Nir Shaviv, the well known astrophysicist from Israel, points out that climate sensitivity (according to the IPCC and co) has barely changed in 33 years. Therefore their predictions from the FAR (IPCC, First Assessment Report) in 1990 ought to mean something. Yet observations are now tracking outside and below even their lowest bounds of estimates. When will the IPCC admit those models need to change?
–Jo
————————————————–
Guest Post by Nir Shaviv
Normal science progresses through the collection of observations (or measurements), the conjecture of hypotheses, the making of predictions, and then through the usage of new observations, the modification of the hypotheses accordingly (either ruling them out, or improving them). In the global warming “science”, this is not the case.
What do I mean?
From the first IPCC report until the previous IPCC report, climate predictions for future temperature increase where based on a climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling. This range, in fact, goes back to the 1979 Charney report published by the National Academy of Sciences. That is, after 33 years of climate research and many billions of dollars of research, the possible range of climate sensitivities is virtually the same! In the last (AR4) IPCC report the range was actually slightly narrowed down to 2 to 4.5°C increase per CO2 doubling (without any good reason if you ask me). In any case, this increase of the lower limit will only aggravate the point I make below, which is as follows.
Because the possible range of sensitivities has been virtually the same, it means that the predictions made in the first IPCC report in 1990 should still be valid. That is, according to the writers of all the IPCC reports, the temperature today should be within the range of predictions made 22 years ago. But they are not!
The business as usual predictions made in 1990, in the first IPCC report, are given in the following figure.
How well do these predictions agree with reality? In the next figure I plot the actual global and oceanic temperatures (as made by the NCDC). One can argue that either the ocean temperature or the global (ocean+land) temperature is better. The Ocean temperature includes smaller fluctuations than the land (and therefore less than the global temperature as well), however, if there is a change in the average global state, it should take longer for the oceans to react. On the other hand, the land temperature (and therefore the global temperature) is likely to include the urban heat island effect.
The NCDC ocean (blue) and global (brown) monthly temperature anomalies (relative to the 1900-2000 average temperatures) since 1980. The observed temperatures compared to the predictions made in the first IPCC report. Note that the width of the predictions is ±0.1°C, which is roughly the size of the month to month fluctuations in the temperature anomalies.
From the simulations that my student Shlomi Ziskin has carried out for the 20th century, I think that the rise in the ocean temperature should be only about 90% of the global temperature warming since the 1980’s, i.e., the global temperature rise should be no more than about 0.02-0.03°C warmer than the oceanic warming (I’ll write more about this work soon). As we can see from the graph, the difference is larger, around 0.1°C. It would be no surprise if this difference is due to the urban heat island effect. We know from McKitrick and Michaels’ work, that there is a spatial correlation between the land warming and different socio-economic indices (i.e., places which developed more, had a higher temperature increase). This clearly indicates that the land data is tainted by some local anthropogenic effects and should therefore be considered cautiously. In fact, they claim that in order to remove the correlation, the land warming should be around 0.17°C per decade instead of 0.3. This implies that the global warming over 2.2 decades should be 0.085°C cooler, i.e., consistent with the difference!
In any case, irrespective of whether you favor the global data, or the oceanic data, it is clear the the temperature with its fluctuations is inconsistent with the “high estimate” in the IPCC-FAR (and it has been the case for a decade if you take the oceanic temperature, or half a decade, if you take the global temperature, not admitting that it is biased). In fact, it appears that only the low estimate can presently be consistent with the observations. Clearly then, earth’s climate sensitivity should be revised down, and the upper range of sensitivities should be discarded and with it, the apocalyptic scenarios which they imply. For some reason, I doubt that the next AR5 report will consider this inconsistency, nor that they will revise down the climate sensitivity (and which is consistent with other empirical indicators of climate sensitivity). I am also curious when will the general public realize that the emperor has no clothes.
Of course, Andrew commented that the alarmists will always claim that there might be something else which has been cooling, and we will pay for our CO2 sevenfold later. The short answer is that “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time!” (or as it should be adapted here, “you cannot fool most of the people indefinitely!”).
The longer answer is that even climate alarmists realize that there is a problem, but they won’t admit it in public. In private, as the climate gate e-mails have revealed, they know it is a problem. In October 2009, Kevin Trenberth wrote his colleagues:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
However, instead of reaching the reasonable conclusion that the theory should be modified, the data are “surely wrong”. (This, btw, is a sign of a new religion, since no fact can disprove the basic tenets).
When you think of it, those climatologists are in a rather awkward position. If you exclude the denial option (apparent in the above quote), then the only way to explain the “travesty” is if you have a joker card, something which can provide warming, but which the models don’t take into account. It is a catch-22 for the modelers. If they admit that there is a joker, it disarms their claim that since one cannot explain the 20th century warming without the anthropogenic contribution, the warming is necessarily anthropogenic. If they do not admit that there is a joker, they must conclude (as described above) that the climate sensitivity must be low. But if it is low, one cannot explain the 20th century without a joker. A classic Yossarian dilemma.
This joker card is of course the large solar effects on climate.
—————————————————————-
Prof. Nir J. Shaviv is a member of the Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. According to PhysicaPlus: “…his research interests cover a wide range of topics in astrophysics, most are related to the application of fluid dynamics, radiation transfer or high energy physics to a wide range of objects – from stars and compact objects to galaxies and the early universe. His studies on the possible relationships between cosmic rays intensity and the Earth’s climate, and the Milky Way’s Spiral Arms and Ice Age Epochs on Earth were widely echoed in the scientific literature, as well as in the general press.”
Disclaimer: Views expressed in a guest post are those of the author.
Copyright of the graphs and text belongs to Nir Shaviv.
Why not pop in at ScienceBits, and thank Nir for his work.
H/t Oguzhan Tandogac for the suggestion. Thanks!
cannot see any of the images
—-
Thanks. Fixed — Jo
00
I have been developing the ‘missing warming’: the IPCC has got the aerosol optical physics wrong and the 2nd AIE is the missing heating effect.
Median IPCC CO2 climate sensitivity [3 K] is at least a factor of 6.7 too high; it could be slightly net negative.
00
Thanks, Nir Shaviv and Jo!
This ought to provoke apoplectic fits in our local troll contingent. After all, according to them “it’s bad and getting worse!”
Or maybe just more of that “hidden heat” travesty…..
00
Probably both — since when has an elephant in their parlor ever even slowed them down?
00
Slowed them down? Haha. That reminds me of a video presentation from several years ago by Bob Carter. In one slide The Good Ship Global Warming has taken several torpedos in the side, yet it keeps steaming ahead. Tell your converted friends (and enemies) to download the video as it’s quite emphatic, cites the peer reviewed literature, maybe a little bit entertaining, and 580MB takes no time at all on DSL.
Well the ship seems to have lost some steam since 2007. Shame about the aussies stuck in the boiler room while every other country jumps into life rafts – or pays next to nothing.
00
As sure as sunrise MattB takes up your challenge at post 20.
00
I think we were not supposed to notice that.
The classical view held by liars and cheaters is that the rest of us are mushrooms. Just keep us in the dark, feed us BS and everything will be OK in the end.
00
Adjunct to this is the latest over at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/
Yes indeed we have only just begun to ask the right questions.
00
I hold the IPCC in the very highest regard in all matters relating to climate science.
Accordingly, I have a new research paper coming out that complies fully with the IPCC guidelines.
Entitled “CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, IT’S HAPPENING NOW AND IT’S ALL MAN’S FAULT” – it will be published in ‘HELLO’ magazine next month but no doubt the IPCC will take it on board and make it the keystone of AR5.
In my ‘SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS’ I make it clear that the entire world will have to return to a bronze-age existence in order to save the planet from the catastrophic effects of anthropogenic global warming – you know it makes sense!
