How Low Can It Go? Sun Plunges Into The Quietest Solar Minimum In A Century

**Ramo** · 08 Apr 09,, 01:12

Originally Posted by Office of Engineers

What? Either it works or it doesn't.

Originally Posted by dalem

Of course not. How can you even ask that question?

-dale

No, there's been a mistake.

I asked Wooglin if his question could be reworded as "Is it right to assume climate scientists are correct on AGW even if the models fail?" so that I may better answer the question.

It purely an attempt at clarification. I wasn't intending to pose that question to others.

*edit* Perhaps I could have better structured that part of my post like so:

Could the question be reworded as: "Is it right to assume climate scientists are correct on AGW even if the models fail?" ?

**Ramo** · 08 Apr 09,, 01:34

Originally Posted by Wooglin

Let me give an example...

The IPCC reports show how we should expect different levels of the atmosphere to react with different forcing mechanisms. If GHG's were the major source of the warming we would expect to see cooling of the stratosphere and warming of the troposphere. The tropospheric warming should exceed that of surface temps. All GCM's expect the troposphere to warm about 1.3x faster than the surface.

Well observation shows us that while the stratosphere has indeed cooled, there is actually very little tropospheric warming (it's actually trending negative in the last 9 years). And if you check the major datasets for temperature trends (GISS and HadCrut - surface, RSS and UAH - satellite) you will see that decadal surface warming has exceeded that of tropospheric warming.

So you tell me, Is it right to assume climate scientists are correct even if the models fail?

I understand now, sorry to make you go through that rigmarole just to get the point across.

I would say, that if this stratosphere/troposphere relation is one of the most fundamental assumptions of AGW theory, and the most rigorous and reputable sources of observations show the opposite of what is predicted, then I would have some serious questions for the next climate scientist I stumble upon.

It would certainly be strong prima facie evidence against AGW theory.

**dalem** · 08 Apr 09,, 09:50

Originally Posted by Ramo

"Is it right to assume climate scientists are correct on AGW even if the models fail?" ?

Of course not. How can you even ask that question?

-dale

**Wooglin** · 08 Apr 09,, 14:19

Originally Posted by Ramo

I understand now, sorry to make you go through that rigmarole just to get the point across.

I would say, that if this stratosphere/troposphere relation is one of the most fundamental assumptions of AGW theory, and the most rigorous and reputable sources of observations show the opposite of what is predicted, then I would have some serious questions for the next climate scientist I stumble upon.

It would certainly be strong prima facie evidence against AGW theory.

It is strong evidence against the part of AGW theory that says we should get significant warming and positive feedbacks, and eventual catastrophe, as the troposphere is where we should be finding the signature. As for the observations, there's radiosonde data and RSS and UAH satellite data that specifically tracks upper and lower atmosphere temps. The IPCC itself recognized this issue in the latest reports and the CCSP report also recognizes the issue... and yes, it is one giant gaping hole in the theory.

**Ramo** · 09 Apr 09,, 00:59

Originally Posted by dalem

Of course not. How can you even ask that question?

-dale

This response intentionally left blank.

Originally Posted by Wooglin

It is strong evidence against the part of AGW theory that says we should get significant warming and positive feedbacks, and eventual catastrophe, as the troposphere is where we should be finding the signature. As for the observations, there's radiosonde data and RSS and UAH satellite data that specifically tracks upper and lower atmosphere temps. The IPCC itself recognized this issue in the latest reports and the CCSP report also recognizes the issue... and yes, it is one giant gaping hole in the theory.

That's interesting stuff, particularly that the IPCC has made such an admission and I've never heard of it!

I suppose it's not newsworthy. Well... I'd consider it newsworthy...

**ArmchairGeneral** · 09 Apr 09,, 03:11

Originally Posted by Ramo

This response intentionally left blank.

**ArmchairGeneral** · 09 Apr 09,, 03:13

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I'm not a scientist but I am an engineer.

There has not been one case where the scientists can come up with a model that we can plug numbers in arbituary (ie, 1 year prediction, 2 year prediction, 5 year prediction ... up to 75 years prediction ... using the longest recorded data known) to match known occurances.

In other words, if we use the pro-AGW model, then WWII should see an increase in world wide temperature. There was a decrease.

The proposed science does not match the understood enginering.

Interesting. Do you know where I could find a graph of this, showing the discrepancy between model and fact? Or any other link regarding this?

**Officer of Engineers** · 09 Apr 09,, 05:07

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Interesting. Do you know where I could find a graph of this, showing the discrepancy between model and fact? Or any other link regarding this?

I'm going to try to repeat my google-fu but this is not my main area of interest and hence, I do not save the articles nor the links. Give me 72 hours to try to recreate my google-fu.

**ArmchairGeneral** · 09 Apr 09,, 16:15

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I'm going to try to repeat my google-fu but this is not my main area of interest and hence, I do not save the articles nor the links. Give me 72 hours to try to recreate my google-fu.

I have faith in you, master. The grasshopper awaits.