at basin-scales consistency is found between the observed and simulated partitioning of halosteric and thermosteric changes, and suggests that models are simulating the processes driving observed long-term basin-scale steric changes. Further analysis demonstrates that the observed halosteric changes and their basin partitioning are consistent with CMIP5 simulations that include anthropogenic CO2 forcings (Historical), but are found to be inconsistent with simulations that exclude anthropogenic forcings (HistoricalNat).

Full PDF: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/114017/pdf/1748-9326_9_11_114017.pdf

Article: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/114017/article

erl504339f1_onlineFigure 1. Long-term trends in 0–2000 dbar total steric anomaly (left column; (A1)–(C1)), thermosteric anomaly (middle column; (A2)–(C2)) and halosteric anomaly (right column; (A3)–(C3)). Units are mm yr−1. Observational maps show results from (A) Ishii and Kimoto (2009; 1950–2008), (B) Durack and Wijffels (2010; 1950–2008) and (C) the CMIP5 Historical multi-model mean (MMM; 1950–2004). Stippling is used to mark regions where the two observational estimates do not agree in their sign ((A1)–(A3), (B1)–(B3)) and where less than 50% of the contributing models do not agree in sign with the averaged (MMM) map obtained from the ensemble ((C1)–(C3)). Results presented in columns 1–3 (above) relate to equations (1)–(3) presented in section 2

Advertisements

78 thoughts on “Surprise: sea water salinity matters to sea level on long time scales

  1. Somebody has been putting salt in the ocean.
    Hence the rise in sea level. Quick, we need to remove salt from the oceans!

    • Just wait til they fire up a few hundred desalination plants. I don’t know, is the salt/brine returned to the ocean?

      • Water entering the ocean from land runoff comes from ocean evaporation. It actually contains trace salts that will remain in the ocean. Fresh water from desalination plants goes to human’s use.

      • It does not!
        One m3 of pure water is the same volume as one m3 of sea water the sea water is denser so weighs more.
        What the argument means is that a higher density of water in one place will displace lighter water due to gravimetric differences. It does not mean that the water increases in volume.

      • “…Pacific basin-scale freshening leads to a density reduction that augments coincident thermosteric expansion…” I take a density reduction to mean a volume expansion.

    • Bob: I remember a paper by a few Chinese scientists that determined halosteric sea concentrations in the southern pacific oceans were more a function of ENSO, as opposed to CO2 concentrations…I will try to find the reference.

    • Bob,

      Climate models are the reference? Oy.

      Estimates of halosteric and thermosteric changes are respectively derived from in situ observations of salinity and temperature. Previous studies have reported long-term change estimates for ocean salinity [goes on to list a slew of observational studies] … In the present study we extend upon these previous analyses to contrast the relative importance of basin-scale halosteric and thermosteric changes in two independent observational datasets over the period 1950–2008, and use these estimates to evaluate the historically forced simulations available from CMIP5 (Taylor et al 2012).
      Heaven forfend anyone validate model output against observation.

      • another example of Bob not even reading the paper before he jumps to conclusions and shuns the whole paper.

      • Shun the whole paper, yessir.
        “A suite of climate models tell us….”
        Who needs to go any further than this?
        But for the uninformed, CO2 has nothing to do with SST.

      • “By contrasting two long-term estimates of sea level change to simulations provided from a large suite of climate model simulations, our results suggest that salinity has a profound effect on regional sea level change,” Durack said.

        That right there is enough for me to give it the heave ho. Comparing modeled simulations to a “large suite” of simulated models is not science, it’s multi platform video gaming. I wonder if any of it was done on an Xbox?

  2. At first you think that these things are serious studies and then you notice the constant reference to Models and CAGW effects and realise that they are just grant applications for more money.