The paper has been ‘peer’-reviewed by Lord Oxburgh of Whitewash, so everyone can be confident that the science has been rigorously tested.
In summary: the data are irrefutable, the science is settled, the debate is over, there is a consensus, get used to it!
Anyone who disagrees with my conclusions is probably a mentally retarded oil shill and should be locked up for crimes against the planet.
In true climate science tradition, my data will remain secret because they’re copyright, commercially sensitive and exempt from FOI legislation. It doesn’t matter anyway, because they were eaten by ‘Albert’ my pet Labrador, yesterday.
And don’t even think about asking for my computer codes and methodology. I’d rather set them on fire than let the sceptics have a look.
I believe that a Nobel Prize would be appropriate recognition for my brilliant work, so if any members of the awards committee are reading this – I’ll be sitting by the telephone.
00
DougS,
this is a wonderful paper.
All accolades to you my friend. You deserve it.
I’ve just received an advance ‘proof reading’ copy back from the printers.
I note the wonderful endorsement at the bottom of the Paper:
“I, Lady Gaga, fully endorse this Research!”
Tony.
(As Curly once said, Nyuk nyuk nyuk!)
00
Tony:
Can I take it that you will back my bid for a Nobel Prize?
Lady Gaga has already written to the awards committee.
I’m on tenterhooks!
00
Dougs,
You have convinced me. Initially I thought you were going to quote the IPCC, so myeyes rolled, but then you mentioned the reputable journal “Hello” magazine. Talk about cutting straight to the source.
Maybe you can get it republished in one of those reputable climbing magazines too -wow, that would give it a gold standard of quality.
haw haw haw
00
Madjak,
I’ve heard some scuttlebutt, and keep this on the QT, but Penthouse is showing some interest in DougS’ Paper, which will add considerably to the ‘peer review’ process.
Then the guys really can say that they got the magazine for the articles!!!
Tony.
(Sorry, I couldn’t help it)
00
Now that is what I would call exposure
00
Madjak:
Actually, my ‘Polar Bear’ study was published in ‘Autotrader UK’ magazine – very well received.
And my ‘Whale Deaths’ investigation was published in ‘Exchange and Mart’ – excellent reviews.
Could there be a higher recommendation?
00
You haven’t mentioned the “celeb rating” of your paper.
You cannot expect the readers to Hello magazine to give your paper any credence whatsoever, if it does not have the required quota of endorsements from bona fide celebrities.
Alternatively, a photograph of a wardrobe malfunction and mention of the British Royal Family might also qualify. The two don’t necessarily need to be related.
00
Unless it’s Pippa Middleton.
Tony.
00
Pippa is pippin hot.
So hot she could produce more energy than all the windmills in GB.
Sorry, that seems to be an insult……..
00
Thanks for that Mark D.
Pity this Post has almost run its course, because this data may not be seen.
let’s look at Wind Power in the UK.
There is a huge number of these monstrous towers with the slowly rotating fans out the front.
In fact, the total Nameplate Capacity comes in at 5204MW, and Wow! that’s a huge total, in fact almost double (that’s twice as large) as the large coal fired plant at Bayswater here in Australia.
Twice as large.
Umm!
Remember I have said that the ‘up front’ total is not what you should be looking at, because it artificially gives the impression of being so large, and what you need to look at as being correct is the actual power delivered for consumption.
In the case of every Wind Tower in the UK, that figure comes in at 11,440 GWH, and again, Wow! what a huge number.
So then, let’s look at what Bayswater actually delivers.
That same amount of power delivered from every wind tower in the UK is delivered by Bayswater in 34 weeks, just under 8 Months.
See the discrepancy right there.
All of those UK wind towers are operating at a Capacity Factor of just under 25%, which means that extrapolated out over the whole year, they are delivering their power for just under 6 hours a day.
So tell me. If a Car dealership offered you a (very expensive) new car with the promise that it was only going to work one time in four, or take you a quarter of the way to your destination, would you buy that car.
In the case of wind power, you have no choice.
If it wasn’t criminal, it’d be funny. I’m not laughing!
Tony.
00
Mark D. and Tony:
I have the dubious ‘privilege’ of living a few miles from Britain’s worst-performing wind farm of 2010 – Blyth Harbour.
With an output of 4.9% of installed capacity it’s essentially 8.5 ‘ornaments’ and half a wind turbine.
What a crass waste of money!
00
DougS, 4.9% ?!
I know that most wind farms don’t perform well but 4.9% is amazingly poor.
If that continues, it would almost pay to have power back-fed TO the windmills just so people feel better seeing them spin.
Hey Tony, How’s that for an idea. Put the wind farms to good use making wind? Maybe we could blow cyclones and tornadoes “away” from causing damage.
(I declare patent rights)
00
Mark:
Sounds useful!
However, you don’t want to be accused of being supported by BIG WIND do you?
00
Let us not forget that the UN is responsible, lock, stock and barrel for the IPCC. The UN is the real monster here.
I have often thought that their big office tower on the East River in New York City looks like a headstone. If the major dues paying nations simply stop paying their dues the UN will collapse and then that building would really be their headstone. We could put a big epitaph on both sides saying, “UN: WE’LL NEVER MISS YOU!” Then leave the whole complex there forever as an example to fools.
As far as I can see that’s about the only way we can really be free from this scourge. Will I ever see that day?
00
The UN was conceived, after the Second World War, and a replacement for the League of Nations. Its primary purpose was to prevent armed conflict, with the secondary purpose of reducing poverty and famine in the Third World. They have failed at both of those as well. At least the organisation is consistent.
I agree, they are past their use-by date.
Caution: May contain nuts.
00
Rereke,
I think no such organization can ever succeed. They were never accountable to anyone. And worse, they’ve been trying to get things done by one of the largest committees ever seen. The conflicts of interest are too great. I’m afraid the cake, nuts included, was a failure before it ever came out of the oven.
I’m probably not the best observer of human nature but it’s not for lack of trying. After most of a lifetime it’s pretty clear that in spite of grand designs to protect us from ourselves, we’re all still fighting each other to carve out a piece of the pie and then defending it any way we can. It’s been that way for all of recorded human history. How arrogant are we to believe we’re doing any better?
Can we govern ourselves? I think we’ll find out soon enough.
00
At the time it was known as the UNO, and that was one of the first things I ever read as a child from the newspapers that adults were holding up around me. Since then I have learned a lot about the UNO. I have come to the view that its finest achievement is to have the ‘O’ from UNO become totally invisible, even to its staunchest critics. As individuals there is little we can do to influence the UNO itself for the better. We can, however, endeavour to correct that mistake: UNO.
00
In the words of Will Rogers, “Only fools and dudes predict the weather.” 20 years down the line and Nir’s piece demonstrates they’re either fools or dudes and they don’t look like dudes to me …
Pointman
00
Did you say ‘dudes’ or ‘duds’?
00
Jo, Have you seen this?
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/70s-global-dimming-and-more-ir-leaves/
00
Ian, thanks for that link.
I scrolled down to the comments and found something I haven’t viewed before.
Measure temporary variations of shape and diameter of the Sun, as well as fine structure and dynamics of the granulation on the Service module of the Russian segment of the International Space Station
Worth a read.
00
Yes Ian.
This one is even better and everyone should read it thoroughly and forward it on.
It is a distraction picking holes in the science as the “consensus” has already been achieved and the videos show how the “consensus” at local govt level is manufactured.
It is not really a left / right issue as these people demonstate
Google “(insert your local govt) +ICLEI” and you will see it is well advanced here in Australia as well.
00
Simply put, Nir Shaviv is a brilliant physicist.
