Fu and Manabe agree the hot spot is missing
GRL June 2011.
Yet another study hunted for a form of the missing hot spot– and again the results show the models are unable to make useful predictions.
The upward rising trend predicted in the models is of critical importance. The models assume that the 1.1 degrees of warming directly due to CO2 will be tripled by feedbacks from humidity and water vapor. Studies like Fu and Manabe are looking to see if the assumptions built into the models are right. If relative humidity stays constant above the tropics throughout the troposphere, we should see the upper troposphere warm faster than the surface.
Fu and Manabe used satellite data rather than weather balloons, and compared the tropical upper troposphere to the lower middle troposphere during 1979 – 2010. (Other papers I’ve written about compared the upper troposphere to the surface, and mainly used weather balloons.)
“One of the striking features in GCM‐predicted climate
change due to the increase of greenhouse gases is the much
enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere”
Satellites cannot separate out the altitudes at narrow resolutions, as the radiosondes can, but they produce reliable data around the entire globe. In this test of the models predictive ability, we should have seen the upper troposphere warm faster than we did. Indeed while the difference in trends was positive, it was so weakly positive as to be not significantly different. In other words, we can’t be sure that the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower-middle area, though it might be. Even if it is warming, it just isn’t doing it enough to verify the models.
Given that the IPCC don’t seem to be in a rush to acknowledge the discrepancies between models and observations (heck, they were discovered by the mid-90’s), this is what “90% likely to be right” looks like:
36 different models are compared with satellite data. Reality is seemingly not what the models thought it ought to be.
The trends of T24‐T2LT from both observations and models are all positive (Figure 2, below), indicating that the tropical upper‐middle troposphere is warming faster than lower middle troposphere [Fu and Johanson, 2005]. But the positive trends are only about 0.014 ± 0.017 K/decade from RSS and 0.005 ± 0.016 K/decade from UAH, which are not significantly different from zero. In contrast, the T24‐T2LT trend from multi‐model ensemble mean is 0.051 ± 0.007 K/decade, which is significantly larger than zero. The trends from observations and multi‐model ensemble mean do not fall within each other’s 95% confidence intervals…
The black line is the model prediction but the red and blue lines are the RSS and UAH trend lines.
Maybe the satellites are wrong and not the models:
This indicates possible common errors among GCMs although we cannot exclude the possibility that the discrepancy
between models and observations is partly caused by biases in satellite data.
But remember that 28 million radiosondes have found similar discrepancies with the models in the tropical upper troposphere.
If millions of radiosondes and 30 years of satellite data are both biased, then the models could be right.
Conclusion:
IPCC AR4 GCMs overestimate the warming in the tropics for 1979–2010, which is partly responsible for the
larger T24‐T2LT trends in GCMs. It is found that the discrepancy between model and observations is also caused by
the trend ratio of T24 to T2LT, which is ∼1.2 from models but ∼1.1 from observations. While strong observational evidence
indicates that tropical deep‐layer troposphere warms faster than surface, [note we don’t name any…] this study suggests that the AR4 GCMs may exaggerate the increase in static stability between tropical middle and upper troposphere in the last three
decades. In view of the importance of the enhanced tropical upper tropospheric warming to the climate sensitivity and to
the change of atmospheric circulations, it is critically important to understand the causes responsible for the discrepancy
between the models and observations.
——————————————–
Extra information:
The post that will put this in perspective best is The models are wrong (but only by 400%). (McKitrick et al 2010)
The missing hotspot (What they expected to find, and what the weatherballoons didn’t show)
Found: the hot spot? Not (This has been a long running search).
Even gurus of warming admit the hot spot went missing.
Other useful posts are: Thorne 2010: A very incomplete history of the missing hot spot
see also Dessler 2010: How to call vast amounts of data “spurious”
For other perspectives:
Roger Pielke discussed this in July, as did Jeff ID on the air vent a few weeks ago.