  3. I was invited to present a keynote talk at an 4th international conference on Hydrology and Watershed Management on 31st October 2014 on the topic “Water logging and water productivity in Agriculture”. While preparing a talk, I come across a figure showing inverse relationship between soil salinity and evapotranspiration. This means, with the increased concentration of salinity in ocean, evaporated water from oceans may be reduced. Also this may be a part of natural rhythm of of general circulation patterns 60-year cycle in ocean temperature that present opposite patterns in Pacific and Atlantic zones. Even the Pacific Typhoons present opposite pattern to Atlantic Hurricanes.
    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  4. The Thesis that Sea water sainity matters to sea level on long time scale, is mostly an unscientific Thesis. Reason why is easy to explain. All important premisses for each assumption in a thesis needs to be proven true IF a Thesis has the possiblity leading up to a sound conclusion. The conclusion part is as wrong as can be.
    If those who have access to Swedish Atlas: Världen i kartor, Esselte Kartor AB and Esselte Studium, Stockholm 1987, ISBN 91-24-35349-3
    take a look at page 100 (Världen, naturkrafter, miljöförstöring)
    than it’s likely that those who do is able to understand.
    Sainity and Saltination are important factors never to be forgotten IF anyone want’s to be able to come up with a computer model that helps give an understanding of the world’s weather changes over time.
    Let’s start there:
    On top page 100 is a map which in itself isn’t complete, but better than any other map of Earth Quakes and Vulcanos ever been in other presentation. Doesn’t matter when and where such presentation of an alike map been produced.
    IF you all look at any map where the vulcano eruptions and earth quakes areas occur/happenes
    AND
    you also have studied Tectonical Plates’ movements,
    AND
    You looked, tried to understand a map where Earth Natural Forces make wind in air + strights/streams in water and under water,
    You might be able to write a ruff computer program, a data model, but that’s not enough information you will need to make a forcast over more than a few years to come. A forecast that might be correct, but also might fall to pieces due to your own lack of understanding the Tectonical Plates + Vulcano eruptions + Earth Quakes combined effects.
    Remember Tectonical Plates movements cause Vulcano eruptions as well as Earth Quakes.
    an experiment I used to have students testing:
    Take a thick cataloge each hold it in front of you and move around so your cataloge and others interact.
    You will find three scenarios:
    there will be a collision who’s impact will be:
    * collision where cataloge A goes over cataloge B (or vice versa)
    * collision where cataloge A and B causes retarding forces moving them away from each other
    * collision where parts or all of cataloge A (or B) causes severe damages on the other or both cataloges.
    First scenario occurs constantly where ever tectonical plates “meet” each other.
    In some cases scenario two will be the result. Scenario two is a describing of when Earth Quakes happens. The effect on environment will be seen there and than and most energy, chemical stuff and so on will comes out in air/water causing anything from a minor ring-effect on streams and straights around to large tsunamis,
    The third scenario describes in small words why vulcanos erupts. Remember the difference: You will observe a vulcano eruption each time but most of the energy forces will be accumulated under ground until the force will cause a big eruption. In all cases above CO2 and SO2 will be “sent” up to the atmosphere.
    instantly. In the third case CO2 due to the oxygen and coal cycles will be sent in varying scale for ever more.
    Now the CO2 in water, either from vulcanos in/under water will have it’s effect on saltinity in water. In other words you have to understand chemical formulas but no matter you do or you don’t less saltinity in water from melting ice, no matter on land or in for example Arctic till meet higher saltinity levels in streams floating around the globe due to our Earths circuling, wobbling and attraction of the moon and/or the sun. (Well there are more than 10 other factors you need to know in order to write a relatively sound computer model, but one have to studied alot in order to understand more and for the general understanding that’s not needed)
    When you study a 1 x 1 x 1 meter watervolume from sea (or lake) under electron microscope you will find a lot of small particles that cant be described in chemical terms as H2O. This is due to natural forces causing polution but most of the “garbage” is caused by man. The “garbage” can be all from for eye non-observable “parts”/particles from plastic bags to bits and pieces of sand mostly mineral sand from distant areas distributed by wind or from erosion caused by tectonical plates movements, sea forces on land due to tide waves, human building and/or industrial changes on environment close to sea and so on.
    Salinity and saltination factors varies over time. Reflexion of energy sent from the sun will us well. The above is only a simple explination I used to give 7th graders. Anyone with interest in the full scale can find more in empiric studies all over the world up to 1970. Unfortunately scholars later on haven’t been forced to study more than their own small sector…. but that’s an other problem.