He is also an environmentalist (he had to be, or his mother would clip him across the ear)
For those who aren’t familiar with Dr Shaviv and his work, I recommend a visit to his site and especially to the summary of his peer reviewed paper “The Oceans as a Calorimetre”
Bookmark him
00
True, Prof Shaviv is a world class scientist. Everyone should read his three part series, “There is nothing new under the Sun,” which after totally demolishing the CAGW theory – and proposing an alternative hypothesis – ends with words you will never ever hear from the mouth of a true believer…
00
Wes,
That quote from Prof Shaviv explains, in part, why most of the scientists I know remain silent on the question of CAGW. They often do not have the time to investigate all of the facts (nor check the non-published data), so their “official” position is to have no opinion.
“Oh yes, well, of course I am aware that there is a great deal of debate on the question, but I am not really conversant with current thinking, so it would be presumptuous of me to …”
Some will admit to a slight odeur de rat, but will commit themselves no further.
I think that is the prime reason why the team has gotten as far as they have with this scam. Political saying: “People with no integrity can often make useful idiots of those who do”.
00
Yup, the oceans are a calorimeter:
N. Atlantic OHC: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/figure-101.png
These data show that GHG-AGW in this region since 2004 has been < natural cooling.
That cooling is the ending of phytoplankton blooms in the Arctic and an increase in cloud albedo. The Russian think by 2020 the Arctic will be as cold as 2020 so no sinking warm water into the N. Atlantic.
No CO2 needed.
00
Dr Shaviv nails the whole stinking mess with two elegant (and dry ironic) sentences.
It is worth also mentioning one other issue, which is that the solar variance he is alluding to happened to covary with pCO2 during the 20thC, which is the training period for the models. Both rose. So accidentally leaving out this factor causes the models to incorrectly assign the variance to pCO2. Now they’re stuck because if they do actually include an appropriate solar proxy like previous solar cycle length, then the derived climate sensitivity spat out by the models will be around Lindzen and Choi’s value of 0.7 C/doubling.
Which would mean no CAGW and no more job for many modellers. A Yossarian dilemma indeed.
00
“No CAGW and nor more jobs”. And (less likely) a repeal of certain legislation/taxes installed on spurious grounds. Along with the demolition of the “carbon market”.
00
Off topic somewhat.
Don’t be fooled by Chinese whispers
My sentiments exactly!
00
Geoff Sherrington –
have responded to your request re the carbon cowboys sentenced
in France in the previous “THAT famous email” thread…
best wishes.
00
The problems with the consensus view is that there are too many known unknowns and unknown unknowns, all compounding to make the catastrophic forecast highly extreme in both magnitude and likelihood.
First you have the surface temperature data that has an extreme warming bias. (Try comparing with the more comprehensive and scientific satellite measurements at Dr Roy Spencer’s blog)
Second, the claim is that the reason warming is not even greater is due to aerosols. Yet aerosol concentrations in Eastern China and Eastern USA are many times higher than in the sparsely populated regions of the world. So the warming trend should be less in the highly populated areas should be less than in the remote areas, not more. If aerosols have a significant impact, the adjustment for UHI should be much higher. A case of the consensus having their cake and eating it?
Third, there is the ocean temperatures. The ARGO is so much more accurate than previous data that the sudden halt in ocean warming in 2003 when the ARGO bouys came on line that it suggests that the previous data had a strong warming bias. The circumstantial evidence to support this is the surface temperature data. Also that the most extreme of the surface data sets – NASA GISSTEMP – is controlled (without external audit) by James Hansen, one of the most activist scientists.
Lastly, there is a certain imbalance in the funding between the sides, along with a deal of discrimination in access to the scientific journals.
00
Oh come on!!! Where are the idiots JB, MattB, Tristan, Gee Aye et all???? Where is their insightful rebuttal of the evidence in this article???? Oh, SORRY!!! It’s never been about evidence!!! It’s always been politics and, above all else, THE MONEY!!!
00
Our trolls are just gonna love this new, peer-reviewed, published paper:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-climate-change/
I know how fond they are of claims that climate change might just be cyclical and natural.
I wonder how long it will take John
CrookCook over at Septic Science to “debunk” this?I think we can safely assume we won’t be hearing from the trolls until John’s written a script for them.
00
The final argument of Shaviv and Veizer [2003]—that CO2 has a smaller effect on climate than previously thought—is based on a simple regression analysis of smoothed temperature and CO2 reconstructions. Shaviv and Veizer [2003] conclude that the effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration
on tropical sea surface temperatures (SST) is likely to be 0.5°C (up to 1.9°C at 99% confidence),with global mean temperature changes about 1.5 times as large.Thus, they claim that the climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 is ~ 0.75°C, outside the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change range of 1.5–4.5°C (misquoted as
5.5°C in Shaviv and Veizer [2003]) [IPCC,2001].
Note,however,that their maximum global sensitivity of 2.9°C lies well within the accepted range.
Irrespective of the data quality, the simple regression method of Shaviv and Veizer [2003] is unsuitable for estimating the climate sensitivity to a CO2 doubling.The main reasons are that (i) other forcing and feedback factors may co-vary in a statistically dependent way with CO2 and cannot be separated, (ii) the operation of some climate feedbacks depends on the time scale considered, and (iii) the strength of climate feedbacks depends on the mean climate.
Over a decade ago, Lorius et al. [1990] used the high-quality records of temperature and CO2
variations from ice cores
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf
My Comment:
Simple Regression statistics just will not do for our complex climate undergoing manmade forced CO2 increases that have transpired over most of our life time.
00
On the other hand, one tree-ring sample from one lonely Bristlecone Pine was enough to wipe out both the LIA and the MWP.
Who’d a thunk?
00
Memoryvault,
What has LIA and MWP got to do with CLIMATE sensitivity of CO2 and its doubling impact? What was clearly stated was about getting the maths calc right for CO2?
Linking LIA and MWP to concentrations of the CO2 effects on climate sensitivity and doubling is a logical fallacy but sun brightness flare up and volcanic activities (extremes of dust outgassing – global dimming) are.
Besides whoever said these well known events never existed except in the minds of anti-warmists accusing warmists of denial. There importance highlights how our climate is always poised on knife edge swings either by nature or man.
00
And how would you even know if you did have it right? You would know because there would be direct evidence that you did.
One more time to one more fool — show me that evidence.
00
Good question, Ross! Nothing gets past you.
Answer: The LIA and MWP are examples of large, recent and well documented swings in climate variation that have absolutely nothing to do with CO2 because we know CO2 did not vary dramatically during these recent episodes of climate variation.
The AGW theory can not explain the LIA and MWP. Worse, the AGW theory predicts that they should never have happened at all.
What do you call a theory whose predictions are directly refuted by observed evidence?
Of course, this explains why Michael Mann attempted to erase the LIA and MWP out of history with his 1998 temperature reconstruction. Like any rational person he could see that the AGW theory is falsified by recent past episodes of dramatic warming and cooling which are NOT directly forced by Greenhouse gases.
Michael Mann set the precedent for all that followed in climate science. When the data doesn’t confirm the theory then the data must be adjusted until it does.
00
Ross says:
Are what?
Well known huh….Wasn’t the sun ruled out by warmists as a cause of any recent warming?
Do you really think that nature (our climate) is poised on a knife edge?
If so, you are truly among the most severely indoctrinated. I feel sorry for you.
00
Just a thought, I may be wrong but if CO2 combines with water vapour to form carbonic acid then in my mind unless the airs average humidity decreases then the airs CO2/water vapour ratio could not change. So a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would merely be an assumption for the purpose of arguement.
A question I asked previously –
How can the oceans extract CO2 out of the atmosphere while leaving the atmospheric CO2 content more or less stable. And then there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to start with to acidify the oceans,so where does the carbonic acid come from? Consider that humans only produce 2GT CO2 per annum.
00
The thing is Ross your claims of a high sensitivity and knife edges dont make sense, bare with me.
The AGW theory in a nut shell states that if CO2 goes up so will temperature and the magnitude of temp change is directly proportional to the sensitivity value ergo the higher the sensitivity value the greater the magnitude of temp change.