REFERENCE
Fu, Q., S. Manabe, and C. Johanson (2011), On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101. [PDF]
Another nail in the IPCC coffin, we’re gonna need more wood!
Hotspots are a computer generated fiction, alarmist programmers and climatologists – just like Hollywood film makers have used their medium to further their propaganda so too, alarmists have used computers to perpetrate and augment their fantasy driven postulations.
Hotspots, are an integral part of the alarmist AGW hypothesis, thus, no hypothetical hotspot = null AGW.
20
QUESTION 1:
What is 9×3?
Answers from Models:
Model A: 33
Model B: 31
Model C: 22
Model D: 32
Model E: 19
Model F: 23
Model G: 29
Multi Model ensemble mean = 27
The answer to what is 9×3? is 27…. THE MODELS ARE PERFECT.
QUESTION 2:
Which of the above models is correct?
20
It’s not just the”hot spot” that’s missing. Warming has also gone AWOL over the last decade, and there’s the little matter of Trenberth’s “missing heat”. Combined, these are the “Inconvenient Truth”. In Normal Science, if evidence supporting an hypothesis is unclear or absent, the theory is re-examined and if found to be wanting, discarded. In Post-Normal Science, the measuring system (in this case radio-sonde thermometers) is instantly seized upon and discredited, and the hypothesis is defended and lives on without supporting evidence.
It seems that thermometers which are calibrated and accurate to 0.1°C at the surface somehow cannot detect a difference of 0.5°C at a few km up. It also seems that thermometers in 3000 ARGO floats have somehow failed to spot the “missing heat” which has somehow snuck past them into the deep ocean.
This is truly Orwellian science – I can understand, though obviously not condone, the bending of facts or data to support a theory, but to bend a lack of both facts and data into supporting evidence is breathtaking.
20
If scientists were required to minimize qualifiers and caveats – or not to publish until they could do so! – so that “may”, “could be”, “should” were replaced by “does”, “must be” and “will”, we would have testable statements. The IPCC would then be forced to deal with papers like this, and, more importantly, researchers such as noted here would be forced to take a stand with their work.
These guys are walking along a cliff-edge and they know it. After 23 years of alarm and predictions we still have no solid evidence to support CAGW – or even AGW. The battle the warmists are now waging is one of degree: the models may be wrong in saying how fast the catastrophe STARTS, but they are right in that it will happen. We could still be having this fight in 2020 if they play it right.
It will probably take the new generation of climate researchers who see career growth in overthrowing their well-intentioned but off-track professors. Perhaps Michael Mann will have a son who expands on his Dad’s work and comes to the opposite conclusion through more data, while explaining that Dad just didn’t have enough good data to work with to see what was really going on. Like good enough ARGO floats to take the temp of the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
30
Waait now let me see if I have this right;
We know there is warming because we can prove it by torturing historic surface temperatures.
We further know the warming is unprecedented and really bad because we have models that demonstrate that.
Yet today, using state of the art real time measurements we can’t find what the theory says should be happening?
Oh I forgot it’s hiding somewhere………….
10
Hi,
any one of you possessing a subcription to nature journal?
If so, please look here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7170/full/450617a.html. You can look at the picture for free.
New datas from Venus show absolutely no greenhouse effect!
If you are able to read german, look here: http://community.zeit.de/user/observator/beitrag/2008/02/07/venusatmosphaere-widerlegt-treibhaushypothese
People who knew this and published about earlier:
http://www.whiteworld.com/technoland/stories-nonfic/2008-stories/Venus-temp.htm
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
happy nailing
JuergenK
10
Hi Jürgen, Thanks, especially for the ZEIT link!
As they (the Grimms) said: Die Sonne bringt es an den Tag!
Regards,
Mike
PS there’s a new ‘Earthside’ post on my blogsite.
10
What caught my eye was the first figure (labelled fig.2) above.