    • norah4you,

      The Thesis that Sea water sainity matters to sea level on long time scale, is mostly an unscientific Theisis.

      The authors are way ahead of you:
      Our study confirms that halosteric contributions to steric SL changes are non-negligible on regional to basin-scales. This result has not been acknowledged in previous works as most long-term SL change assessments have been largely focused on GMSL change, thereby explicitly excluding the cnsideration of halosteric effects. The magnitude of halosteric changes suggests that some care is required when using SSH altimetry to infer regional thermosteric or heat content change (Domingues et al 2008) or their uncertainties (Lyman and Johnson 2008, 2014), because neglecting halosteric effects may mask (or enhance) regional warming signals […]
      At issue is not the effect that salinity has on sea level change, but the effect salinity has on inferring regional OHC change from sea surface height.

      • I don’t agree. You see it doesn’t matter if the author is or isn’t “away a head” of me. That’s not my intention when writing.
        What matters is what ordinary people can understand, comprehend that’s what form their beliefs!

  5. Thanks man, You’ve just launched my new career as a salt credit trader. However, it would be really helpful if you could get the EPA to start regulating salt.
    Horray for sodium chloride. The sodium and chlorine are gonna scare the living daylights out of the little people on the liberal plantation.

    • Yes indeed, Chlorine is chemical weapon used by Germans in the Great War. Extreme respiratory irritant, with lung inflammation and death at high concentrations. Sodium, a metal that burst into flames on contact with water, and produces high pH which is highly caustic to skin.
      We need an Endangerment Finding with sodium chloride.

      • The oceans also have large amounts of dihydrogen monoxide, which causes thousands of deaths each year, and is used in both nuclear plants and in pesticides.

      • “The oceans also have large amounts of dihydrogen monoxide”
        Not to mention hydroxilic acid, a remarkably corrosive substance – especially in conjunction with oxygen – that will dissolve almost anything.
        It is also widely used as a food additive.
        [But oxidane is even worse. That chemical contributes to CAGW. .mod]

  6. “Further analysis demonstrates that the observed halosteric changes and their basin partitioning are consistent with CMIP5 simulations that include anthropogenic CO2 forcings (Historical),…”

    Well, no surprises there, batman. Bowing and scraping before the altar is expected.

    “…but are found to be inconsistent with simulations that exclude anthropogenic forcings (HistoricalNat).”

    ?! never mind the models, look at the desperate logic.
    The two statements do not represent the full set of all possibilities, unless the authors are claiming to know all possible anthropogenic forcings and their magnitudes.

  7. Pacific basin-scale freshening leads to a density reduction that augments coincident thermosteric expansion, whereas in the Atlantic halosteric changes partially compensate strong thermosteric expansion via a basin-scale enhanced salinity density increase.
    In simple terms, the Pacific is getting fresher, while the Atlantic is getting saltier.
    halosteric patterns are visible in the historical record, and are consistent with estimates of long-term water cycle amplification.
    Again in simple terms, Global Warming is the cause thru increased precipitation.
    I serious doubt this, for the simple reason more major rivers flow into the smaller Atlantic Basin the much larger Pacific Basin.

  8. I would be willing to wager a tidy sum that these alleged scientists did not write these models they used, can not list the algorithms contained within said models, and do not necessarily have a real good understanding of the physical phenomena involved in the algorithms contained within. That said, I think this study is highly rectal linear.

  9. Mean Global sea level = meaningless in the short term.
    14,000 kya to 8,000 kya, now that was sea level change.
    Everything is noise. Even eventual WAIS melt is in/near the noise level.
    No one disputes better coastal protections of high value infrastructures are needed. It has always been needed. But it has zero to do with any noise-level AGW SLR nonsense.

    • Sea level rise since the last glacial is ~125 metres. By how much did the total amount of ocean salt change over that period? My suspicion is that the sea level change wasn’t caused by addition or subtraction of salt, it was caused by the addition of water.