Dr Shaviv has clearly demonstrated that the IPCC sensitivity range has barely changed for 22 years (shows confidence in the numbers) however the temp is not following the predicted path, more interesting is the fact that 25% of all mans emissions have been emitted in the past 10 years and yet the temps for this period have barely changed and the question is why?
If as you say the sensitivity values are correct then what is stopping the planet from warming as per the IPCC predictions?
There must be a negative feed back in play, a negative feed back that is up till now unbeknowns to climate scientists and is therefore not considered in the models.
Do *you* Ross know what this negative feed back is?
I suspect you will never be seen here again…well…at least under the name of Ross so some may say i have just wasted 5 minutes of my life but in truth this comment was not written for Ross’s eyes.
Cheers
Ps. Hello Jo hope you had a good Xmas and new year.
00
Mullum to the rescue, says Fairfax:
13 Jan: SMH: Nicky Phillips/Philip Chan: Mullumbimby, helping to save world
ALL going well, the world’s energy crisis may be solved in the auditorium of the Mullumbimby Ex-Services Club tonight.
A community group will gather to discuss the work of an Italian inventor who claims to have developed a machine that can produce large amounts of energy from almost nothing.
The Byron New Energy Charitable Trust, founded by a local retiree, Sol Millin, is hoping to convince prospective investors of the technology’s merit. The mastermind behind the invention, physicist Andrea Rossi, will appear via Skype…
The entrepreneur Dick Smith has sent a consulting aerospace engineer, Ian Bryce, who has a science background, to assess the machine on his behalf.
If Mr Bryce, who as a member of the Australian Skeptics has experience testing the scientific veracity of all sorts of weird and wacky things, gives the technology the thumbs-up, Dick Smith will give the group $200,000.
Dr Rossi, who works for the US based Leonardo Corporation, claims his E-cat machine can take a small amount of energy and drive a reaction between atoms of hydrogen and nickel which can, through an unknown process, produce a large amount of energy, far exceeding the initial energy input…
So far, Mr Rossi’s invention has been greeted with much cynicism by the scientific community.
Mr Bryce is sceptical too, but says the machine has the support of six physicists, including two Swedish professors.
”I’ll need to see some more evidence before committing the money,” he said.
Mr Millin, who first heard about the E-cat last year, believes a healthy dose of scepticism is a good thing.
Nevertheless, he is convinced the machine is the single device that could save the world…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/mullumbimby-helping-to-save-world-20120112-1pxj2.html
00
I know Sol very well. Last time I saw him he was driving around byron bay claiming his car was powered by water. I checked the input to the carby looked real enough.
Good luck to him. I carn’t see this going anywhere just like Genepax- whose claim of a water powered car made headlines, then soon after, without any apparent reason the factory was closed.
If this is real its allready dead.
I know of others they have kept quiet.
00
While I’m inclined to agree with you that if it is ridgy-didge efforts will be made to make it go away, there are promising developments in play:
First, Rossi appears to hate “the establishment” with a vengeance, and seems to genuinely want to give the world ultra-low cost energy (while making squillions for himself, of course), and
He has had a falling out with the Greek company (Defkalion) who were initially going to be building and marketing the devices, and they are now proceeding on their own, giving us two potential sources of the technology.
00
Pat.
Yep, I read that some time ago.
I would’nt be putting my money into this for the same reason I didn’t invest in that ASX listed company known as “Firepower”.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/russian-olympic-boss-loses-us1m-in-firepower-fraud-20100129-n41g.html
Be very careful with your DIY super funds people.
00
Dick’s money is safe.
00
That sounds like a variation on hydrogen fusion. In the recent past I’ve seen discussion of several breakthroughs that would shortly revolutionize the world. Then, silence from the proponents.
Believe it only when you see it producing commercially useful power for a significant length of time. That’s the test.
00
can u believe this cr** is peer-reviewed!!!! (Spelling fixed) CTS
11 Jan: Guardian: by Arthur Neslen for EurActiv: Airlines could net £1.6bn
windfall from EU carbon trading scheme, report says
Far from damaging US airlines, the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) could
deliver it a €2 billion windfall profit, according to a new report by a US
Federal Aviation Administration-funded group of academics.
Bill Hemmings, the aviation spokesman for the European environmental
pressure group Transport and Environment, said that it “called seriously
into question” air industry claims that the ETS would leave them out of
pocket.
“On the contrary, their real costs will probably be covered by being able to
pass them on to passengers with minimal impact on their businesses,”
Hemmings told EurActiv…
The peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Air Transport Management uses
several complex modelling frameworks to calculate the effect that inclusion
in the ETS’ third period – between 2013 and 2020 – would have on US
airlines.
The study’s models make three key assumptions:
• A carbon price of €15 a tonne that increases by 4% a year
• A 35% increase in the airlines’ CO2 emissions between 2011 and 2020
• A full ‘pass-through’ of costs to the consumer
If all three happened, the report concludes that airlines could receive a
$2.6 billion (€2.03 billion) bonanza…
However, even some staunch supporters of the ETS, questioned the methodology
used in the report.
John Hanlon, the secretary-general of the European Low Fares Airline
Association (ELFAA), said the central contention that allowance costs could
be passed back to the consumer was a “canard” and a “fallacy”.
“I see no evidence to support that,” he told EurActiv…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/11/airlines-windfall-eu-carbon-trading?newsfeed=true
00
“On the contrary, their real costs will probably be covered by being able to
pass them on to passengers with minimal impact on their businesses.” Can you believe these two-bob academics in their fairyland of “modelling”? Not only have none of them ever had a job in the real world, they also have no idea of the rules that apply in a competitive business. Rule 1: put the price up and demand goes down, you dolt! And the airline business is the most competitive business on earth bar none. If the bloke who came up with this fantasy has a degree in economics, it should be taken off him.
00
Think about this for a minute.
They’re going to charge passengers a fee to cover the extrapolated per passenger emissions of the flight.
There will be the same emissions from that flight whether the passenger is charged or not.
Has it lowered the emissions?
No.
How people can fall for this has got me fooled.
I notice that some anecdotal evidence from here in Australia says that the most emissions ‘offsets’ are paid on flights into Byron Bay.
I didn’t think that Nimbin crowd had enough money to afford aircraft travel.
Tony.
00
If you look at 2010 you’ve got blue line comfortably in the low estimate, and the brown line towards the top of the best estimate. in 2007 the brown line is near the top of the High estimate. SO this tells me that Shaviv’s conclusions put too much emphasis on where the lines are right now, rather than looking at any sort of trend. It is plain to see that there is significant variability in the short term temp. I mean if next month or the month after they skip up to the top would Shaviv change his mind? (hint: he shouldn’t as it is the trend that counts)
00
I’d also like to know why he uses the 1990 prediction graph, rationalising it by saying “Because the possible range of sensitivities has been virtually the same, it means that the predictions made in the first IPCC report in 1990 should still be valid. That is, according to the writers of all the IPCC reports, the temperature today should be within the range of predictions made 22 years ago.”
When in fact, as shown in his own graph, there have been SAR, TAR, AR4, AR5… surely it would be most honest to see what the current predictions are, and track the changes from 1990. That is to say, obviosuly the IPCC’s current predictions are different than 1990, and they have given reasons, and there must be a reason that Shaviv instead chooses to smoke and mirrors us back to 1990.
I smell a rat.
00
It helps if you actually READ the article, Matt, rather than just looking at the pretty pictures.
It’s not a children’s comic you know.
.
Oh, wait . . . .
00
That’s such a nothing answer MV
00
Okay MattB. Since appear determined to prove what many have already suspected vis a vis your cognitive abilities:
YOU SAY:
Dr SHAVIV WRITES (1):
AND (2):
AND (3):
AND (4):
In (1) Shaviv explains that the predictions have not changed much over the entire period.