The model that’s closest to UAH and RSS is the Australian CSIRO model Mk 3.0
That model was ‘improved upon’ by the release of model Mk 3.5 But as we can see, Mk 3.5 is not as good as 3.0 in simulating the hot spot. (just above Mk 3.0 in the figure)
I just happened to have the technical notes on both these models, (took me a while to locate the right USB key) here are some interesting extracts…(all boldings are mine)
So Mk 3.0 has a SST cooling trend but is close to getting the hot spot right, whereas the Mk 3.5 has a slight warming trend but is way off the mark regards the hot spot.
What is that ‘note 1’?
In other words, when our model doesn’t match observations, we introduce an INTERACTIVE AEROSOL TREATMENT better known as a FUDGE FACTOR.
What do modellers themselves say about their models? here is H B Gordon himself in the 2002 Mk 3.0 technical report…
Fudge factors are not desirable ha? fancy that!
But note how the boffins wish to eliminate fudge factors in developing Model Mk 3.0, but by the time they get to Model Mk 3.6 they need to re-introduce these fudge factors. Speechless I am.
In other words, works in progress. The world of climate modelling is still in a DEVELOPMENT PATH and is far from being developed enough to simulate reality.
As I tried to exemplify in my comment at #2, an ensemble mean of models may give you an answer close to what you’re looking for, but that doesn’t mean any of the models are right, they could all be wrong, they certainly can’t all be right.
Our friend Richard S Courtney has been telling us this for as long as I can remember.
Any commentor who cites a model study as evidence henceforth will be derided accordingly.
This is the link to the 3.0 technical report
This is the link to the 3.5 technical report
A graph showing the differences in SSTs between the 2 models is on page 21 of the 2nd link.
20
Can humans get any more stupid?
10
JuergenK: #6
October 3rd, 2011 at 3:42 am edit
No, but vi haf vays to access papers
This is the paper placed on line by Caltech
Enjoy with compliments
10
Modeling is a legitimate tool to be used by engineers in attempting to understand complex systems where there are many unknowns.
That it has been abused and used to misrepresent Global CO2 Based Warming is beyond doubt.
In order to maintain the fantasy of Man Made Global Warming Guilt, many distortions of science have been carried out and embedded in the AGW Models.
That modeling in this issue continues to have any public credibility is beyond belief but understandable given the Human Capacity for self deception through Group Think.
10
Hi Humbug, Baa! Thanks for brilliant resumé!
K.R: Frank
sorry frank, your comments were caught in the spam filter for some unknown reason. I’ve released this one, the others are copies.of this. [Mod oggi]
10
“Is there a greenhouse effect on Venus” is a question I posted on my blogsite, asking phycists who might look in to shed light on it.
Two replies quoted there, links repeated here:
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=4745
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
I confess that I don’t understand the physics quoted there; one e-mail contact wrote that a meaningful Earth average temperature can only be measured 3 miles (4.5km) up, surface temeperatures however measured could never be taken as an average, again to do with density distribution of the atmosphere throughout its height of about 100km.
WHEN…. Oliver Morton is advising us that some “4000 trillion kWh of sunshine hit the Earth’s atmosphere every 24 hours”, and Cern, using 1920s type methods, trumpeting its confirmation of the effect of cosmic rays on clouds (long described in “THE CHILLING STARS – A Cosmic View of Climate Change” [Icon Books Ltd, UK 2008] by Henrik Svensmark & Nigel Calder); and when I read in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010, Otto Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, saying “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say clearly that de facto we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.” And when one realises that there is not a single ClimateModel in existence anywhere on Earth (or it could convincingly replay the Roman Warm Period followed by the cold Dark Ages followed by the Medieval Warm Period followed by the Little Ica Age backwards and forwards)rather than incomplete computer games, (all of which takes no rocket science to fathom),
THEN…. why are we let ‘them’ still sidetrack us from facing the world’s real problems?
10
We should stick to “iap fgoals 1.0 g”; that seems to cover all the bases.