      • That water came from the melting glaciers which contained little or no salt. As a result the salinity of the oceans would have decreased as sea levels rose. Given that the average depth of the ocean is around 4,000 m a back of the envelope calculation would suggest a fall in salinity of about 3%

  10. Mark Idle November 21, 2014 at 6:41 pm
    another example of Bob not even reading the paper before he jumps to conclusions and shuns the whole paper.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well, the very first line in the article says:
    Using ocean observations and a large suite of climate models, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists have found that
    Now I have no idea of Bob read the paper or not, or how he came to his conclusions, but let’s ask a few simple questions:
    Which models?
    The ones that don’t agree very well with observations?
    Or the ones that disagree completely with observations?
    What is the value of using a large number of models? Do they average their outputs?
    Exactly what is the value of averaging the outputs of a large number of models known to disagree with observations?
    If they weren’t averaged, what was the value of using a large number of them?
    If they were all in agreement with one another, there would be no need to use a large number, you could use just a few, could you not?
    If there was large disagreement between the models, of what value could ANY of them be in coming to a conclusion?
    That’s what went through my head after reading the first sentence. It got worse from there. So would I shun the paper without reading it? Pretty much. If it was a topic of interest to me, or the results critical to some discussion I was having about something else, I’d sit down and work my way through it. But based on the first sentence, and the fact that they are claiming to account for 25% of something (SLR) that we’re not even sure we can measure in the first place, I see no reason to bother slogging through it.

      • Can you answer the questions? There’s only a 1/2 dozen, they’re not even hard questions. Hardly a Gish Gallop. Seems to me that accusation is just an excuse to avoid answering the questions. Afraid of the answers?

  11. “models” what is supposed to be “models”?
    “all” models the exist?
    “some” models that exists?
    what is some models show opposite patterns about oceans with others?? the magic trick is then averaging?
    what is the “university of nowwhere” come with a new one that changes ALL the conclusions even slightly?
    what is “models” on a scientific point of view though i know the answer will be this one plus this one and this one and this one?
    well of course we don’t have ohter choice but using models…but each times “models” are used there should be a long explanation of why we can use them in this very case.

  12. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists have found that long-term salinity changes have a stronger influence on climate models (regional sea level changes) than previously thought.
    There you are, corrected.

  13. You really don’t understand! Clearly this means that all future desalination plants must completely remove the salt from the seawater (no more brine returned to the sea) and truck it to Nevada for secure long-term storage. It’s critical that the oceans be protected from this man-made salinity increase. EPA will announce the new rule next Friday.

  14. I find it rather interesting that the Pacific is getting less salty, while the Atlantic is getting more salty.
    GW theory would predict the exact opposite for several reasons.
    River inflows as I noted above.
    The Atlantic is at its narrowest around the equator, while the Pacific is around it’s widest. The basin difference clearly says decreased tropical evaporation. GW theory predicts increased tropical evaporation.
    I read the paper and my reaction was – models tuned to show AGW, whatever the data says.

  15. from a large suite of climate model simulations” Why would you use climate model simulations that have already been proven wrong, unless you were intentionally trying to throw away taxpayer dollars?