In (2) Shaviv explains this “predicted” band of temperature in fact goes all the way back to 1979.
In (3) he points out that the IPCC has, in fact narrowed the band UPWARDS.
And in (4) he explains that if the predictions remain unchanged (the IPCC continue to believe they reflect reality), then the observed data should correlate somewhat to the predictions – which it doesn’t.
Of course, Dr Shaviv could be outright lying about the IPCC’s current predictions, in which case all you have to do is post a link to a source for their “new” predictions.
Oh, by the way, I checked the scenario document you linked to at post #20.1.2.1, to try and prove your point. More about that in reply to your post @ # 24.
00
MV go to the corner of the class in the dunce’s hat! It is the SCENARIOS that count in 1990, not the sensitivity. dunderhead.
00
Right… No one could expect predictions about the future to be accurate in the future. I mean, come on now! After all, these predictions were only supposed to be good for 50 – 100 years.
So tell me MattB; How do you decide how accurate current predictions of the future are? Use a crystal ball?
I guess we shouldn’t worry about the current predictions of the future turning out to be wrong, since the IPCC will have brand new predictions by then.
Check the cavity where your brain is supposed to be.
00
Bob the 1990 scenarios are based on exactly that, scenarios. So is the model wrong or were the emissions scenarios wrong? i.e. have the forcings changed as they thought they would in 1990. Read this bit of IPCC comment:
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
developed long-term emissions scenarios in 1990 and 1992.
These scenarios have been widely used in the analysis of
possible climate change, its impacts, and options to mitigate
climate change. In 1995, the IPCC 1992 scenarios were
evaluated. The evaluation recommended that significant
changes (since 1992) in the understanding of driving forces of
emissions and methodologies should be addressed. These
changes in understanding relate to, e.g., the carbon intensity of
energy supply, the income gap between developed and
developing countries, and to sulfur emissions. This led to a
decision by the IPCC Plenary in 1996 to develop a new set of
scenarios. The new set of scenarios is presented in this Report.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf
So as I said as EARLY AS 1995 the IPCC had a look at the scenarios and made a decision in 1996 to develop more accurate scenarios… so not changing how the model works to suit, but actually trying to refine accuracy of the scenarios.
It is also bloody clear from this report that the 1992 scenarios were “pathbreaking”, again confirming that this use of 1990 scenarios to be knowingly misleading.
So just to wrap up – the 1990 scenarios are the problem, not the climate sensitivity. More meaningful is to apply sensitivity to the temp record to see how they stack up, and see if sensitivity is wrong.
Sould I not trust computers because the ones the experts made in the past have turned out to be obsolete? How about cars? Or is it just climate science?
00
Whoops Bob not Bruce. Bruce is next post down.
[I fixed it] ED
00
Speaking of misleading, the thing that this parasite MattB misleadingly omits to explain is that scenarios of emissions i.e. the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at a given time frame, become important in the out years.
Put simply, MattB needs to detail the difference in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2012 as envisioned by the early IPCC reports, as opposed to the amount envisioned by the latest report.
Had this dishonest parasitic politician done that, he would see that the amount in both cases is so small (by year 2012) as to make no difference to the projected temperatures (in year 2012).
So MattB, how about you link to IPCC projections of temperature rise from their early reports and their latest report so as we can all see how big the differences are.
It’s also quite rich reading statements like “I smell a rat” and “knowingly misleading” coming from a parasite who exists by pleading with plebs to elect him to an office accompanied by full salary and benefits so as he can push a pencil around whilst the rest of us actually work for a living.
It is also quite indicative that this parasite has stated many many times that he doesn’t do science, that he takes his science from those who are qualified to do it, yet when one of the most respected scientists in the world (who is actually a luke warmist himself), presents a thesis that doesn’t toe the CAGW line, the parasite attacks not only the content of the thesis, but the scientist as well.
Well done MattB, you are the perfect politician. Those who elect a dishonest parasite like you deserve you.
00
I have to figure one of those ‘refinements’ you mention, is michael mann’s hockey shtick.
00
HUmbug I get about $7 grand for being a councillor. Hardly a “Full Salary”, on top of a totally unrelated full time job that has nothing to do with climate change science. Believe me no one does it for the money
00
A response to my ad homs and none to the substance of my comment?
OK OK my bad, so you are just a cheap worthless parasite as opposed to the expensive parasites like real politicians.
I apologise and will make efforts in the future to refer to you as a cheap worthless parasite instead of just parasite.
Now, about the substance of my comment?
00
“Whoops Bob not Bruce.”
‘S okay Matt I forgive you. After seeing what Mr Warner did to the Indian bowlers I’ll forgive anything.
Anyway to answer your question, yes: the models are wrong. Sorry. The real short term sensitivity corresponds to something like 0.5-0.7 C/doubling, which the GCM’s do not correctly model. That is abundantly clear from S&B 2010. And my own look at the data (see #12) suggests the long term sensitivity is also around the 0.7 C mark, although I do tip my hat to KeithH’s view that it could even lower (ie due to UHI and aerosols).
When (if) the IPCC GCM-jockeys actually include solar indirect effects in their models they’re going to get a rude shock.
00
Bah there was substance in there really? Are you sure?
00
You’re missing the logic here, Matt. (Why am I not surprised?)
If a company made computers in the past that never worked, then you should probably be wary of their current offerings.
If a group made predictions in the past that never proved correct, you should also be wary about their current predictions.
(Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me N times, I must be MattB.)
Are you a fan of Paul Erhlich, by any chance?
00
The cheap parasite asks me…
Yes there was el chepo, but nothing you would comprehend.
00
Hey Bob #20.1.2.1.8
That fool me once thingy, is this what you’re trying to say
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmjqlOPd6A
00
Well I’d thank you for your effort but first, how many hours per week do you put in as councilor?
00
Yep — CO2 has continued growing at the same rate it has for the last 50 years: ~0.5%/year. This perfectly matches the “business as usual” scenario — Hansen’s scenario ‘A’. So, assuming the models were correct, you would expect the temperatures to follow that scenario.
They haven’t. Prediction failed. Model falsified.
But, you would have us believe (on faith, apparently) that the current predictions are right.
(But, Lucy says that this time she’ll hold the football Charlie Brown.)
Not everyone is a born fool, MattB.
00
Hey Matt are you on the Barossa Council?
By the way the pertinent point you have traqgically failed to grasp (like all pertinent points) is that the sensitivity TO A DOUBLING OF CO2 HAS NOT CHANGED Therefore as CO2 levels have not changed in the rate of increase we can use the predictions made way back in AR1 as if they were made yesterday.
Now read the above paragragh several times before you start bashing away at the keyboard or you may suffer further embarassment.
00
I’ll partially back Ross at #17, as linear single regression does not always do best. There’s plenty other kinds.
In this particular case you might like a sinusoidal regression fit. Works fine for HadCRUT v3 right back to 1850. Unfortunately you can’t do that easily in Excel, although given certain climate scientist’s frustration with linear trend lines is probably a good thing.
00
To me, he takes the original modelling because the sensitivity hasn’t changed, and to stop the rot of ‘curve fitting’ which is the tool of charlatans worldwide, from dodgy scientists to dodgy investment salesman. Rather than showing the long term performance, keep updating every couple of years with ‘new material’ and conveniently forget the old ones, which are now ‘outdated’.
I think the point is well made, that the sensitivity is wrong.
And because, without the high sensitivity, there is no problem, the IPCC scenarios are dead in the water, no matter which ones you look at.
The predictions are going on 20 years old. And they’re wrong. The hypothesis has been the same the whole way through, just with mild tinkering (gosh, can you say ‘curve fitting’) along the way.
Face it, they’re all wrong, and whatever warming that happens is probably going to be net beneficial.
00
Great article.
Once the real data strays outside the error bar of your prediction – your prediction is crap.