10
9Baa Humbug:
October 3rd, 2011 at 6:20 am
“No, but vi haf vays to access papers”
Love your German accent! 😉
10
DirkH: #14
October 3rd, 2011 at 6:55 am
It’s not the best. If I was a native, I would have sounded more like this…..
🙂
10
L Michael Hohmann: #13
October 3rd, 2011 at 6:49 am
In your first link you cite a peer reviewed paper which is behind a paywall.
I gained a lot of experience in accessing papers whilst taking part in the IPCC Audit organized by Donna Lafromboise in which I audited about a quarter of the 42 chapters of the IPCC AR4 report.
This involved chasing up literally thousands of cites to papers as listed in the AR4s references pages.
Your paper is available from the University College of Dublin in pdf form
10
Wait for it! I predict one of 2 things will happen.
(a)IPCC will find some pretext to ignore these results OR
(b) Mike Mann will come to the rescue with some innovative statistical, ‘post modern’ adjustment of the data.
10
[…] This is 90% certainty? Really? (Yet another paper shows the hot-spot is missing.) […]
10
Maybe that sneaky elusive hot spot in the Troposphere snuck out the hole in the Statosphere?
Hole in ozone forms above Arctic
10
Lansner, Frank: #11
October 3rd, 2011 at 6:43 am
Hi frank. Long time no chat, good to hear from you.
Actually your arrival is very timely. I found a new site that you will be interested in. (climate data for modellers)
Contact me via jonova support email and I’ll give you details to register yourself or I’ll give you my user name and password.
Keep up the wonderful work you’re doing at HidetheDecline
10
I fear the catastrafarians will claim that the mssing heat is due to one or all of the following:
1) Not enough funding
2) The evil warming is waiting somewhere to ambush us
3) Theheat got consumed by the Japan quake due to the squillions of degrees of heat just a couple of kilometres under our feet
4) The Icelandic volcano (I am not gonna try and spell it)
5) It’s all Tony Abbots fault!
Or my favourite – the chicago climate change eliminated it all!
10
Or maybe Juliar Guilleards promise of a carbon tax scared the heat away?
10
Following on from McKitrick 2010 and Fu 2011 is McKitrick 2011 which finds that whatever THS warming has occurred is largely due to the 1977 climate shift and the step in temperatures which occurred at that time; see discussion here:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/new-paper-under-discussion-on-multi-decadal-tropical-tropospheric-temperature-trends-by-ross-mckitrick-and-timothy-vogelsang/
Of course Stockwell noted this in his “Break” paper from 2009:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
10
No points for originality but:
We seek heat here, we seek heat there,
Those guys seek heat everywhere.
Is heat in heaven?—Is heat in
helldeep ocean?That demmed, elusive
Pimpernelmissing heat10
yet more proof that AGW cannot find its hot-spot…
10
The best comment about climate models I have read from a person that actually uses computer models to do very real things.
Also, a published paper showing how the climate computer models of the IPCC violate a large number of established forecasting principles.
A good and understandable explanation of the physics behind what actually drives atmospheric temperatures. I must commend the owner of that site. Despite being a rabid CAGW proponent, he does allow unfettered and uncensored discussions on his blog. Maybe he just doesn’t bother reading the comments …
10
From one of the excerpts quoted in Baa Humbug’s excellent post:
“Global models of the climate system of the world are an important tool in
climate research, and are probably the only way to investigate the highly non-linear interactions between the four major components of the climate system – the atmosphere, biosphere, oceans and sea-ice.” (my emphasis)
The right way to “investigate” these things, apparently, is to ignore the real-world measurements and concoct some new ones that conform better to the original theory.
10
Climate models are perfectly consistent.
They are completely wrong all the time. It has to do with the scarcity of knowledge, fantastic complexity and infinite variability of the thing modeled.
But please don’t give me a Nobel or an honorary doctorate for pointing it out. An aphid sucking on my lemonade tree could have told you that.