  16. Whenever I see articles like this, I turn to “Elements of Physical Oceanography” by HJ McLellan, in primitive paper format, 1968, before most of the latest generation of scientists were born. Quoting at length:
    Chapter 3, The Chemical Nature of the Ocean
    The two most remarkable things about the ocean are: first, the water, and second, the salt. The presence of water in the ocean and atmosphere of the planet earth is responsible for maintaining the small range of environmental conditions which permits life in the form we know it. Atmospheric water vapor limits the efficient radiative heat loss to a narrow band of wavelengths. Warmed by incoming solar radiation the planet must heat up to the point where it radiates strongly in these wavelengths before the heat balance can be established. The oceans store vast quantities of energy from the sun within a fairly thick surface layer, warming up in the summer season and releasing heat to the atmosphere during the winter. Thus, seasonal fluctuations in temperature are greatly reduced. The fact that most ocean water has sufficient dissolved salt that its coefficient of thermal expansion is positive at all temperatures above the freezing point makes it more efficient than fresh water in the role of global thermostat. This is especially important at high latitudes.
    […]
    Figure 3.1 Frequency distribution of salinity in the oceans after Montgomery (1958) [transcribed parts per thousand]
    Ocean Mean Median
    Pacific 34.62 34.65
    Indian 34.76 34.73
    Atlantic 34.90 34.90
    World 34.72 34.69
    [Added from the text]
    Gulf of Bothnia 10
    Coastal 28 to 29
    Mediterranean 38.5
    Red Sea 40
    [End quote]
    The Atlantic was saltier than the Pacific by about 0.3 parts per thousand back then. Not a mention of sea level rise versus salinity. Carbon dioxide is mentioned only in the context of pH buffering:
    “Carbon dioxide, bicarbonate (HCO3-) ions and carbonate (CO3–) ions are all present in sea water and the relative proportions depend upon the hydrogen ion potential (pH) of the medium. Transitions from one form to the other take place in directions which tend to maintain constant pH.”

    • If it wasn’t for earths strong electromagnetics there would be no water here. Earth would be as lifeless as
      Venus and Mars . The 6000 C sun at the centre of Earth has more of an affect on the troposphere than th e solar wind does .The bowshock is earths first line of defence and is 90,000 ks from the surface. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_shock

  17. OT a little – the “blob” of warm SSTs in the north Pacific has a counter-phenomenon in the south Pacific: the “question mark”:
    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
    There is a connection between the band of cold SST around Antarctica up northwards along the south American seaboard linking with the cold water east of Peru and extending east equatorially. Together the whole pattern of eastern south Pacific SST forms the shape of a question mark.
    I’m not sure if there is any significance to this connection Antarctica to Nina 1-2, but we might find out if it contributes to a La Nina development early next year.

  18. Mark Idle,

    another example of Bob not even reading the paper before he jumps to conclusions and shuns the whole paper.

    He’s in astoundingly good company.

  19. does the paper record salinity at all depths? The ocean is like a layer cake of temps, salinity, and currents. iow, it would seem to me that ocean salinity sampling is a bridge to far.

  20. mpainter,

    “A suite of climate models tell us….”

    Not only is that phrase not found in the paper itself, it’s not even found in the text of Anthony’s writeup.

    Shun the whole paper, yessir.

    As my lead comment suggests, validating models against observation is simply not allowable … though it’s beginning to look like such a thing even defies comprehension.

    • Brandon Gates:
      As per my comment above, the whole study presumed increased salinity via global warming as modeled in the GCM’s. The whole concept of higher SST due to AGW is invalid, according to basic principles of radiative physics, that is, the absorbency properties of water with respect to IR.
      You cannot validate a model that is fundamentally invalid.
      Any scientist who is informed of the science will not go any further than Tisdale and the rest of us did.

      • mpainter,

        As per my comment above, the whole study presumed increased salinity via global warming as modeled in the GCM’s.

        Your comment above, “Who needs to go any further than this?” implies that you’ve not read the whole study. That “A suite of climate models tell us….” is not found in the paper itself looks to be confirmation. If I’m not wrong, I find it curious that you’d characterize a whole study not having first read it.

        You cannot validate a model that is fundamentally invalid.

        Highlighting the importance of checking model output against observation. Surely we both agree that proper science demands doing so rigorously on a regular frequent basis.

      • Brandon,
        I did not read the study; it was not necessary to do so to evaluate the worth of it. This seems to escape you.
        Your response shows that you missed the import of my comment.

  21. davidmhoffer,

    Afraid of the answers?

    Not at all. I’d be happy to answer them if they were actually relevant to the topic.

      • davidmhoffer,
        Because they are the kinds of questions which are relevant to a discussion of model output in the form of ensembles as published, say, in IPCC ARs. It should be apparent from the excerpt I posted in my very first comment that the study is about anything BUT that.
        In fairness, your first question (which models) is relevant, and is easily answered in Table 1 on p. 3 of the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/114017/pdf/1748-9326_9_11_114017.pdf
        And from the bottom right on p. 2: The CMIP5 models assessed in this study are a subset of the full suite, as drift correction in the deeper ocean was necessary. Consequently, 26 independent models (rather than 42 in a previous study: Durack et al 2014) were assessed and specific details on the model simulations used in this analysis are contained in table 1.
        So that’s the beginnings of answering your second and third questions, which though loaded, are also in fairness somewhat relevant. I think though that someone who is truly eager to learn does not ask others to do such trivial homework for them.