To argue that the heat is just going somewhere else and will turn up eventually just negates the basis of the predictions and tells you that there are more important factors in there that have been left out.
Time to go back to the drawing board.
00
Following the jewish and global warming exaggeration connection, here’s a stunt from professional troll Ben Stein which sounds both crazy and so overdue. Yep, he’s suing a japanese company for not hiring him because he was a global warming agnostic.
Next step by disgruntled scientists?
00
It is really neccesary to drag a person’s ethnicity into this, especially one subjected to centuries of hatred and bigotry? That’s extremely sad and disturbing, exactly what I’d expect from mattb’s side of the argument (and I’ve seen a few).
00
What do you mean “drag”?? Sad and disturbing?? Are you sure you replied to the right comment?
My mind just makes connections between things. I think you’re projecting your own attitude on the word “jewish”. It’s not a dirty word any more than “male”, or “Australian”, or “climate scientist” are dirty words. Any baggage you find is baggage you put there.
00
Sorry but you lost me as well, please explain.
00
Councillor Matt,
Prof Shaviv is checking the climate sensitivity predictions of the IPCC, which have not changed significantly between 1991 and 2011. That’s what curious inquiring minds do…they test the predictions made by hypothesis against observational data. By now we have a couple of decades of data to compare the CAGW theory against. What we find is epic Dud. Even as year-over-year CO2 continues to rise unfailingly, temperatures lag.
Aren’t you curious as to why this is so? Do you have an amendment to the CAGW theory which would account for a temporary suppression of climate sensitivity just in the last 20 years which, of course, then must expire tomorrow so as to get the climate catastrophe show back on the road?
If the IPCC had a look at the failure of its predictions from the 1990’s and has now a brand new and improved set of future predictions that would be a very good thing indeed.
Why don’t you post a link to it here for us to compare?
Speaking of honest, Matt, I hope you have decided to come clean to your constituency about your heartfelt views on the greatest moral challenge of our age before the next election.
00
It is in my election material.
00
As Sherlock Holmes famously explained to his colleague ” It is a Capital Error, Watson, to try to make the data fit the theory, instead of making the theory fit the data”.
00
Here is a great summary of the evolution of IPCC Scenarios from 1990, through 1992 to the SRES (2000). http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/2009-girod-et-al-ipcc.pdf
SO just to confirm the ‘problem’ with 1990 is the scenarios. And as Naviv well knows the scenarios have been the subject of significant change.
Wow you guys are lucky I put the time in here or you would have fallen for this baloney hook, line and sinker!
00
But Matt, they wanted to fall, hook, line & sinker. You shouldn’t spoil their fun by pointing out that Shaviv is a little bit shonky.
For my part, when he mentioned Andrew Bolt in the first sentence, I too smelt a rat.
Still, he could be right and climate sensitivity could be pretty low, and that would be good.
00
MattB you are so full of it, and yourself, it’s hard to believe you could be anything other than a politician.
The two documents you have linked to, have absolutely nothing to do with predicted temperature rises. The first one (in post # 20.1.2.1) lays out the actual scenarios for IPCC authors and reviewers to frame their work around. The second document linked to in your post above, simply spells out the evolution of the IPCC scenarios. Again, it contains NOTHING related to actual predictions of temperature rises.
For the actual predictions we need to go the IPCC 2007 ‘Summary for Policy Makers”. There, on page 8 of that document we find the IPCC’s LATEST and CURRENT predictions.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
And guess what MattB?
They are actually expressed as per the scenarios referred to in your two linked documents. They are (scenario identifier as described in Mattb’s links, followed by ‘best estimate’ in degrees C):
BI –- 1.8
A1T – 2.4
B2 – 2.4
A1B – 2.8
A2 – 3.4
A1F1 – 4
The actual top range of the scenarios is 6.4 degrees C, so Dr Shaviv was actually being kind.
00
I notice MV and Wes George has brought to your attention that your report on the IPCC is really not about the validity of the IPCC predictions or projections but is essentially about how to tighten up the propaganda element in future reports.
The Conclusion deals with three areas of presentation.
1. Credibility:
Significant enhancement in the credibility of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios has been achieved between SA90 and SRES. A more formal storyline and scenario construction process for future emissions scenarios would nevertheless foster further sophistication of scenario construction. This would entail a traceable storyline construction process and a consistent translation of storylines into quantitative assumptions. A second concern about credibility, emerging from the assumptions underlying the non-intervention characteristic of the SRES scenarios, should be addressed in future IPCC work by referring to the leading opinions in the literature.
2. Deficiencies:
Deficiencies in saliency could be overcome by labelling the scenarios according to the underlying storylines and by developing a classification scheme that captures the main distinguishing characteristics of the scenarios (including their interventional characters). A reduction in the number of baseline scenarios to a smaller reasonable set for use in scientific studies and political discourse should also be considered.
3.Legitimacy:
Despite significant enhanced legitimacy of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios between SA90 and SRES, concessions were made to intergovernmental approval. Our analysis indicates that the emissions scenarios did not result solely from synthesising research results, but to a significant extent were influenced through intergovernmental negotiations. The extent to which such co-production (cf. Jasanoff, 2004) can be claimed legitimate depends very largely on the transparency and representativeness of the negotiating processes.
(Below is a summary of action to be taken by the IPCC in the presentation of future reports in these three areas):
“The challenges for the development of new IPCC’s emission scenarios remain: (i) to agree on a salient number of emissions scenarios; (ii) to transparently describe and classify the scenarios (intervention/non-intervention); (iii) to assess which policies are needed to reach the low RCPs/emissions scenarios; and (iv) to transparently and fairly mediate among the scientific and intergovernmental review contributions.
The intergovernmental work of the IPCC, including the review processes, has been groundbreaking in linking climate change science and policy.
Our evaluation provides a basis for learning from past experiences based on the specific case of the evolution of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios. Yet, the results can be used to inform other ongoing and upcoming initiatives on how to design the institutional settings and rules for ‘boundary work’ on climate change in order to balance credibility, saliency, and legitimacy at the science-policy interface.”
As you should be able to see Matt this has nothing to do with the accuracy of the IPCC’s global temperature predictions, re Shaviv, except perhaps a tacit admission that there is not much substance to the IPCC science including a lack of evidence. Thus this report then essentially is an how to produce propaganda exercise that enables governments, under the guise of climate science, to effect all sorts of policies all of which are potentially destructive of national economies.
Remember what the I stands for and it isn’t science.
00
Councillor Matt,
You’ve linked to a CO2 emissions scenarios study that has nothing to do with climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity will remain the same no matter what level of CO2 is emitted. Try harder.
I recall that you said you were selling yourself to your constituency as a “politically nonaligned.”
Do you have a link for your updated election material?
00
Nonaligned?
.
As in “bent”?
00
I’m not a member of a political party.
00
The definition of “aligned” is to form an alliance, to team up with, to be onside with…You don’t have to be a card carrying Green to be aligned with them.
To be nonaligned means one has not thrown one’s lot in with one side or another. By your own words here you are strongly allied with the cause of CAGW Green movement. To hide your true political identity from your constituency is dishonest and an unethical abuse of your authority as an elected public servant.
Are you ashamed of your political contributions online?
It’s your FIRST duty as an elected official to reveal ALL your political activity to your voters, otherwise how will they know who and what they are voting for?
00
Naw, probably the leader….
Do you “occupy”?
00
no no no wes…. it has everything to do with the scenarios. The IPCC 1990 predictions are based on
Scenario X Sensitivity.
So the graph used is claiming sensitivity is wrong by saying 1990 IPCC graphs are wrong, when the graph is based on sensitivity AND scenario. and by claiming that because the most recent points are outside the range suggested in 1990, even though it has been outside the range many times before.
00
Don’t just claim Dr Shaviv is wrong. Grow some balls you cheap parasite and list or link to the scenarios from 1990 and the latest scenarios and calculate the difference that that makes to temperature projections.
Now c’mon, you agree you’re a cheap parasite, but don’t be a coward as well.
SHOW US YOUR NUMBERS COUNCILLOR
00
It’s uncanny how closely Dr Shaviv’s graph of IPCC “predictions” against actual temperatures mimics this graph of Hansen’s “predictions” against actual temperatures:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c015392efff32970b-pi
Just coincidence, I guess.
I mean, it couldn’t possibly be that the IPCC “evolved” (MattB link @ # 24) their “scenarios” (MattB link @ 20.1.2.1) to fit Hansen’s “scenarios”, surely?
Why, that would so, so . . . so – nonaligned.
As in bent.
.
Or crooked.
00
Whilst we may have total disdain for models, we must surely reserve some credit for models whose predictions do a decent job of matching observations. Well… Scafetta is back, and he’s got an empirically inspired model which does a better job of hindcasting the last decade than the IPCC’s scenario.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/
Oh, but it gets better. Not only does it hindcast the last decade, it hindcasts the last 50 years using only pre-1950 data.
But I know you want more.
The kicker… it hindcasts the pre-1950 century using only post-1950 training data. Which is just about the best evidence you can get that the climate operates in stable repeating cycles.
I’m still not quite sure I believe it.
The only hole I can pick is that his “harmonics only” simulation is cooler by several 0.1C points than when it is forced with recent observations. Couldn’t a dedicated warmist interpret the growing disparity between “harmonic” and “empirical” curve to mean an anthropogenic warming signal? We’ll have to follow this and see how it is argued.
00
It helps to include all the statistically significant variables. Which Dr Scafetta does and the IPCC modellers appear not to. The biggie is the solar magnetic influence on climate, which is worth about 50% of 20thC warming (Rao 2011 & several other papers). You leave out 50% of variance and expect to have a model exhibiting skill? In your dreams guys.
I’m not however sure that Dr Scafetta has the bigger solar effects fully modelled, since some recent modelling suggests more of a dip in the next couple decades than Dr Scafetta has, due to the potentially deep solar minimum.
00
….it is the trend that counts…..
….MattB (2:14 pm).
Indeed.
00
Nice graph, easy to read. I wonder if it’s easy enough for Matt however.
00
The Emperor lost his clothes!
The Wind Mills lost their thrust!
Flanneries GAIA gets up my nose!
I’m not paying Carbon Tax,
Even if I must!
Wind Mills do well in UK – NOT! No Blades
00
But didn’t the great omniscient scientists recently discover that the great omnipotent global warming act as a cock block to the next ice age? If AGW can’t cock block (insert alarmist pseudo scientific explanation of recent halt in warming) based on the IPCC’s “scenarios” (I mean politically, financially and ideologically motivated bullshit) then how will they stop the long overdue ice age which cannot now happen in the next 1500 years because of mankinds fossil farts SO SAYETH THE GREAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS OF OUR CURRENT ERA OF ECO-ENLIGHTENMENT.
00
Jo,
Much of science wrapped itself around the single calculation for a whole planet that has a great many parameters that were not considered or included.
I get every excuse in the book as to why the scientists are correct but NEVER get where that single calculation can reconstitute an orb.
Temperature anomalies are reapplied to the whole planet when only part of the planet has an anomaly. Past is not taken into consideration such as water supplies or movement of weather stations or population increase, etc.
Cherry picking of science is the norm as funding depends on a certain conclusion that is in form with the consensus of scientists.
Much of current science is just guess work with very little actual facts being included.
Is it a wonder why no one trusts scientists anymore?
Keeping the public in a state of panic seems to be the achievement of science rather than actual physical evidence.
Why is it scientists miss starting at creation?
Is it that the faith of religion might be in jeopardy?
Or is it to protect the scientists theories of having to follow a certain routine?
Motion has never been considered in laboratories where billions of dollars have been spent to prop up a certain conclusion which fails under actual conditions.
Creating a model and dumping data and theories in without actually recreating a model for each parameter and showing how they interact.
Am I the only one who has real concerns of the scientists and how it has been manipulated science, rather than following the science?
00
Hi Joe’s world,
You are not alone in your apprehension regarding the perversion of science and the attack on logic and reason which has been the result of “climate science”.
Indeed it is no wonder that people have lost faith in scientists as they have been found out to have engaged in nearly every unethical and immoral act I can think of. However, it’s important to remember that they have been abused by governments around the world, effectively bribed for their cooperation in what is obviously a global political movement with it’s foundation in the United Nations.
There is of course a religious or ideological underpinning which enables individuals to depart from ethical standards. I suggest you research Gaia and James Lovecock. Many “climate scientists” hold very irrational and unscientific views about a world which to them is a living breathing godess who is suffering at the hands of the virus like affliction that is mankind. They hold fast to the idea of a delicate living system which can be upset by any imbalance. Have you heard of “tipping points” – this theory is such a manifestation of green ideology.
With so much at stake, what is a few lies, omissions, distortions etc. If the result is to save the world? (THIS IS REFERED TO AS “THE CAUSE” BY THE HOCKEY TEAM)
00
Perversion of science my foot! The only perversion of science I see is the senseless demands by idiots to have their views given equal time to those of people with genuine expertise.
There are real scientists patiently putting together the pieces of the jigsaw, trying to find what can be known about a complex system. Working away because of the possibility that global warming may be very, very bad for us. These people will have different, and sometimes contradictory ideas, and in due course the contradictions will be resolved.
The last thing these scientists need is an orchestrated campaign by a hotchpotch collection of nit pickers. A swarm of mosquitos contributing nothing except to annoy and slow down the real science. Which is their aim, of course.
00
John Brookes says:
Blah blah blah: Authority
Blah blah blah: Authority
Blah bhah MY authority Blah
Blah blah blah: Authority
Blah blah blah: Authority
Blah blah MY authority, Blah
Blah blah blah: Authority
Blah blah blah: Authority
Blah blah MY authority, Blah
Blah blah blah: Authority
Blah blah blah: Authority
Blah blah MY authority, Blah
Blah blah blah: Authority
Blah blah blah: Authority
Blah blah MY authority, Blah………
Gawd, has anyone else had enough?
00
I have to keep restating my case, because you keep restating yours, “The scientists are corrupt, the scientists are corrupt, the scientists are corrupt……”.
00
JOHN F’n Brookes:
I should ask why you know so much about perversion. Instead I’ll demand proof of why you think Nir Shaviv is an “idiot”. (by definition you are wrong, proving your own prejudices).
00
Now just who is it that you would have silenced, John?
Should Sonny be added to your list?
How about Nir Shaviv?
Please update your hit list of those who shall not be heard.
00
So the argument begins with claims of “perversion of science and the attack on logic and reason” and follows it up with:
Indeeeeed.
00
And I’m sure there is a valid “comment” in there somewhere.
Damned if I can see it though.
00
Can I ask – if over the next year shaviv’s graph had the temps popping back within range, would you then back the IPCC?
00
I’m sorry, the IPCC is part of the United Nations.
NO I WILL NOT BACK THEM!
EVERRRRR
00
MattB (cousin of John Brookes) says:
I’ll double down MattB: if the temps next year don’t “pop” back will you forever become a less obnoxious skeptic?
00
Personally, no I wouldn’t.
It’s not what the temperature does or doesn’t do, it’s what causes the temperature change, and the IPCC cannot explain that.
Maybe I could ask you – if over the next year shaviv’s graph had the temps popping further out of range, would you continue to back the IPCC?
00
Temperatures have been trending in the opposite direction to, and outside of Hansen’s “do nothing scenario (scenario A)”, pretty much ever since he graphed it for Congress in 1988 – 23 years ago.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c015392efff32970b-pi
MattB can I ask – if they continue to do so over the next year, will you finally accept Hansen was/is hopelessly wrong?
.
Temperatures have been trending in the opposite direction to, and outside of Mann’s “hockey stick graph”, pretty much ever since he produced it for the IPCC in 1998 – 13 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg
MattB can I ask – if they continue to do so over the next year, will you finally accept Mann was/is hopelessly wrong?
.
In Dr Shaviv’s graph above, temperatures have been trending in the opposite direction to, and largely outside of the IPCC’s “best estimate”, pretty much since 2005 – six years ago.
MattB can I ask – if they continue to do so over the next year, will you finally accept the IPCC was/is hopelessly wrong?
.
No – didn’t think so.
00
no of course not, but that’s because I’m not the one picking single points of data and crying wolf as though they represent a trend.
00
Maybe I could ask you again,– if over the next year Shaviv’s graph had the temps popping further out of range, would you continue to back the IPCC?
00
look if over a statistically significant period of time it became apparent that the IPCC science was wrong then I’d like to think I’d still back the IPCC, but an IPCC that has revised its predictions and made an effort to account for whatever was causing the cooling. It is no secret though that there are warming and cooling cycles, which in turn amplify and dampen the underlying warming trend.
00
Thank you for responding Matt.
I notice that you’ve changed the wording of both your question and mine, in that “if over the next year” has become, “if over a statistically significant period of time”. You then say that even if the IPCC is wrong, you will still back the IPCC and that you would expect the IPCC to revise its predictions down.
Do you think it likely that if the temps remain trending as they are, or even get lower, that the IPCC will produce a lower than low estimate of less than 1C per doubling of CO2 in the AR5?
Can you tell me what efforts the IPCC have made to account for whatever was/is causing the cooling, or at least the lack of heating?
00
well no, if it was just over the next year then no. That is why I put in what WOULD make me change opinion. I then say I back the IPCC to also change view as it is a credible assessment of the peer reviewed science, and if there is a credible change that is significant then it will be reflected in the peer-reivewed science and hence influence the IPCC’s assessment of the science.
I can’t answer the last two questions. The IPCC will assess the peer-reviewed science. sensitivity could be amended, or a greater understanding of what is (if it were) cooling the planet could lead to similar even increased CO2 sensitivity but with an acknowledgement of this new understanding of a cooling influence. WHo knows I’ve not got a crystal ball.
00
Matt, it’s easy to say what you think. You don’t need the IPCC’s or anyone else’s permission, nor do you need a crystal ball. I asked you, if you think it likely that if the temps remain trending as they are, or even get lower, that the IPCC will produce a lower than low estimate of less than 1C per doubling of CO2 in the AR5?
Maybe it would help if I went first. No, I don’t think the IPCC would ever contemplate lowering their low estimate. Why? Because it would then confirm what many sceptics were saying, i.e., a doubling of CO2 levels means two fifths of bugger all.
00
Actually MaxL my honest answer that I can’t tell you what the IPCC will do is more accurate than your conspiracy laden crackpot opinion:)
00
You really have GOT to be kidding, right?
The entire CAGW – global warming – climate change – global climate disruption scam is based on a single twenty year period of entirely predictable and predicted, natural, cyclical warming from 1978 to 1998.
This warming period followed a cooling period of around thirty years, which in turn followed a ~ 30 year warming period, and so on back to the LIA. This warming period is now giving way to a period of entirely predictable and predicted, natural, cyclical cooling that will last ~ 30 years.
Thus has been the cyclical nature of climate since we came out of the last glacial 10,000 years ago. In fact, if there is anything remarkable about this last, natural, cyclical warming period, it is that at only 20 years, it was remarkably SHORT.
And yet, you people have managed to take this single point of (unremarkable) data, and not only turned it into a trend, you have managed to escalate it to a full-blown, “end of the world as we know it” doomsday cult.
.
Crying wolf?
.
You cultists?
.
Never.
00
MV nearly every point of both of the temp measurements is within the IPCC estimates. Just what’s the problem here?
00
MattB
Who was it who wrote “the trend is everything”?
In Hansen’s graph, in Mann’s graph, and in the IPCC graph, the actual, observable, measured trend has been opposite to their predictions.
You know it.
I know it.
Anybody of workable intelligence who clicks on the graphs knows it.
.
Only a religious fanatic would continue the way you do in the face of the observed, measured evidence.
00
short term trend after a peak year. No one is denying that over shorter periods of time temp increases will be lower/higher than “trend”, or even negative depending on the non-CO2 influences.
00
Followed by:
So, the six years that the IPCC has been wrong is not going to change your mind because it’s “picking single points of data and crying wolf as though they represent a trend”.
And the 13 years that Mann has been wrong is not going to change your mind because it’s “picking single points of data and crying wolf as though they represent a trend”.
And the 23 years that Hansen has been wrong is not going to change your mind because it’s “picking single points of data and crying wolf as though they represent a trend”.
But you fully expect readers here to accept that Dr Shaviv is wrong if the data goes against his assumptions for just one year?
.
There is a Hebrew word for that kind of logic – chutzpah.
00
John:
So the scientists are “working away because of the possibility that global warming may be very, very bad for us.”
I like the infantilising tone of your comment – you obviously believe you are intellectually superior to the idiots and mosquitos working away without pay because of the possibility that global warming, apart from not being our fault, is actually quite beneficial for us.
You are right. They are working (they have cushy government funded jobs) because of the “possibility” (even if it’s a remote possibility supported only by their computer models) that global warming could be “very very bad for us”.
Let me ask you John, is “very very bad” worse than “very bad” which is in turn worse than “bad”.
If I were you I’d tone up the baby talk to “very very very bad” or “monumentally bad”, “incredibly bad”, “woefully bad” or “badder than bad”.
Don’t let the obvious fact that plants humans and animals have thrived in much warmer climates than we have today get in the way of your fear mongering garbage talk.
These people will have different, and sometimes contradictory ideas, and in due course the contradictions will be resolved.
The last thing these scientists need is an orchestrated campaign by a hotchpotch collection of nit pickers. A swarm of mosquitos contributing nothing except to annoy and slow down the real science. Which is their aim, of course.
00
MattB @ 34.4.1.1.1.1
So, actual observable, measurable data matters diddly-squat. If the IPCC was proved wrong (which it already has) you’d still back the IPCC.
So any further comment directed at you is a waste of time.
But they haven’t.
Sorry MattB, but up until the release of the “hide the decline” and Harry-read-me files in 2009, there WERE NO COOLING CYCLES. They had been expunged from history. Don’t you read Wikipedia? NO LIA and NO MWP.
You cultists refused to even accept there were warming and cooling cycles until they became so obvious and predominant that you had no choice.
If you want to debate this, below is a link to Mann’s “hockey stick graph”. Please feel free to print it out and circle in red the MWP and the LIA, and post a scan of the result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg
00
Here’s some good stuff that will have JB and MB smacking their chops.
It’s their hero James Hansen claiming the oceans will boil and we’ll really be a full sister planet of Venus.
Oh and yes we could lose the ice sheets within a hundred years.
Of course all the models show that Antarctica will be getting colder for the next 300 years. Pity about that for silly James.
This video is called BIG THINK, what a joke.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/quote-of-the-week-dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-unhinged/#more-54673
00
The never-ending disproving of the worst case scenario regarding climate change is sooooo tired.
IT HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT CLIMATE OR WEATHER …. IT’S ABOUT MURDERING THE WESTERN INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND TAKING OUT FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ….. IE control and subjugation of the world by a handful of elite families and their enablers. the politicians.
Only the foot soldiers, the fund raisers, the hippies, the Gaia freaks, the professional protesters believe this crap. Their leaders, the politicians, the bankers, the opportunistic and criminal green corporations all know that this is nothing but snake oil, but it’s a great opportunity to rob the ‘stupid’ populace.
00