10
Jo. O/T (or is it)?
An extraordinary story unfolding at WUWT under the title “Thanks to Michael Mann’s response, a newspaper censors a letter to the editor ex post facto”.
In response to an attack on him in an article five days earlier, Dr Martin Herzberg had a Letter to the Editor published in the Daily Vail in which he succinctly set out the arguments against the AGW scam, which included details of the discredited Mann “hockeystick”.
Michael Mann responded next day and so began the saga of the disappearing, reappearing versions of the Herzberg letter in edited, paragraphs deleted and altered words form, all without acknowledgemnt that such editing, alteration or revision had been done.
It apppears that having been able to subvert the peer-review and publication of scientific papers processes, members of the AGW hockey team can now subvert freedom of speech in even the humble forums of Letters to the Editor!
10
I think that the clincher may well not be the hot-spot at all, but the tropopause. On the AR4 hot-spot diagram the tropopause is shown considerably higher (~50%) than on the observational diagram. I remember reading some time ago (no links or references – I apologise) that the “hot-spot” is unphysical, as the adiabatic lapse rate would be (more or less) maintained, and therefore that any warming effect at altitude would be “smoothed out”, resulting in a raised tropopause. AR4 shows both hot spot and raised tropopause.
Radio-sondes show the 0.7°C (or so) drop across the tropopause well enough, so they should show the 0.5-0.7°C increase across the hot-spot equally well, if it exists. What they do show is no hot-spot, and no elevation of the tropopause either. Game, set and match, I suggest.
10
Missing hotspot? Don’t be complacent, there’s warming in the pipeline.
Better get some Free Carbon Offsets
Just click on the certificate link, fill out the form, click go, and within seconds you will have a beautiful personalized certificate downloaded right to your computer.
http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com/genCert.do
You’ll be glad that you did.
10
Picky I know but why drop Johanson?
Suggest: Fu, Manabe [and Johanson] agree the hot spot is missing.
10
Baa Humbug @7
How can the CSIRO keep a straight face when they refine their models significantly AWAY from observations? Isn’t the whole point of refining a computer simulation to add in previously unrecognized factors influencing results so as to direct the models to MORE CLOSELY approximate reality? You have really hit that nail well and truly on the head with your excellent post, and in one telling observation shown the CSIRO to be at the very least a shadow of its former glory. Well done, sir!
10
Oh dear will the GRL be getting another letter from the hockey team.Will another editor find he has much more important work to do elsewhere.
Is John McLean having a quite laugh
10
Amazing story on the Ozone layer, surely 300 scientists can’t be that wrong?
It was all fixed one year ago, but now its shifted over the Arctic, let’s hope the climate modeling scientists have better luck than the luckless 300.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/their_climate_models_are_better_im_sure/#commentsmore
10
mosomoso: #28
No. no. no. You are totally and utterly wrong! The models are right all of the time, and in every circumstance. It is the planet that is wrong. It is inherently unstable, which is why the models only appear to be wrong, but it is that instability that is going to create all of the storms, and fry the penguins, and cause a plague of patagonian lungfish. And we are all going to die because we were ignorant enough to believe that models could lie.
Ha, I feel much better now …
10
Ba Humbug: #36
I will second that. I have had occasion to interact with individuals in the CSIRO on several occasions, and every time they have gone out of their way to make sure that I understood the underlying principles, as well as the facts I was requesting.
The same goes for NIWA in New Zealand, and I have tremendous respect for John Morgan.
Both organisations need to sack their PR wonks though, IMHO
10
Because even unapologetic (snip)s can be quoting and linking to actual articles? Is this some sort of rhetorical question?
10
Australian federal labor MP Craig thompson quit now & vote down carbon tax !!!
http://www.thomsonquitnow.com/page/page/8298022.htm
Send him your thoughts !!
10
Sorry Jo I should have put ‘unapologetic liar’ in inverted commas for our dogmatic friend here. What he makes of PM Gillard’s promises on carbon taxes I shudder to think.
