Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[RiversideGator]

So if sub sea temperatures have decreased as you claim, and the surface temperatures have increased, what conclusion would you draw from this? When thinking about your response, please take into consideration the location of Earth's energy source.

Atmospheric and subsea temps have dropped.  Surface temp data appears likely to be corrupted.

[gatorback]

OK childres stop. He are the facts. Yes we are cooling but the overall trend is we are getting hotter. Technically we are in an inter-glacial ice age. So in human terms we know that it gets warm and cold and we know that its never warmed faster then it has now.

[civil42806]

The real problem that needs to be discussed, is if the climatologist have such a great handle at predicting future states using there models, why doesn't a single one of them show this cooling period.  The fact is that the models and reality are diverging in the first few years, this implies that there are elements and factors that the models are either missing or have not properly accounted for.  If this is the case then the models are basically junk, that can't be expected to provide accurate results later on.  In fact it can be argued that if for some reason the models and reality do match later on that it was just blind luck.  You would expect your models to be more accurate the closer you are to your initial conditions. As you get further away from your initial state more variables enter into the picture and you would expect normally a greater deviation.  If your model diverges immediately then you have model/algorithmic problems that need to be addressed.  There may in fact be studies out discussing this but I haven't heard on any, if anyone can point me to it I would appreciate it.

[tufsu1]

Both satellite and ocean temperature readings show cooling.

and I assume the satellite readings also show the polar ice caps getting larger too!

[gatorback]

civil what's your point? In the short run we are cooling in the long run we are warming. That we don't use models to predict future patterns.  

[civil42806]

No my point should be obvious, there are problems with the models.  If you models are correct then you should reflect your current conditions with a certain deviation.  The problem is the models don't do that, in fact the current conditions are running at odds with the models.  That tells you that you have problems and better get digging fast, instead of yelling that the science is settled.  You need to determine why the model is not matching reality within your set acceptable deviation.  If the model is immediately diverging from reality, you need to refine it and accept the fact that if this is the case you cannot count on the accuracy of later predicitons until you identify the corrective action.

[Lunican]

Atmospheric and subsea temps have dropped.  Surface temp data appears likely to be corrupted.

So I guess we should believe you, sitting at your computer looking at wikipedia, over NOAA.

No thanks.

[gatorback]

give me 10000000 years and contact me then I'll give you a really good graph of what your looking for.

[civil42806]

give me 10000000 years and contact me then I'll give you a really good graph of what your looking for.

Oh well so much for trying to actually having a discussion.  Resume your "i know i am but what are you"
status

[Midway ®]

No my point should be obvious, there are problems with the models.  If you models are correct then you should reflect your current conditions with a certain deviation.  The problem is the models don't do that, in fact the current conditions are running at odds with the models.  That tells you that you have problems and better get digging fast, instead of yelling that the science is settled.  You need to determine why the model is not matching reality within your set acceptable deviation.  If the model is immediately diverging from reality, you need to refine it and accept the fact that if this is the case you cannot count on the accuracy of later predicitons until you identify the corrective action.

I think that you may be looking for too high a degree of confluence between the models and the observations, because in the short term, climate is an essentially random process, and the lack of mathematical congruence between the models and observations may just be wobble attributable to randomness (noise) that may not have as much meaning as you first think, if you just expand the time scale a bit. (Maybe a lot). With climate, best fit may be all you can get.  BTW there are some discussion boards that are populated by climatologists where the level of scientific discussion is of a very high order, lots of disagreement, but also lots of good science.

Here, not so much.

[Clem1029]

I think that you may be looking for too high a degree of confluence between the models and the observations, because in the short term, climate is an essentially random process, and the lack of mathematical congruence between the models and observations may just be wobble attributable to randomness (noise) that may not have as much meaning as you first think, if you just expand the time scale a bit. (Maybe a lot). With climate, best fit may be all you can get.  BTW there are some discussion boards that are populated by climatologists where the level of scientific discussion is of a very high order, lots of disagreement, but also lots of good science.

Wait wait wait...I want to make sure I've got your contention correct here. You're saying that, in the short term, when the measurements are exact, and the variability is comparatively small, the models are highly INACCURATE, while predictions far out, when the measurements are inconclusive at best, and variability is significant, the models are MORE ACCURATE?

I'm not sure of others around here, but that doesn't fall into any definitions of "science" that I'm familiar with.

[RiversideGator]

Both satellite and ocean temperature readings show cooling.

and I assume the satellite readings also show the polar ice caps getting larger too!

They are larger than this time last year.  See the above post on that topic.

[RiversideGator]

No my point should be obvious, there are problems with the models.  If you models are correct then you should reflect your current conditions with a certain deviation.  The problem is the models don't do that, in fact the current conditions are running at odds with the models.  That tells you that you have problems and better get digging fast, instead of yelling that the science is settled.  You need to determine why the model is not matching reality within your set acceptable deviation.  If the model is immediately diverging from reality, you need to refine it and accept the fact that if this is the case you cannot count on the accuracy of later predicitons until you identify the corrective action.

Here is a chart which illustrates his point.  The models show us as having increasing temperatures yet the reality is there has been no warming in the 21st century:

[RiversideGator]

I think that you may be looking for too high a degree of confluence between the models and the observations, because in the short term, climate is an essentially random process, and the lack of mathematical congruence between the models and observations may just be wobble attributable to randomness (noise) that may not have as much meaning as you first think, if you just expand the time scale a bit. (Maybe a lot). With climate, best fit may be all you can get.  BTW there are some discussion boards that are populated by climatologists where the level of scientific discussion is of a very high order, lots of disagreement, but also lots of good science.

Wait wait wait...I want to make sure I've got your contention correct here. You're saying that, in the short term, when the measurements are exact, and the variability is comparatively small, the models are highly INACCURATE, while predictions far out, when the measurements are inconclusive at best, and variability is significant, the models are MORE ACCURATE?

I'm not sure of others around here, but that doesn't fall into any definitions of "science" that I'm familiar with.

Of course midway's analysis isnt an accurate reflection of reality, but he managed to insert a lot of technical terms into his response that he pirated off a left wing enviro-blog.   

[RiversideGator]

Here is another chart which compares Hansen to reality: