This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.
John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.
Scores of models, millions of data-points, more CO2 emitted than ever before, and the models crash and burn. | Graph: John Christy. Data: KMNI.
Don’t underestimate the importance of the blue-green circles and squares that mark the “observations”. These are millions of radiosondes, and two independent satellite records. They agree. There is no wiggle room, no overlap.
Any sane modeler can only ask: “But how can the climate modelers pretend their models are working?” Afterall, predicting the known past with a model is not-too-hard; the modeler tweaks the assumptions, fiddles with the fudge factors, and adjusts until the lines mostly fit. Yet the best models of 2013 are not even adjusted to fit the best data, during the peak phase of emissions and the warmest period.
Presumably the modelers must be convinced that this is noise, a temporary deviation, and that the warming will come. Is there any other word for this than denial? (Prof Matthew England on The Science Show says: “Change is actually completely in line with projections and consistent with projections that go out to three, four, five degrees Celsius warming by the end of the century. The last three decades have been closer to 0.2 degrees Celsius warming, so I contest that 0.1 anyway.“) He still won’t admit the models of 1990 categorically failed, let alone the modern “super” versions.
Roy Spencer lays it out:
In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.
As David Evans and I have been pointing out since mid 2008, the main reason the models fail is because of assumptions about water vapor. The hot spot is missing.
“The lack of a tropical upper tropospheric hotspot in the observations is the main reason for the disconnect in the above plots, and as I have been pointing out this is probably rooted in differences in water vapor feedback. The models exhibit strongly positive water vapor feedback, which ends up causing a strong upper tropospheric warming response (the “hot spot”), while the observation’s lack of a hot spot would be consistent with little water vapor feedback.” — Roy Spencer
Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change. For years the modelers have maintained that there is no such thing as natural climate change…yet they now, ironically, have to invoke natural climate forces to explain why surface warming has essentially stopped in the last 15 years! — Roy Spencer
I did a post a few days updating the climate bet based on decades commencing Jan 2001and Jan 2011. The current decade is tracking a little cooler, 0.06 C cooler so far. http://www.kiwithinker.com/2013/05/the_decadal_global_climate_bet/
70
But isn’t Matthew England now a Professor & Laureate Fellow, at the Centre of Excellence in Climate Science ?
The names they give themselves. He certainly excels at something. Brazen barefaced : The Sky IS falling, no it really IS. Now move along there before anyone notices.
331
In 1986 the Hawke government put their own brand of “political scientists” in charge of the real scientists at the CSIRO. We can now see that the AGW scam was the purpose of that action. Matthew England’s various appointments would seem to be part of that program.
10
I like these climate modelers … they make us economists look like we know what we’re doing.
550
I know most economics models are pretty poor, but there is genuine competition in economic forecasting. For decades the Economist has looked at the forecasts. Latest is here. There is some kudos for getting the most accurate forecasts.
In climatology there is every attempt to enforce a monopoly consensus and to stop retrospective checking of results.
180
If these climate scientists knew what they were talking about, you’d only need one!
Apologies to the late Rob Muldoon….
71
Yes, indeed. The great thing about this is that one does not have to be a “climate scientist” to argue the point which is one of the “climate scientists” main ongoing defences: “You are not a climate scientist”. One could destroy the theory of relativity without knowing a thing about tensors, Hilbert or Minkowski mathematics. All one has to do is send a signal faster than c. The above graph is the climate science equivalent of “>c”. Game over. Isn’t the scientific method wonderful?
Score:
Climastrologers:0
Einstein:1
131
Well actually …
In ancient times (before the WWW), while discussing the state of SRT (Special Relativity Theory) on USENET, I’ve had Relativists with PhDs tell me (apparently seriously) that “Since SRT is a mathematical theorem, it doesn’t matter whether there is any evidence for it or not.”
Perhaps “Climate Science” is similar.
10
How many more times does this grizzled old engineer who has measured coupled convection and radiation in metallurgical plants around the World have to state the bleedin’ obvious.
The Trenberth energy balance exaggerates lower atmosphere IR energy absorption by up to 6.85 times and there is net zero absorption of ~15 micron CO2 energy. This is then offset in hind casting by using double real low level cloud optical depth. It’s a scam by the ignorant, now supported by the fraudulent and the stupid.
As for the ‘OLR bite’ heating, that is exactly offset by a lower atmosphere process that easy to work out if you have the right physics’ knowledge.
The atmosphere oscillates about the set point OLR = SW IN and there can be no CO2-AGW because that’s the working fluid of the heat engine.
As for ‘back radiation’, a part of climate alchemy that is supposed to explain its anti-science, it does not exist as any competent professional taught Maxwell’s Equations knows from 2nd year degree level. Yet it’s taught as fact in Meteorology and Climate Sciences.
What must be done is for all these curriculae to externally approved so these people can’t continue teaching this new Lysenkoism. Yes, it’s as serious as that because this anti-science is permeating into the rest of science.
sarc> In the UK, physics academics are starting to give exercises to students to devise ‘reverse heat engines’ so they can put a ‘back radiation’ collector on car roofs to collect that everlasting power </sarc
132
The sun has been trying hard to solve the problem for the modelers but it looks like going off the top of the TSI charts is just not enough.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
80
Oh boy, Leif Svalgaard is not going to like this graph
At WUWT he keeps trying to tell everyone TSI is constant and a bunch of scientists got together to ‘Adjust’ the sunspot data to make sure it is so….
40
gai. There are good reasons to suspect that graph is an UNDERESTIMATE of the TSI variation in the past. This is due to changes in the methods of counting sunspots over the years.
20
Astounding.
The models are not just 97% wrong, as Cook and Oreskes unwittingly assert. They now appear to be 100% wrong.
261
97 percent of brainless zombies still believe that those climate models can accurately predict the future.
243
Jo,
98% of science is pure utter bull crap.
Climate models are based solely on temperature data that has been gathered for a few hundred years out of 4.5 billion years.
Temperature itself has not been investigated and is only a very small outcome of many processes going on as the current scientists have just been following the temperature data and imposing a prediction of extending the graphs.
Surface salt changes play a huge role in evaporation distributions.
Water distribution on the planets surface effects heat absorption, storage and release on land but water reflects much of this due to the molecular makeup of it being ice in space.
The balance of pressure over water holds water vapor from fully turning into vapor in a warm environment.
Our atmosphere is bent which effects the suns rays on a rotating orb.
The slower the planet speed, the more focal the rays become as friction is always in play.
NASA and our education system relies totally by government support and have created this bubble of self-supporting of our current scientists to their own focal groups in a peer-review system.