10
Missing hotspot? No, it’s not missing at all.
Flim Flammery has already found a hotspot and he’s dug himself right in.
The only hot thing missing is Geodynamics’ spot price.
Ironically, within days of Bolt’s reminder to the masses the GDY stock shot up 173% to about 40 cents/share. By contrast an announcement on 20 April of the completed drilling of a test well produced only a 2 cent jump, which was short lived. Even the carbon tax package announcement on 28 July did absolutely nothing in the minds of investors to halt the stock’s steady decline in market value. Were it not for the fiat value of Renewable Energy Certificates and the regular injections of $17 million a year from Big Coal and Big Gas (since 2003) one wonders whether Geodynamics would have sunk like a stone by now. Let that market evidence sink in for a moment. Their recent jumps in price have been disconnected from carbon climate control events and are likely to be opinionated short term speculation. The big players like Origin Energy surely recognise that Geodynamics is sitting on an energy resource which will become competitive to exploit at some point in the future regardless of any carbon tax.
You’ve gotta feel sorry for the Flimster. It’s difficult to be seen to be objective about a problem that may not even exist when you’ve already invested in a solution. But in a way it’s a kind of double standard in capitalism. Imagine that in today’s society a VC believes there’s a market for a nationwide burger chain that offers hamburgers less toxic than McDonald’s for a higher price, and so aside from beginning to build the chain of BetterBurger™ stores, they also begin a PR campaign to tell everyone the awfulness of McDonalds’ food. You might question whether McDonalds was really poisoning the nation based on the Gross National Gut’s ability to absorb modest amounts of Mickey D’s. You probably would not question the campaign organiser’s massive investment in the new company since it would be fair for people who attempt to solve a problem to profit from doing so.
Similarly, deriding Flim Flammery for personally having some skin in the game, as I have done above, is a trendy smear which is fun to do but it is out of order with the way we treat every other investor in the West. If BetterBurger™ is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, they go broke, the VC was merely mistaken, and the PR campaign would be interpreted as the kind of exaggeration which is permitted every day on television and every 3 years at election time. Our economy subsists on profitable fictions. I tentatively suggest there is a separate systemic problem there.
The assertion that Doctor Flim Flammery’s Hot Rock Energy Pills are the way of the future is no less credible than the assertion that Cold Rock’s Ice Cream With Smashed Smarties is worth buying. Personally I can’t see much value in their ice cream and wouldn’t buy it. The market majority surely disagree with me because Cold Rock as a franchise is still opening new stores. But Cold Rock are at the end of the supply chain and the only ripple effect they have is the raspberry type. Cold Rock have to succeed on their own popular merit. Cold Rock never got their major investor into a government position capable of imposing a tax onto the ice-cream market inflating the cost of any products that don’t smash Smarties and incidentally raising the price of every other service in the economy. I think that’s a significant difference from Flim Flam and that is a fair basis for the perceived bias and hence derision.
10
Did the people who concocted GCMs that defy observational data seriously think people with an IQ above 80 wouldn’t eventually notice?
10
Tom – being “morally superior” lefties they believe that they are the only ones with an IQ over 80.
10
An Inconvenient Truth… the models don’t match observations.
10
Well that is nice.
Now I will have to update my layman’s report on this topic at my forum.To show that another published science paper could not find the “hot spot” either.
Good find!
10
Lets be perfectly clear ™: The hippies are not ‘biased’: they are, as a matter of long-standing fact, liars.
The difference is this: they have been told (shown in detail) their work is incorrect, and yet explicitly refused to correct it. Under this condition, ‘bias’ is not the correct concept. Point.
Continuing use of the word ‘bias’ grants the hippies (aka ‘scientists’) benefit of the doubt, which has become an unsupportable position. Point.
Pretty please, pick another word_concept: liar is the most accurate. Proven-to-be-Corrupt-and-Fraudulent being a close second.
The truth is a beautiful thing: avoiding it for the sake of ‘pleasant discussions’ is ultimately self-destructive, since the hippies are natural-born-liars; and avoiding truth (OR endlessly delaying its apprehension) is in fact exactly that which the hippies are working towards.
Stalin and Mao were also hippies (socialist humanist technocrats), and they killed very many: the reason for that action being the simple power truth has to destroy nonsense in the minds of men.
So let me be perfectly clear, yet again (tm #2): You’all cannot expect the general population to summarily reject AGW. The Motive is ideology (watermelons), but the MEANS is lying; or corruption-and-fraud.
You’all should face up to the fact that ”Science is Dead”: murdered by the advent of the hippies. (When some body of knowledge and work has arisen that at its heart stands in opposition of fact, logic and reason, that body must be rejected.)
To do otherwise is to promulgate madness: ‘science’ MAY NOT trump reason, MAY NOT trump logic, and MAY NOT trump fact. Point. Point. Point.
Tootles.
10
Hey John congrats mate, your comment may be the first one to be hidden under the new blog conditions hahaha.
Actually, on my browser, your comment looks like it’s cloudy or hazey, how fitting lol
Now if only I could get you out into the cleansing light.
JOHN!!! CAN YOU SEE THE LIGHT?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX5tfRdkoY0
10
My entire life I have chased the hot spot, the sweet spot and the G spot. All of these I have found to be some what less than scientific in their presentation, and more faith based than a reality.
Recently I have found profit in unicorn farming, and the internet sales have been spectacular.
The money I was making from carbon trading I found hard on my soul as it was a total scam.
I sleep better at night now that I have a legitimate unicorn farm.
The time is rapidly approaching when all this carbon crap will fall in heap and the shysters will fade into the back ground, every week for months a real study has been released that puts paid to these useful idiots theories.
One can only hope that the bloggers of the world have saved enough screen captures of the reality to nail the leading buggers.
20
The CAGW movement has no Hotspot, but they have a Hothead.
Michael ‘H’ Mann. H for Hockeystick.
10
Just thought you folks might be interested that bird breeding/nesting/laying in SE Australia (using real but, as yet, unpublished data) this year are much LATER than average. Cooling has begun.
10
The chart is hard to read, needs enlarging.
But the real ballbuster is in this science report:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf
Will the AGWers eat their climate predictions then? Naw they will just blame it on the sun!
10
Careful Jr., don’t get do ambitious!
10
Even when the data show that the models’ predictions ARE different from observations, the conclusion is that the models MAY be off.
Scientists should be required to make declaritive statements, i.e. “This is what I conclude”. Then the statements can be compared to future work.
All these conditionals! May, could, might, should! We will be taxed and regulated to death from the words of the mealy-mouthed.
If you haven’t got something difinitive, something that is predictive, you have nothing to add to the conversation other than swirling noise. We are in a world in which we need to know what to do, not one in which we need to know what might be done, could be done, may be done. If our knowledge is so uncertain and unsettled (as it appears to be) we need at least predictive comments so that, over time, we reduce our potential actions to those that are both effective and necessary.
The IPCC grunts fight to maintain “scenarios” instead of predictions, because you cannot be wrong, you cannot be held accountable for error, you cannot have mislead if you never say X is the outcome, when the daylight reveals Y.
The warmists say you cannot cross a chasm with a series of small jumps. True, but I’d like to know that there is a chasm in front of me to begin with.
10
[…] and deniers deny the evidence. But in Oct 2012, two atmospheric scientists were reporting, yet again, the models are wrong. Twenty years after we started looking for the fingerprint of the […]
10
🙂
Humankind progresses by lots of tiny steps, punctuated by huge leaps in the other direction.
You build a bridge in tiny steps . In the meantime, you might find there’s another way around.
Tiny steps are what protect us from the worst excesses of rampant politicians.
10