  22. mpainter,

    I did not read the study; it was not necessary to do so to evaluate the worth of it. This seems to escape you.

    And likely always will since for the life of me I can’t imagine ever being able to evaluate the worth of something before coming to at least a basic understanding of what the thing itself is first. Kudos to you for having figured out how to do that though.

    • Goodness gracious Brandon, don’t you see that I do have the understanding?
      Are you unaware of the deficiencies of the GCM’s? One such deficiency is germane to this study: that AGW increases SST. The study has it thus:
      AGW—>higher SST==>more evaporation===>higher salinity
      Here is the truth: CO2 has nothing to do with SST. The models are fundamentally wrong.
      Any validation that you infer to a GCM from a data set is spurious.

      • mpainter,

        Are you unaware of the deficiencies of the GCM’s?

        Painfully aware. I learned a few weeks ago that some of them leak energy. That gave me the warm fuzzies I tell ya’.

        Any validation that you infer to a GCM from a data set is spurious.

        If I were running things, for sure I’d want to validate GCMs from observations, not the other way ’round. I thought we agreed on that already.

  23. Brandon Gates;
    So that’s the beginnings of answering your second and third questions, which though loaded, are also in fairness somewhat relevant.
    Sigh. You know very well that the questions were rhetorical, and were phrased to make a point. You’re dodging, twisting, and weaving to avoid having to deal with that point. The models are wrong, by admission of the IPCC itself, so using them as a reference to draw the conclusions in the paper is ridiculous on its face. Using 26 models, is a farce. If they were in agreement with one another, there would be no value to using so many, and as they are in disagreement with one another, averaging them is a farce upon a farce. They can’t all be right, at most only one of them can be right, and the most likely scenario is that they are ALL wrong. So, results predicated upon them are, by extension, also most likely to be wrong, and at best just very inaccurate. The scorn is deserved, and your defense of the paper in adequate. When you’ve got an argument that shows the models to be a valid method of calibration for this type of study, by all means tell us what it is. But quit blowing smoke up our keesters pretending that you’ve got valid reasons for not engaging in a meaningful fashion.

  24. davidmhoffer,

    The models are wrong, by admission of the IPCC itself, so using them as a reference to draw the conclusions in the paper is ridiculous on its face.

    Strange argument in this context.

    They can’t all be right, at most only one of them can be right, and the most likely scenario is that they are ALL wrong.

    Your logic is impeccable. The unavoidable conclusion is that someone really ought to step away from the computer for once, go out into the field to collect some data, and quantify how well (or not) their video games mesh with reality.

    The scorn is deserved, and your defense of the paper in adequate.

    My defense of the paper is non-existent. I can see why you’d think I’m doing a horrible job of it.

    When you’ve got an argument that shows the models to be a valid method of calibration for this type of study, by all means tell us what it is.

    Why would I want to talk to you about that when it would be so much more topical to talk about which methods of observation are best for calibrating models?

    • Why would I want to talk to you about that when it would be so much more topical to talk about which methods of observation are best for calibrating models?
      The topic, I shall remind you, was in regard to it being reasonable to shun the paper due to its reliance on models. For the reasons discussed in this thread, it is.

      • davidmhoffer,
        I’d remind you of the topic of the paper, but you still clearly have not read it yet. You don’t have to since I quoted the relevant bit in my very first post, but by all means do please continue to ignore all that so as not to get off point.

  25. Brandon Gates November 22, 2014 at 6:02 pm
    davidmhoffer,
    I’d remind you of the topic of the paper, but you still clearly have not read it yet.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    If I provided a paper to you which was based on the premise that 2+2 = 5, would you read it?

Comments are closed.