Any outsider is totally ignored instead of encouraged to bring forth new ideas and discoveries.
163
Perhaps Mr Spencer and Mr Braswell should have a quick look at 14,000 ft here.
http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/
10
But Jo, surely these aren’t the best models. I mean, we’ve been working on them for maybe 40 years.You remember; cover of Time and all that. Doesn’t seem that long really.
This chap was way in front: http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/slartibartfast
Not to mention the mice.
Jokes aside. Is there any way to model something as complex as the climate of a planet? Any planet? Well, we can, it seems. The model actually exists! You can see it from your window, every day!
How cool is that?
Not sure about those predictions, though. Still a bit to work on, it seems.
71
So , climate models don’t reflect reality. I wonder why.
Perhaps it’s because modellers (and climate scientists [snigger snigger]) take it as given that addition of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause (some) warming.
This chart from C3 headlines says otherwise.
Burning question: Is it possible to retrieve money flushed down the toilet?
190
“Burning question: Is it possible to retrieve money flushed down the toilet?”
Yes but it costs more than the retrieved money is worth. Money spent chasing a phantasm is rather like entropy. Once the quality of energy has fallen into that vast entropy pool, you can do no useful work with it. It takes still more energy to overcome the loss.
141
Yes, but often times a considerable amount more must be flushed down before it is economically feasible to start the retrieval.
(There is an ethnic joke that has Sven throwing dollar bills one at a time down the outhouse (privy) hole. Ole seeing this, asked: “What on earth are you doing Sven!” Sven’s reply: “You don’t think I’m climbing down there for just the one dollar that fell in first do ya?”
70
Baa Humbug, that is an OUTSTANDING graphic! Beyond no actual evidence at all of CO2 causing temperature change, what really casts doubt on the notion that CO2 has ANY effect on temps is the graphic you present. Clear as day. No change at all in the rate of temperature change despite CO2 having risen to “dangerous” levels.
Even many skeptics hold to the line that it is indisputable “established science” that CO2 has a direct greenhouse effect (GHE) of at least 1°C per doubling, and that it is only the feedbacks that are in question. But the chart you present clearly shows that the whole 9-yards should be in question. Barring all kinds of possible epicycle style explanations, the chart shows CO2 hasn’t done squat. CO2 has done… nothing.
As it is, there’s no empirical evidence that CO2 causes temp change: all that the warmists can point to is a theoretical model, but there are other theoretical models that maintain that CO2 won’t cause any temp change, for example, the one that posits that there is effectively no more GHE after 200ppm.
I saved that C3 link you gave as a favorite. We all should do the same.
100
Nice graph.
It does not to my (lay) mind nullify the CO2 greenhouse effect as it can be argued that, as is well known, the direct effect diminishes logarithmically with increased concentration.
However it does seem to show that the cumulative effect of CO2 + feedbacks is negligible — that feedbacks may be negative.
60
Could it also show that some other effect like cosmic ray cloud albedo modulation is far far stronger? Give it a while and the flat line may be heading down fast.
30
These things have never been Models.
They are computer simulations.
Models by definition must reflect real life interaction of factors:ie CO2 levels and World Temperatures must be linked by the model.
This has NEVER been done.
KK
150
Another of the endless examples of the “progressives” pretending that the name of a thing makes the thing. For them, the name IS the thing and reality is an unknowable piffle. They believe reality can be safely ignored as long as they don’t think about it.
To that I say, “Don’t think of a grey horse.” Interestingly, that command cannot be obeyed. The act of understanding the command instantly causes its violation.
110
Exactly KK,
100% of models have predicted 0% reality
What I can’t understand is why 97% of Climate scientists are right when 73 out of 73 models are wrong.
280
That is a good question that gets to the nub of the matter: Climate Science was not really a separate branch of science when it first started. It was made up from a loose collection of Astrophysicists, Chemists, Climatologists, Hydrologists, Meteorologists, Physicists, Sociologists, Statisticians, Technologists, et al.
The one thing they all had in common is that they knew how to drive Mathcad, and how to produce pretty graphs that would impress Journalists and Politicians, and those in the “softer” sciences that did not know how to drive Mathcad.
Unfortunately, what they discovered was that only 3% of these new “Climate Scientists” actually understood how to really drive Mathcad, and these smartipants kept on getting the wrong answers when compared to the rest.
And that is where the 97% figure comes from, when none of the models can get the answers “right”. 😉
90
This demonstrates why the “climate change” publicity is such a public relations disaster. If the climate models predictions had even got within spitting of the actual temperatures we would be hearing about. There are legions of
public relations consultantspropagandists who would be falling over themselves to exaggerate even the most trivial success. If the climate models had strong predictive ability, scientists would be happy for there to be independent checks of the data, or for letting alternative opinions to be funded and voiced. Further, they would be proclaiming how they were building on the best traditions of science.Instead, they build walls of name-calling, false accusations, prejudice and blocking access to criticism.
190
(Your best comment in a long time) CTS
012
Mid-troposphere, 20S to 20N. Why is that region picked out I ask, wondering why
I’d have to do so on a site dedicated to “scepticism”?
Millions of radiosondes you say? Here’s a tip – why don’t you sceptics do what you say you are all about and go and see if radiosonde coverage is good over the tropics and you’ll quickly find that, once again, you are being lead up the garden path by those that directly benefit from doing just that.
346
I discussed the graph with John Christy before I posted it. He said:
” I selected the period since 1979 and the tropical mid-troposphere because (1) we have the best observations which include satellites, (2) this is the period of the greatest response to the accumulated greenhouse gases and (3) this is the region that has the most unambiguous ghg response in the models.”
As for your point with radiosonde coverage, perhaps you missed the part when I pointed out that all the radiosondes agreed with both the satellite records which do cover the tropics “extremely well”.
Your snark comes back to bite you. Again.
541
Jo doesn’t have a clue TheInquirer. It’s just another Ctrl-C Ctrl-V job. Jo just threw “millions” in for a bit of poetic licence. Of course the radiosonde coverage for the tropics is poor. And the radiosonde data are used in calibration of the MSU so I wonder why things line up? I like how Spencer averages all sources with no error bars and with no proper source citation just to cover the tracks. Don’t want the great unwashed here actually thinking, it’s more fun ticking the little vote box.
421
Thankyou for your lies Booger. You have just helped to show more people who is honest and who is not. Also who does have a clue and who does not.
This text below is a “Ctrl-C Ctrl-V job” from the link below.
Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
More information click here.
and click here.
150
Booger,NOAA are the ones who claim 28 million radiosondes were used. See here.
Your apology is accepted.
122
In the tropics – oh come now….
16
Quite a rude and condescending little so an so aren’t you…..
60
The Inquirer. Please consider the ice cold possibility that YOU
200
Talk about nit picking. Actual data is compared to forecasts from 73 models. You would have complained if only the 10 worst models were picked. But here the researchers show 73 models get it wrong for a very wide envelope and you have to whinge about that.
Take a really good look at the evidence. Restricting the range to 20S to 20N shows that the models are totally incompetent in that range. They could all be 100% accurate at every other point on the planet and at every altitude. However, this shows that something is amiss with the assumptions, algorithms or both.
140
Really?
This sounds like an accusation of impropriety. Got any proof?
Who exactly would benefit?
90
@TheInquirer
If the sheer mismatch between modeled predictions and observed empirical data is not enough to get you to question (aka “making an Inquiry into…”) your hypothesis of Man Made Global Warming, and specifically the actual climate sensitivity to an increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere , – then what on Earth would do so?
Golly – is there nothing that could shake your certainty???
170
I have asked a few warmists what evidence it would take for them to accept/admit that global warming/climate change has paused/stopped. I only ever get blank, silent stares
50
Get your mind around Dr. Salby’s recent lecture … Presentation Prof. Murry Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013 … this should keep you busy for a couple of years. Tell you what, just go to the last 10 minutes or so and get the wrap up, CO2 driven global warming is a load of claptrap.
20
“…with few exceptions, climate models not only fail to do better than random numbers, in some cases they are actually worse.” Economics Professor, Ross McKitrick
http://www.uoguelph.ca/cme/june-20-economics-professor-claims-climate-models-fail-reality-test
So how do us dullard, normal, average, ordinary folk get to believe in climate science predictions?
90
It you want to understand how the models actually work, in simple language, there is an excellent lecture by Professor Margot Gerritsen, of Stamford University, on YouTube, here.
It is very accessible and even explains the use of tetrahedrons to model curved three-dimensional space, which is probably about as far as most people would want to go 🙂
Professor Gerritsen makes it very clear to her students that you need to understand the physical properties of what you are modeling in order to get accurate answers to your questions.
And that is the point where global climate models crash and burn.
There are just too many unknown unknowns, and the Climate Scientists have been trying to figure out what they don’t know, and what they need to know, as they go along.
Unfortunately, the politicians and the bureaucrats have demanded quick results and actionable answers, in order to justify all of the financial investment they have made, so the scientists are forced to give them the collective “best guess” – hence the consensus.
The “97%” agreement figure is a bolt-hole. If proven to be totally wrong, they can all dive down the “3% hole” and claim that they were never part of the majority.
90
“Professor Gerritsen makes it very clear to her students that you need to understand the physical properties of what you are modeling in order to get accurate answers to your questions.
And that is the point where global climate models crash and burn. ”
Err, no.
Where they fall down is resolution. There has been NO (or at least very little, and it has been ignored) work regarding validation of the models in terms of spacial and temporal resolution. The problem with this failure is easily demonstrated – open a photo in photoshop or other image editing software and use a “pixelation” filter on it. Go slowly from the maximum resolution all the way to 8×8. At a point that is easily spotted visually, you will find the image degrades from a rougher and rougher approximation of the original into “rubbish” that looks nothing like the original. As far as I can tell from what little HAS been published on this re climate models, they are in the “rubbish” area, where even tiny changes in resolution make massive changes in the output. This is, of course, just numerical noise.
C’est la vie.
20
Jo, your quote:
the modelers must be convinced that this is noise, a temporary deviation, and that the warming will come. Is there any other word for this than denial?
Well, they’ve used the word denier, how about we call them deviationists?
50
Deviationists?
Is a single practicing deviationist called a deviant?
130
Can you picture yourself lost somewhere and having to ask one of these modelers for directions to get home? Where would you end up?
90
one thing I’ve discovered recently is your average Aussie, your friends, my friends, can’t read a graph – it’s all just squiggly lines to them.
80
… and therein lies the power of a hockystick.
An’ this bit here means we’re all gonna fry, an’ faster than we thought.
90
This will make me sound like a hopeless romantic, but…
I don’t want seventy three models, I just want the one perfect one.
😀
70
or perhaps 3 that are close.
50
Close enough to predict regional warming.
00
Perhaps it is time for the equivalent of the Nuremburg Trials for alarmist climate modellers for crimes against humanity.
The huge economic cost, the widespread energy poverty and the bad science these modellers have caused will mystify future historians who will ask: “How could they have been so stupid?”
Of course, they could not have done this without the help of our gullible/greedy so called political elite.
It should be a rule/law that no climate model is allowed to be published unless it can accurately hindcast the past 200 years. If it can’t accurately hindcast at least 200 years, then why should anyone believe it can forecast as well?
91
Hindcasting is trivial. I have a non-linear multiple regression method that can have well over 64 coefficients both linear, non-linear of most any order, cross products, and many mathematical functions besides. Given sufficient data of good quality, a set of coefficients can be computed that can replicate the dataset quite well to within computed noise limits. Try to use it for an extrapolation (forecast of the more distant past or the more distant future) and the extrapolation goes off the rails rather quickly.
The reason is that the method fits the data but it doesn’t have any degree of correspondence to the natural laws that created the circumstances from which the data was extracted. Ditto for every last climate simulation that is not derived only from first principles and then “tuned” to fit some cherry picked interval of data. Which, by the way, includes ALL of the current so called climate simulations. They are nothing but a complicated curve fitting programs.
Thus the ability for our much acclaimed climate simulations to hindcast has absolutely no relationship to the ability to predict the future climate. One needs the relevant data from the future in order to do that. There is no known way to obtain that information but to wait for it to happen and then measure it. In which case, one doesn’t need the simulation to know what it is.
The only thing that can be said about the climate simulations is that they are useful for getting government money to make them “better”. Strangely, there is no specification of what “better” means and no way offered to verify that it has happened once the money is spent. It is always and forever: send more money.
The foolish politicians like to pretend that you can put any kind of garbage numbers into a computer and a gold standard truth comes out. After all, the computer said …. That is right up with “Vote for me, I will reduce the waste in government spending, reduce your taxes, save social security, create jobs, and make you safer.” Ha… Put your money into the Power Ball Lottery. You have a much better chance of coming out ahead.
80
You forgot the 65 deaths per day due to fuel poverty in the UK. These people have real blood on their hands.
Fuel Poverty and Health: Impact of Cold Temperatures on Health Christine Liddell, World Health Organisation report 1985
It seems the EU Commission has FINALLY noticed Deaths during heat-waves have received much media attention in recent years, and yet cold weather is even more lethal. Heart/respiratory diseases and strokes claim more lives in cold weather.
MORE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/europe/europe-struggles-to-deal-with-cold-and-snow.html?_r=0
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/fuel-a30.shtml
http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/city-news/a-quarter-of-brits-are-living-in-fuel-poverty-139644
40
‘have to invoke natural climate forces to explain why surface warming has essentially stopped in the last 15 years’.
This is precisely the same as not rejecting a null hypothesis, having an extreme result and yet claiming that this was due to chance. For that reason we have error rates.
Climate scientists claim a Type II error if we reject their models. However, they should provide us with the rate. As is the case with Type I error rate (significance), by convention the decision follows that an error-verdict does not apply if the rate is less than five percent. Question: does at least five percent of model simulations show slopes below the observed one? Admitted, the 73 models differ as to sensitivity parameter, but zero from this ensemble makes it difficult to believe the error story. Probably, all models are false. Perhaps a few with low sensitivity would make it.
30
To add to my comment: this is a basic chapter of inferential statistics. I’ve got the impression that climate scientists try to keep it closed, perhaps hoping that nobody understands it. Why that talk about natural forces and loaded dice? Their models should be evaluated on statistical grounds. I presume that all the information about the model simulations exist somewhere. For each model we can get a Type II error rate using the real data. If the rate is less than five percent the model should be rejected.
40
The lame stream media’s reporting on global warming reminds me of their reporting on the Gulf War. Quagmire, danger, uncertainty and we are all going to die. When, in approximately a month Iraq was secured the media went silent. No9 mea culpa and no change of heart. Instead, they found something else to sensationalize..
As this article shows, the wheels are falling off the CAGW scam. But the media will find something else to scare us with.
141
Hi Eddy. Good to see you’re posting again. Hope all is well.
30
Thanks Baa, my health is much better now.
10
H.L. Mencken summed it up:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
People would be wise to keep that thought in mind before voting.
50
That’s right, as soon as you’re asked to answer questions you resort to accusations of ad hom. I’d say you’re the pathetic one – isnt that ad hom? But then, I come here only for laughs.
Again – if this is a game changer, shouldn’t it be published? I know you have no answers to the other questions. Perhaps you should go back to the kiddie science? They’d probably give you a free PC too.
———————–
Those who can’t think for themselves wail that the debate must be “peer reviewed”. Those of us who can, just debate it. Get back to us when you have looked up Ad hom. – Jo
[The peer review hurdle, required by those who have no scientific basis for their beliefs, is itself a logical fallacy: arguementum cum circularis requista -Fly]
(The 73 models are themselves previously published material and so are the satellite temperature data.Meanwhile we await your rebuttal to this post that is free of your childish ad homs and fallacies) CTS
117
That’s what always amuses me about those of you from the other side.
If you’re so sure that you’re right, then why do you bother to come here at all?
You did say you do it for the laughs, so that, of itself, is indicative, admitting that there’s absolutely no humour on your side of the debate.
Tony.
120
But Tinq, it has been!
.
To publish – definition:
– To make generally known . .
– To make public announcement of . .
– To disseminate to the public . .
.
It was “published” the moment Jo posted it here on this blog, and it is currently being “reviewed” by a large circle of her peers. Far more than ever pal-reviewed any of the crap masquerading as “science”, put out by your climastrology cult clergy.
.
Now, the REAL question Tinq, is when are you going to “publish” a rebuttal?
I mean, it’s not as though you even have to bother setting up a blog site or anything.
You can “publish” it here.
Unlike your cult sites, debate is welcomed here.
Provided you actually have something to say.
You’ve been posting here for over a month now, and you STILL haven’t said anything of note.
– About anything.
152
Or no peer review is code for: keep it in the echo chamber and don’t let any real scientists near it. What a pathetic whining excuse.
315
.
So let’s see if I’ve got the logic right here, nose-picker:
Jo publishes something on her blogsite entirely at her own expense, which is available to all the world to read and criticise, and everybody from kings to climate scientists, and everybody in between, including maggots like you, get to read, review, and comment on it, and that’s “keeping it in the echo chamber”.
Conversely, as exposed in the “climategate” emails, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and the rest of “The Hockey Team” write stuff up, get to pick their own “pal-reviewers”, or get editors sacked who won’t play their game, get their drivel published in “journals” protected from public scrutiny by an expensive paywall, and use loopholes in the FOI laws to avoid actually explaining their methodology – all, mind you, at taxpayer expense, and somehow that’s “science”?
.
Can you spell “hypocrite” nose-bleed?
No, I didn’t think so.
.
162
Well MemoryFault – it’s my money too as I’ve donated – have you? One has to pay for one’s comic relief. And anyway Jo has all the gold dust to sprinkle. As for pay walls – well oh dear – you probably dislike all physics, chemistry, molecular biology, medical and geoscience journals too. And I’m surprised that a tea party libertarian devotee such as yourself would expect a free ride. You lot are normally railing against the entitlement culture. Of course you could kindly request a free reprint from the author or a library loan but why would a scientific ignoramus want to actually read any science. Having a rant is much easier isn’t it. And your logic is a tad contorted – if the journal pays for itself by definition it’s not at the taxpayers expense. So who’s got themselves all upset and confused. Have a nice cup of earl grey and a good lie down.
You see blogs are the high tech equivalent of the dunny wall. Very entertaining if one is taking a call of nature like now but hardly serious stuff.
And I’m no longer a maggot I’m about to pupate. Don’t be so nasty – learn not to snarl.
15
Oh right snot boy. So, I take it that you are one of those types who likes to lurk around public conveniences. Figures.
51
.
Typical climastrology cultist ad-hom rant, nose-bleed.
And typical of your posts – much ado about nothing – well, nothing relevant to the thread – as always.
Now where’s the rebuttal of Jo’s post?
.
On second thoughts, maybe you should learn how to read first? For instance, my comment “all at taxpayer’s expense” quite clearly refers to climastrology priests using FOI laws to avoid public disclosure of their
entrail reading“research”. You have the comprehension skills of a gnat..
For the record, no I don’t believe research paid for by taxpayers should be “published” behind a paywall – we’ve already paid for it once already. Yes I have degrees (plural) in engineering, amongst other things, and yes, I have donated to Jo.
11
Booger,
Have a guess: What proportion of the regular commentators here are “real scientists”? And, by “real scientist” I mean doing (or have done) paid work that requires holding a degree in one or more scientific or engineering disciplines, and/or membership of a scientific or engineering institute or other learned society.
51
My, aren’t they getting pathetically desperate now that they are less than 100 days from losing their funding.
Listen Mr Boogers – real scientist come here using their real name, not some childish little handle (although it definitely suits you). JC Snot…. what? Did somebody tell you to get out and walk?
42
Rereke asks “What proportion of the regular commentators here are “real scientists”?”
possibly 0.1. Certainly you’re not such engineers are scientists. For heavens sake.
There’s hardly an intelligent comment here except for Jo and off-topic “generators” Tony. Many cheer squad comments.
15
You only come here for laughs because you are that blinded by your self righteous arrogance.
50
Jo let’s you post here to give the rest of us a laugh … God knows that we need a good laugh, it reminds us constantly of the pathetic minds trolling the scam.
30
Well, maybe Dr. Salby can cast some light on the message from the UKMO … which confirms, of course, the total scientific bankruptcy of that institute. UKMO can’t do medium range forecasting with their suite of new super-computers … their only skill at climate forecasting is hindcasting … LOL !
20
WHat Jo has missed is John Christy’s, er, accidental choice of input data.
Here is a graph that demonstrates what Christy has done:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/All_forcing_agents_CO2_equivalent_concentration.png
Of course, some of us are more sceptical than others.
46
#51 OR not. See this. Christy has used the scenario that matches the emissions (and the press releases).
40
“I come here only for laughs.”
Yes, and that’s what you give. ! Thanks… FOOL !
41
For the alarmists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChTqYlDjtI
10
Dear Joanne Nova, when you wrote: “This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it,” surely you meant to write:
“no alarmist should miss it”!
70
..but alarmists make a point of missing such things!
90
OT. Our old friend ‘Trougher’ Tim gets snout caught in the trough.
From the Telegraph:-
“The Conservative MP who scrutinises energy policy has been filmed boasting that he can be paid to introduce businessman to members of the Government.
Tim Yeo, the chairman of the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, also said he had coached John Smith, managing director of GB Railfreight, before the executive gave evidence to the committee last month. Yeo is a paid director and shareholder of Eurotunnel — the firm’s parent company.
Mr Yeo was filmed by undercover reporters working for The Sunday Times saying: “I told him [Mr Smith] in advance what to say. Ha-ha.”
When asked if he would be interested in a £7,000-a-day consultancy contract with a solar company, the MP said: “If you want to meet the right people, I can facilitate all those introductions and I use the knowledge I get from what is quite an active network of connections.”
The reporters queried if this included Government figures. Mr Yeo replied “Yes”.
The House of Commons’ code of conduct forbids MPs from acting as paid advocates, including by lobbying ministers. “
130
Well, seeing as we are doing graphs …
Uh oh: Do NOT miss this ridiculous, fraudulent graph that fraudster Michael Mann just put up at AGU Chapman
30
WOW! What a beauty,
If that line goes backwards does it mean we,re in another time or dimension?
I think Mann suffers from “Hockey stick envy” 😉
20
Steve McIntyre mused …
That’s why Mann continually reuses his past failures to support his future failures and present this as ‘science’, he couldn’t be bothered to put the time in to update his ‘knowledge’ … doesn’t want to as it will be counterproductive to his gravy train meme.
30
In technical terms this is an example of omitted variable bias.
If you are doing a multiple regression fit to a set of data and you have three variables which all happen to be rising, and you leave out two of them, the statistics will assign the variance to the third…ie CO2.
If the IPCC ensemble models added the missing variables, ocean oscillations and solar magnetic effects on cloud coverage, the models would actually work pretty well, like mine does.
But I don’t get paid to do climate modelling I just did it for me, so I have no fear that my small model says that global warming is harmless.
I can’t be defunded any more than I already am. They, though, have this fear.
41
Oops! There is a problem with the “climate models” – the wheels have fallen off!
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/26462/
10
Of course the models are wrong because they are working within the old and incorrect paradigm that radiation is supposedly forcing planetary surface temperatures. Well it certainly isn’t radiation making the base of the theoretical troposphere of Uranus hotter than Earth’s surface, even though it is 29 times further from the Sun and no direct Solar radiation gets anywhere near as far as that 350Km below TOA.
The reasons the models are wrong has been explained in this comment* and it is all because gravity holds energy within a planet and establishes the temperature gradient in the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
* http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/unthreaded-weekend-11/#comment-1283619
36
So how was the temperature measured if it cannot escape to be measured?
40
@D Cotton,
I know what you mean but your explanation is unclear.
You obviously mean that the atmosphere is heated by pressure according to the Ideal Gas Law.
00
The explanation is clear and not hard to understand if you have a degree in physics. It is in my 20 page paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” which is pitched at that level, and I make no apology for such, as this is advanced physics and that fact cannot be avoided. Those who don’t have a solid understanding of physics may just wish to read the conclusions and some of the empirical evidence presented, such as in the study in the Appendix.
10
Then why do you bother posting here?
Bananabender made a very simple comment that is simple enough to answer with “Yes, that’s correct” or “No, you have misunderstood”.
00
High pressure does not maintain high temperatures. There is no equation in physics, least of all the Ideal Gas Law, which says it must. You my bend a banana, but you won’t get past me by bending physics.
10
Love this … via Tallbloke: Keenan Confirmed!!! Met Position Laid To Utter Waste!!
60
It is indeed excellent. However it depends on a good knowledge of math and statistics and therefore is useless in a political debate with our uneducated politicians and the general run of the mill Sheeple.
This is the main reason for Dumbing Down education. The ignorant are a lot easier to swindle.
30
.
The claim that the climate models are, in fact, “correct” and are merely being masked by the effects of “natural variations”, must surely go down as the biggest own goal in science history.
I mean, if one is going to build a computer model to try and predict the outcome of anything, surely the logical place to start is with the already known variables. What am I missing?
.
Sunspot activity and its correlation to weather (by whatever mechanism) has been known for hundreds of years. The study of the solar cycle was formalised in the 1840’s. The weather cycle now known as ENSO was being studied in the 1890’s, even though we didn’t know what caused it. The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) was plotted and mapped in the 1920’s. Even the PDO had been identified and named nearly twenty years ago.
The effects of these known and long-studied cycles ARE the “natural variations”. If these “natural variations” don’t form the very backbone of a “climate model”, then what the hell does? I mean, surely constructing a computer model of the climate must start with code that reflects all the known factors.
Only once such a model had been constructed and shown to be reasonably accurate in reflecting the “known” variables, could you then begin to play around adding “unknown” variants, (such as the effect of increasing CO2, for instance), and expect anything remotely resembling predictive ability.
To try and do anything else would be akin to trying to construct a house by laying out the electrical circuit on the ground, then leaving the builder to work it out from there.
.
In claiming their models are “temporarily inaccurate” because of the effects of “natural variations”, the climastrologists are, in fact, admitting their so-called “models” do not factor in any of these “known variables”, and are therefore so far divorced from reality as to be as useful as a Ouija board in predicting anything.
130
Well not much scepticism. Ya gotta love this screeching rhetoric “These are millions of radiosondes, and two independent satellite records. They agree. There is no wiggle room, no overlap.” Millions eh? wow …. Well the two independent satellite studies don’t agree (ooops). The satellite points are of an average! And the satellite records are tuned to what and measuring what exactly. Could they be based on a model too ? Oh no !
Doesn’t say what model ensembles are a graph of? Surface temp? Compared to troposphere temps where? What an amazing rubbish post again from Nova. Trying to pass off the satellite data as some gold standard with no error bars. What a conjob.
137
It hurts doesn’t it? The satellite data matches the radiosondes. Climate simulations are 1000 times more complex than any smaller models designed to get equipment to work. The graph is “degrees C” rise in the mid T. (Read the axis.)
Go ahead, find a better graph.
312
Shoddy stuff Jo – he’s averaged everything. Let’s see the individual data sets with some error bars – WHY NOT? Hiding something?
Radiosonde data sets – products of data homogenization and re-analysis with big error bars – I thought as avid opponent of such things you’d have updated us. http://icr4.org/ppts/Haimberger.pdf Obviously not.
Mid-troposphere temperature simulation eh? and what’s the source – you can’t produce it – I expect more hand waving and obfuscation to cover up. And lets see the individual ensemble members as there’s only ever one instantiation of reality (well for these purposes without entering into parallel universes that sceptics may inhabit).
I don’t have to find a better graph – nice try at misdirection – prosecute your own dodgy case properly and try to be truly sceptical instead of Ctrl-C Ctrl-V.
129
To what end, Booger?
So that if we all squint hard enough, we’ll be able to make out where the uppermost possible outlier of the observed data, falls just inside the lowermost region of the guesstimated error margin of the lowest computer model guesstimate?
What then? We all fall on our knees and give praise to the infallible accuracy of the computer models?.
.
Did you know, Booger, that you can win Lotto anytime you want?
All you have to do is fill out enough coupons so you cover all the possible combinations of numbers.
.
Bit like climastrology computer modelling, actually.
200
After the radiosonde data was adjusted upthekazoo by countless well funded teams for twenty years — it still doesn’t match. Good luck convincing the world with that reasoning. The best you can hope for are overlapping broad error bars? Is that 90% certainty? Does that mean the debate is over?
Read the post. See the KMNI link “hidden” right under the graph eh?
Yes you do. You want our money.
50
Adjusted upthekazoo hey? hmmmm – well your data source then my dear. Sounds quality stuff. Still no error bars eh? And then you’d like me to believe the extreme accuracy of an MSU sounds who knows what atmospheric depth. Oh come now.
Yes KMNI isn’t an answer. It’s your answer as you don’t look.
05
.
If you’re collecting “screeching rhetoric” Booger,
don’t forget these gems:
“the science is settled”
and
“snow will be a thing of the past”
and
“even the rain that falls won’t make it into our dams”
and
“for eastern Australia, drought is the new normal”
.
I’ve got a lot more, Booger, would you like them?
241
You would know all about those wouldn’t you?
Despite your whinge, the simple fact remains. Observations (satellite and radiosondes)are tracking well below what the computer models have predicted. Climates sensitivity, as observed, is a lot lower than anticipated. This should be a relief to those who believe we are going to fry and die.
Maybe if you weren’t so blinded by ideology, where being right is more important than truth, you would understand.
150
Cut and pasted from #17 above
janama
June 10, 2013 at 2:06 am · Reply
Booger , I think you just proved janama’s point.
160
*sings* Oh Whyalla wipeout on my TV, Whyalla wipeout on my TV …
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3777365.htm
Oh, the irony! A solar thermal plant that was planned for Whyalla has failed to meet the criteria and had Fed funding yanked.
I see political mileage in abundance for this one…
70
It just shows what the gullible are willing to believe.
I went to their site to check out exactly what this plant might do, but, umm, their site has been yanked.
So, I just searched around for a while and got some information about this, err, wonderful advance for Whyalla.
This plant
iswas for an absolutely humungously monstrously large, umm, 40MW.The gullible willing to believe any old ‘guff’ read what this plant had to offer and descend into paroxysms of delight. The plant’s proposers know full well that these acolytes will read what is written there and clasp their hands in wonderment, so the proposers can even hide the truth in plain sight, full in the knowledge that the green mass, looking down from their moral high ground, haven’t the faintest clue what that truth is actually saying.
Get this.
The proposers proudly say that this solar plant will provide enough power to supply the whole of Whyalla and also the large steelworks nearby.
Oh! For joy!
Then, in virtually the very same sentence, the proposers say that this plant will be used as a peaking plant, supplying its power in late afternoon, early evening.
WTF.
Can people not associate one thing with another.
That means Whyalla and the steelworks only consume their power for 5 or 6 hours a day.
This (ex) plant uses the large parabolic dish (think large radar dish) focussing light onto a central pont heating either a compound to boil water to steam, or directly heating the steam itself. This steam drives the turbine that drives the huge generator of 40MW, and it can do this at a (theoretical) Capacity Factor of 30%, but wherever this form of solar power is used, it’s averaging 20 to 25%, so that’s power for Whyalla for around 5 to 6 hours from this solar plant.
So, where they get the phrase ‘supplying the whole of Whyalla’, this is basically an illusion, because Whyalla is still connected to the grid, so it does have power all the time. This solar plant just supplies its power to the grid for the whole State. Whyalla probably consumes 40MW per day (seriously doubt it’s that low with the steelworks added) so, because this plant can generate 40MW, then, ergo, this plant supplies all of Whyalla.
I love using Bayswater on occasions like this to add some perspective.
The amount of power that this (ex) solar plant would have supplied to the grid in South Australia is already being supplied by Bayswater every 27 hours with all four units in operation.
The proposers must by crying in their cups that the Government has withdrawn that $60 Million up front gift.
Bah! Why do I even bother any more.
This is what the people want.
Tony.
40
Missed something here. The amended wording should be this:
Tony.
50
Tony,
Whyalla steel works One Steel:
Purchased Electricity from Grid 177,276 MWh
Self-Generated Electricity 143,041 MWh
On-Sold Electricity 4,184 MWh
Export back to Grid 550 MWh
Net Site Electricity Consumption 315,854 MWh
20
That’s interesting Dave.
That means just the One Steel plant alone requires generation of 36MW just for the plant. That’s at an operation of 24 hours a day, and 365 days a year.
Also, as a form of comparison here, that power consumption spread over a year at the retail price for residential electricity amounts to a yearly power bill of $82.122 Million, of which just under $9.5 Million was for the CO2 Tax, not the overall CO2 Tax for this plant, just for the CO2 Tax component for the electricity they consume.
Tony.
20
When you lay it out for us like that it speaks volumes of the insanity of it all.
00
I worked around Whyalla early this year, founded by BHP interesting history.
The One Steel plant is huge and near the old ship building yards.
I can tell you the locals are not happy with Labor/Greens and the attack on their existence.
20
I know it’s off topic, but this is just so odd that these green supporters are so blind to the actual facts.
I just want you to look at one aspect of this plant.
It was going to cost $230 Million.
It will deliver 70,000MWH to the grid each year.
Let’s actually pretend that it can make the theoretical 25 years of operation, so now we have a total power delivered to the grid of 1,750,000MWH.
Just to recover the Capital cost ALONE, that works out that it has to sell the power to the grid at $131/MWH, and that doesn’t include all the added extras, wages, profit, maintenance etc.
Bayswater is already supplying its power to the grid for around $50/MWH, CO2 Tax included.
Tony.
50
Numbers, facts, data … the holy water against these budget-sucking vampires. That and the sunshine of truth.
30
Here’s a great piece of news – CAGW skeptics are on the rise according to an OECD survey:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/sceptics-put-heat-on-climate-change/story-e6frg6xf-1226660995986
(Use the usual Google search work around to get past the “paywall”)
Quote:
You do the maths 🙂
90
MEANWHILE, IN THE STRATOSPHERE….
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html
When word “mystery” appears in a peer-reviewed paper, time for modellers to sit up and pay attention.
For the above 2012 paper also challenges the orthodoxy’s “settled science” mantra.
As blogger Doug Hoffman explains here:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/science-gets-stratosphere-wrong
Imagine part of the atmosphere
“that is literally only 10km from anywhere on Earth, a component of our environment that science thought it understood quite well. Now imagine the embarrassment when a major review in a noted journal finds that previous datasets associated with this component are wrong – and have been wrong for more than a quarter of a century. Yet that is precisely what has happened. The area is the stratosphere. The impact of this report is devastating for climate scientists and atmospheric modellers everywhere.”
Even worse, paper’s authors concluded: “the new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances.”
30
They will just adjust the previous datasets to correct for this newly discovered error, and bingo! We will have global warming again.
10
The reason there has been no CO2 induced warming because there is no Greenhouse Effect.
At the risk of endlessly repeating myself the atmosphere is heated by pressure according to the Ideal Gas Law. Atmospheric physics is largely irrelevant.
The heating and cooling of the Ocean/Atmosphere System is a physical process almost entirely dependent on the phases changes of water and circulation of fluids.
The reason why the atmosphere warms and cools is because ocean circulation alternately brings warm or cold water to the surface.
Sometimes the natural ocean circulation appears to coincide with external events in the solar system or human activities. This gets scientists all excited and they go out of their way to study these imaginary correlations. [I’ll accept that Milankovitch Cycles are real and sunspot activity may have a role to play.]
The only people arguably qualified to model the climate and weather are those chemical and mechanical engineers with deep expertise in heat transfer processes.
Unfortunately a huge percentage of the Sceptics lack any real scepticism. They simply propose another equally ludicrous alternative explanation for climate changes. In their view CO2 isn’t the culprit but cosmic rays, CFCs, aerosols, orbital variations are.
21
“In their view CO2 isn’t the culprit but cosmic rays, CFCs, aerosols, orbital variations are.”
I think it’s the New Zealanders who are to blame for climate change.
10
I’m sure Jo will put you straight by telling you that you are wrong, because, “no serious skeptic denies the Greenhouse Effect”.
You’re way out on a limb with that one, Bananabender, and on your own.
[Jo has already made her position on this clear. Both of you, please, no more on this OT topic. – Jo]
34
“Is there any other word for this than denial?”
Either it’s acceptable to call people who disagree with you ‘deniers’ or its not. Joanne takes a more selective approach, having written several articles passionately arguing that it’s wrong to say ‘climate change denial’ because it sounds like ‘holocaust denial’. In a nutshell – it’s OK to call them deniers, but not me.
110
Rod, firstly being “in denial” is a state of mind, legitimate for Jo to contend without the prejudicial guilt by association of “denier” with its deliberate Nazi connotation.
Secondly, it is entirely appropriate to reply in kind when a charge of denial is levelled at you, especially when it is patently obvious that those increasingly in denial are those in the alarmist camp who continue to ignore observations adverse to their beliefs, and become more shrill and hysterical in defence of a failed paradigm the more reality turns against them.
They are actually making themselves an utter laughing stock by their unprofessional behaviour, and are delegitimising other associated branches of science by association in the process of their panic stricken defence of the indefensible.
Jo is perfectly within her rights to point out that they are guilty of exactly what they have accused others of suffering. There is therefore no double standard being applied in this instance.
80
So…if you have no obvious qualifications in any area but disagree with all the world’s relevant experts, you’re not “in denial”, but if you agree to defer to all the world’s experts’ expert opinions, Jo can call you a “denier”?
I think I get it.
——————————–
[English is hard for you isn’t it Margot? (A “denier” denies something, got it?) Is that why you outsource your thinking to the nearest Authority? – Jo]
36
Margot (the troll), says:
There I helped you with the English. Now let me help you with understanding:
Does not preclude having qualifications. Just because you can’t see them doesn’t mean they arent there or can’t be learned.
Ahhh now showing your true colors aren’t you? The logical fallicy of argument from authority. Not just any authority but relevant ones. Very crude propaganda there Margot. So easy for you to slip down into the septic tank that is the world of a Warmist.
40
Rod, try reading this site before you comment. There is an INDEX top right. My “magical” rule on denier is, and has always been, that it make sense in English.
There is no one who denies we have a climate. No one who denies the climate changes, and no one in this science debate who can say what observations we supposed deniers deny. Name the paper we won’t discuss.
Some people abuse the English language to try to win a debate through name-calling instead of providing evidence.
I’ve been asking for the evidence we deny since January 2010. You don’t have it either then?
60
Joanne – you said “name the paper we won’t discuss” so I wondered if you’d like to discuss the 20 page paper which is the culmination of thousands of hours of my research and thought, all based on solid physics found in any undergraduate course – “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” in the PROM menu at Principia Scientific Int’l>? You are welcome to set up a copy of it with a different title page if you wish.
