Global warming underestimated?

[phantom power]

(Quite a nice graphical result: the 20th century data are best-fit by including both natural processes and human GHG emissions)

The figure shows a typical 20th century climate simulation by one of the major climate models used for the IPCC assessment--the UK Hadley Center model. The results look good. The model is able to reproduce the observed climate of the 20th century. In addition, the simulation shows that one cannot explain the observed 20th century global warming of 0.6°C without including human-caused (anthropogenic) climate forcings.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=300&tstamp=200602

[benburch]

1. As a computer guy with a lot of simulation in his distant past...

This is a really great study in the power of computing to help understand a complex system!

[Kagemusha]

2. Cannot explain is kind of besides the point.

This is religion - no explanation other than the "correct" one is desired.

And I'm not offering one. Even if I had one, it wouldn't be worth it. Just commenting on the words used and the uniformity expected as a result of them.

[phantom power]

3. Huh?

[Kagemusha]

4. The bolded part about "one cannot explain" in the article.

Even if one could explain or one tried to explain it'd be assaulted by such virulence and hatred that it's kinda besides the point. The computer simulation details are beyond me - not my specialty, which is language. I can tell that this phrasing demands complete agreement by stating in absolute terms that there is no other explanation other than the one which the writer desires. That's not saying, oh... that man's actions are the most likely or the most credible explanation. Rather, it's saying that we know so much about the Earth's climate that we can absolutely rule out all other explanations with scientific certainty and that, since there cannot possibly be another explanation, man's action is the explanation, and the only one acceptable.

And I'm saying that's a bit far considering how the scientific method I learned about back in school is supposed to work. But I'm also saying what's the point - with phrasing like that, the outcome is decided, so why argue?

I see this very commonly regarding environmental issues though. Science has become a matter of faith, and not just for neocons.

[phantom power]

5. I think the rest of us (non-linguists) are a bit more flexible than that.

For instance, although I consider this a strong result, I'm not going to halt all of my future readings about climate science, simply because the author happened to use the phrase "cannot be explained any other way" And I'm pretty sure that none of the climate scientists are going to halt their future investigations either :-)

I would add that what this result shows is that both natural and artificial processes are important here, which is what any reasonable climate scientist would expect.

[Kagemusha]

6. I would hope it does show that.

Not sure what anyone' going to do about it either way, but better than nothing.

[Viking12]

7. In this case "one cannot explain" = "there is no evidence to the contrary"

Many climate contrarians try to explain that current warming is the result of natural forcings (solar activity, etc..). There is no credible evidence to support such claims. The phrase "one cannot explain" is a summarization of the body of scientific evidence. It is not saying "that we know so much about the Earth's climate that we can absolutely rule out all other explanations." It is saying that if "one" does a thorough examination of the scientific lit, "one" cannot find the evidence to support other claims.

An unstated assumption in this passage (and most scientific writing) is "at this time". That doesn't necessarily preclude the discovery of evidence to the contrary. This isn't a matter of "faith", it's a matter of examining the body of evidence.

BTW: I too am a student of language. I am a rhetorician by training. My area of expertise is in the use of scientific discourse in policy debates, specifically climate change. From my professional perspective, your overlooking standard practices in scientific writing in your assessment.

[Buzz Clik]

8. It's clear you're referring to the poster's phrasing...

The figure caption hardly speaks in absolute terms.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. The context is explaining the datasets

It's not a statement on whether or not AGW is real; it's the discussion that only by including AGW does the model's output converge toward the observed data. I would think that there is more to the original paper, which makes this clear.

The bold format is probably misleading without parenthesizing. Quotes and paraphrases are inherently dangerous critters!

--p!