It contains ground-breaking analysis of the processes which transfer heat downward in planetary atmospheres, and even within crusts and mantles – all following the gravitationally induced temperature gradient in all matter, and all complying with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as well as empirical evidence. The case for the gravity effect is made water-tight in this paper.
02
THIS MESSAGE IS FOR JO ALONE. DON”T READ IT IF YOU ARE NOT JO. YOU THERE,CLOSE YOUR EYES.
Jo, I replied to your e-mail under the subject title “Global Warming ate my commas”, but was rejected by your spam filter. I hope this isn’t too embarrassing.
Even in primary school I could see that grammar was essential for clear, unambiguous, communication. Also, it was easy and systematic. It was maths I had doubts about. And after many years of teaching Philosophy and Academic English (frequently in non-English speaking countries like Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and the USA), I automatically correct bad grammar. I still struggle with maths.
However, I will be away from my computer for about a month, so you will be spared my nit-picking pedantry during that time. I will start savaging your semi-colons when I get back.
Keep up the good work with the blog.
20
Judas Priest, I hope you never read Ulysses.
Hey, sorry to read your private message.
Tony.
40
I’ve read it. And Finnegans Wake. I used up a lot of red pen on them, but Mr. Joyce was not appreciative.
30
Incidentally, in The Cat and the Devil, Joyce wrote “The devil mostly speaks a language of his own called Bellsybabble which he makes up as he goes along …”, so perhaps the conventions of English do not apply.
And now burn your eyes out for reading the message to Jo.
20
Say, I think I know you.
You taught me English in Grade 6 at Labrador State School in 1962!
Tony.
30
No longer a scientific argument. It’s now the crime of the century. When the criminals are in the majority thats when we have a serious problem. It’s like some perverse reality television programme- “Crooked Scientists Have Talent”, and all the judges are rent seekers and crooks. We’re so flush with crap politicians and venal journalists that the truth of this is a bit like real estate, to be bought by the highest bidder. I was once asked years ago why I was so bloody minded about my convictions about this con. I remember answering that I carried my skepticism with pride and credited the wonderful teachers I once had who taught me never to accept things on face value and to always use reason as a guide. What many here call “groupthink” I call prejudice since that is what I believe ultimately motivates these Ah Souls. Any notion of open inquisition that threatens their worldview is to be attacked and belittled no matter how honest or noble. They are the western equivalent of jihadists in that for them the end justifies the means no matter how retrograde and dishonest.
50
[…] temperature has gone up only 1.4F since 1850, despite the supposed rise of CO2. All the Warmist models fail. They can’t even be shown to produce past climate, even in the short term. None of them can […]
00
It’s all right for science to be wrong, time & again, as long as it’s peer reviewed. That’s the way science works, right ?
Meanwhile peer review is there to discourage anyone from tackling the the latest wrongsensus on any particular topic until they clear all the hurdles, which is all very admirable, until the process gets hijacked by a select few self-appointed ‘guardians’, as was laid bare by Climategate.
00
The UK Met Office, in one of its publications, said:
Are the computer models reliable?
Computer models are an essential tool
in understanding how the climate will
respond to changes in greenhouse gas
concentrations, and other external effects,
such as solar output and volcanoes.
Computer models are the only reliable
way to predict changes in climate.
10
As a genuinely sceptical person, two things immediately jump out at me:
and
Do you understand the significance of the rcp8.5?
A sceptic would ask, Where are the 73 model runs using the other 3 traditionally used values of rcp? Why would any researcher use a single value of rcp? If they did, why would they only choose the largest? Is it possible that this is simply an exercise in justifying pre-conceived notions?
37
The Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 corresponds to a high greenhouse gas emissions pathway. RCP8.5 is a so-called ‘baseline’ scenario — business as usual.
In other words, it’s used to create most of the projections used to create scary press releases about global warming. The IPCC uses it, but strangely you have a problem when skeptics do too? Did you complain to the IPCC when they used it? Or is it ok for them to use it because emissions are actually increasing as fast as the RCP8.5 line?
Source Peters et al 2012.
To paraphrase: “As a genuinely skeptical person one thing jumps out at me” — what skeptic knows about rcp paths but misses a thousand articles in the last five years pointing out how emissions are risingfaster than modelers expected.
70
Wow Jo!
This person (me), with no obvious qualifications, understood Jo has burned Margot pretty well here!
Nicely done
40
“Qing-Bin Lu Revives Debunked Claims About Cosmic Rays and CFCs”
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/05/31/qing-bin-lu-revives-debunked-claims-about-cosmic-rays-and-cfcs/
00
[…] Scientists predicted more hurricanes. There are fewer hurricanes Bottom Line: Climate Models don’t reflect reality. The quesiton is will President Obama finally face up […]
00
I believe I have proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the gravity effect which, in conjunction with natural variations in Solar flux reaching a planet’s atmosphere, determines that planet’s atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures. This is based on valid physics and is explained in my 20 page paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” which so far no one in the world has successfully rebutted, because when they study it they realise it is correct.
00
The models are wrong because the calculations for the greenhouse warming of 33 degrees are completely fudged in order to coincide with estimated surface temperatures supposedly 288K. (Funny that satellite measurements of mean sea surface temperatures are six degrees warmer.) The calculations assume back radiation warms in the same way that solar radiation warms. They show such a warming effect to be still there even at night. They “forget” that when radiation leaves the surface the temperature of that surface drops. If you get back less radiation, the temperature cannot be raised above what it was. In fact it cannot be raised at all. Unless the Sun can raise the temperature to a mean of 288K, and the sea surface to the observed 294K, then there is no point in discussing how oxygen, nitrogen and argon slow non-radiative cooling, and how water vapour etc slow radiative cooling. What determines planetary temperatures is the gravity effect, as I have shown beyond reasonable doubt in my paper in the PROM menu at PSI.
10
[…] One of the things about the environmental Left that drives me most nuts is its resistance to reason and empirical fact. Global warming is a good example: what started as a theory many years ago, that the Earth is warming dangerously and the climate heading for disastrous changes because of the carbon dioxide Man has been adding to the air, has been shown time and again in recent years by empirical observation to be false. There has been no statistically significant warming since the mid-90s, the polar bears are not dying out, and prediction after prediction made by the warming alarmists has failed to pan out. But, in the face of overwhelming evidence that should at least cause strong skepticism, they cling bitterly to their computer models — which haven’t been right, yet. […]
00
[…] John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do. Keep reading » […]
01